From: James Edward Gray II Date: 2007-11-19T22:26:02+09:00 Subject: Re: Goedel (#147) On Nov 19, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Eric I. wrote: > On Nov 18, 10:26 pm, James Edward Gray II > wrote: >> On Nov 18, 2007, at 7:40 PM, Eric I. wrote: >> >>> I wanted to make an effort at runtime efficiency. >> >> Clever stuff. Did you benchmark this against any other approaches? >> I would love to know what kind of an improvement you achieved. > > I was curious about this too. So I ran the five solutions submitted > so far back to back on decoding (not encoding). The plain text is the > following quote from Einstein consisting of 329 characters. I wanted > it to be somewhat long to highlight speed differences, and 329 > characters is really not all that big. And Einstein and Goedel were > good friends when they both worked at Princeton. Here's the quote; > note the embedded newlines: > > The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity > has its own\nreason for existing. One cannot help but be in > awe when he\ncontemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, > of the marvelous\nstructure of reality. It is enough if one > tries merely to comprehend a\nlittle of this mystery every > day. Never lose a holy curiosity.\n > > Encoded, it's an 87,418 digit base 10 number. > > I had to adjust some others' solutions minimally. For example, I had > to expand the list of primes that Justin Ethier's solution used, and I > had to put the encoded message in one of his blocks before submitting > it to his decode routine. > > Here are the times I got in seconds: > > Eric I: . 3.485 > James Koppel: 11.779 > Justin Either: 11.868 > Eric Lavigne: 19.390 > steve: 20.982 > > So it would appear that the complexity of my process pays off in > time. Of course, everything is a tradeoff. I went for speed. Others > aimed for alternate worthwhile goals, such as easy to understand code, > succinct code, and/or highly Rubyesque code. Great analysis. Thanks! James Edward Gray II