你不能用一个固定的。根据double的值，EPSILON会发生变化。

更好的双比较应该是:

bool same(double a, double b)
{
  return std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<double>::lowest()) <= b
    && std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<double>::max()) >= b;
}

使用任何其他建议都要非常小心。这完全取决于上下文。

我花了很长时间在一个系统中追踪错误，该系统假设|a-b|<epsilon，则a==b。潜在的问题是:

The implicit presumption in an algorithm that if a==b and b==c then a==c. Using the same epsilon for lines measured in inches and lines measured in mils (.001 inch). That is a==b but 1000a!=1000b. (This is why AlmostEqual2sComplement asks for the epsilon or max ULPS). The use of the same epsilon for both the cosine of angles and the length of lines! Using such a compare function to sort items in a collection. (In this case using the builtin C++ operator == for doubles produced correct results.)

就像我说的，这完全取决于上下文和a和b的预期大小。

顺便说一下，std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()是“机器epsilon”。它是1.0和下一个用double表示的值之间的差值。我猜它可以用在比较函数中，但只有当期望值小于1时。(这是对@cdv的回答的回应…)

同样，如果你的int算术是双精度的(这里我们在某些情况下使用双精度来保存int值)，你的算术是正确的。例如，4.0/2.0将等同于1.0+1.0。只要你不做导致分数(4.0/3.0)的事情，或者不超出int的大小。

/// testing whether two doubles are almost equal. We consider two doubles
/// equal if the difference is within the range [0, epsilon).
///
/// epsilon: a positive number (supposed to be small)
///
/// if either x or y is 0, then we are comparing the absolute difference to
/// epsilon.
/// if both x and y are non-zero, then we are comparing the relative difference
/// to epsilon.
bool almost_equal(double x, double y, double epsilon)
{
    double diff = x - y;
    if (x != 0 && y != 0){
        diff = diff/y; 
    }

    if (diff < epsilon && -1.0*diff < epsilon){
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

我在我的小项目中使用了这个函数，它是有效的，但注意以下几点:

双精度误差可以为你制造惊喜。假设epsilon = 1.0e-6，那么根据上面的代码，1.0和1.000001不应该被认为是相等的，但在我的机器上，函数认为它们是相等的，这是因为1.000001不能精确地转换为二进制格式，它可能是1.0000009xxx。我用1.0和1.0000011测试了它，这次我得到了预期的结果。

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。

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.