Skip to main content

performance tuning - Why are numeric division and subtraction not handled better in Mathematica?


There is something that has been troubling me for a while. At least through version 10.0 the performance of a / b and a - b is not equivalent to, and significantly inferior to, Divide[a, b] and Subtract[a, b], despite the fact that these are treated as equivalent in the documentation. As a terse code fanatic it chafes me to have to write out the longer forms, but that is only the beginning of my concern, because the latter, faster forms are transparently converted into the former, slower forms.


Examples from the documentation for Divide:



x/y or Divide[x,y] is equivalent to x y^-1.


Divide[x,y] can be entered in StandardForm and InputForm as x ÷ y, x EscdivEsc y or x \[Divide] y.




Proof that these statements are false:


{a, b} = List @@ RandomReal[{-50, 50}, {2, 1*^7}];

Do[a/b, {50}] // Timing // First
Do[a b^-1, {50}] // Timing // First
Do[a\[Divide]b, {50}] // Timing // First
Do[Divide[a, b], {50}] // Timing // First


2.262


2.231

2.184

0.437

Divide[a, b] is not evaluated in the same manner as the rest. Similarly for subtraction:


Do[a - b, {50}]            // Timing // First
Do[a + (-1 b), {50}] // Timing // First

Do[Subtract[a, b], {50}] // Timing // First


3.651

3.65

1.404

Although the examples above use packed arrays (see Why does list assignment with a packed array result in unpacked values? for an explanation of List @@) the same performance differential exists with unpacked lists.



One can see with Trace that the short forms induce additional operations:


a = Range[1, 2];
b = Range[3, 4];

a/b // Trace
Divide[a, b] // Trace


{{a,{1,2}}, {{b,{3,4}}, 1/{3,4}, {1/3,1/4}}, {1,2} {1/3,1/4}, {1/3,1/4} {1,2}, 1/3,1/2}}


{{a,{1,2}}, {b,{3,4}}, {1,2}/{3,4}, {1/3,1/2}}

a - b          // Trace
Subtract[a, b] // Trace


{{a,{1,2}}, {{b,{3,4}}, -{3,4}, {-3,-4}}, {1,2} + {-3,-4}, {-3,-4} + {1,2}, {-2,-2}}

{{a,{1,2}}, {b,{3,4}}, {1,2} - {3,4}, {-2,-2}}


Note the false equivalence in this output; the fast Divide and Subtract operations are formatted as {1,2}/{3,4} and {1,2} - {3,4}, yet these slow forms are not part of their evaluation process.


More problematic is when this false equivalence changes evaluation. For example, if you try to work symbolically with Subtract and Divide in an evaluated expression and use the result these faster forms are replaced with the slower ones:


expr = Divide[x, y] + Subtract[x, y];
fn = Function[{x, y}, Evaluate @ expr]
fn // FullForm


Function[{x, y}, x + x/y - y]

Function[List[x,y], Plus[x, Times[x, Power[y,-1]], Times[-1,y]]]


Note also that Divide and Subtract are stripped when converting forms in the Front End (menu Cell > Convert To) so even without evaluation these operators may be lost.


Therefore I have these questions:




  • Why are these operations universally treated as equivalent when they are clearly not programmatically equivalent?




  • Why does Mathematica not include optimization for cases of numeric division and subtraction to eliminate the additional evaluation steps?





  • Is there a practical way to add global optimizations to automatically convert these operations to the fast forms before numeric evaluation?




  • Failing the above, what is the best way to work symbolically with actual division and subtraction operators for the sake of performance?




  • Is internally representing division and subtraction as multiplication and addition really the only mathematically valid design option? Couldn't these instead be first-class operators that are recognized as equivalent to Times and Plus for the purpose of pattern matching but not converted into Times and Plus (which introduces additional Times and Power operations)?







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...