Related
I'm currently writing some code where I have something along the lines of:
double a = SomeCalculation1();
double b = SomeCalculation2();
if (a < b)
DoSomething2();
else if (a > b)
DoSomething3();
And then in other places I may need to do equality:
double a = SomeCalculation3();
double b = SomeCalculation4();
if (a == 0.0)
DoSomethingUseful(1 / a);
if (b == 0.0)
return 0; // or something else here
In short, I have lots of floating point math going on and I need to do various comparisons for conditions. I can't convert it to integer math because such a thing is meaningless in this context.
I've read before that floating point comparisons can be unreliable, since you can have things like this going on:
double a = 1.0 / 3.0;
double b = a + a + a;
if ((3 * a) != b)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!");
In short, I'd like to know: How can I reliably compare floating point numbers (less than, greater than, equality)?
The number range I am using is roughly from 10E-14 to 10E6, so I do need to work with small numbers as well as large.
I've tagged this as language agnostic because I'm interested in how I can accomplish this no matter what language I'm using.
TL;DR
Use the following function instead of the currently accepted solution to avoid some undesirable results in certain limit cases, while being potentially more efficient.
Know the expected imprecision you have on your numbers and feed them accordingly in the comparison function.
bool nearly_equal(
float a, float b,
float epsilon = 128 * FLT_EPSILON, float abs_th = FLT_MIN)
// those defaults are arbitrary and could be removed
{
assert(std::numeric_limits<float>::epsilon() <= epsilon);
assert(epsilon < 1.f);
if (a == b) return true;
auto diff = std::abs(a-b);
auto norm = std::min((std::abs(a) + std::abs(b)), std::numeric_limits<float>::max());
// or even faster: std::min(std::abs(a + b), std::numeric_limits<float>::max());
// keeping this commented out until I update figures below
return diff < std::max(abs_th, epsilon * norm);
}
Graphics, please?
When comparing floating point numbers, there are two "modes".
The first one is the relative mode, where the difference between x and y is considered relatively to their amplitude |x| + |y|. When plot in 2D, it gives the following profile, where green means equality of x and y. (I took an epsilon of 0.5 for illustration purposes).
The relative mode is what is used for "normal" or "large enough" floating points values. (More on that later).
The second one is an absolute mode, when we simply compare their difference to a fixed number. It gives the following profile (again with an epsilon of 0.5 and a abs_th of 1 for illustration).
This absolute mode of comparison is what is used for "tiny" floating point values.
Now the question is, how do we stitch together those two response patterns.
In Michael Borgwardt's answer, the switch is based on the value of diff, which should be below abs_th (Float.MIN_NORMAL in his answer). This switch zone is shown as hatched in the graph below.
Because abs_th * epsilon is smaller that abs_th, the green patches do not stick together, which in turn gives the solution a bad property: we can find triplets of numbers such that x < y_1 < y_2 and yet x == y2 but x != y1.
Take this striking example:
x = 4.9303807e-32
y1 = 4.930381e-32
y2 = 4.9309825e-32
We have x < y1 < y2, and in fact y2 - x is more than 2000 times larger than y1 - x. And yet with the current solution,
nearlyEqual(x, y1, 1e-4) == False
nearlyEqual(x, y2, 1e-4) == True
By contrast, in the solution proposed above, the switch zone is based on the value of |x| + |y|, which is represented by the hatched square below. It ensures that both zones connects gracefully.
Also, the code above does not have branching, which could be more efficient. Consider that operations such as max and abs, which a priori needs branching, often have dedicated assembly instructions. For this reason, I think this approach is superior to another solution that would be to fix Michael's nearlyEqual by changing the switch from diff < abs_th to diff < eps * abs_th, which would then produce essentially the same response pattern.
Where to switch between relative and absolute comparison?
The switch between those modes is made around abs_th, which is taken as FLT_MIN in the accepted answer. This choice means that the representation of float32 is what limits the precision of our floating point numbers.
This does not always make sense. For example, if the numbers you compare are the results of a subtraction, perhaps something in the range of FLT_EPSILON makes more sense. If they are squared roots of subtracted numbers, the numerical imprecision could be even higher.
It is rather obvious when you consider comparing a floating point with 0. Here, any relative comparison will fail, because |x - 0| / (|x| + 0) = 1. So the comparison needs to switch to absolute mode when x is on the order of the imprecision of your computation -- and rarely is it as low as FLT_MIN.
This is the reason for the introduction of the abs_th parameter above.
Also, by not multiplying abs_th with epsilon, the interpretation of this parameter is simple and correspond to the level of numerical precision that we expect on those numbers.
Mathematical rumbling
(kept here mostly for my own pleasure)
More generally I assume that a well-behaved floating point comparison operator =~ should have some basic properties.
The following are rather obvious:
self-equality: a =~ a
symmetry: a =~ b implies b =~ a
invariance by opposition: a =~ b implies -a =~ -b
(We don't have a =~ b and b =~ c implies a =~ c, =~ is not an equivalence relationship).
I would add the following properties that are more specific to floating point comparisons
if a < b < c, then a =~ c implies a =~ b (closer values should also be equal)
if a, b, m >= 0 then a =~ b implies a + m =~ b + m (larger values with the same difference should also be equal)
if 0 <= λ < 1 then a =~ b implies λa =~ λb (perhaps less obvious to argument for).
Those properties already give strong constrains on possible near-equality functions. The function proposed above verifies them. Perhaps one or several otherwise obvious properties are missing.
When one think of =~ as a family of equality relationship =~[Ɛ,t] parameterized by Ɛ and abs_th, one could also add
if Ɛ1 < Ɛ2 then a =~[Ɛ1,t] b implies a =~[Ɛ2,t] b (equality for a given tolerance implies equality at a higher tolerance)
if t1 < t2 then a =~[Ɛ,t1] b implies a =~[Ɛ,t2] b (equality for a given imprecision implies equality at a higher imprecision)
The proposed solution also verifies these.
Comparing for greater/smaller is not really a problem unless you're working right at the edge of the float/double precision limit.
For a "fuzzy equals" comparison, this (Java code, should be easy to adapt) is what I came up with for The Floating-Point Guide after a lot of work and taking into account lots of criticism:
public static boolean nearlyEqual(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
final float absA = Math.abs(a);
final float absB = Math.abs(b);
final float diff = Math.abs(a - b);
if (a == b) { // shortcut, handles infinities
return true;
} else if (a == 0 || b == 0 || diff < Float.MIN_NORMAL) {
// a or b is zero or both are extremely close to it
// relative error is less meaningful here
return diff < (epsilon * Float.MIN_NORMAL);
} else { // use relative error
return diff / (absA + absB) < epsilon;
}
}
It comes with a test suite. You should immediately dismiss any solution that doesn't, because it is virtually guaranteed to fail in some edge cases like having one value 0, two very small values opposite of zero, or infinities.
An alternative (see link above for more details) is to convert the floats' bit patterns to integer and accept everything within a fixed integer distance.
In any case, there probably isn't any solution that is perfect for all applications. Ideally, you'd develop/adapt your own with a test suite covering your actual use cases.
I had the problem of Comparing floating point numbers A < B and A > B
Here is what seems to work:
if(A - B < Epsilon) && (fabs(A-B) > Epsilon)
{
printf("A is less than B");
}
if (A - B > Epsilon) && (fabs(A-B) > Epsilon)
{
printf("A is greater than B");
}
The fabs--absolute value-- takes care of if they are essentially equal.
We have to choose a tolerance level to compare float numbers. For example,
final float TOLERANCE = 0.00001;
if (Math.abs(f1 - f2) < TOLERANCE)
Console.WriteLine("Oh yes!");
One note. Your example is rather funny.
double a = 1.0 / 3.0;
double b = a + a + a;
if (a != b)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!");
Some maths here
a = 1/3
b = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.
1/3 != 1
Oh, yes..
Do you mean
if (b != 1)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!")
Idea I had for floating point comparison in swift
infix operator ~= {}
func ~= (a: Float, b: Float) -> Bool {
return fabsf(a - b) < Float(FLT_EPSILON)
}
func ~= (a: CGFloat, b: CGFloat) -> Bool {
return fabs(a - b) < CGFloat(FLT_EPSILON)
}
func ~= (a: Double, b: Double) -> Bool {
return fabs(a - b) < Double(FLT_EPSILON)
}
Adaptation to PHP from Michael Borgwardt & bosonix's answer:
class Comparison
{
const MIN_NORMAL = 1.17549435E-38; //from Java Specs
// from http://floating-point-gui.de/errors/comparison/
public function nearlyEqual($a, $b, $epsilon = 0.000001)
{
$absA = abs($a);
$absB = abs($b);
$diff = abs($a - $b);
if ($a == $b) {
return true;
} else {
if ($a == 0 || $b == 0 || $diff < self::MIN_NORMAL) {
return $diff < ($epsilon * self::MIN_NORMAL);
} else {
return $diff / ($absA + $absB) < $epsilon;
}
}
}
}
You should ask yourself why you are comparing the numbers. If you know the purpose of the comparison then you should also know the required accuracy of your numbers. That is different in each situation and each application context. But in pretty much all practical cases there is a required absolute accuracy. It is only very seldom that a relative accuracy is applicable.
To give an example: if your goal is to draw a graph on the screen, then you likely want floating point values to compare equal if they map to the same pixel on the screen. If the size of your screen is 1000 pixels, and your numbers are in the 1e6 range, then you likely will want 100 to compare equal to 200.
Given the required absolute accuracy, then the algorithm becomes:
public static ComparisonResult compare(float a, float b, float accuracy)
{
if (isnan(a) || isnan(b)) // if NaN needs to be supported
return UNORDERED;
if (a == b) // short-cut and takes care of infinities
return EQUAL;
if (abs(a-b) < accuracy) // comparison wrt. the accuracy
return EQUAL;
if (a < b) // larger / smaller
return SMALLER;
else
return LARGER;
}
The standard advice is to use some small "epsilon" value (chosen depending on your application, probably), and consider floats that are within epsilon of each other to be equal. e.g. something like
#define EPSILON 0.00000001
if ((a - b) < EPSILON && (b - a) < EPSILON) {
printf("a and b are about equal\n");
}
A more complete answer is complicated, because floating point error is extremely subtle and confusing to reason about. If you really care about equality in any precise sense, you're probably seeking a solution that doesn't involve floating point.
I tried writing an equality function with the above comments in mind. Here's what I came up with:
Edit: Change from Math.Max(a, b) to Math.Max(Math.Abs(a), Math.Abs(b))
static bool fpEqual(double a, double b)
{
double diff = Math.Abs(a - b);
double epsilon = Math.Max(Math.Abs(a), Math.Abs(b)) * Double.Epsilon;
return (diff < epsilon);
}
Thoughts? I still need to work out a greater than, and a less than as well.
I came up with a simple approach to adjusting the size of epsilon to the size of the numbers being compared. So, instead of using:
iif(abs(a - b) < 1e-6, "equal", "not")
if a and b can be large, I changed that to:
iif(abs(a - b) < (10 ^ -abs(7 - log(a))), "equal", "not")
I suppose that doesn't satisfy all the theoretical issues discussed in the other answers, but it has the advantage of being one line of code, so it can be used in an Excel formula or an Access query without needing a VBA function.
I did a search to see if others have used this method and I didn't find anything. I tested it in my application and it seems to be working well. So it seems to be a method that is adequate for contexts that don't require the complexity of the other answers. But I wonder if it has a problem I haven't thought of since no one else seems to be using it.
If there's a reason the test with the log is not valid for simple comparisons of numbers of various sizes, please say why in a comment.
You need to take into account that the truncation error is a relative one. Two numbers are about equal if their difference is about as large as their ulp (Unit in the last place).
However, if you do floating point calculations, your error potential goes up with every operation (esp. careful with subtractions!), so your error tolerance needs to increase accordingly.
The best way to compare doubles for equality/inequality is by taking the absolute value of their difference and comparing it to a small enough (depending on your context) value.
double eps = 0.000000001; //for instance
double a = someCalc1();
double b = someCalc2();
double diff = Math.abs(a - b);
if (diff < eps) {
//equal
}
I'm having trouble trying to find a function to look at a certain bit. If, for example, I had a binary number of 1111 1111 1111 1011, and I wanted to just look at the most significant bit ( the bit all the way to the left, in this case 1) what function could I use to just look at that bit?
The program is to test if a binary number is positive or negative. I started off by using hex number 0x0005, and then using a two's compliment function to make it negative. But now, I need a way to check if the first bit is 1 or 0 and to return a value out of that. The integer n would be equal to 1 or 0 depending on if it is negative or positive. My code is as follows:
#include <msp430.h>
signed long x=0x0005;
int y,i,n;
void main(void)
{
y=~x;
i=y+1;
}
There are two main ways I have done something like this in the past. The first is a bit mask which you would use if you always are checking the exact same bit(s). For example:
#define MASK 0x80000000
// Return value of "0" means the bit wasn't set, "1" means the bit was.
// You can check as many bits as you want with this call.
int ApplyMask(int number) {
return number & MASK;
}
Second is a bit shift, then a mask (for getting an arbitrary bit):
int CheckBit(int number, int bitIndex) {
return number & (1 << bitIndex);
}
One or the other of these should do what you are looking for. Best of luck!
bool isSetBit (signed long number, int bit)
{
assert ((bit >= 0) && (bit < (sizeof (signed long) * 8)));
return (number & (((signed long) 1) << bit)) != 0;
}
To check the sign bit:
if (isSetBit (y, sizeof (y) * 8 - 1))
...
I'm currently writing some code where I have something along the lines of:
double a = SomeCalculation1();
double b = SomeCalculation2();
if (a < b)
DoSomething2();
else if (a > b)
DoSomething3();
And then in other places I may need to do equality:
double a = SomeCalculation3();
double b = SomeCalculation4();
if (a == 0.0)
DoSomethingUseful(1 / a);
if (b == 0.0)
return 0; // or something else here
In short, I have lots of floating point math going on and I need to do various comparisons for conditions. I can't convert it to integer math because such a thing is meaningless in this context.
I've read before that floating point comparisons can be unreliable, since you can have things like this going on:
double a = 1.0 / 3.0;
double b = a + a + a;
if ((3 * a) != b)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!");
In short, I'd like to know: How can I reliably compare floating point numbers (less than, greater than, equality)?
The number range I am using is roughly from 10E-14 to 10E6, so I do need to work with small numbers as well as large.
I've tagged this as language agnostic because I'm interested in how I can accomplish this no matter what language I'm using.
TL;DR
Use the following function instead of the currently accepted solution to avoid some undesirable results in certain limit cases, while being potentially more efficient.
Know the expected imprecision you have on your numbers and feed them accordingly in the comparison function.
bool nearly_equal(
float a, float b,
float epsilon = 128 * FLT_EPSILON, float abs_th = FLT_MIN)
// those defaults are arbitrary and could be removed
{
assert(std::numeric_limits<float>::epsilon() <= epsilon);
assert(epsilon < 1.f);
if (a == b) return true;
auto diff = std::abs(a-b);
auto norm = std::min((std::abs(a) + std::abs(b)), std::numeric_limits<float>::max());
// or even faster: std::min(std::abs(a + b), std::numeric_limits<float>::max());
// keeping this commented out until I update figures below
return diff < std::max(abs_th, epsilon * norm);
}
Graphics, please?
When comparing floating point numbers, there are two "modes".
The first one is the relative mode, where the difference between x and y is considered relatively to their amplitude |x| + |y|. When plot in 2D, it gives the following profile, where green means equality of x and y. (I took an epsilon of 0.5 for illustration purposes).
The relative mode is what is used for "normal" or "large enough" floating points values. (More on that later).
The second one is an absolute mode, when we simply compare their difference to a fixed number. It gives the following profile (again with an epsilon of 0.5 and a abs_th of 1 for illustration).
This absolute mode of comparison is what is used for "tiny" floating point values.
Now the question is, how do we stitch together those two response patterns.
In Michael Borgwardt's answer, the switch is based on the value of diff, which should be below abs_th (Float.MIN_NORMAL in his answer). This switch zone is shown as hatched in the graph below.
Because abs_th * epsilon is smaller that abs_th, the green patches do not stick together, which in turn gives the solution a bad property: we can find triplets of numbers such that x < y_1 < y_2 and yet x == y2 but x != y1.
Take this striking example:
x = 4.9303807e-32
y1 = 4.930381e-32
y2 = 4.9309825e-32
We have x < y1 < y2, and in fact y2 - x is more than 2000 times larger than y1 - x. And yet with the current solution,
nearlyEqual(x, y1, 1e-4) == False
nearlyEqual(x, y2, 1e-4) == True
By contrast, in the solution proposed above, the switch zone is based on the value of |x| + |y|, which is represented by the hatched square below. It ensures that both zones connects gracefully.
Also, the code above does not have branching, which could be more efficient. Consider that operations such as max and abs, which a priori needs branching, often have dedicated assembly instructions. For this reason, I think this approach is superior to another solution that would be to fix Michael's nearlyEqual by changing the switch from diff < abs_th to diff < eps * abs_th, which would then produce essentially the same response pattern.
Where to switch between relative and absolute comparison?
The switch between those modes is made around abs_th, which is taken as FLT_MIN in the accepted answer. This choice means that the representation of float32 is what limits the precision of our floating point numbers.
This does not always make sense. For example, if the numbers you compare are the results of a subtraction, perhaps something in the range of FLT_EPSILON makes more sense. If they are squared roots of subtracted numbers, the numerical imprecision could be even higher.
It is rather obvious when you consider comparing a floating point with 0. Here, any relative comparison will fail, because |x - 0| / (|x| + 0) = 1. So the comparison needs to switch to absolute mode when x is on the order of the imprecision of your computation -- and rarely is it as low as FLT_MIN.
This is the reason for the introduction of the abs_th parameter above.
Also, by not multiplying abs_th with epsilon, the interpretation of this parameter is simple and correspond to the level of numerical precision that we expect on those numbers.
Mathematical rumbling
(kept here mostly for my own pleasure)
More generally I assume that a well-behaved floating point comparison operator =~ should have some basic properties.
The following are rather obvious:
self-equality: a =~ a
symmetry: a =~ b implies b =~ a
invariance by opposition: a =~ b implies -a =~ -b
(We don't have a =~ b and b =~ c implies a =~ c, =~ is not an equivalence relationship).
I would add the following properties that are more specific to floating point comparisons
if a < b < c, then a =~ c implies a =~ b (closer values should also be equal)
if a, b, m >= 0 then a =~ b implies a + m =~ b + m (larger values with the same difference should also be equal)
if 0 <= λ < 1 then a =~ b implies λa =~ λb (perhaps less obvious to argument for).
Those properties already give strong constrains on possible near-equality functions. The function proposed above verifies them. Perhaps one or several otherwise obvious properties are missing.
When one think of =~ as a family of equality relationship =~[Ɛ,t] parameterized by Ɛ and abs_th, one could also add
if Ɛ1 < Ɛ2 then a =~[Ɛ1,t] b implies a =~[Ɛ2,t] b (equality for a given tolerance implies equality at a higher tolerance)
if t1 < t2 then a =~[Ɛ,t1] b implies a =~[Ɛ,t2] b (equality for a given imprecision implies equality at a higher imprecision)
The proposed solution also verifies these.
Comparing for greater/smaller is not really a problem unless you're working right at the edge of the float/double precision limit.
For a "fuzzy equals" comparison, this (Java code, should be easy to adapt) is what I came up with for The Floating-Point Guide after a lot of work and taking into account lots of criticism:
public static boolean nearlyEqual(float a, float b, float epsilon) {
final float absA = Math.abs(a);
final float absB = Math.abs(b);
final float diff = Math.abs(a - b);
if (a == b) { // shortcut, handles infinities
return true;
} else if (a == 0 || b == 0 || diff < Float.MIN_NORMAL) {
// a or b is zero or both are extremely close to it
// relative error is less meaningful here
return diff < (epsilon * Float.MIN_NORMAL);
} else { // use relative error
return diff / (absA + absB) < epsilon;
}
}
It comes with a test suite. You should immediately dismiss any solution that doesn't, because it is virtually guaranteed to fail in some edge cases like having one value 0, two very small values opposite of zero, or infinities.
An alternative (see link above for more details) is to convert the floats' bit patterns to integer and accept everything within a fixed integer distance.
In any case, there probably isn't any solution that is perfect for all applications. Ideally, you'd develop/adapt your own with a test suite covering your actual use cases.
I had the problem of Comparing floating point numbers A < B and A > B
Here is what seems to work:
if(A - B < Epsilon) && (fabs(A-B) > Epsilon)
{
printf("A is less than B");
}
if (A - B > Epsilon) && (fabs(A-B) > Epsilon)
{
printf("A is greater than B");
}
The fabs--absolute value-- takes care of if they are essentially equal.
We have to choose a tolerance level to compare float numbers. For example,
final float TOLERANCE = 0.00001;
if (Math.abs(f1 - f2) < TOLERANCE)
Console.WriteLine("Oh yes!");
One note. Your example is rather funny.
double a = 1.0 / 3.0;
double b = a + a + a;
if (a != b)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!");
Some maths here
a = 1/3
b = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1.
1/3 != 1
Oh, yes..
Do you mean
if (b != 1)
Console.WriteLine("Oh no!")
Idea I had for floating point comparison in swift
infix operator ~= {}
func ~= (a: Float, b: Float) -> Bool {
return fabsf(a - b) < Float(FLT_EPSILON)
}
func ~= (a: CGFloat, b: CGFloat) -> Bool {
return fabs(a - b) < CGFloat(FLT_EPSILON)
}
func ~= (a: Double, b: Double) -> Bool {
return fabs(a - b) < Double(FLT_EPSILON)
}
Adaptation to PHP from Michael Borgwardt & bosonix's answer:
class Comparison
{
const MIN_NORMAL = 1.17549435E-38; //from Java Specs
// from http://floating-point-gui.de/errors/comparison/
public function nearlyEqual($a, $b, $epsilon = 0.000001)
{
$absA = abs($a);
$absB = abs($b);
$diff = abs($a - $b);
if ($a == $b) {
return true;
} else {
if ($a == 0 || $b == 0 || $diff < self::MIN_NORMAL) {
return $diff < ($epsilon * self::MIN_NORMAL);
} else {
return $diff / ($absA + $absB) < $epsilon;
}
}
}
}
You should ask yourself why you are comparing the numbers. If you know the purpose of the comparison then you should also know the required accuracy of your numbers. That is different in each situation and each application context. But in pretty much all practical cases there is a required absolute accuracy. It is only very seldom that a relative accuracy is applicable.
To give an example: if your goal is to draw a graph on the screen, then you likely want floating point values to compare equal if they map to the same pixel on the screen. If the size of your screen is 1000 pixels, and your numbers are in the 1e6 range, then you likely will want 100 to compare equal to 200.
Given the required absolute accuracy, then the algorithm becomes:
public static ComparisonResult compare(float a, float b, float accuracy)
{
if (isnan(a) || isnan(b)) // if NaN needs to be supported
return UNORDERED;
if (a == b) // short-cut and takes care of infinities
return EQUAL;
if (abs(a-b) < accuracy) // comparison wrt. the accuracy
return EQUAL;
if (a < b) // larger / smaller
return SMALLER;
else
return LARGER;
}
The standard advice is to use some small "epsilon" value (chosen depending on your application, probably), and consider floats that are within epsilon of each other to be equal. e.g. something like
#define EPSILON 0.00000001
if ((a - b) < EPSILON && (b - a) < EPSILON) {
printf("a and b are about equal\n");
}
A more complete answer is complicated, because floating point error is extremely subtle and confusing to reason about. If you really care about equality in any precise sense, you're probably seeking a solution that doesn't involve floating point.
I tried writing an equality function with the above comments in mind. Here's what I came up with:
Edit: Change from Math.Max(a, b) to Math.Max(Math.Abs(a), Math.Abs(b))
static bool fpEqual(double a, double b)
{
double diff = Math.Abs(a - b);
double epsilon = Math.Max(Math.Abs(a), Math.Abs(b)) * Double.Epsilon;
return (diff < epsilon);
}
Thoughts? I still need to work out a greater than, and a less than as well.
I came up with a simple approach to adjusting the size of epsilon to the size of the numbers being compared. So, instead of using:
iif(abs(a - b) < 1e-6, "equal", "not")
if a and b can be large, I changed that to:
iif(abs(a - b) < (10 ^ -abs(7 - log(a))), "equal", "not")
I suppose that doesn't satisfy all the theoretical issues discussed in the other answers, but it has the advantage of being one line of code, so it can be used in an Excel formula or an Access query without needing a VBA function.
I did a search to see if others have used this method and I didn't find anything. I tested it in my application and it seems to be working well. So it seems to be a method that is adequate for contexts that don't require the complexity of the other answers. But I wonder if it has a problem I haven't thought of since no one else seems to be using it.
If there's a reason the test with the log is not valid for simple comparisons of numbers of various sizes, please say why in a comment.
You need to take into account that the truncation error is a relative one. Two numbers are about equal if their difference is about as large as their ulp (Unit in the last place).
However, if you do floating point calculations, your error potential goes up with every operation (esp. careful with subtractions!), so your error tolerance needs to increase accordingly.
The best way to compare doubles for equality/inequality is by taking the absolute value of their difference and comparing it to a small enough (depending on your context) value.
double eps = 0.000000001; //for instance
double a = someCalc1();
double b = someCalc2();
double diff = Math.abs(a - b);
if (diff < eps) {
//equal
}
Multiplying two numbers in log space means adding them:
log_multiply(x, y) = log( exp(x) * exp(y) )
= x + y
Adding two numbers in log space means you do a special log-add operation:
log_add(x, y) = log( exp(x) + exp(y) )
which is implemented in the following code, in a way that doesn't require us to take the two exponentials (and lose runtime speed and precision):
double log_add(double x, double y) {
if(x == neginf)
return y;
if(y == neginf)
return x;
return max(x, y) + log1p(exp( -fabs(x - y) ));
}
(Here is another one.)
But here is the question:
Is there a trick to do it for subtraction as well?
log_subtract(x, y) = log( exp(x) - exp(y) )
without having to take the exponents and lose precision?
double log_subtract(double x, double y) {
// ?
}
How about
double log_subtract(double x, double y) {
if(x <= y)
// error!! computing the log of a negative number
if(y == neginf)
return x;
return x + log1p(-exp(y-x));
}
That's just based on some quick math I did...
The library functions for exp and log lose precision for extreme values.
log1p gets you half way there, but what you need is a function that treats the error for both the log and the exp parts.
See this article: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rmpfr/vignettes/log1mexp-note.pdf
The title is "Accurately Computing log(1 - exp(-|a|))".
The article discusses how to seemlessly merge different algorithms to create good error bounds for a larger range of inputs.
I have to check a number if it satisfies the following criteria:
in binary, all one-bits must be successive.
the number must have at least one bit set.
the successive one-bits may start at the MSB or end at the LSB, so it's perfectly valid if the number is made up of a single one-bit stream followed by a zero-bit stream or vice versa.
I wrote a code that checks for these conditions for a real-world problem (checking data-file integrity).
It works without problems and it's anything but time-critical, but I'm an old bit-twiddeling freak and love such puzzles, so I've tried to came up with a more clever way to check for single-one-bit streams.
Cases where the string is surrounded by zeros is easy, but that one can't deal with the special cases.
Any ideas, binary hacks and partial solutions are welcome!
To make my requirements more clear some examples: The following numbers satisfy my criteria:
0x80000000
0x00000001
0xff000000
0x000000ff
0xffffffff
0x000ff000
The following numbers don't (as they have more than one successive string of ones):
0xf00000f <- one-bit streams should not wrap-around at 2^n
0x0001700 <- a trivial example.
0x0000000 <- no one bit at all.
This should do what you want.
if(i == 0)
return false;
while(i % 2 == 0) {
i = i / 2;
}
return (i & (i + 1)) == 0;
bool isOK(uint val) {
while (val != 0 && (val & 1u) == 0) val >>= 1;
if (val == 0) return false;
while (val != 0 && (val & 1u) == 1) val >>= 1;
return val == 0;
}
; x86 assembly
mov eax, THE_NUMBER ; store the number in eax
bsf ecx, eax
jz .notok
mov edi, 1
shl edi, cl
mov esi, eax
add esi, edi
test esi, eax
jnz .notok
mov eax, 1
jmp .end
.notok:
mov eax, 0
.end: ; eax = 1 if satisfies the criteria, otherwise it's 0
I solved almost same problem there http://smallissimo.blogspot.fr/2012/04/meteor-contest-part-3-reducing.html in method hasInsetZero: (and used several other bit tricks)
hasInsetZero: aMask
| allOnes |
allOnes := aMask bitOr: aMask - 1.
^(allOnes bitAnd: allOnes + 1) > 0
It's Smalltalk code, but translated in C (we need the negation and care for 0), that would be:
int all_set_bits_are_consecutive( x )
/* return non zero if at least one bit is set, and all set bits are consecutives */
{
int y = x | (x-1);
return x && (! (y & (y+1)));
}
I would use bsr and bsf to determine the min and max bit set in the number. From that, create a valid number that satisfies the criteria. Compare the known valid number to the actual number for equality. No loops and only one compare.
pseudo-code:
min_bit = bsf(number);
max_bit = bsr(number);
valid_number = ~(-1 << (max_bit - min_bit) ) << min_bit;
return ( number == valid_number );
My work-in-progress version. Not ment as an answer, just to give some more ideas and to document my current approach:
int IsSingleBitStream (unsigned int a)
{
// isolate lowest bit:
unsigned int lowest_bit = a & (a-1);
// add lowest bit to number. If our number is a single bit string, this will
// result in an integer with only a single bit set because the addition will
// propagate up the the highest bit. We ought to end up with a power of two.
a += lowest_bit;
// check if result is a power of two:
return (!a || !(a & (a - 1)));
}
This code will not work if the line:
a+= lowest_bit
overflows. Also I'm unsure if my "isolate single bit" code works if there is more than one bit-field.
Assuming you want fast, the basic algorithm will be:
Find the lowest bit set.
Shift number by the index of lowest bit set.
Add 1.
If result is a power of two and non-zero, success!
All of these operations are either O(1) or O(log(integer bit width)), as follows:
unsigned int lowest_power_of_2(unsigned int value)
{ return value & -value; }
unsigned int count_bits_set(unsigned int value)
{ /* see counting bits set in parallel */ }
unsigned int lowest_bit_set_or_overflow_if_zero(unsigned int value)
{ return count_bits_set(lowest_power_of_2(value) - 1); }
unsigned int is_zero_or_power_of_2(unsigned int value)
{ return value && (value & (value - 1))==0; }
bool magic_function(unsigned in value)
{ return is_zero_or_power_of_2((value >> (lowest_bit_set_or_overflow_if_zero(lowest_power_of_2(value)))) + 1); }
Edit: updated final operation to account for zero, but the OP's algorithm is much faster since it's all constant operation (although accounting for overflow would be a PITA).
MSN
There are (N^2 - N) / 2 possibilities for a N-bit integer (496 for 32-bit).
You may use a lookup table.