According to the documentation, the decimal.Round method uses a round-to-even algorithm which is not common for most applications. So I always end up writing a custom function to do the more natural round-half-up algorithm:
public static decimal RoundHalfUp(this decimal d, int decimals)
{
if (decimals < 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException("The decimals must be non-negative",
"decimals");
}
decimal multiplier = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, decimals);
decimal number = d * multiplier;
if (decimal.Truncate(number) < number)
{
number += 0.5m;
}
return decimal.Round(number) / multiplier;
}
Does anybody know the reason behind this framework design decision?
Is there any built-in implementation of the round-half-up algorithm into the framework? Or maybe some unmanaged Windows API?
It could be misleading for beginners that simply write decimal.Round(2.5m, 0) expecting 3 as a result but getting 2 instead.
The other answers with reasons why the Banker's algorithm (aka round half to even) is a good choice are quite correct. It does not suffer from negative or positive bias as much as the round half away from zero method over most reasonable distributions.
But the question was why .NET use Banker's actual rounding as default - and the answer is that Microsoft has followed the IEEE 754 standard. This is also mentioned in MSDN for Math.Round under Remarks.
Also note that .NET supports the alternative method specified by IEEE by providing the MidpointRounding enumeration. They could of course have provided more alternatives to solving ties, but they choose to just fulfill the IEEE standard.
Probably because it's a better algorithm. Over the course of many roundings performed, you will average out that all .5's end up rounding equally up and down. This gives better estimations of actual results if you are for instance, adding a bunch of rounded numbers. I would say that even though it isn't what some may expect, it's probably the more correct thing to do.
While I cannot answer the question of "Why did Microsoft's designers choose this as the default?", I just want to point out that an extra function is unnecessary.
Math.Round allows you to specify a MidpointRounding:
ToEven - When a number is halfway between two others, it is rounded toward the nearest even number.
AwayFromZero - When a number is halfway between two others, it is rounded toward the nearest number that is away from zero.
Decimals are mostly used for money; banker’s rounding is common when working with money. Or you could say.
It is mostly bankers that need the
decimal type; therefore it does
“banker’s rounding”
Bankers rounding have the advantage that on average you will get the same result if you:
round a set of “invoice lines” before adding them up,
or add them up then round the total
Rounding before adding up saved a lot of work in the days before computers.
(In the UK when we went decimal banks would not deal with half pence, but for many years there was still a half pence coin and shop often had prices ending in half pence – so lots of rounding)
Use another overload of Round function like this:
decimal.Round(2.5m, 0,MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero)
It will output 3. And if you use
decimal.Round(2.5m, 0,MidpointRounding.ToEven)
you will get banker's rounding.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Trouble with floats in Objective-C
I have broken this problem down to about as simple as i can get it. Feel free to try the same thing and tell me if you get the same error and what solution you might have. I have already tried it on several computers.
float total = 200000.0f + 154196.8f;
NSLog(#"total: %f", total);
The output is:
total: 354196.812500
If anyone has any sort of logical explanation, feel free to share it.
I'd suggest you brush up on your floats
http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2012/05/20/thats-not-normalthe-performance-of-odd-floats/
If you need higher precision use a double.
Additionally http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/float-precisionfrom-zero-to-100-digits-2/
See What Every Programmer Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic for all the deep understanding. The short answer is that all floating point representations have limitations on their precision, and that things that can be expressed in a small number of digits in decimal may not be expressible in a small number of digits in binary (and specifically not in floating point formats).
Note that while double can improve things, it is no panacea. It is quite common to have small rounding errors, even with double. You may easily get 1.99999999 when you expect 2.
Hint:
long double total = 200000.0 + 154196.8;
NSLog(#"total: %Lf", total);
On my machine prints the correct value.
A 32 bit floating point has a 23 bit mantissa, the closest value is 0.5+0.25+0.125.
You should use more bits to get the correct representation.
I wonder if someone can clarify what the "f" behind a floating point number is used to signify?
float myFloat = 12.0f;
as apposed to:
float myFloat = 12.0;
I have seen this used many times but its pretty hard to find an explanation either online or in books. I am assuming its either something carried over from another language thats supported for consistency by C or maybe its there as a directive for the compiler when it comes to evaluate the maths.
I am just curious if there is any practical difference between the "f" and using the "." to signify a floating point number?
It means it's a single-precision float rather than a double precision double.
From the C99 standard:
An unsuffixed floating constant has type double. If suffixed by the letter f or F, it has type float.
Objective-C is based on C, maybe not C99, but this convention has been around in C for a long time.
There are sometimes performance concerns when converting from float to double, and you can avoid them by using the 'f'. Also when doing say a square root, sin,cos, etc, a wild guess would say that
float answer = sqrt(12.0f)
is about 10x slower than
float answer = sqrtf(12.0f)
It really makes a difference on the phone and iPad, if you are doing millions of these kinds of operations. Stay in float if you need speed and can deal with the lower resolution. If you are not good at math, or not using much math in your program use double everywhere, as there are more gotchas when using the lower precision 32 bit float.
I've a small problem and I can't find a solution!
My code is (this is only a sample code, but my original code do something like this):
float x = [#"2.45" floatValue];
for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
x += 0.22;
NSLog(#"%f", x);
the output is 52.450001 and not 52.450000 !
I don't know because this happens!
Thanks for any help!
~SOLVED~
Thanks to everybody! Yes, I've solved with the double type!
Floats are a number representation with a certain precision. Not every value can be represented in this format. See here as well.
You can easily think of why this would be the case: there is an unlimited number of number just in the intervall (1..1), but a float only has a limited number of bits to represent all numbers in (-MAXFLOAT..MAXFLOAT).
More aptly put: in a 32bit integer representation there is a countable number of integers to be represented, But there is an infinite innumerable number of real values that cannot be fully represented in a limited representation of 32 or 64bit. Therefore there not only is a limit to the highest and lowest representable real value, but also to the accuracy.
So why is a number that has little digits after the floating point affected? Because the representation is based on a binary system instead of a decimal, making other numbers easily represented then the decimal ones.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems
Floating point numbers can not always be represented easily by computers. This leads to inaccuracy in some digits.
It's like me asking you what 1/3 is in decimal. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to tell me what it is because decimal can't accurately describe that number.
Floats can't accurately describe some decimal numbers.
What is the best method for comparing IEEE floats and doubles for equality? I have heard of several methods, but I wanted to see what the community thought.
The best approach I think is to compare ULPs.
bool is_nan(float f)
{
return (*reinterpret_cast<unsigned __int32*>(&f) & 0x7f800000) == 0x7f800000 && (*reinterpret_cast<unsigned __int32*>(&f) & 0x007fffff) != 0;
}
bool is_finite(float f)
{
return (*reinterpret_cast<unsigned __int32*>(&f) & 0x7f800000) != 0x7f800000;
}
// if this symbol is defined, NaNs are never equal to anything (as is normal in IEEE floating point)
// if this symbol is not defined, NaNs are hugely different from regular numbers, but might be equal to each other
#define UNEQUAL_NANS 1
// if this symbol is defined, infinites are never equal to finite numbers (as they're unimaginably greater)
// if this symbol is not defined, infinities are 1 ULP away from +/- FLT_MAX
#define INFINITE_INFINITIES 1
// test whether two IEEE floats are within a specified number of representable values of each other
// This depends on the fact that IEEE floats are properly ordered when treated as signed magnitude integers
bool equal_float(float lhs, float rhs, unsigned __int32 max_ulp_difference)
{
#ifdef UNEQUAL_NANS
if(is_nan(lhs) || is_nan(rhs))
{
return false;
}
#endif
#ifdef INFINITE_INFINITIES
if((is_finite(lhs) && !is_finite(rhs)) || (!is_finite(lhs) && is_finite(rhs)))
{
return false;
}
#endif
signed __int32 left(*reinterpret_cast<signed __int32*>(&lhs));
// transform signed magnitude ints into 2s complement signed ints
if(left < 0)
{
left = 0x80000000 - left;
}
signed __int32 right(*reinterpret_cast<signed __int32*>(&rhs));
// transform signed magnitude ints into 2s complement signed ints
if(right < 0)
{
right = 0x80000000 - right;
}
if(static_cast<unsigned __int32>(std::abs(left - right)) <= max_ulp_difference)
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
A similar technique can be used for doubles. The trick is to convert the floats so that they're ordered (as if integers) and then just see how different they are.
I have no idea why this damn thing is screwing up my underscores. Edit: Oh, perhaps that is just an artefact of the preview. That's OK then.
The current version I am using is this
bool is_equals(float A, float B,
float maxRelativeError, float maxAbsoluteError)
{
if (fabs(A - B) < maxAbsoluteError)
return true;
float relativeError;
if (fabs(B) > fabs(A))
relativeError = fabs((A - B) / B);
else
relativeError = fabs((A - B) / A);
if (relativeError <= maxRelativeError)
return true;
return false;
}
This seems to take care of most problems by combining relative and absolute error tolerance. Is the ULP approach better? If so, why?
#DrPizza: I am no performance guru but I would expect fixed point operations to be quicker than floating point operations (in most cases).
It rather depends on what you are doing with them. A fixed-point type with the same range as an IEEE float would be many many times slower (and many times larger).
Things suitable for floats:
3D graphics, physics/engineering, simulation, climate simulation....
In numerical software you often want to test whether two floating point numbers are exactly equal. LAPACK is full of examples for such cases. Sure, the most common case is where you want to test whether a floating point number equals "Zero", "One", "Two", "Half". If anyone is interested I can pick some algorithms and go more into detail.
Also in BLAS you often want to check whether a floating point number is exactly Zero or One. For example, the routine dgemv can compute operations of the form
y = beta*y + alpha*A*x
y = beta*y + alpha*A^T*x
y = beta*y + alpha*A^H*x
So if beta equals One you have an "plus assignment" and for beta equals Zero a "simple assignment". So you certainly can cut the computational cost if you give these (common) cases a special treatment.
Sure, you could design the BLAS routines in such a way that you can avoid exact comparisons (e.g. using some flags). However, the LAPACK is full of examples where it is not possible.
P.S.:
There are certainly many cases where you don't want check for "is exactly equal". For many people this even might be the only case they ever have to deal with. All I want to point out is that there are other cases too.
Although LAPACK is written in Fortran the logic is the same if you are using other programming languages for numerical software.
Oh dear lord please don't interpret the float bits as ints unless you're running on a P6 or earlier.
Even if it causes it to copy from vector registers to integer registers via memory, and even if it stalls the pipeline, it's the best way to do it that I've come across, insofar as it provides the most robust comparisons even in the face of floating point errors.
i.e. it is a price worth paying.
This seems to take care of most problems by combining relative and absolute error tolerance. Is the ULP approach better? If so, why?
ULPs are a direct measure of the "distance" between two floating point numbers. This means that they don't require you to conjure up the relative and absolute error values, nor do you have to make sure to get those values "about right". With ULPs, you can express directly how close you want the numbers to be, and the same threshold works just as well for small values as for large ones.
If you have floating point errors you have even more problems than this. Although I guess that is up to personal perspective.
Even if we do the numeric analysis to minimize accumulation of error, we can't eliminate it and we can be left with results that ought to be identical (if we were calculating with reals) but differ (because we cannot calculate with reals).
If you are looking for two floats to be equal, then they should be identically equal in my opinion. If you are facing a floating point rounding problem, perhaps a fixed point representation would suit your problem better.
If you are looking for two floats to be equal, then they should be identically equal in my opinion. If you are facing a floating point rounding problem, perhaps a fixed point representation would suit your problem better.
Perhaps we cannot afford the loss of range or performance that such an approach would inflict.
#DrPizza: I am no performance guru but I would expect fixed point operations to be quicker than floating point operations (in most cases).
#Craig H: Sure. I'm totally okay with it printing that. If a or b store money then they should be represented in fixed point. I'm struggling to think of a real world example where such logic ought to be allied to floats. Things suitable for floats:
weights
ranks
distances
real world values (like from a ADC)
For all these things, either you much then numbers and simply present the results to the user for human interpretation, or you make a comparative statement (even if such a statement is, "this thing is within 0.001 of this other thing"). A comparative statement like mine is only useful in the context of the algorithm: the "within 0.001" part depends on what physical question you're asking. That my 0.02. Or should I say 2/100ths?
It rather depends on what you are
doing with them. A fixed-point type
with the same range as an IEEE float
would be many many times slower (and
many times larger).
Okay, but if I want a infinitesimally small bit-resolution then it's back to my original point: == and != have no meaning in the context of such a problem.
An int lets me express ~10^9 values (regardless of the range) which seems like enough for any situation where I would care about two of them being equal. And if that's not enough, use a 64-bit OS and you've got about 10^19 distinct values.
I can express values a range of 0 to 10^200 (for example) in an int, it is just the bit-resolution that suffers (resolution would be greater than 1, but, again, no application has that sort of range as well as that sort of resolution).
To summarize, I think in all cases one either is representing a continuum of values, in which case != and == are irrelevant, or one is representing a fixed set of values, which can be mapped to an int (or a another fixed-precision type).
An int lets me express ~10^9 values
(regardless of the range) which seems
like enough for any situation where I
would care about two of them being
equal. And if that's not enough, use a
64-bit OS and you've got about 10^19
distinct values.
I have actually hit that limit... I was trying to juggle times in ps and time in clock cycles in a simulation where you easily hit 10^10 cycles. No matter what I did I very quickly overflowed the puny range of 64-bit integers... 10^19 is not as much as you think it is, gimme 128 bits computing now!
Floats allowed me to get a solution to the mathematical issues, as the values overflowed with lots zeros at the low end. So you basically had a decimal point floating aronud in the number with no loss of precision (I could like with the more limited distinct number of values allowed in the mantissa of a float compared to a 64-bit int, but desperately needed th range!).
And then things converted back to integers to compare etc.
Annoying, and in the end I scrapped the entire attempt and just relied on floats and < and > to get the work done. Not perfect, but works for the use case envisioned.
If you are looking for two floats to be equal, then they should be identically equal in my opinion. If you are facing a floating point rounding problem, perhaps a fixed point representation would suit your problem better.
Perhaps I should explain the problem better. In C++, the following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
float a = 1.0;
float b = 0.0;
for(int i=0;i<10;++i)
{
b+=0.1;
}
if(a != b)
{
cout << "Something is wrong" << endl;
}
return 1;
}
prints the phrase "Something is wrong". Are you saying that it should?
Oh dear lord please don't interpret the float bits as ints unless you're running on a P6 or earlier.
it's the best way to do it that I've come across, insofar as it provides the most robust comparisons even in the face of floating point errors.
If you have floating point errors you have even more problems than this. Although I guess that is up to personal perspective.