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.
Related
I'm doing pagination and I'm wondering how I can take a number such as 11 and round it to 20.
Other cases:
1 should round to 10
501 should round to 510
10 should round to 10
Basically I have cards and there are 10 cards per page and so if there are 11 cards there should be 2 pages.
To round a number up to a multiple of some factor, you can do:
/// Round [number] up to a multiple of [factor].
///
/// The [factor] must be greater than zero.
int roundUp(int number, int factor) {
if (factor < 1) throw RangeError.range(factor, 1, null, "factor");
number += factor - 1;
return number - (number % factor);
}
There is a corresponding roundDown which you can defined roundUp in terms of:
int roundDown(int number, int factor) {
if (factor < 1) throw RangeError.range(factor, 1, null, "factor");
return number - (number % factor);
}
int roundUp(int number, int factor) => roundDown(number + (factor - 1), factor);
This rounds towards plus/minus infinity. If you want to round towards/away from zero instead, you can use:
int roundTowardsZero(int number, int factor) {
if (factor < 1) throw RangeError.range(factor, 1, null, "factor");
return number - number.remainder(factor);
}
int roundAwayFromZero(int number, int factor) =>
roundTowardsZero(number + number.sign * (factor - 1), factor);
Because this approach uses only integers, it's relatively safe from precision loss, but it can overflow at the very end of the integer range (or if you use very, very large factors). If you want to be safe against that, we need to add a check for whether number + factor - 1 overflows. In most practical uses, that won't matter.
All you have to do is:
var test = 11;
print((test / 10).ceil() * 10); // 20
Dividing the number by 10 (in this case it's 11) will result in 1.1.
When you do (1.1).ceil(), you will get 2.
Now you multiply by 10 to get it to a power of 10.
var data = 12.62;
print(data.ceil());
Will output
13
Check out this question:
Swift probability of random number being selected?
The top answer suggests to use a switch statement, which does the job. However, if I have a very large number of cases to consider, the code looks very inelegant; I have a giant switch statement with very similar code in each case repeated over and over again.
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider? (like ~30)
This is a Swift implementation strongly influenced by the various
answers to Generate random numbers with a given (numerical) distribution.
For Swift 4.2/Xcode 10 and later (explanations inline):
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = Double.random(in: 0.0 ..< sum)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Examples:
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [0.2, 0.3, 0.5])
returns 0 with probability 0.2, 1 with probability 0.3,
and 2 with probability 0.5.
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [1.0, 2.0])
return 0 with probability 1/3 and 1 with probability 2/3.
For Swift 3/Xcode 8:
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
For Swift 2/Xcode 7:
func randomNumber(probabilities probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, combine: +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerate() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider?
Sure. Write a function that generates a number based on a table of probabilities. That's essentially what the switch statement you've pointed to is: a table defined in code. You could do the same thing with data using a table that's defined as a list of probabilities and outcomes:
probability outcome
----------- -------
0.4 1
0.2 2
0.1 3
0.15 4
0.15 5
Now you can pick a number between 0 and 1 at random. Starting from the top of the list, add up probabilities until you've exceeded the number you picked, and use the corresponding outcome. For example, let's say the number you pick is 0.6527637. Start at the top: 0.4 is smaller, so keep going. 0.6 (0.4 + 0.2) is smaller, so keep going. 0.7 (0.6 + 0.1) is larger, so stop. The outcome is 3.
I've kept the table short here for the sake of clarity, but you can make it as long as you like, and you can define it in a data file so that you don't have to recompile when the list changes.
Note that there's nothing particularly specific to Swift about this method -- you could do the same thing in C or Swift or Lisp.
This seems like a good opportunity for a shameless plug to my small library, swiftstats:
https://github.com/r0fls/swiftstats
For example, this would generate 3 random variables from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1:
import SwiftStats
let n = SwiftStats.Distributions.Normal(0, 1.0)
print(n.random())
Supported distributions include: normal, exponential, binomial, etc...
It also supports fitting sample data to a given distribution, using the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the distribution.
See the project readme for more info.
You could do it with exponential or quadratic functions - have x be your random number, take y as the new random number. Then, you just have to jiggle the equation until it fits your use case. Say I had (x^2)/10 + (x/300). Put your random number in, (as some floating-point form), and then get the floor with Int() when it comes out. So, if my random number generator goes from 0 to 9, I have a 40% chance of getting 0, and a 30% chance of getting 1 - 3, a 20% chance of getting 4 - 6, and a 10% chance of an 8. You're basically trying to fake some kind of normal distribution.
Here's an idea of what it would look like in Swift:
func giveY (x: UInt32) -> Int {
let xD = Double(x)
return Int(xD * xD / 10 + xD / 300)
}
let ans = giveY (arc4random_uniform(10))
EDIT:
I wasn't very clear above - what I meant was you could replace the switch statement with some function that would return a set of numbers with a probability distribution that you could figure out with regression using wolfram or something. So, for the question you linked to, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
func returnLevelChange() -> Double {
return 0.06 * exp(0.4 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 0.1
}
newItemLevel = oldItemLevel * returnLevelChange()
So that function returns a double somewhere between -0.05 and 2.1. That would be your "x% worse/better than current item level" figure. But, since it's an exponential function, it won't return an even spread of numbers. The arc4random_uniform(10) returns an int from 0 - 9, and each of those would result in a double like this:
0: -0.04
1: -0.01
2: 0.03
3: 0.1
4: 0.2
5: 0.34
6: 0.56
7: 0.89
8: 1.37
9: 2.1
Since each of those ints from the arc4random_uniform has an equal chance of showing up, you get probabilities like this:
40% chance of -0.04 to 0.1 (~ -5% - 10%)
30% chance of 0.2 to 0.56 (~ 20% - 55%)
20% chance of 0.89 to 1.37 (~ 90% - 140%)
10% chance of 2.1 (~ 200%)
Which is something similar to the probabilities that other person had. Now, for your function, it's much more difficult, and the other answers are almost definitely more applicable and elegant. BUT you could still do it.
Arrange each of the letters in order of their probability - from largest to smallest. Then, get their cumulative sums, starting with 0, without the last. (so probabilities of 50%, 30%, 20% becomes 0, 0.5, 0.8). Then you multiply them up until they're integers with reasonable accuracy (0, 5, 8). Then, plot them - your cumulative probabilities are your x's, the things you want to select with a given probability (your letters) are your y's. (you obviously can't plot actual letters on the y axis, so you'd just plot their indices in some array). Then, you'd try find some regression there, and have that be your function. For instance, trying those numbers, I got
e^0.14x - 1
and this:
let letters: [Character] = ["a", "b", "c"]
func randLetter() -> Character {
return letters[Int(exp(0.14 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 1)]
}
returns "a" 50% of the time, "b" 30% of the time, and "c" 20% of the time. Obviously pretty cumbersome for more letters, and it would take a while to figure out the right regression, and if you wanted to change the weightings you're have to do it manually. BUT if you did find a nice equation that did fit your values, the actual function would only be a couple lines long, and fast.
Check out this question:
Swift probability of random number being selected?
The top answer suggests to use a switch statement, which does the job. However, if I have a very large number of cases to consider, the code looks very inelegant; I have a giant switch statement with very similar code in each case repeated over and over again.
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider? (like ~30)
This is a Swift implementation strongly influenced by the various
answers to Generate random numbers with a given (numerical) distribution.
For Swift 4.2/Xcode 10 and later (explanations inline):
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = Double.random(in: 0.0 ..< sum)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Examples:
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [0.2, 0.3, 0.5])
returns 0 with probability 0.2, 1 with probability 0.3,
and 2 with probability 0.5.
let x = randomNumber(probabilities: [1.0, 2.0])
return 0 with probability 1/3 and 1 with probability 2/3.
For Swift 3/Xcode 8:
func randomNumber(probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerated() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
For Swift 2/Xcode 7:
func randomNumber(probabilities probabilities: [Double]) -> Int {
// Sum of all probabilities (so that we don't have to require that the sum is 1.0):
let sum = probabilities.reduce(0, combine: +)
// Random number in the range 0.0 <= rnd < sum :
let rnd = sum * Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32.max)) / Double(UInt32.max)
// Find the first interval of accumulated probabilities into which `rnd` falls:
var accum = 0.0
for (i, p) in probabilities.enumerate() {
accum += p
if rnd < accum {
return i
}
}
// This point might be reached due to floating point inaccuracies:
return (probabilities.count - 1)
}
Is there a nicer, cleaner way to pick a random number with a certain probability when you have a large number of probabilities to consider?
Sure. Write a function that generates a number based on a table of probabilities. That's essentially what the switch statement you've pointed to is: a table defined in code. You could do the same thing with data using a table that's defined as a list of probabilities and outcomes:
probability outcome
----------- -------
0.4 1
0.2 2
0.1 3
0.15 4
0.15 5
Now you can pick a number between 0 and 1 at random. Starting from the top of the list, add up probabilities until you've exceeded the number you picked, and use the corresponding outcome. For example, let's say the number you pick is 0.6527637. Start at the top: 0.4 is smaller, so keep going. 0.6 (0.4 + 0.2) is smaller, so keep going. 0.7 (0.6 + 0.1) is larger, so stop. The outcome is 3.
I've kept the table short here for the sake of clarity, but you can make it as long as you like, and you can define it in a data file so that you don't have to recompile when the list changes.
Note that there's nothing particularly specific to Swift about this method -- you could do the same thing in C or Swift or Lisp.
This seems like a good opportunity for a shameless plug to my small library, swiftstats:
https://github.com/r0fls/swiftstats
For example, this would generate 3 random variables from a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1:
import SwiftStats
let n = SwiftStats.Distributions.Normal(0, 1.0)
print(n.random())
Supported distributions include: normal, exponential, binomial, etc...
It also supports fitting sample data to a given distribution, using the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the distribution.
See the project readme for more info.
You could do it with exponential or quadratic functions - have x be your random number, take y as the new random number. Then, you just have to jiggle the equation until it fits your use case. Say I had (x^2)/10 + (x/300). Put your random number in, (as some floating-point form), and then get the floor with Int() when it comes out. So, if my random number generator goes from 0 to 9, I have a 40% chance of getting 0, and a 30% chance of getting 1 - 3, a 20% chance of getting 4 - 6, and a 10% chance of an 8. You're basically trying to fake some kind of normal distribution.
Here's an idea of what it would look like in Swift:
func giveY (x: UInt32) -> Int {
let xD = Double(x)
return Int(xD * xD / 10 + xD / 300)
}
let ans = giveY (arc4random_uniform(10))
EDIT:
I wasn't very clear above - what I meant was you could replace the switch statement with some function that would return a set of numbers with a probability distribution that you could figure out with regression using wolfram or something. So, for the question you linked to, you could do something like this:
import Foundation
func returnLevelChange() -> Double {
return 0.06 * exp(0.4 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 0.1
}
newItemLevel = oldItemLevel * returnLevelChange()
So that function returns a double somewhere between -0.05 and 2.1. That would be your "x% worse/better than current item level" figure. But, since it's an exponential function, it won't return an even spread of numbers. The arc4random_uniform(10) returns an int from 0 - 9, and each of those would result in a double like this:
0: -0.04
1: -0.01
2: 0.03
3: 0.1
4: 0.2
5: 0.34
6: 0.56
7: 0.89
8: 1.37
9: 2.1
Since each of those ints from the arc4random_uniform has an equal chance of showing up, you get probabilities like this:
40% chance of -0.04 to 0.1 (~ -5% - 10%)
30% chance of 0.2 to 0.56 (~ 20% - 55%)
20% chance of 0.89 to 1.37 (~ 90% - 140%)
10% chance of 2.1 (~ 200%)
Which is something similar to the probabilities that other person had. Now, for your function, it's much more difficult, and the other answers are almost definitely more applicable and elegant. BUT you could still do it.
Arrange each of the letters in order of their probability - from largest to smallest. Then, get their cumulative sums, starting with 0, without the last. (so probabilities of 50%, 30%, 20% becomes 0, 0.5, 0.8). Then you multiply them up until they're integers with reasonable accuracy (0, 5, 8). Then, plot them - your cumulative probabilities are your x's, the things you want to select with a given probability (your letters) are your y's. (you obviously can't plot actual letters on the y axis, so you'd just plot their indices in some array). Then, you'd try find some regression there, and have that be your function. For instance, trying those numbers, I got
e^0.14x - 1
and this:
let letters: [Character] = ["a", "b", "c"]
func randLetter() -> Character {
return letters[Int(exp(0.14 * Double(arc4random_uniform(10))) - 1)]
}
returns "a" 50% of the time, "b" 30% of the time, and "c" 20% of the time. Obviously pretty cumbersome for more letters, and it would take a while to figure out the right regression, and if you wanted to change the weightings you're have to do it manually. BUT if you did find a nice equation that did fit your values, the actual function would only be a couple lines long, and fast.
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).