MHB Question about errors in Numerical Analysis

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hey! I am looking at an exercise in Numerical Analysis and I got stuck.
Why do we have a huge error when we substact two almost equal numbers?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
Hey! I am looking at an exercise in Numerical Analysis and I got stuck.
Why do we have a huge error when we substact two almost equal numbers?

Hey evinda!

Suppose we calculate $1.000001 - 1$.
In a "float" you can only keep 7 significant digits, so the first number cannot have more reliable digits than it already has.
The accuracy of both numbers is $\pm 0.0000005$.
Or as a percentage: $$\frac{0.0000005}{1} \times 100\% = 0.00005 \%$$, which is a pretty small error.The result of the subtraction is $0.000001$, but its accuracy is still about $0.0000005$.
Or as a percentage $$\frac{0.0000005}{0.000001} \times 100\% = 50 \%$$I'd say that is quite a large error relatively speaking. Don't you?
 
Great...I got it...Thank you very much! :o
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top