Hi Danny, Yes, makes perfect sense, hmmm... there's probably a way to avoid so many sqrt calls.
How do you like Go? How is the performance on this code? Thanks, -joe On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Danny Yoo <[email protected]> wrote: > Some of the involved numbers are bigger than can be represented in 32 > bits. Therefore, the computation on 32 bit platforms will need to use more > software-emulated bigintegers to perform the computation successfully, and > that's where the performance difference is coming from. > > > I played with this by rewriting the code in another language, Go, just out > of curiosity: > > https://gist.github.com/dyoo/5708928 > > If we switch out the representation from int64 to int32, for example, > we'll see that the result is wrong. So it's very much a data > representation issue. > > > The sum you're accumulating altogether is: > > 15981747679237090 > > which is an integer that's much bigger than natively representable with 32 > bits. >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
