3 ms·
Did the comments here actually read the paper? It just does "russian peasant" multiplication simulating multiplication with addition. There is no new math disc
by inglor 3y ago
Did the comments here actually read the paper? It just does "russian peasant" multiplication simulating multiplication with addition.
There is no new math discovered as far as I understand. It's basically "we know how to do multiplication with a lot of additions".
If this was effective rather than just "simulate multiplication with a lot of additions" it would have been super interesting for parallelization of multiplications and communication bounds.
- mathisfun123 3y ago> Did the comments here actually read the paper? It just does "russian peasant" multiplication simulating multiplication with addition. Hate to break it to you but often not even the reviewers actually read the paper.
- lang4d 3y agoThe main content of the paper is trying to minimize the number of “russian peasant” multiplications that need to be performed. I would say those are the interesting parts. Section 2.3 claims dropping the number of additions by a factor of 6 from the naive algorithm. Seems like doing the sorting, recursion, and alignment would have a nontrivial performance penalty, but it’s still a pretty interesting idea.
- kragen 3y agothis is not correct probably it would improve the paper to remove the russian-peasant-multiplication references entirely, or reduce them to a throwaway aside in one place in part this is because you surely won't be the last person careless enough to make this obvious error but also it's because russian-peasant multiplication is a totally normal way for hardware multipliers to work, and the main content of the paper is totally decoupled from whether the final multiplication at the end of all the reductions are done with russian-peasant multiplication or (as would probably be a better idea) something like a dadda multiplier or a booth multiplier