3 ms·
I really like that. And matrix * matrix would just have to be 3D, with a whole cube of taps. Sure, not easy to illustrate, but the concept extends well. It also
by snovv_crash 10y ago
I really like that. And matrix * matrix would just have to be 3D, with a whole cube of taps. Sure, not easy to illustrate, but the concept extends well. It also makes it more obvious what the complexity of the operation is.
- justinpombrio 10y agoIn a little more detail: Look at the animation in the article, after the second matrix has been rotated and put on top of the first one. Then flip its top up so the two matrices are orthogonal. Finally, rotate the whole thing 90 degrees to the left (rotating along the axis that goes from the top of the page to the bottom of the page). Now you can see that the result will be a 2x3 matrix. And the values in each spot will be the sum of the products beneath it.
- im3w1l 10y agoActually the complexity of matrix multiplication is not known. Current best is n^2.37
- dangom 10y agoThere is a proven lower bound [1], though. [1] http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0218052 http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0218052