I agree that this seems more like a scipy feature than a numpy feature.
Users with structured matrices often use a sparse matrix format, though the
API for using them in solvers could use some work. (I have a
work-in-progress PR along those lines here:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6331)
Pe
I've done some benchmarking and it seems that the packed storage comes with
a runtime penalty which agrees with a few links I've found online
https://blog.debroglie.net/2013/09/01/lapack-and-packed-storage/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8941678/lapack-are-operations-on-packed-storage-matrices
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
>
> Yes, that's precisely the case but when we know the structure we can just
choose the appropriate solver anyhow with a little bit of overhead. What I
mean is that, to my knowledge, FORTRAN routines for checking for
triangularness etc. are absen
Yes, that's precisely the case but when we know the structure we can just
choose the appropriate solver anyhow with a little bit of overhead. What I
mean is that, to my knowledge, FORTRAN routines for checking for
triangularness etc. are absent.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
> So every test in the polyalgorithm is cheaper than the next one. I'm not
exactly sure what might be the best strategy yet hence the question. It's
really interesting that LAPACK doesn't have this type of fast checks.
In Fortran LAPACK, if you
Indeed, generic is the cheapest discovery including the worst case that
only the last off-diagonal element is nonzero, a pseudo code is first
remove the diagonals check the remaining parts for nonzero, then check the
upper triangle then lower, then morally triangularness from zero structure
if any
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
> > Note that you're proposing a new scipy feature (right?) on the numpy
> list
>
> > This sounds like a good idea to me. As a former heavy Matlab user I
> remember a lot of things to dislike, but "\" behavior was quite nice.
>
> Correct, I a
> Note that you're proposing a new scipy feature (right?) on the numpy
list
> This sounds like a good idea to me. As a former heavy Matlab user I
remember a lot of things to dislike, but "\" behavior was quite nice.
Correct, I am not sure where this might go in. It seemed like a NumPy array
o
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Ilhan Polat wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was stalking the deprecating the numpy.matrix discussion on the other
> thread and I wondered maybe the mailing list is a better place for the
> discussion about something I've been meaning to ask the dev members. I
> thoug
Hi everyone,
I was stalking the deprecating the numpy.matrix discussion on the other
thread and I wondered maybe the mailing list is a better place for the
discussion about something I've been meaning to ask the dev members. I
thought mailing lists are something we dumped using together with ICQ a
10 matches
Mail list logo
