Re: Parallelizing tasks

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-3, Gary Verhaegen wrote: > > The way the f function is written, there is no way to run it in > parallel, since it needs the previous answer. The best you can hope > for is to use two cores, one for a and one for b. > That was my goal at first, but you

Re: Parallelizing tasks

The way the f function is written, there is no way to run it in parallel, since it needs the previous answer. The best you can hope for is to use two cores, one for a and one for b. What you can do if you want to make it parallel is use the closed form, and create a lazy list of that closed form f

Re: Parallelizing tasks

On Apr 10, 2013, at 21:46 , Ulises wrote: > Have you tried replacing all your calls to map for pmap yet? That will not work. He'll need to rearrange his algorithm to something like this before pmap will help: (defn iterated-difference [f a b] "Yields a lazy seq of the differences between (

Re: Parallelizing tasks

Have you tried replacing all your calls to map for pmap yet? On 11 April 2013 03:33, Bruno Kim Medeiros Cesar wrote: > Hello. I am replicating the study made by John D. Cook in > thispost about exact > chaos in Clojure, using rational arit