> it wasn't a fake argument at all. Your claim was that these Core 2 > benchmarks of Case's show that MPIR is only faster for multiplication > above 100000 digits and nothing else. But that is completely *false*, > (his benchmarks didn't show that at all - you lied, and his benchmarks > only included a small selection of things). > > Amazing how you just *completely ignored* the next_prime benchmark he > printed (let alone the other timings that were faster). Oh, and there > just happens to be around 800 lines of new code in MPIR for the > next_prime function!
Sorry, I did not see them, I glanced his results an I did notice what I wrote. I missed something, sorry again. > As Case checked, it returns the same answer as GMP up to > 100,000,000,000. So I very much doubt we are cheating! I'm not saying you are cheating with Case, I said your bench_two is cheating, and YOU used exactly that bench_two argument with me... I'm saying that you are cheating with me! So, please, do not change the subject. > See how generous I am! So generous that you try to take me from a subject where my point is strong and your is weak to a subject where you can hope to overwhelm me... I'll check on a dictionary the meaning of "generous". Anyway, do not worry, you can be as "generous" as you want. I'm not stupid. Gian.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
