[Haskell-cafe] Sum and Product do not respect the Monoid laws

Carter Schonwald carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Fri Sep 26 19:55:44 UTC 2014


I guess what I'm saying  is that while you have a valid perspective,  such
design changes don't really improve things for people who don't need
floating point tools, and immediately makes things a lot more onerous for
those who DO need them.

I think a more interesting matter is the lack of good userland visiblility
into choices of rounding modes and having nice tools for estimate
forwards/backwards error of computations.

Many computations (even with "exact") types, still have similar issues. But
thats a fun topic about relative vs absolute error bounds etc that can wait
for another time! :)





On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Carter Schonwald <
carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:

> for equational laws to be sensible requires a sensible notion of equality,
> the Eq for Floating point numbers is
> meant for handling corner cases (eg: am i about to divide by zero), not
> "semantic/denotational equivalence"
>
> Exact equality is fundamentally incorrect for finite precision
> mathematical computation.
> You typically want to have something like
>
> nearlyEq  tolerance a b = if distance a b <= tolerance then True else False
>
> Floating point is geometry, not exact things
> https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ieee754-0.7.3/docs/Data-AEq.html
> is a package that provides an approx equality notion.
>
> Basically, floating points work the way they do because its a compromise
> that works decently for those who really need it.
> If you dont need to use floating point, dont! :)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jason Choy <jjwchoy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> subject to certain caveats.  It's not unfair to say that
>>> floating point multiplication is (nearly) associative
>>> "within a few ulp".
>>>
>>
>> I'm not disputing this.
>>
>> However, you can't deny that this monoid law is broken for the floating
>> point operations:
>>
>> mappend x (mappend y z) = mappend (mappend x y) z
>>
>> Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but this law should hold for all x, y, z, and
>> it clearly doesn't.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20140926/a2c60a89/attachment.html>


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list