# [Newbies] Re: [BUG] Inconsistent float soustraction

cdrick cdrick65 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 17 22:17:54 UTC 2008

```Thank you John,

Your interesting answer make me think that's true "there are no stupid
question" :)... I was bitten because, I finally decided to test-model
my code and was surprised by the failure I got, so I had a closer look
to what's happening in my model. I'm basically modeling a weight on
subsets of a set, so naturally 1 to 0 by 0.1... So it's not really a
problem in my case, anyway this small incursion in the Float world was
interesting. Today, I learn to things:
- I will avoide Float as much as possible :)
- Unit  Test are cool :)

>
> Part of the issue is that different architectures will have different
> values for machine epsilon (1e-09 in your post).  Machine epsilon is
> defined to be the largest float such that
>
> 0.0 + epsilon = 0.0

In Float, there is an class var named Epsilon (1.0e-12 in my image).
Method initialize in the class side of Float is interesting by the way...
So Epsilon := 0.000000000001.  "Defines precision of mathematical
functions" is set when the class is inittialized.

Just for information, is it possible to set this value at image
startup depending on the architecture ?

>
> Your idea of redefining equality for floats is a very bad idea because (1)
> it assumes all hardware has the same value for machine epsilon and (2)
> will break 50 years worth of programs that do numerical computation.
>
Oups so I'll avoid that :)

I just thought as = is different from ==, it might be "possible" to
redefine it so that 1 - 0.1 - 0.1 -0.1 = 0.7

Maybe the problem was not the "=" part, but how the 0.1 was evaluated.
When I type or enter "0.1", I mean a scaled decimal (fraction + scale)
but not a "float"... I expect that a precise value would result in a
precise one. Just thinking loud but couldn't 0.1 (maybe decimals
untill 0.0001) be evaluated as a precise value (as 1/3 evaluate as a
fraction) ?

It's probably becoming too pointless and I imagine Float are more
efficient so... Anyway, thanks again :)

Cédrick
```