Timeline for Optimizing the condition number
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sep 3, 2015 at 13:36 | history | edited | Denis Serre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
Aug 16, 2012 at 16:35 | vote | accept | Igor Rivin | ||
Aug 16, 2012 at 16:29 | answer | added | Suvrit | timeline score: 12 | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 13:52 | answer | added | Federico Poloni | timeline score: 5 | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 13:13 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | OK, this is now fixed. | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 13:13 | history | edited | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
flipped the condition number
|
Aug 16, 2012 at 13:12 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | @Federico and @Suvrit: of course you are right, I want SMALL condition numbers. Will fix. | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 9:06 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | sorry, I meant "inverse of the condition number", not "reverse". | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 7:39 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @Igor: given Suvrit's remark, maybe you were thinking about the reverse condition number when writing? Typically people want to get small condition numbers, not large ones. | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 6:45 | comment | added | Suvrit | @Igor: The condition number of any matrix is always $\ge 1$, using a consistent norm, so am I misreading your question (because you say "...condition number is always 0...$)? | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 1:13 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I don't know of anything theoretically better. Something that should work in practice is to do Gram Schmidt orthogonalization: when you choose the largest m/2 vectors and orthogonalize the rest, it makes sense to choose the longer of the remaining processed vectors to reach your goal. That should prune a lot of the search space. (I am assuming condition number is related to determinant.) Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2012.08.15 | |
Aug 16, 2012 at 0:13 | history | asked | Igor Rivin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |