MAJ de la figure 4:j'ai fait deux figures differente pour le même graphe

[kahina_paper1.git] / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index dde98e9a3813b6f5ea0b97a825bf7d5d1de2d976..e1dfd58e7034d29047cd07058aa15411aabd030a 100644 (file)
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -772,6 +772,13 @@ methods on GPU. We took into account the execution time, the number of iteration
 \label{fig:04}
 \end{figure}
 
 \label{fig:04}
 \end{figure}
 

+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+  \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/EA_DK1}
+\caption{Execution times of the  Durand-Kerner and the Ehrlich-Aberth methods on GPU}
+\label{fig:0}
+\end{figure}
+

 Figure~\ref{fig:04} shows the execution times of both methods with
 sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 1,000 to 1,000,000. We can see
 that the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm is faster than Durand-Kerner
 Figure~\ref{fig:04} shows the execution times of both methods with
 sparse polynomial degrees ranging from 1,000 to 1,000,000. We can see
 that the Ehrlich-Aberth algorithm is faster than Durand-Kerner