Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I put a comment up on trac, but it boils down to
>>>
>>> sage: f = (x == 1)
>>> sage: g = (1 == x)
>>> sage: bool(f+g)
>>> True
>>> sage: ff = f._fast_float_('x') + g._fast_float_('x')
>>> sage: ff(0)
>>> 0.0
>>>
>>> but I think piecewise functions would be a good way to implement the
>>> desired functionality.
>> What sort of interface do you see with piecewise functions and the
>> _fast_float_ interface (i.e., what sort of opcodes?)
>
> Actually, given more thought, I think the opcodes you have chosen
> make sense, but there should be an "IF" opcode that operates on
> [true_val false_val test_val] as well which would allow for a full
> range of piecewise functions. (One could look at making conditional
> jumps so as to not calculate both sides of the expression, though
> this would be a fundamental change to the code. Hmm...)
>
A thought occurred to me when I looked at the fast_eval code: what's the
possibility of doing these sorts of computations on a GPU? Would it be
worth it? If I recall correctly, the limitation of those things is that
they are floating point, but, of course, that's the assumption in
fast_float.
GPU computations seem to fit the bill here also because these fast_float
operations generally are called on a huge range of data and could be
done in parallel.
Jason
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
