j0 (and y0) in the range 2 <= x < (p/2)*log(2)

Fri Sep 7 17:54:09 UTC 2018

On Sat, Sep 08, 2018 at 12:07:26AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:02:20AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> ...
> >> I now think that no single fudge factor works for both P0 and Q0.  P0
> >> and Q0 have very different characteristics.  Merely choosing the
> >> ...
> >> To find different fudge factors, I would try starting with a common one
> >> and then iteratively adjust to different ones.
> >>
> >> j0 has a zero in the middle of at least the first subinterval, and the
> >> relative error should be minimized for this.  I think the choice of
> >> subintervals is related to this.  With only one zero per subinterval,
> >> the relative error near it can be minimized without messing up the
> >> relative error near other zeros.  The adjustment for this is absolutely
> >> tiny, so it is easier to arrange that it doesn't mess up the absolute
> >> error too much.
>
> In fact, this must more or less work, and the difficulty is to make it work
> more than less.  Start with any reasonable formula like (u*cc-v*ss).  (This
> is not specific to j0, except it gives an example of a nontrivial formula.)
> cc and ss are held fixed.  The best choice of u is not known, but we if we
> can get fairly close to it (perhaps even off by a factor of 2), then we can
> throw away any previous approximation for v and solve for v (in high
> precision), then approximate that.  There must be no singularities for this
> to work in high precision.  We expect to avoid the singularities by some
> combination of starting with u close enough, keeping the interval small,
> and special handling of zeros.
>
> Here the formula for v is something divided by ss, so we want to avoid
> zeros of ss.  ss is sin(x) - cos(x) which is close to sqrt(2) of the
> entire interval [2,2.857], so there is no problem with pole singularities.
> In the next interval, ss has a zero in the middle of the interval, so we
> should switch the roles of u and v so as to divide by cc instead (it is
> not so close to -sqrt(2)).
>
> Some magic is needed to make the resulting v easy to approximate.
> Hopefully not much more than a good u and a small interval.
>
> Then there is the known zero in the middle of the interval.  v should be
> chosen to at least have the correct signs on the FP values on each side
> of the zero.

I don't see how the above works.  We have

j0(x) = sqrt(1/pi) * (cc*u-ss*v) / sqrt(x).

If we take u to be accurate (with some amount of error from the
asymptotic series) and assume v as an unknown, we can solve for
v to high accuracy.  But, u is still inaccurate.  So, in the
interval [2,2.857] we accept whatever the truncated asymptotic
series gives for u and adjust v to compensate.  In the next
interval, [2.857,4.547], we flip the roles of u and v based on
the behavior of cc and ss.  Eventually, we get to the interval
[8,inf).  The divergent asymptotic series in 8 <= x < p/2*log(2)
give u and v, which yield poor values for j0(x).  There are
4 zeros of j0(x) in this range, and cc and ss have 4 and 3 zeros,
respectfully.

There are some subtleties in your approach that I don't
understand, yet!

I'll probably try a different approach tomorrow.  j0(x),
cc, and ss are smoothly varying functions of x.  u and v
appear to be slowly varying (in small intervals), so we can
have

j0(x)   = sqrt(1/pi) * (cc(x)  *u-ss(x)  *v) / sqrt(x).
j0(x+e) = sqrt(1/pi) * (cc(x+e)*u-ss(x+e)*v) / sqrt(x+e).

where e is some small perturbution.  Two equation and two
unknowns is easily solved.  Simply need to do this across
the interval to generate u(x) and v(x).

> I noticed that this method cannot work for jn, since u and v depend on n
> so there is no way to generate before runtime.  jn actually uses a different
> method and I suspect that it is much more inaccurate.  My tests don't
> cover jn since its n arg is an integer and I only have coverage for 2
> real args or 1 complex arg.

jn with n > 1 only uses the large argument asymptotic expansion for
the case of very large x where p0(x) = 1 and q0(x) = 0.  This then
gives (from the comment in e_jn.c)

*     Jn(x) = cos(x-(2n+1)*pi/4)*sqrt(2/x*pi)

The work is in computing cos().  Elsewhere jn is computed via
upward or downward recursion.

> > I'm beginning to like my use of the product formula.  It
> > allows one to remove the zero from an interval.  I did some
>
> I haven't seen that.  Is it for the final evaluation or for determining
> the approximation?  I don't know of any better way determining approximations
> near zeros except to multiply by a linear factor to remove the zero.
>
> It is becoming clearer why a separate interval is needed for each zero.
> Polynomials can only give good approximations for one zero at a time
> except in special cases.

I haven't sent the code to you as its a work in progress.  I did
send you some of my testing results for 2 <= x < 4 a couple weeks
ago.  For j0(x), the infinite product is (https://dlmf.nist.gov/10.21)

j0(x) = prod(1 - (x/zj)**2), j = 0, 1, 2, ...

with z0 the first zero of j0(x), etc.  This can be rewritten and
approximated by

j0(x) / ((x-z0)*(x+z0)) = R(x) / S(x)

While developing the rational approximation, on the LHS we use
z0 = z0hi + z0lo.  Both z0hi and z0lo have p-bits of precision.
The final result is

j0(x) = (x - z0hi - z0lo) * (x + z0) * R(x) / S(x)

--
Steve