How does one convert a decimal float to binary using the multiply by 2 method?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the representation of the decimal number 0.1 in binary floating-point format, specifically when using a base of 2 and a precision of 20 bits. It explains that 0.1 cannot be represented exactly in binary, leading to an approximate representation of 1.1001100110011001100 × 2^-4. The method for deriving this representation involves multiplying the fractional part of 0.1 by 2 repeatedly to determine the binary digits. The exponent is fixed at -4 to ensure the mantissa is normalized, resulting in the binary value of 1.6, which is then expressed in the required format. The conversation also touches on the use of online converters and the mathematical basis for the binary expansion of 0.1, emphasizing the importance of understanding the conversion process and the properties of binary fractions.
CGandC
Messages
326
Reaction score
34
I've started reading A concise introduction to numerical analysis, A.C. Foul and on the first page there's the following paragraph about how a floating point in fixed point precision can be represented:

We live in a continuous world with infinitely many real numbers. However, a computer has only a finite number of bits. This requires an approximate representation. In the past, several different representations of real numbers have been suggested, but now the most widely used by far is the floating point representation. Each floating point representations has a base ##\beta## (which is always assumed to be even) which is typically 2 (binary), 8 (octal), 10 (decimal), or 16 (hexadecimal), and a precision ##p## which is the number of digits (of base ##\beta## ) held in a floating point number. For example, if ##\beta=10## and ##p=5##, the number 0.1 is represented as ##1.0000 \times 10^{-1}##. On the other hand, if ##\beta=2## and ##p=20##, the decimal number 0.1 cannot be represented exactly but is approximately ##1.1001100110011001100 \times 2^{-4}##. We can write the representation as ##\pm d_0 . d_1 \cdots d_{p-1} \times \beta^e##, where ##d_0 . d_1 \cdots d_{p-1}## is called the significand (or mantissa) and has ##p## digits and ##e## is the exponent. If the leading digit ##d_0## is non-zero, the number is said to be normalized. More precisely ##\pm d_0 . d_1 \cdots d_{p-1} \times \beta^e## is the number
##
\pm\left(d_0+d_1 \beta^{-1}+d_2 \beta^{-2}+\cdots+d_{p-1} \beta^{-(p-1)}\right) \beta^\epsilon, 0 \leq d_i<\beta
##

I don't understand the example where it says " ##\beta=2## and ##p=20##, the decimal number 0.1 cannot be represented exactly but is approximately ##1.1001100110011001100 \times 2^{-4}## " . How did the author arrive to ##1.1001100110011001100 \times 2^{-4}##?

I've tried arriving to the result using a method ( I don't know how it's called, I've met in on the internet so I have no idea about its correctness ) in which one keeps multiplying the number after the decimal point by 2 and if it goes past 1.0 then we add 1 to the output, else we add 0 to the output. Also, using a decimal float to binary converter on the web such as on the site https://www.exploringbinary.com/floating-point-converter/ , doesn't give me the author's result.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Well if I take the binary float of the mantissa above and convert it to decimal, I get 1.5999999, which when divide by 16 give 0.1 to 6 digits. So the answer in the book is correct. One way to look at it is that in floating point you want the binary mantissa to be 1.something. So what power of 2 do you need to multiply 0.1 by to give a binary mantissa that is 1.something?
0.4 = 0.0110011...
0.8 = 0.110011...
1.6 = 1.100110011...
3.2 = 11.00110011...

So this fixes the binary exponent as -4. Then you convert 1.6 to binary and you get the result above.
 
Also, on the conversion site you linked, if you convert the decimal 0.1 to Normalized binary scientific notation, you get the result in the book.
 
Understood, thanks!. I missed the result at the site, sorry, my bad.
 
Note that the binary expansion of 0.1 can be obtained as \begin{split}<br /> \frac{1}{10} &amp;= \frac{3}{30} \\<br /> &amp;= \frac12 \cdot \frac{3}{15} \\<br /> &amp;= \frac12 \cdot \frac{3}{16} \cdot \frac{16}{15} \\<br /> &amp;= \frac{3}{32} \left(1 + \frac{1}{16} + \frac{1}{16^2} + \dots \right) \\<br /> &amp;= 2^{-5} \times (11.0011001100110011\dots)_2 \\<br /> &amp;= (1.100110011001100\dots)_2 \times 2^{-4}. \end{split} The basis of the technique is to ensure that the denominator is either 2^n, in which case the expansion terminates, or else has a factor of 2^n - 1 in which case the expansion eventually repeats, using <br /> \frac{1}{2^n - 1} = 2^{-n} \frac{1}{1 - 2^{-n}} = 2^{-n}(1 + 2^{-n} + 2^{-2n} + \dots).
 
  • Like
Likes phyzguy and CGandC
In my discussions elsewhere, I've noticed a lot of disagreement regarding AI. A question that comes up is, "Is AI hype?" Unfortunately, when this question is asked, the one asking, as far as I can tell, may mean one of three things which can lead to lots of confusion. I'll list them out now for clarity. 1. Can AI do everything a human can do and how close are we to that? 2. Are corporations and governments using the promise of AI to gain more power for themselves? 3. Are AI and transhumans...
Sorry if 'Profile Badge' is not the correct term. I have an MS 365 subscription and I've noticed on my Word documents the small circle with my initials in it is sometimes different in colour document to document (it's the circle at the top right of the doc, that, when you hover over it it tells you you're signed in; if you click on it you get a bit more info). Last night I had four docs with a red circle, one with blue. When I closed the blue and opened it again it was red. Today I have 3...
Back
Top