Develop Reference

Divide by 0 error C# [duplicate]

This simple calculation is returning zero, I can't figure it out:
decimal share = (18 / 58) * 100;

You are working with integers here. Try using decimals for all the numbers in your calculation.
decimal share = (18m / 58m) * 100m;

18 / 58 is an integer division, which results in 0.
If you want decimal division, you need to use decimal literals:
decimal share = (18m / 58m) * 100m;

Since some people are linking to this from pretty much any thread where the calculation result is a 0, I am adding this as a solution as not all the other answers apply to case scenarios.
The concept of needing to do calculations on various types in order to obtain that type as a result applies, however above only shows 'decimal' and uses it's short form such as 18m as one of the variables to be calculated.
// declare and define initial variables.
int x = 0;
int y = 100;
// set the value of 'x'
x = 44;
// Results in 0 as the whole number 44 over the whole number 100 is a
// fraction less than 1, and thus is 0.
Console.WriteLine( (x / y).ToString() );
// Results in 0 as the whole number 44 over the whole number 100 is a
// fraction less than 1, and thus is 0. The conversion to double happens
// after the calculation has been completed, so technically this results
// in 0.0
Console.WriteLine( ((double)(x / y)).ToString() );
// Results in 0.44 as the variables are cast prior to calculating
// into double which allows for fractions less than 1.
Console.WriteLine( ((double)x / (double)y).ToString() );

Because the numbers are integers and you perform integer division.
18 / 58 is 0 in integer division.

Whenever I encounter such situations, I just upcast the numerator.
double x = 12.0 / 23409;
decimal y = 12m / 24309;
Console.WriteLine($"x = {x} y = {y}");

double res= (firstIntVar * 100f / secondIntVar) / 100f;
when dividing numbers I use double or decimal , else I am getting 0 , with this code even if firstIntVar && secondIntVar are int it will return the expected answer

decimal share = (18 * 100)/58;

Solved: working perfectly with me
int a = 375;
int b = 699;
decimal ab = (decimal)a / b * 100;

Double every time brings different values

It's my generating algorithm it's generating random double elements for the array which sum must be 1
public static double [] GenerateWithSumOfElementsIsOne(int elements)
{
double sum = 1;
double [] arr = new double [elements];
for (int i = 0; i < elements - 1; i++)
{
arr[i] = RandomHelper.GetRandomNumber(0, sum);
sum -= arr[i];
}
arr[elements - 1] = sum;
return arr;
}
And the method helper
public static double GetRandomNumber(double minimum, double maximum)
{
Random random = new Random();
return random.NextDouble() * (maximum - minimum) + minimum;
}
My test cases are:
[Test]
[TestCase(7)]
[TestCase(5)]
[TestCase(4)]
[TestCase(8)]
[TestCase(10)]
[TestCase(50)]
public void GenerateWithSumOfElementsIsOne(int num)
{
Assert.AreEqual(1, RandomArray.GenerateWithSumOfElementsIsOne(num).Sum());
}
And the thing is - when I'm testing it returns every time different value like this cases :
Expected: 1
But was: 0.99999999999999967d
Expected: 1
But was: 0.99999999999999989d
But in the next test, it passes sometimes all of them, sometimes not.
I know that troubles with rounding and ask for some help, dear experts :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic
In computing, floating-point arithmetic is arithmetic using formulaic
representation of real numbers as an approximation so as to support a
trade-off between range and precision. For this reason, floating-point
computation is often found in systems which include very small and
very large real numbers, which require fast processing times. A number
is, in general, represented approximately to a fixed number of
significant digits (the significand) and scaled using an exponent in
some fixed base; the base for the scaling is normally two, ten, or
sixteen.
In short, this is what floats do, they dont hold every single value and do approximate. If you would like more precision try using a Decimal instead, or adding tolerance by an epsilon (an upper bound on the relative error due to rounding in floating point arithmetic)
var ratio = a / b;
var diff = Math.Abs(ratio - 1);
return diff <= epsilon;

Round up errors are frequent in case of floating point types (like Single and Double), e.g. let's compute an easy sum:
// 0.1 + 0.1 + ... + 0.1 = ? (100 times). Is it 0.1 * 100 == 10? No!
Console.WriteLine((Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Sum(i => 0.1)).ToString("R"));
Outcome:
9.99999999999998
That's why when comparing floatinfg point values with == or != add tolerance:
// We have at least 8 correct digits
// i.e. the asbolute value of the (round up) error is less than tolerance
Assert.IsTrue(Math.Abs(RandomArray.GenerateWithSumOfElementsIsOne(num).Sum() - 1.0) < 1e-8);

Division returns zero

This simple calculation is returning zero, I can't figure it out:
decimal share = (18 / 58) * 100;

You are working with integers here. Try using decimals for all the numbers in your calculation.
decimal share = (18m / 58m) * 100m;

18 / 58 is an integer division, which results in 0.
If you want decimal division, you need to use decimal literals:
decimal share = (18m / 58m) * 100m;

Since some people are linking to this from pretty much any thread where the calculation result is a 0, I am adding this as a solution as not all the other answers apply to case scenarios.
The concept of needing to do calculations on various types in order to obtain that type as a result applies, however above only shows 'decimal' and uses it's short form such as 18m as one of the variables to be calculated.
// declare and define initial variables.
int x = 0;
int y = 100;
// set the value of 'x'
x = 44;
// Results in 0 as the whole number 44 over the whole number 100 is a
// fraction less than 1, and thus is 0.
Console.WriteLine( (x / y).ToString() );
// Results in 0 as the whole number 44 over the whole number 100 is a
// fraction less than 1, and thus is 0. The conversion to double happens
// after the calculation has been completed, so technically this results
// in 0.0
Console.WriteLine( ((double)(x / y)).ToString() );
// Results in 0.44 as the variables are cast prior to calculating
// into double which allows for fractions less than 1.
Console.WriteLine( ((double)x / (double)y).ToString() );

Because the numbers are integers and you perform integer division.
18 / 58 is 0 in integer division.

Whenever I encounter such situations, I just upcast the numerator.
double x = 12.0 / 23409;
decimal y = 12m / 24309;
Console.WriteLine($"x = {x} y = {y}");

double res= (firstIntVar * 100f / secondIntVar) / 100f;
when dividing numbers I use double or decimal , else I am getting 0 , with this code even if firstIntVar && secondIntVar are int it will return the expected answer

decimal share = (18 * 100)/58;

Solved: working perfectly with me
int a = 375;
int b = 699;
decimal ab = (decimal)a / b * 100;

How to know the repeating decimal in a fraction?

I already know when a fraction is repeating decimals. Here is the function.
public bool IsRepeatingDecimal
{
get
{
if (Numerator % Denominator == 0)
return false;
var primes = MathAlgorithms.Primes(Denominator);
foreach (int n in primes)
{
if (n != 2 && n != 5)
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Now, I'm trying to get the repeated number. I'm checking this web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_decimal
public decimal RepeatingDecimal()
{
if (!IsRepeatingDecimal) throw new InvalidOperationException("The fraction is not producing repeating decimals");
int digitsToTake;
switch (Denominator)
{
case 3:
case 9: digitsToTake = 1; break;
case 11: digitsToTake = 2; break;
case 13: digitsToTake = 6; break;
default: digitsToTake = Denominator - 1; break;
}
return MathExtensions.TruncateAt((decimal)Numerator / Denominator, digitsToTake);
}
But I really realized, that some numbers has a partial decimal finite and later infinite. For example: 1/28
Do you know a better way to do this? Or an Algorithm?

A very simple algorithm is this: implement long division. Record every intermediate division you do. As soon as you see a division identical to the one you've done before, you have what's being repeated.
Example: 7/13.
1. 13 goes into 7 0 times with remainder 7; bring down a 0.
2. 13 goes into 70 5 times with remainder 5; bring down a 0.
3. 13 goes into 50 3 times with remainder 11; bring down a 0.
4. 13 goes into 110 8 times with remainder 6; bring down a 0.
5. 13 goes into 60 4 times with remainder 8; bring down a 0.
6. 13 goes into 80 6 times with remainder 2; bring down a 0.
7. 13 goes into 20 1 time with remainder 7; bring down a 0.
8. We have already seen 13/70 on line 2; so lines 2-7 have the repeating part
The algorithm gives us 538461 as the repeating part. My calculator says 7/13 is 0.538461538. Looks right to me! All that remains are implementation details, or to find a better algorithm!

If you have a (positive) reduced fraction numerator / denominator, the decimal expansion of the fraction terminates if and only if denominator has no prime factor other than 2 or 5. If it has any other prime factor, the decimal expansion will be periodic. However, the cases where the denominator is divisible by at least one of 2 and 5 and where it isn't give rise to slightly different behaviour. We have three cases:
denominator = 2^a * 5^b, then the decimal expansion terminates max {a, b} digits after the decimal point.
denominator = 2^a * 5^b * m where m > 1 is not divisible by 2 or by 5, then the fractional part of the decimal expansions consists of two parts, the pre-period of length max {a, b} and the period, whose length is determined by m and independent of the numerator.
denominator > 1 is not divisible by 2 or by 5, then the decimal expansion is purely periodic, meaning the period starts immediately after the decimal point.
The treatment of cases 1. and 2. has a common part, let c = max {a, b}, then
numerator / denominator = (numerator * 2^(c-a) * 5^(c-b)) / (10^c * m)
where m = 1 for case 1. Note that one of the factors 2^(c-a) and 5^(c-b) with which we multiply the numerator is 1. Then you get the decimal expansion by expanding
(numerator * 2^(c-a) * 5^(c-b)) / m
and shifting the decimal point c places to the left. In the first case (m = 1) that part is trivial.
The treatment of cases 2. and 3. also has a common part, the calculation of a fraction
n / m
where n and m have no common prime factor (and m > 1). We can write n = q*m + r with 0 <= r < m (division with remainder, r = n % m), q is the integral part of the fraction and rather uninteresting.
Since the fraction was assumed reduced, we have r > 0, so we want to find the expansion of a fraction r / m where 0 < r < m and m is not divisible by 2 or by 5. As mentioned above, such an expansion is purely periodic, so finding the period means finding the complete expansion.
Let's go about finding the period heuristically. So let k be the length of the (shortest) period and p = d_1d1_2...d_k the period. So
r / m = 0.d_1d_2...d_kd_1d_2...d_kd_1...
= (d_1d_2...d_k)/(10^k) + (d_1d_2...d_k)/(10^(2k)) + (d_1d_2...d_k)/(10^(3k)) + ...
= p/(10^k) * (1 + 1/(10^k) + 1/(10^(2k)) + 1/(10^(3k)) + ...)
The last term is a geometric series, 1 + q + q^2 + q^3 + ... which, for |q| < 1 has the sum 1/(1-q).
In our case, 0 < q = 1/(10^k) < 1, so the sum is 1 / (1 - 1/(10^k)) = 10^k / (10^k-1). Thus we have seen that
r / m = p / (10^k-1)
Since r and m have no common factor, that means there is an s with 10^k - 1 = s*m and p = s*r. If we know k, the length of the period, we can simply find the digits of the period by calculating
p = ((10^k - 1)/m) * r
and padding with leading zeros until we have k digits. (Note: it is that simple only if k is sufficiently small or a big integer type is available. To calculate the period of for example 17/983 with standard fixed-width integer types, use long division as explained by #Patrick87.)
So it remains to find the length of the period. We can revert the reasoning above and find that if m divides 10^u - 1, then we can write
r / m = t/(10^u - 1) = t/(10^u) + t/(10^(2u)) + t/(10^(3u)) + ...
= 0.t_1t_2...t_ut_1t_2...t_ut_1...
and r/m has a period of length u. So the length of the shortest period is the minimal positive u such that m divides 10^u - 1, or, put another way, the smallest positive u such that 10^u % m == 1.
We can find it in O(m) time with
u = 0;
a = 1;
do {
++u;
a = (10*a) % m;
while(a != 1);
Now, finding the length of the period that way is not more efficient than finding the digits and length of the period together with long division, and for small enough m that is the most efficient method.
int[] long_division(int numerator, int denominator) {
if (numerator < 1 || numerator >= denominator) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Bad call");
// now we know 0 < numerator < denominator
if (denominator % 2 == 0 || denominator % 5 == 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Bad denominator");
// now we know we get a purely periodic expansion
int[] digits = new int[denominator];
int k = 0, n = numerator;
do {
n *= 10;
digits[k++] = n / denominator;
n = n % denominator;
}while(n != numerator);
int[] period = new int[k];
for(n = 0; n < k; ++n) {
period[n] = digits[n];
}
return period;
}
That works as long as 10*(denominator - 1) doesn't overflow, of course int could be a 32-bit or 64-bit integer as needed.
But for large denominators, that is inefficient, one can find the period length and also the period faster by considering the prime factorisation of the denominator. Regarding the period length,
If the denominator is a prime power, m = p^k, the period length of r/m is a divisor of (p-1) * p^(k-1)
If a and b are coprime and m = a * b, the period length of r/m is the least common multiple of the period lengths of 1/a and 1/b.
Taken together, the period length of r/m is a divisor of λ(m), where λ is the Carmichael function.
So to find the period length of r/m, find the prime factorisation of m and for all prime power factors p^k, find the period of 1/(p^k) - equivalently, the multiplicative order of 10 modulo p^k, which is known to be a divisor of (p-1) * p^(k-1). Since such numbers haven't many divisors, that is quickly done.
Then find the least common multiple of all these.
For the period itself (the digits), if a big integer type is available and the period isn't too long, the formula
p = (10^k - 1)/m * r
is a quick way to compute it. If the period is too long or no big integer type is available, efficiently computing the digits is messier, and off the top of my head I don't remember how exactly that is done.

One way would be to repeat the way that you do long division by hand, and keep note of the remainder at each stage. When the remainder repeats, the rest of the process must repeat as well. E.g. the digits of 1.0/7 are 0.1 remainder 3 then 0.14 remainder 2 then 0.142 remainder 6 then 0.1428 remainder 4 then 0.14285 remainder 5 then 0.142857 remainder 1 which is the 1 that starts it off again amd so you get 0.1428571 remainder 3 and it repeats again from there.

The long division algorithm is pretty good, so I have nothing to add there.
But note that your algorithm IsRepeatingDecimal may not work and is inneficient.
It will not work if your fraction is not irreductible, that is if there exists an integer larger than 1 that divides both your numerator and your denominator. For example, if you feed 7/14 then your algorithm will return true when it should return false.
To reduce your fraction, find the gcd between both numerator and denominator and divide both by this gcd.
If you assume that the fraction is irreducible, then your test
if (Numerator % Denominator == 0)
can simply be replaced with
if (Denominator == 1)
But that is still unnecessary since if Denominator is 1, then your list 'primes' is going to be empty and your algorithm will return false anyway.
Finally, calling MathAlgorithms.Primes(Denominator) is going to be expensive for large numbers and can be avoided. Indeed, all you need to do is divide your denominator by 5 (respectively 2) untill it is no longer divisible by 5 (resp. 2). If the end result is 1, then return false, otherwise return true.

I came here expecting to be able to copy & paste the code to do this, but it didn't exist. So after reading #Patrick87's answer, I went ahead and coded it up. I spent some time testing it thoroughly and giving things a nice name. I thought I would leave it here so others don't have to waste their time.
Features:
If the decimal terminates, it handles that. It calculates the period and puts that in a separate variable called period, in case you want to know the length of the reptend.
Limitations:
It will fail if the transient + reptend is longer than can be represented by a System.Decimal.
public static string FormatDecimalExpansion(RationalNumber value)
{
RationalNumber currentValue = value;
string decimalString = value.ToDecimal().ToString();
int currentIndex = decimalString.IndexOf('.');
Dictionary<RationalNumber, int> dict = new Dictionary<RationalNumber, int>();
while (!dict.ContainsKey(currentValue))
{
dict.Add(currentValue, currentIndex);
int rem = currentValue.Numerator % currentValue.Denominator;
int carry = rem * 10;
if (rem == 0) // Terminating decimal
{
return decimalString;
}
currentValue = new RationalNumber(carry, currentValue.Denominator);
currentIndex++;
}
int startIndex = dict[currentValue];
int endIndex = currentIndex;
int period = (endIndex - startIndex); // The period is the length of the reptend
if (endIndex >= decimalString.Length)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(value),
"The value supplied has a decimal expansion that is longer" +
$" than can be represented by value of type {nameof(System.Decimal)}.");
}
string transient = decimalString.Substring(0, startIndex);
string reptend = decimalString.Substring(startIndex, period);
return transient + $"({reptend})";
}
And for good measure, I will include my RationalNumber class.
Note: It inherits from IEquatable so that it works correctly with the dictionary:
public struct RationalNumber : IEquatable<RationalNumber>
{
public int Numerator;
public int Denominator;
public RationalNumber(int numerator, int denominator)
{
Numerator = numerator;
Denominator = denominator;
}
public decimal ToDecimal()
{
return Decimal.Divide(Numerator, Denominator);
}
public bool Equals(RationalNumber other)
{
return (Numerator == other.Numerator && Denominator == other.Denominator);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return new Tuple<int, int>(Numerator, Denominator).GetHashCode();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return $"{Numerator}/{Denominator}";
}
}
Enjoy!

Evenly divide a dollar amount (decimal) by an integer

I need to write an accounting routine for a program I am building that will give me an even division of a decimal by an integer. So that for example:
$143.13 / 5 =
28.62
28.62
28.63
28.63
28.63
I have seen the article here: Evenly divide in c#, but it seems like it only works for integer divisions. Any idea of an elegant solution to this problem?

Calculate the amounts one at a time, and subtract each amount from the total to make sure that you always have the correct total left:
decimal total = 143.13m;
int divider = 5;
while (divider > 0) {
decimal amount = Math.Round(total / divider, 2);
Console.WriteLine(amount);
total -= amount;
divider--;
}
result:
28,63
28,62
28,63
28,62
28,63

You can solve this (in cents) without constructing an array:
int a = 100 * amount;
int low_value = a / n;
int high_value = low_value + 1;
int num_highs = a % n;
int num_lows = n - num_highs;

It's easier to deal with cents. I would suggest that instead of 143.13, you divide 14313 into 5 equal parts. Which gives you 2862 and a remainder of 3. You can assign this remainder to the first three parts or any way you like. Finally, convert the cents back to dollars.
Also notice that you will always get a remainder less than the number of parts you want.

First of all, make sure you don't use a floating point number to represent dollars and cents (see other posts for why, but the simple reason is that not all decimal numbers can be represented as floats, e.g., $1.79).
Here's one way of doing it:
decimal total = 143.13m;
int numberOfEntries = 5;
decimal unadjustedEntryAmount = total / numberOfEntries;
decimal leftoverAmount = total - (unadjustedEntryAmount * numberOfEntries);
int numberOfPenniesToDistribute = leftoverAmount * 100;
int numberOfUnadjustedEntries = numberOfEntries - numberOfPenniesToDistribute;
So now you have the unadjusted amounts of 28.62, and then you have to decide how to distribute the remainder. You can either distribute an extra penny to each one starting at the top or at the bottom (looks like you want from the bottom).
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfUnadjustedEntries; i++) {
Console.WriteLine(unadjustedEntryAmount);
}
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfPenniesToDistribute; i++) {
Console.WriteLine(unadjustedEntryAmount + 0.01m);
}
You could also add the entire remainder to the first or last entries. Finally, depending on the accounting needs, you could also create a separate transaction for the remainder.

If you have a float that is guaranteed exactly two digits of precision, what about this (pseudocode):
amount = amount * 100 (convert to cents)
int[] amounts = new int[divisor]
for (i = 0; i < divisor; i++) amounts[i] = amount / divisor
extra = amount % divisor
for (i = 0; i < extra; i++) amounts[i]++
and then do whatever you want with amounts, which are in cents - you could convert back to floats if you absolutely had to, or format as dollars and cents.
If not clear, the point of all this is not just to divide a float value evenly but to divide a monetary amount as evenly as possible, given that cents are an indivisible unit of USD. To the OP: let me know if this isn't what you wanted.

You can use the algorithm in the question you're referencing by multipling by 100, using the integer evenly divide function, and then dividing each of the results by 100 (assuming you only want to handle 2 dp, if you want 3dp multiple by 1000 etc)

It is also possible to use C# iterator generation to make Guffa's answer more convenient:
public static IEnumerable<decimal> Divide(decimal amount, int numBuckets)
{
while(numBuckets > 0)
{
// determine the next amount to return...
var partialAmount = Math.Round(amount / numBuckets, 2);
yield return partialAmount;
// reduce th remaining amount and #buckets
// to account for previously yielded values
amount -= partialAmount;
numBuckets--;
}
}