Equidistant Points in a Matrix - algorithm

I have a matrix of floating point values. Relative to a given origin (x and y index, point "0"), I would like to obtain the indices of equidistant points, starting with the nearest points ("1") and up to a specific number ("12" in this animated example):
The distance is the slant range between a point and point 0. For example, point "4" has the distance sqrt(2^2+1^2) = sqrt(5) = 2.24.
Does anyone know a corresponding algorithm to obtain these indices in an effective way?

Rephrasing the question, you want to enumerate the points by increasing euclidean distance to the center.
Here are two answers on https://math.stackexchange.com to this problem how-to-enumerate-2d-integer-coordinates-ordered-by-euclidean-distance and algorithm-for-enumerating-grid-points-by-distance-from-given-point
Basically:
use symmetry to consider only point with 0 <= x <= y;
note that for a given x points will be enumerated with increasing y;
use a priority queue to keep the next candidate for each vertical line.
With n the last index you generate, the time complexity will be O(n log n) and the space complexity O(sqrt(n)).
NB: to avoid floating point computation, consider the squared distance, which doesn't change the order of your points.
Here some python code implementing this idea:
import heapq
def yield_all_quadrant(x, y):
s = set([(x, y), (-x, y), (x, -y), (-x, -y),
(y, x), (-y, x), (y, -x), (-y, -x)])
for u, v in sorted(s):
yield u, v
def indices(X, Y):
q = [(0, 0, 0)]
d_current = 0
index = 0
while True:
d, x, y = heapq.heappop(q)
if d > d_current:
index += 1
d_current = d
for u, v in yield_all_quadrant(x, y):
yield (X + u,Y + v), index
if not y:
heapq.heappush(q, (d + 2*x + 1, (x+1), 0))
if y < x:
heapq.heappush(q, (d + 2*y + 1, x, y+1))
and used for example in a small function to fill a grid
import itertools
def fill_grid(size, center):
grid = [[0]*size for _ in range(size)]
def clip(e):
coord, index = e
return all(0 <= c < size for c in coord)
for (x,y), i in itertools.islice(filter(clip, indices(*center)), 0, size**2):
grid[x][y] = i
return grid
and the result
print('\n'.join(' '.join('%2d'%i for i in gi) for gi in fill_grid(20, (8,8))))
54 48 43 39 35 33 31 30 29 30 31 33 35 39 43 48 54 59 67 74
48 42 38 34 30 27 26 24 23 24 26 27 30 34 38 42 48 55 62 69
43 38 32 28 25 22 20 19 18 19 20 22 25 28 32 38 43 50 56 64
39 34 28 24 21 17 15 14 13 14 15 17 21 24 28 34 39 46 53 60
35 30 25 21 16 13 12 10 9 10 12 13 16 21 25 30 35 41 49 57
33 27 22 17 13 11 8 7 6 7 8 11 13 17 22 27 33 40 47 55
31 26 20 15 12 8 5 4 3 4 5 8 12 15 20 26 31 38 45 53
30 24 19 14 10 7 4 2 1 2 4 7 10 14 19 24 30 37 44 52
29 23 18 13 9 6 3 1 0 1 3 6 9 13 18 23 29 36 43 51
30 24 19 14 10 7 4 2 1 2 4 7 10 14 19 24 30 37 44 52
31 26 20 15 12 8 5 4 3 4 5 8 12 15 20 26 31 38 45 53
33 27 22 17 13 11 8 7 6 7 8 11 13 17 22 27 33 40 47 55
35 30 25 21 16 13 12 10 9 10 12 13 16 21 25 30 35 41 49 57
39 34 28 24 21 17 15 14 13 14 15 17 21 24 28 34 39 46 53 60
43 38 32 28 25 22 20 19 18 19 20 22 25 28 32 38 43 50 56 64
48 42 38 34 30 27 26 24 23 24 26 27 30 34 38 42 48 55 62 69
54 48 43 39 35 33 31 30 29 30 31 33 35 39 43 48 54 59 67 74
59 55 50 46 41 40 38 37 36 37 38 40 41 46 50 55 59 66 73 80
67 62 56 53 49 47 45 44 43 44 45 47 49 53 56 62 67 73 79 85
74 69 64 60 57 55 53 52 51 52 53 55 57 60 64 69 74 80 85 93

Related

Ranking of nodes provides unranked result

I have the following graphviz input:
digraph para
{
node [shape=record];
rankdir=BT;
0 [label=<0<SUB>0,0</SUB>>];
1 [label=<1<SUB>1,1</SUB>>];
2 [label=<2<SUB>0,2</SUB>>];
3 [label=<2<SUB>1,1</SUB>>];
4 [label=<2<SUB>2,0</SUB>>];
5 [label=<3<SUB>1,3</SUB>>];
6 [label=<3<SUB>2,2</SUB>>];
7 [label=<3<SUB>3,1</SUB>>];
8 [label=<4<SUB>0,4</SUB>>];
9 [label=<4<SUB>1,3</SUB>>];
10 [label=<4<SUB>2,2</SUB>>];
11 [label=<4<SUB>3,1</SUB>>];
12 [label=<4<SUB>4,0</SUB>>];
13 [label=<5<SUB>1,5</SUB>>];
14 [label=<5<SUB>2,4</SUB>>];
15 [label=<5<SUB>3,3</SUB>>];
16 [label=<5<SUB>4,2</SUB>>];
17 [label=<5<SUB>5,1</SUB>>];
18 [label=<6<SUB>0,6</SUB>>];
19 [label=<6<SUB>1,5</SUB>>];
20 [label=<6<SUB>2,4</SUB>>];
21 [label=<6<SUB>3,3</SUB>>];
22 [label=<6<SUB>4,2</SUB>>];
23 [label=<6<SUB>5,1</SUB>>];
24 [label=<6<SUB>6,0</SUB>>];
25 [label=<7<SUB>1,7</SUB>>];
26 [label=<7<SUB>2,6</SUB>>];
27 [label=<7<SUB>3,5</SUB>>];
28 [label=<7<SUB>4,4</SUB>>];
29 [label=<7<SUB>5,3</SUB>>];
30 [label=<7<SUB>6,2</SUB>>];
31 [label=<7<SUB>7,1</SUB>>];
32 [label=<8<SUB>0,8</SUB>>];
33 [label=<8<SUB>1,7</SUB>>];
34 [label=<8<SUB>2,6</SUB>>];
35 [label=<8<SUB>3,5</SUB>>];
36 [label=<8<SUB>4,4</SUB>>];
37 [label=<8<SUB>5,3</SUB>>];
38 [label=<8<SUB>6,2</SUB>>];
39 [label=<8<SUB>7,1</SUB>>];
40 [label=<10<SUB>1,9</SUB>>];
41 [label=<7<SUB>7,1</SUB>>];
42 [label=<8<SUB>8,0</SUB>>];
43 [label=<5<SUB>4,1</SUB>>];
44 [label=<8<SUB>3,6</SUB>>];
45 [label=<8<SUB>5,4</SUB>>];
46 [label=<8<SUB>7,2</SUB>>];
47 [label=<1<SUB>1,1</SUB>>];
48 [label=<2<SUB>2,0</SUB>>];
49 [label=<3<SUB>1,3</SUB>>];
50 [label=<3<SUB>2,2</SUB>>];
51 [label=<3<SUB>3,1</SUB>>];
52 [label=<4<SUB>4,0</SUB>>];
53 [label=<6<SUB>1,5</SUB>>];
54 [label=<6<SUB>2,4</SUB>>];
55 [label=<7<SUB>3,5</SUB>>];
56 [label=<7<SUB>6,2</SUB>>];
57 [label=<7<SUB>7,1</SUB>>];
58 [label=<8<SUB>0,8</SUB>>];
59 [label=<8<SUB>3,5</SUB>>];
60 [label=<9<SUB>4,6</SUB>>];
61 [label=<1<SUB>0,1</SUB>>];
62 [label=<4<SUB>1,4</SUB>>];
63 [label=<5<SUB>2,3</SUB>>];
64 [label=<6<SUB>2,5</SUB>>];
65 [label=<6<SUB>6,1</SUB>>];
66 [label=<7<SUB>2,5</SUB>>];
67 [label=<7<SUB>3,4</SUB>>];
68 [label=<7<SUB>6,1</SUB>>];
69 [label=<7<SUB>7,0</SUB>>];
70 [label=<8<SUB>3,6</SUB>>];
71 [label=<8<SUB>4,5</SUB>>];
72 [label=<9<SUB>3,6</SUB>>];
73 [label=<5<SUB>1,5</SUB>>];
74 [label=<5<SUB>3,3</SUB>>];
75 [label=<6<SUB>4,2</SUB>>];
76 [label=<6<SUB>5,1</SUB>>];
77 [label=<7<SUB>4,4</SUB>>];
78 [label=<8<SUB>0,8</SUB>>];
{rank=same 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40}
{rank=same 41 42}
{rank=same 43 44 45 46}
{rank=same 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60}
{rank=same 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72}
{rank=same 73 74 75 76 77 78}
4->5;
10->13;
24->29;
17->22;
12->15;
25->20;
39->46;
30->76;
36->59;
4->47;
27->58;
27->44;
29->75;
37->56;
30->71;
18->43;
7->50;
35->78;
8->49;
38->57;
21->54;
20->53;
9->50;
6->49;
4->61;
14->43;
24->41;
29->70;
10->51;
20->73;
15->52;
31->69;
31->69;
35->70;
22->74;
16->64;
23->67;
29->45;
33->67;
30->68;
24->65;
12->63;
5->48;
40->60;
9->62;
25->54;
4->49;
40->72;
37->60;
22->55;
18->63;
24->76;
34->59;
3->48;
0->47;
19->54;
32->55;
27->67;
37->72;
31->46;
22->66;
5->50;
32->66;
2->49;
29->77;
0->61;
26->55;
18->53;
35->77;
15->54;
11->52;
28->59;
1->48;
29->56;
37->69;
31->42;
18->73;
30->57;
20->74;
25->58;
25->44;
8->43;
18->64;
4->51;
13->52;
34->71;
27->75;
27->78;
28->76;
}
where I am trying to rank the nodes as follows:
{rank=same 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40}
{rank=same 41 42}
{rank=same 43 44 45 46}
{rank=same 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60}
{rank=same 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72}
{rank=same 73 74 75 76 77 78}
However, it seems to me that only the first rank is assigned properly (for nodes 0,1,2,...,40). Could you please help me what the problem is with the ranking of the other groups? Why won't they be separated from each other?
rank=same can only force same rank for those nodes listed together, there is no guarantee that two rank=same gets different rank.
Also it seems like the hierarchy in you graph does not goes well with chosen subgraphs
Try replace your ranking with clusters and/or node coloring to analyze where the problem is. e.g.:
subgraph cluster1 {0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40}
subgraph cluster2 {41 42}
subgraph cluster3 {43 44 45 46}
subgraph cluster4 {47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60}
subgraph cluster5 {61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72}
subgraph cluster6 {73 74 75 76 77 78}
or
{0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40}
node[style=filled]
{node[fillcolor=red] 41 42}
{node[fillcolor=blue] 43 44 45 46}
{node[fillcolor=salmon] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60}
{node[fillcolor=pink] 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72}
{node[fillcolor=green] 73 74 75 76 77 78}

What is this pseudocode intended to do?

// L is a list and n is its length //
// we assume that n= 4**k , for k≥1//
Alg1(L,n)
remove the smallest and largest element from L
if n-2 > (4**k)/2
call Alg1(L, n-2)
Not what it does but what is it intended to do? I don't understand what the question means by "intended" but I think the algorithm just removes the largest and smallest element of the list recursively until 4 or 3 elements remain.
Given a starting list of size 4^k, which appears to be implied by the definition given for n, alg1 reduces the size of the supplied list to ((4^k) / 2) + 2 for k >= 1. I agree with #Ctznkane525 that the algorithm is incompletely specified in that it doesn't tell us what the return value should be. But if we make the simple assumption that two elements should be removed from the end of the list each time n is decremented by 2 we can continue. Thus, consider the following implementation in Clojure:
(defn exp [x n]
(reduce * (repeat n x)))
(def k 1)
(defn alg1[l n]
(println "k=" k " n=" n " l=" l)
(if (> (- n 2) (/ (exp 4 k) 2))
(recur (take (- n 2) l) (- n 2))
l))
I've added code here to print the values of k, n, and l so we can watch what happens at each step.
Given the above we'll start a little testing. We'll invoke alg1 as (alg1 (take (exp 4 k) (iterate #(+ 1 %) 1)) (exp 4 k)), which simply creates a list of 4^k elements and passes it as the first argument to alg1, and passes 4^k for the second argument. So here goes:
user=> (def k 1)
#'user/k
user=> (alg1 (take (exp 4 k) (iterate #(+ 1 %) 1)) (exp 4 k))
k= 1 n= 4 l= (1 2 3 4)
(1 2 3 4)
So with k=1 and the list defined as (1 2 3 4) the function returns immediately, because n-2 = 2, and that's less than or equal to (4^k)/2, which is also 2.
Let's try with k=2:
user=> (def k 2)
#'user/k
user=> (alg1 (take (exp 4 k) (iterate #(+ 1 %) 1)) (exp 4 k))
k= 2 n= 16 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16)
k= 2 n= 14 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14)
k= 2 n= 12 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12)
k= 2 n= 10 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
Ah, that's a bit more interesting. We start with n=16, which is of course 4^k = 4^2 = 16, and the beginning list is (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16). When these values are considered by alg1 it finds that n-2 (14) is greater than (4^2)/2 (8), so it trims two elements from the end of the list and recursively invokes itself. On the second iteration it finds that n-2 (12) is greater than 8 so it trims another two elements and recursively invokes itself. This continues until n=10, when alg1 finds that n-2 (8) is no longer greater than (4^2)/2 (8), so it returns the list (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10).
What happens with k=3?
user=> (def k 3)
#'user/k
user=> (alg1 (take (exp 4 k) (iterate #(+ 1 %) 1)) (exp 4 k))
k= 3 n= 64 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64)
k= 3 n= 62 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62)
k= 3 n= 60 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60)
k= 3 n= 58 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58)
k= 3 n= 56 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56)
k= 3 n= 54 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54)
k= 3 n= 52 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52)
k= 3 n= 50 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50)
k= 3 n= 48 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48)
k= 3 n= 46 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46)
k= 3 n= 44 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44)
k= 3 n= 42 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42)
k= 3 n= 40 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40)
k= 3 n= 38 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38)
k= 3 n= 36 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36)
k= 3 n= 34 l= (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34)
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34)
Similar results to the above. At each iteration two elements are trimmed from the list until the condition specified in the algorithm is reached, at which point the algorithm exits.
You can continue bumping up the value of k, building the arguments, and watching the algorithm work, but in the end the results are always similar: the list is reduced in size to ((4^k) / 2) + 2.
Best of luck.

In sorting quicksort if there are more than 2 same numbers..How can we sort?

If there are more than two same elements in Quicksort and pivot is also the same number...How can we sort it?
Eg: 23,19,45,21,90,5,93,45,31,45
In this array consider 45
Using Hoare like partition scheme, 45 as pivot, start with
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 indices
23 19 45 21 90 5 93 45 31 45 data
scan from left for >= pivot, scan from right for <= pivot
ll rr
23 19 45 21 90 5 93 45 31 45
23 19 45 21 90 5 93 45 31 45 swap (both are 45, so no change)
ll rr
23 19 45 21 90 5 93 45 31 45
23 19 45 21 31 5 93 45 90 45 swap
ll rr
23 19 45 21 31 5 93 45 90 45
23 19 45 21 31 5 45 93 90 45 swap
rr ll
23 19 45 21 31 5 45 93 90 45 rr and ll crossed, rr = 6
The next two calls will be quicksort(0,6), quicksort(7, 9)
How can we sort quicksort(7,9) ?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 indices
93 90 45 again assume pivot is 45
ll rr
93 90 45
45 90 93 swap
rr ll
45 90 93 rr and ll crossed, rr = 7
The next two calls will be quicksort(7,7), quicksort(8, 9)

Is there any library or code for DES which take 7 byte key? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Do we have any library or any mechanism where we can use true 7 byte key for DES instead of 8 byte key. I need it for keys analysis in DES and 8 byte key requirement for associated library is creating problem in getting actual keys analysis.
As explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard, the 8-byte key for DES is just a 56-bit key in 8 bytes with odd parity check added:
The key is nominally stored or transmitted as 8 bytes, each with odd parity. According to ANSI X3.92-1981, section 3.5:
One bit in each 8-bit byte of the KEY may be utilized for error detection in key generation, distribution, and storage. Bits 8, 16,..., 64 are for use in ensuring that each byte is of odd parity.
(end quote)
So given an 8-byte key I can generate a 7-byte key by dropping the parity check bits and reformatting, and given a 7-byte key I can generate an 8-byte key by reformatting and adding parity check bits. It should therefore be easy to produce wrappers to make a library for one key format look like a library for another - or are you having some other problem I haven't noticed?
In DES a key is comprised of 8 bytes with the LSB a parity bit, a nice and regular structure. There's an implication there for the relationship between input bytes and Permuted Choice 1, which loads the two 28 bit C and D Registers.
In parlance of the NBS standard a Permuted Choice is a selection permutation not using all the values of a greater whole.
Historically any DES implementation that used 7 bytes wasn't compatible where there are several FIPS/Nist pubs specifying key/ciphertext/plaintext triplets.
If you have a need for a 56 bit number representing a key there's an implication you're using or storing them in a tabular fashion. Otherwise you could simply guarantee the parity bit is either correct or say '0'. 'Packed' keys are only of interest for saving storage space.
All that said and done if you need a 56 bit number representing a key you could represent 8 bytes of key in a 64 bit value and after identifying the parity bit locations with respect to endian-ness, shift the 64 bit array value obliterating the parity bits one at a time in 8 operations on a 64 bit machine, leaving 56 'effective' key bits.
On a 32 bit or smaller machine you'd also have to track byte position to keep track of bit shift offsets and would have to deal with bits moving between bytes to pack bits into 7 bytes.
For a 32 bit machine you could pack two 32 bit values into 28 bits in opposite directions then merge the proper 4 bits of the second one into the first followed by shifting the second value down 8 bits.
For a big-endian bit in byte numbering system 1 to 8 with bit 8 the LSB (from the standard)
Bits 1-4 go to the C register, with only four bit 4 values from 8 successive bytes of an input key (described as an input array of bits). The D block shares bit 4 and uses bits 5-7 to derived 28 bits:
The bigger issue here may be the ability to communicate any interesting finding in terms of keys useful to those dealing with an 8 byte key representation. It may be handy to have an inverse function available as well.
There's also a relationship between round keys and the C and D concatenated block, shown in Carl Meyers and Stephen Metyas book "Cryptography, A New Dimension in Computer Security', subtitled 'A Guide for the Design and Implementation of Secure Systems', Wiley Interscience, 1982, ISBN-0-471- 04892-5.
I recreated the table using a derivative of the original BSD libcrypt source. The significance of this is that C and D bits don't mix in the two 24 bit values derived from Permuted Choice 2 (which is visible in selected key (KS) in round 16 of the table).
Bit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
KS
1 15 18 12 25 2 6 4 1 16 7 22 11 24 20 13 5 27 9 17 8 28 21 14 3
2 16 19 13 26 3 7 5 2 17 8 23 12 25 21 14 6 28 10 18 9 1 22 15 4
3 18 21 15 28 5 9 7 4 19 10 25 14 27 23 16 8 2 12 20 11 3 24 17 6
4 20 23 17 2 7 11 9 6 21 12 27 16 1 25 18 10 4 14 22 13 5 26 19 8
5 22 25 19 4 9 13 11 8 23 14 1 18 3 27 20 12 6 16 24 15 7 28 21 10
6 24 27 21 6 11 15 13 10 25 16 3 20 5 1 22 14 8 18 26 17 9 2 23 12
7 26 1 23 8 13 17 15 12 27 18 5 22 7 3 24 16 10 20 28 19 11 4 25 14
8 28 3 25 10 15 19 17 14 1 20 7 24 9 5 26 18 12 22 2 21 13 6 27 16
9 1 4 26 11 16 20 18 15 2 21 8 25 10 6 27 19 13 23 3 22 14 7 28 17
10 3 6 28 13 18 22 20 17 4 23 10 27 12 8 1 21 15 25 5 24 16 9 2 19
11 5 8 2 15 20 24 22 19 6 25 12 1 14 10 3 23 17 27 7 26 18 11 4 21
12 7 10 4 17 22 26 24 21 8 27 14 3 16 12 5 25 19 1 9 28 20 13 6 23
13 9 12 6 19 24 28 26 23 10 1 16 5 18 14 7 27 21 3 11 2 22 15 8 25
14 11 14 8 21 26 2 28 25 12 3 18 7 20 16 9 1 23 5 13 4 24 17 10 27
15 13 16 10 23 28 4 2 27 14 5 20 9 22 18 11 3 25 7 15 6 26 19 12 1
16 14 17 11 24 1 5 3 28 15 6 21 10 23 19 12 4 26 8 16 7 27 20 13 2
Bit 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
KS
1 42 53 32 38 48 56 31 41 52 46 34 49 45 50 40 29 35 54 47 43 51 37 30 33
2 43 54 33 39 49 29 32 42 53 47 35 50 46 51 41 30 36 55 48 44 52 38 31 34
3 45 56 35 41 51 31 34 44 55 49 37 52 48 53 43 32 38 29 50 46 54 40 33 36
4 47 30 37 43 53 33 36 46 29 51 39 54 50 55 45 34 40 31 52 48 56 42 35 38
5 49 32 39 45 55 35 38 48 31 53 41 56 52 29 47 36 42 33 54 50 30 44 37 40
6 51 34 41 47 29 37 40 50 33 55 43 30 54 31 49 38 44 35 56 52 32 46 39 42
7 53 36 43 49 31 39 42 52 35 29 45 32 56 33 51 40 46 37 30 54 34 48 41 44
8 55 38 45 51 33 41 44 54 37 31 47 34 30 35 53 42 48 39 32 56 36 50 43 46
9 56 39 46 52 34 42 45 55 38 32 48 35 31 36 54 43 49 40 33 29 37 51 44 47
10 30 41 48 54 36 44 47 29 40 34 50 37 33 38 56 45 51 42 35 31 39 53 46 49
11 32 43 50 56 38 46 49 31 42 36 52 39 35 40 30 47 53 44 37 33 41 55 48 51
12 34 45 52 30 40 48 51 33 44 38 54 41 37 42 32 49 55 46 39 35 43 29 50 53
13 36 47 54 32 42 50 53 35 46 40 56 43 39 44 34 51 29 48 41 37 45 31 52 55
14 38 49 56 34 44 52 55 37 48 42 30 45 41 46 36 53 31 50 43 39 47 33 54 29
15 40 51 30 36 46 54 29 39 50 44 32 47 43 48 38 55 33 52 45 41 49 35 56 31
16 41 52 31 37 47 55 30 40 51 45 33 48 44 49 39 56 34 53 46 42 50 36 29 32
This almost says your 56 bit number should be concatenated from the C and D Register values so there's a discernible relationship with round keys while allowing you to index based on C and/or D values.
I tried editing pyDes library code I just took 7 byte key and converted back to 64 bits by padding '0' to every multiple of 8th positions of bits. so the analysis on 7 byte-key actually required for algorithm hopefully is gained and the the parity bits are taken as 0 (that is not associated to my key now) :) . please comment if my key still is not solely for DES algorithm..

Specific Bubble Sort Process

I'm reviewing for an exam, one of the practice questions is as follows:
give the contents of the array after two iterations of the bubble sort (assume the lowest values are selected first to the left of the array
43 16 99 12 48 14 62
The given answer is:
12 14 43 16 99 48 62
I have been reviewing my notes trying to figure out why this is the correct answer, but I have no idea why. I have found examples of the bubble sort on google and wikipedia and while those make sense to me, they are also very simple, this is more difficult.
Can someone please explain how 12 14 43 16 99 48 62 is the answer?
I puzzled about this for a minute because indeed, it was hard to see, but once you realize how they're doing it, it's simple enough. Still, it's dumb.
We're sorting so that the lowest numbers are on the left, but we're iterating from the right. So the very first test is comparing 14 and 62, and not swapping; then comparing 48 and 14, and swapping; then 12 and 14, and doing nothing, etc. Once you get to the left end, go back to the right end and do a second pass, and you'll end up with the given solution.
Ok, this does not give the same answer as your teacher, but this is (I hope) a clear explanation of a bubble sort:
Because a picture is often a lot better than words: http://www.algolist.net/Algorithms/Sorting/Bubble_sort
In your case, after the first iteration:
43 > 16 => 16 43 99 12 48 14 62
43 < 99 => 16 43 99 12 48 14 62
99 > 12 => 16 43 12 99 48 14 62
99 > 48 => 16 43 12 48 99 14 62
99 > 14 => 16 43 12 48 14 99 62
99 > 62 => 16 43 12 48 14 62 99
Second Iteration:
16 < 43 => 16 43 12 48 14 62 99
43 > 12 => 16 12 43 48 14 62 99
43 < 48 => 16 12 43 48 14 62 99
48 > 14 => 16 12 43 14 48 62 99
48 < 62 => 16 12 43 14 48 62 99
62 < 99 => 16 12 43 14 48 62 99

Resources