[Rd] identical(0, -0)
Duncan Murdoch
murdoch at stats.uwo.ca
Mon Aug 10 11:47:57 CEST 2009
Petr Savicky wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 10:39:04AM -0400, Prof. John C Nash wrote:
>
>> I'll save space and not include previous messages.
>>
>> My 2 cents: At the very least the documentation needs a fix. If it is
>> easy to do, then Ted Harding's suggestion of a switch (default OFF) to
>> check for sign difference would be sensible.
>>
>> I would urge inclusion in the documentation of the +0, -0 example(s) if
>> there is NOT a way in R to distinguish these.
>>
>
> It is possible to distinguish 0 and -0 in R, since 1/0 == Inf and
> 1/(-0) == -Inf.
>
> I do not know, whether there are also other such situations. In particular
> (0)^(-1) == (-0)^(-1) # [1] TRUE
> log(0) == log(-0) # [1] TRUE
>
>
>> There are occasions where
>> it is useful to be able to detect things like this (and NaN and Inf and
>> -Inf etc.). They are usually not of interest to users, but sometimes are
>> needed for developers to check edge effects. For those cases it may be
>> time to consider a package FPIEEE754 or some similar name to allow
>> testing and possibly setting of flags for some of the fancier features.
>> Likely used by just a few of us in extreme situations.
>>
>
> I think that distinguishing 0 and -0 may be useful even for nonexpert
> users for debugging purposes. Mainly, because x == y does not imply
> that x and y behave equally as demonstrated above or by
> x <- 0
> y <- - 0
> x == y # [1] TRUE
> 1/x == 1/y # [1] FALSE
>
> I would like to recall the suggestion
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 03:04:07PM +0200, Martin Maechler wrote:
> > Maybe we should introduce a function that's basically
> > isTRUE(all.equal(..., tol=0)) {but faster}, or
> > do you want a 3rd argument to identical, say 'method'
> > with default c("oneNaN", "use.==", "strict")
> >
> > oneNaN: my proposal of using memcmp() on doubles as its used for
> > other types already (and hence distinguishing +0 and -0;
> > otherwise keeping the feature that there's just one NaN
> > which differs from 'NA' (and there's just one 'NA').
> >
> > use.==: the previous R behaviour, using '==' on doubles
> > (and the "oneNaN" behavior)
> >
> > strict: be even stricter than oneNaN: Use memcmp()
> > unconditionally for doubles. This would be the fastest
> > version of all three.
>
> In my opinion, for debugging purposes, the option identical(x,y,method="strict"),
> which implies that x and y behave equally, could be useful, if it is available
> in R base,
>
> At the R interactive level, negative zero as the value of -0 could possibly
> be avoided. However, negative zero may also occur in numerical calculations,
> since it may be obtained as x * 0, where x is negative. So, i think, negative
> zero cannot be eliminated from consideration as something too infrequent.
I wouldn't mind a "strict" option. It would compare bit patterns, so
would distinguish +0 from -0, and different NaN values. But having the
value of identical(x-y, -(y-x)) depend on whether x and y are equal or
not would just lead to confusion.W
Duncan Murdoch
More information about the R-devel
mailing list