Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix zeros in hypot and norm #162

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 25, 2024
Merged

fix zeros in hypot and norm #162

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 25, 2024

Conversation

aplavin
Copy link
Member

@aplavin aplavin commented Jul 30, 2024

No description provided.

Comment on lines 7 to 10
function set(arr, ::typeof(norm), val)
omul = iszero(val) ? one(norm(arr)) : norm(arr)
map(Base.Fix2(*, val / omul), arr)
end
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

oneunit instead? Or should we error? This seems to break lens laws.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What laws does it break?
Setting norm(x) = 0 should always work, including when norm(x) is already zero.

Changed to oneunit, that's correct indeed!

Copy link
Member

@jw3126 jw3126 Jul 31, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

norm(set([0,0], norm, val)) == val will not hold for nonzero val. So maybe we should error if iszero(norm(arr))? Personally I want to get an error if I try to normalize the zero vector.
OTOH I suspect we have little violations like this in other places as well though. What do you think?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, that point is unrelated to this PR: here, we are only changing what happens for @set norm(...) = 0. Meanwhile, zero vector + non-zero norm scenario is already present in current Accessors:

julia> set([0,0], norm, 1)
2-element Vector{Float64}:
 NaN
 NaN

There definitely other cases of similar inequalities happening, eg:

julia> angle(set(0, angle, 0.5))
0.0

julia> o = @o filter(isodd, _)
julia> o(set([1,2,3], o, [4,6]))
Int64[]

Btw, this works and conceptually similar to the norm issue:

julia> set(0+0im, abs, 0.5)
0.5 + 0.0im

but is specific to complex values and their sign() being defined even at zero.

We may think about putting a higher priority on strictly following optics laws and not defining "unlawful" optics. But we should also be careful to keep the Accessors flexibility: for example filter() optic above is clearly useful even in cases that break that law. Setting norm of a zero vector is at a boundary imo: maybe throwing an exception is good enough... At least it returns invalid values (NaNs) and not zeros :)

Copy link
Member Author

@aplavin aplavin Aug 25, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jw3126 is the PR fine in the current state? Zero norm input and similar can be discussed separately, here we don't change them at all.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah it is fine sry

@aplavin aplavin merged commit bb3859a into JuliaObjects:master Aug 25, 2024
6 of 8 checks passed
@aplavin aplavin deleted the norm branch August 25, 2024 20:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants