42 points vismit2000 2 days ago 35 comments

MiroslavPokorny 2 days ago | parent

Strange the most obvious - fixed point numbers is not mentioned.

cryptonector 12 hours ago | parent

Nor unums!!

schiffern 2 days ago | parent

None of the base 10 formats, but the hobby calculation language Frink supports exact rational fractions, arbitrary width bigints (not pictured), intervals arithmetic, and symbolic expressions.

https://frinklang.org/fsp/frink.fsp?fromVal=new+interval%5B-...

AlotOfReading 12 hours ago | parent

Usually, if you know enough about your algorithms to select an appropriate float alternative, you also know enough to fix your float code and that's what you should actually do.

That said, some of these aren't alternatives. Symbolic computation is a different thing entirely. Interval arithmetic can be built atop floats (e.g. IEEE-1788) and has its own zoo of unintuitive behaviors. BCD is better called a historical artifact than an alternative these days.

It's really just rationals and decimal floats in this list, which probably don't solve the issues you have if you're considering float alternatives.

TZubiri 10 hours ago | parent

You can't "fix" floating point code if you are looking for deterministic answers. You just have to use other data types to handle money or complex mathematical operations like 0.2+0.1, no ifs and buts.

messe 9 hours ago | parent

Floating point is deterministic, what are you talking about?

> You just have to use other data types to handle money or complex mathematical operations like 0.2+0.1

Such as... decimal floating point.

timschmidt 9 hours ago | parent

> Floating point is deterministic, what are you talking about?

Order of operations can change a result, for example. I suspect you mean that the algorithm never changes. While op means that mathematical operations which most folks would expect to be reliable are not.

messe 8 hours ago | parent

They're not associative, sure. But that's a very far cry from claiming they're non-deterministic.

timschmidt 7 hours ago | parent

There are enough problems for a 44 page paper titled "What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic"[1] I don't quibble on the language because I know what people mean.

Most folks won't encounter most of the issues, generally. But expose your code to a large enough dataset, or be like me and write a CAD/CAM system with motion control and experience most of them.

That's why I wrote hyperreal[2]

1: https://www.cs.tufts.edu/cs/40/docs/WhatEveryComputerScienti...

2: https://github.com/timschmidt/hyperreal

drfloyd51 2 hours ago | parent

You don’t quibble about what words mean when the words you choose have very specific meanings in exactly the subject area you are talking about?

You make it really hard to take you seriously.

timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent

No. It's been quite some time since I realized that all language is a pidgin used to translate between individuals' unique lived experiences and points of reference. And find communication much more fluid and less confrontational when the focus is on shared meaning rather than perfect word choice. Especially when working with non-native speakers, but also just people in general. Stephen Fry captures the feeling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovi7uQbtKas

When TZubiri made their original comment, I understood they were speaking about some or all of the issues outlined in the paper I linked. If you didn't, that's ok. If you think the referenced paper missed something, it's OK to add that.

> You make it really hard to take you seriously.

Same, bud.

account42 5 hours ago | parent

CPUs have many different configuration bits to configure floating point rounding, flushing denormals, etc. which mean that in practice anything that relies on floats being deterministic has the stability of a house of cards.

messe 57 minutes ago | parent

All of which are well defined and can be configured from user space. That doesn't make them non-deterministic.

AlotOfReading 7 hours ago | parent

Floats are deterministic, but I get what you mean. Let's discuss what's meant by the result of a complex calculation. 0.1+0.2, or sqrt(2), or whatever.

1. Do you want your result to exactly encode the answer without rounding error? No fixed precision type can provide this in general, so you're stuck with symbolic approaches. If you can bound things (usually difficult), maybe you can get away with non-symbolic approaches.

2. Do you want a sensible numeric answer? This is what floats (and many other systems) give you. The definition of "sensible" is inherently tricky here and there's not a definition universally appropriate to every possible computation.

So let's return to 0.1+0.2=0.3000...1 specifically. There's two common ways to think of an encoded float. One is as the directly encoded value, as you're doing. Another way is to think of it as an interval of real numbers between the next lowest and highest intervals. Under this latter interpretation, it makes sense to discuss shortest decimal string within the interval, 0.3 in this case. There's no ambiguity because each real lives in exactly one interval. This is what algorithms like dragon box do for float to decimal string conversion.

What decimal floats give you is an encoding that tracks significant digits, where every decimal string exactly corresponds to a midpoint of an interval of reals. They do this at the cost of space, speed, and complexity. You don't get an escape from the fundamental issues of fixed precision types like rounding error, numerical sensitivity, precision loss, etc. I don't think that tradeoff makes sense for most algorithms in most contexts.

The benefit of sticking with floats is that lots of smart people have spent countless hours trying to give non-experts a "good enough" path through the untamed wilds of numerical analysis, tooling to help them when they get lost, tribal knowledge to point out the edge cases, and it's almost universally supported in hardware. By all means you should go wandering off the trail, but fully understand what you're doing and why beforehand.

SkiFire13 1 hour ago | parent

> Another way is to think of it as an interval of real numbers between the next lowest and highest intervals. Under this latter interpretation, it makes sense to discuss shortest decimal string within the interval, 0.3 in this case.

Note that the result of 0.1+0.2 does not lie in the interval containing 0.3, which is was confuses most people. The issue is that there is some imprecision in representing 0.1 and 0.2 too, and that compounds when summing, resulting in something that does not actually correspond to 0.3 (hence the classic 0.1+0.2!=0.3)

hyperhello 57 minutes ago | parent

But, as I understand it, 1+2=3 in all of these senses using floating point; as long as you don’t go outside of a certain very large range, they are really a superset of integers.

That makes me think that I can just plan ahead by storing the number of cents instead of dollars, or a “hack”, and then it makes me wonder why the format even requires me to do that.

SkiFire13 1 hour ago | parent

> deterministic answers

> 0.2+0.1

0.2+0.1 with floating point numbers _is_ deterministic, as you'll always get the same answer.

I suspect you might instead mean exact calculations/answers (in the example above, neither 0.1, 0.2 nor 0.3 have exact representations using floating point numbers).

And just to be clear, there are non-determinism-like issues with floating point numbers, but those are much rarer/niche and _can_ be fixed. For example parallel summation depends on the order the summation was made, so non-determinism in the parallel implementation ripples through the summation result. Some non-basic operations (e.g. trigonometric operations) have platform dependent implementations with different roundings, so you might experience different result based on the platform you're on.

lelanthran 6 hours ago | parent

> BCD is better called a historical artifact than an alternative these days.

It's currently in use all over the world. You can't do a card payment, either in-person or online, without an intermediary using ISO8583.

kjs3 1 hour ago | parent

I think people with certain backgrounds look at stuff like x86 BCD opcodes being removed in the move from x86-32 to amd64 and think "must be because noone uses it". Other backgrounds know that ain't so.

klodolph 12 hours ago | parent

Worth mentioning is storing the logarithm of the number.

Seen it used in a couple places. Logarithmic depth buffer is one. Yamaha DX7 is another.

mtklein 11 hours ago | parent

That's kind of exactly what floats are. You store the log2 of the number, a bit for its sign, and in what remaining bits you have left some fixed-point scaling between adjacent powers.

mdspan 10 hours ago | parent

I think they mean storing just an exponent instead of an exponent + mantissa. Makes multiplication much easier to implement.

em3rgent0rdr 10 hours ago | parent

No, that is not what floats are. A logarithmic number system literally just stores the logarithm of a number (and a sign bit) and manipulates it as a logarithm. The significand is 1, always. So multiplication & division are simply addition & subtraction, respectively. But this simplification for multiplication, division, roots, and powers is counterbalanced by more complex addition and subtraction.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_number_system

pkaye 6 hours ago | parent

Floats are actually rational numbers with denominators of power of 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyadic_rational#In_computing

Archit3ch 2 hours ago | parent

You can also use this in analog hardware! :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translinear_circuit

vrighter 1 hour ago | parent

how do you do FMAs then? You're making one operation cheaper, but making the other one expensive.

ashton314 10 hours ago | parent

Also of interest: Herbie analyzes your math expressions and helps you figure out where FP error accumulates. https://herbie.uwplse.org/demo/

We use floats as a trade-off between speed and accuracy. IEEE 754 is a very reasonable trade-off for a wide range of applications, but if you can figure out where you need to trade speed to get more accuracy with e.g. one of the methods mentioned here, Herbie's gotcha covered.

I remember seeing some research about switching between formats, but I don't have anything to cite right now.

timschmidt 9 hours ago | parent

Oh hey, one of my projects is relevant to an article: https://github.com/timschmidt/hyperreal

It's an infinite precision exact constructive real with excellent performance characteristics and approximation only at explicitly named lossy export functions.

Some recent benchmarks: https://github.com/timschmidt/hyperlattice/blob/805d092d1d96...

thebeardisred 9 hours ago | parent

HackerThemAll 1 hour ago | parent

Yeah I wonder why they aren't used for neural networks. It's been claimed they'd require far less power and they'd offer better accuracy and faster computations, although I am unable to verify that claim.

Panzerschrek 8 hours ago | parent

In some cases I use binary fixed-point numbers. In certain aspects they are much better than floats - no precision loss happens in addition/subtraction (if no overflow/underflow takes place), additions and subtractions are typically faster (since it's just an integer operation internally), casting from and to integers is also cheap (requires only bit-shift).

Multiplications are a little bit tricky. Multiplication by an integer is trivial. Multiplication of two fixed point numbers produces the result with the number of fractional binary digits equal to sum of the number of fractional digits in source numbers. The result may be stored in an extended type, truncated down or rounded.

Divisions work fine too, but sometimes may be slower compared to float types, because CPUs can for some reason do much faster floating-point divisions compared to integer divisions.

The only disadvantage of fixed-point numbers is that it's required to keep a balance between range and precision carefully. One can't just use some specific precision in the entire codebase, typically precision should be selected for each individual operation.

mdspan 6 hours ago | parent

Worth noting the gap between floating point vs integer division isn't that bad on newer CPUs these days. On Zen5, for instance, DIVSD has a latency of 13 cycles vs 16 cycles for DIV.

imtringued 4 hours ago | parent

>Divisions work fine too, but sometimes may be slower compared to float types, because CPUs can for some reason do much faster floating-point divisions compared to integer divisions.

The mantissa of a floating point number has less bits than the integer type of the same byte size.

AlotOfReading 45 minutes ago | parent

A neat trick many people aren't aware of is that you can treat binary floats as saturating fixed point, subject to some qualifications (generally the next larger float type can represent any given fixed). Float operations internally are "just" fixed point ops with some normalization steps and rounding bits on each side, so if we use a float type with enough mantissa bits to hold the fixed point value all we have to do is mask off the extra precision to get back to fixed point. This similarity to fixed point is exploited in some modern NPU hardware by storing only one exponent for an entire block of floats, with a wide fixed point unit doing the actual work, a.k.a block floating point.

This hack has some interesting advantages. Float to integer is still only a few cycles, the masking is one line of libm functions, you get better (and dynamically selectable!) precision, it has gradual underflow and overflow, you can write numeric code like usual, and normalization is automatic.