Velocity Reviews > Bizarre arithmetic results

# Bizarre arithmetic results

Terrence Cole
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-11-2010
Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?

Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47)
[GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
>>> -0.1 ** 0.1

-0.7943282347242815
>>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
>>> a ** b

(0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)
>>> -abs(a ** b)

-0.7943282347242815

Why does the literal version return the signed magnitude and the
variable version return a complex?

Cheers,
Terrence

Peter Otten
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-11-2010
Terrence Cole wrote:

> Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?
>
> Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47)
> [GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
>>>> -0.1 ** 0.1

> -0.7943282347242815
>>>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
>>>> a ** b

> (0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)
>>>> -abs(a ** b)

> -0.7943282347242815
>
> Why does the literal version return the signed magnitude and the
> variable version return a complex?

Operator precedence.

>>> -0.1**0.1

-0.7943282347242815
>>> (-0.1)**0.1

(0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)

Quoting http://docs.python.org/3.1/reference/expressions.html:

"""
The power operator binds more tightly than unary operators on its left; it
binds less tightly than unary operators on its right.
"""

Peter

Mark Dickinson
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-11-2010
On Feb 11, 12:44*am, Terrence Cole <list-
(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?

> >>> -0.1 ** 0.1

> -0.7943282347242815

Here you're computing -(0.1 ** 0.1). The exponentiation operator
binds more strongly than the negation operator.

> >>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
> >>> a ** b

> (0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)

Here you're computing (-0.1) ** 0.1.

--
Mark

Jussi Piitulainen
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-11-2010
Terrence Cole writes:

> Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?
>
> Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47)
> [GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
> >>> -0.1 ** 0.1

> -0.7943282347242815
> >>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
> >>> a ** b

> (0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)
> >>> -abs(a ** b)

> -0.7943282347242815
>
> Why does the literal version return the signed magnitude and the
> variable version return a complex?

The minus sign is not part of the literal syntax. Python takes the
expression as -(0.1 ** 0.1), the binary operator binding tighter than
the unary.

Try (-0.1) ** 0.1, and try a = 0.1, then -a ** 0.1.

Grant Edwards
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-11-2010
On 2010-02-11, Terrence Cole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?
>
> Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47)
> [GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
>>>> -0.1 ** 0.1

> -0.7943282347242815
>>>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
>>>> a ** b

> (0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)
>>>> -abs(a ** b)

> -0.7943282347242815
>
> Why does the literal version return the signed magnitude and the
> variable version return a complex?

Didn't we just do this one last week?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Hello? Enema Bondage?
at I'm calling because I want
visi.com to be happy, I guess ...

Aahz
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-12-2010
In article <hl1j4a\$j61\$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Didn't we just do this one last week?

Let's do the Time Warp again!
--
Aahz ((E-Mail Removed)) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"At Resolver we've found it useful to short-circuit any doubt and just
refer to comments in code as 'lies'. "

Albert van der Horst
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-22-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Terrence Cole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?
>
>Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47)
>[GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
>>>> -0.1 ** 0.1

Python 4.0
- 0.1**0.1

>-0.7943282347242815
>>>> a = -0.1; b = 0.1
>>>> a ** b

>(0.7554510437117542+0.2454609236416552j)
>>>> -abs(a ** b)

>-0.7943282347242815
>
>Why does the literal version return the signed magnitude and the
>variable version return a complex?
>
>Cheers,
>Terrence
>

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Steven D'Aprano
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-23-2010
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:01:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Terrence Cole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Can someone explain to me what python is doing here?
>>
>>Python 3.1.1 (r311:74480, Feb 3 2010, 13:36:47) [GCC 4.3.4] on linux2
>>>>> -0.1 ** 0.1

>
> Python 4.0
> Warning: misleading blank space, expected:
> - 0.1**0.1
>
>>-0.7943282347242815

Making spaces significant in that fashion is mind-bogglingly awful. Let's
look at a language that does this:

[steve@sylar ~]\$ cat ws-example.rb
def a(x=4)
x+2
end

b = 1
print (a + b), (a+b), (a+ b), (a +b), "\n"

[steve@sylar ~]\$ ruby ws-example.rb
7773

--
Steven

Mark Dickinson
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-23-2010
On Feb 23, 8:11*am, Steven D'Aprano
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Making spaces significant in that fashion is mind-bogglingly awful. Let's
> look at a language that does this:
>
> [steve@sylar ~]\$ cat ws-example.rb
> def a(x=4)
> * * x+2
> end
>
> b = 1
> print (a + b), (a+b), (a+ b), (a +b), "\n"
>
> [steve@sylar ~]\$ ruby ws-example.rb
> 7773

Hmm. That's pretty nasty, all right. Not that Python can claim to be
immune to such behaviour:

>>> 3 .real

3
>>> 3. real

File "<stdin>", line 1
3. real
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Though the fact that one of the cases raises an exception (rather than
silently giving some different behaviour) ameliorates things a bit.

--
Mark

Steven D'Aprano
Guest
Posts: n/a

 02-24-2010
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:48:09 -0800, Mark Dickinson wrote:

> On Feb 23, 8:11Â*am, Steven D'Aprano
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Making spaces significant in that fashion is mind-bogglingly awful.
>> Let's look at a language that does this:
>>
>> [steve@sylar ~]\$ cat ws-example.rb
>> def a(x=4)
>> Â* Â* x+2
>> end
>>
>> b = 1
>> print (a + b), (a+b), (a+ b), (a +b), "\n"
>>
>> [steve@sylar ~]\$ ruby ws-example.rb
>> 7773

>
> Hmm. That's pretty nasty, all right. Not that Python can claim to be
> immune to such behaviour:
>
>>>> 3 .real

> 3
>>>> 3. real

> File "<stdin>", line 1
> 3. real
> ^
> SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>
>
> Though the fact that one of the cases raises an exception (rather than
> silently giving some different behaviour) ameliorates things a bit.

It ameliorates it *completely* -- you won't get silent errors in Python
because you add or delete whitespace around a dot.

"I find it amusing when novice programmers believe their main job is
preventing programs from crashing. ... More experienced programmers
realize that correct code is great, code that crashes could use
improvement, but incorrect code that doesn't crash is a horrible
nightmare."

http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html

The edge case occurs because dot does double-duty as an operator and as
part of float literals. However, float literals never include whitespace:

>>> 1.5

1.5
>>> 1 . 5

File "<stdin>", line 1
1 . 5
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

and likewise for 1. 5 and 1 .5 -- the only way to get a float literal
with a decimal point is by not including whitespace in it. So there is
never any ambiguity about floats. You can even do this:

>>> 1.5.__str__()

'1.5'

And since . is an operator outside of float literals, you can do this:

>>> import sys
>>> sys . platform

'linux2'

although why you'd want to escapes me

This actually is a feature, since it is useful when calling methods on
int literals. However this is a very rare thing to do.

--
Steven