RE: Project progress

[marco Vassallo]

----------------------------------------
> From: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: Project progress
> Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 22:34:48 +0200
> CC: address@hidden
>
>> * I'm not quite sure statement [4] is correct (of course apart from the 
>> double semicolon ...)
>> what is the idea behind the choice of setting the size to (nr * nz) / (i + 
>> 1)?
>>
>
> Sorry I forgot to update it with the nnz.
>
Ops sorry another mistake.
Hopefully it should never be used because nnz should be an estimation from the 
upper bound.

By the way, the idea was to imagine that the sparsity pattern of the matrix is 
almost "constant"
with the lines and thus, if we have nz elements in the first i lines, I apply 
some proportion like
(total number of nnz) : (number of non zero in the first i line) = (total 
number of row) : (present number of row : i)

Obviously this assumption can be wrong, and maybe something like doubling the 
size could be better.

Marco