Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(7)
Figure 7 shows the same information as Figure 6, but with O(N 3) matrix multiplication complexity.
Figure 7 HNN-TE and CTE normalized computational complexity for short channels and varying coded block length assuming O ( N c 3 ) HNN-TE matrix multiplication complexity.
Figure 6 HNN-TE and CTE normalized computational complexity for short channels and varying coded block length assuming O ( N c 2. 376 ) matrix multiplication complexity.
Figure 8 HNN-TE and CTE normalized computational complexity for long channels and N c = 1280 for both O ( N c 2. 376 ) and O ( N c 3 ) HNN-TE matrix multiplication complexity.
Therefore, it is clear that the block diagonal structure of P can reduce matrix multiplication complexity from O M 2 to O M 2 4 in comparison with the JET scheme.
The normalized computational complexity of the HNN-TE and the CTE (for O(N 2.376) and O(N 3) matrix multiplication complexity) for N c = 1280 using BPSK and 4-QAM for extremely long channels is shown in Figure 8, where there is no comparison between the complexity of the HNN-TE and that of the CTE, for both BSPK and 4-QAM modulation.
Similar(53)
The NDFT computes DFT directly at unequally spaced nodes in k using a Vendermode matrix [ 3] with a direct matrix multiplication of complexity O(M ), where M is the number of samples.
The total work is then O(N log N) where N is the dimension of the covariance matrix in contrast to the usual O N2) matrix-vector multiplication complexity.
Both parameter optimization and matrix multiplication have a complexity that is on the order of O (N 2 ), where N is the number of observations.
However, due to the fact that cubic complexity matrix multiplication is still preferred in practical applications due to ease of implementation, (46) serves as a lower bound on the HNN-TE computational complexity.
As a result, it can be approximated that the complexity of a complex matrix multiplication is four times of its real counterpart.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com