James Harris wrote:

"C. Bond" wrote in message ...
James Harris wrote:

For some odd reason a few people seem especially fixated on the
slowness of the C++ program that I posted, which I kept saying is
configured for an easy switch to the continuous field so that you can
make a numerical calculation of the partial differential.

There is no partial differential. There is a term labelled 'dx' which may
be treated as an infinitesimal -- but having no relation to either
partial differentials or counting primes.

Well, just because you don't understand calculus doesn't mean it
doesn't exist.

No, that isn't why it doesn't exist. It isn't there -- that's why it doesn't exist. Partial
differential equations arise in equations involving two or more *independent* variables.
Partial differentials are ratios, not infinitesimals. You've got nerve accusing anyone of not
understanding calculus when your own ignorance consistently begs for recognition.

By the way, if your 'partial differential equation' is such a breakthrough, why aren't you
using it to solve the prime counting problem?

In any event rather than sit by while people kept ragging on the
program I thought I'd point out a couple of quick speed-ups, though
it's still a lot slower than algorithms I've developed, but it's a
good way to give you some sense of reality versus what posters often
think is reality.

You were the one ragging on speed. If your algorithm is no faster than
others, then what is it for?

It's an integration of a partial difference equation to get the count
of primes, and it turns out that no one else in history figured out
doing it this way before I came along.

Partial difference equation? We were discussing your bogus claim that a partial differential
equation was involved. But you have presented no partial differential equation.

Speed is a secondary issue.

Fine, then move on. You've been beaten on that one, as well as on the memory usage metrics.

The two changes are to use ints instead of doubles, and don't do the
second calculation if sum2==0.

Now that second one seemed to evade quite a few of you which I find
odd.

You find a lot of perfectly ordinary things odd.

Well if you call missing something that freaking obvious perfectly
ordinary, I guess you mean it's perfectly ordinary for someone like
you to miss the obvious.

What is it you imagined I missed? Everyone skips the count when factors are found.

And you know what? THERE you probably are finally telling the truth.

I didn't feel like compiling to check, so you might have to fix what
follows.

James Harris


Do whatever feels right. Join the flower children. Abandon science. Pop a
pill. Whatever...

Yeah, you dweebs talk big but I notice none of you posted saying it
didn't compile.

Omigod! I'm a dweeb! But I wasn't referring to any particular activity of yours, I was
commenting on your habit of operating on your feelings, rather than on reason. Did you miss
the point, James Harris?

I'm good, but you see, I figured I'd be fair by noting that I didn't
check to make *sure* it compiled, as it wasn't worth my time.

James Harris

Compiling your own code isn't worth your time, but answering posts with non-mathematical pokes
and jabs *is* worth it, right? Take my advice, you shouldn't go into a battle of wits
half-armed.

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com