Just to make it clear...
               _
julia> versioninfo()
Julia Version 0.3.8
Commit 79599ad (2015-04-30 23:40 UTC)
Platform Info:
  System: Windows (x86_64-w64-mingw32)
  CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  BLAS: libopenblas (USE64BITINT DYNAMIC_ARCH NO_AFFINITY Sandybridge)
  LAPACK: libopenblas
  LIBM: libopenlibm
  LLVM: libLLVM-3.3

julia> Base.SparseMatrix.CHOLMOD
ERROR: CHOLMOD not defined


On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-3, Eduardo Lenz wrote:
>
> Funny... I dont have CHOLMOD installed...but I am using the official 
> windows installer.. I will try to make a fresh install. 
>
> Thanks Andreas !
>
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-3, Andreas Noack wrote:
>>
>> What do you get when you type Base.SparseMatrix.CHOLMOD.ITypes in the 
>> terminal?
>>
>> 2015-05-27 13:56 GMT-04:00 Eduardo Lenz <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Thanks Andreas.
>>>
>>> Indeed ... but I am using 0.4 with ldltfact and it is complaining about 
>>> the type of the matrix, which is OK. 
>>>
>>> I am realy confused with this error.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 2:22:30 PM UTC-3, Andreas Noack wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In 0.3 the sparse LDLt and Cholesky factorizations are both in the 
>>>> cholfact function. If the matrix is symmetric, but not positive definite 
>>>> the result of cholfact will be an LDLt factorization. In 0.4 the 
>>>> factorizations have been split into cholfact and ldltfact.
>>>>
>>>> Den onsdag den 27. maj 2015 kl. 12.34.30 UTC-4 skrev Eduardo Lenz:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am trying to solve a linear system defined by a Symmetric sparse 
>>>>> matrix. The lufact is working well, but as the matrix is symmetric, I 
>>>>> intend to use ldltfact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, it is returning the following error:
>>>>>
>>>>> ERROR: `ldltfact` has no method matching 
>>>>> ldltfact(::SparseMatrixCSC{Float64,Int64})
>>>>>
>>>>> but my matrix is reported as 
>>>>>
>>>>> typeof(A)
>>>>> SparseMatrixCSC{Float64,Int64}.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it an error or Im doing something wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Eduardo.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Reply via email to