I'm using the Xcode debugger, and these numbers don't seem to add. I was curious as to why :
(lldb) p height
(CGFloat) $R0 = 2.1815627849240522E-314
(lldb) p frame.size
(CGSize) $R1 = (width = 375, height = 1000)
(lldb) p frame.size.height
(CGFloat) $R2 = 1000
(lldb) p height + frame.size.height
(CGFloat) $R3 = 1000
I have 3 questions about this..
What is 2.1815627849240522E-314 ? What kind of number is that?
Is it possible to instantiate temporary variables in debugger like you would in Ruby console, Chrome console etc.? For example, let temp_x = 4 ?
Why does my $R3 return 1000 and not.. something bigger?
2.1815627849240522E-314 is essentially zero. 1000 + 0 = 1000.
Floating point numbers have two parts - mantissa and exponent (position of the decimal point). e-341 means "move the decimal point 341 places to the right"
Adding 1000 to that very very small number creates a number that would be equal
1000.000...(> 300 zeros here)...2181567849240522
Even double mantissa can't represent numbers like this (double can represent up to 17 decimal digits) so it takes only the more important numbers in the beginning.
I encourage you to read through What Every Programmer Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic
Related
I'm trying to get the decimals in simple division but is always returning zero:
(lldb) po Double(20 / 100)
0.0
(lldb) po Float(20 / 100)
0.0
Any of you knows why is returning zero? or there is a way to get the of 0.20 ?
I'll really appreciate your help
20 / 100 is an integer division, and so is 0 (since 100 > 20). That 0 is passed to Double.init.
You want floating point division:
20.0/100.0
You can also use 20.0/100 since a Double divided by an Int is a Double, or 20/100.0 for the same reason.
None of these will return 0.20 exactly, since that can't be represented by Double. 20.0/100 is 0.20000000000000001. But I assume this is what you're looking for.
This is (supposed to be) a function which makes sure that the the sum of a number of slider's values always adds up to globalTotal.
A slider value can be changed manually by the user to changer.value and then when applying this function to the values of the other sliders, it can determine their new or endVal.
It takes the startVal of the slider which needs changing and the original value of the slider that changed changerStartVal and can determine the new value others by weighting.
The problem and my question is. Sometimes remainingStartVals can be zero (when the slider changing gets moved all the way to maximum) or startVal can be zero (when the slider changing is moved to zero and then another slider is moved). When this happens I get a divide-by-zero or a multiply-by-zero respectively. Both of which are bad and lead to incorrect results. Is there an easy way to fix this?
func calcNewVal(startVal: Float, changerStartVal: Float) -> Float {
let remainingStartVals = globalTotal - changerStartVal
let remainingNewVals = globalTotal - changer.value
let endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
return endVal
}
This is a mathematical problem, not a problem related to Swift or any specific programming language so I'll answer with mathematical formulas and explanations rather than code snippets.
I don't really understand your algorithm either. For example in this line:
let endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
you first multiply by 100 and then divide by 100, so you could just leave all these 100 factors out in the first place!
However, I think I understand what you're trying to achieve and the problem is that there is no generic solution. Before writing an algorithm you have to define exactly how you want it to behave, including all edge cases.
Let's define:
vi as the value of the i-th slider and
Δi as the change of the i-th slider's value
Then you have to think of the following cases:
Case 1:
0 < vi ≤ 1 for all sliders (other than the one you changed)
This is probably the common case you were thinking about. In this case you want to adjust the values of your unchanged sliders so that their total change is equal to the change Δchanged of the slider you changed. In other words:
∑i Δi = 0
If you have 3 sliders this reduces to:
Δ1 + Δ2 + Δ3 = 0
And if the slider that changed is the one with i = 1 then this requirement would read:
Δ1 = – (Δ2 + Δ3)
You want the sliders to adjust proportionally which means that this change Δ1 should not be distributed equally on the other sliders but depending on their current value:
Δ2 = – w2 * Δ1
Δ3 = – w3 * Δ1
The normed weight factors are
w2 = v2 / (v2 + v3)
w3 = v3 / (v2 + v3)
Thus we get:
Δ2 = – v2 / (v2 + v3) * Δ1
Δ3 = – v3 / (v2 + v3) * Δ1
So these are the formulas to applied for this particular case.
However, there are quite a few other cases that don't work with this approach:
Case 2:
vi = 0 for at least one, but not all of the sliders (other than the one you changed)
In this case the approach from case 1 would still work (plus it would be the logical thing to do). However, a slider's value would never change if it's zero. All of the change will be distributed over the sliders with a value > 0.
Case 3:
vi = 0 for all sliders (other than the one you changed)
In this case the proportional change doesn't work because there is simply no information how to distribute the change over the sliders. They're all zero! This is actually your zero division problem: In the case where we have 3 sliders and the slider 1 changes we'll get
v2 + v3 = 0
This is only another manifestation of the fact that the weight factors wi are simply undefined. Thus, you'll have to manually define what will happen in this case.
The most plausible thing to do in this case is to distribute the change evenly over all sliders:
Δi = – (1 / n) * Δ1
where n is the number of sliders (excluding the one that was changed!). With this logic, every slider gets "the same share" of the change.
Now that we're clear with our algorithm you can implement these cases in code. Here some pseudo code as an example:
if sum(valuesOfAllSlidersOtherThanTheSliderThatChanged) == 0 {
for allUnchangedSliders {
// distribute change evenly over the sliders
Δi = – (1 / n) * Δ_changedSlider
}
}
else {
for allUnchangedSliders {
// use weight factor to change proportionally
Δi = – v_i / ∑(v_i) * Δ_changedSlider
}
}
Please be aware that you must cache the values of the current state of your sliders at the beginning or (even better) first compute all the changes and then apply all the changes in a batch. Otherwise you will use a value v2' that you just computed for determining the value v3' which will obviously result in incorrect values.
Hey #Sean the simplest adjustment that I could think of here is to check if the remainingStartVals is not 0 that means that there are weights assigned to the other sliders and also check if a single slider had a weight to begin with which means its startVal shouldn't be equal to 0
func calcNewVal(startVal: Float, changerStartVal: Float) -> Float{
var endVal = 0
let remainingStartVals = globalTotal - changerStartVal
if remainingStartVals != 0 || startVal != 0{
let remainingNewVals = globalTotal - changer.value
endVal = ((startVal * (100 / remainingStartVals)) / 100) * remainingNewVals
}
return endVal
}
Why does my method return values < 0.4 in some cases?
e.g. 0.225501
#define ARC4RANDOM_MAX 0x100000000
float myVar = [self randomFloat:0.4 to:2];
- (float)randomFloat:(int)from to:(int)to
{
return ((double)arc4random() / ARC4RANDOM_MAX) * (to - from) + from;
}
You are casting your parameters to integers (which in your case changes your range to between 0 and 2), change the parameters to be float.
- (float)randomFloat:(float)from to:(float)to
when dividing and using floats the precision of the decimals is sometimes lost. Maybe you can use a long with N fixed number of digits and place the decimal point before those digits. The other day I was getting strange results when adding (1 + (3/10))= should be 1.3 but I always had something like 1.29995 . Hope it helps
I need to round a number, let's say 543 to either the hundreds or the tens place. It could be either one, as it's part of a game and this stage can ask you to do one or the other.
So for example, it could ask, "Round number to nearest tens", and if the number was 543, they would have to enter in 540.
However, I don't see a function that you can specify target place value to round at. I know there's an easy solution, I just can't think of one right now.
From what I see, the round function rounds the last decimal place?
Thanks
To rounding to 100's place
NSInteger num=543;
NSInteger deci=num%100;//43
if(deci>49){
num=num-deci+100;//543-43+100 =600
}
else{
num=num-deci;//543-43=500
}
To round to 10's place
NSInteger num=543;
NSInteger deci=num%10;//3
if(deci>4){
num=num-deci+100;//543-3+10 =550
}
else{
num=num-deci;//543-3=540
}
EDIT:
Tried to merge the above in one:
NSInteger num=543;
NSInteger place=100; //rounding factor, 10 or 100 or even more.
NSInteger condition=place/2;
NSInteger deci=num%place;//43
if(deci>=condition){
num=num-deci+place;//543-43+100 =600.
}
else{
num=num-deci;//543-43=500
}
You may just use an algorithm in your code:
For example, lets say that you need to round up a number to hundred's place.
int c = 543
int k = c % 100
if k > 50
c = (c - k) + 100
else
c = c - k
To round numbers, you can use the modulus operator, %.
The modulus operator gives you the remainder after division.
So 543 % 10 = 3, and 543 % 100 = 43.
Example:
int place = 10;
int numToRound=543;
// Remainder is 3
int remainder = numToRound%place;
if(remainder>(place/2)) {
// Called if remainder is greater than 5. In this case, it is 3, so this line won't be called.
// Subtract the remainder, and round up by 10.
numToRound=(numToRound-remainder)+place;
}
else {
// Called if remainder is less than 5. In this case, 3 < 5, so it will be called.
// Subtract the remainder, leaving 540
numToRound=(numToRound-remainder);
}
// numToRound will output as 540
NSLog(#"%i", numToRound);
Edit: My original answer was submitted before it was ready, because I accidentally hit a key to submit it. Oops.
Can I set a range of numbers when using arc4random()? For example 50-100 only.
As pointed out in other posts below, it is better to use arc4random_uniform. (When this answer was originally written, arc4random_uniform was not available). Besides avoiding the modulo bias of arc4random() % x, it also avoids a seeding problem with arc4random when used recursively in short timeframes.
arc4random_uniform(4)
will generate 0, 1, 2 or 3. Thus you could use:
arc4random_uniform(51)
and merely add 50 to the result to get a range between 50 & 100 (inclusive).
To expand upon JohnK comment.
It is suggested that you use the following function to return a ranged random number:
arc4random_uniform(51)
which will return a random number in the range 0 to 50.
Then you can add your lower bounds to this like:
arc4random_uniform(51) + 50
which will return a random number in the range 50 to 100.
The reason we use arc4random_uniform(51) over arc4random() % 51 is to avoid the modulo bias. This is highlighted in the man page as follows:
arc4random_uniform(upper_bound) will return a uniformly distributed random number less than upper_bound. arc4random_uniform() is recommended over constructions like ``arc4random() % upper_bound'' as it avoids "modulo bias" when the upper bound is not a power of two.
In short you get a more evenly distributed random number generated.
int fromNumber = 10;
int toNumber = 30;
int randomNumber = (arc4random()%(toNumber-fromNumber))+fromNumber;
Will generate randon number between 10 and 30, i.e. 11,12,13,14......29
You can use this code for generating random values with range:
//range from 50 to 100
int num1 = (arc4random() % 50) + 50; or
int num1 = arc4random_uniform(50) + 50;
//range from 0-100
int num1 = arc4random() % 100; or
int num1 = arc4random_uniform(100);
In Swift you can use this (inspired by answer of #Justyn)
func generateRandomKey(fromRange rangeFrom:Int, toRange rangeTo:Int) -> Int{
let theKey = arc4random_uniform(UInt32(rangeTo - rangeFrom)) + UInt32(rangeFrom)
return Int(theKey)
}
Will always give you a random range Integer.
In many situations 10 thru 30 would mean inclusive, (includes 10 and 30) ...
int fromNumber = 10;
int toNumber = 30;
toNumber ++;
int randomNumber = (arc4random()%(toNumber-fromNumber))+fromNumber;
Notice the difference toNumber - fromNumber is now 21 ... (20+1) which yields the possible results of 0 thru 20 (inclusive) which when added to fromNumber (10) results in 10 thru 30 (inclusive).