I need to perform a multiplication operation on a fixed-point variable x (unsigned 16-bit integer [U16] type with binary point 6 [BP6]) with a coefficient A, which I know will always be between 0 and 1. Code is being written in C for a 32-bit embedded platform.
I know that if I were to also make this coefficient a U16 BP6, then I would end up with a U32 BP12 from the multiplication. I want to rescale this result back down to U16 BP6, so I just lop off the first 10 bits and the last 6.
However, since the coefficient is limited in precision by the number of fractional bits, and I do not necessarily need the full 10 bits of integer, I was thinking that I could just make the coefficient variable A a U16 BP15 to yield a more precise result.
I have worked out the following example (bear with me):
Let's say that x = 172.0 (decimal) and I want to use a coefficient A = 0.82 (decimal). The ideal decimal result would be 172.0 * 0.82 = 141.04.
In binary, x = 0010101100.000000.
If I am using BP6 for A, the binary representation will be either
A_1 = 0000000000.110100 = 0.8125 or
A_2 = 0000000000.110101 = 0.828125
(depending on whether value is based on floor or ceiling).
Performing the binary multiplication between x and either value of A yields (leaving out leading zeroes):
A_1 * x = 10001011.110000000000 = 139.75
A_2 * x = 10001110.011100000000 = 142.4375
In both cases, triming down the last 6 bits would not affect the result.
Now, if I expanded A to have BP15, then
A_3 = 0.110100011110110 = 0.82000732421875
and the resulting multiplication yields
A_3 * x = 10001101.000010101001000000000 = 141.041259765625
When trimming the extra 15 fractional bits, the result is
A_3 * x = 10001101.000010 = 141.03125
So it's pretty clear here that by expanding the coefficient to have more fractional bits yields a more precise result (at least in my example). Is this something which will hold true in general? Is this good/bad to use in practice? Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
EDIT: I should have said "accuracy" in place of "precision" here. I am looking for a result which is closer to my expected value rather than a result which contains more fractional bits.
Having done similar code, I'd say you what you are doing will hold true in general with the following concerns.
It is very easy to get unexpected overflow when shifting around your binary point. Rigorous testing/analysis and/or code detect is recommended. Notable failure: Ariane_5
You want precision, thus I disagree with "lop off ... last 6". Instead I recommend rounding your results as processing time allows. Use the MSBit to be lopped off to possibly adjust the result.
Related
I am writing a program where I need to delete duplicate points stored in a matrix. The problem is that when it comes to check whether those points are in the matrix, MATLAB can't recognize them in the matrix although they exist.
In the following code, intersections function gets the intersection points:
[points(:,1), points(:,2)] = intersections(...
obj.modifiedVGVertices(1,:), obj.modifiedVGVertices(2,:), ...
[vertex1(1) vertex2(1)], [vertex1(2) vertex2(2)]);
The result:
>> points
points =
12.0000 15.0000
33.0000 24.0000
33.0000 24.0000
>> vertex1
vertex1 =
12
15
>> vertex2
vertex2 =
33
24
Two points (vertex1 and vertex2) should be eliminated from the result. It should be done by the below commands:
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex1(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex1(2)), :);
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex2(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex2(2)), :);
After doing that, we have this unexpected outcome:
>> points
points =
33.0000 24.0000
The outcome should be an empty matrix. As you can see, the first (or second?) pair of [33.0000 24.0000] has been eliminated, but not the second one.
Then I checked these two expressions:
>> points(1) ~= vertex2(1)
ans =
0
>> points(2) ~= vertex2(2)
ans =
1 % <-- It means 24.0000 is not equal to 24.0000?
What is the problem?
More surprisingly, I made a new script that has only these commands:
points = [12.0000 15.0000
33.0000 24.0000
33.0000 24.0000];
vertex1 = [12 ; 15];
vertex2 = [33 ; 24];
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex1(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex1(2)), :);
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex2(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex2(2)), :);
The result as expected:
>> points
points =
Empty matrix: 0-by-2
The problem you're having relates to how floating-point numbers are represented on a computer. A more detailed discussion of floating-point representations appears towards the end of my answer (The "Floating-point representation" section). The TL;DR version: because computers have finite amounts of memory, numbers can only be represented with finite precision. Thus, the accuracy of floating-point numbers is limited to a certain number of decimal places (about 16 significant digits for double-precision values, the default used in MATLAB).
Actual vs. displayed precision
Now to address the specific example in the question... while 24.0000 and 24.0000 are displayed in the same manner, it turns out that they actually differ by very small decimal amounts in this case. You don't see it because MATLAB only displays 4 significant digits by default, keeping the overall display neat and tidy. If you want to see the full precision, you should either issue the format long command or view a hexadecimal representation of the number:
>> pi
ans =
3.1416
>> format long
>> pi
ans =
3.141592653589793
>> num2hex(pi)
ans =
400921fb54442d18
Initialized values vs. computed values
Since there are only a finite number of values that can be represented for a floating-point number, it's possible for a computation to result in a value that falls between two of these representations. In such a case, the result has to be rounded off to one of them. This introduces a small machine-precision error. This also means that initializing a value directly or by some computation can give slightly different results. For example, the value 0.1 doesn't have an exact floating-point representation (i.e. it gets slightly rounded off), and so you end up with counter-intuitive results like this due to the way round-off errors accumulate:
>> a=sum([0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1]); % Sum 10 0.1s
>> b=1; % Initialize to 1
>> a == b
ans =
logical
0 % They are unequal!
>> num2hex(a) % Let's check their hex representation to confirm
ans =
3fefffffffffffff
>> num2hex(b)
ans =
3ff0000000000000
How to correctly handle floating-point comparisons
Since floating-point values can differ by very small amounts, any comparisons should be done by checking that the values are within some range (i.e. tolerance) of one another, as opposed to exactly equal to each other. For example:
a = 24;
b = 24.000001;
tolerance = 0.001;
if abs(a-b) < tolerance, disp('Equal!'); end
will display "Equal!".
You could then change your code to something like:
points = points((abs(points(:,1)-vertex1(1)) > tolerance) | ...
(abs(points(:,2)-vertex1(2)) > tolerance),:)
Floating-point representation
A good overview of floating-point numbers (and specifically the IEEE 754 standard for floating-point arithmetic) is What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic by David Goldberg.
A binary floating-point number is actually represented by three integers: a sign bit s, a significand (or coefficient/fraction) b, and an exponent e. For double-precision floating-point format, each number is represented by 64 bits laid out in memory as follows:
The real value can then be found with the following formula:
This format allows for number representations in the range 10^-308 to 10^308. For MATLAB you can get these limits from realmin and realmax:
>> realmin
ans =
2.225073858507201e-308
>> realmax
ans =
1.797693134862316e+308
Since there are a finite number of bits used to represent a floating-point number, there are only so many finite numbers that can be represented within the above given range. Computations will often result in a value that doesn't exactly match one of these finite representations, so the values must be rounded off. These machine-precision errors make themselves evident in different ways, as discussed in the above examples.
In order to better understand these round-off errors it's useful to look at the relative floating-point accuracy provided by the function eps, which quantifies the distance from a given number to the next largest floating-point representation:
>> eps(1)
ans =
2.220446049250313e-16
>> eps(1000)
ans =
1.136868377216160e-13
Notice that the precision is relative to the size of a given number being represented; larger numbers will have larger distances between floating-point representations, and will thus have fewer digits of precision following the decimal point. This can be an important consideration with some calculations. Consider the following example:
>> format long % Display full precision
>> x = rand(1, 10); % Get 10 random values between 0 and 1
>> a = mean(x) % Take the mean
a =
0.587307428244141
>> b = mean(x+10000)-10000 % Take the mean at a different scale, then shift back
b =
0.587307428244458
Note that when we shift the values of x from the range [0 1] to the range [10000 10001], compute a mean, then subtract the mean offset for comparison, we get a value that differs for the last 3 significant digits. This illustrates how an offset or scaling of data can change the accuracy of calculations performed on it, which is something that has to be accounted for with certain problems.
Look at this article: The Perils of Floating Point. Though its examples are in FORTRAN it has sense for virtually any modern programming language, including MATLAB. Your problem (and solution for it) is described in "Safe Comparisons" section.
type
format long g
This command will show the FULL value of the number. It's likely to be something like 24.00000021321 != 24.00000123124
Try writing
0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 == 0.3.
Warning: You might be surprised about the result!
Maybe the two numbers are really 24.0 and 24.000000001 but you're not seeing all the decimal places.
Check out the Matlab EPS function.
Matlab uses floating point math up to 16 digits of precision (only 5 are displayed).
I am writing a program where I need to delete duplicate points stored in a matrix. The problem is that when it comes to check whether those points are in the matrix, MATLAB can't recognize them in the matrix although they exist.
In the following code, intersections function gets the intersection points:
[points(:,1), points(:,2)] = intersections(...
obj.modifiedVGVertices(1,:), obj.modifiedVGVertices(2,:), ...
[vertex1(1) vertex2(1)], [vertex1(2) vertex2(2)]);
The result:
>> points
points =
12.0000 15.0000
33.0000 24.0000
33.0000 24.0000
>> vertex1
vertex1 =
12
15
>> vertex2
vertex2 =
33
24
Two points (vertex1 and vertex2) should be eliminated from the result. It should be done by the below commands:
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex1(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex1(2)), :);
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex2(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex2(2)), :);
After doing that, we have this unexpected outcome:
>> points
points =
33.0000 24.0000
The outcome should be an empty matrix. As you can see, the first (or second?) pair of [33.0000 24.0000] has been eliminated, but not the second one.
Then I checked these two expressions:
>> points(1) ~= vertex2(1)
ans =
0
>> points(2) ~= vertex2(2)
ans =
1 % <-- It means 24.0000 is not equal to 24.0000?
What is the problem?
More surprisingly, I made a new script that has only these commands:
points = [12.0000 15.0000
33.0000 24.0000
33.0000 24.0000];
vertex1 = [12 ; 15];
vertex2 = [33 ; 24];
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex1(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex1(2)), :);
points = points((points(:,1) ~= vertex2(1)) | (points(:,2) ~= vertex2(2)), :);
The result as expected:
>> points
points =
Empty matrix: 0-by-2
The problem you're having relates to how floating-point numbers are represented on a computer. A more detailed discussion of floating-point representations appears towards the end of my answer (The "Floating-point representation" section). The TL;DR version: because computers have finite amounts of memory, numbers can only be represented with finite precision. Thus, the accuracy of floating-point numbers is limited to a certain number of decimal places (about 16 significant digits for double-precision values, the default used in MATLAB).
Actual vs. displayed precision
Now to address the specific example in the question... while 24.0000 and 24.0000 are displayed in the same manner, it turns out that they actually differ by very small decimal amounts in this case. You don't see it because MATLAB only displays 4 significant digits by default, keeping the overall display neat and tidy. If you want to see the full precision, you should either issue the format long command or view a hexadecimal representation of the number:
>> pi
ans =
3.1416
>> format long
>> pi
ans =
3.141592653589793
>> num2hex(pi)
ans =
400921fb54442d18
Initialized values vs. computed values
Since there are only a finite number of values that can be represented for a floating-point number, it's possible for a computation to result in a value that falls between two of these representations. In such a case, the result has to be rounded off to one of them. This introduces a small machine-precision error. This also means that initializing a value directly or by some computation can give slightly different results. For example, the value 0.1 doesn't have an exact floating-point representation (i.e. it gets slightly rounded off), and so you end up with counter-intuitive results like this due to the way round-off errors accumulate:
>> a=sum([0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1]); % Sum 10 0.1s
>> b=1; % Initialize to 1
>> a == b
ans =
logical
0 % They are unequal!
>> num2hex(a) % Let's check their hex representation to confirm
ans =
3fefffffffffffff
>> num2hex(b)
ans =
3ff0000000000000
How to correctly handle floating-point comparisons
Since floating-point values can differ by very small amounts, any comparisons should be done by checking that the values are within some range (i.e. tolerance) of one another, as opposed to exactly equal to each other. For example:
a = 24;
b = 24.000001;
tolerance = 0.001;
if abs(a-b) < tolerance, disp('Equal!'); end
will display "Equal!".
You could then change your code to something like:
points = points((abs(points(:,1)-vertex1(1)) > tolerance) | ...
(abs(points(:,2)-vertex1(2)) > tolerance),:)
Floating-point representation
A good overview of floating-point numbers (and specifically the IEEE 754 standard for floating-point arithmetic) is What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic by David Goldberg.
A binary floating-point number is actually represented by three integers: a sign bit s, a significand (or coefficient/fraction) b, and an exponent e. For double-precision floating-point format, each number is represented by 64 bits laid out in memory as follows:
The real value can then be found with the following formula:
This format allows for number representations in the range 10^-308 to 10^308. For MATLAB you can get these limits from realmin and realmax:
>> realmin
ans =
2.225073858507201e-308
>> realmax
ans =
1.797693134862316e+308
Since there are a finite number of bits used to represent a floating-point number, there are only so many finite numbers that can be represented within the above given range. Computations will often result in a value that doesn't exactly match one of these finite representations, so the values must be rounded off. These machine-precision errors make themselves evident in different ways, as discussed in the above examples.
In order to better understand these round-off errors it's useful to look at the relative floating-point accuracy provided by the function eps, which quantifies the distance from a given number to the next largest floating-point representation:
>> eps(1)
ans =
2.220446049250313e-16
>> eps(1000)
ans =
1.136868377216160e-13
Notice that the precision is relative to the size of a given number being represented; larger numbers will have larger distances between floating-point representations, and will thus have fewer digits of precision following the decimal point. This can be an important consideration with some calculations. Consider the following example:
>> format long % Display full precision
>> x = rand(1, 10); % Get 10 random values between 0 and 1
>> a = mean(x) % Take the mean
a =
0.587307428244141
>> b = mean(x+10000)-10000 % Take the mean at a different scale, then shift back
b =
0.587307428244458
Note that when we shift the values of x from the range [0 1] to the range [10000 10001], compute a mean, then subtract the mean offset for comparison, we get a value that differs for the last 3 significant digits. This illustrates how an offset or scaling of data can change the accuracy of calculations performed on it, which is something that has to be accounted for with certain problems.
Look at this article: The Perils of Floating Point. Though its examples are in FORTRAN it has sense for virtually any modern programming language, including MATLAB. Your problem (and solution for it) is described in "Safe Comparisons" section.
type
format long g
This command will show the FULL value of the number. It's likely to be something like 24.00000021321 != 24.00000123124
Try writing
0.1 + 0.1 + 0.1 == 0.3.
Warning: You might be surprised about the result!
Maybe the two numbers are really 24.0 and 24.000000001 but you're not seeing all the decimal places.
Check out the Matlab EPS function.
Matlab uses floating point math up to 16 digits of precision (only 5 are displayed).
Problem 1: I have the decimal representation of a rational. This is the code for generating binary number.
x(1) = rand();
[num, den] = rat(x);
q = 2^32;
x1 = num / den * q;
b = dec2bin(x1, bits);
s = str2num(b')';
UPDATE: The information about Dyadic map expressed in code as
y = mod(x*2, 1)
says that if the input, x is a binary iterate s, then the output should be binary with the bits shifted to the left by one position. But, if I give the input x = 0.1101 or x = 1101 or x= 1 (bit) still the output y is not binary.
The machine understands the input as a decimal and hence returns a decimal base number. How can I use this map to model / represent binary valued random variables?
Problem 2: (SOLVED BASED ON THE ANSWER)
Secondly, I need to do another operation involving the command
(X(:,i)>=threshold)*(X(:,i)>=threshold)';
where X is a matrix of real valued numbers and the variable
threshold = 0.5
and i is the index for the element. I keep getting this error
Error using *
Both logical inputs must be scalar.
To compute elementwise TIMES, use TIMES (.*) instead.
I tried using the .* but still I keep getting this error. How do I solve these 2 problems?
It shall be helpful if a code is provided.
Problem 1: I have the decimal representation of a rational.
Great. So far so good...
This is the code for generating binary number.
No, this is the code for generating the binary representation of a number. It's the same number that you represented in decimal. I know you think I'm being pedantic, but as far as I can determine, this is the source of your confusion. A number is a number regardless of the representation. Five sheep is five sheep whether you write it in binary, decimal, octal or using the fingers on Hammish's left hand (he's only got 4 left).
Let's change your code slightly.
bits = 32;
r = rand();
[num, den] = rat(r);
q = 2^bits;
x(1) = num / den;
The value stored in x(1) is a rational number. If we type disp(x(1)) in Matlab, it will show us the value of that number in decimal representation. We can change that representation to binary using the dec2bin command:
b(1,:) = dec2bin(round(x(1)*q), bits);
But it's still the same number. (Actually, it's not the same number because we've now limited the precision to bits bits instead of the native 53 bits Matlab generated it with. More on this later.)
But dec2bin returns the value represented in a character string rather than a number. If we want to implement your function and keep down this path of using the binary representation, we could do something like this:
b(1,:) = dec2bin(round(x(1)*q), bits);
for d = 2:bits
b(d,:) = [b(d-1,2:end) '0'];
end
Each left-shift of the binary representation multiplies the value by 2. By ignoring the bit that's now to the left of the binary point, I'm implicitly performing the mod operation. Since we have no additional significant digits to add to the least-significant bit of the value, I just add a zero.
This will work; you get the proper values and can perform whatever operations on them you want. You can represent them as binary or decimal, you can turn them back into fractions, whatever.
But you can achieve the same thing without conversion to a binary representation.
x(1) = num / den;
for d = 2:bits
x(d) = mod(x(d-1)*2, 1);
end
(Note that I left the value in x(1) as a fraction.)
This does exactly the same operation on the exact same numbers. The one difference is that I didn't reduce the precision of the number at the beginning so it uses the full double precision. Now if I want to take these values and represent them as binary, I can still do that (remember to force the value to the integer range first, though).
c = dec2bin(round(x*q), bits);
Here's the result of a test run of both versions:
b =
11110000011101110111110010010001
11100000111011101111100100100010
11000001110111011111001001000100
10000011101110111110010010001000
00000111011101111100100100010000
00001110111011111001001000100000
00011101110111110010010001000000
00111011101111100100100010000000
01110111011111001001000100000000
11101110111110010010001000000000
11011101111100100100010000000000
10111011111001001000100000000000
01110111110010010001000000000000
11101111100100100010000000000000
11011111001001000100000000000000
10111110010010001000000000000000
01111100100100010000000000000000
11111001001000100000000000000000
11110010010001000000000000000000
11100100100010000000000000000000
11001001000100000000000000000000
10010010001000000000000000000000
00100100010000000000000000000000
01001000100000000000000000000000
10010001000000000000000000000000
00100010000000000000000000000000
01000100000000000000000000000000
10001000000000000000000000000000
00010000000000000000000000000000
00100000000000000000000000000000
01000000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000000
c =
11110000011101110111110010010001
11100000111011101111100100100001
11000001110111011111001001000010
10000011101110111110010010000101
00000111011101111100100100001001
00001110111011111001001000010011
00011101110111110010010000100101
00111011101111100100100001001010
01110111011111001001000010010100
11101110111110010010000100101000
11011101111100100100001001010001
10111011111001001000010010100001
01110111110010010000100101000011
11101111100100100001001010000101
11011111001001000010010100001010
10111110010010000100101000010101
01111100100100001001010000101010
11111001001000010010100001010100
11110010010000100101000010100111
11100100100001001010000101001111
11001001000010010100001010011101
10010010000100101000010100111010
00100100001001010000101001110100
01001000010010100001010011101000
10010000100101000010100111010000
00100001001010000101001110100000
01000010010100001010011101000000
10000100101000010100111010000000
00001001010000101001110100000000
00010010100001010011101000000000
00100101000010100111010000000000
01001010000101001110100000000000
The two are identical except for the fact that b runs out of precision after 32 bits and c has 53 bits of precision. You can confirm this by running the code above but casting x(1) to a single:
x(1) = single(num / den);
Problem 1: (UPDATED)
This reflects your updates that your goal is a Dyadic Mapping.
Think of Matlab as an environment to abstract the notion of binary numbers. It doesn't have built-in support numerical operations with binary numbers. In fact, it doesn't have a numerical representation of bits. It has strings for bits only. You can put a decimal number through a custom function to make it look binary, but to Matlab its still a float. If you put x = 0.1101 through y= mod(2*x,1) it will treat x as a floating point
Problem 2:
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. The error is caused by trying to matrix multiply a vector of type logical. Matrix multiplication is only defined for numeric types. A temporary hack would be to add 0.0 to the vectors before multiplying thus casting the values to a double
((X(:,i)>=threshold)+0.0)*((X(:,i)>=threshold)+0.0)';
I have a loop like this:
for(uint64_t i=0; i*i<n; i++) {
This requires doing a multiplication every iteration. If I could calculate the sqrt before the loop then I could avoid this.
unsigned cut = sqrt(n)
for(uint64_t i=0; i<cut; i++) {
In my case it's okay if the sqrt function rounds up to the next integer but it's not okay if it rounds down.
My question is: is the sqrt function accurate enough to do this for all cases?
Edit: Let me list some cases. If n is a perfect square so that n = y^2 my question would be - is cut=sqrt(n)>=y for all n? If cut=y-1 then there is a problem. E.g. if n = 120 and cut = 10 it's okay but if n=121 (11^2) and cut is still 10 then it won't work.
My first concern was the fractional part of float only has 23 bits and double 52 so they can't store all the digits of some 32-bit or 64-bit integers. However, I don't think this is a problem. Let's assume we want the sqrt of some number y but we can't store all the digits of y. If we let the fraction of y we can store be x we can write y = x + dx then we want to make sure that whatever dx we choose does not move us to the next integer.
sqrt(x+dx) < sqrt(x) + 1 //solve
dx < 2*sqrt(x) + 1
// e.g for x = 100 dx < 21
// sqrt(100+20) < sqrt(100) + 1
Float can store 23 bits so we let y = 2^23 + 2^9. This is more than sufficient since 2^9 < 2*sqrt(2^23) + 1. It's easy to show this for double as well with 64-bit integers. So although they can't store all the digits as long as the sqrt of what they can store is accurate then the sqrt(fraction) should be sufficient. Now let's look at what happens for integers close to INT_MAX and the sqrt:
unsigned xi = -1-1;
printf("%u %u\n", xi, (unsigned)(float)xi); //4294967294 4294967295
printf("%u %u\n", (unsigned)sqrt(xi), (unsigned)sqrtf(xi)); //65535 65536
Since float can't store all the digits of 2^31-2 and double can they get different results for the sqrt. But the float version of the sqrt is one integer larger. This is what I want. For 64-bit integers as long as the sqrt of the double always rounds up it's okay.
First, integer multiplication is really quite cheap. So long as you have more than a few cycles of work per loop iteration and one spare execute slot, it should be entirely hidden by reorder on most non-tiny processors.
If you did have a processor with dramatically slow integer multiply, a truly clever compiler might transform your loop to:
for (uint64_t i = 0, j = 0; j < cut; j += 2*i+1, i++)
replacing the multiply with an lea or a shift and two adds.
Those notes aside, let’s look at your question as stated. No, you can’t just use i < sqrt(n). Counter-example: n = 0x20000000000000. Assuming adherence to IEEE-754, you will have cut = 0x5a82799, and cut*cut is 0x1ffffff8eff971.
However, a basic floating-point error analysis shows that the error in computing sqrt(n) (before conversion to integer) is bounded by 3/4 of an ULP. So you can safely use:
uint32_t cut = sqrt(n) + 1;
and you’ll perform at most one extra loop iteration, which is probably acceptable. If you want to be totally precise, instead use:
uint32_t cut = sqrt(n);
cut += (uint64_t)cut*cut < n;
Edit: z boson clarifies that for his purposes, this only matters when n is an exact square (otherwise, getting a value of cut that is “too small by one” is acceptable). In that case, there is no need for the adjustment and on can safely just use:
uint32_t cut = sqrt(n);
Why is this true? It’s pretty simple to see, actually. Converting n to double introduces a perturbation:
double_n = n*(1 + e)
which satisfies |e| < 2^-53. The mathematical square root of this value can be expanded as follows:
square_root(double_n) = square_root(n)*square_root(1+e)
Now, since n is assumed to be a perfect square with at most 64 bits, square_root(n) is an exact integer with at most 32 bits, and is the mathematically precise value that we hope to compute. To analyze the square_root(1+e) term, use a taylor series about 1:
square_root(1+e) = 1 + e/2 + O(e^2)
= 1 + d with |d| <~ 2^-54
Thus, the mathematically exact value square_root(double_n) is less than half an ULP away from[1] the desired exact answer, and necessarily rounds to that value.
[1] I’m being fast and loose here in my abuse of relative error estimates, where the relative size of an ULP actually varies across a binade — I’m trying to give a bit of the flavor of the proof without getting too bogged down in details. This can all be made perfectly rigorous, it just gets to be a bit wordy for Stack Overflow.
All my answer is useless if you have access to IEEE 754 double precision floating point, since Stephen Canon demonstrated both
a simple way to avoid imul in loop
a simple way to compute the ceiling sqrt
Otherwise, if for some reason you have a non IEEE 754 compliant platform, or only single precision, you could get the integer part of square root with a simple Newton-Raphson loop. For example in Squeak Smalltalk we have this method in Integer:
sqrtFloor
"Return the integer part of the square root of self"
| guess delta |
guess := 1 bitShift: (self highBit + 1) // 2.
[
delta := (guess squared - self) // (guess + guess).
delta = 0 ] whileFalse: [
guess := guess - delta ].
^guess - 1
Where // is operator for quotient of integer division.
Final guard guess*guess <= self ifTrue: [^guess]. can be avoided if initial guess is fed in excess of exact solution as is the case here.
Initializing with approximate float sqrt was not an option because integers are arbitrarily large and might overflow
But here, you could seed the initial guess with floating point sqrt approximation, and my bet is that the exact solution will be found in very few loops. In C that would be:
uint32_t sqrtFloor(uint64_t n)
{
int64_t diff;
int64_t delta;
uint64_t guess=sqrt(n); /* implicit conversions here... */
while( (delta = (diff=guess*guess-n) / (guess+guess)) != 0 )
guess -= delta;
return guess-(diff>0);
}
That's a few integer multiplications and divisions, but outside the main loop.
What you are looking for is a way to calculate a rational upper bound of the square root of a natural number. Continued fraction is what you need see wikipedia.
For x>0, there is
.
To make the notation more compact, rewriting the above formula as
Truncate the continued fraction by removing the tail term (x-1)/2's at each recursion depth, one gets a sequence of approximations of sqrt(x) as below:
Upper bounds appear at lines with odd line numbers, and gets tighter. When distance between an upper bound and its neighboring lower bound is less than 1, that approximation is what you need. Using that value as the value of cut, here cut must be a float number, solves the problem.
For very large number, rational number should be used, so no precision is lost during conversion between integer and floating point number.
Sorry for the wordy title. My code is targeting a microcontroller (msp430) with no floating point unit, but this should apply to any similar MCU.
If I am multiplying a large runtime variable with what would normally be considered a floating point decimal number (1.8), is this still treated like floating point math by the MCU or compiler?
My simplified code is:
int multip = 0xf; // Can be from 0-15, not available at compile time
int holder = multip * 625; // 0 - 9375
holder = holder * 1.8; // 0 - 16875`
Since the result will always be a positive full, real integer number, is it still floating point math as far as the MCU or compiler are concerned, or is it fixed point?
(I realize I could just multiply by 18, but that would require declaring a 32bit long instead of a 16 bit int then dividing and downcasting for the array it will be put in, trying to skimp on memory here)
The result is not an integer; it rounds to an integer.
9375 * 1.8000000000000000444089209850062616169452667236328125
yields
16875.0000000000004163336342344337026588618755340576171875
which rounds (in double precision floating point) to 16875.
If you write a floating-point multiply, I know of no compiler that will determine that there's a way to do that in fixed-point instead. (That does not mean they do not exist, but it ... seems unlikely.)
I assume you simplified away something important, because it seems like you could just do:
result = multip * 1125;
and get the final result directly.
I'd go for chux's formula if there's some reason you can't just multiply by 1125.
Confident FP code will be created for
holder = holder * 1.8
To avoid FP and 32-bit math, given the OP values of
int multip = 0xf; // Max 15
unsigned holder = multip * 625; // Max 9375
// holder = holder * 1.8;
// alpha depends on rounding desired, e.g. 2 for round to nearest.
holder += (holder*4u + alpha)/5;
If int x is non-negative, you can compute x *= 1.8 rounded to nearest using only int arithmetic, without overflow unless the final result overflows, with:
x - (x+2)/5 + x
For truncation instead of round-to-nearest, use:
x - (x+4)/5 + x
If x may be negative, some additional work is needed.