We Keep Coding

Calculating the total amount of change given

Hello I'm currently following the Computing with C# and the .NET Framework book and I'm having difficulty on one of the exercises which is
Write a C# program to make change. Enter the cost of an item that is less than one dollar. Output
the coins given as change, using quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies. Use the fewest coins
possible. For example, if the item cost 17 cents, the change would be three quarters, one nickel,
and three pennies
Since I'm still trying to grasp c# programming the best method I came up with is using the while loop.
while(costOfItem >= 0.50)
{
costOfItem -= 0.50;
fiftyPence++;
}
I have these for each of the pences 20,10,5 etc..
I'm checking if the amount is greater than or equal to 50 pence, if so, i reduce 50 pence from the amount given by the user and add 1 to the fiftypence variable.
then it moves onto the next while loop, which I have for each pences. The problem is, somewhere along the line one of the loops takes away, lets say 20 pence, and the costOfItem becomes something like "0.1999999999999" then it never drops down to 0, which it should to get the correct amount of change.
Any help is appreciated, please don't suggest over complex procedures that I have yet covered.

Never use double or float for money operations. Use Decimal.
For all other problems of calculation accuracy you have to use "Double Epsilon Comparison" like Double.Epsilon for equality, greater than, less than, less than or equal to, greater than or equal to

If you do the calculation in cents, you can use integers and then you don't get into floating point rounding problems

Sounds to me you are using float or double as datatype for costOfItem.
float and double store their values in binary. But not all decimal values have an exact representation in binary. Therefore, a very close approximation is stored. This is why you get values like "0.1999999999999".
For money calculations, you should always use decimal, since they avoid those small inaccuracies.
You can read more about the difference in Jon Skeets awesome answer to Difference between Decimal, Float and Double in .NET?

Thank you all for the fast replies. The issue was that i used double instead of decimal the links provided have people explaining why it's wrong to do so in some cases. Using double should be avoided in arithmetic since apparently some float numbers do not have exact a binary representation, so instead of .23 it gives 0.2299999999999. Changing the variable to decimal fixed my issue

Float value retrieved wrong from database [duplicate]

Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
How do you explain floating point inaccuracy to fresh programmers and laymen who still think computers are infinitely wise and accurate?
Do you have a favourite example or anecdote which seems to get the idea across much better than an precise, but dry, explanation?
How is this taught in Computer Science classes?

There are basically two major pitfalls people stumble in with floating-point numbers.
The problem of scale. Each FP number has an exponent which determines the overall “scale” of the number so you can represent either really small values or really larges ones, though the number of digits you can devote for that is limited. Adding two numbers of different scale will sometimes result in the smaller one being “eaten” since there is no way to fit it into the larger scale.
PS> $a = 1; $b = 0.0000000000000000000000001
PS> Write-Host a=$a b=$b
a=1 b=1E-25
PS> $a + $b
1
As an analogy for this case you could picture a large swimming pool and a teaspoon of water. Both are of very different sizes, but individually you can easily grasp how much they roughly are. Pouring the teaspoon into the swimming pool, however, will leave you still with roughly a swimming pool full of water.
(If the people learning this have trouble with exponential notation, one can also use the values 1 and 100000000000000000000 or so.)
Then there is the problem of binary vs. decimal representation. A number like 0.1 can't be represented exactly with a limited amount of binary digits. Some languages mask this, though:
PS> "{0:N50}" -f 0.1
0.10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
But you can “amplify” the representation error by repeatedly adding the numbers together:
PS> $sum = 0; for ($i = 0; $i -lt 100; $i++) { $sum += 0.1 }; $sum
9,99999999999998
I can't think of a nice analogy to properly explain this, though. It's basically the same problem why you can represent 1/3 only approximately in decimal because to get the exact value you need to repeat the 3 indefinitely at the end of the decimal fraction.
Similarly, binary fractions are good for representing halves, quarters, eighths, etc. but things like a tenth will yield an infinitely repeating stream of binary digits.
Then there is another problem, though most people don't stumble into that, unless they're doing huge amounts of numerical stuff. But then, those already know about the problem. Since many floating-point numbers are merely approximations of the exact value this means that for a given approximation f of a real number r there can be infinitely many more real numbers r1, r2, ... which map to exactly the same approximation. Those numbers lie in a certain interval. Let's say that rmin is the minimum possible value of r that results in f and rmax the maximum possible value of r for which this holds, then you got an interval [rmin, rmax] where any number in that interval can be your actual number r.
Now, if you perform calculations on that number—adding, subtracting, multiplying, etc.—you lose precision. Every number is just an approximation, therefore you're actually performing calculations with intervals. The result is an interval too and the approximation error only ever gets larger, thereby widening the interval. You may get back a single number from that calculation. But that's merely one number from the interval of possible results, taking into account precision of your original operands and the precision loss due to the calculation.
That sort of thing is called Interval arithmetic and at least for me it was part of our math course at the university.

Show them that the base-10 system suffers from exactly the same problem.
Try to represent 1/3 as a decimal representation in base 10. You won't be able to do it exactly.
So if you write "0.3333", you will have a reasonably exact representation for many use cases.
But if you move that back to a fraction, you will get "3333/10000", which is not the same as "1/3".
Other fractions, such as 1/2 can easily be represented by a finite decimal representation in base-10: "0.5"
Now base-2 and base-10 suffer from essentially the same problem: both have some numbers that they can't represent exactly.
While base-10 has no problem representing 1/10 as "0.1" in base-2 you'd need an infinite representation starting with "0.000110011..".

How's this for an explantation to the layman. One way computers represent numbers is by counting discrete units. These are digital computers. For whole numbers, those without a fractional part, modern digital computers count powers of two: 1, 2, 4, 8. ,,, Place value, binary digits, blah , blah, blah. For fractions, digital computers count inverse powers of two: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... The problem is that many numbers can't be represented by a sum of a finite number of those inverse powers. Using more place values (more bits) will increase the precision of the representation of those 'problem' numbers, but never get it exactly because it only has a limited number of bits. Some numbers can't be represented with an infinite number of bits.
Snooze...
OK, you want to measure the volume of water in a container, and you only have 3 measuring cups: full cup, half cup, and quarter cup. After counting the last full cup, let's say there is one third of a cup remaining. Yet you can't measure that because it doesn't exactly fill any combination of available cups. It doesn't fill the half cup, and the overflow from the quarter cup is too small to fill anything. So you have an error - the difference between 1/3 and 1/4. This error is compounded when you combine it with errors from other measurements.

In python:
>>> 1.0 / 10
0.10000000000000001
Explain how some fractions cannot be represented precisely in binary. Just like some fractions (like 1/3) cannot be represented precisely in base 10.

Another example, in C
printf (" %.20f \n", 3.6);
incredibly gives
3.60000000000000008882

Here is my simple understanding.
Problem:
The value 0.45 cannot be accurately be represented by a float and is rounded up to 0.450000018. Why is that?
Answer:
An int value of 45 is represented by the binary value 101101.
In order to make the value 0.45 it would be accurate if it you could take 45 x 10^-2 (= 45 / 10^2.)
But that’s impossible because you must use the base 2 instead of 10.
So the closest to 10^2 = 100 would be 128 = 2^7. The total number of bits you need is 9 : 6 for the value 45 (101101) + 3 bits for the value 7 (111).
Then the value 45 x 2^-7 = 0.3515625. Now you have a serious inaccuracy problem. 0.3515625 is not nearly close to 0.45.
How do we improve this inaccuracy? Well we could change the value 45 and 7 to something else.
How about 460 x 2^-10 = 0.44921875. You are now using 9 bits for 460 and 4 bits for 10. Then it’s a bit closer but still not that close. However if your initial desired value was 0.44921875 then you would get an exact match with no approximation.
So the formula for your value would be X = A x 2^B. Where A and B are integer values positive or negative.
Obviously the higher the numbers can be the higher would your accuracy become however as you know the number of bits to represent the values A and B are limited. For float you have a total number of 32. Double has 64 and Decimal has 128.

A cute piece of numerical weirdness may be observed if one converts 9999999.4999999999 to a float and back to a double. The result is reported as 10000000, even though that value is obviously closer to 9999999, and even though 9999999.499999999 correctly rounds to 9999999.

Nondeterministic (random) rounding based on decimal places

I want to do something like this:
return Utils.RandomDouble() < value - Math.Floor(value) : (int)Math.Floor(value) : (int)Math.Ceil(value);
Hard to google it ;) Is there any literature about such kind of rounding mechanism or a name for it?
Just a little background:
We use it for a game where we have health based on integers (hitpoints) but calculate the damages based on doubles to be more exact.

Banker's rounding could be ok, thought it's not random: it just tries to uniformly distribute deviations in case the input is somehwat spread (say a stddev of >1)
However, you're describing
Stochastic Rounding (WikiPedia)
Another unbiased tie-breaking method is stochastic rounding:
If the fractional part of y is .5, choose q randomly among y + 0.5 and y − 0.5, with equal probability.
Like round-half-to-even, this rule is essentially free of overall bias; but it is also fair among even and odd q values. On the other hand, it introduces a random component into the result; performing the same computation twice on the same data may yield two different results. Also, it is open to nonconscious bias if humans (rather than computers or devices of chance) are "randomly" deciding in which direction to round.
Somewhat related: Alternating tie-breaking (can still introduce bias, but lacks the random component)

Probability of repeating results using rand.Next()

Looking at another question of mine I realized that technically there is nothing preventing this algorithm from running for an infinite period of time. (IE: It never returns)
Because of the chance that rand.Next(1, 100000); could theoretically keep generating the same value.
Out of curiosity; how would I calculate the probability of this happening? I assume it would be very small?
Code from other question:
Random rand = new Random();
List<Int32> result = new List<Int32>();
for (Int32 i = 0; i < 300; i++)
{
Int32 curValue = rand.Next(1, 100000);
while (result.Exists(value => value == curValue))
{
curValue = rand.Next(1, 100000);
}
result.Add(curValue);
}

On ONE given draw of a random number, the probability of repeating a value readily found in the result list is
P(Collision) = i * 1/100000 where i is the number of values in the list.
That is because all 100,000 possible numbers are assumed to have the same probability of being drawn (assumption of a uniform distribution) and the drawing of any number is independent from that of drawing any other number.
The probability of experiencing such a "collision" with the numbers from the list several several times in a row is
P(n Collisions) = P(Collision) ^ n
where n is the number of times a collision happens
That is because the drawings are independent.
Numerically...
when the list is half full, i = 150 and
P(Collision) = 0.15% = 0.0015 and
P(2 Collisions) = 0.00000225
P(3 Collisions) - 0.000000003375
P(4 Collisions) = 0.0000000000050265
when the list is all full but for the last one, i = 299 and
P(Collision) = 0.299% = 0.00299 and
P(2 Collisions) = 0.0000089401 (approx)
P(3 Collisions) = 0.00000002673 (approx)
P(4 Collisions) = 0.000000000079925 (approx)
You are therefore right to assume that the probability of having to draw multiple times for finding the next suitable value to add to the array is very small, and should therefore not impact the overall performance of the snippet. Beware that there will be a few retries (statistically speaking), but the total number of retries will be small compared to 300.
If however the total number of item desired in the list was to increase much, or if the range of random number sought was to be reduced, P(Collision) would not be so small and hence the number of "retries" needed would grow accordingly. That is why other algorithms exist for drawings multiple values without replacement; most are based on the idea of using the random number as an index into a array of all the remaining values.

Assuming a uniform distribution (not a bad assumption, I believe) the chance of getting the number n times in a row is (0.00001)^n.

It's quite possible for a PRNG to generate the same number in a limited range in consecutive calls. The probability would be a function of the bit-size of the raw PRNG and the method used to reduce that size to the numeric range you want (in this case 1 - 100000).

To answer your question exactly, no, it isn't very small, the probability of it going on for an infinite period of time "is" 0. I say "is" because it actually tends to 0 when the number of iterations tends to infinity.
As bdares said, it will tend to 0 with (1/range)ˆn , with n being the number of iterations, if we can assume an uniform distribution (this says we kinda can).

This program will not halt if:
A random number is picked that is in the result set
That number generates a cycle (i.e. a loop) in the random number generator's algorithm (they all do)
All numbers in the loop are already in the result set
All random number generators eventually loop back on themselves, due to the limited number of integers possible ==> for 32-bit, only 2^32 possible values.
"Good" generators have very large loops. "Poor" algorithms yield short loops for certain values. Consult Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming for random number generators. It is a fascinating read.
Now, assuming there is a cycle of (n) numbers. For your program, which loops 300 times, that means (n) <= 300. Also, the number of attempts you try before you hit on a number in this cycle, plus the length of the cycle, must not be greater than 300. Therefore, assuming the first try you hit on the cycle, then the cycle can be 300 long. If on the second try you hit the cycle, it can only be 299 long.
Assuming that most random number generation algorithms have reasonably-flat probability distribution, the probability of hitting a 300-cycle the first time is (300/2^32), multiplied by the probability of having a 300-cycle (this depends on the rand algorithm), plus the probability of hitting a 299-cycle the first time (299/2^32) x probability of having a 299-cycle, etc. And so on and so forth. Then add up the second try, third try, all the way up to the 300-th try (which can only be a 1-cycle).
Now this is assuming that any number can take on the full 2^32 generator space. If you are limiting it to 100000 only, then in essence you increase the chance of having much shorter cycles, because multiple numbers (in the 2^32 space) can map to the same number in "real" 100000 space.
In reality, most random generator algorithms have minimum cycle lengths of > 300. A random generator implementation based on the simplest LCG (linear congruential generator, wikipedia) can have a "full period" (i.e. 2^32) with the correct choice of parameters. So it is safe to say that minimum cycle lengths are definitely > 300. If this is the case, then it depends on the mapping algorithm of the generator to map 2^32 numbers into 100000 numbers. Good mappers will not create 300-cycles, poor mappers may create short cycles.

Calculate factorials in C#

How can you calculate large factorials using C#? Windows calculator in Win 7 overflows at Factorial (3500). As a programming and mathematical question I am interested in knowing how you can calculate factorial of a larger number (20000, may be) in C#. Any pointers?
[Edit] I just checked with a calc on Win 2k3, since I could recall doing a bigger factorial on Win 2k3. I was surprised by the way things worked out.
Calc on Win2k3 worked with even big numbers. I tried !50000 and I got an answer, 3.3473205095971448369154760940715e+213236
It was very fast while I did all this.
The main question here is not only to find out the appropriate data type, but also a bit mathematical. If I try to write a simple factorial code in C# [recursive or loop], the performance is really bad. It takes multiple seconds to get an answer. How is the calc in Windows 2k3 (or XP) able to perform such a huge factorial in less than 10 seconds? Is there any other way of calculating factorial programmatically in C#?

Have a look at the BigInteger structure:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger.aspx
Maybe this can help you implement this functionality.
CodeProject has an implementation for older versions of the framework at http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/biginteger.aspx.

If I try to write a simple factorial code in C# [recursive or loop], the performance is really bad. It takes multiple seconds to get an answer.
Let's do a quick order-of-magnitude calculation here for a naive implementation of factorial that performs n multiplications. Suppose we are on the last step. 19999! is about 218 bits. 20000 is about 25 bits; we'll assume that it is a 32 bit integer. The final multiplication therefore involves the addition of up to 25 partial results each roughly 218 bits long. The number of bit operations will therefore be on the order of 223.
That's for the last stage; there will be 20000 = 216 such operations at each stage, so that is a total of about 239 operations. Some of them will of course be cheaper, but we're going for an order of magnitude here.
A modern processor does about 232 operations per second. Therefore it will take about 27 seconds to get the result.
Of course, the big integer library writers were not naive; they take advantage of the ability of the chip to do many bit operations in parallel. They're probably doing the math in 32 bit chunks, giving speedups of a factor of 25. So our total order-of-magnitude calculation is that it should take about 22 seconds to get a result.
22 is 4. So your observation that it takes a few seconds to get a result is expected.
How is the calc in Windows 2k3 (or XP) able to perform such a huge factorial in less than 10 seconds?
I don't know. Extreme cleverness in exploiting the math operations on the chip probably. Or, using a non-naive algorithm for calculating factorial. Or, possibly they are using Stirling's Approximation and getting an inexact result.
Is there any other way of calculating factorial programmatically in C#?
Sure. If all you care about is the order of magnitude then you can use Stirling's Approximation. If you care about the exact value then you're going to have to compute it.

There exist sophisticated computational algorithms for efficiently computing the factorials of large, arbitrary precision numbers. The Schönhage–Strassen algorithm, for instance, allows you to perform asymptotically fast multiplication for arbitrarily large integers.
Case in point, Mathematica computes 22000! on my machine in less than 1 second. The Implementation Notes page at reference.wolfram.com states:
(Mathematica's) n! uses an O(log(n) M(n)) algorithm of Schönhage based on dynamic decomposition to prime powers.
Unfortunately, the implementation of such algorithms is both complicated and error prone. Rather than trying to roll your own implementation, it may be wiser for you to license a copy of Mathematica (or a similar product that meets your functional and performance needs) and either use it, or a .NET programming interface to it, to perform your computation.

Have you looked at System.Numerics.BigInteger?

Using System.Numerics BigInteger
var bi = new BigInteger(1);
var factorial = 171;
for (var i = 1; i <= factorial; i++)
{
bi *= i;
}
will be calculated to
1241018070217667823424840524103103992616605577501693185388951803611996075221691752992751978120487585576464959501670387052809889858690710767331242032218484364310473577889968548278290754541561964852153468318044293239598173696899657235903947616152278558180061176365108428800000000000000000000000000000000000000000
For 50000! it takes a couple seconds to calculate but it seems to work and the result is a 213237 digit number and that's also what Wolfram says.

You will probably have to implement your own arbitrary precision numeric type.
There are various approaches. probably not the most efficient, but perhaps the simplest is to have variable length arrays of byte (unsigned char). Each element represents a digit. ideally this would be included in a class, and you can then add a method which let's you multiply the number with another arbitrary precision number. A multiply with a standard C# integer would probably also be a good idea, but a little trickier to implement.

Since they don't give you the result down to the last digit, they may be "cheating" using some approximation.
Check out http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StirlingsApproximation.html
Using Stirling's formula you can calculate (an approximation of) the factorial of n in logn time. Of course, they might as well have a dictionary with pre-calculated values of factorial(n) for every n up to one million, making the calculator show the result extremely fast.

This answer covers limits for basic .Net types to compute and represent n!
Basic code to calculate factorial for "SomeType" that supports multiplication:
SomeType factorial = 1;
int n = 35;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
factorial *= i;
}
Limits for built in number types:
short - correct results up to 7!, incorrect results afterwards, code returns 0 starting 18 (similar to int)
int - correct results up to 12!, incorrect results afterwards, code returns 0 starting at 34 (Why computing factorial of realtively small numbers (34+) returns 0)
float - precise results up to 14!, correct but not precise afterwards, returns infinity starting at 35
long - correct results up to 20!, incorrect results afterwards, code returns 0 starting at 66 (similar to int)
double - precise results up to 22!, correct but not precise afterwards, returns infinity starting at 171
BigInteger - precise and upper limit is set by memory usage only.
Note: integer types overflow pretty quickly and start producing incorrect results. Realistically if you need factorials for any practical usage long is the type to go (up to 20!), if you can't expect limited numbers - BigInteger is the only type provided in .Net Framework to provide precise results (albeit slow for large numbers as there is no built-in optimized n! method)

You need a special big-number library for this. This link introduces the System.Numeric.BigInteger class, and incidentally has an example program that calculates factorials. But don't use the example! If you recurse like that, your stack will grow horribly. Just write a for-loop to do the multiplication.

I don't know how you could do this in a language without arbitrary precision arithmetic. I guess a start could be to count factors of 5 and 2, removing them from the product, and add on these zeroes at the end.
As you can see there are many.
>>> factorial(20000)
<<non-zeroes removed>>0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000L