Develop Reference

Geometric Progression using Recursion (Java)

I have an assignment for class where I need to write a method which calculates a Geometric progression for n integers using recursion.
The value of n is received from the user.
public static float Geometric(float n)
{
if(n==0)
return 1;
else
{
if(n == 1)
System.out.println(n);
else
return (n * Geometric(n-1));
}
}
The code works fine, until the value of n exceeds 34. Then, the method starts returning wrong answers. I'm assuming it has to do with the maximum value that a float can hold.
Is there a way to calculate/store values that exceed the maximum value of the primitive data types?
It seems to me that recursion isn't a good way to calculate a geometric progression, but maybe I'm just missing something. Any suggestions?
Thanks!

Welcome to StackOverflow!
For dealing with massive numbers, you can try looking at BigDecimal or BigInteger class. There is also another StackOverflow question (Finding the factorial using recursion with the BigInteger Class) that should be quite similar to your case

How can I reduce iterations in for loop that takes to much time for execution?

Here, I am finding number of perfect square numbers in given range.
But I am dealing with 'for' loop execution that takes much time for execution.
The index/key traverses from two numbers, lets say A to B, and does some operation in for loop.
The problem arises when there's large difference between A and B (e.g. A = 2 & B = 100000)
Can u suggest how can I reduce or optimize the execution time?
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
int A = in.nextInt();
int B = in.nextInt();
int cnt = 0;
for(int number =A ; number<= B; number++){
int sqrt = (int) Math.sqrt(number);
if(sqrt*sqrt == number) {
cnt++;
}
}
System.out.println(cnt);
Or is it because of Math class operations that takes too much time to execute?
Can you suggest any alternate approach to find the square numbers between given range?
Thanks in advance!

I found an alternate way to find the count of perfect square numbers between given range.
This can be simply achieve by using Math.floor and Math.ceil operations.
Math.floor(Math.sqrt(B)) - Math.ceil(Math.sqrt(A)) + 1
Thanks! :)

Instead of going through each number in the range and figuring out if its a perfect square, I would suggest the below
Find a square root of the start number and find the integer part of it.
Lets say start number is 5. So integer part of the square root will be 2.
Now do the same for the range end number
Lets say end range was 1000, so the integer part of its square root would be 31. Now iterate from 2+1 to 31 and keep printing its square. That would give you the perfect squares between the given range.

Instead of the if(sqrt * sqrt == number) you could also check whether the double returned by Math.srt(number) is a integer. The algorithm would than become as follows:
for(int number =A ; number<= B; number++){
if((Math.sqrt(number) % 1) == 0) {
cnt++;
}
}
Note: Haven't tried the code myself so might not work as I expect.
Regarding the question on how you can improve the performance. The checking on whether the number is perfect could be done in parallel by executing per number a task. The access to the counter has to be synchronized than, (to be on the safe side).

Java, even number of even digits, odd number of odd digits

This program is essentially a game where the user must enter numbers to see which numbers are good: numbers with an even number of even digits, and an odd number of odd digits.
So first of all, the program ends when I enter a one digit number, which is not intentional. I assume that has something to do with the while being while (n > 0). There also is likely an issue with the if (numEven % 2 == 0......) because the print results seem almost random, with a number being good and the same number not being good sometimes.
Honestly, I am lost at this point. Thank you so much in advance for any help.
UPDATE: This code is working how I want it to, I just wanted to thank everybody who helped out! It's my first semester of computer science class, so I'm still rather new at this...excuse my mistakes that were likely pretty stupid :)
package quackygame;
import java.util.Scanner;
public class QuackyGame
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println("Welcome to the Number Game!"
+ " Try to figure out the pattern "
+ "in the numbers that Wallace likes!");
Scanner scan = new Scanner (System.in);
int n;
int numEven = 0;
int numOdd = 0;
boolean isEven;
do
{
System.out.print("Enter a number > 0: ");
n = scan.nextInt();
while (n > 0)
{
if (n % 2 == 0)
{
//n is even
isEven = true;
numEven++;
}
else
{
//n is odd
isEven = false;
numOdd++;
}
n /= 10;
}
//if numEven is even and numOdd is odd
if (numEven % 2 == 0 && numOdd % 2 == 1)
System.out.println("Wallace liked your number!");
else
{
System.out.println("Wallace didn't like your number.");
}
numEven = 0;
numOdd = 0;
}
while (n >= 0);
}
}

There are a few core issues in the code based on the desired results that you described. The most glaring issue I see is that you intend for the game to essentially "start from scratch" at the beginning of each round, but you never actually reset the numEven and numOdd variables. This is the source of your print results seeming random. For example, if you started a game and input the number:
34567
The game would process the number and say that it is a favorable number because it is odd, has an odd number of odd digits (3), and has an even number of even digits (2). However, upon playing the game again, it would execute the same code without setting the variables back to 0, which means that upon entering:
34567
The game would process this number as a bad number because the accumulated value of odd digits would be 6 instead of 3 (since 3 the first time + 3 the second time results in 6), and 6 is even. So what we want to do is this:
...
int n;
do
{
int numEven = 0;
int numOdd = 0;
System.out.print("Enter a number: ");
n = scan.nextInt();
...
By placing the numEven and numOdd declarations inside of the "do" block, they are local variables which only exist for the duration of the do block. We could also do something as simple as this:
...
else
{
System.out.println("Wallace didn't like your number.");
}
numEven = 0;
numOdd = 0;
}
while (n > 0);
...
Just resetting the values will help us to keep track of the actual intended values of numOdd and numEven more consistently.
With regard to the program closing when you input a single digit number, I'm not sure. That doesn't make sense because since it is a do-while loop it should at least execute once, and issue one of the print statements. I'm loading this code into my IDE right now to give it a run through. I'll update my answer if I find something.
-EDIT-: Upon reading your question again, it seems that you may not be suggesting that the program closes before actually completing any of its functions, but simply that it closes at all. The reason for the closing of the program is that you are performing an integer division arithmetic function where you probably want to be using a different type of number. Let me explain:
In normal human counting, we have our natural set of numbers which have no decimal points. They usually start like this:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ...
Then we have a separate set of numbers for math where we operate with more precision:
0.5, 1.4232, 3.142 ...
When we are talking about numbers with normal human language, we assume that dividing 1 by 2 results in 0.5. However, computers do not implicitly know this. In order for a computer to reach the conclusion "0.5" from the division of 1 by 2, you need to explicitly tell it that it should use a certain type of number to produce that output.
The "normal" numbers I referenced earlier are most loosely related to the integer in programming. It's basically a number without a decimal point. What that means is that whenever you divide two integers together, you always get another integer as the result. So if you were to divide 1 by 2, the computer would not interpret the result as 0.5 because that number has a decimal. Instead, it would round it down to the nearest integer, which in this case is 0.
So for a more specific example referencing the actual question at hand, let's say we input the number 5 into our program. It goes through all of the calculations for odds and evens, but eventually gets to this line:
n /= 10
This is where things get funky. We are dividing two integers, but their result does not come out as a perfect integer. In this case, the result of 5 / 10 is again 0.5. But for the computer, since we are dividing two integers, the result 0.5 just won't do, so after rounding down to the nearest integer we get 0. At this point, there is one fatal mistake:
(while n > 0);
When we perform this check, we get false and the while loop ends. Why? Because after performing n /= 10, n becomes 0. And 0 is not greater than 0.
How can we fix this? The best thing to do is probably just use a floating point number to perform the calculations. In Java, this is pretty easy. All we really have to do is:
n /= 10.0
When Java sees that we are dividing by 10.0, which is not an integer, it automatically converts "n" to a floating point number to divide by 10.0. In this case then, if n is 5, our result in dividing 5 by 10.0 will be 0.5. Then, when we run:
(while n > 0);
This becomes true! And the loop does not break.
I am going to put all of these changes into my IDE just to confirm that everything is working as intended for me. I would suggest you give it a try too to see if it fixes your problems.
Hope this helps.

You are increasing numEven or numOdd count each time you input a number, and then you use if (numEven % 2 == 0 && numOdd % 2 == 1) , it is random because if you put number 33 for the first time => numOdd = 1; => true => "Wallace likes" , but next time you put 33 for the second time => numOdd = 2; => false => "Wallace doesnt like".
Edit* Maybe you wanted something like this?
public static void main(String[] args)
{
System.out.println("Welcome to the Number Game!"
+ " Try to figure out the pattern "
+ "in the numbers that Wallace likes!");
Scanner scan = new Scanner (System.in);
int n;
boolean isEven;
do
{
System.out.print("Enter a number: ");
n = scan.nextInt();
//if 0, you leave the loop
if(n==0) {
System.out.println("You pressed 0, have a nice day");
break;
}
if (n % 2 == 0)
{
//it is even
isEven = true;
}
else
{
//it is not even
isEven = false;
}
//if even then he likes it, otherwise he does not
if (isEven)
System.out.println("Wallace liked your number!");
else
{
System.out.println("Wallace didn't like your number.");
}
}
//put any contition here, lets say if you press 0 , you leave the loop
while (n != 0);
}

How can I accurately determine if a double is an integer? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How to test if a double is an integer
(18 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Specifically in Java, how can I determine if a double is an integer? To clarify, I want to know how I can determine that the double does not in fact contain any fractions or decimals.
I am concerned essentially with the nature of floating-point numbers. The methods I thought of (and the ones I found via Google) follow basically this format:
double d = 1.0;
if((int)d == d) {
//do stuff
}
else {
// ...
}
I'm certainly no expert on floating-point numbers and how they behave, but I am under the impression that because the double stores only an approximation of the number, the if() conditional will only enter some of the time (perhaps even a majority of the time). But I am looking for a method which is guaranteed to work 100% of the time, regardless of how the double value is stored in the system.
Is this possible? If so, how and why?

double can store an exact representation of certain values, such as small integers and (negative or positive) powers of two.
If it does indeed store an exact integer, then ((int)d == d) works fine. And indeed, for any 32-bit integer i, (int)((double)i) == i since a double can exactly represent it.
Note that for very large numbers (greater than about 2**52 in magnitude), a double will always appear to be an integer, as it will no longer be able to store any fractional part. This has implications if you are trying to cast to a Java long, for instance.

How about
if(d % 1 == 0)
This works because all integers are 0 modulo 1.
Edit To all those who object to this on the grounds of it being slow, I profiled it, and found it to be about 3.5 times slower than casting. Unless this is in a tight loop, I'd say this is a preferable way of working it out, because it's extremely clear what you're testing, and doesn't require any though about the semantics of integer casting.
I profiled it by running time on javac of
class modulo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
long successes = 0;
for(double i = 0.0; i < Integer.MAX_VALUE; i+= 0.125) {
if(i % 1 == 0)
successes++;
}
System.out.println(successes);
}
}
VS
class cast {
public static void main(String[] args) {
long successes = 0;
for(double i = 0.0; i < Integer.MAX_VALUE; i+= 0.125) {
if((int)i == i)
successes++;
}
System.out.println(successes);
}
}
Both printed 2147483647 at the end.
Modulo took 189.99s on my machine - Cast took 54.75s.

if(new BigDecimal(d).scale() <= 0) {
//do stuff
}

Your method of using if((int)d == d) should always work for any 32-bit integer. To make it work up to 64 bits, you can use if((long)d == d, which is effectively the same except that it accounts for larger magnitude numbers. If d is greater than the maximum long value (or less than the minimum), then it is guaranteed to be an exact integer. A function that tests whether d is an integer can then be constructed as follows:
boolean isInteger(double d){
if(d > Long.MAX_VALUE || d < Long.MIN_VALUE){
return true;
} else if((long)d == d){
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
If a floating point number is an integer, then it is an exact representation of that integer.

Doubles are a binary fraction with a binary exponent. You cannot be certain that an integer can be exactly represented as a double, especially not if it has been calculated from other values.
Hence the normal way to approach this is to say that it needs to be "sufficiently close" to an integer value, where sufficiently close typically mean "within X %" (where X is rather small).
I.e. if X is 1 then 1.98 and 2.02 would both be considered to be close enough to be 2. If X is 0.01 then it needs to be between 1.9998 and 2.0002 to be close enough.

Checking if value of int[] can be long

I have an array of ints ie. [1,2,3,4,5] . Each row corresponds to decimal value, so 5 is 1's, 4 is 10's, 3 is 100's which gives value of 12345 that I calculate and store as long.
This is the function :
public long valueOf(int[]x) {
int multiplier = 1;
value = 0;
for (int i=x.length-1; i >=0; i--) {
value += x[i]*multiplier;
multiplier *= 10;
}
return value;
}
Now I would like to check if value of other int[] does not exceed long before I will calculate its value with valueOf(). How to check it ?
Should I use table.length or maybe convert it to String and send to
public Long(String s) ?
Or maybe just add exception to throw in the valueOf() function ?

I hope you know that this is a horrible way to store large integers: just use BigInteger.
But if you really want to check for exceeding some value, just make sure the length of the array is less than or equal to 19. Then you could compare each cell individually with the value in Long.MAX_VALUE. Or you could just use BigInteger.

Short answer: All longs fit in 18 digits. So if you know that there are no leading zeros, then just check x.length<=18. If you might have leading zeros, you'll have to loop through the array to count how many and adjust accordingly.
A flaw to this is that some 19-digit numbers are valid longs, namely those less than, I believe it comes to, 9223372036854775807. So if you wanted to be truly precise, you'd have to say length>19 is bad, length<19 is good, length==19 you'd have to check digit-by-digit. Depending on what you're up to, rejecting a subset of numbers that would really work might be acceptable.
As others have implied, the bigger question is: Why are you doing this? If this is some sort of data conversion where you're getting numbers as a string of digits from some external source and need to convert this to a long, cool. If you're trying to create a class to handle numbers bigger than will fit in a long, what you're doing is both inefficient and unnecessary. Inefficient because you could pack much more than one decimal digit into an int, and doing so would give all sorts of storage and performance improvements. Unnecessary because BigInteger already does this. Why not just use BigInteger?
Of course if it's a homework problem, that's a different story.

Are you guaranteed that every value of x will be nonnegative?
If so, you could do this:
public long valueOf(int[]x) {
int multiplier = 1;
long value = 0; // Note that you need the type here, which you did not have
for (int i=x.length-1; i >=0; i--) {
next_val = x[i]*multiplier;
if (Long.MAX_LONG - next_val < value) {
// Error-handling code here, however you
// want to handle this case.
} else {
value += next_val
}
multiplier *= 10;
}
return value;
}
Of course, BigInteger would make this much simpler. But I don't know what your problem specs are.