I was recently looking into some problems with but manipulation in Java and I came up with two questions.
1) Firstly, I came up to the problem of flipping all the bits in a number.
I found this solution:
public class Solution {
public int flipAllBits(int num) {
int mask = (1 << (int)Math.floor(Math.log(num)/Math.log(2))+1) - 1;
return num ^ mask;
}
}
But what happens when k = 32 bits? Can the 1 be shifted 33 times?
What I understand from the code (although it doesn't really make sense), the mask is 0111111.(31 1's)....1 and not 32 1's, as someone would expect. And therefore when num is a really large number this would fail.
2) Another question I had was determining when something is a bit sequence in 2s complement or just a normal bit sequence. For example I read that 1010 when flipped is 0110 which is -10 but also 6. Which one is it and how do we know?
Thanks.
1) The Math object calls are not necessary. Flipping all the bits in any ordinal type in Java (or C) is not an arithmatic operation. It is a bitwise operation. Using the '^' operator, simply using 1- as an operand will work regardless of the sizeof int in C/C++ or a Java template with with the ordinal type as a parameter T. The tilde '~' operator is the other option.
T i = 0xf0f0f0f0;
System.out.println(T.toHexString(i));
i ^= -1;
System.out.println(T.toHexString(i));
i = ~ i;
System.out.println(T.toHexString(i));
2) Since the entire range of integers maps to the entire range of integers in a 2's compliment transform, it is not possible to detect whether a number is or is not 2's complement unless one knows the range of numbers from which the 2's complement might be calculated and the two sets (before and after) are mutually exclusive.
That mask computation is fairly inscrutable, I'm going to guess that it (attempts to, since you mention it's wrong) make a mask up to and including the highest set bit. Whether that's useful for "flipping all bits" is an other possible point of discussion, since to me at least, "all bits" means all 32 of them, not some number that depends on the value. But if that's what you want then that's what you want. Especially combined with that second question, that looks like a mistake to me, so you'd be implementing the wrong thing from the start - see near the bottom.
Anyway, the mask can be generated with some reasonably nice bitmath, which does not create any doubt about possible edge cases (eg Math.log(0) is probably bad, and k=32 corresponds with negative numbers which are also probably bad to put into a log):
int m = num | (num >> 16);
m |= m >> 8;
m |= m >> 4;
m |= m >> 2;
m |= m >> 1;
return num ^ m;
Note that this function has odd properties, it almost always returns an unsigned-lower number than went in, except at 0. It flips bits so the name is not completely wrong, but flipAllBits(flipAllBits(x)) != x (usually), while the name suggests it should be an involution.
As for the second question, there is nothing to determine. Two's complement is scheme by which you can interpret a bitvector - any bitvector. So it's really a choice you make; to interpret a given bitvector that way or some other way. In Java the "default" interpretation is two's complement (eg toString will print an int by interpreting it according to its two's complement meaning), but you don't have to go along with it, you can (with care) treat int as unsigned, or as an array of booleans, or several bitfields packed together, etc.
If you wanted to invert all the bits but made the common mistake to assume that the number of bits in an int is variable (and that you therefore needed to compute a mask that covers "all bits"), I have some great news for you, because inverting all bits is a lot easier:
return ~num;
If you were reading "invert all bits" in the context of two's complement, it would have the above meaning, so all bits, including those left of the highest set bit.
Related
I have a 3 byte signed number that I need to determine the value of in Java. I believe it is signed with one's complement but I'm not 100% sure (I haven't studied this stuff in more than 10 years and the documentation of my problem isn't super clear). I think the problem I'm having is Java does everything in two's complement. I have a specific example to show:
The original 3-byte number: 0xEE1B17
Parsed as an integer (Integer.parseInt(s, 16)) this becomes: 15604503
If I do a simple bit flip (~) of this I get (I think) a two's complement representation: -15604504
But the value I should be getting is: -1172713
What I think is happening is I'm getting the two's complement of the entire int and not just the 3 bytes of the int, but I don't know how to fix this.
What I have been able to do is convert the integer to a binary string (Integer.toBinaryString()) and then manually "flip" all of the 0s to 1s and vice-versa. When then parsing this integer (Integer.parseInt(s, 16)) I get 1172712 which is very close. In all of the other examples I need to always add 1 to the result to get the answer.
Can anyone diagnose what type of signed number encoding is being used here and if there is a solution other than manually flipping every character of a string? I feel like there must be a much more elegant way to do this.
EDIT: All of the responders have helped in different ways, but my general question was how to flip a 3-byte number and #louis-wasserman answered this and answered first so I'm marking him as the solution. Thanks to everyone for the help!
If you want to flip the low three bytes of a Java int, then you just do ^ 0x00FFFFFF.
0xFFEE1B17 is -1172713
You must only add the leading byte. FF if the highest bit of the 3-byte value is set and 00 otherwise.
A method which converts your 3-byte value to a proper intcould look like this:
if(byte3val>7FFFFF)
return byte3val| 0xFF000000;
else
return byte3val;
Negative signed numbers are defined so that a + (-a) = 0. So it means that all bits are flipped and then 1 added. See Two's complement. You can check that the condition is satisfied by this process by thinking what happens when you add a + ~a + 1.
You can recognize that a number is negative by its most significant bit. So if you need to convert a signed 3-byte number into a 4-byte number, you can do it by checking the bit and if it's set, set also the bits of the fourth byte:
if ((a & 0x800000) != 0)
a = a | 0xff000000;
You can do it also in a single expression, which will most likely perform better, because there is no branching in the computation (branching doesn't play well with pipelining in current CPUs):
a = (0xfffffe << a) >> a;
Here << and >> perform byte shifts. First we shift the number 8 bits to the right (so now it occupies the 3 "upper" bytes instead of the 3 "lower" ones), and then shift it back. The trick is that >> is so-called Arithmetic shift also known as signed shift. copies the most significant bit to all bits that are made vacant by the operation. This is exactly to keep the sign of the number. Indeed:
(0x1ffffe << 8) >> 8 -> 2097150
(0xfffffe << 8) >> 8 -> -2
Just note that java also has a unsigned right shift operator >>>. For more information, see Java Tutorial: Bitwise and Bit Shift Operators.
I have the following division that I need to do often:
int index = pos / 64;
Division can be expensive in the cpu level. I am hoping there is a way to do that with bitwise shift. I would also like to understand how you can go from division to shift, in other words, I don't want to just memorize the bitwise expression.
int index = pos >> 6 will do it, but this is unnecessary. Any reasonable compiler will do this sort of thing for you. Certainly the Sun/Oracle compiler will.
The general rule is that i/(2^n) can be implemented with i >> n. Similarly i*(2^n) is i << n.
You need to be concerned with negative number representation if i is signed. E.g. twos-complement produces reasonable results (if right shift is arithmetic--sign bit copied). Signed magnitude does not.
The compiler will implement it for you in the most efficient way, as long you understand what you need and ask the compiler to do exactly that. If shift is the most efficient way in this case, the compiler will use shift.
Keep in mind though that if you are performing signed division (i.e pos is signed), then it cannot be fully implemented by a shift alone. Shift by itself will generate invalid results for negative values of pos. If the compiler decides to use shifts for this operations, it will also have to perform some post-shift corrections on the intermediate result to make it agree with the requirements of the language specification.
For this reason, if you are really looking for maximum possible efficiency of your division operations, you have to remember not to use signed types thoughtlessly. Prefer to use unsigned types whenever possible, and use signed types only when you have to.
P.S. AFAIK, Java implements Euclidean division, meaning that the above remarks do not apply to Java. Euclidean division is performed correctly by a shift on a negative divisor in 2's-complement representation. The above remarks would apply to C/C++.
http://www.java-samples.com/showtutorial.php?tutorialid=58
For each power of 2 you want to divide by, right shift it once. So to divide by 4 you would right shift twice. To divide by 8 right shift 3 times. Divide by 16 right shift 4 times. 32 -> 5 times. 64 -> 6 times. So to divide by 64 you can right shift 6 times. myvalue = myvalue >> 6;
This is a really basic question, but I've never fully convinced myself that my intuitive answer of "it makes no difference" is correct, so maybe someone has a good way to understand this:
If all I want to do with one of the primitive numeric types in Java is bitwise arithmetic, can I simply treat it as if it was an unsigned value or do I need to avoid negative numbers, i.e. keep the highest order bit always set to 0? For example, can I use an int as if it was an unsigned 32-bit number, or should I only use the lowest 31 bits?
I'm looking for as general an answer as possible, but let me give an example: Let's say I want to store 32 flags. Can I store all of them in a single int, if I use something like
store = store & ~(1 << index) | (value << index)
to set flag index to value and something like
return (store & (1 << index)) != 0
to retrieve flag index? Or could I run into any sort of issues with this or similar code if I ever set the flag with index 31 to 1?
I know I need to always be using >>> instead of >> for right shifting, but is this the only concern? Or could there be other things going wrong related to the two's complement representation of negative numbers when I use the highest bit?
I know I need to always be using >>> instead of >> for right shifting, but is this the only concern?
Yes, this is the only concern. Shifting left works the same on signed and unsigned numbers; same goes for ANDing, ORing, and XORing. As long as you use >>> for shifting right, you can use all 32 bits of a signed int.
There are legitimate reasons to use >> as well in that context (a common case is when making a mask that should be 0 or -1 directly, without having to negate a mask that is 0 or 1), so there is really no concern at all. Just be careful of what you're doing to make sure it matches your intent.
Operations that care about signedness (ie they have distinct signed and unsigned forms with different semantics) are:
right shift
division (unsigned form not available in Java)
modulo (unsigned form not available in Java)
comparisons (except equality) (unsigned forms not available in Java)
Operations that don't care about signedness are:
and
or
xor
addition
subtraction
two's complement negation (-x means ~x + 1)
one's complement (~x means -x - 1)
left shift
multiplication
I have a program which works with genetic algorithms and generates an 8-bit binary string (chromosome consisting of eight genes).
I would like to know how I would go about changing / flipping the first gene/bit.
For example:
Original chromosome:
01010101
Changed chromosome:
11010101 //First bit has been changed
If the first bit has a value of 1, I would like to 'flip' it to make it a 0; and, obviously, if the first bit in the array/chromosome is a 0, I would like to 'flip' that to a 1.
Thank you.
You could use the following:
chromosome ^= 0x80;
The xor-assignment (^=) flips the chromosome bits that are set in the right-hand side expression, and 0x80 is 10000000 in binary.
More generally, to flip the k-th bit (with the least significant bit being bit 0):
chromosome ^= (1 << k);
I have a scenario where I'm working with large integers (e.g. 160 bit), and am trying to create the biggest possible unsigned integer that can be represented with an n bit number at run time. The exact value of n isn't known until the program has begun executing and read the value from a configuration file. So for example, n might be 160, or 128, or 192, etcetera...
Initially what I was thinking was something like:
BigInteger.valueOf((long)Math.pow(2, n));
but then I realized, the conversion to long that takes place sort of defeats the purpose, given that long is not comprised of enough bits in the first place to store the result. Any suggestions?
On the largest n-bit unsigned number
Let's first take a look at what this number is, mathematically.
In an unsigned binary representation, the largest n-bit number would have all bits set to 1. Let's take a look at some examples:
1(2)= 1 =21 - 1
11(2)= 3 =22 - 1
111(2)= 7 =23 - 1
:
1………1(2)=2n -1
n
Note that this is analogous in decimal too. The largest 3 digit number is:
103- 1 = 1000 - 1 = 999
Thus, a subproblem of finding the largest n-bit unsigned number is computing 2n.
On computing powers of 2
Modern digital computers can compute powers of two efficiently, due to the following pattern:
20= 1(2)
21= 10(2)
22= 100(2)
23= 1000(2)
:
2n= 10………0(2)
n
That is, 2n is simply a number having its bit n set to 1, and everything else set to 0 (remember that bits are numbered with zero-based indexing).
Solution
Putting the above together, we get this simple solution using BigInteger for our problem:
final int N = 5;
BigInteger twoToN = BigInteger.ZERO.setBit(N);
BigInteger maxNbits = twoToN.subtract(BigInteger.ONE);
System.out.println(maxNbits); // 31
If we were using long instead, then we can write something like this:
// for 64-bit signed long version, N < 64
System.out.println(
(1L << N) - 1
); // 31
There is no "set bit n" operation defined for long, so traditionally bit shifting is used instead. In fact, a BigInteger analog of this shifting technique is also possible:
System.out.println(
BigInteger.ONE.shiftLeft(N).subtract(BigInteger.ONE)
); // 31
See also
Wikipedia/Binary numeral system
Bit Twiddling Hacks
Additional BigInteger tips
BigInteger does have a pow method to compute non-negative power of any arbitrary number. If you're working in a modular ring, there are also modPow and modInverse.
You can individually setBit, flipBit or just testBit. You can get the overall bitCount, perform bitwise and with another BigInteger, and shiftLeft/shiftRight, etc.
As bonus, you can also compute the gcd or check if the number isProbablePrime.
ALWAYS remember that BigInteger, like String, is immutable. You can't invoke a method on an instance, and expect that instance to be modified. Instead, always assign the result returned by the method to your variables.
Just to clarify you want the largest n bit number (ie, the one will all n-bits set). If so, the following will do that for you:
BigInteger largestNBitInteger = BigInteger.ZERO.setBit(n).subtract(BigInteger.ONE);
Which is mathematically equivalent to 2^n - 1. Your question has how you do 2^n which is actually the smallest n+1 bit number. You can of course do that with:
BigInteger smallestNPlusOneBitInteger = BigInteger.ZERO.setBit(n);
I think there is pow method directly in BigInteger. You can use it for your purpose
The quickest way I can think of doing this is by using the constructor for BigInteger that takes a byte[].
BigInteger(byte[] val) constructs the BigInteger Object from an array of bytes. You are, however, dealing with bits, and so creating a byte[] that might consist of {127, 255, 255, 255, 255} for a 39 bit integer representing 2^40 - 1 might be a little tedious.
You could also use the constructor BigInteger(String val, int radix) - which might be readily more apparently what's going on in your code if you don't mind a performance hit for parsing a String. Then you could generate a string like val = "111111111111111111111111111111111111111" and then call BigInteger myInt = new BigInteger(val, 2); - resulting in the same 39 bit integer.
The first option will require some thinking about how to represent your number. That particular constructor expects a two's-compliment, big-endian representation of the number. The second will likely be marginally slower, but much clearer.
EDIT: Corrected numbers. I thought you meant represent 2^n, and didn't correctly read the largest value n bits could store.