so as isequal(+0.0im,-0.0im). I discovered this during a painful debug process. I really want to understand the philosophy behind this designing, and I wish to get some advice on numerical stability. Thank you @everyone !

What you might do is something like: unique(x -> round(x, sigdigits=13), myarray) which would perform the unique operation based on the first 13 significant digits. (You could use digits instead of sigdigits if you want an absolute tolerance). But this might not necessarily be what you want, e.g…

The test isequal(+0.0,-0.0) returns FALSE

Specific Domains Numerics

Lian_Yunlong April 29, 2020, 2:34am 7

thank you, I’ve learnt this way of thinking now!

Topic		Replies	Views
Possible bug in unique/Set Internals & Design faq	49	4551	June 15, 2018
Comparing floating point numbers in an intuitive way fails within julia Internals & Design	6	1277	December 7, 2018
Questions related to -0.0 and 0.0 General Usage question	9	544	October 21, 2021
-0 and 0 are not equivalent in the eye of isequal() while applied in find*() functions General Usage question	2	364	March 4, 2020
Why is Julia designed this way? NaN != NaN but -0.0 == 0.0 New to Julia question	11	1101	November 11, 2021

The test isequal(+0.0,-0.0) returns FALSE

Related topics