Copyright | (c) Levent Erkok |
---|---|
License | BSD3 |
Maintainer | erkokl@gmail.com |
Stability | experimental |
Safe Haskell | None |
Language | Haskell2010 |
Several examples involving IEEE-754 floating point numbers, i.e., single
precision Float
(SFloat
) and double precision Double
(SDouble
) types.
Note that arithmetic with floating point is full of surprises; due to precision
issues associativity of arithmetic operations typically do not hold. Also,
the presence of NaN
is always something to look out for.
Synopsis
- assocPlus :: SFloat -> SFloat -> SFloat -> SBool
- assocPlusRegular :: IO ThmResult
- nonZeroAddition :: IO ThmResult
- multInverse :: IO ThmResult
- roundingAdd :: IO SatResult
FP addition is not associative
assocPlus :: SFloat -> SFloat -> SFloat -> SBool Source #
Prove that floating point addition is not associative. For illustration purposes,
we will require one of the inputs to be a NaN
. We have:
>>>
prove $ assocPlus (0/0)
Falsifiable. Counter-example: s0 = 0.0 :: Float s1 = 0.0 :: Float
Indeed:
>>>
let i = 0/0 :: Float
>>>
i + (0.0 + 0.0)
NaN>>>
((i + 0.0) + 0.0)
NaN
But keep in mind that NaN
does not equal itself in the floating point world! We have:
>>>
let nan = 0/0 :: Float in nan == nan
False
assocPlusRegular :: IO ThmResult Source #
Prove that addition is not associative, even if we ignore NaN
/Infinity
values.
To do this, we use the predicate fpIsPoint
, which is true of a floating point
number (SFloat
or SDouble
) if it is neither NaN
nor Infinity
. (That is, it's a
representable point in the real-number line.)
We have:
>>>
assocPlusRegular
Falsifiable. Counter-example: x = -1.844675e19 :: Float y = 8.7960925e12 :: Float z = -2.4178333e24 :: Float
Indeed, we have:
>>>
let x = -1.844675e19 :: Float
>>>
let y = 8.7960925e12 :: Float
>>>
let z = -2.4178333e24 :: Float
>>>
x + (y + z)
-2.417852e24>>>
(x + y) + z
-2.4178516e24
Note the difference between two additions!
FP addition by non-zero can result in no change
nonZeroAddition :: IO ThmResult Source #
Demonstrate that a+b = a
does not necessarily mean b
is 0
in the floating point world,
even when we disallow the obvious solution when a
and b
are Infinity.
We have:
>>>
nonZeroAddition
Falsifiable. Counter-example: a = -2.524355e-29 :: Float b = 9.403955e-38 :: Float
Indeed, we have:
>>>
(-2.524355e-29 + 9.403955e-38) == (-2.524355e-29 :: Float)
True
But:
>>>
9.403955e-38 == (0 :: Float)
False
FP multiplicative inverses may not exist
multInverse :: IO ThmResult Source #
This example illustrates that a * (1/a)
does not necessarily equal 1
. Again,
we protect against division by 0
and NaN
/Infinity
.
We have:
>>>
multInverse
Falsifiable. Counter-example: a = -1.1299203187734916e-308 :: Double
Indeed, we have:
>>>
let a = -1.1299203187734916e-308 :: Double
>>>
a * (1/a)
0.9999999999999999
Effect of rounding modes
roundingAdd :: IO SatResult Source #
One interesting aspect of floating-point is that the chosen rounding-mode
can effect the results of a computation if the exact result cannot be precisely
represented. SBV exports the functions fpAdd
, fpSub
, fpMul
, fpDiv
, fpFMA
and fpSqrt
which allows users to specify the IEEE supported RoundingMode
for
the operation. (Also see the class RoundingFloat
.) This example illustrates how SBV
can be used to find rounding-modes where, for instance, addition can produce different
results. We have:
>>>
roundingAdd
Satisfiable. Model: rm = RoundTowardPositive :: RoundingMode x = 1.0 :: Float y = -6.1035094e-5 :: Float
(Note that depending on your version of Z3, you might get a different result.)
Unfortunately we can't directly validate this result at the Haskell level, as Haskell only supports
RoundNearestTiesToEven
. We have:
>>>
1.0 + (-6.1035094e-5) :: Float
0.99993896
While we cannot directly see the result when the mode is RoundTowardPositive
in Haskell, we can use
SBV to provide us with that result thusly:
>>>
sat $ \z -> z .== fpAdd sRoundTowardPositive 1.0 (-6.1035094e-5 :: SFloat)
Satisfiable. Model: s0 = 0.999939 :: Float
We can see why these two resuls are indeed different: The RoundTowardsPositive
(which rounds towards positive-infinity) produces a larger result. Indeed, if we treat these numbers
as Double
values, we get:
>>>
1.0 + (-6.1035094e-5) :: Double
0.999938964906
we see that the "more precise" result is larger than what the Float
value is, justifying the
larger value with RoundTowardPositive
. A more detailed study is beyond our current scope, so we'll
merely -- note that floating point representation and semantics is indeed a thorny
subject, and point to http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~dwharder/NumericalAnalysis/02Numerics/Double/paper.pdf as
an excellent guide.