Timeline for Counting the population of integers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2013 at 15:42 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Overhaul and final touch. |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:38 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 11 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:32 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 310 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:26 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 310 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:24 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | I'm a bit annoyed with myself for not thinking of that approach from the start as I've actually used it before, and similar methods too. Since I think that is going to be the best solution posted I suggest you rewrite your answer to lead with it for visibility, then put the rest of the stuff below it for those who are interested. Anyway, nicely done. | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:20 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Wait, shouldn't Join[#, {1, 2, 3, 4}] be Join[{1, 2, 3, 4}, #]? | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:19 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | code error corrected |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:19 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | That's actually a really nice method, one I should have thought of myself. +1 | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 22:12 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 308 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 21:58 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Please see the rebuttal in my answer for an explanation of my statement. :^) | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 21:41 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1132 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 20:56 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | This is not to detract from the beauty of your solution. However, it simply can not be generically as fast as Tally, because it repeats Count for any element in the list and any sublist, so is based on a fundamentally worse complexity algorithm. This is a second time I see rather meaningless benchamrks coming from you. I have a very high opinion of you as a Mma programmer, but please pay more attention when posting benchmarks - this is a sensitive topic and we want full objectiveness here. Thanks. And +1 for your solution ( but not benchmarks :-)). | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 20:52 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | What is code? Without knowing it, the timings are IMO largely meaningless. If you repeat 10000 times a function call on a small (toy) list, it tells you nothing about the computational complexity of some solution for sizable lists, meaning that you are benchmarking applications to toy lists only. This is, of course, fine, if one is only interested in being ultra-fast on very small lists, but then chances are that bottlenecks will be elsewhere anyway. Normally, one is more interested in larger lists though, for benchmarking. Perhaps, you used large lists in your code, but how would we know? | |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 20:21 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 5 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 20:15 | history | edited | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 71 characters in body |
| Feb 10, 2013 at 20:07 | history | answered | jVincent | CC BY-SA 3.0 |