I'm reading the documentation to the math/big package here:
https://golang.org/pkg/math/big/#pkg-constants
I am trying to understand how large a number is too big for math.big, and this looked like a constant I could interrogate.
I see on my machine:
fmt.Println(math.MaxUint32)
4294967295
How does this relate to the largest integer possible on my machine, for the purpose of calculation? What are the units of this number? Is this bytes, or decimal places or something other than the number itself?
bignum libraries usually store big numbers as a sequence of digits (e.g. in base 264). Their limitation is related to the memory available. So the largest number you could represent is tied to the limitation of your virtual address space. You can safely assume that a number even as large as 1010000 is representable in bignum. Of course, a googolplex is not representable as a bignum (because it has more bits than the number of particles in the universe).
Another limitation is the complexity of arithmetic operations. But there exist very efficient bignum algorithms.
FWIW, the GMPlib (a C library for bignums) can deal with numbers as long as there is memory for them. However, it is rumored than when malloc fails, GMPlib is aborting.
I don't know what happens inside Go bignums when a number is too big to be representable (and that limit varies from one machine to the next and could be different from one run to the next). For example, Go's Int.Mul gives a product whose size is the sum of the size of the arguments, and the "out of memory" error is undocumented (but obviously can happen).
When using bignums, prefer iterative algorithms to recursive ones. For example, a naive recursive factorial might overflow the call stack with large enough bignums, so you want to code it iteratively.
Related
I have to multiply two very large (~ 2000 X 2000) dense matrices whose entries are floats with arbitrary precision (I am using GMP and the precision is currently set to 600). I was wondering if there is any CUDA library that supports arbitrary precision arithmetics? The only library that I have found is called CAMPARY however it seems to be missing some references to some of the used functions.
The other solution that I was thinking about was implementing a version of the Karatsuba algorithm for multiplying matrices with arbitrary precision entries. The end step of the algorithm would just be multiplying matrices of doubles, which could be done very efficiently using cuBLAS. Is there any similar implementation already out there?
Since nobody has suggested such a library so far, let's assume that one doesn't exist.
You could always implement the naive implementation:
One grid thread for each pair of coordinates in the output matrix.
Each thread performs an inner product of a row and a column in the input matrices.
Individual element operations will use the code taken from the GMP (hopefully not much more than copy-and-paste).
But you can also do better than this - just like you can do better for regular-float matrix multiplication. Here's my idea (likely not the best of course):
Consider the worked example of matrix multiplication using shared memory in the CUDA C Programming Guide. It suggests putting small submatrices in shared memory. You can still do this - but you need to be careful with shared memory sizes (they're small...):
A typical GPU today has 64 KB shared memory usable per grid block (or more)
They take 16 x 16 submatrix.
Times 2 (for the two multiplicands)
Times ceil(801/8) (assuming the GMP representation uses 600 bits from the mantissa, one bit for the sign and 200 bits from the exponent)
So 512 * 101 < 64 KB !
That means you can probably just use the code in their worked example as-is, again replacing the float multiplication and addition with code from GMP.
You may then want to consider something like parallelizing the GMP code itself, i.e. using multiple threads to work together on single pairs of 600-bit-precision numbers. That would likely help your shared memory reading pattern. Alternatively, you could interleave the placement of 4-byte sequences from the representation of your elements, in shared memory, for the same effect.
I realize this is a bit hand-wavy, but I'm pretty certain I've waved my hands correctly and it would be a "simple matter of coding".
Very large integers are often stored as variable-length arrays of digits in memory, as opposed to a straightforward binary representation as is the case with most primitive 'int' or 'long' types, as in Java or C. With this in mind, I would be interested to know algorithm(s) that can compute:
At what count an integer must reach before it becomes more efficient to store it as a BigInteger (or equivalent arbitrary-precision arithmetic construct) with a given radix for the integer's digits;
Which radix would be most efficient to store the digits of this large integer.
I have mentioned 'efficiency'; by this, I mean I am mainly concerned with the amount of space such a BigInteger would consume, though I would also be interested to hear any comments on processing speed or time complexity.
An integer should consume the least space if stored in a raw binary format (unless maybe it is a small integer and data type is way too wide for it - to store 1 in 128 bit long long). Storing differently does not save any memory and is used to make the work with such integers easier.
If byte by byte, this translates into 256'ecimal radix - 256 possible values, as much as the byte can hold.
BigInt is never more efficient than one of the integer types directly supported by hardware. If you can use what's supported directly, use it.
What's supported by hardware most efficiently, likely a power of 2 or, often equivalently, binary.
This question already has answers here:
Count the number of set bits in a 32-bit integer
(65 answers)
Count bits in the number [duplicate]
(3 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I was asked the above question in an interview and interviewer is very certain of the answer. But i am not sure. Can anyone help me here?
Sure. The obvious brute force method is just a big lookup table with one entry for every possible value of the input number. That's not very practical if the number is very big, but is still enough to prove it's possible.
Edit: the notion has been raised that this is complete nonsense, and the same could be said of essentially any algorithm.
To a limited degree, that's a fair statement -- but the limitations are so severe that for most algorithms it remains utterly meaningless.
My original point (at least as well as I remember it) was that population counting is about equivalent to many other operations like addition and subtraction that we normally assume are O(1).
At the hardware level, circuitry for a single-cycle POPCNT instruction is probably easier than for a single-cycle ADD instruction. Just for one example, for any practical size of data word, we can use table lookups on 4-bit chunks in parallel, then add the results from those pieces together. Even using fairly unlikely worst-case assumptions (e.g., separate storage for each of those tables) this would still be easy to implement in a modern CPU -- in fact, it's probably at least somewhat simpler than the single-cycle addition or subtraction mentioned above1.
This is a decided contrast to many other algorithms. For one obvious example, let's consider sorting. For even the most trivial sort most people can imagine -- 2 items, 8 bits apiece, we're already at a 64 kilobyte lookup table to get constant complexity. Long before we can do even a fairly trivial sort (e.g., 100 items) we need a lookup table that contains far more data items than there are atoms in the universe.
Looking at it from the opposite direction, it's certainly true that at some point, essentially nothing is O(1) any more. Let's consider the most trivial operations possible. For an N-bit CPU, bitwise OR is normally implemented as a set of N OR gates in parallel. Unlike addition, there's no interaction between one bit and another, so for any practical size of CPU, this easy to execute in a single instruction.
Nonetheless, if I specify a bit-wise OR in which each operand is 100 petabits, there's nothing even approaching a practical way to do the job with constant complexity. Using the usual method of parallel OR gates, we end up with (among other things) 300 petabits worth of input and output lines -- a number that completely dwarfs even the number of pins on the largest CPUs.
On reasonable hardware, doing a bitwise OR on 100 petabit operands is going to take a while (not to mention quite a bit of hard drive space). If we increase that to 200 petabit operands, the time is likely to (about) double -- so from that viewpoint, it's an O(N) operation. Obviously enough, the same is going to be true with the other "trivial" operations like addition, subtraction, bit-wise AND, bit-wise XOR, and so on.
Nonetheless, unless you have very specific instructions to say you're going to be dealing with utterly immense operands, you're typically going to treat every one of these as a constant complexity operation. Looked at in these terms, a POPCNT instruction falls about halfway between bit-wise AND/OR/XOR on one hand, and addition/subtraction on the other, in terms of the difficulty to execute in fixed time.
1. You might wonder how it could possibly be simpler than an add when it actually includes an add after doing some other operations. If so, kudos -- it's an excellent question.
The answer is that it's because it only needs a much smaller adder. For example, a 64-bit CPU needs one half-adder and 63 full-adders. In the simple implementation, you carry out the addition bit-wise -- i.e., you add bit-0 of one operand to bit-0 of the other. That generates an output bit, and a carry bit. That carry bit becomes an input to the addition for the next pair of bits. There are some tricks to parallelize that to some degree, but the nature of the beast (so to speak) is bit-serial.
With a POPCNT instruction, we have an addition after doing the individual table lookups, but our result is limited to the size of the input words. Given the same size of inputs (64 bits) our final result can't be any larger than 64. That means we only need a 6-bit adder instead of a 64-bit adder.
Since, as outlined above, addition is basically bit-serial, this means that the addition at the end of the POPCNT instruction is fundamentally a lot faster than a normal add. To be specific, it's logarithmic on the operand size, whereas simple addition is roughly linear on the operand size.
If the bit size is fixed (e.g. natural word size of a 32- or 64-bit machine), you can just iterate over the bits and count them directly in O(1) time (though there are certainly faster ways to do it). For arbitrary precision numbers (BigInt, etc.), the answer must be no.
Some processors can do it in one instruction, obviously for integers of limited size. Look up the POPCNT mnemonic for further details.
For integers of unlimited size obviously you need to read the whole input, so the lower bound is O(n).
The interviewer probably meant the bit counting trick (the first Google result follows): http://www.gamedev.net/topic/547102-bit-counting-trick---new-to-me/
I'm trying to seed a random number generator with the output of a hash. Currently I'm computing a SHA-1 hash, converting it to a giant integer, and feeding it to srand to initialize the RNG. This is so that I can get a predictable set of random numbers for an set of infinite cartesian coordinates (I'm hashing the coordinates).
I'm wondering whether Kernel::srand actually has a maximum value that it'll take, after which it truncates it in some way. The docs don't really make this obvious - they just say "a number".
I'll try to figure it out myself, but I'm assuming somebody out there has run into this already.
Knowing what programmers are like, it probably just calls libc's srand(). Either way, it's probably limited to 2^32-1, 2^31-1, 2^16-1, or 2^15-1.
There's also a danger that the value is clipped when cast from a biginteger to a C int/long, instead of only taking the low-order bits.
An easy test is to seed with 1 and take the first output. Then, seed with 2i+1 for i in [1..64] or so, take the first output of each, and compare. If you get a match for some i=n and all greater is, then it's probably doing arithmetic modulo 2n.
Note that the random number generator is almost certainly limited to 32 or 48 bits of entropy anyway, so there's little point seeding it with a huge value, and an attacker can reasonably easily predict future outputs given past outputs (and an "attacker" could simply be a player on a public nethack server).
EDIT: So I was wrong.
According to the docs for Kernel::rand(),
Ruby currently uses a modified Mersenne Twister with a period of 2**19937-1.
This means it's not just a call to libc's rand(). The Mersenne Twister is statistically superior (but not cryptographically secure). But anyway.
Testing using Kernel::srand(0); Kernel::sprintf("%x",Kernel::rand(2**32)) for various output sizes (2*16, 2*32, 2*36, 2*60, 2*64, 2*32+1, 2*35, 2*34+1), a few things are evident:
It figures out how many bits it needs (number of bits in max-1).
It generates output in groups of 32 bits, most-significant-bits-first, and drops the top bits (i.e. 0x[r0][r1][r2][r3][r4] with the top bits masked off).
If it's not less than max, it does some sort of retry. It's not obvious what this is from the output.
If it is less than max, it outputs the result.
I'm not sure why 2*32+1 and 2*64+1 are special (they produce the same output from Kernel::rand(2**1024) so probably have the exact same state) — I haven't found another collision.
The good news is that it doesn't simply clip to some arbitrary maximum (i.e. passing in huge numbers isn't equivalent to passing in 2**31-1), which is the most obvious thing that can go wrong. Kernel::srand() also returns the previous seed, which appears to be 128-bit, so it seems likely to be safe to pass in something large.
EDIT 2: Of course, there's no guarantee that the output will be reproducible between different Ruby versions (the docs merely say what it "currently uses"; apparently this was initially committed in 2002). Java has several portable deterministic PRNGs (SecureRandom.getInstance("SHA1PRNG","SUN"), albeit slow); I'm not aware of something similar for Ruby.
How the heck does Ruby do this? Does Jörg or anyone else know what's happening behind the scenes?
Unfortunately I don't know C very well so bignum.c is of little help to me. I was just kind of curious it someone could explain (in plain English) the theory behind whatever miracle algorithm its using.
irb(main):001:0> 999**999
368063488259223267894700840060521865838338232037353204655959621437025609300472231530103873614505175218691345257589896391130393189447969771645832382192366076536631132001776175977932178658703660778465765811830827876982014124022948671975678131724958064427949902810498973271030787716781467419524180040734398996952930832508934116945966120176735120823151959779536852290090377452502236990839453416790640456116471139751546750048602189291028640970574762600185950226138244530187489211615864021135312077912018844630780307462205252807737757672094320692373101032517459518497524015120165166724189816766397247824175394802028228160027100623998873667435799073054618906855460488351426611310634023489044291860510352301912426608488807462312126590206830413782664554260411266378866626653755763627796569082931785645600816236891168141774993267488171702172191072731069216881668294625679492696148976999868715671440874206427212056717373099639711168901197440416590226524192782842896415414611688187391232048327738965820265934093108172054875188246591760877131657895633586576611857277011782497943522945011248430439201297015119468730712364007639373910811953430309476832453230123996750235710787086641070310288725389595138936784715274150426495416196669832679980253436807864187160054589045664027158817958549374490512399055448819148487049363674611664609890030088549591992466360050042566270348330911795487647045949301286614658650071299695652245266080672989921799342509291635330827874264789587306974472327718704306352445925996155619153783913237212716010410294999877569745287353422903443387562746452522860420416689019732913798073773281533570910205207767157128174184873357050830752777900041943256738499067821488421053870869022738698816059810579221002560882999884763252161747566893835178558961142349304466506402373556318707175710866983035313122068321102457824112014969387225476259342872866363550383840720010832906695360553556647545295849966279980830561242960013654529514995113584909050813015198928283202189194615501403435553060147713139766323195743324848047347575473228198492343231496580885057330510949058490527738662697480293583612233134502078182014347192522391449087738579081585795613547198599661273567662441490401862839817822686573112998663038868314974259766039340894024308383451039874674061160538242392803580758232755749310843694194787991556647907091849600704712003371103926967137408125713631396699343733288014254084819379380555174777020843568689927348949484201042595271932630685747613835385434424807024615161848223715989797178155169951121052285149157137697718850449708843330475301440373094611119631361702936342263219382793996895988331701890693689862459020775599439506870005130750427949747071390095256759203426671803377068109744629909769176319526837824364926844730545524646494321826241925107158040561607706364484910978348669388142016838792902926158979355432483611517588605967745393958061959024834251565197963477521095821435651996730128376734574843289089682710350244222290017891280419782767803785277960834729869249991658417000499998999
Simple: it does it the same way you do, ever since first grade. Except it doesn't compute in base 10, it computes in base 4 billion (and change).
Think about it: with our number system, we can only represent numbers from 0 to 9. So, how can we compute 6+7 without overflowing? Easy: we do actually overflow! We cannot represent the result of 6+7 as a number between 0 and 9, but we can overflow to the next place and represent it as two numbers between 0 and 9: 3×100 + 1×101. If you want to add two numbers, you add them digit-wise from the right and overflow ("carry") to the left. If you want to multiply two numbers, you have to multiply every digit of one number individually with the other number, then add up the intermediate results.
BigNum arithmetic (this is what this kind of arithmetic where the numbers are bigger than the native machine numbers is usually called) works basically the same way. Except that the base is not 10, and its not 2, either – it's the size of a native machine integer. So, on a 32 bit machine, it would be base 232 or 4 294 967 296.
Specifically, in Ruby Integer is actually an abstract class that is never instianted. Instead, it has two subclasses, Fixnum and Bignum, and numbers automagically migrate between them, depending on their size. In MRI and YARV, Fixnum can hold a 31 or 63 bit signed integer (one bit is used for tagging) depending on the native word size of the machine. In JRuby, a Fixnum can hold a full 64 bit signed integer, even on an 32 bit machine.
The simplest operation is adding two numbers. And if you look at the implementation of + or rather bigadd_core in YARV's bignum.c, it's not too bad to follow. I can't read C either, but you can cleary see how it loops over the individual digits.
You could read the source for bignum.c...
At a very high level, without going into any implementation details, bignums are calculated "by hand" like you used to do in grade school. Now, there are certainly many optimizations that can be applied, but that's the gist of it.
I don't know of the implementation details so I'll cover how a basic Big Number implementation would work.
Basically instead of relying on CPU "integers" it will create it's own using multiple CPU integers. To store arbritrary precision, well lets say you have 2 bits. So the current integer is 11. You want to add one. In normal CPU integers, this would roll over to 00
But, for big number, instead of rolling over and keeping a "fixed" integer width, it would allocate another bit and simulate an addition so that the number becomes the correct 100.
Try looking up how binary math can be done on paper. It's very simple and is trivial to convert to an algorithm.
Beaconaut APICalc 2 just released on Jan.18, 2011, which is an arbitrary-precision integer calculator for bignum arithmetic, cryptography analysis and number theory research......
http://www.beaconaut.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=13
It uses the Bignum class
irb(main):001:0> (999**999).class
=> Bignum
Rdoc is available of course