sorry; whoops, I don't know why I said multiplications there. I somehow thought the "more additions" somehow meant "fewer multiplications," but no, it's just "m

sorry; whoops, I don't know why I said multiplications there. I somehow thought the "more additions" somehow meant "fewer multiplications," but no, it's just "more additions but faster performance on target." edited. your other comment notes that for some shapes, even in standard arithmetic, they have found algorithms with fewer multiplications than best-known. but those don't seem to extend to an algorithm with better asymptotic complexity for multiplying general matrices. otherwise I'd assume they'd claim them :)