NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Computing tables
From: Richard B. Emerson
Date: 1999 Sep 08, 6:36 PM
From: Richard B. Emerson
Date: 1999 Sep 08, 6:36 PM
Tony writes: > "Richard B. Emerson" wrote: > > > > In recent posts, some people referred to computing their own tables. > > Aside from the issue of selecting the correct equations, the question > > of computational accuracy comes to mind. I'm thinking of issues such > > as rounding error and the occasional FPU that has subtle but > > detectable algorithm errors. What checks are made to verify that the > > resulting tables are computationally sound? > > You ask the $64,000 question! Much depends on the data base used (as pointed > out by Gordon Talge in the just previous message) and the accuracy expected. > When implemented on a pc even to its maximum precision of 15-16 places, none > will coincide exactly with that of the Nautical Almanac. What can be expected > from more limited calculators is problematical. I'll venture the opinion that > all methods are within practicable limits. Understanding the bases and limits > of each is entwined. Well, it's possible to compute results accurate to many places even though the native word size may be limited. There are some excellent integer routines around, too, which offer speed advantages. The point here is that a 32 bit processor can give good, long results *if you're willing to wait for them*. My question is directed towards knowing just how accurate the tables are in terms of identifying systematic errors (e.g., rounding errors which propigate forward through a series). Rick S/V One With The Wind, Baba 35