I have gone through earlier discussions on floating point numbers in SO but that didn't clarified my problem,I knew this floating point issues may be common in every forum but my question in not concerned about Floating point arithmetic or Comparison.I am rather inquisitive about its representation and output with %f.
The question is straight forward :"How to determine the exact output of :
float = <Some_Value>f;
printf("%f \n",<Float_Variable>);
Lets us consider this code snippet:
float f = 43.2f,
f1 = 23.7f,
f2 = 58.89f,
f3 = 0.7f;
printf("f1 = %f\n",f);
printf("f2 = %f\n",f1);
printf("f3 = %f\n",f2);
printf("f4 = %f\n",f3);
Output:
f1 = 43.200001
f2 = 23.700001
f3 = 58.889999
f4 = 0.700000
I am aware that %f (is meant to be for double) has a default precision of 6, also I am aware that the problem (in this case) can be fixed by using double but I am inquisitive about the output f2 = 23.700001 and f3 = 58.889999 in float.
EDIT: I am aware that floating point number cannot be represented precisely, but what is the rule of for obtaining the closest representable value ?
Thanks,
Assuming that you're talking about IEEE 754 float, which has a precision of 24 binary digits: represent the number in binary (exactly) and round the number to the 24th most significant digit. The result will be the closest floating point.
For example, 23.7 represented in binary is
10111.1011001100110011001100110011...
After rounding you'll get
10111.1011001100110011010
Which in decimal is
23.700000762939453125
After rounding to the sixth decimal place, you'll have
23.700001
which is exactly the output of your printf.
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic
You may interest to see other people question regarding that on SO too.
Please take a look too.
https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=floating+point
A 32-bit float (as in this case) is represented as 1 bit of sign, 8 bits of exponent and 23 bits of the fractional part of the mantissa.
First, forget the sign of what you put in. Then the rest of what you put in will be stored as a fraction of the format
(1 + x/8,388,608) * 2^(y-127) (note that the 8.388,608 is 2^23). Where x is the fractional mantissa and y is the exponent. Believe it or not, there is only one representation in this form for every value you put in. The value stored will be the closest value to the number you want, if your value cannot be represented exactly, it means you'll pick up an extra .0001 or whatever.
So, if you want to figure out the value that will actually be stored, just figure out what it will turn into.
So second thing to do (after throwing out the sign) is to find the largest power of 2 that is smaller in magnitude than the number you are representing. So let's take 43.2.
The largest power of two smaller than that is 32. So that's the "1" on the left, since it's a 32, not a 1, that means the 2^ value on the right must be 2^5 (32), which means y is 132. So now subtract off the 32, it's done for. What's left is 11.2. Now we need to represent 11.2 as a fraction over 8,338,608 times 2^5.
So
11.2 approx equals x*32/8,336,608 or x/262,144. The value you get for x is 2,938,013/262,144. The real numerator was 0.2 lower (2,938,012.8), so there will be an error of 0.2 in 262,144 or 2 in 131,072. In decmial, this value is 0.000015258789063. So if you print enough digits, you'll see this error value show up in your output.
When you see the output be too low, it's because the rounding went the other way, the value produced was nearer to the wanted value by being too low, and so you get an output that is too low. When the value can be represented exactly (like for example any power of 2), you never get an error.
It's not simple, but there you go. I'm sure you can code this up.
*note: for very small in magnitude values (roughly less than 2^-127) you get into weirdness called denormals. I'm not going to explain them, but they won't fit the pattern. Luckily they don't show up much. And once you get into that range, your accuracy goes to pot anyway.
You can control the number of decimal points that are outputted by including this in the format specifier.
So instead of having
float f = 43.2f,
printf("f1 = %f\n",f);
Have this
float f = 43.2f,
printf("f1 = %.2f\n",f);
to print two numbers after the decimal point.
Do note that floating point numbers are not precisely represented in memory.
The compiler and CPU use IEEE 754 to represent floating point values in memory. Most rational numbers cannot be expressed exactly in this format, so the compiler chooses the closest approximate representation.
To avoid unpredictable output, you should round to the appropriate precision.
// outputs "0.70"
printf("%.2f\n", 0.7f);
A floating point number or a double precision floating point number is stored as an integer numerator, and a power of 2 as denominator. The math behind it is pretty simple. It involves shifting and bit testing.
So when you declare a constant in base 10, the compiler converts it to a binary integer in 23 bits and an exponent in 8 (or 52 bit integer and 11 bit exponent).
To print it back out, it converts this fraction back into base 10.
Gross simplification: the rule is that "floats are good for 2 or 3 decimal places, doubles for 4 or 5". That is to say, the first 2 or 3 decimal places printed will be exactly what you put in. After that, you have to work out the encoding to see what you're going to get.
This is only a rule of thumb, and as it happens your test case shows one instance where the float representation is only good to 1 d.p.
The way to figure out what will be printed is to simulate exactly what the compiler / libraries / hardware will do:
Convert the number to binary, and round to 24 significant (binary) digits.
Convert that number to decimal, and round to 6 (decimal) digits after the decimal point.
Of course, this is exactly what your program does already, so what are you asking for?
Edit to illustrate, I'll work through one of your examples:
Begin by converting 23.7 to binary:
10111.1011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011...
Round that number to 24 significant binary digits:
10111.1011001100110011010
Note that it rounded up. Converting back to decimal gives:
23.700000762939453125
Now, round this value to 6 digits after the decimal point:
23.700001
Which is exactly what you observed.
Related
I have recently been wondering about multiplying floating point numbers.
Let's assume I have a number, for example 3.1415 with a guaranteed 3-digit precision.
Now, I multiply this value by 10, and I get 31.415X, where X is a digit I cannot
define because of the limited precision.
Now, can I be sure, that the five get's carried over to the precise digits?
If a number is proven to be precise up to 3 digits I wouldn't expect this
five to always pop up there, but after studying many cases in c++ i have noticed that it always happens.
From my point of view, however, this doesn't make any sense, because floating point numbers are stored base-two, so multiplication by ten isn't really possible, it will always be mutiplication by 10.something.
I ask this question because I wanted to create a function that calculates how precise a type is. I have came up with something like this:
template <typename T>
unsigned accuracy(){
unsigned acc = 0;
T num = (T)1/(T)3;
while((unsigned)(num *= 10) == 3){
acc++;
num -= 3;
}
return acc;
}
Now, this works for any types I've used it with, but I'm still not sure that the first unprecise digit will always be carried over in an unchanged form.
I'll talk specifically about IEEE754 doubles since that what I think you're asking for.
Doubles are defined as a sign bit, an 11-bit exponent and a 52-bit mantissa, which are concatenated to form a 64-bit value:
sign|exponent|mantissa
Exponent bits are stored in a biased format, which means we store the actual exponent +1023 (for a double). The all-zeros exponent and all-ones exponent are special, so we end up being able to represent an exponent from 2^-1022 to 2^+1023
It's a common misconception that integer values can't be represented exactly by doubles, but we can actually store any integer in [0,2^53) exactly by setting the mantissa and exponent properly, in fact the range [2^52,2^53) can only store the integer values in that range. So 10 is easily stored exactly in a double.
When it comes to multiplying doubles, we effectively have two numbers of this form:
A = (-1)^sA*mA*2^(eA-1023)
B = (-1)^sB*mB*2^(eB-1023)
Where sA,mA,eA are the sign,mantissa and exponent for A (and similarly for B).
If we multiply these:
A*B = (-1)^(sA+sB)*(mA*mB)*2^((eA-1023)+(eB-1023))
We can see that we merely sum the exponents, and then multiply the mantissas. This actually isn't bad for precision! We might overflow the exponent bits (and thus get an infinity), but other than that we just have to round the intermediate mantissa result back to 52 bits, but this will at worst only change the least significant bit in the new mantissa.
Ultimately, the error you'll see will be proportional to the magnitude of the result. But, doubles have an error proportional to their magnitude anyways so this is really as safe as we can get. The way to approximate the error in your number is as |magnitude|*2^-53. In your case, since 10 is exact, the only error will come in the representation of pi. It will have an error of ~2^-51 and thus the result will as well.
As a rule of thumb, I consider doubles to have ~15 digits of decimal precision when thinking about precision concerns.
Lets assume that for single precision 3.1415 is
0x40490E56
in IEEE 754 format which is a very popular but not the only format used.
01000000010010010000111001010110
0 10000000 10010010000111001010110
so the binary portion is 1.10010010000111001010110
110010010000111001010110
1100 1001 0000 1110 0101 0110
0xC90E56 * 10 = 0x7DA8F5C
Just like in grade school with decimal you worry about the decimal(/binary) point later, you just do a multiply.
01111.10110101000111101011100
to get into IEEE 754 format it needs to be shifted to a 1.mantissa format
so that is a shift of 3
1.11110110101000111101011
but look at the three bits chopped off 100 specifically the 1 so this means depending on the rounding mode you round, in this case lets round up
1.11110110101000111101100
0111 1011 0101 0001 1110 1100
0x7BA1EC
now if I already computed the answer:
0x41FB51EC
0 10000011 11110110101000111101100
we moved the point 3 and the exponent reflects that, the mantissa matches what we computed. we did lose one of the original non-zero bits off the right, but is that too much loss?
double, extended, work the same way just more exponent and mantissa bits, more precision and range. but at the end of the day it is nothing more than what we learned in grade school as far as the math goes, the format requires 1.mantissa so you have to use your grade school math to adjust the exponent of the base to get it in that form.
Now, can I be sure, that the five get's carried over to the precise digits?
In general, no. You can only be sure about the precision of output when you know the exact representation format used by your system, and know that the correct output is exactly representable in that format.
If you want precise result for any rational input, then you cannot use finite precision.
It seems that your function attempts to calculate how accurately the floating point type can represent 1/3. This accuracy is not useful for evaluating accuracy of representing other numbers.
because floating point numbers are stored base-two
While very common, this is not universally true. Some systems use base-10 for example.
From what I have read, a value of data type double has an approximate precision of 15 decimal places. However, when I use a number whose decimal representation repeats, such as 1.0/7.0, I find that the variable holds the value of 0.14285714285714285 - which is 17 places (via the debugger).
I would like to know why it is represented as 17 places internally, and why a precision of 15 is always written at ~15?
An IEEE double has 53 significant bits (that's the value of DBL_MANT_DIG in <cfloat>). That's approximately 15.95 decimal digits (log10(253)); the implementation sets DBL_DIG to 15, not 16, because it has to round down. So you have nearly an extra decimal digit of precision (beyond what's implied by DBL_DIG==15) because of that.
The nextafter() function computes the nearest representable number to a given number; it can be used to show just how precise a given number is.
This program:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cfloat>
#include <cmath>
int main() {
double x = 1.0/7.0;
printf("FLT_RADIX = %d\n", FLT_RADIX);
printf("DBL_DIG = %d\n", DBL_DIG);
printf("DBL_MANT_DIG = %d\n", DBL_MANT_DIG);
printf("%.17g\n%.17g\n%.17g\n", nextafter(x, 0.0), x, nextafter(x, 1.0));
}
gives me this output on my system:
FLT_RADIX = 2
DBL_DIG = 15
DBL_MANT_DIG = 53
0.14285714285714282
0.14285714285714285
0.14285714285714288
(You can replace %.17g by, say, %.64g to see more digits, none of which are significant.)
As you can see, the last displayed decimal digit changes by 3 with each consecutive value. The fact that the last displayed digit of 1.0/7.0 (5) happens to match the mathematical value is largely coincidental; it was a lucky guess. And the correct rounded digit is 6, not 5. Replacing 1.0/7.0 by 1.0/3.0 gives this output:
FLT_RADIX = 2
DBL_DIG = 15
DBL_MANT_DIG = 53
0.33333333333333326
0.33333333333333331
0.33333333333333337
which shows about 16 decimal digits of precision, as you'd expect.
It is actually 53 binary places, which translates to 15 stable decimal places, meaning that if you round a start out with a number with 15 decimal places, convert it to a double, and then round the double back to 15 decimal places you'll get the same number. To uniquely represent a double you need 17 decimal places (meaning that for every number with 17 decimal places, there's a unique closest double) which is why 17 places are showing up, but not all 17-decimal numbers map to different double values (like in the examples in the other answers).
Decimal representation of floating point numbers is kind of strange. If you have a number with 15 decimal places and convert that to a double, then print it out with exactly 15 decimal places, you should get the same number. On the other hand, if you print out an arbitrary double with 15 decimal places and the convert it back to a double, you won't necessarily get the same value back—you need 17 decimal places for that. And neither 15 nor 17 decimal places are enough to accurately display the exact decimal equivalent of an arbitrary double. In general, you need over 100 decimal places to do that precisely.
See the Wikipedia page for double-precision and this article on floating-point precision.
A double holds 53 binary digits accurately, which is ~15.9545898 decimal digits. The debugger can show as many digits as it pleases to be more accurate to the binary value. Or it might take fewer digits and binary, such as 0.1 takes 1 digit in base 10, but infinite in base 2.
This is odd, so I'll show an extreme example. If we make a super simple floating point value that holds only 3 binary digits of accuracy, and no mantissa or sign (so range is 0-0.875), our options are:
binary - decimal
000 - 0.000
001 - 0.125
010 - 0.250
011 - 0.375
100 - 0.500
101 - 0.625
110 - 0.750
111 - 0.875
But if you do the numbers, this format is only accurate to 0.903089987 decimal digits. Not even 1 digit is accurate. As is easy to see, since there's no value that begins with 0.4?? nor 0.9??, and yet to display the full accuracy, we require 3 decimal digits.
tl;dr: The debugger shows you the value of the floating point variable to some arbitrary precision (19 digits in your case), which doesn't necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the floating point format (17 digits in your case).
IEEE 754 floating point is done in binary. There's no exact conversion from a given number of bits to a given number of decimal digits. 3 bits can hold values from 0 to 7, and 4 bits can hold values from 0 to 15. A value from 0 to 9 takes roughly 3.5 bits, but that's not exact either.
An IEEE 754 double precision number occupies 64 bits. Of this, 52 bits are dedicated to the significand (the rest is a sign bit and exponent). Since the significand is (usually) normalized, there's an implied 53rd bit.
Now, given 53 bits and roughly 3.5 bits per digit, simple division gives us 15.1429 digits of precision. But remember, that 3.5 bits per decimal digit is only an approximation, not a perfectly accurate answer.
Many (most?) debuggers actually look at the contents of the entire register. On an x86, that's actually an 80-bit number. The x86 floating point unit will normally be adjusted to carry out calculations to 64-bit precision -- but internally, it actually uses a couple of "guard bits", which basically means internally it does the calculation with a few extra bits of precision so it can round the last one correctly. When the debugger looks at the whole register, it'll usually find at least one extra digit that's reasonably accurate -- though since that digit won't have any guard bits, it may not be rounded correctly.
It is because it's being converted from a binary representation. Just because it has printed all those decimal digits doesn't mean it can represent all decimal values to that precision. Take, for example, this in Python:
>>> 0.14285714285714285
0.14285714285714285
>>> 0.14285714285714286
0.14285714285714285
Notice how I changed the last digit, but it printed out the same number anyway.
In most contexts where double values are used, calculations will have a certain amount of uncertainty. The difference between 1.33333333333333300 and 1.33333333333333399 may be less than the amount of uncertainty that exists in the calculations. Displaying the value of "2/3 + 2/3" as "1.33333333333333" is apt to be more meaningful than displaying it as "1.33333333333333319", since the latter display implies a level of precision that doesn't really exist.
In the debugger, however, it is important to uniquely indicate the value held by a variable, including essentially-meaningless bits of precision. It would be very confusing if a debugger displayed two variables as holding the value "1.333333333333333" when one of them actually held 1.33333333333333319 and the other held 1.33333333333333294 (meaning that, while they looked the same, they weren't equal). The extra precision shown by the debugger isn't apt to represent a numerically-correct calculation result, but indicates how the code will interpret the values held by the variables.
Here is the subtraction
First number
Decimal 3.0000002
Hexadecimal 0x4040001
Binary: Sign[0], Exponent[1000_0000], Mantissa[100_0000_0000_0000_0000_0001]
substract second number:
Decimal 3.000000
Hexadecimal 0x4040000
Binary: Sign[0], Exponent[1000_0000], Mantissa[100_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000]
==========================================
At this situation, the exponent is already same, we just need to substract the mantissa. We know in IEEE754, there is a hiding bit 1 in front of mantissa. Therefore, the result mantissa should be:
Mantissa_1[1100_0000_0000_0000_0000_0001] - Mantissa_2[1100_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000]
which equal to
Mantissa_Rst = [0000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0001]
But this number is not normalized, Because of the first hiding bit is not 1. Thus we shift the Mantissa_Rst right 23 times, and the exponent minuses 23 at the same time.
Then we have the result value
Hexadecimal 0x4040000
Binary: Sign[0], Exponent[0110_1000], Mantissa[000_0000_0000_0000_0000_0000].
32 bits total, no rounding needed.
Notice that in the mantissa region, there still is a hidden 1.
If my calculations were correct, then converting result to decimal number is 0.00000023841858, comparing with the real result 0.0000002, I still think that is not very precise.
So the question is, are my calculations wrong? or actually this is a real situation and happens all the time in computer?
The inaccuracy already starts with your input. 3.0000002 is a fraction with a prime factor of five in the denominator, so its "decimal" expansion in base 2 is periodic. No amount of mantissa bits will suffice to represent it exactly. The float you give actually has the value 3.0000002384185791015625 (this is exact). Yes, this happens all the time.
Don't despair, though! Base ten has the same problem (for example 1/3). It isn't a problem. Well, it is for some people, but luckily there are other number types available for their needs. Floating point numbers have many advantages, and slight rounding error is irrelevant for many applications, for example when not even your inputs are perfectly accurate measurements of what you're interested in (a lot of scientific computing and simulation). Also remember that 64-bit floats also exist. Additionally, the error is bounded: With the best possible rounding, your result will be within 0.5 units in the last place removed from the infinite-precision result. For a 32-bit float of the magnitude as your example, this is approximately 2^-25, or 3 * 10^-8. This gets worse and worse as you do additional operations that have to round, but with careful numeric analysis and the right algorithms, you can get a lot of milage out of them.
Whenever x/2 ≤ y ≤ 2x, the calculation x - y is exact which means there is no rounding error whatsoever. That is also the case in your example.
You just made the wrong assumption that you could have a floating point number that is equal to 3.0000002. You can't. The type "float" can only ever represent integers less than 2^24, multiplied by a power of two. 3.0000002 is not such a number, therefore it is rounded to the nearest floating point number, which is closer to 3.00000023841858. Subtracting 3 calculates the difference exactly and gives a result close to 0.00000023841858.
There have been several questions posted to SO about floating-point representation. For example, the decimal number 0.1 doesn't have an exact binary representation, so it's dangerous to use the == operator to compare it to another floating-point number. I understand the principles behind floating-point representation.
What I don't understand is why, from a mathematical perspective, are the numbers to the right of the decimal point any more "special" that the ones to the left?
For example, the number 61.0 has an exact binary representation because the integral portion of any number is always exact. But the number 6.10 is not exact. All I did was move the decimal one place and suddenly I've gone from Exactopia to Inexactville. Mathematically, there should be no intrinsic difference between the two numbers -- they're just numbers.
By contrast, if I move the decimal one place in the other direction to produce the number 610, I'm still in Exactopia. I can keep going in that direction (6100, 610000000, 610000000000000) and they're still exact, exact, exact. But as soon as the decimal crosses some threshold, the numbers are no longer exact.
What's going on?
Edit: to clarify, I want to stay away from discussion about industry-standard representations, such as IEEE, and stick with what I believe is the mathematically "pure" way. In base 10, the positional values are:
... 1000 100 10 1 1/10 1/100 ...
In binary, they would be:
... 8 4 2 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 ...
There are also no arbitrary limits placed on these numbers. The positions increase indefinitely to the left and to the right.
Decimal numbers can be represented exactly, if you have enough space - just not by floating binary point numbers. If you use a floating decimal point type (e.g. System.Decimal in .NET) then plenty of values which can't be represented exactly in binary floating point can be exactly represented.
Let's look at it another way - in base 10 which you're likely to be comfortable with, you can't express 1/3 exactly. It's 0.3333333... (recurring). The reason you can't represent 0.1 as a binary floating point number is for exactly the same reason. You can represent 3, and 9, and 27 exactly - but not 1/3, 1/9 or 1/27.
The problem is that 3 is a prime number which isn't a factor of 10. That's not an issue when you want to multiply a number by 3: you can always multiply by an integer without running into problems. But when you divide by a number which is prime and isn't a factor of your base, you can run into trouble (and will do so if you try to divide 1 by that number).
Although 0.1 is usually used as the simplest example of an exact decimal number which can't be represented exactly in binary floating point, arguably 0.2 is a simpler example as it's 1/5 - and 5 is the prime that causes problems between decimal and binary.
Side note to deal with the problem of finite representations:
Some floating decimal point types have a fixed size like System.Decimal others like java.math.BigDecimal are "arbitrarily large" - but they'll hit a limit at some point, whether it's system memory or the theoretical maximum size of an array. This is an entirely separate point to the main one of this answer, however. Even if you had a genuinely arbitrarily large number of bits to play with, you still couldn't represent decimal 0.1 exactly in a floating binary point representation. Compare that with the other way round: given an arbitrary number of decimal digits, you can exactly represent any number which is exactly representable as a floating binary point.
For example, the number 61.0 has an exact binary representation because the integral portion of any number is always exact. But the number 6.10 is not exact. All I did was move the decimal one place and suddenly I've gone from Exactopia to Inexactville. Mathematically, there should be no intrinsic difference between the two numbers -- they're just numbers.
Let's step away for a moment from the particulars of bases 10 and 2. Let's ask - in base b, what numbers have terminating representations, and what numbers don't? A moment's thought tells us that a number x has a terminating b-representation if and only if there exists an integer n such that x b^n is an integer.
So, for example, x = 11/500 has a terminating 10-representation, because we can pick n = 3 and then x b^n = 22, an integer. However x = 1/3 does not, because whatever n we pick we will not be able to get rid of the 3.
This second example prompts us to think about factors, and we can see that for any rational x = p/q (assumed to be in lowest terms), we can answer the question by comparing the prime factorisations of b and q. If q has any prime factors not in the prime factorisation of b, we will never be able to find a suitable n to get rid of these factors.
Thus for base 10, any p/q where q has prime factors other than 2 or 5 will not have a terminating representation.
So now going back to bases 10 and 2, we see that any rational with a terminating 10-representation will be of the form p/q exactly when q has only 2s and 5s in its prime factorisation; and that same number will have a terminating 2-representatiion exactly when q has only 2s in its prime factorisation.
But one of these cases is a subset of the other! Whenever
q has only 2s in its prime factorisation
it obviously is also true that
q has only 2s and 5s in its prime factorisation
or, put another way, whenever p/q has a terminating 2-representation, p/q has a terminating 10-representation. The converse however does not hold - whenever q has a 5 in its prime factorisation, it will have a terminating 10-representation , but not a terminating 2-representation. This is the 0.1 example mentioned by other answers.
So there we have the answer to your question - because the prime factors of 2 are a subset of the prime factors of 10, all 2-terminating numbers are 10-terminating numbers, but not vice versa. It's not about 61 versus 6.1 - it's about 10 versus 2.
As a closing note, if by some quirk people used (say) base 17 but our computers used base 5, your intuition would never have been led astray by this - there would be no (non-zero, non-integer) numbers which terminated in both cases!
The root (mathematical) reason is that when you are dealing with integers, they are countably infinite.
Which means, even though there are an infinite amount of them, we could "count out" all of the items in the sequence, without skipping any. That means if we want to get the item in the 610000000000000th position in the list, we can figure it out via a formula.
However, real numbers are uncountably infinite. You can't say "give me the real number at position 610000000000000" and get back an answer. The reason is because, even between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of values, when you are considering floating-point values. The same holds true for any two floating point numbers.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set
Update:
My apologies, I appear to have misinterpreted the question. My response is about why we cannot represent every real value, I hadn't realized that floating point was automatically classified as rational.
To repeat what I said in my comment to Mr. Skeet: we can represent 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, or any rational in decimal notation. We do it by adding an extra symbol. For example, a line over the digits that repeat in the decimal expansion of the number. What we need to represent decimal numbers as a sequence of binary numbers are 1) a sequence of binary numbers, 2) a radix point, and 3) some other symbol to indicate the repeating part of the sequence.
Hehner's quote notation is a way of doing this. He uses a quote symbol to represent the repeating part of the sequence. The article: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/ratno.pdf and the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_notation.
There's nothing that says we can't add a symbol to our representation system, so we can represent decimal rationals exactly using binary quote notation, and vice versa.
BCD - Binary-coded Decimal - representations are exact. They are not very space-efficient, but that's a trade-off you have to make for accuracy in this case.
This is a good question.
All your question is based on "how do we represent a number?"
ALL the numbers can be represented with decimal representation or with binary (2's complement) representation. All of them !!
BUT some (most of them) require infinite number of elements ("0" or "1" for the binary position, or "0", "1" to "9" for the decimal representation).
Like 1/3 in decimal representation (1/3 = 0.3333333... <- with an infinite number of "3")
Like 0.1 in binary ( 0.1 = 0.00011001100110011.... <- with an infinite number of "0011")
Everything is in that concept. Since your computer can only consider finite set of digits (decimal or binary), only some numbers can be exactly represented in your computer...
And as said Jon, 3 is a prime number which isn't a factor of 10, so 1/3 cannot be represented with a finite number of elements in base 10.
Even with arithmetic with arbitrary precision, the numbering position system in base 2 is not able to fully describe 6.1, although it can represent 61.
For 6.1, we must use another representation (like decimal representation, or IEEE 854 that allows base 2 or base 10 for the representation of floating-point values)
If you make a big enough number with floating point (as it can do exponents), then you'll end up with inexactness in front of the decimal point, too. So I don't think your question is entirely valid because the premise is wrong; it's not the case that shifting by 10 will always create more precision, because at some point the floating point number will have to use exponents to represent the largeness of the number and will lose some precision that way as well.
It's the same reason you cannot represent 1/3 exactly in base 10, you need to say 0.33333(3). In binary it is the same type of problem but just occurs for different set of numbers.
(Note: I'll append 'b' to indicate binary numbers here. All other numbers are given in decimal)
One way to think about things is in terms of something like scientific notation. We're used to seeing numbers expressed in scientific notation like, 6.022141 * 10^23. Floating point numbers are stored internally using a similar format - mantissa and exponent, but using powers of two instead of ten.
Your 61.0 could be rewritten as 1.90625 * 2^5, or 1.11101b * 2^101b with the mantissa and exponents. To multiply that by ten and (move the decimal point), we can do:
(1.90625 * 2^5) * (1.25 * 2^3) = (2.3828125 * 2^8) = (1.19140625 * 2^9)
or in with the mantissa and exponents in binary:
(1.11101b * 2^101b) * (1.01b * 2^11b) = (10.0110001b * 2^1000b) = (1.00110001b * 2^1001b)
Note what we did there to multiply the numbers. We multiplied the mantissas and added the exponents. Then, since the mantissa ended greater than two, we normalized the result by bumping the exponent. It's just like when we adjust the exponent after doing an operation on numbers in decimal scientific notation. In each case, the values that we worked with had a finite representation in binary, and so the values output by the basic multiplication and addition operations also produced values with a finite representation.
Now, consider how we'd divide 61 by 10. We'd start by dividing the mantissas, 1.90625 and 1.25. In decimal, this gives 1.525, a nice short number. But what is this if we convert it to binary? We'll do it the usual way -- subtracting out the largest power of two whenever possible, just like converting integer decimals to binary, but we'll use negative powers of two:
1.525 - 1*2^0 --> 1
0.525 - 1*2^-1 --> 1
0.025 - 0*2^-2 --> 0
0.025 - 0*2^-3 --> 0
0.025 - 0*2^-4 --> 0
0.025 - 0*2^-5 --> 0
0.025 - 1*2^-6 --> 1
0.009375 - 1*2^-7 --> 1
0.0015625 - 0*2^-8 --> 0
0.0015625 - 0*2^-9 --> 0
0.0015625 - 1*2^-10 --> 1
0.0005859375 - 1*2^-11 --> 1
0.00009765625...
Uh oh. Now we're in trouble. It turns out that 1.90625 / 1.25 = 1.525, is a repeating fraction when expressed in binary: 1.11101b / 1.01b = 1.10000110011...b Our machines only have so many bits to hold that mantissa and so they'll just round the fraction and assume zeroes beyond a certain point. The error you see when you divide 61 by 10 is the difference between:
1.100001100110011001100110011001100110011...b * 2^10b
and, say:
1.100001100110011001100110b * 2^10b
It's this rounding of the mantissa that leads to the loss of precision that we associate with floating point values. Even when the mantissa can be expressed exactly (e.g., when just adding two numbers), we can still get numeric loss if the mantissa needs too many digits to fit after normalizing the exponent.
We actually do this sort of thing all the time when we round decimal numbers to a manageable size and just give the first few digits of it. Because we express the result in decimal it feels natural. But if we rounded a decimal and then converted it to a different base, it'd look just as ugly as the decimals we get due to floating point rounding.
I'm surprised no one has stated this yet: use continued fractions. Any rational number can be represented finitely in binary this way.
Some examples:
1/3 (0.3333...)
0; 3
5/9 (0.5555...)
0; 1, 1, 4
10/43 (0.232558139534883720930...)
0; 4, 3, 3
9093/18478 (0.49209871198181621387596060179673...)
0; 2, 31, 7, 8, 5
From here, there are a variety of known ways to store a sequence of integers in memory.
In addition to storing your number with perfect accuracy, continued fractions also have some other benefits, such as best rational approximation. If you decide to terminate the sequence of numbers in a continued fraction early, the remaining digits (when recombined to a fraction) will give you the best possible fraction. This is how approximations to pi are found:
Pi's continued fraction:
3; 7, 15, 1, 292 ...
Terminating the sequence at 1, this gives the fraction:
355/113
which is an excellent rational approximation.
In the equation
2^x = y ;
x = log(y) / log(2)
Hence, I was just wondering if we could have a logarithmic base system for binary like,
2^1, 2^0, 2^(log(1/2) / log(2)), 2^(log(1/4) / log(2)), 2^(log(1/8) / log(2)),2^(log(1/16) / log(2)) ........
That might be able to solve the problem, so if you wanted to write something like 32.41 in binary, that would be
2^5 + 2^(log(0.4) / log(2)) + 2^(log(0.01) / log(2))
Or
2^5 + 2^(log(0.41) / log(2))
The problem is that you do not really know whether the number actually is exactly 61.0 . Consider this:
float a = 60;
float b = 0.1;
float c = a + b * 10;
What is the value of c? It is not exactly 61, because b is not really .1 because .1 does not have an exact binary representation.
The number 61.0 does indeed have an exact floating-point operation—but that's not true for all integers. If you wrote a loop that added one to both a double-precision floating point number and a 64-bit integer, eventually you'd reach a point where the 64-bit integer perfectly represents a number, but the floating point doesn't—because there aren't enough significant bits.
It's just much easier to reach the point of approximation on the right side of the decimal point. If you started writing out all the numbers in binary floating point, it'd make more sense.
Another way of thinking about it is that when you note that 61.0 is perfectly representable in base 10, and shifting the decimal point around doesn't change that, you're performing multiplication by powers of ten (10^1, 10^-1). In floating point, multiplying by powers of two does not affect the precision of the number. Try taking 61.0 and dividing it by three repeatedly for an illustration of how a perfectly precise number can lose its precise representation.
There's a threshold because the meaning of the digit has gone from integer to non-integer. To represent 61, you have 6*10^1 + 1*10^0; 10^1 and 10^0 are both integers. 6.1 is 6*10^0 + 1*10^-1, but 10^-1 is 1/10, which is definitely not an integer. That's how you end up in Inexactville.
A parallel can be made of fractions and whole numbers. Some fractions eg 1/7 cannot be represented in decimal form without lots and lots of decimals. Because floating point is binary based the special cases change but the same sort of accuracy problems present themselves.
There are an infinite number of rational numbers, and a finite number of bits with which to represent them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems.
you know integer numbers right? each bit represent 2^n
2^4=16
2^3=8
2^2=4
2^1=2
2^0=1
well its the same for floating point(with some distinctions) but the bits represent 2^-n
2^-1=1/2=0.5
2^-2=1/(2*2)=0.25
2^-3=0.125
2^-4=0.0625
Floating point binary representation:
sign Exponent Fraction(i think invisible 1 is appended to the fraction )
B11 B10 B9 B8 B7 B6 B5 B4 B3 B2 B1 B0
The high scoring answer above nailed it.
First you were mixing base 2 and base 10 in your question, then when you put a number on the right side that is not divisible into the base you get problems. Like 1/3 in decimal because 3 doesnt go into a power of 10 or 1/5 in binary which doesnt go into a power of 2.
Another comment though NEVER use equal with floating point numbers, period. Even if it is an exact representation there are some numbers in some floating point systems that can be accurately represented in more than one way (IEEE is bad about this, it is a horrible floating point spec to start with, so expect headaches). No different here 1/3 is not EQUAL to the number on your calculator 0.3333333, no matter how many 3's there are to the right of the decimal point. It is or can be close enough but is not equal. so you would expect something like 2*1/3 to not equal 2/3 depending on the rounding. Never use equal with floating point.
As we have been discussing, in floating point arithmetic, the decimal 0.1 cannot be perfectly represented in binary.
Floating point and integer representations provide grids or lattices for the numbers represented. As arithmetic is done, the results fall off the grid and have to be put back onto the grid by rounding. Example is 1/10 on a binary grid.
If we use binary coded decimal representation as one gentleman suggested, would we be able to keep numbers on the grid?
For a simple answer: The computer doesn't have infinite memory to store fraction (after representing the decimal number as the form of scientific notation). According to IEEE 754 standard for double-precision floating-point numbers, we only have a limit of 53 bits to store fraction.
For more info: http://mathcenter.oxford.emory.edu/site/cs170/ieee754/
I will not bother to repeat what the other 20 answers have already summarized, so I will just answer briefly:
The answer in your content:
Why can't base two numbers represent certain ratios exactly?
For the same reason that decimals are insufficient to represent certain ratios, namely, irreducible fractions with denominators containing prime factors other than two or five which will always have an indefinite string in at least the mantissa of its decimal expansion.
Why can't decimal numbers be represented exactly in binary?
This question at face value is based on a misconception regarding values themselves. No number system is sufficient to represent any quantity or ratio in a manner that the thing itself tells you that it is both a quantity, and at the same time also gives the interpretation in and of itself about the intrinsic value of the representation. As such, all quantitative representations, and models in general, are symbolic and can only be understood a posteriori, namely, after one has been taught how to read and interpret these numbers.
Since models are subjective things that are true insofar as they reflect reality, we do not strictly need to interpret a binary string as sums of negative and positive powers of two. Instead, one may observe that we can create an arbitrary set of symbols that use base two or any other base to represent any number or ratio exactly. Just consider that we can refer to all of infinity using a single word and even a single symbol without "showing infinity" itself.
As an example, I am designing a binary encoding for mixed numbers so that I can have more precision and accuracy than an IEEE 754 float. At the time of writing this, the idea is to have a sign bit, a reciprocal bit, a certain number of bits for a scalar to determine how much to "magnify" the fractional portion, and then the remaining bits are divided evenly between the integer portion of a mixed number, and the latter a fixed-point number which, if the reciprocal bit is set, should be interpreted as one divided by that number. This has the benefit of allowing me to represent numbers with infinite decimal expansions by using their reciprocals which do have terminating decimal expansions, or alternatively, as a fraction directly, potentially as an approximation, depending on my needs.
You can't represent 0.1 exactly in binary for the same reason you can't measure 0.1 inch using a conventional English ruler.
English rulers, like binary fractions, are all about halves. You can measure half an inch, or a quarter of an inch (which is of course half of a half), or an eighth, or a sixteenth, etc.
If you want to measure a tenth of an inch, though, you're out of luck. It's less than an eighth of an inch, but more than a sixteenth. If you try to get more exact, you find that it's a little more than 3/32, but a little less than 7/64. I've never seen an actual ruler that had gradations finer than 64ths, but if you do the math, you'll find that 1/10 is less than 13/128, and it's more than 25/256, and it's more than 51/512. You can keep going finer and finer, to 1024ths and 2048ths and 4096ths and 8192nds, but you will never find an exact marking, even on an infinitely-fine base-2 ruler, that exactly corresponds to 1/10, or 0.1.
You will find something interesting, though. Let's look at all the approximations I've listed, and for each one, record explicitly whether 0.1 is less or greater:
fraction
decimal
0.1 is...
as 0/1
1/2
0.5
less
0
1/4
0.25
less
0
1/8
0.125
less
0
1/16
0.0625
greater
1
3/32
0.09375
greater
1
7/64
0.109375
less
0
13/128
0.1015625
less
0
25/256
0.09765625
greater
1
51/512
0.099609375
greater
1
103/1024
0.1005859375
less
0
205/2048
0.10009765625
less
0
409/4096
0.099853515625
greater
1
819/8192
0.0999755859375
greater
1
Now, if you read down the last column, you get 0001100110011. It's no coincidence that the infinitely-repeating binary fraction for 1/10 is 0.0001100110011...
From what I have read, a value of data type double has an approximate precision of 15 decimal places. However, when I use a number whose decimal representation repeats, such as 1.0/7.0, I find that the variable holds the value of 0.14285714285714285 - which is 17 places (via the debugger).
I would like to know why it is represented as 17 places internally, and why a precision of 15 is always written at ~15?
An IEEE double has 53 significant bits (that's the value of DBL_MANT_DIG in <cfloat>). That's approximately 15.95 decimal digits (log10(253)); the implementation sets DBL_DIG to 15, not 16, because it has to round down. So you have nearly an extra decimal digit of precision (beyond what's implied by DBL_DIG==15) because of that.
The nextafter() function computes the nearest representable number to a given number; it can be used to show just how precise a given number is.
This program:
#include <cstdio>
#include <cfloat>
#include <cmath>
int main() {
double x = 1.0/7.0;
printf("FLT_RADIX = %d\n", FLT_RADIX);
printf("DBL_DIG = %d\n", DBL_DIG);
printf("DBL_MANT_DIG = %d\n", DBL_MANT_DIG);
printf("%.17g\n%.17g\n%.17g\n", nextafter(x, 0.0), x, nextafter(x, 1.0));
}
gives me this output on my system:
FLT_RADIX = 2
DBL_DIG = 15
DBL_MANT_DIG = 53
0.14285714285714282
0.14285714285714285
0.14285714285714288
(You can replace %.17g by, say, %.64g to see more digits, none of which are significant.)
As you can see, the last displayed decimal digit changes by 3 with each consecutive value. The fact that the last displayed digit of 1.0/7.0 (5) happens to match the mathematical value is largely coincidental; it was a lucky guess. And the correct rounded digit is 6, not 5. Replacing 1.0/7.0 by 1.0/3.0 gives this output:
FLT_RADIX = 2
DBL_DIG = 15
DBL_MANT_DIG = 53
0.33333333333333326
0.33333333333333331
0.33333333333333337
which shows about 16 decimal digits of precision, as you'd expect.
It is actually 53 binary places, which translates to 15 stable decimal places, meaning that if you round a start out with a number with 15 decimal places, convert it to a double, and then round the double back to 15 decimal places you'll get the same number. To uniquely represent a double you need 17 decimal places (meaning that for every number with 17 decimal places, there's a unique closest double) which is why 17 places are showing up, but not all 17-decimal numbers map to different double values (like in the examples in the other answers).
Decimal representation of floating point numbers is kind of strange. If you have a number with 15 decimal places and convert that to a double, then print it out with exactly 15 decimal places, you should get the same number. On the other hand, if you print out an arbitrary double with 15 decimal places and the convert it back to a double, you won't necessarily get the same value back—you need 17 decimal places for that. And neither 15 nor 17 decimal places are enough to accurately display the exact decimal equivalent of an arbitrary double. In general, you need over 100 decimal places to do that precisely.
See the Wikipedia page for double-precision and this article on floating-point precision.
A double holds 53 binary digits accurately, which is ~15.9545898 decimal digits. The debugger can show as many digits as it pleases to be more accurate to the binary value. Or it might take fewer digits and binary, such as 0.1 takes 1 digit in base 10, but infinite in base 2.
This is odd, so I'll show an extreme example. If we make a super simple floating point value that holds only 3 binary digits of accuracy, and no mantissa or sign (so range is 0-0.875), our options are:
binary - decimal
000 - 0.000
001 - 0.125
010 - 0.250
011 - 0.375
100 - 0.500
101 - 0.625
110 - 0.750
111 - 0.875
But if you do the numbers, this format is only accurate to 0.903089987 decimal digits. Not even 1 digit is accurate. As is easy to see, since there's no value that begins with 0.4?? nor 0.9??, and yet to display the full accuracy, we require 3 decimal digits.
tl;dr: The debugger shows you the value of the floating point variable to some arbitrary precision (19 digits in your case), which doesn't necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the floating point format (17 digits in your case).
IEEE 754 floating point is done in binary. There's no exact conversion from a given number of bits to a given number of decimal digits. 3 bits can hold values from 0 to 7, and 4 bits can hold values from 0 to 15. A value from 0 to 9 takes roughly 3.5 bits, but that's not exact either.
An IEEE 754 double precision number occupies 64 bits. Of this, 52 bits are dedicated to the significand (the rest is a sign bit and exponent). Since the significand is (usually) normalized, there's an implied 53rd bit.
Now, given 53 bits and roughly 3.5 bits per digit, simple division gives us 15.1429 digits of precision. But remember, that 3.5 bits per decimal digit is only an approximation, not a perfectly accurate answer.
Many (most?) debuggers actually look at the contents of the entire register. On an x86, that's actually an 80-bit number. The x86 floating point unit will normally be adjusted to carry out calculations to 64-bit precision -- but internally, it actually uses a couple of "guard bits", which basically means internally it does the calculation with a few extra bits of precision so it can round the last one correctly. When the debugger looks at the whole register, it'll usually find at least one extra digit that's reasonably accurate -- though since that digit won't have any guard bits, it may not be rounded correctly.
It is because it's being converted from a binary representation. Just because it has printed all those decimal digits doesn't mean it can represent all decimal values to that precision. Take, for example, this in Python:
>>> 0.14285714285714285
0.14285714285714285
>>> 0.14285714285714286
0.14285714285714285
Notice how I changed the last digit, but it printed out the same number anyway.
In most contexts where double values are used, calculations will have a certain amount of uncertainty. The difference between 1.33333333333333300 and 1.33333333333333399 may be less than the amount of uncertainty that exists in the calculations. Displaying the value of "2/3 + 2/3" as "1.33333333333333" is apt to be more meaningful than displaying it as "1.33333333333333319", since the latter display implies a level of precision that doesn't really exist.
In the debugger, however, it is important to uniquely indicate the value held by a variable, including essentially-meaningless bits of precision. It would be very confusing if a debugger displayed two variables as holding the value "1.333333333333333" when one of them actually held 1.33333333333333319 and the other held 1.33333333333333294 (meaning that, while they looked the same, they weren't equal). The extra precision shown by the debugger isn't apt to represent a numerically-correct calculation result, but indicates how the code will interpret the values held by the variables.