I need to use BigDecimal for some computation but am a bit surprised by the behaviour:
val thousand = BigDecimal(1000)
val fee = BigDecimal(0.005)
println(thousand * fee)
You'd expect the console to contain 5 but the result is 5.000000000000000104083408558608425664715468883514404296875000
I know that I can limit the precision and do some rounding with setScale but the real question is Why is this needed in the first place. This result is obviously wrong.
What am I missing?
The issue is likely to be with the construction of the fee BigDecimal. This is taking a double value and converting it to a BigDecimal. Unfortunately, some fairly simple decimal fractions are impossible to precisely represent as doubles or floats, and this constructor for BigDecimal will take that imprecise double as its value.
From the documentation:
The results of this constructor can be somewhat unpredictable. One might assume that writing new BigDecimal(0.1) in Java creates a BigDecimal which is exactly equal to 0.1 (an unscaled value of 1, with a scale of 1), but it is actually equal to 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625. This is because 0.1 cannot be represented exactly as a double (or, for that matter, as a binary fraction of any finite length). Thus, the value that is being passed in to the constructor is not exactly equal to 0.1, appearances notwithstanding.
The way around this is to use the String constructor, which gets round the issue of having to convert "via" a double.
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.
import java.math.BigDecimal
BigDecimal(0.235).setScale(2, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP) // 0.23
BigDecimal("0.235").setScale(2, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP) // 0.24
In kotlin, when input 0.235 is given as double then the output is 0.23.
when input 0.235 is given as string then the output is 0.24
Here is the definition of ROUND_HALF_UP given in the documentation:
Rounding mode where values are rounded towards the nearest
neighbor. Ties are broken by rounding up.
From the BigDecimal docs:
The results of this constructor can be somewhat unpredictable. One might assume that writing new BigDecimal(0.1) in Java creates a
BigDecimal which is exactly equal to 0.1 (an unscaled value of 1,
with a scale of 1), but it is actually equal to
0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625. This is because 0.1 cannot be represented exactly as a double (or, for that
matter, as a binary fraction of any finite length). Thus, the value
that is being passed in to the constructor is not exactly equal to
0.1, appearances notwithstanding.
The String constructor, on the other hand, is perfectly predictable: writing new BigDecimal("0.1") creates a BigDecimal which
is exactly equal to 0.1, as one would expect. Therefore, it is
generally recommended that the String
constructor
be used in preference to this one.
The issue here is that in the first case you are calling the BigDecimal constructor using a floating point (read: not exact) literal. Consider the following script (in Java):
BigDecimal blah = new BigDecimal(0.235d);
System.out.println(blah);
This prints 0.23499999999999998667732370449812151491641998291015625 in my demo tool. That is, you are not actually passing in literal 0.235, but rather a floating point approximation to it. It so happens, in this case, that the actual literal value is slightly less than 0.235, leading the round half up to result in 0.23 rather than 0.24.
I ran into an issue which I was wondering if the expected behavior is correct or whether I found a bug.
Given this:
0.08 > 0.08 == false
0.08 > 0.08F == true
0.08 > 0.08F.toDouble() == true
0.08.toFloat() > 0.08F == false
Why does the third expression is not false?
Any ideas?
It is not a bug, it's based on rounding errors.
Executing the following code:
val d = 0.08
val f = 0.08F
val fd = f.toDouble()
print("%.20f".format(d) + "\n")
print("%.20f".format(f) + "\n")
print("%.20f".format(fd))
gives you the following output:
0.08000000000000000000
0.07999999821186066000
0.07999999821186066000
So as you can see, 0.08 double value is (till the 20th decimal place) exact to 0.08 while the float is (due to lower precision) not able to be represented as exact so it contains a rounded value, which is slightly lower than 0.08
Converting your approximate (a little lower) 0.08 float to a double doesn't increase your precision, you still have your rounding error of the float, which results in being the converted double to be a little bit lower.
// Edit: If you are interested in how exactly floating point numbers work, I would recommend you to have a look at the wikipedia article on floating point arithmetic and at this question: Is floating point math broken?
This is a supplement to the existing answer. Java BigDecimal has two useful properties for analyzing floating point behavior. Conversion from float or double to BigDecimal is exact, and so is its default string conversion. The simplest use of these properties is to print the exact value of a floating point expression. BigDecimal arithmetic can also be used, for example, to find the half way points between a double and its neighbors when studying rounding.
This program:
import java.math.BigDecimal;
public strictfp class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(0.08));
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(0.08f));
}
}
outputs:
0.08000000000000000166533453693773481063544750213623046875
0.07999999821186065673828125
which confirms that 0.08 is represented to the expected precision in each format, and the double representation is strictly greater than the float.
The function (written in Kotlin) below
fun main() {
println ("%.20f".format(0.1f))
print ("%.100f".format(0.1))
}
prints
0.10000000149011612000
0.1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
If 0.1 can't be represented exactly as binary fraction why there's no precision error in the double version?
In Java, float has about 7 digits of precision, while double about 16.
Even if you tell it to print 20 or 100 digits, the actual value is still capped by the given precision. The double has the error too, although a smaller one.