I occasionally get a stackoverflow exception in this method.
double norm_cdf(const double x) {
double k = 1.0/(1.0 + 0.2316419*x);
double k_sum = k*(0.319381530 + k*(-0.356563782 + k*(1.781477937 + k*(-1.821255978 + 1.330274429*k))));
if (x >= 0.0) {
return (1.0 - (1.0/(pow(2*M_PI,0.5)))*exp(-0.5*x*x) * k_sum);
} else {
return 1.0 - norm_cdf(-x);
}
}
Any suggestions on why i might be getting it ? Any steps I can take to rectify the error ?
Your problem is when x is Not a Number. NAN >= 0.0 is false, -NAN >= 0.0 is also false.
You could check against NAN specially, as others have suggested, but I would suggest simplifying things:
static double norm_cdf_positive(const double x) {
double k = 1.0/(1.0 + 0.2316419*x);
double k_sum = k*(0.319381530 + k*(-0.356563782 + k*(1.781477937 + k*(-1.821255978 + 1.330274429*k))));
return (1.0 - (1.0/(pow(2*M_PI,0.5)))*exp(-0.5*x*x) * k_sum);
}
double norm_cdf(const double x) {
if (x >= 0.0) {
return norm_cdf_positive(x);
} else {
return 1.0 - norm_cdf_positive(-x);
}
}
This has the advantage that compilers can make smarter assumptions about its behaviour. Note that I've marked the "internal" function static (which will limit its scope to the current compilation unit). You could also use unnamed namespaces. (edit: actually Timothy Shields has a simpler way of removing the recursion, which keeps everything in one function)
Likely this method is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. This function will only call itself at most once, so it's not the problem. (Edit: Or it's the NAN issue others point to, which will result in infinite recursion.)
You can easily make the function not recursive anyway, which might be a simpler option.
double norm_cdf(double x) {
bool negative = x < 0;
x = abs(x);
double k = 1.0/(1.0 + 0.2316419*x);
double k_sum = k*(0.319381530 + k*(-0.356563782 + k*(1.781477937 + k*(-1.821255978 + 1.330274429*k))));
double result = (1.0/(pow(2*M_PI,0.5)))*exp(-0.5*x*x) * k_sum;
if (!negative)
result = 1.0 - result;
return result;
}
When x is NaN, the recursion will never terminate. Add a check: Either std::isnan in C++11, or the lazy x != x, or document-and-blame-user. If you choose to handle NaN, propagating it might be a sensible choice.
Related
I'm looking for some nice C code that will accomplish effectively:
while (deltaPhase >= M_PI) deltaPhase -= M_TWOPI;
while (deltaPhase < -M_PI) deltaPhase += M_TWOPI;
What are my options?
Edit Apr 19, 2013:
Modulo function updated to handle boundary cases as noted by aka.nice and arr_sea:
static const double _PI= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348;
static const double _TWO_PI= 6.2831853071795864769252867665590057683943387987502116419498891846156328125724179972560696;
// Floating-point modulo
// The result (the remainder) has same sign as the divisor.
// Similar to matlab's mod(); Not similar to fmod() - Mod(-3,4)= 1 fmod(-3,4)= -3
template<typename T>
T Mod(T x, T y)
{
static_assert(!std::numeric_limits<T>::is_exact , "Mod: floating-point type expected");
if (0. == y)
return x;
double m= x - y * floor(x/y);
// handle boundary cases resulted from floating-point cut off:
if (y > 0) // modulo range: [0..y)
{
if (m>=y) // Mod(-1e-16 , 360. ): m= 360.
return 0;
if (m<0 )
{
if (y+m == y)
return 0 ; // just in case...
else
return y+m; // Mod(106.81415022205296 , _TWO_PI ): m= -1.421e-14
}
}
else // modulo range: (y..0]
{
if (m<=y) // Mod(1e-16 , -360. ): m= -360.
return 0;
if (m>0 )
{
if (y+m == y)
return 0 ; // just in case...
else
return y+m; // Mod(-106.81415022205296, -_TWO_PI): m= 1.421e-14
}
}
return m;
}
// wrap [rad] angle to [-PI..PI)
inline double WrapPosNegPI(double fAng)
{
return Mod(fAng + _PI, _TWO_PI) - _PI;
}
// wrap [rad] angle to [0..TWO_PI)
inline double WrapTwoPI(double fAng)
{
return Mod(fAng, _TWO_PI);
}
// wrap [deg] angle to [-180..180)
inline double WrapPosNeg180(double fAng)
{
return Mod(fAng + 180., 360.) - 180.;
}
// wrap [deg] angle to [0..360)
inline double Wrap360(double fAng)
{
return Mod(fAng ,360.);
}
One-liner constant-time solution:
Okay, it's a two-liner if you count the second function for [min,max) form, but close enough — you could merge them together anyways.
/* change to `float/fmodf` or `long double/fmodl` or `int/%` as appropriate */
/* wrap x -> [0,max) */
double wrapMax(double x, double max)
{
/* integer math: `(max + x % max) % max` */
return fmod(max + fmod(x, max), max);
}
/* wrap x -> [min,max) */
double wrapMinMax(double x, double min, double max)
{
return min + wrapMax(x - min, max - min);
}
Then you can simply use deltaPhase = wrapMinMax(deltaPhase, -M_PI, +M_PI).
The solutions is constant-time, meaning that the time it takes does not depend on how far your value is from [-PI,+PI) — for better or for worse.
Verification:
Now, I don't expect you to take my word for it, so here are some examples, including boundary conditions. I'm using integers for clarity, but it works much the same with fmod() and floats:
Positive x:
wrapMax(3, 5) == 3: (5 + 3 % 5) % 5 == (5 + 3) % 5 == 8 % 5 == 3
wrapMax(6, 5) == 1: (5 + 6 % 5) % 5 == (5 + 1) % 5 == 6 % 5 == 1
Negative x:
Note: These assume that integer modulo copies left-hand sign; if not, you get the above ("Positive") case.
wrapMax(-3, 5) == 2: (5 + (-3) % 5) % 5 == (5 - 3) % 5 == 2 % 5 == 2
wrapMax(-6, 5) == 4: (5 + (-6) % 5) % 5 == (5 - 1) % 5 == 4 % 5 == 4
Boundaries:
wrapMax(0, 5) == 0: (5 + 0 % 5) % 5 == (5 + 0) % 5 == 5 % 5 == 0
wrapMax(5, 5) == 0: (5 + 5 % 5) % 5 == (5 + 0) % 5== 5 % 5 == 0
wrapMax(-5, 5) == 0: (5 + (-5) % 5) % 5 == (5 + 0) % 5 == 5 % 5 == 0
Note: Possibly -0 instead of +0 for floating-point.
The wrapMinMax function works much the same: wrapping x to [min,max) is the same as wrapping x - min to [0,max-min), and then (re-)adding min to the result.
I don't know what would happen with a negative max, but feel free to check that yourself!
If ever your input angle can reach arbitrarily high values, and if continuity matters, you can also try
atan2(sin(x),cos(x))
This will preserve continuity of sin(x) and cos(x) better than modulo for high values of x, especially in single precision (float).
Indeed, exact_value_of_pi - double_precision_approximation ~= 1.22e-16
On the other hand, most library/hardware use a high precision approximation of PI for applying the modulo when evaluating trigonometric functions (though x86 family is known to use a rather poor one).
Result might be in [-pi,pi], you'll have to check the exact bounds.
Personaly, I would prevent any angle to reach several revolutions by wrapping systematically and stick to a fmod solution like the one of boost.
There is also fmod function in math.h but the sign causes trouble so that a subsequent operation is needed to make the result fir in the proper range (like you already do with the while's). For big values of deltaPhase this is probably faster than substracting/adding `M_TWOPI' hundreds of times.
deltaPhase = fmod(deltaPhase, M_TWOPI);
EDIT:
I didn't try it intensively but I think you can use fmod this way by handling positive and negative values differently:
if (deltaPhase>0)
deltaPhase = fmod(deltaPhase+M_PI, 2.0*M_PI)-M_PI;
else
deltaPhase = fmod(deltaPhase-M_PI, 2.0*M_PI)+M_PI;
The computational time is constant (unlike the while solution which gets slower as the absolute value of deltaPhase increases)
I would do this:
double wrap(double x) {
return x-2*M_PI*floor(x/(2*M_PI)+0.5);
}
There will be significant numerical errors. The best solution to the numerical errors is to store your phase scaled by 1/PI or by 1/(2*PI) and depending on what you are doing store them as fixed point.
Instead of working in radians, use angles scaled by 1/(2π) and use modf, floor etc. Convert back to radians to use library functions.
This also has the effect that rotating ten thousand and a half revolutions is the same as rotating half then ten thousand revolutions, which is not guaranteed if your angles are in radians, as you have an exact representation in the floating point value rather than summing approximate representations:
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
float wrap_rads ( float r )
{
while ( r > M_PI ) {
r -= 2 * M_PI;
}
while ( r <= -M_PI ) {
r += 2 * M_PI;
}
return r;
}
float wrap_grads ( float r )
{
float i;
r = modff ( r, &i );
if ( r > 0.5 ) r -= 1;
if ( r <= -0.5 ) r += 1;
return r;
}
int main ()
{
for (int rotations = 1; rotations < 100000; rotations *= 10 ) {
{
float pi = ( float ) M_PI;
float two_pi = 2 * pi;
float a = pi;
a += rotations * two_pi;
std::cout << rotations << " and a half rotations in radians " << a << " => " << wrap_rads ( a ) / two_pi << '\n' ;
}
{
float pi = ( float ) 0.5;
float two_pi = 2 * pi;
float a = pi;
a += rotations * two_pi;
std::cout << rotations << " and a half rotations in grads " << a << " => " << wrap_grads ( a ) / two_pi << '\n' ;
}
std::cout << '\n';
}}
Here is a version for other people finding this question that can use C++ with Boost:
#include <boost/math/constants/constants.hpp>
#include <boost/math/special_functions/sign.hpp>
template<typename T>
inline T normalizeRadiansPiToMinusPi(T rad)
{
// copy the sign of the value in radians to the value of pi
T signedPI = boost::math::copysign(boost::math::constants::pi<T>(),rad);
// set the value of rad to the appropriate signed value between pi and -pi
rad = fmod(rad+signedPI,(2*boost::math::constants::pi<T>())) - signedPI;
return rad;
}
C++11 version, no Boost dependency:
#include <cmath>
// Bring the 'difference' between two angles into [-pi; pi].
template <typename T>
T normalizeRadiansPiToMinusPi(T rad) {
// Copy the sign of the value in radians to the value of pi.
T signed_pi = std::copysign(M_PI,rad);
// Set the value of difference to the appropriate signed value between pi and -pi.
rad = std::fmod(rad + signed_pi,(2 * M_PI)) - signed_pi;
return rad;
}
I encountered this question when searching for how to wrap a floating point value (or a double) between two arbitrary numbers. It didn't answer specifically for my case, so I worked out my own solution which can be seen here. This will take a given value and wrap it between lowerBound and upperBound where upperBound perfectly meets lowerBound such that they are equivalent (ie: 360 degrees == 0 degrees so 360 would wrap to 0)
Hopefully this answer is helpful to others stumbling across this question looking for a more generic bounding solution.
double boundBetween(double val, double lowerBound, double upperBound){
if(lowerBound > upperBound){std::swap(lowerBound, upperBound);}
val-=lowerBound; //adjust to 0
double rangeSize = upperBound - lowerBound;
if(rangeSize == 0){return upperBound;} //avoid dividing by 0
return val - (rangeSize * std::floor(val/rangeSize)) + lowerBound;
}
A related question for integers is available here:
Clean, efficient algorithm for wrapping integers in C++
A two-liner, non-iterative, tested solution for normalizing arbitrary angles to [-π, π):
double normalizeAngle(double angle)
{
double a = fmod(angle + M_PI, 2 * M_PI);
return a >= 0 ? (a - M_PI) : (a + M_PI);
}
Similarly, for [0, 2π):
double normalizeAngle(double angle)
{
double a = fmod(angle, 2 * M_PI);
return a >= 0 ? a : (a + 2 * M_PI);
}
In the case where fmod() is implemented through truncated division and has the same sign as the dividend, it can be taken advantage of to solve the general problem thusly:
For the case of (-PI, PI]:
if (x > 0) x = x - 2PI * ceil(x/2PI) #Shift to the negative regime
return fmod(x - PI, 2PI) + PI
And for the case of [-PI, PI):
if (x < 0) x = x - 2PI * floor(x/2PI) #Shift to the positive regime
return fmod(x + PI, 2PI) - PI
[Note that this is pseudocode; my original was written in Tcl, and I didn't want to torture everyone with that. I needed the first case, so had to figure this out.]
deltaPhase -= floor(deltaPhase/M_TWOPI)*M_TWOPI;
The way suggested you suggested is best. It is fastest for small deflections. If angles in your program are constantly being deflected into the proper range, then you should only run into big out of range values rarely. Therefore paying the cost of a complicated modular arithmetic code every round seems wasteful. Comparisons are cheap compared to modular arithmetic (http://embeddedgurus.com/stack-overflow/2011/02/efficient-c-tip-13-use-the-modulus-operator-with-caution/).
In C99:
float unwindRadians( float radians )
{
const bool radiansNeedUnwinding = radians < -M_PI || M_PI <= radians;
if ( radiansNeedUnwinding )
{
if ( signbit( radians ) )
{
radians = -fmodf( -radians + M_PI, 2.f * M_PI ) + M_PI;
}
else
{
radians = fmodf( radians + M_PI, 2.f * M_PI ) - M_PI;
}
}
return radians;
}
If linking against glibc's libm (including newlib's implementation) you can access
__ieee754_rem_pio2f() and __ieee754_rem_pio2() private functions:
extern __int32_t __ieee754_rem_pio2f (float,float*);
float wrapToPI(float xf){
const float p[4]={0,M_PI_2,M_PI,-M_PI_2};
float yf[2];
int q;
int qmod4;
q=__ieee754_rem_pio2f(xf,yf);
/* xf = q * M_PI_2 + yf[0] + yf[1] /
* yf[1] << y[0], not sure if it could be ignored */
qmod4= q % 4;
if (qmod4==2)
/* (yf[0] > 0) defines interval (-pi,pi]*/
return ( (yf[0] > 0) ? -p[2] : p[2] ) + yf[0] + yf[1];
else
return p[qmod4] + yf[0] + yf[1];
}
Edit: Just realised that you need to link to libm.a, I couldn't find the symbols declared in libm.so
I have used (in python):
def WrapAngle(Wrapped, UnWrapped ):
TWOPI = math.pi * 2
TWOPIINV = 1.0 / TWOPI
return UnWrapped + round((Wrapped - UnWrapped) * TWOPIINV) * TWOPI
c-code equivalent:
#define TWOPI 6.28318531
double WrapAngle(const double dWrapped, const double dUnWrapped )
{
const double TWOPIINV = 1.0/ TWOPI;
return dUnWrapped + round((dWrapped - dUnWrapped) * TWOPIINV) * TWOPI;
}
notice that this brings it in the wrapped domain +/- 2pi so for +/- pi domain you need to handle that afterward like:
if( angle > pi):
angle -= 2*math.pi
I have a problem. I want to write a method, which uses the PQ-Formula to calculate Zeros on quadratic algebra.
As I see C++ doesn't support Arrays, unlike C#, which I use normally.
How do I get either, ZERO, 1 or 2 results returned?
Is there any other way without Array, which doesn't exists?
Actually I am not into pointers so my actual code is corrupted.
I'd glad if someone can help me.
float* calculateZeros(float p, float q)
{
float *x1, *x2;
if (((p) / 2)*((p) / 2) - (q) < 0)
throw std::exception("No Zeros!");
x1 *= -((p) / 2) + sqrt(static_cast<double>(((p) / 2)*((p) / 2) - (q)));
x2 *= -((p) / 2) - sqrt(static_cast<double>(((p) / 2)*((p) / 2) - (q)));
float returnValue[1];
returnValue[0] = x1;
returnValue[1] = x2;
return x1 != x2 ? returnValue[0] : x1;
}
Actualy this code is not compilable but this is the code I've done so far.
There are quite a fiew issues with; at very first, I'll be dropping all those totally needless parentheses, they just make the code (much) harder to read:
float* calculateZeros(float p, float q)
{
float *x1, *x2; // pointers are never initialized!!!
if ((p / 2)*(p / 2) - q < 0)
throw std::exception("No Zeros!"); // zeros? q just needs to be large enough!
x1 *= -(p / 2) + sqrt(static_cast<double>((p / 2)*(p / 2) - q);
x2 *= -(p / 2) - sqrt(static_cast<double>((p / 2)*(p / 2) - q);
// ^ this would multiply the pointer values! but these are not initialized -> UB!!!
float returnValue[1];
returnValue[0] = x1; // you are assigning pointer to value here
returnValue[1] = x2;
return x1 != x2 ? returnValue[0] : x1;
// ^ value! ^ pointer!
// apart from, if you returned a pointer to returnValue array, then you would
// return a pointer to data with scope local to the function – i. e. the array
// is destroyed upon leaving the function, thus the pointer returned will get
// INVALID as soon as the function is exited; using it would again result in UB!
}
As is, your code wouldn't even compile...
As I see C++ doesn't support arrays
Well... I assume you meant: 'arrays as return values or function parameters'. That's true for raw arrays, these can only be passed as pointers. But you can accept structs and classes as parameters or use them as return values. You want to return both calculated values? So you could use e. g. std::array<float, 2>; std::array is a wrapper around raw arrays avoiding all the hassle you have with the latter... As there are exactly two values, you could use std::pair<float, float>, too, or std::tuple<float, float>.
Want to be able to return either 2, 1 or 0 values? std::vector<float> might be your choice...
std::vector<float> calculateZeros(float p, float q)
{
std::vector<float> results;
// don't repeat the code all the time...
double h = static_cast<double>(p) / 2; // "half"
s = h * h; // "square" (of half)
if(/* s greater than or equal q */)
{
// only enter, if we CAN have a result otherwise, the vector remains empty
// this is far better behaviour than the exception
double r = sqrt(s - q); // "root"
h = -h;
if(/* r equals 0*/)
{
results.push_back(h);
}
else
{
results.reserve(2); // prevents re-allocations;
// admitted, for just two values, we could live with...
results.push_back(h + r);
results.push_back(h - r);
}
}
return results;
}
Now there's one final issue left: as precision even of double is limited, rounding errors can occur (and the matter is even worth if using float; I would recommend making all floats to doubles, parameters and return values as well!). You shouldn't ever compare for exact equality (someValue == 0.0), but consider some epsilon to cover badly rounded values:
-epsilon < someValue && someValue < +epsilon
Ok, in given case, there are two originally exact comparisons involved, we might want to do as little epsilon-comparisons as possible. So:
double d = r - s;
if(d > -epsilon)
{
// considered 0 or greater than
h = -h;
if(d < +epsilon)
{
// considered 0 (and then no need to calculate the root at all...)
results.push_back(h);
}
else
{
// considered greater 0
double r = sqrt(d);
results.push_back(h - r);
results.push_back(h + r);
}
}
Value of epsilon? Well, either use a fix, small enough value or calculate it dynamically based on the smaller of the two values (multiply some small factor to) – and be sure to have it positive... You might be interested in a bit more of information on the matter. You don't have to care about not being C++ – the issue is the same for all languages using IEEE754 representation for doubles.
I know this question has been discussed a lot. I searched the web and come up with an algorithm myself. I'm wondering whether it can serve as a default implementation that works fine in general unit tests (not some serious/professional numeric tests).
bool equal_to(double x, double y) {
using limits = std::numeric_limits<double>;
auto mag_x = std::abs(x);
auto mag_y = std::abs(y);
if (mag_x < mag_y) {
std::swap(x, y);
std::swap(mag_x, mag_y);
}
auto eps = limits::epsilon() * mag_x;
auto lb = x - eps;
auto ub = x + eps;
return lb < y && y < ub;
}
Just found a flaw. The last statement should be
return (x == y) || (lb < y && y < ub);
in case equal_to(0, 0);
No, this isn't sufficient. Your eps is too low and should probably be multiplied with the number of steps used to produce x and y (although these errors often cancel, this isn't guaranteed).
Furthermore, your rounding effects may be amplified by catastrophic cancellation. If x is about 0.1 because it was calculated as 10.0 - 9.9 then you should have used limits::epsilon * (10+9.9). You're too optimistic by about a factor of 100.
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);
}