finding modulus of huge numbers in java [duplicate] - java

This question already has answers here:
How to calculate modulus of large numbers?
(10 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
for(i=0; i<n+1; i++)
{
y=y+(a[i]*(int)Math.pow(j,i));
}
int r=y/786433;
s[k]=y-(r*786433);
k++;
Now in this code the j value can be 786432. So when I try to get modulus of a number say (1+2*(786432)^2+3*(786432)^3)%786433 then I get -521562 which is not correct I was using modulus operator before too but I got the same answer even with this approach I am getting the same answer. In this approach the modulus of the number is stored in array s[k]. Can anyone help?

If you use Math.pow you are using a double types. Then you convert it back to an int. Rounding can happen and also truncating if values are too big.
To solve this problem You need to use BigInteger:
Immutable arbitrary-precision integers
In particular the method mod:
Returns a BigInteger whose value is (this mod m). This method differs from remainder in that it always returns a non-negative BigInteger.

Related

Maximum value of Java Biginteger in pow [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
BigInteger.pow(BigInteger)?
(9 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have code that will get the exponent value from given input:
BigInteger a= new BigInteger(2,10);
BigInteger b;
b=a.pow(9999999999);
It is working when value is lower than 7 digits. For example:
BigInteger a= new BigInteger(2,10);
BigInteger b;
b=a.pow(1234567);
Does my code make it possible or is it not possible to have 10 digit in the exponent?
I'm using JDK 1.8.
BigInteger.pow() only exists for int parameters, so you can't take the power bigger than Integer.MAX_VALUE at once.
Those numbers would also be incredibly big (as in "rapidly approaching and passing the number of particles in the observable universe), if you could do it, and there are very few uses for this.
Note that the "power with modulus" operation which is often used in cryptography is implemented using BigInteger.modPow() which does take BigInteger arguments and can therefore handle effectively arbitrarily large values.
pow's parameter is an int. The range of int is -2147483648 to 2147483647, so the answer is it depends on which 10 digits you use. If those 10 digits are 1234567890, that's fine, it's in range (though potentially you'll get a really, really big BigInteger which may push your memory limits); if they're 9999999999 as in your question, that's not fine, it's out of range.
E.g., this compiles:
int a = 1234567890;
This does not:
int b = 9999999999;
^--------------- error: integer number too large: 9999999999

Dealing with innaccuracy from double arithmetic? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Large Numbers in Java
(6 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I've written a method that tests whether a number is prime or not. To maximise the range of numbers that the user can input, I wanted to use doubles. The issue is, after testing it on a very large prime, like 40 digits or so, my method returns false (I've already tested the logic with an int version, and it works just fine as far as I can tell).
Here is my code:
public static boolean isPrime(double number) {
double sqrt = Math.sqrt(number);
for(double i = 2; i<= sqrt; i++) {
if(number%i == 0) {
return false;
}
}
I know the reason it's not working at very high numbers is because of the accuracy error, but is there around this?
I know the reason it's not working at very high numbers is because of the accuracy error, but is there around this?
Yes. Use BigInteger.
Note that long would be better than double, since long can represent all integers up to 2^63 - 1 precisely. By contrast, with double you start losing precision at 2^53 + 1. However neither of these types are suitable for 40 (decimal) digit numbers.
BigInteger arithmetic is significantly slower, but the you will be able to go up to (at least) 2^Integer.MAX_VALUE ... provided that you have enough heap space.

Integer division in Java [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Division of integers in Java [duplicate]
(7 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
This feels like a stupid question, but I can't find the answer anywhere in the Java documentation. If I declare two ints and then divide them, what exactly is happening? Are they converted to floats/doubles first, divided, then cast back to an integer, or is the division "done" as integers?
Also, purely from experimentation, integer division seems to round the answer towards zero (i.e. 3/2 = 1 and -3/2 = -1). Am I right in believing this?
They are being divided in integer arithmetics. So dividing integer a by integer b you get how many times b fits into a. Also a % b will give you a remainder of a division. So (a / b ) * b + a % b = a
Java does autoconvert types:
"It autoconverts ints to doubles. It autoconverts shorts and bytes to ints even when no ints are involved, requiring constant annoying casts when you want to do short or byte arithmetic. It autoconverts primitives to wrappers and vice versa for boxing and autoboxing." - user2357112
Java never casts anything without you specifying it.
But still integer / integer = integer.
Also, it does always truncate the result. So if the result would be 0.999999 as float the integer division would still return 0.

Solving A math equation using Java [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Why does division result in zero instead of a decimal?
(5 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I have hit a snag in my program when this calculates I get result of 0.0
y = 1/6*Math.pow(x,3)+1/2*Math.pow(x,2)-1/3*x;
I have tried writing the equation in chunks so I can add the results up after calculation but the result just keeps ending up being 0.0 and I don't know why. Is this a syntactical error or is there a rule that I'm missing about java?.
When you divide two integers Java truncates the result to an integer. If you want a fractional result you need to use floating point numbers. 1/2 is 0; 1.0/2.0 is 0.5.
y = 1.0/6.0*Math.pow(x,3) + 1.0/2.0*Math.pow(x,2) - 1.0/3.0*x;
y = 1/6*Math.pow(x,3)+1/2*Math.pow(x,2)-1/3*x;
Here you are doing division of two integers, which would result in 0. Make one/both of the values to decimal (1.0/6.0 etc) and then try this. It should give the correct result. The reason is that, 1/6 will be corrected to the closest integer value, which is 0.

integer giving negative values in java in multiplication using positive numbers [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Multiplication of two ints overflowing to result in a negative number
(5 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int sum=0;
for(int i=1;i<10;i++)
sum = sum+i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i;
System.out.println(sum);
}
}
OUTPUT:619374629
for(int i=1;i<10;i++)
sum = sum+i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i*i;
System.out.println(sum);
OUTPUT:
-585353335
In the second output i thought the integer range crossed.But why it is giving -ve number.It need to give me an error.What is the reason for this behaviour?
Thanks in advance...
You have overflowed the size of a 32 bit integer.
Consider what happens when i is equal to 10:
sum = sum + 100000000000 //1 with 11 zeroes
But the maximum positive number that can be stored in a 32 bit integer is only about 2 billion (2 with nine zeroes).
In fact, it gets even worse! The intermediate calculations will be performed with limited precision, and as soon as the multiplication of 10*10*10*10... overflows, then the 10s will be being multiplied with a weird negative number, and be already wrong.
So the number you end up with is not seeming to follow any rules of arithmetic, but in fact it makes perfect sense once you know that primitive integers have limited storage.
The solution is to use 64-bit long and hope you don't overflow THAT too, if you do then you need BigInteger.
Java defines integer math as signed 2s-complement mod 2^32 (for int) and 2^64 (for long). So any time that the result of an int multiply is 2^31 or higher, it wraps around and becomes a negative number. That's just the way integer math works in java.
Java spec
You are using the primitive type. So, when an integer overflows, it will only print out the bits contained in it which is negative. If you want error, try Integer.
As you predicted, you passed the integer range, though causing infinite values (as the sign [the highest bit] gets touched).

Categories

Resources