FORTRAN
 

Can anyone tell me the reason why i get 0.400000006 instead of 0.4, when i divide 2 by 5 using fortran routines. The routines are as follows.

real i,k,j

k=2

j=5

a=K/j

i=k/j

j=real(k/j)

print*,i

print*,a

print*,j

stop

end

the results for a,i,j is 0.400000006. I use fortran compiler g77.

regards. taw

Re: FORTRAN
 

sorry some more info, to compile the above i used: make filename. i.e. not just make. regards again taw

Re: FORTRAN
 

Try declaring your variables as

program DUMMY real a,b,c

a=2.d0 b=5.d0 c=a/b

write(*,*) 'a/b= ', c

stop end

Regards FP

Re: FORTRAN
 

sir, I wrote u'r rotines on separate lines as follows;

program DUMMY

real a,b,c

a=2.d0

b=5.d0

c=a/b

write(*,*) 'a/b= ', c

stop

end

naming the filename=try.f

compiled it as; make try

I got the following complilation message : f77 try.f -o try

and run the program as: try enter

the result for me is :

a/b= 0.400000006.

Is there a procedure i am missing, or my computer or OS has bugs.

regards,

TAW

Re: FORTRAN
 

Try increasing the precision to double precision.

Re: FORTRAN
 

The problem is not your compiler or OS (or shouldn't be at least). When doing floating point operations you'll need to use compatible types in order to avoid what is called "cast" of variables. We could take the Ford Prefect example:

program DUMMY real a,b,c a=2. b=5. c=a/b write(*,*) 'a/b= ', c stop end

or, in double precision

program DUMMY real*8 a,b,c a=2.d0 b=5.d0 c=a/b write(*,*) 'a/b= ', c stop end

NOTE: Not always you'll get what you're waiting in floating point arithmetics. The machine has a limitation in its internal representation of floating numbers and sometimes some information can be lost. It's easier to happen when using single precision.

Regards

Renato.

Re: FORTRAN
 

Taw,

Real arithmetic gives precision of about 8 significant digits, this is what you observe. Try to declare everything as real*8 and use 2.0d+0 (or 5.0d+0) format to set constants then your results should be about 15 digits accurate.

regards

M.Lipinski

Re: FORTRAN
 

Slightly off topic, but recently I started using gfortran instead of g77. There are some differences in output at runtime between the two compilers (e.g. the auto-format '*' option in write statements behaves differently). Is this difference attributed to the fact that g77 is fortran 77 and gfortran is fortran 95?

Re: FORTRAN
 

In addition to the other answers given, the root cause of the problem is that 0.4 (decimal) cannot be represented exactly in binary in a finite number of figures, meaning that the IEEE floating point representation is going to be the best approximation possible. Fractions such as 0.5 (0.1), 0.25 (0.01), 0.125(0.001), 0.375 (0.011) are fine, but just try to convert 0.4.

Re: FORTRAN
 

Format * is up to compiler. Every has it's own specification and it is not guarantied to be the same on another compiler (not only f77 vs f90 but also different brands). If you want the same output format on every compiler use precise specification (eg A, F, G ... with parameters).

Re: FORTRAN
 

Dear sirs,

Thankyou all for thevery helpful discussions. I was finally able to obtain the right answer by using real*8. It was a big relief since I was to mess up with my computer, you saved me a lot.

Alas my big worry now becomes how many of my past simulations my have caried garbages since i was not that curious or bother to add *8 or for that matter double precison statement whenever i modify past codes.

I will one day go throgh my past results in this light.

Best regards to all. TAW