Why is the output of the following code equals to 0 or serven?
cout << 7/9*9; //output 0 (zero) why?
float nine = 9;
float seven = 7;
float i = seven/nine*nine;
cout << i //output 7 Why?
Thanks for the help.
7/9*9 evaluates those numbers as integers, so 7/9 evaluates to 0, and 0*9 = 0.
When you made them floats, you were performing the intended calculation.
Try 7.0/9*9 to get 7, and then you'll be doing a floating point operation.
In C, when you divide integers, the remainder gets discarded. Here, you're doing 7 / 9, then taking the result of that and multiplying by 9. In steps, heres what C thinks:
7 / 9 = 0
0 * 9 = 0
When you use floats it works properly because the remainder is no longer discarded.
In:
cout << 7 / 9 * 9;
you are doing integer arithmetic. So 7/9 is 0 and 0*9 is 0.
To use floating point arithmetic (which is what you are using in your second example), you want to do:
cout << 7.0 / 9 * 9;
7/9*9 equals (7 / 9) * 9, but as 7 and 9 are integers and not floating point numbers, 7 / 9 equals 0 (the quotient of the division).
I think it's a precision issue. The / and * operators are equal precedence, so 7/9*9 is evaluated left to right at as (7/9)*9. The catch is that (7/9) is 0 in integer arithmetic. When you explicity store them as floats, that / operation is done in floating point, which can store 7/9 with greater precision than an int.
If you want to do the calculation in one line without the precision issue, try:
cout << 7.0f / 9.0f * 9.0f;
Many correct answers already. An addition note: if you want to leave this as an integer operation and not use floating point, you want to order it so you do multiplies before divides to get the most precision (as long as overflow doesn't occur during multiplication. Thus rather than (7.0/9)*9 which will convert to floats, you can do (9*7)/9.
Related
I am a rookie in C++ and I have got a question here.
I use an int to print the first 100 power of 2. I know that the outcome will be out of range of an int variable. I am just curious since the result given by the program is 0. How did 0 come out?
Thanks in advance!
My code is as followed:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
void main()
{
int a=1;
unsigned int b=1;
for (int i=1;i<=100;i++)
{
a=2*a;
b=2*b;
}
cout<<"the first 1oo powers of 2 is (using an signed int): "<<a<<endl;
cout<<"the first 1oo powers of 2 is (using an unsigned int): "<<b<<endl;
//The fix
cout<<"Enter a Char to Exit."<<endl;
char theFix;
cin>>theFix;
}
Multiplying an unsigned integer or a positive signed integer by 2 is like shifting left by 1, while a 0 bit will be shifted in from the right. After 32 iterations (assuming 32 bit integers), the entire value will be all 0 bits. After that, shifting 0 left will not change the outcome anymore.
Since, you're new to C++, you might not know how the computer stores information. Eventually, all integers are broken down into 32-bit binary numbers (a bunch of 1's and 0's).
a = a * 2; // multiplication
a << 1; // left shift
These two instructions are actually synonymous due to the nature of binary numbers.
For instance, 0....000010 in binary notation == 2 in decimal notation.
So,
2 * 2 = 4 = 0....000100
4 * 2 = 8 = 0....001000
8 * 2 = 16 = 0....010000
and so on...
Since the bit count is capped at 32 for integers, you'll get a huge number 2^32 == 1000....000. When you multiply by 2 again, the number is shifted left again and you end up with 000...000000 = 0.
All further multiplications of 0 = zero, so that's where your final result came from.
EDIT: Would just like to point out that this is one of the only situations where this exact result would occur. If you were to try using the number 3, for example, you would see the expected integer overflow behavior.
float x = 384.951257;
std::cout << std::fixed << std::setprecision(6) << x << std::endl;
The output is 384.951263. Why? I'm using gcc.
float is usually only 32-bit. With about 3 bits per decimal digit (210 roughly equals 103) that means it can't possibly represent more than about 11 decimal digits, and accounting for other information it also needs to represent, such as magnitude, let's say 6-7 decimal digits. Hey, that's what you got!
Check e.g. Wikipedia for details.
Use double or long double for better precision. double is the default in C++. E.g., the literal 3.14 is of type double.
Floats have a limited resolution. So it gets rounded when you assing the value to x.
All answers here talk as though the issue is due to floating-point numbers and their capacity, but those are just implementation details; the issue is deeper than that. This issue occurs when representing decimal numbers using binary number system. Even something as simple as 0.1)10 is not precisely representable in binary, since it can only represent those numbers as a finite fraction where the denominator is a power of 2. Unfortunately, this does not include most of the numbers that can be represented as finite fraction in base 10, like 0.1.
The single-precision float datatype usually gets mapped to binary32 as called by the IEEE 754 standard, has 32-bits which is partitioned into 1 sign bit, 8 exponent bits and 23 significand bits (excluding the hidden/implicit bit). Thus we've to calculate upto 24 bits when converting to binary32.
Other answers here evade the actual calculations involved, I'll try to do it. This method is explained in greater detail here. So lets convert the real number into a binary number:
Integer part 384)10 = 110000000)2 (using the usual method of successive division by 2)
Fractional part 0.951257)10 can be converted by successive multiplication by 2 and taking the integer part
0.951257 * 2 = 1.902514
0.902514 * 2 = 1.805028
0.805028 * 2 = 1.610056
0.610056 * 2 = 1.220112
0.220112 * 2 = 0.440224
0.440224 * 2 = 0.880448
0.880448 * 2 = 1.760896
0.760896 * 2 = 1.521792
0.521792 * 2 = 1.043584
0.043584 * 2 = 0.087168
0.087168 * 2 = 0.174336
0.174336 * 2 = 0.348672
0.348672 * 2 = 0.697344
0.697344 * 2 = 1.394688
0.394688 * 2 = 0.789376
Gathering the obtined fractional part in binary we've 0.111100111000010)2. The overall number in binary would be 110000000.111100111000010)2; this has 24 bits as required.
Converting this back to decimal would give you 384 + (15585 / 16384) = 384.951232)10. With the rounding mode (round to nearest) enabled this comes to, what you see, 384.951263)10.
This can be verified here.
I had a problem when I was adding three floating point values and comparing them to 1.
cout << ((0.7 + 0.2 + 0.1)==1)<<endl; //output is 0
cout << ((0.7 + 0.1 + 0.2)==1)<<endl; //output is 1
Why would these values come out different?
Floating point addition is not necessarily associative. If you change the order in which you add things up, this can change the result.
The standard paper on the subject is What Every Computer Scientist Should Know about Floating Point Arithmetic. It gives the following example:
Another grey area concerns the interpretation of parentheses. Due to roundoff errors, the associative laws of algebra do not necessarily hold for floating-point numbers. For example, the expression (x+y)+z has a totally different answer than x+(y+z) when x = 1e30, y = -1e30 and z = 1 (it is 1 in the former case, 0 in the latter).
What is likely, with currently popular machines and software, is:
The compiler encoded .7 as 0x1.6666666666666p-1 (this is the hexadecimal numeral 1.6666666666666 multiplied by 2 to the power of -1), .2 as 0x1.999999999999ap-3, and .1 as 0x1.999999999999ap-4. Each of these is the number representable in floating-point that is closest to the decimal numeral you wrote.
Observe that each of these hexadecimal floating-point constants has exactly 53 bits in its significand (the "fraction" part, often inaccurately called the mantissa). The hexadecimal numeral for the significand has a "1" and thirteen more hexadecimal digits (four bits each, 52 total, 53 including the "1"), which is what the IEEE-754 standard provides for, for 64-bit binary floating-point numbers.
Let's add the numbers for .7 and .2: 0x1.6666666666666p-1 and 0x1.999999999999ap-3. First, scale the exponent of the second number to match the first. To do this, we will multiply the exponent by 4 (changing "p-3" to "p-1") and multiply the significand by 1/4, giving 0x0.66666666666668p-1. Then add 0x1.6666666666666p-1 and 0x0.66666666666668p-1, giving 0x1.ccccccccccccc8p-1. Note that this number has more than 53 bits in the significand: The "8" is the 14th digit after the period. Floating-point cannot return a result with this many bits, so it has to be rounded to the nearest representable number. In this case, there are two numbers that are equally near, 0x1.cccccccccccccp-1 and 0x1.ccccccccccccdp-1. When there is a tie, the number with a zero in the lowest bit of the significand is used. "c" is even and "d" is odd, so "c" is used. The final result of the addition is 0x1.cccccccccccccp-1.
Next, add the number for .1 (0x1.999999999999ap-4) to that. Again, we scale to make the exponents match, so 0x1.999999999999ap-4 becomes 0x.33333333333334p-1. Then add that to 0x1.cccccccccccccp-1, giving 0x1.fffffffffffff4p-1. Rounding that to 53 bits gives 0x1.fffffffffffffp-1, and that is the final result of .7+.2+.1.
Now consider .7+.1+.2. For .7+.1, add 0x1.6666666666666p-1 and 0x1.999999999999ap-4. Recall the latter is scaled to 0x.33333333333334p-1. Then the exact sum is 0x1.99999999999994p-1. Rounding that to 53 bits gives 0x1.9999999999999p-1.
Then add the number for .2 (0x1.999999999999ap-3), which is scaled to 0x0.66666666666668p-1. The exact sum is 0x2.00000000000008p-1. Floating-point significands are always scaled to start with 1 (except for special cases: zero, infinity, and very small numbers at the bottom of the representable range), so we adjust this to 0x1.00000000000004p0. Finally, we round to 53 bits, giving 0x1.0000000000000p0.
Thus, because of errors that occur when rounding, .7+.2+.1 returns 0x1.fffffffffffffp-1 (very slightly less than 1), and .7+.1+.2 returns 0x1.0000000000000p0 (exactly 1).
Floating point multiplication is not associative in C or C++.
Proof:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<time.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int counter = 0;
srand(time(NULL));
while(counter++ < 10){
float a = rand() / 100000;
float b = rand() / 100000;
float c = rand() / 100000;
if (a*(b*c) != (a*b)*c){
printf("Not equal\n");
}
}
printf("DONE");
return 0;
}
In this program, about 30% of the time, (a*b)*c is not equal to a*(b*c).
Neither addition nor multiplication is associative with IEEE 743 double precision (64-bit) numbers. Here are examples for each (evaluated with Python 3.9.7):
>>> (.1 + .2) + .3
0.6000000000000001
>>> .1 + (.2 + .3)
0.6
>>> (.1 * .2) * .3
0.006000000000000001
>>> .1 * (.2 * .3)
0.006
Similar answer to Eric's, but for addition, and with Python.
import random
random.seed(0)
n = 1000
a = [random.random() for i in range(n)]
b = [random.random() for i in range(n)]
c = [random.random() for i in range(n)]
sum(1 if (a[i] + b[i]) + c[i] != a[i] + (b[i] + c[i]) else 0 for i in range(n))
For below code, when input is:
first input = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
second input = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
it will produce output of:
first output = 0
second output = 1
instead of taking each input quartile it take its first element, and the problem is (after testing and such), it follow with the problem in code
for (vector<int>::size_type counter = 0; (quartiles < quadro) && (counter < numstore.size()); ++counter)
{
if (counter == (quartiles/quadro * numstore.size()))
{
quaele.push_back(numstore[counter]);
if ((quartiles == 2) && (numstore.size() / 2 == 0))
quaele[quartiles-1] = (numstore[counter]+numstore[counter-1]) / 2;
++quartiles;
}
// test
cout << quartiles;
}
where the conditional in "if function" doesn't work, I mean on first loop, counter == 0, how can 0 == 1(quartiles)/4(quadro) * 10(numstore.size()??
Because quartiles and quadro are both integers and the first is always less than the second (because that's what the for statement says), the expression:
quartiles / quadro * numstore.size()
will always be equal to zero, because quartiles / quadro is calculated first. Hence, the if statement will only ever be true the first time through the loop.
You may be able to get around this by re-arranging the calculation:
quartiles * numstore.size() / quadro
That's how integer arithmetic works. 1/4 is truncated to zero.
You can get the correct result (rounded down to the nearest integer) by multiplying first:
(quartiles * numstore.size()) / quadro
I've used parentheses to make the evaluation order clear - you could leave them out if you prefer.
Note that, for large values, you'll need to be careful that the multiplication doesn't overflow - perhaps by converting to a wider type, or to floating point, or by carefully multiplying and dividing by smaller factors. That is probably not an issue in this case.
The expression quartiles/quadro * numstore.size() will be 0 for the case where quartiles = 1 and quadro = 4. This is because 1/4 is rounded downwards to 0.
Maybe this is what you mean: (quartiles * numstore.size()) / quadro
In C++, the division operator can be thought of as two different operators: one that works on integer operands, and one that works on floating point operands. If the operands are of a floating point type, the division operator will return a floating point value.
http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-programming/eight-c-programming-mistakes-the-compiler-wont-catch/
Try:
float result = quartiles/quadro * numstore.size();
edit: correcting thanks to the comments.
float result = quartiles/(float)quadro * numstore.size();
It is enough to convert one of the operands to a floating point number.
quartiles/quadro is equal to 0.25 and because quartiles is type int quartiles/quadro == 0
In C++ when you divide two integer, you get integer division. Moreover, * and / have the same precedence, so the parser interprets it as (quartiles / quadro) * numstore.size(). And (1 / 4) is equal to 0.
The problem is to derive a formula for determining number of digits a given decimal number could have in a given base.
For example: The decimal number 100006 can be represented by 17,11,9,8,7,6,8 digits in bases 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 respectively.
Well the formula I derived so far is like this : (log10(num) /log10(base)) + 1.
in C/C++ I used this formula to compute the above given results.
long long int size = ((double)log10(num) / (double)log10(base)) + 1.0;
But sadly the formula is not giving correct answer is some cases,like these :
Number 8 in base 2 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
Number 64 in base 2 : 1,0,0,0,0,0,0
Number of digits: 7
Formula returned: 6
Number 64 in base 4 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
Number 125 in base 5 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
Number 128 in base 2 : 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Number of digits: 8
Formula returned: 7
Number 216 in base 6 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
Number 243 in base 3 : 1,0,0,0,0,0
Number of digits: 6
Formula returned: 5
Number 343 in base 7 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
So the error is by 1 digit.I just want somebody to help me to correct the formula so that it work for every possible cases.
Edit : As per the input specification I have to deal with cases like 10000000000, i.e 10^10,I don't think log10() in either C/C++ can handle such cases ? So any other procedure/formula for this problem will be highly appreciated.
There are fast floating operations in your compiler settings. You need precise floation operations. The thing is that log10(8)/log10(2) is always 3 in math. But may be your result is 2.99999, for expample. It is bad. You must add small additive, but not 0.5. It should be about .00001 or something like that.
Almost true formula:
int size = static_cast<int>((log10((double)num) / log10((double)base)) + 1.00000001);
Really true solution
You should check the result of your formula. Compexity is O(log log n) or O(log result)!
int fast_power(int base, int s)
{
int res = 1;
while (s) {
if (s%2) {
res*=base;
s--;
} else {
s/=2;
base*=base;
}
}
return res;
}
int digits_size(int n, int base)
{
int s = int(log10(1.0*n)/log10(1.0*base)) + 1;
return fast_power(base, s) > n ? s : s+1;
}
This check is better than Brute-force test with base multiplications.
Either of the following will work:
>>> from math import *
>>> def digits(n, b=10):
... return int(1 + floor(log(n, b))) if n else 1
...
>>> def digits(n, b=10):
... return int(ceil(log(n + 1, b))) if n else 1
...
The first version is explained at mathpath.org. In the second version the + 1 is necessary to yield the correct answer for any number n that is the smallest number with d digits in base b. That is, those numbers which are written 10...0 in base b. Observe that input 0 must be treated as a special case.
Decimal examples:
>>> digits(1)
1
>>> digits(9)
1
>>> digits(10)
2
>>> digits(99)
2
>>> digits(100)
3
Binary:
>>> digits(1, 2)
1
>>> digits(2, 2)
2
>>> digits(3, 2)
2
>>> digits(4, 2)
3
>>> digits(1027, 2)
11
Edit: The OP states that the log solution may not work for large inputs. I don't know about that, but if so, the following code should not break down, because it uses integer arithmetic only (this time in C):
unsigned int
digits(unsigned long long n, unsigned long long b)
{
unsigned int d = 0;
while (d++, n /= b);
return d;
}
This code will probably be less efficient. And yes, it was written for maximum obscurity points. It simply uses the observation that every number has at least one digit, and that every divison by b which does not yield 0 implies the existence of an additional digit. A more readable version is the following:
unsigned int
digits(unsigned long long n, unsigned long long b)
{
unsigned int d = 1;
while (n /= b) {
d++;
}
return d;
}
Number of digits of a numeral in a given base
Since your formula is correct (I just tried it), I would think that it's a rounding error in your division, causing the number to be just slightly less than the integer value it should be. So when you truncate to an integer, you lose 1. Try adding an additional 0.5 to your final value (so that truncating is actually a round operation).
What you want is ceiling ( = smallest integer not greater than) logb (n+1), rather than what you're calculating right now, floor(1+logb(n)).
You might try:
int digits = (int) ceil( log((double)(n+1)) / log((double)base) );
As others have pointed out, you have rounding error, but the proposed solutions simply move the danger zone or make it smaller, they don't eliminate it. If your numbers are integers then you can verify -- using integer arithmetic -- that one power of the base is less than or equal to your number, and the next is above it (the first power is the number of digits). But if you use floating point arithmetic anywhere in the chain then you will be vulnerable to error (unless your base is a power of two, and maybe even then).
EDIT:
Here is crude but effective solution in integer arithmetic. If your integer classes can hold numbers as big as base*number, this will give the correct answer.
size = 0, k = 1;
while(k<=num)
{
k *= base;
size += 1;
}
Using your formula,
log(8)/log(2) + 1 = 4
the problem is in the precision of the logarithm calculation. Using
ceil(log(n+1)/log(b))
ought to resolve that problem. This isn't quite the same as
ceil(log(n)/log(b))
because this gives the answer 3 for n=8 b=2, nor is it the same as
log(n+1)/log(b) + 1
because this gives the answer 4 for n=7 b=2 (when calculated to full precision).
I actually get some curious resulting implementing and compiling the first form with g++:
double n = double(atoi(argv[1]));
double b = double(atoi(argv[2]));
int i = int(std::log(n)/std::log(b) + 1.0);
fails (IE gives the answer 3), while,
double v = std::log(n)/std::log(b) + 1.0;
int i = int(v);
succeeds (gives the answer 4). Looking at it some more I think a third form
ceil(log(n+0.5)/log(b))
would be more stable, because it avoids the "critical" case when n (or n+1 for the second form) is an integer power of b (for integer values of n).
It may be beneficial to wrap a rounding function (e.g. + 0.5) into your code somewhere: it's quite likely that the division is producing (e.g.) 2.99989787, to which 1.0 is added, giving 3.99989787 and when that's converted to an int, it gives 3.
Looks like the formula is right to me:
Number 8 in base 2 : 1,0,0,0
Number of digits: 4
Formula returned: 3
log10(8) = 0.903089
log10(2) = 0.301029
Division => 3
+1 => 4
So it's definitely just a rounding error.
Floating point rounding issues.
log10(216) / log10(6) = 2.9999999999999996
But you cannot add 0.5 as suggested, because it would not work for the following
log10(1295) = log10(6) = 3.9995691928566091 // 5, 5, 5, 5
log10(1296) = log10(6) = 4.0 // 1, 0, 0, 0, 0
Maybe using the log(value, base) function would avoid these rounding errors.
I think that the only way to get the rounding error eliminated without producing other errors is to use or implement integer logarithms.
Here is a solution in bash:
% digits() { echo $1 $2 opq | dc | sed 's/ .//g;s/.//' | wc -c; }
% digits 10000000000 42
7
static int numInBase(int num, int theBase)
{
if(num == 0) return 0;
if (num == theBase) return 1;
return 1 + numInBase(num/theBase,theBase);
}