Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by Darmani 3466 days ago | link | parent

  arc>(def int (n)
    (is (trunc n) n))
  #<procedure: int>
  arc>(int 1.0)
  nil
My original int? was identical to yours, but that's why I changed it. Although, now that I think about it, since prime-factorization discards the results of operations that cast n to a rational, that's unnecessary. Still, there will need to be separate functions for testing if a num's type is int (which yours does), and testing if a num lacks decimal places (which mine does).

(And yes, Euclid's is definitely faster than prime factorization -- I originally looked at better algorithms for prime finding and gcd but I decided to settle for the "pure" approach -- sieve instead of some Fermat's or another fast primality test, prime factorization based instead of Euclid's.)

P.S.: Feel free to make use of the code I posted.



1 point by shader 3466 days ago | link

Ah, I didn't notice that. Apparently I should test things more carefully next time :)

I don't know if you have github access, but if you do, you can feel free to add your own code to the math.arc lib. I probably won't have a chance to add it myself in the next week or so. If I can, though, I will definitely try to do so.

-----

2 points by eds 3463 days ago | link

I just pushed 'floor, 'ceil, and 'fac from http://arclanguage.org/item?id=7280, and 'sin, 'cos, and 'tan to Anarki.

In doing so, I noticed one bug in Darmani's original implementation of 'floor and 'ceil. 'floor would return incorrect results on negative integers (e.g. (floor -1) => -2), and 'ceil on positive integers (e.g. (ceil 1) => 2). This has been corrected on Anarki.

I also used mzscheme's 'sin, 'cos, and 'tan instead of Darmani's, not because of speed issues, but because of decreased precision in those functions. In order to get maximum precision it would be necessary to calculate the Taylor series an extra couple of terms, which I didn't feel like doing at the time.

I didn't commit 'signum, 'mod, 'prime, or 'prime-factorization, because I wasn't sure if they were needed except for computing 'sin, 'cos, and 'gcd... but feel free to commit them if you want.

-----

1 point by shader 3455 days ago | link

I have a few questions:

1) Isn't pushing those math functions straight from scheme sort of cheating? I mean, maybe I'm just wrong, but wouldn't the solution be more long term if we avoided scheme and implemented the math in arc?

2) Shouldn't fac be tail recursive? Or is it, and I just can't tell? Or are you just expecting that no one will try and compute that large of a factorial

3) If some one did compute that large of a factorial, is there some way for arc to handle arbitrarily sized integers?

-----

1 point by almkglor 3455 days ago | link

1) No, you should implement in the math in the underlying machine instructions, which are guaranteed to be as precise and as fast as the manufacturer can make it. The underlying machine instructions are fortunately possible to access in standard C libraries, and the standard C library functions are wrapped by mzscheme, which we then import in arc.

2) It should be, and it isn't.

  (defmemo fac (n)
    ((afn (n a)
       (if (> n 1)
           (self (- n 1) (* a n))
           a))
     n 1))
3) Yes, arc-on-mzscheme handles this automagically. arc2c does not (I think it'll overflow)

-----

3 points by kens 3454 days ago | link

Implementing numerically stable and accurate transcendental functions is rather difficult. If you're going down that road, please don't just use Taylor series, but look up good algorithms that others have implemented. One source is http://developer.intel.com/technology/itj/q41999/pdf/transen...

That said, I don't see much value in re-implementing math libraries in Arc, given that Arc is almost certainly going to be running on a platform that already has good native math libraries.

-----

1 point by shader 3455 days ago | link

I figured that being close to machine instructions was a good thing, but I thought that we should do that via some other method, not necessarily scheme, which may or may not remain the base of arc in the future.

That being said, if you think that pulling from scheme is a good idea, why don't we just pull all of the other math functions from there as well?

-----

2 points by almkglor 3455 days ago | link

> That being said, if you think that pulling from scheme is a good idea, why don't we just pull all of the other math functions from there as well?

Yes. Yes it is. http://arclanguage.com/item?id=7288

That's what I said ^^

-----

1 point by shader 3454 days ago | link

Ok, I added that tail optimized version to math.arc.

Do you want to have a separate math libs for the scheme functions and native implementations? You already suggested the possibility.

-----

2 points by almkglor 3454 days ago | link

Err, "native implementations" being?

Actually I think it might be better if we had a spec which says "A Good Arc Implementation (TM) includes the following functions when you (require "lib/math.arc"): ...." Then the programmer doesn't even have to care about "scheme functions" or "java functions" or "c functions" or "machine language functions" or "SKI functions" - the implementation imports it by whatever means it wants.

Maybe also spec that the implementation can reserve the plain '$ for implementation-specific stuff.

-----