Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:32:40 +0200
From: Paolo Mantegazza <>
Subject: What should be the result of CACOSH(F)(CCOSH(F)(-2 + 1j))?


calling: j = sqrt(-1),

MUSL        answer is: -0.200000e+1 + 0.100000e+1j;

GLIBC       answer is: +0.20000e+1  -  0.100000e+1j;

SCILAB     answer is: +0.20000e+1  -  0.100000e+1j;

MATLAB   answer is: +0.20000e+1  -  0.100000e+1j;

UCLIB-NG answer is: +0.20000e+1  -  0.100000e+1j;

Math is not democracy so maybe MUSL's answer is the right one. In fact, 
with infinite precision at least, one should expect that, by applying 
the inverse of a function to a function, the result should be the used 
function argument.

So, does it either show a missed correct principal value or that MUSL is 
the smartest one?

In any case, following:, a way to have 
MUSL match GLIBC:SCILAB:MATLAB:UCLIB-NG is to change the two code lines 
in MUSL ./src/complex/cacosh.c

      z = cacos(z);
      return CMPLX(-cimag(z), creal(z));  // AKA j*cacos(z)


     return = clog(z + csqrt(z + 1) * csqrt(z - 1));  // AKA a 
definition of cacosh

As a further info, NEWLIB cacosh.c (not tested here) recites:

#if 0 /* does not give the principal value */
         w = I * cacos(z);
         w = clog(z + csqrt(z + 1) * csqrt(z - 1));
         return w;

it should be remarked that, to provide the correct principal value using 
just cacos(z), the above mentioned link addresses the need of testing 
the cacosh argument in order to appropriately use either  j*cacos(z) or  
-j*cacos(z). It is therefore likely that the fix to be chosen, if any, 
should be based on computational efficiency.

Once more math is not democracy, so the answer must be left to the math 

Regards, Paolo Mantegazza.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.