That's interesting. I haven't done any speed comparisons. But it seems impossible that a carefully coded fixed-precision library should not be faster than a multi-precision library.
Did you use double-doubles when you got below 106 bits? I *have* made the assumption here that these guys know how to code efficiently. At some point, you are right, I should do some timings. At any rate, for my application, performance seems fine. It seems to be within a factor of two of what I could get with hand crafted purpose written code to do the same job. But it is definitely more convenient. Bill. On 1 Aug, 21:30, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 14:24 -0700, Bill Hart wrote: > > I do highly recommend this quad double library by the way. And they've > > implemented all manor of transcendental functions too!! The quad- > > doubles would give you 206 bits, even on your machine. > > > Bill. > > URLs:http://sage.scipy.org/sage/andhttp://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ > > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > Have you found the quad double library to be faster than mpfr, or just > more convenient? I tried using it in the partition counting code, and it > actually slowed things down when I used it for all computations between > 200 and 64 bits. Alternately, if I just use it between 200 and, say, 180 > bits, it gives almost no change in speed. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
