Related
I have a field called size which is a BIGINT storing the number of bytes in a file. To get a file that is larger than 1GB I am currently doing:
size > (1024*1024*1024)
But this looks a bit hairy. Is there another way to write this that makes it more clear that the result of 1024*1024*1024 is 1GiB?
Additionally is the exponent operator built into mysql? I've used
select power(2, 30)
But I was wondering if there was a shortform to do that directly in the query, such as 2^30.
^ is the bitwise xor operator.
Either POW(2,30) or POWER(2,30) (or POWER(1024,3)) will work; I believe of the two POWER is the more standard. There is no typographic operator for exponentiation.
I would just leave it as 1024*1024*1024; to me that provides the best readability (and makes it clear it is 1 GiB, not 1 GB).
I'm trying to get the average number, and then remove the trailing, pointless zeros afterwards, (new to SQL) but I can't understand why it wont remove them, do I have the wrong idea??
So far I have;
SELECT total,
AVG(total(TRUNCATE(total/1,2))
I think you are looking for cast as below.
select cast(17.800000 as dec(3,1))
Result:
val
----
17.8
so you query will be
SELECT total, cast(AVG(total) as dec(3,1))
considering you just need 2 digit before . If you need more digits, you can adjust it accordingly.
DEMO
Assuming you are using SQL Server then you can cast the answer to a decimal with one decimal point:
select cast(avg(total) as decimal(9,1))
This SQLFiddle shows it: link
SELECT
TRUNCATE(AVG(myFloat), 2),
AVG(myFloat),
ROUND(AVG(myFloat), 2)
FROM docs
You should probably use ROUND instead of TRUNCATE.
The stuff after the decimal is odd because of floating point math, and there are occasions where floating point math is internally calculated as .009999999 instead of .01000000000
I believe these answers that use a CAST may have the same truncation problem.
You simply want to avoid casting or truncation when you are removing the decimal places beyond what you're interested in. Be explicit in what you are doing and less mistakes will pop up later.
In my report I'm trying to remove the decimals without rounding. I'll be using this to set the minimum value in the vertical axis of the area chart.
So I tried =Format(98.56, "N0"), but this returns 99, which is incorrect. It should return 98.
I've been searching specifically for SSRS, but most of the results are for tsql.
My question: How can I remov decimals in SSRS without rounding?
Thanks
Try using "Floor". It effective rounds down to the nearest integer. You'll find this under the Math functions.
=Floor(Fields!Number.Value)
Note, there's also a Floor function in Transact-SQL that works the same way in case you need to do some of the processing in your SQL script.
Update based on request in comments
If you wanted to achieve the same result after the decimal point, all you need is a little algebra.
=Floor((Fields!Number.Value*10))/10
That should turn 99.46 into 99.4. Given that it shaves off the remainder, you could then tack on any additional zeroes you wanted.
I ended up converting to Int. The following expression in SSRS returns 98:
=Int(98.56)
I know the question is quite old, but as I ended up here having the same question I would like to share my answer:
While FLOOR and CEILING are fine if you take extra measures to handle numbers <0 or know they are always >=0, the easiest way to simply strip off the decimals is to use
=Fix(Fields!Number.Value)
FIX only returns the integer part of a number, without any rounding or transformation. For negative numbers Int rounds up.
Source: Examples for Fix, Floor and Ceiling
Source: Difference between Int and Fix
As (hopefully) most of you know, floating point arithmetic is different from real number arithmetic. It's for starters imprecise. Many numbers, especially decimals (0.1, 0.3) cannot be represented, leading to problems like this. A more thorough list can be found here.
Are there any general purpose languages that have built-in support for something closer to real number arithmetic? If not, what are good libraries that support this?
EDIT: Arbitrary precision decimal
datatypes are not what I am looking
for. I want to be able to represent
numbers like 1/3, sqrt(3), or 1 + 2i as well.
Though I hate to say it, Fortran. It has extensive support for arbitrary-precision arithmetic and tons of support for big-number calculations. It's ancient and gross, but it gets the job done.
All the numbers used in your examples are algebraic numbers, and can be represented
finitely as roots of polynomials with integer coefficients.
The same cannot be said of real numbers in general, which is easily seen when one
considers that the reals are uncountable, but the set of computer programs is
countable. Therefore most reals will not have a finite representation in code.
What you are looking for is symbolic calculation (MATLAB and other tools used in math and engineering are good at it).
If you want a general purposed language, I think expression tree in C# is good point to start with. In the essence, the ability to store the expression (instead of evaluate the expression into real values) is the key to be able to perform symbolic calculation. Note that expression tree does not provide symbolic calculation, it just provides the data structure that supports symbolic calculation.
This question is interesting, but raises some issues. First, you will never be able to represent all the real numbers using a (even theoretically infinite) computer, for cardinality reasons.
What you are looking for is a "symbolic numbers" datatype. You can imagine some sort of expression tree, with predefined constants, arithmetical operations, and perhaps algebraic (roots of polynomials) and transcendantal (exp, sin, cos, log, etc) functions.
Now the fun part of the story: you cannot find an algorithm which tells whether two such trees are representing the same number (or equivalently, which test whether such a tree is zero). I won't state anything precise, but as a hint, this is similar to the Halting Problem (for computer scientists) or the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem (for mathematicians).
This renders such a class pretty useless.
For some subfields of the reals, you have canonical forms, like a/b for the rationals, or finite algebraic extensions of the rationals (a/b + ic/d for complex rationals, a/b + sqrt(2) * a/b for Q[sqrt(2)], etc). These can be used to represent some particular sets of algebraic numbers.
In practice, this is the most complicated thing you will need. If you have a particular necessity, like ranges of floating point numbers (to prove some result is whithin a specified interval, this is probably the closest you can get to real numbers), or arbitrary precision numbers, you have freely available classes everywhere. Google boost::range for the former, and gmp for the latter.
There are several languages with support for rational and complex numbers. Scheme, for instance, has support built in for arbitrarily precise rational numbers, and complex numbers with either rational, floating point, or integral coefficients:
> (+ 1/2 1/3)
5/6
> (* 3 1+1/2i)
3+3/2i
> (+ 1/2 .5)
1.0
If you want to go beyond rational numbers or complex numbers with rational coefficients, to algebraic numbers such as sqrt(2) or closed-form numbers like e, you will probably have to look beyond general purpose programming languages, and use a special purpose mathematical language like Mathematica or Maxima.
To cover the real numbers with any flair you'll need a symbolic package.
Boost, the C++ project, has a Rational library, but that's only part of the story.
You have irrational numbers in all sorts of forms (pi, base of the natural logarithm, square and cube roots, the Champernowne constant, to name only a few). The only way I know of to handle arithmetic operations is a symbolic package with smarts as to the relationship amongst all of these numbers. Assuming you could express e^pi, how would you add one to it? Or take the square root of it?
Mathematica might handle these cases.
Java: java.math.BigDecimal
C#: decimal
A lot of languages have support for that: Java has BigDecimal, Perl has Math::BigFloat and Math::BigRat, Haskell has Integer and a lot of libraries and languages are listed in the wikipedia.
Ada natively supports fixed-point math as well as floating-point. Fixed-point can be much more exact than floating-point, as long as the number's exponents remain in range.
If you need floating-points, but more precision than IEEE gives, there are bignum packages around for just about every language.
I think that's about the best you can do. Neither scheme can exactly represent repeating decimals (like 1/3). It would probably be possible to come up with a scheme that does, but I know of no language that supports such a thing with a built-in type. Even that won't help you with irrational numbers (like pi and e). I believe there's even a theorem that says there will always be unrepresentable numbers, no matter what scheme you come up with.
EDIT: Arbitrary precision decimal
datatypes are not what I am looking
for. I want to be able to represent
numbers like 1/3, sqrt(3), or 1 + 2i
as well.
Ruby has a Rational class, so 1/3 can be expressed exactly as Rational(1,3). It also has a Complex class.
Scheme defines rationals, bignums, floating point and complex numbers. An implementation is not required to support them all, but if they are present, you can mix them and they will to "the right thing".
While its not "built-in", I think C++ (maybe C#) is your best bet. There are classes out there that have been written for this purpose.
http://www.oonumerics.org/oon/
I'd like to write a program that lets users draw points, lines, and circles as though with a straightedge and compass. Then I want to be able to answer the question, "are these three points collinear?" To answer correctly, I need to avoid rounding error when calculating the points.
Is this possible? How can I represent the points in memory?
(I looked into some unusual numeric libraries, but I didn't find anything that claimed to offer both exact arithmetic and exact comparisons that are guaranteed to terminate.)
Yes.
I highly recommend Introduction to constructions, which is a good basic guide.
Basically you need to be able to compute with constructible numbers - numbers that are either rational, or of the form a + b sqrt(c) where a,b,c were previously created (see page 6 on that PDF). This could be done with algebraic data type (e.g. data C = Rational Integer Integer | Root C C C in Haskell, where Root a b c = a + b sqrt(c)). However, I don't know how to perform tests with that representation.
Two possible approaches are:
Constructible numbers are a subset of algebraic numbers, so you can use algebraic numbers.
All algebraic numbers can be represented using polynomials of whose they are roots. The operations are computable, so if you represent a number a with polynomial p and b with polynomial q (p(a) = q(b) = 0), then it is possible to find a polynomial r such that r(a+b) = 0. This is done in some CASes like Mathematica, example. See also: Computional algebraic number theory - chapter 4
Use Tarski's test and represent numbers. It is slow (doubly exponential or so), but works :) Example: to represent sqrt(2), use the formula x^2 - 2 && x > 0. You can write equations for lines there, check if points are colinear etc. See A suite of logic programs, including Tarski's test
If you turn to computable numbers, then equality, colinearity etc. get undecidable.
I think the only way this would be possible is if you used a symbolic representation,
as opposed to trying to represent coordinate values directly -- so you would have
to avoid trying to coerce values like sqrt(2) into some numerical format. You will
be dealing with irrational numbers that are not finitely representable in binary,
decimal, or any other positional notation.
To expand on Jim Lewis's answer slightly, if you want to operate on points that are constructible from the integers with exact arithmetic, you will need to be able to operate on representations of the form:
a + b sqrt(c)
where a, b, and c are either rational numbers, or representations in the form given above. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the subject of what points are constructible.
Answering the question of exact equality (as necessary to establish colinearity) with such representations is a rather tricky problem.
If you try to compare co-ordinates for your points, then you have a problem. Leaving aside co-linearity for a moment, how about just working out whether two points are the same or not?
Supposing that one has given co-ordinates, and the other is a compass-straightedge construction starting from certain other co-ordinates, you want to determine with certainty whether they're the same point or not. Either way is a theorem of Euclidean geometry, it's not something you can just measure. You can prove they aren't the same by spotting some difference in their co-ordinates (for example by computing decimal places of each until you encounter a difference). But in general to prove they are the same cannot be done by approximate methods. Compute as many decimal places as you like of some expansions of 1/sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2, and you can prove they're very close together but you won't ever prove they're equal. That takes algebra (or geometry).
Similarly, to show that three points are co-linear you will need theorem-proving software. Represent the points A, B, C by their constructions, and attempt to prove the theorem "A, B and C are colinear". This is very hard - your program will prove some theorems but not others. Much easier is to ask the user for a proof that they are co-linear, and then verify (or refute) that proof, but that's probably not what you want.
In general, constructable points may have an arbitrarily complex symbolic form, so you must use a symbolic representation to work them exactly. As Stephen Canon noted above, you often need numbers of the form a+b*sqrt(c), where a and b are rational and c is an integer. All numbers of this form form a closed set under arithmetic operations. I have written some C++ classes (see rational_radical1.h) to work with these numbers if that is all you need.
It is also possible to construct numbers which are sums of any number of terms of rational multiples of radicals. When dealing with more than a single radicand, the numbers are no longer closed under multiplication and division, so you will need to store them as variable length rational coefficient arrays. The time complexity of operations will then be quadratic in the number of terms.
To go even further, you can construct the square root of any given number, so you could potentially have nested square roots. Here, the representations must be tree-like structures to deal with root hierarchy. While difficult to implement, there is nothing in principle preventing you from working with these representations. I'm not sure just what additional numbers can be constructed, but beyond a certain point, your symbolic representation will be expressive enough to handle very large classes of numbers.
Addendum
Found this Google Books link.
If the grid axes are integer valued then the answer is fairly straight forward, the points are either exactly colinear or they are not.
Typically however, one works with real numbers (well, floating points) and then draws the rounded values on the screen which does exist in integer space. In this case you have no choice but to pick a tolerance and use it to determine colinearity. Keep it small and the users will never know the difference.
You seem to be asking, in effect, "Can the normal mathematics (integer or floating point) used by computers be made to represent real numbers perfectly, with no rounding errors?" And, of course, the answer to that is "No." If you want theoretical correctness, then you will be stuck with the much harder problem of symbolic manipulation and coding up the equivalent of the inferences that are done in geometry. (In short, I'm agreeing with Steve Jessop, above.)
Some thoughts in the hope that they might help.
The sort of constructions you're talking about will require multiplication and division, which means that to preserve exactness you'll have to use rational numbers, which are generally easy to implement on top of a suitable sort of big integer (i.e., of unbounded magnitude). (Common Lisp has these built-in, and there have to be other languages.)
Now, you need to represent square roots of arbitrary numbers, and these have to be mixed in.
Therefore, a number is one of: a rational number, a rational number multiplied by a square root of a rational number (or, alternately, just the square root of a rational), or a sum of numbers. In order to prove anything, you're going to have to get these numbers into some sort of canonical form, which for all I can figure offhand may be annoying and computationally expensive.
This of course means that the users will be restricted to rational points and cannot use arbitrary rotations, but that's probably not important.
I would recommend no to try to make it perfectly exact.
The first reason for this is what you are asking here, the rounding error and all that stuff that comes with floating point calculations.
The second one is that you have to round your input as the mouse and screen work with integers. So, initially all user input would be integers, and your output would be integers.
Beside, from a usability point of view, its easier to click in the neighborhood of another point (in a line for example) and that the interface consider you are clicking in the point itself.