We Keep Coding

Can I make this recursion work with negative numbers?

I wrote this code and it's alright with positive numbers, but when I tried negative numbers it crashes. Can you give any hints on how to make it work with negative numbers as well? It needs to be recursive, not iterative, and to calculate the sum of the digits of an integer.
def sum_digits(n):
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
if __name__=='__main__':
print(sum_digits(123))
Input: 123
Output: 6

On the assumption that the 'sum' of the three digits of a negative number is the same as that of the absolute value of that number, this will work:
def sum_digits(n):
if n < 0:
return sum_digits(-n)
elif n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
That said, your actual problem here is that Python's handling of modulo for a negative number is different than you expect:
>>> -123 % 10
7
Why is that? It's because of the use of trunc() in the division. This page has a good explanation, but the short answer is that when you divide -123 by 10, in order to figure out the remainder, Python truncates in a different direction than you'd expect. (For good, if obscure, reasons.) Thus, in the above, instead of getting the expected 3 you get 7 (which is 10, your modulus, minus 3, the leftover).
Similarly, it's handling of integer division is different:
>>> -123 // 10
-13
>>> 123 // 10
12
This is un-intuitively correct because it is rounding 'down' rather than 'towards zero'. So a -12.3 rounds 'down' to -13.
These reasons are why the easiest solution to your particular problem is to simply take the absolute value prior to doing your actual calculation.

Separate your function into two functions: one, a recursive function that must always be called with a non-negative number, and two, a function that checks its argument can calls the recursive function with an appropriate argument.
def sum_digits(n):
return _recursive_sum_digits(abs(n))
def _recursive_sum_digits(n):
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
Since _recursive_sum_digits can assume its argument is non-negative, you can dispense with checking its sign on every recursive call, and guarantee that n // 10 will eventually produce 0.

If you want to just sum the digits that come after the negative sign, remove the sign by taking the absolute value of the number. If you're considering the first digit of the negative number to be a negative digit, then manually add that number in after performing this function on the rest of the digits.

Here is your hint. This is happening because the modulo operator always yields a result with the same sign as its second operand (or zero). Look at these examples:
>>> 13 % 10
3
>>> -13 % 10
7
In your specific case, a solution is to first get the absolute value of the number, and then you can go on with you approach:
def sum_digits(n):
n = abs(n)
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0

The math calculations behind using (%, //) in python by applying (Decimal(), signed numbers )?

I was trying to understand the math behind calculations using / and // and % operators by doing some trials and found the results are similar to calculator only when using Decimal() but without it the results kinda confusing, i tried to add comments #No Ideato my code to mark the points i don't understand,for example:
in this trial for % operator by applying signed and unsigned number the results and with and without Decimal() the results are :
>>> 9%5 #This result will be the reminder
4
>>> (-9)%5 #No Idea
1
>>> Decimal(9)% Decimal(5) #This result will be the reminder
Decimal('4')
>>> Decimal(-9)% Decimal(5) #The result will be the signed reminder
Decimal('-4')
in this trial for // operator and using signed and unsigned number with and without Decimal() the results are :
>>> 9//5 #int result
1
>>> -9//5 #No Idea
-2
>>> Decimal(9)/Decimal(5) #Same result as using calculator
Decimal('1.8')
>>> Decimal(-9)//Decimal(5) #No Idea
Decimal('-1')
Please consider that this question is not a duplicate and i have done some research to get an answer but i found some answered questions that explain only about // operator using only positive signed numbers and doesn't include information about negative signed numbers or using the Decimal() and doesn't have answer about % operator.
so,It will be helpful if someone knows why the results are different and how they are calculated.

Explanation for the behaviour of integers
From python documentation:
Division of integers yields a float, while floor division of integers
results in an integer; the result is that of mathematical division
with the ‘floor’ function applied to the result.
Therefore, an integer division (//) of negative negative and positive number works as follows:
-9 // 5 == floor(-9 / 5) == floor(-1.8) == -2
The modulo operator is the remainder of the integer division, i.e. x % y = x - x // y * y. In your example:
-9 % 5 == -9 - (-9 // 5 * 5) == (-9) - (-2 * 5) == (-9) - (-10) == 1
The documentation also says:
The modulo operator always yields a result with the same sign as its
second operand (or zero); the absolute value of the result is strictly
smaller than the absolute value of the second operand.
But that comes naturally from the formula above, e.g.:
9 % -5 == 9 - (9 // (-5) * (-5)) == 9 - (-2 * (-5)) == 9 - 10 == -1
decimal.Decimal is different
The documentation explains the difference well:
There are some small differences between arithmetic on Decimal objects
and arithmetic on integers and floats. When the remainder operator %
is applied to Decimal objects, the sign of the result is the sign of
the dividend rather than the sign of the divisor:
>>> (-7) % 4
1
>>> Decimal(-7) % Decimal(4)
Decimal('-3')
The integer division operator // behaves analogously, returning the
integer part of the true quotient (truncating towards zero) rather
than its floor, so as to preserve the usual identity x == (x // y) * y
+ x % y:
>>> -7 // 4
-2
>>> Decimal(-7) // Decimal(4)
Decimal('-1')

As I understand the question, the OP is asking about the different behavior between Python integers and Decimals. I don't think there is any good reason for it. Both choices are possible, but it is a bit confusing for the user that they differ.
Let's call the numerator n, the denominator d and split the result in the interger result i and the remainder r. This means that
n // d = i
n % d = r
For the operations to make sense, we need
i * d + r == n
For n = -9 and d = 5 we see that this is uphold for both i = -1, r = -4 and for i = -2, r = 1 as can be seen by
(i = -1, r = -4) => -1 * 5 + -4 == -9
(i = -2, r = 1) => -2 * 5 + 1 == -9
Now, in Python integer division is defined as always truncate towards minus infinity (down) and the Decimal implementation has chosen to round towards zero. That means that positive values are truncated/rounded down, whereas negative values are rounded up.
Rounding towards zero is the choice made also made in the C language. However, my personal opinion is that the Python choice is much more sane, specifically coming from a hardware background. And given that this is the choice made in Python, I think it is strange (and bad) that Decimal has chosen to do as in the C language.

How to check if a float value is a whole number

I am trying to find the largest cube root that is a whole number, that is less than 12,000.
processing = True
n = 12000
while processing:
n -= 1
if n ** (1/3) == #checks to see if this has decimals or not
I am not sure how to check if it is a whole number or not though! I could convert it to a string then use indexing to check the end values and see whether they are zero or not, that seems rather cumbersome though. Is there a simpler way?

To check if a float value is a whole number, use the float.is_integer() method:
>>> (1.0).is_integer()
True
>>> (1.555).is_integer()
False
The method was added to the float type in Python 2.6.
Take into account that in Python 2, 1/3 is 0 (floor division for integer operands!), and that floating point arithmetic can be imprecise (a float is an approximation using binary fractions, not a precise real number). But adjusting your loop a little this gives:
>>> for n in range(12000, -1, -1):
... if (n ** (1.0/3)).is_integer():
... print n
...
27
8
1
0
which means that anything over 3 cubed, (including 10648) was missed out due to the aforementioned imprecision:
>>> (4**3) ** (1.0/3)
3.9999999999999996
>>> 10648 ** (1.0/3)
21.999999999999996
You'd have to check for numbers close to the whole number instead, or not use float() to find your number. Like rounding down the cube root of 12000:
>>> int(12000 ** (1.0/3))
22
>>> 22 ** 3
10648
If you are using Python 3.5 or newer, you can use the math.isclose() function to see if a floating point value is within a configurable margin:
>>> from math import isclose
>>> isclose((4**3) ** (1.0/3), 4)
True
>>> isclose(10648 ** (1.0/3), 22)
True
For older versions, the naive implementation of that function (skipping error checking and ignoring infinity and NaN) as mentioned in PEP485:
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-9, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a - b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)

We can use the modulo (%) operator. This tells us how many remainders we have when we divide x by y - expresses as x % y. Every whole number must divide by 1, so if there is a remainder, it must not be a whole number.
This function will return a boolean, True or False, depending on whether n is a whole number.
def is_whole(n):
return n % 1 == 0

You could use this:
if k == int(k):
print(str(k) + " is a whole number!")

You don't need to loop or to check anything. Just take a cube root of 12,000 and round it down:
r = int(12000**(1/3.0))
print r*r*r # 10648

You can use a modulo operation for that.
if (n ** (1.0/3)) % 1 != 0:
print("We have a decimal number here!")

How about
if x%1==0:
print "is integer"

Wouldn't it be easier to test the cube roots? Start with 20 (20**3 = 8000) and go up to 30 (30**3 = 27000). Then you have to test fewer than 10 integers.
for i in range(20, 30):
print("Trying {0}".format(i))
if i ** 3 > 12000:
print("Maximum integral cube root less than 12000: {0}".format(i - 1))
break

The above answers work for many cases but they miss some. Consider the following:
fl = sum([0.1]*10) # this is 0.9999999999999999, but we want to say it IS an int
Using this as a benchmark, some of the other suggestions don't get the behavior we might want:
fl.is_integer() # False
fl % 1 == 0 # False
Instead try:
def isclose(a, b, rel_tol=1e-09, abs_tol=0.0):
return abs(a-b) <= max(rel_tol * max(abs(a), abs(b)), abs_tol)
def is_integer(fl):
return isclose(fl, round(fl))
now we get:
is_integer(fl) # True
isclose comes with Python 3.5+, and for other Python's you can use this mostly equivalent definition (as mentioned in the corresponding PEP)

Just a side info, is_integer is doing internally:
import math
isInteger = (math.floor(x) == x)
Not exactly in python, but the cpython implementation is implemented as mentioned above.

All the answers are good but a sure fire method would be
def whole (n):
return (n*10)%10==0
The function returns True if it's a whole number else False....I know I'm a bit late but here's one of the interesting methods which I made...
Edit: as stated by the comment below, a cheaper equivalent test would be:
def whole(n):
return n%1==0

You can use something like:
num = 1.9899
bool(int(num)-num)
#returns True
if it is True, It means it holds some value, hence not a whole number. Else
num = 1.0
bool(int(num)-num)
# returns False

>>> def is_near_integer(n, precision=8, get_integer=False):
... if get_integer:
... return int(round(n, precision))
... else:
... return round(n) == round(n, precision)
...
>>> print(is_near_integer(10648 ** (1.0/3)))
True
>>> print(is_near_integer(10648 ** (1.0/3), get_integer=True))
22
>>> for i in [4.9, 5.1, 4.99, 5.01, 4.999, 5.001, 4.9999, 5.0001, 4.99999, 5.000
01, 4.999999, 5.000001]:
... print(i, is_near_integer(i, 4))
...
4.9 False
5.1 False
4.99 False
5.01 False
4.999 False
5.001 False
4.9999 False
5.0001 False
4.99999 True
5.00001 True
4.999999 True
5.000001 True
>>>

This problem has been solved, but I would like to propose an additional mathematical-based solution for funcies.
The benefit of this approach is that it calculates the whole number part of your number, which may be beneficial depending on your general task.
Algorithm:
Decompose whole number part of your number its a sum of its decimals (e.g., 327=3*100+2*10+7*1)
take difference between calculated whole number and number itself
decide whether difference is close enough to be considered an integer.
from math import ceil, log, isclose
def is_whole(x: float) -> bool:
n_digits = ceil(log(x,10)) # number of digits of decimals at or above ones
digits = [(n//(10**i))%10 for i in range(n_digits)] # parse digits of `x` at or above ones decimal
whole = 0 # will equal the whole number part of `x`
for i in range(n_digits):
decimal = 10**i
digit = digits[i]
whole += digit*decimal
diff = whole - x
return isclose(diff, 0.0)
NOTE: the idea of parsing digits of a number was realized from here

Try using:
int(val) == val
It will give lot more precision than any other methods.

You can use the round function to compute the value.
Yes in python as many have pointed when we compute the value of a cube root, it will give you an output with a little bit of error. To check if the value is a whole number you can use the following function:
def cube_integer(n):
if round(n**(1.0/3.0))**3 == n:
return True
return False
But remember that int(n) is equivalent to math.floor and because of this if you find the int(41063625**(1.0/3.0)) you will get 344 instead of 345.
So please be careful when using int withe cube roots.

Python 2.6, what does the % mean in this context?

def f(x):
return x % 2 != 0 and x % 3 != 0
Just learning the language, I thought % was for string formatting?
Found on the official tutorial:
http://docs.python.org/release/2.6.1/tutorial/datastructures.html

In the context of numbers it means modulo -- the remainder you get when you divide x by 2 is x % 2.

That, my friend, would be the modulo operator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation for what that is and http://docs.python.org/reference/expressions.html#binary-arithmetic-operations for all binary arithmetic operators in python.

It is the modulo operator, so that your function returns true if and only if the number x doesn't divide by 2 and doesn't divide by 3. x % y represents the remainder of dividing x by y. For Example 5%2 = 1 and 5%3 = 2 and thus, for number 5, your method above returns true.

How does the modulo (%) operator work on negative numbers in Python?

Exactly how does the % operator work in Python, particularly when negative numbers are involved?
For example, why does -5 % 4 evaluate to 3, rather than, say, -1?

Unlike C or C++, Python's modulo operator (%) always return a number having the same sign as the denominator (divisor). Your expression yields 3 because
(-5) / 4 = -1.25 --> floor(-1.25) = -2
(-5) % 4 = (-2 × 4 + 3) % 4 = 3.
It is chosen over the C behavior because a nonnegative result is often more useful. An example is to compute week days. If today is Tuesday (day #2), what is the week day N days before? In Python we can compute with
return (2 - N) % 7
but in C, if N ≥ 3, we get a negative number which is an invalid number, and we need to manually fix it up by adding 7:
int result = (2 - N) % 7;
return result < 0 ? result + 7 : result;
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operator for how the sign of result is determined for different languages.)

Here's an explanation from Guido van Rossum:
http://python-history.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-pythons-integer-division-floors.html
Essentially, it's so that a/b = q with remainder r preserves the relationships b*q + r = a and 0 <= r < b.

In python, modulo operator works like this.
>>> mod = n - math.floor(n/base) * base
so the result is (for your case):
mod = -5 - floor(-1.25) * 4
mod = -5 - (-2*4)
mod = 3
whereas other languages such as C, JAVA, JavaScript use truncation instead of floor.
>>> mod = n - int(n/base) * base
which results in:
mod = -5 - int(-1.25) * 4
mod = -5 - (-1*4)
mod = -1
If you need more information about rounding in python, read this.

Other answers, especially the selected one have clearly answered this question quite well. But I would like to present a graphical approach that might be easier to understand as well, along with python code to perform normal mathematical modulo in python.
Python Modulo for Dummies
Modulo function is a directional function that describes how much we have to move further or behind after the mathematical jumps that we take during division over our X-axis of infinite numbers.
So let's say you were doing 7%3
So in forward direction, your answer would be +1, but in backward direction-
your answer would be -2. Both of which are correct mathematically.
Similarly, you would have 2 moduli for negative numbers as well. For eg: -7%3, can result both in -1 or +2 as shown -
Forward direction
Backward direction
In mathematics, we choose inward jumps, i.e. forward direction for a positive number and backward direction for negative numbers.
But in Python, we have a forward direction for all positive modulo operations. Hence, your confusion -
>>> -5 % 4
3
>>> 5 % 4
1
Here is the python code for inward jump type modulo in python:
def newMod(a,b):
res = a%b
return res if not res else res-b if a<0 else res
which would give -
>>> newMod(-5,4)
-1
>>> newMod(5,4)
1
Many people would oppose the inward jump method, but my personal opinion is, that this one is better!!

As pointed out, Python modulo makes a well-reasoned exception to the conventions of other languages.
This gives negative numbers a seamless behavior, especially when used in combination with the // integer-divide operator, as % modulo often is (as in math.divmod):
for n in range(-8,8):
print n, n//4, n%4
Produces:
-8 -2 0
-7 -2 1
-6 -2 2
-5 -2 3
-4 -1 0
-3 -1 1
-2 -1 2
-1 -1 3
0 0 0
1 0 1
2 0 2
3 0 3
4 1 0
5 1 1
6 1 2
7 1 3
Python % always outputs zero or positive*
Python // always rounds toward negative infinity
* ... as long as the right operand is positive. On the other hand 11 % -10 == -9

There is no one best way to handle integer division and mods with negative numbers. It would be nice if a/b was the same magnitude and opposite sign of (-a)/b. It would be nice if a % b was indeed a modulo b. Since we really want a == (a/b)*b + a%b, the first two are incompatible.
Which one to keep is a difficult question, and there are arguments for both sides. C and C++ round integer division towards zero (so a/b == -((-a)/b)), and apparently Python doesn't.

You can use:
result = numpy.fmod(x,y)
it will keep the sign , see numpy fmod() documentation.

It's also worth to mention that also the division in python is different from C:
Consider
>>> x = -10
>>> y = 37
in C you expect the result
0
what is x/y in python?
>>> print x/y
-1
and % is modulo - not the remainder! While x%y in C yields
-10
python yields.
>>> print x%y
27
You can get both as in C
The division:
>>> from math import trunc
>>> d = trunc(float(x)/y)
>>> print d
0
And the remainder (using the division from above):
>>> r = x - d*y
>>> print r
-10
This calculation is maybe not the fastest but it's working for any sign combinations of x and y to achieve the same results as in C plus it avoids conditional statements.

It's what modulo is used for. If you do a modulo through a series of numbers, it will give a cycle of values, say:
ans = num % 3
num
ans
3
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
-1
2
-2
1
-3
0

I also thought it was a strange behavior of Python. It turns out that I was not solving the division well (on paper); I was giving a value of 0 to the quotient and a value of -5 to the remainder. Terrible... I forgot the geometric representation of integers numbers. By recalling the geometry of integers given by the number line, one can get the correct values for the quotient and the remainder, and check that Python's behavior is fine. (Although I assume that you have already resolved your concern a long time ago).

#Deekshant has explained it well using visualisation. Another way to understand %(modulo) is ask a simple question.
What is nearest smaller number to dividend that can be divisible by divisor on X-axis ?
Let's have a look at few examples.
5 % 3
5 is Dividend, 3 is divisor. If you ask above question 3 is nearest smallest number that is divisible by divisor. ans would be 5 - 3 = 2. For positive Dividend, nearest smallest number would be always right side of dividend.
-5 % 3
Nearest smallest number that is divisible by 3 is -6 so ans would be -5 - (-6) = 1
-5 %4
Nearest smallest number that is divisible by 4 is -8 so ans would be -5 - (-8) = 3
Python answers every modulo expression with this method. Hope you can understand next how expression would be going to execute.

I attempted to write a general answer covering all input cases, because many people ask about various special cases (not just the one in OP, but also especially about negative values on the right-hand side) and it's really all the same question.
What does a % b actually give us in Python, explained in words?
Assuming that a and b are either float and/or int values, finite (not math.inf, math.nan etc.) and that b is not zero....
The result c is the unique number with the sign of b, such that a - c is divisible by b and abs(c) < abs(b). It will be an int when a and b are both int, and a float (even if it is exactly equal to an integer) when either a or b is an int.
For example:
>>> -9 % -5
-4
>>> 9 % 5
4
>>> -9 % 5
1
>>> 9 % -5
-1
The sign preservation also works for floating-point numbers; even when a is divisible by b, it is possible to get distinct 0.0 and -0.0 results (recalling that zero is signed in floating-point), and the sign will match b.
Proof of concept:
import math
def sign(x):
return math.copysign(1, x)
def test(a: [int, float], b: [int, float]):
c = a % b
if isinstance(a, int) and isinstance(b, int):
assert isinstance(c, int)
assert c * b >= 0 # same sign or c == 0
else:
assert isinstance(c, float)
assert sign(c) == sign(b)
assert abs(c) < abs(b)
assert math.isclose((a - c) / b, round((a - c) / b))
It's a little hard to phrase this in a way that covers all possible sign and type combinations and accounts for floating-point imprecision, but I'm pretty confident in the above. One specific gotcha for floats is that, because of that floating-point imprecision, the result for a % b might sometimes appear to give b rather than 0. In fact, it simply gives a value very close to b, because the result of the division wasn't quite exact:
>>> # On my version of Python
>>> 3.5 % 0.1
0.09999999999999981
>>> # On some other versions, it might appear as 0.1,
>>> # because of the internal rules for formatting floats for display
What if abs(a) < abs(b)?
A lot of people seem to think this is a special case, or for some reason have difficulty understanding what happens. But there is nothing special here.
For example: consider -1 % 3. How much, as a positive quantity (because 3 is positive), do we have to subtract from -1, in order to get a result divisible by 3? -1 is not divisible by 3; -1 - 1 is -2, which is also not divisible; but -1 - 2 is -3, which is divisible by 3 (dividing in exactly -1 times). By subtracting 2, we get back to divisibility; thus 2 is our predicted answer - and it checks out:
>>> -1 % 3
2
What about with b equal to zero?
It will raise ZeroDivisionError, regardless of whether b is integer zero, floating-point positive zero, or floating-point negative zero. In particular, it will not result in a NaN value.
What about special float values?
As one might expect, nan and signed infinity values for a produce a nan result, as long as b is not zero (which overrides everything else). nan values for b result in nan as well. NaN cannot be signed, so the sign of b is irrelevant in these cases.
Also as one might expect, inf % inf gives nan, regardless of the signs. If we are sharing out an infinite amount of as to an infinite amount of bs, there's no way to say "which infinity is bigger" or by how much.
The only slightly confusing cases are when b is a signed infinity value:
>>> 0 % inf
0.0
>>> 0 % -inf
-0.0
>>> 1 % inf
1.0
>>> 1 % -inf
-inf
As always, the result takes the sign of b. 0 is divisible by anything (except NaN), including infinity. But nothing else divides evenly into infinity. If a has the same sign as b, the result is simply a (as a floating-point value); if the signs differ, it will be b. Why? Well, consider -1 % inf. There isn't a finite value we can subtract from -1, in order to get to 0 (the unique value that we can divide into infinity). So we have to keep going, to infinity. The same logic applies to 1 % -inf, with all the signs reversed.
What about other types?
It's up to the type. For example, the Decimal type overloads the operator so that the result takes the sign of the numerator, even though it functionally represents the same kind of value that a float does. And, of course, strings use it for something completely different.
Why not always give a positive result, or take the sign of a?
The behaviour is motivated by integer division. While % happens to work with floating-point numbers, it's specifically designed to handle integer inputs, and the results for floats fall in line to be consistent with that.
After making the choice for a // b to give a floored division result, the % behaviour preserves a useful invariant:
>>> def check_consistency(a, b):
... assert (a // b) * b + (a % b) == a
...
>>> for a in range(-10, 11):
... for b in range(-10, 11):
... if b != 0:
... check_consistency(a, b) # no assertion is raised
...
In other words: adding the modulus value back, corrects the error created by doing an integer division.
(This, of course, lets us go back to the first section, and say that a % b simply computes a - ((a // b) * b). But that just kicks the can down the road; we still need to explain what // is doing for signed values, especially for floats.)
One practical application for this is when converting pixel coordinates to tile coordinates. // tells us which tile contains the pixel coordinate, and then % tells us the offset within that tile. Say we have 16x16 tiles: then the tile with x-coordinate 0 contains pixels with x-coordinates 0..15 inclusive, tile 1 corresponds to pixel coordinate values 16..31, and so on. If the pixel coordinate is, say, 100, we can easily calculate that it is in tile 100 // 16 == 6, and offset 100 % 16 == 4 pixels from the left edge of that tile.
We don't have to change anything in order to handle tiles on the other side of the origin. The tile at coordinate -1 needs to account for the next 16 pixel coordinates to the left of 0 - i.e., -16..-1 inclusive. And indeed, we find that e.g. -13 // 16 == -1 (so the coordinate is in that tile), and -13 % 16 == 3 (that's how far it is from the left edge of the tile).
By setting the tile width to be positive, we defined that the within-tile coordinates progress left-to-right. Therefore, knowing that a point is within a specific tile, we always want a positive result for that offset calculation. Python's % operator gives us that, on both sides of the y-axis.
What if I want it to work another way?
math.fmod will take the sign of the numerator. It will also return a floating-point result, even for two integer inputs, and raises an exception for signed-infinity a values with non-nan b values:
>>> math.fmod(-13, 16)
-13.0
>>> math.fmod(13, -16)
13.0
>>> math.fmod(1, -inf) # not -inf
1.0
>>> math.fmod(inf, 1.0) # not nan
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
ValueError: math domain error
It otherwise handles special cases the same way - a zero value for b raises an exception; otherwise any nan present causes a nan result.
If this also doesn't suit your needs, then carefully define the exact desired behaviour for every possible corner case, figure out where they differ from the built-in options, and make a wrapper function.