Faster inverse gamma and factorial for the WP 34S

[rprosperi]

(02-08-2015 10:13 PM)BarryMead Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 09:44 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  Sure, this is certainly correct and admirable when the balance of effort and resources are justified by the need. I'm just asking about the need, as I don't see the practical applications driving this need.

Not everyone "Needs" to put the calculator into Double Precision mode, but when one does he expects the results to be more accurate. It is very rare indeed that one NEEDS 34 digits of accuracy, but when you perform an operation in Double Precision mode wouldn't you expect the 34 digit result of any function to reasonably correct? My point is why ask a person why he NEEDS something? Isn't it better to just assume that he has a valid need, and deliver the results he expects. The alternative would be to inject arbitrary errors assuming that his need for accuracy is not valid. (In this case you would need to add a disclaimer explaining the accuracy limits of the algorithm so that people don't rely on it.) There are rarely "PERFECT" algorithms, so researchers are always STRIVING to improve them balancing factors such as program size, computation speed, and accuracy. Some find these challenges interesting, competitive, and fun, and others may not.

Thanks for explaining that viewpoint Barry, it helps. I think I asked my question the wrong way. It seems it came out sounding like "why bother doing this?", which was not my intent. I guess I meant to ask closer to "what application benefits from these functions having such precise capabilities?" I realize that this thread is more about building accurate and precise tools to be used by others for who knows what purpose, I'm just fishing for some of those purposes, if anyone here knows. Maybe not. Even if that's the case, it is rewarding to see such interesting collaboration and contributions to continually sharpen the tools.