> but the definition of normalized is that the mantissa is shifted to be aligned to the binary point
And that’s the key point. A subnormal number does not have the significand/mantissa aligned to start with an (implied) 1. It has leading zeros. Thus the number of digits of a subnormal number is not fixed.
1.0000x10^0 has the same precision as 1.0000x10^-99.
1.0000x10^-99 does not have the same precision as 0.0010x10^-99.
That is why the original poster wrote the subnormals have a not-fixed number of digits.
But if you’re going to go around writing snarky “gotcha” comments, at least try to get your facts straight.
And that’s the key point. A subnormal number does not have the significand/mantissa aligned to start with an (implied) 1. It has leading zeros. Thus the number of digits of a subnormal number is not fixed.
1.0000x10^0 has the same precision as 1.0000x10^-99.
1.0000x10^-99 does not have the same precision as 0.0010x10^-99.
That is why the original poster wrote the subnormals have a not-fixed number of digits.
But if you’re going to go around writing snarky “gotcha” comments, at least try to get your facts straight.