> The real lesson is, no matter what base (radix) you use, floating point math is inexact.This is just not true. If you add 1.5 + 4.25 with IEEE754, there is nothing inexact or rounded. That you cannot exactly represent 0.1 in base2 FP is a problem of base2, not FP.You get inexact results with FP math for underflows, overflows, or if you don't have enough precision for the result (or an intermediate result). But the same is true for normal integer types.

 I think what that commentator meant is that floating-point math is not an accurate model of rational-number arithmetic, not that there aren't certain computations that are in fact exact. (As you point out, there are: 1.5 + 4.25 is indeed exact)
 > is that floating-point math is not an accurate model of rational-number arithmeticWell, this is true. But integer math is also not an accurate model of rational-number arithmetic, yet nobody would claim that integer math is inexact.
 Unsigned integer math (on typical machines) is an exact model of the ring of integers modulo 2^64. Floating point arithmetic is not an exact model of anything with nice properties that people are used to from algebra.
 > Integer math (on typical machines) is an exact model of the ring of integers modulo 2^64.And even this is only true if you retrict yourself to unsigned integers. For signed integers you have quirks (-0x8000.. = 0x8000..) or minefields (undefined overflow semantics in C, which can yield non-associativity, tests deleted by the compiler, etc.).And I'd argue that whoever understands the ring of integers modulo 2^64, will also understand the IEEE754 semantics (which are, I agree, sometimes unfortunate. But not inexact).
 > And even this is only true if you retrict yourself to unsigned integersFair point. I've edited my comment to include the word "unsigned".> I'd argue that whoever understands the ring of integers modulo 2^64, will also understand the IEEE754 semanticsI'm an existence proof that that is not true :). Although I'm sure I could learn the IEEE754 semantics if I put enough effort into reading the spec.But even if they don't know the word "ring", I think most programmers do understand how modulo arithmetic works, and they have algebraic intuitions about it that turn out to be true: both operations are commutative and associative, multiplication distributes over addition, equality of a forumla involving * and + is true if it's true in the actual integers, and so on.
 >> I'd argue that whoever understands the ring of integers modulo 2^64, will also understand the IEEE754 semantics> I'm an existence proof that that is not true :). Although I'm sure I could learn the IEEE754 semantics if I put enough effort into reading the spec.This was sloppy writing on my side. I wanted to say "whoever understands the ring of integers modulo 2^64, can also understand". And I'm sure you could :)And you don't even have to read the spec. The core idea (mantissa, exponent, and sign) is super easy and writing a FP emulation for addition and multiplation is a really nice task to understand what is actually going on. The only really unfamiliar idea is binary fractions and I think this is a cool idea to understand on its own.> But even if they don't know the word "ring", I think most programmers do understand how modulo arithmetic works, and they have algebraic intuitions about it that turn out to be true: both operations are commutative and associative, multiplication distributes over addition, equality is true if it's true in the actual integers, and so on.Well that is all fine but scrolling back to the grand grand grand parent: That would also be a completely wrong abstraction to model financial stuff. I'm not saying FP is the solution, but for sure modulo arithmetic is also how you not want to do finance :)
 I think the big difference is that integers are accurate within a well-defined range, in a way that's easy to understand. Floating points work within a much larger range, but are inaccurate in most of that range, and it's harder for people to understand why.
 There's no such thing as a "problem of base2". Base 2 is an ineffable fact of the universe, and it is neither virtuous nor problematic. All the problems you are describing are problems of floating-point arithmetic.
 > There's no such thing as a "problem of base2".That you cannot represent 1/3 as a non-periodic decimal number is a problem of base 10.That you cannot represent 1/10 as a non-periodic binary number is a problem of base 2.These are just mathematic facts. Maybe you don't like the world "problem", but it does not change that this is where we are.The problem that you cannot represent 0.1 in base 2 FP, is a problem of base 2. You can represent it exactly in base 10 FP.
 A 32 bit floating point number can only have around 4 billion unique values, yet must represent numbers from 10^38, to very small decimals. 99.99999% of numbers in this range cannot be accurately represented in floating point form.Compare that to a 32 bit integer, which can have 4 billion unique values, and supports numbers from 0 to 4 billion. It's a 1:1 mapping.
 To be mathematically pedantic, 100% of numbers in that range cannot be accurately represented in floating point form.
 > yet must represent numbers from 10^38No, they don't must represent all number in the range. I don't know where you get from that they must. An integer also can't represent all real numbers in its range.

Search: