I am trying to take two numbers and get the square of them. Using several numbers some work, but this one is giving me problems pow(.0305,2). Using a calculator i get an answer of: 0.093025; but when I use java i get an answer of:9.609999999999999E-4. I need .0305 because I am taking 3.05/100 which is .0305.
I have found through trial that if I do .pow(.305,2), that does give me my need answer, but then I would have to get that with 3.05/100.
EDIT:(adding code)
double weight=3.05;
double TapeLength=100.00;
double ftwt= weight/TapeLength; this gives me: 0.093025
double ftwt= Math.pow(ftwt,2); //this gives me: 9.3025E-4
everything is cast as a double.
If you're really getting 9.609999999999999E-4 as the result, you're doing something wrong other than what you have in you question. The following code (in Eclipse 3.7.1):
class Test {
public static void main(String args[]) {
double dd = .0305;
System.out.println (Math.pow(dd, 2));
System.out.println ("%.8f\n", Math.pow(dd, 2));
}
}
produces:
9.3025E-4
0.00093025
which are both correct (a), just expressed in different output formats. The default for double is exponential format in this case but the last line shows how you can get different formats.
(a) Just on the off chance that you're confused by the exponential form (based on your comments), 0.00093025 is the same as 9.3025E-4 since the latter means9.3025 x 10-4 (9.3025 with the decimal point shifted four positions to the left.
Besides the problems with order of magnitude, which I think are just a typing mistakes, if your concern is that you get 0.00096xxxxx you should specify them as double from start. You are making them float which means you lose precision and only then they are cast to double. Then the error is compounded by squaring them.
Making them doubles will probably help, but you have to remember that when you are dealing with binary representation of decimal rationals there may not be an exact representation with a finite number of digits.
Using Math.pow(x, 2) is much, much slower than using x * x That is because it is the same was Math.exp(Math.log(x) * n) As it does much more calculations it tends to have a larger rounding error. (So its a bad idea all round IMHO)
Related
I have written the following simple function that calculates the arctan of the inverse of an integer. I was wondering how to use BigDecimal instead of double to increase the accuracy of the results. I was also thinking of using a BigInteger to store the growing multiples of xSquare that the "term" value is divided by.
I have limited experience with the syntax for how to perform calculations on BigDecimals. How would I revise this function to use them?
/* Thanks to https://www.cygnus-software.com/misc/pidigits.htm for explaining the general calculation method
credited to John Machin.
*/
public static double atanInvInt(int x) {
// Returns the arc tangent of an inverse integer
/* Terminates once the remaining amount reaches zero or the denominator reaches 2101.
If the former happens, the accuracy should be determined by the number format used, such as double.
If the latter happens, the result should be off by at most one from the correct nearest value
in the seventh decimal place, if allowed by the accuracy of the number format used.
This likely only happens if the integer is 1.
*/
int xSquare = x*x;
double result = ((double)1)/x;
double term = ((double)1)/x;
int divisor = 1;
double midResult;
while ((term > 0)) {
term = term / xSquare;
divisor += 2;
midResult = result - term/divisor;
term = term /xSquare;
divisor += 2;
result = midResult + term/divisor;
if (divisor >= 2101) {
return ((result + midResult) / 2);
}
}
return result;
}
The BigDecimal provides very intuitive wrapper methods to provide all the different operations. you can have something like this to have an arbitrary precision of, for example, 99:
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(atanInvInt(5, 99));
// 0.197395559849880758370049765194790293447585103787852101517688940241033969978243785732697828037288045
}
public static BigDecimal atanInvInt(int x, int scale) {
BigDecimal one = new BigDecimal("1");
BigDecimal two = new BigDecimal("2");
BigDecimal xVal = new BigDecimal(x);
BigDecimal xSquare = xVal.multiply(xVal);
BigDecimal divisor = new BigDecimal(1);
BigDecimal result = one.divide(xVal, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR);
BigDecimal term = one.divide(xVal, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR);
BigDecimal midResult;
while (term.compareTo(new BigDecimal(0)) > 0) {
term = term.divide(xSquare, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR);
divisor = divisor.add(two);
midResult = result.subtract(term.divide(divisor, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR));
term = term.divide(xSquare, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR);
divisor = divisor.add(two);
result = midResult.add(term.divide(divisor, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR));
if (divisor.compareTo(new BigDecimal(2101)) >= 0) {
return result.add(midResult).divide(two, scale, RoundingMode.FLOOR);
}
}
return result;
}
For anyone who wanted to know why it was beneficial to pose this question to begin with: That is a fair question. I have written a rather long answer to it. I believe that writing this answer helped me to articulate to myself things about the BigDecimal class that are more intuitive now that I have Armando Carballo’s answer than they were before, so writing it was hopefully educational. I can only hope that reading it will be as well, though likely in a different way if at all.
The official documentation lists methods, but it doesn’t explain how they are used in the same way that Armando Carballo’s code demonstrates. For example, while the way the BigDecimal.divide method works is pretty intuitive, there is nothing in the official documentation that says “to take the mean of two numbers, not only should you have BigDecimals for those two numbers, but you should also create a BigDecimal equal to 2 and apply the BigDecimal.divide method to the result of a BigDecimal.add operation with the 2 BigDecimal as the input for the divisor.” This is something that is simple enough to be perfectly intuitive once you see it, but if you’ve never used object-oriented methods for the specific purpose of performing arithmetic before, it may be less intuitive the first time you are trying to figure out how to take the mean.
As another example, consider the idea that to figure out whether a number is greater than or equal to another number, instead of using a Boolean operator on the two numbers, you use a compareTo method that can give three possible outputs on one number with the other number as an input, then apply a Boolean operator to the output of that method. This makes perfect sense once you see it in action and have a quick sense of how the compareTo method works, but may be less obvious when you’re staring at a quick description of the compareTo method in the official documentation, even if the description is clear and you are able to figure out what the compareTo method will output with a given BigDecimal value calling the method and a given BigDecimal input as the comparison value. For anyone who has used compareTo methods with other classes besides BigDecimal extensively, this is probably obvious even if they’re new to the specific class, but if you haven’t used Booleans on the result of ANY compareTo method recently, it’s faster to see it.
When working with ints, you might very well write code a bit like this:
int x = 5;
x = x + 2;
System.out.println(x) // should be 7
Here, the “2” value was never declared to be an int. The result of the addition was the same as if we had declared y=2 and said that x = x+y instead of x = x+2, but with the above lines of code no named variable, or Integer object if we used those instead of primitive ints, was created for the “2”. With BigDecimal, on the other hand, since the BigDecimal.add method requires BigDecimals as inputs, it would be mandatory to create a BigDecimal equal to 2 in order to add 2. I don’t see anything in the official documentation that says “use this as a more accurate substitute for doubles, or for longs if you want something more versatile than BigInteger, but in addition to using it as a substitute for declared variables, also create BigDecimal objects equal to small integers that by themselves wouldn’t call for the use of the BigDecimal class so that you can use them in operations. Both your variables and the small values you are adding to them need to be BigDecimals if you want to use BigDecimals.”
Finally, let me explain something that has the potential to make the BigDecimal class more intimidating than it needs to be. Anyone who has ever worked with primitive arrays and tried to predict in advance at the time the array is created exactly how large it needs to be, or is familiar with how lower-level languages involve certain situations in which a programmer needs to know exactly how many bytes something takes up, may feel the need for caution when dealing with something that seems to demand a specified level of precision upfront. The documentation says this: “If no rounding mode is specified and the exact result cannot be represented, an exception is thrown; otherwise, calculations can be carried out to a chosen precision and rounding mode by supplying an appropriate MathContext object to the operation.” A newbie reading that sentence for the first time may be thinking that they are going to have to think extensively about rounding when writing their code for the first time or else face exceptions as soon as a value cannot be represented exactly, or that they are going to have to read the documentation on the MathContext object as well before using BigDecimal, which in turn might lead to reading IEEE standards that help grant an understanding of floating point numbers but are far removed from what the person actually wanted to code. Seeing that some of the constructors for BigDecimal take arrays as inputs and that others take a MathContext as an input, along with noticing that one of the constructors for the related BigInteger class takes a byte array as the input, may strengthen the feeling that using this object class requires a very fine understanding of the exact number of digits that will be used for the specific calculations the class is used for and that understanding MathContext is more or less essential to even the most basic use of the class. While I’m sure understanding MathContext is helpful, baby’s first BigDecimal project can actually work perfectly well without the need to learn this added functionality at the same time as the first use of the BigDecimal. Reading up on the scale parameter might also lead to the belief by a coder looking up info on the class for the first time that it is necessary to predict the order of magnitude of the answer in advance in order to use the class at all.
Armando Caballo’s commendable answer shows that these concerns of a hypothetical newbie are overblown, as while rounding mode does need to be specified fairly often and a consistent scale is often called as a parameter when using the divide method, the scale parameter is actually a fairly arbitrary specification of the desired accuracy in terms of number of decimal places and not something that requires pinpoint predictions about exactly what numbers the class will handle (unless the ultimate purpose for which the BigDecimal is being used requires a finely controlled level of accuracy, in which case it is fairly easy to specify). An “infinite” series of added and subtracted terms to compute an arc tangent was processed without ever declaring a MathContext object.
I am working on a program which needs to cube a number. Long story short, I need to compare the number to a string, so I need to get rid of the decimal place a double gives when I convert to string. To do this, I used Math.round and saved it as a long. This works fine for relatively normal numbers, but the numbers can go up to 999,999.
I used 275393 (a given test number, so I'm assuming it must be correct for the problem I'm working on) and neither a calculator nor the computer seemed to get the correct answer. The correct answer is supposed to contain 123457 somewhere in the results, but the calculator has 12346 (which I think is just rounding, as it stops listing numbers after this) and the computer has 123456 (the computer stops listing numbers after this point). Is rounding it giving it the problem (it shouldn't because I'm pretty sure it only rounds to the tenths place, but who knows)? Or is it something else?
Math.pow() takes two doubles and returns a double. There is not enough precision in a double to represent 2753933 = 20886164356123457 (exact).
The solution is to use BigInteger.pow().
A double has limited precision. Instead, use BigInteger or BigDecimal for your calculation.
I need to compare the number to a string, so I need to get rid of the decimal place a double gives when I convert to string.
Do it the other way around. Convert the String to a number, then compare it to the double (with a small tolerance to account for inaccurate binary representations of float point numbers).
I'm wondering what the best way to fix precision errors is in Java. As you can see in the following example, there are precision errors:
class FloatTest
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Float number1 = 1.89f;
for(int i = 11; i < 800; i*=2)
{
System.out.println("loop value: " + i);
System.out.println(i*number1);
System.out.println("");
}
}
}
The result displayed is:
loop value: 11
20.789999
loop value: 22
41.579998
loop value: 44
83.159996
loop value: 88
166.31999
loop value: 176
332.63998
loop value: 352
665.27997
loop value: 704
1330.5599
Also, if someone can explain why it only does it starting at 11 and doubling the value every time. I think all other values (or many of them at least) displayed the correct result.
Problems like this have caused me headache in the past and I usually use number formatters or put them into a String.
Edit: As people have mentioned, I could use a double, but after trying it, it seems that 1.89 as a double times 792 still outputs an error (the output is 1496.8799999999999).
I guess I'll try the other solutions such as BigDecimal
If you really care about precision, you should use BigDecimal
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/math/BigDecimal.html
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/math/BigDecimal.html
The problem is not with Java but with the good standard float's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_floating-point_standard).
You can either:
use Double and have a bit more precision (but not perfect of course, it also has limited precision)
use a arbitrary-precision-library
use numerically stable algorithms and truncate/round digits of which you are not sure they are correct (you can calculate numeric precision of operations)
When you print the result of a double operation you need to use appropriate rounding.
System.out.printf("%.2f%n", 1.89 * 792);
prints
1496.88
If you want to round the result to a precision, you can use rounding.
double d = 1.89 * 792;
d = Math.round(d * 100) / 100.0;
System.out.println(d);
prints
1496.88
However if you see below, this prints as expected, as there is a small amount of implied rounding.
It worth nothing that (double) 1.89 is not exactly 1.89 It is a close approximation.
new BigDecimal(double) converts the exact value of double without any implied rounding. It can be useful in finding the exact value of a double.
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(1.89));
System.out.println(new BigDecimal(1496.88));
prints
1.8899999999999999023003738329862244427204132080078125
1496.8800000000001091393642127513885498046875
Most of your question has been pretty well covered, though you might still benefit from reading the [floating-point] tag wiki to understand why the other answers work.
However, nobody has addressed "why it only does it starting at 11 and doubling the value every time," so here's the answer to that:
for(int i = 11; i < 800; i*=2)
╚═══╤════╝ ╚╤═╝
│ └───── "double the value every time"
│
└───── "start at 11"
You could use doubles instead of floats
If you really need arbitrary precision, use BigDecimal.
first of Float is the wrapper class for the primitive float
and doubles have more precision
but if you only want to calculate down to the second digit (for monetary purposes for example) use an integer (as if you are using cents as unit) and add some scaling logic when you are multiplying/dividing
or if you need arbitrary precision use BigDecimal
If precision is vital, you should use BigDecimal to make sure that the required precision remains. When you instantiate the calculation, remember to use strings to instantiate the values instead of doubles.
I never had a problem with simple arithmetic precision in either Basic, Visual Basic, FORTRAN, ALGOL or other "primitive" languages. It is beyond comprehension that JAVA can't do simple arithmetic without introducing errors. I need just two digits to the right of the decimal point for doing some accounting. Using Float subtracting 1000 from 1355.65 I get 355.650002! In order to get around this ridiculous error I have implemented a simple solution. I process my input by separating the values on each side of the decimal point as character, convert each to integers, multiply each by 1000 and add the two back together as integers. Ridiculous but there are no errors introduced by the poor JAVA algorithms.
I am writing a "triangle solver" app for Android, and I was wondering if it would be possible to implement exact values for trig ratios and radian measures. For example, 90 degrees would be output as "pi / 2" instead of 1.57079632679...
I know that in order to get the exact value for a radian measure, I would divide it by pi and convert it to a fraction. I don't know how I would convert the decimal to a fraction.
like this:
int decimal = angleMeasure / Math.PI;
someMethodToTurnItIntoAFraction(decimal);
I don't even know where to begin with the trig ratios.
You need to take the number and divide it by each of the "special" numbers: pi,e, sqrt(2), sqrt(3), sqrt(5). After each division, determine if the resulting number is close to an exact fraction. To do the last part, use the continued fraction algorithm to find good approximations to the number. There are criteria you can use in the continued fraction expansion to determine if the approximation is nearly exact. If you get a nice fraction with small numbers that is nearly exact then that's your answer - the fraction times the special number that was divided by at the beginning. Oh and consider "1" as a divisor so simple fractions come out too.
Been there, done that, works well. I don't recall the algorithm for getting approximate fractions without storing and collapsing the entire continued fraction, but it's been linked here on SO recently.
What you're talking about is using Pi as a concept instead of a number. I'd do something like this:
class Fraction {
public int num;
public int den;
public Fraction(int n,int d) {
num=n;
den=d;
}
public Fraction() {
num=1;
den=1;
public double decValue() {
return ((double)num)/((double)den);
}
}
yadda, yadda....
public static Fraction someMethod(double decVal) {
Fraction f=new Fraction(1,1);
double howclose=0.0000001; //tiny amount of error allowed
while(abs((f.decValue()*Math.PI)-decVal)>howclose) {
if(f.decValue()*Math.PI>decVal) {
f.den++;
}
else {
f.num++;
}
}
return f;
}
Basically, work on getting the fraction closer and closer to the expected answer (decVal). The fraction will be in the form of:
num*PI
------
den
Basically, multiply the fraction that's in the result by Pi, and it should be very close to decVal.
Nobody stops you from using fractions as they come. Integer, Double, etc. are just objects, that can be used with 4 operations: +, -, *, /. You can use some kind of object Fraction, which will also perform these operations (not like operators, but like plain methods - consider BigInteger for example of such use), but do it in its own manner. For some aspects of creating new number types see SICP, and for implementation in Java see these notes.
EDIT
What I mean is not creating your someMethodToTurnItIntoAFraction, but using natural fractions themselves. I.e. your code will look like this:
Fraction f = new Fraction(angleMeasure, Fraction.PI);
System.out.println(f.getNum() + "/" + f.getDen());
It will take more time, but will keep your numbers precise.
IIRC, chips compute trigonometrical functions using Taylor's polynom, which is a row of additions of fractions. So you could implement that computation and keep it in fractions. Will be slow, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
Okay, here's my problem.
Basically I have this problem.
I have a number like .53999999.
How do I round it up to 54 without using any of the Math functions?
I'm guessing I have to multiply by 100 to scale it, then divide?
Something like that?
The issue is with money. let's say I have $50.5399999 I know how to get the $50, but I don't have how to get the cents. I can get the .539999 part, but I don't know how to get it to 54 cents.
I would use something like:
BigDecimal result = new BigDecimal("50.5399999").setScale(2, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP);
There is a great article called Make cents with BigDecimal on JavaWorld that you should take a look at.
You should use a decimal or currency type to represent money, not floating point.
Math with money is more complex than most engineers think (over generalization)
If you are doing currency calculations, I think you may be delving into problems that seem simple at their surface but are actually quite complex. For instance, rounding methods that are a result of business logic decisions that are repeated often can drastically affect the totals of calculations.
I would recommend looking at the Java Currency class for currency formatting.
Also having a look at this page on representing money in java may be helpful.
If this is homework, showing the teacher that you have thought through the real-world problem rather than just slung a bunch of code together that "works" - will surely be more impressive.
On a side note, I initially was going to suggest looking at the implementation of the Java math methods in the source code, so I took a look. I noticed that Java was using native methods for its rounding methods - just like it should.
However, a look at BigDecimal shows that there is Java source available for rounding in Java. So rather than just give you the code for your homework, I suggest that you look at the BigDecimal private method doRound(MathContext mc) in the Java source.
If 50.54 isn't representable in double precision, then rounding won't help.
If you're trying to convert 50.53999999 to a whole number of dollars and a whole number of cents, do the following:
double d = 50.539999; // or however many 9's, it doesn't matter
int dollars = (int)d;
double frac = d - dollars;
int cents = (int)((frac * 100) + 0.5);
Note that the addition of 0.5 in that last step is to round to the nearest whole number of cents. If you always want it to round up, change that to add 0.9999999 instead of 0.5.
Why would you not want to use any Math functions?
static long round(double a)
-Returns the closest long to the argument.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html
To represent money I would take the following advice instead of re-inventing the wheel:
http://www.javapractices.com/topic/TopicAction.do?Id=13
Try storing your currency as number of cents (you could abstract this to number of base curreny units) with a long.
Edit: Since this is homework, you may not have control over the types. Consider this a lesson for future projects
long money = 5054;
long cents = money % 100;
long dollars = money / 100; // this works due to integer/long truncation
System.out.printf("$%d.%02.d", dollars, cents);
You need to make the number .535 and compare that with your original number to see if you'll round up or down. Here's how you get .535 from .53999999 (should work for any number):
num = .53999999;
int_num = (int)(num * 100); // cast to integer, however you do it in Java
compare_num = (int_num + 0.5) / 100;
compare_num would be .535 in this case. If num is greater than or equal to compare_num, round up to int_num + 1. Otherwise round down simply to int_num.
Sean seems to have it, except, if you want to impose proper rules then you may want to throw in an if statement like so:
double value = .539999;
int result = (int) (value*100);
if(((value*100)%result)>.5)
result++;
I suggest you use long for rounding a double value. It won't matter for small numbers but could make a difference.
double d = 50.539999;
long cents = (long)(d * 100 + 0.5);
double rounded = cents/100;
What exactly are you trying to do? Are you always trying to go to two digits? Or are you always trying to fix things like 99999 at the end no matter what?
According to the comments, it is in fact the former: rounding to dollars and cents. So indeed just round(100*a)/100 is what you want. (The latter would be much more complicated...)
Finally, if you just want to extract the cents part, the following would work:
dollars_and_cents = round(100*a)/100
cents = (dollars_and_cents-(int)dollars_and_cents)*100
(or does java just have frac? In which case the last line would just be frac(dollars_and_cents)*100.