32 bit or 64 bit?

[ram.rachum at gmail.com]

On Jun 15, 9:41 pm, Mensanator <mensana... at aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:10 pm, "ram.rac... at gmail.com" <ram.rac... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 7:43 pm, Peter Otten <__pete... at web.de> wrote:
>
> > > ram.rac... at gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 15, 6:58 pm, Christian Meesters <meest... at uni-mainz.de> wrote:
> > > >> > I do need speed. Is there an option?
>
> > > >> Mind telling us what you *actually* want to achieve? (What do you want to
> > > >> calculate?)
>
> > > >> Christian
>
> > > > Physical simulations of objects with near-lightspeed velocity.
>
> > > How did you determine that standard python floats are not good enough?
>
> > I have a physical system set up in which a body is supposed to
> > accelerate and to get very close to lightspeed, while never really
> > attaining it. After approx. 680 seconds, Python gets stuck and tells
> > me the object has passed lightspeed. I put the same equations in
> > Mathematica, again I get the same mistake around 680 seconds. So I
> > think, I have a problem with my model! Then I pump up the
> > WorkingPrecision in Mathematica to about 10. I run the same equations
> > again, and it works! At least for the first 10,000 seconds, the object
> > does not pass lightspeed.
> > I concluded that I need Python to work at a higher precision.
>
> > > Everything beyond that is unlikely to be supported by the hardware and will
> > > therefore introduce a speed penalty.
>
> > I have thought of that as well. However I have no choice. I must do
> > these calculations. If you know of any way that is supported by the
> > hardware, it will be terrific, but for now the slower things will have
> > to do.
>
> > > Did you try gmpy?
>
> > Not yet: I was kind of set back when I saw their homepage was last
> > updated 2002.
>
> Try looking here:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/gmpy/
>
> The developers have abandoned SourceForge.
>
> > But I'll give it a try. You think it's the best thing
> > there is?
>
> I haven't tried everything, but it's very good.
> You might also want to go to the GMP site itself
> and get their manual. Likee anything else, your
> results will be no better than your algorithms.
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Ram.

I'll check it out, thanks.