When conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision

Creating an Output vs. snipping tool

What are some really overused phrases in French that are common nowadays?

Which languages would be most useful in Europe at the end of the 19th century?

Return a String containing only alphabets without spaces

New bike, tubeless tire will not inflate

What is the color of artificial intelligence?

The Frozen Wastes

Why are MBA programs closing?

Whats the meaning of enp#s#f#?

Printing Pascal’s triangle for n number of rows in Python

Who won a Game of Bar Dice?

What aircraft was used as Air Force One for the flight between Southampton and Shannon?

Generate basis elements of the Steenrod algebra

Electricity free spaceship

Does putting salt first make it easier for attacker to bruteforce the hash?

How can I end combat quickly when the outcome is inevitable?

Are there any normal animals in Pokemon universe?

Code downloads a text file from a website, saves it to local disk, and then loads it into a list for further processing

What is exactly Avijja -- and how to uproot it?

Why not invest in precious metals?

Excel division by 0 error when trying to average results of formulas

Why does ''cat "$1:-/dev/stdin | ... &>/dev/null'' work in bash but not dash?

Why am I Seeing A Weird "Notch" on the Data Line For Some Logical 1s?

Why did Intel abandon unified CPU cache?



When conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision







.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








25















I was reading an article from Microsoft regarding Widening Conversions and Option Strict On when I got to the part




The following conversions may lose precision:



  • Integer to Single

  • Long to Single or Double

  • Decimal to Single or Double

However, these conversions do not lose information or magnitude.




.. but according to another article regarding data types,



  • Integer type can store from -2.147.483.648 to 2.147.483.647 and



  • Single type can store from



    • 1,401298E-45 to 3,4028235E+38 for positive numbers,

    • and -3,4028235E+38 to - 1,401298E-45 for negative numbers


.. so Single can store much more numbers than Integer. I couldn't understand in what situation such conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision. Could someone explain, please?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    25















    I was reading an article from Microsoft regarding Widening Conversions and Option Strict On when I got to the part




    The following conversions may lose precision:



    • Integer to Single

    • Long to Single or Double

    • Decimal to Single or Double

    However, these conversions do not lose information or magnitude.




    .. but according to another article regarding data types,



    • Integer type can store from -2.147.483.648 to 2.147.483.647 and



    • Single type can store from



      • 1,401298E-45 to 3,4028235E+38 for positive numbers,

      • and -3,4028235E+38 to - 1,401298E-45 for negative numbers


    .. so Single can store much more numbers than Integer. I couldn't understand in what situation such conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision. Could someone explain, please?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor



    Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      25












      25








      25


      5






      I was reading an article from Microsoft regarding Widening Conversions and Option Strict On when I got to the part




      The following conversions may lose precision:



      • Integer to Single

      • Long to Single or Double

      • Decimal to Single or Double

      However, these conversions do not lose information or magnitude.




      .. but according to another article regarding data types,



      • Integer type can store from -2.147.483.648 to 2.147.483.647 and



      • Single type can store from



        • 1,401298E-45 to 3,4028235E+38 for positive numbers,

        • and -3,4028235E+38 to - 1,401298E-45 for negative numbers


      .. so Single can store much more numbers than Integer. I couldn't understand in what situation such conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision. Could someone explain, please?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I was reading an article from Microsoft regarding Widening Conversions and Option Strict On when I got to the part




      The following conversions may lose precision:



      • Integer to Single

      • Long to Single or Double

      • Decimal to Single or Double

      However, these conversions do not lose information or magnitude.




      .. but according to another article regarding data types,



      • Integer type can store from -2.147.483.648 to 2.147.483.647 and



      • Single type can store from



        • 1,401298E-45 to 3,4028235E+38 for positive numbers,

        • and -3,4028235E+38 to - 1,401298E-45 for negative numbers


      .. so Single can store much more numbers than Integer. I couldn't understand in what situation such conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision. Could someone explain, please?







      vb.net floating-point






      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor



      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jun 3 at 14:59









      muru

      1237




      1237






      New contributor



      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      asked Jun 1 at 23:13









      Vinicius VVinicius V

      13223




      13223




      New contributor



      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      New contributor




      Vinicius V is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          85















          Single can store much more numbers than Integer




          No, it can't. Both Single and Integer are 32 Bit, which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers, namely 232 = 4294967296 distinct numbers.



          Since the range of Single is clearly larger than that, it is immediately obvious (because of the Pigeonhole Principle) that it cannot possibly represent all numbers within that range.



          And since the range of Integer is exactly the same size as the maximum amount of numbers that both Integer and Single can represent, but Single can also represent numbers outside of that range, it is clear that it cannot possibly represent all numbers inside the range of Integer.



          If there are some numbers of Integer that cannot be represented in Single, converting from Integer to Single must be capable of losing information.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 2





            +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

            – doubleYou
            Jun 2 at 11:25






          • 1





            I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

            – VisualMelon
            Jun 2 at 12:34






          • 20





            @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

            – Jörg W Mittag
            Jun 2 at 17:50






          • 10





            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:04






          • 14





            “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

            – Konrad Rudolph
            Jun 3 at 15:01



















          26














          Floating point types (such as Single and Double) are represented in memory by a sign, a mantissa and an exponent. Think of it as scientific notation:



          Sign*Mantissa*Base^Exponent


          They - as you may expect - use base 2. There are other tweaks that allow for representing infinity and NaN, and the exponent is offset (will come back to that), and a shorthand for the mantissa (will come back to that too). Look for the standard IEEE 754 which covers its representation and operations for more details.



          For our purposes we can imagine it as a binary number "mantissa", and an "exponent" that tells you where to put the decimal separator.




          In the case of Single, we have 1 bit for he sign, 8 for the exponent and 23 for the mantissa.



          Now, the thing is, we will store the mantissa from the most significant digit. Remember that all zeroes to the left are not relevant. And giving that we are working in binary, we know that the most significant digit is a 1※. Well, since we know that, we do not have to store it. Thanks to that shorthand, the effective range of the mantissa is 24 bits.



          ※: Unless the number we are storing is zero. For that we will have all the bits set to zero. However, if we try to interpret that under the description I gave, you would have a 2^24 (the implicit 1) multiplied by 1 (2 to the power of the exponent 0). So, to fix it, exponent zero is a special value. There are also special values to store infinity and NaN in the exponent.



          As per the exponent offset - aside from avoiding the special values - having it offset allows to place the decimal point before the start of the mantissa or after its end, without the need to have a sign for the exponent.




          This means that for large numbers, the floating point type will put the decimal point beyond the end of the mantissa.



          Remember that the mantissa is a 24 bit number. It will never represent a 25 bit number... it does not have that extra bit. Thus, the single cannot distinguish between 2^24 and 2^24+1 (these are the first 25 bit numbers, and they differ on the last bit, which is not represented in the single).



          Thus, for integers the range of the single is -2^24 to 2^24. And trying to add 1 to 2^24 will result in 2^24 (because as far as the type is concerned, 2^24 and 2^24+1 are the same value). Try it Online. This is why there is a loss of information when converting from integer to single. And this is also why a loop that uses a single or a double could actually be an infinite loop without you noticing.






          share|improve this answer

























          • This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:11


















          24














          Here is an actual example of when converting from Integer to Single may lose precision:



          The Single type can store all integers from -16777216 to 16777216 (inclusive), but it cannot store all integers outside of this range. For example, it cannot store the number 16777217. For that matter, it cannot store any odd number greater than 16777216.



          We can use Windows PowerShell to see what happens if we convert an Integer to a Single and back:



          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777213
          16777213
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777214
          16777214
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777215
          16777215
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777216
          16777216
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777217
          16777216
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777218
          16777218
          PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777219
          16777220


          Notice that 16777217 got rounded down to 16777216, and 16777219 got rounded up to 16777220.






          share|improve this answer


















          • 4





            And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:05


















          11














          Floating point types are similar to "scientific notation" in physics. The number is split up into a sign bit, an exponent (multiplier) and a mantissa (significant digits). So as the magnitude of the value increases the step size also increases.



          Single precision floating point has 23 mantissa bits, but there is an "implicit 1", so the mantissa is effectively 24 bits. Therefore all integers with a magnitude up to 224 can be represented exactly in single precision floating point.



          Above that successively fewer numbers can be represented.



          • From 224 to 225 only even numbers can be represented.

          • From 225 to 226 only multiples of 4 can be represented.

          • From 226 to 227 only multiples of 8 can be represented.

          • From 227 to 228 only multiples of 16 can be represented

          • From 228 to 229 only multiples of 32 can be represented

          • From 229 to 230 only multiples of 64 can be represented

          • From 230 to 231 only multiples of 128 can be represented

          So of the 232 possible 32 bit signed integer values only 2 * (224 + 7 * 223) = 9 * 224 can be represented in single precision floating point. That is 3.515625% of the total.






          share|improve this answer






























            8














            Single precision floats have 24 bits of precision. Anything over that is rounded to the nearest 24-bit number. It might be easier to understand in decimal scientific notation, but keep in mind actual floats use binary.



            Say you have 5 decimal digits of memory. You can choose to use those like a regular unsigned int, allowing you to have any number between 0 and 99999. If you want to be able to represent larger numbers, you can use scientific notation and just allocate two digits to be the exponent, so you can now represent anything between 0 and 9.99 x 1099.



            However, the biggest number you can represent exactly is now only 999. If you tried to represent 12345, you can get 1.23 x 104, or 1.24 x 104, but you can't represent any of the numbers in between, because you don't have enough digits available.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 3





              Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

              – Fabio Turati
              Jun 3 at 14:04











            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "131"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );






            Vinicius V is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f392723%2fwhen-conversion-from-integer-to-single-may-lose-precision%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes








            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            85















            Single can store much more numbers than Integer




            No, it can't. Both Single and Integer are 32 Bit, which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers, namely 232 = 4294967296 distinct numbers.



            Since the range of Single is clearly larger than that, it is immediately obvious (because of the Pigeonhole Principle) that it cannot possibly represent all numbers within that range.



            And since the range of Integer is exactly the same size as the maximum amount of numbers that both Integer and Single can represent, but Single can also represent numbers outside of that range, it is clear that it cannot possibly represent all numbers inside the range of Integer.



            If there are some numbers of Integer that cannot be represented in Single, converting from Integer to Single must be capable of losing information.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

              – doubleYou
              Jun 2 at 11:25






            • 1





              I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

              – VisualMelon
              Jun 2 at 12:34






            • 20





              @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

              – Jörg W Mittag
              Jun 2 at 17:50






            • 10





              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:04






            • 14





              “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Jun 3 at 15:01
















            85















            Single can store much more numbers than Integer




            No, it can't. Both Single and Integer are 32 Bit, which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers, namely 232 = 4294967296 distinct numbers.



            Since the range of Single is clearly larger than that, it is immediately obvious (because of the Pigeonhole Principle) that it cannot possibly represent all numbers within that range.



            And since the range of Integer is exactly the same size as the maximum amount of numbers that both Integer and Single can represent, but Single can also represent numbers outside of that range, it is clear that it cannot possibly represent all numbers inside the range of Integer.



            If there are some numbers of Integer that cannot be represented in Single, converting from Integer to Single must be capable of losing information.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

              – doubleYou
              Jun 2 at 11:25






            • 1





              I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

              – VisualMelon
              Jun 2 at 12:34






            • 20





              @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

              – Jörg W Mittag
              Jun 2 at 17:50






            • 10





              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:04






            • 14





              “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Jun 3 at 15:01














            85












            85








            85








            Single can store much more numbers than Integer




            No, it can't. Both Single and Integer are 32 Bit, which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers, namely 232 = 4294967296 distinct numbers.



            Since the range of Single is clearly larger than that, it is immediately obvious (because of the Pigeonhole Principle) that it cannot possibly represent all numbers within that range.



            And since the range of Integer is exactly the same size as the maximum amount of numbers that both Integer and Single can represent, but Single can also represent numbers outside of that range, it is clear that it cannot possibly represent all numbers inside the range of Integer.



            If there are some numbers of Integer that cannot be represented in Single, converting from Integer to Single must be capable of losing information.






            share|improve this answer
















            Single can store much more numbers than Integer




            No, it can't. Both Single and Integer are 32 Bit, which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers, namely 232 = 4294967296 distinct numbers.



            Since the range of Single is clearly larger than that, it is immediately obvious (because of the Pigeonhole Principle) that it cannot possibly represent all numbers within that range.



            And since the range of Integer is exactly the same size as the maximum amount of numbers that both Integer and Single can represent, but Single can also represent numbers outside of that range, it is clear that it cannot possibly represent all numbers inside the range of Integer.



            If there are some numbers of Integer that cannot be represented in Single, converting from Integer to Single must be capable of losing information.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jun 4 at 15:00









            Mason Wheeler

            75.1k19214300




            75.1k19214300










            answered Jun 2 at 1:06









            Jörg W MittagJörg W Mittag

            71k14147234




            71k14147234







            • 2





              +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

              – doubleYou
              Jun 2 at 11:25






            • 1





              I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

              – VisualMelon
              Jun 2 at 12:34






            • 20





              @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

              – Jörg W Mittag
              Jun 2 at 17:50






            • 10





              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:04






            • 14





              “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Jun 3 at 15:01













            • 2





              +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

              – doubleYou
              Jun 2 at 11:25






            • 1





              I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

              – VisualMelon
              Jun 2 at 12:34






            • 20





              @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

              – Jörg W Mittag
              Jun 2 at 17:50






            • 10





              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:04






            • 14





              “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

              – Konrad Rudolph
              Jun 3 at 15:01








            2




            2





            +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

            – doubleYou
            Jun 2 at 11:25





            +1 for this great explanation of why that has to be the case, even though the question was actually when ("in what situation") it happens...

            – doubleYou
            Jun 2 at 11:25




            1




            1





            I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

            – VisualMelon
            Jun 2 at 12:34





            I'd +1, but the wording in that last sentence feels a bit off. If the ints are small, then the mapping is locally injective, so there is no loss. There must be values where the conversion is lossy, but the conversion itself doesn't imply lose of information.

            – VisualMelon
            Jun 2 at 12:34




            20




            20





            @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

            – Jörg W Mittag
            Jun 2 at 17:50





            @doubleYou: 4261412864 of the 4294967296 Integers (99.2%) cannot be represented as Single, so "when" is "pretty much always".

            – Jörg W Mittag
            Jun 2 at 17:50




            10




            10





            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:04





            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format explains the limitations nicely for IEEE754 binary32. Integers in [-16777216,16777216] (2^24 = the significand width) can be exactly represented. Larger numbers are rounded to the nearest multiple of 2, 4, 8, ... depending on how large they are.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:04




            14




            14





            “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

            – Konrad Rudolph
            Jun 3 at 15:01






            “which means that both can store the exact same amount of numbers” — It does not mean that. It would only mean that if both types have the exact same number of ways of storing each number. And this isn’t the case; for instance, Single has two ways of storing zero. So Single can in fact represent fewer distinct numbers than Integer.

            – Konrad Rudolph
            Jun 3 at 15:01














            26














            Floating point types (such as Single and Double) are represented in memory by a sign, a mantissa and an exponent. Think of it as scientific notation:



            Sign*Mantissa*Base^Exponent


            They - as you may expect - use base 2. There are other tweaks that allow for representing infinity and NaN, and the exponent is offset (will come back to that), and a shorthand for the mantissa (will come back to that too). Look for the standard IEEE 754 which covers its representation and operations for more details.



            For our purposes we can imagine it as a binary number "mantissa", and an "exponent" that tells you where to put the decimal separator.




            In the case of Single, we have 1 bit for he sign, 8 for the exponent and 23 for the mantissa.



            Now, the thing is, we will store the mantissa from the most significant digit. Remember that all zeroes to the left are not relevant. And giving that we are working in binary, we know that the most significant digit is a 1※. Well, since we know that, we do not have to store it. Thanks to that shorthand, the effective range of the mantissa is 24 bits.



            ※: Unless the number we are storing is zero. For that we will have all the bits set to zero. However, if we try to interpret that under the description I gave, you would have a 2^24 (the implicit 1) multiplied by 1 (2 to the power of the exponent 0). So, to fix it, exponent zero is a special value. There are also special values to store infinity and NaN in the exponent.



            As per the exponent offset - aside from avoiding the special values - having it offset allows to place the decimal point before the start of the mantissa or after its end, without the need to have a sign for the exponent.




            This means that for large numbers, the floating point type will put the decimal point beyond the end of the mantissa.



            Remember that the mantissa is a 24 bit number. It will never represent a 25 bit number... it does not have that extra bit. Thus, the single cannot distinguish between 2^24 and 2^24+1 (these are the first 25 bit numbers, and they differ on the last bit, which is not represented in the single).



            Thus, for integers the range of the single is -2^24 to 2^24. And trying to add 1 to 2^24 will result in 2^24 (because as far as the type is concerned, 2^24 and 2^24+1 are the same value). Try it Online. This is why there is a loss of information when converting from integer to single. And this is also why a loop that uses a single or a double could actually be an infinite loop without you noticing.






            share|improve this answer

























            • This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:11















            26














            Floating point types (such as Single and Double) are represented in memory by a sign, a mantissa and an exponent. Think of it as scientific notation:



            Sign*Mantissa*Base^Exponent


            They - as you may expect - use base 2. There are other tweaks that allow for representing infinity and NaN, and the exponent is offset (will come back to that), and a shorthand for the mantissa (will come back to that too). Look for the standard IEEE 754 which covers its representation and operations for more details.



            For our purposes we can imagine it as a binary number "mantissa", and an "exponent" that tells you where to put the decimal separator.




            In the case of Single, we have 1 bit for he sign, 8 for the exponent and 23 for the mantissa.



            Now, the thing is, we will store the mantissa from the most significant digit. Remember that all zeroes to the left are not relevant. And giving that we are working in binary, we know that the most significant digit is a 1※. Well, since we know that, we do not have to store it. Thanks to that shorthand, the effective range of the mantissa is 24 bits.



            ※: Unless the number we are storing is zero. For that we will have all the bits set to zero. However, if we try to interpret that under the description I gave, you would have a 2^24 (the implicit 1) multiplied by 1 (2 to the power of the exponent 0). So, to fix it, exponent zero is a special value. There are also special values to store infinity and NaN in the exponent.



            As per the exponent offset - aside from avoiding the special values - having it offset allows to place the decimal point before the start of the mantissa or after its end, without the need to have a sign for the exponent.




            This means that for large numbers, the floating point type will put the decimal point beyond the end of the mantissa.



            Remember that the mantissa is a 24 bit number. It will never represent a 25 bit number... it does not have that extra bit. Thus, the single cannot distinguish between 2^24 and 2^24+1 (these are the first 25 bit numbers, and they differ on the last bit, which is not represented in the single).



            Thus, for integers the range of the single is -2^24 to 2^24. And trying to add 1 to 2^24 will result in 2^24 (because as far as the type is concerned, 2^24 and 2^24+1 are the same value). Try it Online. This is why there is a loss of information when converting from integer to single. And this is also why a loop that uses a single or a double could actually be an infinite loop without you noticing.






            share|improve this answer

























            • This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:11













            26












            26








            26







            Floating point types (such as Single and Double) are represented in memory by a sign, a mantissa and an exponent. Think of it as scientific notation:



            Sign*Mantissa*Base^Exponent


            They - as you may expect - use base 2. There are other tweaks that allow for representing infinity and NaN, and the exponent is offset (will come back to that), and a shorthand for the mantissa (will come back to that too). Look for the standard IEEE 754 which covers its representation and operations for more details.



            For our purposes we can imagine it as a binary number "mantissa", and an "exponent" that tells you where to put the decimal separator.




            In the case of Single, we have 1 bit for he sign, 8 for the exponent and 23 for the mantissa.



            Now, the thing is, we will store the mantissa from the most significant digit. Remember that all zeroes to the left are not relevant. And giving that we are working in binary, we know that the most significant digit is a 1※. Well, since we know that, we do not have to store it. Thanks to that shorthand, the effective range of the mantissa is 24 bits.



            ※: Unless the number we are storing is zero. For that we will have all the bits set to zero. However, if we try to interpret that under the description I gave, you would have a 2^24 (the implicit 1) multiplied by 1 (2 to the power of the exponent 0). So, to fix it, exponent zero is a special value. There are also special values to store infinity and NaN in the exponent.



            As per the exponent offset - aside from avoiding the special values - having it offset allows to place the decimal point before the start of the mantissa or after its end, without the need to have a sign for the exponent.




            This means that for large numbers, the floating point type will put the decimal point beyond the end of the mantissa.



            Remember that the mantissa is a 24 bit number. It will never represent a 25 bit number... it does not have that extra bit. Thus, the single cannot distinguish between 2^24 and 2^24+1 (these are the first 25 bit numbers, and they differ on the last bit, which is not represented in the single).



            Thus, for integers the range of the single is -2^24 to 2^24. And trying to add 1 to 2^24 will result in 2^24 (because as far as the type is concerned, 2^24 and 2^24+1 are the same value). Try it Online. This is why there is a loss of information when converting from integer to single. And this is also why a loop that uses a single or a double could actually be an infinite loop without you noticing.






            share|improve this answer















            Floating point types (such as Single and Double) are represented in memory by a sign, a mantissa and an exponent. Think of it as scientific notation:



            Sign*Mantissa*Base^Exponent


            They - as you may expect - use base 2. There are other tweaks that allow for representing infinity and NaN, and the exponent is offset (will come back to that), and a shorthand for the mantissa (will come back to that too). Look for the standard IEEE 754 which covers its representation and operations for more details.



            For our purposes we can imagine it as a binary number "mantissa", and an "exponent" that tells you where to put the decimal separator.




            In the case of Single, we have 1 bit for he sign, 8 for the exponent and 23 for the mantissa.



            Now, the thing is, we will store the mantissa from the most significant digit. Remember that all zeroes to the left are not relevant. And giving that we are working in binary, we know that the most significant digit is a 1※. Well, since we know that, we do not have to store it. Thanks to that shorthand, the effective range of the mantissa is 24 bits.



            ※: Unless the number we are storing is zero. For that we will have all the bits set to zero. However, if we try to interpret that under the description I gave, you would have a 2^24 (the implicit 1) multiplied by 1 (2 to the power of the exponent 0). So, to fix it, exponent zero is a special value. There are also special values to store infinity and NaN in the exponent.



            As per the exponent offset - aside from avoiding the special values - having it offset allows to place the decimal point before the start of the mantissa or after its end, without the need to have a sign for the exponent.




            This means that for large numbers, the floating point type will put the decimal point beyond the end of the mantissa.



            Remember that the mantissa is a 24 bit number. It will never represent a 25 bit number... it does not have that extra bit. Thus, the single cannot distinguish between 2^24 and 2^24+1 (these are the first 25 bit numbers, and they differ on the last bit, which is not represented in the single).



            Thus, for integers the range of the single is -2^24 to 2^24. And trying to add 1 to 2^24 will result in 2^24 (because as far as the type is concerned, 2^24 and 2^24+1 are the same value). Try it Online. This is why there is a loss of information when converting from integer to single. And this is also why a loop that uses a single or a double could actually be an infinite loop without you noticing.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jun 2 at 11:48









            Glorfindel

            2,48041828




            2,48041828










            answered Jun 2 at 10:49









            TheraotTheraot

            1,5221015




            1,5221015












            • This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:11

















            • This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:11
















            This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:11





            This isn't a perfect explanation of the implicit leading 1 bit in the significand. It's implied by the biased-exponent field being non-zero. Subnormals (aka denormals) including +-0.0 have a leading 0 bit of their significand. I guess you could simplify to just consider 0.0 a totally special case, but 0.0 actually follows the same encoding rules as other subnormals.

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:11











            24














            Here is an actual example of when converting from Integer to Single may lose precision:



            The Single type can store all integers from -16777216 to 16777216 (inclusive), but it cannot store all integers outside of this range. For example, it cannot store the number 16777217. For that matter, it cannot store any odd number greater than 16777216.



            We can use Windows PowerShell to see what happens if we convert an Integer to a Single and back:



            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777213
            16777213
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777214
            16777214
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777215
            16777215
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777216
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777217
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777218
            16777218
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777219
            16777220


            Notice that 16777217 got rounded down to 16777216, and 16777219 got rounded up to 16777220.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 4





              And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:05















            24














            Here is an actual example of when converting from Integer to Single may lose precision:



            The Single type can store all integers from -16777216 to 16777216 (inclusive), but it cannot store all integers outside of this range. For example, it cannot store the number 16777217. For that matter, it cannot store any odd number greater than 16777216.



            We can use Windows PowerShell to see what happens if we convert an Integer to a Single and back:



            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777213
            16777213
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777214
            16777214
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777215
            16777215
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777216
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777217
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777218
            16777218
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777219
            16777220


            Notice that 16777217 got rounded down to 16777216, and 16777219 got rounded up to 16777220.






            share|improve this answer


















            • 4





              And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:05













            24












            24








            24







            Here is an actual example of when converting from Integer to Single may lose precision:



            The Single type can store all integers from -16777216 to 16777216 (inclusive), but it cannot store all integers outside of this range. For example, it cannot store the number 16777217. For that matter, it cannot store any odd number greater than 16777216.



            We can use Windows PowerShell to see what happens if we convert an Integer to a Single and back:



            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777213
            16777213
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777214
            16777214
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777215
            16777215
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777216
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777217
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777218
            16777218
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777219
            16777220


            Notice that 16777217 got rounded down to 16777216, and 16777219 got rounded up to 16777220.






            share|improve this answer













            Here is an actual example of when converting from Integer to Single may lose precision:



            The Single type can store all integers from -16777216 to 16777216 (inclusive), but it cannot store all integers outside of this range. For example, it cannot store the number 16777217. For that matter, it cannot store any odd number greater than 16777216.



            We can use Windows PowerShell to see what happens if we convert an Integer to a Single and back:



            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777213
            16777213
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777214
            16777214
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777215
            16777215
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777216
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777217
            16777216
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777218
            16777218
            PS C:Userstanne> [int][float]16777219
            16777220


            Notice that 16777217 got rounded down to 16777216, and 16777219 got rounded up to 16777220.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jun 2 at 20:13









            Tanner SwettTanner Swett

            1,232413




            1,232413







            • 4





              And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:05












            • 4





              And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

              – Peter Cordes
              Jun 3 at 5:05







            4




            4





            And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:05





            And with increasing magnitude, the distance between nearest representable floats keeps growing as powers of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

            – Peter Cordes
            Jun 3 at 5:05











            11














            Floating point types are similar to "scientific notation" in physics. The number is split up into a sign bit, an exponent (multiplier) and a mantissa (significant digits). So as the magnitude of the value increases the step size also increases.



            Single precision floating point has 23 mantissa bits, but there is an "implicit 1", so the mantissa is effectively 24 bits. Therefore all integers with a magnitude up to 224 can be represented exactly in single precision floating point.



            Above that successively fewer numbers can be represented.



            • From 224 to 225 only even numbers can be represented.

            • From 225 to 226 only multiples of 4 can be represented.

            • From 226 to 227 only multiples of 8 can be represented.

            • From 227 to 228 only multiples of 16 can be represented

            • From 228 to 229 only multiples of 32 can be represented

            • From 229 to 230 only multiples of 64 can be represented

            • From 230 to 231 only multiples of 128 can be represented

            So of the 232 possible 32 bit signed integer values only 2 * (224 + 7 * 223) = 9 * 224 can be represented in single precision floating point. That is 3.515625% of the total.






            share|improve this answer



























              11














              Floating point types are similar to "scientific notation" in physics. The number is split up into a sign bit, an exponent (multiplier) and a mantissa (significant digits). So as the magnitude of the value increases the step size also increases.



              Single precision floating point has 23 mantissa bits, but there is an "implicit 1", so the mantissa is effectively 24 bits. Therefore all integers with a magnitude up to 224 can be represented exactly in single precision floating point.



              Above that successively fewer numbers can be represented.



              • From 224 to 225 only even numbers can be represented.

              • From 225 to 226 only multiples of 4 can be represented.

              • From 226 to 227 only multiples of 8 can be represented.

              • From 227 to 228 only multiples of 16 can be represented

              • From 228 to 229 only multiples of 32 can be represented

              • From 229 to 230 only multiples of 64 can be represented

              • From 230 to 231 only multiples of 128 can be represented

              So of the 232 possible 32 bit signed integer values only 2 * (224 + 7 * 223) = 9 * 224 can be represented in single precision floating point. That is 3.515625% of the total.






              share|improve this answer

























                11












                11








                11







                Floating point types are similar to "scientific notation" in physics. The number is split up into a sign bit, an exponent (multiplier) and a mantissa (significant digits). So as the magnitude of the value increases the step size also increases.



                Single precision floating point has 23 mantissa bits, but there is an "implicit 1", so the mantissa is effectively 24 bits. Therefore all integers with a magnitude up to 224 can be represented exactly in single precision floating point.



                Above that successively fewer numbers can be represented.



                • From 224 to 225 only even numbers can be represented.

                • From 225 to 226 only multiples of 4 can be represented.

                • From 226 to 227 only multiples of 8 can be represented.

                • From 227 to 228 only multiples of 16 can be represented

                • From 228 to 229 only multiples of 32 can be represented

                • From 229 to 230 only multiples of 64 can be represented

                • From 230 to 231 only multiples of 128 can be represented

                So of the 232 possible 32 bit signed integer values only 2 * (224 + 7 * 223) = 9 * 224 can be represented in single precision floating point. That is 3.515625% of the total.






                share|improve this answer













                Floating point types are similar to "scientific notation" in physics. The number is split up into a sign bit, an exponent (multiplier) and a mantissa (significant digits). So as the magnitude of the value increases the step size also increases.



                Single precision floating point has 23 mantissa bits, but there is an "implicit 1", so the mantissa is effectively 24 bits. Therefore all integers with a magnitude up to 224 can be represented exactly in single precision floating point.



                Above that successively fewer numbers can be represented.



                • From 224 to 225 only even numbers can be represented.

                • From 225 to 226 only multiples of 4 can be represented.

                • From 226 to 227 only multiples of 8 can be represented.

                • From 227 to 228 only multiples of 16 can be represented

                • From 228 to 229 only multiples of 32 can be represented

                • From 229 to 230 only multiples of 64 can be represented

                • From 230 to 231 only multiples of 128 can be represented

                So of the 232 possible 32 bit signed integer values only 2 * (224 + 7 * 223) = 9 * 224 can be represented in single precision floating point. That is 3.515625% of the total.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jun 3 at 3:25









                Peter GreenPeter Green

                1,792514




                1,792514





















                    8














                    Single precision floats have 24 bits of precision. Anything over that is rounded to the nearest 24-bit number. It might be easier to understand in decimal scientific notation, but keep in mind actual floats use binary.



                    Say you have 5 decimal digits of memory. You can choose to use those like a regular unsigned int, allowing you to have any number between 0 and 99999. If you want to be able to represent larger numbers, you can use scientific notation and just allocate two digits to be the exponent, so you can now represent anything between 0 and 9.99 x 1099.



                    However, the biggest number you can represent exactly is now only 999. If you tried to represent 12345, you can get 1.23 x 104, or 1.24 x 104, but you can't represent any of the numbers in between, because you don't have enough digits available.






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 3





                      Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                      – Fabio Turati
                      Jun 3 at 14:04















                    8














                    Single precision floats have 24 bits of precision. Anything over that is rounded to the nearest 24-bit number. It might be easier to understand in decimal scientific notation, but keep in mind actual floats use binary.



                    Say you have 5 decimal digits of memory. You can choose to use those like a regular unsigned int, allowing you to have any number between 0 and 99999. If you want to be able to represent larger numbers, you can use scientific notation and just allocate two digits to be the exponent, so you can now represent anything between 0 and 9.99 x 1099.



                    However, the biggest number you can represent exactly is now only 999. If you tried to represent 12345, you can get 1.23 x 104, or 1.24 x 104, but you can't represent any of the numbers in between, because you don't have enough digits available.






                    share|improve this answer


















                    • 3





                      Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                      – Fabio Turati
                      Jun 3 at 14:04













                    8












                    8








                    8







                    Single precision floats have 24 bits of precision. Anything over that is rounded to the nearest 24-bit number. It might be easier to understand in decimal scientific notation, but keep in mind actual floats use binary.



                    Say you have 5 decimal digits of memory. You can choose to use those like a regular unsigned int, allowing you to have any number between 0 and 99999. If you want to be able to represent larger numbers, you can use scientific notation and just allocate two digits to be the exponent, so you can now represent anything between 0 and 9.99 x 1099.



                    However, the biggest number you can represent exactly is now only 999. If you tried to represent 12345, you can get 1.23 x 104, or 1.24 x 104, but you can't represent any of the numbers in between, because you don't have enough digits available.






                    share|improve this answer













                    Single precision floats have 24 bits of precision. Anything over that is rounded to the nearest 24-bit number. It might be easier to understand in decimal scientific notation, but keep in mind actual floats use binary.



                    Say you have 5 decimal digits of memory. You can choose to use those like a regular unsigned int, allowing you to have any number between 0 and 99999. If you want to be able to represent larger numbers, you can use scientific notation and just allocate two digits to be the exponent, so you can now represent anything between 0 and 9.99 x 1099.



                    However, the biggest number you can represent exactly is now only 999. If you tried to represent 12345, you can get 1.23 x 104, or 1.24 x 104, but you can't represent any of the numbers in between, because you don't have enough digits available.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Jun 2 at 2:32









                    Karl BielefeldtKarl Bielefeldt

                    122k34217419




                    122k34217419







                    • 3





                      Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                      – Fabio Turati
                      Jun 3 at 14:04












                    • 3





                      Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                      – Fabio Turati
                      Jun 3 at 14:04







                    3




                    3





                    Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                    – Fabio Turati
                    Jun 3 at 14:04





                    Using decimal digits is a nice idea that makes it easier to understand, but the last paragraph is a bit misleading: actually you can represent numbers higher than 999, and your example shows it: 12300 would be 1.23 x 10<sup>4<sup>. What you mean is that starting from that number there are gaps. Would you mind rephrasing it a bit?

                    – Fabio Turati
                    Jun 3 at 14:04










                    Vinicius V is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Vinicius V is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Vinicius V is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                    Vinicius V is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Software Engineering Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f392723%2fwhen-conversion-from-integer-to-single-may-lose-precision%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Grendel Contents Story Scholarship Depictions Notes References Navigation menu10.1093/notesj/gjn112Berserkeree

                    Area configuration aggregation error after install Porto themeMagento 2.1 CE Installed but front/backend not loading/workingCSS not loading on page within Magento 2 pageCannot install module in Magento 2no commands defined in the “setup” namespace. in Magento2Magento 2: Static files are present but shows 404Why do i have to always run the commands to clean cache in Magento 2.1.8?Failure reason: 'Unable to unserialize value.'Error 500 after magento migrationIn production mode the site does not loadMagento 2 : Error 500 after installing

                    Middle Expansion Olielle Resaix Definition: Uttering songs of triumph shouting with joy triumphant exulting Sejunction Journal 붙다 달 고급 품목 외출 The stretch trades the screeching tin. Definition: The act of speaking with a drawl a drawl Cough Sand Definition: An uproar a quarrel a noisy outbreak Shake Iron Publicize Horse House Baby 사과 Resaix Flaggy Jelly Temporary Unequaled Puppet A drop in the bucket Shrew 성격 회원 성질 미팅 The burn frames the tacky quality. Materialistic The smoke reduces the way. Yammoe Nondescript Cheek 얼굴 배 약하다 날리다 타다 The illegal country shows the iron. Help Rule Drearien Smoke Teaching Meaty Wasp Abraham Lincoln Jaws 진심 수리하다 Size Cork Idea Convert Think Lark John Lennon 거울 청소 군 추천하다 아이스크림