On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 18:01, David Goldsmith<d_l_goldsm...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > --- On Mon, 6/8/09, Anne Archibald <peridot.face...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > You can't, really. What you can do is just keep >> iterating with the >> > whole data set and ignore the parts that have already >> converged. Here >> > is an example: >> >> Well, yes and no. This is only worth doing if the number of >> problem >> points that require many iterations is small - not the case >> here >> without some sort of periodicity detection - but you can >> keep an array >> of not-yet-converged points, which you iterate. When some >> converge, >> you store them in a results array (with fancy indexing) and >> remove >> them from your still-converging array. > > Thanks, Anne. This is the way I had anticipated implementing it myself > eventually, but the "fancy-indexing" requirement has caused me to keep > postponing it, waiting for some time when I'll have a hefty block of time to > figure it out and then, inevitably, debug it. :( Also, the transfer of > points from un-converged to converged - when that's a large number, might > that not be a large time-suck compared to Rob's method? (Too bad this wasn't > posted a couple weeks ago: I'd've had time then to implement your method and > "race" it against Rob's, but alas, now I have this doc editing job...but > that's a good thing, as my fractals are not yet making me any real money.) :-)
The advantage of my implementation is that I didn't have to think too hard about it. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
