timings for the Nth Ulam number
Using the (new and current) REXX program, the times:
It (the REXX program) is an O(2) polynomial
0.0000005168509818 N^2 - 0.0004990440614098 N + 0.5707466809128310 Rsquared = 0.9999999315551220
- I made a mistoke, it is an 8-core PC.
- By the way, Paul Kislanko (an old-timer) is the proud owner of that fast PC, and he is gracious enough to run some of my long-running REXX programs on occasion. With 16 Gbytes and plenty of CPU engines, Paul doesn't even notice what's going on in the back room (or basement?) of his PC. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are the specs:
OS Name Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Version 10.0.19041 Build 19041 Other OS Description Not Available OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation System Manufacturer LENOVO System Model 90L1007AUS System Type x64-based PC System SKU LENOVO_MT_90L1_BU_LENOVO_FM_IdeaCentre T540-15ICB G Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700 CPU @ 3.00GHz, 3000 Mhz, 8 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s) Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 16.0 GB Total Physical Memory 15.9 GB Hyper-V - Second Level Address Translation Extensions Yes Hyper-V - Virtualization Enabled in Firmware Yes Hyper-V - Data Execution Protection Yes
More info on that 8-core PC:
The "base" clock speed is 3.00 GHz, but it has a "turbo" mode (overclocking?) or something like that to get to a max of 4.70 GHz. 9th Generation IntelR CoreT i7-9700 Processor with vProT (3.0 GHz, up to 4.70 GHz with Turbo Boost, 8 Cores, 8 Threads, 12 MB Cache)
timing for the 100,000th Ulam number
The total time for the 100,000th Ulam number using the original REXX program would've taken a little over three years, and that is on Paul Kislanko's PC. On my old slow PC, it would've taken about a decade or thereabouts. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- It certainly demonstrates the importance of using a decent algorithm.