I am curious to understand the logic behind the mod operation since I understand that bit-shifting operations can be performed to do different things such as bit shifting to multiply.
One way I can see it being done is by a recursive algorithm that keeps dividing until you cannot divide anymore, but this does not seem efficient.
Any ideas will be helpful. Thanks in advance!
The quick version is: Depends on hardware, the optimizer, if it's division by a constant or not (pdf), if there's exceptions to be checked for (e.g. modulo by 0), if and how negative numbers are handled (this is a scary question for C++), etc...
R gave a nice, concise answer for unsigned integers, but it's difficult to understand unless you're well versed with C.
The crux of the technique illuminated by R is to strip away multiples of q until there's no more multiples of q left. We could naively do this with a simple loop:
while (p >= q) p -= q; // One liner, woohoo!
The code may be short, but for large values of p and small values of q this might take a very long time.
Better than stripping away one q at a time would be to strip away many q's at a time. Note that we actually want to strip away as many q's as possible -- that is, floor(p/q) many q's... And indeed, that's a valid technique. For unsigned integers, one would expect that p % q == p - (p / q) * q. (Note that unsigned integer division rounds down.)
But this almost feels like cheating because division and remainder operations are so intimately related. (In fact, often if hardware natively supports division, it supports a divide-and-compute-remainder operation because they're so strongly related.)
Assuming we've no access to division, how shall we find a multiple of q greater than 1 to strip away? In hardware, fixed shift operations are cheap (if not practically free) and conceptually represent multiplication by a non-negative power of two. For example, shifting a bit string left by 3 is equivalent to multiplying by 8 (that is, 2^3), e.g. 5 decimal is equivalent to '101' binary. Shift '101' in binary by adding three zeroes on the right (giving '101000') and the result is 50 in decimal -- five times eight.
Likewise, shift operations are very cheap as software operations and you'll struggle to find a controller that doesn't support them and quickly. (Some architectures such as ARM can even combine shifts with other instructions to make them 'free' a good deal of the time.)
ARMed (couldn't resist) with these shift operations, we can proceed as follows:
Find out the largest power of two we can multiply q by and still be less than p.
Working from the largest power of two to the smallest, multiply q by each power of two and if it's less than what's left of p subtract it from what's left of p.
Whatever you've got left is the remainder.
Why does this work? Because in the end you'll find that all the subtracted powers of two actually sum to floor(p / q)! Don't take my word for it, similar knowledge has been known for a very long time.
Breaking apart R's answer:
#define HI (-1U-(-1U/2))
This effectively gives you an unsigned integer with only the highest value bit set.
unsigned i;
for (i=0; !(HI & (q<<i)); i++);
This line actually finds the highest power of two q can be multiplied before overflowing an unsigned integer. This isn't strictly necessary, but it doesn't change the results other than increasing the amount of execution time required.
In case you're not familiar with the C-isms in this line:
(q<<i) is a left bit shift by i. Recall this is equivalent to multiplying by 2^i.
HI & (q<<i) performs a bitwise-AND. Since HI only has its top bit populated this will only result in a non-zero value when (q<<i) is large enough to cause the top bit to be non-zero. One more shift over to the left and there'd be an integer overflow.
!(HI & (q<<i)) is 'true' when (HI & (q<<i)) is zero and 'false' otherwise.
do { if (p >= (q<<i)) p -= (q<<i); } while (i--);
This is a simple decreasing loop do { .... } while (i--);. Note that post-decrementing is used on i so the loop executes, then it checks to see if i is not zero, then it subtracts one from i, and then if its earlier check resulted in true it continues. This has the property that the loop executes its last time when i is 0. This is important because we may need to strip away an unmultiplied copy of q.
if (p >= (q<<i)) checks if the 2^i * q is less than or equal to p. If it is, p -= (q<<i) strips it away.
The remainder is left.
While most C implementations run on hardware that has a division instruction, the remainder operation can be performed roughly like this, for computing p%q, assuming unsigned values:
#define HI (-1U-(-1U/2))
unsigned i;
for (i=0; !(HI & (q<<i)); i++);
do { if (p >= (q<<i)) p -= (q<<i); } while (i--);
The resulting remainder is in p.
In addition to a hardware instruction and implementation using shifts, as R.. suggests, there's also reciprocal multiplication.
This technique can be used when the right-hand side of % is a constant, known at compile time.
Reciprocal multiplication is used to implement division, but using it for % is easy, based on the formula a%b == a-(a/b)*b.
Depending on the smarts of the optimizer, there is a shortcut for modulo base 2. For example, a % 32 can be implemented as a & 31. In general, a % (2^N) == a & (2^N -1). This is lightning fast compared to division. Most dividers (ever hardware) require at least 1 cycle for each bit of the result to calculate, while logic AND is just a few cycle operation (in the pipeline).
EDIT: this only works if a is unsigned !
Related
When using integers in C (and in many other languages), one must pay attention when dividing about precision. It is always better to multiply and add things (thus creating a larger intermediary result, so long as it doesn't overflow) before dividing.
But what about floats? Does that still hold? Or are they represented in such a way that it is better to divide number of similar orders of magnitude rather than large ones by small ones?
The representation of floats/doubles and similar floating-point working, is geared towards retaining numbers of significant digits (aka "precision"), rather than a fixed number of decimal places, such as happens in fixed-point, or integer working.
It is best to avoid combining quantities, that may give rise to implicit under or overflow in terms of the exponent, ie at the limits of the floating-point number range.
Hence, addition/subtraction of quantities of widely differing magnitudes (either explicitly, or due to having opposite signs)) should be avoided and re-arranged, where possible, to avoid this well-known route to lost precision.
Example: it's better to refactor/re-order
small + big + small + big + small * big
as
(small+small+small) + big + big
since the smalls individually might make no difference to a big, and hence their contribution might disappear.
If there is any "noise" or imprecision in the lower bits of any quantity, it's also wise to be aware how loss of significant bits propagates through a computation.
With integers:
As long as there is no overflow, +,-,* is always exact.
With division, the result is truncated and often not equal to the mathematical answer.
ia,ib,ic, multiplying before dividing ia*ib/ic vs ia*(ib/ic) is better as the quotient is based on more bits of the product ia*ib than ib.
With floating point:
Issues are subtle. Again, as long as no over/underflow, the order or *,/ sequence make less impact than with integers. FP */- is akin to adding/subtracting logs. Typical results are within 0.5 ULP of the mathematically correct answer.
With FP and +,- the result of fa,fb,fc can have significant differences than the mathematical correct one when 1) values are far apart in magnitude or 2) subtracting values that are nearly equal and the error in a prior calculation now become significant.
Consider the quadratic equation:
double d = sqrt(b*b - 4*a/c); // assume b*b - 4*a/c >= 0
double root1 = (-b + d)/(2*a);
double root2 = (-b - d)/(2*a);
Versus
double d = sqrt(b*b - 4*a/c); // assume b*b - 4*a/c >= 0
double root1 = (b < 0) ? (-b + d)/(2*a) : (-b - d)/(2*a)
double root2 = c/(a*root1); // assume a*root1 != 0
The 2nd has much better root2 precision result when one root is near 0 and |b| is nearly d. This is because the b,d subtraction cancels many bits of significance allowing the error in the calculation of d to become significant.
(for integer) It is always better to multiply and add things (thus creating a larger intermediary result, so long as it doesn't overflow) before dividing.
Does that still hold (for floats)?
In general the answer is No
It is easy to construct an example where adding all input before division will give you a huge rounding error.
Assume you want to add 10000000000 values and divide them by 1000. Further assume that each value is 1. So the expected result is 10000000.
Method 1
However, if you add all the values before division, you'll get the result 16777.216 (for a 32 bit float). As you can see it is pretty much off.
Method 2
So is it better to divide each value by 1000 before adding it to the result? If you do that, you'll get the result 32768.0 (for a 32 bit float). As you can see it is pretty much off as well.
Method 3
However, if you go on adding values until the temporary result is greater than 1000000 and then divide the temporary result by 1000 and add that intermediate result to the final result and repeats that until you have added a total 10000000000 values, you will get the correct result.
So there is no simple "always add before division" or "always divide before adding" when dealing with floating point. As a general rule it is typically a good idea to keep operands in similar magnitude. That is what the third example does.
I'd like to start out by saying this isn't about optimizations so please refrain from dragging this topic down that path. My purpose for using fixed point arithmetic is because I want to control the precision of my calculations without using floating point.
With that being said let's move on. I wanted to have 17 bits for range and 15 bits for the fractional part. The extra bit is for the signed value. Here are some macros below.
const int scl = 18;
#define Double2Fix(x) ((x) * (double)(1 << scl))
#define Float2Fix(x) ((x) * (float)(1 << scl))
#define Fix2Double(x) ((double)(x) / (1 << scl))
#define Fix2Float(x) ((float)(x) / (1 << scl))
Addition and subtraction are fairly straight forward but things gets a bit tricky with mul and div.
I've seen two different ways to handle these two types of operations.
1) if I am using 32 bits then use a temp 64bit variable to store intermediate multiplication steps then scale at the end.
2) right in the multiplication step scale both variables to a lesser bit range before multiplication. For example if you have a 32 bit register with 16 bits for the whole number you could shift like this:
(((a)>>8)*((b)>>6) >> 2) or some combination that makes sense for you app.
It seems to me that if you design your fixed point math around 32 bits it might be impractical to always depend on having a 64bit variable able to store your intermediate values but on the other hand shifting to a lower scale will seriously reduce your range and precision.
questions
Since i'd like to avoid trying to force the cpu to try to create a 64bit type in the middle of my calculations is the shifting to lower bit values the only other alternative?
Also i've notice
int b = Double2Fix(9.1234567890);
printf("double shift:%f\n",Fix2Double(b));
int c = Float2Fix(9.1234567890);
printf("float shift:%f\n",Fix2Float(c));
double shift:9.123444
float shift:9.123444
Is that precision loss just a part of using fixed point numbers?
Since i'd like to avoid trying to force the cpu to try to create a 64bit type in the middle of my calculations is the shifting to lower bit values the only other alternative?
You have to work with the hardware capabilities, and the only available operations you'll find are:
Multiply N x N => low N bits (native C multiplication)
Multiply N x N => high N bits (the C language has no operator for this)
Multiply N x N => all 2N bits (cast to wider type, then multiply)
If the instruction set has #3, and the CPU implements it efficiently, then there's no need to worry about the extra-wide result it produces. For x86, you can pretty much take these as a given. Anyway, you said this wasn't an optimization question :) .
Sticking to just #1, you'll need to break the operands into pieces of (N/2) bits and do long multiplication, which is likely to generate more work. There are still cases where it's the right thing to do, for instance implementing #3 (software extended arithmetic) on a CPU that doesn't have it or #2.
Is that precision loss just a part of using fixed point numbers?
log2( 9.1234567890 – 9.123444 ) = –16.25, and you used 16 bits of precision, so yep, that's very typical.
I know UIKit uses CGFloat because of the resolution independent coordinate system.
But every time I want to check if for example frame.origin.x is 0 it makes me feel sick:
if (theView.frame.origin.x == 0) {
// do important operation
}
Isn't CGFloat vulnerable to false positives when comparing with ==, <=, >=, <, >?
It is a floating point and they have unprecision problems: 0.0000000000041 for example.
Is Objective-C handling this internally when comparing or can it happen that a origin.x which reads as zero does not compare to 0 as true?
First of all, floating point values are not "random" in their behavior. Exact comparison can and does make sense in plenty of real-world usages. But if you're going to use floating point you need to be aware of how it works. Erring on the side of assuming floating point works like real numbers will get you code that quickly breaks. Erring on the side of assuming floating point results have large random fuzz associated with them (like most of the answers here suggest) will get you code that appears to work at first but ends up having large-magnitude errors and broken corner cases.
First of all, if you want to program with floating point, you should read this:
What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic
Yes, read all of it. If that's too much of a burden, you should use integers/fixed point for your calculations until you have time to read it. :-)
Now, with that said, the biggest issues with exact floating point comparisons come down to:
The fact that lots of values you may write in the source, or read in with scanf or strtod, do not exist as floating point values and get silently converted to the nearest approximation. This is what demon9733's answer was talking about.
The fact that many results get rounded due to not having enough precision to represent the actual result. An easy example where you can see this is adding x = 0x1fffffe and y = 1 as floats. Here, x has 24 bits of precision in the mantissa (ok) and y has just 1 bit, but when you add them, their bits are not in overlapping places, and the result would need 25 bits of precision. Instead, it gets rounded (to 0x2000000 in the default rounding mode).
The fact that many results get rounded due to needing infinitely many places for the correct value. This includes both rational results like 1/3 (which you're familiar with from decimal where it takes infinitely many places) but also 1/10 (which also takes infinitely many places in binary, since 5 is not a power of 2), as well as irrational results like the square root of anything that's not a perfect square.
Double rounding. On some systems (particularly x86), floating point expressions are evaluated in higher precision than their nominal types. This means that when one of the above types of rounding happens, you'll get two rounding steps, first a rounding of the result to the higher-precision type, then a rounding to the final type. As an example, consider what happens in decimal if you round 1.49 to an integer (1), versus what happens if you first round it to one decimal place (1.5) then round that result to an integer (2). This is actually one of the nastiest areas to deal with in floating point, since the behaviour of the compiler (especially for buggy, non-conforming compilers like GCC) is unpredictable.
Transcendental functions (trig, exp, log, etc.) are not specified to have correctly rounded results; the result is just specified to be correct within one unit in the last place of precision (usually referred to as 1ulp).
When you're writing floating point code, you need to keep in mind what you're doing with the numbers that could cause the results to be inexact, and make comparisons accordingly. Often times it will make sense to compare with an "epsilon", but that epsilon should be based on the magnitude of the numbers you are comparing, not an absolute constant. (In cases where an absolute constant epsilon would work, that's strongly indicative that fixed point, not floating point, is the right tool for the job!)
Edit: In particular, a magnitude-relative epsilon check should look something like:
if (fabs(x-y) < K * FLT_EPSILON * fabs(x+y))
Where FLT_EPSILON is the constant from float.h (replace it with DBL_EPSILON fordoubles or LDBL_EPSILON for long doubles) and K is a constant you choose such that the accumulated error of your computations is definitely bounded by K units in the last place (and if you're not sure you got the error bound calculation right, make K a few times bigger than what your calculations say it should be).
Finally, note that if you use this, some special care may be needed near zero, since FLT_EPSILON does not make sense for denormals. A quick fix would be to make it:
if (fabs(x-y) < K * FLT_EPSILON * fabs(x+y) || fabs(x-y) < FLT_MIN)
and likewise substitute DBL_MIN if using doubles.
Since 0 is exactly representable as an IEEE754 floating-point number (or using any other implementation of f-p numbers I've ever worked with) comparison with 0 is probably safe. You might get bitten, however, if your program computes a value (such as theView.frame.origin.x) which you have reason to believe ought to be 0 but which your computation cannot guarantee to be 0.
To clarify a little, a computation such as :
areal = 0.0
will (unless your language or system is broken) create a value such that (areal==0.0) returns true but another computation such as
areal = 1.386 - 2.1*(0.66)
may not.
If you can assure yourself that your computations produce values which are 0 (and not just that they produce values which ought to be 0) then you can go ahead and compare f-p values with 0. If you can't assure yourself to the required degree, best stick to the usual approach of 'toleranced equality'.
In the worst cases the careless comparison of f-p values can be extremely dangerous: think avionics, weapons-guidance, power-plant operations, vehicle navigation, almost any application in which computation meets the real world.
For Angry Birds, not so dangerous.
I want to give a bit of a different answer than the others. They are great for answering your question as stated but probably not for what you need to know or what your real problem is.
Floating point in graphics is fine! But there is almost no need to ever compare floats directly. Why would you need to do that? Graphics uses floats to define intervals. And comparing if a float is within an interval also defined by floats is always well defined and merely needs to be consistent, not accurate or precise! As long as a pixel (which is also an interval!) can be assigned that's all graphics needs.
So if you want to test if your point is outside a [0..width[ range this is just fine. Just make sure you define inclusion consistently. For example always define inside is (x>=0 && x < width). The same goes for intersection or hit tests.
However, if you are abusing a graphics coordinate as some kind of flag, like for example to see if a window is docked or not, you should not do this. Use a boolean flag that is separate from the graphics presentation layer instead.
Comparing to zero can be a safe operation, as long as the zero wasn't a calculated value (as noted in an above answer). The reason for this is that zero is a perfectly representable number in floating point.
Talking perfectly representable values, you get 24 bits of range in a power-of-two notion (single precision). So 1, 2, 4 are perfectly representable, as are .5, .25, and .125. As long as all your important bits are in 24-bits, you are golden. So 10.625 can be repsented precisely.
This is great, but will quickly fall apart under pressure. Two scenarios spring to mind:
1) When a calculation is involved. Don't trust that sqrt(3)*sqrt(3) == 3. It just won't be that way. And it probably won't be within an epsilon, as some of the other answers suggest.
2) When any non-power-of-2 (NPOT) is involved. So it may sound odd, but 0.1 is an infinite series in binary and therefore any calculation involving a number like this will be imprecise from the start.
(Oh and the original question mentioned comparisons to zero. Don't forget that -0.0 is also a perfectly valid floating-point value.)
[The 'right answer' glosses over selecting K. Selecting K ends up being just as ad-hoc as selecting VISIBLE_SHIFT but selecting K is less obvious because unlike VISIBLE_SHIFT it is not grounded on any display property. Thus pick your poison - select K or select VISIBLE_SHIFT. This answer advocates selecting VISIBLE_SHIFT and then demonstrates the difficulty in selecting K]
Precisely because of round errors, you should not use comparison of 'exact' values for logical operations. In your specific case of a position on a visual display, it can't possibly matter if the position is 0.0 or 0.0000000003 - the difference is invisible to the eye. So your logic should be something like:
#define VISIBLE_SHIFT 0.0001 // for example
if (fabs(theView.frame.origin.x) < VISIBLE_SHIFT) { /* ... */ }
However, in the end, 'invisible to the eye' will depend on your display properties. If you can upper bound the display (you should be able to); then choose VISIBLE_SHIFT to be a fraction of that upper bound.
Now, the 'right answer' rests upon K so let's explore picking K. The 'right answer' above says:
K is a constant you choose such that the accumulated error of your
computations is definitely bounded by K units in the last place (and
if you're not sure you got the error bound calculation right, make K a
few times bigger than what your calculations say it should be)
So we need K. If getting K is more difficult, less intuitive than selecting my VISIBLE_SHIFT then you'll decide what works for you. To find K we are going to write a test program that looks at a bunch of K values so we can see how it behaves. Ought to be obvious how to choose K, if the 'right answer' is usable. No?
We are going to use, as the 'right answer' details:
if (fabs(x-y) < K * DBL_EPSILON * fabs(x+y) || fabs(x-y) < DBL_MIN)
Let's just try all values of K:
#include <math.h>
#include <float.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void main (void)
{
double x = 1e-13;
double y = 0.0;
double K = 1e22;
int i = 0;
for (; i < 32; i++, K = K/10.0)
{
printf ("K:%40.16lf -> ", K);
if (fabs(x-y) < K * DBL_EPSILON * fabs(x+y) || fabs(x-y) < DBL_MIN)
printf ("YES\n");
else
printf ("NO\n");
}
}
ebg#ebg$ gcc -o test test.c
ebg#ebg$ ./test
K:10000000000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 1000000000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 100000000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 10000000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 1000000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 100000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 10000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> YES
K: 1000000000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 100000000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 10000000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 1000000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 100000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 10000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 1000000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 100000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 10000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 1000000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 100000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 10000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 1000.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 100.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 10.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 1.0000000000000000 -> NO
K: 0.1000000000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0100000000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0010000000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0001000000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0000100000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0000010000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0000001000000000 -> NO
K: 0.0000000100000000 -> NO
K: 0.0000000010000000 -> NO
Ah, so K should be 1e16 or larger if I want 1e-13 to be 'zero'.
So, I'd say you have two options:
Do a simple epsilon computation using your engineering judgement for the value of 'epsilon', as I've suggested. If you are doing graphics and 'zero' is meant to be a 'visible change' than examine your visual assets (images, etc) and judge what epsilon can be.
Don't attempt any floating point computations until you've read the non-cargo-cult answer's reference (and gotten your Ph.D in the process) and then use your non-intuitive judgement to select K.
The correct question: how does one compare points in Cocoa Touch?
The correct answer: CGPointEqualToPoint().
A different question: Are two calculated values are the same?
The answer posted here: They are not.
How to check if they are close? If you want to check if they are close, then don't use CGPointEqualToPoint(). But, don't check to see if they are close. Do something that makes sense in the real world, like checking to see if a point is beyond a line or if a point is inside a sphere.
The last time I checked the C standard, there was no requirement for floating point operations on doubles (64 bits total, 53 bit mantissa) to be accurate to more than that precision. However, some hardware might do the operations in registers of greater precision, and the requirement was interpreted to mean no requirement to clear lower order bits (beyond the precision of the numbers being loaded into the registers). So you could get unexpected results of comparisons like this depending on what was left over in the registers from whoever slept there last.
That said, and despite my efforts to expunge it whenever I see it, the outfit where I work has lots of C code that is compiled using gcc and run on linux, and we have not noticed any of these unexpected results in a very long time. I have no idea whether this is because gcc is clearing the low-order bits for us, the 80-bit registers are not used for these operations on modern computers, the standard has been changed, or what. I'd like to know if anyone can quote chapter and verse.
You can use such code for compare float with zero:
if ((int)(theView.frame.origin.x * 100) == 0) {
// do important operation
}
This will compare with 0.1 accuracy, that enough for CGFloat in this case.
Another issue that may need to be kept in mind is that different implementations do things differently. One example of this that I am very familiar with is the FP units on the Sony Playstation 2. They have significant discrepancies when compared to the IEEE FP hardware in any X86 device. The cited article mentions the complete lack of support for inf and NaN, and it gets worse.
Less well known is what I came to know as the "one bit multiply" error. For certain values of float x:
y = x * 1.0;
assert(y == x);
would fail the assert. In the general case, sometimes, but not always, the result of a FP multiply on the Playstation 2 had a mantissa that was a single bit less than the equivalent IEEE mantissa.
My point being that you should not assume that porting FP code from one platform to another will produce the same results. Any given platform is internally consistent, in that results don't change on that platform, it's just that they may not agree with a different platform. E.g. CPython on X86 uses 64 bit doubles to represent floats, while CircuitPython on a Cortex MO has to use software FP, and only uses 32 bit floats. Needless to say that will introduce discrepancies.
A quote I learned over 40 years ago is as true today as the day I learned it. "Doing floating point maths on a computer is like moving a pile of sand. Every time you do anything, you leave a little sand behind and pick up a little dirt."
Playstation is a registered trademark of Sony Corporation.
-(BOOL)isFloatEqual:(CGFloat)firstValue secondValue:(CGFloat)secondValue{
BOOL isEqual = NO;
NSNumber *firstValueNumber = [NSNumber numberWithDouble:firstValue];
NSNumber *secondValueNumber = [NSNumber numberWithDouble:secondValue];
isEqual = [firstValueNumber isEqualToNumber:secondValueNumber];
return isEqual;
}
I am using the following comparison function to compare a number of decimal places:
bool compare(const double value1, const double value2, const int precision)
{
int64_t magnitude = static_cast<int64_t>(std::pow(10, precision));
int64_t intValue1 = static_cast<int64_t>(value1 * magnitude);
int64_t intValue2 = static_cast<int64_t>(value2 * magnitude);
return intValue1 == intValue2;
}
// Compare 9 decimal places:
if (compare(theView.frame.origin.x, 0, 9)) {
// do important operation
}
I'd say the right thing is to declare each number as an object, and then define three things in that object: 1) an equality operator. 2) a setAcceptableDifference method. 3)the value itself. The equality operator returns true if the absolute difference of two values is less than the value set as acceptable.
You can subclass the object to suit the problem. For example, round bars of metal between 1 and 2 inches might be considered of equal diameter if their diameters differed by less than 0.0001 inches. So you'd call setAcceptableDifference with parameter 0.0001, and then use the equality operator with confidence.
Let's say we have these inequalities:
if (a*a+b*b>0) {
...
}
if (a*b+c*d>0) {
...
}
Obviously, both of them require 2 multiplications to evaluate.
The thing is, do we really need to calculate 2 full-precision products just to check whether these expressions are positive or not?
Is there any mathematical trickery that allows me to write those if commands without the need to evaluate 2 products?
Will it be faster?
Or perhaps the compiler takes care of making it as fast as possible?
Am I overthinking?
EDIT:
Well, that escalated quickly.
I just want to point out that I am speaking in general terms. I don't need such a micro-optimization in any project of mine anyway.
Also, yes, I could have omitted the first one for being too trivial. Possibly the second one is more interesting.
Your "am I overthinking" question suggests me that you haven't found this to be an actual bottleneck by really profiling your code. So I'd say yes, you're just trying to do premature optimization.
However, if this really is a major performance-critical part of your application, then the only improvement I can think of right now is the following. Since squares of real numbers can never be negative, then "a squared is greater than zero" is equivalent with "a is not zero". So if comparisons are fast (well, that's relative -- faster than multiplication) on your architecture, then
if (a*a+b*b>0) {
...
}
can be written as
if (a || b) {
...
}
(provided that no corner cases arise. If the variables are signed integers or floating-point numbers representing real numbers, then this should be fine. If, however, there are some unsigned integer overflow or complex numbers involved, then you will have to perform additional checks, and at that point, it's hard to reason about the relative performance without true profiling.)
I don't have such a "clever" "optimization" for the second case in my mind, but perhaps someone else can come up with something similar -- if and only if it is absolutely necessary. Not otherwise -- code readability is preferred over performance when performance is not critical.
I'm assuming none of these expressions will overflow either because the types don't have a concept of overflow or because the values are in range. When overflow and potential wrap-around enters the picture (e.g. if a and b are unsigned int) different rules apply.
The first statement is obviously equivalent to
if (a != 0 || b != 0)
or
if (a || b)
which trades an extra branch for two multiplications and an addition.
The second statement is a bit more interesting: I'd think it could be reasonable to determine the signs of the operand and only do the actual math when a*b and c*d have opposite signs. In all other cases the condition can be determined without knowing the actual values. Whether the resulting logic is faster than the computations will depend on the types, I'd guess.
The first one will always be >= 0. It will be 0 if and only if a and b are 0, so it's equivalent to:
if (a || b) {
...
}
About the second one: if sign of a is equal to sign of b, and sign of c is equal to sign of d, then it's the same situation as above:
if (sign(a)==sign(b) && sign(c)==sign(d))
{
if ((a && b) || (c && d))
{
... > 0
}
else
{
... = 0
}
}
else
{
if (sign(a)*sign(b)==sign(c)*sign(d))
{
... <= 0
}
else
{
/* must do the actual product to find out */
}
}
For a IEEE-754 compliant floating point number, the sign is at the MSb of each number.
For environments in which FP is emulated, there's one thing you can do to optimize a bit the comparison: you can avoid the additions, if you just compare the two results of the products, like this:
if (a*b>c*d) {
...
}
This is a bit faster because to compare two floating point numbers, you just compare them as if they were signed integer numbers, and a FP-less CPU surely will have resources to compare two integer numbers faster than the time it spends doing a FP software addition.
Another rewrite (assuming you are using floats, they are 32 bits wide and IEEE 754 compliant, and the same size as int; yes, this is hacky and platform-dependent).
For the first case, you can use a single bitwise 'or' & 'and' (the and is used to ignore the sign-bit and the exponent, retaining only the mantissa; you can remove it if there cannot be any -0s):
if (*((int *)&a) | (*(int *)&b) & 0x7FFFFF) { // a*a + b*b>0
...
}
I really doubt that there is any similarly branch-less magic for the second case.
To be clear, I am not looking for NaN or infinity, or asking what the answer to x/0 should be. What I'm looking for is this:
Based on how division is performed in hardware (I do not know how it is done), if division were to be performed with a divisor of 0, and the processor just chugged along happily through the operation, what would come out of it?
I realize this is highly dependent on the dividend, so for a concrete answer I ask this: What would a computer spit out if it followed its standard division operation on 42 / 0?
Update:
I'll try to be a little clearer. I'm asking about the actual operations done with the numbers at the bit level to reach a solution. The result of the operation is just bits. NaN and errors/exceptions come into play when the divisor is discovered to be zero. If the division actually happened, what bits would come out?
It might just not halt. Integer division can be carried out in linear time through repeated subtraction: for 7/2, you can subtract 2 from 7 a total of 3 times, so that’s the quotient, and the remainder (modulus) is 1. If you were to supply a dividend of 0 to an algorithm like that, unless there were a mechanism in place to prevent it, the algorithm would not halt: you can subtract 0 from 42 an infinite number of times without ever getting anywhere.
From a type perspective, this should be intuitive. The result of an undefined computation or a non-halting one is ⊥ (“bottom”), the undefined value inhabiting every type. Division by zero is not defined on the integers, so it should rightfully produce ⊥ by raising an error or failing to terminate. The former is probably preferable. ;)
Other, more efficient (logarithmic time) division algorithms rely on series that converge to the quotient; for a dividend of 0, as far as I can tell, these will either fail to converge (i.e., fail to terminate) or produce 0. See Division on Wikipedia.
Floating-point division similarly needs a special case: to divide two floats, subtract their exponents and integer-divide their significands. Same underlying algorithm, same problem. That’s why there are representations in IEEE-754 for positive and negative infinity, as well as signed zero and NaN (for 0/0).
For processors that have an internal "divide" instruction, such as the x86 with div, the CPU actually causes a software interrupt if one attempts to divide by zero. This software interrupt is usually caught by the language runtime and translated into an appropriate "divide by zero" exception.
Hardware dividers typically use a pipelined long division structure.
Assuming we're talking about integer division for now (as opposed to floating-point); the first step in long division is to align the most-significant ones (before attempting to subtract the divisor from the dividend). Clearly, this is undefined in the case of 0, so who knows what the hardware would do. If we assume it does something sane, the next step is to perform log(n) subtractions (where n is the number of bit positions). For every subtraction that results in a positive result, a 1 is set in the output word. So the output from this step would be an all-1s word.
Floating-point division requires three steps:
Taking the difference of the exponents
Fixed-point division of the mantissas
Handling special cases
0 is represented by all-0s (both the mantissa and the exponent). However, there's always an implied leading 1 in the mantissa, so if we weren't treating this representation as a special case, it would just look and act like an extremely small power of 2.
It depends on the implementation. IEE standard 754 floating point[1] defines signed infinity values, so in theory that should be the result of divide by zero. The hardware simply sets a flag if the demoninator is zero on a division operation. There is no magic to it.
Some erroneous (read x86) architectures throw a trap if they hit a divide by zero which is in theory, from a mathematical point of view, a cop out.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754-2008
It would be an infinite loop. Typically, division is done through continuous subtraction, just like multiplication is done via continual addition.
So, zero is special cased since we all know what the answer is anyway.
It would actually spit out an exception. Mathematically, 42 / 0, is undefined, so computers won't spit out a specific value to these inputs. I know that division can be done in hardware, but well designed hardware will have some sort of flag or interrupt to tell you that whatever value contained in the registers that are supposed to contain the result is not valid. Many computers make an exception out of this.
On x86, interrupt 0 occurs and the output registers are unchanged
Minimal 16-bit real mode example (to be added to a bootloader for example):
movw $handler, 0x00
movw %cs, 0x02
mov $0, %ax
div %ax
/* After iret, we come here. */
hlt
handler:
/* After div, we come here. *
iret
How to run this code in detail || 32-bit version.
The Intel documentation for the DIV instruction does not say that the regular output registers (ax == result, dx == module) are modified, so I think this implies they stay unchanged.
Linux would then handle that interrupt to send a SIGFPE to the process that did that, which is will kill it if not handled.
X / 0 Where X is an element of realnumbers and is greater than or equal to 1,
therefor the answer of X / 0 = infinity.
Division method (c#)
Int Counter = 0; /* used to keep track of the division */
Int X = 42; /* number */
Int Y = 0; /* divisor */
While (x > 0) {
X = X - Y;
Counter++;
}
Int answer = Counter;