Work at SourceForge, help us to make it a better place! We have an immediate need for a Support Technician in our San Francisco or Denver office.
Close
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20060222 20:53:12

Bugs item #1436987, was opened at 20060222 13:53 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atanh branch cut strangeness Initial Comment: So far as I can tell, Clisp 2.34 (Linux, compiled w/ gcc 3.3.2) handles branch cuts of atanh incorrectly. I also checked asin and acos and those two functions seem OK. (1) acos and asin: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_asin_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 4th quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 2nd quadrant. Clisp: conforms to spec (2) atanh: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_sinh_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 1st quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 3rd quadrant. Clisp: continuous w/ 4th and 2nd quadrants respectively PS. Here's a test script: (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01))  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20060305 16:56:24

Bugs item #1436987, was opened at 20060222 13:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atanh branch cut strangeness Initial Comment: So far as I can tell, Clisp 2.34 (Linux, compiled w/ gcc 3.3.2) handles branch cuts of atanh incorrectly. I also checked asin and acos and those two functions seem OK. (1) acos and asin: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_asin_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 4th quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 2nd quadrant. Clisp: conforms to spec (2) atanh: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_sinh_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 1st quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 3rd quadrant. Clisp: continuous w/ 4th and 2nd quadrants respectively PS. Here's a test script: (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01))  >Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060305 09:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 After further study of CLHS, I've concluded the statements about branch cuts for ATANH are inconsistent with the formula (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2. The branch cuts as derived from the formula are (\infty, 1) continuous w/ 2nd quadrant and (1, \infty) continuous w/ 4th. I think the only way to read the spec for ATANH is to read the stuff about branch cuts as commentary and ignore it (i.e., observe the formula and ignore the commentary). That said, there is still some strangeness in ATANH, namely that (ATANH 2.5) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964) which is different from (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964). Since Clisp doesn't recognize signed zero, I don't see how that can be. For the record, (IMAGPART 2.5) => 0 and (PHASE 2.5) => 3.1415927. In order to be consistent w/ (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2, (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) should yield #C(0.42364892 1.5707964).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20060620 13:18:19

Bugs item #1436987, was opened at 20060222 15:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sds You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: atanh branch cut strangeness Initial Comment: So far as I can tell, Clisp 2.34 (Linux, compiled w/ gcc 3.3.2) handles branch cuts of atanh incorrectly. I also checked asin and acos and those two functions seem OK. (1) acos and asin: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_asin_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 4th quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 2nd quadrant. Clisp: conforms to spec (2) atanh: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_sinh_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 1st quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 3rd quadrant. Clisp: continuous w/ 4th and 2nd quadrants respectively PS. Here's a test script: (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01))  >Comment By: Sam Steingold (sds) Date: 20060620 09:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=5735 could you please check the behavior of other cl implementation? is their interpretation of CLHS in line with yours?  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060305 11:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 After further study of CLHS, I've concluded the statements about branch cuts for ATANH are inconsistent with the formula (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2. The branch cuts as derived from the formula are (\infty, 1) continuous w/ 2nd quadrant and (1, \infty) continuous w/ 4th. I think the only way to read the spec for ATANH is to read the stuff about branch cuts as commentary and ignore it (i.e., observe the formula and ignore the commentary). That said, there is still some strangeness in ATANH, namely that (ATANH 2.5) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964) which is different from (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964). Since Clisp doesn't recognize signed zero, I don't see how that can be. For the record, (IMAGPART 2.5) => 0 and (PHASE 2.5) => 3.1415927. In order to be consistent w/ (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2, (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) should yield #C(0.42364892 1.5707964).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 
From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20061121 01:19:00

Bugs item #1436987, was opened at 20060222 15:53 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by sds You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. >Category: clisp >Group: ANSI compliance issue >Status: Closed >Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) >Assigned to: Sam Steingold (sds) Summary: atanh branch cut strangeness Initial Comment: So far as I can tell, Clisp 2.34 (Linux, compiled w/ gcc 3.3.2) handles branch cuts of atanh incorrectly. I also checked asin and acos and those two functions seem OK. (1) acos and asin: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_asin_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 4th quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 2nd quadrant. Clisp: conforms to spec (2) atanh: CLHS says (http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/f_sinh_.htm) that the branch cut on [1, \infty) is continuous w/ 1st quadrant and on (\infty, 1] is continuous w/ 3rd quadrant. Clisp: continuous w/ 4th and 2nd quadrants respectively PS. Here's a test script: (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:asin 2.5) (cl:asin #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:acos 2.5) (cl:acos #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01)) (cl:atanh 2.5) (cl:atanh #C(2.5 0.01))  Comment By: Sam Steingold (sds) Date: 20061120 20:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=5735 Originator: NO thank you for your bug report. the bug has been fixed in the CVS tree. you can either wait for the next release (recommended) or check out the current CVS tree (see http://clisp.cons.org) and build CLISP from the sources (be advised that between releases the CVS tree is very unstable and may not even build on your platform).  Comment By: Sam Steingold (sds) Date: 20060620 09:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=5735 could you please check the behavior of other cl implementation? is their interpretation of CLHS in line with yours?  Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier) Date: 20060305 11:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=501686 After further study of CLHS, I've concluded the statements about branch cuts for ATANH are inconsistent with the formula (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2. The branch cuts as derived from the formula are (\infty, 1) continuous w/ 2nd quadrant and (1, \infty) continuous w/ 4th. I think the only way to read the spec for ATANH is to read the stuff about branch cuts as commentary and ignore it (i.e., observe the formula and ignore the commentary). That said, there is still some strangeness in ATANH, namely that (ATANH 2.5) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964) which is different from (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) => #C(0.42364892 1.5707964). Since Clisp doesn't recognize signed zero, I don't see how that can be. For the record, (IMAGPART 2.5) => 0 and (PHASE 2.5) => 3.1415927. In order to be consistent w/ (log(1 + x)  log(1  x))/2, (ATANH #C(2.5 0.0)) should yield #C(0.42364892 1.5707964).  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101355&aid=1436987&group_id=1355 