2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
.. _tut-fp-issues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**************************************************
|
|
|
|
Floating Point Arithmetic: Issues and Limitations
|
|
|
|
**************************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. sectionauthor:: Tim Peters <tim_one@users.sourceforge.net>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floating-point numbers are represented in computer hardware as base 2 (binary)
|
|
|
|
fractions. For example, the decimal fraction ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
has value 1/10 + 2/100 + 5/1000, and in the same way the binary fraction ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
has value 0/2 + 0/4 + 1/8. These two fractions have identical values, the only
|
|
|
|
real difference being that the first is written in base 10 fractional notation,
|
|
|
|
and the second in base 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, most decimal fractions cannot be represented exactly as binary
|
|
|
|
fractions. A consequence is that, in general, the decimal floating-point
|
|
|
|
numbers you enter are only approximated by the binary floating-point numbers
|
|
|
|
actually stored in the machine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is easier to understand at first in base 10. Consider the fraction
|
|
|
|
1/3. You can approximate that as a base 10 fraction::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or, better, ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or, better, ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and so on. No matter how many digits you're willing to write down, the result
|
|
|
|
will never be exactly 1/3, but will be an increasingly better approximation of
|
|
|
|
1/3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the same way, no matter how many base 2 digits you're willing to use, the
|
|
|
|
decimal value 0.1 cannot be represented exactly as a base 2 fraction. In base
|
|
|
|
2, 1/10 is the infinitely repeating fraction ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011...
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
Stop at any finite number of bits, and you get an approximation. On a typical
|
|
|
|
machine, there are 53 bits of precision available, so the value stored
|
|
|
|
internally is the binary fraction ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
0.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is close to, but not exactly equal to, 1/10.
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
It's easy to forget that the stored value is an approximation to the original
|
|
|
|
decimal fraction, because of the way that floats are displayed at the
|
|
|
|
interpreter prompt. Python only prints a decimal approximation to the true
|
|
|
|
decimal value of the binary approximation stored by the machine. If Python
|
|
|
|
were to print the true decimal value of the binary approximation stored for
|
|
|
|
0.1, it would have to display ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> 0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
That is more digits than most people find useful, so Python keeps the number
|
|
|
|
of digits manageable by displaying a rounded value instead ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> 0.1
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
It's important to realize that this is, in a real sense, an illusion: the value
|
|
|
|
in the machine is not exactly 1/10, you're simply rounding the *display* of the
|
|
|
|
true machine value. This fact becomes apparent as soon as you try to do
|
|
|
|
arithmetic with these values ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
>>> 0.1 + 0.2
|
|
|
|
0.30000000000000004
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that this is in the very nature of binary floating-point: this is not a bug
|
|
|
|
in Python, and it is not a bug in your code either. You'll see the same kind of
|
|
|
|
thing in all languages that support your hardware's floating-point arithmetic
|
|
|
|
(although some languages may not *display* the difference by default, or in all
|
|
|
|
output modes).
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
Other surprises follow from this one. For example, if you try to round the value
|
|
|
|
2.675 to two decimal places, you get this ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
>>> round(2.675, 2)
|
|
|
|
2.67
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
The documentation for the built-in :func:`round` function says that it rounds
|
|
|
|
to the nearest value, rounding ties away from zero. Since the decimal fraction
|
|
|
|
2.675 is exactly halfway between 2.67 and 2.68, you might expect the result
|
|
|
|
here to be (a binary approximation to) 2.68. It's not, because when the
|
|
|
|
decimal literal ``2.675`` is converted to a binary floating-point number, it's
|
|
|
|
again replaced with a binary approximation, whose exact value is ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
2.67499999999999982236431605997495353221893310546875
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
Since this approximation is slightly closer to 2.67 than to 2.68, it's rounded
|
|
|
|
down.
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
If you're in a situation where you care which way your decimal halfway-cases
|
|
|
|
are rounded, you should consider using the :mod:`decimal` module.
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, the :mod:`decimal` module also provides a nice way to "see" the
|
|
|
|
exact value that's stored in any particular Python float ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
>>> from decimal import Decimal
|
|
|
|
>>> Decimal(2.675)
|
|
|
|
Decimal('2.67499999999999982236431605997495353221893310546875')
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another consequence is that since 0.1 is not exactly 1/10, summing ten values of
|
|
|
|
0.1 may not yield exactly 1.0, either::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> sum = 0.0
|
|
|
|
>>> for i in range(10):
|
|
|
|
... sum += 0.1
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
>>> sum
|
2009-11-24 10:27:02 -04:00
|
|
|
0.9999999999999999
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Binary floating-point arithmetic holds many surprises like this. The problem
|
|
|
|
with "0.1" is explained in precise detail below, in the "Representation Error"
|
|
|
|
section. See `The Perils of Floating Point <http://www.lahey.com/float.htm>`_
|
|
|
|
for a more complete account of other common surprises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As that says near the end, "there are no easy answers." Still, don't be unduly
|
|
|
|
wary of floating-point! The errors in Python float operations are inherited
|
|
|
|
from the floating-point hardware, and on most machines are on the order of no
|
|
|
|
more than 1 part in 2\*\*53 per operation. That's more than adequate for most
|
|
|
|
tasks, but you do need to keep in mind that it's not decimal arithmetic, and
|
|
|
|
that every float operation can suffer a new rounding error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While pathological cases do exist, for most casual use of floating-point
|
|
|
|
arithmetic you'll see the result you expect in the end if you simply round the
|
|
|
|
display of your final results to the number of decimal digits you expect.
|
2008-05-25 21:54:22 -03:00
|
|
|
:func:`str` usually suffices, and for finer control see the :meth:`str.format`
|
|
|
|
method's format specifiers in :ref:`formatstrings`.
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _tut-fp-error:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Representation Error
|
|
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section explains the "0.1" example in detail, and shows how you can perform
|
|
|
|
an exact analysis of cases like this yourself. Basic familiarity with binary
|
|
|
|
floating-point representation is assumed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:dfn:`Representation error` refers to the fact that some (most, actually)
|
|
|
|
decimal fractions cannot be represented exactly as binary (base 2) fractions.
|
|
|
|
This is the chief reason why Python (or Perl, C, C++, Java, Fortran, and many
|
|
|
|
others) often won't display the exact decimal number you expect::
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
>>> 0.1 + 0.2
|
|
|
|
0.30000000000000004
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
Why is that? 1/10 and 2/10 are not exactly representable as a binary
|
|
|
|
fraction. Almost all machines today (July 2010) use IEEE-754 floating point
|
|
|
|
arithmetic, and almost all platforms map Python floats to IEEE-754 "double
|
|
|
|
precision". 754 doubles contain 53 bits of precision, so on input the computer
|
|
|
|
strives to convert 0.1 to the closest fraction it can of the form *J*/2**\ *N*
|
|
|
|
where *J* is an integer containing exactly 53 bits. Rewriting ::
|
2007-08-15 11:28:01 -03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 / 10 ~= J / (2**N)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J ~= 2**N / 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and recalling that *J* has exactly 53 bits (is ``>= 2**52`` but ``< 2**53``),
|
|
|
|
the best value for *N* is 56::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> 2**52
|
|
|
|
4503599627370496L
|
|
|
|
>>> 2**53
|
|
|
|
9007199254740992L
|
|
|
|
>>> 2**56/10
|
|
|
|
7205759403792793L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is, 56 is the only value for *N* that leaves *J* with exactly 53 bits. The
|
|
|
|
best possible value for *J* is then that quotient rounded::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> q, r = divmod(2**56, 10)
|
|
|
|
>>> r
|
|
|
|
6L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the remainder is more than half of 10, the best approximation is obtained
|
|
|
|
by rounding up::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> q+1
|
|
|
|
7205759403792794L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore the best possible approximation to 1/10 in 754 double precision is
|
|
|
|
that over 2\*\*56, or ::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7205759403792794 / 72057594037927936
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that since we rounded up, this is actually a little bit larger than 1/10;
|
|
|
|
if we had not rounded up, the quotient would have been a little bit smaller than
|
|
|
|
1/10. But in no case can it be *exactly* 1/10!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the computer never "sees" 1/10: what it sees is the exact fraction given
|
|
|
|
above, the best 754 double approximation it can get::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> .1 * 2**56
|
|
|
|
7205759403792794.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we multiply that fraction by 10\*\*30, we can see the (truncated) value of
|
|
|
|
its 30 most significant decimal digits::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>> 7205759403792794 * 10**30 / 2**56
|
|
|
|
100000000000000005551115123125L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meaning that the exact number stored in the computer is approximately equal to
|
2010-07-30 09:58:44 -03:00
|
|
|
the decimal value 0.100000000000000005551115123125. In versions prior to
|
|
|
|
Python 2.7 and Python 3.1, Python rounded this value to 17 significant digits,
|
|
|
|
giving '0.10000000000000001'. In current versions, Python displays a value based
|
|
|
|
on the shortest decimal fraction that rounds correctly back to the true binary
|
|
|
|
value, resulting simply in '0.1'.
|