1 files changed, 141 insertions, 66 deletions
diff --git a/src/org/unitConverter/math/DecimalComparison.java b/src/org/unitConverter/math/DecimalComparison.java
index 859e8da..0f5b91e 100644
--- a/src/org/unitConverter/math/DecimalComparison.java
+++ b/src/org/unitConverter/math/DecimalComparison.java
@@ -27,42 +27,45 @@ import java.math.BigDecimal;
  */
 public final class DecimalComparison {
 	/**
-	 * The value used for double comparison. If two double values are within this value multiplied by the larger value,
-	 * they are considered equal.
+	 * The value used for double comparison. If two double values are within this
+	 * value multiplied by the larger value, they are considered equal.
 	 * 
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
 	 */
 	public static final double DOUBLE_EPSILON = 1.0e-15;
-
+	
 	/**
-	 * The value used for float comparison. If two float values are within this value multiplied by the larger value,
-	 * they are considered equal.
+	 * The value used for float comparison. If two float values are within this
+	 * value multiplied by the larger value, they are considered equal.
 	 * 
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
 	 */
 	public static final float FLOAT_EPSILON = 1.0e-6f;
-
+	
 	/**
 	 * Tests for equality of double values using {@link #DOUBLE_EPSILON}.
 	 * <p>
-	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a and b are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))}, and b and c are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c) will both return true, but equals(a, c)
-	 * will return false. However, this situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
 	 * <p>
 	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
 	 * <ol>
-	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon using {@link #equals(double, double, double)} (this does not make a violation of
-	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it happening)
-	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon using
+	 * {@link #equals(double, double, double)} (this does not make a violation of
+	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it
+	 * happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
 	 * </ol>
 	 * 
-	 * @param a
-	 *            first value to test
-	 * @param b
-	 *            second value to test
+	 * @param a first value to test
+	 * @param b second value to test
 	 * @return whether they are equal
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
@@ -71,57 +74,61 @@ public final class DecimalComparison {
 	public static final boolean equals(final double a, final double b) {
 		return DecimalComparison.equals(a, b, DOUBLE_EPSILON);
 	}
-
+	
 	/**
 	 * Tests for double equality using a custom epsilon value.
 	 * 
 	 * <p>
-	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a and b are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))}, and b and c are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c) will both return true, but equals(a, c)
-	 * will return false. However, this situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
 	 * <p>
 	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
 	 * <ol>
-	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon (this does not make a violation of transitivity impossible, it just significantly
-	 * reduces the chances of it happening)
-	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon (this does not make a violation of
+	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it
+	 * happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
 	 * </ol>
 	 * 
-	 * @param a
-	 *            first value to test
-	 * @param b
-	 *            second value to test
-	 * @param epsilon
-	 *            allowed difference
+	 * @param a       first value to test
+	 * @param b       second value to test
+	 * @param epsilon allowed difference
 	 * @return whether they are equal
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
 	 */
-	public static final boolean equals(final double a, final double b, final double epsilon) {
+	public static final boolean equals(final double a, final double b,
+			final double epsilon) {
 		return Math.abs(a - b) <= epsilon * Math.max(Math.abs(a), Math.abs(b));
 	}
-
+	
 	/**
 	 * Tests for equality of float values using {@link #FLOAT_EPSILON}.
 	 * 
 	 * <p>
-	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a and b are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))}, and b and c are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c) will both return true, but equals(a, c)
-	 * will return false. However, this situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
 	 * <p>
 	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
 	 * <ol>
-	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon using {@link #equals(float, float, float)} (this does not make a violation of
-	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it happening)
-	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code float} (this will make a violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon using {@link #equals(float, float, float)}
+	 * (this does not make a violation of transitivity impossible, it just
+	 * significantly reduces the chances of it happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code float} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
 	 * </ol>
 	 * 
-	 * @param a
-	 *            first value to test
-	 * @param b
-	 *            second value to test
+	 * @param a first value to test
+	 * @param b second value to test
 	 * @return whether they are equal
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
@@ -129,53 +136,121 @@ public final class DecimalComparison {
 	public static final boolean equals(final float a, final float b) {
 		return DecimalComparison.equals(a, b, FLOAT_EPSILON);
 	}
-
+	
 	/**
 	 * Tests for float equality using a custom epsilon value.
 	 * 
 	 * <p>
-	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a and b are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))}, and b and c are off by slightly less than
-	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c) will both return true, but equals(a, c)
-	 * will return false. However, this situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
 	 * <p>
 	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
 	 * <ol>
-	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon (this does not make a violation of transitivity impossible, it just significantly
-	 * reduces the chances of it happening)
-	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code float} (this will make a violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon (this does not make a violation of
+	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it
+	 * happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code float} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
 	 * </ol>
 	 * 
-	 * @param a
-	 *            first value to test
-	 * @param b
-	 *            second value to test
-	 * @param epsilon
-	 *            allowed difference
+	 * @param a       first value to test
+	 * @param b       second value to test
+	 * @param epsilon allowed difference
 	 * @return whether they are equal
 	 * @since 2019-03-18
 	 * @since v0.2.0
 	 */
-	public static final boolean equals(final float a, final float b, final float epsilon) {
+	public static final boolean equals(final float a, final float b,
+			final float epsilon) {
 		return Math.abs(a - b) <= epsilon * Math.max(Math.abs(a), Math.abs(b));
 	}
-
+	
+	/**
+	 * Tests for equality of {@code UncertainDouble} values using
+	 * {@link #DOUBLE_EPSILON}.
+	 * <p>
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <p>
+	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
+	 * <ol>
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon using
+	 * {@link #equals(UncertainDouble, UncertainDouble, double)} (this does not
+	 * make a violation of transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces
+	 * the chances of it happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * </ol>
+	 * 
+	 * @param a first value to test
+	 * @param b second value to test
+	 * @return whether they are equal
+	 * @since 2020-09-07
+	 * @see #hashCode(double)
+	 */
+	public static final boolean equals(final UncertainDouble a,
+			final UncertainDouble b) {
+		return DecimalComparison.equals(a.value(), b.value())
+				&& DecimalComparison.equals(a.uncertainty(), b.uncertainty());
+	}
+	
+	/**
+	 * Tests for {@code UncertainDouble} equality using a custom epsilon value.
+	 * 
+	 * <p>
+	 * <strong>WARNING: </strong>this method is not technically transitive. If a
+	 * and b are off by slightly less than {@code epsilon * max(abs(a), abs(b))},
+	 * and b and c are off by slightly less than
+	 * {@code epsilon * max(abs(b), abs(c))}, then equals(a, b) and equals(b, c)
+	 * will both return true, but equals(a, c) will return false. However, this
+	 * situation is very unlikely to ever happen in a real programming situation.
+	 * <p>
+	 * If this does become a concern, some ways to solve this problem:
+	 * <ol>
+	 * <li>Raise the value of epsilon (this does not make a violation of
+	 * transitivity impossible, it just significantly reduces the chances of it
+	 * happening)
+	 * <li>Use {@link BigDecimal} instead of {@code double} (this will make a
+	 * violation of transitivity 100% impossible)
+	 * </ol>
+	 * 
+	 * @param a       first value to test
+	 * @param b       second value to test
+	 * @param epsilon allowed difference
+	 * @return whether they are equal
+	 * @since 2019-03-18
+	 * @since v0.2.0
+	 */
+	public static final boolean equals(final UncertainDouble a,
+			final UncertainDouble b, final double epsilon) {
+		return DecimalComparison.equals(a.value(), b.value(), epsilon)
+				&& DecimalComparison.equals(a.uncertainty(), b.uncertainty(),
+						epsilon);
+	}
+	
 	/**
-	 * Takes the hash code of doubles. Values that are equal according to {@link #equals(double, double)} will have the
-	 * same hash code.
+	 * Takes the hash code of doubles. Values that are equal according to
+	 * {@link #equals(double, double)} will have the same hash code.
 	 * 
-	 * @param d
-	 *            double to hash
+	 * @param d double to hash
 	 * @return hash code of double
 	 * @since 2019-10-16
 	 */
 	public static final int hash(final double d) {
 		return Float.hashCode((float) d);
 	}
-
+	
 	// You may NOT get any DecimalComparison instances
 	private DecimalComparison() {
 		throw new AssertionError();
 	}
-
+	
 }