From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3b4bed4f74b8ac49
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT messages and the not operator (pitfall alert!)
Date: 1996/10/30
Message-ID: <dewar.846711442@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193584433
references: <3277C5F1.3F4E@cci.de> <5589ls$e8n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John Herro said

"Agreed.  And if you have a higher degree polynomial to compute, there's
even more reason, from the standpoint of efficiency, to use successive
addition and multiplication (with nested parentheses), rather than raising
X to several different powers."


from the standpoint of efficiency yes, but not neccessarily from the
point of view of accuracy. The model interval of the factored form
can be wider than the model interval of the non-factored form
(e.g. x*x*x*x may well have a narrower model interval than (x**2)**2,
evn though the latter does fewer operations.