Re: Re: Accuracy and Precision

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg37018] Re: [mg36982] Re: Accuracy and Precision*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <andrzej at tuins.ac.jp>*Date*: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 05:33:24 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On Saturday, October 5, 2002, at 09:33 AM, Peter Kosta wrote: > You are entitled to your opinion. For my applications > this behavior IS useless. > I agree that Mathematica is probably useless for you. This is however not because it is useless or useless for "your application", but because to use its full power you have to study it, understand it, and in particular, for numerical work, understand the model of arithmetic it uses. Lie with mathematics they are really no shortcuts that will lead you to its full power. In addition, since it is a computer program, it has certain conventions, which may not be the same as the conventions of other programs (they all have conventions) but which you have to accept to be able to use it. Now, once you have done that, you may still not like the way Mathematica does things and there are genuine experts in numerics who indeed do not like and are quite vocal about it. But they never say "it is useless", because by saying that you are either displaying your own ignorance or engaging in stupid and pointless abuse. On a more serious level, there seem to be two basic approaches to numeric computation relevant to this discussion. It seems to me (though I am no expert in this sort of thing) that there are three types of situations that one may encounter. Firstly, there is the vast majority of rather simple computations for which built-in machine floating point arithmetic , which carries no guarantee of precision at all is meant for. It clearly must be sufficient for the majority of purposes, since most general purpose and even technical software available uses not other method. The reason of course is that it is by far the fastest way to do such computations (as well as being sufficient for most situations). The second type of situation is when you actually know the precision of your input and would like the program to give you some idea about the precision of the output you might expect. This is the most likely situation in empirical science and is exactly what SetPrecision is meant for. Most reasonable people would agree that Mathematica works well in this situation. There is finally one more situation, to which the only reasonable criticism that I have read in this thread appears to be directed at. That is the situation when you actually know your input exactly, but working with exact numbers is far too slow. So what you have to do is to replace your exact numbers with inexact ones padded with 0's. In Mathematica you have to take a guess at how much padding you will need, than use SetPrecision to pad the numbers, and then check the Precision of your answer. It may turn out that you did not get as much precision as you needed, in which case you have to use more zeros. Or it may be that you used more than enough, which mans that your computation could have been done faster. I learned from Leszek Sczaniecki that there is an approach due to Oliver Aberth which lets you only specify the desired precision of your answer and the program itself will choose the correct padding for your input. It woudl ertainly be nice to have this ability, but I honestly think that it would be only of marginal advantage over making your own guess. It seems to me that the checking that the Aberth mthod must require will be time consuming and wiht a bit of practice one can probably get better results as far as speed is concerned using the Mathematica approach. But this is just pure speculation and certainly it woudl be nice if such a possibility existed. Andrzej Kozlowski Toyama International University JAPAN http://sigma.tuins.ac.jp/~andrzej/