There have been several questions posted to SO about floating-point representation. For example, the decimal number 0.1 doesn't have an exact binary representation, so it's dangerous to use the == operator to compare it to another floating-point number. I understand the principles behind floating-point representation.

What I don't understand is why, from a mathematical perspective, are the numbers to the right of the decimal point any more "special" that the ones to the left?

For example, the number 61.0 has an exact binary representation because the integral portion of any number is always exact. But the number 6.10 is not exact. All I did was move the decimal one place and suddenly I've gone from Exactopia to Inexactville. Mathematically, there should be no intrinsic difference between the two numbers — they're just numbers.

By contrast, if I move the decimal one place in the other direction to produce the number 610, I'm still in Exactopia. I can keep going in that direction (6100, 610000000, 610000000000000) and they're still exact, exact, exact. But as soon as the decimal crosses some threshold, the numbers are no longer exact.

What's going on?

Edit: to clarify, I want to stay away from discussion about industry-standard representations, such as IEEE, and stick with what I believe is the mathematically "pure" way. In base 10, the positional values are:

```
... 1000 100 10 1 1/10 1/100 ...
```

In binary, they would be:

```
... 8 4 2 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 ...
```

There are also no arbitrary limits placed on these numbers. The positions increase indefinitely to the left and to the right.

## Best Solution

Decimal numbers

canbe represented exactly, if you have enough space - just not by floatingbinarypoint numbers. If you use a floatingdecimalpoint type (e.g.`System.Decimal`

in .NET) then plenty of values which can't be represented exactly in binary floating point can be exactly represented.Let's look at it another way - in base 10 which you're likely to be comfortable with, you can't express 1/3 exactly. It's 0.3333333... (recurring). The reason you can't represent 0.1 as a binary floating point number is for exactly the same reason. You can represent 3, and 9, and 27 exactly - but not 1/3, 1/9 or 1/27.

The problem is that 3 is a prime number which isn't a factor of 10. That's not an issue when you want to

multiplya number by 3: you can always multiply by an integer without running into problems. But when youdivideby a number which is prime and isn't a factor of your base, you can run into trouble (andwilldo so if you try to divide 1 by that number).Although 0.1 is usually used as the simplest example of an exact decimal number which can't be represented exactly in binary floating point, arguably 0.2 is a simpler example as it's 1/5 - and 5 is the prime that causes problems between decimal and binary.

## Side note to deal with the problem of finite representations:

Some floating decimal point types have a fixed size like

`System.Decimal`

others like`java.math.BigDecimal`

are "arbitrarily large" - but they'll hit a limit at some point, whether it's system memory or the theoretical maximum size of an array. This is an entirely separate point to the main one of this answer, however. Even if you had a genuinely arbitrarily large number of bits to play with, you still couldn't represent decimal 0.1 exactly in a floating binary point representation. Compare that with the other way round: given an arbitrary number of decimal digits, youcanexactly represent any number which is exactly representable as a floating binary point.