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);
}
Related
So far i have this, and the floor and pow have red lines and it says identifier "floor" is undefined, and I get the same message with pow. What am I doing wrong and how can I fix this?
double round_off(double value, double digits)
{
double roundedval;
roundedval = floor(value* pow(10, digits) + 0.5) / pow(10, digits);
return roundedval;
}
Make sure you use
#include <cmath>
Use the std:: prefix when using the functions from the std namespace.
roundedval = std::floor(value* std::pow(10, digits) + 0.5) / std::pow(10, digits);
If the IDE still cannot find the functions, ignore the the IDE. As long as your code compiles. builds. and runs successfully, the IDE's issues can be ignored.
Suggestion for minor code improvement
You have two calls to std::pow(10, digits). It can be reduced to one.
double p = std::pow(10, digits);
roundedval = std::floor(value*p + 0.5)/p;
A further improvement would be to not use the variable roundedval at all. The function can be:
double round_off(double value, double digits)
{
double p = std::pow(10, digits);
return std::floor(value*p + 0.5)/p;
}
The next improvement would be to use int as the type of digits instead of double.
double round_off(double value, int digits)
{
double p = std::pow(10, digits);
return std::floor(value*p + 0.5)/p;
}
I need to compute the geometric mean of a large set of numbers, whose values are not a priori limited. The naive way would be
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const&data) // failure
{
auto product = 1.0;
for(auto x:data) product *= x;
return std::pow(product,1.0/data.size());
}
However, this may well fail because of underflow or overflow in the accumulated product (note: long double doesn't really avoid this problem). So, the next option is to sum-up the logarithms:
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const&data)
{
auto sumlog = 0.0;
for(auto x:data) sum_log += std::log(x);
return std::exp(sum_log/data.size());
}
This works, but calls std::log() for every element, which is potentially slow. Can I avoid that? For example by keeping track of (the equivalent of) the exponent and the mantissa of the accumulated product separately?
The "split exponent and mantissa" solution:
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const & data)
{
double m = 1.0;
long long ex = 0;
double invN = 1.0 / data.size();
for (double x : data)
{
int i;
double f1 = std::frexp(x,&i);
m*=f1;
ex+=i;
}
return std::pow( std::numeric_limits<double>::radix,ex * invN) * std::pow(m,invN);
}
If you are concerned that ex might overflow you can define it as a double instead of a long long, and multiply by invN at every step, but you might lose a lot of precision with this approach.
EDIT For large inputs, we can split the computation in several buckets:
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const & data)
{
long long ex = 0;
auto do_bucket = [&data,&ex](int first,int last) -> double
{
double ans = 1.0;
for ( ;first != last;++first)
{
int i;
ans *= std::frexp(data[first],&i);
ex+=i;
}
return ans;
};
const int bucket_size = -std::log2( std::numeric_limits<double>::min() );
std::size_t buckets = data.size() / bucket_size;
double invN = 1.0 / data.size();
double m = 1.0;
for (std::size_t i = 0;i < buckets;++i)
m *= std::pow( do_bucket(i * bucket_size,(i+1) * bucket_size),invN );
m*= std::pow( do_bucket( buckets * bucket_size, data.size() ),invN );
return std::pow( std::numeric_limits<double>::radix,ex * invN ) * m;
}
I think I figured out a way to do it, it combined the two routines in the question, similar to Peter's idea. Here is an example code.
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const&data)
{
const double too_large = 1.e64;
const double too_small = 1.e-64;
double sum_log = 0.0;
double product = 1.0;
for(auto x:data) {
product *= x;
if(product > too_large || product < too_small) {
sum_log+= std::log(product);
product = 1;
}
}
return std::exp((sum_log + std::log(product))/data.size());
}
The bad news is: this comes with a branch. The good news: the branch predictor is likely to get this almost always right (the branch should only rarely be triggered).
The branch could be avoided using Peter's idea of a constant number of terms in the product. The problem with that is that overflow/underflow may still occur within only a few terms, depending on the values.
You may be able to accelerate this by multiplying numbers as in your original solution and only converting to logarithms every certain number of multiplications (depending on the size of your initial numbers).
A different approach which would give better accuracy and performance than the logarithm method would be to compensate out-of-range exponents by a fixed amount, maintaining an exact logarithm of the cancelled excess. Like so:
const int EXP = 64; // maximal/minimal exponent
const double BIG = pow(2, EXP); // overflow threshold
const double SMALL = pow(2, -EXP); // underflow threshold
double product = 1;
int excess = 0; // number of times BIG has been divided out of product
for(int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
product *= A[i];
while(product > BIG)
{
product *= SMALL;
excess++;
}
while(product < SMALL)
{
product *= BIG;
excess--;
}
}
double mean = pow(product, 1.0/n) * pow(BIG, double(excess)/n);
All multiplications by BIG and SMALL are exact, and there's no calls to log (a transcendental, and therefore particularly imprecise, function).
There is simple idea to reduce computation and also to prevent overflow. You can group together numbers say atleast two at time and calculate their log and then evaluate their sum.
log(abcde) = 5*log(K)
log(ab) + log(cde) = 5*log(k)
Summing logs to compute products stably is perfectly fine, and rather efficient (if this is not enough: there are ways to get vectorized logarithms with a few SSE operations -- there are also Intel MKL's vector operations).
To avoid overflow, a common technique is to divide every number by the maximum or minimum magnitude entry beforehand (or sum log differences to the log max or log min). You can also use buckets if the numbers vary a lot (eg. sum the log of small numbers and large numbers separately). Note that typically neither of this is needed except for very large sets since the log of a double is never huge (between say -700 and 700).
Also, you need to keep track of the signs separately.
Computing log x keeps typically the same number of significant digits as x, except when x is close to 1: you want to use std::log1p if you need to compute prod(1 + x_n) with small x_n.
Finally, if you have roundoff error problems when summing, you can use Kahan summation or variants.
Instead of using logarithms, which are very expensive, you can directly scale the results by powers of two.
double geometric_mean(std::vector<double> const&data) {
double huge = scalbn(1,512);
double tiny = scalbn(1,-512);
int scale = 0;
double product = 1.0;
for(auto x:data) {
if (x >= huge) {
x = scalbn(x, -512);
scale++;
} else if (x <= tiny) {
x = scalbn(x, 512);
scale--;
}
product *= x;
if (product >= huge) {
product = scalbn(product, -512);
scale++;
} else if (product <= tiny) {
product = scalbn(product, 512);
scale--;
}
}
return exp2((512.0*scale + log2(product)) / data.size());
}
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 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);
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