Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 25 2019, @11:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the "irrational"-conclusion dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Professor Peter Coveney, Director of the UCL Centre[*] for Computational Science and study co-author, said: "Our work shows that the behaviour of the chaotic dynamical systems is richer than any digital computer can capture. Chaos is more commonplace than many people may realise and even for very simple chaotic systems, numbers used by digital computers can lead to errors that are not obvious but can have a big impact. Ultimately, computers can't simulate everything."

The team investigated the impact of using floating-point arithmetic -- a method standardised by the IEEE and used since the 1950s to approximate real numbers on digital computers.

Digital computers use only rational numbers, ones that can be expressed as fractions. Moreover the denominator of these fractions must be a power of two, such as 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. There are infinitely more real numbers that cannot be expressed this way.

In the present work, the scientists used all four billion of these single-precision floating-point numbers that range from plus to minus infinity. The fact that the numbers are not distributed uniformly may also contribute to some of the inaccuracies.

First author, Professor Bruce Boghosian (Tufts University), said: "The four billion single-precision floating-point numbers that digital computers use are spread unevenly, so there are as many such numbers between 0.125 and 0.25, as there are between 0.25 and 0.5, as there are between 0.5 and 1.0. It is amazing that they are able to simulate real-world chaotic events as well as they do. But even so, we are now aware that this simplification does not accurately represent the complexity of chaotic dynamical systems, and this is a problem for such simulations on all current and future digital computers."

The study builds on the work of Edward Lorenz of MIT whose weather simulations using a simple computer model in the 1960s showed that tiny rounding errors in the numbers fed into his computer led to quite different forecasts, which is now known as the 'butterfly effect'.

[*] UCL: University College London

Journal Reference:
Bruce M. Boghosian, Peter V. Coveney, Hongyan Wang. A New Pathology in the Simulation of Chaotic Dynamical Systems on Digital Computers. Advanced Theory and Simulations, 2019; 1900125 DOI: 10.1002/adts.201900125


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:58PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:58PM (#899090)

    Chaos is often modeled with feedback oscillators, so you've got an infinite chain of operations, and, yes, it is very important to keep in the "sweet spot" of your numerical representation - most chaotic oscillators I've ever worked with keep their numbers in the range of ~ +/- 10.0 to +/- 0.1, regardless of whether they are using float, double, or other precision to compute them.

    If you want to see it bigger (or smaller), scale it up (or down), but the chaotic feedback computation loop stays planted within a narrow well behaved range.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2