Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: "Daniel Lichtblau" <danl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Sep 2005 15:11:27 -0700
carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I agree; the kernel is well overdue for a thorough
> rewrite. It should facilitate numerical mathematics with
> zero-overhead MD arrays as primitive (atomic
> types)
What exactly do you think a packed array is in Mathematica?
and direct access to LAPACK and PETS.
> But I cannot "fund" the study. Sorry, I dont have
> that kind of money.
A considerable amount of interface to Lapack and BLAS is there but not
documented. To get some idea of the functions involved, have a look at
??LinearAlgebra`*
and
??LinearAlgebra`*`*
None of this has anything much to do with "a full rewrite" of the
Mathematica kernel, whatever that might mean.
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: carlos
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- References:
- a big limit of mathematica?
- From: LumisROB
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: Peter Pein
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: LumisROB
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: Richard Fateman
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: carlos
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: Richard Fateman
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: carlos
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: LumisROB
- Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- From: carlos
- a big limit of mathematica?
- Prev by Date: Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- Next by Date: Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- Previous by thread: Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- Next by thread: Re: a big limit of mathematica?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|