Re: [MATH] Matrix hierarchy reorganization

2011-02-21 Thread Ted Dunning
I really would love to have mahout-math have more in common with commons math but there are likely some nasty conflicts in goals. What mahout has needed up to now is fast evolution which has not been possible with commons math because of the compatibility constraints and because it is difficult to

Re: [MATH] Matrix hierarchy reorganization

2011-02-21 Thread Mikkel Meyer Andersen
2011/2/21 : > Hi Mikkel, > > - "Mikkel Meyer Andersen" a écrit : > >> Dear community, >> >> I've started on implementing Kalman filter and have once again run >> into a structural challenge in regards to matrix hierarchy (as with >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-435 and >> https:

Re: [MATH] Matrix hierarchy reorganization

2011-02-21 Thread Gilles Sadowski
> [...] > > The things we will for sure have some difficult discussions are: > - dependencies >(I guess Phil and myself don't like dependencies, whereas Ted and Gilles > are happy with them) My position is probably best summarized as follows: 1. I'm against dependencies for everything co

Re: [MATH] Matrix hierarchy reorganization

2011-02-21 Thread luc . maisonobe
Hi Mikkel, - "Mikkel Meyer Andersen" a écrit : > Dear community, > > I've started on implementing Kalman filter and have once again run > into a structural challenge in regards to matrix hierarchy (as with > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-435 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira

[MATH] Matrix hierarchy reorganization

2011-02-21 Thread Mikkel Meyer Andersen
Dear community, I've started on implementing Kalman filter and have once again run into a structural challenge in regards to matrix hierarchy (as with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-435 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-437 ). We have two base types of matrices: RealMatri