[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gsl] gsl_sf_coupling_3j bug report

From: Alexey A. Illarionov
Subject: Re: [Bug-gsl] gsl_sf_coupling_3j bug report
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:15:08 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110910 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.12

Hi Brian,

I just want to emphasize that the Grigory's patch does not solve the
problem it only extends a little bit range of possible j and m where
algorithm gives reasonable answer. For example,
    (200 200 200)
    (-10 60 -50) = 2.55804e+18 +- 1.35857e+17
while the correct answer would be approximately

On 10/10/11 09:17 AM, Brian Gough wrote:
> At Sun, 2 Oct 2011 13:25:50 +0400,
> Grigory I. Rubtsov wrote:
>> Hi Alexey,
>> You gave me an idea of further improvement. If one mupltiply the norm
>> with every term, there will be no large numbers at all. Please
>> consider the following patch for inclusion into GSL. It works with
>> practically arbitrary large l.
> Thanks for the patch.  I tried it and it solves the problem you found.
> I've committed the patch and extended it to include the error term, to
> avoid the error being underestimated.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]