Here is my code :
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n, i, num, m, k = 0;
cout << "Enter a number :\n";
cin >> num;
n = log10(num);
while (n > 0) {
i = pow(10, n);
m = num / i;
k = k + pow(m, 3);
num = num % i;
--n;
cout << m << endl;
cout << num << endl;
}
k = k + pow(num, 3);
return 0;
}
When I input 111 it gives me this
1
12
1
2
I am using codeblocks. I don't know what is wrong.
Whenever I use pow expecting an integer result, I add .5 so I use (int)(pow(10,m)+.5) instead of letting the compiler automatically convert pow(10,m) to an int.
I have read many places telling me others have done exhaustive tests of some of the situations in which I add that .5 and found zero cases where it makes a difference. But accurately identifying the conditions in which it isn't needed can be quite hard. Using it when it isn't needed does no real harm.
If it makes a difference, it is a difference you want. If it doesn't make a difference, it had a tiny cost.
In the posted code, I would adjust every call to pow that way, not just the one I used as an example.
There is no equally easy fix for your use of log10, but it may be subject to the same problem. Since you expect a non integer answer and want that non integer answer truncated down to an integer, adding .5 would be very wrong. So you may need to find some more complicated work around for the fundamental problem of working with floating point. I'm not certain, but assuming 32-bit integers, I think adding 1e-10 to the result of log10 before converting to int is both never enough to change log10(10^n-1) into log10(10^n) but always enough to correct the error that might have done the reverse.
pow does floating-point exponentiation.
Floating point functions and operations are inexact, you cannot ever rely on them to give you the exact value that they would appear to compute, unless you are an expert on the fine details of IEEE floating point representations and the guarantees given by your library functions.
(and furthermore, floating-point numbers might even be incapable of representing the integers you want exactly)
This is particularly problematic when you convert the result to an integer, because the result is truncated to zero: int x = 0.999999; sets x == 0, not x == 1. Even the tiniest error in the wrong direction completely spoils the result.
You could round to the nearest integer, but that has problems too; e.g. with sufficiently large numbers, your floating point numbers might not have enough precision to be near the result you want. Or if you do enough operations (or unstable operations) with the floating point numbers, the errors can accumulate to the point you get the wrong nearest integer.
If you want to do exact, integer arithmetic, then you should use functions that do so. e.g. write your own ipow function that computes integer exponentiation without any floating-point operations at all.
Related
Doing one of my first homeworks of uni, and have ran into this problem:
Task: Find a sum of all n elements where n is the count of numerals in a number (n=1, means 1, 2, 3... 8, 9 for example, answer is 45)
Problem: The code I wrote has gotten all the test answers correctly up to 10 to the power of 9, but when it reaches 10 to the power of 10 territory, then the answers start being wrong, it's really close to what I should be getting, but not quite there (For example, my output = 49499999995499995136, expected result = 49499999995500000000)
Would really appreciate some help/insights, am guessing it's something to do with the variable types, but not quite sure of a possible solution..
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n;
double ats = 0, maxi, mini;
cin >> n;
maxi = pow(10, n) - 1;
mini = pow(10, n-1) - 1;
ats = (maxi * (maxi + 1)) / 2 - (mini * (mini + 1)) / 2;
cout << setprecision(0) << fixed << ats;
}
The main reason of problems is pow() function. It works with double, not int. Loss of accuracy is price for representing huge numbers.
There are 3 way's to solve problem:
For small n you can make your own long long int pow(int x, int pow) function. But there is problem, that we can overflow even long long int
Use long arithmetic functions, as #rustyx sayed. You can write your own with vector, or find and include library.
There is Math solution specific for topic's task. It solves the big numbers problem.
You can write your formula like
((10^n) - 1) * (10^n) - (10^m - 1) * (10^m)) / 2 , (here m = n-1)
Then multiply numbers in numerator. Regroup them. Extract common multiples 10^(n-1). And then you can see, that answer have a structure:
X9...9Y0...0 for big enought n, where letter X and Y are constants.
So, you can just print the answer "string" without calculating.
I think you're stretching floating points beyond their precision. Let me explain:
The C pow() function takes doubles as arguments. You're passing ints, the compiler is adding the code to convert them to doubles before they reach pow(). (And anyway you're storing it as a double when you get the return value since you declared it that way).
Floating points are called that way precisely because the point "floats". Inside a double there's a sign bit, a few bits for the mantissa and a few bits for the exponent. In binary, elevating to a power of two is equivalent to moving the fractional point to the right (or to the left if you're elevating to a negative number). So basically the exponent is saying where the fractional point is, in binary. The great advantage of using this kind of in-memory representation for doubles is that you get a lot of precision for numbers close to 0, and gradually lose precision as numbers become bigger.
That last thing is exactly what's happening to you. Your number is too large to be stored exactly. So it's being rounded to the closest sum of powers of two (powers of two are the numbers that have all zeroes to the right in binary).
Quick experiment: press F12 in your browser, open the javascript console and type 49499999995499995136. In my case, in chrome, I reproduce the same problem.
If you really really really want precision with such big numbers then you can try some of these libraries, but that's too advanced for a student program, you don't need it. Just add an if block and print an error message if the number that the user typed is too big (professors love that, which is actually quite correct).
This question already has answers here:
Round a float to a regular grid of predefined points
(11 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I am calculating the number of significant numbers past the decimal point. My program discards any numbers that are spaced more than 7 orders of magnitude apart after the decimal point. Expecting some error with doubles, I accounted for very small numbers popping up when subtracting ints from doubles, even when it looked like it should equal zero (To my knowledge this is due to how computers store and compute their numbers). My confusion is why my program does not handle this unexpected number given this random test value.
Having put many cout statements it would seem that it messes up when it tries to cast the final 2. Whenever it casts it casts to 1 instead.
bool flag = true;
long double test = 2029.00012;
int count = 0;
while(flag)
{
test = test - static_cast<int>(test);
if(test <= 0.00001)
{
flag = false;
}
test *= 10;
count++;
}
The solution I found was to cast only once at the beginning, as rounding may produce a negative and terminate prematurely, and to round thenceforth. The interesting thing is that both trunc and floor also had this issue, seemingly turning what should be a 2 into a 1.
My Professor and I were both quite stumped as I fully expected small numbers to appear (most were in the 10^-10 range), but was not expecting that casting, truncing, and flooring would all also fail.
It is important to understand that not all rational numbers are representable in finite precision. Also, it is important to understand that set of numbers which are representable in finite precision in decimal base, is different from the set of numbers that are representable in finite precision in binary base. Finally, it is important to understand that your CPU probably represents floating point numbers in binary.
2029.00012 in particular happens to be a number that is not representable in a double precision IEEE 754 floating point (and it indeed is a double precision literal; you may have intended to use long double instead). It so happens that the closest number that is representable is 2029.000119999999924402800388634204864501953125. So, you're counting the significant digits of that number, not the digits of the literal that you used.
If the intention of 0.00001 was to stop counting digits when the number is close to a whole number, it is not sufficient to check whether the value is less than the threshold, but also whether it is greater than 1 - threshold, as the representation error can go either way:
if(test <= 0.00001 || test >= 1 - 0.00001)
After all, you can multiple 0.99999999999999999999999999 with 10 many times until the result becomes close to zero, even though that number is very close to a whole number.
As multiple people have already commented, that won't work because of limitations of floating-point numbers. You had a somewhat correct intuition when you said that you expected "some error" with doubles, but that is ultimately not enough. Running your specific program on my machine, the closest representable double to 2029.00012 is 2029.0001199999999244 (this is actually a truncated value, but it shows the series of 9's well enough). For that reason, when you multiply by 10, you keep finding new significant digits.
Ultimately, the issue is that you are manipulating a base-2 real number like it's a base-10 number. This is actually quite difficult. The most notorious use cases for this are printing and parsing floating-point numbers, and a lot of sweat and blood went into that. For example, it wasn't that long ago that you could trick the official Java implementation into looping endlessly trying to convert a String to a double.
Your best shot might be to just reuse all that hard work. Print to 7 digits of precision, and subtract the number of trailing zeroes from the result:
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <string>
int main() {
long double d = 2029.00012;
auto double_string = (std::stringstream() << std::fixed << std::setprecision(7) << d).str();
auto first_decimal_index = double_string.find('.') + 1;
auto last_nonzero_index = double_string.find_last_not_of('0');
if (last_nonzero_index == std::string::npos) {
std::cout << "7 significant digits\n";
} else if (last_nonzero_index < first_decimal_index) {
std::cout << -(first_decimal_index - last_nonzero_index + 1) << " significant digits\n";
} else {
std::cout << (last_nonzero_index - first_decimal_index) << " significant digits\n";
}
}
It feels unsatisfactory, but:
it correctly prints 5;
the "satisfactory" alternative is possibly significantly harder to implement.
It seems to me that your second-best alternative is to read on floating-point printing algorithms and implement just enough of it to get the length of the value that you're going to print, and that's not exactly an introductory-level task. If you decide to go this route, the current state of the art is the Grisu2 algorithm. Grisu2 has the notable benefit that it will always print the shortest base-10 string that will produce the given floating-point value, which is what you seem to be after.
If you want sane results, you can't just truncate the digits, because sometimes the floating point number will be a hair less than the rounded number. If you want to fix this via a fluke, change your initialization to be
long double test = 2029.00012L;
If you want to fix it for real,
bool flag = true;
long double test = 2029.00012;
int count = 0;
while (flag)
{
test = test - static_cast<int>(test + 0.000005);
if (test <= 0.00001)
{
flag = false;
}
test *= 10;
count++;
}
My apologies for butchering your haphazard indent; I can't abide by them. According to one of my CS professors, "ideally, a computer scientist never has to worry about the underlying hardware." I'd guess your CS professor might have similar thoughts.
Recently i write a block of code:
const int sections = 10;
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
cout << i << endl;
}
And the result is wrong:
9999
1000
99
10
1
If i using just this code:
for(int t = 0; t < 5; t++){
cout << pow(sections,5-t-1) << endl;
}
The problem doesn't occur anymore:
10000
1000
100
10
1
Does anyone give me an explaination? thanks you very much!
Due to the representation of floating point values pow(10.0, 5) could be 9999.9999999 or something like this. When you assign that to an integer that got truncated.
EDIT: In case of cout << pow(10.0, 5); it looks like the output is rounded, but I don't have any supporting document right now confirming that.
EDIT 2: The comment made by BoBTFish and this question confirms that when pow(10.0, 5) is used directly in cout that is getting rounded.
When used with fractional exponents, pow(x,y) is commonly evaluated as exp(log(x)*y); such a formula would mathematically correct if evaluated with infinite precision, but may in practice result in rounding errors. As others have noted, a value of 9999.999999999 when cast to an integer will yield 9999. Some languages and libraries use such a formulation all the time when using an exponentiation operator with a floating-point exponent; others try to identify when the exponent is an integer and use iterated multiplication when appropriate. Looking up documentation for the pow function, it appears that it's supposed to work when x is negative and y has no fractional part (when x is negative and `y is even, the result should be pow(-x,y); when y is odd, the result should be -pow(-x,y). It would seem logical that when y has no fractional part a library which is going to go through the trouble of dealing with a negative x value should use iterated multiplication, but I don't know of any spec dictating that it must.
In any case, if you are trying to raise an integer to a power, it is almost certainly best to use integer maths for the computation or, if the integer to be raised is a constant or will always be small, simply use a lookup table (raising numbers from 0 to 15 by any power that would fit in a 64-bit integer would require only a 4,096-item table).
From Here
Looking at the pow() function: double pow (double base, double exponent); we know the parameters and return value are all double type. But the variable num, i and res are all int type in code above, when tranforming int to double or double to int, it may cause precision loss. For example (maybe not rigorous), the floating point unit (FPU) calculate pow(10, 4)=9999.99999999, then int(9999.9999999)=9999 by type transform in C++.
How to solve it?
Solution1
Change the code:
const int num = 10;
for(int i = 0; i < 5; ++i){
double res = pow(num, i);
cout << res << endl;
}
Solution2
Replace floating point unit (FPU) having higher calculation precision in double type. For example, we use SSE in Windows CPU. In Code::Block 13.12, we can do this steps to reach the goal: Setting -> Compiler setting -> GNU GCC Compile -> Other options, add
-mfpmath=sse -msse3
The picture is as follows:
(source: qiniudn.com)
Whats happens is the pow function returns a double so
when you do this
int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
the decimal .99999 cuts of and you get 9999.
while printing directly or comparing it with 10000 is not a problem because it is runded of in a sense.
If the code in your first example is the exact code you're running, then you have a buggy library. Regardless of whether you're picking up std::pow or C's pow which takes doubles, even if the double version is chosen, 10 is exactly representable as a double. As such the exponentiation is exactly representable as a double. No rounding or truncation or anything like that should occur.
With g++ 4.5 I couldn't reproduce your (strange) behavior even using -ffast-math and -O3.
Now what I suspect is happening is that sections is not being assigned the literal 10 directly but instead is being read or computed internally such that its value is something like 9.9999999999999, which when raised to the fourth power generates a number like 9999.9999999. This is then truncated to the integer 9999 which is displayed.
Depending on your needs you may want to round either the source number or the final number prior to assignment into an int. For example: int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1) + 0.5; // Add 0.5 and truncate to round to nearest.
There must be some broken pow function in the global namespace. Then std::pow is "automatically" used instead in your second example because of ADL.
Either that or t is actually a floating-point quantity in your first example, and you're running into rounding errors.
You're assigning the result to an int. That coerces it, truncating the number.
This should work fine:
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
double i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
cout << i << endl;
}
What happens is that your answer is actually 99.9999 and not exactly 100. This is because pow is double. So, you can fix this by using i = ceil(pow()).
Your code should be:
const int sections = 10;
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
int i = ceil(pow(sections, 5- t -1));
cout << i << endl;
}
This question already has answers here:
Compare double to zero using epsilon
(12 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I know there are loads of topics about this question, but none of those helped me. I am trying to find the root of a function by testing every number in a range of -10 to 10 with two decimal places. I know it maybe isn't the best way, but I am a beginner and just want to try this out. Somehow the loop does not work, as I am always getting -10 as an output.
Anyway, that is my code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
double calc (double m,double n)
{
double x;
for (x=-10;x<10 && m*x+n==0; x+=0.01)
{
cout << x << endl;
}
return x;
}
int main()
{
double m, n, x;
cout << "......\n";
cin >> m; // gradient
cout << "........\n";
cin >> n; // y-intercept
x=calc(m,n); // using function to calculate
cout << ".......... " << x<< endl; //output solution
cout << "..............\n"; // Nothing of importance
return 0;
}
You are testing the conjunction of two conditions in your loop condition.
for (x=-10;x<10 && m*x+n==0; x+=0.01
For many inputs, the second condition will not be true, so the loop will terminate before the first iteration, causing a return value of -10.
What you want is probably closer to something closer to the following. We need to test whether the absolute value is smaller than some EPSILON for two reasons. One, double is not precise. Two, you are doing an approximate solution anyways, so you would not expect an exact answer unless you happened to get lucky.
#define EPSILON 1E-2
double calc (double m,double n)
{
double x;
for (x=-10;x<10; x+=0.001)
{
if (abs(m*x+n) < EPSILON) return x;
}
// return a value outside the range to indicate that we failed to find a
// solution within range.
return -20;
}
Update: At the request of the OP, I will be more specific about what problem EPSILON solves.
double is not precise. In a computer, floating point number are usually represented by a fixed number of bits, with the bit representation usually being specified by a standard such as IEE 754. Because the number of bits is fixed and finite, you cannot represent arbitrary precision numbers. Let us consider an example in base 10 for ease of understanding, although you should understand that computers experience a similar problem in base 2.
If m = 1/3, x = 3, and n = -1, we would expect that m*x + n == 0. However, because 1/3 is the repeated decimal 0.33333... and we can only represent a fixed number of them, the result of 3*0.33333 is actually 0.999999, which is not equal to 1. Therefore, m*x + n != 0, and our check will fail. Thus, instead of checking for equality with zero, we must check whether the result is sufficiently close to zero, by comparing its absolute value with a small number we call EPSILON. As one of the comments pointed out the correct value of EPSILON for this particular purpose is std::numeric_limits::epsilon, but the second issue requires a larger EPSILON.
You are are only doing an approximate solution anyways. Since you are checking the values of x at finitely small increments, there is a strong possibility that you will simply step over the root without ever landing on it exactly. Consider the equation 10000x + 1 = 0. The correct solution is -0.0001, but if you are taking steps of 0.001, you will never actually try the value x = -0.0001, so you could not possibly find the correct solution. For linear functions, we would expect that values of x close to -0.0001, such as x = 0, will get us reasonably close to the correct solution, so we use EPSILON as a fudge factor to work around the lack of precision in our method.
m*x+n==0 condition returns false, thus the loop doesn't start.
You should change it to m*x+n!=0
Recently i write a block of code:
const int sections = 10;
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
cout << i << endl;
}
And the result is wrong:
9999
1000
99
10
1
If i using just this code:
for(int t = 0; t < 5; t++){
cout << pow(sections,5-t-1) << endl;
}
The problem doesn't occur anymore:
10000
1000
100
10
1
Does anyone give me an explaination? thanks you very much!
Due to the representation of floating point values pow(10.0, 5) could be 9999.9999999 or something like this. When you assign that to an integer that got truncated.
EDIT: In case of cout << pow(10.0, 5); it looks like the output is rounded, but I don't have any supporting document right now confirming that.
EDIT 2: The comment made by BoBTFish and this question confirms that when pow(10.0, 5) is used directly in cout that is getting rounded.
When used with fractional exponents, pow(x,y) is commonly evaluated as exp(log(x)*y); such a formula would mathematically correct if evaluated with infinite precision, but may in practice result in rounding errors. As others have noted, a value of 9999.999999999 when cast to an integer will yield 9999. Some languages and libraries use such a formulation all the time when using an exponentiation operator with a floating-point exponent; others try to identify when the exponent is an integer and use iterated multiplication when appropriate. Looking up documentation for the pow function, it appears that it's supposed to work when x is negative and y has no fractional part (when x is negative and `y is even, the result should be pow(-x,y); when y is odd, the result should be -pow(-x,y). It would seem logical that when y has no fractional part a library which is going to go through the trouble of dealing with a negative x value should use iterated multiplication, but I don't know of any spec dictating that it must.
In any case, if you are trying to raise an integer to a power, it is almost certainly best to use integer maths for the computation or, if the integer to be raised is a constant or will always be small, simply use a lookup table (raising numbers from 0 to 15 by any power that would fit in a 64-bit integer would require only a 4,096-item table).
From Here
Looking at the pow() function: double pow (double base, double exponent); we know the parameters and return value are all double type. But the variable num, i and res are all int type in code above, when tranforming int to double or double to int, it may cause precision loss. For example (maybe not rigorous), the floating point unit (FPU) calculate pow(10, 4)=9999.99999999, then int(9999.9999999)=9999 by type transform in C++.
How to solve it?
Solution1
Change the code:
const int num = 10;
for(int i = 0; i < 5; ++i){
double res = pow(num, i);
cout << res << endl;
}
Solution2
Replace floating point unit (FPU) having higher calculation precision in double type. For example, we use SSE in Windows CPU. In Code::Block 13.12, we can do this steps to reach the goal: Setting -> Compiler setting -> GNU GCC Compile -> Other options, add
-mfpmath=sse -msse3
The picture is as follows:
(source: qiniudn.com)
Whats happens is the pow function returns a double so
when you do this
int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
the decimal .99999 cuts of and you get 9999.
while printing directly or comparing it with 10000 is not a problem because it is runded of in a sense.
If the code in your first example is the exact code you're running, then you have a buggy library. Regardless of whether you're picking up std::pow or C's pow which takes doubles, even if the double version is chosen, 10 is exactly representable as a double. As such the exponentiation is exactly representable as a double. No rounding or truncation or anything like that should occur.
With g++ 4.5 I couldn't reproduce your (strange) behavior even using -ffast-math and -O3.
Now what I suspect is happening is that sections is not being assigned the literal 10 directly but instead is being read or computed internally such that its value is something like 9.9999999999999, which when raised to the fourth power generates a number like 9999.9999999. This is then truncated to the integer 9999 which is displayed.
Depending on your needs you may want to round either the source number or the final number prior to assignment into an int. For example: int i = pow(sections, 5- t -1) + 0.5; // Add 0.5 and truncate to round to nearest.
There must be some broken pow function in the global namespace. Then std::pow is "automatically" used instead in your second example because of ADL.
Either that or t is actually a floating-point quantity in your first example, and you're running into rounding errors.
You're assigning the result to an int. That coerces it, truncating the number.
This should work fine:
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
double i = pow(sections, 5- t -1);
cout << i << endl;
}
What happens is that your answer is actually 99.9999 and not exactly 100. This is because pow is double. So, you can fix this by using i = ceil(pow()).
Your code should be:
const int sections = 10;
for(int t= 0; t < 5; t++){
int i = ceil(pow(sections, 5- t -1));
cout << i << endl;
}