[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: //N bug, but WHY?
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg58675] Re: //N bug, but WHY?
*From*: Peter Pein <petsie at dordos.net>
*Date*: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:49:00 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <data3n$mec$1@smc.vnet.net> <db030a$r7o$1@smc.vnet.net> <db2g59$din$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Richard Fateman schrieb:
> ....
>
>>symbio wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Evaluating (using //N) two exact same expressions, gives wrong answer unless
>>
>>...
>
>
> The same question was asked the previous day, and answered, in sci.math.symbolic.
> Symbio knows about email enough to provide a bogus return address, but
> doesn't know much about numerical computation, and is unwilling to learn.
> So he or she asks and asks. At least Symbio found the mathematica newsgroup.
>
> It occurs to me that the right answer, for someone like Symbio
> who really doesn't want to
> be burdened by any computational knowledge, is simple:
>
> Never EVER use N[...],
> but always N[...,<somenumber>], and hope for the best.
>
>
> In Symbio's case he or she should just replace the
> the locution ......//N
>
> with the locution
> .....//N[#,16]&
>
>
> and Symbio's answer comes out "right". No need for FullSimplify etc etc.
>
> So in this regard, there is a "bug" and it even has a "fix".
>
> More significantly, and the reason I bother to write again, is
> the following advice.
> (at least if you believe in the validity of the Mathematica
> software-float numerics).
>
> Suggestion to WRI:
>
> Change the meaning of N to N[#,16]& and alter N so that
> the only time the current N[] is used is by explicit
> demand, e.g. N[...., DoItFasterAndMaybeWrongUsingMachineArithmetic]
>
>
> Regards
> RJF
>
I tried it this way:
Unprotect[N];
N /: Options[N] = Union[Evaluate[Options[N]], {QuickAndDirty -> False}];
HoldPattern[N[x_, opt:(o_ -> v_)..]] :=
If[(QuickAndDirty /. {opt}) == True,
N[x, MachinePrecision, (* NOT $MachinePrecision! *)
Sequence @@ DeleteCases[{opt}, QuickAndDirty -> True]],
N[x]];
HoldPattern[N[x_]] := N[x, $MachinePrecision];
N::usage = "N[expr] gives the numerical value of expr.\
N[expr, n] attempts to give a result with n-digit precision.\
N[expr,QuickAndDirty->True] will most likely ignore problems\
arising from a poorly conditioned expr.";
QuickAndDirty::usage = "QuickAndDirty is a boolean option for N.\
If set to True, N will not recognize ill conditioned expressions";
Protect[N];
In[8]:= expr = Cosh[(43*Pi)/Sqrt[2]] +
(1 - Cosh[43*Sqrt[2]*Pi])*Csch[43*Sqrt[2]*Pi]*Sinh[(43*Pi)/Sqrt[2]];
In[9]:=N[expr, QuickAndDirty -> True]
Out[9]=-1.9342813113834067*^25
In[10]:=N[expr]
From In[10]:=
N::meprec: Internal precision limit $MaxExtraPrecision =
49.99999999999999` reached while evaluating Cosh[(43*Pi)/Sqrt[2]] + (1 -
Cosh[43*Sqrt[2]*Pi])*Csch[43*Sqrt[2]*Pi]*Sinh[(43*Pi)/Sqrt[2]]. More...
Out[10]=
0``21.45463265565461
so we see at least, that something has gone wrong.
In[11]:= Block[{$MaxExtraPrecision = 86}, N[expr]]
Out[11]= 6.551787517854344014050058`15.954589770191*^-42
--
Peter Pein
Berlin
http://people.freenet.de/Peter_Berlin/
Prev by Date:
**Light and surface colors**
Next by Date:
**Re: Superscript Problem**
Previous by thread:
**Re: //N bug, but WHY?**
Next by thread:
** Re: //N bug, but WHY?**
| |