Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T12:25:29.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of sparse matrix representations for solving linear systems in a functional language

Part of: JFP Research Articles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Roger L. Wainwright  and
Marian E. Sexton
Roger L. Wainwright
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, The University of Tulsa, 600 South College Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74104–3189, USA
Marian E. Sexton
Affiliation:
Amoco Production Company, Research Center, P.O. Box 3385, Tulsa, OK 74102, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

This paper compares three different sparse matrix representations in Miranda for solving linear systems of equations: quadtrees, binary trees and run-length encoding. It compares the three data structures in each of two common linear system solvers, Conjugate Gradient and SOR. The test problems used in the paper arise from a simple reservoir model.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Functional Programming , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 1992 , pp. 61 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

Arvind, and Ekanadham, K. 1988. Future scientific programming on parallel machines. Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CSG-Memo-272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, F. W. and Kollias, J. G. 1989. Functional programming with quadtrees. IEEE Software, 90–97 (01).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekanadham, K. and Arvind., 1987. SIMPLE: Part I - An exercise in future scientific programming. Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CSG-Memo-273. (Simultaneously published as Technical Report RC 12686, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY.)Google Scholar
Feo, J. T., Cann, D. C. and Oldehoeft, R. R. 1990. A report on the Sisal language project. J. Parallel and Distributed Computing, 10: 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, A. C. 1990. A case study comparison of four declarative programming languages. Software – Practice and Experience, 20 (1): 49–65 (01).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, R. L., Sexton, M. E. and Wainwright, R. L. 1990. A functional program describing a simple reservoir model and its potential for parallel computation. In Proc. ACM/IEEE Symp. on Applied Computing, pp. 85–91.Google Scholar
Turner, D. 1985. Miranda: a non-strict functional language with polymorphic types. In Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architectures, Volume 201 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Turner, D. 1986. An overview of Miranda. SIGPLAN Notices, 158–166 (12).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, D. S. 1986. Parallel decomposition of matrix inversion using quadtrees. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Parallel Processing, pp. 92–99.Google Scholar
Wise, D. S. and Franco, J. 1987. Costs of quadtree representation of non-dense matrices. Computer Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, Technical Report No. 229 (10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Discussions

No Discussions have been published for this article.