.NET 7 Preview 5 – Generic Math

Tanner Gooding [MSFT]

In .NET 6 we previewed a feature known as Generic Math. Since then, we have made continuous improvements to the implementation and responded to various feedback from the community in order to ensure that relevant scenarios are possible and the necessary APIs are available.

If you missed out on the original blog post, Generic Math combines the power of generics and a new feature known as static virtuals in interfaces to allow .NET developers to take advantage of static APIs, including operators, from generic code. This means that you get all the power of generics, but now with the ability to constrain the input to number like types, so you no longer need to write or maintain many near identical implementations just to support multiple types. It also means that you get access to all your favorite operators and can use them from generic contexts. That is, you can now have static T Add<T>(T left, T right) where T : INumber<T> => left + right; where-as previously it would have been impossible to define.

Much like generics, this feature will see the most benefits by API authors where they can simplify the amount of code required they need to maintain. The .NET Libraries did just this to simplify the Enumerable.Min and Enumerable.Max APIs exposed as part of LINQ. Other developers will benefit indirectly as the APIs they consume may start supporting more types without the requirement for each and every numeric type to get explicit support. Once an API supports INumber<T> then it should work with any type that implements the required interface. All devs will likewise benefit from having a more consistent API surface and having more functionality available by default. For example, all types that implement IBinaryInteger<T> will support operations like + (Addition), - (Subtraction), << (Left Shift), and LeadingZeroCount.

Generic Math

Lets take a look at an example piece of code that computes a standard deviation. For those unfamiliar, this is a math function used in statistics that builds on two simpler methods: Sum and Average. It is basically used to determine how spread apart a set of values are.

The first method we’ll look at is Sum, which just adds a set of values together. The method takes in an IEnumerable<T> where T must be a type that implements the INumber<T> interface. It returns a TResult with a similar constraint (it must be a type that implements INumber<TResult>). Because two generic parameters are here, it is allowed to return a different type than it takes as an input. This means, for example, you can do Sum<int, long> which would allow summing the values of an int[] and returning a 64-bit result to help avoid overflow. TResult.Zero efficiently gives the value of 0 as a TResult and TResult.CreateChecked converts value from a T into a TResult throwing an OverflowException if it is too large or too small to fit in the destination format. This means, for example, that Sum<int, byte> would throw if one of the input values was negative or greater than 255.

public static TResult Sum<T, TResult>(IEnumerable<T> values)
    where T : INumber<T>
    where TResult : INumber<TResult>
    TResult result = TResult.Zero;

    foreach (var value in values)
        result += TResult.CreateChecked(value);

    return result;

The next method is Average, which just adds a set of values together (calls Sum) and then divides that by the number of values. It doesn’t introduce any additional concepts beyond what were used in Sum. It does show use of the division operator.

public static TResult Average<T, TResult>(IEnumerable<T> values)
    where T : INumber<T>
    where TResult : INumber<TResult>
    TResult sum = Sum<T, TResult>(values);
    return TResult.CreateChecked(sum) / TResult.CreateChecked(values.Count());

StandardDeviation is the last method, as indicated above it basically determines how far apart a set of values are. For example, { 0, 50, 100 } has a high deviation of 49.501; { 0, 5, 10 } on the other hand has a much lower deviation of just 4.5092. This method introduces a different constraint of IFloatingPointIeee754 which indicates the return type must be an IEEE 754 floating-point type such as double (System.Double) or float (System.Single). It introduces a new API CreateSaturating which explicitly saturates, or clamps, the value on overflow. That is, for byte.CreateSaturating<int>(value) it would convert -1 to 0 because -1 is less than the minimum value of 0. It would likewise convert 256 to 255 because 256 is greater than the maximum value of 255. Saturation is the default behavior for IEEE 754 floating-point types as they can represent positive and negative infinity as their respective minimum and maximum values. The only other new API is Sqrt which behaves just like Math.Sqrt or MathF.Sqrt and calculates the square root of the floating-point value.

public static TResult StandardDeviation<T, TResult>(IEnumerable<T> values)
    where T : INumber<T>
    where TResult : IFloatingPointIeee754<TResult>
    TResult standardDeviation = TResult.Zero;

    if (values.Any())
        TResult average = Average<T, TResult>(values);
        TResult sum = Sum<TResult, TResult>(values.Select((value) => {
            var deviation = TResult.CreateSaturating(value) - average;
            return deviation * deviation;
        standardDeviation = TResult.Sqrt(sum / TResult.CreateSaturating(values.Count() - 1));

    return standardDeviation;

These methods can then be used with any type that implements the required interfaces and in .NET 7 preview 5 we have 20 types that implement these interfaces out of the box. The following table gives a brief description of those types, the corresponding language keyword for C# and F# when that exists, and the primary generic math interfaces they implement. More details on these interfaces and why they exist are provided later on in the Available APIs section.

.NET Type Name C# Keyword F# Keyword Implemented Generic Math Interfaces
System.Byte byte byte IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.Char char char IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.Decimal decimal decimal IFloatingPoint, IMinMaxValue
System.Double double float, double IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754, IMinMaxValue
System.Half IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754, IMinMaxValue
System.Int16 short int16 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.Int32 int int IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.Int64 long int64 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.Int128 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.IntPtr nint nativeint IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.Numerics.BigInteger IBinaryInteger, IUnsignedNumber
System.Numerics.Complex INumberBase, ISignedNumber
System.Runtime.InteropServices.NFloat IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754, IMinMaxValue
System.SByte sbyte sbyte IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, ISignedNumber
System.Single float float32, single IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754, IMinMaxValue
System.UInt16 ushort uint16 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.UInt32 uint uint IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.UInt64 ulong uint64 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.UInt128 IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber
System.UIntPtr nuint unativeint IBinaryInteger, IMinMaxValue, IUnsignedNumber

This means that out of the box users get a broad set of support for Generic Math. As the community adopts these interfaces for their own types, the support will continue to grow.

Types Without Language Support

Readers might note that there are a few types here that don’t have an entry in the C# Keyword or F# Keyword column. While these types exist and are supported fully in the BCL, languages like C# and F# do not provide any additional support for them today and so users may surprised when certain language features do not work with them. Some examples are that the language won’t provide support for literals (Int128 value = 0xF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF isn’t valid), constants (const Int128 Value = 0; isn’t valid), constant folding (Int128 value = 5; is evaluated at runtime, not at compile time), or various other functionality that is limited to types that have corresponding language keywords.

The types without language support are:

  • System.Half is a 16-bit binary floating-point type that implements the IEEE 754 standard much like System.Double and System.Single. It was originally introduced in .NET 5
  • System.Numerics.BigInteger is an arbitrary precision integer type and automatically grows to fit the value represented. It was originally introduced in .NET Framework 4.0
  • System.Numerics.Complex can represent the expression a + bi where a and b are System.Double and i is the imaginary unit. It was originally introduced in .NET Framework 4.0
  • System.Runtime.InteropServices.NFloat is a variable precision binary floating-point type that implements the IEEE 754 standard and much like System.IntPtr it is 32-bits on a 32-bit platform (equivalent to System.Single) and 64-bits on a 64-bit platform (equivalent to System.Double) It was originally introduced in .NET 6 and is primarily meant for interop purposes.
  • System.Int128 is a 128-bit signed integer type. It is new in .NET 7
  • System.UInt128 is a 128-bit unsigned integer type. It is new in .NET 7

Breaking Changes Since .NET 6

The feature that went out in .NET 6 was a preview and as such there have been several changes to the API surface based on community feedback. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Renaming System.IParseable to System.IParsable
  • Moving all other new numeric interfaces to the System.Numerics namespace
  • Introducing INumberBase so that types like System.Numerics.Complex can be represented
  • Splitting the IEEE 754 specific APIs into their own IFloatingPointIeee754 interface so types like System.Decimal can be represented
  • Moving various APIs lower in the type hierarchy such as the IsNaN or MaxNumber APIs
    • Many of the concepts will return a constant value or be a no-op on various type
    • Despite this, it is still important that they’re available, since the exact type of a generic is unknown and many of these concepts are important for more general algorithms

.NET API reviews are done in the open and are livestreamed for all to view and participate in. Past API review videos can be found on our YouTube channel.

The design doc for the Generic Math feature is available in the dotnet/designs repo on GitHub.

The corresponding PRs updating the document, general discussions around the feature, and links back to the relevant API reviews are also available.

Support in other languages

F# is getting support for static virtuals in interfaces as well and more details should be expected soon in the fsharp/fslang-design repo on GitHub.

A fairly 1-to-1 translation of the C# Sum method using the proposed F# syntax is expected to be:

let Sum<'T, 'TResult when 'T :> INumber<'T> and 'TResult :> INumber<'TResult>>(values : IEnumerable<'T>) =
    let mutable result = 'TResult.Zero
    for value in values do
        result <- result 'TResult.CreateChecked(value)

Available APIs

Numbers and math are both fairly complex topics and the depth in which one can go is almost without limit. In programming there is often only a loose mapping to the math one may have learned in school and special rules or considerations may exist since execution happens in a system with limited resources. Languages therefore expose many operations that make sense only in the context of certain kinds of numbers or which exist primarily as a performance optimization due to how hardware actually works. The types they expose often have well-defined limits, an explicit layout of the data they are represented by, differing behaviors around rounding or conversions, and more.

Because of this there remains a need to both support numbers in the abstract sense while also still supporting programming specific constructs such as floating-point vs integer, overflow, unrepresentable results; and so it was important as part of designing this feature that the interfaces exposed be both fine-grained enough that users could define their own interfaces built on top while also being granular enough that they were easy to consume. To that extent, there are a few core numeric interfaces that most users will interact with such as System.Numerics.INumber and System.Numerics.IBinaryInteger; there are then many more interfaces that support these types and support developers defining their own numeric interfaces for their domain such as IAdditionOperators and ITrigonometricFunctions.

Which interfaces get used will be dependent on the needs of the declaring API and what functionality it relies on. There are a range of powerful APIs exposed to help users efficiently understand the value they’ve been and decide the appropriate way to work with it including handling edge cases (such as negatives, NaNs, infinities, or imaginary values), having correct conversions (including throwing, saturating, or truncating on overflow), and being extensible enough to version the interfaces moving forward by utilizing Default Interface Methods.

Numeric Interfaces

The types most users will interact with are the numeric interfaces. These define the core interfaces describing number-like types and the functionality available to them.

Interface Name Summary
System.Numerics.IAdditiveIdentity Exposes the concept of (x + T.AdditiveIdentity) == x
System.Numerics.IMinMaxValue Exposes the concept of T.MinValue and T.MaxValue (types like BigInteger have no Min/MaxValue)
System.Numerics.IMultiplicativeIdentity Exposes the concept of (x * T.MultiplicativeIdentity) == x
System.Numerics.IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754 Exposes APIs common to binary floating-point types that implement the IEEE 754 standard
System.Numerics.IBinaryInteger Exposes APIs common to binary integers
System.Numerics.IBinaryNumber Exposes APIs common to binary numbers
System.Numerics.IFloatingPoint Exposes APIs common to floating-point types
System.Numerics.IFloatingPointIeee754 Exposes APIs common to floating-point types that implement the IEEE 754 standard
System.Numerics.INumber Exposes APIs common to comparable number types (effectively the “Real” number domain)
System.Numerics.INumberBase Exposes APIs common to all number types (effectively the “Complex” number domain)
System.Numerics.ISignedNumber Exposes APIs common to all signed number types (such as the concept of NegativeOne)
System.Numerics.IUnsignedNumber Exposes APIs common to all unsigned number types

While there are a few different types here, most users will likely work directly with INumber<TSelf>. This roughly corresponds to what some users may recognize as a “real” number and means the value has a sign and well-defined order, making it IComparable. INumberBase<TSelf> convers more advanced concepts including “complex” and “imaginary” numbers.

Most of the other interfaces, such as IBinaryNumber, IFloatingPoint, and IBinaryInteger, exist because not all operations make sense for all numbers. That is, there are places where APIs only makes sense for values that are known to be binary-based and other places where APIs only make sense for floating-point types. The IAdditiveIdentity, IMinMaxValue, and IMultiplicativeIdentity interfaces exist to cover core properties of number like types. For IMinMaxValue in particular, it exists to allow access to the upper (MaxValue) and lower (MinValue) bounds of a type. Certain types like System.Numerics.BigInteger may not have such bounds and therefore do not implement this interface.

IFloatingPoint<TSelf> exists to cover both IEEE 754 types such as System.Double, System.Half, and System.Single as well as other types such as System.Decimal. The number of APIs provided by it is much lesser and it is expected most users who explicitly need a floating-point-like type will use IFloatingPointIeee754. There is not currently any interface to describe “fixed-point” types but such a definition could exist in the future if there is enough demand.

These interfaces expose APIs previously only available in System.Math, System.MathF, and System.Numerics.BitOperations. This means that functions like T.Sqrt(value) are now available to anything implementing IFloatingPointIeee754<T> (or more specifically the IRootFunctions<T> interface covered below).

Some of the core APIs exposed by each interface includes, but is not limited to the below.

Interface Name API Name Summary
IBinaryInteger DivRem Computes the quotient and remainder simultaneously
LeadingZeroCount Counts the number of leading zero bits in the binary representation
PopCount Counts the number of set bits in the binary representation
RotateLeft Rotates bits left, sometimes also called a circular left shift
RotateRight Rotates bits right, sometimes also called a circular right shift
TrailingZeroCount Counts the number of trailing zero bits in the binary representation
IFloatingPoint Ceiling Rounds the value towards positive infinity. +4.5 becomes +5, -4.5 becomes -4
Floor Rounds the value towards negative infinity. +4.5 becomes +4, -4.5 becomes -5
Round Rounds the value using the specified rounding mode.
Truncate Rounds the value towards zero. +4.5 becomes +4, -4.5 becomes -4
IFloatingPointIeee754 E Gets a value representing Euler’s number for the type
Epsilon Gets the smallest representable value that is greater than zero for the type
NaN Gets a value representing NaN for the type
NegativeInfinity Gets a value representing -Infinity for the type
NegativeZero Gets a value representing -Zero for the type
Pi Gets a value representing +Pi for the type
PositiveInfinity Gets a value representing +Infinity for the type
Tau Gets a value representing +Tau, or 2 * Pi for the type
–Other– –Implements the full set of interfaces defined under Functions below–
INumber Clamp Restricts a value to no more and no less than the specified min and max value
CopySign Sets the sign of a give value to the same as another specified value
Max Returns the greater of two values, returning NaN if either input is NaN
MaxNumber Returns the greater of two values, returning the number if one input is NaN
Min Returns the lesser of two values, returning NaN if either input is NaN
MinNumber Returns the lesser of two values, returning the number if one input is NaN
Sign Returns -1 for negative values, 0 for zero, and +1 for positive values
INumberBase One Gets the value 1 for the type
Radix Gets the radix, or base, for the type. Int32 returns 2. Decimal returns 10
Zero Gets the value 0 for the type
CreateChecked Creates a value from another value, throwing if the other value can’t be represented
CreateSaturating Creates a value from another value, saturating if the other value can’t be represented
CreateTruncating Creates a value from another value, truncating if the other value can’t be represented
IsComplexNumber Returns true if the value has a non-zero real part and a non-zero imaginary part
IsEvenInteger Returns true if the value is an even integer. 2.0 returns true, 2.2 returns false
IsFinite Returns true if the value is not infinite and not NaN.
IsImaginaryNumber Returns true if the value has a zero real part. This means 0 is imaginary and 1 + 1i is not
IsInfinity Returns true if the value represents infinity.
IsInteger Returns true if the value is an integer. 2.0 and 3.0 return true, 2.2 and 3.1 return false
IsNaN Returns true if the value represents NaN
IsNegative Returns true if the value is negative, this includes -0.0
IsPositive Returns true if the value is positive, this includes 0 and +0.0
IsRealNumber Returns true if the value has a zero imaginary part. This means 0 is real as are all INumber<T> types
IsZero Returns true if the value represents zero, this includes 0, +0.0, and -0.0
MaxMagnitude Returns the value with a greater absolute value, returning NaN if either input is NaN
MaxMagnitudeNumber Returns the value with a greater absolute value, returning the number if one input is NaN
MinMagnitude Returns the value with a lesser absolute value, returning NaN if either input is NaN
MinMagnitudeNumber Returns the value with a lesser absolute value, returning the number if one input is NaN
ISignedNumber NegativeOne Gets the value -1 for the type


The function interfaces define common mathematical APIs that may be more broadly applicable than to a specific numeric interface. They are currently all implemented by IFloatingPointIeee754 and may also get implemented by other relevant types in the future.

Interface Name Summary
System.Numerics.IExponentialFunctions Exposes exponential functions supporting e^x, e^x - 1, 2^x, 2^x - 1, 10^x, and 10^x - 1
System.Numerics.IHyperbolicFunctions Exposes hyperbolic functions supporting acosh(x), asinh(x), atanh(x), cosh(x), sinh(x), and tanh(x)
System.Numerics.ILogarithmicFunctions Exposes logarithmic functions supporting ln(x), ln(x + 1), log2(x), log2(x + 1), log10(x), and log10(x + 1)
System.Numerics.IPowerFunctions Exposes power functions supporting x^y
System.Numerics.IRootFunctions Exposes root functions supporting cbrt(x) and sqrt(x)
System.Numerics.ITrigonometricFunctions Exposes trigonometric functions supporting acos(x), asin(x), atan(x), cos(x), sin(x), and tan(x)

Parsing and Formatting

Parsing and formatting are core concepts in programming. They are typically used to support converting user input to a given type or to display a given type to the user.

Interface Name Summary
System.IFormattable Exposes support for value.ToString(string, IFormatProvider)
System.ISpanFormattable Exposes support for value.TryFormat(Span<char>, out int, ReadOnlySpan<char>, IFormatProvider)
System.IParsable Exposes support for T.Parse(string, IFormatProvider)
System.ISpanParsable Exposes support for T.Parse(ReadOnlySpan<char>, IFormatProvider)


Central to Generic Math is the ability to expose operators as part of an interface. .NET 7 provides the following interfaces which expose the core operators supported by most languages. This also includes new functionality in the form of user-defined checked operators and unsigned right shift.

Interface Name Summary
System.Numerics.IAdditionOperators Exposes the x + y and checked(x + y) operators
System.Numerics.IBitwiseOperators Exposes the x & y, x | y, x ^ y, and ~x operators
System.Numerics.IComparisonOperators Exposes the x < y, X > y, x <= y, and x >= y operators
System.Numerics.IDecrementOperators Exposes the --x, checked(--x), x--, and checked(x--) operators
System.Numerics.IDivisionOperators Exposes the x / y and checked(x / y) operators
System.Numerics.IEqualityOperators Exposes the x == y and x != y operators
System.Numerics.IIncrementOperators Exposes the ++x, checked(++x), x++, and checked(x++) operators
System.Numerics.IModulusOperators Exposes the x % y operator
System.Numerics.IMultiplyOperators Exposes the x * y and checked(x * y) operators
System.Numerics.IShiftOperators Exposes the x << y, x >> y, and x >>> y operators
System.Numerics.ISubtractionOperators Exposes the x - y and checked(x - y) operators
System.Numerics.IUnaryNegationOperators Exposes the -x and checked(-x) operators
System.Numerics.IUnaryPlusOperators Exposes the +x operator

User-Defined Checked Operators

User-defined checked operators allow a different implementation to be provided which will throw System.OverflowException rather than silently truncating their result. These alternative implementations are available to C# code by using the checked keyword or setting <CheckForOverflowUnderflow>true</CheckForOverflowUnderflow> in your project settings. The versions that truncate are available by using the unchecked keyword or ensuring CheckForOverflowUnderflow is false (this is the default experience for new projects).

Some types, such as floating-point types, may not have differing behavior as they saturate to PositiveInfinity and NegativeInfinity rather than truncating. BigInteger is another type that does not have differing behavior between the unchecked and checked versions of the operators as the type simply grows to fit the value. 3rd party types may also have their own unique behavior.

Developers can declare their own user-defined checked operators by placing the checked keyword after the operator keyword. For example, public static Int128 operator checked +(Int128 left, Int128 right) declares a checked addition operator and public static explicit operator checked int(Int128 value) declares a checked explicit conversion operator.

Unsigned Right Shift

Unsigned right shift (>>>) allows shifting to occur that doesn’t carry the sign. That is, for -8 >> 2 the result is -2 while -8 >>> 2 is +1073741822.

This is somewhat easier to visualize when looking at the hexadecimal or binary representation. For x >> y the sign of the value is preserved and so for positive values 0 is shifted in while for negative values 1 is shifted in instead. However, for x >>> y the sign of the value is ignored and 0 is always shifted in. This is similar to first casting the value to an unsigned type of the same sign and then doing the shift, that is it is similar to (int)((uint)x >> y) for int.

Expression Decimal Hexadecimal Binary
-8 -8 0xFFFF_FFF8 0b1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1000
-8 >> 2 -2 0xFFFF_FFFE 0b1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1110
-8 >>> 2 +1,073,741,822 0x3FFF_FFFE 0b0011_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1111_1110


The amount of functionality now available in a generic context is quite large, allowing your code to be simpler, more maintainable, and more expressive. Generic Math will empower every developer to achieve more, and we are excited to see how you decide to utilize it!


Comments are closed. Login to edit/delete your existing comments

  • Rand Random 0

    It’s about time. Thanks, for the feature.
    Sadly I have to wait for the next LTS release for me to use it in production.

  • switchdesktopwithfade@hotmail.com 0

    Generic Math and Int128 are things I’ve daydreamed about for at least a decade. I’m glad I held off on writing my scientific calculator app because I want to base the engine on INumberT and let the user switch the operand type as needed. The only thing this whole picture is missing is BigFloat. I really really hope you guys add a complete BigFloat implementation to the .NET Core BCL someday. Will Guid get a new UInt128 constructor?

    • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

      Glad you’re excited about it 🙂

      BigFloat is something that I’m interested in adding, but its also a bit complicated. Unlike for BigInteger where the growth for any given operation is bounded and well-understood, the same can’t really be said for a BigFloat.

      Something as simple as 1 / 3 results in “unbounded” growth since the fractional portion repeats. The same goes for certain irrational values.

      My current thinking is that having growth be explicit is the right intermediate. That is, you could create a BigFloat and say it uses k bits (where k >= 128 and is a multiple of 32). All operations would be done as this precision and if you want more or less precision, you can do that via some explicit operation that changes the “width” of the instance.

      This keeps it inline with the IEEE 754:2019 spec for binary{k}, removes the issue of unbounded growth, and makes it somewhat natural to use. It definitely needs more thought/design before it can move forward as an API proposal, however. So I’d be happy to get additional feedback or input.

      • Simon Felix 0

        I found


        is a viable replacement in many cases and easy to implement.

        • switchdesktopwithfade@hotmail.com 0

          My understanding of the two:

          BigFloat – Achieves arbitrary precision by following the IEEE 754 spec for floating point with overrideable precision and exponent bitfield widths.

          BigRational – Achieves arbitrary precision by representing a number as a ratio of two BigIntegers. I believe the Windows Calculator uses a low-level version of this (“RATPACK”).

          Call me greedy but I’d take both if I could. I’ve worked at scientific companies where either would have been more useful than the basic scalar types. Unfortunately I don’t have the math expertise to implement either of them myself with all the common transcendental functions.

          • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

            Definitely. There are use-cases for each and neither is appropriate for all scenarios.

            BigFloat, BigDecimal, and BigRational (or some Rational<TInteger>) are all types which are on my mind (and the other System.Numerics area owners).

            That of course doesn’t guarantee they’ll make it into the BCL, but they are something that we are thinking about and will consider if they’re appropriate to provide and if so how.

            If you have additional usage scenarios or needs for such types, I’d recommend opening an issue (or finding an existing related issue to comment on) to provide that input: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/new/choose

  • nikita egorov 0

    I think it is the best thing for implement “constructor” generic constraints

    • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

      I’ve not done a concrete comparison, but Int128 should perform better in a variety of scenarios and should get better improvements and codegen over time to better take advantage of the hardware.

      In particular, Int128 does not have to allocate and is a known fixed size. This allows the code to avoid loops and to special case the handling to use as few operations as possible.

      Due to time constraints, there will still be some places where its not as fast as possible for a given hardware, but it should be always faster than BigInteger.

  • Govert van Drimmelen 0

    It would be very helpful to add a member like IFloatingPoint.MachineEpsilon or IFloatingPoint.EpsilonUnitRoundoff into these interfaces. This will help address a very common error when porting numerical code to .NET. I think a mistake was made when the .NET CLR defined double.Epsilon, float.Epsilon etc. as ‘the smallest representable value that is greater than zero’. In other languages and most computation arithmetic, the value of ‘epsilon’ is given by the ‘Machine Epsilon’ as the difference between 1 and the next larger floating point number. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_epsilon . Also compare the definition of std:numeric_limits::epsilon in C++ https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/numeric_limits/epsilon Similar for FORTRAN: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/EPSILON.html

    So the term ‘epsilon’ is used for a crucial constant that has a different value in most numerical algorithm settings than in the .NET CLR. Obviously one can’t go back to fix the mistake, but the numerical interfaces seem like a good opportunity to help mitigate this a bit. One issue might relate to the naming – it would be nice to have a name that points in the right direction, yet is easy to discover in a member list, e.g. if it starts with ‘Epsilon’ as the prefix.

    • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

      This is an interesting topic to discuss and there isn’t really a right answer. Let me try to explain the differences here…

      float.MaxValue is 340282346638528859811704183484516925440 and the next representable value less than that is 340282326356119256160033759537265639424. This gives a maximum absolute error between the infinitely precise result and the represented result of 10141204801825835211973625643008. Since float.MaxValue is a boundary value (all significand bits are set) the absolute error between it and float.PositiveInfinity is twice this at 20282409603651670423947251286016.

      20282409603651670423947251286016 / 340282346638528859811704183484516925440 = ~5.9604644775390625 * 10^-8 which you’ll note is the Machine Epsilon defined by LAPACK/Scilab on Wikipedia.

      The Epsilon used by C on the other hand is the difference between 1 and the next representable value greater than that. Due to how the IEEE 754 format is laid out, this is exactly twice the actual maximum absolute error. And so the value used by C and many other languages isn’t actually correct. It allows for twice as much error than is necessary for any given computation. — While I can’t be certain, I’d guess that whoever decided on this value initially simply missed that the maximum error is half the delta between two representable value and so forgot to divide by two.

      The Epsilon exposed by .NET represents a different value entirely. It represents the minimum difference between two representable values. That is, it is the next representable value greater than 0. It is the basis of all representable floating-point values for a given format, that is, all representable floating-point values of a given floating-point type T are a multiple of T.Epsilon in .NET. This value has its own uses, but it using the name “epsilon” can be confusing.

      In practice, both the C definition and the .NET definition are interesting to have, but not super practical for use as they and people’s understanding of them tend to be not that great. For C’s epsilon, it represents twice the maximum error for any single operation. Once you start doing multiple operations this increases and is no longer really usable. Likewise it doesn’t account for the fact that IEEE 754 binary floating-point numbers are not evenly distributed. That is, the difference between 1 and the next greater representable value is n, while the difference between 1 and the next smaller representable value is n / 2. This difference doubles every power of two greater and halves for every power of two lesser.

      What this ends up meaning is that the maximum error for any given computation depends on the number of operations performed, what those operations did, and what the input values to those operations were. It is not sufficient to just do if (fabsf(x - y) > FLT_EPSILON) because this is basically just checking “are x or y infinity”.

      For .NET’s epsilon, it often gets attempted to be used for similar cases which is equally problematic. Practically speaking, BitIncrement and BitDecrement (which get the next greater and next smaller representable values, respectively) are what people generally want for code. Likewise, they will typically want to compute their own “maximum error” based on the expected inputs, number of operations performed, etc.

  • Paulo Pinto 0

    While I am stuck with .NET Framework for day job, this is looking great for some personal projects.

    Getting ready for some weekend coding with generic math.

  • 俊炫 黄 0

    Great work.
    Is there any plan to support some generic math interfaces for SIMD numeric types, like Vector, Vector256?
    I think those basic numberic operation such as INegate, IAddtion, ISubstract, IMultiply, IDivision will be more commonly used in SIMD opeartion.

    • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

      This is something on my radar and which was covered briefly in the .NET Community Standup on Generic Math (https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/live/community-standup).

      Essentially there won’t be anything here for .NET 7 and there are some complications that exist with extending the existing generic types to support this functionality since modifying an existing generic constraint represents a binary breaking change.

      We’ll be looking into what can be done here to help bridge that gap so that the appropriate functionality can be defined and exposed in a future version of .NET.

  • Charles Roddie 0

    I reviewed this earlier in a way that appeared to be understood by the community involved in dotnet mathematics libraries but not by the dotnet team. So the feedback is the same. This is a good way of connecting built-in dotnet number types but not usable for user-defined number types. Whether this is better than nothing isn’t clear yet, but the dotnet implementation is much worse than Rust and Scala at this point.

    • It includes an unsafe conversion operation that is completely unsound, breaking type-safety. It is obvious that it is not possible to convert between arbitrary INumber types, including types that have not yet been defined. Rust solves this with FromPrimitive and ToPrimitive which has methods for each primitive type, most of which are provided, so (I assume) only the int64/unit64 methods need to be implemented and the others have default implementations. Scala has toDouble, toFloat, toInt, toLong methods, which also don’t break the type system like the dotnet proposal.
    • The INumber interface includes parsing and formatting have no relationship to being number-like. Numbers may have 0, 1, or more parsers and formatters. Any parsers and formatters may be defined on the type itself or externally… The correct solution is to remove IFormattable from INumber and just implement it directly on the types that support it. (Scala also has the parsing issue but not rust.)
    • Tanner Gooding Microsoft employee 0

      Thanks for the feedback!

      This remains a case where opinions here differ and where there isn’t really a right or wrong answer. It’s all subjective to use case, scenario, differences in background, etc.

      From the perspective of the System.Numerics area owners and the decision made by the .NET API review team, the current design is the correct one and the one that makes the most sense for .NET.

      For the first point, there are three considerations at play:
      * Conversions between numeric types in the same assembly
      * Conversions between numeric types in different assemblies, where one assembly depends on the other
      * Conversions between numeric types in different assemblies where neither assembly knows about the other

      The first consideration is trivial and it is simple for these types to convert between eachother as either type can define the necessary conversions. That is, System.Int128 can provide conversions to and/or from System.UInt128, the reverse is also true).

      The second consideration gets a bit more complex as the conversions can only be defined by the types on the assembly with the dependency. That is, System.BigInteger must provide conversions to and from System.Int128.

      For these first two scenarios we have a well-defined setup for the conversions where we first try TSelf.TryConvertFrom and then fallback to TOther.TryConvertTo. This gives well-defined semantics for these scenarios and covers a large number of usage scenarios making the support simple and natural to use, particularly when you are primarily considering your own types and the types in the BCL.

      We then also expose enough information from IBinaryInteger and IFloatingPoint to be able to determine the exact underlying value represented. For IBinaryInteger you can get a two’s complement representation of the underlying bits and determine the minimum number of bits required to represent that value. For IFloatingPoint you can get the Sign, Radix, Exponent, and Significand out allowing you to construct the exact value as -1^Sign * Radix^Exponent * Significand (the standard algorithm for IEEE 754 values and which is more generally extensible to rational values). Such APIs allow one to also convert from any IBinaryInteger and any IFloatingPoint regardless of how that value is represented.

      This then leaves the third scenario impacting types like System.Numerics.Complex where it doesn’t fit into the definition of a IBinaryInteger or an IFloatingPoint. For such a scenario we are providing a INumberConverter interface so that your own converter can be provided. This enables unrelated types that don’t know about eachother to still convert. This is the only mechanism by which this scenario can be supported.

      For the second point, we continue being of the stance that formatting and parsing are core and basic operations for any numeric type. Interacting with user input (including input from files, terminals, etc) and likewise displaying values back to the user is one of the most fundamental things that any application does.

      Because of this, all number types must provide the formatting and parsing APIs using the standard .NET formatting/parsing support. For number types this means supporting IFormattable, IParsable, and overloads that take a NumberStyles parameter allowing customization of the formatting by the caller of the API.

      This does indeed make it more complicated to support the API surface and declare your own number types. However, we believe this is the best path for .NET and of course for private types, one is free to have these methods ignore things like the format string, format providers, or number styling options.

  • Ben 0

    I am quite happy to see this. I remember when C# 2 was in beta with generics one of the first things that I tried was generic math. Of course I was disappointed to learn that it wasn’t possible then. (It is a pity that it took so long to support.) Along with generic attributes, these will be my favorite features in about 15 years.

  • Neil MacMullen 0

    This is really great. As I’ve suggested elsewhere, what would make it even better would be some kind of units-of-measure system to allow us to use different kinds of numeric values with type safety. 🙂

    • Kilo Bravo Lima 0

      I agree that generic math with INumber<> is very great, and hope that there soon will come a generic unit to support calculations with units.

Feedback usabilla icon