Get BigRational from Codeplex. Its part of Microsoft's Base Class Library, so it's a work-in-progress for .Net. Once you have that, then do something like:
System.Numerics.BigInteger x = GetDividend() ;
System.Numerics.BigInteger y = GetDivisor() ;
BigRational r = new BigRational( x , y ) ;
double value = (double) r ;
Dealing with the inevitable overflow/underflow/loss of precision is, of course, another problem.
Since you can't drop the BigRational library into your code, evidently, the other approach would be to get out the right algorithms book and roll your own...
The easy way, of course, of "rolling one's own" here, since a rational number is represented as the ratio (division) of two integers, is to grab the explicit conversion to double operator from the BigRational class and tweak it to suit. It took me about 15 minutes.
About the only significant modification I made is in how the sign of the result is set when the result is positive or negative zero/infinity. While I was at it, I converted it to a BigInteger extension method for you:
public static class BigIntExtensions
public static double DivideAndReturnDouble( this BigInteger x , BigInteger y )
// The Double value type represents a double-precision 64-bit number with
// values ranging from -1.79769313486232e308 to +1.79769313486232e308
// values that do not fit into this range are returned as +/-Infinity
if (SafeCastToDouble(x) && SafeCastToDouble(y))
return (Double) x / (Double) y;
// kick it old-school and figure out the sign of the result
bool isNegativeResult = ( ( x.Sign < 0 && y.Sign > 0 ) || ( x.Sign > 0 && y.Sign < 0 ) ) ;
// scale the numerator to preseve the fraction part through the integer division
BigInteger denormalized = (x * s_bnDoublePrecision) / y ;
if ( denormalized.IsZero )
return isNegativeResult ? BitConverter.Int64BitsToDouble(unchecked((long)0x8000000000000000)) : 0d; // underflow to -+0
Double result = 0 ;
bool isDouble = false ;
int scale = DoubleMaxScale ;
while ( scale > 0 )
if ( SafeCastToDouble(denormalized) )
result = (Double) denormalized;
isDouble = true;
denormalized = denormalized / 10 ;
result = result / 10 ;
return isNegativeResult ? Double.NegativeInfinity : Double.PositiveInfinity;
private const int DoubleMaxScale = 308 ;
private static readonly BigInteger s_bnDoublePrecision = BigInteger.Pow( 10 , DoubleMaxScale ) ;
private static readonly BigInteger s_bnDoubleMaxValue = (BigInteger) Double.MaxValue;
private static readonly BigInteger s_bnDoubleMinValue = (BigInteger) Double.MinValue;
private static bool SafeCastToDouble(BigInteger value)
return s_bnDoubleMinValue <= value && value <= s_bnDoubleMaxValue;
In theory, a perefectly-random implementation of something like the Fisher-Yates algorithm would yield a completely random shuffle. In practice, howerver, Fisher-Yates is susceptible to things like modulo bias. See some of the pitfalls in relevant section in the Wikipedia entry and How Not To Shuffle The Knuth-Fisher-Yates Algorithm.
Knuth's classic The Art Of Computer Programming (Volume 2) - discusses a possibly suitable algorithm by MacLaren and Marsaglia.
Finally, see also Cryptographic Shuffling of Random and
In case you happen to have access to a library and you want to dig into and understand the issue well, take a look at
The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms
by Donald E. Knuth. Chapter 3 is all about random numbers.