Yeah.. This will prevent negative squared distances and is probably OK. On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> It might matter a little -- given how that particular computation is > structured, the original vectors aren't available any more and the > alternative would be a bunch of recalculation anyway. I think the > speed / elegance benefit probably trumps precision issues. > > At least -- stare decisis, that's how it had always been anyway, this > was just fixing round-off errors. Which is I suppose exactly what you > mean. > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am not sure if this matters in this context, but using this formula > will > > lose precision for very near points. That can affect ordering in the > limit. > > > > By lose precision, I mean it can degrade to 7-8 sig figs instead of 16 or > > so. I doubt this matters, but I wouldn't know if it does. >
