[Cryptography] floating point
jsd at av8n.com
Fri Dec 26 00:55:12 EST 2014
*) There are things you an do with floating point, and things you can't.
*) Recognizing the distinction does not make you an "alleged programmer".
*) Name-calling is not an acceptable substitute for facts or logic.
*) Name-dropping allusions to famous scientists is not an acceptable
substitute for facts or logic.
Here is a /partial/ list of issues and non-issues:
1) There is a distinction between /numbers/ and /numerals/. It
is quite common to have multiple representations for the same
number, such as seventeen, 17, XVII, 0x11, 17.0000, and literally
infinitely many others. This is something that people were
supposed to learn in third grade.
The fact that IEEE floating point has two numerals that represent
the number zero is not a serious problem. It is a third-grade
problem. It is manageable with minimal effort.
2) IEEE floating point is not the only game in town. Forsooth,
it seems likely that most of the floating point done in the
world today is /not/ IEEE compliant. Hint: GPUs.
If you want IEEE floating point behavior, and it is not
supported in the hardware, it is painful to implement it
3) There are many different equivalence relationships in the
world. A blue triangle is shapewise_equivalent to a red
triangle. A blue triangle is colorwise_equivalent to a
blue square. Take your pick.
In the computer, we have arithmetical comparison as well as
bitwise comparison, stringwise comparison, et cetera. Take
your pick. Different ones are good for different purposes.
4) Restricting attention now to IEEE floating point default
behavior, there are three types of entities to consider:
-- rfloat: regular floating point numbers, representing a
subset of the rational numbers.
-- xfloat: all the above, extended to include +inf and -inf.
I don't care whether you consider infinity to be a "number"
-- xxfloat: all of the above, extended to include NaN, which
(as it says on the tin) is /not/ a number. Even though it
is not a number, it is an xxfloat entity.
So, to answer a question that was previously asked: In the
domain of xxfloats, the arithmetic == operator is definitely
/not/ an equivalence relation, because it fails the "reflexive"
requirement. Specifically, (NaN == NaN) is false. If we
don't have a viable notion of equality, we can't even ask
the question about whether something is a function or not.
In the xxfloat domain, arithmetical == does not imply bitwise
equality ... or vice versa:
-- 0.0 == -0.0 but the representations are bitwise different.
-- NaN != NaN but the representations are bitwise the same.
Do not ask me to explain why NaN != NaN returns true. I am
quite aware of the traditional and historical explanations.
They just don't make any sense.
If we focus attention on the xfloat domain, narrowly speaking,
then arithmetic == is an equivalence relation as far as I can
tell. In particular, let
a = 0.0
b = -0.0
Then a is == to b, and any xfloat that is equal a is also ==
On the other hand, if we mix ints and xfloats, then arithmetic
== is not an equivalence relation, because if fails the
"transitive" requirement. Specifically, due to a peculiar
notion of /promotion to float/ you can have p == q and q == r
but p != r. I have code that demonstrates this.
On the third hand, if p == 0 and 0 == r then p == r, so
the example that provoked this discussion is still not a
5) Within the xfloat domain, atan2 is /not/ a function, but
that's overkill; there are plenty of simpler examples, not
involving transcendental functions. Indeed, xfloat divide
is not a function, because (a == b) is true whereas (1/a == 1/b)
is false. Recall that
a = 0.0
b = -0.0
Also the usual decimal formatting is not an injective mapping,
because b is arithmetically == to a, but str(b) is not stringwise
equal to str(a). That is, "-0" is not stringwise equal to "0".
6) Even within IEEE floating point, default behavior is not
the only allowed behavior. If you are writing a low-level
library, with no control over the big picture, it is difficult
to find /any/ floating point operations that are safe. Even
simple operations such as add, subtract, multiply, and divide
could trap out and die.
Conversely, some things that you might want to trap out or
return NaN -- such as atan2(0,0) -- do not. OTOH you could
write wrappers for such things.
7) Looking at the standards won't tell you what happens in the
-- Chez moi clang++ will not trap on floating divide by zero,
no matter how politely you ask, even though other traps
behave as expected.
-- Chez moi g++ labels every FP trap as "divide by zero", even
when something else (e.g. underflow) actually happened.
-- et cetera.
8) The things I am calling FP "traps" are commonly called exceptions,
but they are not to be confused with C++ exceptions. With a bit
of work you can convert an FP trap into a C++ exception.
More information about the cryptography