We Keep Coding

Problem with how does loops and Math.abs work [duplicate]

This code:
System.out.println(Math.abs(Integer.MIN_VALUE));
Returns -2147483648
Should it not return the absolute value as 2147483648 ?

Integer.MIN_VALUE is -2147483648, but the highest value a 32 bit integer can contain is +2147483647. Attempting to represent +2147483648 in a 32 bit int will effectively "roll over" to -2147483648. This is because, when using signed integers, the two's complement binary representations of +2147483648 and -2147483648 are identical. This is not a problem, however, as +2147483648 is considered out of range.
For a little more reading on this matter, you might want to check out the Wikipedia article on Two's complement.

The behaviour you point out is indeed, counter-intuitive. However, this behaviour is the one specified by the javadoc for Math.abs(int):
If the argument is not negative, the argument is returned.
If the argument is negative, the negation of the argument is returned.
That is, Math.abs(int) should behave like the following Java code:
public static int abs(int x){
if (x >= 0) {
return x;
}
return -x;
}
That is, in the negative case, -x.
According to the JLS section 15.15.4, the -x is equal to (~x)+1, where ~ is the bitwise complement operator.
To check whether this sounds right, let's take -1 as example.
The integer value -1 is can be noted as 0xFFFFFFFF in hexadecimal in Java (check this out with a println or any other method). Taking -(-1) thus gives:
-(-1) = (~(0xFFFFFFFF)) + 1 = 0x00000000 + 1 = 0x00000001 = 1
So, it works.
Let us try now with Integer.MIN_VALUE . Knowing that the lowest integer can be represented by 0x80000000, that is, the first bit set to 1 and the 31 remaining bits set to 0, we have:
-(Integer.MIN_VALUE) = (~(0x80000000)) + 1 = 0x7FFFFFFF + 1
= 0x80000000 = Integer.MIN_VALUE
And this is why Math.abs(Integer.MIN_VALUE) returns Integer.MIN_VALUE. Also note that 0x7FFFFFFF is Integer.MAX_VALUE.
That said, how can we avoid problems due to this counter-intuitive return value in the future?
We could, as pointed out by #Bombe, cast our ints to long before. We, however, must either
cast them back into ints, which does not work because
Integer.MIN_VALUE == (int) Math.abs((long)Integer.MIN_VALUE).
Or continue with longs somehow hoping that we'll never call Math.abs(long) with a value equal to Long.MIN_VALUE, since we also have Math.abs(Long.MIN_VALUE) == Long.MIN_VALUE.
We can use BigIntegers everywhere, because BigInteger.abs() does indeed always return a positive value. This is a good alternative, though a bit slower than manipulating raw integer types.
We can write our own wrapper for Math.abs(int), like this:
/**
* Fail-fast wrapper for {#link Math#abs(int)}
* #param x
* #return the absolute value of x
* #throws ArithmeticException when a negative value would have been returned by {#link Math#abs(int)}
*/
public static int abs(int x) throws ArithmeticException {
if (x == Integer.MIN_VALUE) {
// fail instead of returning Integer.MAX_VALUE
// to prevent the occurrence of incorrect results in later computations
throw new ArithmeticException("Math.abs(Integer.MIN_VALUE)");
}
return Math.abs(x);
}
Use a integer bitwise AND to clear the high bit, ensuring that the result is non-negative: int positive = value & Integer.MAX_VALUE (essentially overflowing from Integer.MAX_VALUE to 0 instead of Integer.MIN_VALUE)
As a final note, this problem seems to be known for some time. See for example this entry about the corresponding findbugs rule.

Here is what Java doc says for Math.abs() in javadoc:
Note that if the argument is equal to
the value of Integer.MIN_VALUE, the
most negative representable int value,
the result is that same value, which
is negative.

To see the result that you are expecting, cast Integer.MIN_VALUE to long:
System.out.println(Math.abs((long) Integer.MIN_VALUE));

There is a fix to this in Java 15 will be a method to int and long. They will be present on the classes
java.lang.Math and java.lang.StrictMath
The methods.
public static int absExact(int a)
public static long absExact(long a)
If you pass
Integer.MIN_VALUE
OR
Long.MIN_VALUE
A Exception is thrown.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241805
I would like to see if either Long.MIN_VALUE or Integer.MIN_VALUE is passed a positive value would be return and not a exception but.

2147483648 cannot be stored in an integer in java, its binary representation is the same as -2147483648.

But (int) 2147483648L == -2147483648 There is one negative number which has no positive equivalent so there is not positive value for it. You will see the same behaviour with Long.MAX_VALUE.

Math.abs doesn't work all the time with big numbers I use this little code logic that I learnt when I was 7 years old!
if(Num < 0){
Num = -(Num);
}

Fixing recursive exponentiation method?

I am currently working on a method to do an exponentiation calculation using recursion. Here is what I have so far:
public static long exponentiation(long x, int n) {
if (n == 0) {
return 1;
} else if (n == 1) {
return x;
// i know this doesn't work since im returning long
} else if (n < 0) {
return (1 / exponentiation(x, -n));
} else {
//do if exponent is even
if (n % 2 == 0) {
return (exponentiation(x * x, n / 2));
} else {
// do if exponent is odd
return x * exponentiation(x, n - 1);
}
}
}
I have two issues. First issue is that I cannot do negative exponent's, this is not a major issue since I am not required to do negative exponents. Second issue, is certain computations give me the wrong answer. For example 2^63 gives me the correct value, but it gives me a negative number. And 2^64 and on just give me 0. Is there anyway for me to fix this? I know that I could just switch the long's to doubleand my method will work perfectly. However, my professor has required us to use long. Thank you for your help!

The maximum value a long can represent is 2^63 -1. So if you calculate 2^63, it is bigger then what a long can hold and wraps around. Long is represented using twos-complement.
Just changing long to double doesn't exactly work. It changes the semantics of the method. Floating-point numbers have limite precision. With a 64-bit floating point number, you can still only represent the same amount of numbers as with a 64-bit integer. They are just distributed differently. a long can represent every whole number bewteen -2^63 and 2^63-1. A double can represent fractions of numbers as well, but at high numbers, it can't even represent every number.
For example, the next double you can represent after 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is 100000000000000030000000000000000000000000000000000 - so you are missiong a whopping 30000000000000000000000000000000000 you can not represent with a double.
You are trying to fix something that you shouldn't bother with fixing. Using a long, there is a fixed maximum return value your method may return. Your method should clearly state what happens if it overflows, and you might want to handle such overflows (e.g. using Math#multiplyExactly), but if long is the return value you are supposed to return, then that is what you should be using.

You could hold the result in an array of longs, let's call it result[]. At first, apply the logic to result[0]. But, when that value goes negative,
1) increment result[1] by the excess.
2) now, your logic gets much messier and I'm typing on my phone, so this part is left as an exercise for the reader.
3) When result[1] overflows, start on result[2]...
When you print the result, combine the results, again, logic messy.
I assume this is how BigInteger works (more or less)? I've never looked at that code, you might want to.
But, basically, Polygnone is correct. Without considerable workarounds, there is an upper limit.

multiplication in java by using *=?

(i += 1) is equivalent to i = i + 1
is it possible to have something like above by using multiplication like:
(i *= 1) , i = i * 1
I have try it by declare as double but I keep get 0.0 value in my result?

It sounds like you're multiplying zero by one.
0 * 1 = 0

First declare double i = 1.0; (or int i = 1; if no decimal values are needed.) It seems that you're multiplying by zero. Of course, then i times 1 will always be 1 unless you're modifying the value of i somewhere else.
Other than that, be aware that i *= 1 is almost equivalent to i = i * 1. The devil is in the details, as the first form will perform an implicit conversion as per the Java Language Specification, section §5.1.3:
compound assignment expressions automatically cast the result of the computation they perform to the type of the variable on their left-hand side. If the type of the result is identical to the type of the variable, the cast has no effect. If, however, the type of the result is wider than that of the variable, the compound assignment operator performs a silent narrowing primitive conversion

If i has no assigned value (other than zero) before multiplying then it will be 0*1 equals 0.

Its taking the default value of double, as you have declared it in the class scope...
Try this...
class Test implements TestInterface {
public static void main(String[] args){
double i = 1;
System.out.println(i *= 1);
}
}

Java, comparing BigInteger values

BigInteger bigInteger = ...;
if(bigInteger.longValue() > 0) { //original code
//bigger than 0
}
//should I change to this?
if(bigInteger.compareTo(BigInteger.valueOf(0)) == 1) {
//bigger than 0
}
I need to compare some arbitary BigInteger values. I wonder which approach is correct. Given the above code which one should be used? The original code is on the top.. I am thinking to change it to the second approach.

The first approach is wrong if you want to test if the BigInteger has a postive value: longValue just returns the low-order 64 bit which may revert the sign... So the test could fail for a positive BigInteger.
The second approach is better (see Bozhos answer for an optimization).
Another alternative: BigInteger#signum returns 1 if the value is positive:
if (bigInteger.signum() == 1) {
// bigger than 0
}

If you are using BigInteger, this assumes you need bigger numbers than long can handle. So don't use longValue(). Use compareTo. With your example it better be:
if (bigInteger.compareTo(BigInteger.ZERO) > 0) {
}

This is not a direct answer, but an important note about using compareTo().
When checking the value of compareTo(), always test for x < 0, x > 0 and x == 0.
Do not test for x == 1
From the Comparable.compareTo() javadocs:
Compares this object with the specified object for order. Returns a negative integer, zero, or a positive integer as this object is less than, equal to, or greater than the specified object.
Note:
A negative integer, not -1.
A positive integer, not 1.
True, checking for ==1 and ==-1 would work for BigInteger. This is the BigInteger.compareTo() code:
public int compareTo(BigInteger val) {
if (signum == val.signum) {
switch (signum) {
case 1:
return compareMagnitude(val);
case -1:
return val.compareMagnitude(this);
default:
return 0;
}
}
return signum > val.signum ? 1 : -1;
}
But it's still bad practice, and explicitly recommended against in the JavaDocs:
Compares this BigInteger with the specified BigInteger. This method is provided in preference to individual methods for each of the six boolean comparison operators (<, ==, >, >=, !=, <=). The suggested idiom for performing these comparisons is: (x.compareTo(y) <op> 0), where <op> is one of the six comparison operators.

Make a negative number positive

I have a Java method in which I'm summing a set of numbers. However, I want any negatives numbers to be treated as positives. So (1)+(2)+(1)+(-1) should equal 5.
I'm sure there is very easy way of doing this - I just don't know how.

Just call Math.abs. For example:
int x = Math.abs(-5);
Which will set x to 5.
Note that if you pass Integer.MIN_VALUE, the same value (still negative) will be returned, as the range of int does not allow the positive equivalent to be represented.

The concept you are describing is called "absolute value", and Java has a function called Math.abs to do it for you. Or you could avoid the function call and do it yourself:
number = (number < 0 ? -number : number);
or
if (number < 0)
number = -number;

You're looking for absolute value, mate. Math.abs(-5) returns 5...

Use the abs function:
int sum=0;
for(Integer i : container)
sum+=Math.abs(i);

Try this (the negative in front of the x is valid since it is a unary operator, find more here):
int answer = -x;
With this, you can turn a positive to a negative and a negative to a positive.
However, if you want to only make a negative number positive then try this:
int answer = Math.abs(x);
A little cool math trick! Squaring the number will guarantee a positive value of x^2, and then, taking the square root will get you to the absolute value of x:
int answer = Math.sqrt(Math.pow(x, 2));
Hope it helps! Good Luck!

This code is not safe to be called on positive numbers.
int x = -20
int y = x + (2*(-1*x));
// Therefore y = -20 + (40) = 20

Are you asking about absolute values?
Math.abs(...) is the function you probably want.

You want to wrap each number into Math.abs(). e.g.
System.out.println(Math.abs(-1));
prints out "1".
If you want to avoid writing the Math.-part, you can include the Math util statically. Just write
import static java.lang.Math.abs;
along with your imports, and you can refer to the abs()-function just by writing
System.out.println(abs(-1));

The easiest, if verbose way to do this is to wrap each number in a Math.abs() call, so you would add:
Math.abs(1) + Math.abs(2) + Math.abs(1) + Math.abs(-1)
with logic changes to reflect how your code is structured. Verbose, perhaps, but it does what you want.

When you need to represent a value without the concept of a loss or absence (negative value), that is called "absolute value".
The logic to obtain the absolute value is very simple: "If it's positive, maintain it. If it's negative, negate it".
What this means is that your logic and code should work like the following:
//If value is negative...
if ( value < 0 ) {
//...negate it (make it a negative negative-value, thus a positive value).
value = negate(value);
}
There are 2 ways you can negate a value:
By, well, negating it's value: value = (-value);
By multiplying it by "100% negative", or "-1": value = value *
(-1);
Both are actually two sides of the same coin. It's just that you usually don't remember that value = (-value); is actually value = 1 * (-value);.
Well, as for how you actually do it in Java, it's very simple, because Java already provides a function for that, in the Math class: value = Math.abs(value);
Yes, doing it without Math.abs() is just a line of code with very simple math, but why make your code look ugly? Just use Java's provided Math.abs() function! They provide it for a reason!
If you absolutely need to skip the function, you can use value = (value < 0) ? (-value) : value;, which is simply a more compact version of the code I mentioned in the logic (3rd) section, using the Ternary operator (? :).
Additionally, there might be situations where you want to always represent loss or absence within a function that might receive both positive and negative values.
Instead of doing some complicated check, you can simply get the absolute value, and negate it: negativeValue = (-Math.abs(value));
With that in mind, and considering a case with a sum of multiple numbers such as yours, it would be a nice idea to implement a function:
int getSumOfAllAbsolutes(int[] values){
int total = 0;
for(int i=0; i<values.lenght; i++){
total += Math.abs(values[i]);
}
return total;
}
Depending on the probability you might need related code again, it might also be a good idea to add them to your own "utils" library, splitting such functions into their core components first, and maintaining the final function simply as a nest of calls to the core components' now-split functions:
int[] makeAllAbsolute(int[] values){
//#TIP: You can also make a reference-based version of this function, so that allocating 'absolutes[]' is not needed, thus optimizing.
int[] absolutes = values.clone();
for(int i=0; i<values.lenght; i++){
absolutes[i] = Math.abs(values[i]);
}
return absolutes;
}
int getSumOfAllValues(int[] values){
int total = 0;
for(int i=0; i<values.lenght; i++){
total += values[i];
}
return total;
}
int getSumOfAllAbsolutes(int[] values){
return getSumOfAllValues(makeAllAbsolute(values));
}

Why don't you multiply that number with -1?
Like This:
//Given x as the number, if x is less than 0, return 0 - x, otherwise return x:
return (x <= 0.0F) ? 0.0F - x : x;

If you're interested in the mechanics of two's complement, here's the absolutely inefficient, but illustrative low-level way this is made:
private static int makeAbsolute(int number){
if(number >=0){
return number;
} else{
return (~number)+1;
}
}

Library function Math.abs() can be used.
Math.abs() returns the absolute value of the argument
if the argument is negative, it returns the negation of the argument.
if the argument is positive, it returns the number as it is.
e.g:
int x=-5;
System.out.println(Math.abs(x));
Output: 5
int y=6;
System.out.println(Math.abs(y));
Output: 6

String s = "-1139627840";
BigInteger bg1 = new BigInteger(s);
System.out.println(bg1.abs());
Alternatively:
int i = -123;
System.out.println(Math.abs(i));

To convert negative number to positive number (this is called absolute value), uses Math.abs(). This Math.abs() method is work like this
“number = (number < 0 ? -number : number);".
In below example, Math.abs(-1) will convert the negative number 1 to positive 1.
example
public static void main(String[] args) {
int total = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + (-1);
//output 3
System.out.println("Total : " + total);
int total2 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + Math.abs(-1);
//output 5
System.out.println("Total 2 (absolute value) : " + total2);
}
Output
Total : 3
Total 2 (absolute value) : 5

I would recommend the following solutions:
without lib fun:
value = (value*value)/value
(The above does not actually work.)
with lib fun:
value = Math.abs(value);

I needed the absolute value of a long , and looked deeply into Math.abs and found that if my argument is less than LONG.MIN_VAL which is -9223372036854775808l, then the abs function would not return an absolute value but only the minimum value. Inthis case if your code is using this abs value further then there might be an issue.

Can you please try this one?
public static int toPositive(int number) {
return number & 0x7fffffff;
}

if(arr[i]<0)
Math.abs(arr[i]); //1st way (taking absolute value)
arr[i]=-(arr[i]); //2nd way (taking -ve of -ve no. yields a +ve no.)
arr[i]= ~(arr[i]-1); //3rd way (taking negation)

I see people are saying that Math.abs(number) but this method is not full proof.
This fails when you try to wrap Math.abs(Integer.MIN_VALUE) (see ref. https://youtu.be/IWrpDP-ad7g)
If you are not sure whether you are going to receive the Integer.MIN_VALUE in the input. It is always recommended to check for that number and handle it manually.

In kotlin you can use unaryPlus
input = input.unaryPlus()
https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin/-int/unary-plus.html

Try this in the for loop:
sum += Math.abs(arr[i])

dont do this
number = (number < 0 ? -number : number);
or
if (number < 0) number = -number;
this will be an bug when you run find bug on your code it will report it as RV_NEGATING_RESULT_OF