[Numpy-discussion] LU factorization?
Wed Oct 15 15:26:59 CDT 2008
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 15:21, Charles R Harris
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 14:49, Charles R Harris
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 00:23, Charles R Harris
>> >> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi All,
>> >> >
>> >> > numpy.linalg has qr and cholesky factorizations, but LU factorization
>> >> > is
>> >> > only available in scipy. That doesn't seem quite right. I think is
>> >> > would
>> >> > make sense to include the LU factorization in numpy among the basic
>> >> > linalg
>> >> > operations, and probably LU_solve also. Thoughts?
>> >> -1. As far as I am concerned, numpy.linalg exists because Numeric had
>> >> LinearAlgebra, and we had to provide it to allow people to upgrade. I
>> >> do not want to see an expansion of functionality to maintain.
>> > I would be happier with that argument if scipy was broken into
>> > separately
>> > downloadable modules and released on a regular schedule.
>> Then that is the deficiency that we should spend time on, not
>> duplicating the functionality again.
> Should we break out the linear algebra part of scipy and make it a separate
> package? I suspect that would add to the build burden, because we would then
> have a new package to maintain and release binaries for. I don't see the
> problem with having a bit of linear algebra as part of the numpy base
Which bits? The current set has worked fine for more than 10 years.
Where do we stop? There will always be someone who wants just one more
function. And a case can always be made that adding just that function
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Numpy-discussion