Re: CalcSharp
- From: Uncle Al <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:08:41 -0700
Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> On a sunny day (Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:04:45 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in <4325B52D.6666C54B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:36:55 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> >> <pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On a sunny day (Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:11:56 +0200) it happened Helmut Wabnig
> >> ><EmailAddress> wrote in <oh6bi1h5ph1pnkf2f6cnka2i21fe3rq1jj@xxxxxxx>:
> >> >
> >> >>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:43:03 +0200, Nik <nikola.stepan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>CalcSharp is .Net application that evaluates mathematical expressions
> >> >>>step by ste
> >> >>
> >> >> Tried (2 * 4)
> >> >>
> >> >>program only ask for registration, does not do any calculation,
> >> >>
> >> >>cannot evaluate,
> >> >>sorry.
> >> >Do not worry, I have the answer for you (2 * 4) is very close to 8.
> >> >How much precision do you want?
> >>
> >> Ahemmm....
> >> 1 e -13 please, to cope with Uncle Al's results :-)
> >
> >Long-double-precision is increasingly less supported in both compilers
> >and hardware.
> Google: 'arbitrary precision library'
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1.750.000 for arbitrary precision library (0,16 seconds)
Hey stooopid,
"arbitrary precision library" 10,800 hits
You were wrong by 1.74 million hits too many. No wonder you cant't
get out of a bathroom with your fly zipped.
Computation speed is important when CPU time varies as the 2/3 power
of the number of atoms and when we are talking 90,000 calculated
points to contain hundreds of quadrillions of contained atoms at the
end. Hardwired for long_double_precision is much faster than a
software implimentation.
Anybody outside of Project Head Start can program. Writing code that
continuously uses 99+% of CPU capacity with optimized loading,
threading, and internal flow within a minimal runtime compile requires
a code poet.
BigCHI running in an Athlon 55-FX/WinXP will give a mouse response
time of about 60-90 seconds' delay between click and effect. We're
probably not using a few transistors each cycle, but we aren't missing
many. CPU cache size and integration makes a huge difference. Intel
is such crap.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: markwh04
- Re: CalcSharp
- References:
- CalcSharp
- From: Nik
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Helmut Wabnig
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Jan Panteltje
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Helmut Wabnig
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: CalcSharp
- From: Jan Panteltje
- CalcSharp
- Prev by Date: Re: basic mechanics question
- Next by Date: Re: OT: The end of science and reason in US politics!
- Previous by thread: Re: CalcSharp
- Next by thread: Re: CalcSharp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|