help annotate
Contents Next: Interpretation Up: A mathematical experiment Previous: Experimentation

[Annotate][Shownotes]


It is even more important in mathematics than in the physical sciences that the data under investigation are completely reliable. At first glance it may seem that the increasing reliance of mathematicians on programs such as Maple and Mathematica has decreased the need for verification. Computers very rarely make arbitrary mistakes in arithmetic and algebra. But all the systems have known and unknown bugs in their programming. It is therefore imperative that we that we check our results. So what efforts did we take to verify our findings?

First of all, we had to make sure that the roots we computed were accurate to at least 10,000 (resp. 20,000) digits. We computed these roots using Maple as well as Mathematica, having them compute the roots to an accuracy of 10,010 digits. We then did two checks on the computed approximation to . First, we tested that by checking that . Second, we tested that the 10,000th through 10,005th digits were not all zeros or nines. This ensures that we actually computed the first 10,000 digits of the decimal expansion of . (We note that Maple initially did not give us an accuracy of 10,000 digits for all of the cube roots, so that we had to increase the precision here.) We then had to make sure that we computed the statistics and probability values accurately---or at least to a reasonable precision, since we used asymptotic formulas anyway. We did this by implementing them both in Maple and in Mathematica and comparing the results. We detected no significant discrepancy.

We claim that these measures reasonably ensure the reliability of our experimental results.



help annotate
Contents Next: Interpretation Up: A mathematical experiment Previous: Experimentation