I'm not sure how to make this function return the float in two decimal places.
float calcPrice(float a, float b, string x) {
if (x == "X") return (a - b) * 7.5;
else return (a - b) * 9.75;
}
You can't "truncate" a float.
A float does not have something like a "decimal place". what you type into your code is just convencience, the binary representation of floats is completely different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format
If you want to display the float in any way, you can still format it with functions like printf (keep in mind that it is a string after the formatting, not a float).
printf("%.2f", foobar); // prints out foobar with 2 digits
It is also advised to not use floats for monetary calculations. Floats become imprecise with big(ger) numbers due to their small size (even doubles and other floating point formats will eventually run out of precision). Not to mention that floats are prone to rounding errors (again due to their limited size). These errors accumulate quite quickly.
For monetary calculations, you can use fixed point math.
With fixed point math you really do have a fixed number of decimal places and the implementation is similar to basic integer math. You simply have to take care of the carry.
See here for more info about fixed point math:
Fixed Point Arithmetic in C Programming
Related
Today in my C++ programming lessons, my proff told me that one should never compare two floating point values directly.
So I tried this piece of code and found out the reason for his statement.
double l_Value=94.9;
print("%.20lf",l_Value);
And I found the results as 94.89999999 ( some relative error )
I understand that floating numbers are not stored in the way one presents it to the code. Squeezing those ones and zeros in binary form involves some relative rounding errors.
Iam looking for solutions to two problems.
1. Efficient way to compare two floating values.
2. How to add a floating value to another one. Example. Add 0.1111 to 94.4345 to get the exact value as 94.5456
Thanks in advance.
Efficient way to compare two floating values.
A simple double a,b; if (a == b) is an efficient way to compare two floating values. Yet as OP noticed, this may not meet the overall coding goal. Better ways depend on the context of the compare, something not supplied by OP. See far below.
How to add a floating value to another one. Example. Add 0.1111 to 94.4345 to get the exact value as 94.5456
Floating values as source code have effective unlimited range and precision such as 1.23456789012345678901234567890e1234567. Conversion of this text to a double is limited typically to one of 264 different values. The closest is selected, but that may not be an exact match.
Neither 0.1111, 94.4345, 94.5456 can be representably exactly as a typical double.
OP has choices:
1.) Use another type other than double, float. Various libraries offer decimal floating point types.
2) Limit code to rare platforms that support double to a base 10 form such that FLT_RADIX == 10.
3) Write your own code to handle user input like "0.1111" into a structure/string and perform the needed operations.
4) Treat user input as strings and the convert to some integer type, again with supported routines to read/compute/and write.
5) Accept that floating point operations are not mathematically exact and handle round-off error.
double a = 0.1111;
printf("a: %.*e\n", DBL_DECIMAL_DIG -1 , a);
double b = 94.4345;
printf("b: %.*e\n", DBL_DECIMAL_DIG -1 , b);
double sum = a + b;
printf("sum: %.*e\n", DBL_DECIMAL_DIG -1 , sum);
printf("%.4f\n", sum);
Output
a: 1.1110000000000000e-01
b: 9.4434500000000000e+01
sum: 9.4545599999999993e+01
94.5456 // Desired textual output based on a rounded `sum` to the nearest 0.0001
More on #1
If an exact compare is not sought but some sort of "are the two values close enough?", a definition of "close enough" is needed - of which there are many.
The following "close enough" compares the distance by examining the ULP of the two numbers. It is a linear difference when the values are in the same power-of-two and becomes logarithmic other wise. Of course, change of sign is an issue.
float example:
Consider all finite float ordered from most negative to most positive. The following, somewhat-portable code, returns an integer for each float with that same order.
uint32_t sequence_f(float x) {
union {
float f;
uint32_t u32;
} u;
assert(sizeof(float) == sizeof(uint32_t));
u.f = x;
if (u.u32 & 0x80000000) {
u.u32 ^= 0x80000000;
return 0x80000000 - u.u32;
}
return u.u3
}
Now, to determine if two float are "close enough", simple compare two integers.
static bool close_enough(float x, float y, uint32_t ULP_delta) {
uint32_t ullx = sequence_f(x);
uint32_t ully = sequence_f(y);
if (ullx > ully) return (ullx - ully) <= ULP_delta;
return (ully - ullx) <= ULP_delta;
}
The way I've usually done this is is to have a custom equality comparison function. The basic idea, is you have a certain tolerance, say 0.0001 or something. Then you subtract your two numbers and take their absolute value, and if it is less than your tolerance you treat it as equal. There are other strategies that may be more appropriate for certain situations, of course.
Define for yourself a tolerance level e (for example, e=.0001) and check if abs(a-b) <= e
You aren't going to get an "exact" value with floating point. Ever. If you know in advance that you are using four decimals, and you want "exact", then you need to internally treat your numbers as integers and only display them as decimals. 944345 + 1111 = 945456
I have a class that internally represents some quantity in fixed point as 32-bit integer with somewhat arbitrary denominator (it is neither power of 2 nor power of 10).
For communicating with other applications the quantity is converted to plain old double on output and back on input. As code inside the class it looks like:
int32_t quantity;
double GetValue() { return double(quantity) / DENOMINATOR; }
void SetValue(double x) { quantity = x * DENOMINATOR; }
Now I need to ensure that if I output some value as double and read it back, I will always get the same value back. I.e. that
x.SetValue(x.GetValue());
will never change x.quantity (x is arbitrary instance of the class containing the above code).
The double representation has more digits of precision, so it should be possible. But it will almost certainly not be the case with the simplistic code above.
What rounding do I need to use and
How can I find the critical would-be corner cases to test that the rounding is indeed correct?
Any 32 bits will be represented exactly when you convert to a double, but when you divide then multiply by an arbitrary value you will get a similar value but not exactly the same. You should lose at most one bit per operations, which means your double will be almost the same, prior to casting back to an int.
However, since int casts are truncations, you will get the wrong result when very minor errors turn 2.000 into 1.999, thus what you need to do is a simple rounding task prior to casting back.
You can use std::lround() for this if you have C++11, else you can write you own rounding function.
You probably don't care about fairness much here, so the common int(doubleVal+0.5) will work for positives. If as seems likely, you have negatives, try this:
int round(double d) { return d<0?d-0.5:d+0.5; }
The problem you describe is the same problem which exists with converting between binary and decimal representation just with different bases. At least it exists if you want to have the double representation to be a good approximation of the original value (otherwise you could just multiply the 32 bit value you have with your fixed denominator and store the result in a double).
Assuming you want the double representation be a good approximation of your actual value the conversions are nontrivial! The conversion from your internal representation to double can be done using Dragon4 ("How to print floating point numbers accurately", Steele & White) or Grisu ("How to print floating point numbers quickly and accurately", Loitsch; I'm not sure if this algorithm is independent from the base, though). The reverse can be done using Bellerophon ("How to read floating point numbers accurately", Clinger). These algorithms aren't entirely trivial, though...
I have a program in C++ where I divide two numbers, and I need to know if the answer is an integer or not. What I am using is:
if(fmod(answer,1) == 0)
I also tried this:
if(floor(answer)==answer)
The problem is that answer usually is a 5 digit number, but with many decimals. For example, answer can be: 58696.000000000000000025658 and the program considers that an integer.
Is there any way I can make this work?
I am dividing double a/double b= double answer
(sometimes there are more than 30 decimals)
Thanks!
EDIT:
a and b are numbers in the thousands (about 100,000) which are then raised to powers of 2 and 3, added together and divided (according to a complicated formula). So I am plugging in various a and b values and looking at the answer. I will only keep the a and b values that make the answer an integer. An example of what I got for one of the answers was: 218624 which my program above considered to be an integer, but it really was: 218624.00000000000000000056982 So I need a code that can distinguish integers with more than 20-30 decimals.
You can use std::modf in cmath.h:
double integral;
if(std::modf(answer, &integral) == 0.0)
The integral part of answer is stored in fraction and the return value of std::modf is the fractional part of answer with the same sign as answer.
The usual solution is to check if the number is within a very short distance of an integer, like this:
bool isInteger(double a){
double b=round(a),epsilon=1e-9; //some small range of error
return (a<=b+epsilon && a>=b-epsilon);
}
This is needed because floating point numbers have limited precision, and numbers that indeed are integers may not be represented perfectly. For example, the following would fail if we do a direct comparison:
double d=sqrt(2); //square root of 2
double answer=2.0/(d*d); //2 divided by 2
Here, answer actually holds the value 0.99999..., so we cannot compare that to an integer, and we cannot check if the fractional part is close to 0.
In general, since the floating point representation of a number can be either a bit smaller or a bit bigger than the actual number, it is not good to check if the fractional part is close to 0. It may be a number like 0.99999999 or 0.000001 (or even their negatives), these are all possible results of a precision loss. That's also why I'm checking both sides (+epsilon and -epsilon). You should adjust that epsilon variable to fit your needs.
Also, keep in mind that the precision of a double is close to 15 digits. You may also use a long double, which may give you some extra digits of precision (or not, it is up to the compiler), but even that only gets you around 18 digits. If you need more precision than that, you will need to use an external library, like GMP.
Floating point numbers are stored in memory using a very different bit format than integers. Because of this, comparing them for equality is not likely to work effectively. Instead, you need to test if the difference is smaller than some epsilon:
const double EPSILON = 0.00000000000000000001; // adjust for whatever precision is useful for you
double remainder = std::fmod(numer, denom);
if(std::fabs(0.0 - remainder) < EPSILON)
{
//...
}
Alternatively, if you want to include values that are close to integers (based on your desired precision), you can modify the if condition slightly (since the remainder returned by std::fmod will be in the range [0, 1)):
if (std::fabs(std::round(d) - d) < EPSILON)
{
// ...
}
You can see the test for this here.
Floating point numbers are generally somewhat precise to about 12-15 digits (as a double), but as they are stored as a mantissa (fraction) and a exponent, rational numbers (integers or common fractions) are not likely to be stored as such. For example,
double d = 2.0; // d might actually be 1.99999999999999995
Because of this, you need to compare the difference of what you expect to some very small number that encompasses the precision you desire (we will call this value, epsilon):
double d = 2.0;
bool test = std::fabs(2 - d) < epsilon; // will return true
So when you are trying to compare the remainder from std::fmod, you need to check it against the difference from 0.0 (not for actual equality to 0.0), which is what is done above.
Also, the std::fabs call prevents you from having to do 2 checks by asserting that the value will always be positive.
If you desire a precision that is greater than 15-18 decimal places, you cannot use double or long double; you will need to use a high precision floating point library.
To transport data over the network I convert a double to string , send it and on the receiver side convert it back to double.
so far so good.
But I stumbled over some weird behaviour which I'm not able to explain
The whole example code can be found here.
what i do:
Write a double to string via ostringstream, afterwards read it in with istringstream
the value changes
But if i use the function "strtod(...) " it works. (with the same outstring)
Example (the whole code can be found here):
double d0 = 0.0070000000000000001;
out << d0;
std::istringstream in (out.str());
in.precision(Prec);
double d0X_ = strtod(test1.c_str(),NULL);
in >> d0_;
assert(d0 == d0X_); // this is ok
assert(d0 == d0_); //this fails
I wonder why this happens.
The question is: "Why is 'istream >>' leading to another resulst as 'strtod'"
Please don't answer the question why IEEE 754 is no exact.
Why are they might be different:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/newbie.html#faq-29.16
Floating point is an approximation...
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/newbie.html#faq-29.17
The reason floating point will surprise you is that float and double
values are normally represented using a finite precision binary
format. In other words, floating point numbers are not real numbers.
For example, in your machine's floating point format it might be
impossible to exactly represent the number 0.1. By way of analogy,
it's impossible to exactly represent the number one third in decimal
format (unless you use an infinite number of digits)....
The message is that some floating point numbers cannot always be
represented exactly, so comparisons don't always do what you'd like
them to do. In other words, if the computer actually multiplies 10.0
by 1.0/10.0, it might not exactly get 1.0 back.
How to compare floating point:
http://c-faq.com/fp/strangefp.html
...some machines have more precision available in floating-point
computation registers than in double values stored in memory, which
can lead to floating-point inequalities when it would seem that two
values just have to be equal.
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/newbie.html#faq-29.17
Here's the wrong way to do it:
void dubious(double x, double y)
{
...
if (x == y) // Dubious!
foo();
...
}
If what you really want is to make sure they're "very close" to each other (e.g., if variable a contains the value 1.0 / 10.0 and you want to see if (10*a == 1)), you'll probably want to do something fancier than the above:
void smarter(double x, double y)
{
...
if (isEqual(x, y)) // Smarter!
foo();
...
}
There are many ways to define the isEqual() function, including:
#include <cmath> /* for std::abs(double) */
inline bool isEqual(double x, double y)
{
const double epsilon = /* some small number such as 1e-5 */;
return std::abs(x - y) <= epsilon * std::abs(x);
// see Knuth section 4.2.2 pages 217-218
}
Note: the above solution is not completely symmetric, meaning it is possible for isEqual(x,y) != isEqual(y,x). From a practical standpoint, does not usually occur when the magnitudes of x and y are significantly larger than epsilon, but your mileage may vary.
I have a function getSlope which takes as parameters 4 doubles and returns another double calculated using this given parameters in the following way:
double QSweep::getSlope(double a, double b, double c, double d){
double slope;
slope=(d-b)/(c-a);
return slope;
}
The problem is that when calling this function with arguments for example:
getSlope(2.71156, -1.64161, 2.70413, -1.72219);
the returned result is:
10.8557
and this is not a good result for my computations.
I have calculated the slope using Mathematica and the result for the slope for the same parameters is:
10.8452
or with more digits for precision:
10.845222072678331.
The result returned by my program is not good in my further computations.
Moreover, I do not understant how does the program returns 10.8557 starting from 10.845222072678331 (supposing that this is the approximate result for the division)?
How can I get the good result for my division?
thank you in advance,
madalina
I print the result using the command line:
std::cout<<slope<<endl;
It may be that my parameters are maybe not good, as I read them from another program (which computes a graph; after I read this parameters fromt his graph I have just displayed them to see their value but maybe the displayed vectors have not the same internal precision for the calculated value..I do not know it is really strange. Some numerical errors appears..)
When the graph from which I am reading my parameters is computed, some numerical libraries written in C++ (with templates) are used. No OpenGL is used for this computation.
thank you,
madalina
I've tried with float instead of double and I get 10.845110 as a result. It still looks better than madalina result.
EDIT:
I think I know why you get this results. If you get a, b, c and d parameters from somewhere else and you print it, it gives you rounded values. Then if you put it to Mathemtacia (or calc ;) ) it will give you different result.
I tried changing a little bit one of your parameters. When I did:
double c = 2.7041304;
I get 10.845806. I only add 0.0000004 to c!
So I think your "errors" aren't errors. Print a, b, c and d with better precision and then put them to Mathematica.
The following code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
double getSlope(double a, double b, double c, double d){
double slope;
slope=(d-b)/(c-a);
return slope;
}
int main( ) {
double s = getSlope(2.71156, -1.64161, 2.70413, -1.72219);
cout << s << endl;
}
gives a result of 10.8452 with g++. How are you printing out the result in your code?
Could it be that you use DirectX or OpenGL in your project? If so they can turn off double precision and you will get strange results.
You can check your precision settings with
std::sqrt(x) * std::sqrt(x)
The result has to be pretty close to x.
I met this problem long time ago and spend a month checking all the formulas. But then I've found
D3DCREATE_FPU_PRESERVE
The problem here is that (c-a) is small, so the rounding errors inherent in floating point operations is magnified in this example. A general solution is to rework your equation so that you're not dividing by a small number, I'm not sure how you would do it here though.
EDIT:
Neil is right in his comment to this question, I computed the answer in VB using Doubles and got the same answer as mathematica.
The results you are getting are consistent with 32bit arithmetic. Without knowing more about your environment, it's not possible to advise what to do.
Assuming the code shown is what's running, ie you're not converting anything to strings or floats, then there isn't a fix within C++. It's outside of the code you've shown, and depends on the environment.
As Patrick McDonald and Treb brought both up the accuracy of your inputs and the error on a-c, I thought I'd take a look at that. One technique to look at rounding errors is interval arithmetic, which makes the upper and lower bounds which value represents explicit (they are implicit in floating point numbers, and are fixed to the precision of the representation). By treating each value as an upper and lower bound, and by extending the bounds by the error in the representation ( approx x * 2 ^ -53 for a double value x ), you get a result which gives the lower and upper bounds on the accuracy of a value, taking into account worst case precision errors.
For example, if you have a value in the range [1.0, 2.0] and subtract from it a value in the range [0.0, 1.0], then the result must lie in the range [below(0.0),above(2.0)] as the minimum result is 1.0-1.0 and the maximum is 2.0-0.0. below and above are equivalent to floor and ceiling, but for the next representable value rather than for integers.
Using intervals which represent worst-case double rounding:
getSlope(
a = [2.7115599999999995262:2.7115600000000004144],
b = [-1.6416099999999997916:-1.6416100000000002357],
c = [2.7041299999999997006:2.7041300000000005888],
d = [-1.7221899999999998876:-1.7221900000000003317])
(d-b) = [-0.080580000000000526206:-0.080579999999999665783]
(c-a) = [-0.0074300000000007129439:-0.0074299999999989383218]
to double precision [10.845222072677243474:10.845222072679954195]
So although c-a is small compared to c or a, it is still large compared to double rounding, so if you were using the worst imaginable double precision rounding, then you could trust that value's to be precise to 12 figures - 10.8452220727. You've lost a few figures off double precision, but you're still working to more than your input's significance.
But if the inputs were only accurate to the number significant figures, then rather than being the double value 2.71156 +/- eps, then the input range would be [2.711555,2.711565], so you get the result:
getSlope(
a = [2.711555:2.711565],
b = [-1.641615:-1.641605],
c = [2.704125:2.704135],
d = [-1.722195:-1.722185])
(d-b) = [-0.08059:-0.08057]
(c-a) = [-0.00744:-0.00742]
to specified accuracy [10.82930108:10.86118598]
which is a much wider range.
But you would have to go out of your way to track the accuracy in the calculations, and the rounding errors inherent in floating point are not significant in this example - it's precise to 12 figures with the worst case double precision rounding.
On the other hand, if your inputs are only known to 6 figures, it doesn't actually matter whether you get 10.8557 or 10.8452. Both are within [10.82930108:10.86118598].
Better Print out the arguments, too. When you are, as I guess, transferring parameters in decimal notation, you will lose precision for each and every one of them. The problem being that 1/5 is an infinite series in binary, so e.g. 0.2 becomes .001001001.... Also, decimals are chopped when converting an binary float to a textual representation in decimal.
Next to that, sometimes the compiler chooses speed over precision. This should be a documented compiler switch.
Patrick seems to be right about (c-a) being the main cause:
d-b = -1,72219 - (-1,64161) = -0,08058
c-a = 2,70413 - 2,71156 = -0,00743
S = (d-b)/(c-a)= -0,08058 / -0,00743 = 10,845222
You start out with six digits precision, through the subtraction you get a reduction to 3 and four digits. My best guess is that you loose additonal precision because the number -0,00743 can not be represented exaclty in a double. Try using intermediate variables with a bigger precision, like this:
double QSweep::getSlope(double a, double b, double c, double d)
{
double slope;
long double temp1, temp2;
temp1 = (d-b);
temp2 = (c-a);
slope = temp1/temp2;
return slope;
}
While the academic discussion going on is great for learning about the limitations of programming languages, you may find the simplest solution to the problem is an data structure for arbitrary precision arithmetic.
This will have some overhead, but you should be able to find something with fairly guaranteeable accuracy.