Related
Determining the square root through successive approximation is implemented using the following algorithm:
Begin by guessing that the square root is x / 2. Call that guess g.
The actual square root must lie between g and x/g. At each step in the successive approximation, generate a new guess by averaging g and x/g.
Repeat step 2 until the values of g and x/g are as close together as the precision of the hardware allows. In Java, the best way to check for this condition is to test whether the average is equal to either of the values used to generate it.
What really confuses me is the last statement of step 3. I interpreted it as follows:
private double sqrt(double x) {
double g = x / 2;
while(true) {
double average = (g + x/g) / 2;
if(average == g || average == x/g) break;
g = average;
}
return g;
}
This seems to just cause an infinite loop. I am following the algorithm exactly, if the average equals either g or x/g (the two values used to generate it) then we have our answer ?
Why would anyone ever use that approach, when they could simply use the formulas for (2n^2) = 4n^2 and (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, to populate each bit in the mantissa, and divide the exponent by two, multiplying the mantissa by two iff the the mod of the exponent with two equals 1?
To check if g and x/g are as close as the HW allow, look at the relative difference and compare
it with the epsilon for your floating point format. If it is within a small integer multiple of epsilon, you are OK.
Relative difference of x and y, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference
The epsilon for 32-bit IEEE floats is about 1.0e-7, as in one of the other answers here, but that answer used the absolute rather than the relative difference.
In practice, that means something like:
Math.abs(g-x/g)/Math.max(Math.abs(g),Math.abs(x/g)) < 3.0e-7
Never compare floating point values for equality. The result is not reliable.
Use a epsilon like so:
if(Math.abs(average-g) < 1e-7 || Math.abs(average-x/g) < 1e-7)
You can change the epsilon value to be whatever you need. Probably best is something related to the original x.
How should I write this:
(d*a)mod(b)=1
in order to make it work properly in Ruby? I tried it on Wolfram, but their solution:
(da(b, d))/(dd) = -a/d
doesn't help me. I know a and b. I need to solve (d*a)mod(b)=1 for d in the form d=....
It's not clear what you're asking, and, depending on what you mean, a solution may be impossible.
First off, (da(b, d))/(dd) = -a/d, is not a solution to that equation; rather, it's a misinterpretation of the notation used for partial derivatives. What Wolfram Alpha actually gave you was:
, which is entirely unrelated.
Secondly, if you're trying to solve (d*a)mod(b)=1 for d, you may be out of luck. For any value of a and b, where a and b have a common prime factor, there are an infinite number of values of d that satisfy the equation. If a and b are coprime, you can use the formula given in LutzL's answer.
Additionally, if you're looking to perform symbolic manipulation of equations, Ruby is likely not the proper tool. Consider using a CAS, like Python's SymPy or Wolfram Mathematica.
Finally, if you're just trying to compute (d*a)mod(b), the modulo operator in Ruby is %, so you'd write (d*a)%(b).
You are looking for the modular inverse of a modulo b.
For any two numbers a,b the extended euclidean algorithm
g,u,v = xgcd(a, b)
gives coefficients u,v such that
u*a+v*b = g
and g is the greatest common divisor. You need a,b co-prime, preferably by ensuring that b is a prime number, to get g=1 and then you can set d=u.
xgcd(a,b)
if b = 0
return (a,1,0)
q,r = a divmod b
// a = q*b + r
g,u,v = xgcd(b, r)
// g = u*b + v*r = u*b + v*(a-q*b) = v*a+(u-q*v)*b
return g,v,u - q*v
Suppose I have a real number. I want to approximate it with something of the form a+sqrt(b) for integers a and b. But I don't know the values of a and b. Of course I would prefer to get a good approximation with small values of a and b. Let's leave it undefined for now what is meant by "good" and "small". Any sensible definitions of those terms will do.
Is there a sane way to find them? Something like the continued fraction algorithm for finding fractional approximations of decimals. For more on the fractions problem, see here.
EDIT: To clarify, it is an arbitrary real number. All I have are a bunch of its digits. So depending on how good of an approximation we want, a and b might or might not exist. Brute force is naturally not a particularly good algorithm. The best I can think of would be to start adding integers to my real, squaring the result, and seeing if I come close to an integer. Pretty much brute force, and not a particularly good algorithm. But if nothing better exists, that would itself be interesting to know.
EDIT: Obviously b has to be zero or positive. But a could be any integer.
No need for continued fractions; just calculate the square-root of all "small" values of b (up to whatever value you feel is still "small" enough), remove everything before the decimal point, and sort/store them all (along with the b that generated it).
Then when you need to approximate a real number, find the radical whose decimal-portion is closet to the real number's decimal-portion. This gives you b - choosing the correct a is then a simple matter of subtraction.
This is actually more of a math problem than a computer problem, but to answer the question I think you are right that you can use continued fractions. What you do is first represent the target number as a continued fraction. For example, if you want to approximate pi (3.14159265) then the CF is:
3: 7, 15, 1, 288, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 7, 4 ...
The next step is create a table of CFs for square roots, then you compare the values in the table to the fractional part of the target value (here: 7, 15, 1, 288, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 7, 4...). For example, let's say your table had square roots for 1-99 only. Then you would find the closest match would be sqrt(51) which has a CF of 7: 7,14 repeating. The 7,14 is the closest to pi's 7,15. Thus your answer would be:
sqrt(51)-4
As the closest approximation given a b < 100 which is off by 0.00016. If you allow larger b's then you could get a better approximation.
The advantage of using CFs is that it is faster than working in, say, doubles or using floating point. For example, in the above case you only have to compare two integers (7 and 15), and you can also use indexing to make finding the closest entry in the table very fast.
This can be done using mixed integer quadratic programming very efficiently (though there are no run-time guarantees as MIQP is NP-complete.)
Define:
d := the real number you wish to approximate
b, a := two integers such that a + sqrt(b) is as "close" to d as possible
r := (d - a)^2 - b, is the residual of the approximation
The goal is to minimize r. Setup your quadratic program as:
x := [ s b t ]
D := | 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 |
c := [0 -1 0]^T
with the constraint that s - t = f (where f is the fractional part of d)
and b,t are integers (s is not)
This is a convex (therefore optimally solvable) mixed integer quadratic program since D is positive semi-definite.
Once s,b,t are computed, simply derive the answer using b=b, s=d-a and t can be ignored.
Your problem may be NP-complete, it would be interesting to prove if so.
Some of the previous answers use methods that are of time or space complexity O(n), where n is the largest “small number” that will be accepted. By contrast, the following method is O(sqrt(n)) in time, and O(1) in space.
Suppose that positive real number r = x + y, where x=floor(r) and 0 ≤ y < 1. We want to approximate r by a number of the form a + √b. If x+y ≈ a+√b then x+y-a ≈ √b, so √b ≈ h+y for some integer offset h, and b ≈ (h+y)^2. To make b an integer, we want to minimize the fractional part of (h+y)^2 over all eligible h. There are at most √n eligible values of h. See following python code and sample output.
import math, random
def findb(y, rhi):
bestb = loerror = 1;
for r in range(2,rhi):
v = (r+y)**2
u = round(v)
err = abs(v-u)
if round(math.sqrt(u))**2 == u: continue
if err < loerror:
bestb, loerror = u, err
return bestb
#random.seed(123456) # set a seed if testing repetitively
f = [math.pi-3] + sorted([random.random() for i in range(24)])
print (' frac sqrt(b) error b')
for frac in f:
b = findb(frac, 12)
r = math.sqrt(b)
t = math.modf(r)[0] # Get fractional part of sqrt(b)
print ('{:9.5f} {:9.5f} {:11.7f} {:5.0f}'.format(frac, r, t-frac, b))
(Note 1: This code is in demo form; the parameters to findb() are y, the fractional part of r, and rhi, the square root of the largest small number. You may wish to change usage of parameters. Note 2: The
if round(math.sqrt(u))**2 == u: continue
line of code prevents findb() from returning perfect-square values of b, except for the value b=1, because no perfect square can improve upon the accuracy offered by b=1.)
Sample output follows. About a dozen lines have been elided in the middle. The first output line shows that this procedure yields b=51 to represent the fractional part of pi, which is the same value reported in some other answers.
frac sqrt(b) error b
0.14159 7.14143 -0.0001642 51
0.11975 4.12311 0.0033593 17
0.12230 4.12311 0.0008085 17
0.22150 9.21954 -0.0019586 85
0.22681 11.22497 -0.0018377 126
0.25946 2.23607 -0.0233893 5
0.30024 5.29150 -0.0087362 28
0.36772 8.36660 -0.0011170 70
0.42452 8.42615 0.0016309 71
...
0.93086 6.92820 -0.0026609 48
0.94677 8.94427 -0.0024960 80
0.96549 11.95826 -0.0072333 143
0.97693 11.95826 -0.0186723 143
With the following code added at the end of the program, the output shown below also appears. This shows closer approximations for the fractional part of pi.
frac, rhi = math.pi-3, 16
print (' frac sqrt(b) error b bMax')
while rhi < 1000:
b = findb(frac, rhi)
r = math.sqrt(b)
t = math.modf(r)[0] # Get fractional part of sqrt(b)
print ('{:11.7f} {:11.7f} {:13.9f} {:7.0f} {:7.0f}'.format(frac, r, t-frac, b,rhi**2))
rhi = 3*rhi/2
frac sqrt(b) error b bMax
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 256
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 576
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 1296
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 2916
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 6561
0.1415927 120.1415831 -0.000009511 14434 14641
0.1415927 120.1415831 -0.000009511 14434 32761
0.1415927 233.1415879 -0.000004772 54355 73441
0.1415927 346.1415895 -0.000003127 119814 164836
0.1415927 572.1415909 -0.000001786 327346 370881
0.1415927 911.1415916 -0.000001023 830179 833569
I do not know if there is any kind of standard algorithm for this kind of problem, but it does intrigue me, so here is my attempt at developing an algorithm that finds the needed approximation.
Call the real number in question r. Then, first I assume that a can be negative, in that case we can reduce the problem and now only have to find a b such that the decimal part of sqrt(b) is a good approximation of the decimal part of r. Let us now write r as r = x.y with x being the integer and y the decimal part.
Now:
b = r^2
= (x.y)^2
= (x + .y)^2
= x^2 + 2 * x * .y + .y^2
= 2 * x * .y + .y^2 (mod 1)
We now only have to find an x such that 0 = .y^2 + 2 * x * .y (mod 1) (approximately).
Filling that x into the formulas above we get b and can then calculate a as a = r - b. (All of these calculations have to be carefully rounded of course.)
Now, for the time being I am not sure if there is a way to find this x without brute forcing it. But even then, one can simple use a simple loop to find an x good enough.
I am thinking of something like this(semi pseudo code):
max_diff_low = 0.01 // arbitrary accuracy
max_diff_high = 1 - max_diff_low
y = r % 1
v = y^2
addend = 2 * y
x = 0
while (v < max_diff_high && v > max_diff_low)
x++;
v = (v + addend) % 1
c = (x + y) ^ 2
b = round(c)
a = round(r - c)
Now, I think this algorithm is fairly efficient, while even allowing you to specify the wished accuracy of the approximation. One thing that could be done that would turn it into an O(1) algorithm is calculating all the x and putting them into a lookup table. If one only cares about the first three decimal digits of r(for example), the lookup table would only have 1000 values, which is only 4kb of memory(assuming that 32bit integers are used).
Hope this is helpful at all. If anyone finds anything wrong with the algorithm, please let me know in a comment and I will fix it.
EDIT:
Upon reflection I retract my claim of efficiency. There is in fact as far as I can tell no guarantee that the algorithm as outlined above will ever terminate, and even if it does, it might take a long time to find a very large x that solves the equation adequately.
One could maybe keep track of the best x found so far and relax the accuracy bounds over time to make sure the algorithm terminates quickly, at the possible cost of accuracy.
These problems are of course non-existent, if one simply pre-calculates a lookup table.
John Carmack has a special function in the Quake III source code which calculates the inverse square root of a float, 4x faster than regular (float)(1.0/sqrt(x)), including a strange 0x5f3759df constant. See the code below. Can someone explain line by line what exactly is going on here and why this works so much faster than the regular implementation?
float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
long i;
float x2, y;
const float threehalfs = 1.5F;
x2 = number * 0.5F;
y = number;
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
#ifndef Q3_VM
#ifdef __linux__
assert( !isnan(y) );
#endif
#endif
return y;
}
FYI. Carmack didn't write it. Terje Mathisen and Gary Tarolli both take partial (and very modest) credit for it, as well as crediting some other sources.
How the mythical constant was derived is something of a mystery.
To quote Gary Tarolli:
Which actually is doing a floating
point computation in integer - it took
a long time to figure out how and why
this works, and I can't remember the
details anymore.
A slightly better constant, developed by an expert mathematician (Chris Lomont) trying to work out how the original algorithm worked is:
float InvSqrt(float x)
{
float xhalf = 0.5f * x;
int i = *(int*)&x; // get bits for floating value
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1); // gives initial guess y0
x = *(float*)&i; // convert bits back to float
x = x * (1.5f - xhalf * x * x); // Newton step, repeating increases accuracy
return x;
}
In spite of this, his initial attempt a mathematically 'superior' version of id's sqrt (which came to almost the same constant) proved inferior to the one initially developed by Gary despite being mathematically much 'purer'. He couldn't explain why id's was so excellent iirc.
Of course these days, it turns out to be much slower than just using an FPU's sqrt (especially on 360/PS3), because swapping between float and int registers induces a load-hit-store, while the floating point unit can do reciprocal square root in hardware.
It just shows how optimizations have to evolve as the nature of underlying hardware changes.
Greg Hewgill and IllidanS4 gave a link with excellent mathematical explanation.
I'll try to sum it up here for ones who don't want to go too much into details.
Any mathematical function, with some exceptions, can be represented by a polynomial sum:
y = f(x)
can be exactly transformed into:
y = a0 + a1*x + a2*(x^2) + a3*(x^3) + a4*(x^4) + ...
Where a0, a1, a2,... are constants. The problem is that for many functions, like square root, for exact value this sum has infinite number of members, it does not end at some x^n. But, if we stop at some x^n we would still have a result up to some precision.
So, if we have:
y = 1/sqrt(x)
In this particular case they decided to discard all polynomial members above second, probably because of calculation speed:
y = a0 + a1*x + [...discarded...]
And the task has now came down to calculate a0 and a1 in order for y to have the least difference from the exact value. They have calculated that the most appropriate values are:
a0 = 0x5f375a86
a1 = -0.5
So when you put this into equation you get:
y = 0x5f375a86 - 0.5*x
Which is the same as the line you see in the code:
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1);
Edit: actually here y = 0x5f375a86 - 0.5*x is not the same as i = 0x5f375a86 - (i >> 1); since shifting float as integer not only divides by two but also divides exponent by two and causes some other artifacts, but it still comes down to calculating some coefficients a0, a1, a2... .
At this point they've found out that this result's precision is not enough for the purpose. So they additionally did only one step of Newton's iteration to improve the result accuracy:
x = x * (1.5f - xhalf * x * x)
They could have done some more iterations in a loop, each one improving result, until required accuracy is met. This is exactly how it works in CPU/FPU! But it seems that only one iteration was enough, which was also a blessing for the speed. CPU/FPU does as many iterations as needed to reach the accuracy for the floating point number in which the result is stored and it has more general algorithm which works for all cases.
So in short, what they did is:
Use (almost) the same algorithm as CPU/FPU, exploit the improvement of initial conditions for the special case of 1/sqrt(x) and don't calculate all the way to precision CPU/FPU will go to but stop earlier, thus gaining in calculation speed.
I was curious to see what the constant was as a float so I simply wrote this bit of code and googled the integer that popped out.
long i = 0x5F3759DF;
float* fp = (float*)&i;
printf("(2^127)^(1/2) = %f\n", *fp);
//Output
//(2^127)^(1/2) = 13211836172961054720.000000
It looks like the constant is "An integer approximation to the square root of 2^127 better known by the hexadecimal form of its floating-point representation, 0x5f3759df" https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-18.html
On the same site it explains the whole thing. https://mrob.com/pub/math/numbers-16.html#le009_16
According to this nice article written a while back...
The magic of the code, even if you
can't follow it, stands out as the i =
0x5f3759df - (i>>1); line. Simplified,
Newton-Raphson is an approximation
that starts off with a guess and
refines it with iteration. Taking
advantage of the nature of 32-bit x86
processors, i, an integer, is
initially set to the value of the
floating point number you want to take
the inverse square of, using an
integer cast. i is then set to
0x5f3759df, minus itself shifted one
bit to the right. The right shift
drops the least significant bit of i,
essentially halving it.
It's a really good read. This is only a tiny piece of it.
The code consists of two major parts. Part one calculates an approximation for 1/sqrt(y), and part two takes that number and runs one iteration of Newton's method to get a better approximation.
Calculating an approximation for 1/sqrt(y)
i = * ( long * ) &y;
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );
y = * ( float * ) &i;
Line 1 takes the floating point representation of y and treats it as an integer i. Line 2 shifts i over one bit and subtracts it from a mysterious constant. Line 3 takes the resulting number and converts it back to a standard float32. Now why does this work?
Let g be a function that maps a floating point number to its floating point representation, read as an integer. Line 1 above is setting i = g(y).
The following good approximation of g exists(*):
g(y) ≈ Clog_2 y + D for some constants C and D. An intuition for why such a good approximation exists is that the floating point representation of y is roughly linear in the exponent.
The purpose of line 2 is to map from g(y) to g(1/sqrt(y)), after which line 3 can use g^-1 to map that number to 1/sqrt(y). Using the approximation above, we have g(1/sqrt(y)) ≈ Clog_2 (1/sqrt(y)) + D = -C/2 log_2 y + D. We can use these formulas to calculate the map from g(y) to g(1/sqrt(y)), which is g(1/sqrt(y)) ≈ 3D/2 - 1/2 * g(y). In line 2, we have 0x5f3759df ≈ 3D/2, and i >> 1 ≈ 1/2*g(y).
The constant 0x5f3759df is slightly smaller than the constant that gives the best possible approximation for g(1/sqrt(y)). That is because this step is not done in isolation. Due to the direction that Newton's method tends to miss in, using a slightly smaller constant tends to yield better results. The exact optimal constant to use in this setting depends on your input distribution of y, but 0x5f3759df is one such constant that gives good results over a fairly broad range.
A more detailed description of this process can be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root#Algorithm
(*) More explicitly, let y = 2^e*(1+f). Taking the log of both sides, we get log_2 y = e + log_2(1+f), which can be approximated as log_2 y ≈ e + f + σ for a small constant sigma. Separately, the float32 encoding of y expressed as an integer is g(y) ≈ 2^23 * (e+127) + f * 2^23. Combining the two equations, we get g(y) ≈ 2^23 * log_2 y + 2^23 * (127 - σ).
Using Newton's method
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );
Consider the function f(y) = 1/y^2 - num. The positive zero of f is y = 1/sqrt(num), which is what we are interested in calculating.
Newton's method is an iterative algorithm for taking an approximation y_n for the zero of a function f, and calculating a better approximation y_n+1, using the following equation: y_n+1 = y_n - f(y_n)/f'(y_n).
Calculating what that looks like for our function f gives the following equation: y_n+1 = y_n - (-y_n+y_n^3*num)/2 = y_n * (3/2 - num/2 * y_n * y_n). This is exactly what the line of code above is doing.
You can learn more about the details of Newton's method here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
Suppose you have a list of floating point numbers that are approximately multiples of a common quantity, for example
2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
which are approximately all multiples of 1.234. How would you characterize this "approximate gcd", and how would you proceed to compute or estimate it?
Strictly related to my answer to this question.
You can run Euclid's gcd algorithm with anything smaller then 0.01 (or a small number of your choice) being a pseudo 0. With your numbers:
3.700 = 1 * 2.468 + 1.232,
2.468 = 2 * 1.232 + 0.004.
So the pseudo gcd of the first two numbers is 1.232. Now you take the gcd of this with your last number:
6.1699 = 5 * 1.232 + 0.0099.
So 1.232 is the pseudo gcd, and the mutiples are 2,3,5. To improve this result, you may take the linear regression on the data points:
(2,2.468), (3,3.7), (5,6.1699).
The slope is the improved pseudo gcd.
Caveat: the first part of this is algorithm is numerically unstable - if you start with very dirty data, you are in trouble.
Express your measurements as multiples of the lowest one. Thus your list becomes 1.00000, 1.49919, 2.49996. The fractional parts of these values will be very close to 1/Nths, for some value of N dictated by how close your lowest value is to the fundamental frequency. I would suggest looping through increasing N until you find a sufficiently refined match. In this case, for N=1 (that is, assuming X=2.468 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of 0.3333 (two of the three values are .5 off of X * 1), which is unacceptably high. For N=2 (that is, assuming 2.468/2 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of virtually zero (all three values are within .001 of a multiple of X/2), thus 2.468/2 is your approximate GCD.
The major flaw in my plan is that it works best when the lowest measurement is the most accurate, which is likely not the case. This could be mitigated by performing the entire operation multiple times, discarding the lowest value on the list of measurements each time, then use the list of results of each pass to determine a more precise result. Another way to refine the results would be adjust the GCD to minimize the standard deviation between integer multiples of the GCD and the measured values.
This reminds me of the problem of finding good rational-number approximations of real numbers. The standard technique is a continued-fraction expansion:
def rationalizations(x):
assert 0 <= x
ix = int(x)
yield ix, 1
if x == ix: return
for numer, denom in rationalizations(1.0/(x-ix)):
yield denom + ix * numer, numer
We could apply this directly to Jonathan Leffler's and Sparr's approach:
>>> a, b, c = 2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
>>> b/a, c/a
(1.4991896272285252, 2.4999594813614263)
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(b/a), 3))
[(1, 1), (3, 2), (925, 617)]
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(c/a), 3))
[(2, 1), (5, 2), (30847, 12339)]
picking off the first good-enough approximation from each sequence. (3/2 and 5/2 here.) Or instead of directly comparing 3.0/2.0 to 1.499189..., you could notice than 925/617 uses much larger integers than 3/2, making 3/2 an excellent place to stop.
It shouldn't much matter which of the numbers you divide by. (Using a/b and c/b you get 2/3 and 5/3, for instance.) Once you have integer ratios, you could refine the implied estimate of the fundamental using shsmurfy's linear regression. Everybody wins!
I'm assuming all of your numbers are multiples of integer values. For the rest of my explanation, A will denote the "root" frequency you are trying to find and B will be an array of the numbers you have to start with.
What you are trying to do is superficially similar to linear regression. You are trying to find a linear model y=mx+b that minimizes the average distance between a linear model and a set of data. In your case, b=0, m is the root frequency, and y represents the given values. The biggest problem is that the independent variables X are not explicitly given. The only thing we know about X is that all of its members must be integers.
Your first task is trying to determine these independent variables. The best method I can think of at the moment assumes that the given frequencies have nearly consecutive indexes (x_1=x_0+n). So B_0/B_1=(x_0)/(x_0+n) given a (hopefully) small integer n. You can then take advantage of the fact that x_0 = n/(B_1-B_0), start with n=1, and keep ratcheting it up until k-rnd(k) is within a certain threshold. After you have x_0 (the initial index), you can approximate the root frequency (A = B_0/x_0). Then you can approximate the other indexes by finding x_n = rnd(B_n/A). This method is not very robust and will probably fail if the error in the data is large.
If you want a better approximation of the root frequency A, you can use linear regression to minimize the error of the linear model now that you have the corresponding dependent variables. The easiest method to do so uses least squares fitting. Wolfram's Mathworld has a in-depth mathematical treatment of the issue, but a fairly simple explanation can be found with some googling.
Interesting question...not easy.
I suppose I would look at the ratios of the sample values:
3.700 / 2.468 = 1.499...
6.1699 / 2.468 = 2.4999...
6.1699 / 3.700 = 1.6675...
And I'd then be looking for a simple ratio of integers in those results.
1.499 ~= 3/2
2.4999 ~= 5/2
1.6675 ~= 5/3
I haven't chased it through, but somewhere along the line, you decide that an error of 1:1000 or something is good enough, and you back-track to find the base approximate GCD.
The solution which I've seen and used myself is to choose some constant, say 1000, multiply all numbers by this constant, round them to integers, find the GCD of these integers using the standard algorithm and then divide the result by the said constant (1000). The larger the constant, the higher the precision.
This is a reformulaiton of shsmurfy's solution when you a priori choose 3 positive tolerances (e1,e2,e3)
The problem is then to search smallest positive integers (n1,n2,n3) and thus largest root frequency f such that:
f1 = n1*f +/- e1
f2 = n2*f +/- e2
f3 = n3*f +/- e3
We assume 0 <= f1 <= f2 <= f3
If we fix n1, then we get these relations:
f is in interval I1=[(f1-e1)/n1 , (f1+e1)/n1]
n2 is in interval I2=[n1*(f2-e2)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f2+e2)/(f1-e1)]
n3 is in interval I3=[n1*(f3-e3)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f3+e3)/(f1-e1)]
We start with n1 = 1, then increment n1 until the interval I2 and I3 contain an integer - that is floor(I2min) different from floor(I2max) same with I3
We then choose smallest integer n2 in interval I2, and smallest integer n3 in interval I3.
Assuming normal distribution of floating point errors, the most probable estimate of root frequency f is the one minimizing
J = (f1/n1 - f)^2 + (f2/n2 - f)^2 + (f3/n3 - f)^2
That is
f = (f1/n1 + f2/n2 + f3/n3)/3
If there are several integers n2,n3 in intervals I2,I3 we could also choose the pair that minimize the residue
min(J)*3/2=(f1/n1)^2+(f2/n2)^2+(f3/n3)^2-(f1/n1)*(f2/n2)-(f1/n1)*(f3/n3)-(f2/n2)*(f3/n3)
Another variant could be to continue iteration and try to minimize another criterium like min(J(n1))*n1, until f falls below a certain frequency (n1 reaches an upper limit)...
I found this question looking for answers for mine in MathStackExchange (here and here).
I've only managed (yet) to measure the appeal of a fundamental frequency given a list of harmonic frequencies (following the sound/music nomenclature), which can be useful if you have a reduced number of options and is feasible to compute the appeal of each one and then choose the best fit.
C&P from my question in MSE (there the formatting is prettier):
being v the list {v_1, v_2, ..., v_n}, ordered from lower to higher
mean_sin(v, x) = sum(sin(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
mean_cos(v, x) = sum(cos(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
gcd_appeal(v, x) = 1 - sqrt(mean_sin(v, x)^2 + (mean_cos(v, x) - 1)^2)/2, which yields a number in the interval [0,1].
The goal is to find the x that maximizes the appeal. Here is the (gcd_appeal) graph for your example [2.468, 3.700, 6.1699], where you find that the optimum GCD is at x = 1.2337899957639993
Edit:
You may find handy this JAVA code to calculate the (fuzzy) divisibility (aka gcd_appeal) of a divisor relative to a list of dividends; you can use it to test which of your candidates makes the best divisor. The code looks ugly because I tried to optimize it for performance.
//returns the mean divisibility of dividend/divisor as a value in the range [0 and 1]
// 0 means no divisibility at all
// 1 means full divisibility
public double divisibility(double divisor, double... dividends) {
double n = dividends.length;
double factor = 2.0 / divisor;
double sum_x = -n;
double sum_y = 0.0;
double[] coord = new double[2];
for (double v : dividends) {
coordinates(v * factor, coord);
sum_x += coord[0];
sum_y += coord[1];
}
double err = 1.0 - Math.sqrt(sum_x * sum_x + sum_y * sum_y) / (2.0 * n);
//Might happen due to approximation error
return err >= 0.0 ? err : 0.0;
}
private void coordinates(double x, double[] out) {
//Bhaskara performant approximation to
//out[0] = Math.cos(Math.PI*x);
//out[1] = Math.sin(Math.PI*x);
long cos_int_part = (long) (x + 0.5);
long sin_int_part = (long) x;
double rem = x - cos_int_part;
if (cos_int_part != sin_int_part) {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem;
double cos_rem_s = common_s * rem - 1.0;
double sin_rem_s = cos_rem_s + common_s + 1.0;
out[0] = (((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (((sin_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
} else {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem - 4.0;
double sin_rem_s = common_s * rem;
double cos_rem_s = sin_rem_s + common_s + 3.0;
double common_2 = ((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L);
out[0] = (common_2 * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (common_2 * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
}
}