Re: [sc-dev] Calc does not detect singularity
Hi Eike, Eike Rathke schrieb: Hi Regina, I'll try to give some long outstanding answers to questions you asked shortly before I went to OOoCon and then into vacation and then.. On Thursday, 2010-08-26 22:33:20 +0200, Regina Henschel wrote: next problem with matrices :( (All with German local with comma as decimal delimiter) Fill A1:C3 with 1 2 3 3 6 9 9,1 18 27 Calculate =MINVERSE(A1:C3) That looks related, though I don't know at the moment how that should occur in Calc. We usually convert all INF and NAN to errors. Which milestone did you use? I have know installed OOo3.3.0 RC1 on Windows7 and get NaN #VALUE! #VALUE! #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! Shall I write an issue? Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@sc.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@sc.openoffice.org
Re: [sc-dev] Calc does not detect singularity
Hi Eike,
Eike Rathke schrieb:
Hi Regina,
I'll try to give some long outstanding answers to questions you asked
shortly before I went to OOoCon and then into vacation and then..
Hope you had a nice time in vacation. I'm pleased that you remember,
that I had some questions.
On Thursday, 2010-08-26 22:33:20 +0200, Regina Henschel wrote:
next problem with matrices :(
(All with German local with comma as decimal delimiter)
Fill A1:C3 with
1 2 3
3 6 9
9,1 18 27
Calculate =MINVERSE(A1:C3)
I get
0,-1.#NANE+000 #VALUE! #VALUE!
#NUM! #NUM! #VALUE!
#NUM! #NUM! #VALUE!
I got different results in OOO330m10 and DEV300m85, no error at all, and
even different in one value of the last column, being
OOO330m10 Solaris/x86:
28.1318681319 -3.5164835165 10
-819855292164869000 27328509738829 7.79926253788309E-015
546570194776579000 -182190064925526000 -3.33
DEV300m85 Linux/x86:
28.1318681319 -3.516483516510
-819855292164869000 27328509738829 0
546570194776579000 -182190064925526000 -3.33
Of course both obviously look wrong. Difference of 0 vs.
7.79926253788309E-015 might be because of different compilers'
optimizations, though it looks suspicious. I assume you're working on
Windows. Would be good to know what exactly happens.
I guess, that the wrong notation in upper, left cell is already
tracked in issue 114125.
That looks related, though I don't know at the moment how that should
occur in Calc. We usually convert all INF and NAN to errors. Which
milestone did you use?
I see in Dev300m88.
NaN #VALUE! #VALUE!
#NUM! #NUM! #VALUE!
#NUM! #NUM! #VALUE!
But I think, Calc should not return #NUM!
or #VALUE! at all, but Err:502 (illegal argument), because the
matrix is singular.
The LU decomposition has a zero in the diagonal, so it is possible
to detect this case. Excel and Gnumeric return #NUM! in the whole
range.
I ran that in a non-product debug build where the LU decomposition is
written to stderr, there was no 0, which explains why singularity was
not detected. The code is in interpr5.cxx at line 767
fprintf( stderr, "\n%s\n", "lcl_LUP_decompose(): LU");
and displayed
9.11827
0.33 0.066 0.099
0.11 0.33 1.8e-18
Can you compare that with your values?
I work on WinXP with cygwin. What do I have to do exactly? I have tried
to build with 'sc> build debug=true' or with 'sc>build dbglevel=2' But I
see no effect.
Then I have removed the 'OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > 1' condition and called
'scalc.exe 2>&1' from within cygwin I sometimes get an output, sometimes
not. I do not know how to force an output.
The times I get an output it is
9.1 18 27
0.330.066 0.099
0.110.330
My own build is currently based on Dev300m86.
I have added a test to the end of 'static int lcl_LUP_decompose', before
'return nSign;'
bool bSingular=false;
for (SCSIZE i=0; iGetDouble(i,i))==0.0);
if (bSingular)
nSign = 0;
That catches the simple case of exact zero.
In ScInterpreter::ScMatInv() line 924 some possible checks are
documented, of which one is implemented but disabled because
a "reasonably sufficient error margin" would have to be found for
fInvEpsilon. That would then set errIllegalArgument. Maybe going into
detail there could solve the problem for MINVERSE.
If the user sees this result, he will be cautious. But it might be
hidden as intermediate part of a larger formula. So the user does
not notice that the result is totally wrong. LINEST needs
calculating an inverse matrix for the statistics, but does of cause
do not show the matrix but the statistics, so that the user might
not detect, that the values are wrong.
Gnumeric returns #ZAHL! errors and Excel returns the same wrong
values as Calc.
Should I test the intermediate results in LINEST to catch this cases
and return an error?
Do you have a recipe to detect such cases? An error would be way better
than wrong results..
Not really. It seems to belong to the hard problems.
In case of a matrix and its inverse it is possible to calculate the
condition number of the matrix as ||A||*||A^-1||, where ||.|| denotes
the maximum absolute row sum. Matrices with large condition number are
likely singular or ill-conditioned. But there still is the problem what
is "large".
In the meantime I have worked further on LINEST. I have tried QR
decomposition instead of LU decomposition. I know it is more time
consuming, but the accuracy is far better. For example something like
=LINEST(B11:B16;{100|101|102|103|104|105}^{1;2;3;4}) to get a polynomial
regression give results with 3 digit accuracy where our current version
of LINEST totally fails.
Unfortunately the QR decomposition has problems with singular matrices
too. Using column pivoting gives a R-matrix where
Re: [sc-dev] Calc does not detect singularity
Hi Regina, I'll try to give some long outstanding answers to questions you asked shortly before I went to OOoCon and then into vacation and then.. On Thursday, 2010-08-26 22:33:20 +0200, Regina Henschel wrote: > next problem with matrices :( > > (All with German local with comma as decimal delimiter) > > Fill A1:C3 with > 1 2 3 > 3 6 9 > 9,1 18 27 > Calculate =MINVERSE(A1:C3) > > I get > 0,-1.#NANE+000#VALUE! #VALUE! > #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! > #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! I got different results in OOO330m10 and DEV300m85, no error at all, and even different in one value of the last column, being OOO330m10 Solaris/x86: 28.1318681319 -3.5164835165 10 -819855292164869000 27328509738829 7.79926253788309E-015 546570194776579000 -182190064925526000 -3.33 DEV300m85 Linux/x86: 28.1318681319 -3.516483516510 -819855292164869000 27328509738829 0 546570194776579000 -182190064925526000 -3.33 Of course both obviously look wrong. Difference of 0 vs. 7.79926253788309E-015 might be because of different compilers' optimizations, though it looks suspicious. I assume you're working on Windows. Would be good to know what exactly happens. > I guess, that the wrong notation in upper, left cell is already > tracked in issue 114125. That looks related, though I don't know at the moment how that should occur in Calc. We usually convert all INF and NAN to errors. Which milestone did you use? > But I think, Calc should not return #NUM! > or #VALUE! at all, but Err:502 (illegal argument), because the > matrix is singular. > The LU decomposition has a zero in the diagonal, so it is possible > to detect this case. Excel and Gnumeric return #NUM! in the whole > range. I ran that in a non-product debug build where the LU decomposition is written to stderr, there was no 0, which explains why singularity was not detected. The code is in interpr5.cxx at line 767 fprintf( stderr, "\n%s\n", "lcl_LUP_decompose(): LU"); and displayed 9.11827 0.33 0.066 0.099 0.11 0.33 1.8e-18 Can you compare that with your values? In ScInterpreter::ScMatInv() line 924 some possible checks are documented, of which one is implemented but disabled because a "reasonably sufficient error margin" would have to be found for fInvEpsilon. That would then set errIllegalArgument. Maybe going into detail there could solve the problem for MINVERSE. > If the user sees this result, he will be cautious. But it might be > hidden as intermediate part of a larger formula. So the user does > not notice that the result is totally wrong. LINEST needs > calculating an inverse matrix for the statistics, but does of cause > do not show the matrix but the statistics, so that the user might > not detect, that the values are wrong. > Gnumeric returns #ZAHL! errors and Excel returns the same wrong > values as Calc. > > Should I test the intermediate results in LINEST to catch this cases > and return an error? Do you have a recipe to detect such cases? An error would be way better than wrong results.. If the problem can be solved it would be worth to factor the code of MINVERSE out to a general matrix inversion routine that can be used in LINEST and maybe others. Eike -- OOo Calc core developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer. Signature key 0x87F8D412 : 2F58 5236 DB02 F335 8304 7D6C 65C9 F9B5 87F8 D412 OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS -- Please don't send mail to the old e...@sun.com account that I used for mailing lists, it phased out. Use eike.rat...@oracle.com instead. Thanks. pgpgH2dfnPn2K.pgp Description: PGP signature
[sc-dev] Calc does not detect singularity
Hi all, next problem with matrices :( (All with German local with comma as decimal delimiter) Fill A1:C3 with 1 2 3 3 6 9 9,1 18 27 Calculate =MINVERSE(A1:C3) I get 0,-1.#NANE+000 #VALUE! #VALUE! #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! #NUM! #NUM! #VALUE! I guess, that the wrong notation in upper, left cell is already tracked in issue 114125. But I think, Calc should not return #NUM! or #VALUE! at all, but Err:502 (illegal argument), because the matrix is singular. The LU decomposition has a zero in the diagonal, so it is possible to detect this case. Excel and Gnumeric return #NUM! in the whole range. Fill A1:D4 with 1 2 3 4 3 6 9 12 9 18,127 36 12,124 36 48 Calculate =MINVERSE(A1:D4) I get in full science notation -6,809917355371900E+001 -1,652892561983470E+001 0,000E+000 1,000E+001 -5,150539867109620E+001 -1,293916112956810E+001 9,860E+000 -5,177106436424810E-014 1,926351720312250E+015 -6,421172401040780E+014 1,670843776116550E-002 -1,408521303258110E+000 -1,444763790234140E+015 4,815879300780690E+014 -5,012531328320800E+000 -1,443609022556390E+000 which is in two decimal place notation -68,10 -16,53 0,0010,00 -51,51 -12,94 10,00 0,00 1926351720312250,00 -642117240104078,00 0,02-1,41 -1444763790234140,00481587930078069,00 -5,01 -1,44 If the user sees this result, he will be cautious. But it might be hidden as intermediate part of a larger formula. So the user does not notice that the result is totally wrong. LINEST needs calculating an inverse matrix for the statistics, but does of cause do not show the matrix but the statistics, so that the user might not detect, that the values are wrong. Gnumeric returns #ZAHL! errors and Excel returns the same wrong values as Calc. Should I test the intermediate results in LINEST to catch this cases and return an error? kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@sc.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@sc.openoffice.org
