Vladimir Bondarenko wrote: > ----------------------- > -- even worse > ----------------------- > > -> romberg(z+->simplify(%i^2), 0, 1, 0.1, 0.1, 10, 12) > > [value= - 1.0,error= 0.0,totalpts= 2049,success= true] > Time: 3.07 (IN) + 2.25 (EV) + 0.18 (OT) + 0.48 (GC) = 5.98 sec > > ......................................................................... > > A bloodcurdling guesswork, Does AXIOM each time call simplify/expand ?! > > Or... or what causes this user's nightmare? I tried the above, [snipped] Function Selection for ^ Arguments: (COMPLEX INT,PI) [1] signature: (COMPLEX INT,PI) -> COMPLEX INT implemented: slot $$(PositiveInteger) from COMPLEX INT [2] signature: (COMPLEX INT,PI) -> COMPLEX INT implemented: slot $$(PositiveInteger) from COMPLEX INT ----- This is the cause of the problem: Complex arithmetic Function Selection for simplify Arguments: COMPLEX INT Target type: FLOAT [1] signature: EXPR COMPLEX INT -> EXPR COMPLEX INT implemented: slot (Expression (Complex (Integer)))(Expression (Complex (In eger))) from TRMANIP(COMPLEX INT,EXPR COMPLEX INT) ----- The only simplify is from EXPR Complex Integer Function Selection for map by coercion facility (map) Arguments: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) Target type: EXPR INT [1] signature: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) -> EXPR INT implemented: slot (Expression (Integer))(Mapping (Integer) (Complex (Integ r)))(Expression (Complex (Integer))) from EXPR2(COMPLEX INT,INT) ----- which requires the answer to stay in EXPR Complex Integer after ----- "simplification", which then require ti to be converted and found that the interpreter printed out 2049 (or thereabout) Function Selection for map by coercion facility (map) Arguments: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) Target type: EXPR INT [1] signature: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) -> EXPR INT implemented: slot (Expression (Integer))(Mapping (Integer) (Complex (Integer)))(Expression (Complex (Integer))) from EXPR2(COMPLEX INT,INT) which means that it is applying the map function to evaluate the z+->simplify(%i^2) function 2049 times. Of course, evaluating is not the problem, the problem is how the function is evaluated. In Axiom, the appearance of %i means it has to convert the value to Float because romberg requires the first argument to be a function: Float -> Float. To understand what is happening and indeed it is troubling to find out, try the following: (3) -> g:Float->Float Type: Void (4) -> g(z)==simplify(%i^2)::Float Type: Void (5) -> g(5) Compiling function g with type Float -> Float (5) - 1.0 Type: Float (6) -> )time on (6) -> romberg(g, 0, 1, 0.1, 0.1, 10, 12) (6) [value= - 1.0,error= 0.0,totalpts= 2049,success= true] Type: Record(value: Float,error: Float,totalpts: Integer,success: Boolean) Time: 2.78 (IN) + 2.18 (EV) + 0.27 (OT) + 0.60 (GC) = 5.83 sec there is no improvement at all! The interpreter DID use the compiled version of g but the code reflects faithfully the definition of g, not what it simplifies to! Notice below, g has been compiled at (5). (7) -> g(7) Function Selection for g Arguments: FLOAT [1] signature: FLOAT -> FLOAT implemented: local function *1;g;1;initial Function Selection for map by coercion facility (map) Arguments: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) Target type: EXPR INT [1] signature: ((COMPLEX INT -> INT),EXPR COMPLEX INT) -> EXPR INT implemented: slot (Expression (Integer))(Mapping (Integer) (Complex (Integ er)))(Expression (Complex (Integer))) from EXPR2(COMPLEX INT,INT) (7) - 1.0 Type: Float Time: 0.02 (OT) = 0.02 sec The issue is therefore one of mathematical optimization in the compiler, but compilers are only built to optimize code, not mathematics. So the moral is: Do not expect compiler to simplify (mathematically) your code. Incidentally, timing in Axiom, and also in Maple, may not be very reliable. Running Maple 5, starting from scratch, I got different timing for below (Maple may cache values), but the worst time is the simplest code on first run in the order given: restart; time(evalf(Int(expand(sqrt(-1)^2), z=0..1))); > .015 > restart; time(evalf(Int((sqrt(-1)^2), z=0..1))); > .016 > restart; time(evalf(Int(simplify(expand(sqrt(-1)^2)), z=0..1))); > .015 > restart; time(evalf(Int(expand(simplify(sqrt(-1)^2)), z=0..1))); .016 > restart; time(evalf(Int(1, z=0..1))); .032 When the last command is repeated, time becomes .016. In Mathematica, there are two ways to define a function: Set and SetDelayed and SetDelayed will also exhibit a big penalty: Set[g[z_], Simplify[I^2]]; SetDelayed[h[z_], Simplify[I^2]]; Timing[Table[g[z],{z,1,10000}];] {0.04 Second, Null} Timing[Table[h[z],{z,1,10000}];] {0.55 Second, Null} I think there is no equivalent to Set in Axiom. So the more you try to coax Axiom to "simplify", the worse it becomes: (8) -> g(z) == eval(simplify(%i^2)::Float) Compiled code for g has been cleared. 1 old definition(s) deleted for function or rule g Type: Void (9) -> g(5) Compiling function g with type Float -> Float (9) - 1.0 Type: Float (10) -> romberg(z+->g(z), 0, 1, 0.1, 0.1, 10, 12) (10) [value= - 1.0,error= 0.0,totalpts= 2049,success= true] Type: Record(value: Float,error: Float,totalpts: Integer,success: Boolean) Time: 3.08 (IN) + 2.87 (EV) + 0.28 (OT) + 0.35 (GC) = 6.58 sec The only way I found that can simulate Set is to do this in two steps (and you must include the coercion to Float): (19) -> a:= simplify(%i^2)::Float (20) -> g(z)==a (21) -> romberg(g, 0, 1, 0.1, 0.1, 10, 12) Time: 0.03 (EV) + 0.03 (OT) = 0.07 sec William ------------------------------------------------------------ ... --kratt6, Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:33:17 -0800 Category: Axiom Mathematics => Axiom Interpreter Status: open => rejected |