I'm trying to write a program that will help someone study for the GRE math. As many of you may know, fractions are a big part of the test, and calculators aren't allowed. Basically what I want to do is generate four random numbers (say, 1-50) and either +-/* them and then accept an answer in fraction format. The random number thing is easy. The problem is, how can I 1) accept a fractional answer and 2) ensure that the answer is reduced all the way?
I am writing in ASP.NET (or jQuery, if that will suffice). I was pretty much wondering if there's some library or something that handles this kind of thing...
Thanks!
have a look at
http://www.geekpedia.com/code73_Get-the-greatest-common-divisor.html
http://javascript.internet.com/math-related/gcd-lcm-calculator.html
Since fractions are essentially divisions you can check to see if the answer is partially correct by performing the division on the fraction entries that you're given.
[pseudocode]
if (answer.contains("/"))
int a = answer.substring(1,answer.instanceof("/"))
int b = answer.substring(answer.instanceof("/"))
if (a/b == expectedAnswer)
if (gcd(a,b) == 1)
GOOD!
else
Not sufficiently reduced
else
WRONG!
To find out whether it's reduced all the way, create a GCD function which should evaluate to the value of the denominator that the user supplied as an answer.
Learn Python and try fractions module.
Related
The answer gives the following code for computing floor(sqrt(x)) using just integers. Is it possible to use/modify it to return ceil(sqrt(x)) instead? Alternatively, what is the preferred way to calculate such value?
Edit: Thank you all so far and I apologise, I should have make it more explicit: I was hoping there is more "natural" way of doing this that using floor(sqrt(x)), possibly plus one. The floor version uses Newton's method to approach the root from above, I thought that maybe approaching it from below or similar would do the trick.
For example the answer even provides how to round to nearest integer: just input 4*x to the algorithm.
If x is an exact square, the ceiling and the floor of the square root are equal; otherwise, the ceiling is one more than the square root. So you could use (in Python),
result = floorsqrt(x)
if result * result != x:
result += 1
Modifying the code you linked to is not a good idea, since that code uses some properties of the Newton-Raphson method of calculating the square root. Much theory has been developed about that method, and the code uses that theory. The code I show is not as neat as modifying your linked code but it is safer and probably quicker than making a change in the code.
You can use this fact that:
floor(x) = (ceil(x) - 1) if x \not \in Z else ceil(x)
Hence, check if N is in the form 2^k, the code is the same, and if it is not, you can -1 the result of the current code.
The problem:
ceiling(31)
#31
ceiling(31/60*60)
#32
What is the correct way to fix this kind of errors?
Doing the multiplication before the division is not an option, my code looks something like this:
x <- 31/60
...
y <- ceiling(x*60)
I'm thinking of doing a new function:
ceil <- function(x) {
ceiling(signif(x))
}
But I'm new to R, maybe there is a better way.
UPDATE
Sorry, I didn't give more details, I have the same problem in different parts of my code for different reasons, but always with ceiling.
I am aware of the rounding error in floating-point calculation. Maybe the title of the question could be improved, I don't want to fix an imprecision of the ceiling function, what I want to do is perhaps the opposite, make ceiling less exact. A way to tell R to ignore the digits that are clearly noise:
options(digits=17)
31/60*60
#31.000000000000004
But, apparently, the epsilon required to ignore the noise digits depends on the context of the problem.
The real problem here, I strongly believe, is found in my hero The Data Munger Guru's tagline, which is: "What is the problem that you are trying to solve?
Tell me what you want to do, not how you want to do it. "
There are myriad cases where floating-point precision will cause apparent integers to turn into "integer +/- epsilon" , and so you need to figure out why you are going for "ceiling" , why you allow your values to not be integers, etc. <-- more or less what Pascal Cuoq wrote in his comment.
The solution to your concern thus depends on what's actually going on. Perhaps you want, say trunc(x/60)->y followed with trunc(y*60) , or maybe not :-) . Maybe you want y<-round(x/60*60) +1 , or jhoward's suggested approach. It depends, as I stress here, critically on what your goal is and how you want to deal with corner cases.
I am looking for a simple method to assign a number to a mathematical expression, say between 0 and 1, that conveys how simplified that expression is (being 1 as fully simplified). For example:
eval('x+1') should return 1.
eval('1+x+1+x+x-5') should returns some value less than 1, because it is far from being simple (i.e., it can be further simplified).
The parameter of eval() could be either a string or an abstract syntax tree (AST).
A simple idea that occurred to me was to count the number of operators (?)
EDIT: Let simplified be equivalent to how close a system is to the solution of a problem. E.g., given an algebra problem (i.e. limit, derivative, integral, etc), it should assign a number to tell how close it is to the solution.
The closest metaphor I can come up with it how a maths professor would look at an incomplete problem and mentally assess it in order to tell how close the student is to the solution. Like in a math exam, were the student didn't finished a problem worth 20 points, but the professor assigns 8 out of 20. Why would he come up with 8/20, and can we program such thing?
I'm going to break a stack-overflow rule and post this as an answer instead of a comment, because not only I'm pretty sure the answer is you can't (at least, not the way you imagine), but also because I believe it can be educational up to a certain degree.
Let's assume that a criteria of simplicity can be established (akin to a normal form). It seems to me that you are very close to trying to solve an analogous to entscheidungsproblem or the halting problem. I doubt that in a complex rule system required for typical algebra, you can find a method that gives a correct and definitive answer to the number of steps of a series of term reductions (ipso facto an arbitrary-length computation) without actually performing it. Such answer would imply knowing in advance if such computation could terminate, and so contradict the fact that automatic theorem proving is, for any sufficiently powerful logic capable of representing arithmetic, an undecidable problem.
In the given example, the teacher is actually either performing that computation mentally (going step by step, applying his own sequence of rules), or gives an estimation based on his experience. But, there's no generic algorithm that guarantees his sequence of steps are the simplest possible, nor that his resulting expression is the simplest one (except for trivial expressions), and hence any quantification of "distance" to a solution is meaningless.
Wouldn't all this be true, your problem would be simple: you know the number of steps, you know how many steps you've taken so far, you divide the latter by the former ;-)
Now, returning to the criteria of simplicity, I also advice you to take a look on Hilbert's 24th problem, that specifically looked for a "Criteria of simplicity, or proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs.", and the slightly related proof compression. If you are philosophically inclined to further understand these subjects, I would suggest reading the classic Gödel, Escher, Bach.
Further notes: To understand why, consider a well-known mathematical artefact called the Mandelbrot fractal set. Each pixel color is calculated by determining if the solution to the equation z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c for any specific c is bounded, that is, "a complex number c is part of the Mandelbrot set if, when starting with z(0) = 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of z(n) remains bounded however large n gets." Despite the equation being extremely simple (you know, square a number and sum a constant), there's absolutely no way to know if it will remain bounded or not without actually performing an infinite number of iterations or until a cycle is found (disregarding complex heuristics). In this sense, every fractal out there is a rough approximation that typically usages an escape time algorithm as an heuristic to provide an educated guess whether the solution will be bounded or not.
I am working on designing a new sensor, and so I have a vector of measured values and a vector of truth values. To represent error, it's simply measured - truth. Since there's a lot of variation in the truth, I would like to represent the normalized error. My initial thought would be error./truth to get percent error, but there are many cases where my truth value is zero! Can anyone think of a better way to represent the normalized data while avoiding the divide-by-zero? I'm working in Matlab, though the question is a bit language-agnostic as well.
PS, feel free to push this to another stackexchange if you think it's better suited
Try error = (measured-truth)/norm2(truth) for each vector.
Where norm2() is the forbenious norm.
norm2(x) =SQRT( SUM( x[i]^2, i=1..N ) )
This can only fail is all the values of truth are zero. You can mitigate this by adding a small positive number like 1e-12 to the norm, or to avoid the division when the norm is less than a threshold number.
I'd suggest you to separate results with zero (or smaller than 10e-6 for example) truth vector and non-zero truth vector. You can't treat it by the same means (since you can't normalize truth vector) and you should define what to do in that case.
I can't suggest you something specific because I don't know the problem statement, but you should define it by yourself how to deal with it. Or if you post your problem here I hope we can help you.
I have question that comes from a algorithms book I'm reading and I am stumped on how to solve it (it's been a long time since I've done log or exponent math). The problem is as follows:
Suppose we are comparing implementations of insertion sort and merge sort on the same
machine. For inputs of size n, insertion sort runs in 8n^2 steps, while merge sort runs in 64n log n steps. For which values of n does insertion sort beat merge sort?
Log is base 2. I've started out trying to solve for equality, but get stuck around n = 8 log n.
I would like the answer to discuss how to solve this mathematically (brute force with excel not admissible sorry ;) ). Any links to the description of log math would be very helpful in my understanding your answer as well.
Thank you in advance!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve%288+log%282%2Cn%29%3Dn%2Cn%29
(edited since old link stopped working)
Your best bet is to use Newton;s method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
One technique to solving this would be to simply grab a graphing calculator and graph both functions (see the Wolfram link in another answer). Find the intersection that interests you (in case there are multiple intersections, as there are in your example).
In any case, there isn't a simple expression to solve n = 8 log₂ n (as far as I know). It may be simpler to rephrase the question as: "Find a zero of f(n) = n - 8 log₂ n". First, find a region containing the intersection you're interested in, and keep shrinking that region. For instance, suppose you know your target n is greater than 42, but less than 44. f(42) is less than 0, and f(44) is greater than 0. Try f(43). It's less than 0, so try 43.5. It's still less than 0, so try 43.75. It's greater than 0, so try 43.625. It's greater than 0, so keep going down, and so on. This technique is called binary search.
Sorry, that's just a variation of "brute force with excel" :-)
Edit:
For the fun of it, I made a spreadsheet that solves this problem with binary search: binary‑search.xls . The binary search logic is in the second data column, and I just auto-extended that.