On Jul 8, 3:29 pm, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 9:22 am, Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2:00 pm, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For some computations, the number of bits required to > > > get the desired precision can quickly overwhelm the finite limitations > > > of your machine (e.g., you run out of RAM first or the time to compute > > > the answer is simply unacceptable). > > > Perhaps in theory. In practice, though, it's very rare to need to > > increase precision more than once or twice beyond an initial first > > guesstimate, and the amount of extra precision needed is small. That > > increase is unlikely to cause problems unless you were operating right > > up against your machine's limits in the first place. > > I suspect your platitude isn't especially comforting for those who > need more computing capability than we can currently construct. > However, I wouldn't call the amount of extra needed precision "small"
I think that's because we're talking at cross-purposes. To clarify, suppose you want to compute some value (pi; log(2); AGM(1, sqrt(2)); whatever...) to 1000 significant decimal places. Then typically the algorithm (sometimes known as Ziv's onion-peeling method) looks like: (1) Compute an initial approximation to 1002 digits (say), with known absolute error (given by a suitable error analysis); for the sake of argument, let's say that you use enough intermediate precision to guarantee an absolute error of < 0.6 ulps. (2) Check to see whether that approximation unambiguously gives you the correctly-rounded 1000 digits that you need. (3) If not, increase the target precision (say by 3 digits) and try again. It's the precision increase in (3) that I was calling small, and similarly it's step (3) that isn't usually needed more than once or twice. (In general, for most functions and input values; I dare say there are exceptions.) Step (1) will often involve using significantly more than the target precision for intermediate computations, depending very much on what you happen to be trying to compute. IIUC, it's the extra precision in step (1) that you don't want to call 'small', and I agree. IOW, I'm saying that the extra precision required *due to the table- maker's dilemma* generally isn't a concern. I actually agree with much of what you've said. It was just the "impossible" claim that went over the top (IMO). The MPFR library amply demonstrates that computing many transcendental functions to arbitrary precision, with correctly rounded results, is indeed possible. -- Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
