Talk:Total circles area: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Python Van der Corput: Hmm...) |
|||
| Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
main()</lang> |
main()</lang> |
||
::: Both examples have exactly one unit circle, and the regular method's error is about 8 times smaller and runs 10 times faster. Both being more or less uniform sampling, there's no inherent reason one should be more accurate than the other, but regular sampling is just going to be faster due to simplicity. Unless you can provide good reasoning or meaningful error estimate, it's very inapproriate to claim some method is better at it than others. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
::: Both examples have exactly one unit circle, and the regular method's error is about 8 times smaller and runs 10 times faster. Both being more or less uniform sampling, there's no inherent reason one should be more accurate than the other, but regular sampling is just going to be faster due to simplicity. Unless you can provide good reasoning or meaningful error estimate, it's very inapproriate to claim some method is better at it than others. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Hi Ledrug, are you saying that the results quoted may be correct for the programs as given on the task page, but are either: |
|||
::* Not due to the use Van der Corput? |
|||
::* Or peculiar to the example circles chosen? |
|||
I must admit that I I only trawled the results stated for the other programs and did not do any extensive reruns with different circles as you have done. I just extracted accuracy vs points. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== C89 vs C99 == |
== C89 vs C99 == |
||