Re: GSOC 16, Improvements to sqrtm,logm and funm

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 14:09 +0100, Marco Caliari wrote:
> In my humble opinion what is left is not enough for a GSOC. Jordi,
> you are indicated a potential mentor, what do you think? Carnë?

I think there's still lots of work to be done. Although Higham has
published a lot of code, there are still things to be done. Not all of
the work he and his colleagues have published has made it into free
code; a lot of it is only in proprietary Matlab code. This includes
some of the most interesting things, such as the funm function. We are
in effect reproducing many years of work by a large team of
researchers. We're lucky that the papers all published; "all" that has
to be done is distill the knowledge into Octave code. There's plenty
of meat here for a GSoC project and beyond.

For example, how much more work is there before the `mft_test` command
available here passes on Octave? How about making it pass with speed
comparable to Matlab?

    http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~higham/mftoolbox/

This seems like a very nice, concrete goal to aim for. What do you
think?

- Jordi G. H.