On 2009-02-11 08:01:29 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> said:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:41:25 +1000, Gerhard Weis wrote:
btw. the timeings are not that different for the naive recursion in OP's
version and yours.
fib(500) on my machine:
OP's: 0.00116 (far away from millions of years)
This here: 0.000583
I don't believe those timings are credible. On my machine, it took a
minute to calculate fib(38), and while my machine isn't exactly the
fastest box possible, nor is it especially slow.
I don't wish to imply that you are deliberately lying, but your result of
0.00116 seconds for the naive version of fib(500) is so unrealistic in my
experience that I believe you must be confused. Perhaps you've timed a
less naive fib() but thought it was the naive version.
Unless somebody can point out an error in my analysis, I'm sticking to my
earlier claim that the naive version of fib(500) requires an unbelievably
huge number of function calls: significantly more than the value of fib
(500) itself. See my earlier post in this thread for details.
I am sorry for the wrong timing, I mixed up the function names. The
naive version used partly your version and partly the naive recursion.
So less naive is a good description :)
after fixing it:
naive fib(38): ~40seconds
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
