We Keep Coding

Algorithm to round two numbers to the nearest evenly divisible ones

The title is not really well phrased, I'm aware - can't think of a better way of writing it though.
Here's the scenario - I have two input boxes, both representing integer quantities. One is represented in our units, the other in the vendor's units. There is a multiplier defining how to convert from ours to theirs. In the below example, I'm saying that two of our units is equal to five of theirs. So, for example,
decimal multiplier = 0.4; // Two of our units equals five of theirs
int requestedQuantity = 11; // Our units
int suppliedQuantity = 37; // Their units
// Should return 12, since that is the next highest whole number that results in both of us having whole numbers (12 of ours = 30 of theirs)
int correctedFromRequestedQuantity = GetCorrectedRequestedQuantity(requestedQuantity, null, multiplier);
// Should return 16, since that is the next highest whole number that results in both of us having whole numbers (16 of ours = 40 of theirs);
int correctedFromSuppliedQuantity = GetCorrectedRequestedQuantity(suppliedQuantity, multiplier, null);
Here's the function I've written to handle this. I'm not doing a divide by zero check on the multiplier / rounder since I've already checked for that elsewhere. It seems crazy to do all that converting, but is there a better way of doing it?
public int GetCorrectedRequestedQuantity(int? input, decimal? multiplier, decimal? rounder)
{
if (multiplier == null)
{
if (rounder == null)
return input.GetValueOrDefault();
else
return (int)Math.Ceiling((decimal)((decimal)Math.Ceiling(input.GetValueOrDefault() / rounder.Value) * rounder.Value));
}
else if (input.HasValue)
{
// This is insane...
return (int)Math.Ceiling((decimal)((decimal)Math.Ceiling((int)Math.Ceiling((decimal)input * multiplier.Value) / multiplier.Value) * multiplier.Value));
}
else
return 0;
}

Represent the multiplier as a fraction in lowest terms. I don't know if .NET has a fractions class but if not you can probably find a C# implementation, or just write your own. So assume the multiplier is given by two integers a / b in lowest terms, with a ≠ 0 and b ≠ 0. That also means that conversion in the other direction is given by multiplying by b / a. In your example, a = 2 and b = 5, and a / b = 0.4.
Now suppose you want to convert an integer X. If you think about it a bit you'll see what you really want is to nudge X up until b divides X. The number you need to add to X is simply (b - (X%b)) % b. So to convert on one direction is just
return (a * (X + (b - (X % b) % b))) / b;
and to convert Y going in the other direction is just
return (b * (Y + (a - (X % a) % a))) / a;

My best idea of my head is to semi brute-force it. It does sound like it is basically Fraction Mathematics. So there might be a way easier solution for this.
First we need to find in what sort of "Batch" the multiplier becomes whole. That way, we can stop working with floats/doubles altogether. Ideally this should be supplied with the multiplier (as float math is messy).
double currentMultiple=multiplier;
int currentCount=0;
//This is the best check for "is an integer" could think off.
while(currentMultiple % 1 = 0){
//The Framework can detect Arithmetic Overflow. Let us turn that one on
//If we ever get there, likely the math is non-solveable
checked{
currentMultiple+= multiplier;
currentCount += 1;
}
}
//You get here either via exception or because you got a multiple that solves it.
//Store the value of currentCount into a variable "OurBatchSize"
//Also store the value of currentMultiple in "TheirBatchSize"
Getting the closest Multiple of OurBatchSize:
int requestedQuantity = 11; // Our units
int result = OurBatchSize;
int batchCount = 0;
while(temp < requestedQuantity){
result += OurBatchSize;
batchCount++
}
//result contains the answer here. Return it
//batchCount * TheirBatchSize will also tell you how much they get.
Edit: Credit for this goes mostly to James Reinstate Monica Polk. He had the math idea to use Modulo for this. Here is what I got with explanation:
int result;
int rest = requestedAmout % BatchSize;
if (rest != 0){
//Correct upwards to the next multiple
int DistanceToNextMultiple = BatchSize - Rest;
result = requestedAmout + DistanceToMultiple;
}
else{
//It already is right
result = requestedAmout;
}
For the BatchSize of 4, you will get:
13; 13%4=1; 4-1=3; 13+3=16;
14; 14%4=2; 4-2=2; 14+2=16;
15; 15%4=3; 4-3=1; 15+1=16;
16; 16%4=0; Else is used. 16 is already right.

How to round up a number having any decimal part superior to 0 [duplicate]

I want to ensure that a division of integers is always rounded up if necessary. Is there a better way than this? There is a lot of casting going on. :-)
(int)Math.Ceiling((double)myInt1 / myInt2)

UPDATE: This question was the subject of my blog in January 2013. Thanks for the great question!
Getting integer arithmetic correct is hard. As has been demonstrated amply thus far, the moment you try to do a "clever" trick, odds are good that you've made a mistake. And when a flaw is found, changing the code to fix the flaw without considering whether the fix breaks something else is not a good problem-solving technique. So far we've had I think five different incorrect integer arithmetic solutions to this completely not-particularly-difficult problem posted.
The right way to approach integer arithmetic problems -- that is, the way that increases the likelihood of getting the answer right the first time - is to approach the problem carefully, solve it one step at a time, and use good engineering principles in doing so.
Start by reading the specification for what you're trying to replace. The specification for integer division clearly states:
The division rounds the result towards zero
The result is zero or positive when the two operands have the same sign and zero or negative when the two operands have opposite signs
If the left operand is the smallest representable int and the right operand is –1, an overflow occurs. [...] it is implementation-defined as to whether [an ArithmeticException] is thrown or the overflow goes unreported with the resulting value being that of the left operand.
If the value of the right operand is zero, a System.DivideByZeroException is thrown.
What we want is an integer division function which computes the quotient but rounds the result always upwards, not always towards zero.
So write a specification for that function. Our function int DivRoundUp(int dividend, int divisor) must have behaviour defined for every possible input. That undefined behaviour is deeply worrying, so let's eliminate it. We'll say that our operation has this specification:
operation throws if divisor is zero
operation throws if dividend is int.minval and divisor is -1
if there is no remainder -- division is 'even' -- then the return value is the integral quotient
Otherwise it returns the smallest integer that is greater than the quotient, that is, it always rounds up.
Now we have a specification, so we know we can come up with a testable design. Suppose we add an additional design criterion that the problem be solved solely with integer arithmetic, rather than computing the quotient as a double, since the "double" solution has been explicitly rejected in the problem statement.
So what must we compute? Clearly, to meet our spec while remaining solely in integer arithmetic, we need to know three facts. First, what was the integer quotient? Second, was the division free of remainder? And third, if not, was the integer quotient computed by rounding up or down?
Now that we have a specification and a design, we can start writing code.
public static int DivRoundUp(int dividend, int divisor)
{
if (divisor == 0 ) throw ...
if (divisor == -1 && dividend == Int32.MinValue) throw ...
int roundedTowardsZeroQuotient = dividend / divisor;
bool dividedEvenly = (dividend % divisor) == 0;
if (dividedEvenly)
return roundedTowardsZeroQuotient;
// At this point we know that divisor was not zero
// (because we would have thrown) and we know that
// dividend was not zero (because there would have been no remainder)
// Therefore both are non-zero. Either they are of the same sign,
// or opposite signs. If they're of opposite sign then we rounded
// UP towards zero so we're done. If they're of the same sign then
// we rounded DOWN towards zero, so we need to add one.
bool wasRoundedDown = ((divisor > 0) == (dividend > 0));
if (wasRoundedDown)
return roundedTowardsZeroQuotient + 1;
else
return roundedTowardsZeroQuotient;
}
Is this clever? No. Beautiful? No. Short? No. Correct according to the specification? I believe so, but I have not fully tested it. It looks pretty good though.
We're professionals here; use good engineering practices. Research your tools, specify the desired behaviour, consider error cases first, and write the code to emphasize its obvious correctness. And when you find a bug, consider whether your algorithm is deeply flawed to begin with before you just randomly start swapping the directions of comparisons around and break stuff that already works.

All the answers here so far seem rather over-complicated.
In C# and Java, for positive dividend and divisor, you simply need to do:
( dividend + divisor - 1 ) / divisor
Source: Number Conversion, Roland Backhouse, 2001

The final int-based answer
For signed integers:
int div = a / b;
if (((a ^ b) >= 0) && (a % b != 0))
div++;
For unsigned integers:
int div = a / b;
if (a % b != 0)
div++;
The reasoning for this answer
Integer division '/' is defined to round towards zero (7.7.2 of the spec), but we want to round up. This means that negative answers are already rounded correctly, but positive answers need to be adjusted.
Non-zero positive answers are easy to detect, but answer zero is a little trickier, since that can be either the rounding up of a negative value or the rounding down of a positive one.
The safest bet is to detect when the answer should be positive by checking that the signs of both integers are identical. Integer xor operator '^' on the two values will result in a 0 sign-bit when this is the case, meaning a non-negative result, so the check (a ^ b) >= 0 determines that the result should have been positive before rounding. Also note that for unsigned integers, every answer is obviously positive, so this check can be omitted.
The only check remaining is then whether any rounding has occurred, for which a % b != 0 will do the job.
Lessons learned
Arithmetic (integer or otherwise) isn't nearly as simple as it seems. Thinking carefully required at all times.
Also, although my final answer is perhaps not as 'simple' or 'obvious' or perhaps even 'fast' as the floating point answers, it has one very strong redeeming quality for me; I have now reasoned through the answer, so I am actually certain it is correct (until someone smarter tells me otherwise -furtive glance in Eric's direction-).
To get the same feeling of certainty about the floating point answer, I'd have to do more (and possibly more complicated) thinking about whether there is any conditions under which the floating-point precision might get in the way, and whether Math.Ceiling perhaps does something undesirable on 'just the right' inputs.
The path travelled
Replace (note I replaced the second myInt1 with myInt2, assuming that was what you meant):
(int)Math.Ceiling((double)myInt1 / myInt2)
with:
(myInt1 - 1 + myInt2) / myInt2
The only caveat being that if myInt1 - 1 + myInt2 overflows the integer type you are using, you might not get what you expect.
Reason this is wrong: -1000000 and 3999 should give -250, this gives -249
EDIT:
Considering this has the same error as the other integer solution for negative myInt1 values, it might be easier to do something like:
int rem;
int div = Math.DivRem(myInt1, myInt2, out rem);
if (rem > 0)
div++;
That should give the correct result in div using only integer operations.
Reason this is wrong: -1 and -5 should give 1, this gives 0
EDIT (once more, with feeling):
The division operator rounds towards zero; for negative results this is exactly right, so only non-negative results need adjustment. Also considering that DivRem just does a / and a % anyway, let's skip the call (and start with the easy comparison to avoid modulo calculation when it is not needed):
int div = myInt1 / myInt2;
if ((div >= 0) && (myInt1 % myInt2 != 0))
div++;
Reason this is wrong: -1 and 5 should give 0, this gives 1
(In my own defence of the last attempt I should never have attempted a reasoned answer while my mind was telling me I was 2 hours late for sleep)

Perfect chance to use an extension method:
public static class Int32Methods
{
public static int DivideByAndRoundUp(this int number, int divideBy)
{
return (int)Math.Ceiling((float)number / (float)divideBy);
}
}
This makes your code uber readable too:
int result = myInt.DivideByAndRoundUp(4);

You could write a helper.
static int DivideRoundUp(int p1, int p2) {
return (int)Math.Ceiling((double)p1 / p2);
}

You could use something like the following.
a / b + ((Math.Sign(a) * Math.Sign(b) > 0) && (a % b != 0)) ? 1 : 0)

For signed or unsigned integers.
q = x / y + !(((x < 0) != (y < 0)) || !(x % y));
For signed dividends and unsigned divisors.
q = x / y + !((x < 0) || !(x % y));
For unsigned dividends and signed divisors.
q = x / y + !((y < 0) || !(x % y));
For unsigned integers.
q = x / y + !!(x % y);
Zero divisor fails (as with a native operation).
Cannot overflow.
Elegant and correct.
The key to understanding the behavior is to recognize the difference in truncated, floored and ceilinged division. C#/C++ is natively truncated. When the quotient is negative (i.e. the operators signs are different) then truncation is a ceiling (less negative). Otherwise truncation is a floor (less positive).
So, if there is a remainder, add 1 if the result is positive. Modulo is the same, but you instead add the divisor. Flooring is the same, but you subtract under the reversed conditions.

By round up, I take it you mean away form zero always. Without any castings, use the Math.DivRem() function
/// <summary>
/// Divide a/b but always round up
/// </summary>
/// <param name="a">The numerator.</param>
/// <param name="b">The denominator.</param>
int DivRndUp(int a, int b)
{
// remove sign
int s = Math.Sign(a) * Math.Sign(b);
a = Math.Abs(a);
b = Math.Abs(b);
var c = Math.DivRem(a, b, out int r);
// if remainder >0 round up
if (r > 0)
{
c++;
}
return s * c;
}
If roundup means always up regardless of sign, then
/// <summary>
/// Divide a/b but always round up
/// </summary>
/// <param name="a">The numerator.</param>
/// <param name="b">The denominator.</param>
int DivRndUp(int a, int b)
{
// remove sign
int s = Math.Sign(a) * Math.Sign(b);
a = Math.Abs(a);
b = Math.Abs(b);
var c = Math.DivRem(a, b, out int r);
// if remainder >0 round up
if (r > 0)
{
c+=s;
}
return s * c;
}

Some of the above answers use floats, this is inefficient and really not necessary. For unsigned ints this is an efficient answer for int1/int2:
(int1 == 0) ? 0 : (int1 - 1) / int2 + 1;
For signed ints this will not be correct

The problem with all the solutions here is either that they need a cast or they have a numerical problem. Casting to float or double is always an option, but we can do better.
When you use the code of the answer from #jerryjvl
int div = myInt1 / myInt2;
if ((div >= 0) && (myInt1 % myInt2 != 0))
div++;
there is a rounding error. 1 / 5 would round up, because 1 % 5 != 0. But this is wrong, because rounding will only occur if you replace the 1 with a 3, so the result is 0.6. We need to find a way to round up when the calculation give us a value greater than or equal to 0.5. The result of the modulo operator in the upper example has a range from 0 to myInt2-1. The rounding will only occur if the remainder is greater than 50% of the divisor. So the adjusted code looks like this:
int div = myInt1 / myInt2;
if (myInt1 % myInt2 >= myInt2 / 2)
div++;
Of course we have a rounding problem at myInt2 / 2 too, but this result will give you a better rounding solution than the other ones on this site.

C#, bits & bytes - How do I retrieve bit values from a byte?

I'm reading some values from a single byte. I'm told in the user-manual that this one byte contains 3 different values. There's a table that looks like this:
I interpret that has meaning precision takes up 3 bits, scale takes up 2 and size takes up 3 for a total of 8 (1 byte).
What I'm not clear on is:
1 - Why is it labeled 7 through 0 instead of 0 through 7 (something to do with significance maybe?)
2 - How do I extract the individual values out of that one byte?

It is customary to number bits in a byte according to their significance: bit x represents 2^x. According to this numbering scheme, the least significant bit gets number zero, the next bit is number one, and so on.
Getting individual bits requires a shift and a masking operation:
var size = (v >> 0) & 7;
var scale = (v >> 3) & 3;
var precision = (v >> 5) & 7;
Shift by the number of bits to the right of the rightmost portion that you need to get (shifting by zero is ignored; I added it for illustration purposes).
Mask with the highest number that fits in the number of bits that you would like to get: 1 for one bit, 3 for two bits, 7 for three bits, 2^x-1 for x bits.

You can do shifts and masks, or you can use the BitArray class: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.bitarray.aspx
Example with BitVector32:
BitVector32 bv = new BitVector32(0);
var size = BitVector32.CreateSection(7);
var scale = BitVector32.CreateSection(3, size);
var precision = BitVector32.CreateSection(7, scale);
bv[size] = 5;
bv[scale] = 2;
bv[precision] = 4;
LINQPad output:

Potayto, potahto.
You'd use shifts and masks to flatten out the undesired bits, like such:
byte b = something; // b is our byte
int size = b & 0x7;
int scale = (b >> 3) & 0x3;
int position = (b >> 5) & 0x7;

1. Yes, the most significant bit is usually written first. The left-most bit is labeled 7 because when the byte is interpreted as an integer, that bit has value 27 (= 128) when it is set.
This is completely natural and is in fact is exactly the same as how you write decimal numbers (most significant digit first). For example, the number 356 is (3 x 102) + (5 x 101) + (6 x 100).
2. For completion, as mentioned in other answers you can extract the individual values using the bit shift and bitwise-and operators as follows:
int size = x & 7;
int scale = (x >> 3) & 3;
int precision = (x >> 5) & 7;
Important note: this assumes that the individual values are to be interpreted as positive integers. If the values could be negative then this won't work correctly. Given the names of your variables, this is unlikely to be a problem here.

You can do this via bitwise arithmetic:
uint precision = (thatByte & 0xe0) >> 5,
scale = (thatByte & 0x18) >> 3,
size = thatByte & 7;

How to make my extended range floating point multiply more efficient?

I am doing a calculation which frequently involves values like 3.47493E+17298. This is way beyond what a double can handle, and I don't need extra precision, just extra range of exponents, so I created my own little struct in C#.
My struct uses a long for significand and sign, and an int for exponent, so I effectively have:
1 sign bit
32 exponent bits (regular 2's complement exponent)
63 significand bits
I am curious what steps could be made to make my multiplication routine more efficient. I am running an enormous number of multiplications of these extended range values, and it is pretty fast, but I was looking for hints as to making it faster.
My multiplication routine:
public static BigFloat Multiply(BigFloat left, BigFloat right)
{
long shsign1;
long shsign2;
if (left.significand == 0)
{
return bigZero;
}
if (right.significand == 0)
{
return bigZero;
}
shsign1 = left.significand;
shsign2 = right.significand;
// scaling down significand to prevent overflow multiply
// s1 and s2 indicate how much the left and right
// significands need shifting.
// The multLimit is a long constant indicating the
// max value I want either significand to be
int s1 = qshift(shsign1, multLimit);
int s2 = qshift(shsign2, multLimit);
shsign1 >>= s1;
shsign2 >>= s2;
BigFloat r;
r.significand = shsign1 * shsign2;
r.exponent = left.exponent + right.exponent + s1 + s2;
return r;
}
And the qshift:
It just finds out how much to shift the val to make it smaller in absolute value than the limit.
public static int qshift(long val, long limit)
{
long q = val;
long c = limit;
long nc = -limit;
int counter = 0;
while (q > c || q < nc)
{
q >>= 1;
counter++;
}
return counter;
}

Here is a completely different idea...
Use the hardware's floating-point machinery, but augment it with your own integer exponents. Put another way, make BigFloat.significand be a floating-point number instead of an integer.
Then you can use ldexp and frexp to keep the actual exponent on the float equal to zero. These should be single machine instructions.
So BigFloat multiply becomes:
r.significand = left.significand * right.significand
r.exponent = left.exponent + right.exponent
tmp = (actual exponent of r.significand from frexp)
r.exponent += tmp
(use ldexp to subtract tmp from actual exponent of r.significand)
Unfortunately,the last two steps require frexp and ldexp, which searches suggest are not available in C#. So you might have to write this bit in C.
...
Or, actually...
Use floating-point numbers for the significands, but just keep them normalized between 1 and 2. So again, use floats for the significands, and multiply like this:
r.significand = left.significand * right.significand;
r.exponent = left.exponent + right.exponent;
if (r.significand >= 2) {
r.significand /= 2;
r.exponent += 1;
}
assert (r.significand >= 1 && r.significand < 2); // for debugging...
This should work as long as you maintain the invariant mentioned in the assert(). (Because if x is between 1 and 2 and y is between 1 and 2 then x*y is between 1 and 4, so the normalization step is just has to check for when the significand product is between 2 and 4.)
You will also need to normalize the results of additions etc., but I suspect you are already doing that.
Although you will need to special-case zero after all :-).
[edit, to flesh out the frexp version]
BigFloat BigFloat::normalize(BigFloat b)
{
double temp = b.significand;
double tempexp = b.exponent;
double temp2, tempexp2;
temp2 = frexp(temp, &tempexp2);
// Need to test temp2 for infinity and NaN here
tempexp += tempexp2;
if (tempexp < MIN_EXP)
// underflow!
if (tempexp > MAX_EXP)
// overflow!
BigFloat r;
r.exponent = tempexp;
r.significand = temp2;
}
In other words, I would suggest factoring this out as a "normalize" routine, since presumably you want to use it following additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions.
And then there are all the corner cases to worry about...
You probably want to handle underflow by returning zero. Overflow depends on your tastes; should either be an error or +-infinity. Finally, if the result of frexp() is infinity or NaN, the value of tempexp2 is undefined, so you might want to check those cases, too.

I am not much of a C# programmer, but here are some general ideas.
First, are there any profiling tools for C#? If so, start with those...
The time is very likely being spent in your qshift() function; in particular, the loop. Mispredicted branches are nasty.
I would rewrite it as:
long q = abs(val);
int x = q/nc;
(find next power of 2 bigger than x)
For that last step, see this question and answer.
Then instead of shifting by qshift, just divide by this power of 2. (Does C# have "find first set" (aka. ffs)? If so, you can use it to get the shift count from the power of 2; it should be one instruction.)
Definitely inline this sequence if the compiler will not do it for you.
Also, I would ditch the special cases for zero, unless you are multiplying by zero a lot. Linear code good; conditionals bad.

If you're sure there won't be an overflow, you can use an unchecked block.
That will remove the overflow checks, and give you a bit more performance.

C# modulus operator

I can write the program
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
Console.WriteLine(a % b);
The answer I get is 3. How does 3 mod 4 = 3???
I can't figure out how this is getting computed this way.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect,
but I couldn't figure out how the
remainder was 3.
So you have 3 cookies, and you want to divide them equally between 4 people.
Because there are more people than cookies, nobody gets a cookie (quotient = 0) and you've got a remainder of 3 cookies for yourself. :)

Because the remainder of 3 / 4 = 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operator

3 mod 4 is the remainder when 3 is divided by 4.
In this case, 4 goes into 3 zero times with a remainder of 3.

I found the accepted answer confusing and misleading.
Modulus is NOT the same as modern division that returns a ratio of dividend and divisor. This is often expressed as a decimal quotient that includes the remainder in the quotient. That is what trips people up.
Modulus is just the remainder in division before its used in a decimal quotient.
Example: The division of two numbers is often expressed as a decimal number (quotient). But the result of the division of say, 1/3, can also be expressed in whole numbers as "0 with a remainder of 1". But that form of quotient is not very helpful in modern math, so a decimal value or the ratio of the two numbers is often what we see returned in modern calculators.
1 / 3 = .333333333......
But modulus does not work that way. It ignores the decimal quotient value or ratio returned from division, takes the quotient expression of "0 with a remainder of 1" in 1/3, and extracts the 1 or remainder that was returned from that division. It just strips out the remainder from the quotient and spits back the remainder of division before its converted to a decimal. Below is how modulus works...
1 % 3 = 1
As such, a better way of describing Modulus is to say it is what is left over as an integer (remainder) in the first number (dividend) after dividing the second number (divisor) into it as many times as possible.
1 % 1 = 0 because after dividing 1 into 1, one time, there's nothing left
2 % 1 = 0 because after dividing 1 into 2, two times, there's nothing left
1 % 2 = 1 because 2 won't go into 1, so 1 is left
These whole number remainders returned by modulus (modular math) are useful in software programs in extracting the day of a week, creating alternating sequences, finding if a number is even or odd, etc.

I already think that the user may have understood the answers. Because there are so many good programmer.. in simple wording % tells you the reminder after dividing with your own integer.
e.g.
int a = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
int b = a % 2;
Now your input 13, it will give 1, because after diving 13 by 2 remainder is 1 in simple mathematics. Hope you got that.

As explained by others, but if you don't want to use the "mod" operator. Here is the equation to figure out the remainder of "a" divided by "n"
a-(n* int(a/n))

Another "as explained by others", but if you're curious about several more ways to do modulus (or use an alternative method), you can read this article which benchmarks a few different ways.
Basically, the fastest way is the good old fashioned modulus operator, similar to:
if (x % threshold == some_value)
{
//do whatever you need to
}

Perhaps the C# implementation is self explanatory -
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int a = 3;
int b = 4;
Console.WriteLine(a % b);
Console.WriteLine(MOD(a,b));
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static int MOD(int a, int b)
{
int i, j, k;
i = a / b;
j = i * b;
k = a - j;
return k;
}