Java Forum / General / June 2006
Bigdecimal problem
manzur - 06 Jun 2006 16:57 GMT BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1");
System.out.println(bigDecimal.equals(bigDecima2));
The above gives me false.
Wht should i do to make it print true with out disturbing my already created bigdecimals. Bcoz i feel that 1.0,1.00,1,1.0000 are same
thanks in advance
Oliver Wong - 06 Jun 2006 17:05 GMT > BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); > BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > created bigdecimals. > Bcoz i feel that 1.0,1.00,1,1.0000 are same Read the JavaDocs for BigDecimal: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/math/BigDecimal.html
They explicitly tell you that equals will return false when comparing 2.0 to 2.00. They also explain how to get the results you want.
Why would the behaviour of 2.0 != 2.00 be useful? Perhaps for scientific/engineering applications where significant digits are meaningful.
- Oliver
manzur - 06 Jun 2006 17:24 GMT > > BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); > > BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Oliver iam developing some banking applications where i need to show that 1.0 ,1.00,1.000 are same
jhr - 06 Jun 2006 19:02 GMT > > > BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); > > > BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > iam developing some banking applications where i need to show that 1.0 > ,1.00,1.000 are same Try:
if (bigDecimal.compareTo(bigDecima2) == 0) { // code for equals == true }
Patricia Shanahan - 06 Jun 2006 21:31 GMT >> BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); >> BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Oliver At a more basic level, the result of some operations involving a BigDecimal depend on its scale. toString gives different answers. The precision is different. Rounded divisions give different answers.
They are just not equivalent objects.
Patricia
Ingo R. Homann - 07 Jun 2006 13:42 GMT Hi,
>>> BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); >>> BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BigDecimal depend on its scale. toString gives different answers. The > precision is different. Rounded divisions give different answers. I understand that, but I think that is not a reason that "1.0" and "1.00" should not be equal. I mean, especially...
> They are just not equivalent objects. ...that is (IMHO) not correct: "equivalent" - the same word as in Germany (although we use the strange "Umlaut" "ä" at the beginning) - which (AFAIK) comes from the Latin words for "equal" and "value", and I think, the values of "1.00" and "1.0" *are* the same.
Ciao, Ingo
Oliver Wong - 07 Jun 2006 15:08 GMT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (AFAIK) comes from the Latin words for "equal" and "value", and I think, > the values of "1.00" and "1.0" *are* the same. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this newsgroup (but not within this thread), the concept of equality is context dependent. Are "1.00" and "1.0" equal? Perhaps yes, if you're talking about pure mathematical numbers. Perhaps no, if you're talking about engineering measurements with specific tolerance levels [*]. Definitely not, if you're talking about Strings.
The Java API was designed so that you could provide a comparator object, so that you could using different metrics for determining how two objects compare, depending on which metric you're interested in. I thought it might be a good idea if they did the same thing for the equals method (so you could provide a custom object to determine whether two objects are equal, depending on the context). Unfortunately, the API wasn't designed that way.
But moving away from idle daydreaming and coming back to practical matters: recall that in Java, you're free to implement the equals() method any way you want, as long as some basic requirements (reflexivity, transitivity, etc.) are met. The people who designed the BigDecimal class decided to design it in that particular way. Anyway, it's not like you can't get the above mentioned desired behaviour: All you have to do is use compareTo().
- Oliver
[*] An engineer might reject a part that measures "1.0 mm", requiring one that measures "1.00 mm". Why? Because that engineer might know that if the part actually measures 1.01 mm (which is considered to be a "1.0 mm" part, but not a "1.00 mm" part), the device will fail and/or break, whereas if the device measures 1.004 mm (which is both a "1.0 mm" and "1.00 mm" part), the device will tolerate this small deviancy, and continue functioning.
Ingo R. Homann - 07 Jun 2006 15:31 GMT Hi,
>>>>> BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal("1.00"); >>>>> BigDecimal bigDecima2 = new BigDecimal("1"); [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > numbers. Perhaps no, if you're talking about engineering measurements > with specific tolerance levels Ah, OK, that is a point I did not consider! I was only thinking of the "mathematical" equality.
Still, I am not convinced that the two values should not be mathematical equal (which you did not say), but I see (and agree to) your point, and it might be enough to say "they are not *generally* equal".
I know that compareTo() does exactly what I want, but I just think, "b.compareTo(BigDecimal.ZERO)==0" is not as beautiful and readable as "b.equals(BigDecimal.ZERO)" or even (if operator overloading would be allowed) "b==BigDecimal.ZERO" (or perhaps "b===BigDecimal.ZERO", if you think that is is not a good idea to allow to overload the "referential-equality-comparison-operator" ==).
Ciao, Ingo, daydreaming ;-)
Dale King - 11 Jun 2006 01:50 GMT > [*] An engineer might reject a part that measures "1.0 mm", requiring > one that measures "1.00 mm". Why? Because that engineer might know that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "1.00 mm" part), the device will tolerate this small deviancy, and > continue functioning. I remember in a freshman engineering course the teacher (who came from industry) told us about a time they were given drawings to make these large metal disks with these holes in them and the drawing specified the holes to be 6.000 inches in diameter. They went to a lot of work to get them to those tolerances. When they got them done they found out that they were use within a large pipe to slow down the flow. So in reality they could have been +/- inches.
 Signature Dale King
Patricia Shanahan - 07 Jun 2006 15:25 GMT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Ciao, > Ingo Anyone who thinks they are equivalent objects, try running this:
import java.math.BigDecimal; public class TestBigDecimal { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(new BigDecimal("1.0"). divide(new BigDecimal(3),BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_EVEN)); System.out.println(new BigDecimal("1.00"). divide(new BigDecimal(3),BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_EVEN)); } }
If they really were equivalent, I would expect them to do the same for anything other than the identity related operations, == comparison and System.identityHashCode().
A BigDecimal has both a decimal value and a scale, not just a decimal value. The scale affects some operations, such as the rounded divisions in the example program.
Their decimal values are equal, and decimal value is the natural ordering, so it makes sense for compareTo to treat them as equal.
Patricia
Ingo R. Homann - 08 Jun 2006 07:57 GMT Hi,
> Anyone who thinks they are equivalent objects, try running this: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anything other than the identity related operations, == comparison and > System.identityHashCode(). OK, that's perfectly right. But perhaps, only the specification of the method divide() is not consistent. Perhaps it would have been better if you would have been forced to explicitely name the scale of the result:
BigDecimal devide(BigDecimal d, RoundingMode r, scale s) {...}
So, I am not convinced that equals is implemented/specified mathematically correct.
Or am I missing something?
Ciao, Ingo
Patricia Shanahan - 08 Jun 2006 14:01 GMT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Or am I missing something? You may be missing something that people have been missing, at times, for at least 50 years.
The original Fortran type for floating point was called "REAL". Unfortunately, this encouraged programmers to think of its arithmetic as real arithmetic, instead of floating point arithmetic. Sometimes, that got them into trouble because floating point arithmetic differs from real arithmetic in some critical properties. For example, real addition is always associative, floating point addition isn't.
You are confusing BigDecimal arithmetic with decimal fraction arithmetic, and don't like it they turn out to be different, essentially the same problem as confusing floating point and real arithmetic, and being disturbed whenever (a+b)+c is different from a+(b+c).
If a BigDecimal were simply a decimal fraction, you would be right about 1.0 == 1.00, and the number would not have a scale attribute, so no operation results would depend on scale.
A BigDecimal is not just a decimal fraction. BigDecimal is a different, equally valid, system of arithmetic in which each number has a scale, and results of arithmetic operations can depend on the scale. The scale is a guide to the intended precision of the calculation, so it makes sense to have options to round according to the current scale.
It is not a matter of "mathematically correct" because mathematics, no matter how much it has to say about decimal fraction arithmetic, says nothing about java.math.BigDecimal arithmetic. It is a matter of defining an arithmetic system that is useful for certain purposes.
Of course, to some extent BigDecimal is a model of decimal fraction arithmetic, but it has its own rules, designed to be useful in a range of contexts.
Patricia
Chris Uppal - 08 Jun 2006 15:12 GMT > It is not a matter of "mathematically correct" because mathematics, no > matter how much it has to say about decimal fraction arithmetic, says [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > arithmetic, but it has its own rules, designed to be useful in a range > of contexts. And one could also define an EvenBiggerDecimal class with instances that had no scale (or, equivalently, whose scale was always unbounded). In that case they would, up to the limits of available time and memory, correspond exactly to the mathematical (finite) decimal fractions.
Maybe the problem here is that BigDecimal is misnamed; it would be better called something like ScaledDecimal.
In a way there's a connection here with numbers used to represent quantities. One pound does not equal one kilogram, even though they both are represented as 1. In a similar kind of way, 1.00 is not the same as 1.0 since they represent amounts of different things -- in one case the number of hundredths, in the other the number of tenths.
-- chris
Thomas Weidenfeller - 07 Jun 2006 15:28 GMT > I > think, the values of "1.00" and "1.0" *are* the same. Not if you are an engineer. 1.00 indicates a higher precision than 1.0. Depending on the type of rounding used (AFAIK varies in different countries in engineering), the above numbers e.g. indicate the two different ranges
1.00: [0.995, 1.005) 1.0: [0.95, 1.05)
for an engineer. And these ranges are rather different.
Stichwort "Signifikante Stellen"
/Thomas
 Signature The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ: ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/computer-lang.java.gui.faq/
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
|
|