commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <mdigg...@latte.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: [math] Complex implementation
Date Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:40:36 GMT
Brent just fired off an implementation in the bug track. I think I'm 
going to add it to the CVS and let the discussion evolve around it.

-Mark

Endo, Roger wrote:

> Hi
> 
> It has not been mentioned in this thread, but Mark Hale's complex
> implementation is still being maintained over at sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jsci
> 
> I might also have some complex number code/knowledge/experience but
> unfortunately not much time.
> 
> Roger Endo
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil@steitz.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:39 PM
>>To: Mark R. Diggory
>>Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [math] Complex implementation
>>
>>
>>Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>>
>>>I think the hesitancy was simply out of manpower and in interest of 
>>>getting out a release soon. I'm  somewhat surprised that 
>>
>>Phil's Complex 
>>
>>>implementation didn't get added if he had already written 
>>
>>it (which I 
>>
>>>had missed in the thread).
>>>
>>>Phil,
>>>
>>>Are you willing to donate your Complex number 
>>
>>implementation to the Math 
>>
>>>library?
>>
>>Not in its current state.  The outline described here: 
>>http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=15&msgNo=28132
>>is what I was working on.  This represents a refactoring and 
>>significant 
>>extension of some old code of mine.  Most importantly, my classes are 
>>neither C9x compliant nor numerically sound (the reason that 
>>I did not 
>>include them in the initial submission) and they don't implement the 
>>transcendental functions. Given that the outline is for a fairly 
>>unsophisticated implementation using static utility classes 
>>for complex 
>>operations, I doubt that the structure itself would have much 
>>value to 
>>commons-math today.  Therefore, it is probably best to start from 
>>scratch (or from VNI, it they are willing), designing something that 
>>both fits the current direction and provides decent numerics.
>>
>>Phil
>>
>>
>>>-Mark
>>>
>>>Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As an answer to the thread mentioned, it suggests that two 
>>>>implementations
>>>>of the Complex number functionality are available:
>>>>
>>>>1) VNI's.
>>>>2) Colt's.
>>>>
>>>>This is no longer true, and the reason for me starting 
>>
>>this thread. 
>>
>>>>VNI no
>>>>longer have their implementation online and the url 
>>
>>provided in the email
>>
>>>>thread no longer takes you to the javadoc.
>>>>
>>>>This is made worse by the fact that Colt's implementation 
>>
>>is in fact
>>
>>>>nothing but the VNI implementation. There is 1 
>>
>>implementation from 2
>>
>>>>sources, the original of which just shut up shop.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with Roger Endo on Complex number usage. We're 
>>
>>using it in FFT's
>>
>>>>amongst other places.
>>>>
>>>>So I'm left with Colt. This has legal problems. While 
>>
>>VNI's licence is
>>
>>>>unspecified, Colt includes GPL licenced works. So this 
>>
>>rules it out for
>>
>>>>some uses. In fact, as people here at work are starting to suggest 
>>>>applets
>>>>rather than flash interfaces, I could be facing a 
>>
>>situation in which I
>>
>>>>cannot download a fresh Complex number implementation 
>>
>>which I can legally
>>
>>>>use.
>>>>
>>>>I see no reason not to go with Phil's classes, unless it's 
>>
>>to ask VNI if
>>
>>>>they'd like to submit their popular Complex class.
>>>>
>>>>Hen
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm going to start a list of references to these threads 
>>
>>in the xdoc, so
>>
>>>>>we can always get back to it from the home page. When people have
>>>>>questions about the decisions and issues about complex, 
>>
>>we'll be able to
>>
>>>>> point them at the history of discussion on the topic.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Brent Worden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's the previous complex thread is was referring to
>>>>>>http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=15&msgNo=28132
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brent Worden
>>>>>>http://www.brent.worden.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>From: Brent Worden [mailto:brent@worden.org]
>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:53 PM
>>>>>>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>>>>>>Subject: RE: [math] Complex implementation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I know we've talked about this before, It's not fresh 
>>
>>in my mind 
>>
>>>>>>>>why we
>>>>>>>>decided against it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looking back at the mail archives, it appears we 
>>
>>decided against a 
>>
>>>>>>>complex
>>>>>>>class mainly for two reasons:
>>>>>>>1) Not too many RW applications warrant a complex class 
>>
>>and can be
>>
>>>>>>>accommodated with two double values.
>>>>>>>2) There are plenty of other OS, complex 
>>
>>implementations available 
>>
>>>>>>>so it
>>>>>>>wasn't crucial to having one in commons-math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Brent Worden
>>>>>>>http://www.brent.worden.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 

-- 
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message