In [36]:
import numpy as np
%matplotlib inline
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
Write a function that computes the factorial of small numbers using np.arange and np.cumprod.
In [1]:
def np_fact(n):
"""Compute n! = n*(n-1)*...*1 using Numpy."""
f=np.arange(1,n+1,1) #forms a 1d array going from 1 to n
F=np.cumprod(f) #forms array that has cummulitive products
if n==0:
return 1
else:
return max(F) #gives the max (last) number which is the factorial
In [38]:
assert np_fact(0)==1
assert np_fact(1)==1
assert np_fact(10)==3628800
assert [np_fact(i) for i in range(0,11)]==[1,1,2,6,24,120,720,5040,40320,362880,3628800]
Write a function that computes the factorial of small numbers using a Python loop.
In [31]:
def loop_fact(n):
"""Compute n! using a Python for loop."""
F=1 #defines variable set F to 1
for f in range(1,n+1):
F=F*f #continuously multiplies from 1 to n
return F
raise NotImplementedError()
In [ ]:
assert loop_fact(0)==1
assert loop_fact(1)==1
assert loop_fact(10)==3628800
assert [loop_fact(i) for i in range(0,11)]==[1,1,2,6,24,120,720,5040,40320,362880,3628800]
Use the %timeit magic to time both versions of this function for an argument of 50. The syntax for %timeit is:
%timeit -n1 -r1 function_to_time()
In [46]:
%timeit -n1 -r1 np_fact(50)
%timeit -n1 -r1 loop_fact(50)
raise NotImplementedError()
In the cell below, summarize your timing tests. Which version is faster? Why do you think that version is faster?
YOUR ANSWER HERE The np_fact took 63.2 microseconds to run and the loop_fact took 13.8 microseconds for one loop. The loop_fact was significantly faster, usually 2-4 times faster. I think that this version is faster because it only uses functions that are built in to python while np_fact uses two functions that need to be imported into python in order for it to work.