# Ordering real numeric quantities

Suppose I want to have a function (call it NLess) that given two real numeric quantities, a and b, it returns True if a is smaller than b, ignoring precision. Here are some test cases:

NLess[3.141, Pi]
NLess[4.49999999999999,4.50000000000001]
NLess[E, Pi]
NLess[3.1415926535897932384626322, Pi]
NLess[4.491, 9/2]
NLess[E, 2.7821]

All of these should return True. The usual Less function only returns true for Less[E, Pi]:

Less[3.141, Pi]
Less[4.49999999999999,4.50000000000001]
Less[E, Pi]
Less[3.1415926535897932384626322, Pi]
Less[4.491, 9/2]
Less[E, 2.7821]

False

False

True

False

False

False

I have some code to do this, but I find it unsatisfactory.

One further detail. It is acceptable to me to have both:

N[3.141, 3.14100]
N[3.14100, 3.141]

be false, or one or the other to be True, but it would be nice if this behavior could be controlled

• I take it that 3.141 should be treated as though it were 3.14 exactly and that that the machine precision (MP) number 4.49999999999999 should be treated as 5066549580791797/2^50 if MP = binary64 (which might depend on machine precision)? Or should MP numbers be rounded to their decimal equivalents displayed by InputForm? – Michael E2 Jan 26 '17 at 2:17
• Is this "satisfactory? NLess[a_, b_] := Less[Rationalize[ SetPrecision[a, Max[MachinePrecision, Precision[a]]], 0], Rationalize[SetPrecision[b, Max[MachinePrecision, Precision[b]]], 0]]. It actually only works because, to my surprise, Rationalize[Pi,0] still gives Pi (which is not a rational number). – Felix Jan 26 '17 at 2:17
• @Felix Should NLess[0.3333333333333333, 1/3] return True? – Michael E2 Jan 26 '17 at 2:22
• Indeed, the working precision must be increased beyond the provided precision. How about this? NLess[a_, b_] := Less[Rationalize[ SetPrecision[a, Max[MachinePrecision, Precision[a]] + 1], 0], Rationalize[ SetPrecision[b, Max[MachinePrecision, Precision[b]] + 1], 0]] – Felix Jan 26 '17 at 2:26
• But is 4.49999999999999 identical to double-precision floating-point fraction 5066549580791797/2^50 or to decimal input fraction 449999999999999/10^14? It can't be both. And what to do about comparing it to 4.4999999999999915 would seem to depend on the answer. I would have assumed it was the internal binary representation, but somehow you've made me doubt that. – Michael E2 Jan 26 '17 at 2:54

The third (optional) parameter $p$ controls the precision used for exact numbers and numbers with precision greater than $p$. Order appears to ignore Internal\$SameQTolerance etc.