On Aug 23, 12:24 am, Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
>
> So, over QQ, MMA is slightly faster, but over finite fields Sage
> clearly wins? That is already something worth pointing out.
>
I'm not a mma expert, but since they have no system in place to define
the ring it's noteworthy to stick the finger where it hurts ... Here
is another very simple one: multiply and add random boolean matrices:
sage: m1 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000)
sage: m2 = random_matrix(GF(2), 1000, 1000)
sage: %timeit 'm1 * m2'
10000000 loops, best of 3: 31.2 ns per loop
sage: %timeit 'm1 + m2'
10000000 loops, best of 3: 31.2 ns per loop
In[15]:= m1 := RandomInteger[{0,1},{1000, 1000}]
In[16]:= m2 := RandomInteger[{0,1},{1000, 1000}]
In[17]:= Timing[Mod[m1.m2, 2]][[1]]
Out[17]= 30.7219
In[18]:= Timing[Mod[m1+m2, 2]][[1]]
Out[18]= 0.060003
One might argue, that mathematica isn't "designed" for this kind of
calculations, but on the other hand, they call themselves
"mathematica" with a touch of being an universal tool, and that's just
a basic operation. I'm sure, there are plenty of mma users in the wild
doing such calculations!
H
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
