Is there a function that can truncate or round a Double? At one point in my code I would like a number like: 1.23456789 to be rounded to 1.23
You can use scala.math.BigDecimal:
BigDecimal(1.23456789).setScale(2, BigDecimal.RoundingMode.HALF_UP).toDouble
There are a number of other rounding modes, which unfortunately aren't very well documented at present (although their Java equivalents are).
Here's another solution without BigDecimals
Truncate:
(math floor 1.23456789 * 100) / 100
Round (see rint):
(math rint 1.23456789 * 100) / 100
Or for any double n and precision p:
def truncateAt(n: Double, p: Int): Double = { val s = math pow (10, p); (math floor n * s) / s }
Similar can be done for the rounding function, this time using currying:
def roundAt(p: Int)(n: Double): Double = { val s = math pow (10, p); (math round n * s) / s }
which is more reusable, e.g. when rounding money amounts the following could be used:
def roundAt2(n: Double) = roundAt(2)(n)
Since no-one mentioned the % operator yet, here comes. It only does truncation, and you cannot rely on the return value not to have floating point inaccuracies, but sometimes it's handy:
scala> 1.23456789 - (1.23456789 % 0.01)
res4: Double = 1.23
How about :
val value = 1.4142135623730951
//3 decimal places
println((value * 1000).round / 1000.toDouble)
//4 decimal places
println((value * 10000).round / 10000.toDouble)
Edit: fixed the problem that #ryryguy pointed out. (Thanks!)
If you want it to be fast, Kaito has the right idea. math.pow is slow, though. For any standard use you're better off with a recursive function:
def trunc(x: Double, n: Int) = {
def p10(n: Int, pow: Long = 10): Long = if (n==0) pow else p10(n-1,pow*10)
if (n < 0) {
val m = p10(-n).toDouble
math.round(x/m) * m
}
else {
val m = p10(n).toDouble
math.round(x*m) / m
}
}
This is about 10x faster if you're within the range of Long (i.e 18 digits), so you can round at anywhere between 10^18 and 10^-18.
For those how are interested, here are some times for the suggested solutions...
Rounding
Java Formatter: Elapsed Time: 105
Scala Formatter: Elapsed Time: 167
BigDecimal Formatter: Elapsed Time: 27
Truncation
Scala custom Formatter: Elapsed Time: 3
Truncation is the fastest, followed by BigDecimal.
Keep in mind these test were done running norma scala execution, not using any benchmarking tools.
object TestFormatters {
val r = scala.util.Random
def textFormatter(x: Double) = new java.text.DecimalFormat("0.##").format(x)
def scalaFormatter(x: Double) = "$pi%1.2f".format(x)
def bigDecimalFormatter(x: Double) = BigDecimal(x).setScale(2, BigDecimal.RoundingMode.HALF_UP).toDouble
def scalaCustom(x: Double) = {
val roundBy = 2
val w = math.pow(10, roundBy)
(x * w).toLong.toDouble / w
}
def timed(f: => Unit) = {
val start = System.currentTimeMillis()
f
val end = System.currentTimeMillis()
println("Elapsed Time: " + (end - start))
}
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
print("Java Formatter: ")
val iters = 10000
timed {
(0 until iters) foreach { _ =>
textFormatter(r.nextDouble())
}
}
print("Scala Formatter: ")
timed {
(0 until iters) foreach { _ =>
scalaFormatter(r.nextDouble())
}
}
print("BigDecimal Formatter: ")
timed {
(0 until iters) foreach { _ =>
bigDecimalFormatter(r.nextDouble())
}
}
print("Scala custom Formatter (truncation): ")
timed {
(0 until iters) foreach { _ =>
scalaCustom(r.nextDouble())
}
}
}
}
It's actually very easy to handle using Scala f interpolator - https://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/core/string-interpolation.html
Suppose we want to round till 2 decimal places:
scala> val sum = 1 + 1/4D + 1/7D + 1/10D + 1/13D
sum: Double = 1.5697802197802198
scala> println(f"$sum%1.2f")
1.57
You may use implicit classes:
import scala.math._
object ExtNumber extends App {
implicit class ExtendedDouble(n: Double) {
def rounded(x: Int) = {
val w = pow(10, x)
(n * w).toLong.toDouble / w
}
}
// usage
val a = 1.23456789
println(a.rounded(2))
}
Recently, I faced similar problem and I solved it using following approach
def round(value: Either[Double, Float], places: Int) = {
if (places < 0) 0
else {
val factor = Math.pow(10, places)
value match {
case Left(d) => (Math.round(d * factor) / factor)
case Right(f) => (Math.round(f * factor) / factor)
}
}
}
def round(value: Double): Double = round(Left(value), 0)
def round(value: Double, places: Int): Double = round(Left(value), places)
def round(value: Float): Double = round(Right(value), 0)
def round(value: Float, places: Int): Double = round(Right(value), places)
I used this SO issue. I have couple of overloaded functions for both Float\Double and implicit\explicit options. Note that, you need to explicitly mention the return type in case of overloaded functions.
Those are great answers in this thread. In order to better show the difference, here is just an example. The reason I put it here b/c during my work the numbers are required to be NOT half-up :
import org.apache.spark.sql.types._
val values = List(1.2345,2.9998,3.4567,4.0099,5.1231)
val df = values.toDF
df.show()
+------+
| value|
+------+
|1.2345|
|2.9998|
|3.4567|
|4.0099|
|5.1231|
+------+
val df2 = df.withColumn("floor_val", floor(col("value"))).
withColumn("dec_val", col("value").cast(DecimalType(26,2))).
withColumn("floor2", (floor(col("value") * 100.0)/100.0).cast(DecimalType(26,2)))
df2.show()
+------+---------+-------+------+
| value|floor_val|dec_val|floor2|
+------+---------+-------+------+
|1.2345| 1| 1.23| 1.23|
|2.9998| 2| 3.00| 2.99|
|3.4567| 3| 3.46| 3.45|
|4.0099| 4| 4.01| 4.00|
|5.1231| 5| 5.12| 5.12|
+------+---------+-------+------+
floor function floors to the largest interger less than current value. DecimalType by default will enable HALF_UP mode, not just cut to precision you want. If you want to cut to a certain precision without using HALF_UP mode, you can use above solution instead ( or use scala.math.BigDecimal (where you have to explicitly define rounding modes).
I wouldn't use BigDecimal if you care about performance. BigDecimal converts numbers to string and then parses it back again:
/** Constructs a `BigDecimal` using the decimal text representation of `Double` value `d`, rounding if necessary. */
def decimal(d: Double, mc: MathContext): BigDecimal = new BigDecimal(new BigDec(java.lang.Double.toString(d), mc), mc)
I'm going to stick to math manipulations as Kaito suggested.
Since the question specified rounding for doubles specifically, this seems way simpler than dealing with big integer or excessive string or numerical operations.
"%.2f".format(0.714999999999).toDouble
A bit strange but nice. I use String and not BigDecimal
def round(x: Double)(p: Int): Double = {
var A = x.toString().split('.')
(A(0) + "." + A(1).substring(0, if (p > A(1).length()) A(1).length() else p)).toDouble
}
You can do:Math.round(<double precision value> * 100.0) / 100.0
But Math.round is fastest but it breaks down badly in corner cases with either a very high number of decimal places (e.g. round(1000.0d, 17)) or large integer part (e.g. round(90080070060.1d, 9)).
Use Bigdecimal it is bit inefficient as it converts the values to string but more relieval:
BigDecimal(<value>).setScale(<places>, RoundingMode.HALF_UP).doubleValue()
use your preference of Rounding mode.
If you are curious and want to know more detail why this happens you can read this:
I think previous answers are:
Plain wrong: using math.floor for example doesn't work for negative values..
Unnecessary complicated.
Here is a suggestion based on #kaito's answer (i can't comment yet):
def truncateAt(x: Double, p: Int): Double = {
val s = math.pow(10, p)
(x * s).toInt / s
}
toInt will work for positive and negative values.
Related
Here is a problem that involves a factorial. For a given number, n, find the answer to the following:
(1 / n!) * (1! + 2! + 3! + ... + n!)
The iterative solution in Scala is very easy – a simple for loop suffices.
object MyClass {
def fsolve(n: Int): Double = {
var a: Double = 1
var cum: Double = 1
for (i <- n to 2 by -1) {
a = a * (1.0/i.toDouble)
cum += a
}
scala.math.floor(cum*1000000) / 1000000
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
println(fsolve(7)) // answer 1.173214
}
}
I want to get rid of the for loop and use a foldLeft operation. Since the idea is to reduce a list of numbers to a single result, a foldLeft, or a similar instruction ought to do the job. How? I’m struggling to find a good Scala example I can follow. The code below illustrates where I am struggling to make the leap to more idiomatic Scala.
object MyClass {
def fsolve(n: Int) = {
(n to 2 by -1).foldLeft(1.toDouble) (_*_)
// what comes next????
}
def main(args: Array[String]) {
println(fsolve(7))
}
}
Any suggestions or pointers to a solution?
The result is returned from foldLeft, like this:
val cum = (n to 2 by -1).foldLeft(1.toDouble) (_*_)
Only in your case the function needs to be different, as the fold above would multiply all i values together. You will pass both cum and a values for the folding:
def fsolve(n: Int): Double = {
val (cum, _) = (n to 2 by -1).foldLeft(1.0, 1.0) { case ((sum, a),i) =>
val newA = a * (1.0/i.toDouble)
(sum + newA, newA)
}
scala.math.floor(cum*1000000) / 1000000
}
The formula you have provided maps very nicely to the scanLeft function. It works sort of like a combination of foldLeft and map, running the fold operation but storing each generated value in the output list. The following code generates all of the factorials from 1 to n, sums them up, then divides by n!. Note that by performing a single floating point division at the end, instead of at every intermediate step, you reduce the odds of floating point errors.
def fsolve(n: Int): Double =
{
val factorials = (2 to n).scanLeft(1)((cum: Int, value: Int) => value*cum)
scala.math.floor(factorials.reduce(_+_)/factorials.last.toDouble*1000000)/1000000
}
I'll try to implement a solution without filling in the blanks but by proposing a different approach.
def fsolve(n: Int): Double = {
require(n > 0, "n must be positive")
def f(n: Int): Long = (1 to n).fold(1)(_ * _)
(1.0 / f(n)) * ((1 to n).map(f).sum)
}
In the function I make sure to fail for invalid input with require, I define factorial (as f) and then use it by simply writing down the function in the closest possible way to the original expression we wanted to implement:
(1.0 / f(n)) * ((1 to n).map(f).sum)
If you really want to fold explicitly you can rewrite this expression as follows:
(1.0 / f(n)) * ((1 to n).map(f).fold(0L)(_ + _))
Also, please note that since all operations you are executing (sums and multiplications) are commutative, you can use fold instead of foldLeft: using the former doesn't prescribe an order in which operation should run, allowing a specific implementation of the collection to run the computation in parallel.
You can play around with this code here on Scastie.
Currently I write some ugly code like
def div(dividend: Int, divisor: Int) = {
val q = dividend / divisor
val mod = dividend % divisor
(q, mod)
}
Is it specified in standard library?
A bit late to the game, but since Scala 2.8 this works:
import scala.math.Integral.Implicits._
val (quotient, remainder) = 5 /% 2
No (except for BigInt, as mentioned in other answers), but you can add it:
implicit class QuotRem[T: Integral](x: T) {
def /%(y: T) = (x / y, x % y)
}
will work for all integral types. You can improve performance by making separate classes for each type such as
implicit class QuotRemInt(x: Int) extends AnyVal {
def /%(y: Int) = (x / y, x % y)
}
In BigInt, note /% operation which delivers a pair with the division and the reminder (see API). Note for instance
scala> BigInt(3) /% BigInt(2)
(scala.math.BigInt, scala.math.BigInt) = (1,1)
scala> BigInt(3) /% 2
(scala.math.BigInt, scala.math.BigInt) = (1,1)
where the second example involves an implicit conversion from Int to BigInt.
BigInt does it
def /%(that: BigInt): (BigInt, BigInt)
Division and Remainder - returns tuple containing the result of divideToIntegralValue and the remainder.
While working through the coursera class on scala I ran into the code below (from another question asked here by Sudipta Deb.)
package src.com.sudipta.week2.coursera
import scala.math.abs
import scala.annotation.tailrec
object FixedPoint {
println("Welcome to the Scala worksheet") //> Welcome to the Scala worksheet
val tolerance = 0.0001 //> tolerance : Double = 1.0E-4
def isCloseEnough(x: Double, y: Double): Boolean = {
abs((x - y) / x) / x < tolerance
} //> isCloseEnough: (x: Double, y: Double)Boolean
def fixedPoint(f: Double => Double)(firstGuess: Double): Double = {
#tailrec
def iterate(guess: Double): Double = {
val next = f(guess)
if (isCloseEnough(guess, next)) next
else iterate(next)
}
iterate(firstGuess)
} //> fixedPoint: (f: Double => Double)(firstGuess: Double)Double
def myFixedPoint = fixedPoint(x => 1 + x / 2)(1)//> myFixedPoint: => Double
myFixedPoint //> res0: Double = 1.999755859375
def squareRoot(x: Double) = fixedPoint(y => (y + x / y) / 2)(1)
//> squareRoot: (x: Double)Double
squareRoot(2) //> res1: Double = 1.4142135623746899
def calculateAverate(f: Double => Double)(x: Double) = (x + f(x)) / 2
//> calculateAverate: (f: Double => Double)(x: Double)Double
def myNewSquareRoot(x: Double): Double = fixedPoint(calculateAverate(y => x / y))(1)
//> myNewSquareRoot: (x: Double)Double
myNewSquareRoot(2) //> res2: Double = 1.4142135623746899
}
My puzzlement concerns the isCloseEnough function.
I understand that for guesses which are large numbers, the difference between a guess and
the large value that the function returns could potentially be very big all the time, so we may never converge.
Conversely, if the guess is small, and if what f(x) produces is small then we will likely converge too quickly.
So dividing through by the guess like this:
def isCloseEnough(x: Double, y: Double): Boolean = {
abs((x - y) / x) / x < tolerance
}
makes perfect sense. (here is 'x' is the guess, and y is f_of_x.)
My question is why do why does the solution given divide by the guess TWICE ?
Wouldn't that undo all the benefits of dividing through by the guess the first time ?
As an example... let's say that my current guess and the value actually returned by the
function given my current x is as shown below:
import math.abs
var guess=.0000008f
var f_of_x=.00000079999f
And lets' say my tolerance is
var tolerance=.0001
These numbers look pretty close, and indeed, if i divide through by x ONCE, i see that the result
is less than my tolerance.
( abs(guess - f_of_x) / guess)
res3: Float = 1.2505552E-5
However, if i divide through by x TWICE the result is much greater than my tolerance, which would suggest
we need to keep iterating.. which seems wrong since guess and observed f(x) are so close.
scala> ( abs(guess - f_of_x) / guess) / guess
res11: Float = 15.632331
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
You are completely right, it does not make sense. Further, the second division is outside of the absolute value rendering the inequality true for any negative x.
Perhaps someone got confused with testing for quadratic convergence.
Suppose I would like to calculate Pi with Monte Carlo simulation as an exercise.
I am writing a function, which picks a point in a square (0, 1), (1, 0) at random and tests if the point is inside the circle.
import scala.math._
import scala.util.Random
def circleTest() = {
val (x, y) = (Random.nextDouble, Random.nextDouble)
sqrt(x*x + y*y) <= 1
}
Then I am writing a function, which takes as arguments the test function and the number of trials and returns the fraction of the trials in which the test was found to be true.
def monteCarlo(trials: Int, test: () => Boolean) =
(1 to trials).map(_ => if (test()) 1 else 0).sum * 1.0 / trials
... and I can calculate Pi
monteCarlo(100000, circleTest) * 4
Now I wonder if monteCarlo function can be improved. How would you write monteCarlo efficient and readable ?
For example, since the number of trials is large is it worth using a view or iterator instead of Range(1, trials) and reduce instead of map and sum ?
It's worth noting that Random.nextDouble is side-effecting—when you call it it changes the state of the random number generator. This may not be a concern to you, but since there are already five answers here I figure it won't hurt anything to add one that's purely functional.
First you'll need a random number generation monad implementation. Luckily NICTA provides a really nice one that's integrated with Scalaz. You can use it like this:
import com.nicta.rng._, scalaz._, Scalaz._
val pointInUnitSquare = Rng.choosedouble(0.0, 1.0) zip Rng.choosedouble(0.0, 1.0)
val insideCircle = pointInUnitSquare.map { case (x, y) => x * x + y * y <= 1 }
def mcPi(trials: Int): Rng[Double] =
EphemeralStream.range(0, trials).foldLeftM(0) {
case (acc, _) => insideCircle.map(_.fold(1, 0) + acc)
}.map(_ / trials.toDouble * 4)
And then:
scala> val choosePi = mcPi(10000000)
choosePi: com.nicta.rng.Rng[Double] = com.nicta.rng.Rng$$anon$3#16dd554f
Nothing's been computed yet—we've just built up a computation that will generate our value randomly when executed. Let's just execute it on the spot in the IO monad for the sake of convenience:
scala> choosePi.run.unsafePerformIO
res0: Double = 3.1415628
This won't be the most performant solution, but it's good enough that it may not be a problem for many applications, and the referential transparency may be worth it.
Stream based version, for another alternative. I think this is quite clear.
def monteCarlo(trials: Int, test: () => Boolean) =
Stream
.continually(if (test()) 1.0 else 0.0)
.take(trials)
.sum / trials
(the sum isn't specialised for streams but the implementation (in TraversableOnce) just calls foldLeft that is specialised and "allows GC to collect along the way." So the .sum won't force the stream to be evaluated and so won't keep all the trials in memory at once)
I see no problem with the following recursive version:
def monteCarlo(trials: Int, test: () => Boolean) = {
def bool2double(b: Boolean) = if (b) 1.0d else 0.0d
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def recurse(n: Int, sum: Double): Double =
if (n <= 0) sum / trials
else recurse(n - 1, sum + bool2double(test()))
recurse(trials, 0.0d)
}
And a foldLeft version, too:
def monteCarloFold(trials: Int, test: () => Boolean) =
(1 to trials).foldLeft(0.0d)((s,i) => s + (if (test()) 1.0d else 0.0d)) / trials
This is more memory efficient than the map version in the question.
Using tail recursion might be an idea:
def recMonteCarlo(trials: Int, currentSum: Double, test:() => Boolean):Double = trials match {
case 0 => currentSum
case x =>
val nextSum = currentSum + (if (test()) 1.0 else 0.0)
recMonteCarlo(trials-1, nextSum, test)
def monteCarlo(trials: Int, test:() => Boolean) = {
val monteSum = recMonteCarlo(trials, 0, test)
monteSum / trials
}
Using aggregate on a parallel collection, like this,
def monteCarlo(trials: Int, test: () => Boolean) = {
val pr = (1 to trials).par
val s = pr.aggregate(0)( (a,_) => a + (if (test()) 1 else 0), _ + _)
s * 4.0 / trials
}
where partial results are summed up in parallel with other test calculations.
I am a newbie in functional programming. I just tried solving the following problem :
[ a rough specification ]
e.g.1:
dividend : {3,5,9}
divisor : {2,2}
radix = 10
ans (remainder) : {7}
Procedure :
dividend = 3*10^2+5*10^1+9*10^0 = 359
similarly, divisor = 22
so 359 % 22 = 7
e.g.2:
dividend : {555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555}
divisor: {112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112}
radix = 1000
ans (remainder) : {107,107,107,107,107,107,107,107,107,107}
My solution to this problem is :
object Tornedo {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val radix: BigInt = 1000
def buildNum(segs: BigInt*) = (BigInt(0) /: segs.toList) { _ * radix + _ }
val dividend = buildNum(555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555)
val divisor = buildNum(112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112)
var remainder = dividend % divisor
var rem = List[BigInt]()
while(remainder > 0) {
rem = (remainder % radix) :: rem
remainder /= radix
}
println(rem)
}
}
Although I am pretty satisfied with this code I'd like to know how to eliminate the while loop & two mutable variables and make this code more functional.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks. :)
This tail recursive function remove your two mutable var and the loop:
object Tornedo {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val radix: BigInt = 1000
def buildNum(segs: BigInt*) = (BigInt(0) /: segs.toList) { _ * radix + _ }
val dividend = buildNum(555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555)
val divisor = buildNum(112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112)
def breakup(n: BigInt, segs: List[BigInt]): List[BigInt] =
if (n == 0) segs else breakup(n / radix, n % radix :: segs)
println(breakup(dividend % divisor, Nil))
}
}
Tail recursive solution in Scala 2.8:
def reradix(value: BigInt, radix: BigInt, digits:List[BigInt] = Nil): List[BigInt] = {
if (remainder==0) digits
else reradix(value/radix ,radix ,(value % radix) :: digits)
}
The idea is generally to convert a while into a recursive solution where you keep track of your solution along the way (so it can be tail recursive, as it is here). If you instead used
(value % radix) :: reradix(value/radix, radix)
you would also compute the solution, but it would not be tail recursive so the partial answers would get pushed onto the stack. With default parameters, adding a final parameter that allows you to store the accumulating answer and use tail recursion is syntactically nice, as you can just call reradix(remainder,radix) and get the Nil passed in for free.
Rahul, as I said, there isn't an unfold function in Scala. There is one in Scalaz, so I'm gonna show the solution using that one. The solution below is simply adapting Patrick's answer to use unfold instead of recursion.
import scalaz.Scalaz._
object Tornedo {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val radix: BigInt = 1000
def buildNum(segs: BigInt*) = (BigInt(0) /: segs.toList) { _ * radix + _ }
val dividend = buildNum(555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555,555)
val divisor = buildNum(112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112,112)
val unfoldingFunction = (n: BigInt) =>
if (n == 0) None else Some((n % radix, n / radix))
println((dividend % divisor).unfold[List, BigInt](unfoldingFunction))
}
}
I think it's quite expensive way to solve the problem, but very intuitive one IMHO:
scala> Stream.iterate(255)(_ / 10).takeWhile(_ > 0).map(_ % 10).reverse
res6: scala.collection.immutable.Stream[Int] = Stream(2, 5, 5)