aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/report
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'report')
-rwxr-xr-x[-rw-r--r--]report/makefile0
-rwxr-xr-xreport/paper.md19
2 files changed, 18 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/report/makefile b/report/makefile
index afbac8d..afbac8d 100644..100755
--- a/report/makefile
+++ b/report/makefile
diff --git a/report/paper.md b/report/paper.md
index ef1e9c4..01984cc 100755
--- a/report/paper.md
+++ b/report/paper.md
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ and the there is a relation between the eigenvectors obtained: $\boldsymbol{u\te
Experimentally there is no consequential loss of data calculating the eigenvectors
for PCA when using the low dimensional method. The main advantages of it are reduced computation time,
-(since the two methods require on average respectively 3.4s and 0.11s), and complexity of computation
+(since the two methods require on average respectively 3.7s and 0.11s), and complexity of computation
(since the eigenvectors found with the first method are extracted from a significantly
bigger matrix).
@@ -504,6 +504,23 @@ We know that $S\boldsymbol{u\textsubscript{i}} = \lambda \textsubscript{i}\bolds
From here it follows that AA\textsuperscript{T} and A\textsuperscript{T}A have the same eigenvalues and their eigenvectors follow the relationship $\boldsymbol{u\textsubscript{i}} = A\boldsymbol{v\textsubscript{i}}$
+### Table of execution times of different methods
+
+\begin{table}[ht]
+\centering
+\begin{tabular}[t]{l|lll}
+\hline
+ & Best(s) & Worst(s) & Average(s) \\ \hline
+PCA & 3.5 & 3.8 & 3.7 \\
+PCA-F & 0.10 & 0.24 & 0.11 \\
+PCA-ALT & 1.0 & 1.3 & 1.1 \\
+LDA & 5.0 & 5.8 & 5.2 \\
+LDA-PCA & 0.11 & 0.19 & 0.13 \\ \hline
+\end{tabular}
+\caption{Comparison of execution times between different methods}
+\label{tab:time}
+\end{table}
+
## Code
All code and \LaTeX sources are available at: