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
这是另一个解:
#include <cmath>
#include <limits>
auto Compare = [](float a, float b, float epsilon = std::numeric_limits<float>::epsilon()){ return (std::fabs(a - b) <= epsilon); };
其他回答
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;
}
你写的代码有bug:
return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff > EPSILON);
正确的代码应该是:
return (diff < EPSILON) && (diff > -EPSILON);
(…是的，这是不同的)
我想知道晶圆厂是否会让你在某些情况下失去懒惰的评价。我会说这取决于编译器。你可能想两种都试试。如果它们在平均水平上是相等的，则采用晶圆厂实现。
如果你有一些关于两个浮点数中哪一个比另一个更大的信息，你可以根据比较的顺序来更好地利用惰性求值。
最后，通过内联这个函数可能会得到更好的结果。不过不太可能有太大改善……
编辑:OJ，谢谢你纠正你的代码。我相应地删除了我的评论
我使用这个代码。不像上面的答案，这允许一个人 给出一个在代码注释中解释的abs_relative_error。
第一个版本比较复数，使错误 可以用两个矢量之间的夹角来解释 在复平面上具有相同的长度(这给出了一点 洞察力)。然后是2实数的正确公式 数字。
https://github.com/CarloWood/ai-utils/blob/master/almost_equal.h
后者是
template<class T>
typename std::enable_if<std::is_floating_point<T>::value, bool>::type
almost_equal(T x, T y, T const abs_relative_error)
{
return 2 * std::abs(x - y) <= abs_relative_error * std::abs(x + y);
}
其中abs_relative_error基本上(两倍)是文献中最接近定义的绝对值:相对错误。但这只是名字的选择。
我认为在复平面中最明显的是。如果|x| = 1, y在x周围形成一个直径为abs_relative_error的圆，则认为两者相等。
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());
}
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.
