Sunday Link Run

Lots of great stuff going on this week.

  • Seth Godin has a commentary on Microsoft’s new initiative, Bing, that predictably is meant to be the next Google.
  • And while on the subject of Google, they’re busy actually inventing new stuff: Google Wave, which looks extremely cool, and might completely take communications on the web to a new level. If you’ve got any kind of interest in web technology, watch their keynote demo — it’s an hour long, but well worth the time.
  • Hanselman posts some interesting reflections on the result of Twitter becoming popular with marketers.
  • The Messy Notebook has some advice on how to build something real in your spare time — it’s something I recommend to every programmer.
  • Another event in the everlasting debate about piracy: A Canadian study has now been exposed as plagiarizing other reports, and of presenting numbers that were pure guesswork.
  • If you’re into the Sci-Fi thing, check out this brain-controlled wheelchair. Human repairs are getting better and better.
  • Some Battlefield 1943 news (boy, there’s lots of those): There’s a fourth map, Coral Sea, which will unlock with 43M total kills on each platform. And music4games has an article on the Abbey Road recording session for the soundtrack.
  • I especially enjoyed this discussion on the BFBC2 multiplayer trailer, including a flamewar about whether the spotting system is cheating and a wallhack (hint: it’s not cheating if it’s the same for everyone).
  • And time for another asshole of the week award, which is easily won by the Canon president who thinks there isn’t enough stress already — up your pace!

Floating-Point Perils

To many programmers, floating-point numbers are seen as “real numbers” as opposed to integers, or even “decimal numbers”. Both of these views are ignorant at best, and dangerous at worst. Floating-point numbers are deceptively easy to use, but dangerously hard to understand fully.

Floating-point came about from the desire to represent fractional numbers in computer programs. The most simple way to do this is fixed-point arithmetic, a lesser known sibling of floating-point arithmetic .

Fixed-point vs floating-point

Fixed-point decimal number

Fixed-point decimal number

A fixed-point number is simply an integer with a certain number of bits set aside as the fraction. This is similar to how we first learn to write decimal numbers in school — a whole part and a fraction part of a given number of digits.

This technique was common to use in early computer games and other performance-intensive programs. The early PCs didn’t have floating-point co-processors, which meant you either had to rely on very computationally expensive software emulation or roll your own fixed-point arithmetic.

The advantages of using fixed-point math was that it was easy to understand and blazingly fast, since it turns out you could happily use the built-in integer arithmetic of your CPU to perform the fixed-point arithmetic (I’ll leave exactly how for you to ponder — building a fixed-point library is an interesting learning experience).

The disadvantages are that you have to decide in advance how you want to make the trade-off between the precision you get and the range you can represent. Just like regular integers, the moment you decide the size and fixed-point position of the type, you also know the maximum and minimum number it can represent.

This whole deal makes it harder to support fixed-point arithmetic as a packaged solution to the “fractional number math” problem. In comes floating-point arithmetic to save the day — here’s a numeric type capable of storing both the distance to the moon in inches and the distance between two cells in your body. This capacity comes at the price of added complexity, however. Before I get into the details of that, let’s look at what a floating-point number actually is.

Scientific Notation

Scientific Notation

Floating-point numbers bear a strong resemblance to scientific notation. They have two parts — a normalized mantissa and an exponential. Since we already know the base (10 in the example here, 2 in a binary float), we don’t need to save that, and to save a very large or very small number, we only need to increase or decrease the mantissa. Sweet!

Now, to actually store this thing, we need to decide how much space we want to use up for the mantissa, and how much for the exponent. Using the example from the images, let’s say we allocate 5 digits for the mantissa, and one for the exponent.

Floating-point decimal number

Floating-point decimal number

It’s immediately clear from this that we’ve used up one more digit than we did before. It’s also less clear how to perform arithmetic on these values (though that’s also an interesting experience to implement).

In actual IEEE standard single-precision floating-point, things get a bit more complicated: there’s a sign bit to save the sign of a number, 8 bits exponent that’s biased (adjusted by a value) to support negative exponents without making comparison a pain, and a 23-bit fraction which is the mantissa minus one (because the binary mantissa will always start with one, so you can save one bit).

This format is very cleverly designed to make integer comparisons work as floating-point comparisons as well, making them efficient and making the format obfuscated and hard to understand at the same time, allowing for exciting edge cases like a negative zero and denormalized numbers.

Floating-point pitfall #0.99999989

The first, and most major, mistake that people make with floating-point arithmetic is to treat a floating-point value as precise, or as decimal. It’s neither, and surprisingly some of the fractional numbers we find the easiest to grasp are impossible to represent, like 0.1.

If you try to store 1/10 as a binary fraction, what happens is essentially the same thing as if you try to store 1/3 as a decimal fraction: you get an infinite sequence of numbers. For 1/10, it looks like this:

0.0001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011 ...

Converting this back to decimal, you get not-quite-0.1:


… which is surprising to most people, who react with a joke about the computer not being able to count. Adding this to itself 10 times thus gives you not-quite-1:


This happens for the same reason you don’t get 1 if you convert 1/3 to decimal form and add it to itself 3 times (which, by the way, is not a problem at all for the computer to do with floating-point arithmetic and come up with the correct answer). This inexactness is something to always take into account when programming with floating-point numbers — even if you had exact data to begin with, you probably lost a bit each step along the way.

The result of this is that you should never ever compare a floating-point number to a number and expect equality. Imagine, for instance, that your user gave you a series of data points:

sub printFractions(values) {
    float total = 0;
    foreach (value in values)
        total = total + value;
    foreach (value in values)
        value = value / total;
    // Print the fractions
    total = 0;
    foreach (value in values) {
        print "Value: " . value;
        total = total + value;
    print "Total: " . total;

At this point it’s likely that total actually doesn’t equal one at the end of the procedure. Not knowing this and expecting it can cause extremely odd bugs. The most common example is testing for equality of floating-point numbers (like comparing one to a constant). The chance that the numbers are equal is actually minimal, even if they seem to be if you inspect them.

So if you need to compare two floating-point numbers, what to you do? Figure out what kind of accuracy you need, and then compare the numbers within some epsilon (a small number, but larger than what you’ve accumulated as rounding errors), like this:

abs(a/b - 1) < epsilon

Where did my precision go?

Another thing to note about floating-point arithmetic is that as your value increases, the number of bits in your mantissa remains the same. This is completely different from fixed-point or integer arithmetic, where increasing the value will lead to more bits being used (until you run out of bits, that is).

The result of this is that you lose the finer details of your numbers — adding a small number to a large number may not make a difference at all! And subtracting two large numbers from each others may leave you with nothing at all:

10000000000000000 + 1 = 10000000000000000
1000000000000001 - 1000000000000000 = 0

This last effect is known as cancellation, and you can see it in action with google calc.

Here’s where things get interesting… in order to use a data type, you should really know what kind of precision you can expect, so you should calculate that. In whatever range of numbers you intend to represent, you’ll have more precision the closer you get to 0 — what’s interesting is what precision you’ll have when at the far end of your spectrum of numbers.

An example may make this clearer: Let’s say we want to represent positions along a 4 km long track. At 4 km, your exponent will be 11 (212 is 4096, which is more than you need). This means you’ll have 12 bits of mantissa after the binary point (since there’s 23 bits in total), so the precision will be 1/212 ≈ 0.000244.

That’s a fair amount of precision, but if your race track is 40 km long instead, you’re up to a precision of 0.00391. This sort of precision loss becomes quite apparent if you’re creating a computer game and trying to represent positions in a large world using floating-point values, for instance. At the same time, you’ll end up seeing lots of cancellation effects (since you’re likely to want to compare positions of objects).

Another application where these effects show clearly is time: Measuring time in seconds in floating-point can create very nasty bugs where programs run fine for weeks, and then suddenly stop working. After roughly 18 hours, you’ve lost your hundredth of a second, and after 3 months you can’t even separate one second from the next.

The normal solution to this problem is to throw more bits at it — use double-precision floats instead of single-precision floats. Whether or not that’s a good idea varies from situation to situation (that gives you 52 bits of mantissa and 11 bits of exponent — I’ll leave the calculations up to you).

How much precision is too much precision?

There’s one more issue you have to watch out for with floats. Your typical PC CPU will perform floating-point operations in a register with more bits than needed to store the numbers, in order to not lose precision during the calculations. The Intel Pentium runs 80-bit floating-point registers, for instance.

This seems like a great thing at first, until you realize that the results of your calculations are now dependent on whether or not the intermediate steps got saved to memory at some point along the way. The only way to find out may be to look at the assembly code of your compiled program — if you can even access that in your language of choice.

The conclusion to this is simply that before expecting any kind of precision from floating-point arithmetic, you need to think about a great deal of things.

Edge cases

I mentioned two edge cases above — negative-zero and denormalized numbers. There are several more you need to know about when dealing with floats.

Negative-zero is actually guaranteed to be equal to positive-zero, but may or may not compare as the same as positive zero. Follow me? No? Well, for instance, in java, the conditional:

(negativeZero == 0 && negativeZero < 0)

is true. In other languages, it varies. In C++, it’s not even defined which way it’s supposed to behave. This is yet another reason to not compare floating-point numbers directly. Denormalized numbers are thankfully something you don’t need to care much about, so I won’t go into more detail on those.

It turns out there are two other beasts you do need to care about, however: Infinity (positive and negative), and NaN. These numbers can be the result of operations like division by zero, and they eat anything in their path. Infinity plus anything is infinity. Infinity minus anything is infinity. Well, except infinity minus infinity, which is NaN, of course!

Even testing for these values can be tricky. NaN is not a number (duh), but a range of numbers, and testing for it turns out to be one of those things that can’t be tested in a portable way in some languages, as it seems to have been neglected by a fair number of standards, causing each implementation to have a slightly different function for it.


The next time you need a fractional number, think about what implementation is the best one for you. Are you really ok with only single-precision floating-point? Maybe you need double-precision? Maybe even a fixed-point number matches what you need better than the intricacies of floating-point arithmetic. Whichever implementation you choose — make sure you know the pros and cons and make an informed choice — don’t just go with the float because the language has one, and hope it has enough precision for you.

Many languages support decimal types, usually encoded as BCD (binary-coded decimal). These are rather slow, take up a bit more space, but can accurately represent numbers like we’re used to. If you’re ever dealing with concepts like money, your language’s decimal type is your best bet (or making your own, if you don’t have access to one).

If you want to know even more about floating-point arithmetic, go read What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic (though I disagree with the name — it’s filled with lots of theorems that you really do not need to know) or Java theory and practice: Where’s your point? (especially if you’re coding in java).

Sunday Link Run

Not all that much going on in the world of code this week… but some juicy games bits and other stuff.

  • Check out this awesome Mirror’s Edge cosplay photo set. Some serious dedication there.
  • A video (by now a year old) of Project Trico has leaked onto the ‘net… this is the new shiny from the team behind ICO. Looks great to me, can’t wait for more info.
  • The multiplayer teaser trailer thingie for BF: Bad Company 2 has been released, together with an interview with our Senior Producer Patrick Bach. I especially like the fact that the trailer is open, but you have to verify your age to watch the interview… he sure is a danger to all kids out there.
  • Ned Bachelder reports on a challenge to compress images to fit in twitter messages. Awesome result considering it comes from 140 characters.
  • Tech Crunch reports of claims that user info slipping and sliding into the hands of RIAA. Remarkable claims in itself, but the thing that interests me most is this quote from the email in there: “We’re just trying to help them stay afloat here it’s not like Pro memberships are earning any revenue!” — Might be smart to figure out how you’re going to make money before you start something like that.
  • And finally I can’t help but sneak in yet another recommendation of Steve Yegge’s latest “article”, which is a Sci-Fi story.

No More Rants

Steve Yeggie has decided to end his blog, Stevey’s Blog Rants. I’ve been preparing a post about what blogs I read, and his rants was certainly on that list — it’s one of those few rare blogs that puts quality over quantity. One one side of the blog spectrum you have the churn-out-posts blogs like coding horror, who’s single advice to budding bloggers is to measure only quantity — he told himself he had to write six posts a week and then went about and did it, succeeded and thus everyone should do it.

In the age of information overload, I find myself less and less inclined to subscribe to blogs like that — too few of the posts are actually interesting. I’ve seen many people take Atwood’s advice and manage nothing else than to spam me with uninteresting posts with a few nuggets hidden in the constant stream.

I subscribe to a few blogs like that, but those would round up the bottom of the list. The best ones, however, are the ones like Stevey’s Blog Rants — they post anywhere between rarely and not-crazily-often, and they always post good content — whenever a new post shows up from some blogs, you know it’ll be worth reading.

It’s clear that Steve intends to go out with a bang, however. His latest post is part three in his series on “A Programmer’s View of the Universe”.  Long-time readers may recall one of my early posts was a reply to his second entry in that series.

The latest part, The Death of Richard Dawkins,  takes the shape of a Sci-Fi short story worthy of any master in the field of Sci-Fi, and I recommend it to anyone with as much as a slight interest in Sci-Fi.

I’ll be awaiting the last parts of the series eagerly, and mourning the death of a seriously good blog.

Sunday Link Run

Time for new links:

WordPress Themes