meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Naples, Italy | |
| age | 25 | |
| visits | member for | 11 months |
| seen | May 8 at 0:28 | |
| stats | profile views | 47 |
|
Jul 1 |
accepted | Avoiding MainEvaluate in a CompiledFunction to fetch “global” variables |
|
Jun 29 |
comment |
Avoiding MainEvaluate in a CompiledFunction to fetch “global” variables I know, thanks. I usually use longer names for variables, but just this time I gave in to laziness. |
|
Jun 29 |
comment |
Avoiding MainEvaluate in a CompiledFunction to fetch “global” variables Works as intended! Thanks! |
|
Jun 29 |
asked | Avoiding MainEvaluate in a CompiledFunction to fetch “global” variables |
|
Jun 21 |
comment |
Are there guidelines for avoiding the unpacking of a packed array? @Yu-SungChang Where can I find further information about your statement? E.g., does FoldList internally call Dimensions or does it truly unpack packed arrays? - Does this warrant its own question? |
|
Jun 20 |
comment |
Tridiagonal symmetric matrix eigenvalue using bisection @ruebenko, I hadn't thought about that! Thanks! What's surprising, however, is that numeig unpacks! And it seems it's because FoldList unpacks! This does not look nice. |
|
Jun 20 |
asked | Tridiagonal symmetric matrix eigenvalue using bisection |
|
Jun 16 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jun 15 |
awarded | Analytical |
|
Jun 15 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Jun 15 |
accepted | What's the most “functional” way to do Cholesky decomposition? |
|
Jun 14 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Jun 13 |
answered | Checking if the roots of a function are real |
|
Jun 11 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jun 11 |
comment |
What's the most “functional” way to do Cholesky decomposition? @Mr.Wizard Well, I've been using Mathematica for little more than a year, so I guess it depends on your definition of "beginning user". :D Anyway, I probably will not test it on matrices larger than 20 x 20, so I realize my concern might be moot. Thank you! |
|
Jun 11 |
comment |
What's the most “functional” way to do Cholesky decomposition? It indeed looks better, but wouldn't Append make it actually run slower than the procedural approach? |
|
Jun 11 |
awarded | Student |
|
Jun 11 |
comment |
What's the most “functional” way to do Cholesky decomposition? Thanks for welcoming me! Anyway, I am aware of the existence of the built-in function and I have used it to test results for both implementations, but for my Computational Physics course I have to implement a Cholesky decomposition by myself. I am free to do it in whatever programming language I want, so I picked Mathematica since it is the one I am most familiar with. I know that the procedural implementation would be more than enough for my course, but I'm trying to learn functional programming as well by myself in the meanwhile. :) |
|
Jun 11 |
asked | What's the most “functional” way to do Cholesky decomposition? |
