Byungchul Cha wrote:
>
> Thanks for all of your help. I did
>
> 1. Importing sin and cos using "from math import sin, cos"
> 2. Removing pi and sqrt out of the loops, following Jason's
> suggestion:
> twopi = 2*n(pi); mystep = twopi/n(sqrt(number_of_points))
>
By the way, RR(pi) is faster tha
Thanks for all of your help. I did
1. Importing sin and cos using "from math import sin, cos"
2. Removing pi and sqrt out of the loops, following Jason's
suggestion:
twopi = 2*n(pi); mystep = twopi/n(sqrt(number_of_points))
and I got CPU time: 0.21 s, Wall time: 0.25 s. This looks much
reasona
Byungchul Cha wrote:
>
> I am using sage for my calc III students. The following short code
> produces about 500 points on a sphere.
>
> pts=[]; number_of_points=500
> for t1 in srange(0, pi, n(pi/sqrt(number_of_points))):
> for t2 in srange(0, 2*pi, n(2*pi/sqrt(number_of_points))):
> pts.
Marshall Hampton wrote:
> I think the culprit is the "pi" in the srange, which gets Maxima too
> involved (and maxima as called through sage is slow). This may
> improve very soon as there is some work being done to shift basic
> symbolic things like "pi" to a more python-based backend.
>
> Anyw
I think the culprit is the "pi" in the srange, which gets Maxima too
involved (and maxima as called through sage is slow). This may
improve very soon as there is some work being done to shift basic
symbolic things like "pi" to a more python-based backend.
Anyway for the moment you can avoid this
