Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 19 Feb 2007 14:21 kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: > In article <87zm7amepp.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > [....] > >I have to scan, and operate upon, the entirety of a 450MB matrix > >several hundred thousand times. That /cannot/ be done without > >swapping when you only have 512MB RAM and a bloated OS. A 400MB > >matrix was fine. > > > >No rearrangement is possible. > > Here's a completely useless observation: > > Given a matrix: > > A B C > D E F > G H I > > Doing a fk transform can be done as > > FFT(A,E,I), FFT(B,F,G), FFT(C,D,H) > then > FFT(A,F,H), FFT(B,D,I), FFT(C,E,G) ADG, BEH, CFI, then a twist and then ABC, DEF, GHI would be more the kind of transform used in the fields I'm familiar with. (Huge arithmetic, see the work of Prof. R. Crandall). However, the task in hand is an LLL which basically has n^3 written all over it. You're always doing everything with everything. You can't 'block' in the conventional matrix algorithm sense, but you can work on nearby vectors (you have to do the whole vector, and can't do much else until you've done it, and don't even know what you'll be doing next until you've done it). However, the algorithm I'm using does work on nearby vectors, so that is already taken care of. I think if much time was spent analysing LLL as has been spent analysing DFTs, then maybe there would be some chance for improvement. However, I know that I'm currently working with the world's best two implementations. If I do improve things substantially it might well be my name on the algorithm in the future... Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 19 Feb 2007 13:19 In sci.physics, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote on 19 Feb 2007 19:49:52 +0200 <87irdym3zz.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> MassiveProng wrote: >> >> > I can boot Linux from a DVD and RUN it all day long, and I don't need to do >> > ANY installation! >> >> That sounds interesting. >> >> Where can I get one ? > > Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu all come as live CDs > Gentoo does too. > Knoppix was the original popular live CD. > > The only one of those that I like is Xubuntu, as I find KDE and Gnome > to be slow, ugly, memory hogs. > > Phil As an aside...I just got the Gentoo Livedisc booted under qemu. Never mind whether one needs a hard drive -- one now doesn't even need another machine! :-) (Of course one needs a machine hosting qemu, plus the OS and storage required to run it. But it's quite interesting to contemplate the possibilities. I'm now going to have to see if I can get tap/tun working. VmWare is another possibility but requires a license from the provider, either a free one (Vmware server) or a 30-day evaluation.) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net /dev/signature: Not a text file -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: nonsense on 19 Feb 2007 15:13 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <5c240$45d96d08$4fe71f9$16508(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > nonsense(a)unsettled.com <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: > >>d.086(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> >>>Could you please terminate this thread. It's off topic and crossposted >>>to sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.electronics.design, sci.med The >>>discussion below is only about electronics design. Please start a new >>>thread in your own news group and give it a Subject heading >>>appropriate to the topic under discussion. Please no more 'Jihad needs >>>scientists'. It's offensive. >> >>That's nice. > > > By posting that you did exactly the thing he was asking you not to do. I > really don't see why you did it after all he should get his way about what > happens on the usenet shouldn't he? Oh gee, did I do something wrong?
From: T Wake on 19 Feb 2007 15:22 <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote in message news:26cb8$45d8d1f3$4fe70aa$12611(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Phil Carmody wrote: > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >>> >>>>Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>> >>>>>>This is not a new concept; it's >>>>>>been around since females had to cook, rear kids, and entertain >>>>>>the males so they would stick around for a while. >>>>> >>>>>Females do not have to do that. >>>> >>>>You have a lot to learn. >>> >>>This is obvious by his attempt to tell a female what they don't have to >>>do. Any male over 18 with a normal IQ would *never* make a dumbass >>>statement. Phil, here's your sign. >> >> >> They do not have to do all those things. >> >> Anyone who disagrees with my statement is imposing an obligation on >> females - an obligation to cook, an obligation to rear kids, >> or an obligation to entertain makes. I impose no such obligation. > > From infancy on, you looked after yourself. No wonder > you turned out this way. I am intrigued as to the misogynistic angle this is taking. BAH stated females *had* cook, rear kids and entertain the males. Quite rightly Phil said this was nonsense and that "females" did not *have* to do this. Am I right in thinking from the above posts that both you and KRW think all females *have* cook, rear kids and entertain males? Do females no longer have the choice in this matter?
From: nonsense on 19 Feb 2007 15:33
T Wake wrote: > <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote in message > news:26cb8$45d8d1f3$4fe70aa$12611(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> >>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>This is not a new concept; it's >>>>>>>been around since females had to cook, rear kids, and entertain >>>>>>>the males so they would stick around for a while. >>>>>> >>>>>>Females do not have to do that. >>>>> >>>>>You have a lot to learn. >>>> >>>>This is obvious by his attempt to tell a female what they don't have to >>>>do. Any male over 18 with a normal IQ would *never* make a dumbass >>>>statement. Phil, here's your sign. >>> >>> >>>They do not have to do all those things. >>> >>>Anyone who disagrees with my statement is imposing an obligation on >>>females - an obligation to cook, an obligation to rear kids, >>>or an obligation to entertain makes. I impose no such obligation. >> >>From infancy on, you looked after yourself. No wonder >>you turned out this way. > > > I am intrigued as to the misogynistic angle this is taking. > > BAH stated females *had* cook, rear kids and entertain the males. Quite > rightly Phil said this was nonsense and that "females" did not *have* to do > this. > > Am I right in thinking from the above posts that both you and KRW think all > females *have* cook, rear kids and entertain males? Do females no longer > have the choice in this matter? I take exception to your morphing "misogynistic angle" and "all" into the discussion. That being said, enter any number of very controversial morality issues as well as the entire genre of late 20th century maladjusted feminist propaganda. You sure you want to get into this? |