Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] cholesky #44
[WIP] cholesky #44
Changes from all commits
7f6d6f3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this be
? Otherwise, the kwarg doesn't enter anywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
UpperTriangular
is the constructor of theUpperTriangular
type. So I guess this should return an object of that type, and you may wish to consider returning? Otherwise, subsequent code will not benefit from upper-triangularizing an
AbstractKroneckerProduct
, it will be "invisible" from the type point of view.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I fixed an error here by changing it into
I also needed my own version of
copy
which provides shallow copies of Kronecker products. This gives the right answer.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure this is correct. If I understand it correctly, the main performance of Cholesky decomposition originates from the fact that it is easy to solve a triangular system. The vec trick kind of destroys this structure...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. I admit that I hadn't really thought very hard about this when writing it, but I'm pretty sure that you can use the vec trick to compute backsolves. Note that
so we should be able to implement backsolving with kronecker matrices efficiently provided that the individual backsolves are efficient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So you would leave it as is for the moment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you require that both Kronecker factors have the same
eltype
T1
? I don't think that's necessary.