On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:01:11 -0800 (PST), Xah Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Dec 8, 4:56 pm, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Xah Lee wrote: >> > A moron, wrote: >> > > You failed the challenge that you were given. >> >> > you didn't give me a challenge. >> >> Thomas gave you the challenge: >> >> "What I want in return is you to execute and time Dr. Harrop's original >> code, posting the results to this thread... By Dr. Harrop's original code, >> I specifically mean the code he posted to this thread. I've pasted it below >> for clarity.". >> >> Thomas even quoted my code verbatim to make his requirements totally >> unambiguous. Note the parameters [9, 512, 4] in the last line that he and I >> both gave: >> >> AbsoluteTiming[Export["image.pgm", [EMAIL PROTECTED]@Main[9, 512, 4]]] >> >> You have not posted timings of that, let alone optimized it. So you failed. > >The first parameter to your Main specifies some kinda recursively >stacked spheres in the rendered image. The second parameter is the >width and height of the pixels in the rendered image. > >I tried to run them but my computer went 100% cpu and after i recall 5 >min its still going. So, i reduced your input. In the end, with >reduced input, it shows my code is 5 times faster (running Mathematica >v4 on OS X 10.4.x with PPC 1.9 GHz), and on the other guy's computer >with Mathematica 6 he says it's twice as fast. > >Given your code's nature, it is reasonably to assume that with your >original input my code would still be faster than yours. You claim it >is not or that it is perhaps just slightly faster? > >It is possible you are right. I don't want to spend the energy to run >your code and my code and possible hog my computer for hours or >perhaps days. As i said, your recursive Intersect is very badly >written Mathematica code. It might even start memory swapping. > >Also, all you did is talking bullshit. Thomas actually is the one took >my challenge to you and gave me $20 to prove my argument to YOU. His >requirement, after the payment, is actually, i quote: > >«Alright, I've sent $20. The only reason I would request a refund is >if you don't do anything. As long as you improve the code as you've >described and post the results, I'll be satisfied. If the improvements >you've described don't result in better performance, that's OK.» > >He haven't posted since nor emailed me. It is reasonable to assume he >is satisfied as far as his payment to me to see my code goes. > >You, kept on babbling. Now you say that the input is different. Fine. >How long does that input actually take on your computer? If days, i'm >sorry i cannot run your toy code on my computer for days. If in few >hours, i can then run the code overnight, and if necessary, give you >another version that will be faster with your given input to shut you >the fuck up. > >However, there's cost to me. What do i get to do your homework? It is >possible, that if i spend the energy and time to do this, then you >again refuse to acknowledge it, or kept on complaining about something >else. > >You see, newsgroup is the bedrock of bullshit. You bullshit, he >bullshits, everybody brags and bullshit because there is no stake. I >want sincerity and responsibility backed up, with for example paypal >deposits. You kept on bullshitting, Thomas gave me $20 and i produced >a code that reasonably demonstrated at least how unprofessional your >Mathematica code was. > >Here's the deal. Pay me $20, then i'll creat a version of Mathematica >code that has the same input as yours. Your input is Main[9, 512, 4], >as i have exposed, your use of interger in the last part for numerical >computation is Mathematica incompetence. You didn't acknowledge even >this. I'll give a version of Mathematica with input Main[9, 512, 4.] >that will run faster than yours. If not, money back guaranteed. Also, >pay me $300, then i can produce a Mathematica version no more than 10 >times slower than your OCaml code, this should be a 70000 times >improvement according to you. Again, money back guarantee. > >If i don't receive $20 or $300, this will be my last post to you in >this thread. You are just a bullshitter. > >O wait... my code with Main[9, 512, 4.] and other numerical changes >already makes your program run faster regardless of the input size. >What a motherfucking bullshit you are. Scratch the $20. The $300 >challenge still stands firm. > > Xah >? http://xahlee.org/ > >? Ad hominem -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
