I am having trouble with a C++ object-orientated script. When I create an object, I wish to calculate an AttributeQ based on its attributes MyAValue, MyBValue, and MyCValue.
While using the Visual 2010 debugger, I noticed that TempAttribueQ seems to always be 0 (except before it is initialized of course). Assuming Delta != 0, BVal == Maximum, and DeltaA == DeltaC, then TempAttribueQ should be 1/3 not 0.
At first I thought it was a scope problem, but the variable is defined outside the if-else statements. I have tried initializing TempAttribueQ as some outrageous number, which it keeps up until the if-else statements when it becomes 0 when it shouldn't.
This is my code...
void SetMyAttribueQ(){
double TempAVal = MyAValue;
double TempBVal = MyBValue;
double TempCVal = MyCValue;
double Minimum = min(min(TempAVal, TempBVal), TempCVal);
double Maximum = max(max(TempAVal, TempBVal), TempCVal);
double Delta = Maximum - Minimum;
double DeltaA = 0;
double DeltaB = 0;
double DeltaC = 0;
double TempAttribueQ = 0;
if(Delta == 0) {
MyAttribueQ = TempAttribueQ; // this->SetMyAttribueQ(TempAttribueQ);
}
else {
DeltaA = /* (a removed equation goes here... */
DeltaB = /* (a removed equation goes here... */
DeltaC = /* (a removed equation goes here... */
if(AVal == Maximum)
TempAttribueQ = (DeltaC - DeltaB);
else if(BVal == Maximum)
TempAttribueQ = (1/3) + (DeltaA - DeltaC);
else
TempAttribueQ = (2/3) + (DeltaB - DeltaA);
MyAttribueQ = TempAttribueQ;
}
}
What is preventing TempAttribueQ from getting a value of 1/3 or 2/3? Or, what is causing it to be set to be set to 0?
When you divide one integer by another, you get an integer result. Change either or both the constants to non-integer to fix it - C++ rules will result in the other being converted to floating point before the division takes place. All of the following will work:
1.0 / 3.0
1 / 3.0
1.0 / 3
An integer will get converted back to a double invisibly, which is why you weren't seeing any errors in your code.
1 is an integer and 3 is an integer so 1/3 uses integer arithmetic.
You want to use 1.0/3.0 to force double precision arithmetic.
1/3 == 0 due to integer division, which is set to TempAttribueQ.
You need to do 1./3 which will produce 0.3333333..
Try 1.0/3.0 and 2.0/3.0. 1/3 and 2/3 are 0 due to integer division.
Related
I have a code that tries to solve an integral of a function in a given interval numerically, using the method of Trapezoidal Rule (see the formula in Trapezoid method ), now, for the function sin(x) in the interval [-pi/2.0,pi/2.0], the integral is waited to be zero.
In this case, I take the number of partitions 'n' equal to 4. The problem is that when I have pi with 20 decimal places it is zero, with 14 decimal places it is 8.72e^(-17), then with 11 decimal places, it is zero, with 8 decimal places it is 8.72e^(-17), with 3 decimal places it is zero. I mean, the integral is zero or a number near zero for different approximations of pi, but it doesn't have a clear trend.
I would appreciate your help in understanding why this happens. (I did run it in Dev-C++).
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
#define pi 3.14159265358979323846
//Pi: 3.14159265358979323846
double func(double x){
return sin(x);
}
int main() {
double x0 = -pi/2.0, xf = pi/2.0;
int n = 4;
double delta_x = (xf-x0)/(n*1.0);
double sum = (func(x0)+func(xf))/2.0;
double integral;
for (int k = 1; k<n; k++){
// cout<<"func: "<<func(x0+(k*delta_x))<<" "<<"last sum: "<<sum<<endl;
sum = sum + func(x0+(k*delta_x));
// cout<<"func + last sum= "<<sum<<endl;
}
integral = delta_x*sum;
cout<<"The value for the integral is: "<<integral<<endl;
return 0;
}
OP is integrating y=sin(x) from -a to +a. The various tests use different values of a, all near pi/2.
The approach uses a linear summation of values near -1.0, down to 0 and then up to near 1.0.
This summation is sensitive to calculation error with the last terms as the final math sum is expected to be 0.0. Since the start/end a varies, the error varies.
A more stable result would be had adding the extreme f = sin(f(k)) values first. e.g. sum += sin(f(k=1)), then sum += sin(f(k=3)), then sum += sin(f(k=2)) rather than k=1,2,3. In particular the formation of term x=f(k=3) is likely a bit off from the negative of its x=f(k=1) earlier term, further compounding the issue.
Welcome to the world or numerical analysis.
Problem exists if code used all float or all long double, just different degrees.
Problem is not due to using an inexact value of pi (Exact value is impossible with FP as pi is irrational and all finite FP are rational).
Much is due to the formation of x. Could try the below to form the x symmetrically about 0.0. Compare exactly x generated this way to x the original way.
x = (x0-x1)/2 + ((k - n/2)*delta_x)
Print out the exact values computed for deeper understanding.
printf("x:%a y:%a\n", x0+(k*delta_x), func(x0+(k*delta_x)));
I have the following values:
i->fitness = 160
sum_fitness = 826135
I do the operation:
i->roulette = (int)(((i->fitness / sum_fitness)*100000) + 0.5);
But i keep getting 0 in i->roulette.
I also tried to save i->fitness / sum_fitness in a double variable and only then applying the other operations, but also this gets a 0.
I'm thinking that's because 160/826135 is such a small number, then it rounds it down to 0.
How can i overcome this?
Thank you
edit:
Thanks everyone, i eventually did this:
double temp = (double)(i->fitness);
i->roulette = (int)(((temp / sum_fitness)*100000) + 0.5);
And it worked.
All the answers are similar so it's hard to choose one.
You line
i->roulette = (int)(((i->fitness / sum_fitness)*100000) + 0.5);
is casting the value to int which is why any float operation is truncated
try
i->roulette = (((i->fitness / sum_fitness)*100000) + 0.5);
and make sure that either 'sum_fitness' or 'i->fitness' is of of a float or double type to make the division a floating point division -- if they are not you will need to cast one of them before dividing, like this
i->roulette = (((i->fitness / (double)sum_fitness)*100000) + 0.5);
If you want to make this as a integer calculation you could also try to change the order of the division and multiplication, like
i->roulette = ( i->fitness *100000) / sum_fitness;
which would work as long as you don't get any integer overflow, which in your case would occur only if fitness risk to be above 2000000.
I'm thinking that's because 160/826135 is such a small number, then it rounds it down to 0.
It is integer division, and it is truncated to the integral part. So yes, it is 0, but there is no rounding. 99/100 would also be 0.
You could fix it like by casting the numerator or the denominator to double:
i->roulette = ((i->fitness / static_cast<double>(sum_fitness))*100000) + 0.5;
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);
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.
This question already has answers here:
Why does floating-point arithmetic not give exact results when adding decimal fractions?
(31 answers)
Why pow(10,5) = 9,999 in C++
(8 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I've found an interesting floating point problem. I have to calculate several square roots in my code, and the expression is like this:
sqrt(1.0 - pow(pos,2))
where pos goes from -1.0 to 1.0 in a loop. The -1.0 is fine for pow, but when pos=1.0, I get an -nan. Doing some tests, using gcc 4.4.5 and icc 12.0, the output of
1.0 - pow(pos,2) = -1.33226763e-15
and
1.0 - pow(1.0,2) = 0
or
poss = 1.0
1.0 - pow(poss,2) = 0
Where clearly the first one is going to give problems, being negative. Anyone knows why pow is returning a number smaller than 0? The full offending code is below:
int main() {
double n_max = 10;
double a = -1.0;
double b = 1.0;
int divisions = int(5 * n_max);
assert (!(b == a));
double interval = b - a;
double delta_theta = interval / divisions;
double delta_thetaover2 = delta_theta / 2.0;
double pos = a;
//for (int i = 0; i < divisions - 1; i++) {
for (int i = 0; i < divisions+1; i++) {
cout<<sqrt(1.0 - pow(pos, 2)) <<setw(20)<<pos<<endl;
if(isnan(sqrt(1.0 - pow(pos, 2)))){
cout<<"Danger Will Robinson!"<<endl;
cout<< sqrt(1.0 - pow(pos,2))<<endl;
cout<<"pos "<<setprecision(9)<<pos<<endl;
cout<<"pow(pos,2) "<<setprecision(9)<<pow(pos, 2)<<endl;
cout<<"delta_theta "<<delta_theta<<endl;
cout<<"1 - pow "<< 1.0 - pow(pos,2)<<endl;
double poss = 1.0;
cout<<"1- poss "<<1.0 - pow(poss,2)<<endl;
}
pos += delta_theta;
}
return 0;
}
When you keep incrementing pos in a loop, rounding errors accumulate and in your case the final value > 1.0. Instead of that, calculate pos by multiplication on each round to only get minimal amount of rounding error.
The problem is that floating point calculations are not exact, and that 1 - 1^2 may be giving small negative results, yielding an invalid sqrt computation.
Consider capping your result:
double x = 1. - pow(pos, 2.);
result = sqrt(x < 0 ? 0 : x);
or
result = sqrt(abs(x) < 1e-12 ? 0 : x);
setprecision(9) is going to cause rounding. Use a debugger to see what the value really is. Short of that, at least set the precision beyond the possible size of the type you're using.
You will almost always have rounding errors when calculating with doubles, because the double type has only 15 significant decimal digits (52 bits) and a lot of decimal numbers are not convertible to binary floating point numbers without rounding. The IEEE standard contains a lot of effort to keep those errors low, but by principle it cannot always succeed. For a thorough introduction see this document
In your case, you should calculate pos on each loop and round to 14 or less digits. That should give you a clean 0 for the sqrt.
You can calc pos inside the loop as
pos = round(a + interval * i / divisions, 14);
with round defined as
double round(double r, int digits)
{
double multiplier = pow(digits,10);
return floor(r*multiplier + 0.5)/multiplier;
}