I need to randomly generate either a "-1" or a "1" to determine the sign of a number randomly... What's the shortest method? I am currently using this but it seems pretty long:
sign = (round((arc4random() % 2)))-((round((arc4random() % 2))) == 0);
What about arc4random_uniform(2) ? -1 : 1?
or arc4random_uniform(2)*2 - 1
short int randomNumber () {
return arc4random() % 2 ? 1 : -1;
}
Related
I need to check if an integer is divisible by another integer exactly.
If not I would like to round it up to the closest multiple of the number.
Example:
var numberOne = 3
var numberTwo = 5
numberTwo is not a multiple of numberOne therefore I would like it to round numberTwo up to 6.
How would I do this?
Thank you
1) If you want to check or an integer is divided by another integer:
Swift 5
if numberOne.isMultiple(of: numberTwo) { ... }
Swift 4 or less
if numberOne % numberTwo == 0 { ... }
2) Function to round to the closest multiple value:
func roundToClosestMultipleNumber(_ numberOne: Int, _ numberTwo: Int) -> Int {
var result: Int = numberOne
if numberOne % numberTwo != 0 {
if numberOne < numberTwo {
result = numberTwo
} else {
result = (numberOne / numberTwo + 1) * numberTwo
}
}
return result
}
You can use the modulo operator %:
numberTwo % numberOne == 0
The modulo finds the remainder of an integer division between 2 numbers, so for example:
20 / 3 = 6
20 % 3 = 20 - 6 * 3 = 2
The result of 20/3 is 6.666667 - the dividend (20) minus the integer part of that division multiplied by the divisor (3 * 6) is the modulo (20 - 6 * 3) , equal to 2 in this case.
If the modulo is zero, then the dividend is a multiple of the divisor
More info about the modulo at this wikipedia page.
Swift 5
isMultiple(of:)
Returns true if this value is a multiple of the given
value, and false otherwise.
func isMultiple(of other: Int) -> Bool
let rowNumber = 4
if rowNumber.isMultiple(of: 2) {
print("Even")
} else {
print("Odd")
}
You can use truncatingRemainder. E.g.,
if number.truncatingRemainder(dividingBy: 10) == 0 {
print("number is divisible by 10")
}
I want to get a random number either + or -:
But what's wrong here
func randomPlusMinus(value:Float) -> Float {
return value * (arc4random() % 2 ? 1 : -1)
}
Error: Could not find an overload for '*' that accepts the supplied arguments
Try:
func randomPlusMinus(value:Float) -> Float {
let invert: Bool = arc4random_uniform(2) == 1
return value * (invert ? -1.0 : 1.0)
}
I don't think you can say if 0 or if 1. You should be using a boolean value with if and the ternary operator (cond ? v1 : v2).
Then there's the Swift numerics thing (which is really annoying, they need to add/implement more convertible protocols in the Std library :/ )
PS - I don't have an interpreter handy, but I will double check later
Having an explicit test for the result of the modulo operation works for me:
func randomPlusMinus(value:Float) -> Float {
return 0 == (arc4random() % 2) ? value : -value
}
I'm a little late to answering this, but I feel the simplest solution would be:
func randomPlusMinus(value:Float) -> Float {
return value * (arc4random_uniform(2) * 2 - 1)
}
The arc4random call will (supposedly) return 0 50% of the time and 1 50% of the time. So multiplying by 2 gives 0 or 2, then subtracting 1 gives -1 or 1. So the function returns value * -1 50% of the time and value * 1 the other 50% of the time.
I think this is what you are after if you want to random the +- of original value:
func randomPlusMinus(value:Float) -> Float {
let x = arc4random_uniform(2)
switch x {
case 0 :
return value * -1
default :
return value
}
}
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).
If I am given a floating point number but do not know beforehand what range the number will be in, is it possible to scale that number in some meaningful way to be in another range? I am thinking of checking to see if the number is in the range 0<=x<=1 and if not scale it to that range and then scale it to my final range. This previous post provides some good information, but it assumes the range of the original number is known beforehand.
You can't scale a number in a range if you don't know the range.
Maybe what you're looking for is the modulo operator. Modulo is basically the remainder of division, the operator in most languages is is %.
0 % 5 == 0
1 % 5 == 1
2 % 5 == 2
3 % 5 == 3
4 % 5 == 4
5 % 5 == 0
6 % 5 == 1
7 % 5 == 2
...
Sure it is not possible. You can define range and ignore all extrinsic values. Or, you can collect statistics to find range in run time (i.e. via histogram analysis).
Is it really about image processing? There are lots of related problems in image segmentation field.
You want to scale a single random floating point number to be between 0 and 1, but you don't know the range of the number?
What should 99.001 be scaled to? If the range of the random number was [99, 100], then our scaled-number should be pretty close to 0. If the range of the random number was [0, 100], then our scaled-number should be pretty close to 1.
In the real world, you always have some sort of information about the range (either the range itself, or how wide it is). Without further info, the answer is "No, it can't be done."
I think the best you can do is something like this:
int scale(x) {
if (x < -1) return 1 / x - 2;
if (x > 1) return 2 - 1 / x;
return x;
}
This function is monotonic, and has a range of -2 to 2, but it's not strictly a scaling.
I am assuming that you have the result of some 2-dimensional measurements and want to display them in color or grayscale. For that, I would first want to find the maximum and minimum and then scale between these two values.
static double[][] scale(double[][] in, double outMin, double outMax) {
double inMin = Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY;
double inMax = Double.NEGATIVE_INFINITY;
for (double[] inRow : in) {
for (double d : inRow) {
if (d < inMin)
inMin = d;
if (d > inMax)
inMax = d;
}
}
double inRange = inMax - inMin;
double outRange = outMax - outMin;
double[][] out = new double[in.length][in[0].length];
for (double[] inRow : in) {
double[] outRow = new double[inRow.length];
for (int j = 0; j < inRow.length; j++) {
double normalized = (inRow[j] - inMin) / inRange; // 0 .. 1
outRow[j] = outMin + normalized * outRange;
}
}
return out;
}
This code is untested and just shows the general idea. It further assumes that all your input data is in a "reasonable" range, away from infinity and NaN.
This scripting language doesn't have a % or Mod(). I do have a Fix() that chops off the decimal part of a number. I only need positive results, so don't get too robust.
Will
// mod = a % b
c = Fix(a / b)
mod = a - b * c
do? I'm assuming you can at least divide here. All bets are off on negative numbers.
a mod n = a - (n * Fix(a/n))
For posterity, BrightScript now has a modulo operator, it looks like this:
c = a mod b
If someone arrives later, here are some more actual algorithms (with errors...read carefully)
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/755.pdf
There are actually two main kind of reduction formulae: Barett and Montgomery. The paper from eprint repeat both in different versions (algorithms 1-3) and give an "improved" version in algorithm 4.
Overview
I give now an overview of the 4. algorithm:
1.) Compute "A*B" and Store the whole product in "C" that C and the modulus $p$ is the input for that algorithm.
2.) Compute the bit-length of $p$, say: the function "Width(p)" returns exactly that value.
3.) Split the input $C$ into N "blocks" of size "Width(p)" and store each in G. Start in G[0] = lsb(p) and end in G[N-1] = msb(p). (The description is really faulty of the paper)
4.) Start the while loop:
Set N=N-1 (to reach the last element)
precompute $b:=2^{Width(p)} \bmod p$
while N>0 do:
T = G[N]
for(i=0; i<Width(p); i++) do: //Note: that counter doesn't matter, it limits the loop)
T = T << 1 //leftshift by 1 bit
while is_set( bit( T, Width(p) ) ) do // (N+1)-th bit of T is 1
unset( bit( T, Width(p) ) ) // unset the (N+1)-th bit of T (==0)
T += b
endwhile
endfor
G[N-1] += T
while is_set( bit( G[N-1], Width(p) ) ) do
unset( bit( G[N-1], Width(p) ) )
G[N-1] += b
endwhile
N -= 1
endwhile
That does alot. Not we only need to recursivly reduce G[0]:
while G[0] > p do
G[0] -= p
endwhile
return G[0]// = C mod p
The other three algorithms are well defined, but this lacks some information or present it really wrong. But it works for any size ;)
What language is it?
A basic algorithm might be:
hold the modulo in a variable (modulo);
hold the target number in a variable (target);
initialize modulus variable;
while (target > 0) {
if (target > modulo) {
target -= modulo;
}
else if(target < modulo) {
modulus = target;
break;
}
}
This may not work for you performance-wise, but:
while (num >= mod_limit)
num = num - mod_limit
In javascript:
function modulo(num1, num2) {
if (num2 === 0 || isNaN(num1) || isNaN(num2)) {
return NaN;
}
if (num1 === 0) {
return 0;
}
var remainderIsPositive = num1 >= 0;
num1 = Math.abs(num1);
num2 = Math.abs(num2);
while (num1 >= num2) {
num1 -= num2
}
return remainderIsPositive ? num1 : 0 - num1;
}