On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 04:33:49PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > though the less-recursive function is slightly slower (as expected).
>
> Oops, forget that! Not "as expected" ... the opposite would be expected.
> But the values are very close anyway.
One more oops!!
Though it doesn't matter
Hi Samuel,
> (bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3 8000))) (64-bit Ersatz on Java 8, before
> =0 and length invocation removal)
> 9.625 sec
>
> (bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3 8000))) (64-bit Ersatz on Java 8, after
> =0 invocation removal)
> 4.981 sec
>
> (bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3 8000
Re: side-note
(bench (length (ack4 3 8000))) (32-bit Cygwin)
0.070 sec
(bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3 8000))) (32-bit Cygwin)
2.010 sec
(bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3 8000))) (64-bit Ersatz on Java 8, before
=0 and length invocation removal)
9.625 sec
(bench (length (trampoline ack/t 3
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:33:54PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
>: (bench (ack 4 1))
>249.465 sec
>-> 65533
>
>: (bench (ack2 4 1))
>252.487 sec
>-> 65533
>
> though the less-recursive function is slightly slower (as expected).
Oops, forget that! Not "as expected" ... t
Hi all,
I didn't bother with trampolines so far, but add some comments to
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:00:20AM +0800, Samuel Dennis Borlongan wrote:
> ...
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12186672/how-can-i-prevent-my-ackerman-function-from-overflowing-the-stack
> ...
The bad thing with overfl
Hi Samuel,
> (de trampoline (F . @)
good idea, that looks better than having to pass the arguments as a
list.
> #
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12186672/how-can-i-prevent-my-ackerman-function-from-overflowing-the-stack
>
> (de ack/t (M N R S)
> (default R '())
> (if (> (length R) 0)
