Count number of digits after `.` in floating point numbers? - c

This is one interview question.
How do you compute the number of digit after . in floating point number.
e.g. if given 3.554 output=3
for 43.000 output=0.
My code snippet is here
double no =3.44;
int count =0;
while(no!=((int)no))
{
count++;
no=no*10;
}
printf("%d",count);
There are some numbers that can not be indicated by float type. for example, there is no 73.487 in float type, the number indicated by float in c is 73.486999999999995 to approximate it.
Now how to solve it as it is going in some infinite loop.
Note : In the IEEE 754 Specifications, a 32 bit float is divided as 24+7+1 bits. The 7 bits indicate the mantissa.

I doubt this is what you want since the question is asking for something that's not usually meaningful with floating point numbers, but here is the answer:
int digits_after_decimal_point(double x)
{
int i;
for (i=0; x!=rint(x); x+=x, i++);
return i;
}

The problem isn't really solvable as stated, since floating-point is typically represented in binary, not in decimal. As you say, many (in fact most) decimal numbers are not exactly representable in floating-point.
On the other hand, all numbers that are exactly representable in binary floating-point are decimals with a finite number of digits -- but that's not particularly useful if you want a result of 2 for 3.44.
When I run your code snippet, it says that 3.44 has 2 digits after the decimal point -- because 3.44 * 10.0 * 10.0 just happens to yield exactly 344.0. That might not happen for another number like, say, 3.43 (I haven't tried it).
When I try it with 1.0/3.0, it goes into an infinite loop. Adding some printfs shows that no becomes exactly 33333333333333324.0 after 17 iterations -- but that number is too big to be represented as an int (at least on my system), and converting it to int has undefined behavior.
And for large numbers, repeatedly multiplying by 10 will inevitably give you a floating-point overflow. There are ways to avoid that, but they don't solve the other problems.
If you store the value 3.44 in a double object, the actual value stored (at least on my system) is exactly 3.439999999999999946709294817992486059665679931640625, which has 51 decimal digits in its fractional part. Suppose you really want to compute the number of decimal digits after the point in 3.439999999999999946709294817992486059665679931640625. Since 3.44 and 3.439999999999999946709294817992486059665679931640625 are effectively the same number, there's no way for any C function to distinguish between them and know whether it should return 2 or 51 (or 50 if you meant 3.43999999999999994670929481799248605966567993164062, or ...).
You could probably detect that the stored value is "close enough" to 3.44, but that makes it a much more complex problem -- and it loses the ability to determine the number of decimal digits in the fractional part of 3.439999999999999946709294817992486059665679931640625.
The question is meaningful only if the number you're given is stored in some format that can actually represent decimal fractions (such as a string), or if you add some complex requirement for determining which decimal fraction a given binary approximation is meant to represent.
There's probably a reasonable way to do the latter by looking for the unique decimal fraction whose nearest approximation in the given floating-point type is the given binary floating-point number.

The question could be interpreted as such:
Given a floating point number, find the shortest decimal representation that would be re-interpreted as the same floating point value with correct rounding.
Once formulated like this, the answer is Yes we can - see this algorithm:
Printing floating point numbers quickly and accurately. Robert G. Burger and R. Kent Dybvig. ACM SIGPLAN 1996 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, June 1996
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/FP-Printing-PLDI96.pdf
See also references from Compute the double value nearest preferred decimal result for a Smalltalk implementation.

Sounds like you need to either use sprintf to get an actual rounded version, or have the input be a string (and not parsed to a float).
Either way, once you have a string version of the number, counting characters after the decimal should be trivial.

It is my logic to count the number of digits.
number = 245.98
Take input as a string
char str[10] = "245.98";
Convert string to int using to count the number of digits before the decimal point.
int atoi(const char *string)
Use logic n/10 inside the while to count the numbers.
Numbers after decimal logic
Get the length of the string using strlen(n)
inside the while (a[i]! ='.'). then increment i
Later you can add step 3 logic output and step 4 logic output
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
char num[100] = "345653.8768";
int count=0;
int i=0;
int len;
int before_decimal = atoi(num);
int after_decimal;
int total_Count;
printf("Converting string to int : %d\n", before_decimal);
//Lets count the numbers of digits before before_decimal
while(before_decimal!=0){
before_decimal = before_decimal/10;
count++;
}
printf("number of digits before decimal are %d\n",count);
//Lets get the number of digits after decimal
// first get the lenght of the string
len = strlen(num);
printf("Total number of digits including '.' are =%d\n",len);
//Now count the number after '.' decimal points
// Hope you know how to compare the strings
while(num[i]!='.'){
i++;
}
// total lenght of number - numberof digits after decimal -1(becuase every string ends with '\0')
after_decimal= len-i-1;
printf("Number of digits after decimal points are %d\n",after_decimal);
//Lets add both count Now
// ie. Number of digits before decmal and after decimal
total_Count = count+ after_decimal;
printf("Total number of digits are :%d\n",total_Count);
return 0;
}
Output:
Converting string to int : 345653
number of digits before decimal are 6
Total number of digits including '.' are =11
Number of digits after decimal points are 4
Total number of digits are :10

There are no general exact solutions. But you can convert the value to string and don't count the part exceeding the type's precision and exclude the trailing 0s or 9s. This will work for more cases but it still won't return the correct answer for all.
For example double's accuracy is about 15 digits if the input is a decimal string from the user (17 digits for binary-decimal-binary round trip), so for 73.486999999999995 there are 15 - 2 = 13 digits after the radix point (minus the 2 digits in the int part). After that there are still many 9s in the fractional part, subtract them from the count too. Here there are ten 9s which means there are 13 - 10 = 3 decimal digits. If you use 17 digits then the last digit which may be just garbage, exclude it before counting the 9s or 0s.
Alternatively just start from the 15 or 16th digit and iterate until you see the first non-0 and non-9 digit. Count the remaining digits and you'll get 3 in this case. Of course while iterating you must also make sure that the trailing is all 0s or all 9s

Request: e.g. if given 3.554 output = 3, for 43.000 output = 0
Problem: that's already a decimal like 0.33345. When this gets converted to a double, it might be something like 0.333459999...125. The goal is merely to determine that 0.33345 is a shorter decimal that will produce the same double. The solution is to convert it to a string with the right number of digits that results in the same original value.
int digits(double v){
int d=0; while(d < 50){
string t=DoubleToString(v,d); double vt = StrToDouble(t);
if(MathAbs(v-vt) < 1e-15) break;
++d;
}
return d;
}
double v=0.33345; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.33345, d=5
v=0.01; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.01, d=2
v=0.00001; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=1e-05, d=5
v=5*0.00001; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=5e-05, d=5
v=5*.1*.1*.1; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.005, d=3
v=0.05; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.05, d=2
v=0.25; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.25, d=2
v=1/3.; PrintFormat("v=%g, d=%i", v,digits(v));// v=0.333333, d=15

What you can do is multiply the number by various powers of 10, round that to the nearest integer, and then divide by the same number of powers of 10. When the final result compares different from the original number, you've gone one digit too far.
I haven't read it in a long time, so I don't know how it relates to this idea, but How to Print Floating-Point Numbers Accurately from PLDI 1990 and 2003 Retrospective are probably very relevant to the basic problem.

Related

Why double and %f don't want to print 10 decimals?

I am learning c programming language and am figuring out format specifiers, but it seems as if double and %f are not working corectly.
Here is my code
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
double a = 15.1234567899876;
printf("%13.10f", a);
}
In my textbook it's stated that in "%13.10f" 13 stands for total number of digits we want to be printed(including dot) and 10 is number of decimals. So i expected to get 15.1234567899 but didn't.
After running it I get 15.1234567900. It's not just not enough decimals, but decimals are not printed correctly. Variable a has 8 after 7 and before 9, but printed number does not.
Can someone please tell me where am I wrong.
Thank you. Lp
printf is supposed to round the result to the number of digits you asked for.
you asked: 15.1234567899876
you got: 15.1234567900
digit count: 1234567890
So printf is behaving correctly.
You should beware, though, that both types float and double have finite precision. Also their finite precision is as a number of binary bits, not decimal digits. So after about 7 digits for a float, and about 16 digits for a double, you'll start seeing results that can seem quite strange if you don't realize what's going on. You can see this if you start printing more digits:
printf("%18.15f\n", a);
you asked: 15.1234567899876
you got: 15.123456789987600
So that's okay. But:
printf("%23.20f\n", a);
you asked: 15.1234567899876
you got: 15.12345678998759979095
Here we see that, at the 15th digit, the number actually stored internally begins to differ slightly from the number you asked for. You can read more about this at Is floating point math broken?
Footnote: What was the number actually stored internally? It was the hexadecimal floating-point number 0xf.1f9add3b7744, or expressed in C's %a format, 0x1.e3f35ba76ee88p+3. Converted back to decimal, it's exactly 15.1234567899875997909475699998438358306884765625. All those other renditions (15.1234567900, 15.123456789987600, and 15.12345678998759979095) are rounded to some smaller number of digits. The internal value makes the most sense, perhaps, expressed in binary, where it's 0b1111.0001111110011010110111010011101101110111010001000, with exactly 53 significant bits, of which 52 are explicit and one implicit, per IEEE-754 double precision.

How are results rounded in floating-point arithmetic?

I wrote this code that simply sums a list of n numbers, to practice with floating point arithmetic, and I don't understand this:
I am working with float, this means I have 7 digits of precision, therefore, if I do the operation 10002*10002=100040004, the result in data type float will be 100040000.000000, since I lost any digit beyond the 7th (the program still knows the exponent, as seen here).
If the input in this program is
3
10000
10001
10002
You will see that, however, when this program computes 30003*30003=900180009 we have 30003*30003=900180032.000000
I understand this 32 appears becasue I am working with float, and my goal is not to make the program more precise but understand why this is happening. Why is it 900180032.000000 and not 900180000.000000? Why does this decimal noise (32) appear in 30003*30003 and not in 10002*10002 even when the magnitude of the numbers are the same? Thank you for your time.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define MAX_SIZE 200
int main()
{
int numbers[MAX_SIZE];
int i, N;
float sum=0;
float sumb=0;
float sumc=0;
printf("introduce n" );
scanf("%d", &N);
printf("write %d numbers:\n", N);
for(i=0; i<N; i++)
{
scanf("%d", &numbers[i]);
}
int r=0;
while (r<N){
sum=sum+numbers[r];
sumb=sumb+(numbers[r]*numbers[r]);
printf("sum is %f\n",sum);
printf("sumb is %f\n",sumb);
r++;
}
sumc=(sum*sum);
printf("sumc is %f\n",sumc);
}
As explained below, the computed result of multiplying 10,002 by 10,002 must be a multiple of eight, and the computed result of multiplying 30,003 by 30,003 must be a multiple of 64, due to the magnitudes of the numbers and the number of bits available for representing them. Although your question asks about “decimal noise,” there are no decimal digits involved here. The results are entirely due to rounding to multiples of powers of two. (Your C implementation appears to use the common IEEE 754 format for binary floating-point.)
When you multiply 10,002 by 10,002, the computed result must be a multiple of eight. I will explain why below. The mathematical result is 100,040,004. The nearest multiples of eight are 100,040,000 and 100,040,008. They are equally far from the exact result, and the rule used to break ties chooses the even multiple (100,040,000 is eight times 12,505,000, an even number, while 100,040,008 is eight times 12,505,001, an odd number).
Many C implementations use IEEE 754 32-bit basic binary floating-point for float. In this format, a number is represented as an integer M multiplied by a power of two 2e. The integer M must be less than 224 in magnitude. The exponent e may be from −149 to 104. These limits come from the numbers of bits used to represent the integer and the exponent.
So all float values in this format have the value M • 2e for some M and some e. There are no decimal digits in the format, just an integer multiplied by a power of two.
Consider the number 100,040,004. The biggest M we can use is 16,777,215 (224−1). That is not big enough that we can write 100,040,004 as M • 20. So we must increase the exponent. Even with 22, the biggest we can get is 16,777,215 • 22 = 67,108,860. So we must use 23. And that is why the computed result must be a multiple of eight, in this case.
So, to produce a result for 10,002•10,002 in float, the computer uses 12,505,000 • 23, which is 100,040,000.
In 30,003•30,003, the result must be a multiple of 64. The exact result is 900,180,009. 25 is not enough because 16,777,215•25 is 536,870,880. So we need 26, which is 64. The two nearest multiples of 64 are 900,179,968 and 900,180,032. In this case, the latter is closer (23 away versus 41 away), so it is chosen.
(While I have described the format as an integer times a power of two, it can also be described as a binary numeral with one binary digit before the radix point and 23 binary digits after it, with the exponent range adjusted to compensate. These are mathematically equivalent. The IEEE 754 standard uses the latter description. Textbooks may use the former description because it makes analyzing some of the numerical properties easier.)
Floating point arithmetic is done in binary, not in decimal.
Floats actually have 24 binary bits of precision, 1 of which is a sign bit and 23 of which are called significand bits. This converts to approximately 7 decimal digits of precision.
The number you're looking at, 900180032, is already 9 digits long and so it makes sense that the last two digits (the 32) might be wrong. The rounding like the arithmetic is done in binary, the reason for the difference in rounding can only be seen if you break things down into binary.
900180032 = 110101101001111010100001000000
900180000 = 110101101001111010100000100000
If you count from the first 1 to the last 1 in each of those numbers (the part I put in bold), that is how many significand bits it takes to store the number. 900180032 takes only 23 significand bits to store while 900180000 takes 24 significand bits which makes 900180000 an impossible number to store as floats only have 23 significand bits. 900180032 is the closest number to the correct answer, 900180009, that a float can store.
In the other example
100040000 = 101111101100111110101000000
100040004 = 101111101100111110101000100
The correct answer, 100040004 has 25 significand bits, too much for floats. The nearest number that has 23 or less significand bits is 10004000 which only has 21 significant bits.
For more on floating point arithmetic works, try here http://steve.hollasch.net/cgindex/coding/ieeefloat.html

Using floorf to reduce the number of decimals

I would like to use the first five digits of a number for computation.
For example,
A floating point number: 4.23654897E-05
I wish to use 4.2365E-05.I tried the following
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
float num = 4.23654897E-05;
int main(){
float rounded_down = floorf(num * 10000) / 10000;
printf("%f",rounded_down);
return 0;
}
The output is 0.000000.The desired output is 4.2365E-05.
In short,say 52 bits are allocated for storing the mantissa.Is there a way to reduce the number of bits being allocated?
Any suggestions on how this can be done?
A number x that is positive and within the normal range can be rounded down approximately to five significant digits with:
double l = pow(10, floor(log10(x)) - 4);
double y = l * floor(x / l);
This is useful only for tinkering with floating-point arithmetic as a learning tool. The exact mathematical result is generally not exactly representable, because binary floating-point cannot represent most decimal values exactly. Additionally, rounding errors can occur in the pow, /, and * operations that may cause the result to differ slightly from the true mathematical result of rounding x to five significant digits. Also, poor implementations of log10 or pow can cause the result to differ from the true mathematical result.
I'd go:
printf("%.6f", num);
Or you can try using snprintf() from stdlib.h:
float num = 4.23654897E-05; char output[50];
snprintf(output, 50, "%f", num);
printf("%s", output);
The result is expected. The multiplication by 10000 yield 0.423.. the nearest integer to it is 0. So the result is 0. Rounding can be done using format specifier %f to print the result upto certain decimal places after decimal point.
If you check the return value of floorf you will see it returns If no errors occur, the largest integer value not greater than arg, that is ⌊arg⌋, is returned. where arg is the passed argument.
Without using floatf you can use %e or (%E)format specifier to print it accordingly.
printf("%.4E",num);
which outputs:
4.2365E-05
After David's comment:
Your way of doing things is right but the number you multiplied is wrong. The thing is 4.2365E-05 is 0.00004235.... Now if you multiply it with 10000 then it will 0.42365... Now you said I want the expression to represent in that form. floorf returns float in this case. Store it in a variable and you will be good to go. The rounded value will be in that variable. But you will see that the rounded down value will be 0. That is what you got.
float rounded_down = floorf(num * 10000) / 10000;
This will hold the correct value rounded down to 4 digits after . (not in exponent notation with E or e). Don't confuse the value with the format specifier used to represent it.
What you need to do in order to get the result you want is move the decimal places to the right. To do that multiply with larger number. (1e7 or 1e8 or as you want it to).
I would like to use the first five digits of a number for computation.
In general, floating point numbers are encoded using binary and OP wants to use 5 significant decimal digits. This is problematic as numbers like 4.23654897E-05 and 4.2365E-05 are not exactly representable as a float/double. The best we can do is get close.
The floor*() approach has problems with 1) negative numbers (should have used trunc()) and 2) values near x.99995 that during rounding may change the number of digits. I strongly recommend against it here as such solutions employing it fail many corner cases.
The *10000 * power10, round, /(10000 * power10) approach suffers from 1) power10 calculation (1e5 in this case) 2) rounding errors in the multiple, 3) overflow potential. The needed power10 may not be exact. * errors show up with cases when the product is close to xxxxx.5. Often this intermediate calculation is done using wider double math and so the corner cases are rare. Bad rounding using (some_int_type) which has limited range and is a truncation instead of the better round() or rint().
An approach that gets close to OP's goal: print to 5 significant digits using %e and convert back. Not highly efficient, yet handles all cases well.
int main(void) {
float num = 4.23654897E-05f;
// sign d . dddd e sign expo + \0
#define N (1 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1)
char buf[N*2]; // Use a generous buffer - I like 2x what I think is needed.
// OP wants 5 significant digits so print 4 digits after the decimal point.
sprintf(buf, "%.4e", num);
float rounded = (float) atof(buf);
printf("%.5e %s\n", rounded, buf);
}
Output
4.23650e-05 4.2365e-05
Why 5 in %.5e: Typical float will print up to 6 significant decimal digits as expected (research FLT_DIG), so 5 digits after the decimal point are printed. The exact value of rounded in this case was about 4.236500171...e-05 as 4.2365e-05 is not exactly representable as a float.

create number 0 only using int in the C

#include <stdio.h>
struct real_num
{
int int_num;
int frac_num;
};
void main()
{
struct real_num num1;
printf("input the number : ");
scanf("%d.%d",&num1.int_num,&num1.frac_num):
printf("%d.%d",num1.int_num,num1.frac_num);
}
i input 12.012 but buffer save 12.12 i want a 012 but this buffer save 12
what should i do? i want a save 012 (using only int)
Numbers are a matter of arithmetic. 1, 01, 1.0, 1.000, 0x01, 1e0 all describe the same number: whichever representation you use has the same mathematical properties, and behaves identically in calculation (ignoring the matter of computer storage of numbers as int or float or double... which is again another matter entirely).
The representation of a number is a matter of sequences of characters, or strings. Representations of numbers can be formatted differently, and can be in different bases, but can't be calculated with directly by a computer. To store leading zeroes, you need a string, not an int.
You typically convert from number representation to number at input, and from number to number representation at output. You would achieve your stated desire by not converting from number representation to number at input, but leaving it as a string.
You don't want to store 012, you want to store 0.012.
The value 0.012 in binary is (approximately):
0.00000011000100100110111010010111b
..and the value 12.012 is (approximately):
110.00000011000100100110111010010111b
Note that 0.012 is impossible to store precisely in binary because it would consume an infinite number of bits; in the same way that 1/3 can't be written precisely in decimal (0.333333333.....) because you'd need an infinite number of digits.
Let's look at 12.012. In hex it's this:
0x0000000C.03126E97
This makes it easier to see how the number would be stored in a pair of 32-bit integers. The integer part in one 32-bit integer, and the fractional part in another 32-bit integer.
The first problem is that you're using signed 32-bit integers, which means that one of the bits of the fraction is wasted for a sign bit. Essentially, you're using a "sign + 31 bit integer + wasted bit + 31 bit fraction" fixed point format. It'd be easier and better to use an unsigned integer for the fractional bits.
The second problem is that standard C functions don't support fixed point formats. This means that you either have to write your own "string to fixed point" and "fixed point to string" conversion routines, or you have use C's floating point conversion routines and write your own "floating point to fixed point" and "fixed point to floating point" conversion routines.
Note that the latter is harder (floating point is messy), slower, and less precise (double floating point format only supports 53 bits of precision while you can store 62 bits of precision).
A fraction does not consists of a single integer. A fraction consists of 2 integers: numerator/denominator.
Code needs to keep track of width of the fraction input. Could use "%n" to record offset in scan.
#include <stdio.h>
struct real_number {
int ipart;
int num;
int den_pow10;
};
void main(void) {
struct real_number num1;
printf("input the number : ");
fflush(stdout);
int n1 = 0;
int n2 = 0;
scanf("%d.%n%d%n",&num1.ipart, &n1, &num1.num , &n2):
if (n2 == 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "bad input\n");
return -1;
}
num1.den_pow10 = n2 - n1;
printf("%d.%*0d",num1.ipart,num1.den_pow10, num1.frac_num);
return 0;
}
Input/Output
input the number : 12.00056
Result 12.00056

Why do I need 17 significant digits (and not 16) to represent a double?

Can someone give me an example of a floating point number (double precision), that needs more than 16 significant decimal digits to represent it?
I have found in this thread that sometimes you need up to 17 digits, but I am not able to find an example of such a number (16 seems enough to me).
Can somebody clarify this?
My other answer was dead wrong.
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
unsigned long long n = 1ULL << 53;
unsigned long long a = 2*(n-1);
unsigned long long b = 2*(n-2);
printf("%llu\n%llu\n%d\n", a, b, (double)a == (double)b);
return 0;
}
Compile and run to see:
18014398509481982
18014398509481980
0
a and b are just 2*(253-1) and 2*(253-2).
Those are 17-digit base-10 numbers. When rounded to 16 digits, they are the same. Yet a and b clearly only need 53 bits of precision to represent in base-2. So if you take a and b and cast them to double, you get your counter-example.
The correct answer is the one by Nemo above. Here I am just pasting a simple Fortran program showing an example of the two numbers, that need 17 digits of precision to print, showing, that one does need (es23.16) format to print double precision numbers, if one doesn't want to loose any precision:
program test
implicit none
integer, parameter :: dp = kind(0.d0)
real(dp) :: a, b
a = 1.8014398509481982e+16_dp
b = 1.8014398509481980e+16_dp
print *, "First we show, that we have two different 'a' and 'b':"
print *, "a == b:", a == b, "a-b:", a-b
print *, "using (es22.15)"
print "(es22.15)", a
print "(es22.15)", b
print *, "using (es23.16)"
print "(es23.16)", a
print "(es23.16)", b
end program
it prints:
First we show, that we have two different 'a' and 'b':
a == b: F a-b: 2.0000000000000000
using (es22.15)
1.801439850948198E+16
1.801439850948198E+16
using (es23.16)
1.8014398509481982E+16
1.8014398509481980E+16
I think the guy on that thread is wrong, and 16 base-10 digits are always enough to represent an IEEE double.
My attempt at a proof would go something like this:
Suppose otherwise. Then, necessarily, two distinct double-precision numbers must be represented by the same 16-significant-digit base-10 number.
But two distinct double-precision numbers must differ by at least one part in 253, which is greater than one part in 1016. And no two numbers differing by more than one part in 1016 could possibly round to the same 16-significant-digit base-10 number.
This is not completely rigorous and could be wrong. :-)
Dig into the single and double precision basics and wean yourself of the notion of this or that (16-17) many DECIMAL digits and start thinking in (53) BINARY digits. The necessary examples may be found here at stackoverflow if you spend some time digging.
And I fail to see how you can award a best answer to anyone giving a DECIMAL answer without qualified BINARY explanations. This stuff is straight-forward but it is not trivial.
The largest continuous range of integers that can be exactly represented by a double (8-byte IEEE) is -253 to 253 (-9007199254740992. to 9007199254740992.). The numbers -253-1 and 253+1 cannot be exactly represented by a double.
Therefore, no more than 16 significant decimal digits to the left of the decimal point will exactly represent a double in the continuous range.

Resources