Use FMM or FFT for low-discrepancy sample of atoms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1a2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atoms Fft
1a2
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
To complete my Master's thesis, I am working on a problem that deals with an arrangement of initial atoms, and their positions are then changed according to a pseudo-random number generator with low discrepancy. My advisor told me that instead of computing the interactions between the atoms for each sample (which would take M*N), I could use an algorithm to make it faster (M+N). He told me to just google it

I'm not sure what algorithm can do this. I'm guessing either the FMM, FFT, or Multilevel FMM would be the algorithm. I thought FFT might work since its used for equispaced points, but we are not dealing with time/frequency here. And I don't see how FMM or Multilevel FMM deal with equispaced points.

Any ideas?
 
What do you want to calculate? "The interactions" is a very vague description.

How does their distribution look like?
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Back
Top