On Jun 15, 9:41 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 15, 12:10 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:43 pm, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Jun 15, 6:58 pm, Christian Meesters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > I do need speed. Is there an option? > > > > >> Mind telling us what you *actually* want to achieve? (What do you want > > > >> to > > > >> calculate?) > > > > >> Christian > > > > > Physical simulations of objects with near-lightspeed velocity. > > > > How did you determine that standard python floats are not good enough? > > > I have a physical system set up in which a body is supposed to > > accelerate and to get very close to lightspeed, while never really > > attaining it. After approx. 680 seconds, Python gets stuck and tells > > me the object has passed lightspeed. I put the same equations in > > Mathematica, again I get the same mistake around 680 seconds. So I > > think, I have a problem with my model! Then I pump up the > > WorkingPrecision in Mathematica to about 10. I run the same equations > > again, and it works! At least for the first 10,000 seconds, the object > > does not pass lightspeed. > > I concluded that I need Python to work at a higher precision. > > > > Everything beyond that is unlikely to be supported by the hardware and > > > will > > > therefore introduce a speed penalty. > > > I have thought of that as well. However I have no choice. I must do > > these calculations. If you know of any way that is supported by the > > hardware, it will be terrific, but for now the slower things will have > > to do. > > > > Did you try gmpy? > > > Not yet: I was kind of set back when I saw their homepage was last > > updated 2002. > > Try looking here: > > http://code.google.com/p/gmpy/ > > The developers have abandoned SourceForge. > > > But I'll give it a try. You think it's the best thing > > there is? > > I haven't tried everything, but it's very good. > You might also want to go to the GMP site itself > and get their manual. Likee anything else, your > results will be no better than your algorithms. > > > > > Thanks, > > Ram.
I'll check it out, thanks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
