H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67

09102018, 07:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 09102018 08:32 AM by Pekis.)
Post: #41




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
Hello,
Please note the proposed patch in my DEG>DMS formula to fix the "60 seconds" bug by naturally rounding to internal precision: INT(X*60) is transformed into INT(X*120/2) INT(X) is transformed into INT(X*2/2) (patched): DEG>DMS: (90*X+INT(X*120/2)+100*INT(X*2/2))/250 (unchanged): DMS>DEG: (250*XINT(100*X)60*INT(X))/90 What do you think of it ? 

09102018, 12:46 PM
Post: #42




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 07:31 AM)Pekis Wrote: (patched): DEG>DMS: (90*X+INT(X*120/2)+100*INT(X*2/2))/250 I propose patch DMS>DEG, to fix the "40 seconds" bug DMS>DEG: (250*XINT(100.00000000000001*X)60*INT(X))/90 formula is basically unchanged, until X in "40 seconds bug" region. In other words, X is at most 2 ULP away from "buggy" 100 seconds. The patch remove the 100 seconds, roundup an extra minute instead. (Not precisely 1 ULP fix with nextafter(), but good enough) Your patch DEG>DMS have no effect for binary float, *2 and /2 is exact. For calculator that used BCD, *2 /2 trick only work if X is "filled" with digits. But, not always. On HP12C, X=9.999999995, DEG>DMS = 9.5960 (exact) Since 9°59'60" = 10°, "60 seconds bug" is not serious (easily fixed in the head) At worse, this is a display bug, wrongly assumed number is decimal (see post 37). 

09102018, 01:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 09102018 01:38 PM by Pekis.)
Post: #43




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 12:46 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Your patch DEG>DMS have no effect for binary float, *2 and /2 is exact. OK, but at least for simple and usual calculations (in BCD), it removes the annoying "60 seconds bug". For example, DEG>DMS(DMS>DEG(0.08)) goes back to 0.08, and not 0.0760. 

09102018, 02:10 PM
Post: #44




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
FWIW, the formula
HR=H.MS+FP(H.MS*100)/150+FP(H.MS+FP(H.MS*100)/150)/1.5 or T := H.MS + FP(H.MS*100)/150; HR := T + FP(T)/1.5; that I posted earlier has no problems with the billion degrees 4 minutes problem, and doesn't have to resort to introducing errors of a few ulps. Cheers, Werner 41CV†,42S,48GX,49G,DM42,DM41X,17BII,15CE,DM15L,12C,16CE 

09102018, 03:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 09102018 03:33 PM by Joe Horn.)
Post: #45




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 12:46 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Since 9°59'60" = 10°, "60 seconds bug" is not serious (easily fixed in the head) (1) "Not serious"? Would anybody tolerate a digital clock that said the time is 1:29:60? No. It would be considered a buggy clock. Nor should we tolerate an HMS algorithm that returns 60 seconds or 60 minutes. (2) "Only a display bug" is not true. Pekis' formulas (both his original and his "improved" one) return EXACTLY 1.29600000000 on the HP 50g for an input of 1.49999999999. That's not an artifact of displaymode rounding. It's a bug in the algorithm. <0ɸ0> Joe 

09102018, 04:28 PM
Post: #46




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 01:31 PM)Pekis Wrote: for simple and usual calculations (in BCD), it removes the annoying "60 seconds bug". I misunderstood your patch, thinking it cover all cases ... If simple cases roundtrip are what you are after, *2/2 can be removed, to this: (patched): DEG>DMS: (90*X+INT(X*120/2)+100*INT(X))/250 (09102018 02:10 PM)Werner Wrote: T := H.MS + FP(H.MS*100)/150; Without error analysis (ULPs), you cannot get this right. There are too many cases above formula can fail: 29', 57', 58', 1°13', 1°14', 1°15', 1°16', ... Example: 57 minutes should convert to 57/60 = 0.95 degrees T = 0.56999 ... + 0.00666 ... = 0.57666 ... (I assumed FP meant fractional part) HR = 0.57666 ... + 0.38444 ... = 0.96111 ... (again, off by 40 seconds) 

09102018, 06:18 PM
Post: #47




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 03:32 PM)Joe Horn Wrote:(09102018 12:46 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Since 9°59'60" = 10°, "60 seconds bug" is not serious (easily fixed in the head) Calculator really need to know the fractions is minutes and seconds for correct roundup. In this regard, my Casio get it right, dedicated DMS key for degree/minute/second. So it knows 60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to a degree. Best of all, user know it too, since it is displayed differently, as in 1°2°3° Unfortunately, HP pick DD.MMSS decimal representation (a normal number !) Even the calculator itself got confused. You can press DEG>DMS repeatedly, getting garbage. It does not know ... (see post 37) As long as calculator treat the "number" as decimal, it cannot be fix by patching formula. Raw result of exactly 1.296, or will rounded as 1.296 doesn't matter. Either way, the result need some cleaning up. When I say, "not serious", "only a display bug", I meant cleanedup result comes out the same. Yes, I agreed this is not good. Did HP Prime still use this DD.MMSS form ? 

09102018, 06:53 PM
Post: #48




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 06:18 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Did HP Prime still use this DD.MMSS form ? No, it uses a special display format, similar to Casio. For example, →HMS(pi) yields 3º08'29.73355". Note: I just looked up the HP48 →HMS function in HP's source code, and it mentions that REV:A of the HP 48 had the 60 second bug! It even gives 1.49999999999 > 1.2960 as the example! Golly. But then it says that the bugfix "sacrifices a small amount of accuracy in final result due to intermediate rounding." Apparently they multiplied the 15form number by 0.6 and then rounded the last 3 digits (not sure what that's all about). They said, "The rounding is not essential, but avoids undesirable rounding effects associated with packing the final h.ms result into a 12digit destination." So they struggled with this problem too, and opted for slightly less accuracy to avoid 60 seconds from ever appearing in the result. That's similar to the Prime, which only shows a maximum of 5 decimal places for the seconds in HMS notation. <0ɸ0> Joe 

09102018, 07:06 PM
Post: #49




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 06:18 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: As long as calculator treat the "number" as decimal, it cannot be fix by patching formula. Ho ho! The gauntlet has been thrown! <scampers off to Happy Programming Place to ponder this challenge> <0ɸ0> Joe 

09102018, 07:13 PM
Post: #50




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 06:53 PM)Joe Horn Wrote:(09102018 06:18 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Did HP Prime still use this DD.MMSS form ? For the record: the WP31s offers both ways: you can temporarily display an angle in d°mm'ss,ss" format or you can convert it as usual to d.mmssss. (09102018 06:53 PM)Joe Horn Wrote: Note: I just looked up the HP48 →HMS function in HP's source code, and it mentions that REV:A of the HP 48 had the 60 second bug! It even gives 1.49999999999 > 1.2960 as the example! Golly. But then it says that the bugfix "sacrifices a small amount of accuracy in final result due to intermediate rounding." Simply do a→H and →H.MS sequence and everything is fine again. On the other hand the HP35s gets it right: it returns exactly 1,3 (1°30'). I assume this is also true for later HP48 ROM revisions. The 16digit WP31s displays 1,2960 but this is only due to display rounding. The full 16digit result is 1,295999999996400. BTW, both the '41 and the '67 return 1,295999999 for an input of 1,499999999. The true result is 1,29599999964 so this should have been rounded to 1,2960 or 1,3000. Dieter 

09122018, 07:06 AM
Post: #51




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 12:46 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: I propose patch DMS>DEG, to fix the "40 seconds" bug Why not DMS>DEG: (250*XINT(100*X+0.25)60*INT(X))/90  either X is 'well behaved' and it makes no difference  or SS=0 and H.MM is not exactly representable (the 40seconds), and then it rounds up. Independent of the precision used. Cheers, Werner 41CV†,42S,48GX,49G,DM42,DM41X,17BII,15CE,DM15L,12C,16CE 

09122018, 07:14 AM
Post: #52




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09102018 04:28 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Without error analysis (ULPs), you cannot get this right. Oops, of course. Uncanny how you can come up with counterexamples so easily. But then, instead of FP(100*H.MS)  which is the culprit , all you need to do is to take H.MS*100  IP(H.MS*100+0.25) instead. So, T := HMS*100; T := T  IP(T+0.25); T := HMS + T/150; HR := T + FP(T)/1.5; or, in RPN: Code: >LBL "DMS>" Seems to work in Free42 Binary. Cheers, Werner 41CV†,42S,48GX,49G,DM42,DM41X,17BII,15CE,DM15L,12C,16CE 

09122018, 02:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 09132018 02:24 AM by Albert Chan.)
Post: #53




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09122018 07:06 AM)Werner Wrote: Why not (09122018 07:14 AM)Werner Wrote: T := HMS*100; Correctly implemented strtod guaranteed maximum error 0.5 ULP Scaling by constant also guaranteed maximum error of 0.5 ULP So, scaled value can at most be 1 ULP below User Decimal Input (where 40 second bug might hit) Ideally, we want 1 ULP correction: nextafter(100*X, 200*X) X*100.00000000000001 might correct 1 to 2 ULP (due to rounding). But, (possible) 1 ULP overcorrection is good enough. The patched version is also fast, same as unpatched version. Too big overcorrection, however, may misinterpret what the user entered. Both Pekis and Meyers "+25 seconds" patches have similar counterexamples: For negative angles, patches make it worse, say, X = 0.10, undercounted 40 seconds. For positive angles, 75+ seconds, it "fixed" a phantom bug, undercounted 40 seconds. Example: 85 seconds, both patches returned 0.0125 degree (= 45 seconds). The patches are not wrong, but limited (nonnegative angles and no "bad" seconds). 

09122018, 08:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 09132018 03:51 AM by Albert Chan.)
Post: #54




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09122018 02:08 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: Correctly implemented strtod guaranteed maximum error 0.5 ULP I made an error adding up the ULPs. What should be added is relative errors, not ULPs Let binary mantissa of X = m1, of scaled Y = 100*X = m2 So, 2^52 <= m1 < 2^53, and same for m2 (units in ULP) Max relative (underestimated) error = 0.5/m1 + 0.5/m2 Max absolute error (ULP) = Max relative error * m2 = 0.5 + 0.5 m2/m1 = 0.5 + 0.5 * max(m2/m1) = 0.5 + 0.5 * (2^531) / 2^52 < 1.5 ULP Technically +1 ULP still work, but it is cutting it very close. (If Y < 0.5 ULP below an integer, it will roundup to integer) 100.00000000000001*X patch is safer: Let m3 = binary mantissa of 100.0 = 0.78125 * 2^53 Max relative (underestimated) error = 0.5/m1 + 0.5/m2  1/m3 Max absolute error (ULP) = Max relative error * m2 = 0.5 + 0.5 m2/m1  m2/m3 = 0.5 + m2 * (1/(2 m1)  1/m3) Since (2 m1) > m3, the factor is negative, we need to minimize both terms Max absolute (underestimated) error = 0.5 + 2^52 * (1/2^53  1/(0.78125*2^53)) = 0.36 ULP < 0.5 ULP In other words, DD.MM * 100.00000000000001 >= DDMM (in binary float) 

09132018, 04:47 AM
Post: #55




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
Above error bound can be tighten a bit, since we know scaling factor ~ 100.0
m1 and m2 are related by the factor k = m3/2^53 = 0.78125 If m1/2^53 >= 0.64, m2/m1 = k, otherwise m2/m1 = 2*k With factor 100.0: Max absolute error = 0.5 + 0.5 m2/m1 = 0.5 + k ~ 1.28 ULP +1 ULP fix reduce this to k  0.5 ~ 0.28 ULP With factor 100.00000000000001: Max absolute error = 0.5 + 0.5 m2/m1  min(m2/m3) If m1/2^53 >= 0.64, error = 0.5 + 0.5 k  0.5/k ~ 0.25 ULP Otherwise, error = 0.5 + 0.5 (2 k)  k/k = k  0.5 ~ 0.28 ULP Both approach have the same lower bound ! 

09132018, 08:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 09132018 11:34 AM by Pekis.)
Post: #56




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
Hello,
Could this formula be tested on various machines ? I'm trying to help rounding up to next integer when it's very close. So, I transformed INT(X) into INT(X+0.75*(1FP(X))) and INT(60*X) into INT(60*X+0.75*(1FP(60*X))) the DEG>DMS(X) would then be DEG>DMS(X)=(90*X+INT(60*X+0.75*(1FP(60*X)))+100*INT(X+0.75*(1FP(X))))/250 Or if using INT only: DEG>DMS(X)=(90*X+INT(60*X+0.75*(160*X+INT(60*X)))+100*INT(X+0.75*(1X+INT(X))))/250 I think it's worth trying and I'm ready to withstand the expected bombing Thanks 

09132018, 01:46 PM
Post: #57




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09132018 08:47 AM)Pekis Wrote: I'm trying to help rounding up to next integer when it's very close. My advise is give up fixing the 60 seconds bug (sorry for the put down ...) The fix may be worse for the "numbers". (and you don't know when that hit) Before the fix, we may see 60 seconds, sometimes 60 minutes, but it is accurate. A little cleaningup, and we are good ... After the fix, potentially you get into fixing phantom bug, similar to +25 seconds patch: Just an example, on HP12C, try X = 1000.999999: Pekis DEG>DMS formula: (90*X + INT(60*X) + 100*INT(X)) / 250 Old DMS = (90*X + 60059 + 100*1000)/250 = 1000.5960 (= 1001 degree) Using above "fuzzy" INT for INT, we get: New DMS = (90*X + 60059 + 100*1001)/250 = 1000.9960 (= 1001 degree 40 minutes) Similar search should discover "40seconds bug" too ... 

09132018, 03:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 09132018 03:12 PM by Pekis.)
Post: #58




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
It was fun ... Thanks for your answers ... Waiting for next time


09142018, 12:46 PM
Post: #59




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09122018 02:08 PM)Albert Chan Wrote: The patches are not wrong, but limited (nonnegative angles and no "bad" seconds). You're absolutely right  I specifically assumed correct input, and forgot about negative angles. Cheers, Werner 41CV†,42S,48GX,49G,DM42,DM41X,17BII,15CE,DM15L,12C,16CE 

09152018, 09:54 AM
Post: #60




RE: H>HMS conversion HP15C vs. HP42S vs HP67
(09092018 08:59 AM)teenix Wrote: The HP67 gives Interesting observation ... Both of my HP67 (1610S, 1705S) give 9.595999999 in DSP 9 mode. But 0.596000000 for both 0.999999999 (9 times 9 input) and .9999999999 (10 times 9 input). On the other hand n.595999999 for any integer n between 1 and 9. Legendary 67 gives n.596000000 for any value of the form n.595999999 for n between 0 and 9. But 1.000000000 for .9999999999 (10 times 9). Andi 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)