I'd like to randomly generate a YES or NO based on a percentage
So I want to "roll" and have a 25% chance to hit YES, a 75% chance to hit NO
Was hoping someone could point me in the right direction on the best way to do this, maybe some article or something?
All of the other answers seem to focus on the percentage of YES being 25%, which is a probability of 1/4. But what if the percentage is an arbitrary integer between 0 and 100?
BOOL randomBoolWithYesPercentage(int percentage) {
return arc4random_uniform(100) < percentage;
}
Call it with the percentage, like randomBoolWithYesPercentage(25).
And what if the percentage can be fractional, like 37.6%? Then we need to get more sophisticated. This should suffice:
BOOL randomBoolWithYesPercentage(double percentage) {
double r = 100 * (double)arc4random() / ((double)UINT32_MAX + 1);
return r < percentage;
}
Use a random function with an equal distribution and make it as likely as you want to equal one of the possible values
BOOL RollWithDenominator(NSInteger denominator)
{
return 0 == arc4random_uniform(denominator);
}
For a 1/4 chance call RollWithDenominator(4);
In pseudo-code:
x = rand(1,4);
if (rand == 1) {
'yes' // 25% of the time you get 1
} else {
'no'; // the other 75%, when you get 2,3,4
}
Sorry, probably should be a comment.
I have not much IOS experience but I am sure this can be easily applied / transferred.
An easy solution is to define some sort of array with four values.
Then randomly pick a value in this array.
Then with help of an if/else statement if it hits a specific single value output will be 'yes', if it hits any of the other three output will be 'no'.
EDIT:
Exactly what Marc B says.
You could also use an array such as (1,0,0,0) or (yes,no,no,no).
Here's an easy way:
BOOL b = arc4random_uniform(4) == 0;
Since you are programming for iOS here is some code that you can use directly:
Call this at the start of your application, this will allow you to have different results every time you start your application:
srand (time(NULL));
Then at the point in your code where you need the random results you use:
BOOL result = false;
int randomValue = rand()%4;
if(randomValue==0)
{
result = TRUE;
}
The variable 'result' is with 25% true and with 75% false!
Related
I have recently sat a computing exam in university in which we were never taught beforehand about the modulus function or any other check for odd/even function and we have no access to external documentation except our previous lecture notes. Is it possible to do this without these and how?
Bitwise AND (&)
Extract the last bit of the number using the bitwise AND operator. If the last bit is 1, then it's odd, else it's even. This is the simplest and most efficient way of testing it. Examples in some languages:
C / C++ / C#
bool is_even(int value) {
return (value & 1) == 0;
}
Java
public static boolean is_even(int value) {
return (value & 1) == 0;
}
Python
def is_even(value):
return (value & 1) == 0
I assume this is only for integer numbers as the concept of odd/even eludes me for floating point values.
For these integer numbers, the check of the Least Significant Bit (LSB) as proposed by Rotem is the most straightforward method, but there are many other ways to accomplish that.
For example, you could use the integer division operation as a test. This is one of the most basic operation which is implemented in virtually every platform. The result of an integer division is always another integer. For example:
>> x = int64( 13 ) ;
>> x / 2
ans =
7
Here I cast the value 13 as a int64 to make sure MATLAB treats the number as an integer instead of double data type.
Also here the result is actually rounded towards infinity to the next integral value. This is MATLAB specific implementation, other platform might round down but it does not matter for us as the only behavior we look for is the rounding, whichever way it goes. The rounding allow us to define the following behavior:
If a number is even: Dividing it by 2 will produce an exact result, such that if we multiply this result by 2, we obtain the original number.
If a number is odd: Dividing it by 2 will result in a rounded result, such that multiplying it by 2 will yield a different number than the original input.
Now you have the logic worked out, the code is pretty straightforward:
%% sample input
x = int64(42) ;
y = int64(43) ;
%% define the checking function
% uses only multiplication and division operator, no high level function
is_even = #(x) int64(x) == (int64(x)/2)*2 ;
And obvisouly, this will yield:
>> is_even(x)
ans =
1
>> is_even(y)
ans =
0
I found out from a fellow student how to solve this simplistically with maths instead of functions.
Using (-1)^n :
If n is odd then the outcome is -1
If n is even then the outcome is 1
This is some pretty out-of-the-box thinking, but it would be the only way to solve this without previous knowledge of complex functions including mod.
I have a list of elements to be searched in a dataset of variable lengths. I have tried binary search and I found it is not always efficient when the objective is to search a list of elements.
I did the following study and conclude that if the number of elements to be searched is less than 5% of the data, binary search is efficient, other wise the Linear search is better.
Below are the details
Number of elements : 100000
Number of elements to be searched: 5000
Number of Iterations (Binary Search) =
log2 (N) x SearchCount=log2 (100000) x 5000=83048
Further increase in the number of search elements lead to more iterations than the linear search.
Any thoughts on this?
I am calling the below function only if the number elements to be searched is less than 5%.
private int SearchIndex(ref List<long> entitylist, ref long[] DataList, int i, int len, ref int listcount)
{
int Start = i;
int End = len-1;
int mid;
while (Start <= End)
{
mid = (Start + End) / 2;
long target = DataList[mid];
if (target == entitylist[listcount])
{
i = mid;
listcount++;
return i;
}
else
{
if (target < entitylist[listcount])
{
Start = mid + 1;
}
if (target > entitylist[listcount])
{
End = mid - 1;
}
}
}
listcount++;
return -1; //if the element in the list is not in the dataset
}
In the code I retun the index rather than the value because, I need to work with Index in the calling function. If i=-1, the calling function resets the value to the previous i and calls the function again with a new element to search.
In your problem you are looking for M values in an N long array, N > M, but M can be quite large.
Usually this can be approached as M independent binary searches (or even with the slight optimization of using the previous result as a starting point): you are going to O(M*log(N)).
However, using the fact that also the M values are sorted, you can find all of them in one pass, with linear search. In this case you are going to have your problem O(N). In fact this is better than O(M*log(N)) for M large.
But you have a third option: since M values are sorted, binary split M too, and every time you find it, you can limit the subsequent searches in the ranges on the left and on the right of the found index.
The first look-up is on all the N values, the second two on (average) N/2, than 4 on N/4 data,.... I think that this scale as O(log(M)*log(N)). Not sure of it, comments welcome!
However here is a test code - I have slightly modified your code, but without altering its functionality.
In case you have M=100000 and N=1000000, the "M binary search approach" takes about 1.8M iterations, that's more that the 1M needed to scan linearly the N values. But with what I suggest it takes just 272K iterations.
Even in case the M values are very "collapsed" (eg, they are consecutive), and the linear search is in the best condition (100K iterations would be enough to get all of them, see the comments in the code), the algorithm performs very well.
DISCLAIMER: Rather theoretical question here, not looking for a correct answere, just asking for some inspiration!
Consider this:
A function is called repetitively and returns integers based on seeds (the same seed returns the same integer). Your task is to find out which integer is returned most often. Easy enough, right?
But: You are not allowed to use arrays or fields to store return values of said function!
Example:
int mostFrequentNumber = 0;
int occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber = 0;
int iterations = 10000000;
for(int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
int result = getNumberFromSeed(i);
int occurencesOfResult = magic();
if(occurencesOfResult > occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber)
{
mostFrequentNumber = result;
occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber = occurencesOfResult;
}
}
If getNumberFromSeed() returns 2,1,5,18,5,6 and 5 then mostFrequentNumber should be 5 and occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber should be 3 because 5 is returned 3 times.
I know this could easily be solved using a two-dimentional list to store results and occurences. But imagine for a minute that you can not use any kind of arrays, lists, dictionaries etc. (Maybe because the system that is running the code has such a limited memory, that you cannot store enough integers at once or because your prehistoric programming language has no concept of collections).
How would you find mostFrequentNumber and occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber? What does magic() do?? (Of cause you do not have to stick to the example code. Any ideas are welcome!)
EDIT: I should add that the integers returned by getNumber() should be calculated using a seed, so the same seed returns the same integer (i.e. int result = getNumber(5); this would always assign the same value to result)
Make an hypothesis: Assume that the distribution of integers is, e.g., Normal.
Start simple. Have two variables
. N the number of elements read so far
. M1 the average of said elements.
Initialize both variables to 0.
Every time you read a new value x update N to be N + 1 and M1 to be M1 + (x - M1)/N.
At the end M1 will equal the average of all values. If the distribution was Normal this value will have a high frequency.
Now improve the above. Add a third variable:
M2 the average of all (x - M1)^2 for all values of xread so far.
Initialize M2 to 0. Now get a small memory of say 10 elements or so. For every new value x that you read update N and M1 as above and M2 as:
M2 := M2 + (x - M1)^2 * (N - 1) / N
At every step M2 is the variance of the distribution and sqrt(M2) its standard deviation.
As you proceed remember the frequencies of only the values read so far whose distances to M1 are less than sqrt(M2). This requires the use of some additional array, however, the array will be very short compared to the high number of iterations you will run. This modification will allow you to guess better the most frequent value instead of simply answering the mean (or average) as above.
UPDATE
Given that this is about insights for inspiration there is plenty of room for considering and adapting the approach I've proposed to any particular situation. Here are some thoughts
When I say assume that the distribution is Normal you should think of it as: Given that the problem has no solution, let's see if there is some qualitative information I can use to decide what kind of distribution would the data have. Given that the algorithm is intended to find the most frequent number, it should be fine to assume that the distribution is not uniform. Let's try with Normal, LogNormal, etc. to see what can be found out (more on this below.)
If the game completely disallows the use of any array, then fine, keep track of only, say 10 numbers. This would allow you to count the occurrences of the 10 best candidates, which will give more confidence to your answer. In doing this choose your candidates around the theoretical most likely value according to the distribution of your hypothesis.
You cannot use arrays but perhaps you can read the sequence of numbers two or three times, not just once. In that case you can read it once to check whether you hypothesis about its distribution is good nor bad. For instance, if you compute not just the variance but the skewness and the kurtosis you will have more elements to check your hypothesis. For instance, if the first reading indicates that there is some bias, you could use a LogNormal distribution instead, etc.
Finally, in addition to providing the approximate answer you would be able to use the information collected during the reading to estimate an interval of confidence around your answer.
Alright, I found a decent solution myself:
int mostFrequentNumber = 0;
int occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber = 0;
int iterations = 10000000;
int maxNumber = -2147483647;
int minNumber = 2147483647;
//Step 1: Find the largest and smallest number that _can_ occur
for(int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
int result = getNumberFromSeed(i);
if(result > maxNumber)
{
maxNumber = result;
}
if(result < minNumber)
{
minNumber = result;
}
}
//Step 2: for each possible number between minNumber and maxNumber, count occurences
for(int thisNumber = minNumber; thisNumber <= maxNumber; thisNumber++)
{
int occurenceOfThisNumber = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
int result = getNumberFromSeed(i);
if(result == thisNumber)
{
occurenceOfThisNumber++;
}
}
if(occurenceOfThisNumber > occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber)
{
occurencesOfMostFrequentNumber = occurenceOfThisNumber;
mostFrequentNumber = thisNumber;
}
}
I must admit, this may take a long time, depending on the smallest and largest possible. But it will work without using arrays.
Simple question, I know there must be a correct way to do this. I have a CGFloat that increases in increments of 1/16. I want to determine when this value becomes a whole number.
For lack of knowing the right way I am coming up with ideas like having another variable to keep track of the number of iterations and mod 16 it.
While you generally can't count on fractional floating point numbers to sum up to whole numbers, your case is exception to the rule since 1/16 is 2^(-4) and this number can be represented by float precisely:
- (void)testFloat
{
float a = 0.0f;
while (a != 2.0f) {
a += 0.0625f;
}
NSLog(#"OK!");
}
It's better to do it the other way around, i.e. use an integer loop counter and convert this to a float:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
{
float x = (float)i / 16.0f;
if (i % 16 == 0)
{
// if x is whole number...
}
}
Floating point arithmetic is inexact so you can't count on the value of your variable ever being exactly 2.0000.
"For lack of knowing the right way I am coming up with ideas like having another variable to keep track of the number of iterations andmod 16 it."
This is a wonderful idea.
I'm getting some very strange numbers from this function.
-(int)generateRandomNumber:(int)min:(int)max {
int i = rand() % ((max + 1)- min) + min;
if(i < min || i > max) {
NSLog(#"WEIRD RANDOM CASE JUST HAPPENED");
return [self generateRandomNumber:min:max];
}
return i;
}
Sometimes, vary rarely, it'll return a number like 1243512 when the min is something like 1 and max is something like 9.
As you can see, i've tried to stop it, but it just happened to me again right now after I tried this fix.
How can I fix this?
Thanks
Edit I'm using srandom(time(NULL)); on the current cocos2d scene init
I'm not sure what's causing your issue, but I would strongly suggest using random() or arc4random() instead of rand(). They produce much much better random numbers.