[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu*Subject*: Issue: EXPT-RATIO (Version 3)*From*: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM*Date*: 31 Oct 88 12:30 PST*Cc*: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM*Line-fold*: NO

Fix only to SQRT example. ! Issue: EXPT-RATIO References: CLtL pages 204 and 211 Category: CLARIFICATION Edit history: Version 1, 4-Oct-88, by Aspinall and Moon Version 2, 6-Oct-88, Masinter (very minor discussion) Version 3, 31-Oct-88, Masinter (fix typo) Problem description: The comment (page 204, 2nd para) that "... an implementation [of expt] might choose to compute (expt x 3/2) as if it had been written (sqrt (expt x 3))" disagrees with the principal value definition on page 211. See the example below for a case where the two disagree. We believe the principal value definitions are consistent and reasonable, therefore the implementation comment is wrong. Proposal (EXPT-RATIO:211): Clarify that (sqrt (expt x 3)) is not equivalent to (expt x 3/2) and that page 211 rules. Test Cases/Examples: (defvar x (exp (/ (* 2 pi #c(0 1)) 3))) ;exp(2.pi.i/3) (expt x 3) => 1 (except for round-off error) (sqrt (expt x 3)) => 1 (except for round-off error) (expt x 3/2) => -1 (except for round-off error) There can be no question that (expt x 3) ==> 1 because expt is single-valued with an integer second argument, and (sqrt 1) ==> 1 definitely follows the principal branch of the square root function. But (expt x 3/2) is defined as (exp (* (log x) 3/2)) (page 211). (log x) ==> 2.pi.i/3 according to the definition of the logarithm's branch cuts on page 211 (which really comes down to the branch cuts of phase - page 210), so (* (log x) 3/2) ==> pi.i and exp(pi.i) is -1. Rationale: We believe the principal value definitions are consistent and reasonable, therefore the implementation comment is wrong. Current practice: Symbolics Genera 7.3 currently returns the wrong answer, following page 204 rather than page 211. Lucid Common Lisp, and Envos Medley implement the proposal. Cost to Implementors: The obvious code changes in complex expt. Cost to Users: None. Cost of non-adoption: Self-contradictory language specification. Benefits: Users can better predict the branch cuts in expt. Discussion: Mathematical Explanation: When the expt function returns a complex result in CL (Cartesian) form, the phase of the complex number is effectively canonicalized. Information is lost, and that information is necessary to specify upon which branch of the sqrt function the final result should lie. Another way to put it would be that although sqrt(expt(x,3)) = expt(x,3/2) where expt and sqrt are the mathematical multi-valued functions, it is not true that: pvsqrt(pvexpt(x,3)) = pvexpt(x,3/2) where pvexpt and pvsqrt denote the principal value versions of those functions.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: issue EXIT-EXTENT** - Next by Date:
**Re: logical pathnames** - Previous by thread:
**Issue: DEFSTRUCT-SLOTS-CONSTRAINTS-NAME (Version 4)** - Next by thread:
**Re: logical pathnames** - Index(es):