I'm getting a SyntaxError for:
housing['Lot Area'].apply(lambda x: x + 50000 if x > 20000)
When I add else, the code runs fine:
housing['Lot Area'].apply(lambda x: x + 50000 if x > 20000 else x)
Does if only work in combination with else here? I'd like to increment x with 50000 only if x > 20000 -- otherwise I'd like x to remain unchanged. I find the else part a bit redundant here. Besides the first question before, is there any way to write this code without the else part?
Base on your description , even apply is not need here
housing.loc[housing['Lot Area']>20000,'Lot Area']+=50000
Comment from Alex :
if the if statement resolves to False for a value, then apply() doesn't return and just lets the value in the Series as it is
you're getting a SyntaxError because you are typing invalid syntax. the ternary operator must be used like
expression if bool else other_expression
Related
Braces around a variable evaluate the value of the variable in an f-string expression.
x = 1
f"{x}"
results in '1'
What is this?
x = 1
f"{x=}"
results in 'x=1'.
Why isn't the result either 1) an error, or 2) '1='
Discovered this by mistake. Do the docs explain this? Where?
How would I define a recursive function to find the biggest power of two less than an input number in VDM?
The function is as follows:
largest: N -> N
All I've got so far is:
largest(n) =
if n=1 then 0
else if n=2 then 1
else ... largest(...)
It would be something like "else one plus the largest of half this number". But since this looks suspiciously like an exercise, I'll let you work out the fine details.
Was fooling around with trying to reduce the length of the code so that it gives off fewer headaches to look at and debug, and I came across this curious little fact:
Debug.Print 5<9<8 'returns "True"
At first I thought this was because it just checked the first set, but then I found that
Debug.Print 5<4<8 '*also* returns "True"
Does VBA interpret this kind of triple inequality as an Or statement? I can't imagine why someone would choose to make that the interpretation VBA makes because it's almost certainly the less used option, but I struggle to think of another explanation.
Also, what is a quick and pretty way of writing If 5 < X < 8 Then (to use sample numbers), without having to resort to endless And statements, ie If 5 < x And X < 8 Then? It's okay for one statement, but the doubling of length adds up quick, especially since variables aren't typically named X.
Edit: okay, it's certainly not an Or because VBA also says that Debug.Print 8<6<2 is True. What on earth is it thinking?
I have no clue but my educated guess would be that it first evaluates the left side of the equation (5<9) which gives TRUE. Then, it proceeds to evaluate the rest (TRUE<8) and implicitly converts TRUE to its integer value (I believe this to be -1 in VB).
-1<8 -> TRUE
Works with the second case as well since FALSE will convert to 0 and 0<8.
Basically it would have everything to do with implicit conversion of boolean to integer and their respective value in VBA.
It's to do with the way VBA evaluates expressions and implicit conversion. The first part of the equation is evaluated and the result stored as a numeric value (the boolean is implicitly converted to an integer)
(well.... technically a boolean is just an integer, but we'll just go along like so...)
'// True = -1
'// False = 0
Debug.Print 5 < 9 < 8
Debug.Print CInt(5 < 9) '// Prints -1
Debug.Print -1 < 8 '// = True
Which is why the following gives "False" instead:
Debug.Print 5 < 9 < -1
Because
Debug.Print Cint(5 < 9) '// True = -1
Debug.Print -1 < -1 '// False
If you want to find out if something is in the middle of two other numbers then you have to use the And operator to force a separate evaluation (either side of the operator is then evaluated and compared logically)
Debug.Print (3 < 5 And 5 < 4) '// False
Looking at it from a parse tree perspective might shed more light about why it works that way.
Excluding whatever instruction comes after the THEN token, the parse tree for If 5 < X < 8 Then might look something like this (quite simplified):
The comparison operators being a binary operator, there's an expression on either side of it, and in order to resolve the Boolean expression for the IfBlockStatement, VBA needs to visit the tree nodes in a specific order: because VBA parses expressions left to right, the 5 < X part stands on its own as an expression, and then the result of that expression is used to resolve the {expression} < 8 part of the expression.
So when VBA resolves 5 < X, because that's a ComparisonExpression the result is a Boolean value; when that Boolean value then needs to be compared to the 8 integer literal, VBA performs an implicit type conversion and actually compares CInt({Boolean}) < 8, which will evaluate to True regardless of the result of the first expression, since False converts to 0 and True converts to -1 when expressed as an integer literal, and both are < 8.
These mechanics are built into how the runtime works, so in order to evaluate if X is between 5 and 8, you need to build your expression so that it's parsed as such:
If X > 5 And X < 8 Then
That gives you two distinct expression trees joined by a LogicalAndOperator, which then works off a valid Boolean expression on either sides.
5<9<8 = True<8 = True
5<4<8 = False<8 = True
The other answers covered up nicely the first part of your question, but didn't satisfactorily cover up the second part of it, i.e. What is a quick and pretty way of writing If 5 < X < 8 Then (to use sample numbers), without having to resort to endless And statements, i.e. If 5 < x And X < 8 Then?
There are two ways. The first:
Select Case X
Case 5 To 8
...
End Select
Here, the value before the To keyword must be the smaller value of the two. Also note that while this will work for integers, I have no idea if it works for types like Double and such (I suspect it won't though).
The second way, which works irrespective of whether the interval bounds are integers or not, is not necessarily shorter, but it evaluates things in a single comparison:
If Sgn(x - 5) + Sgn(x - 8) = 0 Then ...
This is an interesting way of evaluating whether a value is between some bounds, because it can also provide information on whether the value is equal to one of those bounds or is "outside" them (and on which "side" it is). For example, on a -∞..0..+∞ axis:
if x = 4, the expression above is -2, thus x is to the left of the (5..8) interval
if x = 5, the expression above is -1, thus x is the left bound of the (5..8) interval
if x = 6, the expression above is 0, thus x is inside the (5..8) interval, i.e. between its bounds
if x = 8, the expression above is 1, thus x is the right bound of the (5..8) interval
if x = 9, the expression above is 2, thus x is to the right of the (5..8) interval
Of course, if you want to include the bounds in the interval, say, test If 5 <= x And X <= 8 Then, the comparison above becomes If Abs(Sgn(x - 5) + Sgn(x - 8)) < 2 Then ..., which is another shortcut to check if the expression is -1, 0 or 1.
In the end, none of the ways above are as short as a Between(x, 5, 8) hypothetical function, but at least they are alternatives to the "classical" method.
I am trying to verify that a variable is NOT equal to either this or that. I tried using the following codes, but neither works:
if x ~=(0 or 1) then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
if x ~= 0 or 1 then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
Is there a way to do this?
Your problem stems from a misunderstanding of the or operator that is common to people learning programming languages like this. Yes, your immediate problem can be solved by writing x ~= 0 and x ~= 1, but I'll go into a little more detail about why your attempted solution doesn't work.
When you read x ~=(0 or 1) or x ~= 0 or 1 it's natural to parse this as you would the sentence "x is not equal to zero or one". In the ordinary understanding of that statement, "x" is the subject, "is not equal to" is the predicate or verb phrase, and "zero or one" is the object, a set of possibilities joined by a conjunction. You apply the subject with the verb to each item in the set.
However, Lua does not parse this based on the rules of English grammar, it parses it in binary comparisons of two elements based on its order of operations. Each operator has a precedence which determines the order in which it will be evaluated. or has a lower precedence than ~=, just as addition in mathematics has a lower precedence than multiplication. Everything has a lower precedence than parentheses.
As a result, when evaluating x ~=(0 or 1), the interpreter will first compute 0 or 1 (because of the parentheses) and then x ~= the result of the first computation, and in the second example, it will compute x ~= 0 and then apply the result of that computation to or 1.
The logical operator or "returns its first argument if this value is different from nil and false; otherwise, or returns its second argument". The relational operator ~= is the inverse of the equality operator ==; it returns true if its arguments are different types (x is a number, right?), and otherwise compares its arguments normally.
Using these rules, x ~=(0 or 1) will decompose to x ~= 0 (after applying the or operator) and this will return 'true' if x is anything other than 0, including 1, which is undesirable. The other form, x ~= 0 or 1 will first evaluate x ~= 0 (which may return true or false, depending on the value of x). Then, it will decompose to one of false or 1 or true or 1. In the first case, the statement will return 1, and in the second case, the statement will return true. Because control structures in Lua only consider nil and false to be false, and anything else to be true, this will always enter the if statement, which is not what you want either.
There is no way that you can use binary operators like those provided in programming languages to compare a single variable to a list of values. Instead, you need to compare the variable to each value one by one. There are a few ways to do this. The simplest way is to use De Morgan's laws to express the statement 'not one or zero' (which can't be evaluated with binary operators) as 'not one and not zero', which can trivially be written with binary operators:
if x ~= 1 and x ~= 0 then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
Alternatively, you can use a loop to check these values:
local x_is_ok = false
for i = 0,1 do
if x == i then
x_is_ok = true
end
end
if not x_is_ok then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
Finally, you could use relational operators to check a range and then test that x was an integer in the range (you don't want 0.5, right?)
if not (x >= 0 and x <= 1 and math.floor(x) == x) then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
Note that I wrote x >= 0 and x <= 1. If you understood the above explanation, you should now be able to explain why I didn't write 0 <= x <= 1, and what this erroneous expression would return!
For testing only two values, I'd personally do this:
if x ~= 0 and x ~= 1 then
print( "X must be equal to 1 or 0" )
return
end
If you need to test against more than two values, I'd stuff your choices in a table acting like a set, like so:
choices = {[0]=true, [1]=true, [3]=true, [5]=true, [7]=true, [11]=true}
if not choices[x] then
print("x must be in the first six prime numbers")
return
end
x ~= 0 or 1 is the same as ((x ~= 0) or 1)
x ~=(0 or 1) is the same as (x ~= 0).
try something like this instead.
function isNot0Or1(x)
return (x ~= 0 and x ~= 1)
end
print( isNot0Or1(-1) == true )
print( isNot0Or1(0) == false )
print( isNot0Or1(1) == false )
So I thought that negative numbers, when mod'ed should be put into positive space... I cant get this to happen in objective-c
I expect this:
-1 % 3 = 2
0 % 3 = 0
1 % 3 = 1
2 % 3 = 2
But get this
-1 % 3 = -1
0 % 3 = 0
1 % 3 = 1
2 % 3 = 2
Why is this and is there a workaround?
result = n % 3;
if( result < 0 ) result += 3;
Don't perform extra mod operations as suggested in the other answers. They are very expensive and unnecessary.
In C and Objective-C, the division and modulus operators perform truncation towards zero. a / b is floor(a / b) if a / b > 0, otherwise it is ceiling(a / b) if a / b < 0. It is always the case that a == (a / b) * b + (a % b), unless of course b is 0. As a consequence, positive % positive == positive, positive % negative == positive, negative % positive == negative, and negative % negative == negative (you can work out the logic for all 4 cases, although it's a little tricky).
If n has a limited range, then you can get the result you want simply by adding a known constant multiple of 3 that is greater that the absolute value of the minimum.
For example, if n is limited to -1000..2000, then you can use the expression:
result = (n+1002) % 3;
Make sure the maximum plus your constant will not overflow when summed.
We have a problem of language:
math-er-says: i take this number plus that number mod other-number
code-er-hears: I add two numbers and then devide the result by other-number
code-er-says: what about negative numbers?
math-er-says: WHAT? fields mod other-number don't have a concept of negative numbers?
code-er-says: field what? ...
the math person in this conversations is talking about doing math in a circular number line. If you subtract off the bottom you wrap around to the top.
the code person is talking about an operator that calculates remainder.
In this case you want the mathematician's mod operator and have the remainder function at your disposal. you can convert the remainder operator into the mathematician's mod operator by checking to see if you fell of the bottom each time you do subtraction.
If this will be the behavior, and you know that it will be, then for m % n = r, just use r = n + r. If you're unsure of what will happen here, use then r = r % n.
Edit: To sum up, use r = ( n + ( m % n ) ) % n
I would have expected a positive number, as well, but I found this, from ISO/IEC 14882:2003 : Programming languages -- C++, 5.6.4 (found in the Wikipedia article on the modulus operation):
The binary % operator yields the remainder from the division of the first expression by the second. .... If both operands are nonnegative then the remainder is nonnegative; if not, the sign of the remainder is implementation-defined
JavaScript does this, too. I've been caught by it a couple times. Think of it as a reflection around zero rather than a continuation.
Why: because that is the way the mod operator is specified in the C-standard (Remember that Objective-C is an extension of C). It confuses most people I know (like me) because it is surprising and you have to remember it.
As to a workaround: I would use uncleo's.
UncleO's answer is probably more robust, but if you want to do it on a single line, and you're certain the negative value will not be more negative than a single iteration of the mod (for example if you're only ever subtracting at most the mod value at any time) you can simplify it to a single expression:
int result = (n + 3) % 3;
Since you're doing the mod anyway, adding 3 to the initial value has no effect unless n is negative (but not less than -3) in which case it causes result to be the expected positive modulus.
There are two choices for the remainder, and the sign depends on the language. ANSI C chooses the sign of the dividend. I would suspect this is why you see Objective-C doing so also. See the wikipedia entry as well.
Not only java script, almost all the languages shows the wrong answer'
what coneybeare said is correct, when we have mode'd we have to get remainder
Remainder is nothing but which remains after division and it should be a positive integer....
If you check the number line you can understand that
I also face the same issue in VB and and it made me to forcefully add extra check like
if the result is a negative we have to add the divisor to the result
Instead of a%b
Use: a-b*floor((float)a/(float)b)
You're expecting remainder and are using modulo. In math they are the same thing, in C they are different. GNU-C has Rem() and Mod(), objective-c only has mod() so you will have to use the code above to simulate rem function (which is the same as mod in the math world, but not in the programming world [for most languages at least])
Also note you could define an easy to use macro for this.
#define rem(a,b) ((int)(a-b*floor((float)a/(float)b)))
Then you could just use rem(-1,3) in your code and it should work fine.