Java Float.MIN_VALUE is not negative!

While writing a function to return a the max vector late in evening I encountered the following assertion error for the code below. Just went home, thinking i am seeing something wrong since its late :-)

----

The shouldReturnMaxVector below fails with the following error
Expected: [2 .0,  -6 .0f,  -5 .0f]

Actual:   [2 .0f,1 .4e-45, 1 .4e-45]
----

    @Test
    public void shouldReturnMaxVector() throws Exception {
        float[] max = max(new float[]{Float.MIN_VALUE, Float.MIN_VALUE, Float.MIN_VALUE}, new float[]{2, -6, -5});
        assertThat(max, is(new float[]{2, -6, -5}));
    }


    public static float[] max(float[] v1, float[] v2) {
        return findByCompare(v1, v2, (x, y) -> x > y);
    }

    public static float[] findByCompare(float[] v1, float[] v2,
                                        BiFunction selector) {
        float[] result = new float[v1.length];
        for (int i = 0; i < v1.length; i++) {
            result[i] = selector.apply(v1[i], v2[i]) ? v1[i] : v2[i];
        }
        return result;
    }

--

Later i realized, Float.MIN_VALUE is not negative. The following stack overflow answer (https://bit.ly/2J6tKbI) provides a good explanation for the same.

Below is the answer from SO
--

The
 IEEE 754 format has one bit reserved for the sign and the remaining 
bits representing the magnitude. This means that it is "symmetrical" 
around origo (as opposed to the Integer values, which have one more 
negative value). Thus the minimum value is simply the same as the 
maximum value, with the sign-bit changed, so yes, -Double.MAX_VALUE is the smallest possible actual number you can represent with a double.


I suppose the Double.MAX_VALUE should be seen as maximum magnitude, in which case it actually makes sense to simply write -Double.MAX_VALUE. It also explains why Double.MIN_VALUE is the least positive value (since that represents the least possible magnitude).


But sure, I agree that the naming is a bit misleading. Being used to the meaning Integer.MIN_VALUE, I too was a bit surprised when I read that Double.MIN_VALUE was the smallest absolute value
 that could be represented. Perhaps they thought it was superfluous to 
have a constant representing the least possible value as it is simply a - away from MAX_VALUE :-)


(Note, there is also Double.NEGATIVE_INFINITY but I'm disregarding from this, as it is to be seen as a "special case" and does not in fact represent any actual number.)


Here is a good text on the subject.

--