From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8550b9f2cf7d40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-05 12:24:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!216.166.71.14!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:25:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:25:09 -0500 From: Wesley Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is ther any sense in *= and matrices? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.104 X-Trace: sv3-LVqBR+AEdqd2M3awono6Goo8LNcAMSl4zlwvQmqto6A6bEXWRbtzfbO4WtHBlOhDx96pxqmRkMUqTkj!Q0xeP/kKnHRlk+AgmsJqlCl54uefwI+BsCQLe0naA3lIxyczMDG+3CKnKZ8QCTqWMBnQsoJiUZTA!aAAwSw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38729 Date: 2003-06-05T14:25:09-05:00 List-Id: >>I mean even if one define "*" for Matrix_Type one cannot do: >> >> A := A * B > > You can, iff A and B are square matrices. But you cannot do it efficiently "in-place" because each element in the result is the sum of multiply operators on several pairs of elements in the two addends. So if I compute A(1,1) before A (1,2) then the latter has already had one of its inputs changed. To overcome this without introducing a temporary "A" one would require a rather complicated set of temporary _parts_ of A.