ceil() not working as I expected - objective-c

I'm trying to divide one number by another and then immediately ceil() the result. These would normally be variables, but for simplicity let's stick with constants.
If I try any of the following, I get 3 when I want to get 4.
double num = ceil(25/8); // 3
float num = ceil(25/8); // 3
int num = ceil(25/8); // 3
I've read through a few threads on here (tried the nextafter() suggestion from this thread) as well as other sites and I don't understand what's going on. I've checked and my variables are the numbers I expect them to be and I've in fact tried the above, using constants, and am still getting unexpected results.
Thanks in advance for the help. I'm sure it's something simple that I'm missing but I'm at a loss at this point.

This is because you are doing integer arithmetic. The value is 3 before you are calling ceil, because 25 and 8 are both integers. 25/8 is calculated first using integer arithmetic, evaluating to 3.
Try:
double value = ceil(25.0/8);
This will ensure the compiler treats the constant 25.0 as a floating point number.
You can also use an explicit cast to achieve the same result:
double value = ceil(((double)25)/8);

This is because the expressions are evaluated before being passed as an argument to the ceil function. You need to cast one of them to a double first so the result will be a decimal that will be passed to ceil.
double num = ceil((double)25/8);

Related

How would i separate an answer in Kotlin do print 2 different types

Hi this is my first ever program I'm tryin to write in android studio/Kotlin and I'm not sure how to proceed.
so in my program i have a few math tasks to do and it does it fine but what I need to do now is separate part of the answer then covert it then print out both parts
for example if my answer was 1.5232 i would like to convert the decimal part of the answer to a string that matches a range if its in it. the ranges I have are in the .0000 area so I would like to limit the decimal range too.
so final result would look like this
1 (whatever my string in range is)
I hope I included enough info thank you in advance.
The first part of the task is to split the number into the integer and fractional components:
val input = 1.5232
val integer = input.toInt() // rounds DOWN to nearest smaller Int
val fractional = input % 1.0 // The remainder when dividing by 1.0 is the fraction
The strategy I would use to round to the nearest fractional value given a certain precision is to multiply by that precision, and round to the nearest integer. That would give you the numerator, and the precision would be the denominator:
val denominator = 8 // fractional precision
val numerator = (fractional * denominator).roundToInt() // rounds up or down to nearest Int
Then to put it together, you can use a string template:
val result = "$integer $numerator/$denominator"
println(result)
Simplifying the fraction would be another task if you need that. You can find various algorithms for finding greatest common divisor of two numbers. Use one of those and divide the numerator and denominator by that value.

Given no modulus or if even/odd function, how would one check for an odd or even number?

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.

Strange result of floating-point operation

Problems like this drive me crazy. Here's the relevant piece of code:
Dim RES As New Size(Math.Floor(Math.Round(mPageSize.Width - mMargins.Left - mMargins.Right - mLabelSize.Width, 4) / (mLabelSize.Width + mSpacing.Width) + 1),
Math.Floor((mPageSize.Height - mMargins.Top - mMargins.Bottom - mLabelSize.Height) / (mLabelSize.Height + mSpacing.Height)) + 1)
Values of the variables (all are of Single type):
mPageSize.Width = 8.5
mMargins.Left = 0.18
mMargins.Right = 0.18
mLabelSize.Width = 4.0
mSpacing.Width = 0.14
For God-knows-what reason, RES evaluates to {Width=1,Height=5} instead of {Width=2,Height=5}. I have evaluated the expressions on the right-side individually and as a whole and they correctly evaluate to {2,5}, but RES would never get correct value. Wonder what am I missing here.
EDIT
I have simplified the problem further. The following code will produce 2.0 if you QuickWatch the RHS, but the variable on the LHS will get 1.0 after you execute this line:
Dim X = Math.Floor(Math.Round(mPageSize.Width - mMargins.Left - mMargins.Right - mLabelSize.Width, 4) / (mLabelSize.Width + mSpacing.Width) + 1)
Time for MS to check it out?
EDIT 2
More info. The following gives correct results:
Dim Temp = mPageSize.Width - mMargins.Left - mMargins.Right - mLabelSize.Width
Dim X = Math.Floor(Temp / CDec(mLabelSize.Width + mSpacing.Width)) + 1
The problem is that the following expression evaluates to a value just below 1:
Math.Round(mPageSize.Width - mMargins.Left - mMargins.Right - mLabelSize.Width, 4) / (mLabelSize.Width + mSpacing.Width)
= 0.99999999985602739 (Double)
But what's the reason for that? The truth is that I don't know exactly. The MSDN does not offer enough information about the implementation of / but here's my guess:
Math.Round returns a Double with value 4.14. The right-hand side of the division is a Single. So you're dividing a Double by a Single. This results in a Double (see MSDN). So far, so good. The MSDN states that all integral data types are widened to Double before the division. Although Single is not an integral data type, this is probably what happens. And here is the problem. The widening does not seem to be performed on the result of the addition, but on its operands.
If you write
Dim sum = (mLabelSize.Width + mSpacing.Width) 'will be 4.14 Single
Math.Round(mPageSize.Width - mMargins.Left - mMargins.Right - mLabelSize.Width, 4) / sum
= 1 (Double)
Here sum is converted to double (resulting in 4.14) and everything is fine. But, if we convert both operands to double, then the conversion of 0.14 introduces some floating point error:
Dim dblLabelSizeWidth As Double = mLabelSize.Width ' will be 4.0
Dim dblSpacing As Double = mSpacing.Width ' will be 0.14000000059604645
The sum is slightly bigger than 4.14, resulting in a quotient slightly smaller than 1.
So the reason is that the conversion to double is not performed on the division's operand, but on the operand's operands, which introduces floating point errors.
You could overcome this problem by adding a small epsilon to the quotient before rounding off. Alternatively you might consider using a more precise data type such as Decimal. But at some point, there will also be floating-point errors with Decimal.
This is due to rounding error: you're taking the floor of a value that is very close to 2, but is less than 2 (while the mathematical value is 2). You should do all your computations with integers, or take rounding errors into account before using operations like floor (not always possible if you want the true value).
EDIT: Since vb.net has a Decimal datatype, you can also use it instead of integers. It may help in some cases like here: the base conversions for 0.18 and 0.14 (not representable exactly in binary) are avoided and the additions and subtractions will be performed exactly here, so that the operands of the division will be computed exactly. Thus, if the result of the division is an integer, you'll get it exactly (instead of possibly a value just below, like what you got with binary). But make sure that your inputs are already in decimal.

VBA Ultimate rounding

I've read much about rounding in Excel. I found out that VBA's Round() function uses "Bankers rounding" while Application.WorksheetFunction.Round() uses more or less "normal" rounding. But it didn't help me to understand this:
? Round(6.03499,2)
6.03
Why? I want to see 6.04, not 6.03! The trick is that
? Round(Round(6.03499,3),2)
6.04
I thought a bit and developed a subroutine like this:
Option Explicit
Function DoRound(ByVal value As Double, Optional ByVal numdigits As Integer = 0) As Double
Dim i As Integer
Dim res As Double
res = value
For i = 10 To numdigits Step -1
res = Application.Round(res, i)
Next i
DoRound = res
End Function
It works fine.
? DoRound(6.03499,2)
6.04
But it is not cool. Is there any built-in normal rounding in Excel?
If you round 6.03499 to 3 digits it will be 6.035 - which is correct.
If you round 6.03499 to 2 digits it will be 6.03 - which is correct
However - the example where you first round to 3 digits, then to 2 is also correct, by the following statement:
Round(6.03499, 3) gives 6.035
Round(6.035, 2) gives 6.04
If you want Round(6.03499, 2) to give 6.04 you have to use Application.WorksheetFunction.RoundUp
Rounding 6.0349 to two decimals is just not 6.04 hence, no, there is no such function.
Round up will round anything up. Hence, 6.0000000001 will also become 7 if you round to 0 decimals.

Objective c division of two ints

I'm trying to produce a a float by dividing two ints in my program. Here is what I'd expect:
1 / 120 = 0.00833
Here is the code I'm using:
float a = 1 / 120;
However it doesn't give me the result I'd expect. When I print it out I get the following:
inf
Do the following
float a = 1./120.
You need to specify that you want to use floating point math.
There's a few ways to do this:
If you really are interested in dividing two constants, you can specify that you want floating point math by making the first constant a float (or double). All it takes is a decimal point.
float a = 1./120;
You don't need to make the second constant a float, though it doesn't hurt anything.
Frankly, this is pretty easy to miss so I'd suggest adding a trailing zero and some spacing.
float a = 1.0 / 120;
If you really want to do the math with an integer variable, you can type cast it:
float a = (float)i/120;
float a = 1/120;
float b = 1.0/120;
float c = 1.0/120.0;
float d = 1.0f/120.0f;
NSLog(#"Value of A:%f B:%f C:%f D:%f",a,b,c,d);
Output: Value of A:0.000000 B:0.008333 C:0.008333 D:0.008333
For float variable a : int / int yields integer which you are assigning to float and printing it so 0.0000000
For float variable b: float / int yields float, assigning to float and printing it 0.008333
For float variable c: float / float yields float, so 0.008333
Last one is more precise float. Previous ones are of type double: all floating point values are stored as double data types unless the value is followed by an 'f' to specifically specify a float rather than as a double.
In C (and therefore also in Objective-C), expressions are almost always evaluated without regard to the context in which they appear.
The expression 1 / 120 is a division of two int operands, so it yields an int result. Integer division truncates, so 1 / 120 yields 0. The fact that the result is used to initialize a float object doesn't change the way 1 / 120 is evaluated.
This can be counterintuitive at times, especially if you're accustomed to the way calculators generally work (they usually store all results in floating-point).
As the other answers have said, to get a result close to 0.00833 (which can't be represented exactly, BTW), you need to do a floating-point division rather than an integer division, by making one or both of the operands floating-point. If one operand is floating-point and the other is an integer, the integer operand is converted to floating-point first; there is no direct floating-point by integer division operation.
Note that, as #0x8badf00d's comment says, the result should be 0. Something else must be going wrong for the printed result to be inf. If you can show us more code, preferably a small complete program, we can help figure that out.
(There are languages in which integer division yields a floating-point result. Even in those languages, the evaluation isn't necessarily affected by its context. Python version 3 is one such language; C, Objective-C, and Python version 2 are not.)