>
> The shorter name is fine.
>
isTransposable() it is, then!
>
> Operate is a bit funky. A more traditional verb would be be apply()
>
Agreed. But this verb has been around for quite a time in the matrix
context, so I just kept it for RealLinearOperator.
Thanks for your interest in this issue,
The shorter name is fine.
Operate is a bit funky. A more traditional verb would be be apply()
2012/1/12 Sébastien Brisard
> Last question (***to native english speakers***): I'm not sure
> isTransposable() really means what I would like it to mean. What do
> you think of
> boolean isTransposi
Hi,
>
>> That's true. So are you suggesting I should write three specialized classes
>> InvertibleRealLinearOperator,
>> TransposableRealLinearOperator,
>> InvertibleAndTransposableRealLinearOperator?
>
> not really, I think such a structuring would create more confusion and
> problems in the long
Yeah... but I am a fan of the UnsupportedOperationException so I think it
should be OK to have something like that in the interface and just throw up
if it is called.
2012/1/12 Sébastien Brisard
> 2012/1/12 Ted Dunning :
> > One such example is a text retrieval engine. A x is easy since that is
On 01/12/2012 12:28 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
[snip]
> I agree with you that any linear operator is "transposable" (don't
> even know whether this word makes sense in english). However,
> RealLinearOperator have been implemented for operators which are *not*
> known in closed-form
2012/1/12 Ted Dunning :
> One such example is a text retrieval engine. A x is easy since that is
> what the engine does. A' y is very expensive.
>
> 2012/1/12 Sébastien Brisard
>
>> In other words, I do not know how to access
>> efficiently the (i, j) coefficient, but I *do* know how to compute
One such example is a text retrieval engine. A x is easy since that is
what the engine does. A' y is very expensive.
2012/1/12 Sébastien Brisard
> In other words, I do not know how to access
> efficiently the (i, j) coefficient, but I *do* know how to compute
> efficiently A.x. There might be
Hi Thomas,
and thanks for digging into that!
>
> looking at the rationale behind RealLinearOperator I understand this
> class is used to calculate either:
>
> y = A x
> y = A^T x
>
Not exactly. For the time being, RealLinearOperator only provides the method
RealVector operate(RealVector), which
On 01/11/2012 08:21 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Sébastien,
> My problem is: how to do that?
> 1. Extend RealLinearOperator? That would allow for compile time
> checks. The problem is I've already defined
> InvertibleRealLinearOperator. So how about operators which are both
> invertible
Hi,
I'm in the middle of porting LSQR (iterative solver for unsymmetric
systems) to Commons-Math. I need to be able to define a "transposable"
real linear operator. In other words, on top of
RealVector RealLinearOperator.operate(RealVector),
I also need a method which would read
RealVector RealLine
10 matches
Mail list logo
