Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:14:53 10/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2003 at 16:25:51, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On October 02, 2003 at 11:28:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>That isn't what we are talking about here. That's a function with an >>solvable limit. Vincent's already posted his >N speedup stuff for N >>processors. If you go beyond N on speedup, I don't see how you are >>going to calculate any limit for such a function... >> >>Simply saying "deeper goes faster" is inaccurate. "deeper goes faster but >>the curve is bounded" is much more accurate. > > >Your last statement is inconsistent with your "If efficiency continues to climb, >it is unbounded." > It isn't if you remain "in context". You picked an equation with a simple limit. Vincent's "equation" has no known limit yet, because the obvious limit for N processors is <= N, but he has (for years) claimed efficiency > N for N processors. Since N is the controlling term in any equation based on N, and since N is not a limit, the speedup (to me) appears to be unbounded, plain and simple. Any speedup whatsoever that is >N means it must be unbounded. And we already have the >N claim in writing, many times. (not from me or anybody that knows what they are doing, however).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.