On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Anne Archibald
<peridot.face...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 1 April 2010 01:59, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Anne Archibald <
> peridot.face...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1 April 2010 01:40, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:25 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:22 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> >> > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:08 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Warren Weckesser
> >> >> >>> <warren.weckes...@enthought.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > T J wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> >> >>> >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >>> Looks like roundoff error.
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> So this is "expected" behavior?
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> In [1]: np.logaddexp2(-1.5849625007211563,
> -53.584962500721154)
> >> >> >>> >> Out[1]: -1.5849625007211561
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> In [2]: np.logaddexp2(-0.5849625007211563,
> -53.584962500721154)
> >> >> >>> >> Out[2]: nan
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Is any able to reproduce this? I don't get 'nan' in either
> 1.4.0
> >> >> >>> > or
> >> >> >>> > 2.0.0.dev8313 (32 bit Mac OSX). In an earlier email T J
> reported
> >> >> >>> > using
> >> >> >>> > 1.5.0.dev8106.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>> np.logaddexp2(-0.5849625007211563, -53.584962500721154)
> >> >> >>> nan
> >> >> >>> >>> np.logaddexp2(-1.5849625007211563, -53.584962500721154)
> >> >> >>> -1.5849625007211561
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>> np.version.version
> >> >> >>> '1.4.0'
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> WindowsXP 32
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What compiler? Mingw?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > yes, mingw 3.4.5. , official binaries release 1.4.0 by David
> >> >>
> >> >> sse2 Pentium M
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Can you try the exp2/log2 functions with the problem data and see if
> >> > something goes wrong?
> >>
> >> Works fine for me.
> >>
> >> If it helps clarify things, the difference between the two problem
> >> input values is exactly 53 (and that's what logaddexp2 does an exp2
> >> of); so I can provide a simpler example:
> >>
> >> In [23]: np.logaddexp2(0, -53)
> >> Out[23]: nan
> >>
> >> Of course, for me it fails in both orders.
> >>
> >
> > Ah, that's progress then ;) The effective number of bits in a double is
> 53
> > (52 + implicit bit). That shouldn't cause problems but it sure looks
> > suspicious.
>
> Indeed, that's what led me to the totally wrong suspicion that
> denormals have something to do with the problem. More data points:
>
> In [38]: np.logaddexp2(63.999, 0)
> Out[38]: nan
>
> In [39]: np.logaddexp2(64, 0)
> Out[39]: 64.0
>
> In [42]: np.logaddexp2(52.999, 0)
> Out[42]: 52.999000000000002
>
> In [43]: np.logaddexp2(53, 0)
> Out[43]: nan
>
> It looks to me like perhaps the NaNs are appearing when the smaller
> term affects only the "extra" bits provided by the FPU's internal
> larger-than-double representation. Some such issue would explain why
> the problem seems to be hardware- and compiler-dependent.
>
>
Hmm, that 63.999 is kinda strange. Here is a bit of code that might confuse
a compiler working with different size mantissas:
@type@ npy_log2...@c@(@type@ x)
{
@type@ u = 1 + x;
if (u == 1) {
return LOG2E*x;
} else {
return npy_l...@c@(u) * x / (u - 1);
}
}
It might be that u != 1 does not imply u-1 != 0.
Chuck
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
