2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2017.08.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fast calculation of inverse square root with the use of magic constant – analytical approach

Abstract: We present a mathematical analysis of transformations used in fast calculation of inverse square root for single-precision floating-point numbers. Optimal values of the so called magic constants are derived in a systematic way, minimizing either absolute or relative errors at subsequent stages of the discussed algorithm.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
59
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
59
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparing ∆ (2) N,max with the analogical numerical bound for InvSqrt (see Eq. (4.23) in [45]) we conclude that in the case of two iterations the code InvSqrt2 is about 7 times more accurate than InvSqrt. We point out that round-off errors significantly decrease the theoretical improvement which is given by the factor 8.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Comparing ∆ (2) N,max with the analogical numerical bound for InvSqrt (see Eq. (4.23) in [45]) we conclude that in the case of two iterations the code InvSqrt2 is about 7 times more accurate than InvSqrt. We point out that round-off errors significantly decrease the theoretical improvement which is given by the factor 8.…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…It is worthwhile to point out that in this case the amplitude of the error oscillations is about 40% greater than the amplitude of oscillations of (ỹ 00 −ỹ 0 )/ỹ 0 (i.e., in the case of InvSqrt), see the right part of Fig. 2 in [45]. The errors of numerical values returned by InvSqrt2 belong (for e x = −126) to the following interval ∆ N,min = −6.21 · 10 −7 , ∆…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations