is my code right?

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

is my code right? i am trying to calculate the 3 inputs by this formula..a+b*55+a^2/c-(7+a)!+a*2^a+(a/b/c)!

   import java.io.*;

class Func2
{
        
class Func2
{
        public static void main(String[] args)
	{       Console console=System.console();
                String input;               
                System.out.println("enter the first number");
                input=console.readLine();
                String input2;
                System.out.println("enter the second number");
                input2=console.readLine();
                String input3;
                System.out.println("enter the third number");
                input3=console.readLine();
                int a=Integer.parseInt(input); 
                int b=Integer.parseInt(input2);
                int c=Integer.parseInt(input3);  

  
              

              int sum1=d(a);
              int sum2=e(b);
              int sum3=f(a,c);
              int sum4=g(a);
              int sum5=h(a);
              int sum6=i(a,b,c); 
                
              int totalSum=sum1+sum2+sum3-sum4+sum5+sum6;
              System.out.println(totalSum);  
     
	}
           
       
	
        static int d(int a)  //a+b*55+a^2/c-(7+a)!+a*2^a+(a/b/c)!
        {
        return a;
        }
          
        
        static int e(int b)
        {         
         return b*55;
        }
        

     	
        static int f(int a, int c)

        { int n1=2;
          int result=1;
	  while(n1>0)
	  {
	   result*=a;
	   n1--;
	  }
          
          return result/c;
        }


        static int g(int a)

        {  
        int number=(7+a);
        int result=1;
	for(int i=2;i<=number;i++)
	result*=i;
        return result;
        }


         static int h(int a)

        {int n1=2;    
         int result=1;
	  while(a>0)
	  {
	  result*=n1;
          a--;
	  } 
        return result*a;
        }


       static int i(int a, int b, int c)
       {    
        int number=(a/b/c);
        int result=1;
	  for(int i=2;i<=number;i++)
	  result*=i;

        return result; 
       }
}
  
} 

[Martin Vanyavchich]

Hey

^ is an bitwise XOR operator, not a power of. You can find power of function and other useful math functions in java.lang.Math class.

Your ! operation might best fit into its own function

[Campbell Ritchie]

Beware of java.io.Console; if you use javaw to start your application from a .jar, the Console will be null and you will suffer a NullPointerException.

You will have to write down the algorithm with a pencil and paper to see whether your code is correct.

[Garik Ustinov]

I think having a number of functions with meaningless names doesn't help with code readability. I would do all the calculations in one method. Alright, two - one would be needed for factorial operation, which by the way can be nicely calculated via recursion java factorial recursive

[Campbell Ritchie]

Agree with Garik Ustinov. Also: avoid Math.pow(x, 2) for squares. Use x * x which gives better performance and better precision.

[fred rosenberger]

Why don't you test your code yourself? Wouldn't that be faster than asking strangers to do it?

I'd also suggest you try writing less at a time before testing. I often write as little as 1 or two lines before I re-compile, test, fix, etc.

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

fred rosenberger wrote:Why don't you test your code yourself? Wouldn't that be faster than asking strangers to do it?

I'd also suggest you try writing less at a time before testing. I often write as little as 1 or two lines before I re-compile, test, fix, etc.

alright , i edited my whole code, i think it is okay,, check it above (i edited it)

i tested it

[fred rosenberger]

Dmitri Makovetskiy wrote:alright , i edited my whole code, i think it is okay,, check it above (i edited it)

i tested it

If you tested it, then you should know if it's right or not. If you are aware of some specific problem, tell us.

The purpose of this site is not to provide free code, testing, or homework checks. We are thrilled to help you learn, and people will bend over backwards to help you if you have a question about something.

I doubt that many folks are going to provide you with free testing services.

[Campbell Ritchie]

I will happily provide free testing, Fred. And I got




























. . . .




















compiler errors.

[Hunter McMillen]

That's a serious error too.

[fred rosenberger]

well then...i would say it's not right.

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

fred rosenberger wrote:

Dmitri Makovetskiy wrote:alright , i edited my whole code, i think it is okay,, check it above (i edited it)

i tested it

If you tested it, then you should know if it's right or not. If you are aware of some specific problem, tell us.

The purpose of this site is not to provide free code, testing, or homework checks. We are thrilled to help you learn, and people will bend over backwards to help you if you have a question about something.

I doubt that many folks are going to provide you with free testing services.

i tested it, but i am not sure if i have a mistake somewhere...

i dont know if the calculation behind this code is right..cause sometimes i get a large minus

[W. Joe Smith]

fred rosenberger wrote:well then...i would say it's not right.

I think we need a definition of "right". Dmitri, what do you mean by right? Are you asking if the code compiles, if it returns correct results, if it is well written OO-wise, if you have followed all the proper naming conventions, etc.? Some of these (compiling, returning correct results) are easy enough for you to test on your own. Other pieces may require a more experienced eye.

[Hunter McMillen]

Well this is a function you can test by hand yes? So if your result by hand doesn't match the result of your program, there is a mistake.


Hunter

[fred rosenberger]

Hunter McMillen wrote:Well this is a function you can test by hand yes? So if your result by hand doesn't match the result of your program, there is a mistake.

Agreed.

Dmitri, what you're basically saying is that you are too lazy to check it yourself, and you want someone here to do it for you.

If, instead, you wrote a post saying "I used values 3, 4 and 5 for my inputs, and was expecting 54 but got -3622014.05", then people would see you trying and want to help you.

instead, many people see you doing as little as possible and asking people to do the work you should do. They're getting tired of it, and many will not bother with you anymore.

Please, for your own sake, ShowSomeEffort.

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

fred rosenberger wrote:

Hunter McMillen wrote:Well this is a function you can test by hand yes? So if your result by hand doesn't match the result of your program, there is a mistake.

Agreed.

Dmitri, what you're basically saying is that you are too lazy to check it yourself, and you want someone here to do it for you.

If, instead, you wrote a post saying "I used values 3, 4 and 5 for my inputs, and was expecting 54 but got -3622014.05", then people would see you trying and want to help you.

instead, many people see you doing as little as possible and asking people to do the work you should do. They're getting tired of it, and many will not bother with you anymore.

Please, for your own sake, ShowSomeEffort.

fair enough fred, i re wrote half of the code after i posted it and after your comments.. i have no idea how to polish it further

[Hunter McMillen]

rewriting wasn't the issue you were experiencing, testing was.


Hunter

[Henry Wong]

Hunter McMillen wrote:rewriting wasn't the issue you were experiencing, testing was.

Agreed. If you can't test it, you don't know why it's wrong. And if you don't know why it's wrong, then the "rewriting" are just non-targeted changes.

Henry

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

Henry Wong wrote:

Hunter McMillen wrote:rewriting wasn't the issue you were experiencing, testing was.

Agreed. If you can't test it, you don't know why it's wrong. And if you don't know why it's wrong, then the "rewriting" are just non-targeted changes.

Henry

i did test it.

it gave me a long number, sometimes the number is negative..i havent got an idea if i am right in my calculation

[Rene Larsen]

If you post the 3 numbers used - and then the result, then we can see if you have done the calculation correct

BTW. if you are using the above code - then the factorial operation methods g and i are not correct (but almost).

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

Rene Larsen wrote:If you post the 3 numbers used - and then the result, then we can see if you have done the calculation correct

BTW. if you are using the above code - then the factorial operation methods g and i are not correct (but almost).

i use 1, 2, 3 and get - -40208

[fred rosenberger]

is that what YOU calculated for the answer, or what you code gave you?

Why does the fact that your answer 'is sometimes negative' bother you? (7+a)! is going to be a rather large number if a is anything greater than 1. The only other term.

a*2^a might get large, but factorial grows faster (I think).

[Dmitri Makovetskiy]

fred rosenberger wrote:is that what YOU calculated for the answer, or what you code gave you?

Why does the fact that your answer 'is sometimes negative' bother you? (7+a)! is going to be a rather large number if a is anything greater than 1. The only other term.

a*2^a might get large, but factorial grows faster (I think).

thanks Fred, this thread is history, i have already submitted my homework

okay the code is correct, my teacher confirmed it.. thank you for your unhelpful assistence everyone

[Jesper de Jong]

Dmitri Makovetskiy wrote:okay the code is correct, my teacher confirmed it.. thank you for your unhelpful assistence everyone

People on JavaRanch have good intentions to help you learn Java. You don't learn anything if someone else does your homework for you and just gives you the answer. So instead, we try to give you hints so that you can solve the problem yourself, and learn by doing it yourself.

If you don't like that, and rather be lazy and get the answer spoonfed, then JavaRanch maybe isn't the right place for you.