Following up on my own post.
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 07:52:01 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:25:37 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
I stopped paying attention to mathematicians when they tried to
convince me that the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12.
[...]
In effect, the author
Mathematics?
The Flexible String Representation is a very nice example
of a mathematical absurdity.
jmf
PS Do not even think to expect to contradict me. Hint:
sheet of paper and pencil.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 5 March 2014 07:52, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:25:37 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
I stopped paying attention to mathematicians when they tried to convince
me that the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12.
I'm pretty sure they did not. Possibly a physicist
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:21:37 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
On 5 March 2014 07:52, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:25:37 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
I stopped paying attention to mathematicians when they tried to
convince me that the sum of all natural numbers is
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Physics is the fundamental science, at least according to the physicists,
and Real Soon Now they'll have a Theory Of Everything, something small
enough to print on a tee-shirt, which will explain
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
At one time, Euler summed an infinite series and got -1, from which he
concluded that -1 was (in some sense) larger than infinity. I don't know
what justification he gave, but the way I think of it is
On 2014-03-05, Chris Kaynor ckay...@zindagigames.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
At one time, Euler summed an infinite series and got -1, from which he
concluded that -1 was (in some sense) larger than infinity. I don't
On 5 March 2014 17:43, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 12:21:37 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
The argument that the sum of all natural numbers comes to -1/12 is just
some kind of hoax. I don't think *anyone* seriously believes it.
You would be
In article 53176225$0$29987$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Physics is the fundamental science, at least according to the physicists,
and Real Soon Now they'll have a Theory Of Everything, something small
enough to print on a
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:31:51 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
In article 53176225$0$29987$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Physics is the fundamental science, at least according to the
physicists, and Real Soon Now they'll have a Theory
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
They ask a computer programmer to adjudicate who is right, so he writes a
program to print out all the primes:
1 is prime
1 is prime
1 is prime
1 is prime
1 is prime
And he claimed that he was
On 2014-03-06, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article 53176225$0$29987$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Physics is the fundamental science, at least according to the
physicists, and Real Soon Now they'll have a Theory Of
In article 5317e640$0$29985$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 21:31:51 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
In article 53176225$0$29987$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
In constant space, that will produce the sum of two infinite sequences
of digits. (And it's constant time, too, except when it gets a stream
of nines. Adding three thirds together will produce an infinite loop
as it waits
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
def cf_sqrt(n):
Yield the terms of the square root of n as a continued fraction.
m = 0
d = 1
a = a0 = floor_sqrt(n)
while True:
yield a
next_m = d * a - m
next_d = (n - next_m
In article mailman.7702.1393932047.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
In constant space, that will produce the sum of two infinite sequences
of digits. (And it's constant time, too, except
In article mailman.7687.1393902132.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Albert van der Horst
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
No, the Python built-in float type works with a subset of real numbers:
To be more precise: a subset of
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 02:15:14 +, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Adding cf's adds all computable numbers in infinite precision. However
that is not even a drop in the ocean, as the computable numbers have
measure zero.
On the other hand, it's not really clear that the non-computable numbers
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:11:13 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 02:15:14 +, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Adding cf's adds all computable numbers in infinite precision. However
that is not even a drop in the ocean, as the computable numbers have
measure zero.
In article c39d5b44-6c7b-40d1-bbb5-791a36af6...@googlegroups.com,
Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot find the exact quote so from memory Weyl says something to this
effect:
Cantor's diagonalization PROOF is not in question.
Its CONCLUSION very much is.
The
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 23:25:37 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
I stopped paying attention to mathematicians when they tried to convince
me that the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12.
I'm pretty sure they did not. Possibly a physicist may have tried to tell
you that, but most mathematicians consider
In article mailman.6735.1392194885.18130.python-l...@python.org,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com writes:
I have yet to find any computer that works with the set of real
numbers
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Albert van der Horst
alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
No, the Python built-in float type works with a subset of real numbers:
To be more precise: a subset of the rational numbers, those with a denominator
that is a power of two.
And no more than N bits (53 in a
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:32:01 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
No, the Python built-in float type works with a subset of real numbers:
To be more precise: a subset of the rational numbers, those with a
denominator
that is a
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
But it's a far cry from all real numbers. Even allowing for
continued fractions adds only some more; I don't think you can
represent surds that way.
See
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 9:16:25 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
But it's a far cry from all real numbers. Even allowing for
continued fractions adds only some more; I don't think you can
represent surds that way.
See
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:46:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
That's neat, didn't know that. Is there an efficient way to figure out,
for any integer N, what its sqrt's CF sequence is? And what about the
square roots of non-integers - can you represent √π that way? I suspect,
though I can't
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:46:25 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
That's neat, didn't know that. Is there an efficient way to figure out,
for any integer N, what its sqrt's CF sequence is? And what about the
square roots of
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:49 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
The day you find an operator working on the set of
reals (R) and it is somehow optimized for N
(the subset of natural numbers), let me know.
I have yet to find any computer that works with the set of real
numbers in any way. Never
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com writes:
I have yet to find any computer that works with the set of real
numbers in any way. Never mind optimization, they simply cannot work
with real numbers.
Not *any* computer? Not in *any* way? The Python built-in ‘float’ type
“works with the set of real
Integers are integers. (1)
Characters are characters. (2)
(1) is a unique natural set.
(2) is an artificial construct working
with 3 sets (unicode).
jmf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com writes:
I have yet to find any computer that works with the set of real
numbers in any way. Never mind optimization, they simply cannot work
with real numbers.
Not *any* computer?
Le mercredi 12 février 2014 09:35:38 UTC+1, wxjm...@gmail.com a écrit :
Integers are integers. (1)
Characters are characters. (2)
(1) is a unique natural set.
(2) is an artificial construct working
with 3 sets (unicode).
jmf
Addendum: One should not confuse unicode and
Chris Angelico writes:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:49 PM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
The day you find an operator working on the set of
reals (R) and it is somehow optimized for N
(the subset of natural numbers), let me know.
...
In Python, integers have arbitrary precision, but floats,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jussi Piitulainen
jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi wrote:
In Python, integers have arbitrary precision, but floats, Fractions,
and Decimals, don't. Nearly any operation on arbitrarily large
numbers will be either more accurate or more efficient (maybe both)
with
Chris Angelico writes:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
What specific behaviour would, for you, qualify as “works with the
set of real numbers in any way”?
Being able to represent surds, pi, e, etc, for a start. It'd
theoretically be possible with an algebraic notation
Chris Angelico writes:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
In Python, integers have arbitrary precision, but floats, Fractions,
and Decimals, don't. Nearly any operation on arbitrarily large
numbers will be either more accurate or more efficient (maybe both)
with
On 12/02/2014 07:49, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le mardi 11 février 2014 20:04:02 UTC+1, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
On 11/02/2014 18:53, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le lundi 10 février 2014 15:43:08 UTC+1, Tim Chase a écrit :
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:34:42 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I ask you, members of the jury, to find the accused, jmf, guilty of
writing nonsense and deliberately using google groups to double line
space. The evidence is directly above and quite clearly prooves, beyond
a
On 12/02/2014 14:14, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:34:42 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I ask you, members of the jury, to find the accused, jmf, guilty of
writing nonsense and deliberately using google groups to double line
space. The evidence is directly above and
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:55:32 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 12/02/2014 14:14, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:34:42 PM UTC+5:30, Mark Lawrence wrote:
I ask you, members of the jury, to find the accused, jmf, guilty of
writing nonsense and deliberately
On 2014-02-12, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com writes:
I have yet to find any computer that works with the set of real
numbers in any way. Never mind optimization, they simply cannot work
with real numbers.
Not *any* computer? Not in *any* way?
Grant Edwards wrote:
Not *any* computer? Not in *any* way? The Python built-in float
type works with the set of real numbers, in a way.
The only people who think that are people who don't actualy _use_
floating point types on computers.
FPU parsing the IEEE spec, or?. I didn't quite parse
On 2014-02-10, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
On 2/10/14 9:43 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
The opposite of what the utf8/utf16 do!
sys.getsizeof(('a' * 100 + 'oe' +
'\U0001').encode('utf-8'))
123
sys.getsizeof(('a' * 100 + 'oe' +
'\U0001').encode('utf-16'))
Le lundi 10 février 2014 15:43:08 UTC+1, Tim Chase a écrit :
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does not save memory at all. A str (unicode string)
uses less memory only - and only - because and when one uses
explicitly characters which are consuming less memory.
On 11/02/2014 18:53, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le lundi 10 février 2014 15:43:08 UTC+1, Tim Chase a écrit :
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does not save memory at all. A str (unicode string)
uses less memory only - and only - because and when one uses
explicitly
Le mardi 11 février 2014 20:04:02 UTC+1, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
On 11/02/2014 18:53, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le lundi 10 février 2014 15:43:08 UTC+1, Tim Chase a écrit :
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does not save memory at all. A str (unicode string)
Le samedi 8 février 2014 03:48:12 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
We consider it A GOOD THING that Python spends memory for programmer
convenience and safety. Python looks for memory optimizations when it can
save large amounts of memory, not utterly trivial amounts. So in a Python
On Monday, February 10, 2014 4:07:14 PM UTC+2, wxjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting
sys.getsizeof('a' * 100)
here you get string type
sys.getsizeof(('a' * 100 + 'oe' + '\U0001').encode('utf-8'))
and here bytes
type ('a' * 1)
class 'str'
type(('a' * 100 + 'oe' +
On 10/02/2014 14:25, Asaf Las wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 4:07:14 PM UTC+2, wxjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting
sys.getsizeof('a' * 100)
here you get string type
sys.getsizeof(('a' * 100 + 'oe' + '\U0001').encode('utf-8'))
and here bytes
type ('a' * 1)
class
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does not save memory at all. A str (unicode string)
uses less memory only - and only - because and when one uses
explicitly characters which are consuming less memory.
Not only the memory gain is zero, Python falls back to the
worse
On 2/10/14 9:43 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-02-10 06:07, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Python does not save memory at all. A str (unicode string)
uses less memory only - and only - because and when one uses
explicitly characters which are consuming less memory.
Not only the memory gain is zero,
On 08/02/2014 02:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 05:51:54 -0800, wxjmfauth wrote:
Sorry, I'm only pointing you may lose memory when working with short
strings as it was explained. I really, very really, do not see what is
absurd or obsure in:
sys.getsizeof('abc' + 'EURO')
46
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
On 08/02/2014 02:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 05:51:54 -0800, wxjmfauth wrote:
Sorry, I'm only pointing you may lose memory when working with short
strings as it was explained. I really, very
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:15:50 AM UTC+5:30, David Hutto wrote:
One could argue that if you're parsing a particular file, a very large one,
that those 9 bytes can go into the optimization of parsing aforementioned
file. Of, course we have faster processors, so why care?
Because it goes
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:15:50 AM UTC+5:30, David Hutto wrote:
One could argue that if you're parsing a particular file, a very large
one, that those 9 bytes can go into the optimization of parsing
aforementioned
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, David Hutto dwightdhu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes... There are cases when python is an inappropriate language to use...
So???
I didn't say she couldn't optimize in another language, and was just
prototyping in Python. I just said she was optimizing her python
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:56 PM, David Hutto dwightdhu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes... There are cases when python is an inappropriate language to
use...
So???
I didn't say she couldn't optimize in another language,
On 2/8/14 9:56 PM, David Hutto wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com
mailto:rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:15:50 AM UTC+5:30, David Hutto wrote:
One could argue that if you're parsing a particular file, a very
large
Maybe I'll just roll my fat, bald, troll arse out from under the bridge,
and comment back, off list, next time.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2/8/14 10:09 PM, David Hutto wrote:
Maybe I'll just roll my fat, bald, troll arse out from under the bridge,
and comment back, off list, next time.
I'm not sure what happened in this thread. It might be that you think
Rustom Mody was referring to you when he said, BTW: In my book this
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:46:50 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 2/8/14 10:09 PM, David Hutto wrote:
Maybe I'll just roll my fat, bald, troll arse out from under the bridge,
and comment back, off list, next time.
I'm not sure what happened in this thread. It might be that you
On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 05:51:54 -0800, wxjmfauth wrote:
Sorry, I'm only pointing you may lose memory when working with short
strings as it was explained. I really, very really, do not see what is
absurd or obsure in:
sys.getsizeof('abc' + 'EURO')
46
sys.getsizeof(('abc' +
On 02/07/2014 06:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That is not a trade-off that the core developers have chosen to make,
and I agree with them.
Even though you haven't broken all the build-bots yet, you can still stop saying
them. ;)
--
~Ethan~
--
Le mercredi 5 février 2014 12:44:47 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
where stopWords.txt is a file of size 4KB
My guess is that if you split a 4K file into words, then put the words
into
On 2/6/14 5:15 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
sum([sys.getsizeof(c) for c in ['a', 'a EURO', 'aa EURO']*3])
336
sum([sys.getsizeof(c) for c in ['aa EURO aa EURO']*3])
150
sum([sys.getsizeof(c.encode('utf-32')) for c in ['a', 'a EURO', 'aa EURO']*3])
261
Le jeudi 6 février 2014 12:10:08 UTC+1, Ned Batchelder a écrit :
On 2/6/14 5:15 AM, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
sum([sys.getsizeof(c) for c in ['a', 'a EURO', 'aa EURO']*3])
336
sum([sys.getsizeof(c) for c in ['aa EURO aa EURO']*3])
150
Some mysterious problem with the euro.
Let's take a real French char.
sys.getsizeof('abc' + 'œ')
46
sys.getsizeof(('abc' + 'œ').encode('utf-32'))
37
or a German char, ẞ
sys.getsizeof('abc' + '\N{LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S}')
46
sys.getsizeof(('abc' + '\N{LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP
Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:51:31 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
Where am I going wrong? What are the alternatives I can try?
You've rejected all the alternatives so far without showing
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:35:05 -0800, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-02-04 14:21, Dave Angel wrote:
To get the total size of a list of strings, try (untested):
a = sys.getsizeof (mylist )
for item in mylist:
a
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
where stopWords.txt is a file of size 4KB
My guess is that if you split a 4K file into words, then put the words
into a list, you'll probably end up with 6-8K in memory.
I'd guess rather more; Python
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-02-04 14:21, Dave Angel wrote:
To get the total size of a list of strings, try (untested):
a = sys.getsizeof (mylist )
for item in mylist:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:13:34 PM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-02-04 14:21, Dave Angel wrote:
To get the total size of a list of
On 05/02/2014 14:33, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
Please stop sending double line spaced messages, just follow the
instructions here https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython to
prevent this happening, thanks.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you
Hello,
I have 10 files and I need to merge them (using K way merging). The size of
each file is around 200 MB. Now suppose I am keeping the merged data in a
variable named mergedData, I had thought of checking the size of mergedData
using sys.getsizeof() but it somehow doesn't gives the actual
Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
I have 10 files and I need to merge them (using K way merging). The size
of each file is around 200 MB. Now suppose I am keeping the merged data in
a variable named mergedData, I had thought of checking the size of
mergedData using sys.getsizeof() but it somehow doesn't
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:10:25 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Otten wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
I have 10 files and I need to merge them (using K way merging). The size
of each file is around 200 MB. Now suppose I am keeping the merged data in
a variable named mergedData, I had thought
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:43:21 PM UTC+2, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
As I said, I need to merge large files and I cannot afford more I/O
operations. So in order to minimise the I/O operation I am writing in
chunks. Also, I need to use the merged files as indexes later which
should be
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
getsizeof() gives you the size of the list only; to complete the picture you
have to add the sizes of the lines.
However, why do you want to keep track of the actual memory used by
variables in your script? You should
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:39:00 PM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
getsizeof() gives you the size of the list only; to complete the picture
you
have to add the sizes of the lines.
However, why do
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:23:19 PM UTC+5:30, Asaf Las wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:43:21 PM UTC+2, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
As I said, I need to merge large files and I cannot afford more I/O
operations. So in order to minimise the I/O operation I am writing in
On 2014-02-04 14:21, Dave Angel wrote:
To get the total size of a list of strings, try (untested):
a = sys.getsizeof (mylist )
for item in mylist:
a += sys.getsizeof (item)
I always find this sort of accumulation weird (well, at least in
Python; it's the *only* way in many other
On 04/02/2014 19:21, Dave Angel wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
Where am I going wrong? What are the alternatives I can try?
You've rejected all the alternatives so far without showing your
code, or even properly specifying your problem.
To get the
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:36:48 PM UTC+5:30, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 05:19:48 -0800 (PST), Ayushi Dalmia
ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com declaimed the following:
I need to chunk out the outputs otherwise it will give Memory Error. I need
to do some
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:51:31 AM UTC+5:30, Dave Angel wrote:
Ayushi Dalmia ayushidalmia2...@gmail.com Wrote in message:
Where am I going wrong? What are the alternatives I can try?
You've rejected all the alternatives so far without showing your
code, or even
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:59:46 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Chase wrote:
On 2014-02-04 14:21, Dave Angel wrote:
To get the total size of a list of strings, try (untested):
a = sys.getsizeof (mylist )
for item in mylist:
a += sys.getsizeof (item)
I always find this
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:05:05 AM UTC+5:30, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
This also doesn't gives the true size. I did the following:
import sys
data=[]
f=open('stopWords.txt','r')
for line in f:
line=line.split()
data.extend(line)
print sys.getsizeof(data)
where stopWords.txt
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:15:09 AM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:05:05 AM UTC+5:30, Ayushi Dalmia wrote:
This also doesn't gives the true size. I did the following:
import sys
data=[]
f=open('stopWords.txt','r')
for line in f:
88 matches
Mail list logo
