I'm very concerned about speed. Thank you for sharing your code. On 2/3/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Timothy Clemans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Wow! Now thats cool. I'm going to time test them. Thanks > > I had some trouble with copying and pasting your procedure in SAGE (because > I use it in Windows through cygwin and rxvt with Unix line endings and my > email has Windows line endings and convert it to Unix by creating a text > file and then using dos2unix on it seemed to be too much trouble). So I > modified your procedure to plain Python by changing ^ to ** in 2 places and > changing the end line in it to return square. > > After that I did timing in IDLE using the print_timing decorator from > http://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet368.html . > > It appears that Siamese_magic_square is about 4-5 times faster than > magicsquare_normal_odd. > > Actually, if the time is important, it can be made even faster by changing > the j range (that reduces the number of operations). In SAGE form that looks > like > > def Siamese_magic_square(n): > return matrix([[j%n*n+(j+j-i)%n+1 > for j in range(i+(1-n)/2,i+(n+1)/2)] for i in range(n)]) > > That makes it about 6-7 times faster than magicsquare_normal_odd (in IDLE, > without matrix - I didn't test that in SAGE and I don't know how the matrix > construction works there - in particular, whether adding the size of the > matrix would make it faster.) > > Alec Mihailovs > http://mihailovs.com/Alec/ > > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@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-support URLs: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ and http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
