- Join over
**1.5M+ people** - Join over
**100K+ communities** - Free
**without limits** - Create
**your own community**

- 11:46
mforets on gh-pages

build based on 6d016818 (compare)

- 11:09
mforets on halfspace_docs

- 11:09
mforets on master

Update HalfSpace.jl (#1992) (compare)

- 11:09mforets closed #1992
- 10:02
schillic on JuMP

support new versions of JuMP/Poβ¦ (compare)

- 08:42
mforets on gh-pages

build based on e6aaa098 (compare)

- 08:00
schillic on 1638

- 08:00
schillic on master

faster Interval conversion exact interval overapproximatioβ¦ Merge pull request #1976 from Jβ¦ (compare)

- 08:00schillic closed #1976
- 08:00schillic closed #1638
- 03:43
mforets on gh-pages

build based on 0e829819 (compare)

- 03:07
github-actions[bot] on v1.29.0

- 03:06mforets review_requested #175
- 02:49mforets review_requested #178
- 02:45
mforets on gh-pages

build based on 0e829819 (compare)

- 02:13JuliaRegistrator commented #1332
- 02:12mforets commented #1332

I can "speed up" the code by omitting to remove the redundant constraints

by adding the constraints like this.

there is an optional kwarg for this: `prune=false`

perhaps my question is: what is the result (set type) of

`minkowski_difference(P, W)`

using LazySets

```
function maximal_RPI_set(S, π²::LazySet, π::LazySet)
S_inv = inv(S)
π« = π
k = 0
while true
k +=1
# concrete set operations (S_invβ
π« β π²) β© π
π«βΊ = intersection(linear_map(S_inv, minkowski_difference(π«,π²)), π)
if (π«βΊ β π« && π« β π«βΊ)
break
end
π« = π«βΊ
end
return π«, k
end
n = 2
W = BallInf(zeros(n), 0.25)
D = BallInf(zeros(n), 5.0)
# Schur Matrix S
S = [0.755 0.7; 0.0 0.75]
@time maximal_RPI_set(S, W, D)
```

where $X$ is the minkowski difference

And also, I'd like to figure out, how the computational complexity of

And to do that, I first wanted to have a really performant code.

`linear_map`

growths with the number of constraints?And to do that, I first wanted to have a really performant code.

can't we use the information to quickly compute the action of the linear map to the HPOlytope

i think we had an open issue for this

@schillic this was your idea ?

For example, for the

Or does it make totally sense, that the

`minkowski_difference`

I know that I solve #constraint linear programs (therefore, it is linear in the number of constraints) and I was surprised, that the `linear_map`

does take significantly more time than the `minkowski_differnence`

and now, I try to figure out why exactly.Or does it make totally sense, that the

`linear_map`

takes more time?
they are very fast if the sets are zonotopic

since then linear maps are just the action over the generators

yes, to have an option to pass the inverted matrix

if the matrix is invertible then the linear map can be computed *without* passing to the vrep

it is easy, just see how it transforms each constraints

in the general case (the matrix is not invertible) you have to pass to the vertex representation and this can be expensive

`linear_map`

inverts again
there should be an option to pass

`S`

directly
and still

if we pass

`S`

to `linear_map`

there should be an option to pass S directly

maybe our messages crossed

because you just pass it to

`linear_map`

but would not use it
because you know it's invertible and the inverse is

`S`