or again

Is a Computer a Perfect Computing Machine?

Jean-François COLONNA

CMAP (Centre de Mathématiques APpliquées) UMR CNRS 7641, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France

france telecom, France Telecom R&D

[

[

(CMAP28 WWW site: this page was created on 03/22/2004 and last updated on 05/08/2019 13:30:22 -CEST-)

As an example of the consequence of the

S = 0 0What is the current value of S(n)? Obviously, the "mathematical" answer is:

S = S + 1 n n-1

S = n nUnfortunately, the "numerical" answer can be very different, as exhibited with the following program:

#define N "an arbitrary integer positive value..."As soon as N >16777215, the answer is always 16777216 when the value N is expected.

main() { int n; float sigma=0;

for (n=1 ; n <= N ; n++) { sigma = sigma + 1.0; }

printf("\n computed sum = %f",sigma); }

Another consequence is

float MUL(x,y) float x,y; { return(x*y); }produces the following results:

main() { float A=3.1,B=2.3,C=1.5; float X,Y;

X=MUL(MUL(A,B),C); Y=MUL(A,MUL(B,C));

printf("\n (%f x %f) x %f = %f\n",A,B,C,X); printf("\n %f x (%f x %f) = %f\n",A,B,C,Y); }

(3.10 * 2.30) * 1.50 = 10.695000 = 0x412B1EB8 #### #and:

3.10 * (2.30 * 1.50) = 10.694999 = 0x412B1EB7 #### #that are two slightly different values. Moreovoer, this experiment can be done with any programming language (for example

This last experiment could be tried with the following program:

main() { float A=3.1,B=2.3,C=1.5; float X,Y;When it does not exhibit the preceding phenomenon, at least two explanations can be found:

X=(A*B)*C; Y=A*(B*C);

printf("\n (%f x %f) x %f = %f",A,B,C,X); printf("\n %f x (%f x %f) = %f",A,B,C,Y); }

- the compiler replaces 32-bit computations with 64-bit ones,
- the compiler translates in the same way the two expressions (AxB)xC and Ax(BxC).

Then, the best thing to do is to use the program defining the '

The property of associativity for addition is lost too. Using 32-bit floating point numbers (in order to simplify the hexa-decimal printing -see the same experiment us ing 64 bit double precision-), the following progam (where the function '

float ADD(x,y) float x,y; { return(x+y); }produces:

main() { float A=1.1,B=3.3,C=5.5; float X,Y;

X=ADD(ADD(A,B),C); Y=ADD(A,ADD(B,C));

printf("\n (%f x %f) x %f = %f\n",A,B,C,X); printf("\n %f x (%f x %f) = %f\n",A,B,C,Y); }

(1.10 + 3.30) + 5.50 = 9.900000 = 0x411E6666 # #that is slightly different from:

1.10 + (3.30 + 5.50) = 9.900001 = 0x411E6667 # #

[Obviously a similar anomaly can be seen with the distributivity of the multiplication over the addition]

When studying

2 X = (R+1)X - RX n n-1 n-1that means the following successive computations:

X 0can be done with the following elementary program (that cannot be wrong...):

| --------------- | | \|/ \|/ ' '

2 X = (R+1)X - RX 1 0 0

| --------------- | | \|/ \|/ ' '

2 X = (R+1)X - RX 2 1 1

| --------------- | | \|/ \|/ ' '

2 X = (R+1)X - RX 3 2 2

| --------------- | | \|/ \|/ ' '

etc...

main() { double R=3.0; double X=0.5; int n;produces the following results on a O200 Silicon Graphics computer (R10000 processor under IRIX 6.5.5m with cc 7.2.1) depending on the optimization options:

for (n=0 ; n <= 80 ; n++){if ((n%10) == 0){printf("\n iteration(%04d) = %9.6f",n,X);}else{}

X = (R+1)*X - R*X*X;}}

O200 Silicon Graphics (R10000, IRIX 6.5.5m, cc 7.2.1):

option '-O2' option '-O3'

X(00) = 0.500000 0.500000 X(10) = 0.384631 0.384631 X(20) = 0.418895 0.418895 X(30) = 0.046399 0.046399 X(40) = 0.320184 0.320192 X(50) = 0.063747 0.059988 X(60) = 0.271115 1.000531 X(70) = 1.328462 1.329692 X(80) = 0.817163 0.021952It is easy to compute the extrema of each intermediate results and to check that they are always compatible together; that means that two values of very different magnitude never appear. By the way this is another source of problems; for example, using 64-bit numbers the following equality is true:

16 16 10 + 1 = 10Regarding

O200 Silicon Graphics (processeur R10000, IRIX 6.5.5m, Java):

(R+1)X-R(XX) (R+1)X-(RX)X ((R+1)-(RX))X RX+(1-(RX))X X+R(X-(XX))

X(0000) = 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 X(0500) = 1.288736212247168 0.007057813075738616 1.2767485100695732 1.246534177059494 0.03910723014701789 X(1000) = 1.3327294162589722 0.916560711983132 1.207710752523091 0.27770146115891703 0.26663342726567785 X(1500) = 1.1448646685382955 0.4481000759915065 0.3102077001456977 0.015374092695375374 0.9841637252962943 X(2000) = 1.0548628914440754 0.896126931497168 0.6851138190159249 0.009229885271816535 0.3860923315999224 X(2500) = 1.292802584458599 0.06063433547953646 1.174118726001978 0.6922411856638806 0.020878761210912034 X(3000) = 1.0497821908090537 0.0219606878364607 1.3287403237319588 0.11354602472378028 0.13270749449424302 X(3500) = 0.8115039383609847 1.3213031319440816 0.6545151597367076 0.5760786099237328 1.324039473116061 X(4000) = 0.04922223042798102 1.3203298564077224 0.09243804931690679 0.9496284087750142 1.316597313359563 X(4500) = 0.4745896653599724 0.32865616721789603 0.018965010461877246 0.25384661313701296 0.18512853535354462

PC (processeur Pentium II, LINUX Mandrake 7.0, Java):

(R+1)X-R(XX) (R+1)X-(RX)X ((R+1)-(RX))X RX+(1-(RX))X X+R(X-(XX))

X(0000) = 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 X(0500) = 1.2887362122471679 0.00705781307573862 1.2767485100695732 1.2465341770675666 0.03910723014701789 X(1000) = 1.3327294162589722 0.91656071198313205 1.207710752523091 0.6676224369769922 0.26663342726567785 X(1500) = 1.1448646685382955 0.44810007599150647 0.31020770014569771 0.41049165176544455 0.98416372529629426 X(2000) = 1.0548628914440754 0.89612693149716804 0.68511381901592494 1.0026346845706315 0.3860923315999224 X(2500) = 1.3328681064703032 0.06063433547953646 1.1741187260019781 0.0154001182074282 0.02087876121091203 X(3000) = 1.2956769824648844 0.0219606878364607 1.3287403237319588 0.50504896336548377 0.13270749449424302 X(3500) = 0.19193027175727995 0.37986077053509781 0.6545151597367076 0.38299434265835819 1.324039473116061 X(4000) = 1.2491385720940165 0.96017143401896088 0.09243804931690679 0.6565274346305322 1.316597313359563 X(4500) = 0.00644889182443986 1.3185465795235045 0.01896501046187725 0.94966313327336349 0.18512853535354462It is noteworhty that the two computers do not give the same results...

It is mandatory to give without ambiguity the name of the operating system and of the compiler, as well as their releases, when reporting that kind of experiment...

By the way this very small program cannot be wrong and does not use any numerical methods of approximations. All these wrong results shows that this program does not compute the values of the

scale = 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 080 090 100 n = 035 070 105 136 169 199 230 265 303 335This improvement is too costly to be useful...

The preceding experiments were about non linear systems. But what is about

main() {The computed values (after a 'gcc' compilation without optimization on a Linux PC) are as follows:double B=4095.1;double A=B+1;

double x=1;

int n;

printf("initialisation x = %.16f\n",x);

for (n=1 ; n <= 9 ; n++){x = (A*x) - B;

printf("iteration %01d x = %+.16f\n",n,x);}}

initialisation x = +1.0000000000000000 iteration 1 x = +1.0000000000004547 iteration 2 x = +1.0000000018630999 iteration 3 x = +1.0000076314440776 iteration 4 x = +1.0312591580864137 iteration 5 x = +129.0406374377594148 iteration 6 x = +524468.2550088063580915 iteration 7 x = +2148270324.2415719032287598 iteration 8 x = +8799530071030.8046875000000000 iteration 9 x = +36043755123945184.0000000000000000Initially:

x = 1and the following relation holds:

A-B = 1 (mathematically speaking...)(it is noteworthy that 'A' equals a power of 4 plus 0.1; when using another decimal part, things are more complicated...) then, the variable 'x' should be equal to its initial value (1) all along the iterations. Or it is not true... By the way, this program gives the right answer (1) when substituting

Then, it is very important

B = 4095.1 = {0x40affe33,33333333} A = B+1 = 4096.1 = {0x40b00019,9999999a}the preceding values being obtained with a PC. A similar phenomenon is in fact very common: see for example 1/3 that is a finite sum of powers of 1/3 (0.1 using base 3) and in the same time an infinite sum of powers of 1/10 (0.33333...).

A-B = 1.0000000000004547 = {0x3ff00000,00000800} | 1.0 = {0x3ff00000,00000000}

The consequences are numerous; numerical results obtained with a computer will depend on:

- the syntax used to describe a mathematical model (as exhibited with this first "experiment"),
- the compiler used, including its release and the options (as exhibited with this second "experiment"),
- the processor,
- the heterogeneity of the systems,...

These problems will be encountered

- 'A' and 'B' are two equal numbers stored in the 80-bit floating point unit ('FPU'). At that time, it is possible to add them, to multiple them,... and to compare them without ambiguity.
- Suppose that due to a lack of floating point resources, the number A is moved to memory (and then in a 64-bit format) and suppose that the optimizer "ignores" (as it is the case unfortunately...) that move.
- Imagine that some instructions later, 'A' (now a 64-bit number) and 'B' (still a 80-bit number) have to be compared; 'A' is moved from memory to a floating point register and 26 (null) bits are added to it. A and B are no more equal!

On march 2004, this phenomenon can be seen with the following program:

double f(x) double x; { return(1/x); }This program, when compiled with 'gcc -O3 -fno-inline' on a Linux PC with a x86 Intel processor, prints the "DIFFERENT" message! Please note that on march 2018, this program works perfectly...

main() { double x1=f(3.0); volatile double x2;

x2=x1;

if (x2 != x1) { printf("DIFFERENT\n"); } }

A universal solution (independent of the processor and of the compiler) to this problem seems to test numbers by means of functions, thus moving them to the stack using the 64-bit format. For example, the following test:

A > Bwhere 'A' and 'B' denote two 64 bit floating point numbers, will be written:

fIFGT(A,B)the function 'fIFGT(...)' being defined as:

unsigned int fIFGT(x,y) double x; double y; { return(x > y); }and avoiding the function inlining process (option '-fno-inline' of 'gcc')...

Using functions in order to execute the elementary instructions (addition, substraction, multiplication, division, tests,...) of a program offers another advantage: it allows a

At last,

The N-body problem is a useful example of these problems.

So, why do we need real numbers to do physics?

Copyright (c) France Telecom R&D and CMAP (Centre de Mathématiques APpliquées) UMR CNRS 7641 / Ecole Polytechnique, 2004-2019.