<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: gedgell</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by gedgell (@gedgell).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/gedgell</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/gedgell"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>Why computers are secretly bad at Maths</title>
      <dc:creator>gedgell</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 12:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/gedgell/why-computers-are-secretly-bad-at-maths-3a1i</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/gedgell/why-computers-are-secretly-bad-at-maths-3a1i</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Type 0.1 + 0.2 into Python. Go on, try it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You might expect 0.3. You would get 0.30000000000000004.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Computers Only Speak Binary&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Whole numbers translate cleanly. The number 5 becomes 101 in binary. The number 8 becomes 1000. No problem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Until you add 0.1 + 0.2 and something unexpected appears.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Why Does This Matter?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This sounds like a curiosity — a fun quirk. But it has caused real problems in the real world.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A tiny rounding error. A catastrophic result.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Floating Point: The Clever Workaround&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;
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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Lesson&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That is computing for you.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Gareth Edgell is a Senior Examiner and Head of Computer Science. He writes about CS concepts and exam technique at compscitutoring.com.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>beginners</category>
      <category>computerscience</category>
      <category>programming</category>
      <category>python</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
