I have this model: a simple 8-digit display calculator (no memory buttons, no square root etc etc) has buttons (the decimal point does not count as a 'digit'):
10 buttons for integers 0 to 9,
1 button for dot (decimal point, so it can hold decimals, like from 0.0000001 to 9999999.9),
4 buttons for operations (+, -, /, *), and
1 button for equality (=). (the on/off button doesn't count for this question)
The question is two-fold: how many numbers can they be represented on the calculator's screen? (a math-explained solution would be appreciated)
*AND
if we have to make all 4 basic operations between any pair of 2 numbers, of the above calculated, how many operations would that be?
Thank you for your insight and help!
For part one of this answer, we want to know how many numbers can be represented on the calculator's screen.
Start with a simplified example and work up from there. Let's start with a 1-digit display. With this calculator, you can display the numbers from 0 to 9, and you can display each of those numbers with a decimal point either before the digit (making it a decimal), or after the digit (making it an integer). How many unique numbers can be made?
.0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 0., 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9.
That's 20 possibilities with 1 repeat number makes 19 unique numbers. Let's find this result again, but using a mathematical approach that we can scale up to a larger number of digits.
Start by finding all the numbers 0 <= n < 1 that can be made. For the numbers to fit in that range, the decimal point must be before the first digit. We're still dealing with 1 digit, so there are 101 different ways to fill the calculator with numbers that are greater than or equal to 0, but less than 1.
Next, find all the numbers 1 <= n < 10 that can be made. To do this, you move the decimal point one place to the right, so now it's after the first digit, and you also can't allow the first digit to be zero (or the number will be less than 1). That leaves you 9 unique numbers.
[0<=n<1] + [1<=n<10] = 10 + 9 = 19
Now we have a scaleable system. Let's do it with 2 digits so you see how it works with multiple digits before we go to 8 digits. With 2 digits, we can represent 0-99, and the decimal point can go in three different places, which means we have three ranges to check: 0<=n<1, 1<=n<10, 10<=n<100. The first set can have zero in its first place, since zero is in the set, but every other set can't have zero in the first place or else the number would be in the set below it. So the first set has 102 possibilities, but each of the other sets has 9 * 101 possibilities. We can generalize this by saying that for any number d of digits that our calculator can hold, the set 0<=n<1 will have 10d possibilities, and each other set will have 9 * 10d-1 possibilities
So for 2 digits:
[0<=n<1] + [1<=n<10] + [10<=n<100] = 100 + 90 + 90 = 280
Now you can see a pattern emerging, which can be generalize to give us the total amount of unique numbers that can be displayed on a calculator with d digits:
Unique displayable numbers = 10d + d * 9 * 10d-1
You can confirm this math with a simple Python script that manually finds all the unique numbers that can be displayed, prints the quantity it found, then also prints the result of the formula above. It gets bogged down when it gets to higher numbers of digits, but digits 1 through 5 should be enough to show the formula works.
for digits in range(1, 6):
print('---%d Digits----' % digits)
numbers = set()
for d in range(digits + 1):
numbers.update(i / 10**d for i in range(10**digits))
print(len(set(numbers)))
print(10**digits + digits * 9 * 10**(digits - 1))
And the result:
---1 Digits----
19
19
---2 Digits----
280
280
---3 Digits----
3700
3700
---4 Digits----
46000
46000
---5 Digits----
550000
550000
Which means that a calculator with an 8 digit display can show 820,000,000 unique numbers.
For part two of this answer, we want to know if we have to make all 4 basic operations between any pair of 2 numbers, of the above calculated, how many operations would that be?
How many pairs of numbers can we make between 820 million unique numbers? 820 million squared. That's 672,400,000,000,000,000 = 672.4 quadrillion. Four different operations can be used on these number pairs, so multiply that by 4 and you get 2,689,600,000,000,000,000 = 2.6896 quintillion different possible operations on a simple 8 digit calculator.
EDIT:
If the intention of the original question was for a decimal point to not be allowed to come before the first digit (a decimal 0<=n<1 would have to start with 0.) then the formula for displayable numbers changes to 10d + (d - 1) * 9 * 10d-1, which means the amount of unique displayable numbers is 730 million and the total number of operations is 2.1316 quintillion.
I'm trying to calculate an average score based on a list of parameter scores (between 0 and 5). The trick is that I want to be able to weight each parameter.
Eg:
Parameter A Parameter B Parameter C
Weight 100% 70% 0%
Score 4 5 0
In the above example, the average score should be 3,75 as parameter c is left out.
I've tried with this formula: =IF.ERROR(SUM((A3*A5);(B3*B5);(C3*C5))/COUNTA(A3:C3);""). The formula seems to work if none of the parameters weight is equal to 0. How can I adjust the formula, so it excludes a score if weight is equal to zero?
I think it should be rather easy, I just can't get it to work.
Check this :
=SUMPRODUCT( A2:A4, B2:B4 ) / SUM( B2:B4 )
Source : https://exceljet.net/formula/weighted-average
With COUNTA you are counting the non empty cells, while you should count the non zero cells. So, assuming that the weights are in A3:C3 and the scores in A5:C5:
=IFERROR(SUMPRODUCT(A3:C3;A5*C5)/COUNTIF(A3:C3;">0");"Error: all the weigths are 0")
It would be like this:
(1*4 + 0.7*5) / 2 = 3.75
In other world the formula is:
((WeightA/100 * scoreA) + (WeightB/100 * scoreB) + (WeightC/100 * scoreC)) / 3
=SUMPRODUCT(A1:A3;B1:B3) / COUNTIF(B1:B3;"<>0") / 100
Something like this would work
Trying to do an if else statement, if the results of the index query is greater than the other. I want it to go like this:
If index query / index query's result is greater than 1, multiply the formula by the percentage it is greater than 1.
For example
If 10 / 5 is greater than 1, multiply it by the sum of (4 * 3), else, don't multiply it and just do the sum.
=IF(
INDEX(AK:AK,MATCH($A3,M:M,0))>INDEX(AL:AL,MATCH($A4,M:M,0)),
SUM(B12*E13*R24)*(INDEX(AK:AK,MATCH($A3,M:M,0),SUM(B12*E13*R24)))
)
not getting anywhere with this.
It seems that this can be reduced down to multiplying your base calculation by either 1 or the quotient of the two lookups when their quotient is greater than 1.
=B12*E13*R24*MAX(INDEX(AK:AK,MATCH($A3,M:M,0))/INDEX(AL:AL,MATCH($A4,M:M,0)), 1)
I am confused regarding excel floor function. Mathematically, floor (x) is the largest integer not greater than x. Following this definition, I expected,
Floor( -3,-2) to display -4 , but it displays -2.
Can somebody explain why?
This might help:
FLOOR function - Rounds a number down, toward zero
FLOOR.PRECISE function - Rounds a number down to the nearest integer or to the nearest multiple of significance. Regardless of the sign of the number, the number is rounded down.
=FLOOR(-3,-2) is -2
=FLOOR.PRECISE(-3,2) is -4
Using negative significance revert behavior.
From documentation:
If number is positive and significance is negative, FLOOR returns the #NUM! error value.
If the sign of number is positive, a value is rounded down and adjusted toward zero.
If the sign of number is negative, a value is rounded down and adjusted away from zero. If
number is an exact multiple of significance, no rounding occurs.
However, testing positive and negative number and significance I get following result:
Significance > 0:
Any number: Round down (toward negative infinity)
Significance < 0:
Number < 0: Round up (toward positive infinity)
Number >= 0: #NUM!
Significance = 0:
Number = 0: 0
Number <> 0: #DIV!
Number - the value to be rounded.
Significance - the function rounds the Number specified above down to the nearest multiple of this value.
Floor(-3,-2)
As here -3 is the number and -2 is the significance So if we see multiple of -2 than 0(-2*1),-2(-2*1),-4(-2*2),-6(-2*3) but here NUMBER -3 is round down to the nearest multiple of -2 is itself -2(Answer).
Try this Floor(-3,-4) gives 0.
I am trying to calculate percentage growth in excel with a positive and negative number.
This Year's value: 2434
Last Year's value: -2
formula I'm using is:
(This_Year - Last_Year) / Last_Year
=(2434 - -2) / -2
The problem is I get a negative result. Can an approximate growth number be calculated and if so how?
You could try shifting the number space upward so they both become positive.
To calculate a gain between any two positive or negative numbers, you're going to have to keep one foot in the magnitude-growth world and the other foot in the volume-growth world. You can lean to one side or the other depending on how you want the result gains to appear, and there are consequences to each choice.
Strategy
Create a shift equation that generates a positive number relative to the old and new numbers.
Add the custom shift to the old and new numbers to get new_shifted and old_shifted.
Take the (new_shifted - old_shifted) / old_shifted) calculation to get the gain.
For example:
old -> new
-50 -> 30 //Calculate a shift like (2*(50 + 30)) = 160
shifted_old -> shifted_new
110 -> 190
= (new-old)/old
= (190-110)/110 = 72.73%
How to choose a shift function
If your shift function shifts the numbers too far upward, like for example adding 10000 to each number, you always get a tiny growth/decline. But if the shift is just big enough to get both numbers into positive territory, you'll get wild swings in the growth/decline on edge cases. You'll need to dial in the shift function so it makes sense for your particular application. There is no totally correct solution to this problem, you must take the bitter with the sweet.
Add this to your excel to see how the numbers and gains move about:
shift function
old new abs_old abs_new 2*abs(old)+abs(new) shiftedold shiftednew gain
-50 30 50 30 160 110 190 72.73%
-50 40 50 40 180 130 220 69.23%
10 20 10 20 60 70 80 14.29%
10 30 10 30 80 90 110 22.22%
1 10 1 10 22 23 32 39.13%
1 20 1 20 42 43 62 44.19%
-10 10 10 10 40 30 50 66.67%
-10 20 10 20 60 50 80 60.00%
1 100 1 100 202 203 302 48.77%
1 1000 1 1000 2002 2003 3002 49.88%
The gain percentage is affected by the magnitude of the numbers. The numbers above are a bad example and result from a primitive shift function.
You have to ask yourself which critter has the most productive gain:
Evaluate the growth of critters A, B, C, and D:
A used to consume 0.01 units of energy and now consumes 10 units.
B used to consume 500 units and now consumes 700 units.
C used to consume -50 units (Producing units!) and now consumes 30 units.
D used to consume -0.01 units (Producing) and now consumes -30 units (producing).
In some ways arguments can be made that each critter is the biggest grower in their own way. Some people say B is best grower, others will say D is a bigger gain. You have to decide for yourself which is better.
The question becomes, can we map this intuitive feel of what we label as growth into a continuous function that tells us what humans tend to regard as "awesome growth" vs "mediocre growth".
Growth a mysterious thing
You then have to take into account that Critter B may have had a far more difficult time than critter D. Critter D may have far more prospects for it in the future than the others. It had an advantage! How do you measure the opportunity, difficulty, velocity and acceleration of growth? To be able to predict the future, you need to have an intuitive feel for what constitutes a "major home run" and a "lame advance in productivity".
The first and second derivatives of a function will give you the "velocity of growth" and "acceleration of growth". Learn about those in calculus, they are super important.
Which is growing more? A critter that is accelerating its growth minute by minute, or a critter that is decelerating its growth? What about high and low velocity and high/low rate of change? What about the notion of exhausting opportunities for growth. Cost benefit analysis and ability/inability to capitalize on opportunity. What about adversarial systems (where your success comes from another person's failure) and zero sum games?
There is exponential growth, liner growth. And unsustainable growth. Cost benefit analysis and fitting a curve to the data. The world is far queerer than we can suppose. Plotting a perfect line to the data does not tell you which data point comes next because of the black swan effect. I suggest all humans listen to this lecture on growth, the University of Colorado At Boulder gave a fantastic talk on growth, what it is, what it isn't, and how humans completely misunderstand it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58
Fit a line to the temperature of heated water, once you think you've fit a curve, a black swan happens, and the water boils. This effect happens all throughout our universe, and your primitive function (new-old)/old is not going to help you.
Here is Java code that accomplishes most of the above notions in a neat package that suits my needs:
Critter growth - (a critter can be "radio waves", "beetles", "oil temprature", "stock options", anything).
public double evaluate_critter_growth_return_a_gain_percentage(
double old_value, double new_value) throws Exception{
double abs_old = Math.abs(old_value);
double abs_new = Math.abs(new_value);
//This is your shift function, fool around with it and see how
//It changes. Have a full battery of unit tests though before you fiddle.
double biggest_absolute_value = (Math.max(abs_old, abs_new)+1)*2;
if (new_value <= 0 || old_value <= 0){
new_value = new_value + (biggest_absolute_value+1);
old_value = old_value + (biggest_absolute_value+1);
}
if (old_value == 0 || new_value == 0){
old_value+=1;
new_value+=1;
}
if (old_value <= 0)
throw new Exception("This should never happen.");
if (new_value <= 0)
throw new Exception("This should never happen.");
return (new_value - old_value) / old_value;
}
Result
It behaves kind-of sort-of like humans have an instinctual feel for critter growth. When our bank account goes from -9000 to -3000, we say that is better growth than when the account goes from 1000 to 2000.
1->2 (1.0) should be bigger than 1->1 (0.0)
1->2 (1.0) should be smaller than 1->4 (3.0)
0->1 (0.2) should be smaller than 1->3 (2.0)
-5-> -3 (0.25) should be smaller than -5->-1 (0.5)
-5->1 (0.75) should be smaller than -5->5 (1.25)
100->200 (1.0) should be the same as 10->20 (1.0)
-10->1 (0.84) should be smaller than -20->1 (0.91)
-10->10 (1.53) should be smaller than -20->20 (1.73)
-200->200 should not be in outer space (say more than 500%):(1.97)
handle edge case 1-> -4: (-0.41)
1-> -4: (-0.42) should be bigger than 1-> -9:(-0.45)
Simplest solution is the following:
=(NEW/OLD-1)*SIGN(OLD)
The SIGN() function will result in -1 if the value is negative and 1 if the value is positive. So multiplying by that will conditionally invert the result if the previous value is negative.
Percentage growth is not a meaningful measure when the base is less than 0 and the current figure is greater than 0:
Yr 1 Yr 2 % Change (abs val base)
-1 10 %1100
-10 10 %200
The above calc reveals the weakness in this measure- if the base year is negative and current is positive, result is N/A
It is true that this calculation does not make sense in a strict mathematical perspective, however if we are checking financial data it is still a useful metric. The formula could be the following:
if(lastyear>0,(thisyear/lastyear-1),((thisyear+abs(lastyear)/abs(lastyear))
let's verify the formula empirically with simple numbers:
thisyear=50 lastyear=25 growth=100% makes sense
thisyear=25 lastyear=50 growth=-50% makes sense
thisyear=-25 lastyear=25 growth=-200% makes sense
thisyear=50 lastyear=-25 growth=300% makes sense
thisyear=-50 lastyear=-25 growth=-100% makes sense
thisyear=-25 lastyear=-50 growth=50% makes sense
again, it might not be mathematically correct, but if you need meaningful numbers (maybe to plug them in graphs or other formulas) it's a good alternative to N/A, especially when using N/A could screw all subsequent calculations.
You should be getting a negative result - you are dividing by a negative number. If last year was negative, then you had negative growth. You can avoid this anomaly by dividing by Abs(Last Year)
Let me draw the scenario.
From: -303 To 183, what is the percentage change?
-303, -100% 0 183, 60.396% 303, 100%
|_________________ ||||||||||||||||||||||||________|
(183 - -303) / |-303| * 100 = 160.396%
Total Percent Change is approximately 160%
Note: No matter how negative the value is, it is treated as -100%.
The best way to solve this issue is using the formula to calculate a slope:
(y1-y2/x1-x2)
*define x1 as the first moment, so value will be "C4=1"
define x2 as the first moment, so value will be "C5=2"
In order to get the correct percentage growth we can follow this order:
=(((B4-B5)/(C4-C5))/ABS(B4))*100
Perfectly Works!
Simplest method is the one I would use.
=(ThisYear - LastYear)/(ABS(LastYear))
However it only works in certain situations. With certain values the results will be inverted.
It really does not make sense to shift both into the positive, if you want a growth value that is comparable with the normal growth as result of both positive numbers. If I want to see the growth of 2 positive numbers, I don't want the shifting.
It makes however sense to invert the growth for 2 negative numbers. -1 to -2 is mathematically a growth of 100%, but that feels as something positive, and in fact, the result is a decline.
So, I have following function, allowing to invert the growth for 2 negative numbers:
setGrowth(Quantity q1, Quantity q2, boolean fromPositiveBase) {
if (q1.getValue().equals(q2.getValue()))
setValue(0.0F);
else if (q1.getValue() <= 0 ^ q2.getValue() <= 0) // growth makes no sense
setNaN();
else if (q1.getValue() < 0 && q2.getValue() < 0) // both negative, option to invert
setValue((q2.getValue() - q1.getValue()) / ((fromPositiveBase? -1: 1) * q1.getValue()));
else // both positive
setValue((q2.getValue() - q1.getValue()) / q1.getValue());
}
These questions are answering the question of "how should I?" without considering the question "should I?" A change in the value of a variable that takes positive and negative values is fairly meaning less, statistically speaking. The suggestion to "shift" might work well for some variables (e.g. temperature which can be shifted to a kelvin scale or something to take care of the problem) but very poorly for others, where negativity has a precise implication for direction. For example net income or losses. Operating at a loss (negative income) has a precise meaning in this context, and moving from -50 to 30 is not in any way the same for this context as moving from 110 to 190, as a previous post suggests. These percentage changes should most likely be reported as "NA".
Just change the divider to an absolute number.i.e.
A B C D
1 25,000 50,000 75,000 200%
2 (25,000) 50,000 25,000 200%
The formula in D2 is: =(C2-A2)/ABS(A2) compare with the all positive row the result is the same (when the absolute base number is the same). Without the ABS in the formula the result will be -200%.
Franco
Use this code:
=IFERROR((This Year/Last Year)-1,IF(AND(D2=0,E2=0),0,1))
The first part of this code iferror gets rid of the N/A issues when there is a negative or a 0 value. It does this by looking at the values in e2 and d2 and makes sure they are not both 0. If they are both 0 then it will place a 0%. If only one of the cells are a 0 then it will place 100% or -100% depending on where the 0 value falls. The second part of this code (e2/d2)-1 is the same code as (this year - lastyear)/Last year
Please click here for example picture
I was fumbling for answers today, and think this would work...
=IF(C5=0, B5/1, IF(C5<0, (B5+ABS(C5)/1), IF(C5>0, (B5/C5)-1)))
C5 = Last Year, B5 = This Year
We have 3 IF statements in the cell.
IF Last Year is 0, then This Year divided by 1
IF Last Year is less than 0, then This Year + ABSolute value of Last Year divided by 1
IF Last Year is greater than 0, then This Year divided by Last Year minus 1
Use this formula:
=100% + (Year 2/Year 1)
The logic is that you recover 100% of the negative in year 1 (hence the initial 100%) plus any excess will be a ratio against year 1.
Short one:
=IF(D2>C2, ABS((D2-C2)/C2), -1*ABS((D2-C2)/C2))
or confusing one (my first attempt):
=IF(D2>C2, IF(C2>0, (D2-C2)/C2, (D2-C2)/ABS(C2)), IF(OR(D2>0,C2>0), (D2-C2)/C2, IF(AND(D2<0, C2<0), (D2-C2)/ABS(C2), 0)))
D2 is this year, C2 is last year.
Formula should be this one:
=(thisYear+IF(LastYear<0,ABS(LastYear),0))/ABS(LastYear)-100%
The IF value if < 0 is added to your Thisyear value to generate the real difference.
If > 0, the LastYear value is 0
Seems to work in different scenarios checked
This article offers a detailed explanation for why the (b - a)/ABS(a) formula makes sense. It is counter-intuitive at first, but once you play with the underlying arithmetic, it starts to make sense. As you get used to it eventually, it changes the way you look at percentages.
Aim is to get increase rate.
Idea is following:
At first calculate value of absolute increase.
Then value of absolute increase add to both, this and last year values. And then calculate increase rate, based on the new values.
For example:
LastYear | ThisYear | AbsoluteIncrease | LastYear01 | ThisYear01 | Rate
-10 | 20 | 30 = (10+20) | 20=(-10+30)| 50=(20+30) | 2.5=50/20
-20 | 20 | 40 = (20+20) | 20=(-20+40)| 60=(20+40) | 3=60/2
=(This Year - Last Year) / (ABS(Last Year))
This only works reliably if this year and last year are always positive numbers.
For example last_year=-50 this_year = -1. You get -100% growth when in fact the numbers have improved a great deal.