I have a section of code that abbreviates large numbers to shorter forms, truncating the less significant digits.
Example:
3732 -> 3.7k
432761 -> 432k
3786532 -> 3.8m
However, now I am looking to find a way of doing the same thing in non-English-speaking locales, where the character used to denote thousand and million might be different, and billion might refer to a different number entirely (long scale). Is there a simple way to do this?
Related
I know this is not a coding issue but since I found some Huffman questions here I am posting here since I still need this for my implementation. When doing extended Huffman coding, I understand that you do for example a1a1,a1a2,a1a3 etc and you do their probabilities times, however, how do you get the codeword? For example from the image below how do you get that 0.6400 = 0 and 0.0160 = 10101, etc?
First, let me describe how a Huffman tree works, then I will explain how extended Huffman encoding works.
Some terms, codeword means a sequence of bits in our encoded output, that has been compressed.
Terms like a1, a2 or a3 are our input characters, we can think of them as letters for now.
We have the two rules,
More common letters map to shorter code words than less likely to appear letters.
The two least likely letters have the same length code word.
These two requirements lead to a simple way of building a binary
tree describing an optimum prefix code - THE Huffman Code.
Start with the two most unlikely letters, we know their codewords will be p0 and p1 for some prefix p, now we merge them and consider them as one super-letter, and find the two least common
letters again.
Repeat until the prefix is empty.
Right, now for the extended code, we just group a sequence of letters, pairs in your example, and treat them as one letter in a much larger alphabet.
Source: http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fowler/fowler%20personal%20page/EE523_files/Ch_03%20Huffman%20&%20Extended%20Huffman%20%28PPT%29.pdf
As the question states, why is it considered best practice to store telephone numbers as strings rather than integers in the telephone_number column?
Not sure I understand the rationale for this. Please help clear this up!
Thanks!
Telephone numbers are strings of digit characters, they are not integers.
Consider for example:
Expressing a telephone number in a different base would render it meaningless
Adding or multiplying two telephone numbers together, or any math operation on a phone number, is meaningless. The result is not another telephone number (except by conicidence)
Telephone numbers are intended to be entered "as-is" into a connected device.
Telephone numbers may have leading zeroes.
Manipulations of telephone numbers, such as adding an area code, are String operations.
Storing the string version of the telephone number makes this clear and unambiguous.
History: On old pulse-encoded dial systems, the code for each digit in a telephone number was sent as the same number of pulses as the digit (or 10 pulses for "0"). That may be why we still use digits to represent the parts of a phone number. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_dialing
What Neil Slater said is correct. I would add that there are lots of edge cases where you can't express a telephone number as a number value consistently.
For example, consider these numbers:
011-123-555-1212
+11-123-555-1212
+1 (112) 355-5121 x2
These are all potentially valid phone numbers, but they mean very different things. Yet, in integer form, they are all 111235551212.
If you are going to store the number for display from input, then you must use a string.
However, while it is true that no mathematical operations can be performed on a number that have meaning. Using a number in hashsets and for indexing is quicker than using a string. So provided you can guarantee or homogenise your set of numbers, so they are all consistent, then you may see better performance operating on a number.
For example, in the Telco world, rating calls for a given customer includes a lot of searching on their CLI and in this situation it is faster and cheaper to search by integer. Generally though strings will be fine performance wise, it is only where performance matters and you have multiple searches to perform for a huge range of numbers - i.e. Rating 250 million calls across 2 million lines and 2000 tariffs. In memory rating also gets expensive, so being able to use a 64bit int or uint is cheaper when dealing with these volumes.
Consider these phone numbers for example
099-1234-56789 or +91-8907-687665.
In this case,if the phone_number attribute is of type integer,then it can't accept these values.It should be a string to hold these type of values.So string is always preferred than integer
There is several reasons for this :
Phone numbers often start with a "0" : an integer will remove all leading "0"s
Phone number can have special char : +, (, -, etc. (for exemple : +33 (0)6 12 23 34)
You cannot perform operations on phones : adding phones, for instance, would be meaningless
Phone number may be internationalised, i.e. different format for different people, thus not possible with integers
There might be other reasons, but I guess that's already a fair amount of those :)
I'm thinking this may be impossible to do resonably, but I figured I would take a shot at it. So lets say I have two NSStrings. One is #"Singin' In The Rain" and the other is #"Singing In The Rain". These strings are very similar, but have a small difference. I'm trying to find a way where I could write something like the following:
NSString *stringOne = #"Singin' In The Rain";
NSString *stringTwo = #"Singing In The Rain";
float dif = [stringOne differenceFrom:stringTwo];
//dif = .9634 or something like that
One project that I did find similar to this was taken from the previous similar question on Stack Overflow: Check if two NSStrings are similar. However, this simply returns a BOOL which isn't as accurate as I need it to be. I also tried looking into the compare: documentation for NSString but it all looked too basic. Another similar thing I found is at https://gist.github.com/iloveitaly/1515464. However, this gives varying results, even saying two of the same string are different occasionally. Any advice would be much appreciated.
The question is a little vague, but I would assume that the most satisfactory results will come from using NSLinguisticTagger. If you parse each for tags with the NSLinguisticTagSchemeLexicalClass scheme then your string will be broken down into verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. In your example, even if you weren't spotting that singin' and singing are the same, you'd spot the other three words are the same and that the thing at the end is a noun, so they're both about doing something in the same thing.
It'd probably be wise to use something like a BK-Tree to compare individual words where you suspect there may be a match (a noun obviously doesn't match an adverb but two nouns may match even if spellings differ).
Another off the wall suggestion:
The source, and hence the algorithm, for diff and similar programs is easily available. These compare input on a line-by-line basis and detect insertions, deletions and changes.
When comparing text strings for "closeness" then the insertion, deletion or changing of words seems as good a measure as any.
So:
Break each string into "words" (white space separated should be sufficient).
Compare the two lists using the diff algorithm, treating each "word" as a "line", use a re-sync length of 1 (the number of "lines" that need to be the same to treat the two inputs as back in sync)
Calculate the "closeness" as the number of insertions/deletions/changes compared to the total word count.
For the two example strings this would give 1:4 changes or 75% similar.
If you want greater granularity for each change split the two words into characters and repeat the algorithm giving you a fraction the word is similar by (as opposed to the whole word).
For the two example strings this would give 3 6/7 words out of 4, or 96% similar.
I'd recommend dynamic time warping for such comparisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_time_warping
This will however return distance between two strings (so you'll get 0 for identical), but this the best starting point I can think of.
I wonder what the idiomatic/builtin/fastest way is to do this: I get numbers as a string of characters, they look like:
0012345
or
001234p
Strings that end with letters represent negative values. The scale is available separately.
Depending on the scale info, the first could be what we'd normally write as 1234.5, .0012345, 12,345.00, etc. And the second is -12,340 or -1,234.0 ... or -.001234. "p" is 0, "q" is 1 & so on.
My first thought is pedestrian what-my-mom would-do string jiggering and Decimal.Parse.
I have to parse tens of thousands of such numbers at startup of an interactive app - so if there's a faster way to do it that's great. (Though I don't yet know for a fact that performance is ever a problem) I suppose there must in theory be a faster way to do it by writing a different decimal parse that recognizes the numbers as alternatives to digits. In practice the negative numbers are a tiny minority of the numbers I'll be seeing, but faster is better.
Thanks,
Levin
Until you know that performance is a problem, code this in the simplest way possible. Not worth optimizing such code ahead of time, it'll almost certainly perform well however you handle this.
This seems like a stupid question. Is the number "10" refered to "10" in Hebrew, Arabic, and all languages? I'm not seeing anywhere where it says you need to do anything special with numbers when dealing with localization. Maybe number format but what about the number itself? I would think that numbers would read differently in right-to-left languages but translate.google.com is giving me the same number back. Can anyone confirm this?
Arabic and Japanese (?) do have different glyphs for numbers, but the standard system is so commonplace, that usually numbers are not converted.
If you're using the .NET formatting functions, then the numbers will be formatted according to the system preferences (I'm talking commas and decimal points here)
Different languages can use different digit sigils;
Number representation is different. eg 1,234.56 in English is represented as 1.234'56 in German.
So the answer is yes.
The digits 0-9 usually don't require any localization, except minor tweaks like AndreyT said, but those are more "fonts" related than anything.
The only important thing to take into account is large number representation.
For example, take 1mio$
In Switzerland, it will be:
$1'000'000.-
in US
$1,000,000
In Japan it will be
$100万
I don't know other place, but you got the idea.
For Japan, it's very uncommon to see numbers greater than 10'000 without using a kanji.
But I think you should see with the person doing the localization.
For the actual numbers themselves (and not floating poing, thousands seperator, etc) there are in fact differences between languages.
Hebrew numerals actually use the Hebrew letters as a number system, though it is used only for "traditional" numbers, such as the year in the Jewish calendar, the chapter, verse and page numbers in the Hebrew Bible, in lists (similar to using roman numerals instead of numbers), etc. But for all other cases, Hindu-Arabic numerals are used (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4...) and are written left-to-right, even while the rest of the Hebrew text is written right-to-left (i.e. NML KJIHG 123 FEDC BA).
In Arabic, most countries use the Arabic-Indic numerals, but the Hindu-Arabic numerals are also understood.
In any case, .NET localization should take care of all conversions and display issues, and there's nothing special you need to do unless you render your own GUI.
There quite a few tings that can be localized in numbers. For example, in USA the fractional part of a number (if it has a fractional part) is separated by a dot, while in Russia a comma is normally used. In USA commas would be used to separate three-digit groups in the number, while in Russia it is not customary to separate them at all, or space is used for that purpose (or maybe some other character, but not a comma). And so on (although most of the formatting options apply to monetary quantities).
Even the preferred way to write characters themselves can depend on locale. In USA the character for '7' is usually written in two strokes, while in Europe it quite often has a third stroke - a short horizontal line through the middle. This, of course, is less important, since the two-stroke version is still recognized everywhere.
If you are displaying the numbers for math purposes (for example, showing 5 + 3 = 8), then use the standard digits 0-9. These are used nearly universally in mathematics.
If you are displaying something that is highly localized
(i.e. pricing on a street vendor's point-of-sale system in Saudi Arabia), there are a handful of countries that use different digits that are localized to their respective languages.
Most regions of people in the world will be fine with understanding 0-9 though.
I found this website to be a good starting guide: https://phrase.com/blog/posts/number-localization/
Some examples:
Bengali, for example, uses the Bengali–Assamese numeral system, whose
digits differ from the Western Arabic system: ০, ১, ২, ৩, ৪, ৫, ৬, ৭,
৮, ৯.
In some locales like Saudi Arabia, for example, it’s common to
represent numbers in the local numeral system, Eastern Arabic, and not
the Western Arabic system.
Keep in mind that we are just talking about digits here. When it comes to fractions (/), decimals (.), percentages (%), large number separators (,), number symbols (#), etc. most regions have specific rules and that's a whole other topic. They are not universal.