I have to make a multiplication function without the * or / operators. I have already made a method like this.
for(int i=0; i < number1; i++){
result += number2;
}
System.Out.println(result);
Now, here is my problem: It was fine until my lecturer change the topic, where the multiplication method must be can multiply decimal value. I had no idea how I can make multiplication method which can work on decimal value with just + and - operator.
yeah you can use log for the multiplication.
log(a*b)=log(a)+log(b)
and then find out the exponential value of log(a)+log(b)
and then you can convert the sign..
for example:
-9*8=-72
log(9*8)=log(9)+log(8)=2.19+2.07=4.27
e^4.27=72
now there is only one -ve no. then it is -72
else it's 72
I'm writing the function for:
void multiply(int num1,int num2)
{
int counter=0;
if(num1<0)
{counter++;num1+=num1+num1;}
if(num2<0)
{counter++;num2+=num2+num2;}
double res=Math.log(num1)+Math.log(num2);
int result=(int)Math.exp(res);
if(counter%2==0)
System.out.println("the result is:"+result);
else
System.out.println("the result is:-"+result);
}
hope this will help you....
You take the decimal numbers and move the decimal point step by step until there is an int left: 0.041 -> 1. step 0.41 -> 2. step 4.1 -> 3. step 41
multiplying 0.041 * 3 could be done by doing the above step 3 times, multiplying 41 * 3 = 123. For the result you take the 123 and undu the steps: 1. 12.3, 2. 1.23, 3. 0.123. There is your result: 0.123 = 0.041 * 3.
Edit:
To determine the number of decimals for each number, you might find the answer in this question: How many decimal Places in A Double (Java)
Answers show within others two ways to solve this quite easy: putting the number to a String and checking where in this String the "."-DecimalPoint occurs, or using the BigDecimal type which has a scale()-Method returning the number of decimals.
You shouldn't expect whole perfect code: But here is a hint to achieve this.
Try to use recursion technique instead for loops.
public double multiplyMe(double x, double y)
{
if(y == 0 || x == 0)
return 0;
if(y > 0 && x > 0 )
return (x + multiplyMe(x, y-1)); // multiply positive
if(y < 0 || x < 0 )
return - multiplyMe(x, -y); // multiply negative
}
one more way by using log:
10 raise to power ( sum of log10(x) and log10(y) )
This approach might be easier to understand. You have to add a b times, or equivalently, b a times. In addition, you need to handle 4 different cases where a and b can be either positive or negative.
public int multiply(int a, int b){
int result = 0;
if (a < 0 && b < 0){
for (int i = a; i <= -1; i++)
result-=b;
}
else if (a < 0){
for (int i = 1; i <= b; i++)
result+=a;
}
else if (b < 0){
for (int i = 1; i <= a; i++)
result+=b;
}
else {
for (int i = 1; i <= b; i++)
result+=a;
}
return result;
}
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println(multiply(3,-13)); // -39
}
I need a function in Java to give me number of bytes needed to represent a given integer. When I pass 2 it should return 1, 400 -> 2, 822222 -> 3, etc.
#Edit: For now I'm stuck with this:
numOfBytes = Integer.highestOneBit(integer) / 8
Don't know exactly what highestOneBit() does, but have also tried this:
numOfBytes = (int) (Math.floor(Math.log(integer)) + 1);
Which I found on some website.
static int byteSize(long x) {
if (x < 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException();
int s = 1;
while (s < 8 && x >= (1L << (s * 8))) s++;
return s;
}
Integer.highestOneBit(arg) returns only the highest set bit, in the original place. For example, Integer.highestOneBit(12) is 8, not 3. So you probably want to use Integer.numberOfTrailingZeros(Integer.highestOneBit(12)), which does return 3. Here is the Integer API
Some sample code:
numOfBytes = (Integer.numberOfTrailingZeroes(Integer.highestOneBit(integer)) + 8) / 8;
The + 8 is for proper rounding.
The lazy/inefficient way to do this is with Integer#toBinaryString. It will remove all leading zeros from positive numbers for you, all you have to do is call String#length and divide by 8.
Think about how to solve the same problem using normal decimal numbers. Then apply the same principle to binary / byte representation i.e. use 256 where you would use 10 for decimal numbers.
static int byteSize(long number, int bitsPerByte) {
int maxNumberSaveByBitsPerByte = // get max number can be saved by bits in value bitsPerByte
int returnValue = getFloor(number/maxNumberSaveByBitsPerByte); // use Math lib
if(number % maxNumberSaveByBitsPerByte != 0)
returnValue++;
return returnValue;
}
For positive values: 0 and 1 need 1 digit, with 2 digits you get the doubled max value, and for every digit it is 2 times that value. So a recursive solution is to divide:
public static int binaryLength (long l) {
if (l < 2) return 1;
else 1 + binaryLength (l /2L);
}
but shifting works too:
public static int binaryLength (long l) {
if (l < 2) return 1;
else 1 + binaryLength (l >> 1);
}
Negative values have a leading 1, so it doesn't make much sense for the question. If we assume binary1 is decimal1, binary1 can't be -1. But what shall it be? b11? That is 3.
Why you wouldn't do something simple like this:
private static int byteSize(int val) {
int size = 0;
while (val > 0) {
val = val >> 8;
size++;
}
return size;
}
int numOfBytes = (Integer.SIZE >> 3) - (Integer.numberOfLeadingZeros(n) >> 3);
This implementation is compact enough while performance-friendly, since it doesn't involve any floating point operation nor any loop.
It is derived from the form:
int numOfBytes = Math.ceil((Integer.SIZE - Integer.numberOfLeadingZeros(n)) / Byte.SIZE);
The magic number 3 in the optimized form comes from the assumption: Byte.SIZE equals 8
Given an integer, how could you check if it contains a 0, using Java?
1 = Good
2 = Good
...
9 = Good
10 = BAD!
101 = BAD!
1026 = BAD!
1111 = Good
How can this be done?
Do you mean if the decimal representation contains a 0? The absolute simplest way of doing that is:
if (String.valueOf(x).contains("0"))
Don't forget that a number doesn't "inherently" contain a 0 or not (except for zero itself, of course) - it depends on the base. So "10" in decimal is "A" in hex, and "10" in hex is "16" in decimal... in both cases the result would change.
There may be more efficient ways of testing for the presence of a zero in the decimal representation of an integer, but they're likely to be considerably more involved that the expression above.
If for some reason you don't like the solution that converts to a String you can try:
boolean containsZero(int num) {
if(num == 0)
return true;
if(num < 0)
num = -num;
while(num > 0) {
if(num % 10 == 0)
return true;
num /= 10;
}
return false;
}
This is also assuming num is base 10.
Edit: added conditions to deal with negative numbers and 0 itself.
You can convert it to a string and check if it contains the char "0".
int number = 101;
if( ( "" + number ).contains( "0" ) ) {
System.out.println( "contains the digit 0" );
}
Integer.toString(yourIntValue).contains("0");
Here is a routine that will work detect zeros in integers. To make it work with any representation (decimal, hex, octal, binary), you need to pass in the base as a parameter.
public static boolean hasZero(int num, int base) {
assert base > 0 : "must have positive non-zero base";
if (num == 0)
return true;
while(num != 0) {
if (num % base == 0) {
return true;
}
else {
num = num / base;
}
}
return false;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println(hasZero(10, 10)); // true (base 10 int)
System.out.println(hasZero(-12, 10)); // false (base 10 int)
System.out.println(hasZero(0x10, 16)); // true (hex is base 16)
System.out.println(hasZero(0x1A, 16)); // false (hex is base 16)
}
I don't know if this is easier but here is another way.
Split the number into an array of ints. Then sort and check if the first element is zero.
E.g
int n = 14501;
// after splitting
int na = {1, 4, 5, 0, 1};
// after sorting
int na = {0, 1, 1, 4, 5};
Not using Java, but it's not exactly hard to convert from C++
PS. Shame on anyone using string conversion.
bool Contains0InBase10( unsigned int i, unsigned int& next )
{
unsigned int divisor = 10;
unsigned int remainder = 0;
while( divisor <= i )
{
unsigned int newRemainder = i%divisor;
if( newRemainder - remainder == 0)
{
// give back information allowing a program to skip closer to the next
// number that doesn't contain 0
next = i + (divisor / 10) - remainder;
return true;
}
divisor *= 10;
remainder = newRemainder;
}
return false;
}
I was just going through some basic stuff as I am learning C. I came upon a question to multiply a number by 7 without using the * operator. Basically it's like this
(x << 3) - x;
Now I know about basic bit manipulation operations, but I can't get how do you multiply a number by any other odd number without using the * operator? Is there a general algorithm for this?
Think about how you multiply in decimal using pencil and paper:
12
x 26
----
72
24
----
312
What does multiplication look like in binary?
0111
x 0101
-------
0111
0000
0111
-------
100011
Notice anything? Unlike multiplication in decimal, where you need to memorize the "times table," when multiplying in binary, you are always multiplying one of the terms by either 0 or 1 before writing it down in the list addends. There's no times table needed. If the digit of the second term is 1, you add in the first term. If it's 0, you don't. Also note how the addends are progressively shifted over to the left.
If you're unsure of this, do a few binary multiplications on paper. When you're done, convert the result back to decimal and see if it's correct. After you've done a few, I think you'll get the idea how binary multiplication can be implemented using shifts and adds.
Everyone is overlooking the obvious. No multiplication is involved:
10^(log10(A) + log10(B))
The question says:
multiply a number by 7 without using * operator
This doesn't use *:
number / (1 / 7)
Edit:
This compiles and works fine in C:
int number,result;
number = 8;
result = number / (1. / 7);
printf("result is %d\n",result);
An integer left shift is multiplying by 2, provided it doesn't overflow. Just add or subtract as appropriate once you get close.
int multiply(int multiplicand, int factor)
{
if (factor == 0) return 0;
int product = multiplicand;
for (int ii = 1; ii < abs(factor); ++ii) {
product += multiplicand;
}
return factor >= 0 ? product : -product;
}
You wanted multiplication without *, you got it, pal!
It's easy to avoid the '*' operator:
mov eax, 1234h
mov edx, 5678h
imul edx
No '*' in sight. Of course, if you wanted to get into the spirit of it, you could also use the trusty old shift and add algorithm:
mult proc
; Multiplies eax by ebx and places result in edx:ecx
xor ecx, ecx
xor edx, edx
mul1:
test ebx, 1
jz mul2
add ecx, eax
adc edx, 0
mul2:
shr ebx, 1
shl eax, 1
test ebx, ebx
jnz mul1
done:
ret
mult endp
Of course, with modern processors, all (?) have multiplication instructions, but back when the PDP-11 was shiny and new, code like this saw real use.
Mathematically speaking, multiplication distributes over addition. Essentially, this means:
x * (a + b + c ...) = (x * a) + (x * b) + (x * c) ...
Any real number (in your case 7), can be presented as a series of additions (such as 8 + (-1), since subtraction is really just addition going the wrong way). This allows you to represent any single multiplication statement as an equivalent series of multiplication statements, which will come up with the same result:
x * 7
= x * (8 + (-1))
= (x * 8) + (x * (-1))
= (x * 8) - (x * 1)
= (x * 8) - x
The bitwise shift operator essentially just multiplies or divides a number by a power of 2. So long as your equation is only dealing with such values, bit shifting can be used to replace all occurrence of the multiplication operator.
(x * 8) - x = (x * 23) - x = (x << 3) - x
A similar strategy can be used on any other integer, and it makes no difference whether it's odd or even.
It is the same as x*8-x = x*(8-1) = x*7
Any number, odd or even, can be expressed as a sum of powers of two. For example,
1 2 4 8
------------------
1 = 1
2 = 0 + 2
3 = 1 + 2
4 = 0 + 0 + 4
5 = 1 + 0 + 4
6 = 0 + 2 + 4
7 = 1 + 2 + 4
8 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 8
11 = 1 + 2 + 0 + 8
So, you can multiply x by any number by performing the right set of shifts and adds.
1x = x
2x = 0 + x<<1
3x = x + x<<1
4x = 0 + 0 + x<<2
5x = x + 0 + x<<2
11x = x + x<<1 + 0 + x<<3
When it comes down to it, multiplication by a positive integer can be done like this:
int multiply(int a, int b) {
int ret = 0;
for (int i=0; i<b; i++) {
ret += b;
}
return ret;
}
Efficient? Hardly. But it's correct (factoring in limits on ints and so forth).
So using a left-shift is just a shortcut for multiplying by 2. But once you get to the highest power-of-2 under b you just add a the necessary number of times, so:
int multiply(int a, int b) {
int ret = a;
int mult = 1;
while (mult <= b) {
ret <<= 1;
mult <<= 1;
}
while (mult < b) {
ret += a;
}
return ret;
}
or something close to that.
To put it another way, to multiply by 7.
Left shift by 2 (times 4). Left shift 3 is 8 which is >7;
Add b 3 times.
One evening, I found that I was extremely bored, and cooked this up:
#include <iostream>
typedef unsigned int uint32;
uint32 add(uint32 a, uint32 b) {
do {
uint32 s = a ^ b;
uint32 c = a & b;
a = s;
b = c << 1;
} while (a & b)
return (a | b)
}
uint32 mul(uint32 a, uint32 b) {
uint32 total = 0;
do {
uint32 s1 = a & (-(b & 1))
b >>= 1; a <<= 1;
total = add(s1, total)
} while (b)
return total;
}
int main(void) {
using namespace std;
uint32 a, b;
cout << "Enter two numbers to be multiplied: ";
cin >> a >> b;
cout << "Total: " << mul(a,b) << endl;
return 0;
}
The code above should be quite self-explanatory, as I tried to keep it as simple as possible. It should work, more or less, the way a CPU might perform these operations. The only bug I'm aware of is that a is not permitted to be greater than 32,767 and b is not permitted to be large enough to overflow a (that is, multiply overflow is not handled, so 64-bit results are not possible). It should even work with negative numbers, provided the inputs are appropriately reinterpret_cast<>.
O(log(b)) method
public int multiply_optimal(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0 || b == 0)
return 0;
if (b == 1)
return a;
if ((b & 1) == 0)
return multiply_optimal(a + a, b >> 1);
else
return a + multiply_optimal(a + a, b >> 1);
}
The resursive code works as follows:
Base case:
if either of the number is 0 ,product is 0.
if b=1, product =a.
If b is even:
ab can be written as 2a(b/2)
2a(b/2)=(a+a)(b/2)=(a+a)(b>>1) where'>>' arithematic right shift operator in java.
If b is odd:
ab can be written as a+a(b-1)
a+a(b-1)=a+2a(b-1)/2=a+(a+a)(b-1)/2=a+(a+a)((b-1)>>1)
Since b is odd (b-1)/2=b/2=b>>1
So ab=a+(2a*(b>>1))
NOTE:each recursive call b is halved => O(log(b))
unsigned int Multiply(unsigned int m1, unsigned int m2)
{
unsigned int numBits = sizeof(unsigned int) * 8; // Not part of the core algorithm
unsigned int product = 0;
unsigned int mask = 1;
for(int i =0; i < numBits; ++i, mask = mask << 1)
{
if(m1 & mask)
{
product += (m2 << i);
}
}
return product;
}
#Wang, that's a good generalization. But here is a slightly faster version. But it assumes no overflow and a is non-negative.
int mult(int a, int b){
int p=1;
int rv=0;
for(int i=0; a >= p && i < 31; i++){
if(a & p){
rv += b;
}
p = p << 1;
b = b << 1;
}
return rv;
}
It will loop at most 1+log_2(a) times. Could be faster if you swap a and b when a > b.
import java.math.BigInteger;
public class MultiplyTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BigInteger bigInt1 = new BigInteger("5");
BigInteger bigInt2 = new BigInteger("8");
System.out.println(bigInt1.multiply(bigInt2));
}
}
Shift and add doesn't work (even with sign extension) when the multiplicand is negative. Signed multiplication has to be done using Booth encoding:
Starting from the LSB, a change from 0 to 1 is -1; a change from 1 to 0 is 1, otherwise 0. There is also an implicit extra bit 0 below the LSB.
For example, the number 5 (0101) will be encoded as: (1)(-1)(1)(-1). You can verify this is correct:
5 = 2^3 - 2^2 + 2 -1
This algorithm also works with negative numbers in 2's complement form:
-1 in 4-bit 2's complement is 1111. Using the Booth algorithm: (1)(0)(0)(0)(-1), where there is no space for the leftmost bit 1 so we get: (0)(0)(0)(-1) which is -1.
/* Multiply two signed integers using the Booth algorithm */
int booth(int x, int y)
{
int prev_bit = 0;
int result = 0;
while (x != 0) {
int current_bit = x & 0x1;
if (prev_bit & ~current_bit) {
result += y;
} else if (~prev_bit & current_bit) {
result -= y;
}
prev_bit = current_bit;
x = static_cast<unsigned>(x) >> 1;
y <<= 1;
}
if (prev_bit)
result += y;
return result;
}
The above code does not check for overflow. Below is a slightly modified version that multiplies two 16 bit numbers and returns a 32 bit number so it never overflows:
/* Multiply two 16-bit signed integers using the Booth algorithm */
/* Returns a 32-bit signed integer */
int32_t booth(int16_t x, int16_t y)
{
int16_t prev_bit = 0;
int16_t sign_bit = (x >> 16) & 0x1;
int32_t result = 0;
int32_t y1 = static_cast<int32_t>(y);
while (x != 0) {
int16_t current_bit = x & 0x1;
if (prev_bit & ~current_bit) {
result += y1;
} else if (~prev_bit & current_bit) {
result -= y1;
}
prev_bit = current_bit;
x = static_cast<uint16_t>(x) >> 1;
y1 <<= 1;
}
if (prev_bit & ~sign_bit)
result += y1;
return result;
}
unsigned int Multiply( unsigned int a, unsigned int b )
{
int ret = 0;
// For each bit in b
for (int i=0; i<32; i++) {
// If that bit is not equal to zero
if (( b & (1 << i)) != 0) {
// Add it to our return value
ret += a << i;
}
}
return ret;
}
I avoided the sign bit, because it's kind of not the subject of the post. This is an implementation of what Wayne Conrad said basically. Here is another problem is you want to try more low level math operations. Project Euler is cool!
If you can use the log function:
public static final long multiplyUsingShift(int a, int b) {
int absA = Math.abs(a);
int absB = Math.abs(b);
//Find the 2^b which is larger than "a" which turns out to be the
//ceiling of (Log base 2 of b) == numbers of digits to shift
double logBase2 = Math.log(absB) / Math.log(2);
long bits = (long)Math.ceil(logBase2);
//Get the value of 2^bits
long biggerInteger = (int)Math.pow(2, bits);
//Find the difference of the bigger integer and "b"
long difference = biggerInteger - absB;
//Shift "bits" places to the left
long result = absA<<bits;
//Subtract the "difference" "a" times
int diffLoop = Math.abs(a);
while (diffLoop>0) {
result -= difference;
diffLoop--;
}
return (a>0&&b>0 || a<0&&b<0)?result:-result;
}
If you cannot use the log function:
public static final long multiplyUsingShift(int a, int b) {
int absA = Math.abs(a);
int absB = Math.abs(b);
//Get the number of bits for a 2^(b+1) larger number
int bits = 0;
int bitInteger = absB;
while (bitInteger>0) {
bitInteger /= 2;
bits++;
}
//Get the value of 2^bit
long biggerInteger = (int)Math.pow(2, bits);
//Find the difference of the bigger integer and "b"
long difference = biggerInteger - absB;
//Shift "bits" places to the left
long result = absA<<bits;
//Subtract the "difference" "a" times
int diffLoop = absA;
while (diffLoop>0) {
result -= difference;
diffLoop--;
}
return (a>0&&b>0 || a<0&&b<0)?result:-result;
}
I found this to be more efficient:
public static final long multiplyUsingShift(int a, int b) {
int absA = Math.abs(a);
int absB = Math.abs(b);
long result = 0L;
while (absA>0) {
if ((absA&1)>0) result += absB; //Is odd
absA >>= 1;
absB <<= 1;
}
return (a>0&&b>0 || a<0&&b<0)?result:-result;
}
and yet another way.
public static final long multiplyUsingLogs(int a, int b) {
int absA = Math.abs(a);
int absB = Math.abs(b);
long result = Math.round(Math.pow(10, (Math.log10(absA)+Math.log10(absB))));
return (a>0&&b>0 || a<0&&b<0)?result:-result;
}
In C#:
private static string Multi(int a, int b)
{
if (a == 0 || b == 0)
return "0";
bool isnegative = false;
if (a < 0 || b < 0)
{
isnegative = true;
a = Math.Abs(a);
b = Math.Abs(b);
}
int sum = 0;
if (a > b)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= b; i++)
{
sum += a;
}
}
else
{
for (int i = 1; i <= a; i++)
{
sum += b;
}
}
if (isnegative == true)
return "-" + sum.ToString();
else
return sum.ToString();
}
JAVA:Considering the fact, that every number can be splitted into powers of two:
1 = 2 ^ 0
2 = 2 ^ 1
3 = 2 ^ 1 + 2 ^ 0
...
We want to get x where:
x = n * m
So we can achieve that by doing following steps:
1. while m is greater or equal to 2^pow:
1.1 get the biggest number pow, such as 2^pow is lower or equal to m
1.2 multiply n*2^pow and decrease m to m-2^pow
2. sum the results
Sample implementation using recursion:
long multiply(int n, int m) {
int pow = 0;
while (m >= (1 << ++pow)) ;
pow--;
if (m == 1 << pow) return (n << pow);
return (n << pow) + multiply(n, m - (1 << pow));
}
I got this question in last job interview and this answer was accepted.
EDIT: solution for positive numbers
This is the simplest C99/C11 solution for positive numbers:
unsigned multiply(unsigned x, unsigned y) { return sizeof(char[x][y]); }
Another thinking-outside-the-box answer:
BigDecimal a = new BigDecimal(123);
BigDecimal b = new BigDecimal(2);
BigDecimal result = a.multiply(b);
System.out.println(result.intValue());
public static int multiply(int a, int b)
{
int temp = 0;
if (b == 0) return 0;
for (int ii = 0; ii < abs(b); ++ii) {
temp = temp + a;
}
return b >= 0 ? temp : -temp;
}
public static int abs(int val) {
return val>=0 ? val : -val;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.print("Enter value of A -> ");
Scanner s=new Scanner(System.in);
double j=s.nextInt();
System.out.print("Enter value of B -> ");
Scanner p=new Scanner(System.in);
double k=p.nextInt();
double m=(1/k);
double l=(j/m);
System.out.print("Multiplication of A & B=> "+l);
}
package com.amit.string;
// Here I am passing two values, 7 and 3 and method getResult() will
// return 21 without use of any operator except the increment operator, ++.
//
public class MultiplyTwoNumber {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a = 7;
int b = 3;
System.out.println(new MultiplyTwoNumber().getResult(a, b));
}
public int getResult(int i, int j) {
int result = 0;
// Check for loop logic it is key thing it will go 21 times
for (int k = 0; k < i; k++) {
for (int p = 0; p < j; p++) {
result++;
}
}
return result;
}
}
Loop it. Run a loop seven times and iterate by the number you are multiplying with seven.
Pseudocode:
total = 0
multiply = 34
loop while i < 7
total = total + multiply
endloop
A JavaScript approach for positive numbers
function recursiveMultiply(num1, num2){
const bigger = num1 > num2 ? num1 : num2;
const smaller = num1 <= num2 ? num1 : num2;
const indexIncrement = 1;
const resultIncrement = bigger;
return recursiveMultiplyHelper(bigger, smaller, 0, indexIncrement, resultIncrement)
}
function recursiveMultiplyHelper(num1, num2, index, indexIncrement, resultIncrement){
let result = 0;
if (index === num2){
return result;
}
if ((index+indexIncrement+indexIncrement) >= num2){
indexIncrement = 1;
resultIncrement = num1;
} else{
indexIncrement += indexIncrement;
resultIncrement += resultIncrement;
}
result = recursiveMultiplyHelper(num1, num2, (index+indexIncrement), indexIncrement, resultIncrement);
result += resultIncrement;
console.log(num1, num2, index, result);
return result;
}
Think about the normal multiplication method we use
1101 x =>13
0101 =>5
---------------------
1101
0000
1101
0000
===================
1000001 . => 65
Writing the same above in the code
#include<stdio.h>
int multiply(int a, int b){
int res = 0,count =0;
while(b>0) {
if(b & 0x1)
res = res + (a << count);
b = b>>1;
count++;
}
return res;
}
int main() {
printf("Sum of x+y = %d", multiply(5,10));
return 0;
}
Very simple, pal... Each time when you left shift a number it means you are multiplying the number by 2 which means the answer is (x<<3)-x.
To multiply of two numbers without * operator:
int mul(int a,int b) {
int result = 0;
if(b > 0) {
for(int i=1;i<=b;i++){
result += a;
}
}
return result;
}