I already know the concept of negative binary numbers, The 0 at the position most significant bit represents that the binary is positive and 1 at the position of most significant bit represents that the binary is negative.
BUT THE PROBLEM THAT INTIMIDATED ME TO ASK A QUESTION ON STACKOVERFLOW IS THIS:
what about the times that we might want to represent a huge number that it's representation has occurred to have 1 in msb.
let me explain it in this way: by considering the above rule for making negative counterparts of our binary numbers we could say that ;
in an 8-bit system we have, For example, a value of positive 12 (decimal) would be written as 00001100 in binary, but negative 12 (decimal) would be written as
10001100 but what makes me confused a bit is that 10001100 could also be interpreted as 268 in decimal while we know that its the negative form of 12 in binary using this method of conversion.
I just want to know how to deal with this tricky, two-faced possible ways of interpreting a binary number, just like the example i gave above(it seem's to be negative, OH! but wait it might also not be:).
It depends on the type you use. If you're using an 8-bit representation which is signed, then the largest number you can store is 1111111 (i.e. the first bit is set aside).
In our example, that would convert to an integer value of 127.
If you use an unsigned type, then you have the extra bit available, allowing you to store 11111111, or 255 expressed as an integer.
A strongly typed language with a good compiler should catch you trying to assign, say, 134 to a signed 8 bit integer and vomit errors all over you.
If you're doing something strange fiddling around with bits yourself, you're on your own! There's no way of reconstructing, post hoc, whether it was intended to be a negative or a large positive, so you'll have to choose a system and stick with it.
The general convention nowadays is to stick with signed representations always - although I have seen code (usually for extreme compute tasks like astrophysical calculations) use unsigned values simply to save memory. And of course images will use unsigned values by convention, usually.
Related
I have been designing a Delta-Sigma DAC and have run into confusion and despair over the handling of signed numbers in my (sigma)counters and (delta and Vref) comparators.
I have tried to employ signed 2's complement but the EDAcompiler doesn't seem to notice when I do it, its most likely my own mistake!
So basically my question is, how (in Verilog) do I represent negative numbers in a way that they can be used in counters (which can therefore count up and down)? I am aware that a counter register that will hold signed numbers must be declared reg signed [:0]
Thanks!
Gavin
Well I am not that clear on your question. Some compilers may not be able to handle signed registers directly since if I recall correctly it is a Verilog 2001 feature. But generally if you use digital logic that works with signed numbers you shouldn't have an issue. For example if you use an adder ip just mention that inputs are signed numbers. As for the simulator you can select the type of data you need, generally by selecting the register/value, right clicking on the waveform window and changing the type.
Finally if you have to create the logic yourself just use sign extension. so lets say you are working with 4 bit values
-5 would be 11111011 and 5 wold be 00000101. So you can see that for negative numbers the MSB is 1 and for positive its zero. Using this you can interpret the numbers in your code but just make sure that the size is bigger then what you want to use so no overflow occurs.
I'm learning Integer data formats in a computer science book and as far as I understand that binary representation of a integer whether it is positive or negative is to have the leftmost bit (msb) be either a 0 for positive or 1 for negative, lets say in a 8-bit computer how would I know if it is talking about 10000010 - 130 in base 10 or if it is referring to negative 2?
I might be wrong, if i'm please correct me.
If you were to just see the string 10000010 somewhere, I don't know... written on a wall or something, how would you know how to interpret it?
You might say, hey, that's ten million and ten ( you thought it was base 10 ) or you might say hey, that's -126 ( you thought it was two's complement binary ), or you might say that's positive 130 ( you thought it was standard binary ).
It is, in a theoretical sense, up to whatever is doing the interpreting how it is interpreted.
So, when a computer is holding 8 bits of data, it's up to it how it interprets it.
Now if you're programming, you can tell the computer how you want something interpreted. For example, in c++
// char is 1 byte
unsigned char x = 130u;
Here I have told the compiler to put 130 unsigned into a byte, so the computer will store 10000010 and will interpret it as the value 130
Now consider
// char is 1 byte
char x = -126;
Here I have told the compiler to put -126 signed into a byte, so the computer will again store 10000010 but this time it will interpret it as the value -126.
Take a look at the answer posted to this question: Negative numbers are stored as 2's complement in memory, how does the CPU know if it's negative or positive?
The CPU uses something called an opcode in order to determine which function it will take when manipulating a memory location (in this case, the value 10000010). It is that function within the CPU that will either manipulate it as a negative or a positive number. The CPU doesn't have access to whether or not the number is signed or unsigned - it uses the op code when manipulating that number to determine whether or not it should be a signed or unsigned operation.
An application I'm working on needs to store weights of the format X pounds, y.y ounces. The database is MySQL, but I imagine this is DB agnostic.
I can think of three ways to do this:
Convert the weight to decimal pounds and store in a single field. (5 lbs 6.2 oz = 5.33671875 lbs)
Convert the weight to decimal ounces and store in a single field. (5 lbs 6.2 oz = 86.2 oz)
Store the pounds portion as an integer and the ounces portion as a decimal, in two fields.
I'm thinking that #1 is not such a good idea, since decimal pounds will produce numbers of arbitrary precision, which would need to be stored as a float, which could lead to inaccuracies which are inherent in floating point numbers.
Is there a compelling reason to choose #2 over #3 or vise-versa?
TL;DR
Choose either option #1 or option #2—there's no difference between them. Don't use option #3, because it's awkward to work with.
You claim that there are inherent inaccuracies in floating point numbers. I think that this deserves to be explored a little first.
When deciding upon a numeral system for representing a number (whether on a piece of paper, in a computer circuit, or elsewhere), there are two separate issues to consider:
its basis; and
its format.
Pick a base, any base…
Limited by finite space, one cannot represent an arbitrary member of an infinite set. For example: no matter how much paper you buy or how small your handwriting, it'd always be possible to find an integer that won't fit in the given space (you could just keep appending extra digits until the paper runs out). So, with integers, we usually restrict our finite space to representing only those that fall within some particular interval—e.g. if we have space for the positive/negative sign and three digits, we might restrict ourselves to the interval [-999,+999].
Every non-empty interval contains an infinite set of real numbers. In other words, no matter what interval one takes over the real numbers—be it [-999,+999], [0,1], [0.000001,0.000002] or anything else—there is still an infinite set of reals within that interval (one need only keep appending (non-zero) fractional digits)! Therefore arbitrary real numbers must always be "rounded" to something that can be represented in finite space.
The set of real numbers that can be represented in finite space depends upon the numeral system that is used. In our (familiar) positional base-10 system, finite space will suffice for one-half (0.510) but not for one-third (0.33333…10); by contrast, in the (less familiar) positional base-9 system, it is the other way around (those same numbers are respectively 0.44444…9 and 0.39). The consequence of all this is that some numbers that can be represented using only a small amount of space in positional base-10 (and therefore appear to be very "round" to us humans), e.g. one-tenth, would actually require infinite binary circuits to be stored precisely (and therefore don't appear to be very "round" to our digital friends)! Notably, since 2 is a factor of 10, the same is not true in reverse: any number that can be represented with finite binary can also be represented with finite decimal.
We can't do any better for continuous quantities. Ultimately such quantities must use a finite representation in some numeral system: it's arbitrary whether that system happens to be easy on computer circuits, on human fingers, on something else or on nothing at all—whichever system is used, the value must be rounded and therefore it always results in "representation error".
In other words, even if one has a perfectly accurate measuring instrument (which is physically impossible), then any measurement it reports will already have been rounded to a number that happens to fit on its display (in whatever base it uses—typically decimal, for obvious reasons). So, "86.2 oz" is never actually "86.2 oz" but rather a representation of "something between 86.1500000... oz and 86.2499999... oz". (Actually, because in reality the instrument is imperfect, all we can ever really say is that we have some degree of confidence that the actual value falls within that interval—but that is definitely departing some way from the point here).
But we can do better for discrete quantities. Such values are not "arbitrary real numbers" and therefore none of the above applies to them: they can be represented exactly in the numeral system in which they were defined—and indeed, should be (as converting to another numeral system and truncating to a finite length would result in rounding to an inexact number). Computers can (inefficiently) handle such situations by representing the number as a string: e.g. consider ASCII or BCD encoding.
Apply a format…
Since it's a property of the numeral system's (somewhat arbitrary) basis, whether or not a value appears to be "round" has no bearing on its precision. That's a really important observation, which runs counter to many people's intuition (and it's the reason I spent so much time explaining numerical basis above).
Precision is instead determined by how many significant figures a representation has. We need a storage format that is capable of recording our values to at least as many significant figures as we consider them to be correct. Taking by way of example values that we consider to be correct when stated as 86.2 and 0.0000862, the two most common options are:
Fixed point, where the number of significant figures depends on magnitude: e.g. in fixed 5-decimal-point representation, our values would be stored as 86.20000 and 0.00009 (and therefore have 7 and 1 significant figures of precision respectively). In this example, precision has been lost in the latter value (and indeed, it wouldn't take much more for us to have been totally unable to represent anything of significance); and the former value stored false precision, which is a waste of our finite space (and indeed, it wouldn't take much more for the value to become so large that it overflows the storage capacity).
A common example of when this format might be appropriate is for an accounting system: monetary sums must usually be tracked to the penny irrespective of their magnitude (therefore less precision is required for small values, and more precision is required for large values). As it happens, currency is usually also considered to be discrete (pennies are indivisible), so this is also a good example of a situation where a particular basis (decimal for most modern currencies) is desirable to avoid the representation errors discussed above.
One usually implements fixed point storage by treating one's values as quotients over a common denominator and storing the numerator as an integer. In our example, the common denominator could be 105, so instead of 86.20000 and 0.00009 one would store the integers 8620000 and 9 and remember that they must be divided by 100000.
Floating point, where the number of significant figures is constant irrespective of magnitude: e.g. in 5-significant-figure decimal representation, our values would be stored as 86.200 and 0.000086200 (and, by definition, have 5 significant figures of precision both times). In this example, both values have been stored without any loss of precision; and they both also have the same amount of false precision, which is less wasteful (and we can therefore use our finite space to represent a far greater range of values—both large and small).
A common example of when this format might be appropriate is for recording any real world measurements: the precision of measuring instruments (which all suffer from both systematic and random errors) is fairly constant irrespective of scale so, given sufficient significant figures (typically around 3 or 4 digits), absolutely no precision is lost even if a change of base resulted in rounding to a different number.
One usually implements floating point storage by treating one's values as integer significands with integer exponents. In our example, the significand could be 86200 for both values whereupon the (base-10) exponents would be -4 and -9 respectively.
But how precise are the floating point storage formats used by our computers?
An IEEE754 single precision (binary32) floating point number has 24 bits, or log10(224) (over 7) digits, of significance—i.e. it has a tolerance of less than ±0.000006%. In other words, it is more precise than saying "86.20000".
An IEEE754 double precision (binary64) floating point number has 53 bits, or log10(253) (almost 16) digits, of significance—i.e. it has a tolerance of just over ±0.00000000000001%. In other words, it is more precise than saying "86.2000000000000".
The most important thing to realise is that these formats are, respectively, over ten thousand and over one trillion times more precise than saying "86.2"—even though exact conversions of the binary back into decimal happens to include erroneous false precision (which we must ignore: more on this shortly)!
Notice also that both fixed and floating point formats will result in loss of precision when a value is known more precisely than the format supports. Such rounding errors can propagate in arithmetic operations to yield apparently erroneous results (which no doubt explains your reference to the "inherent inaccuracies" of floating point numbers): for example, 1⁄3 × 3000 in 5-place fixed point would yield 999.99000 rather than 1000.00000; and 1⁄7 − 7⁄50 in 5-significant figure floating point would yield 0.0028600 rather than 0.0028571.
The field of numerical analysis is dedicated to understanding these effects, but it is important to realise that any usable system (even performing calculations in your head) is vulnerable to such problems because no method of calculation that is guaranteed to terminate can ever offer infinite precision: consider, for example, how to calculate the area of a circle—there will necessarily be loss of precision in the value used for π, which will propagate into the result.
Conclusion
Real world measurements should use binary floating point: it's fast, compact, extremely precise and no worse than anything else (including the decimal version from which you started). Since MySQL's floating-point datatypes are IEEE754, this is exactly what they offer.
Currency applications should use denary fixed point: whilst it's slow and wastes memory, it ensures both that values are not rounded to inexact quantities and that pennies are not lost on large monetary sums. Since MySQL's fixed-point datatypes are BCD-encoded strings, this is exactly what they offer.
Finally, bear in mind that programming languages usually represent fractional values using binary floating-point types: so if your database stores values in another format, you need to be careful how they are brought into your application or else they may get converted (with all the ensuing issues that entails) at the interface.
Which option is best in this case?
Hopefully I've convinced you that your values can safely (and should) be stored in floating point types without worrying too much about any "inaccuracies"? Remember, they're more precise than your flimsy 3-significant-digit decimal representation ever was: you just have to ignore false precision (but one must always do that anyway, even if using a fixed-point decimal format).
As for your question: choose either option 1 or 2 over option 3—it makes comparisons easier (for example, to find the maximal mass, one could just use MAX(mass), whereas to do it efficiently across two columns would require some nesting).
Between those two, it doesn’t matter which one chooses—floating point numbers are stored with a constant number of significant bits irrespective of their scale.
Furthermore, whilst in the general case it could happen that some values are rounded to binary numbers that are closer to their original decimal representation using option 1 whilst simultaneously others are rounded to binary numbers that are closer to their original decimal representation using option 2, as we shall shortly see such representation errors only manifest within the false precision that should always be ignored.
However, in this case, because it happens that there are 16 ounces to 1 pound (and 16 is a power of 2), the relative differences between original decimal values and stored binary numbers using the two approaches is identical:
5.387510 (not 5.3367187510 as stated in your question) would be stored in a binary32 float as 101.0110001100110011001102 (which is 5.3874998092651367187510): this is 0.0000036% from the original value (but, as discussed above, the "original value" was already a pretty lousy representation of the physical quantity it represents).
Knowing that a binary32 float stores only 7 decimal digits of precision, our compiler knows for certain that everything from the 8th digit onwards is definitely false precision and therefore must be ignored in every case—thus, provided that our input value didn't require more precision than that (and if it did, binary32 was obviously the wrong choice of format), this guarantees a return to a decimal value that looks just as round as that from which we started: 5.38750010. However, we should really apply domain knowledge at this point (as we should with any storage format) to discard any further false precision that might exist, such as those two trailing zeroes.
86.210 would be stored in a binary32 float as 1010110.001100110011001102 (which is 86.199996948242187510): this is also 0.0000036% from the original value. As before, we then ignore false precision to return to our original input.
Notice how the binary representations of the numbers are identical, except for the placement of the radix point (which is four bits apart):
101.0110 00110011001100110
101 0110.00110011001100110
This is because 5.3875 × 24 = 86.2.
As an aside: being European (albeit British), I also have a strong aversion to imperial units of measurement—handling values of different scales is just so messy. I'd almost certainly store masses in SI units (e.g. kilograms or grams) and then perform conversions to imperial units as required within the presentation layer of my application. Plus rigidly adhering to SI units might one day save you from losing $125m.
I’d be tempted to store it in a metric unit, as they tend to be simple decimals and not complex values like pounds and ounces. That way, you can just store the one value (i.e. 103.25 kg) rather than the pounds–ounces equivalent, and it’s easier to perform conversions.
This is something I’ve dealt with in the past. I do a lot of work on pro wrestling and mixed martial arts (MMA) websites where fighters’ heights and weights need to be recorded. They tend to be displayed as feet and inches and pounds and ounces, but I still store the values in their centimetres and kilogram equivalents, and then do the conversion when displaying on the site.
First, I had not known about how floating point numbers were inaccurate - thankfully a search latter helps me understand: Floating Point Inaccuracy Examples
I would fully agree with #eggyal - keep the data in a single format in a single column. This allows you to expose it to the application and let the application deal with the presentation of it - be it in lbs/oz, rounded up lbs, whatever.
The database should keep the raw data while the presentation layer dictates the layout.
You can use decimal data type for weight column.
decimal('weight', 8, 2); // precision = 8, scale = 2
Storage size:
Precision 1-9 5 Bytes
Precision 10-19 9 Bytes
Precision 20-28 13 Bytes
Precision 29-38 17 Bytes
5 (decimal) in binary 00000101
-5 (two's complement) in binary 11111011
but 11111011 is also 251 (decimal)!
How does computer discern one from another??
How does it know whether it's -5 or 251??
it's THE SAME 11111011
Thanks in advance!!
Signed bytes have a maximum of 127.
Unsigned bytes cannot be negative.
The compiler knows whether the variable holding that value is of signed or unsigend type, and treats it appropriately.
If your program chooses to treat the byte as signed, the run-time system decides whether the byte is to be considered positive or negative according to the high-order bit. A 1 in that high-order bit (bit 7, counting from the low-order bit 0) means the number is negative; a 0 in that bit position means the number is positive. So, in the case of 11111011, bit 7 is set to 1 and the number is treated, accordingly, as negative.
Because the sign bit takes up one bit position, the absolute magnitude of the number can range from 0 to 127, as was said before.
If your program chooses to treat the byte as unsigned, on the other hand, what would have been the sign bit is included in the magnitude, which can then range from 0 to 255.
Two's complement is designed to allow signed numbers to be added/substracted to one another in the same way unsigned numbers are. So there are only two cases where the signed-ness of numbers affect the computer at low level.
when there are overflows
when you are performing operations on mixed: one signed, one unsigned
Different processors take different tacks for this. WRT orverflows, the MIPS RISC architecture, for example, deals with overflows using traps. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIPS_architecture#MIPS_I_instruction_formats
To the best of my knowledge, mixing signed and unsigned needs to avoided at a program level.
If you're asking "how does the program know how to interpret the value" - in general it's because you've told the compiler the "type" of the variable you assigned the value to. The program doesn't actually care if 00000101 as "5 decimal", it just has an unsigned integer with value 00000101 that it can perform operations legal for unsigned integers upon, and will behave in a given manner if you try to compare with or cast to a different "type" of variable.
At the end of the day everything in programming comes down to binary - all data (strings, numbers, images, sounds etc etc) and the compiled code just ends up as a large binary blob.
What is an integer overflow error?
Why do i care about such an error?
What are some methods of avoiding or preventing it?
Integer overflow occurs when you try to express a number that is larger than the largest number the integer type can handle.
If you try to express the number 300 in one byte, you have an integer overflow (maximum is 255). 100,000 in two bytes is also an integer overflow (65,535 is the maximum).
You need to care about it because mathematical operations won't behave as you expect. A + B doesn't actually equal the sum of A and B if you have an integer overflow.
You avoid it by not creating the condition in the first place (usually either by choosing your integer type to be large enough that you won't overflow, or by limiting user input so that an overflow doesn't occur).
The easiest way to explain it is with a trivial example. Imagine we have a 4 bit unsigned integer. 0 would be 0000 and 1111 would be 15. So if you increment 15 instead of getting 16 you'll circle back around to 0000 as 16 is actually 10000 and we can not represent that with less than 5 bits. Ergo overflow...
In practice the numbers are much bigger and it circles to a large negative number on overflow if the int is signed but the above is basically what happens.
Another way of looking at it is to consider it as largely the same thing that happens when the odometer in your car rolls over to zero again after hitting 999999 km/mi.
When you store an integer in memory, the computer stores it as a series of bytes. These can be represented as a series of ones and zeros.
For example, zero will be represented as 00000000 (8 bit integers), and often, 127 will be represented as 01111111. If you add one to 127, this would "flip" the bits, and swap it to 10000000, but in a standard two's compliment representation, this is actually used to represent -128. This "overflows" the value.
With unsigned numbers, the same thing happens: 255 (11111111) plus 1 would become 100000000, but since there are only 8 "bits", this ends up as 00000000, which is 0.
You can avoid this by doing proper range checking for your correct integer size, or using a language that does proper exception handling for you.
An integer overflow error occurs when an operation makes an integer value greater than its maximum.
For example, if the maximum value you can have is 100000, and your current value is 99999, then adding 2 will make it 'overflow'.
You should care about integer overflows because data can be changed or lost inadvertantly, and can avoid them with either a larger integer type (see long int in most languages) or with a scheme that converts long strings of digits to very large integers.
Overflow is when the result of an arithmetic operation doesn't fit in the data type of the operation. You can have overflow with a byte-sized unsigned integer if you add 255 + 1, because the result (256) does not fit in the 8 bits of a byte.
You can have overflow with a floating point number if the result of a floating point operation is too large to represent in the floating point data type's exponent or mantissa.
You can also have underflow with floating point types when the result of a floating point operation is too small to represent in the given floating point data type. For example, if the floating point data type can handle exponents in the range of -100 to +100, and you square a value with an exponent of -80, the result will have an exponent around -160, which won't fit in the given floating point data type.
You need to be concerned about overflows and underflows in your code because it can be a silent killer: your code produces incorrect results but might not signal an error.
Whether you can safely ignore overflows depends a great deal on the nature of your program - rendering screen pixels from 3D data has a much greater tolerance for numerical errors than say, financial calculations.
Overflow checking is often turned off in default compiler settings. Why? Because the additional code to check for overflow after every operation takes time and space, which can degrade the runtime performance of your code.
Do yourself a favor and at least develop and test your code with overflow checking turned on.
From wikipedia:
In computer programming, an integer
overflow occurs when an arithmetic
operation attempts to create a numeric
value that is larger than can be
represented within the available
storage space. For instance, adding 1 to the largest value that can be represented
constitutes an integer overflow. The
most common result in these cases is
for the least significant
representable bits of the result to be
stored (the result is said to wrap).
You should care about it especially when choosing the appropriate data types for your program or you might get very subtle bugs.
From http://www.first.org/conference/2006/papers/seacord-robert-slides.pdf :
An integer overflow occurs when an integer is
increased beyond its maximum value or
decreased beyond its minimum value.
Overflows can be signed or unsigned.
P.S.: The PDF has detailed explanation on overflows and other integer error conditions, and also how to tackle/avoid them.
I'd like to be a bit contrarian to all the other answers so far, which somehow accept crappy broken math as a given. The question is tagged language-agnostic and in a vast number of languages, integers simply never overflow, so here's my kind-of sarcastic answer:
What is an integer overflow error?
An obsolete artifact from the dark ages of computing.
why do i care about it?
You don't.
how can it be avoided?
Use a modern programming language in which integers don't overflow. (Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, Self, Ruby, Newspeak, Ioke, Haskell, take your pick ...)
I find showing the Two’s Complement representation on a disc very helpful.
Here is a representation for 4-bit integers. The maximum value is 2^3-1 = 7.
For 32 bit integers, we will see the maximum value is 2^31-1.
When we add 1 to 2^31-1 : Clockwise we move by one and it is clearly -2^31 which is called integer overflow
Ref : https://courses.cs.washington.edu/courses/cse351/17wi/sections/03/CSE351-S03-2cfp_17wi.pdf
This happens when you attempt to use an integer for a value that is higher than the internal structure of the integer can support due to the number of bytes used. For example, if the maximum integer size is 2,147,483,647 and you attempt to store 3,000,000,000 you will get an integer overflow error.