I don't have much coding experience so I don't really know of an efficient alternative to modulo, the issue I have is that I want to have the same funcionality but witouth it ever returning zero if that makes sense.
So I have an arbritary value % 8 and I want my results to go (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,etc)
any help or push in the right direction would be appreciated.
I assume you're trying to make indices from 1 to 8 loop. For zero-based offsets from 0 to 7 this would be trivial by using i % 8; consider simply making your table zero-based.
For one-based indices, the simplest way to go is to first subtract 1 to make it zero-based, then apply the modulo to wrap around, then add 1 to make it one-based again: ((i - 1) % 8) + 1.
So I have an arbritary value % 8 and I want my results to go
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,etc)
local result = value % 8 + 1
This is a simple maths problem. If one arrithmetic operator doesn't give you the desired result, use or add others to your formula.
Related
I want to use Maxima to get the prime factorization of a random positive integer, e.g. 12=2^2*3^1.
What I have tried so far:
a:random(20);
aa:abs(a);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:length(fa);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This will be implemented in STACK for Moodle as part of a online exercise for students, so the exact implementation will be a little bit different from this, but I broke it down to these 7 lines.
I generate a random number a, make sure that it is a positive integer by using aa=|a|+1 and want to use the ifactors command to get the prime factors of aa. ka tells me the number of pairwise distinct prime factors which I then use for the while loop in pfza. If I let this piece of code run, it returns everything fine, execpt for simplifying ta, that is I don't get ta as a product of primes with some exponents but rather just ta=aa.
I then tried to turn off the simplifier, manually simplifying everything else that I need:
simp:false$
a:random(20);
aa:ev(abs(a),simp);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:ev(length(fa),simp);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This however does not compile; I assume the problem is somewhere in the line for pfza, but I don't know why.
Any input on how to fix this? Or another method of getting the factorizing in a non-simplified form?
(1) The for-loop fails because adding 1 to i requires 1 + 1 to be simplified to 2, but simplification is disabled. Here's a way to make the loop work without requiring arithmetic.
(%i10) for f in fa do ta:ta*(f[1]^f[2]);
(%o10) done
(%i11) ta;
2 2 1
(%o11) ((1 2 ) 2 ) 3
Hmm, that's strange, again because of the lack of simplification. How about this:
(%i12) apply ("*", map (lambda ([f], f[1]^f[2]), fa));
2 1
(%o12) 2 3
In general I think it's better to avoid explicit indexing anyway.
(2) But maybe you don't need that at all. factor returns an unsimplified expression of the kind you are trying to construct.
(%i13) simp:true;
(%o13) true
(%i14) factor(12);
2
(%o14) 2 3
I think it's conceptually inconsistent for factor to return an unsimplified, but anyway it seems to work here.
This is related to the Zeller's Congruence algorithm where there is a requirement to use Modulo to get the actual day of an input date. However, in the software I'm using which is Blueprism, there is no modulo operator/function that is available and I can't get the result I would hope to get.
In some coding language (Python, C#, Java), Zeller's congruence formula were provided because mod is available.
Would anyone know a long method of combine arithmetic operation to get the mod result?
From what I've read, mod is the remainder result from two numbers. But
181 mod 7 = 6 and 181 divided by 7 = 25.857.. the remainder result are different.
There are two answers to this.
If you have a floor() or int() operation available, then a % b is:
a - floor(a/b)*b
(revised to incorporate Andrzej Kaczor's comment, thanks!)
If you don't, then you can iterate, each time subtracting b from a until the remainder is less than b. At that point, the remainder is a % b.
def digits(n):
total=0
for i in range(0,n):
if n/(10**(i))<1 and n/(10**(i-1))=>1:
total+=i
else:
total+=0
return total
I want to find the number of digits in 13 so I do the below
print digits(13)
it gives me $\0$ for every number I input into the function.
there's nothing wrong with what I've written as far as I can see:
if a number has say 4 digits say 1234 then dividing by 10^4 will make it less than 1: 0.1234 and dividing by 10^3 will make it 1.234
and by 10^3 will make it 1.234>1. when i satisfies BOTH conditions you know you have the correct number of digits.
what's failing here? Please can you advise me on the specific method I've tried
and not a different one?
Remember for every n there can only be one i which satisfies that condition.
so when you add i to the total there will only be i added so total returning total will give you i
your loop makes no sense at all. It goes from 0 to exact number - not what you want.
It looks like python, so grab a solution that uses string:
def digits(n):
return len(str(int(n))) # make sure that it's integer, than conver to string and return number of characters == number of digits
EDIT:
If you REALLY want to use a loop to count number of digits, you can do this this way:
def digits(n):
i = 0
while (n > 1):
n = n / 10
++i
return i
EDIT2:
since you really want to make your solution work, here is your problem. Provided, that you call your function like digits(5), 5 is of type integer, so your division is integer-based. That means, that 6/100 = 0, not 0.06.
def digits(n):
for i in range(0,n):
if n/float(10**(i))<1 and n/float(10**(i-1))=>1:
return i # we don't need to check anything else, this is the solution
return null # we don't the answer. This should not happen, but still, nice to put it here. Throwing an exception would be even better
I fixed it. Thanks for your input though :)
def digits(n):
for i in range(0,n):
if n/(10**(i))<1 and n/(10**(i-1))>=1:
return i
I have a panel data set for which I would like to calculate moving averages across years.
Each year is a variable for which there is an observation for each state, and I would like to create a new variable for the average of every three year period.
For example:
P1947=rmean(v1943 v1944 v1945), P1947=rmean(v1944 v1945 v1946)
I figured I should use a foreach loop with the egen command, but I'm not sure about how I should refer to the different variables within the loop.
I'd appreciate any guidance!
This data structure is quite unfit for purpose. Assuming an identifier id you need to reshape, e.g.
reshape long v, i(id) j(year)
tsset id year
Then a moving average is easy. Use tssmooth or just generate, e.g.
gen mave = (L.v + v + F.v)/3
or (better)
gen mave = 0.25 * L.v + 0.5 * v + 0.25 * F.v
More on why your data structure is quite unfit: Not only would calculation of a moving average need a loop (not necessarily involving egen), but you would be creating several new extra variables. Using those in any subsequent analysis would be somewhere between awkward and impossible.
EDIT I'll give a sample loop, while not moving from my stance that it is poor technique. I don't see a reason behind your naming convention whereby P1947 is a mean for 1943-1945; I assume that's just a typo. Let's suppose that we have data for 1913-2012. For means of 3 years, we lose one year at each end.
forval j = 1914/2011 {
local i = `j' - 1
local k = `j' + 1
gen P`j' = (v`i' + v`j' + v`k') / 3
}
That could be written more concisely, at the expense of a flurry of macros within macros. Using unequal weights is easy, as above. The only reason to use egen is that it doesn't give up if there are missings, which the above will do.
FURTHER EDIT
As a matter of completeness, note that it is easy to handle missings without resorting to egen.
The numerator
(v`i' + v`j' + v`k')
generalises to
(cond(missing(v`i'), 0, v`i') + cond(missing(v`j'), 0, v`j') + cond(missing(v`k'), 0, v`k')
and the denominator
3
generalises to
!missing(v`i') + !missing(v`j') + !missing(v`k')
If all values are missing, this reduces to 0/0, or missing. Otherwise, if any value is missing, we add 0 to the numerator and 0 to the denominator, which is the same as ignoring it. Naturally the code is tolerable as above for averages of 3 years, but either for that case or for averaging over more years, we would replace the lines above by a loop, which is what egen does.
There is a user written program that can do that very easily for you. It is called mvsumm and can be found through findit mvsumm
xtset id time
mvsumm observations, stat(mean) win(t) gen(new_variable) end
i used arc4random to create a random number, is there a way to tell arc4random to begin at for example -5 instead of 0? because i want to create a random number in the range of
-3,4 to 4,3, im not that good in iOS developing yet, so what other possiblities do i have if that wont work with arc4random (Links are appreciated if theres a guide or something like that)
First of all, use arc4random_uniform to get a random number in the desired absolute range (for -3 to 4 it would be 7): arc4random_uniform(7).
You might also see the form arc4random() % max, but that will introduce a modulo bias making the distribution less random, arc4random_uniform is prefered.
Afterwards, adjust your lower bound:
arc4random_uniform(7) - 3
apple docs
Since arc4random() % n returns an integer from 0..n-1, arc4random() % (n - k) + k returns one from k..n-1. Plug in k=-5. Is that what you need?
If you want it to start at -5 instead of 0, just subtract 5.
If you want to create a random number in the range of -3 to 4, just create a number from 0 to 7 and subtract 3 from it.
The arc4random function gives you a number from zero to 4,294,967,295. To change that to a number from 0 to 7, just divide by 613,566,756. (Or use arc4random_uniform to avoid any bias.)