We Keep Coding

The accuracy of a double in general programming and Java

I understand that due to the nature of a float/double one should not use them for precision important calculations. However, i'm a little confused on their limitations due to mixed answers on similar questions, whether or not floats and doubles will always be inaccurate regardless of significant digits or are only inaccurate up to the 16th digit.
I've ran a few examples in Java,
System.out.println(Double.parseDouble("999999.9999999999");
// this outputs correctly w/ 16 digits
System.out.println(Double.parseDouble("9.99999999999999");
// This also outputs correctly w/ 15 digits
System.out.println(Double.parseDouble("9.999999999999999");
// But this doesn't output correctly w/ 16 digits. Outputs 9.999999999999998
I can't find the link to another answer that stated that values like 1.98 and 2.02 would round down to 2.0 and therefore create inaccuracies but testing shows that the values are printed correctly. So my first question is whether or not floating/double values will always be inaccurate or is there a lower limit where you can be assured of precision.
My second question is in regards to using BigDecimal. I know that I should be using BigDecimal for precision important calculations. Therefore I should be using BigDecimal's methods for arithmetic and comparing. However, BigDecimal also includes a doubleValue() method which will convert the BigDecimal to a double. Would it be safe for me to do a comparison between double values that I know for sure have less than 16 digits? There will be no arithmetic done on them at all so the inherent values should not have changed.
For example, is it safe for me to do the following?
BigDecimal myDecimal = new BigDecimal("123.456");
BigDecimal myDecimal2 = new BigDecimal("234.567");
if (myDecimal.doubleValue() < myDecimal2.doubleValue()) System.out.println("myDecimal is smaller than myDecimal2");
Edit: After reading some of the responses to my own answer i've realized my understanding was incorrect and have deleted it. Here are some snippets from it that might help in the future.
"A double cannot hold 0.1 precisely. The closest representable value to 0.1 is 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625. Java Double.toString only prints enough digits to uniquely identify the double, not the exact value." - Patricia Shanahan
Sources:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5749978 - States that a double can hold up to 15 digits

I suggest you read this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format
Once you've read and understood it, and perhaps converted several examples to their binary representations in the 64 bit floating point format, then you'll have a much better idea of what significant digits a Double can hold.

As a side note, (perhaps trivial) a nice and reliable way to store a known precision of value is to simply multiply it by the relevant factor and store as some integral type, which are completely precise.
For example:
double costInPounds = <something>; //e.g. 3.587
int costInPence = (int)(costInPounds * 100 + 0.5); //359
Plainly some precision can be lost, but if a required/desired precision is known, this can save a lot of bother with floating point values, and once this has been done, no precision can be lost by further manipulations.
The + 0.5 is to ensure that rounding works as expected. (int) takes the 'floor' of the provided double value, so adding 0.5 makes it round up and down as expected.

Java: Is (int) double reliable?

When I perform simple math in java with doubles and other number data types, the double values seem to randomly vary a bit from the supposed result, which might be 5,59999999997 or 6,0000000002 or something. When I cast to int, the double value is obviously rounded down to the next whole number. Does this mean the double could be both 5 or 6? Or does that "5,999999999997" still count as 6 though which would be depending on the binary float value? If not, is there a way to let the negative vary be rounded up, but not lower values from 5,5 to 5,999999999996?
I mean, I dont really want to round the value as described in my last sentence. I'd like to always round down to the next whole number, but I don't want to cause an extra decrement due to wrong double math results.

Converting a double to an int always rounds down. You can round to the nearest whole integer via Math.round(double). The double is varying from what you expect because of floating point error.

If you want to round, you can use the round() method.
double d = 6 +/- some small error
long l = Math.round(d);
Or you can add 0.5 for positive numbers
long l = (long) (d + 0.5);
or
long l = (long) (d + (d < 0 ? -0.5 : 0.5));

I'm not sure I understand the question. Usually when you cast a double to int you add 0.5 to have a nice round.

From the Java Language Specification:
The Java programming language uses round toward zero when converting a floating value to an
integer (§5.1.3), which acts, in this case, as though the number were truncated, discarding
the mantissa bits. Rounding toward zero chooses at its result the format's value closest to
and no greater in magnitude than the infinitely precise result.
So 5,999999999997 when casted to an int will 5 and 6,0000000002 will be 6. If I understand what you are asking with having negative versions of the values (e.g. -5.97), I fail to see how
Math.round() does not suffice you. -6,0000000002 will be rounded to -6 as will -5,999999999997 and every other value above (but not including) -5.5.

If the double type can handle the numbers 4.35 and 435, why do 4.35 * 100 evaluates to 434.99999999999994? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is floating point math broken?
(31 answers)
Rounding oddity - what is special about "100"? [duplicate]
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
As I understand this, some numbers can't be represented with exactitude in binary, and that's why floating-point arithmetic sometimes gives us unexpected results; like 4.35 * 100 = 434.99999999999994. Something similar to what happens with 1/3 in decimal.
That makes sense, but this induces another question. Seems that in binary both 4.35 and 435 can be represented with exactitude. That's when it stops making sense to me. Why does 4.35 * 100 evaluates to 434.99999999999994? 435 and 4.35 have an exact representation in the double type dynamics:
double number1 = 4.35;
double number2 = 435;
double number3 = 100;
System.out.println(number1); // 4.35
System.out.println(number2); // 435.0
System.out.println(number3); // 100.0
// So far so good. Everything ok.
System.out.println(number1 * number3); // 434.99999999999994 !!!
// But 4.35 * 100 evaluates to 434.99999999999994
Why?
Edit: this question was marked as duplicate, and it is not. As you can see in the accepted answer, my confusion was regarding the discrepancy between the actual value and the printed value.

Seems that in binary both 4.35 and 435 can be represented with exactitude.
I see that you understand how the floating point numbers are internally represented. As for your doubt, no 4.35 does not have an exact binary representation. So the issue is, why the 1st print statement prints 4.35.
That is happening because System.out.println() invokes the Double.toString(double) method, which in turns uses FloatingDecimal#toJavaFormatString() method, which performs some rounding internally on the passed double argument. You can go through the source code I linked.
For seeing the actual value of 4.35, try using this:
BigDecimal bd = new BigDecimal(number1);
System.out.println(bd);
This will print:
4.3499999999999996447286321199499070644378662109375
In this case, rather than printing the double value, you create a BigDecimal object passing double value as argument. BigDecimal represents arbitrary precision signed decimal number. So it gives you the exact value of 4.35.

You are right in that sometimes floating-point arithmetic gives unexpected results.
Your assertion that 4.35 can be represented exactly in floating-point is incorrect, because it can't be represented as a terminating binary decimal. 100 can obviously be represented exactly, so for the result to be 434.99999999999994, `4.35 must not be represented exactly.
To be represented exactly in floating-point, a number must be able to be converted to a fraction where the denominator is a power of two only (and it must not be so precise that it exceeds the maximum precision of the floating-point type you're using). In this case, 4.35 is 4 7/20, and the denominator has a factor of 5, so the number can't be represented exactly in binary.

Although from a hardware perspective each floating-point number represents some exact value of the form M * 2^E (where M and E are integers in a certain range), from a software perspective it is more helpful to think of each floating-point number as representing "Something for which M * 2^E has been deemed the best representation, and which is hopefully close to that". Given a floating-point value (M * 2^E), one should figure that the actual number it's intended to represent may very easily be anywhere from (N - 1/2) * 2^E to (N + 1/2) * 2^E and in practice may extend a bit further beyond.
As a simple example, with type float, the value of M is limited to the range 0-16777215. The best representation of 2000000.1f is thus 16000001 * 2^-3 [i.e. 16000001/8]. Although exact decimal value of 16000001/8 is 2000000.125, the last digit isn't necessary to define the value of the number, since 16000001/8 would the best representation of 2000000.120 and 2000000.129 (or, for that matter, all values between 2000000.0625 and 2000000.1875, non-inclusive). Because the number of digits that would required to display the exact decimal value of a number of the form M * 2^E would often far exceed the number of meaningful digits, it is common to limit number of displayed digits to roughly those necessary to uniquely define the value.
Note that if one regards floating-point numbers as representing ranges, one will observe that casts from double to float--even though they must be explicitly specified--are actually safe since converting the double that best represents a particular value to float will yield either the best float representation of that value or something very close to it. Conversely, conversion from float to double, even though it's allowed implicitly, is dangerous because such conversion is very unlikely to select the double which would best represent the number that the float was supposed to represent.

it is a bit hard to explain in English, because I have learned computer number representation in Hungarian. In short, 4.35, 435 nor 100 is not exactly these numbers, but mantissa * 2^k (k-characteristic from -k to +k, and t - is the length of the mantissa in the M = (t,-k,+k) ) although the print call does some rounding. So the number-line is not continuous, but near some famous points, denser ).
So as I think these numbers are not exactly what you expect, and after the operation (I suppose this is one or two simple binary operation) you get the multiple of error distance of the two float point number representation.

How to actually avoid floating point errors when you need to use float?

I am trying to affect the translation of a 3D model using some UI buttons to shift the position by 0.1 or -0.1.
My model position is a three dimensional float so simply adding 0.1f to one of the values causes obvious rounding errors. While I can use something like BigDecimal to retain precision, I still have to convert it from a float and back to a float at the end and it always results in silly numbers that are making my UI look like a mess.
I could just pretty the displayed values but the rounding errors will only get worse with more editing and they make my save files rather hard to read.
So how do I actually avoid these errors when I need to use a float?

The Kahan summation and pairwise summation algorithms help to reduce floating point errors. Here's some Java code for the Kahan algorithm.

I would use a Rational class. There are many out there - this one looks like it should work.
One significant cost will be when the Rational is rendered into a float and one when the denominator is reduced to the gcd. The one I posted keeps the numerator and denominator in fully reduced state at all times which should be quite efficient if you are always adding or subtracting 1/10.
This implementation holds the values normalised (i.e. with consistent sign) but unreduced.
You should choose your implementation to best fit your usage.

A simple solution is to either use fixed precision. i.e. an integer 10x or 100x what you want.
float f = 10;
f += 0.1f;
becomes
int i = 100;
i += 1; // use an many times as you like
// use i / 10.0 as required.
I wouldn't use float in any case as you get more rounding errors than double for next to no benefit (unless you have millions of float values) double gives you 8 more digits of precision and with sensible rounding would won't see those errors.

If you stick with floats:
The easiest way to avoid the error is using floats which are exact, but
near the desired value which is
round(2^n * value) * 1/2^n.
n is the number of bits, value the number to use (in your case 0.1)
In your case with increasing precision:
n = 4 => 0.125
n = 8 (byte) => 0.9765625
n = 16 (short)=> 0.100006103516....
The long number chains are artefacts of the binary conversion,
the real number has much less bits.
As the floats are exact, addition and subtraction will
not introduce offset errors, but will always be
predictable as long as the number of bits is
not longer than the float value holds.
If you fear that your display will be compromised by
using this solution (because they are odd floats), use
and store only integers (step increase -1/1).
The final value which is internally set is
x = value * step.
As the step increases or decreases by an amount of 1,
precision will be retained.

Loss of precision after subtracting double from double [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Retain precision with Doubles in java
Alright so I've got the following chunk of code:
int rotation = e.getWheelRotation();
if(rotation < 0)
zoom(zoom + rotation * -.05);
else if(zoom - .05 > 0)
zoom(zoom - rotation * .05);
System.out.println(zoom);
Now, the zoom variable is of type double, initially set to 1. So, I would expect the results to be like 1 - .05 = .95; .95 - .05 = .9; .9 - .05 = .85; etc. This appears to be not the case though when I print the result as you can see below:
0.95
0.8999999999999999
0.8499999999999999
0.7999999999999998
0.7499999999999998
0.6999999999999997
Hopefully someone is able to clearly explain. I searched the internet and I read it has something to do with some limitations when we're storing floats in binary but I still don't quite understand. A solution to my problem is not shockingly important but I would like to understand this kind of behavior.

Java uses IEEE-754 floating point numbers. They're not perfectly precise. The famous example is:
System.out.println(0.1d + 0.2d);
...which outputs 0.30000000000000004.
What you're seeing is just a symptom of that imprecision. You can improve the precision by using double rather than float.
If you're dealing with financial calculations, you might prefer BigDecimal to float or double.

float and double have limited precision because its fractional part is represented as a series of powers of 2 e.g. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... If you have an number like 1/10 it has to be approximated.
For this reason, whenever you deal with floating point you must use reasonable rounding or you can see small errors.
e.g.
System.out.printf("%.2f%n", zoom);
To minimise round errors, you could count the number of rotations instead and divide this int value by 20.0. You won't see a rounding error this way, and it will be faster, with less magic numbers.

float and double have precision issues. I would recommend you take a look at the BigDecimal Class. That should take care of precision issues.

Since decimal numbers (and integer numbers as well) can have an infinite number of possible values, they are impossible to map precisely to bits using a standard format. Computers circumvent this problem by limiting the range the numbers can assume.
For example, an int in java can represent nothing larger then Integer.MAX_VALUE or 2^31 - 1.
For decimal numbers, there is also a problem with the numbers after the comma, which also might be infinite. This is solved by not allowing all decimal values, but limiting to a (smartly chosen) number of possibilities, based on powers of 2. This happens automatically but is often nothing to worry about, you can interpret your result of 0.899999 as 0.9. In case you do need explicit precision, you will have to resort to other data types, which might have other limitations.