This is the code I wrote to compute the newton's square root of a number.
I aimed for extreme clarity over efficiency and I have put an abundant docstring at the start of the newton_sqrt
function where I describe the main formula and explain all the parameters.
This function is not meant to be fast (standard library is 4x times faster and more accurate), I wrote just to learn some good math coding techniques in Python.
- This was written in Python 3 but is fully compatible with Python 2.
- I created constants for the error messages. Is that a good practice? Or should I just write the errors down verbatim when need occurs?
- I chose
n / 2
as my initial guess. Do you know a better initial guess? - Are all the option parameters that I am using necessary or should I delete some of them?
from __future__ import division
import time
def newton_sqrt(n,x0=None,tolerance=10 ** (-3),max_iter=15,epsilon=10 ** (-5)):
"""
This function computes the sqare root of a number
using Newton's method.
After chosing a starting approximate value for x runs:
x = x - f(x) / derivative_of_f(x)
After a given number of iterations or if the result is good enough
the programme will stop and return x.
Parameters:
Compulsory:
@ n: the number of which the square root must be taken.
Optional:
@ x0: the initial approximation of n.
@ tolerance: the maximum error permitted.
@ max_iter: the maximum number of iterations.
@ epsilon: a number so small that dividing by it would break
@ the programme, giving vastly inapproximate results.
"""
DIVISION_BY_TINY_DERIVATIVE_ERROR = """The derivative of f is {} and therefore under the {} limit chosen.
Dividing by it would give a result with a vast error."""
NOT_ENOUGH_ACCURACY_IN_ITER_ERROR = """Solution of {} accuracy for {} was not found in {} iterations"""
if x0 is None:
x0 = n / 2
f = lambda x: x ** 2 - n
fprime = lambda x: 2 * x # The derivative of f(x)
for i in range(max_iter):
y = f(x0)
yprime = fprime(x0)
if(abs(yprime) < epsilon):
raise Exception(DIVISION_BY_TINY_DERIVATIVE_ERROR.format(
yprime, epsilon))
x1 = x0 - y / yprime
if(abs(x1 - x0) / abs(x1) < tolerance):
return x1
x0 = x1
raise Exception(NOT_ENOUGH_ACCURACY_IN_ITER_ERROR.format(
tolerance,n,max_iter))
def test_and_timing(max_):
start = time.time()
n_sqrt = [newton_sqrt(i) for i in range(1, max_)]
print("Newton's sqrt took {} seconds to execute for i 1:{}".format(
time.time() - start, max_))
start = time.time()
b_sqrt = [i ** 0.5 for i in range(1, max_)]
print("Built-in sqrt took {} seconds to execute for i 1:{}".format(
time.time() - start, max_))
print("""Sum of all newton sqrts is: {}
Sum of all built-in sqrts is: {}""".format(sum(n_sqrt), sum(b_sqrt)))
if __name__ == "__main__":
test_and_timing(100000)
2 Answers 2
The spacing in the function definition is nonstandard; it should be one of:
def newton_sqrt(n, x0=None, tolerance=10 ** -3, max_iter=15, epsilon=10 ** -5):
def newton_sqrt(n, x0=None, tolerance=10**-3, max_iter=15, epsilon=10**-5):
def newton_sqrt(n, x0=None, tolerance=10e-3, max_iter=15, epsilon=10e-5):
With my preference for the 3rd. (FWIW, the second technically breaks PEP 8.)
For some reason, all of your line-wrapped strings are indented 3 spaces. It should be 4, like the rest of the code.
DIVISION_BY_TINY_DERIVATIVE_ERROR
would probably be better without a line break and indent; you can avoid this as so:
NOT_ENOUGH_ACCURACY_IN_ITER_ERROR
doesn't need tripple quotes.
IMO, both of the above shouldn't be called _ERROR
if they are strings. I would also drop _IN_ITER
.
Don't write
f = lambda x: x ** 2 - n
fprime = lambda x: 2 * x # The derivative of f(x)
Instead, write
def f(x): return x ** 2 - n
def fprime(x): return 2 * x # The derivative of f(x)
Your
if(abs(yprime) < epsilon):
doesn't need brackets:
if abs(yprime) < epsilon:
You should almost never raise Exception
; instead raise appropriate specific exceptions. In this case I would use ValueError
.
Don't line break onto the indentation; add a hanging indent.
This code is overcomplicated:
x1 = x0 - y / yprime
if(abs(x1 - x0) / abs(x1) < tolerance):
return x1
x0 = x1
You can just do
diff = y / yprime
x0 -= diff
if abs(diff / x0) < tolerance:
return x0
Your test_and_timing
could utilize better naming and the last print
should be split into two. I would also reduce the number of decimal places printed:
def test_and_timing(up_to):
start = time.time()
newton_roots = [newton_sqrt(i) for i in range(1, up_to)]
took = time.time() - start
print("Newton's sqrt took {:.3f} seconds to execute for i in range(1, {})".format(took, up_to))
start = time.time()
builtin_roots = [i ** 0.5 for i in range(1, up_to)]
took = time.time() - start
print("Built-in sqrt took {:.3f} seconds to execute for i range(1, {})".format(took, up_to))
print("Sum of all newton sqrts is: {:.2f}".format(sum(newton_roots)))
print("Sum of all built-in sqrts is: {:.2f}".format(sum(builtin_roots)))
Your timing is also slightly worsened by the cost of a list comprehension. Removing that would be more honest:
def test_and_timing(up_to):
start = time.time()
for i in range(1, up_to):
newton_sqrt(i)
took = time.time() - start
print("Newton's sqrt took {:.3f} seconds to execute for i in range(1, {})".format(took, up_to))
start = time.time()
for i in range(1, up_to):
i ** 0.5
took = time.time() - start
print("Built-in sqrt took {:.3f} seconds to execute for i range(1, {})".format(took, up_to))
newton_roots = (newton_sqrt(i) for i in range(1, up_to))
builtin_roots = (i ** 0.5 for i in range(1, up_to))
print("Sum of all newton sqrts is: {:.2f}".format(sum(newton_roots)))
print("Sum of all built-in sqrts is: {:.2f}".format(sum(builtin_roots)))
Note that f(x) / fprime(x)
is actually cheaper to calculate at once, simplifying to just 0.5 * (x - n / x)
. Further, note that we can just compare x
to epsilon / 2
instead of fprime
to epsilon
; given the approximation of epsilon
in the input this is basically the same as comparing x
to epsilon
.
Now, this might be problematic if you want to generalize, but there's actually little reason to have a DIVISION_BY_TINY_DERIVATIVE_ERROR
. If the number doesn't stabalize, you'll just get a NOT_ENOUGH_ACCURACY_IN_ITER_ERROR
.
That said, I'd actually avoid generalizing too much; a good square-root algorithm is not in this case a good general algorithm. It makes sense to specialize this use-case because you get both speed and accuracy improvements from doing so. A general algorithm should also support several cases you currently don't; look at how scipy.optimize.newton
works for useful ideas along that line.
Looks good overall. Some suggestions:
The
newton_sqrt
is written in a quite generic manner. Unfortunately it may only calculate square roots - because lambdas are defined inside the function. I would rewrite it along the lines ofdef newton_raphson(x, x0, func, derivative, governing_options): your code verbatim, except the lambda definitions def newton_sqrt(x, governing_options): return newton_raphson(x, x/2, lambda y: y*y - x, lambda y: 2*y, governing_options)
In any case, you most likely want to test for
n > 0
andraise InvalidArgiment
accordingly.I am not sure about the
epsilon
. If anabs(prime) < epsilon
condition triggers, the iteration would not converge anyway. I don't see an extra value here, but maybe it is just me.
-
\$\begingroup\$ What other functions could the
newton_raphson
method calculate too? \$\endgroup\$Caridorc– Caridorc2014年12月30日 22:03:49 +00:00Commented Dec 30, 2014 at 22:03 -
1\$\begingroup\$ Any, as long as a derivative is correct. \$\endgroup\$vnp– vnp2014年12月30日 22:15:40 +00:00Commented Dec 30, 2014 at 22:15
-
\$\begingroup\$ Mathematics always menages to amaze me: I followed an algorithm that I though would only calculate square roots and I discover through a comment that it can calculate anything... it is like building something like a car thinking that it can only go on the ground and then discovering that it can fly, swim, and dig too... The beauty of a formula depends on how much general it is, given how general this algorithm is, it is very beatiful. Thank you for giving me this perl of knowledge I will investigate about it soon. \$\endgroup\$Caridorc– Caridorc2014年12月30日 22:22:12 +00:00Commented Dec 30, 2014 at 22:22