We Keep Coding

Can Random.Next() ever return int.MaxValue?

The documentation for the Random.Next() method states that it returns:
A 32-bit signed integer that is greater than or equal to 0 and less than MaxValue.
But, I took a peek at the implementation, and while I don't understand the algorithm (a quick Google search suggests that it is a subtractive generator), I can't see any way in which a value of exactly int.MaxValue is ruled out.
If, for pedantic reasons, someone wants a random number across the entire range of 32-bit integers, does Random.Next() alone suffice, or does it become necessary to do something like assemble two separate 16-bit samples?

It will always be less than int.MaxValue.
In your linked source code it explicitly handles int.MaxValue:
if (retVal == MBIG) retVal--;
MBIG is defined earlier:
private const int MBIG = int.MaxValue;
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/master/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/Random.cs#L105

C# loss of precision when dividing doubles

I know this has been discussed time and time again, but I can't seem to get even the most simple example of a one-step division of doubles to result in the expected, unrounded outcome in C# - so I'm wondering if perhaps there's i.e. some compiler flag or something else strange I'm not thinking of. Consider this example:
double v1 = 0.7;
double v2 = 0.025;
double result = v1 / v2;
When I break after the last line and examine it in the VS debugger, the value of "result" is 27.999999999999996. I'm aware that I can resolve it by changing to "decimal," but that's not possible in the case of the surrounding program. Is it not strange that two low-precision doubles like this can't divide to the correct value of 28? Is the only solution really to Math.Round the result?

Is it not strange that two low-precision doubles like this can't divide to the correct value of 28?
No, not really. Neither 0.7 nor 0.025 can be exactly represented in the double type. The exact values involved are:
0.6999999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875
0.025000000000000001387778780781445675529539585113525390625
Now are you surprised that the division doesn't give exactly 28? Garbage in, garbage out...
As you say, the right result to represent decimal numbers exactly is to use decimal. If the rest of your program is using the wrong type, that just means you need to work out which is higher: the cost of getting the wrong answer, or the cost of changing the whole program.

Precision is always a problem, in case you are dealing with float or double.
Its a known issue in Computer Science and every programming language is affected by it. To minimize these sort of errors, which are mostly related to rounding, a complete field of Numerical Analysis is dedicated to it.
For instance, let take the following code.
What would you expect?
You will expect the answer to be 1, but this is not the case, you will get 0.9999907.
float v = .001f;
float sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
{
sum += v;
}

It has nothing to do with how 'simple' or 'small' the double numbers are. Strictly speaking, neither 0.7 or 0.025 may be stored as exactly those numbers in computer memory, so performing calculations on them may provide interesting results if you're after heavy precision.
So yes, use decimal or round.

To explain this by analogy:
Imagine that you are working in base 3. In base 3, 0.1 is (in decimal) 1/3, or 0.333333333'.
So you can EXACTLY represent 1/3 (decimal) in base 3, but you get rounding errors when trying to express it in decimal.
Well, you can get exactly the same thing with some decimal numbers: They can be exactly expressed in decimal, but they CAN'T be exactly expressed in binary; hence, you get rounding errors with them.

Short answer to your first question: No, it's not strange. Floating-point numbers are discrete approximations of the real numbers, which means that rounding errors will propagate and scale when you do arithmetic operations.
Theres' a whole field of mathematics called numerical analyis that basically deal with how to minimize the errors when working with such approximations.

It's the usual floating point imprecision. Not every number can be represented as a double, and those minor representation inaccuracies add up. It's also a reason why you should not compare doubles to exact numbers. I just tested it, and result.ToString() showed 28 (maybe some kind of rounding happens in double.ToString()?). result == 28 returned false though. And (int)result returned 27. So you'll just need to expect imprecisions like that.

Get number of digits in an unsigned long integer c#

I'm trying to determine the number of digits in a c# ulong number, i'm trying to do so using some math logic rather than using ToString().Length. I have not benchmarked the 2 approaches but have seen other posts about using System.Math.Floor(System.Math.Log10(number)) + 1 to determine the number of digits.
Seems to work fine until i transition from 999999999999997 to 999999999999998 at which point, it i start getting an incorrect count.
Has anyone encountered this issue before ?
I have seen similar posts with a Java emphasis # Why log(1000)/log(10) isn't the same as log10(1000)? and also a post # How to get the separate digits of an int number? which indicates how i could possibly achieve the same using the % operator but with a lot more code
Here is the code i used to simulate this
Action<ulong> displayInfo = number =>
Console.WriteLine("{0,-20} {1,-20} {2,-20} {3,-20} {4,-20}",
number,
number.ToString().Length,
System.Math.Log10(number),
System.Math.Floor(System.Math.Log10(number)),
System.Math.Floor(System.Math.Log10(number)) + 1);
Array.ForEach(new ulong[] {
9U,
99U,
999U,
9999U,
99999U,
999999U,
9999999U,
99999999U,
999999999U,
9999999999U,
99999999999U,
999999999999U,
9999999999999U,
99999999999999U,
999999999999999U,
9999999999999999U,
99999999999999999U,
999999999999999999U,
9999999999999999999U}, displayInfo);
Array.ForEach(new ulong[] {
1U,
19U,
199U,
1999U,
19999U,
199999U,
1999999U,
19999999U,
199999999U,
1999999999U,
19999999999U,
199999999999U,
1999999999999U,
19999999999999U,
199999999999999U,
1999999999999999U,
19999999999999999U,
199999999999999999U,
1999999999999999999U
}, displayInfo);
Thanks in advance
Pat

log10 is going to involve floating point conversion - hence the rounding error. The error is pretty small for a double, but is a big deal for an exact integer!
Excluding the .ToString() method and a floating point method, then yes I think you are going to have to use an iterative method but I would use an integer divide rather than a modulo.
Integer divide by 10. Is the result>0? If so iterate around. If not, stop.
The number of digits is the number of iterations required.
Eg. 5 -> 0; 1 iteration = 1 digit.
1234 -> 123 -> 12 -> 1 -> 0; 4 iterations = 4 digits.

I would use ToString().Length unless you know this is going to be called millions of times.
"premature optimization is the root of all evil" - Donald Knuth

From the documentation:
By default, a Double value contains 15
decimal digits of precision, although
a maximum of 17 digits is maintained
internally.
I suspect that you're running into precision limits. Your value of 999,999,999,999,998 probably is at the limit of precision. And since the ulong has to be converted to double before calling Math.Log10, you see this error.

Other answers have posted why this happens.
Here is an example of a fairly quick way to determine the "length" of an integer (some cases excluded). This by itself is not very interesting -- but I include it here because using this method in conjunction with Log10 can get the accuracy "perfect" for the entire range of an unsigned long without requiring a second log invocation.
// the lookup would only be generated once
// and could be a hard-coded array literal
ulong[] lookup = Enumerable.Range(0, 20)
.Select((n) => (ulong)Math.Pow(10, n)).ToArray();
ulong x = 999;
int i = 0;
for (; i < lookup.Length; i++) {
if (lookup[i] > x) {
break;
}
}
// i is length of x "in a base-10 string"
// does not work with "0" or negative numbers
This lookup-table approach can be easily converted to any base. This method should be faster than the iterative divide-by-base approach but profiling is left as an exercise to the reader. (A direct if-then branch broken into "groups" is likely quicker yet, but that's way too much repetitive typing for my tastes.)
Happy coding.

Why would you want an integer overflow to occur?

In this question the topic is how to make VS check for an arithmetic overflow in C# and throw an Exception: C# Overflow not Working? How to enable Overflow Checking?
One of the comments stated something weird and got upvoted much, I hope you can help me out here:
You can also use the checked keyword to wrap a statement or a set of statements so that they are explicitly checked for arithmetic overflow. Setting the project-wide property is a little risky because oftentimes overflow is a fairly reasonable expectation.
I dont know much about hardware but am aware that overflow has to do with the way registers work. I always thought overflow causes undefined behaviour and should be prevented where possible. (in 'normal' projects, not writing malicious code)
Why would you ever expect an overflow to happen and why wouldn't you always prevent it if you have the possibility? (by setting the corresponding compiler option)

The main time when I want overflow is computing hash codes. There, the actual numeric magnitude of the result doesn't matter at all - it's effectively just a bit pattern which I happen to be manipulating with arithmetic operations.
We have checked arithmetic turned on project-wide for Noda Time - I'd rather throw an exception than return incorrect data. I suspect that it's pretty rare for overflows to be desirable... I'll admit I usually leave the default to unchecked arithmetic, just because it's the default. There's the speed penalty as well, of course...

I always thought overflow causes
undefined behaviour and should be
prevented where possible.
You may also be confused about the difference between buffer overflow (overrun) and numeric overflow.
Buffer overflow is when data is written past the end of an unmanaged array. It can cause undefined behavior, doing things like overwriting the return address on the stack with user-entered data. Buffer overflow is difficult to do in managed code.
Numeric overflow, however, is well defined. For example, if you have an 8-bit register, it can only store 2^8 values (0 to 255 if unsigned). So if you add 100+200, you would not get 300, but 300 modulo 256, which is 44. The story is a little more complicated using signed types; the bit pattern is incremented in a similar manner, but they are interpreted as two's complement, so adding two positive numbers can give a negative number.

When doing calculations with constantly incrementing counters. A classic example is Environment.TickCount:
int start = Environment.TickCount;
DoSomething();
int end = Environment.TickCount;
int executionTime = end - start;
If that were checked, the program has odds to bomb 27 days after Windows was booted. When TickCount ticks beyond int.MaxValue while DoSomething was running. PerformanceCounter is another example.
These types of calculations produce an accurate result, even though overflow is present. A secondary example is the kind of math you do to generate a representative bit pattern, you're not really interested in an accurate result, just a reproducible one. Examples of those are checksums, hashes and random numbers.

Angles
Integers that overflow are elegant tools for measuring angles. You have 0 == 0 degrees, 0xFFFFFFFF == 359.999.... degrees. Its very convenient, because as 32 bit integers you can add/subtract angles (350 degrees plus 20 degrees ends up overflowing wrapping back around to 10 degrees). Also you can decide to treat the 32 bit integer as signed (-180 to 180 degrees) and unsigned (0 to 360). 0xFFFFFFF equates to -179.999..., which equates to 359.999..., which is equivelent. Very elegent.

When generating HashCodes, say from a string of characters.

why wouldn't you always prevent it if you have the possibility?
The reason checked arithmetic is not enabled by default is that checked arithmetic is slower than unchecked arithmetic. If performance isn't an issue for you it would probably make sense to enable checked arithmetic as an overflow occurring is usually an error.

This probably has as much to do with history as with any technical reasons. Integer overflow has very often been used to good effect by algorithms that rely on the behaviour (hashing algorithms in particular).
Also, most CPUs are designed to allow overflow, but set a carry bit in the process, which makes it easier to implement addition over longer-than-natural word-sizes. To implement checked operations in this context would mean adding code to raise an exception if the carry flag is set. Not a huge imposition, but one that the compiler writers probably didn't want to foist upon people without choice.
The alternative would be to check by default, but offer an unchecked option. Why this isn't so probably also goes back to history.

You might expect it on something that is measured for deltas. Some networking equipment keeps counter sizes small and you can poll for a value, say bytes transferred. If the value gets too big it just overflows back to zero. It still gives you something useful if you're measuring it frequently (bytes/minute, bytes/hour), and as the counters are usually cleared when a connection drops it doesn't matter they are not entirely accurate.
As Justin mentioned buffer overflows are a different kettle of fish. This is where you write past the end of an array into memory that you shouldn't. In numeric overflow, the same amount of memory is used. In buffer overflow you use memory you didn't allocate. Buffer overflow is prevented automatically in some languages.

There is one classic story about a programmer who took advantage of overflow in the design of a program:
The Story of Mel

This isn't so much related to how registers work as it is just the limits of the memory in variables that store data. (You can overflow a variable in memory without overflowing any registers.)
But to answer your question, consider the simplest type of checksum. It's simply the sum of all the data being checked. If the checksum overflows, that's okay and the part that didn't overflow is still meaningful.
Other reasons might include that you just want your program to keep running even though a inconsequential variable may have overflowed.

One more possible situation which I could imaging is a random number generation algorythm - we don't case about overflow in that case, because all we want is a random number.

An integer overflow goes like this.
You have an 8 bit integer 1111 1111, now add 1 to it. 0000 0000, the leading 1 gets truncated since it would be in the 9th position.
Now say you have a signed integer, the leading bit means it's negative. So now you have 0111 1111. Add 1 to it and you have 1000 0000, which is -128. In this case, adding 1 to 127 made it switch to negative.
I'm very sure overflows behave in a well determined manner, but I'm not sure about underflows.

All integer arithmetic (well adds subtracts and multiplies at least) is exact. It is just the interpretation of the resulting bits that you need to be careful of. In the 2's complement system, you get the correct result modulo 2 to the number of bits. The only difference between signed, and unsigned is that for signed numbers the most significant bit is treated as a sign bit. Its up to the programmer to determine what is appropriate. Obviously for some computations you want to know about an overflow and take appropriate action if one is detected. Personally I've never needed the overflow detection. I use a linear congruential random number generator that relies on it, i.e. 64*64bit unsigned integer multiplication, I only care about the lowest 64bits, I get the modulo operation for free because of the truncation.

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