Re: [boost] Numerical Quadrature Library/Boost.Accumulators

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-08 04:25:58

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Matthias Schabel
>Sent: 07 December 2006 20:29
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] Numerical Quadrature Library/Boost.Accumulators

>If there is a push to begin thinking about numerical libraries to be  
>incorporated into Boost,
>I would vote to think seriously about having a return type that  
>includes error estimates (as
>GSL does with it's result type or, perhaps, something like the  
>measurement class I threw
>together as a demo for mcs::units, attached). If implicit conversion  
>to the result type was
>allowed, it would be transparent to functions that didn't care about  
>errors and visible to those
>that do.
>
>As far as I can see, precision needs to be the same type as the  
>return type since it represents
>uncertainty in the latter. That is, the range of possible return  
>values would be [result - n*error,
>result + n*error]. Do you have a case in mind where this isn't true?

I strongly support thinking about (computational) uncertainty estimates.

(Uncertainty seems to be the 'modern' term for what was called error). 

But I am not clear exactly how to achieve this.  We've got Interval but it's doubtful if this is the right weapon to use.

This is a potential big strength for C++ over other languages.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]