CODEWITHSUNDEEP
wolfram-mathematica
Dr. belisarius
Dr. belisarius

Reputation: 61026

Precision in Plots and in N[]

I have a nice polynomial, which is in fact the non-posted answer to this question (I guess it is homework, so I'll post nothing until the asker shows some brain activity :D ):

jj = 1 + 54 #1 + 855 #1^2 + 6300 #1^3 + 37296 #1^4 + 221706 #1^5 + 
   385782 #1^6 + 1899783 #1^7 - 713709 #1^8 - 8772909 #1^9 + 
   1718343 #1^10 + 17264169 #1^11 - 3659847 #1^12 - 20026899 #1^13 + 
   3423276 #1^14 + 13768320 #1^15 - 1610712 #1^16 - 5314050 #1^17 + 
   881651 #1^18 + 1545093 #1^19 - 151263 #1^20 - 298626 #1^21 - 
   24552 #1^22 + 21978 #1^23 + 6594 #1^24 + 792 #1^25 + 
   45 #1^26 + #1^27 &

I want the first root. Just checking:

p[f_] := Plot[f[t], {t, Root[f, 1] - .003, Root[f, 1] + .003}];

p[jj]

alt text

Seems steep but good. But look now:

In[394]:= N[jj[Root[jj, 1]]]

Out[394]= -2.9523*10^13

If I ask for some precision:

In[396]:= N[jj[Root[jj, 1]], 1]

During evaluation of In[396]:= N::meprec: Internal precision limit $MaxExtraPrecision = 50.` reached while evaluating 1+<<11>>+<<18>>. >>

Out[396]= 0.*10^-49

So the question is ... How different is the precision managing in Mma when you ask for a Plot and when you ask for a numeric result?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 1743

Answers (3)

Janus
Janus

Reputation: 5681

The problem is making a distinction between absolute and relative accuracy. Rant below, but first the solution:
According to the docs for AccuracyGoal and PrecisionGoal, Mathematica will strive to return the result x with a numerical error less than 10^{-a} + 10^{-p} Abs[x] where a is AccuracyGoal and p is PrecisionGoal. This causes a problem, if specifying a PrecisionGoal for a zero result. Solution: only specify AccuracyGoal.
For N you do this by giving a Precision,Accuracy tupple:

In[113]:= N[jj[Root[jj,1]],{0,24}]
Out[113]= 0.*10^-24

<rant> The use of the terms "accuracy" and "precision" in Mathematica is very sloppy. They should really be called "absolute accuracy" and "relative accuracy". See e.g. Wikipedia for a discussion of the correct terminology.</rant>

Upvotes: 4

Mark McClure
Mark McClure

Reputation: 4964

Well, I don't think the computations performed by your plot command are anything like those performed by your N command. You can check what points are plugged in during the plotting using Reap and Sow:

p[f_] := Plot[f[t], {t, Root[f, 1] - 0.003, Root[f, 1] + 0.003},
  EvaluationMonitor -> Sow[t]];
Reap[p[jj]][[2, 1]]

Notice that Plot uses only machine precision numbers. This is very different from your N command, where you are plugging in the exact root of the function. The difficulty with your arbitrary precision computation arises since you're trying to estimate an exact zero and Mathematica is unable to attach a precision to the result. This can happen with much simpler polynomials.

x0 = x /. First[Solve[x^5 - x - 1 == 0, x]];
N[x0^5 - x0 - 1, 9]

Upvotes: 2

J-16 SDiZ
J-16 SDiZ

Reputation: 26910

The precision of the plot is just (approx.) the same as the graph size/resolution. This is an optimization in Mathematica.

Upvotes: -2

Related Questions