I am trying to use a comparison operator in SQL to say where not equal to or less than zero.
I have tried this but it comes up with an error
WHERE amount (<> 0 or < 0)
I have also tried:
WHERE amount !<= 0
but get syntax errors. Any help greatly appreciated
You can simply use:
WHERE amount > 0
With propositional logic, your condition is the same as a != 0:
a != 0 or a < 0
(a < 0 or a > 0) or a < 0
(a < 0) or (a > 0) or (a < 0)
two repeated conditions with or, you can just remove one
(a < 0) or (a > 0)
equivalent to a != 0
aka a <> 0
"not equal to and not less than" <=> "not (equal to or less than)" (see the De Morgan formulas here https://www.cuemath.com/data/de-morgans-law/), I have attached the screenshot of the relevant formula:
foo equal 0 to is represented as
foo = 0
foo less than 0 is represented as
foo < 0
foo equal to 0 or foo is less than 0 is represented as
foo = 0 OR foo < 0
this can be shortened to
foo <= 0
its negation is
NOT (foo <= 0)
alternatively, you can use
foo > 0
Note that NULL is a special case and you need to define what you intend NULL to yield. Since that was not specified, I'm focusing only on numeric inputs, but, at the end of the line, you will need to take into account NULL as a possible value as well if... Well, if it's possible in your scenario.
I was working on making a game, and I was wondering why the construct with the == operator doesn't work while the lower one does. I used an NSLog message afterwards to test.
if (pipe.position.x == bird.position.x){ no idea why this doesn't work
if ((pipe.position.x <= bird.position.x) & (pipe.position.x > bird.position.x - 1)){
This is because one (or both) of the position.x's are a floating-point2 value with a non-zero difference1 between the two position values such that only the second condition is true.
Since p <= b is true for all values that make p == b true, to see why this works "unexpectedly" let's choose some values such that the expression p == b is false2 yet p < b is true and p > b - 1 is true.
Given p = 3.2 (pipe) and b = 3.7 (bird), as an example, then
p == b
-> 3.2 == 3.7
-> false
but
(p <= b) & (p > b - 1)
-> (3.2 <= 3.7) & (3.2 > 3.7 - 1)
-> (3.2 <= 3.7) & (3.2 > 2.7)
-> true & true
-> true
Instead, to detect when the bird "is crossing" the pipe, assuming that x increases to the right, consider
// The bird's head to the "right" of the pipe leading edge..
bird_x >= pipe_x
// ..but bird's butt is not to the "right" of the pipe trailing edge.
// (Also note use of the &&, the logical-AND operator)
&& (bird_x - bird_width <= pipe_x + pipe_width)
Of course, using a non-rectangle (or forgiving overlap) collision detection would lead to less frustrating flapping!
1 This issue occurs because there are some particular floating-point values (but there are no integer values) which can cause the observed effect.
First, reiterate the assumption that p is not equal to b, given that the first condition does not succeed. Let's suppose then that p <= b is written as p == b || p < b but since p == b is false , we can write it as p < b by tautology.
Since both clauses in the second condition are true (such that true && true -> true), we have the rules: 1) p < b is true, and 2) p > b - 1 is true.
Rewriting p < b as p - b < 0 and p > b - 1 as p - b > -1, and then replacing p - b with x yields: x < 0 and x > -1. However, there is no integer value of x which satisfies -1 < x < 0.
(In first section, where p = 3.2 and b = 3.7, x = (p - b) = 0.5 which satisfies the given constraints when x is not restricted to an integer value.)
2 With all above aside, it is possible for p and b to be "very close but different" floating-point values such that there is a non-zero difference between them - due to rounding, they may even be displayed as the same integer value! See How dangerous is it to compare floating point values? and related questions for the cause and "odd" behavior of such when using ==.
If this is the case then round to integer values and use an integer comparison, or; rely entirely on relational comparison such as shown in the proposed condition, or; use epsilon comparison for "nearly equal" of floating-point values.
if you choose abs(pipe.position.x) == abs(bird.position.x) the first condition may satisfy.
I have been trying to find a solution where 0 < k_1*c^n <= b^n <= k_2*c^n, but so far I've had no luck. From my understanding of the Wikipedia article on time complexity all functions on the form a^n should have the same asymptotic growth. Is this false?
False. Suppose, for simplicity, b = 2*a. b^n is 2^n*a^n. For any constant c, there exists n such that 2^n > c, so b^n > c * a^n.
It is impossible to find constants m and c such that, for all n>m, b^n <= c*a^n, so b^n is not O(a^n).
I'm trying the following condition, the compiler give no warning but the code does not seems to work. Should This work?
if (self.finishLine > hero.position.y > self.startHeight)
{
hero.position = CGPointMake( hero.position.x + translation.x, hero.position.y);
}
Comparison operators return boolean values.
(self.finishLine > hero.position.y > self.startHeight)
-> ((self.finishLine > hero.position.y) > self.startHeight)
-> ((<0 or 1> > self.startHeight)
I doubt that self.startHeight is ever less than 1, let alone less than 0.
The correct form in C is:
((self.finishLine > hero.position.y) && (hero.position.y > self.startHeight))
I have not tried it but I believe it is a valid expression. AFAIK Objective C does not support sandwiches..
(a > b > c) should evaluate to TRUE or FALSE respectively YES or NO. But how? The compiler would start from left to right here as all operators are equal. (a > b) will evaluate to YES or NO. Those are internally represented by 1 and 0. 1 and 0 may be larger than c or not.
I wonder if the compiler throws a warning at least.
Did you go for it and tried it?
I have an if statement followed by several else if statements. All of the if/else if statements have an argument structured something like this:
if (100 <= x <= 149) //do this
else if (150 <= x <= 199) //do that
else if ...etc...
However, for some reason only the first if statement ever gets executed. X can be 200 and only the first if statement will be recognized.
I'm not sure why it isn't moving on to the next else if statement when X doesn't fit the argument of the preceding statement. Does this not work in Obj-C? Any help is appreciated. Thanks
You need to rephrase the statements like:
if (x >= 100 && x <= 149) {
} else if (x >= 150 && x <= 199) {
} ...
Your first if is evaluated like:
if ((100 <= x) <= 149)
Let's have a look how that evaluates:
If x = 200, then (100 <= 200) is true and thus evaluates to the value 1 (which means true). And then 1 <= 149 is also true.
If x has a value smaller than 100, for example 10, then (100 <= 10) is false and thus evaluates to the value 0 (which means false). Again, 0 <= 149 is true.
So regardless of the value of x, the whole expression will always be true.
C is not math, so
if (100 <= x <= 149)
is NOT the same as
if (100 <= x && x <= 149)
Which is what you meant. The former will be true always, because 100 <= x <= 149 becomes
((100 <= x) <= 149)
leaving two possibilities: (1 <= 149) or (0 <= 149). Both are always true.
Chained comparisons like these don't work in C-based languages. Or rather, they do, but not how you'd expect.
100 <= x <= 149 gets evaluated as (100 <= x) <= 149. If x is over 100, then (100 <= x) will evaluate to true, or 1. If x is under 100, it's false, or 0. In either case, 0 <= 149 or 1 <= 149 is true, so the overall expression is true.
To fix this, change your conditions to look like this:
if (100 <= x && x <= 149)
That will make it work as you expect.
The compiler sees an expression formulated from binary operators. The <= symbol is a binary operator, as are =, >=, ||, &&, and so forth.
Just as with arithmetic, there is an order of precedence that the compiler must follow, evaluating the expression formed around each binary operator.
In arithmetic, you are probably familiar with this, as with these two examples:
2+5*7 This evaluates to 2+(5*7) or 37, because multiplication has precedence over addition.
2+3+21 is evaluated in the order the terms are read from left to right, since there is no other precedence rule. It becomes (2+3)+21.
So 100<=x<=150 is an expression of a similar type, where the binary operators are all the same, and thus have the same precedence. Once again, this is resolved by evaluating it from left to right, so it becomes (100<=x)<=150. If x>=100 the term in parentheses evaluates to TRUE, which has a numeric value of 1. Since 1 is less than 150, the rest evaluates to 1<=150, or TRUE, if x is greater than or equal to 100. On the other hand, it also evaluates to TRUE if x is less than 100, because the second comparison becomes 0<=150, which is TRUE.
The other recommendations to break this down with parentheses are correct if you aren't sure of the order of precedence for binary operators: (100<=x) && (x<=150). You can also write it as 100<=x && x<=150 since the order of precedence for value comparisons is higher than for logical operators.
Because if (100 <= x <= 149) is the same as if(1<=149) if you give 200 or another number to x. And that is correct always.
For example.
x=1
100<=1 is false so you get if(0<=149) which is true
x=200
100<=200 is true so you get if(1<=149) which is true
So you always get true for it.
So you must do it in another way, like this
if(x>=100 && x<=149) ...
Adding some additional parenthesis may help.
if ((100 <= x) && (x <= 149)) //do this
I don't think you can write math functions like this in objective-c... Try separating them and combining with an && statement:
if ( (100 <= x) && (x <= 149) ) { // "&&" = and, "||" = or, other math comparison operators are: <=, >=, <, >, ==, != (!= is does not equal))
//do this
} else if ( (150 <= x) && (x <= 199) ) {
//do that
} else if ...etc...
You've already got a lot of answers, but I'll add one more to cover one other possible point of confusion.
In C & Obj-C the boolean (and character) types are treated as integer types, which is not the case in call languages. So expressions like 'z' * true make perfect sense!
(Modern) C uses the type _Bool for boolean, which is defined to be large enough to hold 0 & 1. Cocoa uses the type BOOL for boolean, which is defined as signed char. CoreFoundation uses the type Boolean which is defined as unsigned char. All three define YES/true as 1 and NO/false as 0, while C itself treats any non-zero value as true.
The relation operators such as <, <= etc. are defined to return the int (yes, none of the booleans, not even _Bool) value 0 if the relation is false, and the int value 1 if the relation is true.
Given this and the left-to-right associativity of relational operators your:
if (100 <= x <= 149)
is parsed as:
if ((100 <= x) <= 149)
then 100 <= x evaluates to the int value 1 if x is greater than or equal to 100, otherwise it evaluates to the int value 0, so we get:
if (1 <= 149)
or
if (0 <= 149)
both of these evaluate to 1 so we get:
if (1)
and the if statement branches to the "then" branch if it's expression is non-zero.
It may be surprising, but the whole statement is evaluated without any use of booleans at all - it is all done with integers.
To achieve what you intended you need:
if((100 <= x) && (x <= 149))
etc. - which also doesn't use any booleans (&& is defined in terms of integers).