Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?

03092014, 07:12 PM
Post: #1




Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
In the last weeks there have been some discussions regarding various ways of determining Bernoulli numbers on the 41series and other calculators. The usual formulas included powers with exponents greater than 100, leading to reduced accuracy since an exact result would require at least twelve or thirteen digits for the base as opposed to the ten we have. Another problem is the available working range, so that the used algorithm has to make sure no intermediate result exceeds the limit at 9,999...E99.
So I wondered if there might be a way of evaluating all possible Bernoulli numbers within the working range sufficiently fast and, more important, as accurately as possible. Which leads to the question: how close can you get in the face of accumulating roundoff errors? Even a simple multiplication can be surprisingly inaccurate, the result may be off by up to 5 units in the last place. Try a simple \(\pi·\pi\) or \(e·e\), and the result on a correctly working 10digit calculator is 3 ULP high or low. So far, so bad. Here is the approach used in the following program. As usual, the lower Bernoulli numbers B_{0} to B_{8} are given directly. For n = 2...8 a simple quadratic equation can do the trick. For n = 10 to 116 (largest value within the 41's working range) the following formula was used: \(\large B_n = 4 \pi · \zeta(n) · e^{(0,5 + \frac{1}{12n}  \frac{1}{360n^3} + \frac{1}{1260n^5} + ...)} · (\frac{n}{2 \pi e})^{n+0,5} \) For n ≥ 10 and 10digit accuracy three terms of the series in the exponent of the efunction are sufficient. The expression \(\frac{1}{12n}  \frac{1}{360n^3} + \frac{1}{1260n^5}\) can be evaluated as \(\frac{210n^4  7n^2 + 2}{2520n^5}\). A literal implementation of the complete formula would yield results with substantial errors. At least the last two digits would be off. So a different way to handle this formula had to be found. Within the relevant domain, the factors at the left (\(4\pi=10·0,4\pi, \zeta\) and the exponential function) all start with 1. They do not vary much for n = 10...116: \(B_n = 10 · 1,256... · 1,000... · 1,65... · (\frac{n}{2 \pi e})^{n+0,5} \) The basic idea now is to evaluate all three factors minus one so that one additional digit is gained. Obtaining \(\zeta  1\) is trivial, and for the exponential function there is a dedicated \(e^x1\) command. The multiplication of three values close to 1 can be done in a way that preserves one additional digit of working precision. Since the product of the three factors is something between 2,07 and 2,09, the program even tries to calculate half of this minus 1 (and finally multiplies this +1 with twice the power), so that again a precious digit is saved. The program uses a 9digit approximation of \(0,4\pi  1 = rad(72°)1\) which is slightly low, so a correction term is applied. Its exact value should be near 7,2E10, but tests showed that in this case even better accuracy is obtained with a slighty lower value close to 6E10 (cf. line 89). Now let's look at the power at the right. For a correct 10digit result, the base would have to carry at least 12 or 13 digits. Here is how this is accomplished in the program: \((\frac{n}{2 \pi e})^{n+0,5}\) \( = (n · 0,05854983152432)^{n+0,5}\) \(\approx (n · 0,05854983)^{n+0,5} + 1,52432·10^{9}·n·(n+0,5)·(n · 0,05854983)^{n0,5}\) For n = 10...116 the base of the first power carries at most 9 digits, so both the base and the exponent are exact. However, the 41's power function sometimes truncates its result instead of rounding it, so the constant 1,52432E9 is better rounded up to 1,5244E9. Here is the 41C code: Code: 01 LBL"BN" One may now ask if the result is worth all the effort. I think it is. In total there are 60 possible nonzero results within the 41's working range (n = 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, ..., 114, 116). The program returns 45 of these correctly rounded or truncated after 10 digits. The rest is 1 ULP high or low. I did not find any larger errors. In other words: the results are close to machine accuracy. BTW, while the largest possible result is B_{116}, the program can also provide B_{118}. The expected OUT OF RANGE error appears in the last calculation step when the program tries to multiply X by 10. At this point, pressing [X<>Y] reveals B_{118} as 6,116052000E+100. ;) Of course suggestions for improvements are always welcome. Dieter 

03102014, 12:20 AM
Post: #2




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
Did you ever consider to write the program in MCODE? That provides the possibility to use 13 digits for your calculations and only round the result to 10 digits.
Cheers Thomas 

03102014, 08:23 PM
Post: #3




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03102014 12:20 AM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: Did you ever consider to write the program in MCODE? That provides the possibility to use 13 digits for your calculations and only round the result to 10 digits. Getting 10 valid digits out of 13 digits working precision is not quite a challenge. ;) The basic question here was: how close can you get without any additional guard digits. Otherwise things are trivial: I tried the basic formula on a 12digit 35s. Even with sloppy programming 10 valid digits ±1 ULP are not very hard to achieve. So with 13 digit precision things become trivial if the goal is merely a correct 10digit result. But nevertheless I would love to try MCODE programming. Years ago I always enjoyed combining efficient x86 assembler code with the beauty of Pascal. But honestly, I do not know the slightest thing about MCODE. I do not even how what is required to build a working programming environment. Maybe there is some basic info somewhere to start with?! BTW, in the meantime there is a shorter and even slightly faster Bernoulli program with comparable accuracy: ±1 ULP over the whole working range. Yes, with a standard 10digit 41C. ;) Dieter 

03122014, 04:34 PM
Post: #4




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03102014 08:23 PM)Dieter Wrote: Getting 10 valid digits out of 13 digits working precision is not quite a challenge. ;) You'll find all you need on Warren Furlow's HP41 website. Have fun Thomas 

03142014, 10:05 AM
Post: #5




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
It's slightly more involved than just applying a cookiecutter recipy, even if it's all published somewhere (like TOS). The 13digit routines allow for intermediate calculations done with more precision, so the final result is more accurate (or less inaccurate, in a more strict speak). There are many 13digit versions of the standard math routines in the 41 OS, a good starting point could be the minipaper I prepared a while ago; available at TOS (can't paste the link here as you probably know).
I've attached it to this post as well (hope it works) Cheers, ÁM "To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03142014, 09:37 PM
Post: #6




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03122014 04:34 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: You'll find all you need on Warren Furlow's HP41 website. (03142014 10:05 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: It's slightly more involved than just applying a cookiecutter recipy, even if it's all published somewhere (like TOS). Yes, I am absolutely sure it is all "somewhere". ;) But what I am looking for is something like a structured introduction to MCODE programming: what are the hardware options, what else is required, what is covered by the instruction set and what are basic programming techniques. I am quite familiar with FOCAL programming, and I also appreciate the the benefits of doing things in machine code, so MCODE sounds like an interesting new project to me. However, I need some basic info first. Quote:The 13digit routines allow for intermediate calculations done with more precision, so the final result is more accurate (or less inaccurate, in a more strict speak). There are many 13digit versions of the standard math routines in the 41 OS, a good starting point could be the minipaper I prepared a while ago; available at TOS (can't paste the link here as you probably know). Thank you very much, and yes, it worked. That's exactly what I am looking for. In a way I am a kind of "accuracy junkie"  that's why I love the 34s project and the option of 34digit precision for certain things. Defining special functions like the Normal distribution quantile, Lambert's W or just the Bernoulli numbers will full 10digit accuracy is virtually impossible in FOCAL. With 13 digits all this becomes easy. Now  where and how to start? Dieter By the way, do you know of a kind of overview with the actual accuracy of the 41's internal 13digit routines? 

03142014, 10:00 PM
Post: #7




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03142014 09:37 PM)Dieter Wrote: Now  where and how to start? Software Development Kit For the HP41 Release 6 PROGRAMMER'S MANUAL cf. APPENDIX I – Step by Step Example HTH Thomas 

03142014, 10:04 PM
Post: #8




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03142014 10:05 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: available at TOS (can't paste the link here as you probably know).Not a problem: HP41 OS 13digit Math Routines Thanks again for the compilation! Cheers Thomas 

03142014, 10:21 PM
Post: #9




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03142014 09:37 PM)Dieter Wrote: By the way, do you know of a kind of overview with the actual accuracy of the 41's internal 13digit routines? Probably not what you want: HEWLETTPACKARD JOURNAL cf. Algorithms and Accuracy in the HP35 But I just remembered that picture of the sawtooth diagram. Cheers Thomas 

03152014, 09:32 AM
Post: #10




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
There's an interesting article (written by Dennis W. Harms) that broadly describes the accuracy of the math algorithms on the HP67  which in my understanding were pretty much the same ones also used by the 41C. You can read it in the November 1976 issue of the HP Journal, pages 16 and 17.
Cheers, 'AM "To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03152014, 12:26 PM
Post: #11




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03152014 09:32 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: You can read it in the November 1976 issue of the HP Journal, pages 16 and 17.Link for the lazy. Original article in Advanced Pocket Calculators Dennis W. Harms, pictured 30 years later: 

03152014, 12:56 PM
Post: #12




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
Thomas, thanks for the links, I didn't have the original article.
Your historian archivist skills largely exceed mine "To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03152014, 06:12 PM
Post: #13




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03152014 12:26 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:(03152014 09:32 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: You can read it in the November 1976 issue of the HP Journal, pages 16 and 17.Link for the lazy. Thank you very much, especially for the "Advanced Pocket Calculators" version. I read the HP journal version of this article many years ago, but it does not answer the question regarding the accuracy of the 13digit internal functions of the HP41, 67 or any other calculator. What the article essentially says is that 13 digits (HP91 and newer) allow (nearly) correct 10digit results, which had errors before when no guard digits were used. Or simply "13 digits give better results than 10 digits". Which nobody will deny. ;) Dieter 

03152014, 07:17 PM
Post: #14




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03152014 06:12 PM)Dieter Wrote: but it does not answer the question regarding the accuracy of the 13digit internal functions of the HP41There's most probably no information available concerning this question. Thus there is much to do. I suggest to use the trace which is available in Nonpareil to figure out the 13digit internal results of the operations you are interested in. You probably have some corner cases already in mind such as cos(x) close to \(\frac{\pi}{2}\) or ln(x) close to 1. Or maybe the SDK41 provides a decent debugger? Let me know if you need detailed instructions. IIRC Nonpareil doesn't support tracing out of the box. You have to compile it setting the option has_debugger_gui. Cheers Thomas 

03152014, 08:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 03152014 08:50 PM by Ángel Martin.)
Post: #15




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
V41 does have a tracer and breakpoint capability. I do lots of troubleshooting on it, and it can also be used to see the intermediate results  provided you have the source code of course. So it's a bit of a catch22, but once you're in the game it's very rewarding.
"To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03182014, 09:24 PM
Post: #16




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
Thomas and Ángel: Thank you very much for some first information on how to start with MCODE. It seems to be a long way to go. On the other hand I just read through the Sandmath manual, and all this looks very promising.
BTW, Ángel: Sandmath seems to lack a Normal Quantile function. I do not think it's as complicated as Appendix 9 suggests: on the 34s it can be done with 30+ digit accuracy in merely two iterations. At the moment I am playing around a bit with V41. If there is a way to have Sandmath's ERF in V41 I could see what can be done in user code. ;) How fast does ERF execute on a real 41? Dieter 

03192014, 06:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 03192014 06:52 AM by Ángel Martin.)
Post: #17




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
Hi Dieter, glad to see you find the SandMath worth looking at. Which revision are you using? Are there two appendices 9a and 9b, or only one appendix 9?
http://hp41.claughan.com/file/SANDMATH_4...Manual.pdf I say this because in the latest versions (Revision "M", see above link) there are a couple of functions directly related to the quantile, one (ICPF) using the inverse error function on a general Normal distribution (s,m), and another (QNTL) using Halley's iterative method on a standard Normal (0,1). The functions are a bit buried in the FACTORIAL group, in the subfunctions FAT The manual has room for improvement, but isn't the quantile function QNTL what you're asking about? It is briefly (and poorly) documented in page 48. Below you can see the FOCAL code for this function, which uses Halley's method to solve for a CPF (Cumulative Probability Function) equation equal to the quantile's value. The convergence criteria is a poor E7, probably not what you're looking for I'm afraid. Code:
As per ICPF, it's a much simpler code since IERF does all the work in there: Code:
I use the CUDA library algorithms to calculate the inverse error function  it's a very fast implementation (yes, even on a normal HP41) that takes a huge MCODE listing code. I may be confusing subjects, statistics is not my forte (I'm really a jack of all trades and master of none, as I'm sure you have noticed ;) I think this function is equivalent to the 38E's, but haven't looked at the 34S at all (don't have one myself). l hope this clarifies, but let me know if you see any issues or would like additions/changes made. Best, 'AM "To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03192014, 01:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 03192014 06:54 PM by Dieter.)
Post: #18




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03192014 06:47 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: Hi Dieter, glad to see you find the SandMath worth looking at. Which revision are you using? Are there two appendices 9a and 9b, or only one appendix 9? The version I had was 4.44.44, now updated to 5.55.55 that indeed has additional information on the Normal quantile function. Actually I do not use Sandmath. I heard about it quite often here, and when I tried a first look at MCODE I came across the manual. At the moment this is all what I got. ;) (03192014 06:47 AM)Ángel Martin Wrote: I say this because in the latest versions (Revision "M", see above link) there are a couple of functions directly related to the quantile, one (ICPF) using the inverse error function on a general Normal distribution (s,m), and another (QNTL) using Halley's iterative method on a standard Normal (0,1). Halley's method is nice, but it can be done better and faster. ;) I now remember that some time ago I set up an algorithm specially taylored for the HP41 and other 10digit machines. It first calculates an initial estimate with a very simple (1, 2) rational function, requiring just four constants with few digits, and then one single correction step is sufficient for a result with error less than 0,055 ULP, i.e. 5,5 units in the 12th significant digit. All it needs is a sufficiently accurate CDF (cumulative distribution function). The following method assumes p < 0,5. The rest is handled by CDF(x) = 1  CDF(x). \(u := \sqrt{2 ln p}\) \(x := max( 0 , u  \large \frac{2,374 + 0,39 u}{1 + 1,11 u + 0,07157 u^2} )\) \(t := \large \frac{CDF(x)  p}{PDF(x)}\) Now apply a third order (!) correction, cf. Abramowitz & Stegun, 10th ed., p. 954: \(x := x + t + \frac{x}{2}t^2 + \frac{2x^2+1}{6}t^3\) If evaluated exactly, the result has an error within approx. +0 and 5,5 units in the 12th significant digit throughout the 41's working range (even down to 1E121). Here is an implementation in Visual Basic for Excel: Code: Function icdf10(p) The essential magic is in the combination of a dedicated initial guess and a very effective correction afterwards. If the term at t³ is omitted, the result quite exactly matches that of Halley's method and the error is less than 2 units in the 9th digit. All this should work for p = 0,2 as well as p = 1E12 or 1E99 (that's why \(erf^{1}(2p1)\) is not a good idea). Cases close to the distribution center and and the lower working limit (1E99) require some care at the calculation of CDF(x)  p since this difference may become numerically zero due to underflow or digit cancellation. But there are ways to handle this. Dieter Edit: corrected an error and tweaked one of the constants for even better accuracy. 

03192014, 07:32 PM
Post: #19




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
Will look at your method as soon as I get a chance, thanks for sharing it.
I only included the Halley's method QNTL for comparison reasons; the preferred approach is no doubt to use IPFC (based on the inverse error function)  much faster (really several orders of magnitude) and generally more accurate. BTW you can use the SandMath on V41 when you want, the MOD file is available at TOS. Cheers, 'AM "To live or die by your own sword one must first learn to wield it aptly." 

03192014, 08:31 PM
Post: #20




RE: Accurate Bernoulli numbers on the 41C, or "how close can you get"?
(03192014 07:32 PM)Ángel Martin Wrote: ...the preferred approach is no doubt to use IPFC (based on the inverse error function)  much faster (really several orders of magnitude) and generally more accurate. "Fast and accurate" always sounds very promising. ;) Do you have any figures here? How fast is, for instance, qf(0,01) on an actual HP41? You say you used the inverse error function as implemented in the CUDA library. Do you have a link to this algorithm? I found some information on the library, but not on the actual algorithms. Just for comparison: I currently use a method similar to the one posted above in combination with an optimized method for the CDF. In a regular FOCAL program, the CDF runs in about 3  12 seconds, the quantile function requires roughly 3 seconds more. Maybe you can estimate how fast this would run in MCODE. Dieter 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: