Calculator widget appears to be haunted (wrong results for MANY things)

puppy

Steps to reproduce:

Search for 9223372036854775807
Note that the interactive math thing shows 9,223,372,036,999,999,488

This even affects search completion!

I found this by trying to search for 9223372036854775807 / 1000, which resulted in the nonsense result 9,223,372,037,000,000. When debugging, I realized the division is unnecessary to expose a problem.

Expected behavior:
The interactive math thing should show the value 9223372036854775807.

Debug info:

Firefox 118.0.2
Windows 10
Kagi Control Center status says I'm connected to US-EAST.

Image/Video:

Notable information:

The number 9223372036854775807 is the maximum a 64-bit signed integer (aka i64 in some programming languages) can store. This might be related, but I have no way to know for sure.

puppy

I did more digging. Only the first 10 digits of a number are preserved, e.g.:

10000000011 + 0 becomes 10000000010.
12345678911 becomes 12345678910.

I also found a few fascinating ones that suddenly acquire decimals:

100000000101 becomes 100,000,000,099.99998474
123456789123 becomes 123,456,789,100.00001526

puppy

Kagi I love you but your calculator is cursed.

9,999,999,999.9999999999 => 10,000,000,000

9,999,999,999 + 0 => 9,999,999,999, but
9,999,999,999 in the input box => unknown.

If I search for 9,999,999,999 on its own (with or without commas), it just doesn't show the calculator interface.

Value7609

yes I made a suggestion to use something else for it (idk what they are using currently, maybe GPT3 😆 )
https://kagifeedback.org/d/2282-suggestion-for-calculatorunit-conversion

Vlad

Calcualtor is using math.js and - yes it is due for a rehaul.

Tofof

Calculator is wrong for 16 factorial through at least 25 factorial.
Calculator is wrong for 16 * 1307674368000 (ie, 15! * 16, ie 16!) which is unsurprising.
Calculator is wrong for 17 * 1307674368000, and also for 18 and 19 but accurate for 15 and 20.

All appears to be a significant figures issue, as Kagi's answers are accurate through the first 9 significant digits. But if you're going to only provide a certain number of digits being accurate, you need to spit out the answer as those digits (and only those digits) in scientific notation, since that's the only unambiguous way of indicating loss of precision on less significant digits.
You MUST NOT spit out wrong digits as you currently do.

Vlad

Tofof I agree. Is this something you would drop everything else we are doing (take a look around this site) over?