# Tag Info

26

Fibonacci numbers grow approximately exponentially. The 1,000,000th Fibonacci number is huge, it has 208,988 decimal digits. It also takes a fair amount of memory to store: ByteCount@Fibonacci[1000000] (* 86856 *) This is 86 kB. Does Mathematica store huge numbers efficiently? How many bits/bytes do we need at minimum for this number? Let's calculate ...

24

As @RahulNarain says, forming the image point by point saves significant memory because the number of image pixels is typically much smaller than the hundreds of millions of iterations that compose it. Therefore, iterate the attractor equations, and for each point generated, find its location within the image matrix. Colour coding of the number of hits in ...

22

Simon Woods points out in a comment that: In fact the delay on the initial run is caused by compiling code to provide the Poisson distribution :-) You can look at ImageColorOperationsDumpiImageEffectPoissonNoise to see how it works internally. Now, although PoissonDistribution can't be compiled, there's nothing stopping the use of my own C++ ...

22

Diagnosis Spelunking the definition of Commonest, which is written in top-level Mathematica code, I see that the two parameter form is handled by this internal function: Commonest; (* preload *) ? StatisticsDescriptiveDumpoCommonestSetLength oCommonestSetLength[list_, n_] := Catch[Block[{res, reslen, ord}, res = Tally[list]; reslen = Length[res]; ...

21

Update 20/02/2015 I've now adapted my code to work with a binomial distribution, since that seemed to be the most problematic case for the OP. The relevant C++ code is at the bottom of this answer. Needs["CCompilerDriver"] BinomialVariateLib = CreateLibrary[{ToString[NotebookDirectory[]] <> "binomialvariate.cpp"}, "BinomialVariateLib", ...

19

You can just step through $i$ and $j$ while trying to simultaneously satisfy: $$i^2+(i+1)^2=j^2+(j+1)^2+(j+2)^2$$ Just loop and if the inequality is too small on the left, increment $i$. If it's too small on the right, increment $j$. That looks like this: Clear[f, g, i, j]; f[i_] = i^2 + (i + 1)^2; g[j_] = j^2 + (j + 1)^2 + (j + 2)^2; max = 10^6; i = 1; j ...

19

This is a poor use of the random functions in Mathematica. As clearly stated in the documentation, generation of variates one at a time has significant overhead, and generating them en masse has significant benefits, particularly with statistical distributions: For statistical distributions, the speed advantage of generating many numbers at once can be ...

19

My answer is based on a modification of a binary heap. Basically the construction looks something like this. We start with a binary tree: Notice that if we label the nodes breadth-first, the labels have an interesting property. Each parent node $n$ has two children, $2n$ and $2n+1$. This also works in reverse: the parent of node $n$ is node ...

18

UPDATE I thought it would be neat to try and animate the thing, so I let the $a$ parameter run between $-\pi$ and $\pi$. I generated 600 images and put them together using ffmpeg. Check it out on youtube. It might not be in the spirit of Mathematica Stack Exchange, but allow me an objection - stuff that is slow in Mathematica should be kept out of it. To ...

17

It seems that there is a significant overhead every time a color scheme is switched. Once a scheme is loaded each use is fast, but changing color schemes apparently unloads and reloads the mechanism. The result is that the speed of application is directly related to the frequency of switching. With sorted values there is only one switch and application is ...

17

Preface Below, you will find two different solutions. For understanding the problem itself, the first, iterative solution is better suited since it gives insight in how the solution can be found without directly executing the instructions given as input. Iterative Solution Detailed explanation To explain the idea behind this approach let us work with a ...

16

I believe that this is an intentional and beneficial change in v10. Mathematica 9 was not able to correctly detect the number of physical cores, and it launched as many kernels as the number of virtual cores (which is double when using HyperThreading). Mathematica 10 can now detect the number of physical cores correctly and will launch only as many kernels ...

16

Unless both lists given to Equal are packed arrays Equal will first unpack. Unfortunately for this case {} is not a packable expression, therefore list == {} will always unpack list, assuming it starts packed. That unpacking takes time: test = RandomInteger[100000000, 10000000]; DeveloperFromPackedArray[test]; // AbsoluteTiming {0.207012, Null} ...

15

Okay, this is a bit of an embarassment. Here is a very small modification of the original code. I simply made explicit option settings, made a denominator to Sin explicitly real, that kind of thing. My tests show the same timing as the original, give or take an iota. ie = 200; ez = ConstantArray[0., {ie + 1}]; hy = ConstantArray[0., {ie}]; fdtd1d = ...

14

Let's start by taking a look at the compiled form of one of our queries: DatasetCompileQuery[Query @ First @ spans] (* DatasetWithOverrides@*Checked[Slice[205 ;; 313], Identity] *) We can see that the operation is not implemented directly in terms of part. Indeed, there are three components: DatasetWithOverrides, GeneralUtilitiesChecked and ...

14

Your test is quite synthetic: you take only few first elements. If you you have longer sequence of positive elements then build-in LengthWhile is faster lst = RandomInteger[{-1, 30000}, 100000]; rst1 = LengthWhile[lst, # >= 0 &]; // AbsoluteTiming rst2 = lengthwhile[lst, # >= 0 &]; // AbsoluteTiming rst1 == rst2 (* {0.096340, Null} *) (* ...

14

There are several reasons. Firstly the built-in function has some minor overhead to check the arguments and call the appropriate internal function depending on whether the first argument is a list, a sparse array or an association. Secondly, with a packed array, LengthWhile uses compilation in an attempt to increase performance. There is some overhead in ...

14

idtz = InternalDeleteTrailingZeros; trim0a = With[{t = Reverse/@ idtz/@DeleteCases[#, ConstantArray[0, Length@#[[1]]]]}, Reverse /@ idtz /@ t] &; trim0b = With[{t = DeleteCases[#, ConstantArray[0, Length@#[[1]]]]}, Fold[idtz@#2@# &, #, {Reverse, Reverse}] & /@ t] &; Equal @@ (#@test & /@ {trim0, trim0a, ...

14

A fast uncompiled alternative without pattern matching is to use the NonzeroPositions property of SparseArray, as long as you're dealing with numerical data. list = RandomInteger[{1, 100}, 10^7]; Needs["GeneralUtilities"] SparseArray[Unitize[list - Max[list]] - 1]["NonzeroPositions"] // AccurateTiming (* 0.120459 *) Position[list, Max[list]] // ...

13

One of the main bottlenecks in your code are the texture you apply on each surface. Try to use texture = {}; in your drawTile function and the graphics should be faster by magnitudes. Additionally, as Yves mentioned, Tubes are a performance killer too. Therefore, a workaround for your problem might be to Rasterize the texture graphics by yourself and use ...

13

Nasser gives good standard ControlActive approach. But that by definition looses quality during motion. I just would like to share a trick that avoids that. Most of the time is spent on rendering your bell shape. But it is static. Plane moves but it is simple, so it should not all the time trigger recomputing of static bell shape. You can separate motion of ...

13

Update: the lhs of $i^2+(i+1)^2=j^2+(j+1)^2+(j+2)^2$ is always odd so $j$ should be even. The fastest solution I found: max = 10^12; {(Sqrt[3 + 6 (# + 1)^2] - 1)/2, #, #^2 + (# + 1)^2 + (# + 2)^2} & @@@ (2 Position[#, 0]) &@UnitStep[Abs[# - Round[#]] - 1.*^-10] &[ Sqrt[0.75 + 1.5 #^2] - 0.5] &@ Range[3., Sqrt[max/3.], 2] // ...

13

For readers who didn't read all the comments, the slowdown is due to a lack of packing of tb, whereas RandomReal returns packed arrays when more than 250 elements are generated. The reason why packing tb fails is because some elements have different precision than others, and (I think?) ToPackedArray requires arrays to be of homogeneous type. To fix this, ...

13

For a 1D list you can also use Pick[Range@Length@list, list, Max@list]

12

This seems fast(er): Extract[a, Transpose[{v, Range@Length@v}]] Addendum Mr.Wizard's clean method Diagonal @ a[[v]] has a surprising property for those of us who think that packed arrays rank just below the wheel in the list of inventions for the sake of efficiency. For unpacked arrays a, it uses virtually no extra memory. Example Initialization. ...

12

Maybe upperTriangularMatrixQ2[mat_?MatrixQ] /; Equal @@ Dimensions@mat := UpperTriangularize@mat == mat; test = RandomInteger[{1, 100}, {1000, 1000}]; upperTriangularMatrixQ@test // AbsoluteTiming {2.126050, False} upperTriangularMatrixQ2@test // AbsoluteTiming {0.003277, False} test2 = UpperTriangularize@test; upperTriangularMatrixQ@test2 ...

12

Clear[fa, ga]; fa = Total[{#, # + 1}^2] &; ga = Total[{#, # + 1, # + 2}^2] &; Update: A closed form function soln = Assuming[{C[1] ∈ Integers && C[1] >= 0 && x > 0 && y > 0}, Simplify@ Reduce[Total[{x, x + 1}^2] == Total[{y, y + 1, y + 2}^2], {x, y}, Integers]] /. C[1] -> n; ...

12

You miss that many Mathematica functions are listable. It allows you to write a fast and clear code init2[distance_] := uniMass Total[liuQuartic[distance, h] UnitStep[2 h - distance], {2}] h = 0.1; uniMass = 1.0; liuQuartic[d_, h_] := d^2 - h^2; totalPos = RandomReal[1, {1119, 2}]; res1 = initializeDensity@computeDistance[totalPos]; // AbsoluteTiming res2 ...

12

Modify the calculation order a little to avoid ragged array and then make use of Listable and Compile: computeDistance[pos_] := DistanceMatrix[pos, DistanceFunction -> EuclideanDistance] liuQuartic = {r, h} \[Function] 15/(7 Pi*h^2) (2/3 - (9 r^2)/(8 h^2) + (19 r^3)/(24 h^3) - (5 r^4)/(32 h^4)); initializeDensity = With[{l = liuQuartic, m = ...

12

About 4x faster: Partition[Flatten @ data[[All, {1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5}]], 2]

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible