-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 444
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
"minor" typo: docs globally (?) misuse the term "minor" #848
Comments
I agree. A PR would be welcome. |
would it make sense to add a label "documentation bug" for such cases ? "bug" by itself suggests (to me) a serious coding error and unexpected results, not an English math semantics issue with the documentation. |
I've created a PR with #849 - surprisingly to me it has not been automatically linked here ... Anyway, I agree that a "documentation" tag would have made sense in this case. |
We could do that. Or maybe just use the label "Related: Documentation" in addition to (or even instead of) "Type: Bug". I don't have a strong opinion on that. |
I added the label |
I am not aware of a text that defines a minor to be a matrix. Hence I was bit surprised to read
here:
lapack/SRC/dpotrf.f
Lines 87 to 92 in cea4a63
Actually,
grep -n SRC/*.f -e "minor"
reveals many more instances ...AFAIK, a minor is a determinant and not a matrix (see, e.g., Aitken, 1944, p. 39; Horn and Johnson, 2013, p. 17; ...), and it is therefore nonsense to consider whether a minor is positive definite. Should the text be globally amended to
or
depending on context? It would be the former in the case of
DPOTRF
, at least according to Sylvester's criterion ...The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: