9 ms·
The problem here is that Ruby is lying to you – if you enter 0.3 as a literal, you will not get that value.
by StefanKarpinski 13y ago
The problem here is that Ruby is lying to you – if you enter 0.3 as a literal, you will not get that value.
- haberman 13y agoI would challenge you to name any software system that reliably shows you the precise value of a floating point number. I couldn't find any (like not a single one), so I wrote a program myself to do it: http://blog.reverberate.org/2012/11/dumpfp-tool-to-inspect-floating-point.html http://blog.reverberate.org/2012/11/dumpfp-tool-to-inspect-f...
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoPython, JavaScript V8, Julia, Java.
- giovannibajo1 13y agoPython doesn't: rasky at monocle in ~ ↪ python Python 2.7.5 (default, Sep 2 2013, 05:24:04) [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 5.0 (clang-500.0.68)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 0.1 0.1 >>> ^D rasky at monocle in ~ ↪ python3 Python 3.3.3 (default, Dec 24 2013, 13:54:32) [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 5.0 (clang-500.2.79)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 0.1 0.1 It used to, but it was changed to reduce users' confusion.
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoWe may be speaking across each other here. Ruby is lying in the sense that there are multiple distinct float values that it will print as 0.3 – in particular, confusion ensues when two values look the same but are unequal. These other languages print each distinct float value differently, using just enough decimal digits to reconstruct the exact binary value. Ruby doesn't give you enough digits to reconstruct the value you have. Nobody actually prints the full correct value because it's fifty digits long and is completely redundant given that you know you're dealing with a 64-bit float.
- kzrdude 13y agoYou're right. Python 3.3.5rc1 (default, Feb 23 2014, 17:44:29) >>> 0.3 == 0.2 + 0.1 False >>> 0.2 + 0.1 0.30000000000000004 >>> 0.3 0.3
- haberman 13y agoThe precise value of double(0.1) is 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625. That is precise, not an approximation. If you know of a program in any of these languages that will print this value for "0.1" using built-in functionality, please let me know because I would love to know about it. Likewise the precise value of double(1e50) is 100000000000000007629769841091887003294964970946560. Anything else is an approximation of its true value. In another message you said that what's really important is that the string representation uniquely identifies the precise value. While that will help you reconstruct the value later, it does not help you understand why 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3.
- PaulAJ 13y agoHaskell will tell you that toRational 0.1 = 3602879701896397 % 36028797018963968 toRational 1e50 = 100000000000000007629769841091887003294964970946560 % 1 Both of those values are precise, although I admit the first isn't really useful for human beings.
- masida 13y agoPython does it: >>> from decimal import Decimal >>> Decimal(0.1) Decimal('0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625') >>> Decimal(1e50) Decimal('100000000000000007629769841091887003294964970946560')
- haberman 13y agoGreat to know, thanks!
- StefanKarpinski 13y agoIt helps because 0.1 + 0.2 produces 0.30000000000000004 for 64-bit floats – so at least you can see that this value isn't the same as 0.3. In Ruby you just get two values that print the same yet aren't equal, which is way more confusing. I agree that printing the minimal number of digits required for reconstruction does not help with explaining why 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 in 64-bit floats aren't the real values 1/10, 2/10 and 3/10.
- 13y ago