惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

博客园 - Franky
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
博客园 - 叶小钗
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
Vercel News
Vercel News
Y
Y Combinator Blog
B
Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
C
Check Point Blog
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
Jina AI
Jina AI
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
罗磊的独立博客
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
F
Fortinet All Blogs
博客园 - 司徒正美
I
InfoQ
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
GbyAI
GbyAI
U
Unit 42

DEV Community

Authentication Security Deep Dive: From Brute Force to Salted Hashing (With Java Examples) Why AI Systems Don’t Fail — They Drift Spilling beans for how i learn for exam😁"Reinforcement Learning Cheat Sheet" I Replaced Chrome with Safari for AI Browser Automation. Here's What Broke (and What Finally Worked) How Python Borrows Other People's Work The $40 Architecture: Processing 1 Billion API Requests with 99.99% Uptime Vibe Coding: A Workflow Guide (From Zero to SaaS) Most webhook security guides protect the wrong side. The scary part is delivery. Headless CMS for TanStack Start: Build a Blog with Cosmic EU Age Verification App "Hacked in 2 Minutes" — What Actually Happened Comfy Cloud’s delete function does not actually remove files Running AI Models on GPU Cloud Servers: A Beginner Guide Event-driven media intelligence with AWS Step Functions and Bedrock I scored 500 AI prompts across 8 quality dimensions — here's what broke How to Call Google Gemini API from Next.js (Free Tier, No Backend Needed) The Portal Protocol: Reclaiming Human Connection in the Age of AI How to Fix Your Team's Scattered Knowledge Problem With a Self-Hosted Forum Intro to tc Cloud Functors: A Graph-First Mental Model for the Modern Cloud Designing Multi-Tenant Backends With Both Ownership and Team Access I Built a Neumorphic CSS Library with 77+ Components — Here's What I Learned PostgreSQL Performance Optimization: Why Connection Pooling Is Critical at Scale Cómo construí un SaaS multi-rubro para gestionar expensas en Argentina con FastAPI + Vue 3 🚀 I Built an Ethical Hacking Scanner Tool – Open Source Project I Replaced /usage and /context in Claude Code With a Single Statusline A Pythonic Way to Handle Emails (IMAP/SMTP) with Auto-Discovery and AI-Ready Design I Collected 8.9 Million Polymarket Price Points — Here's What I Found About How Markets Really Move EcoTrack AI — Carbon Footprint Tracker & Dashboard Everyone's Using AI. No One Agrees How. 5 self-hosted ebook managers worth trying in 2026 Building Your First AI Agent with LangChain: From Chatbot to Autonomous Assistant
Why computers are secretly bad at Maths
gedgell · 2026-06-16 · via DEV Community

gedgell

Type 0.1 + 0.2 into Python. Go on, try it.

You might expect 0.3. You would get 0.30000000000000004.

A machine that can simulate entire worlds, beat grandmasters at chess, and guide rockets to Mars — and it cannot add up two simple numbers. What is going on?

Computers Only Speak Binary

Here is the problem. Humans count in base 10 — we have ten fingers, so we have ten digits (0 through 9). When we write 0.1, we know exactly what we mean.

Computers count in base 2 — binary. They only have two digits: 0 and 1. Everything a computer stores, from your photos to your messages to your maths homework, gets translated into long strings of 0s and 1s before the computer can do anything with it.

Whole numbers translate cleanly. The number 5 becomes 101 in binary. The number 8 becomes 1000. No problem.

But fractions are trickier. Think about how we write one third in decimal: 0.3333333... It goes on forever. We cannot write it exactly — we just agree to round it.

The same thing happens to computers with numbers like 0.1. In binary, 0.1 is a repeating fraction — it never ends cleanly. The computer has to cut it off somewhere and round the answer. Most of the time the rounding error is so tiny you never notice it.

Until you add 0.1 + 0.2 and something unexpected appears.

Why Does This Matter?

This sounds like a curiosity — a fun quirk. But it has caused real problems in the real world.

In 1991, during the Gulf War, a US Patriot missile defence system failed to intercept an incoming missile because of a floating point rounding error. The system had been running for 100 hours, and a tiny timing error had accumulated over thousands of calculations until it was large enough to matter. The result was a tragedy.

In 1996, the Ariane 5 rocket — which had taken a decade to build — exploded 37 seconds after launch. The cause was a software error involving a number that was too large to be stored in the space the computer had set aside for it. £370 million, gone in less than a minute.

A tiny rounding error. A catastrophic result.

Floating Point: The Clever Workaround

Computer scientists knew about this problem from the very beginning. Their solution is called floating point representation — a way of storing numbers that works a bit like scientific notation.

Instead of trying to store 0.30000000000004 in full, a computer stores the important digits and separately stores where the decimal point goes. It is a clever compromise: you can represent an enormous range of numbers — from subatomic scales to the size of the observable universe — using a fixed amount of space.
The trade-off is precision. You get an approximation, not an exact answer. For most purposes, the approximation is close enough that it does not matter. For a missile defence system that has been running for four days, it matters a great deal.

The Lesson

Computer science is full of trade-offs like this. Every choice a designer makes — how much space to use, how much precision to keep, how to round a number — has consequences. Most of the time those consequences are invisible. Occasionally, they are not.

So next time you open Python and type 0.1 + 0.2, you are not looking at a mistake. You are looking at a deliberate design decision made by computer scientists decades ago — one that works brilliantly almost all of the time, and spectacularly badly the rest.

That is computing for you.

Gareth Edgell is a Senior Examiner and Head of Computer Science. He writes about CS concepts and exam technique at compscitutoring.com.