4 ms·
The result is not interesting for ordinary numbers, where the classical ("slower") method is faster. When each element of the 5x5 matrix is itself a matrix, it
by ncmncm 4y ago
The result is not interesting for ordinary numbers, where the classical ("slower") method is faster. When each element of the 5x5 matrix is itself a matrix, it could be important.
So AVX ops for the method are not interesting.
- bodhiandphysics 4y agoNo... using divide and conquer matrix multiplication with this gives n^2.83. Strassens algorithm is n^2.79. This is good fir 5 by 5 matrices... which are not terribly interesting.
- ncmncm 4y agoIt uses many more additions. When the elements are themselves matrices, additions are a lot cheaper than multiplications, so that is OK. But with ordinary numbers, additions cost about the same as multiplications, so trading off a few multiplications for a lot more additions loses.
- vlovich123 4y agoI thought it was when you were multiplying two matrices where the elements are 5x5 rather than a 5x5 matrix containing embedded matrices of arbitrary length, no?
- londons_explore 4y agoThe technique works for either
- ncmncm 4y agoBut usefully for only one.