On Friday 30 November 2007 00:31, Justin Bailey wrote:
I represent the automata as an array of integers, where each bit
represents a cell.
Mathematica uses a single arbitrary-precision integer to represent each
generation of a 1D automaton. The rules to derive the next generation are
compiled
On Nov 30, 2007 6:03 PM, Justin Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 9:11 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mathematica uses a single arbitrary-precision integer to represent each
generation of a 1D automaton. The rules to derive the next generation are
compiled into
On Nov 29, 2007 9:11 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mathematica uses a single arbitrary-precision integer to represent each
generation of a 1D automaton. The rules to derive the next generation are
compiled into arithmetic operations on the integer. The offloads all such
work onto
On Nov 29, 2007 4:45 PM, Felipe Lessa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you use an UArray of Bools? They're implemented as bit
arrays internally, AFAIK (e.g. see
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Shootout/Nsieve ). And then you
would get rid of a lot of shifts and masks in your code --
Justin Bailey wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 9:11 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mathematica uses a single arbitrary-precision integer to represent each
generation of a 1D automaton. The rules to derive the next generation are
compiled into arithmetic operations on the integer. The offloads
I posted awhile back asking for help improving my cellular automata
program. I am competing with a C program which evolves CAs using a
fairly simple genetic algorithm. The algorithm involves evaluating 100
rules on 100 CAs, 100 times. In C this takes about 1 second. In my
Haskell version, it takes
On Nov 29, 2007 10:31 PM, Justin Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I represent the automata as an array of integers, where each bit
represents a cell.
Why don't you use an UArray of Bools? They're implemented as bit
arrays internally, AFAIK (e.g. see