I start with a simple Maxima question, the answer to which may provide the answer to the actual problem I'm grappling with.
Related Simple Question:
How can I get maxima to calculate:
bfloat((1+%i)^0.3);
Might there be an option variable that can be set so that this evaluates to a complex number?
Actual Question:
In evaluating approximations for numerical time integration for finite element methods, for this purpose I'm using spectral analysis, which requires the calculation of the eigenvalues of a 4 x 4 matrix. This matrix "cav" is also calculated within maxima, using some of the algebra capabilities of maxima, but sustituting numerical values, so that matrix is entirely numerical, i.e. containing no variables. I've calculated the eigenvalues with Mathematica and it returns 4 real eigenvalues. However Maxima calculates horrenduously complicated expressions for this case, which apparently it does not "know" how to simplify, even numerically as "bigfloat". Perhaps this problem arises because Maxima first approximates the matrix "cac" by rational numbers (i.e. fractions) and then tries to solve the problem fully exactly, instead of simply using numerical "bigfloat" computations throughout. Is there I way I can change this?
Note that if you only change the input value of gzv to say 0.5 it works fine, and returns numerical values of complex eigenvalues.
I include the code below. Note that all of the code up until "cav:subst(vs,ca)$" is just for the definition of the matrix cav and seems to work fine. It is in the few statements thereafter that it fails to calculate numerical values for the eigenvalues.
v1:v0+ (1-gg)*a0+gg*a1$
d1:d0+v0+(1/2-gb)*a0+gb*a1$
obf:a1+(1+ga)*(w^2*d1 + 2*gz*w*(d1-d0)) -
ga *(w^2*d0 + 2*gz*w*(d0-g0))$
obf:expand(obf)$
cd:subst([a1=1,d0=0,v0=0,a0=0,g0=0],obf)$
fd:subst([a1=0,d0=1,v0=0,a0=0,g0=0],obf)$
fv:subst([a1=0,d0=0,v0=1,a0=0,g0=0],obf)$
fa:subst([a1=0,d0=0,v0=0,a0=1,g0=0],obf)$
fg:subst([a1=0,d0=0,v0=0,a0=0,g0=1],obf)$
f:[fd,fv,fa,fg]$
cad1:expand(cd*[1,1,1/2-gb,0] - gb*f)$
cad2:expand(cd*[0,1,1-gg,0] - gg*f)$
cad3:expand(-f)$
cad4:[cd,0,0,0]$
cad:matrix(cad1,cad2,cad3,cad4)$
gav:-0.05$
ggv:1/2-gav$
gbv:(ggv+1/2)^2/4$
gzv:1.1$
dt:0.01$
wv:bfloat(dt*2*%pi)$
vs:[ga=gav,gg=ggv,gb=gbv,gz=gzv,w=wv]$
cav:subst(vs,ca)$
cav:bfloat(cav)$
evam:eigenvalues(cav)$
evam:bfloat(evam)$
eva:evam[1]$
The main problem here is that Maxima tries pretty hard to make computations exact, and it's hard to tell it to ease up and allow inexact results.
Is there a mistake in the code you posted above? You have cav:subst(vs,ca) but ca is not defined. Is that supposed to be cav:subst(vs,cad) ?
For the short problem, usually rectform can simplify complex expressions to something more usable:
(%i58) rectform (bfloat((1+%i)^0.3));
`rat' replaced 1.0B0 by 1/1 = 1.0B0
(%o58) 2.59023849130283b-1 %i + 1.078911979230303b0
About the long problem, if fixed-precision (i.e. ordinary floats, not bigfloats) is acceptable to you, then you can use the LAPACK function dgeev to compute eigenvalues and/or eigenvectors.
(%i51) load (lapack);
<bunch of messages here>
(%o51) /usr/share/maxima/5.39.0/share/lapack/lapack.mac
(%i52) dgeev (cav);
(%o52) [[- 0.02759949957202372, 0.06804641655485913, 0.997993508502892, 0.928429191717788], false, false]
If you really need variable precision, I don't know what to try. In principle it's possible to rework the LAPACK code to work with variable-precision floats, but that's a substantial task and I'm not sure about the details.
Related
I am using neo4j to calculate some statistics on a data set. For that I am often using sum on a floating point value. I am getting different results depending on the circumstances. For example, a query that does this:
...
WITH foo
ORDER BY foo.fooId
RETURN SUM(foo.Weight)
Returns different result than the query that simply does the sum:
...
RETURN SUM(foo.Weight)
The differences are miniscule (293.07724195098984 vs 293.07724195099007). But it is enough to make simple equality checks fail. Another example would be a different instance of the database, loaded with the same data using the same loading process can produce the same issue (the dbs might not be 1:1, the load order of some relations might be different). I took the raw values that neo4j sums (by simply removing the SUM()) and verified that they are the same in all cases (different dbs and ordered/not ordered).
What are my options here? I don't mind losing some precision (I already tried to cut down the precision from 15 to 12 decimal places but that did not seem to work), but I need the results to match up.
Because of rounding errors, floats are not associative. (a+b)+c!=a+(b+c).
The result of every operation is rounded to fit the floats coding constraints and (a+b)+c is implemented as round(round(a+b) +c) while a+(b+c) as round(a+round(b+c)).
As an obvious illustration, consider the operation (2^-100 + 1 -1). If interpreted as a (2^-100 + 1)-1, it will return 0, as 1+2^-100 would require a precision too large for floats or double coding in IEEE754 and can only be coded as 1.0. While (2^-100 +(1-1)) correctly returns 2^-100 that can be coded by either floats or doubles.
This is a trivial example, but these rounding errors may exist after every operation and explain why floating point operations are not associative.
Databases generally do not return data in a garanteed order and depending on the actual order, operations will be done differently and that explains the behaviour that you have.
In general, for this reason, it not a good idea to do equality comparison on floats. Generally, it is advised to replace a==b by abs(a-b) is "sufficiently" small.
"sufficiently" may depend on your algorithm. float are equivalent to ~6-7 decimals and doubles to 15-16 decimals (and I think that it is what is used on your DB). Depending on the number of computations, you may have the last 1--3 decimals affected.
The best is probably to use
abs(a-b)<relative-error*max(abs(a),abs(b))
where relative-error must be adjusted to your problem. Probably something around 10^-13 can be correct, but you must experiment, as rounding errors depends on the number of computations, on the dispersion of the values and on what you may consider as "equal" for you problem.
Look at this site for a discussion on comparison methods. And read What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic by David Goldberg that discusses, among others, these problems.
This question is related to my previous question
Is it possible to get a legit range info when using a SMT constraint with Z3
So it seems that "efficiently" finding the maximum range info is not proper, given typical 32-bit vectors and so on. But on the other hand, I am thinking whether it is feasible to find certain "sub-maximum" range info, which hopefully becomes more efficient. Another thing is that we may want to have certain "safe" guarantee, say for all elements in the sub-maximum range, they must satisfy the constraint, but there could exist some other solutions that would satisfy the constraint as well.
I am currently exploring whether model counting technique could make sense in this setting. Any thoughts would be appreciated very much. Thanks.
General case
This is not just a question of efficiency. Consider a problem where you have two variables a and b, and a single constraint:
a != b
What's the range of b? (maximum or otherwise?)
You can say all values are legitimate. But that would be wrong, as obviously the choice of a impacts the choice of b. The more variables you have around, the more complicated the problem will become. I don't think the problem is even well defined in this case, so searching for a solution (efficient or otherwise) doesn't make much sense.
Single variable assumption
Having said that, I think you can come up with a solution if you assume there's precisely one variable in the system. (Or, alternatively, if you fix all the other variables to some predefined constants.) If you're willing to go down this path, then you can implement a binary search algorithm to find a reasonably sized range by simply proving the quantified formula
Exists([b], And(b >= minBound, b <= maxBound, Not(constraints)))
Once you get unsat for this, you have your range. So long as you get sat, you can adjust your minBound/maxBound to search within smaller ranges. In the worst case, this can turn into a linear walk, but you can "cut-down" this search by making sure you go down a significant size in each step. That could be a parameter to the whole search, depending on how large you want your intervals to be. It'll have to be a choice between trying to find a maximal range, and how long you want to spend in this search. Of course, if you cut-down too much, you can miss a big interval, but that's the cost of efficiency.
Example1 (Good case) There's a single constraint that says b != 5. Then your search will be quick and depending on which branch you'll go, you'll either find [0, 4] or [6, 255] assuming 8-bit words.
Example2 (Bad case) There's a single constraint that says b is even. Then your search will exhibit worst-case behavior, and if your "cut-down" size is 1, you'll possibly iterate 255 times before you settle down on [0, 0]; assuming z3 gives you the maximum odd number in each call.
I hope that illustrates the point. In general, though, I'd assume you'd be closer to the "good case" for practical applications and even if your cut-down size is minimal you can most likely converge in a few iterations. Of course, this entirely depends on your problem domain, but I'd expect it to hold for software analysis in general.
So in Lua it's common knowledge that you can use math.randomseed but it's also obvious that math.random sets the seed as well (calling it twice does not return the same result), what does it set it to, and how can I keep track of it, and if it's impossible, please explain why that is so.
This is not a Lua question, but general question on how some RNG algorithm works.
First, Lua don't have their own RNG - they just output you (slightly mangled) value from RNG of underlying C library. Most RNG implementations do not reveal you their inner state, but sometimes you can caclulate it yourself.
For example when you use Lua on Windows, you'll be using LCG-based RNG from MS C library. The numbers you get is a slice of seed, not full value. There are two ways you can deal with that:
If you know how many times you called random, you can just take initial seed value, feed it to your copy of the same algorithm with same constants that are hardcoded in MS library and get exact value of seed.
If you don't, but you can be sure that nobody interferes in between your two calls to random, you can get two generated numbers, and reverse LCG algorithm by shifting bits back to their place. This will leave you with several missing bits (with one more bit thanks to Lua mangling) that you will need to simply bruteforce - just reiterate over all missing bits until your copy of algorithm produces exactly same two "random" numbers you've recorded before. That will be current seed stored inside library's RNG as well. Well programmed solution in Lua can bruteforce this in about 0.2-0.5s on somewhat dated PC - I did it past. Here's example on Crypto.SE talking about this task in more details: Predicting values from a Linear Congruential Generator.
First approach can be used with any other RNG algorithm that doesn't use any real entropy, second with most RNGs that don't mask too much bits in slice to make bruteforcing unreasonable.
Real answer though is: you don't need to keep track of seed at all. What you want is probably something else.
If you set a seed all numbers math.random() generates are pseudo-random (This is always the case as the system will generate a seed by itself).
math.randomseed(4)
print(math.random())
print(math.random())
math.randomseed(4)
print(math.random())
Outputs
0.50827539156303
0.75454387490399
0.50827539156303
So if you reset the seed to the same value you can predict all values that are going to come up to the maximum number of consecutive values that you already generated using that seed.
What the seed does not do is keep the output of math.random() the same. It would be the same if you kept resetting it to the same value.
An analogy as an example
Imagine the random number is an integer between 0 and 9 (instead of a double between 0 and 1).
math.random() could traverse pi's decimals from an arbitrary starting position (default could be system time).
What you do when you use set.seed() is (not literally, this is an analogy as mentioned) set the starting decimals of where in pi you are going to retrieve your numbers.
If you now reset the seed to the same starting position the numbers are going to be the same as the last time you reset the starting position.
You will know the numbers of to the last call, after that you can't be certain anymore.
Good morning all,
I'm having some issues with floating point math, and have gotten totally lost in ".to_f"'s, "*100"'s and ".0"'s!
I was hoping someone could help me with my specific problem, and also explain exactly why their solution works so that I understand this for next time.
My program needs to do two things:
Sum a list of decimals, determine if they sum to exactly 1.0
Determine a difference between 1.0 and a sum of numbers - set the value of a variable to the exact difference to make the sum equal 1.0.
For example:
[0.28, 0.55, 0.17] -> should sum to 1.0, however I keep getting 1.xxxxxx. I am implementing the sum in the following fashion:
sum = array.inject(0.0){|sum,x| sum+ (x*100)} / 100
The reason I need this functionality is that I'm reading in a set of decimals that come from excel. They are not 100% precise (they are lacking some decimal points) so the sum usually comes out of 0.999999xxxxx or 1.000xxxxx. For example, I will get values like the following:
0.568887955,0.070564759,0.360547286
To fix this, I am ok taking the sum of the first n-1 numbers, and then changing the final number slightly so that all of the numbers together sum to 1.0 (must meet validation using the equation above, or whatever I end up with). I'm currently implementing this as follows:
sum = 0.0
array.each do |item|
sum += item * 100.0
end
array[i] = (100 - sum.round)/100.0
I know I could do this with inject, but was trying to play with it to see what works. I think this is generally working (from inspecting the output), but it doesn't always meet the validation sum above. So if need be I can adjust this one as well. Note that I only need two decimal precision in these numbers - i.e. 0.56 not 0.5623225. I can either round them down at time of presentation, or during this calculation... It doesn't matter to me.
Thank you VERY MUCH for your help!
If accuracy is important to you, you should not be using floating point values, which, by definition, are not accurate. Ruby has some precision data types for doing arithmetic where accuracy is important. They are, off the top of my head, BigDecimal, Rational and Complex, depending on what you actually need to calculate.
It seems that in your case, what you're looking for is BigDecimal, which is basically a number with a fixed number of digits, of which there are a fixed number of digits after the decimal point (in contrast to a floating point, which has an arbitrary number of digits after the decimal point).
When you read from Excel and deliberately cast those strings like "0.9987" to floating points, you're immediately losing the accurate value that is contained in the string.
require "bigdecimal"
BigDecimal("0.9987")
That value is precise. It is 0.9987. Not 0.998732109, or anything close to it, but 0.9987. You may use all the usual arithmetic operations on it. Provided you don't mix floating points into the arithmetic operations, the return values will remain precise.
If your array contains the raw strings you got from Excel (i.e. you haven't #to_f'd them), then this will give you a BigDecimal that is the difference between the sum of them and 1.
1 - array.map{|v| BigDecimal(v)}.reduce(:+)
Either:
continue using floats and round(2) your totals: 12.341.round(2) # => 12.34
use integers (i.e. cents instead of dollars)
use BigDecimal and you won't need to round after summing them, as long as you start with BigDecimal with only two decimals.
I think that algorithms have a great deal more to do with accuracy and precision than a choice of IEEE floating point over another representation.
People used to do some fine calculations while still dealing with accuracy and precision issues. They'd do it by managing the algorithms they'd use and understanding how to represent functions more deeply. I think that you might be making a mistake by throwing aside that better understanding and assuming that another representation is the solution.
For example, no polynomial representation of a function will deal with an asymptote or singularity properly.
Don't discard floating point so quickly. I could be that being smarter about the way you use them will do just fine.
I am trying to run this code but it keeps crashing:
log10(x):=log(x)/log(10);
char(x):=floor(log10(x))+1;
mantissa(x):=x/10**char(x);
chop(x,d):=(10**char(x))*(floor(mantissa(x)*(10**d))/(10**d));
rnd(x,d):=chop(x+5*10**(char(x)-d-1),d);
d:5;
a:10;
Ibwd:[[30,rnd(integrate((x**60)/(1+10*x^2),x,0,1),d)]];
for n from 30 thru 1 step -1 do Ibwd:append([[n-1,rnd(1/(2*n-1)-a*last(first(Ibwd)),d)]],Ibwd);
Maxima crashes when it evaluates the last line. Any ideas why it may happen?
Thank you so much.
The problem is that the difference becomes negative and your rounding function dies horribly with a negative argument. To find this out, I changed your loop to:
for n from 30 thru 1 step -1 do
block([],
print (1/(2*n-1)-a*last(first(Ibwd))),
print (a*last(first(Ibwd))),
Ibwd: append([[n-1,rnd(1/(2*n-1)-a*last(first(Ibwd)),d)]],Ibwd),
print (Ibwd));
The last difference printed before everything fails miserably is -316539/6125000. So now try
rnd(-1,3)
and see the same problem. This all stems from the fact that you're taking the log of a negative number, which Maxima interprets as a complex number by analytic continuation. Maxima doesn't evaluate this until it absolutely has to and, somewhere in the evaluation code, something's dying horribly.
I don't know the "fix" for your specific example, since I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do, but hopefully this gives you enough info to find it yourself.
If you want to deconstruct a floating point number, let's first make sure that it is a bigfloat.
say z: 34.1
You can access the parts of a bigfloat by using lisp, and you can also access the mantissa length in bits by ?fpprec.
Thus ?second(z)*2^(?third(z)-?fpprec) gives you :
4799148352916685/140737488355328
and bfloat(%) gives you :
3.41b1.
If you want the mantissa of z as an integer, look at ?second(z)
Now I am not sure what it is that you are trying to accomplish in base 10, but Maxima
does not do internal arithmetic in base 10.
If you want more bits or fewer, you can set fpprec,
which is linked to ?fpprec. fpprec is the "approximate base 10" precision.
Thus fpprec is initially 16
?fpprec is correspondingly 56.
You can easily change them both, e.g. fpprec:100
corresponds to ?fpprec of 335.
If you are diddling around with float representations, you might benefit from knowing
that you can look at any of the lisp by typing, for example,
?print(z)
which prints the internal form using the Lisp print function.
You can also trace any function, your own or system function, by trace.
For example you could consider doing this:
trace(append,rnd,integrate);
If you want to use machine floats, I suggest you use, for the last line,
for n from 30 thru 1 step -1 do :
Ibwd:append([[n-1,rnd(1/(2.0*n- 1.0)-a*last(first(Ibwd)),d)]],Ibwd);
Note the decimal points. But even that is not quite enough, because integration
inserts exact structures like atan(10). Trying to round these things, or compute log
of them is probably not what you want to do. I suspect that Maxima is unhappy because log is given some messy expression that turns out to be negative, even though it initially thought otherwise. It hands the number to the lisp log program which is perfectly happy to return an appropriate common-lisp complex number object. Unfortunately, most of Maxima was written BEFORE LISP HAD COMPLEX NUMBERS.
Thus the result (log -0.5)= #C(-0.6931472 3.1415927) is entirely unexpected to the rest of Maxima. Maxima has its own form for complex numbers, e.g. 3+4*%i.
In particular, the Maxima display program predates the common lisp complex number format and does not know what to do with it.
The error (stack overflow !!!) is from the display program trying to display a common lisp complex number.
How to fix all this? Well, you could try changing your program so it computes what you really want, in which case it probably won't trigger this error. Maxima's display program should be fixed, too. Also, I suspect there is something unfortunate in simplification of logs of numbers that are negative but not obviously so.
This is probably waaay too much information for the original poster, but maybe the paragraph above will help out and also possibly improve Maxima in one or more places.
It appears that your program triggers an error in Maxima's simplification (algebraic identities) code. We are investigating and I hope we have a bug fix soon.
In the meantime, here is an idea. Looks like the bug is triggered by rnd(x, d) when x < 0. I guess rnd is supposed to round x to d digits. To handle x < 0, try this:
rnd(x, d) := if x < 0 then -rnd1(-x, d) else rnd1(x, d);
rnd1(x, d) := (... put the present definition of rnd here ...);
When I do that, the loop runs to completion and Ibwd is a list of values, but I don't know what values to expect.