I've indeed opened an issue for this :
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/8090 . Recently, I've included the
LAPACK routines into SciPy dev version that will come with version 0.19.
Then you can use ?GECON, ?POCON and other ?XXCON routines for yourself or
wait a bit more until I have time to implement it on the SciPy side.

@rkern told me that for NumPy, C translations are involved but I couldn't
find an entrance point to contribute for yet. It's a bit above my abilities
to fully grasp the way of working in NumPy. You can read more in


On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Edward Richards <edwardlricha...@gmail.com>

> What is the best way to make sure that a matrix inversion makes any sense
> before preforming it? I am currently struggling to understand some results
> from matrix inversions in my work, and I would like to see if I am dealing
> with an ill-conditioned problem. It is probably user error, but I don't
> like having the possibility hanging over my head.
> I naively put a call to np.linalg.cond into my code; all of my cores went
> to 100% and a few minutes later I got a number. To be fair A is 6400
> elements square, but this takes ~20x more time than the inversion. This is
> not really practical for what I am doing, is there a better way?
> This is partly in response to Ilhan Polat's post about introducing the A\b
> operator to numpy. I also couldn't check the Numpy mailing list archives to
> see if this has been asked before, the numpy-discussion gmane link isn't
> working for me at all.
> Thanks for your time,
> Ned
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Reply via email to