Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: re: Accuracy and Precision

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg37177] Re: re: Accuracy and Precision
• From: "Allan Hayes" <hay at haystack.demon.co.uk>
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 04:17:53 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <200210110758.DAA01962@smc.vnet.net> <200210120904.FAA11982@smc.vnet.net> <aobg22$hrn$1@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

"Mark Coleman" <mark at markscoleman.com> wrote in message
news:aobg22$hrn$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> Greetings,
>
> I have read with great interest this lively debate on numerical prcesion
and
> accuracy. As I work in the fields of finance and economics, where we feel
> ourselves blessed if we get three digits of accuracy, I'm curious as to
what
> scientific endeavors require 50+ digits of precision? As I recall there
are
> some areas, such as high energy physics and some elements of astronomy,
that
> might require so many digits in some circumstances. Are there others?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Mark


Mark,

There may be occasions when the outcome of a "real" process is so sensitive
to changes in input that unless we know very precisely what the input is
then we can know very little about the outcome - chaotic processes are of
this kind. The difficulty is real and no amount of computer power or clever
progamming will do much about it.

Another situation is when the the process is not so sensitive but
calculating with our formula or programme introduces accumulates significant
errors.

Here is a very artificial example of the latter (I time the computation and
find the MaximumMemory used in the session as we go through the example):

    ser=Normal[Series[Cos[#],{#,0,200}]];

    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        1714248

Calculating with machine number does not show much of a pattern ( I  have
deleted the graphics - please evaluate the code),


    pts= With[{ss=ser},Table[ {#,ss}&[x],
          {x,50.,70., .1}]];//Timing
    ListPlot[pts, PlotJoined->True];
    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        {5.11 Second,Null}

        1723840

Using bigfloat inputs with precision 20 shows some pattern:

    pts= With[{ss=ser},Table[ {#,ss}&[SetPrecision[x,20]],
          {x,50.,70., .1}]];//Timing
    ListPlot[pts, PlotJoined->True,PlotRange\[Rule]All];
    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        {17.52 Second,Null}

        1759664


Precision 40 does very well:

    pts= With[{ss=ser},Table[ {#,ss}&[SetPrecision[x,40]],
          {x,50.,70., .1}]];//Timing
    ListPlot[pts, PlotJoined->True,PlotRange\[Rule]All];
    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        {19.38 Second,Null}

        1797072

Now we might think the correct outcomes are showing up, and use an
interpolating function for further , and faster, calculation.

    f=Interpolation[pts]

        InterpolatingFunction[{{50.000000,70.00000}},<>]

    pts= Table[ f[x],{x,50, 70, .1}];//Timing
    ListPlot[pts, PlotJoined->True,PlotRange\[Rule]All];
    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        {0.33 Second,Null}


As a matter of interest, this is what happens if we substitute exact numbers
(rationals and integers) for reals--
the computation takes an excessively long time and quite a bit more memory.

    pts= With[{ss=ser},Table[ {#,ss}&[SetPrecision[x,Infinity]],
          {x,50.,70., .1}]];//Timing
    ListPlot[pts, PlotJoined->True,PlotRange\[Rule]All];
    MaxMemoryUsed[]

        {992.28 Second,Null}

        2413808

This also shows that we may in fact want to replace exact inputs with
bigfloats.


I should be interested to hear of other example, really "real" one in
particular. I imagine that there are many situations where trends and shapes
are more important than specific values.

--
Allan

---------------------
Allan Hayes
Mathematica Training and Consulting
Leicester UK
www.haystack.demon.co.uk
hay at haystack.demon.co.uk
Voice: +44 (0)116 271 4198
Fax: +44 (0)870 164 0565


>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>

• References:
  • re: Accuracy and Precision
    • From: Daniel Lichtblau <danl@wolfram.com>