|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2014-9-28. : 2:51 am]  O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I just always forget about the precomputed data because I just throw it in an MPQ that gets shoved on to the EXE, load it in to a variable, and never think about it again  [2014-9-28. : 2:50 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Oh, wait, I do in fact do a bit of optimization ... TinyMap has a bunch of precomputed data and stuff, and other programs of mine will also load or generate look-up tables at startup.[2014-9-28. : 2:45 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Because I don't feel like I did anything to optimize it, I just did the necessary steps for doing what needs to be done. ;o[2014-9-28. : 2:45 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I remember saving with like Uberation or tools way before that and it'd take forever and have to have a loading bar.[2014-9-28. : 2:45 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- It's really fast, and it being so fast has always made me really question why and how old programs took so long to load/process. xD[2014-9-28. : 2:44 am] Moose -- Indeed, but I wouldn't care if something like TinyMap took 2.5 seconds instead of 2 seconds to compress a map. (I can't even guess an accurate time because it's sufficiently fast)[2014-9-28. : 2:44 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Optimizing while still using modern hardware means you get to do even more polies per frame![2014-9-28. : 2:43 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: I feel as though the increasing power of hardware has made many optimizations less useful. Less useful, except it still has its place when you're doing like millions of matrix calculations per frame. xD[2014-9-28. : 2:40 am] sigsaucy -- or you can do fancy stuff like decomposing A into a lower and upper triangular matrix which makes it easier to solve[2014-9-28. : 2:38 am]  Jack -- Because of this, optimizations are becoming more important, particularly for big number-crunching programs.[2014-9-28. : 2:38 am] sigsaucy -- this is probably easier, but if you want to solve many Ax =b problems, its more efficient just to solve for A inverse once[2014-9-28. : 2:38 am] Jack -- Desktop processing power has plateaued, due in part to the difficulty of making smaller silicon dies. While there are still advances to be made in the areas of superconductors and quantum computing, many of the speed increases have come from parallel processing and CPU optimizations in the past few years, rather than a simple increase of the number of transistors on a CPU.[2014-9-28. : 2:37 am] sigsaucy -- or just do the way people learn in basic algebra where you add the two equations and substitute and manipulate[2014-9-28. : 2:37 am] sigsaucy -- either solve for A inverse, this might take longer but it will let you solve Ax =b quickly for multiple b easily[2014-9-28. : 2:35 am] Moose -- Oh well, I guess this is why they'll pay fat stacks to low latency programmers who want to game fractional seconds on the stock markets trollololol[2014-9-28. : 2:35 am] Moose -- Though Project Euler was at least good for that. There were a lot of things I knew how to solve, it was just a matter of getting an algorithm that was actually fast enough.[2014-9-28. : 2:34 am] Moose -- Of course it depends on how intense what you're doing is, but something that took minutes to run on old hardware may take a fraction of a second now, so why bother with optimizing it?[2014-9-28. : 2:33 am] Moose -- I feel as though the increasing power of hardware has made many optimizations less useful.[2014-9-28. : 2:32 am] Jack -- That's not true for all CS majors to be fair, majority are like that though with a bachelors[2014-9-28. : 2:31 am] Jack -- We're like engineers, maths is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself[2014-9-28. : 2:30 am] Jack -- maybe CS phd/masters, or those who took a maths minor and did a lot of 3D[2014-9-28. : 2:27 am] Moose -- Or, if you're just programming and want to see how to solve problems, you could just get a Schaum's outline and do problems, lel[2014-9-28. : 2:24 am] Moose -- http://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW-2014-09.pdf Chapters 1, 2, 3 should more than cover an undergrad Linear Algebra course[2014-9-28. : 2:21 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- All this time spent talking about it, I could've learned it by now. [2014-9-28. : 2:20 am] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- lil-Infernolil-Inferno shouted: Also I forget everything from linear algebra. Instead have transferred it to me, since I need linear algebra for my programming  [2014-9-28. : 2:00 am] Moose -- I would be very surprised if they got into finding an optimal general solution for that in an intro class.[2014-9-28. : 2:00 am] Moose -- In most introductory linear algebra classes, they aren't going to teach you more than finding the inverse for general cases[2014-9-28. : 1:51 am] Moose -- Though you said most efficient way, I just gave you "a way". I can't really prove that's the most efficient.[2014-9-28. : 1:51 am] Moose -- It's non-singular, so you can find A-1 and left-multiply by it k times[2014-9-28. : 12:48 am] MasterJohnny -- what is the most efficient way to solve A^k x=b where k is some positive integer[2014-9-28. : 12:01 am] Moose -- Yeah, I didn't like abstract algebra. Started to get me turned off to pure math.[2014-9-27. : 11:58 pm] Moose -- http://youtu.be/UTby_e4-Rhg I can tell you about the Finite Simple Group (of Order Two)[2014-9-27. : 11:21 pm]  LoveLess -- Time to ostrasize MZ, he gave up on anime because he has grown up.[2014-9-27. : 11:10 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- But I think that's the point of simplifying the expression[2014-9-27. : 11:10 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I guess input first helps avoid redundancy ... like if you already had a P AND Q you'd never accidentally make a second[2014-9-27. : 11:08 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- That's also how I'd build it when actually putting the chips on the breadboard[2014-9-27. : 11:07 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- like the last operation is or, so I'd put an or on the right. Next, one input is P AND Q, so I'd put an AND on one of the OR inputs, and connect the AND inputs to P and Q, etc. ...[2014-9-27. : 11:07 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- I always just sort of did it starting from the output ;o[2014-9-27. : 11:05 pm] Jack -- To make the circuit, simplest way is to make each variable a "column" wire going down your page. Then you branch off each wire a NOTted column wire, and from there you just use logic gates to create the rest of the circuit.[2014-9-27. : 11:04 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- also you can get rid of several ANDs if you just make it PQ + (~P and Q and R), but I'm too lazy to try to go further than that.[2014-9-27. : 11:03 pm] O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- dunno, you actually explained it. I just sort of said some stuff and then gave the answer |
I like algebra
Members Online: Zycorax
Zycorax