Re:Differentiation for Hackers
by petschge on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:47PM
(#20251366)
except by the definition of dual numbers eps^2 is 0, as is eps^3. So the slope you computed is 0, which is rather wrong for (a complicated representation of) y=x.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Differentiation for Hackers
by adamnemecek on Saturday June 22, 2019 @03:51PM
(#20251389)
Eps^3 is undefined. I don't see a problem with simplifying the exponents first.
> a complicated representation of) y=x.
The problem started as that. So no surprise.
> I don't see a problem with simplifying the exponents first.
Sure, we call that computer algebra. As soon as you start doing that, you aren't doing automatic differentiation, you are doing (at least in part) symbolic differentiation.
Re:Differentiation for Hackers
by adamnemecek on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:20PM
(#20251530)
You could similarly say that a computer can't calculate x^1000/x^998 because you can't fit it in 32/64 bits.
And computers have a hard time with that. Take the following example code:
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
double f(const double x) {
return pow(x, 1000) / pow(x, 998);
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
if(argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s x\n", argv[0]);
exit(1);
}
const double x = atof(argv[1]); // demo code without error checking
printf("x = %g, f(x) = %g\n", x, f(x));
exit(0);
}
compile with gcc -Wall -g -o test test.c -lm
and run it petschge@localhost:~$ ./test 0
x = 0, f(x) = -nan
petschge@localhost:~$ ./test 1
x = 1, f(x) = 1
petschge@localhost:~$ ./test 2
x = 2, f(x) = 4
The fun thing is, when you compile with gcc -Wall -O3 -ffast-math -g -o test2 test.c -lm
you actually get petschge@localhost:~$ ./test2 0
x = 0, f(x) = 0
Re:Differentiation for Hackers
by adamnemecek on Saturday June 22, 2019 @04:31PM
(#20251576)
That's exactly what i'm saying.