Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:38:43 09/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2002 at 17:03:16, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On September 03, 2002 at 13:38:21, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On September 03, 2002 at 13:07:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On September 03, 2002 at 13:05:30, Matthew Hull wrote: >>> >>>It gives the reason why i took a closer statistical look >>>at his data. In order to find what his speed penalties were >>>for processors. Then the fraud he committed was easy to find >>>out. >>> >> >>Look man, if all you got is that 13.00000 to prove your point, it's a pretty >>thin thread to hang your argument on. It looks like you're really reaching. >> >>And don't worry that you can't duplicate the numbers with DIEP on some >>supercomputer. If it's not a Cray, you won't be able to anyway. >> >>But if you ever get a quad XEON with interleaved memory, and still can't get to >>1.7, then at least you're getting closer to a real argument. > >Perhaps you missed some of the threads from a while back (a year or so). >Vincent has claimed to get >2.0 speedup on 2 processors before. I'm not sure >why suddenly he changes this to 1.6 or whatever now. Seems to me he makes up >whatever numbers he wants to 'prove' his points, because obviously whatever he >says becomes a proof. That is his definition of a "proof". If he says it it is a "proof". Wish my advanced calculus (no, not calc 1,2,3,4) prof would have accepted that back in 1969. :) But alas, I had to do more formal proofs to get any credit in those classes. :)
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.