比较两个双精度浮点数或两个浮点数最有效的方法是什么?
简单地这样做是不正确的:
bool CompareDoubles1 (double A, double B)
{
return A == B;
}
比如:
bool CompareDoubles2 (double A, double B)
{
diff = A - B;
return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff < EPSILON);
}
似乎是浪费加工。
有人知道更聪明的浮点比较器吗?
当前回答
我使用这个代码:
bool AlmostEqual(double v1, double v2)
{
return (std::fabs(v1 - v2) < std::fabs(std::min(v1, v2)) * std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon());
}
其他回答
Qt实现了两个函数，也许你可以从中学到一些东西:
static inline bool qFuzzyCompare(double p1, double p2)
{
return (qAbs(p1 - p2) <= 0.000000000001 * qMin(qAbs(p1), qAbs(p2)));
}
static inline bool qFuzzyCompare(float p1, float p2)
{
return (qAbs(p1 - p2) <= 0.00001f * qMin(qAbs(p1), qAbs(p2)));
}
您可能需要以下函数，因为
请注意，比较p1或p2为0.0的值是无效的， 也不会比较其中一个值为NaN或无穷大的值。 如果其中一个值总是0.0，则使用qFuzzyIsNull代替。如果一个人 其中的值很可能是0.0，一种解决方案是将两者都加上1.0 值。
static inline bool qFuzzyIsNull(double d)
{
return qAbs(d) <= 0.000000000001;
}
static inline bool qFuzzyIsNull(float f)
{
return qAbs(f) <= 0.00001f;
}
有关更深入的方法，请参阅比较浮点数。以下是该链接的代码片段:
// Usable AlmostEqual function
bool AlmostEqual2sComplement(float A, float B, int maxUlps)
{
// Make sure maxUlps is non-negative and small enough that the
// default NAN won't compare as equal to anything.
assert(maxUlps > 0 && maxUlps < 4 * 1024 * 1024);
int aInt = *(int*)&A;
// Make aInt lexicographically ordered as a twos-complement int
if (aInt < 0)
aInt = 0x80000000 - aInt;
// Make bInt lexicographically ordered as a twos-complement int
int bInt = *(int*)&B;
if (bInt < 0)
bInt = 0x80000000 - bInt;
int intDiff = abs(aInt - bInt);
if (intDiff <= maxUlps)
return true;
return false;
}
意识到这是一个老话题，但这篇文章是我发现的关于比较浮点数的最直接的文章之一，如果你想探索更多，它也有更详细的参考资料，它的主要站点涵盖了处理浮点数的完整范围的问题《浮点指南:比较》。
我们可以在浮点公差中找到一篇更实用的文章，并指出有绝对公差测试，在c++中归结为:
bool absoluteToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon() ;
}
及相对耐量试验:
bool relativeToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
double maxXY = std::max( std::fabs(x) , std::fabs(y) ) ;
return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()*maxXY ;
}
文章指出，当x和y较大时，绝对检验失败;当x和y较小时，相对检验失败。假设绝对耐受性和相对耐受性是相同的，综合测试将是这样的:
bool combinedToleranceCompare(double x, double y)
{
double maxXYOne = std::max( { 1.0, std::fabs(x) , std::fabs(y) } ) ;
return std::fabs(x - y) <= std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()*maxXYOne ;
}
General-purpose comparison of floating-point numbers is generally meaningless. How to compare really depends on a problem at hand. In many problems, numbers are sufficiently discretized to allow comparing them within a given tolerance. Unfortunately, there are just as many problems, where such trick doesn't really work. For one example, consider working with a Heaviside (step) function of a number in question (digital stock options come to mind) when your observations are very close to the barrier. Performing tolerance-based comparison wouldn't do much good, as it would effectively shift the issue from the original barrier to two new ones. Again, there is no general-purpose solution for such problems and the particular solution might require going as far as changing the numerical method in order to achieve stability.
在数值软件中，确实有这样的情况，你需要检查两个浮点数是否完全相等。我就一个类似的问题发表了这篇文章
https://stackoverflow.com/a/10973098/1447411
所以你不能说“CompareDoubles1”是错误的。
