Divide a number by 3 without using *, /, +, -, % operators - c

How would you divide a number by 3 without using *, /, +, -, %, operators?
The number may be signed or unsigned.

This is a simple function which performs the desired operation. But it requires the + operator, so all you have left to do is to add the values with bit-operators:
// replaces the + operator
int add(int x, int y)
{
while (x) {
int t = (x & y) << 1;
y ^= x;
x = t;
}
return y;
}
int divideby3(int num)
{
int sum = 0;
while (num > 3) {
sum = add(num >> 2, sum);
num = add(num >> 2, num & 3);
}
if (num == 3)
sum = add(sum, 1);
return sum;
}
As Jim commented this works, because:
n = 4 * a + b
n / 3 = a + (a + b) / 3
So sum += a, n = a + b, and iterate
When a == 0 (n < 4), sum += floor(n / 3); i.e. 1, if n == 3, else 0

Idiotic conditions call for an idiotic solution:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
FILE * fp=fopen("temp.dat","w+b");
int number=12346;
int divisor=3;
char * buf = calloc(number,1);
fwrite(buf,number,1,fp);
rewind(fp);
int result=fread(buf,divisor,number,fp);
printf("%d / %d = %d", number, divisor, result);
free(buf);
fclose(fp);
return 0;
}
If also the decimal part is needed, just declare result as double and add to it the result of fmod(number,divisor).
Explanation of how it works
The fwrite writes number bytes (number being 123456 in the example above).
rewind resets the file pointer to the front of the file.
fread reads a maximum of number "records" that are divisor in length from the file, and returns the number of elements it read.
If you write 30 bytes then read back the file in units of 3, you get 10 "units". 30 / 3 = 10

log(pow(exp(number),0.33333333333333333333)) /* :-) */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int num = 1234567;
int den = 3;
div_t r = div(num,den); // div() is a standard C function.
printf("%d\n", r.quot);
return 0;
}

You can use (platform dependent) inline assembly, e.g., for x86: (also works for negative numbers)
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int dividend = -42, divisor = 5, quotient, remainder;
__asm__ ( "cdq; idivl %%ebx;"
: "=a" (quotient), "=d" (remainder)
: "a" (dividend), "b" (divisor)
: );
printf("%i / %i = %i, remainder: %i\n", dividend, divisor, quotient, remainder);
return 0;
}

Use itoa to convert to a base 3 string. Drop the last trit and convert back to base 10.
// Note: itoa is non-standard but actual implementations
// don't seem to handle negative when base != 10.
int div3(int i) {
char str[42];
sprintf(str, "%d", INT_MIN); // Put minus sign at str[0]
if (i>0) // Remove sign if positive
str[0] = ' ';
itoa(abs(i), &str[1], 3); // Put ternary absolute value starting at str[1]
str[strlen(&str[1])] = '\0'; // Drop last digit
return strtol(str, NULL, 3); // Read back result
}

(note: see Edit 2 below for a better version!)
This is not as tricky as it sounds, because you said "without using the [..] + [..] operators". See below, if you want to forbid using the + character all together.
unsigned div_by(unsigned const x, unsigned const by) {
unsigned floor = 0;
for (unsigned cmp = 0, r = 0; cmp <= x;) {
for (unsigned i = 0; i < by; i++)
cmp++; // that's not the + operator!
floor = r;
r++; // neither is this.
}
return floor;
}
then just say div_by(100,3) to divide 100 by 3.
Edit: You can go on and replace the ++ operator as well:
unsigned inc(unsigned x) {
for (unsigned mask = 1; mask; mask <<= 1) {
if (mask & x)
x &= ~mask;
else
return x & mask;
}
return 0; // overflow (note that both x and mask are 0 here)
}
Edit 2: Slightly faster version without using any operator that contains the +,-,*,/,% characters.
unsigned add(char const zero[], unsigned const x, unsigned const y) {
// this exploits that &foo[bar] == foo+bar if foo is of type char*
return (int)(uintptr_t)(&((&zero[x])[y]));
}
unsigned div_by(unsigned const x, unsigned const by) {
unsigned floor = 0;
for (unsigned cmp = 0, r = 0; cmp <= x;) {
cmp = add(0,cmp,by);
floor = r;
r = add(0,r,1);
}
return floor;
}
We use the first argument of the add function because we cannot denote the type of pointers without using the * character, except in function parameter lists, where the syntax type[] is identical to type* const.
FWIW, you can easily implement a multiplication function using a similar trick to use the 0x55555556 trick proposed by AndreyT:
int mul(int const x, int const y) {
return sizeof(struct {
char const ignore[y];
}[x]);
}

It is easily possible on the Setun computer.
To divide an integer by 3, shift right by 1 place.
I'm not sure whether it's strictly possible to implement a conforming C compiler on such a platform though. We might have to stretch the rules a bit, like interpreting "at least 8 bits" as "capable of holding at least integers from -128 to +127".

Here's my solution:
public static int div_by_3(long a) {
a <<= 30;
for(int i = 2; i <= 32 ; i <<= 1) {
a = add(a, a >> i);
}
return (int) (a >> 32);
}
public static long add(long a, long b) {
long carry = (a & b) << 1;
long sum = (a ^ b);
return carry == 0 ? sum : add(carry, sum);
}
First, note that
1/3 = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...
Now, the rest is simple!
a/3 = a * 1/3
a/3 = a * (1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + ...)
a/3 = a/4 + a/16 + 1/64 + ...
a/3 = a >> 2 + a >> 4 + a >> 6 + ...
Now all we have to do is add together these bit shifted values of a! Oops! We can't add though, so instead, we'll have to write an add function using bit-wise operators! If you're familiar with bit-wise operators, my solution should look fairly simple... but just in-case you aren't, I'll walk through an example at the end.
Another thing to note is that first I shift left by 30! This is to make sure that the fractions don't get rounded off.
11 + 6
1011 + 0110
sum = 1011 ^ 0110 = 1101
carry = (1011 & 0110) << 1 = 0010 << 1 = 0100
Now you recurse!
1101 + 0100
sum = 1101 ^ 0100 = 1001
carry = (1101 & 0100) << 1 = 0100 << 1 = 1000
Again!
1001 + 1000
sum = 1001 ^ 1000 = 0001
carry = (1001 & 1000) << 1 = 1000 << 1 = 10000
One last time!
0001 + 10000
sum = 0001 ^ 10000 = 10001 = 17
carry = (0001 & 10000) << 1 = 0
Done!
It's simply carry addition that you learned as a child!
111
1011
+0110
-----
10001
This implementation failed because we can not add all terms of the equation:
a / 3 = a/4 + a/4^2 + a/4^3 + ... + a/4^i + ... = f(a, i) + a * 1/3 * 1/4^i
f(a, i) = a/4 + a/4^2 + ... + a/4^i
Suppose the reslut of div_by_3(a) = x, then x <= floor(f(a, i)) < a / 3. When a = 3k, we get wrong answer.

To divide a 32-bit number by 3 one can multiply it by 0x55555556 and then take the upper 32 bits of the 64 bit result.
Now all that's left to do is to implement multiplication using bit operations and shifts...

Yet another solution. This should handle all ints (including negative ints) except the min value of an int, which would need to be handled as a hard coded exception. This basically does division by subtraction but only using bit operators (shifts, xor, & and complement). For faster speed, it subtracts 3 * (decreasing powers of 2). In c#, it executes around 444 of these DivideBy3 calls per millisecond (2.2 seconds for 1,000,000 divides), so not horrendously slow, but no where near as fast as a simple x/3. By comparison, Coodey's nice solution is about 5 times faster than this one.
public static int DivideBy3(int a) {
bool negative = a < 0;
if (negative) a = Negate(a);
int result;
int sub = 3 << 29;
int threes = 1 << 29;
result = 0;
while (threes > 0) {
if (a >= sub) {
a = Add(a, Negate(sub));
result = Add(result, threes);
}
sub >>= 1;
threes >>= 1;
}
if (negative) result = Negate(result);
return result;
}
public static int Negate(int a) {
return Add(~a, 1);
}
public static int Add(int a, int b) {
int x = 0;
x = a ^ b;
while ((a & b) != 0) {
b = (a & b) << 1;
a = x;
x = a ^ b;
}
return x;
}
This is c# because that's what I had handy, but differences from c should be minor.

It's really quite easy.
if (number == 0) return 0;
if (number == 1) return 0;
if (number == 2) return 0;
if (number == 3) return 1;
if (number == 4) return 1;
if (number == 5) return 1;
if (number == 6) return 2;
(I have of course omitted some of the program for the sake of brevity.) If the programmer gets tired of typing this all out, I'm sure that he or she could write a separate program to generate it for him. I happen to be aware of a certain operator, /, that would simplify his job immensely.

Using counters is a basic solution:
int DivBy3(int num) {
int result = 0;
int counter = 0;
while (1) {
if (num == counter) //Modulus 0
return result;
counter = abs(~counter); //++counter
if (num == counter) //Modulus 1
return result;
counter = abs(~counter); //++counter
if (num == counter) //Modulus 2
return result;
counter = abs(~counter); //++counter
result = abs(~result); //++result
}
}
It is also easy to perform a modulus function, check the comments.

This one is the classical division algorithm in base 2:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h>
int main()
{
uint32_t mod3[6] = { 0,1,2,0,1,2 };
uint32_t x = 1234567; // number to divide, and remainder at the end
uint32_t y = 0; // result
int bit = 31; // current bit
printf("X=%u X/3=%u\n",x,x/3); // the '/3' is for testing
while (bit>0)
{
printf("BIT=%d X=%u Y=%u\n",bit,x,y);
// decrement bit
int h = 1; while (1) { bit ^= h; if ( bit&h ) h <<= 1; else break; }
uint32_t r = x>>bit; // current remainder in 0..5
x ^= r<<bit; // remove R bits from X
if (r >= 3) y |= 1<<bit; // new output bit
x |= mod3[r]<<bit; // new remainder inserted in X
}
printf("Y=%u\n",y);
}

Write the program in Pascal and use the DIV operator.
Since the question is tagged c, you can probably write a function in Pascal and call it from your C program; the method for doing so is system-specific.
But here's an example that works on my Ubuntu system with the Free Pascal fp-compiler package installed. (I'm doing this out of sheer misplaced stubbornness; I make no claim that this is useful.)
divide_by_3.pas :
unit Divide_By_3;
interface
function div_by_3(n: integer): integer; cdecl; export;
implementation
function div_by_3(n: integer): integer; cdecl;
begin
div_by_3 := n div 3;
end;
end.
main.c :
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
extern int div_by_3(int n);
int main(void) {
int n;
fputs("Enter a number: ", stdout);
fflush(stdout);
scanf("%d", &n);
printf("%d / 3 = %d\n", n, div_by_3(n));
return 0;
}
To build:
fpc divide_by_3.pas && gcc divide_by_3.o main.c -o main
Sample execution:
$ ./main
Enter a number: 100
100 / 3 = 33

int div3(int x)
{
int reminder = abs(x);
int result = 0;
while(reminder >= 3)
{
result++;
reminder--;
reminder--;
reminder--;
}
return result;
}

Didn't cross-check if this answer is already published. If the program need to be extended to floating numbers, the numbers can be multiplied by 10*number of precision needed and then the following code can be again applied.
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int aNumber = 500;
int gResult = 0;
int aLoop = 0;
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i < aNumber; i++)
{
if(aLoop == 3)
{
gResult++;
aLoop = 0;
}
aLoop++;
}
printf("Reulst of %d / 3 = %d", aNumber, gResult);
return 0;
}

This should work for any divisor, not only three. Currently only for unsigned, but extending it to signed should not be that difficult.
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned sub(unsigned two, unsigned one);
unsigned bitdiv(unsigned top, unsigned bot);
unsigned sub(unsigned two, unsigned one)
{
unsigned bor;
bor = one;
do {
one = ~two & bor;
two ^= bor;
bor = one<<1;
} while (one);
return two;
}
unsigned bitdiv(unsigned top, unsigned bot)
{
unsigned result, shift;
if (!bot || top < bot) return 0;
for(shift=1;top >= (bot<<=1); shift++) {;}
bot >>= 1;
for (result=0; shift--; bot >>= 1 ) {
result <<=1;
if (top >= bot) {
top = sub(top,bot);
result |= 1;
}
}
return result;
}
int main(void)
{
unsigned arg,val;
for (arg=2; arg < 40; arg++) {
val = bitdiv(arg,3);
printf("Arg=%u Val=%u\n", arg, val);
}
return 0;
}

Would it be cheating to use the / operator "behind the scenes" by using eval and string concatenation?
For example, in Javacript, you can do
function div3 (n) {
var div = String.fromCharCode(47);
return eval([n, div, 3].join(""));
}

First that I've come up with.
irb(main):101:0> div3 = -> n { s = '%0' + n.to_s + 's'; (s % '').gsub(' ', ' ').size }
=> #<Proc:0x0000000205ae90#(irb):101 (lambda)>
irb(main):102:0> div3[12]
=> 4
irb(main):103:0> div3[666]
=> 222
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't notice the tag C. But you can use the idea about string formatting, I guess...

Using BC Math in PHP:
<?php
$a = 12345;
$b = bcdiv($a, 3);
?>
MySQL (it's an interview from Oracle)
> SELECT 12345 DIV 3;
Pascal:
a:= 12345;
b:= a div 3;
x86-64 assembly language:
mov r8, 3
xor rdx, rdx
mov rax, 12345
idiv r8

The following script generates a C program that solves the problem without using the operators * / + - %:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
print('''#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
const int32_t div_by_3(const int32_t input)
{
''')
for i in range(-2**31, 2**31):
print(' if(input == %d) return %d;' % (i, i / 3))
print(r'''
return 42; // impossible
}
int main()
{
const int32_t number = 8;
printf("%d / 3 = %d\n", number, div_by_3(number));
}
''')

Using Hacker's Delight Magic number calculator
int divideByThree(int num)
{
return (fma(num, 1431655766, 0) >> 32);
}
Where fma is a standard library function defined in math.h header.

How about this approach (c#)?
private int dividedBy3(int n) {
List<Object> a = new Object[n].ToList();
List<Object> b = new List<object>();
while (a.Count > 2) {
a.RemoveRange(0, 3);
b.Add(new Object());
}
return b.Count;
}

I think the right answer is:
Why would I not use a basic operator to do a basic operation?

Solution using fma() library function, works for any positive number:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main()
{
int number = 8;//Any +ve no.
int temp = 3, result = 0;
while(temp <= number){
temp = fma(temp, 1, 3); //fma(a, b, c) is a library function and returns (a*b) + c.
result = fma(result, 1, 1);
}
printf("\n\n%d divided by 3 = %d\n", number, result);
}
See my another answer.

First:
x/3 = (x/4) / (1-1/4)
Then figure out how to solve x/(1 - y):
x/(1-1/y)
= x * (1+y) / (1-y^2)
= x * (1+y) * (1+y^2) / (1-y^4)
= ...
= x * (1+y) * (1+y^2) * (1+y^4) * ... * (1+y^(2^i)) / (1-y^(2^(i+i))
= x * (1+y) * (1+y^2) * (1+y^4) * ... * (1+y^(2^i))
with y = 1/4:
int div3(int x) {
x <<= 6; // need more precise
x += x>>2; // x = x * (1+(1/2)^2)
x += x>>4; // x = x * (1+(1/2)^4)
x += x>>8; // x = x * (1+(1/2)^8)
x += x>>16; // x = x * (1+(1/2)^16)
return (x+1)>>8; // as (1-(1/2)^32) very near 1,
// we plus 1 instead of div (1-(1/2)^32)
}
Although it uses +, but somebody already implements add by bitwise op.

Use cblas, included as part of OS X's Accelerate framework.
[02:31:59] [william#relativity ~]$ cat div3.c
#import <stdio.h>
#import <Accelerate/Accelerate.h>
int main() {
float multiplicand = 123456.0;
float multiplier = 0.333333;
printf("%f * %f == ", multiplicand, multiplier);
cblas_sscal(1, multiplier, &multiplicand, 1);
printf("%f\n", multiplicand);
}
[02:32:07] [william#relativity ~]$ clang div3.c -framework Accelerate -o div3 && ./div3
123456.000000 * 0.333333 == 41151.957031

Generally, a solution to this would be:
log(pow(exp(numerator),pow(denominator,-1)))

Okay I think we all agree that this isn't a real world problem. So just for fun, here's how to do it with Ada and multithreading:
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Divide_By_3 is
protected type Divisor_Type is
entry Poke;
entry Finish;
private
entry Release;
entry Stop_Emptying;
Emptying : Boolean := False;
end Divisor_Type;
protected type Collector_Type is
entry Poke;
entry Finish;
private
Emptying : Boolean := False;
end Collector_Type;
task type Input is
end Input;
task type Output is
end Output;
protected body Divisor_Type is
entry Poke when not Emptying and Stop_Emptying'Count = 0 is
begin
requeue Release;
end Poke;
entry Release when Release'Count >= 3 or Emptying is
New_Output : access Output;
begin
if not Emptying then
New_Output := new Output;
Emptying := True;
requeue Stop_Emptying;
end if;
end Release;
entry Stop_Emptying when Release'Count = 0 is
begin
Emptying := False;
end Stop_Emptying;
entry Finish when Poke'Count = 0 and Release'Count < 3 is
begin
Emptying := True;
requeue Stop_Emptying;
end Finish;
end Divisor_Type;
protected body Collector_Type is
entry Poke when Emptying is
begin
null;
end Poke;
entry Finish when True is
begin
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line (Poke'Count'Img);
Emptying := True;
end Finish;
end Collector_Type;
Collector : Collector_Type;
Divisor : Divisor_Type;
task body Input is
begin
Divisor.Poke;
end Input;
task body Output is
begin
Collector.Poke;
end Output;
Cur_Input : access Input;
-- Input value:
Number : Integer := 18;
begin
for I in 1 .. Number loop
Cur_Input := new Input;
end loop;
Divisor.Finish;
Collector.Finish;
end Divide_By_3;

Related

merge binary strings and convert to decimal in c

The code below will get two integers X and Y from user, convert them to binary and insert all bits of Y after the last set bit in X.
example: 10 14
output: 188
Explanation:
10 -> 1010
14 -> 1110
10111100 -> 188
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int insertBits(int X, int Y) {
int int_to_bin(int k) {
return (k == 0 || k == 1 ? k : ((k % 2) + 10 * int_to_bin(k / 2)));
}
int a1 = int_to_bin(X);
int a2 = int_to_bin(Y);
char msg[20];
char msg1[20];
char deal[20];
sprintf(msg, "%d", a1);
sprintf(msg1, "%d", a2);
int k = 0;
int i = 0;
for (i = strlen(msg) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (msg[i] == '1') {
k = 1;
break;
}
}
memcpy(msg, &msg[0], i);
memcpy(deal, &msg[i], -1);
strcat(msg, deal);
printf("%s", strcat(deal, msg1));
}
int main() {
insertBits(10, 20);
}
I wrote the code till converting the input to binary and extracted the binarys i dont know how to merge it and convert to decimal.please help me
Ok so lets summarize what you have to do,
Convert the numbers in 4bit binary and concatenate into a string.
After both numbers are done in separate strings concatenate both strings to get new string.
Convert the new string in decimal.
This functions converts a single number into 4bit binary string. Call this 2 times and you get two string with 4bit bin number. Now take the two string and concatenate it for getting the final string.
const char *byte_to_binary(int x)
{
static char b[9];
b[0] = '\0';
int z;
for (z = 8; z > 0; z >>= 1)
{
strcat(b, ((x & z) == z) ? "1" : "0");
}
return b;
}
Now what if you need more the 4bits. You can see I have initialized z=8 because 0b0000 1000 in dec is 8. so if you need 5bit then just so z=16 because 0b0001 0000 is 16 in dec.
For converting string of numbers in decimal, use the basic concept. If bin number is 0b1000, then to convert it to dec you need to do, 12^3 + 02^2 + 02^1 + 02^0.
for(sum=0, j=0, s=strlen(num)-1; s >= 0; s--, ++j){
if(num[s] == '1'){
sum = sum + pow(2,j);
}
}
This code snippet converts a string of binary in dec. That's it.
P.S. Not giving you full code as time is limited and I guess you are smart enough to figure it out by yourself. Comment for any help.
I will give a non portable answer. It will work for x86 + gcc.
#include <stdio.h>
int insertBits(int X, int Y) {
int msb;
asm("bsrl %1,%0" : "=r"(msb) : "r"(X));
Y <<= (msb+1);
return X|Y;
}
int main() {
printf("%d\n", insertBits(10, 20));
}
X=10 => 1010
Y=20 => 10100
Result=330 => 101001010
Your approach is severely limited: if the number is larger than 1023, the conversion will overflow the range of int.
You should use unsigned int arguments, compute the number of trailing zeroes in X and the number of bits in Y and the result will be easy to get with shift operations:
unsigned int insertBits(unsigned int X, unsigned int Y) {
int n1, n2;
unsigned int temp;
if (X == 0)
return Y;
if (Y == 0)
return X;
// compute the number of trailing zeroes in X
for (n1 = 0, temp = X; (temp & 1) == 0; n1++, temp >>= 1)
continue;
// compute the number of bits in Y
for (n2 = 0, temp = Y; temp != 0; n2++, temp >>= 1)
continue;
return ((X >> n1 << n2) | Y) << n1;
}

How do I reverse the order of the digits of an integer using recursion in C programming?

Problem statement :
Given a 32-bit signed integer, reverse digits of an integer.
Note: Assume we are dealing with an environment that could only store
integers within the 32-bit signed integer range: [ −2^31, 2^31 − 1]. For
the purpose of this problem, assume that your function returns 0 when
the reversed integer overflows.
I'm trying to implement the recursive function reverseRec(), It's working for smaller values but it's a mess for the edge cases.
int reverseRec(int x)
{
if(abs(x)<=9)
{
return x;
}
else
{
return reverseRec(x/10) + ((x%10)*(pow(10, (floor(log10(abs(x)))))));
}
}
I've implemented non recursive function which is working just fine :
int reverse(int x)
{
long long val = 0;
do{
val = val*10 + (x%10);
x /= 10;
}while(x);
return (val < INT_MIN || val > INT_MAX) ? 0 : val;
}
Here I use variable val of long long type to check the result with MAX and MIN of signed int type but the description of the problem specifically mentioned that we need to deal within the range of 32-bit integer, although somehow it got accepted but I'm just curious If there is a way to implement a recursive function using only int datatype ?
One more thing even if I consider using long long I'm failing to implement it in the recursive function reverseRec().
If there is a way to implement a recursive function using only int datatype ?
(and) returns 0 when the reversed integer overflows
Yes.
For such +/- problems, I like to fold the int values to one side and negate as needed. The folding to one side (- or +) simplifies overflow detection as only a single side needs testing
I prefer folding to the negative side as there are more negatives, than positives. (With 32-bit int, really didn't make any difference for this problem.)
As code forms the reversed value, test if the following r * 10 + least_digit may overflow before doing it.
An int only recursive solution to reverse an int. Overflow returns 0.
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
static int reverse_recurse(int i, int r) {
if (i) {
int least_digit = i % 10;
if (r <= INT_MIN / 10 && (r < INT_MIN / 10 || least_digit < INT_MIN % 10)) {
return 1; /// Overflow indication
}
r = reverse_recurse(i / 10, r * 10 + least_digit);
}
return r;
}
// Reverse an int, overflow returns 0
int reverse_int(int i) {
// Proceed with negative values, they have more range than + side
int r = reverse_recurse(i > 0 ? -i : i, 0);
if (r > 0) {
return 0;
}
if (i > 0) {
if (r < -INT_MAX) {
return 0;
}
r = -r;
}
return r;
}
Test
int main(void) {
int t[] = {0, 1, 42, 1234567890, 1234567892, INT_MAX, INT_MIN};
for (unsigned i = 0; i < sizeof t / sizeof t[0]; i++) {
printf("%11d %11d\n", t[i], reverse_int(t[i]));
if (t[i] != INT_MIN) {
printf("%11d %11d\n", -t[i], reverse_int(-t[i]));
}
}
}
Output
0 0
0 0
1 1
-1 -1
42 24
-42 -24
1234567890 987654321
-1234567890 -987654321
1234567892 0
-1234567892 0
2147483647 0
-2147483647 0
-2147483648 0
You could add a second parameter:
int reverseRec(int x, int reversed)
{
if(x == 0)
{
return reversed;
}
else
{
return reverseRec(x/10, reversed * 10 + x%10);
}
}
And call the function passing the 0 for the second parameter. If you want negative numbers you can check the sign before and pass the absolute value to this function.
In trying to learn C programming I programed this question and get some correct results and some incorrect. I don't see the reason for the difference.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h> // requires adding link to math -lm as in: gcc b.c -lm -o q11
int ReverseInt(int startValue, int decimalPlace)
{
if(decimalPlace == 0) // if done returns value
{
return startValue;
}
int temp = startValue % 10; // gets units digit
int newStart = (startValue -temp)/10; // computes new starting value after removing one digit
int newDecimal = decimalPlace -1;
int value = temp*pow(10,decimalPlace);
return value + ReverseInt(newStart,newDecimal); // calls itself recursively until done
}
int main()
{
int x, decimalP, startValue;
printf("Input number to be reversed \n Please note number must be less than 214748364 :");
scanf("%d", &x);
if (x > 214748364)
{
printf("Input number to be reversed \n Please note number must be less than 214748364 :");
scanf("%d", &x);
}
decimalP = round(log10(x)); // computes the number of powers of 10 - 0 being units etc.
startValue = ReverseInt(x, decimalP); // calls function with number to be reversed and powers of 10
printf("\n reverse of %d is %d \n", x, startValue);
}
Output is: reverse of 1234 is 4321 but then reverse of 4321 is 12340
It's late and nothing better does not come into my mind. No float calculations. Of course, integer has to be big enough to accommodate the result. Otherwise it is an UB.
int rev(int x, int partial, int *max)
{
int result;
if(x / partial < 10 && (int)(x / partial) > -10)
{
*max = partial;
return abs(x % 10) * partial;
}
result = rev(x, partial * 10, max) + abs(((x / (int)(*max / partial)) % 10) * partial);
return result;
}
int reverse(int x)
{
int max;
return rev(x, 1, &max) * ((x < 0) ? -1 : 1);
}
int main(void){
printf("%d", reverse(-456789));
}
https://godbolt.org/z/M1eezf
unsigned rev(unsigned x, unsigned partial, unsigned *max)
{
unsigned result;
if(x / partial < 10)
{
*max = partial;
return (x % 10) * partial;
}
result = rev(x, partial * 10, max) + (x / (*max / partial) % 10) * partial;
return result;
}
unsigned reverse(unsigned x)
{
unsigned max;
return rev(x, 1, &max);
}
int main(void){
printf("%u", reverse(123456));
}
when using long long to store the result all possible integers can be reversed
long long rev(int x, long long partial, long long *max)
{
long long result;
if(x / partial < 10 && (int)(x / partial) > -10)
{
*max = partial;
return abs(x % 10) * partial;
}
result = rev(x, partial * 10, max) + abs(((x / (int)(*max / partial)) % 10) * partial);
return result;
}
long long reverse(int x)
{
long long max;
return rev(x, 1, &max) * ((x < 0) ? -1 : 1);
}
int main(void){
printf("%d reversed %lld\n", INT_MIN, reverse(INT_MIN));
printf("%d reversed %lld\n", INT_MAX, reverse(INT_MAX));
}
https://godbolt.org/z/KMfbxz
I am assuming by reversing an integer you mean turning 129 to 921 or 120 to 21.
You need an initial method to initialize your recursive function.
Your recursive function must figure out how many decimal places your integer uses. This can be found by using log base 10 with the value and then converting the result to a integer.
log10 (103) approx. 2.04 => 2
Modulus the initial value by 10 to get the ones place and store it in a variable called temp
Subtract the ones place from the initial value and store that in a variable called newStart.
divide this value by 10
Subtract one from the decimal place and store in another variable called newDecimal.
Return the ones place times 10 to the power of the decimal place and add it to the function where the initial value is newStart and the decimalPlace is newDecimal.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int ReverseInt(int startValue, int decimalPlace);
int main()
{
int i = -54;
int positive = i < 0? i*-1 : i;
double d = log10(positive);
int output = ReverseInt(positive,(int)d);
int correctedOutput = i < 0? output*-1 : output;
printf("%d \n",correctedOutput);
return 0;
}
int ReverseInt(int startValue, int decimalPlace)
{
if(decimalPlace == 0)
{
return startValue;
}
int temp = startValue % 10;
int newStart = (startValue -temp)/10;
int newDecimal = decimalPlace -1;
int value = temp*pow(10,decimalPlace);
return value + ReverseInt(newStart,newDecimal);
}

Efficient algorithm to calculate the sum of number of base2 digits (number of bits) over an interval of positive integers

Let's say I've been given two integers a, b where a is a positive integer and is smaller than b. I have to find an efficient algorithm that's going to give me the sum of number of base2 digits (number of bits) over the interval [a, b]. For example, in the interval [0, 4] the sum of digits is equal to 9 because 0 = 1 digit, 1 = 1 digit, 2 = 2 digits, 3 = 2 digits and 4 = 3 digits.
My program is capable of calculating this number by using a loop but I'm looking for something more efficient for large numbers. Here are the snippets of my code just to give you an idea:
int numberOfBits(int i) {
if(i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return (int) log2(i) + 1;
}
}
The function above is for calculating the number of digits of one number in the interval.
The code below shows you how I use it in my main function.
for(i = a; i <= b; i++) {
l = l + numberOfBits(i);
}
printf("Digits: %d\n", l);
Ideally I should be able to get the number of digits by using the two values of my interval and using some special algorithm to do that.
Try this code, i think it gives you what you are needing to calculate the binaries:
int bit(int x)
{
if(!x) return 1;
else
{
int i;
for(i = 0; x; i++, x >>= 1);
return i;
}
}
The main thing to understand here is that the number of digits used to represent a number in binary increases by one with each power of two:
+--------------+---------------+
| number range | binary digits |
+==============+===============+
| 0 - 1 | 1 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 2 - 3 | 2 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 4 - 7 | 3 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 8 - 15 | 4 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 16 - 31 | 5 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 32 - 63 | 6 |
+--------------+---------------+
| ... | ... |
A trivial improvement over your brute force algorithm would then be to figure out how many times this number of digits has increased between the two numbers passed in (given by the base two logarithm) and add up the digits by multiplying the count of numbers that can be represented by the given number of digits (given by the power of two) with the number of digits.
A naive implementation of this algorithm is:
int digits_sum_seq(int a, int b)
{
int sum = 0;
int i = 0;
int log2b = b <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(b));
int log2a = a <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(a)) + 1;
sum += (pow(2, log2a) - a) * (log2a);
for (i = log2b; i > log2a; i--)
sum += pow(2, i - 1) * i;
sum += (b - pow(2, log2b) + 1) * (log2b + 1);
return sum;
}
It can then be improved by the more efficient versions of the log and pow functions seen in the other answers.
First, we can improve the speed of log2, but that only gives us a fixed factor speed-up and doesn't change the scaling.
Faster log2 adapted from: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#IntegerLogLookup
The lookup table method takes only about 7 operations to find the log
of a 32-bit value. If extended for 64-bit quantities, it would take
roughly 9 operations. Another operation can be trimmed off by using
four tables, with the possible additions incorporated into each. Using
int table elements may be faster, depending on your architecture.
Second, we must re-think the algorithm. If you know that numbers between N and M have the same number of digits, would you add them up one by one or would you rather do (M-N+1)*numDigits?
But if we have a range where multiple numbers appear what do we do? Let's just find the intervals of same digits, and add sums of those intervals. Implemented below. I think that my findEndLimit could be further optimized with a lookup table.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned int fastLog2(unsigned int v)
{
static const char LogTable256[256] =
{
#define LT(n) n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n
-1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
LT(4), LT(5), LT(5), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6),
LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7)
};
register unsigned int t, tt; // temporaries
if (tt = v >> 16)
{
return (t = tt >> 8) ? 24 + LogTable256[t] : 16 + LogTable256[tt];
}
else
{
return (t = v >> 8) ? 8 + LogTable256[t] : LogTable256[v];
}
}
unsigned int numberOfBits(unsigned int i)
{
if (i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return fastLog2(i) + 1;
}
}
unsigned int findEndLimit(unsigned int sx, unsigned int ex)
{
unsigned int sy = numberOfBits(sx);
unsigned int ey = numberOfBits(ex);
unsigned int mx;
unsigned int my;
if (sy == ey) // this also means sx == ex
return ex;
// assumes sy < ey
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
while (ex - sx != 1) {
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
if (my == ey) {
ex = mx;
ey = numberOfBits(ex);
}
else {
sx = mx;
sy = numberOfBits(sx);
}
}
return sx+1;
}
int main(void)
{
unsigned int a, b, m;
unsigned long l;
clock_t start, end;
l = 0;
a = 0;
b = UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
unsigned int i;
for (i = a; i < b; ++i) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
if (i == b) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
end = clock();
printf("Naive\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
l=0;
start = clock();
do {
m = findEndLimit(a, b);
l += (b-m + 1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
b = m-1;
} while (b > a);
l += (b-a+1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
end = clock();
printf("Binary search\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
From 0 to UINT_MAX
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 25.722492s
Binary search
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 0.000025s
My findEndLimit can take long time in some edge cases:
From UINT_MAX/16+1 to UINT_MAX/8
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 1.651067s
Binary search
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 4.921520s
Conceptually, you would need to split the task to two subproblems -
1) find the sum of digits from 0..M, and from 0..N, then subtract.
2) find the floor(log2(x)), because eg for the number 77 the numbers 64,65,...77 all have 6 digits, the next 32 have 5 digits, the next 16 have 4 digits and so on, which makes a geometric progression.
Thus:
int digits(int a) {
if (a == 0) return 1; // should digits(0) be 0 or 1 ?
int b=(int)floor(log2(a)); // use any all-integer calculation hack
int sum = 1 + (b+1) * (a- (1<<b) +1); // added 1, due to digits(0)==1
while (--b)
sum += (b + 1) << b; // shortcut for (b + 1) * (1 << b);
return sum;
}
int digits_range(int a, int b) {
if (a <= 0 || b <= 0) return -1; // formulas work for strictly positive numbers
return digits(b)-digits(a-1);
}
As efficiency depends on the tools available, one approach would be doing it "analog":
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
unsigned long long pow2sum_min(unsigned long long n, long long unsigned m)
{
if (m >= n)
{
return 1;
}
--n;
return (2ULL << n) + pow2sum_min(n, m);
}
#define LN(x) (log2(x)/log2(M_E))
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if (2 >= argc)
{
fprintf(stderr, "%s a b\n", argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
long a = atol(argv[1]), b = atol(argv[2]);
if (0L >= a || 0L >= b || b < a)
{
puts("Na ...!");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
/* Expand intevall to cover full dimensions: */
unsigned long long a_c = pow(2, floor(log2(a)));
unsigned long long b_c = pow(2, floor(log2(b+1)) + 1);
double log2_a_c = log2(a_c);
double log2_b_c = log2(b_c);
unsigned long p2s = pow2sum_min(log2_b_c, log2_a_c) - 1;
/* Integral log2(x) between a_c and b_c: */
double A = ((b_c * (LN(b_c) - 1))
- (a_c * (LN(a_c) - 1)))/LN(2)
+ (b+1 - a);
/* "Integer"-integral - integral of log2(x)'s inverse function (2**x) between log(a_c) and log(b_c): */
double D = p2s - (b_c - a_c)/LN(2);
/* Corrective from a_c/b_c to a/b : */
double C = (log2_b_c - 1)*(b_c - (b+1)) + log2_a_c*(a - a_c);
printf("Total used digits: %lld\n", (long long) ((A - D - C) +.5));
}
:-)
The main thing here is the number and kind of iterations done.
Number is
log(floor(b_c)) - log(floor(a_c))
times
doing one
n - 1 /* Integer decrement */
2**n + s /* One bit-shift and one integer addition */
for each iteration.
Here's an entirely look-up based approach. You don't even need the log2 :)
Algorithm
First we precompute interval limits where the number of bits would change and create a lookup table. In other words we create an array limits[2^n], where limits[i] gives us the biggest integer that can be represented with (i+1) bits. Our array is then {1, 3, 7, ..., 2^n-1}.
Then, when we want to determine the sum of bits for our range, we must first match our range limits a and b with the smallest index for which a <= limits[i] and b <= limits[j] holds, which will then tell us that we need (i+1) bits to represent a, and (j+1) bits to represent b.
If the indexes are the same, then the result is simply (b-a+1)*(i+1), otherwise we must separately get the number of bits from our value to the edge of same number of bits interval, and add up total number of bits for each interval between as well. In any case, simple arithmetic.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned long bitsnumsum(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
// generate lookup table
// limits[i] is the max. number we can represent with (i+1) bits
static const unsigned int limits[32] =
{
#define LTN(n) n*2u-1, n*4u-1, n*8u-1, n*16u-1, n*32u-1, n*64u-1, n*128u-1, n*256u-1
LTN(1),
LTN(256),
LTN(256*256),
LTN(256*256*256)
};
// make it work for any order of arguments
if (b < a) {
unsigned int c = a;
a = b;
b = c;
}
// find interval of a
unsigned int i = 0;
while (a > limits[i]) {
++i;
}
// find interval of b
unsigned int j = i;
while (b > limits[j]) {
++j;
}
// add it all up
unsigned long sum = 0;
if (i == j) {
// a and b in the same range
// conveniently, this also deals with j == 0
// so no danger to do [j-1] below
return (i+1) * (unsigned long)(b - a + 1);
}
else {
// add sum of digits in range [a, limits[i]]
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - a + 1);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[j], b]
sum += (j+1) * (unsigned long)(b - limits[j-1]);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[i], limits[j]]
for (++i; i<j; ++i) {
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - limits[i-1]);
}
return sum;
}
}
int main(void)
{
clock_t start, end;
unsigned int a=0, b=UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
printf("Sum of binary digits for numbers in range "
"[%u, %u]: %lu\n", a, b, bitsnumsum(a, b));
end = clock();
printf("Time: %fs\n", ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
$ ./lookup
Sum of binary digits for numbers in range [0, 4294967295]: 133143986178
Time: 0.000282s
Algorithm
The main idea is to find the n2 = log2(x) rounded down. That is the number of digits in x. Let pow2 = 1 << n2. n2 * (pow2 - x + 1) is the number of digits in the values [x...pow2]. Now find the sun of digits in the powers of 2 from 1 to n2-1
Code
I am certain various simplifications can be made.
Untested code. Will review later.
// Let us use unsigned for everything.
unsigned ulog2(unsigned value) {
unsigned result = 0;
if (0xFFFF0000u & value) {
value >>= 16; result += 16;
}
if (0xFF00u & value) {
value >>= 8; result += 8;
}
if (0xF0u & value) {
value >>= 4; result += 4;
}
if (0xCu & value) {
value >>= 2; result += 2;
}
if (0x2 & value) {
value >>= 1; result += 1;
}
return result;
}
unsigned bit_count_helper(unsigned x) {
if (x == 0) {
return 1;
}
unsigned n2 = ulog2(x);
unsigned pow2 = 1u << n;
unsigned sum = n2 * (pow2 - x + 1u); // value from pow2 to x
while (n2 > 0) {
// ... + 5*16 + 4*8 + 3*4 + 2*2 + 1*1
pow2 /= 2;
sum += n2 * pow2;
}
return sum;
}
unsigned bit_count(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
assert(a < b);
return bit_count_helper(b - 1) - bit_count_helper(a);
}
For this problem your solution is the simplest, the one called "naive" where you look for every element in the sequence or in your case interval for check something or execute operations.
Naive Algorithm
Assuming that a and b are positive integers with b greater than a let's call the dimension/size of the interval [a,b], n = (b-a).
Having our number of elements n and using some notations of algorithms (like big-O notation link), the worst case cost is O(n*(numberOfBits_cost)).
From this we can see that we can speed up our algorithm by using a faster algorithm for computing numberOfBits() or we need to find a way to not look at every element of the interval that costs us n operations.
Intuition
Now looking at a possible interval [6,14] you can see that for 6 and 7 we need 3 digits, with 4 need for 8,9,10,11,12,13,14. This results in calling numberOfBits() for every number that use the same number of digits to be represented, while the following multiplication operation would be faster:
(number_in_subinterval)*digitsForThisInterval
((14-8)+1)*4 = 28
((7-6)+1)*3 = 6
So we reduced the looping on 9 elements with 9 operations to only 2.
So writing a function that use this intuition will give us a more efficient in time, not necessarily in memory, algorithm. Using your numberOfBits() function I have created this solution:
int intuitionSol(int a, int b){
int digitsForA = numberOfBits(a);
int digitsForB = numberOfBits(b);
if(digitsForA != digitsForB){
//because a or b can be that isn't the first or last element of the
// interval that a specific number of digit can rappresent there is a need
// to execute some correction operation before on a and b
int tmp = pow(2,digitsForA) - a;
int result = tmp*digitsForA; //will containt the final result that will be returned
int i;
for(i = digitsForA + 1; i < digitsForB; i++){
int interval_elements = pow(2,i) - pow(2,i-1);
result = result + ((interval_elements) * i);
//printf("NumOfElem: %i for %i digits; sum:= %i\n", interval_elements, i, result);
}
int tmp1 = ((b + 1) - pow(2,digitsForB-1));
result = result + tmp1*digitsForB;
return result;
}
else {
int elements = (b - a) + 1;
return elements * digitsForA; // or digitsForB
}
}
Let's look at the cost, this algorithm costs is the cost of doing correction operation on a and b plus the most expensive one that of the for-loop. In my solution however I'm not looping over all elements but only on numberOfBits(b)-numberOfBits(a) that in the worst case, when [0,n], become log(n)-1 thats equivalent to O(log n).
To resume we passed from a linear operations cost O(n) to a logartmic one O(log n) in the worst case. Look on this diagram the diferinces between the two.
Note
When I talk about interval or sub-interval I refer to the interval of elements that use the same number of digits to represent the number in binary.
Following there are some output of my tests with the last one that shows the difference:
Considered interval is [0,4]
YourSol: 9 in time: 0.000015s
IntuitionSol: 9 in time: 0.000007s
Considered interval is [0,0]
YourSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
IntuitionSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [4,7]
YourSol: 12 in time: 0.000016s
IntuitionSol: 12 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [2,123456]
YourSol: 1967697 in time: 0.005010s
IntuitionSol: 1967697 in time: 0.000015s

Bitand function in C

I want to make a bitwise AND computation over integers, but without converting them to binary numbers. For example, I have a integer "10111" (it is integer, not binary) and another integer "01001". I want bitwise AND of these numbers without converting them to binary and then making bitwise AND. I know it is not bitwise what I ask, but I want something similar to this. I know it can be interpreted initially as binary, converted to decimal and then do bitwise AND, but I do not want that. I want something like this:
int a;
int b;
int temp;
double result;
temp = a & b;
while (result != 0) {
if (result % 10 == 1)
count++;
result /= 10;
}
int length = floor(log10(abs(a))) + 1;
result = count / length;
return result;
I want this to check similarity of the Bag of Words(from natural language processing, string of 0s and 1s). I am importing Bag of Words in Monetdb, Column type should be Integer (Not string). If I have for example "10111" and "01001" in the Integer type cells, I want to get "00001" and fraction 1/5, because only 1 positions matches.
Thanks in advance
Might be a bit bulky, but it kind of works) You can optimize it yourself. I hope that I get you correctly.
IDEOne demo
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned int weirdAnd(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
unsigned int result = 0;
unsigned int coef = 1;
while (a && b) {
result += ((a % 10) && (b % 10)) * coef;
coef *= 10;
a /= 10;
b /= 10;
}
return result;
}
unsigned int weirdOr(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
unsigned int result = 0;
unsigned int coef = 1;
while (a || b) {
result += ((a % 10) || (b % 10)) * coef;
coef *= 10;
a /= 10;
b /= 10;
}
return result;
}
int main(void) {
// your code goes here
unsigned int a = 10110;
unsigned int b = 10011;
printf("%u and \n%u = \n%u\n\n", a, b, weirdAnd(a, b));
printf("%u or \n%u = \n%u\n\n", a, b, weirdOr(a, b));
return 0;
}
Output:
10110 and 10011 = 10010
10110 or 10011 = 10111
The problem is that and works on bits only, and it does not care if the input numbers are given in decimals, octal, hexadecimal, or any other way. To force and to work correctly, you must give it an input in 'binary', that is, only ones and zeroes. To do so you need to grab each digit of the input numbers as if they are binary digits.
The following works as expected:
#include <stdio.h>
int cheap_pow (int base, int exponent)
{
int result = base;
while (exponent-- > 0)
result *= base;
return result;
}
int main (void)
{
int a = 10111, b = 1001 ;
int result, factor;
printf ("BAD: %05d AND %05d = %05d\n", a, b, a & b);
printf ("GOOD: %05d AND %05d = ");
result = 0;
factor = 1;
while (a | b)
{
result += factor * ((a & 1) and (b & 1));
factor *= 10;
a /= 10;
b /= 10;
}
printf ("%05d\n", result);
}
but you must be careful when defining your inputs. When written directly into your source code, a value b = 01001 will be interpreted by the C compiler as octal (base 8), rather than decimal; and it will have the (decimal) value 513. It's just a Rule of C.
If your input comes from elsewhere, you don't need to take this into account – except when you use a standard function such as strtol, where you should carefully read the documentation because it does the same thing:
If base is zero or 16, the string may then include a "0x"
prefix, and the number will be read in base 16; otherwise, a zero
base is taken as 10 (decimal) unless the next character is '0', in
which case it is taken as 8 (octal).
An additional note is this program only will work in the range for signed int, that is (currently) up to 10 "binary" digits. If you need some more, you could switch to a larger type; but beyond that, you are better off with a not-numerical solution and use a character strings throughout.
int a, b;
int tmp = a & b;
int res = 0;
while ((tmp != 0 &&) (tmp / 10 != 0)){
int dig = tmp % 10;
res = (dig == 1)? ++res: res;
tmp /= 10;
}
Try this.

How to generate a random number based on a byte array?

Suppose I have an array of bytes from a secure PRNG, and I need to generate a number between 1 and 10 using that data, how would I do that correctly?
Think of the array as one big unsigned integer. Then the answer is simple:
(Big_Number % 10) + 1
So all that is needed is a method to find the modulus 10 of big integers. Using modular exponentiation:
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int ArrayMod10(const unsigned char *a, size_t n) {
int mod10 = 0;
int base = (UCHAR_MAX + 1) % 10;
for (size_t i = n; i-- > 0; ) {
mod10 = (base*mod10 + a[i]) % 10;
base = (base * base) % 10;
}
return mod10;
}
void test10(size_t n) {
unsigned char a[n];
// fill array with your secure PRNG
for (size_t i = 0; i<n; i++) a[i] = rand();
return ArrayMod10(a, n) + 1;
}
There will be a slight bias as 256^n is not a power of 10. With large n, this will rapidly decrease in significance.
Untested code: Detect if a biased result occurred. Calling code could repeatedly call this function with new a array values to get an unbiased result on the rare occasions when bias occurs.
int ArrayMod10BiasDetect(const unsigned char *a, size_t n, bool *biasptr) {
bool bias = true;
int mod10 = 0;
int base = (UCHAR_MAX + 1) % 10; // Note base is usually 6: 256%10, 65536%10, etc.
for (size_t i = n; i-- > 0; ) {
mod10 = (base*mod10 + a[i]) % 10;
if (n > 0) {
if (a[i] < UCHAR_MAX) bias = false;
} else {
if (a[i] < UCHAR_MAX + 1 - base) bias = false;
}
base = (base * base) % 10;
}
*biaseptr = bias;
return mod10;
}
As per the comments follow-up, it seems what you need is modulus operator [%].
You may also need to check the related wiki.
Note: Every time we use the modulo operator on a random number, there is a probability that we'll be running into modulo bias, which ends up in disbalancing the fair distribution of random numbers. You've to take care of that.
For a detailed discussion on this, please see this question and related answers.
It depends on a bunch of things. Secure PRNG sometimes makes long byte arrays instead of integers, let's say it is 16 bytes long array, then extract 32 bit integer like so: buf[0]*0x1000000+buf[1]*0x10000+buf[2]*0x100+buf[3] or use shift operator. This is random so big-endian/little-endian doesn't matter.
char randbytes[16];
//...
const char *p = randbytes;
//assumes size of int is 4
unsigned int rand1 = p[0] << 24 + p[1] << 16 + p[2] << 8 + p[3]; p += 4;
unsigned int rand2 = p[0] << 24 + p[1] << 16 + p[2] << 8 + p[3]; p += 4;
unsigned int rand3 = p[0] << 24 + p[1] << 16 + p[2] << 8 + p[3]; p += 4;
unsigned int rand4 = p[0] << 24 + p[1] << 16 + p[2] << 8 + p[3];
Then use % on the integer
ps, I think that's a long answer. If you want number between 1 and 10 then just use % on first byte.
OK, so this answer is in Java until I get to my Eclipse C/C++ IDE:
public final static int simpleBound(Random rbg, int n) {
final int BYTE_VALUES = 256;
// sanity check, only return positive numbers
if (n <= 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Oops");
}
// sanity check: choice of value 0 or 0...
if (n == 1) {
return 0;
}
// sanity check: does not fit in byte
if (n > BYTE_VALUES) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Oops");
}
// optimization for n = 2^y
if (Integer.bitCount(n) == 1) {
final int mask = n - 1;
return retrieveRandomByte(rbg) & mask;
}
// you can skip to this if you are sure n = 10
// z is upper bound, and contains floor(z / n) blocks of n values
final int z = (BYTE_VALUES / n) * n;
int x;
do {
x = retrieveRandomByte(rbg);
} while (x >= z);
return x % n;
}
So n is the maximum value in a range [0..n), i.e. n is exclusive. For a range [1..10] simply increase the result with 1.

Resources