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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
