I have this equation
double x = ((newCount/allCount)/.8)*5.0;
newCount is a double with value 0
allCount is a double with value 0
the result of x is -nan(0x8000000000000)
why this happens and how to check this value in objective c to assign default value for it
You are diving by zero. You can check for it using:
isnan(x)
The problem is that the denominator (allCount) is 0; dividing by zero is not allowed and the answer is not a number. The simplest thing you could do is to test for that before doing the division:
if (allCount != 0) {
x = ((newCount/allCount)/.8)*5.0
} else {
x = defaultValue;
}
There are more complicated ways using C's floating point environment and testing for the FE_DIVBYZERO exception, but while that's standard it's rarely used and therefore potentially more difficult for a later reader of the code to comprehend.
allCount is a 0, thus you just divided by 0 (which is impossible if you didn't know..) So before you assign x, just make sure that allCount is not 0 first.
if (allCount != 0)
double x = ((newCount/allCount)/.8)*5.0;
Related
I have searched for this everywhere but I couldn't find it anywhere, sorry if this questions has already been posted. Please refer me to it if this already exists somewhere else, thank you :)
Ok so here are the two rules to follow, for a number 'N' return the two Integers (x and y) that:
When added together is smaller than 'N'.
When multiplied together is bigger than 'N'
Example: for N = 15, X = 4 and Y = 4, when added together make 8, but make 16 when multiplied together.
Note: X = 4 and Y = 5 would be a valid answer as well, but for this specific question, the valid solution needs to add up to the smallest value possible. (4 + 5 = 9 > 8)
Hopefully this makes sense, all I am really looking for is the logic to approach this from, not necessarily a full on solution written in code but I would still take it if anyone feels like it :)
My biggest issue here is how to know that you have the smallest two ints (optimal solution), especially when we get to bigger and bigger number?
var N = 15;
var x, y = 0;
while(keepLooping) {
if((x+y < N) && (x*y > N)) {
//values found that respects the clauses
keepLooping = false;
break;
} else {
if((x < y) || (x==y)) {
x++
} else {
y++
}
}
}
My logic here is to start with both numbers at 0 and to slowly increment each of them by 1 but also test if the clauses are respected between each increment. To me this insures that I get the smallest values because I am starting from 0.
This is how see it;
Does is work with:
x=0, y=0... False
x=1, y=0... False
x=1, y=1... False
x=2, y=1... False
...
I need to calculate modulos with decimals that can be negative as well
for example: fmod( -5.2, 3 );
while mod() works with integers, and fmod() (or fmodf()) works well with decimals, fmod() returns wrong results with negative decimals:
ex:
double modulo = fmod (5.2, 3);
NSLog (#"==> %f", modulo);
==> 2.2 // This is correct !!
double modulo = fmod (-5.2, 3);
NSLog (#"==> %f", modulo);
==> -2.2 // This is wrong !! should be 0.8
Is there another mod() in the library or should i write my own decimal negative mod function ?
something like :
if (res = fmod(x,m) < 0) {
res+=m;
}
Thx !
-2.2 is correct and is also -5.2 mod 3. The fmod function is a C function (and therefore also Objective C), so you can find more detail about it by typing man fmod into terminal. When doing fmod it will preserve the sign of the value that you are moding. So to get the mod you want, you will need to check the sign (of either the result, or the value you are passing in) and if it is negative you will need to add the modulo base, in this case 3.
This is the definition of the fmod function:
double
fmod(double x, double y);
Specifically, the functions return the value x-i*y, for some integer i such that, if y is non-zero, the result has the same sign as x and magnitude less than the magnitude of y.
from the OS X man page.
For your purposes, you can do something like this:
#include <math.h>
float f_mod(float a, float n) {
return a - n * floor(a / n);
}
Of course, be careful to check n>0.
f_mod(-5.2f, 2.0f) = 0.8
f_mod(5.2f, 2.0f) = 2.2
Thank you so i ended up writing a wrapper... What i was hopping i could avoid. This works great for me, and, in my opinion, represents the correct mathematical definition of the modulo (not the C implementation). I am sure this function can be optimized,but for clarity i leave it this way:
//--
//-- Modulo
//--
double calcModulo ( double x, double m) {
double res = INFINITY;
if (m==0)
return res ;
double posMod, negMod, posM, posX;
posM = m < 0 ? -m:m;
posX = x < 0 ? -x:x;
posMod = fmod (posX, posM);
negMod = fmod (-posX,posM) + posM;
// pick up the correct res
if ( x >= 0 ){
if (m > 0) {
res = posMod;
} else {
res = -negMod;
}
}else{
if (m > 0) {
res= negMod;
} else{
res= -posMod;
}
}
return res;
}
I want to make a cave explorer game in game maker 8.0.
I've made a block object and an generator But I'm stuck. Here is my code for the generator
var r;
r = random_range(0, 1);
repeat(room_width/16) {
repeat(room_height/16) {
if (r == 1) {
instance_create(x, y, obj_block)
}
y += 16;
}
x += 16;
}
now i always get a blank frame
You need to use irandom(1) so you get an integer. You also should put it inside the loop so it generates a new value each time.
In the second statement, you are generating a random real value and storing it in r. What you actually require is choosing one of the two values. I recommend that you use the function choose(...) for this. Here goes the corrected statement:
r = choose(0,1); //Choose either 0 or 1 and store it in r
Also, move the above statement to the inner loop. (Because you want to decide whether you want to place a block at the said (x,y) location at every spot, right?)
Also, I recommend that you substitute sprite_width and sprite_height instead of using the value 16 directly, so that any changes you make to the sprite will adjust the resulting layout of the blocks accordingly.
Here is the code with corrections:
var r;
repeat(room_width/sprite_width) {
repeat(room_height/sprite_height) {
r = choose(0, 1);
if (r == 1)
instance_create(x, y, obj_block);
y += sprite_height;
}
x += sprite_width;
}
That should work. I hope that helps!
Looks like you are only creating a instance if r==1. Shouldn't you create a instance every time?
Variable assignment r = random_range(0, 1); is outside the loop. Therefore performed only once before starting the loop.
random_range(0, 1) returns a random real number between 0 and 1 (not integer!). But you have if (r == 1) - the probability of getting 1 is a very small.
as example:
repeat(room_width/16) {
repeat(room_height/16) {
if (irandom(1)) {
instance_create(x, y, obj_block)
}
y += 16;
}
x += 16;
}
Here's a possible, maybe even better solution:
length = room_width/16;
height = room_height/16;
for(xx = 0; xx < length; xx+=1)
{
for(yy = 0; yy < height; yy+=1)
{
if choose(0, 1) = 1 {
instance_create(xx*16, yy*16, obj_block); }
}
}
if you want random caves, you should probably delete random sections of those blocks,
not just single ones.
For bonus points, you could use a seed value for the random cave generation. You can also have a pathway random generation that will have a guaranteed path to the finish with random openings and fake paths that generate randomly from that path. Then you can fill in the extra spaces with other random pieces.
But in regards to your code, you must redefine the random number each time you are placing a block, which is why all of them are the same. It should be called inside of the loops, and should be an integer instead of a decimal value.
Problem is on the first line, you need to put r = something in the for cycle
I have two NSDecimalNumbers and I need to apply one to the power of the other, originally this code was using doubles and I could compute this with the pow() function like this:
double result = pow(value1, value2);
The problem I have is I am converting the code to use NSDecimalNumbers and although they include the method toThePowerOf, it only accepts int values. At the moment the only solution I have to this problem is to convert the NSDecimalNumbers Temporarily but this results in a loss of precision.
double value1 = [decimal1 doubleValue];
double value2 = [decimal2 doubleValue];
double result = pow(value1, value2);
NSDecimalNumber *decimalResult = [[NSDecimalNumber alloc] initWithDouble:result];
Is there a way I can do this computation with NSDecimalNumbers and not lose the precision?
I need this to work with non integer values for example:
value1 = 1.06
value2 = 0.0277777777
As Joe points out, if you want to do this for positive integer powers, you can use NSDecimalPower() on an NSDecimal struct derived from your NSDecimalNumber (I personally prefer working with the structs, for performance reasons).
For the more general case of working with negative integers and fractional values, I have some code that I've modified from Dave DeLong's DDMathParser library. He has since removed the NSDecimal portion of this library, but you can find the last commit for this support. I extended Dave's exponential support into the following function:
extern NSDecimal DDDecimalPower(NSDecimal d, NSDecimal power) {
NSDecimal r = DDDecimalOne();
NSDecimal zero = DDDecimalZero();
NSComparisonResult compareToZero = NSDecimalCompare(&zero, &power);
if (compareToZero == NSOrderedSame) {
return r;
}
if (DDDecimalIsInteger(power))
{
if (compareToZero == NSOrderedAscending)
{
// we can only use the NSDecimal function for positive integers
NSUInteger p = DDUIntegerFromDecimal(power);
NSDecimalPower(&r, &d, p, NSRoundBankers);
}
else
{
// For negative integers, we can take the inverse of the positive root
NSUInteger p = DDUIntegerFromDecimal(power);
p = -p;
NSDecimalPower(&r, &d, p, NSRoundBankers);
r = DDDecimalInverse(r);
}
} else {
// Check whether this is the inverse of an integer
NSDecimal inversePower = DDDecimalInverse(power);
NSDecimalRound(&inversePower, &inversePower, 34, NSRoundBankers); // Round to 34 digits to deal with cases like 1/3
if (DDDecimalIsInteger(inversePower))
{
r = DDDecimalNthRoot(d, inversePower);
}
else
{
double base = DDDoubleFromDecimal(d);
double p = DDDoubleFromDecimal(power);
double result = pow(base, p);
r = DDDecimalFromDouble(result);
}
}
return r;
}
This runs exact calculations on positive integer powers, negative integer powers, and fractional powers that map directly to roots. It still falls back on floating point calculations for fractional powers that don't cleanly fall into one of those bins, though.
Unfortunately, this requires a few of his other supporting functions to work. Therefore, I've uploaded my enhanced versions of his _DDDecimalFunctions.h and _DDDecimalFunctions.m that provide this functionality. They also include NSDecimal trigonometry, logarithm, and a few other functions. There are currently some issues with convergence on the tangent implementation, which is why I haven't finished a public post about this.
I came across the same problem recently and developed my own function to do exactly this. The function has will calculate any base to any power as long as it yields a real answer if it determines a real answer cannot be calculated it returns NSDecimalnumber.notANumber
I have posted my solution as an answer to the same question that I posted so here is the link.
In Xcode /Objective-C for the iPhone.
I have a float with the value 0.00004876544. How would I get it to display to two decimal places after the first significant number?
For example, 0.00004876544 would read 0.000049.
I didn't run this through a compiler to double-check it, but here's the basic jist of the algorithm (converted from the answer to this question):
-(float) round:(float)num toSignificantFigures:(int)n {
if(num == 0) {
return 0;
}
double d = ceil(log10(num < 0 ? -num: num));
int power = n - (int) d;
double magnitude = pow(10, power);
long shifted = round(num*magnitude);
return shifted/magnitude;
}
The important thing to remember is that Objective-C is a superset of C, so anything that is valid in C is also valid in Objective-C. This method uses C functions defined in math.h.