## digitalmars.D - 3D Math Data structures/SIMD

- Lukas Pinkowski (25/25) Dec 21 2007 I'm wondering why the 2D/3D/4D-vector and -matrix data types don't find
- Janice Caron (12/18) Dec 21 2007 That's an awful lot of reserved words - especially when you take into
- Bill Baxter (7/13) Dec 21 2007 I'd complain. :-) Everyone knows that dot(a,b) and cross(a,b) are the
- Jascha Wetzel (3/6) Dec 21 2007 i agree. i think D should stick to the syntax established in shader
- Lukas Pinkowski (24/46) Dec 21 2007 Well, let's make a std.vectormath with:
- Janice Caron (15/20) Dec 21 2007 Now that's just nonsense! Matrix multiplication should be matrix
- Lukas Pinkowski (23/46) Dec 21 2007 Because those templates would have to use inline assembler to make use o...
- Janice Caron (6/7) Dec 21 2007 I call ad hominem on that one!
- Lukas Pinkowski (9/18) Dec 22 2007 Well, but why do you call the component-wise multiplication nonsense? As...
- Janice Caron (28/34) Dec 22 2007 Well, yes and no. Obviously you are correct in that one can define any
- Lukas Pinkowski (23/57) Dec 22 2007 Well, "imaginary real" isn't normally considered to be enumerable and
- Janice Caron (13/19) Dec 22 2007 Done. Having read up on it, I now withdraw all of my objections ... exce...
- Bill Baxter (6/24) Dec 22 2007 I believe the previous thread on providing support for these harware
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= (18/31) Dec 22 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- Saaa (9/16) Dec 22 2007 I won't call it a argument at all, just an observation(of which he isn't...
- Bill Baxter (29/54) Dec 21 2007 As pointed out, there is also the outer product that creates an NxN
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= (25/31) Dec 22 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- Janice Caron (16/20) Dec 22 2007 By which you mean, you'd like the product of a Vector!(N,T) and a
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= (25/51) Dec 22 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- Janice Caron (18/23) Dec 23 2007 operator
- Janice Caron (17/20) Dec 23 2007 Sorry - I need to correct myself there (before anyone else does!)
- Janice Caron (15/17) Dec 23 2007 Typo. Should read
- 0ffh (4/8) Dec 22 2007 Is it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard!
- Janice Caron (4/6) Dec 22 2007 You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I'm afraid. I googled
- 0ffh (5/8) Dec 22 2007 The element-wise product of matrices (which you called "just not
- Janice Caron (25/32) Dec 22 2007 Cool. I like learning new things. So, elementwise multiplication is
- Lukas Pinkowski (25/57) Dec 22 2007 Floating point numbers do not obey the rules which we normally associate
- Jascha Wetzel (2/9) Dec 22 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication#Hadamard_product
- Janice Caron (7/8) Dec 22 2007 Insteresting that the Hadamard product is listed under /Matrix/
- 0ffh (8/18) Dec 22 2007 I just wanted to demonstrate to you your unfortunate predisposition to
- Jascha Wetzel (5/36) Dec 21 2007 this has been proposed before and there has been discussion about the
- Lukas Pinkowski (10/14) Dec 21 2007 I think GDC and LLVMDC would be nice testbeds for such an extension. One...
- Don Clugston (16/33) Dec 22 2007 Do you think you could come up with some concrete examples?
- Mikola Lysenko (4/4) Dec 21 2007 I tried proposing a similar idea some time ago. There was a lot of good...
- Rioshin an'Harthen (24/52) Dec 22 2007 I've found myself wanting the vector and matrix types to be built into t...
- Janice Caron (27/39) Dec 22 2007 With this I completely agree. However, there's more than one way to
- Bill Baxter (10/59) Dec 22 2007 Can be done already (and has been done in the OpenMesh matrix and vector...
- Janice Caron (8/14) Dec 22 2007 I withdraw that last remark. It was uncalled for. I was trying to
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= (27/43) Dec 22 2007 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- Bill Baxter (4/39) Dec 22 2007 That's a nice idea. It would also have the side effect of making things...
- Bill Baxter (28/103) Dec 22 2007 Yeh, and what about octonians too! And we better distinguish
- Janice Caron (15/15) Dec 22 2007 If you wanted to go even more general, you could go beyond std.matrix
- Sascha Katzner (11/13) Dec 22 2007 One reason could be that, it is a performance penalty for the OS to save...
- Jascha Wetzel (38/52) Dec 22 2007 interesting! since SSE is an integral part of x86-64, i wonder whether
- Lukas Pinkowski (18/34) Dec 22 2007 Hi, that's because the OS needs to backup both SSE-registers and the
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pablo_Ripoll=e9s?= (5/26) Dec 22 2007 be careful with that! a matrix is an algebraic structure very different ...
- Knud Soerensen (12/31) Dec 22 2007 Take a look at the vectorization suggestion on
- Tomas Lindquist Olsen (7/38) Dec 23 2007 I could definitely be interested in experimenting with this in LLVMDC. A...

I'm wondering why the 2D/3D/4D-vector and -matrix data types don't find their way into the mainstream programming languages as builtin types? The only that I know of that have builtin-support are the shader languages (HLSL, GLSL, Cg, ...) and I suppose the VectorC/C++-compiler. Instead the vector- and matrix-class is coded over and over again, with different 3D-libraries using their own implementation/interface. SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly. I think the programming language of the future should have those builtin instead of in myriads of libraries. It would be nice if one of the Open Source D-compilers (GDC, LLVMDC) would implement such an extension to D in an experimental branch; don't know if it's easy to generate SIMD-code with the GCC backend, but LLVM is supposed to make it easy, right? Hopefully this extension could propagate after some time into the official D spec. Even if Walter won't touch the backend again, DMD could at least provide a software implementation (like for 64bit integer operations). Seeing that D seems to be quite popular for game programming and numerics, this would be a nice addition. Well, as for the typenames, I guess something along v2f, v3f, v4f, m2f, m3f, m4f: vectors and matrices based on float v2d, v3d, v4d, m2d, m3d, m4d: vectors and matrices based on double v2r, v3r, v4r, m2r, m3r, m4r: vectors and matrices based on real Or vec2f instead of v2f, mat2f instead of m2f, a.s.o. Complex versions would be probably needed, too?

Dec 21 2007

On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Well, as for the typenames, I guess something along v2f, v3f, v4f, m2f, m3f, m4f: vectors and matrices based on float v2d, v3d, v4d, m2d, m3d, m4d: vectors and matrices based on double v2r, v3r, v4r, m2r, m3r, m4r: vectors and matrices based on real Or vec2f instead of v2f, mat2f instead of m2f, a.s.o. Complex versions would be probably needed, too?That's an awful lot of reserved words - especially when you take into account the distinction between complex float, complex double, and ... er ... the other one. :-) Also, I couldn't help but notice that all your matrices seem to be square, and in general, they're not. What's wrong with Vector!(3,float), Matrix!(4,4,real), Matrix!(3,4,cdouble), etc.? And as for API, well, the operator overloads should just do the obvious thing (although I admit we lack dot-product and cross-product operators, but if you used u*v for dot product and u.cross(v) for cross product, I don't see anyone complaining). In other words, it /should/ be a library feature.

Dec 21 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Well, as for the typenames, I guess something alongAnd as for API, well, the operator overloads should just do the obvious thing (although I admit we lack dot-product and cross-product operators, but if you used u*v for dot product and u.cross(v) for cross product, I don't see anyone complaining).I'd complain. :-) Everyone knows that dot(a,b) and cross(a,b) are the way God intended C-derived languages to implement the dot and cross products. :-) [*] --bb [*] Unless you're downs, of course, and then it's a /dot/ b and a /cross/ b.

Dec 21 2007

Bill Baxter wrote:I'd complain. :-) Everyone knows that dot(a,b) and cross(a,b) are the way God intended C-derived languages to implement the dot and cross products. :-) [*]i agree. i think D should stick to the syntax established in shader languages. everything else is counterintuitive.

Dec 21 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Well, let's make a std.vectormath with: module std.vectormath; alias __v2f vec2f; alias __v3f vec3f; ... Double underscores are reserved anyway, so where exactly is the problem? People have accepted having hundreds of keywords and reserved identifiers in D. Also I forgot the integer and bool versions like v2i, v2ui, a.s.o.Well, as for the typenames, I guess something along v2f, v3f, v4f, m2f, m3f, m4f: vectors and matrices based on float v2d, v3d, v4d, m2d, m3d, m4d: vectors and matrices based on double v2r, v3r, v4r, m2r, m3r, m4r: vectors and matrices based on real Or vec2f instead of v2f, mat2f instead of m2f, a.s.o. Complex versions would be probably needed, too?That's an awful lot of reserved words - especially when you take into account the distinction between complex float, complex double, and ... er ... the other one. :-)Also, I couldn't help but notice that all your matrices seem to be square, and in general, they're not.In general matrices aren't limited to 4x4, right? But those are used in 3D math dominantly; in case you want higher dimensions, you can build them on top of the built in ones.What's wrong with Vector!(3,float), Matrix!(4,4,real), Matrix!(3,4,cdouble), etc.?They are not builtin types. You know, we have those nice SIMD instructions in our processors, but using them requires inline assembler, or non-portable/non-standard language extensions (see the GCC SIMD extension).And as for API, well, the operator overloads should just do the obvious thing (although I admit we lack dot-product and cross-product operators, but if you used u*v for dot product and u.cross(v) for cross product, I don't see anyone complaining).If we wouldn't go for identifiers, cross product could use #, but I don't know what to use for dot product. Multiplication should be component-wise multiplication, exactly like addition is component-wise addition (like in the shading languages).In other words, it /should/ be a library feature.Well, that's the C++ way of thinking. I'm pretty sure, if C++ existed back then, when floating point (co-)processors became widespread, people would argue, floating point support should be a library feature.

Dec 21 2007

On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:And this is a problem because...?What's wrong with Vector!(3,float), Matrix!(4,4,real), Matrix!(3,4,cdouble), etc.?They are not builtin types.Multiplication should be component-wise multiplication, exactly like addition is component-wise additionNow that's just nonsense! Matrix multiplication should be matrix multiplication, and nothing else. For example, multiplying a (square) matrix by the identity matrix (of the same size) should leave it unchanged, not zero every element not on the main diagonal! Likewise, vector multiplication must mean vector multiplication, and nothing else. (Arguably, there are two forms of vector multiplication - dot product and cross product - however, cross product only has meaning in three-dimensions, whereas dot product has meaning in any number of dimensions, so dot production is more general). Componentwise multiplication... Pah! That's just not mathemathical. (Imagine doing that for complex numbers instead of proper complex multiplication!) No thanks! I'd want my multiplications to actually give the right answer!

Dec 21 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Because those templates would have to use inline assembler to make use of SIMD-hardware. Well, that's bad, cause it's hard to inline a function that uses inline assembler, isn't it? So, we have all that shiny hardware with those funky instructions, but still it's hard to utilize it...And this is a problem because...?What's wrong with Vector!(3,float), Matrix!(4,4,real), Matrix!(3,4,cdouble), etc.?They are not builtin types.Err, we were talking about vector multiplication, in which we have three cases. Inner product, outer product and component-wise multiplication. Matrix multiplication is the matrix multiplication as you are used to. Don't quote out of context.Multiplication should be component-wise multiplication, exactly like addition is component-wise additionNow that's just nonsense! Matrix multiplication should be matrix multiplication, and nothing else. For example, multiplying a (square) matrix by the identity matrix (of the same size) should leave it unchanged, not zero every element not on the main diagonal!Likewise, vector multiplication must mean vector multiplication, and nothing else. (Arguably, there are two forms of vector multiplication - dot product and cross product - however, cross product only has meaning in three-dimensions, whereas dot product has meaning in any number of dimensions, so dot production is more general).Componentwise multiplication... Pah! That's just not mathemathical.So you probably don't know much about maths? It is mathematical as long as you define it correctly. But I'll do it just for you: F := Set of floating point numbers V := F^n (set of n-tuples of floating point numbers) We define component wise multiplication as a function m: V x V -> V with: m(a, b) := (a1*b1, a2*b2, ... , an*bn) =: a * b That's pretty mathematical, isn't it?(Imagine doing that for complex numbers instead of proper complex multiplication!) No thanks! I'd want my multiplications to actually give the right answer!Multiplication of complex numbers is defined quite clearly, as is for vectors. I already mentioned the shader languages, I guess you should look GLSL up and see how "vec3 * vec3" is handled. Then come back here and tell me about nonsense.

Dec 21 2007

On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:So you probably don't know much about maths?I call ad hominem on that one! For the record, I have a degree in pure mathematics. Now, before this line of enquiry proceeds any further, I request that in future you attack the argment, not the person! Attacking the person is unneccessary, irrelevant, and causes flame wars.

Dec 21 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:I apologize.So you probably don't know much about maths?I call ad hominem on that one!For the record, I have a degree in pure mathematics.Well, but why do you call the component-wise multiplication nonsense? As a mathematician you should know that an operator/function is exactly that, what you define it to be. If I define vector/vector-multiplication to be component-wise multiplication, then it is component-wise multiplication. It's just that 3D-programmers agreed to define vector/vector-multiplication (with the * operator) like this.Now, before this line of enquiry proceeds any further, I request that in future you attack the argment, not the person! Attacking the person is unneccessary, irrelevant, and causes flame wars.Right, I'll be cool :-)

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Well, but why do you call the component-wise multiplication nonsense? As a mathematician you should know that an operator/function is exactly that, what you define it to be. If I define vector/vector-multiplication to be component-wise multiplication, then it is component-wise multiplication.Well, yes and no. Obviously you are correct in that one can define any function to do anything (...just as you can in any programming language). However, whether or not it is meaningful to call such a function "multiplication" is another matter. Elementwise multiplication is not normally considered to be "multiplication" in vector algebra. Googling "vector multiplication" mostly yeilds the expected results of dot product and cross product, although Wolfram Mathworld also lists the "vector direct product" which yields a tensor. I couldn't find anything, anywhere, which considers elementwise multiplication to be valid vector multiplication. If such a usage exists, I must assume it to be rare, or limited to some particular field of expertise (e.g. 3D graphic programming, which you touch on next).It's just that 3D-programmers agreed to define vector/vector-multiplication (with the * operator) like this.Ah - that would be my problem. I'm not a 3D programmer. (I /am/ three dimension, and I /am/ a programmer, but ... well, you get the drift!). To me, there's really nothing special about three dimensions. Vector arithmetic must work, regardless of the number of elements, be that 3, 4, 5, or 87403461. Perhaps there is merit in such a function, of which I am unaware, which has benefit to programmers of 3D graphics. That's cool! Not a problem. But I still wouldn't call it multiplication. To me, multiplication of a vector by a vector is undefined. (Multiplication of a vector by a scalar is defined). So sure - why not have an elementwise multiplication function? If it's useful, it should be implemented. I just don't think it's a good idea to overload opMul() and opMulAssign() with that function. Maybe just call it something else?

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Well, "imaginary real" isn't normally considered to be enumerable and imaginary and real. Everyone's smart enough to learn such a thing, even that 'adding' two strings is concatenating them (in C++).Well, but why do you call the component-wise multiplication nonsense? As a mathematician you should know that an operator/function is exactly that, what you define it to be. If I define vector/vector-multiplication to be component-wise multiplication, then it is component-wise multiplication.Well, yes and no. Obviously you are correct in that one can define any function to do anything (...just as you can in any programming language). However, whether or not it is meaningful to call such a function "multiplication" is another matter. Elementwise multiplication is not normally considered to be "multiplication" in vector algebra.Googling "vector multiplication" mostly yeilds the expected results of dot product and cross product, although Wolfram Mathworld also lists the "vector direct product" which yields a tensor. I couldn't find anything, anywhere, which considers elementwise multiplication to be valid vector multiplication.If such a usage exists, I must assume it to be rare, or limited to some particular field of expertise (e.g. 3D graphic programming, which you touch on next).No it's not rare; the shading languages aren't limited to computer graphics, but are used for programming highly parallel hardware (= GPU) also. Please google for GPGPU. It would be a surprise to many people if '*' didn't mean elementwise multiplication.Well, to INTEL, AMD and IBM (PowerPC) there is something special about three dimensions, as they have built special instruction sets that can be used for efficient 3D-maths. And I want to be able to use the available hardware ressources easily and in a portable way. If you want vectors of higher dimension than 4D, you can either implement them traditionally, or on top of the optimized builtin vectors. I don't know how hard it would be to implement hardware optimized arbitrary sized vectors and matrices in the compiler. But who would say no to such a thing?It's just that 3D-programmers agreed to define vector/vector-multiplication (with the * operator) like this.Ah - that would be my problem. I'm not a 3D programmer. (I /am/ three dimension, and I /am/ a programmer, but ... well, you get the drift!). To me, there's really nothing special about three dimensions. Vector arithmetic must work, regardless of the number of elements, be that 3, 4, 5, or 87403461.Perhaps there is merit in such a function, of which I am unaware, which has benefit to programmers of 3D graphics. That's cool! Not a problem. But I still wouldn't call it multiplication. To me, multiplication of a vector by a vector is undefined. (Multiplication of a vector by a scalar is defined).It's irrelevant if it's undefined to you; if Walter or someone else defines vector-vector multiplication to be elementwise multiplication, then it is elementwise multiplication. After all: Walter has brainwashed us to believe 'imaginary real' to be imaginary 80bit IEEE floating point numbers on x87. ;-)

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:No it's not rare; the shading languages aren't limited to computer graphics, but are used for programming highly parallel hardware (= GPU) also. Please google for GPGPU. It would be a surprise to many people if '*' didn't mean elementwise multiplication.Done. Having read up on it, I now withdraw all of my objections ... except one. If there's hardware support of three-element arrays and four-element arrays, then I see no reason why they can't be considered primitive types. You've convinced me, and you've got my vote. My one objection (which of course was not one of your proposals in the first place, merely my misunderstanding), is that I don't want these things to be called "vectors". I'd like to see that term reserved for the true mathematical entities. Call them whatever you want - I don't care - just not "vector", and my complaints will disappear.After all: Walter has brainwashed us to believe 'imaginary real' to be imaginary 80bit IEEE floating point numbers on x87. ;-)I'm sure you know as well as I that many of us, myself included, are not happy with that nonclamenture. We may unfortunately be stuck with it, but one example of bad naming does not justify another.

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:I believe the previous thread on providing support for these harware entities suggested names like float3 and float4. That seems good to me in that it doesn't explicitly promise to support any particular mathematical convention. --bbNo it's not rare; the shading languages aren't limited to computer graphics, but are used for programming highly parallel hardware (= GPU) also. Please google for GPGPU. It would be a surprise to many people if '*' didn't mean elementwise multiplication.Done. Having read up on it, I now withdraw all of my objections ... except one. If there's hardware support of three-element arrays and four-element arrays, then I see no reason why they can't be considered primitive types. You've convinced me, and you've got my vote. My one objection (which of course was not one of your proposals in the first place, merely my misunderstanding), is that I don't want these things to be called "vectors". I'd like to see that term reserved for the true mathematical entities. Call them whatever you want - I don't care - just not "vector", and my complaints will disappear.

Dec 22 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:Actually, it is (more or less, the explanations on this page are a bit more general): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra_over_a_field Jerome - -- +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+ | mailto:jeberger free.fr | ICQ: 238062172 | | http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr | +---------------------------------+------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHbhEbd0kWM4JG3k8RAiP5AJ9w0tAKy6zT6nfxh0tgEq8GwduZxACdG1Sz jRPHSKNnoFnEsuhS+aFtFD0= =E7wH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Well, but why do you call the component-wise multiplication nonsense? As a mathematician you should know that an operator/function is exactly that, what you define it to be. If I define vector/vector-multiplication to be component-wise multiplication, then it is component-wise multiplication.Well, yes and no. Obviously you are correct in that one can define any function to do anything (...just as you can in any programming language). However, whether or not it is meaningful to call such a function "multiplication" is another matter. Elementwise multiplication is not normally considered to be "multiplication" in vector algebra.

Dec 22 2007

So you probably don't know much about maths? It is mathematical as long as you define it correctly. But I'll do it just for you:I call ad hominem on that one! For the record, I have a degree in pure mathematics. Now, before this line of enquiry proceeds any further, I request that in future you attack the argment, not the person! Attacking the person is unneccessary, irrelevant, and causes flame wars.I won't call it a argument at all, just an observation(of which he isn't quite sure hence the questionmark). The argument comes right after it. Making an abservation about the other party isn't that bad, it helps in understanding the others line of thought. An ad hominem replacement would be: You are wrong because you don't know much about math! But I do have to say that the last sentence is a bit condescending, which is unnecessary.

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/21/07, Lukas Pinkowski <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> wrote:As pointed out, there is also the outer product that creates an NxN matrix. Also defined for any N. And I believe analogues of the cross product exist for all odd-dimensioned vectors. Can't remember exactly on that one -- heard it listening to a Geometric Algebra talk too long ago.And this is a problem because...?What's wrong with Vector!(3,float), Matrix!(4,4,real), Matrix!(3,4,cdouble), etc.?They are not builtin types.Multiplication should be component-wise multiplication, exactly like addition is component-wise additionNow that's just nonsense! Matrix multiplication should be matrix multiplication, and nothing else. For example, multiplying a (square) matrix by the identity matrix (of the same size) should leave it unchanged, not zero every element not on the main diagonal! Likewise, vector multiplication must mean vector multiplication, and nothing else. (Arguably, there are two forms of vector multiplication - dot product and cross product - however, cross product only has meaning in three-dimensions, whereas dot product has meaning in any number of dimensions, so dot production is more general).Componentwise multiplication... Pah! That's just not mathemathical. (Imagine doing that for complex numbers instead of proper complex multiplication!) No thanks! I'd want my multiplications to actually give the right answer!The analogy is bad because for a number of reasons. 1) there's little practical value in component-wise multiplication of complex numbers. Whereas component-wise multiplication of vectors is very often useful in practice. 2) In math the product of two complex numbers a and b is written just like the product of two scalars: ab. Writing two vectors next to each other is a linear algebra "syntax error". It's an invalid operation unless you transpose one of the vectors. So if anything, in a programming language * on vectors should just not be allowed. But making it do nothing is not very useful. 3) In numerical applications it's useful to define all kinds of non-linear algebra operators too. For instance shading languages usually define a < b to be a componentwise comparison yielding a vector of booleans. In terms of linear algebra this is meaningless but it's darn useful, and kind of goes along with the idea that + and - work component-wise. And if you allow that, then why not just be consistent all the way and say that all the binary operators that yield a scalar result are defined componentwise? And use things like dot() cross() and outer() for the various specialized vector products. 4) Componentwise multiplication of vectors is not really "nonsense" even in terms of linear algebra. You just have to think of a*b as being defined to mean diag(a)*b. That is, one of the operands is first implicitly converted to a diagonal matrix. --bb

Dec 21 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Janice Caron wrote:Likewise, vector multiplication must mean vector multiplication, and nothing else. (Arguably, there are two forms of vector multiplication - dot product and cross product - however, cross product only has meaning in three-dimensions, whereas dot product has meaning in any number of dimensions, so dot production is more general).Actually, there are *four* forms of vector multiplication: - dot product; - cross product (which btw is defined for all finite dimensionalities greater than 1); - outer product; - component-wise. Of the four, component-wise is the only one that makes sense for a multiplication *operator* because it's the only one that is defined as taking exactly two input operands in vector space and returning a value in the same vector space. Jerome - -- +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+ | mailto:jeberger free.fr | ICQ: 238062172 | | http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr | +---------------------------------+------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHbN7rd0kWM4JG3k8RAh07AJ48jVMFdaCkcwo9eNzmZTXjPx5dbACeOT5G xnH8z6cQyVyh6ddgTB6nMzM= =dT0p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:Of the four, component-wise is the only one that makes sense for a multiplication *operator* because it's the only one that is defined as taking exactly two input operands in vector space and returning a value in the same vector space.By which you mean, you'd like the product of a Vector!(N,T) and a Vector!(N,T) to be a Vector!(N,T)? That seems an artificial restriction to me. After all, the product of a Matrix!(N,M,T) and a Matrix!(N,M,T) is not a Matrix!(N,M,T), unless N==M. (In general, it's undefined). But you wouldn't want to say "Aha - in general, it's undefined, so let's define it" (especially not with componentwise multiplication, because that would conflict with regular matrix multiplication when N==M). As I'm sure you know, the product of a Matrix!(N,M,T) and Matrix!(M,L,T) is a Matrix!(N,L,T). So there is no requirement that the product be of the same type as either of the originals. Anyway, for reasons of all the arguments listed in this thread, I am now convinced that opMul() and opMulAssign() should not be overloaded at all for the type Vector!. It seems far better to be explicit about what kind of multiply you actually want.

Dec 22 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:However, it is the mathematically accepted definition for a binary operator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_operationOf the four, component-wise is the only one that makes sense for a multiplication *operator* because it's the only one that is defined as taking exactly two input operands in vector space and returning a value in the same vector space.By which you mean, you'd like the product of a Vector!(N,T) and a Vector!(N,T) to be a Vector!(N,T)? That seems an artificial restriction to me.After all, the product of a Matrix!(N,M,T) and a Matrix!(N,M,T) is not a Matrix!(N,M,T), unless N==M. (In general, it's undefined). But you wouldn't want to say "Aha - in general, it's undefined, so let's define it" (especially not with componentwise multiplication, because that would conflict with regular matrix multiplication when N==M). As I'm sure you know, the product of a Matrix!(N,M,T) and Matrix!(M,L,T) is a Matrix!(N,L,T). So there is no requirement that the product be of the same type as either of the originals.I wasn't talking about a "product" or a "multiplication", but about a "multiplication *operator*" which, being an *operator* should follow the definition for one (cf Wikipedia link above).Anyway, for reasons of all the arguments listed in this thread, I am now convinced that opMul() and opMulAssign() should not be overloaded at all for the type Vector!. It seems far better to be explicit about what kind of multiply you actually want.I'd tend to agree on that one. Except that now, we need to find a reasonably short and meaningful name for "element-wise multiplication" ("dot", "cross" and "outer" work fine for the other types of multiplication). Jerome - -- +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+ | mailto:jeberger free.fr | ICQ: 238062172 | | http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr | +---------------------------------+------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHbhM/d0kWM4JG3k8RAn0sAKC49tOu4Bi+9Q2GqNfBRSWinY1ySwCdFCkP xIAEMgJG2zsBDBxxwacd7Y0= =9NTw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dec 22 2007

On 12/23/07, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:However, it is the mathematically accepted definition for a binaryoperator You got me on that one. I completely stand corrected. Guess I've been doing computing for so long that I fell into the trap of mixing computer language jargon with math jargon. In D, and other C-like languages, an "operator" is anything that uses infix notation. In maths, as you pointed out, it has another meaning entirely. But even so, this is D we're talking about, and I don't see anyone arguing that matrix multiplication shouldn't use opMul.I'd tend to agree on that one. Except that now, we need to find a reasonably short and meaningful name for "element-wise multiplication" ("dot", "cross" and "outer" work fine for the other types of multiplication).Once upon a time, we were promised elementwise operations across the board. For example a[] = b[]; //elementwise assignment a[] = b[] + c[]; //elementwise addition a[] = b[] * c[]; //elementwise multiplication Maybe there was some reason why Walter couldn't get it to work, but it would be nice to see it back on the drawing board. Even if it couldn't be made to work for generic arrays, maybe it could be made to work for new primitve types like float4?

Dec 23 2007

On 12/23/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:Even if it couldn't be made to work for generic arrays, maybe it could be made to work for new primitve types like float4?Sorry - I need to correct myself there (before anyone else does!) If we had new primitive types, float3, float4, etc., then for those types, multiplication would be elementwise /by default/, so no special syntax or functions would be needed. e.g. float4 a, b, c; a = b * c; // elementwise multiplication For vectors and matrices in general, we're back to the foreach problem again! (Foreach was a bad design decision because you can't step through more than one array in lockstep). If you /could/ then you could do Matrix!(4,4,float) a, b, c; foreach(ref x;a)(y:b)(z:c) x = b * c; (although that wouldn't be parallelised). So it seems to me that something really needs to be done to improve (or replace) foreach so that we can do that, and preferably with parallelisation thrown in for good measuse.

Dec 23 2007

On 12/23/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:Matrix!(4,4,float) a, b, c; foreach(ref x;a)(y:b)(z:c) x = b * c;Typo. Should read Matrix!(4,4,float) a, b, c; foreach(ref x;a)(y:b)(z:c) x = y * z; To add to that, Walter has always argued that foreach expresses what the programmer /wants/, not how it's implemented, and that it's up to the compiler to figure out the most efficient way to implement it, which might be different on each platform, and might indeed include parallelisation, if the compiler thinks it's worth it. I tend to agree with this, and I see no problem with extending foreach for builtin arrays. The big problem with it is user-defined types, because opApply just isn't the right way to implement foreach in these cases. Perhaps the long term solution is iterators - then foreach for user-defined types could be implemented by the compiler using iterators instead of opApply?

Dec 23 2007

Janice Caron wrote:Componentwise multiplication... Pah! That's just not mathemathical. (Imagine doing that for complex numbers instead of proper complex multiplication!) No thanks! I'd want my multiplications to actually give the right answer!Is it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard! You should be a bit more careful what you write and, especially, how. regards, frank

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> wrote:Is it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard! You should be a bit more careful what you write and, especially, how.You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I'm afraid. I googled Jacques Hadamard and got that he was a mathematician, but beyond that, I'm lost. What are you getting at?

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I'm afraid. I googled Jacques Hadamard and got that he was a mathematician, but beyond that, I'm lost. What are you getting at?The element-wise product of matrices (which you called "just not mathemathical") bears his name. regards, frank p.s. You are right, I could (and should) have been clearer.

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> wrote:Is it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard! You should be a bit more careful what you write and, especially, how.Cool. I like learning new things. So, elementwise multiplication is more properly called Hadamard multiplication is it? That's certainly interesting. I'm not not quite sure how I'm supposed to "tell Jacques Hadamard" anything, though, given that he's been dead for forty four years. I still don't completely understand what you were getting at, but I'll try to be clearer about what /I/ meant. By "not mathematical", I meant /in the context of overloading opMul() with it/ - that is, Hadamard multiplication doesn't obey the rules which we normally associate with multiplication. Consider, for example, the simple equation two times two equals four. (They don't get much easier than that). You could represent that in 2D vectors using Hadamard multiplication as [2,0] * [2,0] = [4,0]. So far, so good. But we also expect four divided by two to yield two. How's that done here? Elementwise division of [4,0] by [2,0] would involve zero divided by zero for the second element. More bizarrely, a*b can equal zero, even when neither a nor b is zero. So while it certainly is reasonable to call it a function, I continue to question whether or not it is reasonable to call it multiplication. That's what I meant. If you're suggesting that I intended some slur on poor Mr Hadamard, I assure you that's false. (Indeed - I hadn't even heard of him until you mentioned his name). Rest assured, if he were alive today I would be /more/ than happy to discuss mathematics with him. :-)I googled Jacques Hadamard and got that he was a mathematician, but beyond that, I'm lost. What are you getting at?The element-wise product of matrices (which you called "just not mathemathical") bears his name.

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> wrote:Floating point numbers do not obey the rules which we normally associate with any elementary operation like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. For floating point numbers this is possible: a + b == a Even when b is not 0! We aren't anymore in 'pure mathematical land', but we are in 'binary numerics land', where all the operations we know, do most of the time different things than what we are used to. For a mathematically correct language we would have to rename every operator into something different. What do you prefer to write? This: float a, b; float c = float_addition(a, b); Or this: float a, b; float c = a + b;Is it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard! You should be a bit more careful what you write and, especially, how.Cool. I like learning new things. So, elementwise multiplication is more properly called Hadamard multiplication is it? That's certainly interesting. I'm not not quite sure how I'm supposed to "tell Jacques Hadamard" anything, though, given that he's been dead for forty four years. I still don't completely understand what you were getting at, but I'll try to be clearer about what /I/ meant. By "not mathematical", I meant /in the context of overloading opMul() with it/ - that is, Hadamard multiplication doesn't obey the rules which we normally associate with multiplication.I googled Jacques Hadamard and got that he was a mathematician, but beyond that, I'm lost. What are you getting at?The element-wise product of matrices (which you called "just not mathemathical") bears his name.Consider, for example, the simple equation two times two equals four. (They don't get much easier than that). You could represent that in 2D vectors using Hadamard multiplication as [2,0] * [2,0] = [4,0]. So far, so good. But we also expect four divided by two to yield two. How's that done here? Elementwise division of [4,0] by [2,0] would involve zero divided by zero for the second element. More bizarrely, a*b can equal zero, even when neither a nor b is zero. So while it certainly is reasonable to call it a function, I continue to question whether or not it is reasonable to call it multiplication. That's what I meant.It's a question of consistency: Either you question all usage of mathematical operators in programming languages, or you accept that it's only a thing of definition and documentation. I think that it is reasonable to call something multiplication if it is well-defined and has similarities to other uses of multiplication. As you know, the multiplication dot is used in maths for all kinds of things that clearly are not multiplications of two scalars; if you don't know what the multiplication dot means, you look the definition up, don't you?

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, 0ffh <frank frankhirsch.youknow.what.todo.net> wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication#Hadamard_productIs it not? Tell Jacques Hadamard! You should be a bit more careful what you write and, especially, how.You're going to have to be a bit more specific, I'm afraid. I googled Jacques Hadamard and got that he was a mathematician, but beyond that, I'm lost. What are you getting at?

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, Jascha Wetzel <firstname mainia.de> wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication#Hadamard_productInsteresting that the Hadamard product is listed under /Matrix/ multiplication, not vector multiplication. :-) This is all very interesting, but does not in any way lead me to conclude that there is justification for elevating the Hadamard product to /the/ default function with which to overload opMul for vectors.

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Jascha Wetzel <firstname mainia.de> wrote:I just wanted to demonstrate to you your unfortunate predisposition to belittle the things you do not know or like (be it the "amateurish" Tango or the "nonsense" and "just not mathemathical" Hadamard Product). The result is that, despite the fact that you can be quite insightful, people are put off by the way you denigrate (as they must peceive it) their ideas. If they respond in like manner, you should not be surprised. regards, frankhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_multiplication#Hadamard_productInsteresting that the Hadamard product is listed under /Matrix/ multiplication, not vector multiplication. :-) This is all very interesting, but does not in any way lead me to conclude that there is justification for elevating the Hadamard product to /the/ default function with which to overload opMul for vectors.

Dec 22 2007

Lukas Pinkowski wrote:I'm wondering why the 2D/3D/4D-vector and -matrix data types don't find their way into the mainstream programming languages as builtin types? The only that I know of that have builtin-support are the shader languages (HLSL, GLSL, Cg, ...) and I suppose the VectorC/C++-compiler. Instead the vector- and matrix-class is coded over and over again, with different 3D-libraries using their own implementation/interface. SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly. I think the programming language of the future should have those builtin instead of in myriads of libraries. It would be nice if one of the Open Source D-compilers (GDC, LLVMDC) would implement such an extension to D in an experimental branch; don't know if it's easy to generate SIMD-code with the GCC backend, but LLVM is supposed to make it easy, right? Hopefully this extension could propagate after some time into the official D spec. Even if Walter won't touch the backend again, DMD could at least provide a software implementation (like for 64bit integer operations). Seeing that D seems to be quite popular for game programming and numerics, this would be a nice addition. Well, as for the typenames, I guess something along v2f, v3f, v4f, m2f, m3f, m4f: vectors and matrices based on float v2d, v3d, v4d, m2d, m3d, m4d: vectors and matrices based on double v2r, v3r, v4r, m2r, m3r, m4r: vectors and matrices based on real Or vec2f instead of v2f, mat2f instead of m2f, a.s.o. Complex versions would be probably needed, too?this has been proposed before and there has been discussion about the naming, too. i'd like to see that rather sooner than later, as well. you might want to check out Don Clugston's work on Blade, which is a significant step towards what you're looking for.

Dec 21 2007

Jascha Wetzel wrote:this has been proposed before and there has been discussion about the naming, too. i'd like to see that rather sooner than later, as well.I think GDC and LLVMDC would be nice testbeds for such an extension. One of these could implement those into the compiler along with a software implementation for compatibility with the other compilers. Hopefully Walter would either include this experimental extension into the D spec, or propose a standard interface himself. I overlooked the LLVM tutorial and it seems to be quite easy, but I don't whether I find the time soon to do myself what I demand from others ;-)you might want to check out Don Clugston's work on Blade, which is a significant step towards what you're looking for.I know about it, and it's really awesome what you can do in D.

Dec 21 2007

Lukas Pinkowski wrote:Jascha Wetzel wrote:Do you think you could come up with some concrete examples? I could imagine a version specialised for 2-D and 3-D vectors and quaternions. Something like: --- import blade.ginsu; float[4][] f, g; const float K = 1.234; mixin(ginsu(q{ f[5..60].x = g[0..55].y + g[2..57].z; // whatever else }); --- I'm not a game programmer, so I don't really have much idea of which operations are important. It would be really helpful to have some example inner loops.this has been proposed before and there has been discussion about the naming, too. i'd like to see that rather sooner than later, as well.I think GDC and LLVMDC would be nice testbeds for such an extension. One of these could implement those into the compiler along with a software implementation for compatibility with the other compilers. Hopefully Walter would either include this experimental extension into the D spec, or propose a standard interface himself. I overlooked the LLVM tutorial and it seems to be quite easy, but I don't whether I find the time soon to do myself what I demand from others ;-)you might want to check out Don Clugston's work on Blade, which is a significant step towards what you're looking for.I know about it, and it's really awesome what you can do in D.

Dec 22 2007

I tried proposing a similar idea some time ago. There was a lot of good discussion, but I don't think that any consensus was reached at the end. Here is a link to the old thread: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Small_Vectors_Proposal_47634.html#N47634 -Mik

Dec 21 2007

"Lukas Pinkowski" <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> kirjoitti viestissä news:fkg4qg$mm$1 digitalmars.com...I'm wondering why the 2D/3D/4D-vector and -matrix data types don't find their way into the mainstream programming languages as builtin types? The only that I know of that have builtin-support are the shader languages (HLSL, GLSL, Cg, ...) and I suppose the VectorC/C++-compiler. Instead the vector- and matrix-class is coded over and over again, with different 3D-libraries using their own implementation/interface. SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly. I think the programming language of the future should have those builtin instead of in myriads of libraries. It would be nice if one of the Open Source D-compilers (GDC, LLVMDC) would implement such an extension to D in an experimental branch; don't know if it's easy to generate SIMD-code with the GCC backend, but LLVM is supposed to make it easy, right? Hopefully this extension could propagate after some time into the official D spec. Even if Walter won't touch the backend again, DMD could at least provide a software implementation (like for 64bit integer operations). Seeing that D seems to be quite popular for game programming and numerics, this would be a nice addition. Well, as for the typenames, I guess something along v2f, v3f, v4f, m2f, m3f, m4f: vectors and matrices based on float v2d, v3d, v4d, m2d, m3d, m4d: vectors and matrices based on double v2r, v3r, v4r, m2r, m3r, m4r: vectors and matrices based on real Or vec2f instead of v2f, mat2f instead of m2f, a.s.o. Complex versions would be probably needed, too?I've found myself wanting the vector and matrix types to be built into the compiler too many times, as almost all the different libraries have had to implement them. And usually, they're incompatible with each other, so it would be much better if they were "standardized" by the programming language in question, be it C, C++, D... However, a gross of new keywords isn't a good idea. I'd prefer to only use *two* new keywords: vector and matrix, as follows: vector(uint[4]) vec; with members accessible by vec.x, vec.y, vec.z and vec.w, and matrix(cdouble[4]) mat; with members accessible by mat.11, mat.12, mat.13, mat.14, mat.21 ... mat.43 and mat.44. If, e.g. a vector of three vectors of four doubles were required, it could be defined with vector( vector( double[4] )[3] ) (with the spacing just for clarity) Actually, come to think of it, should we separate quaternions from vectors, since they're actually quite different than your standard vector? This would likely make it easier to support mathematics between quaternions, a quaternion and a matrix, and a quaternion and a vector. Something like quaternion(double) quat; with the members accessible by quat.r, quat.i, quat.j and quat.k.

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, Rioshin an'Harthen <rharth75 hotmail.com> wrote:it would be much better if they were "standardized" by the programming language in question, be it C, C++, D...With this I completely agree. However, there's more than one way to standardise. Having a module in Phobos called std.matrix would be standardisation, and I think that would be perfectly good enough.However, a gross of new keywords isn't a good idea. I'd prefer to only use *two* new keywords: vector and matrixD seems to adopt the general principle that if it can be done with the language as-is, then there is no need to implement as a new feature. Walter is particularly cautious about introducing new reserved words, as clearly that would break existing code which used those words as identifiers.vector(uint[4]) vec;Doesn't seem much different to my earlier suggestion of Vector!(4,uint) vec; although I guess Vector!(uint[4]) vec; might work just as well. So long as template code can deduce the element type and size, it probably wouldn't make much difference.with members accessible by vec.x, vec.y, vec.z and vec.wIt's not obvious to me why the elements should be x, y, z and w. How does this generalize? What's the rule? Is it "Start at 'x', proceed up the English alphabet till you get to 'z', then after that work backwards from 'w' down to 'a'? I don't get it. Seems like an odd and arbitrary rule, and also totally English-centric. (Well, we wouldn't want to use the Cyrillic alphabet would we? That's foreign!) Plus, what would the elements be named for a 100-element vector?matrix(cdouble[4]) mat; with members accessible by mat.11, mat.12, mat.13, mat.14, mat.21 ... mat.43 and mat.44.I'd think that elements should be zero-based, not one-based. Plus, your syntax makes no provision for matrices with more than nine elements in either dimension. It's just not general enough.Actually, come to think of it, should we separate quaternions from vectors, since they're actually quite different than your standard vector?Of course! We should always separate apples from oranges, as they're quite different things. I don't think that's even an issue.

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Rioshin an'Harthen <rharth75 hotmail.com> wrote:Can be done already (and has been done in the OpenMesh matrix and vector classes ). MatrixT!(double, M,N) A; A is an MxN matrix, and if M and N are both less than 10 then you can to access elements using the notation A.m00, a.m01, a.m30, etc. All thanks to the miracles of anonymous unions, static if, string mixins and compile-time code generation. http://www.dsource.org/projects/openmeshd/browser/trunk/OpenMeshD/OpenMesh/Core/Geometry/MatrixT.d --bbit would be much better if they were "standardized" by the programming language in question, be it C, C++, D...With this I completely agree. However, there's more than one way to standardise. Having a module in Phobos called std.matrix would be standardisation, and I think that would be perfectly good enough.However, a gross of new keywords isn't a good idea. I'd prefer to only use *two* new keywords: vector and matrixD seems to adopt the general principle that if it can be done with the language as-is, then there is no need to implement as a new feature. Walter is particularly cautious about introducing new reserved words, as clearly that would break existing code which used those words as identifiers.vector(uint[4]) vec;Doesn't seem much different to my earlier suggestion of Vector!(4,uint) vec; although I guess Vector!(uint[4]) vec; might work just as well. So long as template code can deduce the element type and size, it probably wouldn't make much difference.with members accessible by vec.x, vec.y, vec.z and vec.wIt's not obvious to me why the elements should be x, y, z and w. How does this generalize? What's the rule? Is it "Start at 'x', proceed up the English alphabet till you get to 'z', then after that work backwards from 'w' down to 'a'? I don't get it. Seems like an odd and arbitrary rule, and also totally English-centric. (Well, we wouldn't want to use the Cyrillic alphabet would we? That's foreign!) Plus, what would the elements be named for a 100-element vector?matrix(cdouble[4]) mat; with members accessible by mat.11, mat.12, mat.13, mat.14, mat.21 ... mat.43 and mat.44.

Dec 22 2007

On 12/22/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:It's not obvious to me why the elements should be x, y, z and w. How does this generalize? What's the rule? Is it "Start at 'x', proceed up the English alphabet till you get to 'z', then after that work backwards from 'w' down to 'a'? I don't get it. Seems like an odd and arbitrary rule, and also totally English-centric. (Well, we wouldn't want to use the Cyrillic alphabet would we? That's foreign!)I withdraw that last remark. It was uncalled for. I was trying to posit that there is nothing special about the English alphabet, and that all Unicode letters are acceptable as identifier names, but I didn't express that very well, so if I caused any offense, I apologise. I still don't see how the rule generalises to N elements though, and so my question about the rule is still open.

Dec 22 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Janice Caron wrote:On 12/22/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:I guess, he meant to say that .x, .y .z and .w could be used as an alternative (and in addition) to [] for small vectors. However, the problem is that the choice of letters is application-dependent: - 2D vectors often use (u, v) as well as (x, y); - 4D vectors often use "t" for the 4th component instead of "w". Something that could be nice: Vector!(double[3], "abc") vec; The "abc" string would be optional, but if given it would need to be the same size as the vector and it would tell the compiler that we want to be able to access the elements with vec.a, vec.b and vec.c in addition to vec[i]. This would allow us to specify what letters we want to be able to use for any given application. Jerome - -- +------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+ | mailto:jeberger free.fr | ICQ: 238062172 | | http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr | +---------------------------------+------------------------------+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHbOIId0kWM4JG3k8RAvcKAKC0r3Xu90Ttie9zxQdZEnQz6uJByQCfZVw3 KpaUV5eVt6cUEdJRB/kZcX4= =jGHS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----It's not obvious to me why the elements should be x, y, z and w. How does this generalize? What's the rule? Is it "Start at 'x', proceed up the English alphabet till you get to 'z', then after that work backwards from 'w' down to 'a'? I don't get it. Seems like an odd and arbitrary rule, and also totally English-centric. (Well, we wouldn't want to use the Cyrillic alphabet would we? That's foreign!)I withdraw that last remark. It was uncalled for. I was trying to posit that there is nothing special about the English alphabet, and that all Unicode letters are acceptable as identifier names, but I didn't express that very well, so if I caused any offense, I apologise. I still don't see how the rule generalises to N elements though, and so my question about the rule is still open.

Dec 22 2007

Jérôme M. Berger wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Janice Caron wrote:That's a nice idea. It would also have the side effect of making things like colors ("rgb") and vectors ("xyz") distinct types automatically. --bbOn 12/22/07, Janice Caron <caron800 googlemail.com> wrote:I guess, he meant to say that .x, .y .z and .w could be used as an alternative (and in addition) to [] for small vectors. However, the problem is that the choice of letters is application-dependent: - 2D vectors often use (u, v) as well as (x, y); - 4D vectors often use "t" for the 4th component instead of "w". Something that could be nice: Vector!(double[3], "abc") vec; The "abc" string would be optional, but if given it would need to be the same size as the vector and it would tell the compiler that we want to be able to access the elements with vec.a, vec.b and vec.c in addition to vec[i]. This would allow us to specify what letters we want to be able to use for any given application.It's not obvious to me why the elements should be x, y, z and w. How does this generalize? What's the rule? Is it "Start at 'x', proceed up the English alphabet till you get to 'z', then after that work backwards from 'w' down to 'a'? I don't get it. Seems like an odd and arbitrary rule, and also totally English-centric. (Well, we wouldn't want to use the Cyrillic alphabet would we? That's foreign!)I withdraw that last remark. It was uncalled for. I was trying to posit that there is nothing special about the English alphabet, and that all Unicode letters are acceptable as identifier names, but I didn't express that very well, so if I caused any offense, I apologise. I still don't see how the rule generalises to N elements though, and so my question about the rule is still open.

Dec 22 2007

Rioshin an'Harthen wrote:"Lukas Pinkowski" <Lukas.Pinkowski web.de> kirjoitti viestissä news:fkg4qg$mm$1 digitalmars.com...Yeh, and what about octonians too! And we better distinguish homogeneous vectors and matrices from regular vectors and matrices. And really, points and vectors are different things, so they should have distinct types (unless you're using the homogenous varieties, since those can express both). And really it's all expressed so much more elegantly using geometric algebra so we better have multivectors and wedge products in the language too. The problem is there are a lot of interesting and useful mathematical constructs out there. Where do you stop. It seems to me like primitive types in the language should reflect what the silicon is actually capable of [*]. Anything else can be a library. There is no quaternion multiplication instruction on any hardware I'm aware of, so that's a construct that doesn't belong in the language in my opinion. I do see there being some value in basic primitives that can use these SSE type instructions efficiently, and then those can be used to build the uber-efficient quaternions and matrices etc as library types. --bb [*] not sure how I feel about complex numbers on this score. I think a standard library implementation would have been sufficient. Only thing I could find about C++0x and complex numbers was this: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1612.pdf on this page http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2142.html which skimming basically looks like it says the problems with std::complex can be fixed without making complex a built-in type. --bb

Dec 22 2007

If you wanted to go even more general, you could go beyond std.matrix and head into the murky waters of std.tensor. Tensors are a generalisation of the progression: scalar, vector, matrix, .... Think of a scalar as a zero-dimensional array; a vector as a one dimentional array, and a matrix as a two dimentional array. A scalar is a tensor with rank zero; a vector is a tensor with rank one; a matrix is a tensor with rank two. This completely generalises for tensors of arbitrary (non negative integer) rank. (There is a complication though, in that you have to distinguish between contravariant and covariant indeces) If tensor mathematics were implemented, vectors and matrices could be trivially implemented in terms of tensors. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html (That might be going a bit further than people are ever going to need though! :-) )

Dec 22 2007

Lukas Pinkowski wrote:SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly.One reason could be that, it is a performance penalty for the OS to save the SIMD registers (XMM1, XMM2...etc.). You can verify that with the test programm attached to this posting. If you uncomment lines 27-30 the programm is ~50% slower (9.8s vs 6.7s on a Core 2 Duo E6750 on Vista). SSE is great if you do a lot of heavy computations in your program, but if you only do a dot product here and a cross product there you better not use SSE, because your whole program runs a lot slower if you use SSE instructions. LLAP, Sascha Katzner

Dec 22 2007

Sascha Katzner wrote:Lukas Pinkowski wrote:interesting! since SSE is an integral part of x86-64, i wonder whether this is an issue there as well... Using the slightly modified code below, i tried that using GDC on 64bit linux and the timing was identical. That doesn't mean too much, but it is a hint. Further testing pending... import tango.io.Stdout; import tango.util.time.StopWatch; struct Vector3f { float x, y, z; void opAddAssign(ref Vector3f v) { x += v.x; y += v.y; z += v.z; } Vector3f opMul(float s) { return Vector3f(x * s, y * s, z * s); } } int main(char[][] args) { StopWatch elapsed; Vector3f v1 = {1.0f, 2.0f, 3.0f}; Vector3f v2 = {4.0f, 5.0f, 6.0f}; float t; asm { movss XMM1, t; } elapsed.start; for (int i=0; i<0x40FFFFFF; i++) { // do something nontrivial... v2 += v1 * 3.0f; } auto duration = elapsed.stop; Stdout.formatln("{:6}", duration); // to ensure that the compiler doesn't eliminate/optimize the inner loop Stdout("(" v1.x, v1.y, v1.z ") (" v2.x, v2.y, v2.z ")").newline; return 0; }SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly.One reason could be that, it is a performance penalty for the OS to save the SIMD registers (XMM1, XMM2...etc.). You can verify that with the test programm attached to this posting. If you uncomment lines 27-30 the programm is ~50% slower (9.8s vs 6.7s on a Core 2 Duo E6750 on Vista). SSE is great if you do a lot of heavy computations in your program, but if you only do a dot product here and a cross product there you better not use SSE, because your whole program runs a lot slower if you use SSE instructions.

Dec 22 2007

Sascha Katzner wrote:Lukas Pinkowski wrote:Hi, that's because the OS needs to backup both SSE-registers and the x87-stack. On my Athlon64 3800+ on openSUSE 10.2 (GCC 4.1.2), when I compile the equivalent C++-code once with SSE and once with x87, they are equally fast (see attached code). And that's even without using GCC's SIMD extension. I'll try to make an example with SIMD operations (though I don't think that there we'll be a significant performance gain for this easy code, if at all). (Note: Using double in test.cc because float yields different results for SSE and x87) As I don't have GDC installed (it fails to build for me), I can't test it with GDC. But I've read often enough that DMD doesn't generate fast FP code. Of course, by disabling the x87, we loose D's real type, but that's OK for applications where 80bit precision is not required. It would be a _compiler option_ anyway, and if you're into numerics you really should know what you're doing!SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly.One reason could be that, it is a performance penalty for the OS to save the SIMD registers (XMM1, XMM2...etc.). You can verify that with the test programm attached to this posting. If you uncomment lines 27-30 the programm is ~50% slower (9.8s vs 6.7s on a Core 2 Duo E6750 on Vista). SSE is great if you do a lot of heavy computations in your program, but if you only do a dot product here and a cross product there you better not use SSE, because your whole program runs a lot slower if you use SSE instructions. LLAP, Sascha Katzner

Dec 22 2007

Janice Caron Wrote:If you wanted to go even more general, you could go beyond std.matrix and head into the murky waters of std.tensor. Tensors are a generalisation of the progression: scalar, vector, matrix, ....be careful with that! a matrix is an algebraic structure very different from vectors and tensors. you could say that a tensor is a generalization of a vector (a vector is a rank-1 tensor) or that a tensor is a generalization of a scalar (a scalar is a rank-0 tensor), however a matrix is a different thing. think of a matrix as a two dimensional array with several algebraic rules and operations. matrices are away to represent and operate a bunch of numbers. matrices serve to represent scalars, vectors and rank-2 tensors. mathematically speaking, matrices are higher level than arrays but lower than tensors. Tensors are "geometric" entities that are independent of the coordinate system. Tensors are much more conceptualized than plain algebraic matrices, they are a very particular tool to represent the former. if you were to expand a high rank tensor product, representing the corresponding slices with matrices and their algebra should help you do that. IMHO when implementing mathematical concepts into the language, the A&D phase should be that given by the mathematics, its primitive conceptual design should be retained.Think of a scalar as a zero-dimensional array; a vector as a one dimentional array, and a matrix as a two dimentional array. A scalar is a tensor with rank zero; a vector is a tensor with rank one; a matrix is a tensor with rank two. This completely generalises for tensors of arbitrary (non negative integer) rank. (There is a complication though, in that you have to distinguish between contravariant and covariant indeces) If tensor mathematics were implemented, vectors and matrices could be trivially implemented in terms of tensors. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html (That might be going a bit further than people are ever going to need though! :-) )if it happens to be well implemented, i don't think so. cheers!

Dec 22 2007

Hi Lukas Lukas Pinkowski wrote:I'm wondering why the 2D/3D/4D-vector and -matrix data types don't find their way into the mainstream programming languages as builtin types? The only that I know of that have builtin-support are the shader languages (HLSL, GLSL, Cg, ...) and I suppose the VectorC/C++-compiler. Instead the vector- and matrix-class is coded over and over again, with different 3D-libraries using their own implementation/interface. SIMD instructions are pretty 'old' now, but the compilers support them only through non-portable extensions, or handwritten assembly.Take a look at the vectorization suggestion on http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/index.php?it=10 on the wishlist http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/ this would give a standard way to write array expression. Years ago walter expresed that someting like this would be included in 2.0! Walter is this still your opinion ?I think the programming language of the future should have those builtin instead of in myriads of libraries. It would be nice if one of the Open Source D-compilers (GDC, LLVMDC) would implement such an extension to D in an experimental branch; don't know if it's easy to generate SIMD-code with the GCC backend, but LLVM is supposed to make it easy, right? Hopefully this extension could propagate after some time into the official D spec. Even if Walter won't touch the backend again, DMD could at least provide a software implementation (like for 64bit integer operations).Yes, an experimental compiler where the d community could experiment with new features is also a good idea. I think that all that it need is for someone to do it.

Dec 22 2007

Lukas Pinkowski wrote:

Dec 23 2007