Efficient Round edition with different rounding direction
1
$begingroup$
As pointed out in this post, Mathematica has a special version of Round that
Round rounds numbers of the form x.5 toward the nearest even integer.
A comment by David G suggest that why not have differnt options Direction → {"HalfDown","HalfUp","HalfEven","HalfOdd","Stochastic"}
These days I need a version of Round to HalfUp. I write a quite ugly and slow function as below
myRound[x_, d_] := Module[{},
c1 = (1./d)*10;
c2 = 1./d;
theDigit = Last@IntegerDigits@IntegerPart[x*c1];
If[theDigit >= 5,
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2] + 1)/c2],
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2])/c2]]]
speed test
In[267]:=
myRound[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[267]= {30.7072, Null}
In[268]:=
Round[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[268]= {0.285921, Null}
So I am wondering if someone on this site already have developed an efficient toolkit for round matters?
machine-precision precision-and-accuracy round
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
$endgroup$
|
show 3 more comments
1
$begingroup$
As pointed out in this post, Mathematica has a special version of Round that
Round rounds numbers of the form x.5 toward the nearest even integer.
A comment by David G suggest that why not have differnt options Direction → {"HalfDown","HalfUp","HalfEven","HalfOdd","Stochastic"}
These days I need a version of Round to HalfUp. I write a quite ugly and slow function as below
myRound[x_, d_] := Module[{},
c1 = (1./d)*10;
c2 = 1./d;
theDigit = Last@IntegerDigits@IntegerPart[x*c1];
If[theDigit >= 5,
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2] + 1)/c2],
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2])/c2]]]
speed test
In[267]:=
myRound[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[267]= {30.7072, Null}
In[268]:=
Round[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[268]= {0.285921, Null}
So I am wondering if someone on this site already have developed an efficient toolkit for round matters?
machine-precision precision-and-accuracy round
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
2
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
1
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
1
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead domyRound[8.121,1/100]and numericize afterward.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36
|
show 3 more comments
1
1
1
$begingroup$
As pointed out in this post, Mathematica has a special version of Round that
Round rounds numbers of the form x.5 toward the nearest even integer.
A comment by David G suggest that why not have differnt options Direction → {"HalfDown","HalfUp","HalfEven","HalfOdd","Stochastic"}
These days I need a version of Round to HalfUp. I write a quite ugly and slow function as below
myRound[x_, d_] := Module[{},
c1 = (1./d)*10;
c2 = 1./d;
theDigit = Last@IntegerDigits@IntegerPart[x*c1];
If[theDigit >= 5,
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2] + 1)/c2],
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2])/c2]]]
speed test
In[267]:=
myRound[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[267]= {30.7072, Null}
In[268]:=
Round[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[268]= {0.285921, Null}
So I am wondering if someone on this site already have developed an efficient toolkit for round matters?
machine-precision precision-and-accuracy round
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
$endgroup$
As pointed out in this post, Mathematica has a special version of Round that
Round rounds numbers of the form x.5 toward the nearest even integer.
A comment by David G suggest that why not have differnt options Direction → {"HalfDown","HalfUp","HalfEven","HalfOdd","Stochastic"}
These days I need a version of Round to HalfUp. I write a quite ugly and slow function as below
myRound[x_, d_] := Module[{},
c1 = (1./d)*10;
c2 = 1./d;
theDigit = Last@IntegerDigits@IntegerPart[x*c1];
If[theDigit >= 5,
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2] + 1)/c2],
Internal`StringToDouble@ToString@N[(IntegerPart[x*c2])/c2]]]
speed test
In[267]:=
myRound[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[267]= {30.7072, Null}
In[268]:=
Round[#, 0.01] & /@ RandomReal[1., 1000000]; // AbsoluteTiming
Out[268]= {0.285921, Null}
So I am wondering if someone on this site already have developed an efficient toolkit for round matters?
machine-precision precision-and-accuracy round
machine-precision precision-and-accuracy round
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
edited Mar 17 at 11:59
matheorem
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
asked Mar 17 at 11:54
matheoremmatheorem
6,65743178
6,65743178
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
2
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
1
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
1
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead domyRound[8.121,1/100]and numericize afterward.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?
$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
2
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
1
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
1
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead domyRound[8.121,1/100]and numericize afterward.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
2
2
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
1
1
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:
myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:
myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
1
1
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead do
myRound[8.121,1/100] and numericize afterward.$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead do
myRound[8.121,1/100] and numericize afterward.$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
3
$begingroup$
I offer the following solution
r2[x_, a_] := x - Mod[x, a, -(a/2)]
We can verify that it has the desired result, using PiecewiseExpand
PiecewiseExpand[r2[x, a], -2 a < x < 2 a && a > 0]
Performance is only a little slower than the built-in Round
list = RandomReal[{0, 1}, 1000000];
AbsoluteTiming[Round[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.0079, Null} *)
AbsoluteTiming[r2[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.009414, Null} *)
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we useInternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,1.265in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction5697053528623677/4503599627370496which less than1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem withr2.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
|
show 10 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193412%2fefficient-round-edition-with-different-rounding-direction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
3
$begingroup$
I offer the following solution
r2[x_, a_] := x - Mod[x, a, -(a/2)]
We can verify that it has the desired result, using PiecewiseExpand
PiecewiseExpand[r2[x, a], -2 a < x < 2 a && a > 0]
Performance is only a little slower than the built-in Round
list = RandomReal[{0, 1}, 1000000];
AbsoluteTiming[Round[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.0079, Null} *)
AbsoluteTiming[r2[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.009414, Null} *)
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we useInternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,1.265in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction5697053528623677/4503599627370496which less than1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem withr2.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
|
show 10 more comments
3
$begingroup$
I offer the following solution
r2[x_, a_] := x - Mod[x, a, -(a/2)]
We can verify that it has the desired result, using PiecewiseExpand
PiecewiseExpand[r2[x, a], -2 a < x < 2 a && a > 0]
Performance is only a little slower than the built-in Round
list = RandomReal[{0, 1}, 1000000];
AbsoluteTiming[Round[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.0079, Null} *)
AbsoluteTiming[r2[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.009414, Null} *)
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we useInternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,1.265in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction5697053528623677/4503599627370496which less than1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem withr2.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
|
show 10 more comments
3
3
3
$begingroup$
I offer the following solution
r2[x_, a_] := x - Mod[x, a, -(a/2)]
We can verify that it has the desired result, using PiecewiseExpand
PiecewiseExpand[r2[x, a], -2 a < x < 2 a && a > 0]
Performance is only a little slower than the built-in Round
list = RandomReal[{0, 1}, 1000000];
AbsoluteTiming[Round[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.0079, Null} *)
AbsoluteTiming[r2[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.009414, Null} *)
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
$endgroup$
I offer the following solution
r2[x_, a_] := x - Mod[x, a, -(a/2)]
We can verify that it has the desired result, using PiecewiseExpand
PiecewiseExpand[r2[x, a], -2 a < x < 2 a && a > 0]
Performance is only a little slower than the built-in Round
list = RandomReal[{0, 1}, 1000000];
AbsoluteTiming[Round[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.0079, Null} *)
AbsoluteTiming[r2[list, 0.1];]
(* {0.009414, Null} *)
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
answered Mar 17 at 12:33
mikadomikado
6,7471929
6,7471929
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we useInternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,1.265in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction5697053528623677/4503599627370496which less than1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem withr2.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we useInternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,1.265in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction5697053528623677/4503599627370496which less than1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem withr2.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we use
InternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
$begingroup$
Wow, great solution. But there is a issue with hidden fractions as pointed out by mathematica.stackexchange.com/q/65298/4742 . But if we use
InternalStringToDouble@ToString`, the performance will drop down.$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 13:22
4
4
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,
1.265 in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction 5697053528623677/4503599627370496 which less than 1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem with r2.$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
$begingroup$
@matheorem Technically,
1.265 in binary floating point corresponds to the fraction 5697053528623677/4503599627370496 which less than 1265/1000. The issue is due to rounding decimal to binary. Thus it is a problem of inputting the number you meant, not a problem with r2.$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:14
2
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:
r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
$begingroup$
@matheorem The problem with imprecise calculation is that unwanted errors creep in, such as what you're complaining about. :) How about this?:
r2[x_, a_] := x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon) - Mod[x (1 + Sign[x] $MachineEpsilon), a, -(a/2)]$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 17 at 15:40
2
2
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
$begingroup$
@matheorem, I think you need to consider why you know the input is exactly 1.265 rather than a little more or a little less, and why the rounding is important to you. If you know the 3rd decimal place is exact, I suggest you multiply all your numbers by 1000, and work with integers.
$endgroup$
– mikado
Mar 17 at 18:38
1
1
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
$begingroup$
@matheorem That's what happens (automatically) when you use real (floating-point) numbers on all common CPUs.
$endgroup$
– Michael E2
Mar 18 at 2:52
|
show 10 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f193412%2fefficient-round-edition-with-different-rounding-direction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Floor[x+0.5]?$endgroup$
– Szabolcs
Mar 17 at 11:58
$begingroup$
@Szabolcs But Floor gives integer. Round can round at any digit
$endgroup$
– matheorem
Mar 17 at 12:02
2
$begingroup$
Are your aware of RoundingRule?
$endgroup$
– Silvia
Mar 17 at 12:25
1
$begingroup$
Could extend the method proposed by @Szabolcs:
myRound[x_, d_] := d*Floor[x/d + 1/2]$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 13:58
1
$begingroup$
That's a result of using decimal values e.g. .01 that do not have exact binary equivalents. Could instead do
myRound[8.121,1/100]and numericize afterward.$endgroup$
– Daniel Lichtblau
Mar 17 at 18:36