Related
I'm curious as to why it's so much faster to multiply than to take powers in python (though from what I've read this may well be true in many other languages too). For example it's much faster to do
x*x
than
x**2
I suppose the ** operator is more general and can also deal with fractional powers. But if that's why it's so much slower, why doesn't it perform a check for an int exponent and then just do the multiplication?
Edit: Here's some example code I tried...
def pow1(r, n):
for i in range(r):
p = i**n
def pow2(r, n):
for i in range(r):
p = 1
for j in range(n):
p *= i
Now, pow2 is just a quick example and is clearly not optimised!
But even so I find that using n = 2 and r = 1,000,000, then pow1 takes ~ 2500ms and pow2 takes ~ 1700ms.
I admit that for large values of n, then pow1 does get much quicker than pow2. But that's not too surprising.
Basically naive multiplication is O(n) with a very low constant factor. Taking the power is O(log n) with a higher constant factor (There are special cases that need to be tested... fractional exponents, negative exponents, etc) . Edit: just to be clear, that's O(n) where n is the exponent.
Of course the naive approach will be faster for small n, you're only really implementing a small subset of exponential math so your constant factor is negligible.
Adding a check is an expense, too. Do you always want that check there? A compiled language could make the check for a constant exponent to see if it's a relatively small integer because there's no run-time cost, just a compile-time cost. An interpreted language might not make that check.
It's up to the particular implementation unless that kind of detail is specified by the language.
Python doesn't know what distribution of exponents you're going to feed it. If it's going to be 99% non-integer values, do you want the code to check for an integer every time, making runtime even slower?
Doing this in the exponent check will slow down the cases where it isn't a simple power of two very slightly, so isn't necessarily a win. However, in cases where the exponent is known in advance( eg. literal 2 is used), the bytecode generated could be optimised with a simple peephole optimisation. Presumably this simply hasn't been considered worth doing (it's a fairly specific case).
Here's a quick proof of concept that does such an optimisation (usable as a decorator). Note: you'll need the byteplay module to run it.
import byteplay, timeit
def optimise(func):
c = byteplay.Code.from_code(func.func_code)
prev=None
for i, (op, arg) in enumerate(c.code):
if op == byteplay.BINARY_POWER:
if c.code[i-1] == (byteplay.LOAD_CONST, 2):
c.code[i-1] = (byteplay.DUP_TOP, None)
c.code[i] = (byteplay.BINARY_MULTIPLY, None)
func.func_code = c.to_code()
return func
def square(x):
return x**2
print "Unoptimised :", timeit.Timer('square(10)','from __main__ import square').timeit(10000000)
square = optimise(square)
print "Optimised :", timeit.Timer('square(10)','from __main__ import square').timeit(10000000)
Which gives the timings:
Unoptimised : 6.42024898529
Optimised : 4.52667593956
[Edit]
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, there's a very good reason why this optimisaton isn't done. There's no guarantee that someone won't create a user defined class that overrides the __mul__ and __pow__ methods and do something different for each. The only way to do it safely is if you can guarantee that the object on the top of the stack is one that has the same result "x**2" and "x*x", but working that out is much harder. Eg. in my example it's impossible, as any object could be passed to the square function.
An implementation of b^p with binary exponentiation
def power(b, p):
"""
Calculates b^p
Complexity O(log p)
b -> double
p -> integer
res -> double
"""
res = 1
while p:
if p & 0x1: res *= b
b *= b
p >>= 1
return res
I'd suspect that nobody was expecting this to be all that important. Typically, if you want to do serious calculations, you do them in Fortran or C or C++ or something like that (and perhaps call them from Python).
Treating everything as exp(n * log(x)) works well in cases where n isn't integral or is pretty large, but is relatively inefficient for small integers. Checking to see if n is a small enough integer does take time, and adds complication.
Whether the check is worth it depends on the expected exponents, how important it is to get best performance here, and the cost of the extra complexity. Apparently, Guido and the rest of the Python gang decided the check wasn't worth doing.
If you like, you could write your own repeated-multiplication function.
how about xxxxx?
is it still faster than x**5?
as int exponents gets larger, taking powers might be faster than multiplication.
but the number where actual crossover occurs depends on various conditions, so in my opinion, that's why the optimization was not done(or couldn't be done) in language/library level. But users can still optimize for some special cases :)
It's well known that comparing floats for equality is a little fiddly due to rounding and precision issues.
For example: Comparing Floating Point Numbers, 2012 Edition
What is the recommended way to deal with this in Python?
Is a standard library function for this somewhere?
Python 3.5 adds the math.isclose and cmath.isclose functions as described in PEP 485.
If you're using an earlier version of Python, the equivalent function is given in the documentation.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
rel_tol is a relative tolerance, it is multiplied by the greater of the magnitudes of the two arguments; as the values get larger, so does the allowed difference between them while still considering them equal.
abs_tol is an absolute tolerance that is applied as-is in all cases. If the difference is less than either of those tolerances, the values are considered equal.
Something as simple as the following may be good enough:
return abs(f1 - f2) <= allowed_error
I would agree that Gareth's answer is probably most appropriate as a lightweight function/solution.
But I thought it would be helpful to note that if you are using NumPy or are considering it, there is a packaged function for this.
numpy.isclose(a, b, rtol=1e-05, atol=1e-08, equal_nan=False)
A little disclaimer though: installing NumPy can be a non-trivial experience depending on your platform.
Use Python's decimal module, which provides the Decimal class.
From the comments:
It is worth noting that if you're
doing math-heavy work and you don't
absolutely need the precision from
decimal, this can really bog things
down. Floats are way, way faster to
deal with, but imprecise. Decimals are
extremely precise but slow.
The common wisdom that floating-point numbers cannot be compared for equality is inaccurate. Floating-point numbers are no different from integers: If you evaluate "a == b", you will get true if they are identical numbers and false otherwise (with the understanding that two NaNs are of course not identical numbers).
The actual problem is this: If I have done some calculations and am not sure the two numbers I have to compare are exactly correct, then what? This problem is the same for floating-point as it is for integers. If you evaluate the integer expression "7/3*3", it will not compare equal to "7*3/3".
So suppose we asked "How do I compare integers for equality?" in such a situation. There is no single answer; what you should do depends on the specific situation, notably what sort of errors you have and what you want to achieve.
Here are some possible choices.
If you want to get a "true" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be equal, then you might try to use the properties of the calculations you perform to prove that you get the same errors in the two numbers. If that is feasible, and you compare two numbers that result from expressions that would give equal numbers if computed exactly, then you will get "true" from the comparison. Another approach is that you might analyze the properties of the calculations and prove that the error never exceeds a certain amount, perhaps an absolute amount or an amount relative to one of the inputs or one of the outputs. In that case, you can ask whether the two calculated numbers differ by at most that amount, and return "true" if they are within the interval. If you cannot prove an error bound, you might guess and hope for the best. One way of guessing is to evaluate many random samples and see what sort of distribution you get in the results.
Of course, since we only set the requirement that you get "true" if the mathematically exact results are equal, we left open the possibility that you get "true" even if they are unequal. (In fact, we can satisfy the requirement by always returning "true". This makes the calculation simple but is generally undesirable, so I will discuss improving the situation below.)
If you want to get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal, you need to prove that your evaluation of the numbers yields different numbers if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal. This may be impossible for practical purposes in many common situations. So let us consider an alternative.
A useful requirement might be that we get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers differ by more than a certain amount. For example, perhaps we are going to calculate where a ball thrown in a computer game traveled, and we want to know whether it struck a bat. In this case, we certainly want to get "true" if the ball strikes the bat, and we want to get "false" if the ball is far from the bat, and we can accept an incorrect "true" answer if the ball in a mathematically exact simulation missed the bat but is within a millimeter of hitting the bat. In that case, we need to prove (or guess/estimate) that our calculation of the ball's position and the bat's position have a combined error of at most one millimeter (for all positions of interest). This would allow us to always return "false" if the ball and bat are more than a millimeter apart, to return "true" if they touch, and to return "true" if they are close enough to be acceptable.
So, how you decide what to return when comparing floating-point numbers depends very much on your specific situation.
As to how you go about proving error bounds for calculations, that can be a complicated subject. Any floating-point implementation using the IEEE 754 standard in round-to-nearest mode returns the floating-point number nearest to the exact result for any basic operation (notably multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root). (In case of tie, round so the low bit is even.) (Be particularly careful about square root and division; your language implementation might use methods that do not conform to IEEE 754 for those.) Because of this requirement, we know the error in a single result is at most 1/2 of the value of the least significant bit. (If it were more, the rounding would have gone to a different number that is within 1/2 the value.)
Going on from there gets substantially more complicated; the next step is performing an operation where one of the inputs already has some error. For simple expressions, these errors can be followed through the calculations to reach a bound on the final error. In practice, this is only done in a few situations, such as working on a high-quality mathematics library. And, of course, you need precise control over exactly which operations are performed. High-level languages often give the compiler a lot of slack, so you might not know in which order operations are performed.
There is much more that could be (and is) written about this topic, but I have to stop there. In summary, the answer is: There is no library routine for this comparison because there is no single solution that fits most needs that is worth putting into a library routine. (If comparing with a relative or absolute error interval suffices for you, you can do it simply without a library routine.)
math.isclose() has been added to Python 3.5 for that (source code). Here is a port of it to Python 2. It's difference from one-liner of Mark Ransom is that it can handle "inf" and "-inf" properly.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
'''
Python 2 implementation of Python 3.5 math.isclose()
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.5.10/Modules/mathmodule.c#L1993
'''
# sanity check on the inputs
if rel_tol < 0 or abs_tol < 0:
raise ValueError("tolerances must be non-negative")
# short circuit exact equality -- needed to catch two infinities of
# the same sign. And perhaps speeds things up a bit sometimes.
if a == b:
return True
# This catches the case of two infinities of opposite sign, or
# one infinity and one finite number. Two infinities of opposite
# sign would otherwise have an infinite relative tolerance.
# Two infinities of the same sign are caught by the equality check
# above.
if math.isinf(a) or math.isinf(b):
return False
# now do the regular computation
# this is essentially the "weak" test from the Boost library
diff = math.fabs(b - a)
result = (((diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * b)) or
(diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * a))) or
(diff <= abs_tol))
return result
I'm not aware of anything in the Python standard library (or elsewhere) that implements Dawson's AlmostEqual2sComplement function. If that's the sort of behaviour you want, you'll have to implement it yourself. (In which case, rather than using Dawson's clever bitwise hacks you'd probably do better to use more conventional tests of the form if abs(a-b) <= eps1*(abs(a)+abs(b)) + eps2 or similar. To get Dawson-like behaviour you might say something like if abs(a-b) <= eps*max(EPS,abs(a),abs(b)) for some small fixed EPS; this isn't exactly the same as Dawson, but it's similar in spirit.
If you want to use it in testing/TDD context, I'd say this is a standard way:
from nose.tools import assert_almost_equals
assert_almost_equals(x, y, places=7) # The default is 7
In terms of absolute error, you can just check
if abs(a - b) <= error:
print("Almost equal")
Some information of why float act weird in Python:
Python 3 Tutorial 03 - if-else, logical operators and top beginner mistakes
You can also use math.isclose for relative errors.
This is useful for the case where you want to make sure two numbers are the same 'up to precision', and there isn't any need to specify the tolerance:
Find minimum precision of the two numbers
Round both of them to minimum precision and compare
def isclose(a, b):
astr = str(a)
aprec = len(astr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in astr else 0
bstr = str(b)
bprec = len(bstr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in bstr else 0
prec = min(aprec, bprec)
return round(a, prec) == round(b, prec)
As written, it only works for numbers without the 'e' in their string representation (meaning 0.9999999999995e-4 < number <= 0.9999999999995e11)
Example:
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.049)
True
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.05)
False
For some of the cases where you can affect the source number representation, you can represent them as fractions instead of floats, using integer numerator and denominator. That way you can have exact comparisons.
See Fraction from fractions module for details.
I liked Sesquipedal's suggestion, but with modification (a special use case when both values are 0 returns False). In my case, I was on Python 2.7 and just used a simple function:
if f1 ==0 and f2 == 0:
return True
else:
return abs(f1-f2) < tol*max(abs(f1),abs(f2))
If you want to do it in a testing or TDD context using the pytest package, here's how:
import pytest
PRECISION = 1e-3
def assert_almost_equal():
obtained_value = 99.99
expected_value = 100.00
assert obtained_value == pytest.approx(expected_value, PRECISION)
I found the following comparison helpful:
str(f1) == str(f2)
To compare up to a given decimal without atol/rtol:
def almost_equal(a, b, decimal=6):
return '{0:.{1}f}'.format(a, decimal) == '{0:.{1}f}'.format(b, decimal)
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=5)) # False
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=4)) # True
This maybe is a bit ugly hack, but it works pretty well when you don't need more than the default float precision (about 11 decimals).
The round_to function uses the format method from the built-in str class to round up the float to a string that represents the float with the number of decimals needed, and then applies the eval built-in function to the rounded float string to get back to the float numeric type.
The is_close function just applies a simple conditional to the rounded up float.
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return eval("'{:." + str(int(prec)) + "f}'.format(" + str(float_num) + ")")
def is_close(float_a, float_b, prec):
if round_to(float_a, prec) == round_to(float_b, prec):
return True
return False
>>>a = 10.0
10.0
>>>b = 10.0001
10.0001
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=3)
True
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=4)
False
Update:
As suggested by #stepehjfox, a cleaner way to build a rount_to function avoiding "eval" is using nested formatting:
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return '{:.{precision}f}'.format(float_num, precision=prec)
Following the same idea, the code can be even simpler using the great new f-strings (Python 3.6+):
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return f'{float_num:.{prec}f}'
So, we could even wrap it up all in one simple and clean 'is_close' function:
def is_close(a, b, prec):
return f'{a:.{prec}f}' == f'{b:.{prec}f}'
If you want to compare floats, the options above are great, but in my case, I ended up using Enum's, since I only had few valid floats my use case was accepting.
from enum import Enum
class HolidayMultipliers(Enum):
EMPLOYED_LESS_THAN_YEAR = 2.0
EMPLOYED_MORE_THAN_YEAR = 2.5
Then running:
testable_value = 2.0
HolidayMultipliers(testable_value)
If the float is valid, it's fine, but otherwise it will just throw an ValueError.
Use == is a simple good way, if you don't care about tolerance precisely.
# Python 3.8.5
>>> 1.0000000000001 == 1
False
>>> 1.00000000000001 == 1
True
But watch out for 0:
>>> 0 == 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
False
The 0 is always the zero.
Use math.isclose if you want to control the tolerance.
The default a == b is equivalent to math.isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-16, abs_tol=0).
If you still want to use == with a self-defined tolerance:
>>> class MyFloat(float):
def __eq__(self, another):
return math.isclose(self, another, rel_tol=0, abs_tol=0.001)
>>> a == MyFloat(0)
>>> a
0.0
>>> a == 0.001
True
So far, I didn't find anywhere to config it globally for float. Besides, mock is also not working for float.__eq__.
It's well known that comparing floats for equality is a little fiddly due to rounding and precision issues.
For example: Comparing Floating Point Numbers, 2012 Edition
What is the recommended way to deal with this in Python?
Is a standard library function for this somewhere?
Python 3.5 adds the math.isclose and cmath.isclose functions as described in PEP 485.
If you're using an earlier version of Python, the equivalent function is given in the documentation.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
rel_tol is a relative tolerance, it is multiplied by the greater of the magnitudes of the two arguments; as the values get larger, so does the allowed difference between them while still considering them equal.
abs_tol is an absolute tolerance that is applied as-is in all cases. If the difference is less than either of those tolerances, the values are considered equal.
Something as simple as the following may be good enough:
return abs(f1 - f2) <= allowed_error
I would agree that Gareth's answer is probably most appropriate as a lightweight function/solution.
But I thought it would be helpful to note that if you are using NumPy or are considering it, there is a packaged function for this.
numpy.isclose(a, b, rtol=1e-05, atol=1e-08, equal_nan=False)
A little disclaimer though: installing NumPy can be a non-trivial experience depending on your platform.
Use Python's decimal module, which provides the Decimal class.
From the comments:
It is worth noting that if you're
doing math-heavy work and you don't
absolutely need the precision from
decimal, this can really bog things
down. Floats are way, way faster to
deal with, but imprecise. Decimals are
extremely precise but slow.
The common wisdom that floating-point numbers cannot be compared for equality is inaccurate. Floating-point numbers are no different from integers: If you evaluate "a == b", you will get true if they are identical numbers and false otherwise (with the understanding that two NaNs are of course not identical numbers).
The actual problem is this: If I have done some calculations and am not sure the two numbers I have to compare are exactly correct, then what? This problem is the same for floating-point as it is for integers. If you evaluate the integer expression "7/3*3", it will not compare equal to "7*3/3".
So suppose we asked "How do I compare integers for equality?" in such a situation. There is no single answer; what you should do depends on the specific situation, notably what sort of errors you have and what you want to achieve.
Here are some possible choices.
If you want to get a "true" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be equal, then you might try to use the properties of the calculations you perform to prove that you get the same errors in the two numbers. If that is feasible, and you compare two numbers that result from expressions that would give equal numbers if computed exactly, then you will get "true" from the comparison. Another approach is that you might analyze the properties of the calculations and prove that the error never exceeds a certain amount, perhaps an absolute amount or an amount relative to one of the inputs or one of the outputs. In that case, you can ask whether the two calculated numbers differ by at most that amount, and return "true" if they are within the interval. If you cannot prove an error bound, you might guess and hope for the best. One way of guessing is to evaluate many random samples and see what sort of distribution you get in the results.
Of course, since we only set the requirement that you get "true" if the mathematically exact results are equal, we left open the possibility that you get "true" even if they are unequal. (In fact, we can satisfy the requirement by always returning "true". This makes the calculation simple but is generally undesirable, so I will discuss improving the situation below.)
If you want to get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal, you need to prove that your evaluation of the numbers yields different numbers if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal. This may be impossible for practical purposes in many common situations. So let us consider an alternative.
A useful requirement might be that we get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers differ by more than a certain amount. For example, perhaps we are going to calculate where a ball thrown in a computer game traveled, and we want to know whether it struck a bat. In this case, we certainly want to get "true" if the ball strikes the bat, and we want to get "false" if the ball is far from the bat, and we can accept an incorrect "true" answer if the ball in a mathematically exact simulation missed the bat but is within a millimeter of hitting the bat. In that case, we need to prove (or guess/estimate) that our calculation of the ball's position and the bat's position have a combined error of at most one millimeter (for all positions of interest). This would allow us to always return "false" if the ball and bat are more than a millimeter apart, to return "true" if they touch, and to return "true" if they are close enough to be acceptable.
So, how you decide what to return when comparing floating-point numbers depends very much on your specific situation.
As to how you go about proving error bounds for calculations, that can be a complicated subject. Any floating-point implementation using the IEEE 754 standard in round-to-nearest mode returns the floating-point number nearest to the exact result for any basic operation (notably multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root). (In case of tie, round so the low bit is even.) (Be particularly careful about square root and division; your language implementation might use methods that do not conform to IEEE 754 for those.) Because of this requirement, we know the error in a single result is at most 1/2 of the value of the least significant bit. (If it were more, the rounding would have gone to a different number that is within 1/2 the value.)
Going on from there gets substantially more complicated; the next step is performing an operation where one of the inputs already has some error. For simple expressions, these errors can be followed through the calculations to reach a bound on the final error. In practice, this is only done in a few situations, such as working on a high-quality mathematics library. And, of course, you need precise control over exactly which operations are performed. High-level languages often give the compiler a lot of slack, so you might not know in which order operations are performed.
There is much more that could be (and is) written about this topic, but I have to stop there. In summary, the answer is: There is no library routine for this comparison because there is no single solution that fits most needs that is worth putting into a library routine. (If comparing with a relative or absolute error interval suffices for you, you can do it simply without a library routine.)
math.isclose() has been added to Python 3.5 for that (source code). Here is a port of it to Python 2. It's difference from one-liner of Mark Ransom is that it can handle "inf" and "-inf" properly.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
'''
Python 2 implementation of Python 3.5 math.isclose()
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.5.10/Modules/mathmodule.c#L1993
'''
# sanity check on the inputs
if rel_tol < 0 or abs_tol < 0:
raise ValueError("tolerances must be non-negative")
# short circuit exact equality -- needed to catch two infinities of
# the same sign. And perhaps speeds things up a bit sometimes.
if a == b:
return True
# This catches the case of two infinities of opposite sign, or
# one infinity and one finite number. Two infinities of opposite
# sign would otherwise have an infinite relative tolerance.
# Two infinities of the same sign are caught by the equality check
# above.
if math.isinf(a) or math.isinf(b):
return False
# now do the regular computation
# this is essentially the "weak" test from the Boost library
diff = math.fabs(b - a)
result = (((diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * b)) or
(diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * a))) or
(diff <= abs_tol))
return result
I'm not aware of anything in the Python standard library (or elsewhere) that implements Dawson's AlmostEqual2sComplement function. If that's the sort of behaviour you want, you'll have to implement it yourself. (In which case, rather than using Dawson's clever bitwise hacks you'd probably do better to use more conventional tests of the form if abs(a-b) <= eps1*(abs(a)+abs(b)) + eps2 or similar. To get Dawson-like behaviour you might say something like if abs(a-b) <= eps*max(EPS,abs(a),abs(b)) for some small fixed EPS; this isn't exactly the same as Dawson, but it's similar in spirit.
If you want to use it in testing/TDD context, I'd say this is a standard way:
from nose.tools import assert_almost_equals
assert_almost_equals(x, y, places=7) # The default is 7
In terms of absolute error, you can just check
if abs(a - b) <= error:
print("Almost equal")
Some information of why float act weird in Python:
Python 3 Tutorial 03 - if-else, logical operators and top beginner mistakes
You can also use math.isclose for relative errors.
This is useful for the case where you want to make sure two numbers are the same 'up to precision', and there isn't any need to specify the tolerance:
Find minimum precision of the two numbers
Round both of them to minimum precision and compare
def isclose(a, b):
astr = str(a)
aprec = len(astr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in astr else 0
bstr = str(b)
bprec = len(bstr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in bstr else 0
prec = min(aprec, bprec)
return round(a, prec) == round(b, prec)
As written, it only works for numbers without the 'e' in their string representation (meaning 0.9999999999995e-4 < number <= 0.9999999999995e11)
Example:
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.049)
True
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.05)
False
For some of the cases where you can affect the source number representation, you can represent them as fractions instead of floats, using integer numerator and denominator. That way you can have exact comparisons.
See Fraction from fractions module for details.
I liked Sesquipedal's suggestion, but with modification (a special use case when both values are 0 returns False). In my case, I was on Python 2.7 and just used a simple function:
if f1 ==0 and f2 == 0:
return True
else:
return abs(f1-f2) < tol*max(abs(f1),abs(f2))
If you want to do it in a testing or TDD context using the pytest package, here's how:
import pytest
PRECISION = 1e-3
def assert_almost_equal():
obtained_value = 99.99
expected_value = 100.00
assert obtained_value == pytest.approx(expected_value, PRECISION)
I found the following comparison helpful:
str(f1) == str(f2)
To compare up to a given decimal without atol/rtol:
def almost_equal(a, b, decimal=6):
return '{0:.{1}f}'.format(a, decimal) == '{0:.{1}f}'.format(b, decimal)
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=5)) # False
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=4)) # True
This maybe is a bit ugly hack, but it works pretty well when you don't need more than the default float precision (about 11 decimals).
The round_to function uses the format method from the built-in str class to round up the float to a string that represents the float with the number of decimals needed, and then applies the eval built-in function to the rounded float string to get back to the float numeric type.
The is_close function just applies a simple conditional to the rounded up float.
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return eval("'{:." + str(int(prec)) + "f}'.format(" + str(float_num) + ")")
def is_close(float_a, float_b, prec):
if round_to(float_a, prec) == round_to(float_b, prec):
return True
return False
>>>a = 10.0
10.0
>>>b = 10.0001
10.0001
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=3)
True
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=4)
False
Update:
As suggested by #stepehjfox, a cleaner way to build a rount_to function avoiding "eval" is using nested formatting:
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return '{:.{precision}f}'.format(float_num, precision=prec)
Following the same idea, the code can be even simpler using the great new f-strings (Python 3.6+):
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return f'{float_num:.{prec}f}'
So, we could even wrap it up all in one simple and clean 'is_close' function:
def is_close(a, b, prec):
return f'{a:.{prec}f}' == f'{b:.{prec}f}'
If you want to compare floats, the options above are great, but in my case, I ended up using Enum's, since I only had few valid floats my use case was accepting.
from enum import Enum
class HolidayMultipliers(Enum):
EMPLOYED_LESS_THAN_YEAR = 2.0
EMPLOYED_MORE_THAN_YEAR = 2.5
Then running:
testable_value = 2.0
HolidayMultipliers(testable_value)
If the float is valid, it's fine, but otherwise it will just throw an ValueError.
Use == is a simple good way, if you don't care about tolerance precisely.
# Python 3.8.5
>>> 1.0000000000001 == 1
False
>>> 1.00000000000001 == 1
True
But watch out for 0:
>>> 0 == 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
False
The 0 is always the zero.
Use math.isclose if you want to control the tolerance.
The default a == b is equivalent to math.isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-16, abs_tol=0).
If you still want to use == with a self-defined tolerance:
>>> class MyFloat(float):
def __eq__(self, another):
return math.isclose(self, another, rel_tol=0, abs_tol=0.001)
>>> a == MyFloat(0)
>>> a
0.0
>>> a == 0.001
True
So far, I didn't find anywhere to config it globally for float. Besides, mock is also not working for float.__eq__.
Not a maths major or a cs major, I just fool around with python (usually making scripts for simulations/theorycrafting on video games) and I discovered just how bad random.randint is performance wise. It's got me wondering why random.randint or random.randrange are used/made the way they are. I made a function that produces (for all intents and actual purposes) identical results to random.randint:
big_bleeping_float= (2**64 - 2)/(2**64 - 2)
def fastrandint(start, stop):
return start + int(random.random() * (stop - start + big_bleeping_float))
There is a massive 180% speed boost using that to generate an integer in the range (inclusive) 0-65 compared to random.randrange(0, 66), the next fastest method.
>>> timeit.timeit('random.randint(0, 66)', setup='from numpy import random', number=10000)
0.03165552873121058
>>> timeit.timeit('random.randint(0, 65)', setup='import random', number=10000)
0.022374771118336412
>>> timeit.timeit('random.randrange(0, 66)', setup='import random', number=10000)
0.01937231027605435
>>> timeit.timeit('fastrandint(0, 65)', setup='import random; from fasterthanrandomrandom import fastrandint', number=10000)
0.0067909916844523755
Furthermore, the adaptation of this function as an alternative to random.choice is 75% faster, and I'm sure adding larger-than-one stepped ranges would be faster (although I didn't test that). For almost double the speed boost as using the fastrandint function you can simply write it inline:
>>> timeit.timeit('int(random.random() * (65 + big_bleeping_float))', setup='import random; big_bleeping_float= (2**64 - 2)/(2**64 - 2)', number=10000)
0.0037642723021917845
So in summary, why am I wrong that my function is a better, why is it faster if it is better, and is there a yet even faster way to do what I'm doing?
randint calls randrange which does a bunch of range/type checks and conversions and then uses _randbelow to generate a random int. _randbelow again does some range checks and finally uses random.
So if you remove all the checks for edge cases and some function call overhead, it's no surprise your fastrandint is quicker.
random.randint() and others are calling into random.getrandbits() which may be less efficient that direct calls to random(), but for good reason.
It is actually more correct to use a randint that calls into random.getrandbits(), as it can be done in an unbiased manner.
You can see that using random.random to generate values in a range ends up being biased since there are only M floating point values between 0 and 1 (for M pretty large). Take an N that doesn't divide into M, then if we write M = k N + r for 0<r<N. At best, using random.random() * (N+1)
we'll get r numbers coming out with probability (k+1)/M and N-r numbers coming out with probability k/M. (This is at best, using the pigeon hole principle - in practice I'd expect the bias to be even worse).
Note that this bias is only noticeable for
A large number of sampling
where N is a large fraction of M the number of floats in (0,1]
So it probably won't matter to you, unless you know you need unbiased values - such as for scientific computing etc.
In contrast, a value from randint(0,N) can be unbiased by using rejection sampling from repeated calls to random.getrandbits(). Of course managing this can introduce additional overhead.
Aside
If you end up using a custom random implementation then
From the python 3 docs
Almost all module functions depend on the basic function random(), which
generates a random float uniformly in the semi-open range [0.0, 1.0).
This suggests that randint and others may be implemented using random.random. If this is the case I would expect them to be slower,
incurring at least one addition function call overhead per call.
Looking at the code referenced in https://stackoverflow.com/a/37540577/221955 you can see that this will happen if the random implementation doesn't provide a getrandbits() function.
This is probably rarely a problem but randint(0,10**1000) works while fastrandint(0,10**1000) crashes. The slower time is probably the price you need to pay to have a function that works for all possible cases...
It's well known that comparing floats for equality is a little fiddly due to rounding and precision issues.
For example: Comparing Floating Point Numbers, 2012 Edition
What is the recommended way to deal with this in Python?
Is a standard library function for this somewhere?
Python 3.5 adds the math.isclose and cmath.isclose functions as described in PEP 485.
If you're using an earlier version of Python, the equivalent function is given in the documentation.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
rel_tol is a relative tolerance, it is multiplied by the greater of the magnitudes of the two arguments; as the values get larger, so does the allowed difference between them while still considering them equal.
abs_tol is an absolute tolerance that is applied as-is in all cases. If the difference is less than either of those tolerances, the values are considered equal.
Something as simple as the following may be good enough:
return abs(f1 - f2) <= allowed_error
I would agree that Gareth's answer is probably most appropriate as a lightweight function/solution.
But I thought it would be helpful to note that if you are using NumPy or are considering it, there is a packaged function for this.
numpy.isclose(a, b, rtol=1e-05, atol=1e-08, equal_nan=False)
A little disclaimer though: installing NumPy can be a non-trivial experience depending on your platform.
Use Python's decimal module, which provides the Decimal class.
From the comments:
It is worth noting that if you're
doing math-heavy work and you don't
absolutely need the precision from
decimal, this can really bog things
down. Floats are way, way faster to
deal with, but imprecise. Decimals are
extremely precise but slow.
The common wisdom that floating-point numbers cannot be compared for equality is inaccurate. Floating-point numbers are no different from integers: If you evaluate "a == b", you will get true if they are identical numbers and false otherwise (with the understanding that two NaNs are of course not identical numbers).
The actual problem is this: If I have done some calculations and am not sure the two numbers I have to compare are exactly correct, then what? This problem is the same for floating-point as it is for integers. If you evaluate the integer expression "7/3*3", it will not compare equal to "7*3/3".
So suppose we asked "How do I compare integers for equality?" in such a situation. There is no single answer; what you should do depends on the specific situation, notably what sort of errors you have and what you want to achieve.
Here are some possible choices.
If you want to get a "true" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be equal, then you might try to use the properties of the calculations you perform to prove that you get the same errors in the two numbers. If that is feasible, and you compare two numbers that result from expressions that would give equal numbers if computed exactly, then you will get "true" from the comparison. Another approach is that you might analyze the properties of the calculations and prove that the error never exceeds a certain amount, perhaps an absolute amount or an amount relative to one of the inputs or one of the outputs. In that case, you can ask whether the two calculated numbers differ by at most that amount, and return "true" if they are within the interval. If you cannot prove an error bound, you might guess and hope for the best. One way of guessing is to evaluate many random samples and see what sort of distribution you get in the results.
Of course, since we only set the requirement that you get "true" if the mathematically exact results are equal, we left open the possibility that you get "true" even if they are unequal. (In fact, we can satisfy the requirement by always returning "true". This makes the calculation simple but is generally undesirable, so I will discuss improving the situation below.)
If you want to get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal, you need to prove that your evaluation of the numbers yields different numbers if the mathematically exact numbers would be unequal. This may be impossible for practical purposes in many common situations. So let us consider an alternative.
A useful requirement might be that we get a "false" result if the mathematically exact numbers differ by more than a certain amount. For example, perhaps we are going to calculate where a ball thrown in a computer game traveled, and we want to know whether it struck a bat. In this case, we certainly want to get "true" if the ball strikes the bat, and we want to get "false" if the ball is far from the bat, and we can accept an incorrect "true" answer if the ball in a mathematically exact simulation missed the bat but is within a millimeter of hitting the bat. In that case, we need to prove (or guess/estimate) that our calculation of the ball's position and the bat's position have a combined error of at most one millimeter (for all positions of interest). This would allow us to always return "false" if the ball and bat are more than a millimeter apart, to return "true" if they touch, and to return "true" if they are close enough to be acceptable.
So, how you decide what to return when comparing floating-point numbers depends very much on your specific situation.
As to how you go about proving error bounds for calculations, that can be a complicated subject. Any floating-point implementation using the IEEE 754 standard in round-to-nearest mode returns the floating-point number nearest to the exact result for any basic operation (notably multiplication, division, addition, subtraction, square root). (In case of tie, round so the low bit is even.) (Be particularly careful about square root and division; your language implementation might use methods that do not conform to IEEE 754 for those.) Because of this requirement, we know the error in a single result is at most 1/2 of the value of the least significant bit. (If it were more, the rounding would have gone to a different number that is within 1/2 the value.)
Going on from there gets substantially more complicated; the next step is performing an operation where one of the inputs already has some error. For simple expressions, these errors can be followed through the calculations to reach a bound on the final error. In practice, this is only done in a few situations, such as working on a high-quality mathematics library. And, of course, you need precise control over exactly which operations are performed. High-level languages often give the compiler a lot of slack, so you might not know in which order operations are performed.
There is much more that could be (and is) written about this topic, but I have to stop there. In summary, the answer is: There is no library routine for this comparison because there is no single solution that fits most needs that is worth putting into a library routine. (If comparing with a relative or absolute error interval suffices for you, you can do it simply without a library routine.)
math.isclose() has been added to Python 3.5 for that (source code). Here is a port of it to Python 2. It's difference from one-liner of Mark Ransom is that it can handle "inf" and "-inf" properly.
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
'''
Python 2 implementation of Python 3.5 math.isclose()
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.5.10/Modules/mathmodule.c#L1993
'''
# sanity check on the inputs
if rel_tol < 0 or abs_tol < 0:
raise ValueError("tolerances must be non-negative")
# short circuit exact equality -- needed to catch two infinities of
# the same sign. And perhaps speeds things up a bit sometimes.
if a == b:
return True
# This catches the case of two infinities of opposite sign, or
# one infinity and one finite number. Two infinities of opposite
# sign would otherwise have an infinite relative tolerance.
# Two infinities of the same sign are caught by the equality check
# above.
if math.isinf(a) or math.isinf(b):
return False
# now do the regular computation
# this is essentially the "weak" test from the Boost library
diff = math.fabs(b - a)
result = (((diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * b)) or
(diff <= math.fabs(rel_tol * a))) or
(diff <= abs_tol))
return result
I'm not aware of anything in the Python standard library (or elsewhere) that implements Dawson's AlmostEqual2sComplement function. If that's the sort of behaviour you want, you'll have to implement it yourself. (In which case, rather than using Dawson's clever bitwise hacks you'd probably do better to use more conventional tests of the form if abs(a-b) <= eps1*(abs(a)+abs(b)) + eps2 or similar. To get Dawson-like behaviour you might say something like if abs(a-b) <= eps*max(EPS,abs(a),abs(b)) for some small fixed EPS; this isn't exactly the same as Dawson, but it's similar in spirit.
If you want to use it in testing/TDD context, I'd say this is a standard way:
from nose.tools import assert_almost_equals
assert_almost_equals(x, y, places=7) # The default is 7
In terms of absolute error, you can just check
if abs(a - b) <= error:
print("Almost equal")
Some information of why float act weird in Python:
Python 3 Tutorial 03 - if-else, logical operators and top beginner mistakes
You can also use math.isclose for relative errors.
This is useful for the case where you want to make sure two numbers are the same 'up to precision', and there isn't any need to specify the tolerance:
Find minimum precision of the two numbers
Round both of them to minimum precision and compare
def isclose(a, b):
astr = str(a)
aprec = len(astr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in astr else 0
bstr = str(b)
bprec = len(bstr.split('.')[1]) if '.' in bstr else 0
prec = min(aprec, bprec)
return round(a, prec) == round(b, prec)
As written, it only works for numbers without the 'e' in their string representation (meaning 0.9999999999995e-4 < number <= 0.9999999999995e11)
Example:
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.049)
True
>>> isclose(10.0, 10.05)
False
For some of the cases where you can affect the source number representation, you can represent them as fractions instead of floats, using integer numerator and denominator. That way you can have exact comparisons.
See Fraction from fractions module for details.
I liked Sesquipedal's suggestion, but with modification (a special use case when both values are 0 returns False). In my case, I was on Python 2.7 and just used a simple function:
if f1 ==0 and f2 == 0:
return True
else:
return abs(f1-f2) < tol*max(abs(f1),abs(f2))
If you want to do it in a testing or TDD context using the pytest package, here's how:
import pytest
PRECISION = 1e-3
def assert_almost_equal():
obtained_value = 99.99
expected_value = 100.00
assert obtained_value == pytest.approx(expected_value, PRECISION)
I found the following comparison helpful:
str(f1) == str(f2)
To compare up to a given decimal without atol/rtol:
def almost_equal(a, b, decimal=6):
return '{0:.{1}f}'.format(a, decimal) == '{0:.{1}f}'.format(b, decimal)
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=5)) # False
print(almost_equal(0.0, 0.0001, decimal=4)) # True
This maybe is a bit ugly hack, but it works pretty well when you don't need more than the default float precision (about 11 decimals).
The round_to function uses the format method from the built-in str class to round up the float to a string that represents the float with the number of decimals needed, and then applies the eval built-in function to the rounded float string to get back to the float numeric type.
The is_close function just applies a simple conditional to the rounded up float.
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return eval("'{:." + str(int(prec)) + "f}'.format(" + str(float_num) + ")")
def is_close(float_a, float_b, prec):
if round_to(float_a, prec) == round_to(float_b, prec):
return True
return False
>>>a = 10.0
10.0
>>>b = 10.0001
10.0001
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=3)
True
>>>print is_close(a, b, prec=4)
False
Update:
As suggested by #stepehjfox, a cleaner way to build a rount_to function avoiding "eval" is using nested formatting:
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return '{:.{precision}f}'.format(float_num, precision=prec)
Following the same idea, the code can be even simpler using the great new f-strings (Python 3.6+):
def round_to(float_num, prec):
return f'{float_num:.{prec}f}'
So, we could even wrap it up all in one simple and clean 'is_close' function:
def is_close(a, b, prec):
return f'{a:.{prec}f}' == f'{b:.{prec}f}'
If you want to compare floats, the options above are great, but in my case, I ended up using Enum's, since I only had few valid floats my use case was accepting.
from enum import Enum
class HolidayMultipliers(Enum):
EMPLOYED_LESS_THAN_YEAR = 2.0
EMPLOYED_MORE_THAN_YEAR = 2.5
Then running:
testable_value = 2.0
HolidayMultipliers(testable_value)
If the float is valid, it's fine, but otherwise it will just throw an ValueError.
Use == is a simple good way, if you don't care about tolerance precisely.
# Python 3.8.5
>>> 1.0000000000001 == 1
False
>>> 1.00000000000001 == 1
True
But watch out for 0:
>>> 0 == 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
False
The 0 is always the zero.
Use math.isclose if you want to control the tolerance.
The default a == b is equivalent to math.isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-16, abs_tol=0).
If you still want to use == with a self-defined tolerance:
>>> class MyFloat(float):
def __eq__(self, another):
return math.isclose(self, another, rel_tol=0, abs_tol=0.001)
>>> a == MyFloat(0)
>>> a
0.0
>>> a == 0.001
True
So far, I didn't find anywhere to config it globally for float. Besides, mock is also not working for float.__eq__.