You are doing 157/32
which is dividing two integers with each other, which always result in a rounded down integer. Therefore the (int) Math.ceil(...)
isn't doing anything. There are three possible solutions to achieve what you want. I recommend using either option 1 or option 2. Please do NOT use option 0.
Option 0
Convert a
and b
to a double, and you can use the division and Math.ceil
as you wanted it to work. However I strongly discourage the use of this approach, because double division can be imprecise. To read more about imprecision of doubles see this question.
int n = (int) Math.ceil((double) a / b));
Option 1
int n = a / b + ((a % b == 0) ? 0 : 1);
You do a / b
with always floor if a
and b
are both integers. Then you have an inline if-statement witch checks whether or not you should ceil instead of floor. So +1 or +0, if there is a remainder with the division you need +1. a % b == 0
checks for the remainder.
Option 2
This option is very short, but maybe for some less intuitive. I think this less intuitive approach would be faster than the double division and comparison approach:
Please note that this doesn't work for b < 0
.
int n = (a + b - 1) / b;
To reduce the chance of overflow you could use the following. However please note that it doesn't work for a = 0
and b < 1
.
int n = (a - 1) / b + 1;
Explanation behind the "less intuitive approach"
Since dividing two integer in Java (and most other programming languages) will always floor the result. So:
int a, b;
int result = a/b (is the same as floor(a/b) )
But we don't want floor(a/b)
, but ceil(a/b)
, and using the definitions and plots from Wikipedia:
With these plots of the floor and ceil function you can see the relationship.
You can see that floor(x) <= ceil(x)
. We need floor(x + s) = ceil(x)
. So we need to find s
. If we take 1/2 <= s < 1
it will be just right (try some numbers and you will see it does, I find it hard myself to prove this). And 1/2 <= (b-1) / b < 1
, so
ceil(a/b) = floor(a/b + s)
= floor(a/b + (b-1)/b)
= floor( (a+b-1)/b) )
This is not a real proof, but I hope your are satisfied with it. If someone can explain it better I would appreciate it too. Maybe ask it on MathOverflow.