Instruction
stringlengths
45
106
input_code
stringlengths
1
13.7k
output_code
stringlengths
1
13.7k
Keep all operations the same but rewrite the snippet in C.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Write the same algorithm in C# as shown in this Perl implementation.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Preserve the algorithm and functionality while converting the code from Perl to C#.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write a version of this Perl function in C++ with identical behavior.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Convert the following code from Perl to C++, ensuring the logic remains intact.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Port the provided Perl code into Java while preserving the original functionality.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Translate the given Perl code snippet into Java without altering its behavior.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Write a version of this Perl function in Python with identical behavior.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Keep all operations the same but rewrite the snippet in Python.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Maintain the same structure and functionality when rewriting this code in Go.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Translate the given Perl code snippet into Go without altering its behavior.
use Math::Complex; print exp(pi * i) + 1, "\n";
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Port the provided R code into C while preserving the original functionality.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Generate an equivalent C version of this R code.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Produce a functionally identical C# code for the snippet given in R.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Ensure the translated C# code behaves exactly like the original R snippet.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Can you help me rewrite this code in C++ instead of R, keeping it the same logically?
exp(1i * pi) + 1
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Port the following code from R to C++ with equivalent syntax and logic.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Maintain the same structure and functionality when rewriting this code in Java.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Translate the given R code snippet into Java without altering its behavior.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Keep all operations the same but rewrite the snippet in Python.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Convert the following code from R to Python, ensuring the logic remains intact.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Write the same code in Go as shown below in R.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Keep all operations the same but rewrite the snippet in Go.
exp(1i * pi) + 1
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Please provide an equivalent version of this Racket code in C.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Produce a language-to-language conversion: from Racket to C, same semantics.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Write a version of this Racket function in C# with identical behavior.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write a version of this Racket function in C# with identical behavior.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write the same code in C++ as shown below in Racket.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Write a version of this Racket function in C++ with identical behavior.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Port the following code from Racket to Java with equivalent syntax and logic.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Rewrite this program in Java while keeping its functionality equivalent to the Racket version.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Translate this program into Python but keep the logic exactly as in Racket.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Translate the given Racket code snippet into Python without altering its behavior.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Maintain the same structure and functionality when rewriting this code in Go.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Keep all operations the same but rewrite the snippet in Go.
#lang racket (+ (exp (* 0+i pi)) 1)
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Produce a functionally identical C code for the snippet given in REXX.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Please provide an equivalent version of this REXX code in C.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Ensure the translated C# code behaves exactly like the original REXX snippet.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Port the following code from REXX to C# with equivalent syntax and logic.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Rewrite this program in C++ while keeping its functionality equivalent to the REXX version.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Please provide an equivalent version of this REXX code in C++.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Generate an equivalent Java version of this REXX code.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Ensure the translated Java code behaves exactly like the original REXX snippet.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Produce a language-to-language conversion: from REXX to Python, same semantics.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Port the following code from REXX to Python with equivalent syntax and logic.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Rewrite this program in Go while keeping its functionality equivalent to the REXX version.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Produce a functionally identical Go code for the snippet given in REXX.
numeric digits length( pi() ) - length(.) cosPI= fmt( cos(pi) ) sinPI= fmt( sin(pi) ) say ' cos(pi) = ' cosPI say ' sin(pi) = ' sinPI say $= cosPI + mult( sqrt(-1), sinPI ) + 1 say ' e^(i pi) + 1 = ' fmt($) ' ' word("unproven proven", ($=0) + 1) exit fmt: procedure; parse arg x; x= format(x, , digits() %2, 0); return left('', x>=0)x /1 mult: procedure; parse arg a,b; if a=0 | b=0 then return 0; return a*b pi: pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923; return pi cos: procedure; parse arg x; z= 1; _= 1; q= x*x; i= -1; return .sinCos() sin: procedure; parse arg x 1 z 1 _; q= x*x; i= 1; return .sinCos() .sinCos: do k=2 by 2 until p=z; p=z; _= -_ * q/(k*(k+i)); z= z+_; end; return z sqrt: procedure; parse arg x; if x=0 then return 0; d=digits(); i=; h= d+6 numeric digits; numeric form; if x<0 then do; x= -x; i= 'i'; end; m.= 9 parse value format(x, 2, 1, , 0) 'E0' with g 'E' _ .; g= g * .5'e'_ % 2 do j=0 while h>9; m.j= h; h= h % 2 + 1; end do k=j+5 to 0 by -1; numeric digits m.k; g= (g+x/g) *.5; end; return g || i
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Generate a C translation of this Ruby snippet without changing its computational steps.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Change the programming language of this snippet from Ruby to C without modifying what it does.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Change the following Ruby code into C# without altering its purpose.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write the same algorithm in C# as shown in this Ruby implementation.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write the same code in C++ as shown below in Ruby.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Convert this Ruby snippet to C++ and keep its semantics consistent.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Produce a language-to-language conversion: from Ruby to Java, same semantics.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Generate an equivalent Python version of this Ruby code.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Change the programming language of this snippet from Ruby to Python without modifying what it does.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Generate an equivalent Go version of this Ruby code.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Please provide an equivalent version of this Ruby code in Go.
include Math E ** (PI * 1i) + 1
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Port the following code from Scala to C with equivalent syntax and logic.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Transform the following Scala implementation into C, maintaining the same output and logic.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Generate a C# translation of this Scala snippet without changing its computational steps.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Port the provided Scala code into C# while preserving the original functionality.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Translate this program into C++ but keep the logic exactly as in Scala.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Maintain the same structure and functionality when rewriting this code in C++.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Generate a Java translation of this Scala snippet without changing its computational steps.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Translate this program into Java but keep the logic exactly as in Scala.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Port the following code from Scala to Python with equivalent syntax and logic.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Write a version of this Scala function in Python with identical behavior.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Port the provided Scala code into Go while preserving the original functionality.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Change the following Scala code into Go without altering its purpose.
import kotlin.math.sqrt import kotlin.math.PI const val EPSILON = 1.0e-16 const val SMALL_PI = '\u03c0' const val APPROX_EQUALS = '\u2245' class Complex(val real: Double, val imag: Double) { operator fun plus(other: Complex) = Complex(real + other.real, imag + other.imag) operator fun times(other: Complex) = Complex( real * other.real - imag * other.imag, real * other.imag + imag * other.real ) fun inv(): Complex { val denom = real * real + imag * imag return Complex(real / denom, -imag / denom) } operator fun unaryMinus() = Complex(-real, -imag) operator fun minus(other: Complex) = this + (-other) operator fun div(other: Complex) = this * other.inv() val modulus: Double get() = sqrt(real * real + imag * imag) override fun toString() = if (imag >= 0.0) "$real + ${imag}i" else "$real - ${-imag}i" } fun main(args: Array<String>) { var fact = 1.0 val x = Complex(0.0, PI) var e = Complex(1.0, PI) var n = 2 var pow = x do { val e0 = e fact *= n++ pow *= x e += pow / Complex(fact, 0.0) } while ((e - e0).modulus >= EPSILON) e += Complex(1.0, 0.0) println("e^${SMALL_PI}i + 1 = $e $APPROX_EQUALS 0") }
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Change the programming language of this snippet from Tcl to C without modifying what it does.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Convert this Tcl snippet to C and keep its semantics consistent.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
Produce a language-to-language conversion: from Tcl to C#, same semantics.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Ensure the translated C# code behaves exactly like the original Tcl snippet.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
Write the same algorithm in C++ as shown in this Tcl implementation.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Port the provided Tcl code into C++ while preserving the original functionality.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
Translate the given Tcl code snippet into Java without altering its behavior.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Change the following Tcl code into Java without altering its purpose.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
Write a version of this Tcl function in Python with identical behavior.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Write a version of this Tcl function in Python with identical behavior.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Rewrite this program in Go while keeping its functionality equivalent to the Tcl version.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Write a version of this Tcl function in Go with identical behavior.
namespace eval complex_ns { package require math::complexnumbers namespace import ::math::complexnumbers::* set pi [expr {acos(-1)}] set r [+ [exp [complex 0 $pi]] [complex 1 0]] puts "e**(pi*i) = [real $r]+[imag $r]i" }
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
Transform the following C implementation into Rust, maintaining the same output and logic.
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Write a version of this C++ function in Rust with identical behavior.
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Convert the following code from C# to Rust, ensuring the logic remains intact.
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Rewrite the snippet below in Rust so it works the same as the original Java code.
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Can you help me rewrite this code in Rust instead of Java, keeping it the same logically?
public class EulerIdentity { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("e ^ (i*Pi) + 1 = " + (new Complex(0, Math.PI).exp()).add(new Complex(1, 0))); } public static class Complex { private double x, y; public Complex(double re, double im) { x = re; y = im; } public Complex exp() { double exp = Math.exp(x); return new Complex(exp * Math.cos(y), exp * Math.sin(y)); } public Complex add(Complex a) { return new Complex(x + a.x, y + a.y); } @Override public String toString() { return x + " + " + y + "i"; } } }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Write a version of this Go function in Rust with identical behavior.
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Maintain the same structure and functionality when rewriting this code in Rust.
package main import ( "fmt" "math" "math/cmplx" ) func main() { fmt.Println(cmplx.Exp(math.Pi * 1i) + 1.0) }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Translate this program into Python but keep the logic exactly as in Rust.
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Convert this C snippet to Rust and keep its semantics consistent.
#include <stdio.h> #include <math.h> #include <complex.h> #include <wchar.h> #include <locale.h> int main() { wchar_t pi = L'\u03c0'; wchar_t ae = L'\u2245'; double complex e = cexp(M_PI * I) + 1.0; setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""); printf("e ^ %lci + 1 = [%.16f, %.16f] %lc 0\n", pi, creal(e), cimag(e), ae); return 0; }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Produce a functionally identical Rust code for the snippet given in C#.
using System; using System.Numerics; public class Program { static void Main() { Complex e = Math.E; Complex i = Complex.ImaginaryOne; Complex π = Math.PI; Console.WriteLine(Complex.Pow(e, i * π) + 1); } }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Convert this Rust block to Python, preserving its control flow and logic.
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
>>> import math >>> math.e ** (math.pi * 1j) + 1 1.2246467991473532e-16j
Port the following code from C++ to Rust with equivalent syntax and logic.
#include <iostream> #include <complex> int main() { std::cout << std::exp(std::complex<double>(0.0, M_PI)) + 1.0 << std::endl; return 0; }
use std::f64::consts::PI; extern crate num_complex; use num_complex::Complex; fn main() { println!("{:e}", Complex::new(0.0, PI).exp() + 1.0); }
Port the following code from Ada to C# with equivalent syntax and logic.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
namespace RosettaCode.ArithmeticGeometricMean { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Globalization; internal static class Program { private static double ArithmeticGeometricMean(double number, double otherNumber, IEqualityComparer<double> comparer) { return comparer.Equals(number, otherNumber) ? number : ArithmeticGeometricMean( ArithmeticMean(number, otherNumber), GeometricMean(number, otherNumber), comparer); } private static double ArithmeticMean(double number, double otherNumber) { return 0.5 * (number + otherNumber); } private static double GeometricMean(double number, double otherNumber) { return Math.Sqrt(number * otherNumber); } private static void Main() { Console.WriteLine( ArithmeticGeometricMean(1, 0.5 * Math.Sqrt(2), new RelativeDifferenceComparer(1e-5)). ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)); } private class RelativeDifferenceComparer : IEqualityComparer<double> { private readonly double _maximumRelativeDifference; internal RelativeDifferenceComparer(double maximumRelativeDifference) { _maximumRelativeDifference = maximumRelativeDifference; } public bool Equals(double number, double otherNumber) { return RelativeDifference(number, otherNumber) <= _maximumRelativeDifference; } public int GetHashCode(double number) { return number.GetHashCode(); } private static double RelativeDifference(double number, double otherNumber) { return AbsoluteDifference(number, otherNumber) / Norm(number, otherNumber); } private static double AbsoluteDifference(double number, double otherNumber) { return Math.Abs(number - otherNumber); } private static double Norm(double number, double otherNumber) { return 0.5 * (Math.Abs(number) + Math.Abs(otherNumber)); } } } }
Ensure the translated C# code behaves exactly like the original Ada snippet.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
namespace RosettaCode.ArithmeticGeometricMean { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Globalization; internal static class Program { private static double ArithmeticGeometricMean(double number, double otherNumber, IEqualityComparer<double> comparer) { return comparer.Equals(number, otherNumber) ? number : ArithmeticGeometricMean( ArithmeticMean(number, otherNumber), GeometricMean(number, otherNumber), comparer); } private static double ArithmeticMean(double number, double otherNumber) { return 0.5 * (number + otherNumber); } private static double GeometricMean(double number, double otherNumber) { return Math.Sqrt(number * otherNumber); } private static void Main() { Console.WriteLine( ArithmeticGeometricMean(1, 0.5 * Math.Sqrt(2), new RelativeDifferenceComparer(1e-5)). ToString(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture)); } private class RelativeDifferenceComparer : IEqualityComparer<double> { private readonly double _maximumRelativeDifference; internal RelativeDifferenceComparer(double maximumRelativeDifference) { _maximumRelativeDifference = maximumRelativeDifference; } public bool Equals(double number, double otherNumber) { return RelativeDifference(number, otherNumber) <= _maximumRelativeDifference; } public int GetHashCode(double number) { return number.GetHashCode(); } private static double RelativeDifference(double number, double otherNumber) { return AbsoluteDifference(number, otherNumber) / Norm(number, otherNumber); } private static double AbsoluteDifference(double number, double otherNumber) { return Math.Abs(number - otherNumber); } private static double Norm(double number, double otherNumber) { return 0.5 * (Math.Abs(number) + Math.Abs(otherNumber)); } } } }
Convert this Ada block to C, preserving its control flow and logic.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
#include<math.h> #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> double agm( double a, double g ) { double iota = 1.0E-16; double a1, g1; if( a*g < 0.0 ) { printf( "arithmetic-geometric mean undefined when x*y<0\n" ); exit(1); } while( fabs(a-g)>iota ) { a1 = (a + g) / 2.0; g1 = sqrt(a * g); a = a1; g = g1; } return a; } int main( void ) { double x, y; printf( "Enter two numbers: " ); scanf( "%lf%lf", &x, &y ); printf( "The arithmetic-geometric mean is %lf\n", agm(x, y) ); return 0; }
Convert this Ada block to C, preserving its control flow and logic.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
#include<math.h> #include<stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> double agm( double a, double g ) { double iota = 1.0E-16; double a1, g1; if( a*g < 0.0 ) { printf( "arithmetic-geometric mean undefined when x*y<0\n" ); exit(1); } while( fabs(a-g)>iota ) { a1 = (a + g) / 2.0; g1 = sqrt(a * g); a = a1; g = g1; } return a; } int main( void ) { double x, y; printf( "Enter two numbers: " ); scanf( "%lf%lf", &x, &y ); printf( "The arithmetic-geometric mean is %lf\n", agm(x, y) ); return 0; }
Write a version of this Ada function in C++ with identical behavior.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
#include "gmp.h" void agm (const mpf_t in1, const mpf_t in2, mpf_t out1, mpf_t out2) { mpf_add (out1, in1, in2); mpf_div_ui (out1, out1, 2); mpf_mul (out2, in1, in2); mpf_sqrt (out2, out2); } int main (void) { mpf_set_default_prec (65568); mpf_t x0, y0, resA, resB; mpf_init_set_ui (y0, 1); mpf_init_set_d (x0, 0.5); mpf_sqrt (x0, x0); mpf_init (resA); mpf_init (resB); for(int i=0; i<7; i++){ agm(x0, y0, resA, resB); agm(resA, resB, x0, y0); } gmp_printf ("%.20000Ff\n", x0); gmp_printf ("%.20000Ff\n\n", y0); return 0; }
Transform the following Ada implementation into C++, maintaining the same output and logic.
with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions; procedure Arith_Geom_Mean is type Num is digits 18; package N_IO is new Ada.Text_IO.Float_IO(Num); package Math is new Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions(Num); function AGM(A, G: Num) return Num is Old_G: Num; New_G: Num := G; New_A: Num := A; begin loop Old_G := New_G; New_G := Math.Sqrt(New_A*New_G); New_A := (Old_G + New_A) * 0.5; exit when (New_A - New_G) <= Num'Epsilon; end loop; return New_G; end AGM; begin N_IO.Put(AGM(1.0, 1.0/Math.Sqrt(2.0)), Fore => 1, Aft => 17, Exp => 0); end Arith_Geom_Mean;
#include "gmp.h" void agm (const mpf_t in1, const mpf_t in2, mpf_t out1, mpf_t out2) { mpf_add (out1, in1, in2); mpf_div_ui (out1, out1, 2); mpf_mul (out2, in1, in2); mpf_sqrt (out2, out2); } int main (void) { mpf_set_default_prec (65568); mpf_t x0, y0, resA, resB; mpf_init_set_ui (y0, 1); mpf_init_set_d (x0, 0.5); mpf_sqrt (x0, x0); mpf_init (resA); mpf_init (resB); for(int i=0; i<7; i++){ agm(x0, y0, resA, resB); agm(resA, resB, x0, y0); } gmp_printf ("%.20000Ff\n", x0); gmp_printf ("%.20000Ff\n\n", y0); return 0; }