In Python, round(0.625) returns 0.62. why is this?
The following code only applies for positive numbers, what are better alternative?
from maths import floor
def round2Dp(n, decimals=0):
multiplier = 10 ** decimals
return floor(n*multiplier+0.5) / multiplier
See the documentation for numeric types here. Specifically:
round(x[, n]): x rounded to n digits, rounding half to even. If n is omitted, it defaults to 0.
This basically means that half (0.5) is always rounded to the nearest even number.
GeeksForGooks.com says, "When the second parameter is present, then it returns:
The last decimal digit till which it is rounded is increased by 1 when (ndigit+1)th digit is >=5 , else it stays the same."
Somebody tried to reject this answer, saying that he was pretty sure that was not what the web site said. This was a direct cut and paste from this page: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/round-function-python/
Related
The equation in question is: (-8) ** (-1/3). Putting that into Python you get the following answer:
In [1]: (-8) ** (-1/3)
Out[1]: (0.25000000000000006-0.4330127018922193j)
Which is incorrect, the answer should be -0.5. But if I take out the negative, it works fine.
In [2]: (8) ** (-1/3) * -1
Out[2]: -0.5
What's going on? I tested this on two other calculators (Google's search calculator and a scientific calculator on Android, CalcES) and I got the same mistake that Python is making when the input is (-8) ** (-1/3).
Floating powers of a negative number will give you a complex number.
(-8)**(-1/3)
(0.25000000000000006-0.4330127018922193j)
Even if you remove the negative sign from the power you will get a complex number:
(-8)**(1/3)
(1.0000000000000002+1.7320508075688772j)
If I just do 1.1, then too it will be a complex number
(-8)** (1.1)
(-9.367103334496456-3.043556370026835j)
It does not matter if you take 8 or any other number, if the number is a negative number power raised to some floating number other than an integer, it will always yield a complex number.
Please seethe below links:
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/317528/how-do-you-compute-negative-numbers-to-fractional-powers
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/952663/negative-number-raised-to-fractional-power
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2174393/can-a-negative-number-be-raised-to-a-fractional-power-e-g-2-5
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4332039/why-cant-a-negative-base-be-raised-to-a-non-integer-exponent
print("%.5f" % 5.1234567890) output is 5.12346
i am not understanding why 5 is not printed in output in precision field. after 4 the 6 is printed directly. why?
You limit the number of digits in fractional part to 5 digits. When you do that it rounds the number up or down based on number after the last digit. In your case, the fifth digit of the fractional part is 5 and after that is 6. So it rounds the number 5 up.
The number you type after the dot limits the float digits after the decimal point. so your command will prints the number and the first 5 digits of his decimal part.
I don't think there is anything in the math library to do this, since obviously normal people would round that number up.
But if you are really trying to round down, for whatever reason, you would need to build a function or import some other library someone else made to do it.
You can also create a function do it, for example:
import math
def round_decimals_down(number:float, decimals:int=2):
if not isinstance(decimals, int):
raise TypeError("A")
elif decimals < 0:
raise ValueError("B")
elif decimals == 0:
return math.floor(number)
factor = 10 ** decimals
return math.floor(number * factor) / factor
valueA = 5.1234567890
roundA = round_decimals_down(valueA, 5)
print(roundA)
output: 5.12345
Let me know if that is what you were trying to accomplish.
How to check if a float value is within a range (0.50,150.00) and has 2 decimal digits?
For example, 15.22366 should be false (too many decimal digits). But 15.22 should be true.
I tried something like:
data= input()
if data in range(0.50,150.00):
return True
Is that you are looking for?
def check(value):
if 0.50 <= value <= 150 and round(value,2)==value:
return True
return False
Given your comment:
i input 15.22366 it is going to return true; that is why i specified the range; it should accept 15.22
Simply said, floating point values are imprecise. Many values don't have a precise representation. Say for example 1.40. It might be displayed "as it":
>>> f = 1.40
>>> print f
1.4
But this is an illusion. Python has rounded that value in order to nicely display it. The real value as referenced by the variable f is quite different:
>>> from decimal import Decimal
>>> Decimal(f)
Decimal('1.399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375')
According to your rule of having only 2 decimals, should f reference a valid value or not?
The easiest way to fix that issue is probably to use round(...,2) as I suggested in the code above. But this in only an heuristic -- only able to reject "largely wrong" values. See my point here:
>>> for v in [ 1.40,
... 1.405,
... 1.399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
... 1.39999999999999991118,
... 1.3999999999999991118]:
... print check(v), v
...
True 1.4
False 1.405
True 1.4
True 1.4
False 1.4
Notice how the last few results might seems surprising at first. I hope my above explanations put some light on this.
As a final advice, for your needs as I guess them from your question, you should definitively consider using "decimal arithmetic". Python provides the decimal module for that purpose.
float is the wrong data type to use for your case, Use Decimal instead.
Check python docs for issues and limitations. To quote from there (I've generalised the text in Italics)
Floating-point numbers are represented in computer hardware as base 2 (binary) fractions.
no matter how many base 2 digits you’re willing to use, some decimal value (like 0.1) cannot be represented exactly as a base 2 fraction.
Stop at any finite number of bits, and you get an approximation
On a typical machine running Python, there are 53 bits of precision available for a Python float, so the value stored internally when you enter a decimal number is the binary fraction which is close to, but not exactly equal to it.
The documentation for the built-in round() function says that it rounds to the nearest value, rounding ties away from zero.
And finally, it recommends
If you’re in a situation where you care which way your decimal halfway-cases are rounded, you should consider using the decimal module.
And this will hold for your case as well, as you are looking for a precision of 2 digits after decimal points, which float just can't guarantee.
EDIT Note: The answer below corresponds to original question related to random float generation
Seeing that you need 2 digits of sure shot precision, I would suggest generating integer random numbers in range [50, 15000] and dividing them by 100 to convert them to float yourself.
import random
random.randint(50, 15000)/100.0
Why don't you just use round?
round(random.uniform(0.5, 150.0), 2)
Probably what you want to do is not to change the value itself. As said by Cyber in the comment, even if your round a floating point number, it will always store the same precision. If you need to change the way it is printed:
n = random.uniform(0.5, 150)
print '%.2f' % n # 58.03
The easiest way is to first convert the decimal to string and split with '.' and check if the length of the character. If it is >2 then pass on. i.e. Convert use input number to check if it is in a given range.
a=15.22366
if len(str(a).split('.')[1])>2:
if 0.50 <= value <= 150:
<do your stuff>>
Sorry, but I really don't know what's the meaning of the defination of round in python 3.3.2 doc:
round(number[, ndigits])
Return the floating point value number rounded to ndigits digits after the decimal point. If ndigits is omitted, it defaults to zero. Delegates to number.__round__(ndigits).
For the built-in types supporting round(), values are rounded to the closest multiple of 10 to the power minus ndigits if two multiples are equally close, rounding is done toward the even choice (so, for example, both round(0.5) and round(-0.5) are 0, and round(1.5) is 2). The return value is an integer if called with one argument, otherwise of the same type as number.
I don't know how come the multiple of 10 and pow.
After reading the following examples, I think round(number,n) works like:
if let number be 123.456, let n be 2
round will get two number:123.45 and 123.46
round compares abs(number-123.45) (0.006) and abs(number-123.46) (0.004),and chooses the smaller one.
so, 123.46 is the result.
and if let number be 123.455, let n be 2:
round will get two number:123.45 and 123.46
round compares abs(number-123.45) (0.005) and abs(number-123.46) (0.005). They are equal. So round checks the last digit of 123.45 and 123.46. The even one is the result.
so, the result is 123.46
Am I right?
If not, could you offer a understandable version of values are rounded to the closest multiple of 10 to the power minus ndigits?
ndigits = 0 => pow(10, -ndigits) = 10^(-ndigits) = 1
ndigits = 1 => pow(10, -ndigits) = 10^(-ndigits) = 0.1
etc.
>>> for ndigits in range(6):
... print round(123.456789, ndigits) / pow(10, -ndigits)
123.0
1235.0
12346.0
123457.0
1234568.0
12345679.0
Basically, the number you get is always an integer multiple of 10^(-ndigits). For ndigits=0, that means the number you get is itself an integer, for ndigits=1 it means it won't have more than one non-zero value after the decimal point.
It helps to know that anything to the power of 0 equals 1. As ndigits increases, the function:
f(ndigits) = 10-ndigits gets smaller as you increase ndigits. Specifically as you increase ndigits by 1, you simply shift the decimal place of precision one left. e.g. 10^-0 = 1, 10^-1 = .1 and 10^-2 = .01. The place where the 1 is in the answer is the last point of precision for round.
For the part where it says
For the built-in types supporting round(), values are rounded to the
closest multiple of 10 to the power minus ndigits; if two multiples
are equally close, rounding is done toward the even choice (so, for
example, both round(0.5) and round(-0.5) are 0, and round(1.5) is 2).
This has unexpected behavior in Python 3 and it will not work for all floats. Consider the example you gave, round(123.455, 2) yields the value 123.45. This is not expected behavior because the closest even multiple of 10^-2 is 123.46, not 123.45!
To understand this, you have to pay special attention to the note below this:
Note The behavior of round() for floats can be surprising: for
example, round(2.675, 2) gives 2.67 instead of the expected 2.68. This
is not a bug: it’s a result of the fact that most decimal fractions
can’t be represented exactly as a float.
And that is why certain floats will round to the "wrong value" and there is really no easy workaround as far as I am aware. (sadface) You could use fractions (i.e. two variables representing the numerator and the denominator) to represent floats in a custom round function if you want to get different behavior than the unpredictable behavior for floats.
I have been asked to test a library provided by a 3rd party. The library is known to be accurate to n significant figures. Any less-significant errors can safely be ignored. I want to write a function to help me compare the results:
def nearlyequal( a, b, sigfig=5 ):
The purpose of this function is to determine if two floating-point numbers (a and b) are approximately equal. The function will return True if a==b (exact match) or if a and b have the same value when rounded to sigfig significant-figures when written in decimal.
Can anybody suggest a good implementation? I've written a mini unit-test. Unless you can see a bug in my tests then a good implementation should pass the following:
assert nearlyequal(1, 1, 5)
assert nearlyequal(1.0, 1.0, 5)
assert nearlyequal(1.0, 1.0, 5)
assert nearlyequal(-1e-9, 1e-9, 5)
assert nearlyequal(1e9, 1e9 + 1 , 5)
assert not nearlyequal( 1e4, 1e4 + 1, 5)
assert nearlyequal( 0.0, 1e-15, 5 )
assert not nearlyequal( 0.0, 1e-4, 6 )
Additional notes:
Values a and b might be of type int, float or numpy.float64. Values a and b will always be of the same type. It's vital that conversion does not introduce additional error into the function.
Lets keep this numerical, so functions that convert to strings or use non-mathematical tricks are not ideal. This program will be audited by somebody who is a mathematician who will want to be able to prove that the function does what it is supposed to do.
Speed... I've got to compare a lot of numbers so the faster the better.
I've got numpy, scipy and the standard-library. Anything else will be hard for me to get, especially for such a small part of the project.
As of Python 3.5, the standard way to do this (using the standard library) is with the math.isclose function.
It has the following signature:
isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-9, abs_tol=0.0)
An example of usage with absolute error tolerance:
from math import isclose
a = 1.0
b = 1.00000001
assert isclose(a, b, abs_tol=1e-8)
If you want it with precision of n significant digits, simply replace the last line with:
assert isclose(a, b, abs_tol=10**-n)
There is a function assert_approx_equal in numpy.testing (source here) which may be a good starting point.
def assert_approx_equal(actual,desired,significant=7,err_msg='',verbose=True):
"""
Raise an assertion if two items are not equal up to significant digits.
.. note:: It is recommended to use one of `assert_allclose`,
`assert_array_almost_equal_nulp` or `assert_array_max_ulp`
instead of this function for more consistent floating point
comparisons.
Given two numbers, check that they are approximately equal.
Approximately equal is defined as the number of significant digits
that agree.
Here's a take.
def nearly_equal(a,b,sig_fig=5):
return ( a==b or
int(a*10**sig_fig) == int(b*10**sig_fig)
)
I believe your question is not defined well enough, and the unit-tests you present prove it:
If by 'round to N sig-fig decimal places' you mean 'N decimal places to the right of the decimal point', then the test assert nearlyequal(1e9, 1e9 + 1 , 5) should fail, because even when you round 1000000000 and 1000000001 to 0.00001 accuracy, they are still different.
And if by 'round to N sig-fig decimal places' you mean 'The N most significant digits, regardless of the decimal point', then the test assert nearlyequal(-1e-9, 1e-9, 5) should fail, because 0.000000001 and -0.000000001 are totally different when viewed this way.
If you meant the first definition, then the first answer on this page (by Triptych) is good.
If you meant the second definition, please say it, I promise to think about it :-)
There are already plenty of great answers, but here's a think:
def closeness(a, b):
"""Returns measure of equality (for two floats), in unit
of decimal significant figures."""
if a == b:
return float("infinity")
difference = abs(a - b)
avg = (a + b)/2
return math.log10( avg / difference )
if closeness(1000, 1000.1) > 3:
print "Joy!"
This is a fairly common issue with floating point numbers. I solve it based on the discussion in Section 1.5 of Demmel[1]. (1) Calculate the roundoff error. (2) Check that the roundoff error is less than some epsilon. I haven't used python in some time and only have version 2.4.3, but I'll try to get this correct.
Step 1. Roundoff error
def roundoff_error(exact, approximate):
return abs(approximate/exact - 1.0)
Step 2. Floating point equality
def float_equal(float1, float2, epsilon=2.0e-9):
return (roundoff_error(float1, float2) < epsilon)
There are a couple obvious deficiencies with this code.
Division by zero error if the exact value is Zero.
Does not verify that the arguments are floating point values.
Revision 1.
def roundoff_error(exact, approximate):
if (exact == 0.0 or approximate == 0.0):
return abs(exact + approximate)
else:
return abs(approximate/exact - 1.0)
def float_equal(float1, float2, epsilon=2.0e-9):
if not isinstance(float1,float):
raise TypeError,"First argument is not a float."
elif not isinstance(float2,float):
raise TypeError,"Second argument is not a float."
else:
return (roundoff_error(float1, float2) < epsilon)
That's a little better. If either the exact or the approximate value is zero, than the error is equal to the value of the other. If something besides a floating point value is provided, a TypeError is raised.
At this point, the only difficult thing is setting the correct value for epsilon. I noticed in the documentation for version 2.6.1 that there is an epsilon attribute in sys.float_info, so I would use twice that value as the default epsilon. But the correct value depends on both your application and your algorithm.
[1] James W. Demmel, Applied Numerical Linear Algebra, SIAM, 1997.
"Significant figures" in decimal is a matter of adjusting the decimal point and truncating to an integer.
>>> int(3.1415926 * 10**3)
3141
>>> int(1234567 * 10**-3)
1234
>>>
Oren Shemesh got part of the problem with the problem as stated but there's more:
assert nearlyequal( 0.0, 1e-15, 5 )
also fails the second definition (and that's the definition I learned in school.)
No matter how many digits you are looking at, 0 will not equal a not-zero. This could prove to be a headache for such tests if you have a case whose correct answer is zero.
There is a interesting solution to this by B. Dawson (with C++ code)
at "Comparing Floating Point Numbers". His approach relies on strict IEEE representation of two numbers and the enforced lexicographical ordering when said numbers are represented as unsigned integers.
I have been asked to test a library provided by a 3rd party
If you are using the default Python unittest framework, you can use assertAlmostEqual
self.assertAlmostEqual(a, b, places=5)
There are lots of ways of comparing two numbers to see if they agree to N significant digits. Roughly speaking you just want to make sure that their difference is less than 10^-N times the largest of the two numbers being compared. That's easy enough.
But, what if one of the numbers is zero? The whole concept of relative-differences or significant-digits falls down when comparing against zero. To handle that case you need to have an absolute-difference as well, which should be specified differently from the relative-difference.
I discuss the problems of comparing floating-point numbers -- including a specific case of handling zero -- in this blog post:
http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/comparing-floating-point-numbers-2012-edition/