469,359 Members | 1,647 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,359 developers. It's quick & easy.

Overflow error

>>> from math import e
e**709 8.218407461554662e+307 e**710


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?

I'm using Python 2.3.4 on WinXP.
Jul 18 '05 #1
5 6148
ja***********@hotmail.com (Jane Austine) writes:
from math import e
e**709 8.218407461554662e+307 e**710


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?


Well, it's too big for your platform's C double, so you need a
different representation. I don't know if there are big float
packages out there that handle such things (likely, though) or if
there are Python interfaces to the same (less likely). Or you could
store the logarithms of the numbers you are interested in. Why do you
need such huge nubmers?

Cheers,
mwh

--
<exarkun> today's lesson
<exarkun> don't strace X in an xterm
-- from Twisted.Quotes
Jul 18 '05 #2
Michael Hudson wrote:
ja***********@hotmail.com (Jane Austine) writes:

>from math import e
>e**709


8.218407461554662e+307
>e**710


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?

Well, it's too big for your platform's C double, so you need a
different representation. I don't know if there are big float
packages out there that handle such things (likely, though) or if
there are Python interfaces to the same (less likely). Or you could
store the logarithms of the numbers you are interested in. Why do you
need such huge nubmers?

Cheers,
mwh

Using a little bit of magic:

First get a good approximation of e:
Using my bits package, I can do:

import bits, math
scaling = bits.lsb(math.e)
characteristic = bits.extract(math.e, scaling, 10)
# This has the same effect as:
# scaling, characteristic = -51, 6121026514868073L
# Now e = characteristic * 2.**scaling
result_scaling = scaling * 710
result_characteristic = characteristic ** 710
intpart = result_characteristic >> -result_scaling
# and you'll have to grab as much fractpart as you want.

Similarly, for decimal, type in enough digits (for your taste) of e
from some reference book, and omit the decimal point.
Then track the exponent in base ten, and you can obtain similar results:

scaling, characteristic = -5, 271828
result_scaling = scaling * 710
result_characteristic = characteristic ** 710
intpart = result_characteristic // 10 ** -result_scaling
So, you needn't use floating point if you are willing to type in
constants. Both of these give a number which is 223. * 10 ** 50 to
three digits, and they differ in the fourth digit (4 or 3 if you round).
The binary-based version (the first above) produces:
2233994766....
While the decimal-based version produces:
2232928102....
This is certainly due to using so few decimal places for e in the
decimal version.
In Knuth's Art of Computer Programming (at least volume 3, which I
happen to have at hand) Appendix A, you can get 41 decimal digits for e,
or 45 octal digits if you prefer to work with binary. I believe
(without checking) that each of the volumes contains this appendix.
The big advantage of using decimal is (a) more readily available tables
of constants come in decimal than in binary, and (b) if you _do_ want
to print some of the fractpart, it is easier just to change the division
to include the extra digits, while for the binary versions you'll have
to multiply by 10**digits before the division.

--
-Scott David Daniels
Sc***********@Acm.Org
Jul 18 '05 #3
ja***********@hotmail.com (Jane Austine) writes:
from math import e
e**709 8.218407461554662e+307 e**710


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?


Is this a homework problem?

Aw heck, you can do something like this:

from math import *
a,b = divmod(710 * log10(e), 1.0) # int and frac parts of log10(e**710)
print '%f * 10**%d'%(10.** b, a)

This prints: 2.233995 * 10**308
Jul 18 '05 #4
Michael Hudson <mw*@python.net> wrote in message news:<m3************@pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk>...
ja***********@hotmail.com (Jane Austine) writes:
>> from math import e
>> e**709 8.218407461554662e+307>> e**710


Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?


Well, it's too big for your platform's C double, so you need a
different representation. I don't know if there are big float
packages out there that handle such things (likely, though) or if
there are Python interfaces to the same (less likely).


You can also do it with rationals:
def unboundedRange(start=0): .... n = start
.... while True:
.... yield n
.... n += 1
.... def exp(x, tolerance=rational(1, 10**8)): .... total = term = 1
.... for n in unboundedRange(1):
.... term *= rational(x, n)
.... total += term
.... if abs(term) < tolerance:
.... break
.... return total
.... float(exp(1)) 2.7182818282861687 long(exp(710))

22339947661617110312536444581168100065681228633794 64199399225797633694391735055082380452089360759286 08008858947959672204126540307964255760331629484074 08171060072481562303768656419943082637198694798515 79278363558148748564659846983899001076064398438418 00268119591413945009951691796042715693932113514608 158683164L

However, I don't recommend this, because it's *very* slow.
Jul 18 '05 #5
da*****@yahoo.com (Dan Bishop) wrote in message news:<ad**************************@posting.google. com>...
Michael Hudson <mw*@python.net> wrote in message news:<m3************@pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk>...
ja***********@hotmail.com (Jane Austine) writes:
>>> from math import e
>>> e**709 8.218407461554662e+307 >>> e**710

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#15>", line 1, in -toplevel-
e**710
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')

What should I do to calculate e**710?


Well, it's too big for your platform's C double, so you need a
different representation. I don't know if there are big float
packages out there that handle such things (likely, though) or if
there are Python interfaces to the same (less likely).


You can also do it with rationals:
def unboundedRange(start=0): ... n = start
... while True:
... yield n
... n += 1
... def exp(x, tolerance=rational(1, 10**8)): ... total = term = 1
... for n in unboundedRange(1):
... term *= rational(x, n)
... total += term
... if abs(term) < tolerance:
... break
... return total
... float(exp(1)) 2.7182818282861687 long(exp(710))

22339947661617110312536444581168100065681228633794 64199399225797633694391735055082380452089360759286 08008858947959672204126540307964255760331629484074 08171060072481562303768656419943082637198694798515 79278363558148748564659846983899001076064398438418 00268119591413945009951691796042715693932113514608 158683164L

However, I don't recommend this, because it's *very* slow.


Interesting. Where do I get the "rational" module?
Jul 18 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

44 posts views Thread by JKop | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Chua Wen Ching | last post: by
25 posts views Thread by junky_fellow | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by starffly | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Parachute | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by jer006 | last post: by
42 posts views Thread by thomas.mertes | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.