Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-23 02:41:31

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, David Abrahams wrote:
> david.>
> david.> I agree that it's a design question. Here's the scenario I'm
describing in
> david.> more detail:
> david.>
> david.> A matrix is not a linear operator by itself; it's more of
> Well, for convenience we'll probably want all the matrix classes to model
> LinearOperator (for matrix vector multiplication) in addition to being
> some sort of container.

That raises a (small) problem: given a matrix M, what does inverse(M) mean?
IOW, is inverse(M) the matrix inverse or is it just the inverse linear

Perhaps, since true matrix inversion is expensive, that ought to be called

> david.> I guess what I'm trying to emphasize here is that the
> david.> factorization of a matrix is useful as a LinearOperator
> david.> but is not, by itself, a matrix in the usual sense.
> Right.

...and it ought to be seen as the inverse of the linear operator
corresponding to the matrix.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at