soulchild has asked for the
wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:
Today I stumbled across the following piece
of code and I'm still wondering why the condition is not
met:
my $a = 36.8;
my $b = 36.6;
if( $a >= ( $b + 0.2 ) ) { print "true\n"; }
=> returns nothing (Why's that? 36.8 equals 36.6 + 0.2)
Whereas the condition becomes true if I change the values
a little bit:
my $a = 6.8;
my $b = 6.6;
if( $a >= ( $b + 0.2 ) ) { print "true\n"; }
=> returns "true" (that's what i expected)
I feel a little bit stupid asking this question and have
the strange feeling that my mind is playing a trick on me
here because I've been doing perl stuff since many years now. Must have got something to do with floating point
values and the "greater or equal than" operator, I guess.
Could somebody please tell me why the above code fragments
work like they do and not how I think they should work?
Thanx!
Re: float values and operators by Zaxo (Archbishop) on Aug 11, 2004 at 20:07 UTC 
You're hitting a fundamental problem with representing decimal fractions in binary form. It is a limitation of your processor's floating point arithmetic which is exhibited in all languages, not just perl. You can eliminate the problem by rounding with sprintf before comparison.
 [reply] 

$ perl le '$a = 36.8; $b = 36.6; print "true\n" if $a >= ($b + 0.2);'
# Prints nothing, just as poster showed
$ perl le '$a = 36.8; $b = 36.6; $c = $b + 0.2; print $c;'
36.8
$ perl le '$a = 36.8; $b = 36.6; $c = $b + 0.2; print $a;'
36.8
$ perl le '$a = 36.8; $b = 36.6; $c = $b + 0.2; print $b;'
36.6
"There is no shame in being selftaught, only in not trying to learn in the first place."  Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.
 [reply] [d/l] 

$ perl e'print 36.8  (36.6 + 0.2)'
7.105427357601e15
 [reply] [d/l] 




Hi Zaxo,
I noticed that this doesn't happen in C ...
bash2.05b$ cat float.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main () {
float a = 36.8;
float b = 36.6;
if( a >= ( b + 0.2 ) ) { printf ("true\n"); }
}
bash2.05b$ gcc o float float.c
bash2.05b$ ./float
true
... and does happen in Python ...
bash2.05b$ cat float.py
#!/usr/bin/python
A = 36.8
B = 36.6
if( A >= B + 0.2 ):
print "true"
else:
print "false"
bash2.05b$ ./float.py
false
I would of included a java example but I aint got all day to download the SDK. Maybe I'll update with one later. Can you explain why C deals with float point number while Perl and Python appear to have this problem? Is it a compiled verses and interpreted language issue?
Thanks
Plankton: 1% Evil, 99% Hot Gas. 
 [reply] [d/l] [select] 

$ cat imprec.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main () {
float fa = 36.8;
float fb = 36.6;
double da = 36.8;
double db = 36.6;
printf( ( fa >= ( fb + 0.2 ) ) ? "true\n" : "false\n" );
printf( ( da >= ( db + 0.2 ) ) ? "true\n" : "false\n" );
}
$ gcc o imprec imprec.c
$ ./imprec
true
false
You're seeing the result of cutoff caused by float's lower precision.
Perl and Python use doubles in all floating point operations.
Makeshifts last the longest.
 [reply] [d/l] 

$ cat a.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("%s\n", 36.6 == 36.80.2 ? "true" : "false");
return 0;
}
$ gcc a.c
$ a.out
false
 [reply] [d/l] 

You're right. Using sprintf to round the values before comparison does the job. Nevertheless I didn't quite understand why this is necessary. Could somebody explain this a little bit more verbose? Thanks a lot, guys!
 [reply] 

Recipe 2.2 in the Perl Cookbook, Second Edition is excellent reading on this subject.
Basically, when you use a floating point number, such as 36.6, the computer doesn't store that exact value. Remember, computers are binary. When you get down to it, there's nothing more than transistors. The memory storage only really works well for integers. So the computer has to figure out some way to store approximations of the number.
To paraphrase the cookbook, the only numbers wellrepresentable in binary are those involving powers of two. For example, .125 is 1/8. That's exactly representable in binary notation of floating point numbers.
However, take a number like 36.6. In fractional form, it would be 183/5, nothing to do with powers of two. The way the computer really stores the number can be seen:
my $a = 36.6;
printf "%s is %.30g\n", ($_) x 3 for $a;
(Code shamelessly copied from the Perl Cookbook.)
That gives us 36.600000000000001. Similarly, 36.8 is given as 36.799999999999997.
So now you see why the comparisons failed. You weren't working with exact values.
Perl's (and indeed, the C library's) rounding function are not exactly ``round up at five,'' but actually ``round towards even.'' So that way, sprintf will round 36.6 to an even 36.6 for calculating. So now, numerical comparisons work with nice and even numbers.
Take a look at the Perl Cookbook on this one. It's a very good read. I've just summarised what it has written very well.  [reply] [d/l] 
[Why] Re: float values and operators by Zaxo (Archbishop) on Aug 11, 2004 at 20:52 UTC 
Here's a short explanation of what happens.
Recall that when a ratio of integers (a rational number) is shown in decimal form, the decimal fraction terminates only if the integers have denominator has no factors but 2 and 5. Thus oneeighth == 0.125 and twofifths == 0.4, but onethird == 0.33333333.... and oneseventh == 0.142857142857.... .
The same thing happens with nal fractions in any base n. Processors represent floats in base two, so any rational fraction with a factor of 5 forms an infinite repeating pattern of ones and zeros. The processor can only hold a finite number of the leading bits, so the floating point representation of 182/5 == 36.2, 183/5 == 36.4, and 1/5 == 0.2 are all lowside approximations. When they are added and subtracted, the results are internally rounded from a few extra bits the processor keeps hidden, with the confounding result that floatingpoint addition is not even associative!
 [reply] 
Re: float values and operators by itub (Priest) on Aug 11, 2004 at 21:33 UTC 
Rule #1 of floatingpoint computing in any language, not just Perl: Never compare two floatingpoint numbers with == or != (or expect >= et al. to work in the edge cases). Use a tolerance range instead. Other monks have already explained the cause behind this numerical imprecision.
For a detailed explanation, see Comparing floating point numbers  [reply] 
Re: float values and operators by ikegami (Pope) on Aug 11, 2004 at 21:21 UTC 
sub TOLERANCE () { 1e13 }
sub are_equal {
my ($a, $b) = @_;
return (abs($a$b) < TOLERANCE);
}
print('==: ', (36.8 == 36.6+0.2) ?'equal':'unequal', "\n
+");
print('are_equal: ', are_equal(36.8, 36.6+0.2) ?'equal':'unequal', "\n
+");
__END__
output
======
==: unequal
are_equal: equal
 [reply] [d/l] 

sub TOLERANCE () { 1e13 }
sub compare {
my ($a, $b, $tol) = @_;
$tol = TOLERANCE unless (defined($tol));
my $diff = ($a  $b);
if ($diff > +$tol) { return +1; }
if ($diff < $tol) { return 1; }
return 0;
}
sub format_cmp {
my ($cmp) = @_;
if ($cmp < 0) {return "<"; }
if ($cmp == 0) {return "="; }
if ($cmp > 0) {return ">"; }
}
print('35 <=> 36 = ', format_cmp(35 <=> 36 ), ' ', f
+ormat_cmp(compare(35, 36 )), ' = compare(35, 36 )', "\
+n");
print('35 <=> 35 = ', format_cmp(35 <=> 35 ), ' ', f
+ormat_cmp(compare(35, 35 )), ' = compare(35, 35 )', "\
+n");
print('36 <=> 35 = ', format_cmp(36 <=> 35 ), ' ', f
+ormat_cmp(compare(36, 35 )), ' = compare(36, 35 )', "\
+n");
print('36.8 <=> 36.6+0.2 = ', format_cmp(36.8 <=> 36.6+0.2), ' ', f
+ormat_cmp(compare(36.8, 36.6+0.2)), ' = compare(36.8, 36.6+0.2)', "\
+n");
__END__
output
======
35 <=> 36 = < < = compare(35, 36 )
35 <=> 35 = = = = compare(35, 35 )
36 <=> 35 = > > = compare(36, 35 )
36.8 <=> 36.6+0.2 = < = = compare(36.8, 36.6+0.2)
 [reply] [d/l] 
Re: float values and operators by GreyGlass (Sexton) on Aug 12, 2004 at 04:27 UTC 
The theory was well illuminated by others. The nuts and bolts (or the bits) in this case are:
> perl le "print unpack q/b*/, pack F, 36.8"
0110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100100001000000010
> perl le "print unpack q/b*/, pack F, 36.6+.2"
1110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100100001000000010
As you can see, there is a bit of difference. The lowestorder bit, to be exact.
FYI: This, of course, is on Win32. On other platforms it may be different, both in encoding and the roundoff error in the last bit.
 [reply] [d/l] 

