When Upgrading to ruby 1.9, I have a failing test when comparing expected vs. actual values for a BigDecimal that is the result of dividing a Float.
expected: '0.495E0',9(18)
got: '0.4950000000 0000005E0',18(27)
googling for things like "bigdecimal ruby precision" and "bigdecimal changes ruby 1.9" isn't getting me anywhere.
How did BigDecimal's behavior change in ruby 1.9?
update 1
> RUBY_VERSION
=> "1.8.7"
> 1.23.to_d
=> #<BigDecimal:1034630a8,'0.123E1',18(18)>
> RUBY_VERSION
=> "1.9.3"
> 1.23.to_d
=> #<BigDecimal:1029f3988,'0.123E1',18(45)>
What does 18(18) and 18(45) mean? Precision I imagine, but what is the notation/unit?
update 2
the code is running:
((10 - 0.1) * (5.0/100)).to_d
My test is expecting this to be equal (==) to:
0.495.to_f
This passed under 1.8, fails under 1.9.2 and 1.9.3
Equality comparisons rarely succeed on FP values
The short answer is that the Float#to_d is more accurate in 1.9 and is correctly failing the equality test that should not have succeeded in 1.8.7.
The long answer involves a basic rule of floating point programming: never do equality comparisons. Instead, fuzzy comparisons like if (abs(x-y) < epsilon) are recommended, or code is written to avoid the need for equality comparison altogether.
Although there are in theory about 232 single-precision numbers and 264 double-precision numbers that could be exactly compared, there are an infinite number that cannot be so compared. (Note: it is safe to do equality comparisons on FP values that happen to be integral. So, contrary to much advice, they are actually perfectly safe for loop indices and subscripts.)
Worse, the way we write fractional numbers makes it unlikely that a comparison with any specific constant will be successful.
That's because the fractions are binary, that is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... but our constants are decimal. So, for example, consider monetary amounts in the range $1.00, $1.01, $1.02 .. $1.99. There are 100 values in this range and yet only 4 of them have exact FP representations: 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, and 1.75.
So, back to your problem. Your result of 0.495 has no exact representation and neither does the input constant of 0.1. You begin the calculation with a subtraction of two FP numbers with different magnitudes. The smaller number will be denormalized in order to accomplish the subtraction and so it will lose two or three low-order bits. As a result, the calculation will lead to a slightly large number than 0.495, because the entire 0.1 was not subtracted from 10. Your constant is actually slightly smaller (internally) than 0.495. And that's why the comparison fails.
Ruby 1.8 must have been accidentally or deliberately losing some low order bits and effectively introducing a rounding step that ended up helping your test.
Remember: the rule of thumb is that you must explicitly program in such rounding for floating point comparisons.
Notes. To answer the question from the comments about simple decimal fraction constants not having exact representations: They don't have exact finite forms because they repeat in binary. Every machine fraction is a rational number of the form x/2n. Now, the constants are decimal and every decimal constant is a rational number of the form x/(2n * 5m). The 5m numbers are odd, so there isn't a 2n factor for any of them. Only when m == 0 is there a finite representation in both the binary and decimal expansion of the fraction. So, 1.25 is exact because it's 5/(22*50) but 0.1 is not because it's 1/(20*51). There is simply no way to express 0.1 as a finite sum of x/2n components.
See the Wikipedia article on floating point accuracy problems. It does a very good job of explaining why numbers like 0.1 and 0.01 cannot be represented exactly using floating point numbers.
The simple explanation is that these numbers, when represented in binary floating-point format, are recurring, just like one third is 0.3333333333... recurring in decimal.
Just as you can never represent one third exactly using a finite set of decimal digits, you cannot represent these numbers exactly using a finite set of binary digits.
Related
Why do some numbers lose accuracy when stored as floating point numbers?
For example, the decimal number 9.2 can be expressed exactly as a ratio of two decimal integers (92/10), both of which can be expressed exactly in binary (0b1011100/0b1010). However, the same ratio stored as a floating point number is never exactly equal to 9.2:
32-bit "single precision" float: 9.19999980926513671875
64-bit "double precision" float: 9.199999999999999289457264239899814128875732421875
How can such an apparently simple number be "too big" to express in 64 bits of memory?
In most programming languages, floating point numbers are represented a lot like scientific notation: with an exponent and a mantissa (also called the significand). A very simple number, say 9.2, is actually this fraction:
5179139571476070 * 2 -49
Where the exponent is -49 and the mantissa is 5179139571476070. The reason it is impossible to represent some decimal numbers this way is that both the exponent and the mantissa must be integers. In other words, all floats must be an integer multiplied by an integer power of 2.
9.2 may be simply 92/10, but 10 cannot be expressed as 2n if n is limited to integer values.
Seeing the Data
First, a few functions to see the components that make a 32- and 64-bit float. Gloss over these if you only care about the output (example in Python):
def float_to_bin_parts(number, bits=64):
if bits == 32: # single precision
int_pack = 'I'
float_pack = 'f'
exponent_bits = 8
mantissa_bits = 23
exponent_bias = 127
elif bits == 64: # double precision. all python floats are this
int_pack = 'Q'
float_pack = 'd'
exponent_bits = 11
mantissa_bits = 52
exponent_bias = 1023
else:
raise ValueError, 'bits argument must be 32 or 64'
bin_iter = iter(bin(struct.unpack(int_pack, struct.pack(float_pack, number))[0])[2:].rjust(bits, '0'))
return [''.join(islice(bin_iter, x)) for x in (1, exponent_bits, mantissa_bits)]
There's a lot of complexity behind that function, and it'd be quite the tangent to explain, but if you're interested, the important resource for our purposes is the struct module.
Python's float is a 64-bit, double-precision number. In other languages such as C, C++, Java and C#, double-precision has a separate type double, which is often implemented as 64 bits.
When we call that function with our example, 9.2, here's what we get:
>>> float_to_bin_parts(9.2)
['0', '10000000010', '0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110']
Interpreting the Data
You'll see I've split the return value into three components. These components are:
Sign
Exponent
Mantissa (also called Significand, or Fraction)
Sign
The sign is stored in the first component as a single bit. It's easy to explain: 0 means the float is a positive number; 1 means it's negative. Because 9.2 is positive, our sign value is 0.
Exponent
The exponent is stored in the middle component as 11 bits. In our case, 0b10000000010. In decimal, that represents the value 1026. A quirk of this component is that you must subtract a number equal to 2(# of bits) - 1 - 1 to get the true exponent; in our case, that means subtracting 0b1111111111 (decimal number 1023) to get the true exponent, 0b00000000011 (decimal number 3).
Mantissa
The mantissa is stored in the third component as 52 bits. However, there's a quirk to this component as well. To understand this quirk, consider a number in scientific notation, like this:
6.0221413x1023
The mantissa would be the 6.0221413. Recall that the mantissa in scientific notation always begins with a single non-zero digit. The same holds true for binary, except that binary only has two digits: 0 and 1. So the binary mantissa always starts with 1! When a float is stored, the 1 at the front of the binary mantissa is omitted to save space; we have to place it back at the front of our third element to get the true mantissa:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110
This involves more than just a simple addition, because the bits stored in our third component actually represent the fractional part of the mantissa, to the right of the radix point.
When dealing with decimal numbers, we "move the decimal point" by multiplying or dividing by powers of 10. In binary, we can do the same thing by multiplying or dividing by powers of 2. Since our third element has 52 bits, we divide it by 252 to move it 52 places to the right:
0.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110
In decimal notation, that's the same as dividing 675539944105574 by 4503599627370496 to get 0.1499999999999999. (This is one example of a ratio that can be expressed exactly in binary, but only approximately in decimal; for more detail, see: 675539944105574 / 4503599627370496.)
Now that we've transformed the third component into a fractional number, adding 1 gives the true mantissa.
Recapping the Components
Sign (first component): 0 for positive, 1 for negative
Exponent (middle component): Subtract 2(# of bits) - 1 - 1 to get the true exponent
Mantissa (last component): Divide by 2(# of bits) and add 1 to get the true mantissa
Calculating the Number
Putting all three parts together, we're given this binary number:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011
Which we can then convert from binary to decimal:
1.1499999999999999 x 23 (inexact!)
And multiply to reveal the final representation of the number we started with (9.2) after being stored as a floating point value:
9.1999999999999993
Representing as a Fraction
9.2
Now that we've built the number, it's possible to reconstruct it into a simple fraction:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011
Shift mantissa to a whole number:
10010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011-110100
Convert to decimal:
5179139571476070 x 23-52
Subtract the exponent:
5179139571476070 x 2-49
Turn negative exponent into division:
5179139571476070 / 249
Multiply exponent:
5179139571476070 / 562949953421312
Which equals:
9.1999999999999993
9.5
>>> float_to_bin_parts(9.5)
['0', '10000000010', '0011000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000']
Already you can see the mantissa is only 4 digits followed by a whole lot of zeroes. But let's go through the paces.
Assemble the binary scientific notation:
1.0011 x 1011
Shift the decimal point:
10011 x 1011-100
Subtract the exponent:
10011 x 10-1
Binary to decimal:
19 x 2-1
Negative exponent to division:
19 / 21
Multiply exponent:
19 / 2
Equals:
9.5
Further reading
The Floating-Point Guide: What Every Programmer Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic, or, Why don’t my numbers add up? (floating-point-gui.de)
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic (Goldberg 1991)
IEEE Double-precision floating-point format (Wikipedia)
Floating Point Arithmetic: Issues and Limitations (docs.python.org)
Floating Point Binary
This isn't a full answer (mhlester already covered a lot of good ground I won't duplicate), but I would like to stress how much the representation of a number depends on the base you are working in.
Consider the fraction 2/3
In good-ol' base 10, we typically write it out as something like
0.666...
0.666
0.667
When we look at those representations, we tend to associate each of them with the fraction 2/3, even though only the first representation is mathematically equal to the fraction. The second and third representations/approximations have an error on the order of 0.001, which is actually much worse than the error between 9.2 and 9.1999999999999993. In fact, the second representation isn't even rounded correctly! Nevertheless, we don't have a problem with 0.666 as an approximation of the number 2/3, so we shouldn't really have a problem with how 9.2 is approximated in most programs. (Yes, in some programs it matters.)
Number bases
So here's where number bases are crucial. If we were trying to represent 2/3 in base 3, then
(2/3)10 = 0.23
In other words, we have an exact, finite representation for the same number by switching bases! The take-away is that even though you can convert any number to any base, all rational numbers have exact finite representations in some bases but not in others.
To drive this point home, let's look at 1/2. It might surprise you that even though this perfectly simple number has an exact representation in base 10 and 2, it requires a repeating representation in base 3.
(1/2)10 = 0.510 = 0.12 = 0.1111...3
Why are floating point numbers inaccurate?
Because often-times, they are approximating rationals that cannot be represented finitely in base 2 (the digits repeat), and in general they are approximating real (possibly irrational) numbers which may not be representable in finitely many digits in any base.
While all of the other answers are good there is still one thing missing:
It is impossible to represent irrational numbers (e.g. π, sqrt(2), log(3), etc.) precisely!
And that actually is why they are called irrational. No amount of bit storage in the world would be enough to hold even one of them. Only symbolic arithmetic is able to preserve their precision.
Although if you would limit your math needs to rational numbers only the problem of precision becomes manageable. You would need to store a pair of (possibly very big) integers a and b to hold the number represented by the fraction a/b. All your arithmetic would have to be done on fractions just like in highschool math (e.g. a/b * c/d = ac/bd).
But of course you would still run into the same kind of trouble when pi, sqrt, log, sin, etc. are involved.
TL;DR
For hardware accelerated arithmetic only a limited amount of rational numbers can be represented. Every not-representable number is approximated. Some numbers (i.e. irrational) can never be represented no matter the system.
There are infinitely many real numbers (so many that you can't enumerate them), and there are infinitely many rational numbers (it is possible to enumerate them).
The floating-point representation is a finite one (like anything in a computer) so unavoidably many many many numbers are impossible to represent. In particular, 64 bits only allow you to distinguish among only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different values (which is nothing compared to infinity). With the standard convention, 9.2 is not one of them. Those that can are of the form m.2^e for some integers m and e.
You might come up with a different numeration system, 10 based for instance, where 9.2 would have an exact representation. But other numbers, say 1/3, would still be impossible to represent.
Also note that double-precision floating-points numbers are extremely accurate. They can represent any number in a very wide range with as much as 15 exact digits. For daily life computations, 4 or 5 digits are more than enough. You will never really need those 15, unless you want to count every millisecond of your lifetime.
Why can we not represent 9.2 in binary floating point?
Floating point numbers are (simplifying slightly) a positional numbering system with a restricted number of digits and a movable radix point.
A fraction can only be expressed exactly using a finite number of digits in a positional numbering system if the prime factors of the denominator (when the fraction is expressed in it's lowest terms) are factors of the base.
The prime factors of 10 are 5 and 2, so in base 10 we can represent any fraction of the form a/(2b5c).
On the other hand the only prime factor of 2 is 2, so in base 2 we can only represent fractions of the form a/(2b)
Why do computers use this representation?
Because it's a simple format to work with and it is sufficiently accurate for most purposes. Basically the same reason scientists use "scientific notation" and round their results to a reasonable number of digits at each step.
It would certainly be possible to define a fraction format, with (for example) a 32-bit numerator and a 32-bit denominator. It would be able to represent numbers that IEEE double precision floating point could not, but equally there would be many numbers that can be represented in double precision floating point that could not be represented in such a fixed-size fraction format.
However the big problem is that such a format is a pain to do calculations on. For two reasons.
If you want to have exactly one representation of each number then after each calculation you need to reduce the fraction to it's lowest terms. That means that for every operation you basically need to do a greatest common divisor calculation.
If after your calculation you end up with an unrepresentable result because the numerator or denominator you need to find the closest representable result. This is non-trivil.
Some Languages do offer fraction types, but usually they do it in combination with arbitary precision, this avoids needing to worry about approximating fractions but it creates it's own problem, when a number passes through a large number of calculation steps the size of the denominator and hence the storage needed for the fraction can explode.
Some languages also offer decimal floating point types, these are mainly used in scenarios where it is imporant that the results the computer gets match pre-existing rounding rules that were written with humans in mind (chiefly financial calculations). These are slightly more difficult to work with than binary floating point, but the biggest problem is that most computers don't offer hardware support for them.
Why do some numbers lose accuracy when stored as floating point numbers?
For example, the decimal number 9.2 can be expressed exactly as a ratio of two decimal integers (92/10), both of which can be expressed exactly in binary (0b1011100/0b1010). However, the same ratio stored as a floating point number is never exactly equal to 9.2:
32-bit "single precision" float: 9.19999980926513671875
64-bit "double precision" float: 9.199999999999999289457264239899814128875732421875
How can such an apparently simple number be "too big" to express in 64 bits of memory?
In most programming languages, floating point numbers are represented a lot like scientific notation: with an exponent and a mantissa (also called the significand). A very simple number, say 9.2, is actually this fraction:
5179139571476070 * 2 -49
Where the exponent is -49 and the mantissa is 5179139571476070. The reason it is impossible to represent some decimal numbers this way is that both the exponent and the mantissa must be integers. In other words, all floats must be an integer multiplied by an integer power of 2.
9.2 may be simply 92/10, but 10 cannot be expressed as 2n if n is limited to integer values.
Seeing the Data
First, a few functions to see the components that make a 32- and 64-bit float. Gloss over these if you only care about the output (example in Python):
def float_to_bin_parts(number, bits=64):
if bits == 32: # single precision
int_pack = 'I'
float_pack = 'f'
exponent_bits = 8
mantissa_bits = 23
exponent_bias = 127
elif bits == 64: # double precision. all python floats are this
int_pack = 'Q'
float_pack = 'd'
exponent_bits = 11
mantissa_bits = 52
exponent_bias = 1023
else:
raise ValueError, 'bits argument must be 32 or 64'
bin_iter = iter(bin(struct.unpack(int_pack, struct.pack(float_pack, number))[0])[2:].rjust(bits, '0'))
return [''.join(islice(bin_iter, x)) for x in (1, exponent_bits, mantissa_bits)]
There's a lot of complexity behind that function, and it'd be quite the tangent to explain, but if you're interested, the important resource for our purposes is the struct module.
Python's float is a 64-bit, double-precision number. In other languages such as C, C++, Java and C#, double-precision has a separate type double, which is often implemented as 64 bits.
When we call that function with our example, 9.2, here's what we get:
>>> float_to_bin_parts(9.2)
['0', '10000000010', '0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110']
Interpreting the Data
You'll see I've split the return value into three components. These components are:
Sign
Exponent
Mantissa (also called Significand, or Fraction)
Sign
The sign is stored in the first component as a single bit. It's easy to explain: 0 means the float is a positive number; 1 means it's negative. Because 9.2 is positive, our sign value is 0.
Exponent
The exponent is stored in the middle component as 11 bits. In our case, 0b10000000010. In decimal, that represents the value 1026. A quirk of this component is that you must subtract a number equal to 2(# of bits) - 1 - 1 to get the true exponent; in our case, that means subtracting 0b1111111111 (decimal number 1023) to get the true exponent, 0b00000000011 (decimal number 3).
Mantissa
The mantissa is stored in the third component as 52 bits. However, there's a quirk to this component as well. To understand this quirk, consider a number in scientific notation, like this:
6.0221413x1023
The mantissa would be the 6.0221413. Recall that the mantissa in scientific notation always begins with a single non-zero digit. The same holds true for binary, except that binary only has two digits: 0 and 1. So the binary mantissa always starts with 1! When a float is stored, the 1 at the front of the binary mantissa is omitted to save space; we have to place it back at the front of our third element to get the true mantissa:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110
This involves more than just a simple addition, because the bits stored in our third component actually represent the fractional part of the mantissa, to the right of the radix point.
When dealing with decimal numbers, we "move the decimal point" by multiplying or dividing by powers of 10. In binary, we can do the same thing by multiplying or dividing by powers of 2. Since our third element has 52 bits, we divide it by 252 to move it 52 places to the right:
0.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110
In decimal notation, that's the same as dividing 675539944105574 by 4503599627370496 to get 0.1499999999999999. (This is one example of a ratio that can be expressed exactly in binary, but only approximately in decimal; for more detail, see: 675539944105574 / 4503599627370496.)
Now that we've transformed the third component into a fractional number, adding 1 gives the true mantissa.
Recapping the Components
Sign (first component): 0 for positive, 1 for negative
Exponent (middle component): Subtract 2(# of bits) - 1 - 1 to get the true exponent
Mantissa (last component): Divide by 2(# of bits) and add 1 to get the true mantissa
Calculating the Number
Putting all three parts together, we're given this binary number:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011
Which we can then convert from binary to decimal:
1.1499999999999999 x 23 (inexact!)
And multiply to reveal the final representation of the number we started with (9.2) after being stored as a floating point value:
9.1999999999999993
Representing as a Fraction
9.2
Now that we've built the number, it's possible to reconstruct it into a simple fraction:
1.0010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011
Shift mantissa to a whole number:
10010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 1011-110100
Convert to decimal:
5179139571476070 x 23-52
Subtract the exponent:
5179139571476070 x 2-49
Turn negative exponent into division:
5179139571476070 / 249
Multiply exponent:
5179139571476070 / 562949953421312
Which equals:
9.1999999999999993
9.5
>>> float_to_bin_parts(9.5)
['0', '10000000010', '0011000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000']
Already you can see the mantissa is only 4 digits followed by a whole lot of zeroes. But let's go through the paces.
Assemble the binary scientific notation:
1.0011 x 1011
Shift the decimal point:
10011 x 1011-100
Subtract the exponent:
10011 x 10-1
Binary to decimal:
19 x 2-1
Negative exponent to division:
19 / 21
Multiply exponent:
19 / 2
Equals:
9.5
Further reading
The Floating-Point Guide: What Every Programmer Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic, or, Why don’t my numbers add up? (floating-point-gui.de)
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic (Goldberg 1991)
IEEE Double-precision floating-point format (Wikipedia)
Floating Point Arithmetic: Issues and Limitations (docs.python.org)
Floating Point Binary
This isn't a full answer (mhlester already covered a lot of good ground I won't duplicate), but I would like to stress how much the representation of a number depends on the base you are working in.
Consider the fraction 2/3
In good-ol' base 10, we typically write it out as something like
0.666...
0.666
0.667
When we look at those representations, we tend to associate each of them with the fraction 2/3, even though only the first representation is mathematically equal to the fraction. The second and third representations/approximations have an error on the order of 0.001, which is actually much worse than the error between 9.2 and 9.1999999999999993. In fact, the second representation isn't even rounded correctly! Nevertheless, we don't have a problem with 0.666 as an approximation of the number 2/3, so we shouldn't really have a problem with how 9.2 is approximated in most programs. (Yes, in some programs it matters.)
Number bases
So here's where number bases are crucial. If we were trying to represent 2/3 in base 3, then
(2/3)10 = 0.23
In other words, we have an exact, finite representation for the same number by switching bases! The take-away is that even though you can convert any number to any base, all rational numbers have exact finite representations in some bases but not in others.
To drive this point home, let's look at 1/2. It might surprise you that even though this perfectly simple number has an exact representation in base 10 and 2, it requires a repeating representation in base 3.
(1/2)10 = 0.510 = 0.12 = 0.1111...3
Why are floating point numbers inaccurate?
Because often-times, they are approximating rationals that cannot be represented finitely in base 2 (the digits repeat), and in general they are approximating real (possibly irrational) numbers which may not be representable in finitely many digits in any base.
While all of the other answers are good there is still one thing missing:
It is impossible to represent irrational numbers (e.g. π, sqrt(2), log(3), etc.) precisely!
And that actually is why they are called irrational. No amount of bit storage in the world would be enough to hold even one of them. Only symbolic arithmetic is able to preserve their precision.
Although if you would limit your math needs to rational numbers only the problem of precision becomes manageable. You would need to store a pair of (possibly very big) integers a and b to hold the number represented by the fraction a/b. All your arithmetic would have to be done on fractions just like in highschool math (e.g. a/b * c/d = ac/bd).
But of course you would still run into the same kind of trouble when pi, sqrt, log, sin, etc. are involved.
TL;DR
For hardware accelerated arithmetic only a limited amount of rational numbers can be represented. Every not-representable number is approximated. Some numbers (i.e. irrational) can never be represented no matter the system.
There are infinitely many real numbers (so many that you can't enumerate them), and there are infinitely many rational numbers (it is possible to enumerate them).
The floating-point representation is a finite one (like anything in a computer) so unavoidably many many many numbers are impossible to represent. In particular, 64 bits only allow you to distinguish among only 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 different values (which is nothing compared to infinity). With the standard convention, 9.2 is not one of them. Those that can are of the form m.2^e for some integers m and e.
You might come up with a different numeration system, 10 based for instance, where 9.2 would have an exact representation. But other numbers, say 1/3, would still be impossible to represent.
Also note that double-precision floating-points numbers are extremely accurate. They can represent any number in a very wide range with as much as 15 exact digits. For daily life computations, 4 or 5 digits are more than enough. You will never really need those 15, unless you want to count every millisecond of your lifetime.
Why can we not represent 9.2 in binary floating point?
Floating point numbers are (simplifying slightly) a positional numbering system with a restricted number of digits and a movable radix point.
A fraction can only be expressed exactly using a finite number of digits in a positional numbering system if the prime factors of the denominator (when the fraction is expressed in it's lowest terms) are factors of the base.
The prime factors of 10 are 5 and 2, so in base 10 we can represent any fraction of the form a/(2b5c).
On the other hand the only prime factor of 2 is 2, so in base 2 we can only represent fractions of the form a/(2b)
Why do computers use this representation?
Because it's a simple format to work with and it is sufficiently accurate for most purposes. Basically the same reason scientists use "scientific notation" and round their results to a reasonable number of digits at each step.
It would certainly be possible to define a fraction format, with (for example) a 32-bit numerator and a 32-bit denominator. It would be able to represent numbers that IEEE double precision floating point could not, but equally there would be many numbers that can be represented in double precision floating point that could not be represented in such a fixed-size fraction format.
However the big problem is that such a format is a pain to do calculations on. For two reasons.
If you want to have exactly one representation of each number then after each calculation you need to reduce the fraction to it's lowest terms. That means that for every operation you basically need to do a greatest common divisor calculation.
If after your calculation you end up with an unrepresentable result because the numerator or denominator you need to find the closest representable result. This is non-trivil.
Some Languages do offer fraction types, but usually they do it in combination with arbitary precision, this avoids needing to worry about approximating fractions but it creates it's own problem, when a number passes through a large number of calculation steps the size of the denominator and hence the storage needed for the fraction can explode.
Some languages also offer decimal floating point types, these are mainly used in scenarios where it is imporant that the results the computer gets match pre-existing rounding rules that were written with humans in mind (chiefly financial calculations). These are slightly more difficult to work with than binary floating point, but the biggest problem is that most computers don't offer hardware support for them.
I am looking through a documentation on divmod. Part of a table showing the difference between methods div, divmod, modulo, and remainder is displayed below:
Why is 13.div(-4) rounded to -4 and not to -3? Is there any rule or convention in Ruby to round down negative numbers? If so, why is the following code not rounding down?
-3.25.round() #3
13.div(-4) == -4 and 13.modulo(-4) == -3 so that
(-4 * -4) + -3 == 13
and you get the consistent relationship
(b * (a/b)) + a.modulo(b) == a
Why is 13.div(-4) rounded to -4 and not to -3?
This is a misconception. 13.div(-4) is not really rounded at all. It is integer division, and follows self-consistent rules for working with integers and modular arithmetic. The rounding logic described in your link fits with it, and is then applied consistently when dealing with the same divmod operation when one or both the parameters are Floats. Mathematical operations on negative or fractional numbers are often extended from simpler, more intuitive results on positive integers in this kind of way. E.g. this follows similar logic to how fractional and negative powers, or non-integer factorials are created from their positive integer variants.
In this case, it's all about self-consistency of divmod, but not about rounding in general.
Ruby's designers had a choice to make when dealing with negative numbers, not all languages will give the same result. However, once it was decided Ruby would return sign of modulo result matching the divisor (as opposed to matching the division as a whole), that set how the rest of the numbers work.
Is there any rule or convention in Ruby to round down negative numbers?
Yes. Rounding a float number means to return the numerically closest integer. When there are two equally close integers, Ruby rounds to the integer furthest from 0. This is entirely separate design decision from how integer division and modulo arithmetic methods work.
If so, why is the following code not rounding down? -3.25.round() #3
I assume you mean the result to read -3. The round method does not "round down". It does "round closest". -3 is the closest integer to -3.25. Ruby's designers did have to make a choice though, what to do with -3.5.round() # -4. Some languages would instead return a -3 when rounding that number.
As I understand it, Ruby (1.9.2) floats have a precision of 15 decimal digits. Therefore, I would expect rounding float x to 15 decimal places would equal x. For this calculation this isn't the case.
x = (0.33 * 10)
x == x.round(15) # => false
Incidentally, rounding to 16 places returns true.
Can you please explain this to me?
Part of the problem is that 0.33 does not have an exact representation in the underlying format, because it cannot be expressed by a series of 1 / 2n terms. So, when it is multiplied by 10 a number slightly different than 0.33 is being multiplied.
For that matter, 3.3 does not have an exact representation either.
Part One
When numbers don't have an exact base-10 representation, there will be a remainder when converting the least significant digit for which there was information in the mantissa. This remainder will propagate to the right, possibly forever, but it's largely meaningless. The apparent randomness of this error is due to the same reason that explains the apparently-inconsistent rounding you and Matchu noticed. That's in part two.
Part Two
And this information (the right-most bits) is not aligned neatly with the information conveyed by a single decimal digit, so the decimal digit will typically be somewhat smaller than its value would have been if the original precision had been greater.
This is why a conversion might round to 1 at 15 digits and 0.x at 16 digits: because a longer conversion has no value for the bits to the right of the end of the mantissa.
Well, though I'm not certain on the details of how Ruby handles floats internally, I do know why this particular bit of code is failing on my box:
> x = (0.33 * 10)
=> 3.3000000000000003
> x.round(15)
=> 3.300000000000001
The first float keeps 16 decimal places for a total of 17 digits, for whatever reason. So, rounding to 15 discards those digits.
I am wondering if this is true: When I take the square root of a squared integer, like in
f = Math.sqrt(123*123)
I will get a floating point number very close to 123. Due to floating point representation precision, this could be something like 122.99999999999999999999 or 123.000000000000000000001.
Since floor(122.999999999999999999) is 122, I should get 122 instead of 123. So I expect that floor(sqrt(i*i)) == i-1 in about 50% of the cases. Strangely, for all the numbers I have tested, floor(sqrt(i*i) == i. Here is a small ruby script to test the first 100 million numbers:
100_000_000.times do |i|
puts i if Math.sqrt(i*i).floor != i
end
The above script never prints anything. Why is that so?
UPDATE: Thanks for the quick reply, this seems to be the solution: According to wikipedia
Any integer with absolute value less
than or equal to 2^24 can be exactly
represented in the single precision
format, and any integer with absolute
value less than or equal to 2^53 can
be exactly represented in the double
precision format.
Math.sqrt(i*i) starts to behave as I've expected it starting from i=9007199254740993, which is 2^53 + 1.
Here's the essence of your confusion:
Due to floating point representation
precision, this could be something
like 122.99999999999999999999 or
123.000000000000000000001.
This is false. It will always be exactly 123 on a IEEE-754 compliant system, which is almost all systems in these modern times. Floating-point arithmetic does not have "random error" or "noise". It has precise, deterministic rounding, and many simple computations (like this one) do not incur any rounding at all.
123 is exactly representable in floating-point, and so is 123*123 (so are all modest-sized integers). So no rounding error occurs when you convert 123*123 to a floating-point type. The result is exactly 15129.
Square root is a correctly rounded operation, per the IEEE-754 standard. This means that if there is an exact answer, the square root function is required to produce it. Since you are taking the square root of exactly 15129, which is exactly 123, that's exactly the result you get from the square root function. No rounding or approximation occurs.
Now, for how large of an integer will this be true?
Double precision can exactly represent all integers up to 2^53. So as long as i*i is less than 2^53, no rounding will occur in your computation, and the result will be exact for that reason. This means that for all i smaller than 94906265, we know the computation will be exact.
But you tried i larger than that! What's happening?
For the largest i that you tried, i*i is just barely larger than 2^53 (1.1102... * 2^53, actually). Because conversions from integer to double (or multiplication in double) are also correctly rounded operations, i*i will be the representable value closest to the exact square of i. In this case, since i*i is 54 bits wide, the rounding will happen in the very lowest bit. Thus we know that:
i*i as a double = the exact value of i*i + rounding
where rounding is either -1,0, or 1. If rounding is zero, then the square is exact, so the square root is exact, so we already know you get the right answer. Let's ignore that case.
So now we're looking at the square root of i*i +/- 1. Using a Taylor series expansion, the infinitely precise (unrounded) value of this square root is:
i * (1 +/- 1/(2i^2) + O(1/i^4))
Now this is a bit fiddly to see if you haven't done any floating point error analysis before, but if you use the fact that i^2 > 2^53, you can see that the:
1/(2i^2) + O(1/i^4)
term is smaller than 2^-54, which means that (since square root is correctly rounded, and hence its rounding error must be smaller than 2^54), the rounded result of the sqrt function is exactly i.
It turns out that (with a similar analysis), for any exactly representable floating point number x, sqrt(x*x) is exactly x (assuming that the intermediate computation of x*x doesn't over- or underflow), so the only way you can encounter rounding for this type of computation is in the representation of x itself, which is why you see it starting at 2^53 + 1 (the smallest unrepresentable integer).
For "small" integers, there is usually an exact floating-point representation.
It's not too hard to find cases where this breaks down as you'd expect:
Math.sqrt(94949493295293425**2).floor
# => 94949493295293424
Math.sqrt(94949493295293426**2).floor
# => 94949493295293424
Math.sqrt(94949493295293427**2).floor
# => 94949493295293424
Ruby's Float is a double-precision floating point number, which means that it can accurately represent numbers with (rule of thumb) about 16 significant decimal digits. For regular single-precision floating point numbers it's about significant 7 digits.
You can find more information here:
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic:
http://docs.sun.com/source/819-3693/ncg_goldberg.html