Hi, as far as I know LELA does not support the same operations as LinBox, it's not a straight-forward fork but a re-implementation of a subset (that's my understanding, anyway). it has some advantages, i.e., that some bits nicely generic, i.e., it should be fairly easy to add new matrix types by adding stuff like matrix-matrix multiplication and e.g. PLE decomposition is handled generically.
Also, the main developer of LELA Bradford has left academia. He usually responds fairly quickly to e-mail and is up for helping out, but as far as I know nobody is actively developing LELA at the moment (I might be terribly wrong here!) On Saturday 01 Jun 2013, Volker Braun wrote: > I would like to have some discussion about the roadmap for matrices in > Sage. It seems that linbox has essentially been forked by LELA > (http://www.singular.uni-kl.de/lela). Since it optionally contains M4RI, > one would think that it is a good fit for Sage, too. Has anybody given any > thoughts to switching Sage from linbox to LELA? In particular, Burcin and > Martin should have an opinion and it would be nice to hear from them ;-) > > On a related note, sparse matrices in Sage suck (dictionary of keys). > Sparse matrices in LELA only suck slightly less (list of lists). For fast > computation one should implement compressed sparse row/column, I think. Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6532AFB4 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/ _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
