I am trying to count series of: 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ...
But I had problem with my output:
Insert how many series's number will be counted : 3 // I am input 3
Total = 1 // This is the problem, the output should shown = 1.8333
My program
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
int recursion ( int n );
int main ()
{
int n;
cout << "Insert how many number will be counted : ";cin >> n;
cout << "Total = " << recursion(n);
}
int recursion (int a)
{
int result;
if ( a >= 1 )
{
result = 1;
}
else
{
result = ( pow ( a , -1 ) + recursion ( pow ( ( a - 1 ) , -1 ) ) );
}
return (result);
}
As others have said, use floating point types, such as double or float.
In integer division, 1/3 == 0.
Here's an iterative example:
const unsigned int NUMBER_OF_TERMS = 100;
double result = 0.0;
double denominator = 2.0;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_TERMS; ++i)
{
result = result + 1.0 / denominator;
denominator = denomenator + 1.0;
}
Your code should use floating point constants (with decimal points) and floating point variables (of type double or float).
Edit 1: Basic recursion
In some cases of recursion, thinking of the solution backwards may help the implementation.
For example, the series starts with 1.0/2.0. However, since the sum operation doesn't depend on order, we can start with 1.0/5.0 and work backwards:
result = 1.0/5.0 + 1.0/4.0 + 1.0/3.0 + 1.0/2.0
This allows the denominator to be used as the condition for ending the recursion.
double recursive_sum(double denominator)
{
if (denominator < 2)
{
return 0.0;
}
return recursive_sum(denominator - 1.0)
+ 1.0 / denominator;
}
Related
I write a code snippet in Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2019 in C++ like this:
int m = 11;
int p = 3;
float step = 1.0 / (m - 2 * p);
the variable step is 0.200003, 0.2 is what i wanted. Is there any suggestion to improve the precision?
This problem comes from UNIFORM KNOT VECTOR. Knot vector is a concept in NURBS. You can think it is just an array of numbers like this: U[] = {0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0}; The span between two adjacent numbers is a constant. The size of knot vector can be changed accroding to some condition, but the range is in [0, 1].
the whole function is:
typedef float NURBS_FLOAT;
void CreateKnotVector(int m, int p, bool clamped, NURBS_FLOAT* U)
{
if (clamped)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= p; i++)
{
U[i] = 0;
}
NURBS_FLOAT step = 1.0 / (m - 2 * p);
for (int i = p+1; i < m-p; i++)
{
U[i] = U[i - 1] + step;
}
for (int i = m-p; i <= m; i++)
{
U[i] = 1;
}
}
else
{
U[0] = 0;
NURBS_FLOAT step = 1.0 / m;
for (int i = 1; i <= m; i++)
{
U[i] = U[i - 1] + step;
}
}
}
Let's follow what's going on in your code:
The expression 1.0 / (m - 2 * p) yields 0.2, to which the closest representable double value is 0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125. Notice how precise it is – to 16 significant decimal digits. It's because, due to 1.0 being a double literal, the denominator is promoted to double, and the whole calculation is done in double precision, thus yielding a double value.
The value obtained in the previous step is written to step, which has type float. So the value has to be rounded to the closest representable value, which happens to be 0.20000000298023223876953125.
So your cited result of 0.200003 is not what you should get. Instead, it should be closer to 0.200000003.
Is there any suggestion to improve the precision?
Yes. Store the value in a higher-precision variable. E.g., instead of float step, use double step. In this case the value you've calculated won't be rounded once more, so precision will be higher.
Can you get the exact 0.2 value to work with it in the subsequent calculations? With binary floating-point arithmetic, unfortunately, no. In binary, the number 0.2 is a periodic fraction:
0.210 = 0.0̅0̅1̅1̅2 = 0.0011 0011 0011...2
See Is floating point math broken? question and its answers for more details.
If you really need decimal calculations, you should use a library solution, e.g. Boost's cpp_dec_float. Or, if you need arbitrary-precision calculations, you can use e.g. cpp_bin_float from the same library. Note that both variants will be orders of magnitude slower than using bulit-in C++ binary floating-point types.
When dealing with floating point math a certain amount of rounding errors are expected.
For starters, values like 0.2 aren't exactly represented by a float, or even a double:
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << 0.2 << '\n';
// ^^^ It outputs something like: 0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125
Besides, the errors may accumulate when a sequence of operations are performed on imprecise values. Some operations, like summation and subctraction, are more sensitive to this kind of errors than others, so it'd be better to avoid them if possible.
That seems to be the case, here, where we can rewrite OP's function into something like the following
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <cassert>
#include <type_traits>
template <typename T = double>
auto make_knots(int m, int p = 0) // <- Note that I've changed the signature.
{
static_assert(std::is_floating_point_v<T>);
std::vector<T> knots(m + 1);
int range = m - 2 * p;
assert(range > 0);
for (int i = 1; i < m - p; i++)
{
knots[i + p] = T(i) / range; // <- Less prone to accumulate rounding errors
}
std::fill(knots.begin() + m - p, knots.end(), 1.0);
return knots;
}
template <typename T>
void verify(std::vector<T> const& v)
{
bool sum_is_one = true;
for (int i = 0, j = v.size() - 1; i <= j; ++i, --j)
{
if (v[i] + v[j] != 1.0) // <- That's a bold request for a floating point type
{
sum_is_one = false;
break;
}
}
std::cout << (sum_is_one ? "\n" : "Rounding errors.\n");
}
int main()
{
// For presentation purposes only
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << 0.2 << '\n';
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << 0.4 << '\n';
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << 0.6 << '\n';
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << 0.8 << "\n\n";
auto k1 = make_knots(11, 3);
for (auto i : k1)
{
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << i << '\n';
}
verify(k1);
auto k2 = make_knots<float>(10);
for (auto i : k2)
{
std::cout << std::setprecision(60) << i << '\n';
}
verify(k2);
}
Testable here.
One solution to avoid drift (which I guess is your worry?) is to manually use rational numbers, for example in this case you might have:
// your input values for determining step
int m = 11;
int p = 3;
// pre-calculate any intermediate values, which won't have rounding issues
int divider = (m - 2 * p); // could be float or double instead of int
// input
int stepnumber = 1234; // could also be float or double instead of int
// output
float stepped_value = stepnumber * 1.0f / divider;
In other words, formulate your problem so that step of your original code is always 1 (or whatever rational number you can represent exactly using 2 integers) internally, so there is no rounding issue. If you need to display the value for user, then you can do it just for display: 1.0 / divider and round to suitable number of digits.
I'm working on this program that approximates a taylor series function. I have to approximate it so that the taylor series function stops approximating the sin function with a precision of .00001. In other words,the absolute value of the last approximation minus the current approximation equals less than or equal to 0.00001. It also approximates each angle from 0 to 360 degrees in 15 degree increments. My logic seems to be correct, but I cannot figure out why i am getting garbage values. Any help is appreciated!
#include <math.h>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <cmath>
double fact(int x){
int F = 1;
for(int i = 1; i <= x; i++){
F*=i;
}
return F;
}
double degreesToRadians(double angle_in_degrees){
double rad = (angle_in_degrees*M_PI)/180;
return rad;
}
using namespace std;
double mySine(double x){
int current =99999;
double comSin=x;
double prev=0;
int counter1 = 3;
int counter2 = 1;
while(current>0.00001){
prev = comSin;
if((counter2 % 2) == 0){
comSin += (pow(x,(counter1))/(fact(counter1)));
}else{
comSin -= (pow(x,(counter1))/(fact(counter1)));
}
current=abs(prev-comSin);
cout<<current<<endl;
counter1+=2;
counter2+=1;
}
return comSin;
}
using namespace std;
int main(){
cout<<"Angle\tSine"<<endl;
for (int i = 0; i<=360; i+=15){
cout<<i<<"\t"<<mySine(degreesToRadians(i));
}
}
Here is an example which illustrates how to go about doing this.
Using the pow function and calculating the factorial at each iteration is very inefficient -- these can often be maintained as running values which are updated alongside the sum during each iteration.
In this case, each iteration's addend is the product of two factors: a power of x and a (reciprocal) factorial. To get from one iteration's power factor to the next iteration's, just multiply by x*x. To get from one iteration's factorial factor to the next iteration's, just multiply by ((2*n+1) + 1) * ((2*n+1) + 2), before incrementing n (the iteration number).
And because these two factors are updated multiplicatively, they do not need to exist as separate running values, they can exists as a single running product. This also helps avoid precision problems -- both the power factor and the factorial can become large very quickly, but the ratio of their values goes to zero relatively gradually and is well-behaved as a running value.
So this example maintains these running values, updated at each iteration:
"sum" (of course)
"prod", the ratio: pow(x, 2n+1) / factorial 2n+1
"tnp1", the value of 2*n+1 (used in the factorial update)
The running update value, "prod" is negated every iteration in order to to factor in the (-1)^n.
I also included the function "XlatedSine". When x is too far away from zero, the sum requires more iterations for an accurate result, which takes longer to run and also can require more precision than our floating-point values can provide. When the magnitude of x goes beyond PI, "XlatedSine" finds another x, close to zero, with an equivalent value for sin(x), then uses this shifted x in a call to MaclaurinSine.
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
// Importing cmath seemed wrong LOL, so define Abs and PI
static double Abs(double x) { return x < 0 ? -x : x; }
const double PI = 3.14159265358979323846;
// Taylor series about x==0 for sin(x):
//
// Sum(n=[0...oo]) { ((-1)^n) * (x^(2*n+1)) / (2*n + 1)! }
//
double MaclaurinSine(double x) {
const double xsq = x*x; // cached constant x squared
int tnp1 = 3; // 2*n+1 | n==1
double prod = xsq*x / 6; // pow(x, 2*n+1) / (2*n+1)! | n==1
double sum = x; // sum after n==0
for(;;) {
prod = -prod;
sum += prod;
static const double MinUpdate = 0.00001; // try zero -- the factorial will always dominate the power of x, eventually
if(Abs(prod) <= MinUpdate) {
return sum;
}
// Update the two factors in prod
prod *= xsq; // add 2 to the power factor's exponent
prod /= (tnp1 + 1) * (tnp1 + 2); // update the factorial factor by two iterations
tnp1 += 2;
}
}
// XlatedSine translates x to an angle close to zero which will produce the equivalent result.
double XlatedSine(double x) {
if(Abs(x) >= PI) {
// Use int casting to do an fmod PI (but symmetric about zero).
// Keep in mind that a really big x could overflow the int,
// however such a large double value will have lost so much precision
// at a sub-PI-sized scale that doing this in a legit fashion
// would also disappoint.
const int p = static_cast<int>(x / PI);
x -= PI * p;
if(p % 2) {
x = -x;
}
}
return MaclaurinSine(x);
}
double DegreesToRadians(double angle_deg) {
return PI / 180 * angle_deg;
}
int main() {
std::cout<<"Angle\tSine\n" << std::setprecision(12);
for(int i = 0; i<=360; i+=15) {
std::cout << i << "\t" << MaclaurinSine(DegreesToRadians(i)) << "\n";
//std::cout << i << "\t" << XlatedSine(DegreesToRadians(i)) << "\n";
}
}
I found many similar topics but none of them gives me clear explanation.
I have to write program which calculates Pi squared to n digits using this taylor series:
π^2 = 12 ( 1/1^2 - 1/2^2 + 1/3^2 - 1/4^2 + ... )
I wrote this:
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int n;
cout << "How many digits?" << endl;
cin >> n;
long double Pi2 = 0;
int i = 1;
while( precision is less than n ) {
if ((i%2) == 1) {
Pi2 += 1/pow(i,2);
i+=1;
}
else {
Pi2 -= 1/pow(i,2);
i+=1;
}
}
Pi2 *= 12;
cout << Pi2 << endl;
return 0;
}
and I have no idea what to write in while() ? When should this loop stop?
If You know the required precision, You can calculate the right value for the maximum value for n before You start the loop.
Second thing: start with the most less number if You start adding all delta values.
Similar to this
int ndigits;
cout << "How many digits?" << endl;
cin >> ndigits;
int n = int( pow( double(10), double(ndigits)/2 ) + 0.5 );
long double Pi2 = 0;
int i = 1;
for( int i=n; i>0; --i )
{
if ((i%2) == 1) {
Pi2 += 1/pow(long double(i),2);
}
else {
Pi2 -= 1/pow(long double(i),2);
}
}
Pi2 *= 12;
A method to consider is using ndigits to create an 'epsilon' value.
Let's assume ndigits is 3. That give an epsilon of 0.0001
if the difference between your value from the previous iteration, and the current iteration is less than 0.0001, then you can assume you have the value you are after, and terminate the while loop.
A warning though. Doubles and long doubles have an upper limit on the number of digits they can hold accurately.
I was finding out the algorithm for finding out the square root without using sqrt function and then tried to put into programming. I end up with this working code in C++
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
double SqrtNumber(double num)
{
double lower_bound=0;
double upper_bound=num;
double temp=0; /* ek edited this line */
int nCount = 50;
while(nCount != 0)
{
temp=(lower_bound+upper_bound)/2;
if(temp*temp==num)
{
return temp;
}
else if(temp*temp > num)
{
upper_bound = temp;
}
else
{
lower_bound = temp;
}
nCount--;
}
return temp;
}
int main()
{
double num;
cout<<"Enter the number\n";
cin>>num;
if(num < 0)
{
cout<<"Error: Negative number!";
return 0;
}
cout<<"Square roots are: +"<<sqrtnum(num) and <<" and -"<<sqrtnum(num);
return 0;
}
Now the problem is initializing the number of iterations nCount in the declaratione ( here it is 50). For example to find out square root of 36 it takes 22 iterations, so no problem whereas finding the square root of 15625 takes more than 50 iterations, So it would return the value of temp after 50 iterations. Please give a solution for this.
There is a better algorithm, which needs at most 6 iterations to converge to maximum precision for double numbers:
#include <math.h>
double sqrt(double x) {
if (x <= 0)
return 0; // if negative number throw an exception?
int exp = 0;
x = frexp(x, &exp); // extract binary exponent from x
if (exp & 1) { // we want exponent to be even
exp--;
x *= 2;
}
double y = (1+x)/2; // first approximation
double z = 0;
while (y != z) { // yes, we CAN compare doubles here!
z = y;
y = (y + x/y) / 2;
}
return ldexp(y, exp/2); // multiply answer by 2^(exp/2)
}
Algorithm starts with 1 as first approximation for square root value.
Then, on each step, it improves next approximation by taking average between current value y and x/y. If y = sqrt(x), it will be the same. If y > sqrt(x), then x/y < sqrt(x) by about the same amount. In other words, it will converge very fast.
UPDATE: To speed up convergence on very large or very small numbers, changed sqrt() function to extract binary exponent and compute square root from number in [1, 4) range. It now needs frexp() from <math.h> to get binary exponent, but it is possible to get this exponent by extracting bits from IEEE-754 number format without using frexp().
Why not try to use the Babylonian method for finding a square root.
Here is my code for it:
double sqrt(double number)
{
double error = 0.00001; //define the precision of your result
double s = number;
while ((s - number / s) > error) //loop until precision satisfied
{
s = (s + number / s) / 2;
}
return s;
}
Good luck!
Remove your nCount altogether (as there are some roots that this algorithm will take many iterations for).
double SqrtNumber(double num)
{
double lower_bound=0;
double upper_bound=num;
double temp=0;
while(fabs(num - (temp * temp)) > SOME_SMALL_VALUE)
{
temp = (lower_bound+upper_bound)/2;
if (temp*temp >= num)
{
upper_bound = temp;
}
else
{
lower_bound = temp;
}
}
return temp;
}
As I found this question is old and have many answers but I have an answer which is simple and working great..
#define EPSILON 0.0000001 // least minimum value for comparison
double SquareRoot(double _val) {
double low = 0;
double high = _val;
double mid = 0;
while (high - low > EPSILON) {
mid = low + (high - low) / 2; // finding mid value
if (mid*mid > _val) {
high = mid;
} else {
low = mid;
}
}
return mid;
}
I hope it will be helpful for future users.
if you need to find square root without using sqrt(),use root=pow(x,0.5).
Where x is value whose square root you need to find.
//long division method.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int n, i = 1, divisor, dividend, j = 1, digit;
cin >> n;
while (i * i < n) {
i = i + 1;
}
i = i - 1;
cout << i << '.';
divisor = 2 * i;
dividend = n - (i * i );
while( j <= 5) {
dividend = dividend * 100;
digit = 0;
while ((divisor * 10 + digit) * digit < dividend) {
digit = digit + 1;
}
digit = digit - 1;
cout << digit;
dividend = dividend - ((divisor * 10 + digit) * digit);
divisor = divisor * 10 + 2*digit;
j = j + 1;
}
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
Here is a very simple but unsafe approach to find the square-root of a number.
Unsafe because it only works by natural numbers, where you know that the base respectively the exponent are natural numbers. I had to use it for a task where i was neither allowed to use the #include<cmath> -library, nor i was allowed to use pointers.
potency = base ^ exponent
// FUNCTION: square-root
int sqrt(int x)
{
int quotient = 0;
int i = 0;
bool resultfound = false;
while (resultfound == false) {
if (i*i == x) {
quotient = i;
resultfound = true;
}
i++;
}
return quotient;
}
This a very simple recursive approach.
double mySqrt(double v, double test) {
if (abs(test * test - v) < 0.0001) {
return test;
}
double highOrLow = v / test;
return mySqrt(v, (test + highOrLow) / 2.0);
}
double mySqrt(double v) {
return mySqrt(v, v/2.0);
}
Here is a very awesome code to find sqrt and even faster than original sqrt function.
float InvSqrt (float x)
{
float xhalf = 0.5f*x;
int i = *(int*)&x;
i = 0x5f375a86 - (i>>1);
x = *(float*)&i;
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x);
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x);
x = x*(1.5f - xhalf*x*x);
x=1/x;
return x;
}
After looking at the previous responses, I hope this will help resolve any ambiguities. In case the similarities in the previous solutions and my solution are illusive, or this method of solving for roots is unclear, I've also made a graph which can be found here.
This is a working root function capable of solving for any nth-root
(default is square root for the sake of this question)
#include <cmath>
// for "pow" function
double sqrt(double A, double root = 2) {
const double e = 2.71828182846;
return pow(e,(pow(10.0,9.0)/root)*(1.0-(pow(A,-pow(10.0,-9.0)))));
}
Explanation:
click here for graph
This works via Taylor series, logarithmic properties, and a bit of algebra.
Take, for example:
log A = N
x
*Note: for square-root, N = 2; for any other root you only need to change the one variable, N.
1) Change the base, convert the base 'x' log function to natural log,
log A => ln(A)/ln(x) = N
x
2) Rearrange to isolate ln(x), and eventually just 'x',
ln(A)/N = ln(x)
3) Set both sides as exponents of 'e',
e^(ln(A)/N) = e^(ln(x)) >~{ e^ln(x) == x }~> e^(ln(A)/N) = x
4) Taylor series represents "ln" as an infinite series,
ln(x) = (k=1)Sigma: (1/k)(-1^(k+1))(k-1)^n
<~~~ expanded ~~~>
[(x-1)] - [(1/2)(x-1)^2] + [(1/3)(x-1)^3] - [(1/4)(x-1)^4] + . . .
*Note: Continue the series for increased accuracy. For brevity, 10^9 is used in my function which expresses the series convergence for the natural log with about 7 digits, or the 10-millionths place, for precision,
ln(x) = 10^9(1-x^(-10^(-9)))
5) Now, just plug in this equation for natural log into the simplified equation obtained in step 3.
e^[((10^9)/N)(1-A^(-10^-9)] = nth-root of (A)
6) This implementation might seem like overkill; however, its purpose is to demonstrate how you can solve for roots without having to guess and check. Also, it would enable you to replace the pow function from the cmath library with your own pow function:
double power(double base, double exponent) {
if (exponent == 0) return 1;
int wholeInt = (int)exponent;
double decimal = exponent - (double)wholeInt;
if (decimal) {
int powerInv = 1/decimal;
if (!wholeInt) return root(base,powerInv);
else return power(root(base,powerInv),wholeInt,true);
}
return power(base, exponent, true);
}
double power(double base, int exponent, bool flag) {
if (exponent < 0) return 1/power(base,-exponent,true);
if (exponent > 0) return base * power(base,exponent-1,true);
else return 1;
}
int root(int A, int root) {
return power(E,(1000000000000/root)*(1-(power(A,-0.000000000001))));
}
I wrote the following code to sum the series (-1)^i*(i/(i+1)). But when I run it I get -1 for any value of n.
Can some one please point out what I am doing wrong? Thank you in advance!
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int sum = 0;
int i = 1.0;
int n = 5.0;
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
sum = (-1)^i*(i/(i+1));
cout << "Sum" <<" = "<< sum << endl;
return 0;
}
Problem #1: The C++ ^ operator isn't the math power operator. It's a bitwise XOR.
You should use pow() instead.
Problem #2:
You are storing floating-point types into an integer type. So the following will result in integer division (truncated division):
i/(i+1)
Problem #3:
You are not actually summing anything up:
sum = ...
should be:
sum += ...
A corrected version of the code is as follows:
double sum = 0;
int i = 1;
int n = 5;
for(i = 1; i <= n; i++)
sum += pow(-1.,(double)i) * ((double)i / (i + 1));
Although you really don't need to use pow in this case. A simple test for odd/even will do.
double sum = 0;
int i = 1;
int n = 5;
for(i = 1; i <= n; i++){
double val = (double)i / (i + 1);
if (i % 2 != 0){
val *= -1.;
}
sum += val;
}
You need too put sum += pow(-1,i)*(i/(i+1));
Otherwise you lose previous result each time.
Use pow function for pow operation.
edit : as said in other post, use double or float instead of int to avoid truncated division.
How about this
((i % 2) == 0 ? 1 : -1)
instead of
std::pow(-1, i)
?
Full answer:
double sum = 0;
int i = 1.0;
int n = 5.0;
for (i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
signed char sign = ((i % 2) == 0 ? 1 : -1);
sum += sign * (i / (i+1));
}
Few problems:
^ is teh bitwise exclusive or in c++ not "raised to power". Use pow() method.
Remove the dangling opening bracket from the last line
Use ints not floats when assigning to ints.
You seem to have a few things wrong with your code:
using namespace std;
This is not directly related to your problem at hand, but don't ever say using namespace std; It introduces subtle bugs.
int i = 1.0;
int n = 5.0;
You are initializaing integral variables with floating-point constants. Try
int i = 1;
int n = 5;
sum = (-1)^i*(i/(i+1));
You have two problems with this expression. First, the quantity (i/(i+1)) is always zero. Remember dividing two ints rounds the result. Second, ^ doesn't do what you think it does. It is the exclusive-or operator, not the exponentiation operator. Third, ^ binds less tightly than *, so your expression is:
-1 xor (i * (i/(i+1)))
-1 xor (i * 0)
-1 xor 0
-1
^ does not do what you think it does. Also there are some other mistakes in your code.
What it should be:
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
int main( )
{
long sum = 0;
int i = 1;
int n = 5;
for( i = 1; i <= n; i++ )
sum += std::pow( -1.f, i ) * ( i / ( i + 1 ) );
std::cout << "Sum = " << sum << std::endl;
return 0;
}
To take a power of a value, use std::pow (see here). Also you can not assign int to a decimal value. For that you need to use float or double.
The aforementioned ^ is a bitwise-XOR, not a mark for an exponent.
Also be careful of Integer Arithmetic as you may get unexpected results. You most likely want to change your variables to either float or double.
There are a few issues with the code:
int sum = 0;
The intermediate results are not integers, this should be a double
int i = 1.0;
Since you will use this in a division, it should be a double, 1/2 is 0 if calculated in integers.
int n = 5.0;
This is an int, not a floating point value, no .0 is needed.
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
You've already initialized i to 1, why do it again?
sum = (-1)^i*(i/(i+1));
Every iteration you lose the previous value, you should use sum+= 'new values'
Also, you don't need pow to calculate (-1)^i, all this does is switch between +1 and -1 depending on the odd/even status of i. You can do this easier with an if statement or with 2 for's, one for odd i one for even ones... Many choices really.