The NSNumberFormatter class has plusSign and minusSign properties, but also has positivePrefix and negativePrefix.
What is the difference between these two? If I specify both, which one comes first?
plusSign and minusSign are used for the mathematical addition and subtraction operators. positivePrefix and suffix and negativePrefix and suffix are used to describe what characters/strings are used todisplay whether a certain numeric value is positive or negative.
To illustrate why they are different: most of the times, when a positive numeric value is displayed anywhere you'll just see numbers, No prefix or suffix. Negative numeric values have a minus in front, or behind them, or, in some styles of accounting they're just enclosed in brackets. Either way we'll still need a + and a - to express mathematical operations.
Related
I have the following RSpec output:
30 examples, 15 failures
I would like to subtract the second number from the first. I have this code:
def capture_passing_score(output)
captures = output.match(/^(?<total>\d+)\s*examples,\s*(?<failed>\d+)\s*failures$/)
captures[:total].to_i - captures[:failed].to_i
end
I am wondering if there is a way to do the calculation within a regular expression. Ideally, I'd avoid the second step in my code, and subtract the numbers within a regex. Performing mathematical operations may not be possible with Ruby's (or any) regex engine, but I couldn't find an answer either way. Is this possible?
Nope.
By every definition I have ever seen, Regular Expressions are about text processing. It is character based pattern matching. Numbers are a class of textual characters in Regex and do not represent their numerical values. While syntactic sugar may mask what is actually being done, you still need to convert the text to a numeric value to perform the subtraction.
WikiPedia
RubyDoc
If you know the format is going to remain consistent, you could do something like this:
output.scan(/\d+/).map(&:to_i).inject(:-)
It's not doing the subtraction via regex, but it does make it more concise.
I have a system that is confined to two alphanumeric characters. Some simple math shows that we get 1,296 combinations if we use all possible permutations 0-9 and a-z. Lower case letters cannot be distinguished from upper case, special characters (including a blank character) cannot be used.
Is there any creative mapping, perhaps to an external reference, to create a way to take this two character field significantly beyond 1,296 combinations?
Examples of identifers would be `00, OO, AZ, Z4, etc.'
Thanks!
I'm afraid not, no more than you could get a 3 bit number to represent more than 8 different numbers. If you're interested in the details you can look up information theory or Kolmogorov complexity. Essentially with only 1,296 combinations then you can only label 1,296 possible pieces of information.
As an example, consider if you had 1,297 things. All of those two letter combinations would take up the first 1,296 so what combination would be associated with the next one? It would have to be a repeat of something which you had earlier.
Shor also has some good material on this, and the implications of that sort of thing form the basis for a lot of file compression systems.
You could maybe squeeze out one more combination if you cheat, and allow a 'null' value to represent a different possibility, but thats not totally relevant to the idea of the question.
If you are restricted to two characters taken from an alphabet of 36, then you are limited to 36² distinct symbols, that's it.
More context is required to find workarounds, like stealing bits elsewhere, using symbols in pairs, breaking the case limitation, exploiting the history of transations...
The precise meaning of "a system that is confined to two alphanumeric characters" needs to be known to be able to suggest a workaround. Is that a space constraint? Do you need the restriction to 2 chars for efficiency? Does it need to work with other code that accepts or generates 2 char indexes?
If you have up to 1295 identifiers that are used often, and some others that occur only occasionally, you could choose an identifier, e.g. "ZZ", to indicate that another identifier is following. So "00" through to "ZY" would be 1295 simple 2-char identifiers, and "ZZ00" though to "ZZZZ" would be a further 1296 combined 4-char identifiers. (Or "ZZ0000" through to "ZZZZZZ" for a further 1296*1296 identifiers ...)
This could work for space constraints. For efficiency, it depends on whether the additional check to see if the identifier is "ZZ" is too expensive or not.
I cannot find how to use any variable name i want in mathematica.
(I've searched where i could but i cannot think of the correct terms to search for)
For example, I wanted to name one of my variables {pi}' (with {pi} I mean the greek pi, just cannot type it here).
However, there are problems. First, {pi} is already predefined as a constant equal to 3.14..
Second, the prime (') symbol is predefined as derivative.
So, {pi}' evaluates to 0& by default.
Another example would be, if i want to name my variable with a "0" in the exponent. However, I do not want mathematica to understand it as exponent, but just as name.
It would be fine if I could just deactivate that ' is interpreted as derivative, or that superscript is interpreted as exponent. But i would prefer some function which lets me define any collection of symbols as variable.
Can someone help?
As I tried to debug, I found that : just as I type in
Dim value As Double
value = 0.90000
then hit enter, and it automatically converts to 0.9
Shouldn't it keep the precision in double in visual basic?
For my calculation, I absolutely need to show the precision
If precision is required then the Currency data type is what you want to use.
There are at least two representations of your value in play. One is the value you see on the screen -- a string -- and one is the internal representation -- a binary value. In dealing with fractional values, the two are often not equivalent and where they aren't, it's because they can't be.
If you stick with doubles, VB will maintain 53 bits of mantissa throughout your calculations, no matter how they might appear when printed. If you transition through the string domain, say by saving to a file or DB and later retrieving, it often has to leave some of that precision behind. It's inevitable, because the interface between the two domains is not perfect. Some values that can be exactly represented as strings (or Decimals, that is, powers of ten) can't be exactly represented as fractional powers of 2.
This has nothing to do with VB, it's the nature of floating point. The best you can do is control where the rounding occurs. For this purpose your friend is the Format function, which controls how a value appears in string form.
? Format$(0.9, "0.00000") will show you an example.
You are getting what you see on the screen confused with what bits are being set in the Double to make that number.
VB is simply being "helpful", and simply knocking off excess zeros. But for all intents and purposes,
0.9
is identical to
0.90000
If you don't believe me, try doing this comparison:
Debug.Print CDbl("0.9") = CDbl("0.90000")
As has already been said, displayed precision can be shown using the Format$() function, e.g.
Debug.Print Format$(0.9, "0.00000")
No, it shouldn't keep the precision. Binary floating point values don't retain this information... and it would be somewhat odd to do so, given that you're expressing the value in one base even though it's being represented in another.
I don't know whether VB6 has a decimal floating point type, but that's probably what you want - or a fixed point decimal type, perhaps. Certainly in .NET, System.Decimal has retained extra 0s from .NET 1.1 onwards. If this doesn't help you, you could think about remembering two integers - e.g. "90000" and "100000" in this case, so that the value you're representing is one integer divided by another, with the associated level of precision.
EDIT: I thought that Currency may be what you want, but according to this article, that's fixed at 4 decimal places, and you're trying to retain 5. You could potentially just multiply by 10, if you always want 5 decimal places - but it's an awkward thing to remember to do everywhere... and you'd have to work out how to format it appropriately. It would also always be 4 decimal places, I suspect, even if you'd specified fewer - so if you want "0.300" to be different to "0.3000" then Currency may not be appropriate. I'm entirely basing this on articles online though...
You can also enter the value as 0.9# instead. This helps avoid implicit coercion within an expression that may truncate the precision you expect. In most cases the compiler won't require this hint though because floating point literals default to Double (indeed, the IDE typically deletes the # symbol unless the value was an integer, e.g. 9#).
Contrast the results of these:
MsgBox TypeName(0.9)
MsgBox TypeName(0.9!)
MsgBox TypeName(0.9#)
Hi I was wondering if there is any known way to get rid of unnecessary parentheses in mathematical formula. The reason I am asking this question is that I have to minimize such formula length
if((-if(([V].[6432])=0;0;(([V].[6432])-([V].[6445]))*(((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6448])
+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6449])+([V].[6450]))*(1-([V].[6446])))))=0;([V].[6428])*
((((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6445])*([V].[6448])+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6445])*
([V].[6449])+([V].[6445])*([V].[6450])))*(1-([V].[6446])));
it is basically part of sql select statement. It cannot surpass 255 characters and I cannot modify the code that produces this formula (basically a black box ;) )
As you see many parentheses are useless. Not mentioning the fact that:
((a) * (b)) + (c) = a * b + c
So I want to keep the order of operations Parenthesis, Multiply/Divide, Add/Subtract.
Im working in VB, but solution in any language will be fine.
Edit
I found an opposite problem (add parentheses to a expression) Question.
I really thought that this could be accomplished without heavy parsing. But it seems that some parser that will go through the expression and save it in a expression tree is unevitable.
If you are interested in remove the non-necessary parenthesis in your expression, the generic solution consists in parsing your text and build the associated expression tree.
Then, from this tree, you can find the corresponding text without non-necessary parenthesis, by applying some rules:
if the node is a "+", no parenthesis are required
if the node is a "*", then parenthesis are required for left(right) child only if the left(right) child is a "+"
the same apply for "/"
But if your problem is just to deal with these 255 characters, you can probably just use intermediate variables to store intermediate results
T1 = (([V].[6432])-([V].[6445]))*(((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6448])+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6449])+([V].[6450]))*(1-([V].[6446])))))
T2 = etc...
You could strip the simplest cases:
([V].[6432]) and (([V].[6443]))
Becomes
v.[6432]
You shouldn't need the [] around the table name or its alias.
You could shorten it further if you can alias the columns:
select v.[6432] as a, v.[6443] as b, ....
Or even put all the tables being queried into a single subquery - then you wouldn't need the table prefix:
if((-if(a=0;0;(a-b)*((c/1000*d
+c*e+f)*(1-g))))=0;h*
(((c/1000*b*d+c*b*
e+b*f))*(1-g));
select [V].[6432] as a, [V].[6445] as b, [V].[6443] as c, [V].[6448] as d,
[V].[6449] as e, [V].[6450] as f,[V].[6446] as g, [V].[6428] as h ...
Obviously this is all a bit psedo-code, but it should help you simplify the full statement
I know this thread is really old, but as it is searchable from google.
I'm writing a TI-83 plus calculator program that addresses similar issues. In my case, I'm trying to actually solve the equation for a specific variable in number, but it may still relate to your problem, although I'm using an array, so it might be easier for me to pick out specific values...
It's not quite done, but it does get rid of the vast majority of parentheses with (I think), a somewhat elegant solution.
What I do is scan through the equation/function/whatever, keeping track of each opening parenthese "(" until I find a closing parenthese ")", at which point I can be assured that I won't run into any more deeply nested parenthese.
y=((3x + (2))) would show the (2) first, and then the (3x + (2)), and then the ((3x + 2))).
What it does then is checks the values immediately before and after each parenthese. In the case above, it would return + and ). Each of these is assigned a number value. Between the two of them, the higher is used. If no operators are found (*,/,+,^, or -) I default to a value of 0.
Next I scan through the inside of the parentheses. I use a similar numbering system, although in this case I use the lowest value found, not the highest. I default to a value of 5 if nothing is found, as would be in the case above.
The idea is that you can assign a number to the importance of the parentheses by subtracting the two values. If you have something like a ^ on the outside of the parentheses
(2+3)^5
those parentheses are potentially very important, and would be given a high value, (in my program I use 5 for ^).
It is possible however that the inside operators would render the parentheses very unimportant,
(2)^5
where nothing is found. In that case the inside would be assigned a value of 5. By subtracting the two values, you can then determine whether or not a set of parentheses is neccessary simply by checking whether the resulting number is greater than 0. In the case of (2+3)^5, a ^ would give a value of 5, and a + would give a value of 1. The resulting number would be 4, which would indicate that the parentheses are in fact needed.
In the case of (2)^5 you would have an inner value of 5 and an outer value of 5, resulting
in a final value of 0, showing that the parentheses are unimportant, and can be removed.
The downside to this is that, (at least on the TI-83) scanning through the equation so many times is ridiculously slow. But if speed isn't an issue...
Don't know if that will help at all, I might be completely off topic. Hope you got everything up and working.
I'm pretty sure that in order to determine what parentheses are unnecessary, you have to evaluate the expressions within them. Because you can nest parentheses, this is is the sort of recursive problem that a regular expression can only address in a shallow manner, and most likely to incorrect results. If you're already evaluating the expression, maybe you'd like to simplify the formula if possible. This also gets kind of tricky, and in some approaches uses techniques that that are also seen in machine learning, such as you might see in the following paper: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1005298
If your variable names don't change significantly from 1 query to the next, you could try a series of replace() commands. i.e.
X=replace([QryString],"(([V].[6443]))","[V].[6443]")
Also, why can't it surpass 255 characters? If you are storing this as a string field in an Access table, then you could try putting half the expression in 1 field and the second half in another.
You could also try parsing your expression using ANTLR, yacc or similar and create a parse tree. These trees usually optimize parentheses away. Then you would just have to create expression back from tree (without parentheses obviously).
It might take you more than a few hours to get this working though. But expression parsing is usually the first example on generic parsing, so you might be able to take a sample and modify it to your needs.