Post Reply 
Gamma Function by Stieltjes Continued Fraction
09-13-2015, 02:06 AM
Post: #14
RE: Gamma Function by Stieltjes Continued Fraction
Hey, Dieter, for HP41 work with 10 digits I think I am sticking with the refinement mentioned above. Expressing the coefficient that is around 5 to a few more digits doesn't seem to confer extra benefit on the HP41, and indeed when I plot the error curve in an arbitrary precision environment I really see no big improvement at all.

I should play around with your four term versions, but I suspect that the advantages of them are lost in a 10 digit environment and, if anything, the extra computations due to the extra term produce their own round off issues. Of course more accuracy is desirable for 12-digit calculators, but the point is more of an academic curiosity, since the newer HPs like the 42s and 35s compute the gamma (actually factorial) on allowable non-integer arguments just fine.

Of course, all of these great refinements are good candidates for M-CODE programming, but I think none of them can top some of the optimized Lanczos approximations we were discussing elsewhere. Getting rid of the shift-divide step for smaller arguments really goes far to speeding things up across the board.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Messages In This Thread
RE: Gamma Function by Stieltjes Continued Fraction - lcwright1964 - 09-13-2015 02:06 AM

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)