hey I am making small C++ program to calculate the value of sin(x) till 7 decimal points but when I calculate sin(PI/2) using this program it gives me 0.9999997 rather than 1.0000000 how can I solve this error?
I know of little bit why I'm getting this value as output, question is what should be my approach to solve this logical error?
here is my code for reference
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#define PI 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
using namespace std;
double sin(double x);
int factorial(int n);
double Pow(double a, int b);
int main()
{
double x = PI / 2;
cout << setprecision(7)<< sin(x);
return 0;
}
double sin(double x)
{
int n = 1; //counter for odd powers.
double Sum = 0; // to store every individual expression.
double t = 1; // temp variable to store individual expression
for ( n = 1; t > 10e-7; Sum += t, n = n + 2)
{
// here i have calculated two terms at a time because addition of two consecutive terms is always less than 1.
t = (Pow(-1.00, n + 1) * Pow(x, (2 * n) - 1) / factorial((2 * n) - 1))
+
(Pow(-1.00, n + 2) * Pow(x, (2 * (n+1)) - 1) / factorial((2 * (n+1)) - 1));
}
return Sum;
}
int factorial(int n)
{
if (n < 2)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return n * factorial(n - 1);
}
}
double Pow(double a, int b)
{
if (b == 1)
{
return a;
}
else
{
return a * Pow(a, b - 1);
}
}
sin(PI/2) ... it gives me 0.9999997 rather than 1.0000000
For values outside [-pi/4...+pi/4] the Taylor's sin/cos series converges slowly and suffers from cancelations of terms and overflow of int factorial(int n)**. Stay in the sweet range.
Consider using trig properties sin(x + pi/2) = cos(x), sin(x + pi) = -sin(x), etc. to bring x in to the [-pi/4...+pi/4] range.
Code uses remquo (ref2) to find the remainder and part of quotient.
// Bring x into the -pi/4 ... pi/4 range (i.e. +/- 45 degrees)
// and then call owns own sin/cos function.
double my_wide_range_sin(double x) {
if (x < 0.0) {
return -my_sin(-x);
}
int quo;
double x90 = remquo(fabs(x), pi/2, &quo);
switch (quo % 4) {
case 0:
return sin_sweet_range(x90);
case 1:
return cos_sweet_range(x90);
case 2:
return sin_sweet_range(-x90);
case 3:
return -cos_sweet_range(x90);
}
return 0.0;
}
This implies OP needs to code up a cos() function too.
** Could use long long instead of int to marginally extend the useful range of int factorial(int n) but that only adds a few x. Could use double.
A better approach would not use factorial() at all, but scale each successive term by 1.0/(n * (n+1)) or the like.
I see three bugs:
10e-7 is 10*10^(-7) which seems to be 10 times larger than you want. I think you wanted 1e-7.
Your test t > 10e-7 will become false, and exit the loop, if t is still large but negative. You may want abs(t) > 1e-7.
To get the desired accuracy, you need to get up to n = 7, which has you computing factorial(13), which overflows a 32-bit int. (If using gcc you can catch this with -fsanitize=undefined or -ftrapv.) You can gain some breathing room by using long long int which is at least 64 bits, or int64_t.
Given two integers X and Y, whats the most efficient way of converting them into X.Y float value in C++?
E.g.
X = 3, Y = 1415 -> 3.1415
X = 2, Y = 12 -> 2.12
Here are some cocktail-napkin benchmark results, on my machine, for all solutions converting two ints to a float, as of the time of writing.
Caveat: I've now added a solution of my own, which seems to do well, and am therefore biased! Please double-check my results.
Test
Iterations
ns / iteration
#aliberro's conversion v2
79,113,375
13
#3Dave's conversion
84,091,005
12
#einpoklum's conversion
1,966,008,981
0
#Ripi2's conversion
47,374,058
21
#TarekDakhran's conversion
1,960,763,847
0
CPU: Quad Core Intel Core i5-7600K speed/min/max: 4000/800/4200 MHz
Devuan GNU/Linux 3
Kernel: 5.2.0-3-amd64 x86_64
GCC 9.2.1, with flags: -O3 -march=native -mtune=native
Benchmark code (Github Gist).
float sum = x + y / pow(10,floor(log10(y)+1));
log10 returns log (base 10) of its argument. For 1234, that'll be 3 point something.
Breaking this down:
log10(1234) = 3.091315159697223
floor(log10(1234)+1) = 4
pow(10,4) = 10000.0
3 + 1234 / 10000.0 = 3.1234.
But, as #einpoklum pointed out, log(0) is NaN, so you have to check for that.
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
float foo(int x, unsigned int y)
{
if (0==y)
return x;
float den = pow(10,-1 * floor(log10(y)+1));
return x + y * den;
}
int main()
{
vector<vector<int>> tests
{
{3,1234},
{1,1000},
{2,12},
{0,0},
{9,1}
};
for(auto& test: tests)
{
cout << "Test: " << test[0] << "," << test[1] << ": " << foo(test[0],test[1]) << endl;
}
return 0;
}
See runnable version at:
https://onlinegdb.com/rkaYiDcPI
With test output:
Test: 3,1234: 3.1234
Test: 1,1000: 1.1
Test: 2,12: 2.12
Test: 0,0: 0
Test: 9,1: 9.1
Edit
Small modification to remove division operation.
(reworked solution)
Initially, my thoughts were improving on the performance of power-of-10 and division-by-power-of-10 by writing specialized versions of these functions, for integers. Then there was #TarekDakhran's comment about doing the same for counting the number of digits. And then I realized: That's essentially doing the same thing twice... so let's just integrate everything. This will, specifically, allow us to completely avoid any divisions or inversions at runtime:
inline float convert(int x, int y) {
float fy (y);
if (y == 0) { return float(x); }
if (y >= 1e9) { return float(x + fy * 1e-10f); }
if (y >= 1e8) { return float(x + fy * 1e-9f); }
if (y >= 1e7) { return float(x + fy * 1e-8f); }
if (y >= 1e6) { return float(x + fy * 1e-7f); }
if (y >= 1e5) { return float(x + fy * 1e-6f); }
if (y >= 1e4) { return float(x + fy * 1e-5f); }
if (y >= 1e3) { return float(x + fy * 1e-4f); }
if (y >= 1e2) { return float(x + fy * 1e-3f); }
if (y >= 1e1) { return float(x + fy * 1e-2f); }
return float(x + fy * 1e-1f);
}
Additional notes:
This will work for y == 0; but - not for negative x or y values. Adapting it for negative value is pretty easy and not very expensive though.
Not sure if this is absolutely optimal. Perhaps a binary-search for the number of digits of y would work better?
A loop would make the code look nicer; but the compiler would need to unroll it. Would it unroll the loop and compute all those floats beforehand? I'm not sure.
I put some effort into optimizing my previous answer and ended up with this.
inline uint32_t digits_10(uint32_t x) {
return 1u
+ (x >= 10u)
+ (x >= 100u)
+ (x >= 1000u)
+ (x >= 10000u)
+ (x >= 100000u)
+ (x >= 1000000u)
+ (x >= 10000000u)
+ (x >= 100000000u)
+ (x >= 1000000000u)
;
}
inline uint64_t pow_10(uint32_t exp) {
uint64_t res = 1;
while(exp--) {
res *= 10u;
}
return res;
}
inline double fast_zip(uint32_t x, uint32_t y) {
return x + static_cast<double>(y) / pow_10(digits_10(y));
}
double IntsToDbl(int ipart, int decpart)
{
//The decimal part:
double dp = (double) decpart;
while (dp > 1)
{
dp /= 10;
}
//Joint boths parts
return ipart + dp;
}
Simple and very fast solution is converting both values x and y to string, then concatenate them, then casting the result into a floating number as following:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
std::string x_string = std::to_string(x);
std::string y_string = std::to_string(y);
std::cout << x_string +"."+ y_string ; // the result, cast it to float if needed
(Answer based on the fact that OP has not indicated what they want to use the float for.)
The fastest (most efficient) way is to do it implicitly, but not actually do anything (after compiler optimizations).
That is, write a "pseudo-float" class, whose members are integers of x and y's types before and after the decimal point; and have operators for doing whatever it is you were going to do with the float: operator+, operator*, operator/, operator- and maybe even implementations of pow(), log2(), log10() and so on.
Unless what you were planning to do is literally save a 4-byte float somewhere for later use, it would almost certainly be faster if you had the next operand you need to work with then to really create a float from just x and y, already losing precision and wasting time.
Try this
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
float int2Float(int integer,int decimal)
{
float sign = integer/abs(integer);
float tm = abs(integer), tm2 = abs(decimal);
int base = decimal == 0 ? -1 : log10(decimal);
tm2/=pow(10,base+1);
return (tm+tm2)*sign;
}
int main()
{
int x,y;
cin >>x >>y;
cout << int2Float(x,y);
return 0;
}
version 2, try this out
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
float getPlaces(int x)
{
unsigned char p=0;
while(x!=0)
{
x/=10;
p++;
}
float pow10[] = {1.0f,10.0f,100.0f,1000.0f,10000.0f,100000.0f};//don't need more
return pow10[p];
}
float int2Float(int x,int y)
{
if(y == 0) return x;
float sign = x != 0 ? x/abs(x) : 1;
float tm = abs(x), tm2 = abs(y);
tm2/=getPlaces(y);
return (tm+tm2)*sign;
}
int main()
{
int x,y;
cin >>x >>y;
cout << int2Float(x,y);
return 0;
}
If you want something that is simple to read and follow, you could try something like this:
float convertToDecimal(int x)
{
float y = (float) x;
while( y > 1 ){
y = y / 10;
}
return y;
}
float convertToDecimal(int x, int y)
{
return (float) x + convertToDecimal(y);
}
This simply reduces one integer to the first floating point less than 1 and adds it to the other one.
This does become a problem if you ever want to use a number like 1.0012 to be represented as 2 integers. But that isn't part of the question. To solve it, I would use a third integer representation to be the negative power of 10 for multiplying the second number. IE 1.0012 would be 1, 12, 4. This would then be coded as follows:
float convertToDecimal(int num, int e)
{
return ((float) num) / pow(10, e);
}
float convertToDecimal(int x, int y, int e)
{
return = (float) x + convertToDecimal(y, e);
}
It a little more concise with this answer, but it doesn't help to answer your question. It might help show a problem with using only 2 integers if you stick with that data model.
I have a program that solves generally for 1D brownian motion using an Euler's Method.
Being a stochastic process, I want to average it over many particles. But I find that as I ramp up the number of particles, it overloads and i get the std::badalloc error, which I understand is a memory error.
Here is my full code
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <fstream>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <limits>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
// Box-Muller Method to generate gaussian numbers
double generateGaussianNoise(double mu, double sigma) {
const double epsilon = std::numeric_limits<double>::min();
const double tau = 2.0 * 3.14159265358979323846;
static double z0, z1;
static bool generate;
generate = !generate;
if (!generate) return z1 * sigma + mu;
double u1, u2;
do {
u1 = rand() * (1.0 / RAND_MAX);
u2 = rand() * (1.0 / RAND_MAX);
} while (u1 <= epsilon);
z0 = sqrt(-2.0 * log(u1)) * cos(tau * u2);
z1 = sqrt(-2.0 * log(u1)) * sin(tau * u2);
return z0 * sigma + mu;
}
int main() {
// Initialize Variables
double gg; // Gaussian Number Picked from distribution
// Integrator
double t0 = 0; // Setting the Time Window
double tf = 10;
double n = 5000; // Number of Steps
double h = (tf - t0) / n; // Time Step Size
// Set Constants
const double pii = atan(1) * 4; // pi
const double eta = 1; // viscous constant
const double m = 1; // mass
const double aa = 1; // radius
const double Temp = 30; // Temperature in Kelvins
const double KB = 1; // Boltzmann Constant
const double alpha = (6 * pii * eta * aa);
// More Constants
const double mu = 0; // Gaussian Mean
const double sigma = 1; // Gaussian Std Deviation
const double ng = n; // No. of pts to generate for Gauss distribution
const double npart = 1000; // No. of Particles
// Initial Conditions
double x0 = 0;
double y0 = 0;
double t = t0;
// Vectors
vector<double> storX; // Vector that keeps displacement values
vector<double> storY; // Vector that keeps velocity values
vector<double> storT; // Vector to store time
vector<double> storeGaussian; // Vector to store Gaussian numbers generated
vector<double> holder; // Placeholder Vector for calculation operations
vector<double> mainstore; // Vector that holds the final value desired
storT.push_back(t0);
// Prepares mainstore
for (int z = 0; z < (n+1); z++) {
mainstore.push_back(0);
}
for (int NN = 0; NN < npart; NN++) {
holder.clear();
storX.clear();
storY.clear();
storT.clear();
storT.push_back(0);
// Prepares holder
for (int z = 0; z < (n+1); z++) {
holder.push_back(0);
storX.push_back(0);
storY.push_back(0);
}
// Gaussian Generator
srand(time(NULL));
for (double iiii = 0; iiii < ng; iiii++) {
gg = generateGaussianNoise(0, 1); // generateGaussianNoise(mu,sigma)
storeGaussian.push_back(gg);
}
// Solver
for (int ii = 0; ii < n; ii++) {
storY[ii + 1] =
storY[ii] - (alpha / m) * storY[ii] * h +
(sqrt(2 * alpha * KB * Temp) / m) * sqrt(h) * storeGaussian[ii];
storX[ii + 1] = storX[ii] + storY[ii] * h;
holder[ii + 1] =
pow(storX[ii + 1], 2); // Finds the displacement squared
t = t + h;
storT.push_back(t);
}
// Updates the Main Storage
for (int z = 0; z < storX.size(); z++) {
mainstore[z] = mainstore[z] + holder[z];
}
}
// Average over the number of particles
for (int z = 0; z < storX.size(); z++) {
mainstore[z] = mainstore[z] / (npart);
}
// Outputs the data
ofstream fout("LangevinEulerTest.txt");
for (int jj = 0; jj < storX.size(); jj++) {
fout << storT[jj] << '\t' << mainstore[jj] << '\t' << storX[jj] << endl;
}
return 0;
}
As you can see, npart is the variable that I change to vary the number of particles. But after each iteration, I do clear my storage vectors like storX,storY... So on paper, the number of particles should not affect memory? I am only just calling the compiler to repeat many more times, and add onto the main storage vector mainstore. I am running my code on a computer with 4GB ram.
Would greatly appreciate it if anyone could point out my errors in logic or suggest improvements.
Edit: Currently the number of particles is set to npart = 1000.
So when I try to ramp it up to like npart = 20000 or npart = 50000, it gives me memory errors.
Edit2 I've edited the code to allocate an extra index to each of the storage vectors. But it does not seem to fix the memory overflow
There is an out of bounds exception in the solver part. storY has size n and you access ii+1 where i goes up to n-1. So for your code provided. storY has size 5000. It is allowed to access with indices between 0 and 4999 (including) but you try to access with index 5000. The same for storX, holder and mainstore.
Also, storeGaussian does not get cleared before adding new variables. It grows by n for each npart loop. You access only the first n values of it in the solver part anyway.
Please note, that vector::clear removes all elements from the vector, but does not necessarily change the vector's capacity (i.e. it's storage array), see the documentation.
This won't cause the problem here, because you'll reuse the same array in the next runs, but it's something to be aware when using vectors.
What is the difference between
int i = 123;
int k;
k = *(int *) &i;
cout << k << endl; //Output: 123
And
int i = 123;
int k;
k = i;
cout << k << endl; //Output: 123
Both of them give same output but is there any difference?
(I found first snippet in the Quake3 code of Fast Inverse Square Root)
In the Q3:
float Q_rsqrt( float number )
{
long i;
float x2, y;
const float threehalfs = 1.5F;
x2 = number * 0.5F;
y = number;
i = * ( long * ) &y; // evil floating point bit level hacking
i = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 ); // what the fuck?
y = * ( float * ) &i;
y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) ); // 1st iteration
// y = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) ); // 2nd iteration, this can be removed
return y;
}
As I understand, you are interested in the following line:
i = * ( long * ) &y;
The y is a float, and the i is an long. Thus it is the reinterpretation of the floating point bit pattern as integer bit pattern.
It all depends whether i is an object or a primitive type. If it is an object, operator* might be overloaded, giving an different overall meaning.
No, there is no difference, both assignments are essentially copying an int's worth of bits from the memory storing i to the memory storing k.
Sometimes tricks like these are used when the types of the source and destination variables differ, but this is just plain int to int.
A sufficiently clever compiler ought to generate the exact same code for both versions, I think.
I am trying to calculate complex numbers for a 2D array in C++. The code is running very slowly and I have narrowed down the main cause to be the exp function (the program runs quickly when I comment out that line, even though I have 4 nested loops).
int main() {
typedef vector< complex<double> > complexVect;
typedef vector<double> doubleVect;
const int SIZE = 256;
vector<doubleVect> phi_w(SIZE, doubleVect(SIZE));
vector<complexVect> phi_k(SIZE, complexVect(SIZE));
complex<double> i (0, 1), cmplx (0, 0);
complex<double> temp;
int x, y, t, k, w;
double dk = 2.0*M_PI / (SIZE-1);
double dt = M_PI / (SIZE-1);
int xPos, yPos;
double arg, arg2, arg4;
complex<double> arg3;
double angle;
vector<complexVect> newImg(SIZE, complexVect(SIZE));
for (x = 0; x < SIZE; ++x) {
xPos = -127 + x;
for (y = 0; y < SIZE; ++y) {
yPos = -127 + y;
for (t = 0; t < SIZE; ++t) {
temp = cmplx;
angle = dt * t;
arg = xPos * cos(angle) + yPos * sin(angle);
for (k = 0; k < SIZE; ++k) {
arg2 = -M_PI + dk*k;
arg3 = exp(-i * arg * arg2);
arg4 = abs(arg) * M_PI / (abs(arg) + M_PI);
temp = temp + arg4 * arg3 * phi_k[k][t];
}
}
newImg[y][x] = temp;
}
}
}
Is there a way I can improve computation time? I have tried using the following helper function but it doesn't noticeably help.
complex<double> complexexp(double arg) {
complex<double> temp (sin(arg), cos(arg));
return temp;
}
I am using clang++ to compile my code
edit: I think the problem is the fact that I'm trying to calculate complex numbers. Would it be faster if I just used Euler's formula to calculate the real and imaginary parts in separate arrays and not have to deal with the complex class?
maybe this will work for you:
http://martin.ankerl.com/2007/02/11/optimized-exponential-functions-for-java/
I've had a look with callgrind. The only marginal improvement (~1.3% with size = 50) I could find was to change:
temp = temp + arg4 * arg3 * phi_k[k][t];
to
temp += arg4 * arg3 * phi_k[k][t];
The most costly function calls were sin()/cos(). I suspect that calling exp() with a complex number argument calls those functions in the background.
To retain precision, the function will compute very slowly and there doesn't seem to be a way around it. However, you could trade precision for accuracy, which seems to be what game developers would do: sin and cos are slow, is there an alternatve?
You can define number e as a constant and use std::pow() function