On Jan 28, 2009, at 18:07, Jon Harrop wrote: > I disagree. The most obvious generalization of FMM (and the one > presented in > my books OCaml for Scientists and F# for Scientists) is the > hierarchical > spatial decomposition of general contributions rather than just > poles. That
I agree that hierarchical spatial decomposition is a much more general concept that has lots of applications. I don't agree that it is a generalization of FMM. Hierarchical spatial decomposition is only one aspect of FMM, another being the existence and use of bounds on the error of the numerical approximation. The evaluation of these bounds depends on the mathematical form of the interactions. I don't expect them to carry over to arbitrary forms of interactions, though I'd like to be proven wrong. It may be possible to derive error bounds for other forms of interactions as well, but unless they are also based on a multipole expansion, the use of the name FMM would be confusing. Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
