Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am trying to understand the limits of the floating point representation.

On a 32-bit computer with 7 bits for the exponent and 24 bits for the mantissa, I want to know the biggest and smallest numbers.

My calculation:

Base 2

Biggest positive number = $$ + 1 \times 2^{127} $$

Smallest positive number = $$ + 2^{-24} \times 2^{-127} $$

Biggest negative number = $$ - 2^{-24} \times 2^{-127} $$

Smallest negative number = $$-1 \times 2^{127}$$


Biggest positive number = $$ +1 \times 10^{38} $$

Smallest positive number= $$ + 10^{-7} \times 10^{-38} $$

Biggest negative number= $$ - 10^{-7} \times 10^{-38} $$

Smallest negative number = $$ -1 \times 10^{38} $$

Is this a correct calculation?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Your implementation varies a bit from the IEEE standard, but the Wikipedia page gives explicit calculations for binary. There are details about the offset in the exponent and whether the leading 1 is suppressed in the mantissa that need to be considered before you get a final answer. But their range is about 1.18 E-38 to 3.4 E38 and with one bit less in the exponent you should have a range of about 1.18 E-19 to 3.4 E19.

For the base 10 case you need to specify how the base 10 numbers are stored for a clean answer. Added: it looks like your base 10 numbers are approximately the decimal equivalents of the binary. I hadn't noticed and thought you were storing values somehow in base 10.

share|cite|improve this answer

All current CPUs store floating point in binary, therefore you can get the decimal ranges by mere base conversion. I don't know what is your background, but keep in mind that there is loss of precision when numbers with different exponents are involved in an operation, see epsilon.

share|cite|improve this answer
More to the point: in inexact arithmetic, there exist representable numbers $\eta$ such that $x+\eta=x$ for any $x$, and for $x=1$, machine $\epsilon$ is the largest such $\eta$. – J. M. Jul 17 '11 at 15:42
The OP has given a calculation that shows that he clearly understands that. He wants to know if his results are correct. – Ben Crowell Jul 30 '11 at 17:53
He's give results in decimal separately; which indicated to me he did not understand how numbers are stored in computers. – eudoxos Jul 30 '11 at 17:57

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.