The PV function of Excel (present value of an investment) seems to make a sudden jump somewhere and is raising an error. For example:
WorksheetFunction.PV(-19, 240, 500000)
will return a value while:
WorksheetFunction.PV(-20, 240, 500000)
will raise an exception. There are other examples where things go wrong. Independently of the semantic meaning of the parameters, the formula to calculate the PV is purely continuous around the jump, so what is causing this?
When calculating things in, for instance, Mathematica this does not happen.
The first term of the formula used to calculate PV is PV * (1+rate) ^ nper (as in your link). Using your first example this gives 4.84861419016704E+304 so close enough to Excel’s limit (of 9.99999999999999E+307) that no element of the first term would have to increase by much for the result to exceed the inbuilt limitation, for which your second example seems to have been enough.
Note that, as #Juliusz has pointed out, the first parameter is the interest rate per period and 19 represents 1900%. For 240 periods (looks like 20 years) the combination is not realistic (ie 1900% per month). Also, the rate should not normally be negative (better to handle whether in or out by signing the payment amount).
Seems that -19.45 is the minimum value, which translates to -1945%. Are you sure you need more?
Related
I want to calculate the time it will take to break a SHA-256 hash. So I research and found the following calculation. If I have a password in lower letter with a length of 6 chars, I would have 26^6passwords right?
To calculate the time I have to divide this number by a hashrate, I guess. So if I had one RTX 3090, the hashrate would be 120 MH/s (1.2*10^8 H/s) and than I need to calculate 26^6/(1.2*10^8) to get the time in seconds right?
Is this idea right or wrong?
Yes, but a lowercase-latin 6 character string is also short enough that you would expect to compute this one time and put it into a database so that you could look it up in O(1). It's only a bit over 300M entries. That said, given you're 50% likely to find the answer in the first half of your search, it's so fast to crack that you might not even bother unless you were doing this often. You don't even need a particularly fancy GPU for something on this scale.
Note that in many cases a 6 character string can also be a 5 character string, so you need to add 26^6 + 26^5 + 26^4 + ..., but all of these together only raises this to around 320M hashes. It's a tiny space.
Adding uppercase, numbers and the easily typed symbols gets you up to 96^6 ~ 780B. On the other hand, adding just 3 more lowercase-letters (9 total) gets you to 26^9 ~ 5.4T. For brute force on random strings, longer is much more powerful than complicated.
To your specific question, note that it does matter how you implement this. You won't get these kinds of hash rates if you don't write your code in a way to maximize the GPU. For example, writing simple code that sends one value to the GPU to hash at a time, and then compares the result on the CPU could be incredibly slow (in some cases slower than just doing all the work on a CPU). Setting up your memory efficiently and maximizing things the GPU can do in parallel are very important. If you're not familiar with this kind of programming, I recommend using or studying a tool like John the Ripper.
Question at hand : Complete the function minimumSwaps in the editor below. It must return an integer representing the minimum number of swaps to sort the array.
My Approach:
def minimumSwaps(arr):
count = 0
temp = [None]*len(arr)
res1=sorted(arr)
while(res1!=arr):
for i in range(int(len(arr))):
if(res1[i]!=arr[i]):
y=res1.index(arr[i])
arr[y] , arr[i]=arr[i] , arr[y]
count = count +1
return count
The code does give the required op for majority of the cases , but fails a few due to time limit exceeds error. Could someone suggest a few changes to reduce the time complexity issues and make the code more efficient. If Possible please try not to change the code in its entirety , I want to learn to make codes more efficient rather than trying a whole new approach altogether.
Link to one of the huge test case
To me, this is a graph problem. Maybe it's possible with a more simple solution, but I don't think so.
You can observe that to get the minimum swaps necessary, you'd just have to move every element into its sorted position. You can figure out where they're supposed to be by sorting and having an array indexed by element (or dictionary, for that matter) to the index.
Now, build a graph by making each item its own node, and connecting with a directed edge to the place it needs to be. We can observe that for a cycle of length k, we will need k-1 swaps to solve it. This is because we just need to swap each item forward, but the last swap actually solves two items rather than one. Thus, the answer is the sum of k-1 for each cycle, which can be reduced to n-c where c is the number of cycles.
To see why this works, consider the case of [2,3,1]. The sorted version of this array is [1,2,3]. Now, build the graph, where index 0 points to index 1 (since 2 needs to be in index 1), index 1 points to index 2, and index 2 points to index 0. We can run a search algorithm through the graph and find the number of cycles or components, and find that there is 1 cycle of length 3. So, the answer we produce is 3-1 = 2. As we can observe, this is indeed correct.
The problem gets a little more complicated if the array can contain duplicates, but it's not so bad, you'd just have to think a little harder. Maybe this isn't the intended solution, but it'll certainly work in O(n). Best of luck!
There is a definition in POISSON function that:
#NUM! error – Occurs if either:
The given value of x is less than zero;
The given value of mean is
less than zero.
But I try to do this in Excel 2013. It gave me differnt value. Here is my example:
=POISSON(0,-0.5,FALSE)
the result is: 1.648721271
instead of #NUM!
Any thoughts?
Speculatively, the bug might have come about as an optimization. Poisson(x,m,TRUE) is defined as e^(-m)*(m^x)/x!. One way to compute m^x when m is floating-point is as e^(x*Ln(m)). In a spreadsheet, you can observe that
=POISSON(A1,A2,TRUE) - EXP(-A2)*EXP(A1*LN(A2))/FACT(A1)
always evaluates to exactly 0 whenever A1,A2 are in the correct domain (and not e.g. 0.0000000001 as might be the case if the calculation had used a different approach).
Furthermore, EXP(-A2)*EXP(A1*LN(A2))/FACT(A1) fails when it should fail, giving #NUM! when fed 0, -0.5. My speculation is that the Excel programmers initially used a formula which failed when it should have failed, letting the called functions raise the error when appropriate. Then someone had the bright idea of just returning EXP(-mean) when x = 0 (since in that case the rest of the expression is 1 when it is defined at all). After all -- why bother to compute something when you know that it is 1?
What I find astonishing is that the bug is still there with POISSON.DIST Excel had been (and still is, although to a lesser extent) heavily criticized for the accuracy of its statistical functions and tests. So much so that "Friends don't let friends use Excel for statistics" is a relatively well-known saying among statisticians. See this for a discussion. The dotted statistical functions such as POISSON.DIST were explicitly designed to address the many complaints which had piled up. POISSON itself is just kept around for backwards compatibility. It is strange how this bug slipped through what should have been a thorough rewriting of these functions from the ground up.
I have an input file in this format: (length 20, 10 chars and 10 numerics)
jname1 0000500006
bname1 0000100002
wname1 0000400007
yname1 0000000006
jname1 0000100001
mname1 0000500012
mname2 0000700013
In my jcl I have defined my sysin data as such:
SYSIN DATA *
SORT FIELDS=(1,1,CH,A)
SUM FIELDS=(11,10,FD)
DATAEND
*
It works fine as long as I don't add the sum fields so I'm wondering if I'm using the wrong format for my numerics seeing as I know they start at field 11 and have a length of 10 the format is the only thing that could be wrong.
As you might have already realised the point of this JCL is to just list the values but grouped by the first letter of the name (so for the example data and JCL I have given it would group the numeric for mname1 and mname2 together but leave the other records untouched).
I'm kind of new at this so I was wonder what I need for the format if my numerics are like that in the input file.
If new to DFSORT, get hold of the DFSORT Getting Started guide for your version of DFSORT (http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg3T7000080).
This takes your through all the basic operations with many examples.
The DFSORT Application Programming Guide describes everything you need to know, in detail. Again with examples. Appendix C of that document contains all the data-types available (note, when you tried to use FD, FD is not valid data-type, so probably a typo). There are Tables throughout the document listing what data-types are available where, if there is a particular limit.
For advanced techniques, consult the DFSORT Smart Tricks publication here: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg3T7000094
You need to understand a bit more the way data is stored on a Mainframe as well.
Decimals (which can be "packed-decimal" or "zoned-decimal") do not contain a decimal-point. The decimal-point is implied. In high-level languages you tell the compiler where the decimal-point is (in a fixed position) and the compiler does the alignments for you. In Assembler, you do everything yourself.
Decimals are 100% accurate, as there are machine-instructions which act directly on packed-decimal data giving packed-decimal results.
A field which actually contains a decimal-point, cannot be directly used in arithmetic.
An unsigned field is treated as positive when used in any arithmetic.
The SUM statement supports a limited number of numeric definitions, and you have chosen the correct one. It does not matter that your data is unsigned.
If the format of the output from SUM is not what you want, look at OPTION ZDPRINT (or NOZDPRINT).
If you want further formatting, you can use OUTREC or OUTFIL.
As an option to using SUM, you can use OUTFIL reporting functions (especially, although not limited to, if you want a report). You can use SECTIONS and TRAILER3 with TOT/TOTAL.
Something to watch for with SUM (which is not a problem with the reporting features) is if any given one (or more) of your SUMmed fields exceed the field size. To continue to use SUM if that happens, you need to extend the field in INREC and then get SUM to use the new, sufficient, size.
After some trial and error I finally found it, appearantly the format I needed to use was the ZD format (zoned decimal, signed), so my sysin becomes this:
SYSIN DATA *
SORT FIELDS=(1,1,CH,A)
SUM FIELDS=(11,10,ZD)
DATAEND
*
even though my records don't contain any decimals and they are unsigned, I don't really get it so if someone knows why it's like that please go ahead and explain it to me.
For now the way I'm going to remember it is this: Z = symbol for real (meaning integers so no decimals)
I am having some strange problems with excel's solver. Basically what I am trying to do is curve fit my data. I have two different lines, one is my calibration line and the other is the derived line that I am attempting to match up to the calibration line. My line depends on 19 different variable parameters (Perhaps this is too many? I have tried fewer without result) and I am using solver to adjust these parameters to make the two lines as close as possible.
For Example:
The QP column contains the variables I would like changed, changing these will draw me closer or further from the calibration curve. Each subsequent value of QP must be greater than the first.
Col=B Col=C
Power .QP_'
1 ..... 57000
2 ..... 65000
3 ..... 70000
4 ..... 80000
5 ..... 80000
Therefore my excel solver parameters look like this: C1:C19>=0,C1:C19<=100000 and C2>=C1, C3>=C2,C4>=C3... I have also tried making another column of the differences between each value and then saying that these must be diff>=0.
To compare this with my calibration curve I have taken the calibration curve data and subtracted my data derived from QP and then squared that to create my sum of the squares error. For example:
(Calibration-DerivedQP)^2=SS(x) <- where x represents the row number
Sum(SS(x))=SSE
SSE is what I have set solver to minimize. And upon changing QP everything automatically updates. There are no if statements being used and no pivot tables are used.
If I remove the parameters similar to C2>=C1 everything works perfectly, except the derived values are not feasible. But when the solver is run with these parameters, nothing gets changed and no matter which guesses I used as starting values ( so that I can ensure I haven't guessed a local minimum), the solver cannot improve upon my solution. This has led me to believe that something in my parameters is being broken, since I can very easily improve on my solution by guess and check. The rest of solvers settings are at the defaults, and the evolutionary method is used since my curve isn't smooth (I don't think) I had this working in the past and now something seems to be broken. Any ideas are appreciated! Thank you so much! Sorry if I am missing any critical information. I am also familiar with matlab and R if there are better methods in those languages.
I found the solution to my problem. I don't know if this will be helpful to anyone else since my problem vague and pretty specific to me. That being said, my problem was in the constraints. I changed some data on my excel sheet to allow for fewer constraints. An example might look like this:
Guess..........Squared......Added..................Q
-12..............(-12)^2....... 0
-16..............(-16)^2.......=(-16)^2+0.............256
+7.................(7)^2..........=(7)^2+(-16)^2+0....305
Now I allow solver to guess any number subject to minimal constraints.
Essentially, what is happening now, is the excel sheet allows for any guess that solver makes to work. By squaring the numbers it give me positive values, and the added column ensures that each successive value is equal to or greater than the first. This means there are very few constraints. I also changed the solver option from evolutionary to GRG Nonlinear.
Tips for getting solver to work:
Try and use the spreadsheet to set constraints (other than bounds, bounds seem to be good) wherever possible, the more constraints that I set in solver, the less likely my solution was to work.
Hope that helps, sorry if I have provided any incorrect information.