Google and Bing are the two leading search engines consumers have to choose from when they need to find content on the web. While Google has the majority of the market share, Bing has made gains in the past few years but still has a long way to go.

But, if you are looking for one more reason to use Bing over Google, well, here you go. In an odd quirk that is likely a rounding issue, if you type a massive, but simple, math problem into Google, it gives you the wrong answer.

Spotted by @microsoftoholic, if you type in 39999999999999999-39999999999999998 into Google, it will tell you the answer is 0 but it’s quite obvious that the answer is 1; Bing will calculate the math correctly.

Sure, it’s a small little bug in the Google search engine, but it goes to show that not even Google is perfect.

That's an expected result when using floating point due to the limit on significant digits. Bing is probably using an arbitrary precision algorithm instead.

Bing is using Wolfram alpha.

99999999999999999-99999999999999996=0

99999999999999999-99999999999999704=0

39999999999999999-39999999999999884=0

Even duckduckgo.com is smarter than google in calculating : 39999999999999999-39999999999999998

I wonder. Whose life is so freakin' boring that they would have entered such a thing to discover the bug?

this post made me do this http://9gag.com/gag/a75b5Qq/

Yay, Bing!!

....

Wow

+1

wow... this is a reason for a post?

I bet this was the reason apple switched to bing for siri. So technically siri is more accurate than google now thanks to bing

Andre S.It's likely that they use doubles (64-bit IEEE754 binary floating point numbers) to perform the computation. Try "39999999999999999.0-39999999999999998.0" in most programming languages and you'll get 0 as the answer. Note you cannot even enter 39999999999999998 in Windows' calculator - it gets rounded to 39999999999999999. This is an artifact of how numbers are typically represented by computers. It's not really a bug; there's only so much precision a fixed number of bits gives you, that's all.

Bing must use a special, higher-precision numeric type like the .NET Decimal, which can also give incorrect results with even larger numbers (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...vstudio/system.decimal.aspx)

Edited by Andre S., Jul 21 2013, 5:36am :Bing must use a special, higher-precision numeric type like the .NET Decimal, which can also give incorrect results with even larger numbers (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...vstudio/system.decimal.aspx)

This demonstrates how should people discuss on similar topics: Give proofs, give references, stay on topic, instead of trolls (e.g. those NSA-related comments shown above).

39999999999999999-39999999999999998 = Zero

Maybe this is what Google used to calculate their UK tax last year(!)

Tried it with a different number and it worked it out incorrectly

This has been a known issue with Google since 2009...starts at 333333333333335-333333333333334

http://productforums.google.co...ch/8aDExrRzpHg/FkENiAV-02AJ

try 9999999999999999999-99999999999999999

19 9s - 17 9s

I get the correct answer on Google.

Of course, after reading this news, they added yet another "if" in their monolithic and bogus search algorithm...

if(q == "39999999999999999-39999999999999998")

return 1;

else

return fetchUserDataLolz_ohAndSearchFor(q);

surely a NSA string should be there somewhere?

LOL to the person who found this bug.

Google's a search engine, if you want maths go and use a calculator or a computational engine like wolfram alpha. Pretty sure if you put numbers large enough into bing it probably fails.

Bing's a search engine too, yet it does answer the problem correctly.

Wow you apologist are so pathetic!

Put in a 20,000 bit number and see if bing still works it out correctly...

Why, when Bing's input algorithm passes mathematical queries to Wolfram for you?

this is so not news since Neowin published the Bing-Wolfram partnership TWO years ago.....

Damn the 24h news cycle.

That 'slow news Saturday' should shave the post count a little here, barring mine and the one above of course

"slow news" is a bit of an understatement here.

At least you acknowledge it's slow news...

that extra 1 was google's commission, so zero is the correct answer.