This question already has answers here:
How dangerous is it to compare floating point values?
(12 answers)
Error subtracting floating point numbers when passing through 0.0
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I tested this on a empty project and does not happen.
As you can see the newValue becomes 2.98023e-08 when I subtract the bossPercentage value.
This happens only when bossPercentage is 0.2f and the previous value is 0.2f.
The difference should be 0.0f but I don't understand why I get 2.98023e-08 instead.
For reference, remainingBossPercentage is a property in [GameController] class defined as following:
//header
#property (readwrite, nonatomic) float remainingBossPercentage;
//.m
#synthetize remainingBossPercentage;
//init
remainingBossPercentage=1.0f;
I'd like to ask you inisght on what I may be doing that causes this error.
EDIT: I subtract 0.2f to remainingBossPercentage (for each boss enemy) and everything works fine until I reach the last enemy object that has again 0.2f and I get to the crucial point of doing 0.2f - 0.2f (screenshot below)
EDIT 2: I am greatful for all comments and answers, also the closing votes. What induced me to ask this question is the fact that newValue is 2.98023e-08. I now see that there are also comparison issues (thanks to the extremely useful QA linked by the people that voted to close the answer). What I wonder is.. why in my new test project with only 2 test variables this does not happen? (I created a HelloWorld project that substracts two floats).
I am asking this because, as one of the user suggests, is important to understand floating points without taking shourtcuts. YES, I am taking a shortcut by asking this question because I don't have time tonight to study it properly but I would like to try understanding and learning at the best I can. I will read the answers properly and dedicate my time to understand but if in the meanwhile I can I would like to add a doubt:
could it be that for memory management reasons the two projects (the test one and my actual game) beheave differently? Could the different beheaviour of the two projects somehow linked with memory being swapped in dirty areas? (e.g. the game having bigger memory usage gets swapped more and hence there may be a loss of precision?)
PS: I found out a question with exactly the same 2.98023e-08 value. What I still wonder is why this doesn't happen in the same test project (I am doing some more testing now).
Simply, floating point numbers should not be expected to be completely accurate.
Floating point numbers (as used in our usual computers) are natively in base 2, out usual number is base 10. Not all numbers in one number base can be expressed with full accuracy in another number base.
As an empale 1/3 can not be expressed with complete accurate in the base 10 number system (0.333333...) but can be in the base 3 number system.
The upshot, one needs to compare floating point numbers with a specified error range. Take the absolute value of the difference and compare that to the allowable range.
Because of this financial amounts are generally not (should not be) expressed as floating point numbers. This give rise to classes such as NSDecimalNumber.
Related
I'm comparing two NSNumbers in my app and I've done it the wrong way:
if(max < selected)
And it should be:
if([max longValue] < [selected longValue])
So the first comparison is really comparing the two object memory addresses, the funny thing (at least for me) is that the values seems to be related with the addresses. For example, if I get the first number with value 5 its memory address is 0xb000000000000053 and if I get the second with 10 is 0xb0000000000000a3 (being "a" equivalent to 10 in hexadecimal).
For that reason the first comparison (wrong) was actually working. Now an user complaint about an error here and is obviously because of this but it has lead me to the next questions:
Does this only happen in simulators? Cause it's where I'm testing, and the user will have a real device. Or maybe this happen normally but it's not a rule always fulfilled?
This is a "tagged pointer," not an address. The value 5 is packed inside the pointer as you've seen. You can identify tagged pointers because they're odd (the last bit is 1). It's not possible to fetch odd addresses on any of Apple's hardware (the word size is 4 or 8 bytes), so that bit is never set for a real address.
Tagged pointers are only available on 64-bit platforms. If you run on a 32-bit platform then the values will be real pointers, and they may not be in any particular order, which will then lead to the kinds of bugs you're encountering. Unfortunately I don't believe there is any way to get a compiler warning or even a static analysis warning for this kind of misuse on NSNumber.
Mike Ash provides an in-depth discussion of the subject.
On a slightly related note, on 32-bit platforms, certain NSNumbers are singletons, particularly small values since they're used a lot (-1 through 12 as I recall, but I believe it's different on different platforms). This means that == may happen to work for some numbers, but not for others. It also means that without ARC, it was possible to over-release a specific value (for example, 4) such that your program would crash the next time it happened to use that value. True story.... very hard to debug.
I'm using Z3 as a black box to find all possible combinations of some real-world objects with C# code like this:
while (solver.Check() == Status.SATISFIABLE)
{
SATModel = solver.Model;
....
//invert the Model
....
solver.Assert(InvertedModel)
}
For most of my problems the program is working fine, but now I have a bigger problem, where there would be 8.5E+64 possible combinations without constraints.
I'm starting with some 6000 constraints.
What I observe is that the check action takes less than .02 seconds at the beginning and builds up slowly. After 100000 found solutions it takes already 1 second per turn and after 130000 turns I measure 2 seconds.
Is there an easy way to improve the performance?
It's not unreasonable that the solver is taking longer and longer with each constraint. But to make sure it's not some sort of a memory-leak on the C# part, you should check that the time taken in your while loop is really in the Check part and not in the invert/assert part. If you determine z3 is the responsible party, perhaps filing it at https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3/issues might solicit a better answer from the developers.
So in Lua it's common knowledge that you can use math.randomseed but it's also obvious that math.random sets the seed as well (calling it twice does not return the same result), what does it set it to, and how can I keep track of it, and if it's impossible, please explain why that is so.
This is not a Lua question, but general question on how some RNG algorithm works.
First, Lua don't have their own RNG - they just output you (slightly mangled) value from RNG of underlying C library. Most RNG implementations do not reveal you their inner state, but sometimes you can caclulate it yourself.
For example when you use Lua on Windows, you'll be using LCG-based RNG from MS C library. The numbers you get is a slice of seed, not full value. There are two ways you can deal with that:
If you know how many times you called random, you can just take initial seed value, feed it to your copy of the same algorithm with same constants that are hardcoded in MS library and get exact value of seed.
If you don't, but you can be sure that nobody interferes in between your two calls to random, you can get two generated numbers, and reverse LCG algorithm by shifting bits back to their place. This will leave you with several missing bits (with one more bit thanks to Lua mangling) that you will need to simply bruteforce - just reiterate over all missing bits until your copy of algorithm produces exactly same two "random" numbers you've recorded before. That will be current seed stored inside library's RNG as well. Well programmed solution in Lua can bruteforce this in about 0.2-0.5s on somewhat dated PC - I did it past. Here's example on Crypto.SE talking about this task in more details: Predicting values from a Linear Congruential Generator.
First approach can be used with any other RNG algorithm that doesn't use any real entropy, second with most RNGs that don't mask too much bits in slice to make bruteforcing unreasonable.
Real answer though is: you don't need to keep track of seed at all. What you want is probably something else.
If you set a seed all numbers math.random() generates are pseudo-random (This is always the case as the system will generate a seed by itself).
math.randomseed(4)
print(math.random())
print(math.random())
math.randomseed(4)
print(math.random())
Outputs
0.50827539156303
0.75454387490399
0.50827539156303
So if you reset the seed to the same value you can predict all values that are going to come up to the maximum number of consecutive values that you already generated using that seed.
What the seed does not do is keep the output of math.random() the same. It would be the same if you kept resetting it to the same value.
An analogy as an example
Imagine the random number is an integer between 0 and 9 (instead of a double between 0 and 1).
math.random() could traverse pi's decimals from an arbitrary starting position (default could be system time).
What you do when you use set.seed() is (not literally, this is an analogy as mentioned) set the starting decimals of where in pi you are going to retrieve your numbers.
If you now reset the seed to the same starting position the numbers are going to be the same as the last time you reset the starting position.
You will know the numbers of to the last call, after that you can't be certain anymore.
This question already has answers here:
Rails 3: Get Random Record
(15 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have a pretty simple application that needs to (as fairly as possible) randomly assign a person to a team.
At the moment, I am iterating through with a few different methods.
Team.where(assigned: false).order("RANDOM()").first
as well as loading it into an array and using sample()
arr.sample().inspect
However, these don't appear to be truly random, they typically leave the edges (1,2..8,9 where count = 10) til last. Is there a better method that does or doesn't involve AR? Is there a mathematically noticeable difference between PSQL rand and sqlite3 random()?
Any assistance on loops to generate said random distribution are appreciated!
Although there may be more ways to generate random numbers to select a record (even extreme measures like random.org) the random selections you have provided should prove to be more than sufficient and with little or no difference between them.
If I were you I would however realise the difference in overhead between the two; one should select only one record from the database, the other pulls all the records into memory and picks one at random. If the Team table were to become large this could lead to a memory and calculation drain that would slow the whole calculation. The second method I would only use if I needed the whole table in memory for some other purpose as well.
Is it preferable to store redundant information, (which can be otherwise generated from existing data,) or to instead convert the existing data each time you need access?
I've simplified my specific problem as best as I can below, hoping that the provided answers are useful as future-reference material.
Example:
Let's say we've developed a program that places data into Squares on a grid (like a super-descriptive game of Tic-Tac-Toe or something) and assigns various details, and a unique identification number to each:
Throughout our program, we often perform logic based on a square's X and/or Y coordinates (checking for 3 in a row) and other times we only need the ID (perhaps to access a string at "SquareName[ID]") - We aren't exactly certain which of these two is accessed more often, but it's a rather close competition.
Up until now we've simply stored the ID inside the square class, and converted it with some simple formulas whenever just the X or Y are needed. Say we want to get coordinates for one square in particular:
int CurrentX = (this.Square.ID - 1) % 3) + 1; // X coordinate, 1 through 3
int CurrentY = (this.Square.ID + 1) / 3; // Y, 1 through 3
Since the squares don't move around or change ID after setup, part of me believes it would be simpler just to store all 3 values inside the Square class, but my other part cringes at the redundancy since access to X and Y is already easy enough to calculate from the existing ID.
(Note, This program itself is not very memory or resource intensive, nor does the size of the grid get much larger, so it mostly comes down to which option is a better practice or rule of thumb.)
What would you do?
As a rule of thumb, for a system where the data is read/write, store your basic data without redundancy.
When performance or other considerations become a practical issue, then you should denormalize as necessary. (i.e. wait for it to be a problem, don't pre-optimize overly much).
Your goal should be the most maintainable code possible. That usually means writing the least code possible. Having extra code to maintain redundant copies of data points will make your code more brittle.
If those are values which can be determined at the moment of creation and then do not change anymore, I would go for variables populated in the constructor. It's not redundant info in so far as that it isn't stored anywhere else, but that's not my main point. When reading my code, I'd usually expect that whenever something is computed at the time of request, it might change per request. It is easy to find the point in the source where the field is populated and where it is changed, especially if it does never change, but you might end up slightly confused when looking at some calculation which will return always the same result, as it's variables can't change, and wonder whether you're just missing a case or this is really static.
Also, using a descriptive variable name, you can get rid of the comments. Not that I generally aim at not commenting, but source code which doesn't even need comments is a pretty save signal for easy to understand code, which might (/should) be your aim.