Hi, how to increase accuracy of float result ?

Discussion in 'C++' started by dkultasev@gmail.com, May 5, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I mean, when I am trying to get result of 1/3 (or smf) it returns
    0.33333333334 or something. I understand that result can not be 100%
    right, but it is it possibly to get more accuracy ?
    Sincerely,
    sidukas
    , May 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > I mean, when I am trying to get result of 1/3 (or smf) it returns
    > 0.33333333334 or something. I understand that result can not be 100%
    > right, but it is it possibly to get more accuracy ?


    Use 'double'. Some platforms have 'long double' different from 'double',
    use that. Or you could use some kind of "arbitrary precision" package or
    "exact arithmetic" package. Look for those on the web.

    V
    Victor Bazarov, May 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    long double doesn't give you accuracy. It increases limits. The limits
    of float are enough for me.
    , May 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Artie Gold Guest

    Artie Gold, May 5, 2005
    #4
  5. wrote:
    > long double doesn't give you accuracy. It increases limits. The limits
    > of float are enough for me.


    Why are you arguing? You asked, I answered. If you don't believe me
    (which is fine by me), use other sources of information.

    'double' on most systems has at least 16 decimal digits of precision,
    while 'float' has only 6. 'long double' (where it is different from
    'double') has as many as 31 decimal digits (AIX for example). That
    in my book says that by using 'double' you achieve higher accuracy.
    The range is immaterial.

    V
    Victor Bazarov, May 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Lionel B Guest

    <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > long double doesn't give you accuracy.


    No, you misunderstand floating point; double may give you more precision than float, long double may give you more
    precision than double.

    > It increases limits. The limits of float are enough for me.


    You may, in addition, get larger limits too. Have a look at the first couple of paragraphs of the article "What Every
    Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic":

    http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html

    for a brief intro.

    --
    Lionel B
    Lionel B, May 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    I am not not arguing. I tried already double and long double but it
    didnt give me enough accuracy.
    Thanks anyway, I downloaded some exact arithmetic packages, and I hope,
    that it will help. (spasibo:))
    Sincerely,
    sidukas
    , May 5, 2005
    #7
  8. wrote:
    > I am not not arguing. I tried already double and long double but it
    > didnt give me enough accuracy.


    Could it be that you're judging the "accuracy" it gave you by simply
    looking at the output? The default number of digits you get when
    outputting a floating point value is 7. See 'setprecision' manipulator
    to change that number.

    > Thanks anyway, I downloaded some exact arithmetic packages, and I hope,
    > that it will help. (spasibo:))


    It might not help. You need to fix your understanding of accuracy before
    you move to a "better" representation.

    V
    Victor Bazarov, May 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    I am not looking to results on the screen. The problem is that I have
    many operations with 2 float's. And the result supposed to be the same,
    and then I am trying to do x=(a-b)/a*100 it gives ~1E-6<x<0.2, that is
    not very good.
    , May 5, 2005
    #9
  10. wrote:
    > I am not looking to results on the screen. The problem is that I have
    > many operations with 2 float's. And the result supposed to be the same,
    > and then I am trying to do x=(a-b)/a*100 it gives ~1E-6<x<0.2, that is
    > not very good.
    >


    I think this is covered in the FAQ 5.8.

    V
    Victor Bazarov, May 5, 2005
    #10
  11. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >I am not not arguing. I tried already double and long double but it
    > didnt give me enough accuracy.


    How much accuracy do you want, and why?
    Andrew Koenig, May 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Lionel B Guest

    <> wrote in message news:...
    > I am not looking to results on the screen. The problem is that I have
    > many operations with 2 float's. And the result supposed to be the same,
    > and then I am trying to do x=(a-b)/a*100 it gives ~1E-6<x<0.2, that is
    > not very good.


    I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do (a fuller explanation might help), but my suspicion might be that you're
    suffering from "catastrophic cancellation". This can happen when subtracting nearby floating point numbers which suffer
    rounding error due to some calculation (a classic example of this is a naive implementation of the solution of quadratic
    equations).

    Again I urge you to look at: "What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic":

    http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html

    and look at the section "Cancellation".

    --
    Lionel B
    Lionel B, May 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Guest

    I want as much as is it possible. Why? Because my program requaries it.
    Sincerely,
    , May 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    Thank You,
    I can not look here for that moment, because I am not at home, I
    downloaded this page and I will take a look at home.
    Thanks a lot for everyone.
    , May 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Default User Guest

    wrote:
    > long double doesn't give you accuracy. It increases limits. The

    limits
    > of float are enough for me.



    Please quote enough of the previous message for context in your
    replies. To do so using the Google interface, click on "show options"
    and use the Reply shown in the expanded header.




    Brian
    Default User, May 5, 2005
    #15
  16. David Harmon Guest

    On 5 May 2005 09:26:37 -0700 in comp.lang.c++,
    wrote,
    >I want as much as is it possible. Why? Because my program requaries it.


    Then your program is badly designed. You are not going to be happy
    until you fix it to work with a _realistic_ degree of accuracy in your
    floating point arithmetic, as all such programs that work are
    designed. The answer does not lie in more accurate floats, because
    there is no such thing as "as much as is possible."

    But, if you are using "float" you should quickly switch to "double".
    David Harmon, May 5, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    405
    Jonathan Mcdougall
    May 11, 2005
  2. bd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    594
  3. Carsten Fuchs
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,484
    James Kanze
    Oct 8, 2009
  4. Michael Tan
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    905
    Ara.T.Howard
    Jul 21, 2005
  5. kou
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    181
Loading...

Share This Page