Related
It's well known that comparing floats for equality is a little fiddly due to rounding and precision issues.
For example: Comparing Floating Point Numbers, 2012 Edition
What is the recommended way to deal with this in Python?
Is a standard library function for this somewhere?
Python 3.5 adds the math.isclose and cmath.isclose functions as described in PEP 485.
If you're using an earlier version of Python, the equivalent function is given in the documentation.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
rel_tol is a relative tolerance, it is multiplied by the greater of the magnitudes of the two arguments; as the values get larger, so does the allowed difference between them while still considering them equal.
abs_tol is an absolute tolerance that is applied as-is in all cases. If the difference is less than either of those tolerances, the values are considered equal.
Something as simple as the following may be good enough:
return abs(f1 - f2) <= allowed_error
I would agree that Gareth's answer is probably most appropriate as a lightweight function/solution.
But I thought it would be helpful to note that if you are using NumPy or are considering it, there is a packaged function for this.
numpy.isclose(a, b, rtol=1e-05, atol=1e-08, equal_nan=False)
A little disclaimer though: installing NumPy can be a non-trivial experience depending on your platform.
Use Python's decimal module, which provides the Decimal class.
From the comments:
It is worth noting that if you're
doing math-heavy work and you don't
absolutely need the precision from
decimal, this can really bog things
down. Floats are way, way faster to
deal with, but imprecise. Decimals are
extremely precise but slow.
The common wisdom that floating-point numbers cannot be compared for equality is inaccurate. Floating-point numbers are no different from integers: If you evaluate "a == b", you will get true if they are identical numbers and false otherwise (with the understanding that two NaNs are of course not identical numbers).
The actual problem is this: If I have done some calculations and am not sure the two numbers I have to compare are exactly correct, then what? This problem is the same for floating-point as it is for integers. If you evaluate the integer expression "7/3*3", it will not compare equal to "7*3/3".
So suppose we asked "How do I compare integers for equality?" in such a situation. There is no single answer; what you should do depends on the specific situation, notably what sort of errors you have and what you want to achieve.
Here are some possible choices.
If you want to get a "true" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be equal, then you might try to use the properties of the calculations you perform to prove that you get the same errors in the two numbers. If that is feasible, and you compare two numbers that result from expressions that would give equal numbers if computed exactly, then you will get "true" from the comparison. Another approach is that you might analyze the properties of the calculations and prove that the error never exceeds a certain amount, perhaps an absolute amount or an amount relative to one of the inputs or one of the outputs. In that case, you can ask whether the two calculated numbers differ by at most that amount, and return "true" if they are within the interval. If you cannot prove an error bound, you might guess and hope for the best. One way of guessing is to evaluate many random samples and see what sort of distribution you get in the results.
Of course, since we only set the requirement that you get "true" if the mathematically exact results are equal, we left open the possibility that you get "true" even if they are unequal. (In fact, we can satisfy the requirement by always returning "true". This makes the calculation simple but is generally undesirable, so I will discuss improving the situation below.)
If you want to get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal, you need to prove that your evaluation of the numbers yields different numbers if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal. This may be impossible for practical purposes in many common situations. So let us consider an alternative.
A useful requirement might be that we get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers differ by more than a certain amount. For example, perhaps we are going to calculate where a ball thrown in a computer game traveled, and we want to know whether it struck a bat. In this case, we certainly want to get "true" if the ball strikes the bat, and we want to get "false" if the ball is far from the bat, and we can accept an incorrect "true" answer if the ball in a mathematically exact simulation missed the bat but is within a millimeter of hitting the bat. In that case, we need to prove (or guess/estimate) that our calculation of the ball's position and the bat's position have a combined error of at most one millimeter (for all positions of interest). This would allow us to always return "false" if the ball and bat are more than a millimeter apart, to return "true" if they touch, and to return "true" if they are close enough to be acceptable.
So, how you decide what to return when comparing floating-point numbers depends very much on your specific situation.
As to how you go about proving error bounds for calculations, that can be a complicated subject. Any floating-point implementation using the IEEE 754 standard in round-to-nearest mode returns the floating-point number nearest to the exact result for any basic operation (notably multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root). (In case of tie, round so the low bit is even.) (Be particularly careful about square root and division; your language implementation might use methods that do not conform to IEEE 754 for those.) Because of this requirement, we know the error in a single result is at most 1/2 of the value of the least significant bit. (If it were more, the rounding would have gone to a different number that is within 1/2 the value.)
Going on from there gets substantially more complicated; the next step is performing an operation where one of the inputs already has some error. For simple expressions, these errors can be followed through the calculations to reach a bound on the final error. In practice, this is only done in a few situations, such as working on a high-quality mathematics library. And, of course, you need precise control over exactly which operations are performed. High-level languages often give the compiler a lot of slack, so you might not know in which order operations are performed.
There is much more that could be (and is) written about this topic, but I have to stop there. In summary, the answer is: There is no library routine for this comparison because there is no single solution that fits most needs that is worth putting into a library routine. (If comparing with a relative or absolute error interval suffices for you, you can do it simply without a library routine.)
math.isclose() has been added to Python 3.5 for that (source code). Here is a port of it to Python 2. It's difference from one-liner of Mark Ransom is that it can handle "inf" and "-inf" properly.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
'''
Python 2 implementation of Python 3.5 math.isclose()
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.5.10/Modules/mathmodule.c#L1993
'''
# sanity check on the inputs
if rel_tol < 0 or abs_tol < 0:
raise ValueError("tolerances must be non-negative")
# short circuit exact equality -- needed to catch two infinities of
# the same sign. And perhaps speeds things up a bit sometimes.
if a == b:
return True
# This catches the case of two infinities of opposite sign, or
# one infinity and one finite number. Two infinities of opposite
# sign would otherwise have an infinite relative tolerance.
# Two infinities of the same sign are caught by the equality check
# above.
if math.isinf(a) or math.isinf(b):
return False
# now do the regular computation
# this is essentially the "weak" test from the Boost library
diff = math.fabs(b - a)
result = (((diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * b)) or
(diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * a))) or
(diff <= abs_tol))
return result
I'm not aware of anything in the Python standard library (or elsewhere) that implements Dawson's AlmostEqual2sComplement function. If that's the sort of behaviour you want, you'll have to implement it yourself. (In which case, rather than using Dawson's clever bitwise hacks you'd probably do better to use more conventional tests of the form if abs(a-b) <= eps1*(abs(a)+abs(b)) + eps2 or similar. To get Dawson-like behaviour you might say something like if abs(a-b) <= eps*max(EPS,abs(a),abs(b)) for some small fixed EPS; this isn't exactly the same as Dawson, but it's similar in spirit.
If you want to use it in testing/TDD context, I'd say this is a standard way:
from nose.tools import assert_almost_equals
assert_almost_equals(x, y, places=7) # The default is 7
In terms of absolute error, you can just check
if abs(a - b) <= error:
print("Almost equal")
Some information of why float act weird in Python:
Python 3 Tutorial 03 - if-else, logical operators and top beginner mistakes
You can also use math.isclose for relative errors.
This is useful for the case where you want to make sure two numbers are the same 'up to precision', and there isn't any need to specify the tolerance:
Find minimum precision of the two numbers
Round both of them to minimum precision and compare
def isclose(a, b):
astr = str(a)
aprec = len(astr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in astr else 0
bstr = str(b)
bprec = len(bstr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in bstr else 0
prec = min(aprec, bprec)
return round(a, prec) == round(b, prec)
As written, it only works for numbers without the 'e' in their string representation (meaning 0.9999999999995e-4 < number <= 0.9999999999995e11)
Example:
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.049)
True
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.05)
False
For some of the cases where you can affect the source number representation, you can represent them as fractions instead of floats, using integer numerator and denominator. That way you can have exact comparisons.
See Fraction from fractions module for details.
I liked Sesquipedal's suggestion, but with modification (a special use case when both values are 0 returns False). In my case, I was on Python 2.7 and just used a simple function:
if f1 ==0 and f2 == 0:
return True
else:
return abs(f1-f2) < tol*max(abs(f1),abs(f2))
If you want to do it in a testing or TDD context using the pytest package, here's how:
import pytest
PRECISION = 1e-3
def assert_almost_equal():
obtained_value = 99.99
expected_value = 100.00
assert obtained_value == pytest.approx(expected_value, PRECISION)
I found the following comparison helpful:
str(f1) == str(f2)
To compare up to a given decimal without atol/rtol:
def almost_equal(a, b, decimal=6):
return '{0:.{1}f}'.format(a, decimal) == '{0:.{1}f}'.format(b, decimal)
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=5)) # False
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=4)) # True
This maybe is a bit ugly hack, but it works pretty well when you don't need more than the default float precision (about 11 decimals).
The round_to function uses the format method from the built-in str class to round up the float to a string that represents the float with the number of decimals needed, and then applies the eval built-in function to the rounded float string to get back to the float numeric type.
The is_close function just applies a simple conditional to the rounded up float.
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return eval("'{:." + str(int(prec)) + "f}'.format(" + str(float_num) + ")")
def is_close(float_a, float_b, prec):
if round_to(float_a, prec) == round_to(float_b, prec):
return True
return False
>>>a = 10.0
10.0
>>>b = 10.0001
10.0001
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=3)
True
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=4)
False
Update:
As suggested by #stepehjfox, a cleaner way to build a rount_to function avoiding "eval" is using nested formatting:
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return '{:.{precision}f}'.format(float_num, precision=prec)
Following the same idea, the code can be even simpler using the great new f-strings (Python 3.6+):
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return f'{float_num:.{prec}f}'
So, we could even wrap it up all in one simple and clean 'is_close' function:
def is_close(a, b, prec):
return f'{a:.{prec}f}' == f'{b:.{prec}f}'
If you want to compare floats, the options above are great, but in my case, I ended up using Enum's, since I only had few valid floats my use case was accepting.
from enum import Enum
class HolidayMultipliers(Enum):
EMPLOYED_LESS_THAN_YEAR = 2.0
EMPLOYED_MORE_THAN_YEAR = 2.5
Then running:
testable_value = 2.0
HolidayMultipliers(testable_value)
If the float is valid, it's fine, but otherwise it will just throw an ValueError.
Use == is a simple good way, if you don't care about tolerance precisely.
# Python 3.8.5
>>> 1.0000000000001 == 1
False
>>> 1.00000000000001 == 1
True
But watch out for 0:
>>> 0 == 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
False
The 0 is always the zero.
Use math.isclose if you want to control the tolerance.
The default a == b is equivalent to math.isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-16, abs_tol=0).
If you still want to use == with a self-defined tolerance:
>>> class MyFloat(float):
def __eq__(self, another):
return math.isclose(self, another, rel_tol=0, abs_tol=0.001)
>>> a == MyFloat(0)
>>> a
0.0
>>> a == 0.001
True
So far, I didn't find anywhere to config it globally for float. Besides, mock is also not working for float.__eq__.
I have to translate euro's (in a string) to euro cents (int):
Examples:
'12,1' => 1210
'14,51' => 1451
I use this python function:
int(round(float(amount.replace(',', '.')), 2) * 100)
But with this amount '1229,84' the result is : 122983
Update
I use the solution from Wim, bacause I use integers in both Python / Jinja and javascript for currency artitmetic. See also the answer from Chepner.
int(round(100 * float(amout.replace(',', '.')), 2))
My questions was anwered by Mr. Me, who explained the above result.
What the Docs Say, and a simple explanation
I tried it out, and was surprised that this was happening. So I turned to the documentation, and there is a little note in there that says.
Note The behavior of round() for floats can be surprising: for
example, round(2.675, 2) gives 2.67 instead of the expected 2.68. This
is not a bug: it’s a result of the fact that most decimal fractions
can’t be represented exactly as a float.
Now what does that mean, most decimal fractions can't be represented as a float. Well the documentations follows up with a great link at explains this, but since you probably didn't come here to read a nerdy technical document, let me summarize what is going on.
Python uses the IEEE-754 floating point standard to represent floats. This standard compromises accuracy for speed. Some numbers cannot be accurately represented. For example .1 is actually represented as 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625. Interestingly, .1 in binary is actually an infinitely repeating number, just like 1/3 is an infinitely repeating .333333.
An Under the Hood Case Study
Now on to your particular case. This was pretty fun to look into, and this is what I discovered.
first lets simplify what you where trying to do
>>> amount = '1229,84'
>>> int(round(float(amount.replace(',', '.')), 2) * 100)
>>> 122983
to
>>>int(1229.84 * 100)
>>> 122983
Sometimes Python1 is unable to 100% accurately display binary floating point numbers, for the same reason we are unable to display the fraction 1/3 as a decimal. When this happens Python hides any extra digits. .1 is actually stored as -0.100000000000000092, but Python will display it as .1 if you type it into the console. We can see those extra digits by doing int(1.1) - 1.13. we can apply this int(myNum) - myNum formula to most floating point numbers to see the extra hidden digits behind them.4. In your case we would do the following.
>>> int(1229.84) - 1229.84
-0.8399999999999181
1229.84 is actually 1229.8399999999999181. Continuing on.5
>>> 1229.84, 2) * 100
122983.99999999999 #there's all of our hidden digits showing up.
Now on to the last step. This is the part we are concerned about. Changing it back to an integer.
>>> int(122983.99999999999)
122983
It rounds downwards instead of upwards, however, if we never had multiplied it by 100, we would still have 2 more 9s at the end, and Python would round up.
>>> int(122983.9999999999999)
122984
??? Now what is going on. Why is Python rounding 122983.99999999999 down, but it rounds 122983.9999999999999 up? Well whenever Python turns a float into a integer it rounds down. However, you have to remember that to Python 122983.9999999999999 with the extra two 99s at the end is the same thing as 122984.0 For example.
>>> 122983.9999999999999
122984.0
>>> a = 122983.9999999999999
>>> int(a) - a
0.0
and without the two extra 99s on the end.
>>> 122983.99999999999
122983.99999999999
>>> a=122983.99999999999
>>> int(a) - a
-0.9999999999854481
Python is definitely treating 122983.9999999999999 as 122984.0 but not 122983.99999999999. Now back to casting 122983.99999999999 to an integer. Because we have created ourselves a decimal portion that is less than 122984 that Python sees as being a seperate number from 122984, and because casting to an integer always causes Python to round down, we get 122983 as a result.
Whew. That was a lot to go through, but I sure learned a lot writing this out, and I hope you did to. The solution to all of this is to use decimal numbers instead of floats which compromises speed for accuracy.
What about rounding? The original problem had some rounding in it as well -- it's useless. See appendix item 6.
The Solution
a) The easiest solution is to use the decimal module instead of floating point numbers. This is the preferred way of doing things in any finance or accounting program.
The documentation also mentioned the following solutions which I've summarized.
b) The exact value can be expressed and retrieved in a hexadecimal form via myFloat.hex() and float.fromhex(myHex)
c) The exact value can also be retrieved as a fraction through myFloat.as_integer_ratio()
d) The documentation briefly mentions using SciPy for floating point arithmitic, however this SO question mentions that SciPy's NumPy floats are nothing more than aliases to the built-in float type. The decimal module would be a better solution.
Appendix
1 - Even though I will often refer to Python's behavior, the things I talk about are part of the IEEE-754 floating point standard which is what the major programming languages use for their floating point numbers.
2 - int(1.1) - 1.1 gives me -0.10000000000000009, but according to the documentation .1 is really 0.1000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625
3 - We used int(1.1) - 1.1 instead of int(.1) - .1 because int(.1) - .1 does not give us the hidden digits, but according to the documentation they should still be there for .1, hence I say int(someNum) -someNum works most of the time, but not all of the time.
4 - When we use the formula int(myNum) - myNum what is happening is that casting the number to an integer will round the number down so int(3.9) becomes 3, and when we minus 3 from 3.9 we are left with -.9. However, for some reason that I do not know, when we get rid of all the whole numbers, and we're just left with the decimal portion, Python decides to show us everything -- the whole mantissa.
5 - this does not really affect the outcome of our analysis, but when multiplying by 100, instead of the hidden digits being shifted over by 2 decimal places, they changed a little as well.
>>> a = 1229.84
>>> int(a) - a
-0.8399999999999181
>>> a = round(1229.84, 2) * 100
>>> int(a) - a
-0.9999999999854481 #I expected -0.9999999999918100?
6 - It may seem like we can get rid of all those extra digits by rounding to two decimal places.
>>> round(1229.84, 2) # which is really round(1229.8399999999999181, 2)
1229.84
But when we use our int(someNum) - someNum formula to see the hidden digits, they are still there.
>>> a = round(1229.84, 2)
>>> int(a) - a
-0.8399999999999181
This is because Python cannot store 1229.84 as a binary floating point number. It can't be done. So... rounding 1229.84 does absolutely nothing.
Don't use floating-point arithmetic for currency; rounding error for values that cannot be represented exactly will cause the type of loss you are seeing. Instead, convert the string representation to an integer number of cents, which you can convert to euros-and-cents for display as needed.
euros, cents = '12,1'.split(',') # '12,1' -> ('12', '1')
cents = 100*int(euros) + int(cents * 10 if len(cents) == 1 else 1) # ('12', '1') -> 1210
(Notice you'll need a check to handle cents without a trailing 0.)
display_str = '%d,%d' % divMod(cents, 100) # 1210 -> (12, 10) -> '12.10'
You can also use the Decimal class from the decimal module, which essentially encapsulates all the logic for using integers to represent fractional values.
As #wim mentions in a comment, use the Decimal type from the stdlib decimal module instead of the built in float type. Decimal objects do not have the binary rounding behavior that floats have and also have a precision that can be user defined.
Decimal should be used anywhere you are doing financial calculations or anywhere you need floating point calculations that behave like the decimal math people learn in school (as opposed to the binary floating point behavior of the built in float type).
I found this interesting question when I was doing homework
we know, 47.36/1.6**2 == 18.5
but when I try to run the following code, it gives me a False(should be true)
print 47.36/1.6**2 == 18.5
Do anyone know what's going on?
You're probably getting an answer like 18.49999999999, which is not exactly equal to 18.5.
As always, the relevant reference for this is What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic.
Short answer: IEEE 754 floating point can't exactly represent fractions where the denominator isn't a power of two, like 1/4, 1/16, 1/256, etc. You can get awfully close, given enough digits, but never quite exactly there.
You compare floating point numbers by defining "equals" as "within a certain delta". You could write something like:
def almost_equals(a, b, delta=0.0005):
return abs(a - b) <= delta
and then test for "probably equal" with:
>>> almost_equals(47.36/1.6**2, 18.5)
True
I would avoid checking for exact equality when comparing two floats. Instead take the difference and see if it is smaller than a value you consider close to zero.
(47.36/1.6**2 - 18.5) < 0.00000000001
will be
True
>>> 47.36/1.6**2
18.499999999999996
See this page on Floating Point Arithmetic: Issues and Limitations.
Here is how you can calculate this to exactly 18.5 without using any rounding or "close enough" behavior by using the decimal module:
>>> from decimal import Decimal
>>> Decimal('47.36') / Decimal('1.6')**2 == Decimal('18.5')
True
>>> float(Decimal('47.36') / Decimal('1.6')**2) == 18.5
True
As others have said:
>>> 47.36/1.6**2
18.499999999999996
But, this is NOT due to a floating-point arithmetic problem as far as I can tell. Even if you use decimal math by wrapping the operands in Decimal() (after from decimal import Decimal) you will still get Decimal('18.49999999999999772404279952') as the answer.
It's possible I'm using Decimal() wrong here and my result also has some sort of floating point error; however, if I'm correct, that expression flat out does not equal 18.5, no matter what kind of math you use.
Edit: As Greg points out in the comments, the problem with my approach here is that Decimal(1.6) will just convert the float representation of 1.6, inaccuracies intact, into a Decimal. This gives the correct answer:
>>> Decimal('47.36') / Decimal('1.6')**2
Decimal('18.5')
Better still would be to use the fractions module as suggested by Kirk.
47.36/1.6*2 return integer. So 47.36/1.6*2 would be 18, which is not equal to 18.5.
Edit
Sorry about that, actually it is being stored as 18.499999.
You should do this
import numpy as np
print np.around((47.36/1.6**2), decimals=1) == 18.5
This would return True.
It's well known that comparing floats for equality is a little fiddly due to rounding and precision issues.
For example: Comparing Floating Point Numbers, 2012 Edition
What is the recommended way to deal with this in Python?
Is a standard library function for this somewhere?
Python 3.5 adds the math.isclose and cmath.isclose functions as described in PEP 485.
If you're using an earlier version of Python, the equivalent function is given in the documentation.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
rel_tol is a relative tolerance, it is multiplied by the greater of the magnitudes of the two arguments; as the values get larger, so does the allowed difference between them while still considering them equal.
abs_tol is an absolute tolerance that is applied as-is in all cases. If the difference is less than either of those tolerances, the values are considered equal.
Something as simple as the following may be good enough:
return abs(f1 - f2) <= allowed_error
I would agree that Gareth's answer is probably most appropriate as a lightweight function/solution.
But I thought it would be helpful to note that if you are using NumPy or are considering it, there is a packaged function for this.
numpy.isclose(a, b, rtol=1e-05, atol=1e-08, equal_nan=False)
A little disclaimer though: installing NumPy can be a non-trivial experience depending on your platform.
Use Python's decimal module, which provides the Decimal class.
From the comments:
It is worth noting that if you're
doing math-heavy work and you don't
absolutely need the precision from
decimal, this can really bog things
down. Floats are way, way faster to
deal with, but imprecise. Decimals are
extremely precise but slow.
The common wisdom that floating-point numbers cannot be compared for equality is inaccurate. Floating-point numbers are no different from integers: If you evaluate "a == b", you will get true if they are identical numbers and false otherwise (with the understanding that two NaNs are of course not identical numbers).
The actual problem is this: If I have done some calculations and am not sure the two numbers I have to compare are exactly correct, then what? This problem is the same for floating-point as it is for integers. If you evaluate the integer expression "7/3*3", it will not compare equal to "7*3/3".
So suppose we asked "How do I compare integers for equality?" in such a situation. There is no single answer; what you should do depends on the specific situation, notably what sort of errors you have and what you want to achieve.
Here are some possible choices.
If you want to get a "true" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be equal, then you might try to use the properties of the calculations you perform to prove that you get the same errors in the two numbers. If that is feasible, and you compare two numbers that result from expressions that would give equal numbers if computed exactly, then you will get "true" from the comparison. Another approach is that you might analyze the properties of the calculations and prove that the error never exceeds a certain amount, perhaps an absolute amount or an amount relative to one of the inputs or one of the outputs. In that case, you can ask whether the two calculated numbers differ by at most that amount, and return "true" if they are within the interval. If you cannot prove an error bound, you might guess and hope for the best. One way of guessing is to evaluate many random samples and see what sort of distribution you get in the results.
Of course, since we only set the requirement that you get "true" if the mathematically exact results are equal, we left open the possibility that you get "true" even if they are unequal. (In fact, we can satisfy the requirement by always returning "true". This makes the calculation simple but is generally undesirable, so I will discuss improving the situation below.)
If you want to get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal, you need to prove that your evaluation of the numbers yields different numbers if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal. This may be impossible for practical purposes in many common situations. So let us consider an alternative.
A useful requirement might be that we get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers differ by more than a certain amount. For example, perhaps we are going to calculate where a ball thrown in a computer game traveled, and we want to know whether it struck a bat. In this case, we certainly want to get "true" if the ball strikes the bat, and we want to get "false" if the ball is far from the bat, and we can accept an incorrect "true" answer if the ball in a mathematically exact simulation missed the bat but is within a millimeter of hitting the bat. In that case, we need to prove (or guess/estimate) that our calculation of the ball's position and the bat's position have a combined error of at most one millimeter (for all positions of interest). This would allow us to always return "false" if the ball and bat are more than a millimeter apart, to return "true" if they touch, and to return "true" if they are close enough to be acceptable.
So, how you decide what to return when comparing floating-point numbers depends very much on your specific situation.
As to how you go about proving error bounds for calculations, that can be a complicated subject. Any floating-point implementation using the IEEE 754 standard in round-to-nearest mode returns the floating-point number nearest to the exact result for any basic operation (notably multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root). (In case of tie, round so the low bit is even.) (Be particularly careful about square root and division; your language implementation might use methods that do not conform to IEEE 754 for those.) Because of this requirement, we know the error in a single result is at most 1/2 of the value of the least significant bit. (If it were more, the rounding would have gone to a different number that is within 1/2 the value.)
Going on from there gets substantially more complicated; the next step is performing an operation where one of the inputs already has some error. For simple expressions, these errors can be followed through the calculations to reach a bound on the final error. In practice, this is only done in a few situations, such as working on a high-quality mathematics library. And, of course, you need precise control over exactly which operations are performed. High-level languages often give the compiler a lot of slack, so you might not know in which order operations are performed.
There is much more that could be (and is) written about this topic, but I have to stop there. In summary, the answer is: There is no library routine for this comparison because there is no single solution that fits most needs that is worth putting into a library routine. (If comparing with a relative or absolute error interval suffices for you, you can do it simply without a library routine.)
math.isclose() has been added to Python 3.5 for that (source code). Here is a port of it to Python 2. It's difference from one-liner of Mark Ransom is that it can handle "inf" and "-inf" properly.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
'''
Python 2 implementation of Python 3.5 math.isclose()
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.5.10/Modules/mathmodule.c#L1993
'''
# sanity check on the inputs
if rel_tol < 0 or abs_tol < 0:
raise ValueError("tolerances must be non-negative")
# short circuit exact equality -- needed to catch two infinities of
# the same sign. And perhaps speeds things up a bit sometimes.
if a == b:
return True
# This catches the case of two infinities of opposite sign, or
# one infinity and one finite number. Two infinities of opposite
# sign would otherwise have an infinite relative tolerance.
# Two infinities of the same sign are caught by the equality check
# above.
if math.isinf(a) or math.isinf(b):
return False
# now do the regular computation
# this is essentially the "weak" test from the Boost library
diff = math.fabs(b - a)
result = (((diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * b)) or
(diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * a))) or
(diff <= abs_tol))
return result
I'm not aware of anything in the Python standard library (or elsewhere) that implements Dawson's AlmostEqual2sComplement function. If that's the sort of behaviour you want, you'll have to implement it yourself. (In which case, rather than using Dawson's clever bitwise hacks you'd probably do better to use more conventional tests of the form if abs(a-b) <= eps1*(abs(a)+abs(b)) + eps2 or similar. To get Dawson-like behaviour you might say something like if abs(a-b) <= eps*max(EPS,abs(a),abs(b)) for some small fixed EPS; this isn't exactly the same as Dawson, but it's similar in spirit.
If you want to use it in testing/TDD context, I'd say this is a standard way:
from nose.tools import assert_almost_equals
assert_almost_equals(x, y, places=7) # The default is 7
In terms of absolute error, you can just check
if abs(a - b) <= error:
print("Almost equal")
Some information of why float act weird in Python:
Python 3 Tutorial 03 - if-else, logical operators and top beginner mistakes
You can also use math.isclose for relative errors.
This is useful for the case where you want to make sure two numbers are the same 'up to precision', and there isn't any need to specify the tolerance:
Find minimum precision of the two numbers
Round both of them to minimum precision and compare
def isclose(a, b):
astr = str(a)
aprec = len(astr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in astr else 0
bstr = str(b)
bprec = len(bstr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in bstr else 0
prec = min(aprec, bprec)
return round(a, prec) == round(b, prec)
As written, it only works for numbers without the 'e' in their string representation (meaning 0.9999999999995e-4 < number <= 0.9999999999995e11)
Example:
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.049)
True
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.05)
False
For some of the cases where you can affect the source number representation, you can represent them as fractions instead of floats, using integer numerator and denominator. That way you can have exact comparisons.
See Fraction from fractions module for details.
I liked Sesquipedal's suggestion, but with modification (a special use case when both values are 0 returns False). In my case, I was on Python 2.7 and just used a simple function:
if f1 ==0 and f2 == 0:
return True
else:
return abs(f1-f2) < tol*max(abs(f1),abs(f2))
If you want to do it in a testing or TDD context using the pytest package, here's how:
import pytest
PRECISION = 1e-3
def assert_almost_equal():
obtained_value = 99.99
expected_value = 100.00
assert obtained_value == pytest.approx(expected_value, PRECISION)
I found the following comparison helpful:
str(f1) == str(f2)
To compare up to a given decimal without atol/rtol:
def almost_equal(a, b, decimal=6):
return '{0:.{1}f}'.format(a, decimal) == '{0:.{1}f}'.format(b, decimal)
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=5)) # False
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=4)) # True
This maybe is a bit ugly hack, but it works pretty well when you don't need more than the default float precision (about 11 decimals).
The round_to function uses the format method from the built-in str class to round up the float to a string that represents the float with the number of decimals needed, and then applies the eval built-in function to the rounded float string to get back to the float numeric type.
The is_close function just applies a simple conditional to the rounded up float.
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return eval("'{:." + str(int(prec)) + "f}'.format(" + str(float_num) + ")")
def is_close(float_a, float_b, prec):
if round_to(float_a, prec) == round_to(float_b, prec):
return True
return False
>>>a = 10.0
10.0
>>>b = 10.0001
10.0001
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=3)
True
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=4)
False
Update:
As suggested by #stepehjfox, a cleaner way to build a rount_to function avoiding "eval" is using nested formatting:
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return '{:.{precision}f}'.format(float_num, precision=prec)
Following the same idea, the code can be even simpler using the great new f-strings (Python 3.6+):
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return f'{float_num:.{prec}f}'
So, we could even wrap it up all in one simple and clean 'is_close' function:
def is_close(a, b, prec):
return f'{a:.{prec}f}' == f'{b:.{prec}f}'
If you want to compare floats, the options above are great, but in my case, I ended up using Enum's, since I only had few valid floats my use case was accepting.
from enum import Enum
class HolidayMultipliers(Enum):
EMPLOYED_LESS_THAN_YEAR = 2.0
EMPLOYED_MORE_THAN_YEAR = 2.5
Then running:
testable_value = 2.0
HolidayMultipliers(testable_value)
If the float is valid, it's fine, but otherwise it will just throw an ValueError.
Use == is a simple good way, if you don't care about tolerance precisely.
# Python 3.8.5
>>> 1.0000000000001 == 1
False
>>> 1.00000000000001 == 1
True
But watch out for 0:
>>> 0 == 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
False
The 0 is always the zero.
Use math.isclose if you want to control the tolerance.
The default a == b is equivalent to math.isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-16, abs_tol=0).
If you still want to use == with a self-defined tolerance:
>>> class MyFloat(float):
def __eq__(self, another):
return math.isclose(self, another, rel_tol=0, abs_tol=0.001)
>>> a == MyFloat(0)
>>> a
0.0
>>> a == 0.001
True
So far, I didn't find anywhere to config it globally for float. Besides, mock is also not working for float.__eq__.
As a part of some unit testing code that I'm writing, I wrote the following function. The purpose of which is to determine if 'a' could be rounded to 'b', regardless of how accurate 'a' or 'b' are.
def couldRoundTo(a,b):
"""Can you round a to some number of digits, such that it equals b?"""
roundEnd = len(str(b))
if a == b:
return True
for x in range(0,roundEnd):
if round(a,x) == b:
return True
return False
Here's some output from the function:
>>> couldRoundTo(3.934567892987, 3.9)
True
>>> couldRoundTo(3.934567892987, 3.3)
False
>>> couldRoundTo(3.934567892987, 3.93)
True
>>> couldRoundTo(3.934567892987, 3.94)
False
As far as I can tell, it works. However, I'm scared of relying on it considering I don't have a perfect grasp of issues concerning floating point accuracy. Could someone tell me if this is an appropriate way to implement this function? If not, how could I improve it?
Could someone tell me if this is an appropriate way to implement this function?
It depends. The given function will behave surprisingly if b isn't precisely equal to a value that would normally be obtained directly from decimal-to-binary-float conversion.
For example:
>>> print(0.1, 0.2/2, 0.3/3)
0.1 0.1 0.1
>>> couldRoundTo(0.123, 0.1)
True
>>> couldRoundTo(0.123, 0.2/2)
True
>>> couldRoundTo(0.123, 0.3/3)
False
This fails because the calculation of 0.3 / 3 results in a slightly different representation than 0.1 and 0.2 / 2 (and round(0.123, 1)).
If not, how could I improve it?
Rule of thumb: if your calculation specifically involves decimal digits in any way, just use Decimal, to avoid all the lossy base-2 round-tripping.
In particular, Decimal includes a helper called quantize that makes this problem trivially easy:
from decimal import Decimal
def roundable(a, b):
a = Decimal(str(a))
b = Decimal(str(b))
return a.quantize(b) == b
One way to do it:
def could_round_to(a, b):
(x, y) = map(len, str(b).split('.'))
round_format = "%" + "%d.%df"%(x, y)
return round_format%a == str(b)
First, we take the number of digits before and after the decimal in x and y. Then, we construct a format such as %x.yf. Then, we supply a to the format string.
>>> "%2.2f"%123.1234
'123.12'
>>> "%2.2f"%123.1264
'123.13'
>>> "%3.2f"%000.001
'0.00'
Now, all that's left is comparing the strings.
The only point that I'm afraid of is the conversion from strings to floating points when interpreting floating-point literals (as in http://docs.python.org/reference/lexical_analysis.html#floating-point-literals). I don't know if there is any guarantee that a floating-point literal will evaluate to the floating-point number that is closest to the given string. This mentioned section is the place in the specification where I would expect such a guarantee.
For example, Java is much more specific about what to expect from a string literal. From the documentation of Double.valueOf(String):
[...] [the argument] is regarded as representing an exact decimal value in the usual "computerized scientific notation" or as an exact hexadecimal value; this exact numerical value is then conceptually converted to an "infinitely precise" binary value that is then rounded to type double by the usual round-to-nearest rule of IEEE 754 floating-point arithmetic [...]
Unless you can find such a guarantee anywhere in the Python documentation, you can be just lucky, because some earlier floating-point libraries (on which Python might rely) convert a string just to a floating-point number nearby, not to the best available.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that neither round, nor float, nor the specification for floating-point literaly give you any usable guarantee.
If you purpose is to test if round function will round to the target, then you are correct. Otherwise (what else is the purpose?) if you are in doubt , you should use decimal module