Search Results

Search found 266 results on 11 pages for 'multiplication'.

Page 3/11 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • NSDecimalNumber multiplication strangeness

    - by rein
    ExclusivePrice, quantity are both NSDecimalNumbers. NSDecimalNumber *price = [exclusivePrice decimalNumberByMultiplyingBy:quantity]; NSLog(@"%@ * %@ = %@", exclusivePrice, quantity, price); The result I get: 2010-04-05 00:22:29.111 TestApp[13269:207] 65 * 2 = -0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007169919476068871316457914368 What I expected: 2010-04-05 00:22:29.111 TestApp[13269:207] 65 * 2 = 130 Can anyone explain this please?

    Read the article

  • Matrix multiplication using Matrix Template library (MTL 4)

    - by Lxc
    The program is as following: #include <iostream> #include <boost/numeric/mtl/mtl.hpp> using namespace mtl; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { dense_vector<double> a(5,1.0); dense_vector<double> b(5,2.0); a * trans(b); } I want to calculate a * trans(b), but there is a compling error :C2893. Will someone help me? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • optimization math computation (multiplication and summing)

    - by wiso
    Suppose you want to compute the sum of the square of the differences of items: $\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} (x_i - x_{i+1})^2$, the simplest code (the input is std::vector<double> xs, the ouput sum2) is: double sum2 = 0.; double prev = xs[0]; for (vector::const_iterator i = xs.begin() + 1; i != xs.end(); ++i) { sum2 += (prev - (*i)) * (prev - (*i)); // only 1 - with compiler optimization prev = (*i); } I hope that the compiler do the optimization in the comment above. If N is the length of xs you have N-1 multiplications and 2N-3 sums (sums means + or -). Now suppose you know this variable: sum = $x_1^2 + x_N^2 + 2 sum_{i=2}^{N-1} x_i^2$ Expanding the binomial square: $sum_i^{N-1} (x_i-x_{i+1})^2 = sum - 2\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} x_i x_{i+1}$ so the code becomes: double sum2 = 0.; double prev = xs[0]; for (vector::const_iterator i = xs.begin() + 1; i != xs.end(); ++i) { sum2 += (*i) * prev; prev = (*i); } sum2 = -sum2 * 2. + sum; Here I have N multiplications and N-1 additions. In my case N is about 100. Well, compiling with g++ -O2 I got no speed up (I try calling the inlined function 2M times), why?

    Read the article

  • Doubling a number - shift left vs. multiplication

    - by ToxicAvenger
    What are the differences between int size = (int)((length * 200L) / 100L); // (1) and int size = length << 1; // (2) (length is int in both cases) I assume both code snippets want to double the length parameter. I'd be tempted to use (2) ... so are there any advantages for using (1)? I looked at the edge cases when overflow occurs, and both versions seem to have the same behavior. Please tell me what am I missing.

    Read the article

  • Can someone explain the (reasons for the) implications of colum vs row major in multiplication/concatenation?

    - by sebf
    I am trying to learn how to construct view and projection matrices, and keep reaching difficulties in my implementation owing to my confusion about the two standards for matrices. I know how to multiply a matrix, and I can see that transposing before multiplication would completely change the result, hence the need to multiply in a different order. What I don't understand though is whats meant by only 'notational convention' - from the articles here and here the authors appear to assert that it makes no difference to how the matrix is stored, or transferred to the GPU, but on the second page that matrix is clearly not equivalent to how it would be laid out in memory for row-major; and if I look at a populated matrix in my program I see the translation components occupying the 4th, 8th and 12th elements. Given that: "post-multiplying with column-major matrices produces the same result as pre-multiplying with row-major matrices. " Why in the following snippet of code: Matrix4 r = t3 * t2 * t1; Matrix4 r2 = t1.Transpose() * t2.Transpose() * t3.Transpose(); Does r != r2 and why does pos3 != pos for: Vector4 pos = wvpM * new Vector4(0f, 15f, 15f, 1); Vector4 pos3 = wvpM.Transpose() * new Vector4(0f, 15f, 15f, 1); Does the multiplication process change depending on whether the matrices are row or column major, or is it just the order (for an equivalent effect?) One thing that isn't helping this become any clearer, is that when provided to DirectX, my column major WVP matrix is used successfully to transform vertices with the HLSL call: mul(vector,matrix) which should result in the vector being treated as row-major, so how can the column major matrix provided by my math library work?

    Read the article

  • Multiplication for MVP matrices: Any benefits to doing so within the vertex shader?

    - by Nick Wiggill
    I'd like to understand under what circumstances (if any) it is worth doing MVP matrix multiplication inside a vertex shader. The vertex shader is run once per vertex, and a single mesh typically contains many vertices. All MVP inputs remain the same for each vertex in the vertex batch relating to a given draw call (model). Surely then, you're always better off keeping the multiplications in the client code, such that you pass in the whole MVP precalculated as a uniform? (avoiding redundant ops between individual vertices)

    Read the article

  • Have a trouble with the function roots

    - by user3707462
    Hey guys I have multiple problems with using function 'roots'. I Have to find zeros of 's^1000 + 1'. I made Y = zeros(1,1000) then manually changed the 1000th matrice to '1'. but then 'root' function does not work with it ! Another problem is that I am having trouble with matrix multiplication. The question is finding zeros(roots) of (s^6 + 6*s^5 + 15*s^4 + 20*s^3 + 15*s^2 + 6*s +1)*(s^6 + 6s^5 + 15*s^4 +15*s^2 +6*s +1) so i did: a = [1 6 15 20 15 6 1] b = [1 6 15 0 15 6 1] y = a.*b; roots(y) but this gives me -27.9355 + 0.0000i -8.2158 + 0.0000i 0.1544 + 0.9880i 0.1544 - 0.9880i -0.1217 + 0.0000i -0.0358 + 0.0000i where I calculate the original equation with wolfram then I have made matrix as : p = [1 12 66 200 375 492 524 492 375 200 66 12 1] roots(p) and this gives me : -3.1629 + 2.5046i -3.1629 - 2.5046i 0.3572 + 0.9340i 0.3572 - 0.9340i -1.0051 + 0.0000i -1.0025 + 0.0044i -1.0025 - 0.0044i -0.9975 + 0.0044i -0.9975 - 0.0044i -0.9949 + 0.0000i -0.1943 + 0.1539i -0.1943 - 0.1539i and I think the second solution is right (that is what wolfram alpha gave me) How would you answer these two questions through matlab guys?

    Read the article

  • Getting the MODELVIEW matrix...

    - by james.ingham
    Hi, I've been pulling my hair out trying to get some matrix calculations working properly and started to wonder. If I have the following: glPushMatrix(); float m[16]; glGetFloatv(GL_MODELVIEW_MATRIX, m); glPopMatrix(); What should I expect the values of m to equal? Currently I'm getting these values and I'm confused as to where they're coming from: -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, -0.6139, 0.7893522, 0, 0, 0.789352238, 0.61394, 0, 0, 0.0955992, -1.344529, 1, I'm assuming there is something which affects this, but I'm not sure what. Could anyone help? I've tried changing pretty much anything but everytime I push the matrix stack I always get this matrix straight away! I don't think this makes a difference but I'm using OpenGLES. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Why does multiplying a double by -1 not give the negative of the current answer

    - by Ankur
    I am trying to multiply a double value by -1 to get the negative value. It continues to give me a positive value double man = Double.parseDouble(mantissa); double exp; if(sign.equals("plus")){ exp = Double.parseDouble(exponent); } else { exp = Double.parseDouble(exponent); exp = exp*-1; } System.out.println(man+" - "+sign+" - "+exp); The printed result is 13.93 - minus - 2.0 which is correct except that 2.0 should be -2.0

    Read the article

  • Faster method for Matrix vector product for large matrix in C or C++ for use in GMRES

    - by user35959
    I have a large, dense matrix A, and I aim to find the solution to the linear system Ax=b using an iterative method (in MATLAB was the plan using its built in GMRES). For more than 10,000 rows, this is too much for my computer to store in memory, but I know that the entries in A are constructed by two known vectors x and y of length N and the entries satisfy: A(i,j) = .5*(x[i]-x[j])^2+([y[i]-y[j])^2 * log(x[i]-x[j])^2+([y[i]-y[j]^2). MATLAB's GMRES command accepts as input a function call that can compute the matrix vector product A*x, which allows me to handle larger matrices than I can store in memory. To write the matrix-vecotr product function, I first tried this in matlab by going row by row and using some vectorization, but I avoid spawning the entire array A (since it would be too large). This was fairly slow unfortnately in my application for GMRES. My plan was to write a mex file for MATLAB to, which is in C, and ideally should be significantly faster than the matlab code. I'm rather new to C, so this went rather poorly and my naive attempt at writing the code in C was slower than my partially vectorized attempt in Matlab. #include <math.h> #include "mex.h" void Aproduct(double *x, double *ctrs_x, double *ctrs_y, double *b, mwSize n) { mwSize i; mwSize j; double val; for (i=0; i<n; i++) { for (j=0; j<i; j++) { val = pow(ctrs_x[i]-ctrs_x[j],2)+pow(ctrs_y[i]-ctrs_y[j],2); b[i] = b[i] + .5* val * log(val) * x[j]; } for (j=i+1; j<n; j++) { val = pow(ctrs_x[i]-ctrs_x[j],2)+pow(ctrs_y[i]-ctrs_y[j],2); b[i] = b[i] + .5* val * log(val) * x[j]; } } } The above is the computational portion of the code for the matlab mex file (which is slightly modified C, if I understand correctly). Please note that I skip the case i=j, since in that case the variable val will be a 0*log(0), which should be interpreted as 0 for me, so I just skip it. Is there a more efficient or faster way to write this? When I call this C function via the mex file in matlab, it is quite slow, slower even than the matlab method I used. This surprises me since I suspected that C code should be much faster than matlab. The alternative matlab method which is partially vectorized that I am comparing it with is function Ax = Aprod(x,ctrs) n = length(x); Ax = zeros(n,1); for j=1:(n-3) v = .5*((ctrs(j,1)-ctrs(:,1)).^2+(ctrs(j,2)-ctrs(:,2)).^2).*log((ctrs(j,1)-ctrs(:,1)).^2+(ctrs(j,2)-ctrs(:,2)).^2); v(j)=0; Ax(j) = dot(v,x(1:n-3); end (the n-3 is because there is actually 3 extra components, but they are dealt with separately,so I excluded that code). This is partly vectorized and only needs one for loop, so it makes some sense that it is faster. However, I was hoping I could go even faster with C+mex file. Any suggestions or help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! EDIT: I should be more clear. I am open to any faster method that can help me use GMRES to invert this matrix that I am interested in, which requires a faster way of doing the matrix vector product without explicitly loading the array into memory. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Modifying multiplying calculation to use delta time

    - by Bart van Heukelom
    function(deltaTime) { x = x * 0.9; } This function is called in a game loop. First assume that it's running at a constant 30 FPS, so deltaTime is always 1/30. Now the game is changed so deltaTime isn't always 1/30 but becomes variable. How can I incorporate deltaTime in the calculation of x to keep the "effect per second" the same?

    Read the article

  • Matrix Multiplication with Threads: Why is it not faster?

    - by prelic
    Hey all, So I've been playing around with pthreads, specifically trying to calculate the product of two matrices. My code is extremely messy because it was just supposed to be a quick little fun project for myself, but the thread theory I used was very similar to: #include <pthread.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #define M 3 #define K 2 #define N 3 #define NUM_THREADS 10 int A [M][K] = { {1,4}, {2,5}, {3,6} }; int B [K][N] = { {8,7,6}, {5,4,3} }; int C [M][N]; struct v { int i; /* row */ int j; /* column */ }; void *runner(void *param); /* the thread */ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i,j, count = 0; for(i = 0; i < M; i++) { for(j = 0; j < N; j++) { //Assign a row and column for each thread struct v *data = (struct v *) malloc(sizeof(struct v)); data->i = i; data->j = j; /* Now create the thread passing it data as a parameter */ pthread_t tid; //Thread ID pthread_attr_t attr; //Set of thread attributes //Get the default attributes pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Create the thread pthread_create(&tid,&attr,runner,data); //Make sure the parent waits for all thread to complete pthread_join(tid, NULL); count++; } } //Print out the resulting matrix for(i = 0; i < M; i++) { for(j = 0; j < N; j++) { printf("%d ", C[i][j]); } printf("\n"); } } //The thread will begin control in this function void *runner(void *param) { struct v *data = param; // the structure that holds our data int n, sum = 0; //the counter and sum //Row multiplied by column for(n = 0; n< K; n++){ sum += A[data->i][n] * B[n][data->j]; } //assign the sum to its coordinate C[data->i][data->j] = sum; //Exit the thread pthread_exit(0); } source: http://macboypro.com/blog/2009/06/29/matrix-multiplication-in-c-using-pthreads-on-linux/ For the non-threaded version, I used the same setup (3 2-d matrices, dynamically allocated structs to hold r/c), and added a timer. First trials indicated that the non-threaded version was faster. My first thought was that the dimensions were too small to notice a difference, and it was taking longer to create the threads. So I upped the dimensions to about 50x50, randomly filled, and ran it, and I'm still not seeing any performance upgrade with the threaded version. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Why does division yield a vastly different result than multiplication by a fraction in floating points.

    - by Avram
    I understand why floating point numbers can't be compared, and know about the mantissa and exponent binary representation, but I'm no expert and today I came across something I don't get: Namely lets say you have something like: float denominator, numerator, resultone, resulttwo; resultone = numerator / denominator; float buff = 1 / denominator; resulttwo = numerator * buff; To my knowledge different flops can yield different results and this is not unusual. But in some edge cases these two results seem to be vastly different. To be more specific in my GLSL code calculating the Beckmann facet slope distribution for the Cook-Torrance lighitng model: float a = 1 / (facetSlopeRMS * facetSlopeRMS * pow(clampedCosHalfNormal, 4)); float b = clampedCosHalfNormal * clampedCosHalfNormal - 1.0; float c = facetSlopeRMS * facetSlopeRMS * clampedCosHalfNormal * clampedCosHalfNormal; facetSlopeDistribution = a * exp(b/c); yields very very different results to float a = (facetSlopeRMS * facetSlopeRMS * pow(clampedCosHalfNormal, 4)); facetDlopeDistribution = exp(b/c) / a; Why does it? The second form of the expression is problematic. If I say try to add the second form of the expression to a color I get blacks, even though the expression should always evaluate to a positive number. Am I getting an infinity? A NaN? if so why?

    Read the article

  • is it incorrect to define an hashcode of an object as the sum, multiplication, whatever, of all clas

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I have the following class: class ABC { private int myInt = 1; private double myDouble = 2; private String myString = "123"; private SomeRandomClass1 myRandomClass1 = new ... private SomeRandomClass2 myRandomClass2 = new ... //pseudo code public int myHashCode() { return 37 * myInt.hashcode() * myDouble.hashCode() * ... * myRandomClass.hashcode() } } Would this be a correct implementation of hashCode? This is not how I usually do it(I tend to follow Effective Java's guide-lines) but I always have the temptation to just do something like the above code. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Multiply without multiplication, division and bitwise operators, and no loops. Recursion

    - by lxx22
    public class MultiplyViaRecursion{ public static void main(String[] args){ System.out.println("8 * 9 == " + multiply(8, 9)); System.out.println("6 * 0 == " + multiply(6, 0)); System.out.println("0 * 6 == " + multiply(0, 6)); System.out.println("7 * -6 == " + multiply(7, -6)); } public static int multiply(int x, int y){ int result = 0; if(y > 0) return result = (x + multiply(x, (y-1))); if(y == 0) return result; if(y < 0) return result = -multiply(x, -y); return result; } } My question is very simple and basic, why after each "if" the "return" still cannot pass the compilation, error shows missing return.

    Read the article

  • C# Algorithms for * Operator

    - by Harsha
    I was reading up on Algorithms and came across the Karatsuba multiplication algorithm and a little wiki-ing led to the Schonhage-Strassen and Furer algorithms for multiplication. I was wondering what algorithms are used on the * operator in C#? While multiplying a pair of integers or doubles, does it use a combination of algorithms with some kind of strategy based on the size of the numbers? How could I find out the implementation details for C#?

    Read the article

  • Would it be a good idea to work on letting people add arrays of numbers in javascript?

    - by OneThreeSeven
    I am a very mathematically oriented programmer, and I happen to be doing a lot of java script these days. I am really disappointed in the math aspects of javascript: the Math object is almost a joke because it has so few methods you can't use ^ for exponentiation the + operator is very limited, you cant add array's of numbers or do scalar multiplication on arrays Now I have written some pretty basic extensions to the Math object and have considered writing a library of advanced Math features, amazingly there doesn't seem to be any sort of standard library already out even for calculus, although there is one for vectors and matricies I was able find. The notation for working with vectors and matricies is really bad when you can't use the + operator on arrays, and you cant do scalar multiplication. For example, here is a hideous expression for subtracting two vectors, A - B: Math.vectorAddition(A,Math.scalarMultiplication(-1,B)); I have been looking for some kind of open-source project to contribute to for awhile, and even though my C++ is a bit rusty I would very much like to get into the code for V8 engine and extend the + operator to work on arrays, to get scalar multiplication to work, and possibly to get the ^ operator to work for exponentiation. These things would greatly enhance the utility of any mathematical javascript framework. I really don't know how to get involved in something like the V8 engine other than download the code and start working on it. Of course I'm afraid that since V8 is chrome specific, that without browser cross-compatibility a fundamental change of this type is likely to be rejected for V8. I was hoping someone could either tell me why this is a bad idea, or else give me some pointers about how to proceed at this point to get some kind of approval to add these features. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • "Test to measure your ability to follow directions and solve complex problems in a neat and orderly manner." [closed]

    - by Matt
    Use the table of symbol substitutions when answering the problem below: Circle = 0 Dot = 1 Line = 2 Triangle = 3 Square = 4 Pentagon = 5 Hexagon = 6 Cross = 7 Heart = 8 Smiley Face = 9 Use the following special rule when answering the problem below: If ever a square is next to a cross during long multiplication, the square shall be treated as a triangle. Problem: Show your work in doing long multiplication of Pentagon Pentagon Nonagon by Line Square Octagon. Show your work using symbols not numbers.

    Read the article

  • Mpi function define

    - by Simone
    I wrote a program in c using MPI (Message Passing Inteface) that compute recursively the inverse of a lower triangular matrix. Every cpu sends 2 submatrices to other two cpus, they compute them and they give them back to the cpu caller. When the cpu caller has its submatrices it has to perform a matrix multiplication. In the recurrence equation the bottle neck is matrix multiplication. I implemented parallel multiplication with mpi in c but i'm not able to embed it into a function. Is it possible? thanks, Simone

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >