6 ms·

>Parallel Iteration: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm#Execution_polici https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm#Execution_polici... You're still

>Parallel Iteration: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm#Execution_polici https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm#Execution_polici... You're still having trouble reading so let's try socratic method: if I have a vector with 10 elements and a vector with 100 elements, which iterator from stl should I use to take their dot product? >Sparse: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/libs/numeric/ublas/doc https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_1/libs/numeric/ublas/doc... Neither will just a sparse representation answer my puzzle for you. >Parallel Iteration: https://www.openmp.org/ https://www.openmp.org/ Lol now I know you're just googling for keyword matches - a parfor has absolutely nothing to do with this. Overall you seem to be very upset about some perceived cognitive burden/imposition at having to learn a few new ideas. Let me free you from that burden: you don't have to understand co-iteration. But it is possible that one day your code will be slower than someone else's that does understand co-iteration.

still_grokking 4y ago
Repeating RTFM (especially in such tone!) won't convince anybody to look into this. Quite the contrary… You, my friend, are dismissive to the fact that people are only willing to put in their valuable time into something if it seems at least on first glimpse interesting enough. You're doing an extremely poor job showing people why this would be the case here. Math may be fun, but in the end your success in life will almost exclusively depend on your social skills. Skills which you're obviously lacking still.
- mathisfun123 4y ago
  >You, my friend, are dismissive to the fact that people are only willing to put in their valuable time into something if it seems at least on first glimpse interesting enough. simple solution: don't pontificate/comment if you don't have any valuable time - no one asked this guy his opinion on co-iteration. also the comment you directly responded to doesn't say RTFM - it literally poses a puzzle that illustrates the point.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
Overall you seem to be very upset about some perceived cognitive burden/imposition at having to learn a few new ideas. The ridiculous part is that you think there are new ideas here. you don't have to understand co-iteration I understand it because it is already called iteration. But it is possible that one day your code will be slower than someone else's that does understand co-iteration. Feel free to explain in detail the part that is new or faster. You haven't done that at all, your entire post is just saying 'nu uh' with no actual evidence to back it up. Give each thread their own ranges that don't overlap. If you want to make up terms and sell pretend results don't be surprised when people aren't convinced.
- mathisfun123 4y ago
  [dead]

still_grokking 4y ago

Repeating RTFM (especially in such tone!) won't convince anybody to look into this. Quite the contrary… You, my friend, are dismissive to the fact that people are only willing to put in their valuable time into something if it seems at least on first glimpse interesting enough. You're doing an extremely poor job showing people why this would be the case here. Math may be fun, but in the end your success in life will almost exclusively depend on your social skills. Skills which you're obviously lacking still.

mathisfun123 4y ago
>You, my friend, are dismissive to the fact that people are only willing to put in their valuable time into something if it seems at least on first glimpse interesting enough. simple solution: don't pontificate/comment if you don't have any valuable time - no one asked this guy his opinion on co-iteration. also the comment you directly responded to doesn't say RTFM - it literally poses a puzzle that illustrates the point.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

Overall you seem to be very upset about some perceived cognitive burden/imposition at having to learn a few new ideas. The ridiculous part is that you think there are new ideas here. you don't have to understand co-iteration I understand it because it is already called iteration. But it is possible that one day your code will be slower than someone else's that does understand co-iteration. Feel free to explain in detail the part that is new or faster. You haven't done that at all, your entire post is just saying 'nu uh' with no actual evidence to back it up. Give each thread their own ranges that don't overlap. If you want to make up terms and sell pretend results don't be surprised when people aren't convinced.

mathisfun123 4y ago
[dead]