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: 107079,183ebe04e93f0506
X-Google-Attributes: gid107079,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,183ebe04e93f0506
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: fixed point vs floating point
Date: 1997/11/23
Message-ID: <dewar.880302541@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 291855897
Distribution: inet
References: <mheaney-ya023680002211970739180001@news.ni.net>
 <65846t$4vq$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>
 <mheaney-ya023680002311970203250001@news.ni.net>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 880302721 24010 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,sci.math.num-analysis
Date: 1997-11-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew says

<<Remember that thread a few months back about floating point comparison?  As
Robert reminded us, you have to know what you're doing when you use
floating point arithmetic.  I was trying to avoid floating point types,
because I'm not a numerical analyst, and don't want to just *hope* my
floating point calculations produce a correct result.  I want to *know*
they're correct.  My error analysis is simpler if use a fixed point type,
right?

If my abstraction calls for a real type having an absolute error and not a
relative error, then clearly a fixed point type is called for, even if it's
less efficient, right?  Isn't it always true that we should code for
correctness first, by using a type that directly models the abstraction,
and then optimize only if necessary?  Are you making an exception to this
rule for fixed point types?>>


When Robert was reminding you that you need to know what you are doing
when using Floating-Point arithmetic, he did not for a moment mean to say
that somehow the problem is trivial in fixed-point arithmetic. Computing
trig functions in limited precision fixed-point and retaining sufficient
accruacy is a VERY hard problem.

Note that neither fixed-point nor floating-point models the abstraction,
since the abstraction is real! The only difference is whether the error
control is relative or absolute. FOr some purposes relative error is
*easier* to analyze than *absolute* error, but there is no sense in which
fixed-point is somehow a more accurate abstract representation of real
than flaoting-point!