My Matlab script reads a string value "0.001044397222448" from a file, and after parsing the file, this value printed in the console shows as double precision:
value_double =
0.001044397222448
After I convert this number to singe using value_float = single(value_double), the value shows as:
value_float =
0.0010444
What is the real value of this variable, that I later use in my Simulink simulation? Is it really truncated/rounded to 0.0010444?
My problem is that later on, after I compare this with analogous C code, I get differences. In the C code the value is read as float gf = 0.001044397222448f; and it prints out as 0.001044397242367267608642578125000. So the C code keeps good precision. But, does Matlab?
The number 0.001044397222448 (like the vast majority of decimal fractions) cannot be exactly represented in binary floating point.
As a single-precision float, it's most closely represented as (hex) 0x0.88e428 × 2-9, which in decimal is 0.001044397242367267608642578125.
In double precision, it's most closely represented as 0x0.88e427d4327300 × 2-9, which in decimal is 0.001044397222447999984407118745366460643708705902099609375.
Those are what the numbers are, internally, in both C and Matlab.
Everything else you see is an artifact of how the numbers are printed back out, possibly rounded and/or truncated.
When I said that the single-precision representation "in decimal is 0.001044397242367267608642578125", that's mildly misleading, because it makes it look like there are 28 or more digits' worth of precision. Most of those digits, however, are an artifact of the conversion from base 2 back to base 10. As other answers have noted, single-precision floating point actually gives you only about 7 decimal digits of precision, as you can see if you notice where the single- and double-precision equivalents start to diverge:
0.001044397242367267608642578125
0.001044397222447999984407118745366460643708705902099609375
^
difference
Similarly, double precision gives you roughly 16 decimal digits worth of precision, as you can see if you compare the results of converting a few previous and next mantissa values:
0x0.88e427d43272f8 0.00104439722244799976756668424826557384221814572811126708984375
0x0.88e427d4327300 0.001044397222447999984407118745366460643708705902099609375
0x0.88e427d4327308 0.00104439722244800020124755324246734744519926607608795166015625
0x0.88e427d4327310 0.0010443972224480004180879877395682342466898262500762939453125
^
changes
This also demonstrates why you can never exactly represent your original value 0.001044397222448 in binary. If you're using double, you can have 0.00104439722244799998, or you can have 0.0010443972224480002, but you can't have anything in between. (You'd get a little less close with float, and you could get considerably closer with long double, but you'll never get your exact value.)
In C, and whether you're using float or double, you can ask for as little or as much precision as you want when printing things with %f, and under a high-quality implementation you'll always get properly-rounded results. (Of course the results you get will always be the result of rounding the actual, internal value, not necessarily the decimal value you started with.) For example, if I run this code:
printf("%.5f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.10f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.15f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.20f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.30f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.40f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.50f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.60f\n", 0.001044397222448);
printf("%.70f\n", 0.001044397222448);
I see these results, which as you can see match the analysis above.
(Note that this particular example is using double, not float.)
0.00104
0.0010443972
0.001044397222448
0.00104439722244799998
0.001044397222447999984407118745
0.0010443972224479999844071187453664606437
0.00104439722244799998440711874536646064370870590210
0.001044397222447999984407118745366460643708705902099609375000
0.0010443972224479999844071187453664606437087059020996093750000000000000
I'm not sure how Matlab prints things.
In answer to your specific questions:
What is the real value of this variable, that I later use in my Simulink simulation? Is it really truncated/rounded to
0.0010444?
As a float, it is really "truncated" to a number which, converted back to decimal, is exactly 0.001044397242367267608642578125. But as we've seen, most of those digits are essentially meaningless, and the result can more properly thought of as being about 0.0010443972.
In the C code the value is read as float gf = 0.001044397222448f; and it prints out as 0.001044397242367267608642578125000
So C got the same answer I did -- but, again, most of those digits are not meaningful.
So the C code keeps good precision. But, does Matlab?
I'd be willing to bet that Matlab keeps the same internal precision for ordinary floats and doubles.