NavList:

   

Reply

On 2017-11-18 17:53, Robert VanderPol II wrote:
>
> For computer implementation Cosine is more accurate and takes about
2/3 the time to calc but requires that what ever language you are using
be able to handle the acos function well which is not always the case.
[LINK:

https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/4906/why-is-law-of-cosines-more-preferable-than-haversine-when-calculating-distance-b]

That page mentions a small angle cosine approximation which also came up
in a recent thread in the Yahoo Sliderule group: cos x = 1 - x^2 / 2, if
angle x is measured in radians. In degrees, the formula becomes

cos x = 1 - (x / 180 * π)^2 / 2.

For example, if x is 1°, the formula gives .999 847 691. All digits
except the last are correct. As the angle approaches zero, the accuracy
of the approximation improves. If the angle is small enough, a slide
rule can surpass the accuracy of a calculator (if the person with the
calculator doesn't know the trick).

The formula can be re-arranged as an arc cosine. But to be effective, it
requires the small number 1 - cos x, not cos x itself. So it isn't
useful with the spherical trig cosine formula. You may as well call the
acos() function.

Another application for acos() is the computation of π, if it's not a
built-in constant in your programming environment. In that case, you can
write: pi = acos(-1.0). Some believe that's poor practice due to the
rapid change in angle as cosine approaches -1. Instead, they recommend
pi = 4.0 * atan(1.0).

I tested both formulas on my Windows desktop system (AMD processor).
Normally I program in C#, but the language can't access the 80-bit
floating point format that's available in the hardware, so I used
Silverfrost Fortran 95. A test program calls the 80-, 64-, and 32-bit
versions of acos() and atan(), puts the returned value in an 80-bit
variable, multiplies by 4 if atan() was called, and prints the result.
The top line is the actual value of π to 21 decimal places.

3.141 592 653 589 793 238 462 π
3.141 592 653 589 793 238 60  acos 80 bits
3.141 592 653 589 793 238 60  atan 80 bits
3.141 592 653 589 793 116 00  acos 64 bits
3.141 592 653 589 793 116 00  atan 64 bits
3.141 592 741 012 573 242 30  acos 32 bits
3.141 592 741 012 573 242 30  atan 32 bits

On my machine, acos(-1) and 4 * atan(1) compute identical and accurate
values of pi. I'd be interested to hear of any system where that's not true.

   

Reply