Assignment:
Translate the following natural language expressions to C++ expressions. Assume that all the variables are non-negative numbers or boolean (of value true or false).
Natural Language:
Either a and b are both false or c is true, but not both.
My solution:
(a==0 && b==0)xor(c==1)
Professors solution:
(!a && !b) != c
Questions:
I think I slightly understand the first bracket, by saying "not-a" and "not-b" I think that a and b must then be wrong, provided a b are assumed to be non-zero in the beginning. Right?
But what about the part that says "unequal to c"?
I don't understand the Professors solution, can anyone break it down for me?
Thank you for the help!
I'll assume that a, b and c are bool.
Let's draw some truth tables:
| a | !a | a==1 | a==0 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
As you can see, a and a==1 are equivalent, and !a and a==0 are also equivalent, so we can rewrite (a==0 && b==0)xor(c==1) as (!a && !b) xor c.
Now some more truth tables:
| a | b | a xor b | a != b |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
So a!=b is equivalent to a xor b, so we can rewrite (!a && !b) xor c to (!a && !b)!=c. As you see, your solutions are fully equivalent, just written with different 'signs'.
UPD: Forgot to mention. There are reasons why professor's solution looks exactly in that way.
The professor's solution is more idiomatic. While your solution is technically correct, it's not an idiomatic C++ code.
First little issue is usage of types. Your solution relies on conversion between int and bool when you compare boolean value to a number or use xor, which is a 'bit-wise exclusive or' operator acting on ints too. In a modern C++ it is much more appreciated to use values of correct types and not to rely on such conversions as they're sometimes not so clear and hard to reason about. For bool such values are true and false instead of 1 and 0 respectively. Also != is more appropriate than xor because while technically bools are stored as numbers, but sematically you haven't any numbers, just logical values.
Second issue is about idiomacy too. It lies here: a == 0. It is not considered a good practice to compare boolean expressions to boolean constants. As you already know, a == true is fully equivalent to just a, and a == false is just !a or not a (I prefer the latter). To understand the reason why that comparing isn't good just compare two code snippets and decide, which is clearer:
if (str.empty() == false) { ... }
vs
if (not str.empty()) { ... }
Think booleans, not bits
In summary, your professor's solution is better (but still wrong, strictly speaking, see further down) because it uses boolean operators instead of bitwise operators and treating booleans as integers. The expression c==1 to represent "c is true" is incorrect because if c may be a number (according to the stated assignment) then any non-zero value of c is to be regarded as representing true.
See this question on why it's better not to compare booleans with 0 or 1, even when it's safe to do so.
One very good reason not to use xor is that this is the bit-wise exclusive or operation. It happens to work in your example because both the left hand side and right hand side are boolean expressions that convert to 1 or 0 (see again 1).
The boolean exclusive-or is in fact !=.
Breaking down the expression
To understand your professor's solution better, it's easiest to replace the boolean operators with their "alternative token" equivalents, which turns it into better redable (imho) and completely equivalent C++ code:
Using 'not' for '!' and 'and' for '&&' you get
(not a and not b) != c
Unfortunately, there is no logical exclusive_or operator other than not_eq, which isn't helpful in this case.
If we break down the natural language expression:
Either a and b are both false or c is true, but not both.
first into a sentence about boolean propositions A and B:
Either A or B, but not both.
this translates into A != B (only for booleans, not for any type A and B).
Then proposition A was
a and b are both false
which can be stated as
a is false and b is false
which translates into (not a and not b), and finally
c is true
Which simply translates into c.
Combining them you get again (not a and not b) != c.
For further explanation how this expression then works, I defer to the truth tables that others have given in their answers.
You're both wrong
And if I may nitpick: The original assignment stated that a, b and c can be non-negative numbers, but did not unambiguously state that if they were numbers, they should be limited to the values 0 and 1. If any number that is not 0 represents true, as is customary, then the following code would yield a surprising answer:
auto c = 2; // "true" in some way
auto a = 0; // "false"
auto b = 0; // "false"
std::cout << ((!a && !b) != c);
// this will output: 1 (!)
// fix by making sure that != compares booleans:
std::cout << ((!a && !b) != (bool)c);
I will tryto explain with some more words: Numbers can be implicitly converted to boolean values:
The value zero (for integral, floating-point, and unscoped enumeration) and the null pointer and the null pointer-to-member values become false. All other values become true.
Source on cppreference
This leads to the following conclusions:
a == 0 is the same as !a, because a is converted to a boolean and then inverted, which equals !(a != 0). The same goes for b.
c==1 will become only true when c equals 1. Using the conversion (bool)c would yield true when c != 0 not just if c == 1. So it can work, because one usually uses the value 1 to represent true, but it's not garantued.
a != b is the same as a xor b when a and b ar boolean expressions. It's true, when one value or the other is true, but not both. In this case the left hand side (a==0 && b==0) is boolean, so the right hand side c is converted to boolean too, thus, both sides are interpreted as boolean expressions, thus != is the same as xor in this case.
You can check all of this yourself with the truthtables that the other answers provided.
As we can see from the truth tables:
!(not) and ==0 give the same results.
!= and xor give the same results.
c==1 is the same as just c
So one under the other, shows why these 2 expressions give the same result:
(a==0 && b==0) xor (c==1)
(!a && !b) != c
Truth tables :
Not
| | ! |
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
==0
| |==0|
| 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 |
==1
| |==1|
| 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 |
And
| a | b | && |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
Not equal
| a | b | != |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
XOR
| a | b |xor|
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 |
Related
I want to write an if-else statement as a logical statement. I know that:
if (statement1){
b=c
}
else{
b=d
}
can be written as:
b=(statement1 && c)||(!statement1 && d)
But how do I write the following if-else statements as logical?:
if (statement1){
b=c
}
else if (statement2){
b=d
}
else{
b=e
}
I have thought of something like:
b=(statement1 && c)||(statement2 && d)||((!statement1&&!statement2) && e)
I'm sorry if there is already a post about this. I have tried, but couldn't find anything similar to my problem.
As with all logical statement building, it'll be easiest to create a truth table here. You'll end up with:
+--+--+--------+
|s2|s1| result |
+--+--+--------+
| 0| 0| e |
+--+--+--------+
| 0| 1| c |
+--+--+--------+
| 1| 0| d |
+--+--+--------+
| 1| 1| c |
+--+--+--------+
So un-simplified, that'll be
(!s1 & !s2 & e) || (!s2 & s1 & c) || (s2 & !s1 & d) || (s1 & s2 & c)
This can be simplified by combining the two c results and removing the s2:
(!s1 & !s2 & e) || (s2 & !s1 & d) || (s1 & c)
(note that this will be faster in C++ and match the if statements closer with s1 & c as the first term. This will especially make a difference if evaluating any of these values will cause outside effects)
Note that what you built,
(statement1 && c)||(statement2 && d)||((!statement1&&!statement2) && e)
will function incorrectly if statement1 is true, c is false, and both statement2 and d are true (you'll get a result of true when you should have false).
what's wrong with this range?
rangeTransDate = strFmt('(("%1.%2" <= "%3" && "%3" == "%5") || ("%1.%4" > "%3"))',tableStr(CustomTable),fieldStr(CustomTable,TransDate), date2str(dateTo,321,2,0,2,0,4),fieldStr(CustomTable,SettlementDate),SysQuery::valueEmptyString());
i'm getting this error:
Query extended range error: Right parenthesis expected next to position 72.
This page of AX 2012 documentation is still relevant (I cannot find a AX365 version). Highlighting the important bit gives:
The rules for creating query range value expressions are:
Enclose the whole expression in parentheses.
Enclose all subexpressions in parentheses.
Use the relational and logical operators available in X++.
Only use field names from the range's data source.
Use the dataSource.field notation for fields from other data sources in the query.
This means that X++ expects curly brackets around every comparison operator (a.k.a. "subexpression" in the documentation). You are missing some...
Also, use the date2strxpp() function to properly handle all date to string conversions. This function can handle empty date values (dateNull()) by translating these to 1900-01-01. I doubt that putting an empty string (SysQuery::valueEmptyString()) in there will work.
So try this, the commented subexpression levels show the bracket groupings:
// subexpressions lvl 2: 4 4
// subexpressions lvl 1: |1 1 2 2 3 3|
// || | | | | ||
rangeTransDate = strFmt('(("%1.%2" <= "%3") && ("%3" == "%5") || ("%1.%4" > "%3"))',
tableStr(CustomTable),
fieldStr(CustomTable,TransDate),
date2strxpp(dateTo),
fieldStr(CustomTable,SettlementDate),
date2strxpp(dateNull()));
If you still get a similar error at runtime, add even more brackets to group every subexpression in pairs:
// subexpressions lvl 3: 5 5
// subexpressions lvl 2: |4 4 3 3|
// subexpressions lvl 1: ||1 1 2 2| 3 3|
// ||| | | || | ||
rangeTransDate = strFmt('((("%1.%2" <= "%3") && ("%3" == "%5")) || ("%1.%4" > "%3"))',
tableStr(CustomTable),
fieldStr(CustomTable,TransDate),
date2strxpp(dateTo),
fieldStr(CustomTable,SettlementDate),
date2strxpp(dateNull()));
This question already has an answer here:
Generating a new variable using conditional statements
(1 answer)
Closed 3 years ago.
I am doing data clean-up in Stata and I need to recode a variable to equal 1 if a whole set of other variables are equal to 1, 6, or 7.
I can do this using the code below:
replace anyadl = 1 if diffdress==1 | diffdress==6 | diffdress==7 | ///
diffwalk==1 | diffwalk==6 | diffwalk==7 | ///
diffbath==1 | diffbath==6 | diffbath==7 | ///
diffeat==1 | diffeat==6 | diffeat==7 | ///
diffbed==1 | diffbed==6 | diffbed==7 | ///
difftoi==1 | difftoi==6 | difftoi==7
However, this is very inefficient to type out and it is easy to make errors.
Is there a simpler way to do this?
For example, something along the following lines:
replace anyadl = 1 if diff* == (1 | 6 | 7)
Your fantasy syntax wouldn't do what you want even if it were legal, as for example 1|6|7 would be evaluated as 1. That is, in Stata 1 OR 6 OR 7 is in effect true OR true OR true, so true, and thus 1, given the rules non-zero is true as input and true is 1 as output. The expression is 1|6|7 is legal; it's the wildcard in an equality or inequality that isn't.
Stepping back, your code is producing an indicator (some people say dummy) variable with values 1 or missing. In practice such a variable is much more useful if created with values 0 and 1 (and in some instances missing too).
generate anyad1 = 0
foreach v in dress walk bath eat bed toi {
replace anyad1 = 1 if inlist(diff`v', 1, 6, 7)
}
is one approach. In general, note both inlist(foo, 1, 6, 7) and inlist(1, foo, bar, bazz) as useful constructs.
Reading:
This paper on generating indicators
This one on useful functions
This one on inlist() and inrange()
FAQ on true and false in Stata
I have a table with numeric values and blank records. I'm trying to calculate a number of rows that are not blank and bigger than 20.
+--------+
| VALUES |
+--------+
| 2 |
| 0 |
| 13 |
| 40 |
| |
| 1 |
| 200 |
| 4 |
| 135 |
| |
| 35 |
+--------+
I've tried different options but constantly get the next error: "Cannot convert value '' of type Text to type Number". I understand that blank cells are treated as text and thus my filter (>20) doesn't work. Converting blanks to "0" is not an option as I need to use the same values later to calculate AVG and Median.
CALCULATE(
COUNTROWS(Table3),
VALUE(Table3[VALUES]) > 20
)
OR getting "10" as a result:
=CALCULATE(
COUNTROWS(ALLNOBLANKROW(Table3[VALUES])),
VALUE(Table3[VALUES]) > 20
)
The final result in the example table should be: 4
Would be grateful for any help!
First, the VALUE function expects a string. It converts strings like "123"into the integer 123, so let's not use that.
The easiest approach is with an iterator function like COUNTX.
CountNonBlank = COUNTX(Table3, IF(Table3[Values] > 20, 1, BLANK()))
Note that we don't need a separate case for BLANK() (null) here since BLANK() > 20 evaluates as False.
There are tons of other ways to do this. Another iterator solution would be:
CountNonBlank = COUNTROWS(FILTER(Table3, Table3[Values] > 20))
You can use the same FILTER inside of a CALCULATE, but that's a bit less elegant.
CountNonBlank = CALCULATE(COUNT(Table3[Values]), FILTER(Table3, Table3[Values] > 20))
Edit
I don't recommend the CALCULATE version. If you have more columns with more conditions, just add them to your FILTER. E.g.
CountNonBlank =
COUNTROWS(
FILTER(Table3,
Table3[Values] > 20
&& Table3[Text] = "xyz"
&& Table3[Number] <> 0
&& Table3[Date] <= DATE(2018, 12, 31)
)
)
You can also do OR logic with || instead of the && for AND.
I need to write a function that takes as arguments an integer, which represents a row in a truth table, and a boolean array, where it stores the values for that row of the truth table.
Here is an example truth table
Row| A | B | C |
1 | T | T | T |
2 | T | T | F |
3 | T | F | T |
4 | T | F | F |
5 | F | T | T |
6 | F | T | F |
7 | F | F | T |
8 | F | F | F |
Please note that a given truth table could have more or fewer rows than this table, since the number of possible variables can change.
A function prototype could look like this
getRow(int rowNum, bool boolArr[]);
If this function was called, for example, as
getRow(3, boolArr[])
It would need to return an array with the following elements
|1|0|1| (or |T|F|T|)
The difficulty for me arises because the number of variables can change, therefore increasing or decreasing the number of rows. For instance, the list of variables could be A, B, C, D, E, and F instead of just A, B, and C.
I think the best solution would to be write a loop that counted up to the row number, and essentially changed the elements of the array like it was counting in binary. So that
1st loop iteration, array elements are 0|0|...|0|1|
2nd loop iteration, array elements are 0|0|...|1|0|
I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this, and can't find a solution elsewhere on the web. Sorry for all the confusion and thanks for the help
Ok now that you rewrote your question to be much clearer. First, getRow needs to take an extra argument: the number of bits. Row 1 with 2 bits produces a different result than row 1 with 64 bits, so we need a way to differentiate that. Second, typically with C++, everything is zero-indxed, so I am going to shift your truth table down one row so that row "0" returns all trues.
The key here is to realize that the row number in binary is already what you want. Take this row (having shifted down the 4 to 3):
3 | T | F | F |
3 in binary is 011, which inverted is {true, false, false} - exactly what you want. We can express that using bitwise-or as the array:
{!(3 | 0x4), !(3 | 0x2), !(3 | 0x1)}
So it's just a matter of writing that as a loop:
void getRow(int rowNum, bool* arr, int nbits)
{
int mask = 1 << (nbits - 1);
for (int i = 0; i < nbits; ++i, mask >>= 1) {
arr[i] = !(rowNum & mask);
}
}