Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> The problem here is that C gives no guarantees about accuracy of either log2
> or exp2
* The input table has hard-wired constants so there is no dependency on log2().
The inputs can be as exact as pi, tau, and e.
* The C library's exp2() function doesn't have to be perfect. Just being good
would suffice. Our test suite already requires that exp2() be within 5 ulp:
self.ftest('exp2(2.3)', math.exp2(2.3), 4.924577653379665)
* With a perfect exp2(), the first failure is at C(50, 22). With a forced
error of 5 ulp, it happens at C(48, 24). So keeping n <= 47 that would let
exp2() be off substantially and still give correct answers.
* Since exp2() is deterministic, it is easy to write a test that covers all
C(n, r) where 0 <= r <= n <= 47. If there were to be a problem, we would know
right away and early during the release cycle.
* Also, it is easy to prove that C(n, r) always gives the correct result for a
given ulp error bound on exp2() and a given limit on n.
* The speed-up is substantial, so this is worth consideration.
> factorial(49) has 163 significant binary digits.
Exact factorials aren't needed. The important fact (no pun intended) is that
comb(47, 23).bit_length() == 44. For this to work, we need one addition and
one subtraction of 53 bit approximations to come within 44 bits of the true
answer.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37295>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
