Re: Confusing math problem

References	<kg5sog$lfb$1@dont-email.me> <512682B3.8070909@davea.name> <51268867.1000800@davea.name> <mailman.2199.1361481815.2939.python-list@python.org> <aonjmqFqplbU1@mid.individual.net>
Date	2013-02-22 09:11 +1100
Subject	Re: Confusing math problem
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.2205.1361484698.2939.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:23:27 +1100, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In theory, a float should hold the nearest representable value to the
>> exact result. Considering that only one operation is being performed,
>> there should be no accumulation of error. The integer results show a
>> small number (618) of collisions, eg 2**16 and 4**8; why should some
>> of those NOT collide when done with floating point? My initial thought
>> was "Oh, this is comparing floats for equality", but after one single
>> operation, that should be not a problem.
>
> Does this help explain it?
>
>>>> print hex(int(math.pow(3,60))); print hex(3**60)
> 0x88f924eeceeda80000000000L
> 0x88f924eeceeda7fe92e1f5b1L
>

I understand how the inaccuracy works, but I'm expecting it to be as
consistent as Mr Grossmith's entertainments. It doesn't matter that
math.pow(3,60) != 3**60, but the number of collisions is different
when done with floats on the OP's Mac. Here's what I'm talking about:

>>> set((3**60,9**30,27**20))
{42391158275216203514294433201}
>>> set((math.pow(3,60),math.pow(9,30),math.pow(27,20)))
{4.23911582752162e+28}

Note how, in each case, calculating three powers that have the same
real-number result gives a one-element set. Three to the sixtieth
power can't be perfectly rendered with a 53-bit mantissa, but it's
rendered the same way whichever route is used to calculate it.

ChrisA

Thread

Confusing math problem "Schizoid Man" <schiz_man@21stcentury.com> - 2013-02-21 19:33 +0000
  Re: Confusing math problem Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-21 15:25 -0500
    Re: Confusing math problem "Schizoid Man" <schiz_man@21stcentury.com> - 2013-02-21 22:39 +0000
      Re: Confusing math problem Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 22:53 +0000
        Re: Confusing math problem "Schizoid Man" <schiz_man@21stcentury.com> - 2013-02-21 23:41 +0000
          Re: Confusing math problem Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 00:04 +0000
          Re: Confusing math problem Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 17:19 -0700
    Re: Confusing math problem "Schizoid Man" <schiz_man@21stcentury.com> - 2013-02-21 23:39 +0000
  Re: Confusing math problem Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 13:42 -0700
  Re: Confusing math problem Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 07:46 +1100
    Re: Confusing math problem "Schizoid Man" <schiz_man@21stcentury.com> - 2013-02-21 22:44 +0000
      Re: Confusing math problem Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 11:29 +1100
      Re: Confusing math problem Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-21 21:19 -0500
  Re: Confusing math problem Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-21 15:49 -0500
  Re: Confusing math problem Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 08:23 +1100
    Re: Confusing math problem Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2013-02-21 21:59 +0000
      Re: Confusing math problem Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 09:11 +1100
      Re: Confusing math problem Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-02-21 17:33 -0500
      Re: Confusing math problem Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 10:15 +1100
    Re: Confusing math problem Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-22 09:16 +0000
      Re: Confusing math problem Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 13:48 +0200
  Re: Confusing math problem Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-02-22 09:27 +0000

csiph-web