Re: Double type precision in java
- From: "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:14:07 -0000
John Ersatznom wrote:
Now, there are, oddly, some -0.0s in the lists output. I'd guess it was
actually a subnormal -0.00000...0001 internally (and it's NOT always
outputting enough digits to exactly read it back in) except that many of
those are definitely products of power-of-2-denominator rationals -- in
fact, integers to the last one. Those shouldn't lose precision (unless
the numerator gets too big).
I don't think the representation of -0.0 is any kind of an issue here (-0.0 has
a perfectly good FP representation all of its own, so an "approximate" internal
representation is neither necessary nor permitted). To see a simpler version
of the same test that displays the same behaviour without any zeros:
public class Test
public static void
System.out.println(2.1D - 2.0D);
Which produces the output:
(In this case the sum in the second println() is actually evaluated by the
compiler rather than at runtime, but that makes no difference to the
One way to think of why this happens:
The value 2.1 when represented as 64-bit floating point is "rounded" to the
nearest binary value, as it happens this is the value which (if printed at
perfect precision) would be
(That is just one a range of real numbers which all have the same
representation as a double, but it is the only one from that which is exactly
representable as a double).
Similarly the most precise representation of 2.0 is
But that of the result of the calculation (2.1 - 2.0) is:
For comparison, that of 0.1 is
Note the difference. This is part of the reason for the unexpected (by the OP)
results, and is also the reason why (2.1 - 2.0) != 0.1.
Also, when Java prints the double values, it chooses the real number with the
shortest string representation from the range of reals which all map the
same double value. In this case the nearest to:
Whereas the nearest to:
Hence the output of the test program.
- Prev by Date: Re: [TomCat/Axis] Problem with complex type
- Next by Date: Re: Automating Searches
- Previous by thread: Re: Double type precision in java
- Next by thread: Corrupt JAR file?