On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM, wren ng thornton <w...@freegeek.org> wrote:
> > My goal for all this is in setting up the type system, not performance. I figure there are other folks who know and care a lot more about the numerical tricks of giving the actual implementations. You've got my support -- old-school optimizations, numerical, compiler, or otherwise, are deadly boring. Death to them, I say! If we don't explore uncharted waters, who will? -- Kim-Ee On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM, wren ng thornton <w...@freegeek.org> wrote: > On 11/30/12 4:58 PM, Mark Flamer wrote: > >> Thanks for all the replies, >> It sounds like there is enough interest and even some potential >> collaborators out there. I have created a few data structures to represent >> sparse vectors and matrices. The vector was a simple binary tree and the >> matrix a quad tree. As I suspected a standard IntMap was around 3X as fast >> as my binary tree, so I have switched to the IntMap for now. I was hoping >> to >> hold on to my quad tree for the matrix rep. because I like the elegance of >> the recursive algorithms like Strassen’s for multiplication. In the end it >> will most likely be best to have a few different matrix representations >> anyway. For instance, I know that compressed row form is most efficient >> for >> certain algorithms. I have a Gauss iterative solver working currently and >> am >> thinking of moving on to a parallel Conjugate gradient or direct solver >> using LU decomposition. I’m no expert in Haskell or numeric methods but I >> do >> my best. >> > > I've also been working haphazardly on some similar stuff lately. However, > my focus is rather different[1] so I'm afeared not much code sharing could > happen at the moment. While I'm certainly no expert on numerical methods, I > seem to have acquired some experience in that domain so I may be able to > lend a hand from time to time. > > > [1] In particular my goal has been to revive some old ideas about making > linear algebra well-typed. The vast majority (if not all) of extant linear > algebra systems are poorly typed and will do stupid things to "resolve" > type errors (e.g., automatically padding, truncating, and reshaping > things). Because of the use case I have in mind, this project also involves > setting up a proper numerical type-class hierarchy (i.e., one which > expresses semirings and other things ignored by the numerical hierarchies > out there today). My goal for all this is in setting up the type system, > not performance. I figure there are other folks who know and care a lot > more about the numerical tricks of giving the actual implementations. > > -- > Live well, > ~wren > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe> >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe