• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Diving into a floating point bug

    March 2nd, 2017
    tech  [html]
    Yesterday I refactored some python code that effectively changed:
       floor(n * (100 / 101))
    
    into:
       floor(n * Decimal(100/101))
    
    For most integers this doesn't change anything, but for multiples of 101 it gives you different answers:
      floor(101 * (100 / 101))       -> 100
      floor(101 * Decimal(100/101))  ->  99
    
    In python2, however, both give 100:
      floor(101 * (100.0 / 101))       -> 100
      floor(101 * Decimal(100.0/101))  -> 100
    
    What's going on? First, what's the difference between python2 and python3 here? One of the changes not listed in What's New In Python 3.0 is that floor now returns an int instead of a float:
    • 2.x: Return the floor of x as a float, the largest integer value less than or equal to x.
    • 3.x: Return the floor of x, the largest integer less than or equal to x. If x is not a float, delegates to x.__floor__(), which should return an Integral value.
    Since these are positive numbers, we can use int() instead of floor() and now python2 and python3 give the same result:
      2.x: int(101 * Decimal(100.0/101)) -> 99
      3.x: int(101 * Decimal(100/101))   -> 99
    
    The root of the problem is that 100/101 is a repeating decimal, 0.99009900..., and so can't be represented exactly as a Decimal or a float. To store it as a Decimal python defaults to 28 decimal digits and rounds it:
    > D(100)/D(101)
    Decimal('0.9900990099009900990099009901')
    
    Storing it as a float is more complicated. Python uses the platform's hardware support, which is IEEE 754 floating point bascially everywhere, and it gets converted to a binary fraction with 53 bits for the numerator and a power of two for the denominator:
      1114752383012499 / 2**50
    
    Python is aware that there are many numbers for which this is the closest possible floating point approximation, and so to be friendly it selectes the shortest decimal representation when printing it:
    > 100/101
    0.9900990099009901
    

    Now we have all the pieces to see why 101*Decimal(100/101) is less than 101*(100/101), and, critically, why one is just under 100 while the other is exactly 100.

    In the Decimal case python first divides 100 by 101 and gets 1114752383012499 / 2**50. Then it takes the closest representable Decimal to that number, which is Decimal('0.99009900990099009021605525049380958080291748046875'). That's 50 bits of precision because Decimal tries to track and preseve precision in its calculations, and 53 bits of precision is 50 decimal digits of precision. [Update 2017-03-02: this is wrong: 53 bits of precision much less than 50 decimal digits. I'm not sure why Decimal is doing this.] All of the digits starting with 02160... are just noise, but Decimal has no way of knowing that. Then when we multiply by 101 we get Decimal('99.999...58030'), because our Decimal version of the float was slightly less than true 100/101.

    On the other hand, when python gets 101 * (100/101) it stays in IEEE 754 land. It multiplies 101 by 1114752383012499 / 2**50, and the closest float to that is exactly 100.

    I ran into this bug because I had been trying to break a large change into two behavior-preserving changes, first switching some code to use Decimal and then switching the rest. To fix the bug, I combined the two changes into one, so that we switched from using float and int to using Decimal throughout this module.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook, hacker news

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact