On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 22:16 -0700, Justin C. Walker wrote: [...] > Checking partition count computation: > > On a Core 2 Duo 2.33 Mhz, computing the number of partitions of 10^9: > Mathematica 5.2 (PartitionsP[10^9]: 95.5115 s > Sage 2.7.2.1 (number_of_partitions(10^9): 125.2 s > Jon Bober's code (i386: 'jb 1000000000'): 160 s > > I wonder why our Core 2 Duo timings are so different? > > All of the executables are "i386" binaries (32-bit x86). > > One oddity: Jon Bober's code produced a value ending in > '30457526857797923685688339', while Mathematica and SAGE produced one > ending in '30457526831036667979062760', so they differ. >
Addendum to last email: It looks like the 2.7.2.1 is using the new code by default, so the 'sage' time above should be the time for the newest version of the code, so I'm going to assume that the other timing is for an old version of my code. (I running with algorithm='pari' right now and it is taking a really long time.) While I'm assuming things, I'm also going to assume that you must have mixed up the output values, and thus Mathematica must be producing the wrong answer, in which case its no longer fair to compare running times to Mathematica. (Of course, Mathematica does have the number ending in 339 in the Mathematica book.) > Justin > > -- > Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large > Institute for the Absorption of Federal Funds > ----------- > If it weren't for carbon-14, I wouldn't date at all. > ----------- > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
