I know how to get the fractional part of a float but I don't know how to set it. I have two integers returned by a function, one holds the integer and the other holds the fractional part.
For example:
int a = 12;
int b = 2; // This can never be 02, 03 etc
float c;
How do I get c to become 12.2? I know I could add something like (float)b \ 10 but then what if b is >= than 10? Then I would have to divide by 100, and so on. Is there a function or something where I can do setfractional(c, b)?
Thanks
edit: The more I think about this problem the more I realize how illogical it is. if b == 1 then it would be 12.1 but if b == 10 it would also be 12.1 so I don't know how I'm going to handle this. I'm guessing the function never returns a number >= 10 for fractional but I don't know.
Something like:
float IntFrac(int integer, int frac)
{
float integer2 = integer;
float frac2 = frac;
float log10 = log10f(frac2 + 1.0f);
float ceil = ceilf(log10);
float pow = powf(10.0f, -ceil);
float res = abs(integer);
res += frac2 * pow;
if (integer < 0)
{
res = -res;
}
return res;
}
Ideone: http://ideone.com/iwG8UO
It's like saying: log10(98 + 1) = log10(99) = 1.995, ceilf(1.995) = 2, powf(10, -2) = 0.01, 99 * 0.01 = 0.99, and then 12 + 0.99 = 12.99 and then we check for the sign.
And let's hope the vagaries of IEEE 754 float math won't hit too hard :-)
I'll add that it would be probably better to use double instead of float. Other than 3d graphics, there are very few fields were using float is a good idea nowadays.
The most trivial method would be counting the digits of b and then divide accordingly:
int i = 10;
while(b > i) // rather slow, there are faster ways
i*= 10;
c = a + static_cast<float>(b)/i;
Note that due to the nature of float the result might not be what you expected. Also, if you want something like 3.004 you can modify the initial value of i to another power of ten.
kindly try this below code after including include math.h and stdlib.h file:
int a=12;
int b=22;
int d=b;
int i=0;
float c;
while(d>0)
{
d/=10;
i++;
}
c=a+(float)b/pow(10,i);
Related
The output created by my program is at first accurate, then becomes 0 for all answers above 5000000. I would like to know why this is the case when I use the function I have called Heron's Area.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
float heron_area(float a, float c) {
float s = (a + a + c) / 2.0f;
return (s - a)*sqrtf(s*(s - c));
}
int main(void) {
int j = 18;
float i = 10;
for (int k = 0; k < j; k++){
float g = i * 10;
std::cout << heron_area(g, 1) << std::endl;
i = g;
}
return 0;
}
It is potentially to do with the issue with using floating point numbers. Why am I getting the output of 0 after the last output 500000?
It is the issue with floating point numbers as you suspect.
If you print a and s in heron_area, you'll note that they very quickly become identical, making s - a zero.
This happens when c is much smaller than a (that is, when you have a very "pointy" triangle; your zeros appear when two sides are 10,000,000 and the third is 1).
Changing the type to double makes the problem appear later, but it won't go away.
You'll need to rearrange your computations if you want to handle very large differences in magnitude.
There's a solution on Wikipedia (linked by #harold in the comments) that gives
Area = 0.25 * sqrt((a+(b+c)) * (c-(a-b)) * (c+(a-b)) * (a+(b-c)))
where a >= b and b >= c, and the brackets are necessary.
Yes, you need to worry about the order of operations.
(And there's a very detailed article here with an analysis of this solution.)
As the variable a in the function heron_area grows exponentially larger and larger, the variable c, which is constant, with the value 1.0f, becomes less and less relevant.
Due to limited precision of the floating point the expression:
float s = (a + a + c) / 2.0f;
then simplifies to:
float s = (a + a) / 2.0f;
which is the same as:
float s = a;
Thus the variables s and a have the same value, so the expression:
return (s - a)*sqrtf(s*(s - c));
always yields 0.0f, as the result of subtracting s - a is 0.0f, and multiplying zero by anything is always zero.
i was wondering why in this program, "pi_estimated" wouldn't print out as a number with decimal places although the variable was declared as a "double". However, it prints out an integer.
double get_pi(double required_accuracy)
{
double pi_estimation=0.0;
int x,y;
double p=0.0,q=0.0,r=0.0;
int D=0;
for(int N=1;N<=1e2;N++)
{
x = rand()%100;
p = (x/50.0 - 1.0)/100.0;
y = rand()%100;
q = (y/50.0 - 1.0)/100.0;
r = p*p + q*q;
if((sqrt(r))<1.0)
{
D++;
pi_estimation = 4.0*(double (D/N));
}
if(double (4/(N+1)) < (required_accuracy*pi_estimation/100.0))
{
cout<<pi_estimation<<endl;
return (pi_estimation);
}
}
}
int main()
{
double pi_approx=0.0, a, actual_accuracy=0.0;
for(a=0.1;a>=1e-14;a/=10)
{
pi_approx = get_pi(a);
actual_accuracy = (fabs((pi_approx - M_PI)/(M_PI)))*100.0;
cout<<actual_accuracy<<endl;
}
}
This line is the culprit:
pi_estimation = 4.0*(double (D/N));
Since D and N are both ints, D/N is an int. Casting the int to a double cannot magically make decimals appear out of nowhere.
Here's the line, fixed:
pi_estimation = 4.0 * (((double) D) / N));
You could also multiply first, so you don't need so many parens:
pi_estimation = 4.0 * D / N;
D is being multiplied by 4.0, so it becomes a double because double * int = double. Then it's divided by N. Since (x * y) / z === x * (y / z) (associative property), the expressions are equivalent.
The problem is here:
pi_estimation = 4.0*(double (D/N));
D and N are both integers, so D/N is an integer that you are casting to a double and then multiplying by 4.0.
You want to do this:
pi_estimation = 4.0 * (static_cast<double>(D) / N));
Since D and N are both integral types, D/N is performed in integer arithmetic; the cast to double happens too late as precision is lost prior to the cast.
One fix is to write 4.0 * D / N. This will ensure that everything is calculated in floating point. (Since * and / have the same precedence, you don't need to write (double).)
I have problem with precision. I have to make my c++ code to have same precision as matlab. In matlab i have script which do some stuff with numbers etc. I got code in c++ which do the same as that script. Output on the same input is diffrent :( I found that in my script when i try 104 >= 104 it returns false. I tried to use format long but it did not help me to find out why its false. Both numbers are type of double. i thought that maybe matlab stores somewhere the real value of 104 and its for real like 103.9999... So i leveled up my precision in c++. It also didnt help because when matlab returns me value of 50.000 in c++ i got value of 50.050 with high precision. Those 2 values are from few calculations like + or *. Is there any way to make my c++ and matlab scrips have same precision?
for i = 1:neighbors
y = spoints(i,1)+origy;
x = spoints(i,2)+origx;
% Calculate floors, ceils and rounds for the x and y.
fy = floor(y); cy = ceil(y); ry = round(y);
fx = floor(x); cx = ceil(x); rx = round(x);
% Check if interpolation is needed.
if (abs(x - rx) < 1e-6) && (abs(y - ry) < 1e-6)
% Interpolation is not needed, use original datatypes
N = image(ry:ry+dy,rx:rx+dx);
D = N >= C;
else
% Interpolation needed, use double type images
ty = y - fy;
tx = x - fx;
% Calculate the interpolation weights.
w1 = (1 - tx) * (1 - ty);
w2 = tx * (1 - ty);
w3 = (1 - tx) * ty ;
w4 = tx * ty ;
%Compute interpolated pixel values
N = w1*d_image(fy:fy+dy,fx:fx+dx) + w2*d_image(fy:fy+dy,cx:cx+dx) + ...
w3*d_image(cy:cy+dy,fx:fx+dx) + w4*d_image(cy:cy+dy,cx:cx+dx);
D = N >= d_C;
end
I got problems in else which is in line 12. tx and ty eqauls 0.707106781186547 or 1 - 0.707106781186547. Values from d_image are in range 0 and 255. N is value 0..255 of interpolating 4 pixels from image. d_C is value 0.255. Still dunno why matlab shows that when i have in N vlaues like: x x x 140.0000 140.0000 and in d_C: x x x 140 x. D gives me 0 on 4th position so 140.0000 != 140. I Debugged it trying more precision but it still says that its 140.00000000000000 and it is still not 140.
int Codes::Interpolation( Point_<int> point, Point_<int> center , Mat *mat)
{
int x = center.x-point.x;
int y = center.y-point.y;
Point_<double> my;
if(x<0)
{
if(y<0)
{
my.x=center.x+LEN;
my.y=center.y+LEN;
}
else
{
my.x=center.x+LEN;
my.y=center.y-LEN;
}
}
else
{
if(y<0)
{
my.x=center.x-LEN;
my.y=center.y+LEN;
}
else
{
my.x=center.x-LEN;
my.y=center.y-LEN;
}
}
int a=my.x;
int b=my.y;
double tx = my.x - a;
double ty = my.y - b;
double wage[4];
wage[0] = (1 - tx) * (1 - ty);
wage[1] = tx * (1 - ty);
wage[2] = (1 - tx) * ty ;
wage[3] = tx * ty ;
int values[4];
//wpisanie do tablicy 4 pixeli ktore wchodza do interpolacji
for(int i=0;i<4;i++)
{
int val = mat->at<uchar>(Point_<int>(a+help[i].x,a+help[i].y));
values[i]=val;
}
double moze = (wage[0]) * (values[0]) + (wage[1]) * (values[1]) + (wage[2]) * (values[2]) + (wage[3]) * (values[3]);
return moze;
}
LEN = 0.707106781186547 Values in array values are 100% same as matlab values.
Matlab uses double precision. You can use C++'s double type. That should make most things similar, but not 100%.
As someone else noted, this is probably not the source of your problem. Either there is a difference in the algorithms, or it might be something like a library function defined differently in Matlab and in C++. For example, Matlab's std() divides by (n-1) and your code may divide by n.
First, as a rule of thumb, it is never a good idea to compare floating point variables directly. Instead of, for example instead of if (nr >= 104) you should use if (nr >= 104-e), where e is a small number, like 0.00001.
However, there must be some serious undersampling or rounding error somewhere in your script, because getting 50050 instead of 50000 is not in the limit of common floating point imprecision. For example, Matlab can have a step of as small as 15 digits!
I guess there are some casting problems in your code, for example
int i;
double d;
// ...
d = i/3 * d;
will will give a very inaccurate result, because you have an integer division. d = (double)i/3 * d or d = i/3. * d would give a much more accurate result.
The above example would NOT cause any problems in Matlab, because there everything is already a floating-point number by default, so a similar problem might be behind the differences in the results of the c++ and Matlab code.
Seeing your calculations would help a lot in finding what went wrong.
EDIT:
In c and c++, if you compare a double with an integer of the same value, you have a very high chance that they will not be equal. It's the same with two doubles, but you might get lucky if you perform the exact same computations on them. Even in Matlab it's dangerous, and maybe you were just lucky that as both are doubles, both got truncated the same way.
By you recent edit it seems, that the problem is where you evaluate your array. You should never use == or != when comparing floats or doubles in c++ (or in any languages when you use floating-point variables). The proper way to do a comparison is to check whether they are within a small distance of each other.
An example: using == or != to compare two doubles is like comparing the weight of two objects by counting the number of atoms in them, and deciding that they are not equal even if there is one single atom difference between them.
MATLAB uses double precision unless you say otherwise. Any differences you see with an identical implementation in C++ will be due to floating-point errors.
Strange things happen when i try to find the cube root of a number.
The following code returns me undefined. In cmd : -1.#IND
cout<<pow(( double )(20.0*(-3.2) + 30.0),( double )1/3)
While this one works perfectly fine. In cmd : 4.93242414866094
cout<<pow(( double )(20.0*4.5 + 30.0),( double )1/3)
From mathematical way it must work since we can have the cube root from a negative number.
Pow is from Visual C++ 2010 math.h library. Any ideas?
pow(x, y) from <cmath> does NOT work if x is negative and y is non-integral.
This is a limitation of std::pow, as documented in the C standard and on cppreference:
Error handling
Errors are reported as specified in math_errhandling
If base is finite and negative and exp is finite and non-integer, a domain error occurs and a range error may occur.
If base is zero and exp is zero, a domain error may occur.
If base is zero and exp is negative, a domain error or a pole error may occur.
There are a couple ways around this limitation:
Cube-rooting is the same as taking something to the 1/3 power, so you could do std::pow(x, 1/3.).
In C++11, you can use std::cbrt. C++11 introduced both square-root and cube-root functions, but no generic n-th root function that overcomes the limitations of std::pow.
The power 1/3 is a special case. In general, non-integral powers of negative numbers are complex. It wouldn't be practical for pow to check for special cases like integer roots, and besides, 1/3 as a double is not exactly 1/3!
I don't know about the visual C++ pow, but my man page says under errors:
EDOM The argument x is negative and y is not an integral value. This would result in a complex number.
You'll have to use a more specialized cube root function if you want cube roots of negative numbers - or cut corners and take absolute value, then take cube root, then multiply the sign back on.
Note that depending on context, a negative number x to the 1/3 power is not necessarily the negative cube root you're expecting. It could just as easily be the first complex root, x^(1/3) * e^(pi*i/3). This is the convention mathematica uses; it's also reasonable to just say it's undefined.
While (-1)^3 = -1, you can't simply take a rational power of a negative number and expect a real response. This is because there are other solutions to this rational exponent that are imaginary in nature.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x^(1/3),+x+from+-5+to+0
Similarily, plot x^x. For x = -1/3, this should have a solution. However, this function is deemed undefined in R for x < 0.
Therefore, don't expect math.h to do magic that would make it inefficient, just change the signs yourself.
Guess you gotta take the negative out and put it in afterwards. You can have a wrapper do this for you if you really want to.
function yourPow(double x, double y)
{
if (x < 0)
return -1.0 * pow(-1.0*x, y);
else
return pow(x, y);
}
Don't cast to double by using (double), use a double numeric constant instead:
double thingToCubeRoot = -20.*3.2+30;
cout<< thingToCubeRoot/fabs(thingToCubeRoot) * pow( fabs(thingToCubeRoot), 1./3. );
Should do the trick!
Also: don't include <math.h> in C++ projects, but use <cmath> instead.
Alternatively, use pow from the <complex> header for the reasons stated by buddhabrot
pow( x, y ) is the same as (i.e. equivalent to) exp( y * log( x ) )
if log(x) is invalid then pow(x,y) is also.
Similarly you cannot perform 0 to the power of anything, although mathematically it should be 0.
C++11 has the cbrt function (see for example http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/math/cbrt) so you can write something like
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
const double arg = 20.0*(-3.2) + 30.0;
std::cout << cbrt(arg) << "\n";
std::cout << cbrt(-arg) << "\n";
return 0;
}
I do not have access to the C++ standard so I do not know how the negative argument is handled... a test on ideone http://ideone.com/bFlXYs seems to confirm that C++ (gcc-4.8.1) extends the cube root with this rule cbrt(x)=-cbrt(-x) when x<0; for this extension you can see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubeRoot.html
I was looking for cubit root and found this thread and it occurs to me that the following code might work:
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
function double nth-root(double x, double n){
if (!(n%2) || x<0){
throw FAILEXCEPTION(); // even root from negative is fail
}
bool sign = (x >= 0);
x = exp(log(abs(x))/n);
return sign ? x : -x;
}
I think you should not confuse exponentiation with the nth-root of a number. See the good old Wikipedia
because the 1/3 will always return 0 as it will be considered as integer...
try with 1.0/3.0...
it is what i think but try and implement...
and do not forget to declare variables containing 1.0 and 3.0 as double...
Here's a little function I knocked up.
#define uniform() (rand()/(1.0 + RAND_MAX))
double CBRT(double Z)
{
double guess = Z;
double x, dx;
int loopbreaker;
retry:
x = guess * guess * guess;
loopbreaker = 0;
while (fabs(x - Z) > FLT_EPSILON)
{
dx = 3 * guess*guess;
loopbreaker++;
if (fabs(dx) < DBL_EPSILON || loopbreaker > 53)
{
guess += uniform() * 2 - 1.0;
goto retry;
}
guess -= (x - Z) / dx;
x = guess*guess*guess;
}
return guess;
}
It uses Newton-Raphson to find a cube root.
Sometime Newton -Raphson gets stuck, if the root is very close to 0 then the derivative can
get large and it can oscillate. So I've clamped and forced it to restart if that happens.
If you need more accuracy you can change the FLT_EPSILONs.
If you ever have no math library you can use this way to compute the cubic root:
cubic root
double curt(double x) {
if (x == 0) {
// would otherwise return something like 4.257959840008151e-109
return 0;
}
double b = 1; // use any value except 0
double last_b_1 = 0;
double last_b_2 = 0;
while (last_b_1 != b && last_b_2 != b) {
last_b_1 = b;
// use (2 * b + x / b / b) / 3 for small numbers, as suggested by willywonka_dailyblah
b = (b + x / b / b) / 2;
last_b_2 = b;
// use (2 * b + x / b / b) / 3 for small numbers, as suggested by willywonka_dailyblah
b = (b + x / b / b) / 2;
}
return b;
}
It is derives from the sqrt algorithm below. The idea is that b and x / b / b bigger and smaller from the cubic root of x. So, the average of both lies closer to the cubic root of x.
Square Root And Cubic Root (in Python)
def sqrt_2(a):
if a == 0:
return 0
b = 1
last_b = 0
while last_b != b:
last_b = b
b = (b + a / b) / 2
return b
def curt_2(a):
if a == 0:
return 0
b = a
last_b_1 = 0;
last_b_2 = 0;
while (last_b_1 != b and last_b_2 != b):
last_b_1 = b;
b = (b + a / b / b) / 2;
last_b_2 = b;
b = (b + a / b / b) / 2;
return b
In contrast to the square root, last_b_1 and last_b_2 are required in the cubic root because b flickers. You can modify these algorithms to compute the fourth root, fifth root and so on.
Thanks to my math teacher Herr Brenner in 11th grade who told me this algorithm for sqrt.
Performance
I tested it on an Arduino with 16mhz clock frequency:
0.3525ms for yourPow
0.3853ms for nth-root
2.3426ms for curt
I'm trying to extract the integer and decimal parts of a floating point value, and I seem to be running into some strange rounding problems, due probably to the imprecise way floats are stored.
I have some code like this to extract the fractional part:
double number = 2.01;
int frac = int(floor(number * 100)) % 100;
However the result here instead of 1 comes out as 0. This seems to be because the original double actually gets stored as:
2.0099999...
However running sprintf seems to get such a conversion correct:
char num_string[99];
sprintf(num_string,"%f",number);
How is sprintf getting the correct answer while the above method does not?
> However the result here instead of 1 comes out as one.
What do you mean?
2.099999...
Or, more like 2.00999...
As you've noted:
int frac = int(floor(number * 100)) % 100;
will be:
int frac = int(floor(2.00999... * 100)) % 100;
= int(floor(200.999...)) % 100;
= int(floor(200.999...)) % 100;
= int(200) % 100;
= 200 % 100;
= 0;
You may be interested in this.
Also, see modf from math.h:
double modf(double x, double *intptr) /* Breaks x into fractional and integer parts. */
modf() is a better alternative than doing the juggling yourself.
I agree with dirkgently on using modf from math.h. But if you must do the juggling yourself, try this code. This should work around the problem you see.
int round(double a) {
if (a > 0)
return int(a + 0.5);
else
return int(a - 0.5);
}
int main()
{
double number = 2.01;
int frac = round((number - ((int)number)) * 100);
printf("%d", frac);
}