Develop Reference

Exact conversion from float to int

I want to convert float value to int value or throw an exception if this conversion is not exact.
I've found the following suggestion: use Math.round to convert and then use == to check whether those values are equal. If they're equal, then conversion is exact, otherwise it is not.
But I've found an example which does not work. Here's code demonstrating this example:
String s = "2147483648";
float f = Float.parseFloat(s);
System.out.printf("f=%f\n", f);
int i = Math.round(f);
System.out.printf("i=%d\n", i);
System.out.printf("(f == i)=%s\n", (f == i));
It outputs:
f=2147483648.000000
i=2147483647
(f == i)=true
I understand that 2147483648 does not fit into integer range, but I'm surprised that == returns true for those values. Is there better way to compare float and int? I guess it's possible to convert both values to strings, but that would be extremely slow for such a primitive function.

floats are rather inexact concepts. They are also mostly pointless unless you're running on at this point rather old hardware, or interacting specifically with systems and/or protocols that work in floats or have 'use a float' hardcoded in their spec. Which may be true, but if it isn't, stop using floats and start using double - unless you have a fairly large float[] there is zero memory and performance difference, floats are just less accurate.
Your algorithm cannot fail when using int vs double - all ints are perfectly representable as double.
Let's first explain your code snippet
The underlying error here is the notion of 'silent casting' and how java took some intentional liberties there.
In computer systems in general, you can only compare like with like. It's easy to put in exact terms of bits and machine code what it means to determine whether a == b is true or false if a and b are of the exact same type. It is not at all clear when a and b are different things. Same thing applies to pretty much any operator; a + b, if both are e.g. an int, is a clear and easily understood operation. But if a is a char and b is, say, a double, that's not clear at all.
Hence, in java, all binary operators that involve different types are illegal. In basis, there is no bytecode to directly compare a float and a double, for example, or to add a string to an int.
However, there is syntax sugar: When you write a == b where a and b are different types, and java determines that one of two types is 'a subset' of the other, then java will simply silently convert the 'smaller' type to the 'larger' type, so that the operation can then succeed. For example:
int x = 5;
long y = 5;
System.out.println(x == y);
This works - because java realizes that converting an int to a long value is not ever going to fail, so it doesn't bother you with explicitly specifying that you intended the code to do this. In JLS terms, this is called a widening conversion. In contrast, any attempt to convert a 'larger' type to a 'smaller' type isn't legal, you have to explicitly cast:
long x = 5;
int y = x; // does not compile
int y = (int) x; // but this does.
The point is simply this: When you write the reverse of the above (int x = 5; long y = x;), the code is identical, it's just that compiler silently injects the (long) cast for you, on the basis that no loss will occur. The same thing happens here:
int x = 5;
long y = 10;
long z = x + y;
That compiles because javac adds some syntax sugar for you, specifically, that is compiled as if it says: long z = ((long) x) + y;. The 'type' of the expression x + y there is long.
Here's the key trick: Java considers converting an int to a float, as well as an int or long to a double - a widening conversion.
As in, javac will just assume it can do that safely without any loss and therefore will not enforce that the programmer explicitly acknowledges by manually adding the cast. However, int->float, as well as long->double are not actually entirely safe.
floats can represent every integral value between -2^23 to +2^23, and doubles can represent every integral value between -2^52 to +2^52 (source). But int can represent every integral value between -2^31 to +2^31-1, and longs -2^63 to +2^63-1. That means at the edges (very large negative/positive numbers), integral values exist that are representable in ints but not in floats, or longs but not in doubles (all ints are representable in double, fortunately; int -> double conversion is entirely safe). But java doesn't 'acknowledge' this, which means silent widening conversions can nevertheless toss out data (introduce rounding) silently.
That is what happens here: (f == i) is syntax sugared into (f == ((float) i)) and the conversion from int to float introduces the rounding.
The solution
Mostly, when using doubles and floats and nevertheless wishing for exact numbers, you've already messed up. These concepts fundamentally just aren't exact and this exactness cannot be sideloaded in by attempting to account for error bands, as the errors introduced due to the rounding behaviour of float and double cannot be tracked (not easily, at any rate). You should not be using float/double as a consequence. Either find an atomary unit and represent those in terms of int/long, or use BigDecimal. (example: To write bookkeeping software, do not store finance amounts as a double. do store them as 'cents' (or satoshis or yen or pennies or whatever the atomic unit is in that currency) in long, or, use BigDecimal if you really know what you are doing).
I want an answer anyway
If you're absolutely positive that using float (or even double) here is acceptable and you still want exactness, we have a few solutions.
Option 1 is to employ the power of BigDecimal:
new BigDecimal(someDouble).intValueExact()
This works, is 100% reliable (unless float to double conversion can knock a non-exact value into an exact one somehow, I don't think that can happen), and throws. It's also very slow.
An alternative is to employ our knowledge of how the IEEE floating point standard works.
A real simple answer is simply to run your algorithm as you wrote it, but to add an additional check: If the value your int gets is below -2^23 or above +2^23 then it probably isn't correct. However, there are still a smattering of numbers below -2^23 and +2^23 that are perfectly representable in both float and int, just, no longer every number at that point. If you want an algorithm that will accept those exact numbers as well, then it gets much more complicated. My advice is not to delve into that cesspool: If you have a process where you end up with a float that is anywhere near such extremes, and you want to turn them to int but only if that is possible without loss, you've arrived at a crazy question and you need to rewire the parts that you got you there instead!
If you really need that, instead of trying to numbercrunch the float, I suggest using the BigDecimal().intValueExact() trick if you truly must have this.

Java Variable Numeric Literals

I am new in java. I have a problem with Numeric literal. Here is my problem:
float rank = 1050.86F;
System.out.println(rank);
The output is: 1050.86
double rank1 = 1050.86D;
double rank2 = 1050.86F;
System.out.println(rank1);
System.out.println(rank2);
The output of rank1 is: 1050.86
The output of rank2 is: 1050.8599853515625
My question is:
(i)Why the output of rank1 and rank2 are different? and how I calculate that?
(ii) Why do I need to use L, D, F before semicolon? As we already used keyword double, int, so why we need to use L, D, F on variables?
Please Help me. I am new in programming.

To answer your first question, it has to do with how computers store numbers internally. Computers use floating point to store numbers. Double precision ("double") stores more "information" in each number than floats. There are 64 bits stored for a double, and 32 bits stored for a float. See how 64 is twice the amount of bits as 32? That's why it's called a double!
Both doubles and floats can only store a limited amount of information in their types, though, so they're not perfectly precise and you can expect little inaccuracies like that to happen all the time in programming. It's nothing to worry about, in fact it's very common to run into floating point errors like you describe. There is no solution other than you should use doubles if you want more precise decimal values. Explaining how to deal with floating point error would take a lot of explaining, so I will link one of my favorite explanations of it here.
To answer your second question, if you don't specify, Java will assume you're using a double value (see here), so you have to specify that you want a float instead. This is because most often you will want to use a double (like I said above, it stores more information), so it makes sense that double is default and you have to specify if you want a float instead.

Why is Java's division broken?

I am an experienced php developer just starting to learn Java. I am following some Lynda courses at the moment and I'm still really early stages. I'm writing sample programs that ask for user input and do simple calculation and stuff.
Yesterday I came across this situation:
double result = 1 / 2;
With my caveman brain I would think result == 0.5, but no, not in Java. Apparantly 1 / 2 == 0.0. Yes, I know that if I change one of the operands to a double the result would also be a double.
This scares me actually. I can't help but think that this is very broken. It is very naive to think that an integer division results in an integer. I think it is even rarely the case.
But, as Java is very widely used and searching for 'why is java's division broken?' doesn't yield any results, I am probably wrong.
My questions are:
Why does division behave like this?
Where else can I expect to find such magic/voodoo/unexpected behaviour?

Java is a strongly typed language so you should be aware of the types of the values in expressions. If not...
1 is an int (as 2), so 1/2 is the integer division of 1 and 2, so the result is 0 as an int. Then the result is converted to a corresponding double value, so 0.0.
Integer division is different than float division, as in math (natural numbers division is different than real numbers division).

You are thinking like a PHP developer; PHP is dynamically typed language. This means that types are deduced at run-time, so a fraction cannot logically produce a whole number, thus a double (or float) is implied from the division operation.
Java, C, C++, C# and many other languages are strongly typed languages, so when an integer is divided by an integer you get an integer back, 100/50 gives me back 2, just like 100/45 gives me 2, because 100/45 is actually 2.2222..., truncate the decimal to get a whole number (integer division) and you get 2.
In a strongly typed language, if you want a result to be what you expect, you need to be explicit (or implicit), which is why having one of your parameters in your division operation be a double or float will result in floating point division (which gives back fractions).
So in Java, you could do one of the following to get a fractional number:
double result = 1.0 / 2;
double result = 1f / 2;
double result = (float)1 / 2;
Going from a loosely typed, dynamic language to a strongly typed, static language can be jarring, but there's no need to be scared. Just understand that you have to take extra care with validation beyond input, you also have to validate types.
Going from PHP to Java, you should know you can not do something like this:
$result = "2.0";
$result = "1.0" / $result;
echo $result * 3;
In PHP, this would produce the output 1.5 (since (1/2)*3 == 1.5), but in Java,
String result = "2.0";
result = "1.0" / result;
System.out.println(result * 1.5);
This will result in an error because you cannot divide a string (it's not a number).
Hope that can help.

I'm by no means a professional on this, but I think it's because of how the operators are defined to do integer arithmetic. Java uses integer division in order to compute the result because it sees that both are integers. It takes as inputs to this "division" method two ints, and the division operator is overloaded, and performs this integer division. If this were not the case, then Java would have to perform a cast in the overloaded method to a double each time, which is in essence useless if you can perform the cast prior anyways.

If you try it with c++, you will see the result is the same.
The reason is that before assigning the value to the variable, you should calculate it. The numbers you typed (1 and 2) are integers, so their memory allocation should be as integers. Then, the division should done according to integers. After that it will cast it to double, which gives 0.0.

Why does division behave like this?
Because the language specification defines it that way.
Where else can I expect to find such magic/voodoo/unexpected behaviour?
Since you're basically calling "magic/voodoo" something which is perfectly defined in the language specification, the answer is "everywhere".
So the question is actually why there was this design decision in Java. From my point of view, int division resulting in int is a perfectly sound design decision for a strongly typed language. Pure int arithmetic is used very often, so would an int division result in float or double, you'd need a lot of rounding which would not be good.

package demo;
public class ChocolatesPurchased
{
public static void main(String args[])
{
float p = 3;
float cost = 2.5f;
p *= cost;
System.out.println(p);
}
}

Number too big for BigInteger

I'm developing a chemistry app, and I need to include the Avogadro's number:
(602200000000000000000000)
I don't really know if I can use scientific notation to represent it as 6.022 x 10x23 (can't put the exponent).
I first used double, then long and now, I used java.math.BigInteger.
But it still says it's too big, what can I do or should this is just to much for a system?

Pass it to the BigInteger constructor as a String, and it works just fine.
BigInteger a = new BigInteger("602200000000000000000000");
a = a.multiply(new BigInteger("2"));
System.out.println(a);
Output: 1204400000000000000000000

First of all, you need to check your physics / chemistry text book.
Avogadro's number is not 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000. It is approximately 6.022 x 1023. The key word is "approximately". As of 2019, the precise value is 6.02214076×1023 mol−1
(In 2015 when I originally wrote this reply, the current best approximation for Avogadro's number was 6.022140857(74)×1023 mol−1, and the relative error was +/- 1.2×10–8. In 2019, the SI redefined the mole / Avogadro's number to be the precise value above. Source: Wikipedia)
My original (2015) answer was that since the number only needed 8 decimal digits precision, the Java double type was an appropriate type to represent it. Hence, I recommended:
final double AVOGADROS_CONSTANT = 6.02214076E23;
Clearly, neither int or long can represent this number. A float could, but not with enough precision (assuming we use the best available measured value).
Now (post 2019) the BigInteger is the simplest correct representation.
Now to your apparent problems with declaring the constant as (variously) an double, a long and a BigInteger.
I expect you did something like this:
double a = 602200000000000000000000;
and so on. That isn't going to work, but the reason it won't work needs to be explained. The problem is that the number is being supplied as an int literal. An int cannot be that big. The largest possible int value is 231 - 1 ... which is a little bit bigger than 2 x 109.
That is what the Java compiler was complaining about. The literal is too big to be an int.
It is too big for long literal as well. (Do the math.)
But it is not too big for a double literal ... provided that you write it correctly.
The solution using BigInteger(String) works because it side-steps the problem of representing the number as a numeric literal by using a string instead, and parsing it at runtime. That's OK from the perspective of the language, but (IMO) wrong because the extra precision is an illusion.

You can use E notation to write the scientific notation:
double a = 6.022e23;

The problem is with how you're trying to create it (most likely), not because it can't fit.
If you have just a number literal in your code (even if you try to assign it to a double or long), this is first treated as an integer (before being converted to the type it needs to be), and the number you have can't fit into an integer.
// Even though this number can fit into a long, it won't compile, because it's first treated
// as an integer.
long l = 123456788901234;
To create a long, you can add L to your number, so 602200000000000000000000L, although it won't fit into a long either - the max value is 263-1.
To create a double, you can add .0 to your number, so 602200000000000000000000.0 (or 6.022e23 as Guffa suggested), although you should not use this if you want precise values, as you may lose some accuracy because of the way it stores the value.
To create a BigInteger, you can use the constructor taking a string parameter:
new BigInteger("602200000000000000000000");

Most probably you are using long to initialize BigInteger. Since long can represent 64-bit numbers, your number would be too big to fit in to long. Using String would help.

Java casting conversion?

What does java compiler do in this case ?
for(int i=3;i< Math.sqrt(n);i=i+2)
Math.sqrt returns a double, so does Javac widen i to a double ?
If I want to use the int value back will i need to re-cast it ?
How does this actually work ?

Yes, i is widened to a temporary double for the comparison. The value of i itself is unaffected.

Math.sqrt returns a double, so does Javac widen i to a double?
Yes
If I want to use the int value back will i need to re-cast it?
Yes
How does this actually work ?
With primitives if you have a type that is wider than the other in the operation, the smaller is automatically converted for you.

What the language rules say is that i will be promoted to a double, and then compared with the return value of sqrt.
The compiler is free to do whatever it likes, as long as it results in the same behaviour.
I would be surprised if any compiler did anything other than promoted i to a double and did a comparison. The promotion is easy and cheap on most architectures. A correct alternative which was faster would be very hard to come up with.

There's no widening in Java, in the sense that is implied by the question: "the compiler widens i to a double". If you define a variable as int, it will always be an int. Internally, the representation of some types may be wider than necessary (for instance, a short may be stored as 4-bytes rather than 2), but this is not affected/determined by the way the variable is used.
Specifically, in the loop describes in the question the compiler emits code that converts the double returned from Math.sqrt() into an integer.
You can think of it as if the compiler rewrites the code as follows:
for(int i=3; (double) i < (Math.sqrt(n)); i=i+2)
(thanks to the people who commented. Fixed the snippet)