C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [isocpp-sci] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double)

From: Peter C++ <peter.cpp_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 21:02:38 +0100
while not a cure, try complex<long double> if that gives you more precision on your system.

Sent from Peter Sommerlad's iPad
+41 79 432 23 32

> On 3 Mar 2021, at 20:52, Bell, Ian H. (Fed) <ian.bell_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ´╗┐Davis,
> Thanks for the link to the cpython code. That's quite conclusive, and I can see the logic of that approach.
> Can you think of a relatively safe way to get C++ to play nicely with the evaluation of these "tiny imaginary components are OK" problem? I get that a^b is "problematic" (to say the least) for a complex and b non-integer, but that's the problem I'm banging my head against at the moment.
> Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herring, Davis <herring_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:25 PM
> To: Peter Sommerlad (C++) <peter.cpp_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: Bell, Ian H. (Fed) <ian.bell_at_[hidden]>; std-discussion_at_[hidden]; sci_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [isocpp-sci] [std-discussion] Problems with pow(std::complex<T>, double)
>>> using an integral 2nd argument to pow() solves the issue. May be
>>> python is optimizing by checking that 2.0 is actually integral.
> This is exactly what happens <https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Objects/complexobject.c#L530>. In a similar, albeit static, fashion, libstdc++ has retained the int overload (removed in C++11) for similar reasons <https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/std/complex#L1011>.
>> Taking the generic definition of complex pow function I can confirm
>> that the pow() implementation is carrying the same error. May be, what
>> you attempt is just beyond reasonable precision to expect from floating point.
> The problem is that the function being differentiated intermixes the real and imaginary components of its input (when implemented as appropriate for floating-point inputs) via converting it to polar form. That completely defeats the "tiny imaginary components are OK" idea.
> Davis

Received on 2021-03-03 14:02:53