I have been given this interview question:
Given an input file with four billion integers, provide an algorithm to generate an integer which is not contained in the file. Assume you have 1 GB memory. Follow up with what you would do if you have only 10 MB of memory.
My analysis:
The size of the file is 4×109×4 bytes = 16 GB.
We can do external sorting, thus letting us know the range of the integers.
My question is what is the best way to detect the missing integer in the sorted big integer sets?
My understanding (after reading all the answers):
Assuming we are talking about 32-bit integers, there are 232 = 4*109 distinct integers.
Case 1: we have 1 GB = 1 * 109 * 8 bits = 8 billion bits memory.
Solution:
If we use one bit representing one distinct integer, it is enough. we don't need sort.
Implementation:
int radix = 8;
byte[] bitfield = new byte[0xffffffff/radix];
void F() throws FileNotFoundException{
Scanner in = new Scanner(new FileReader("a.txt"));
while(in.hasNextInt()){
int n = in.nextInt();
bitfield[n/radix] |= (1 << (n%radix));
}
for(int i = 0; i< bitfield.lenght; i++){
for(int j =0; j<radix; j++){
if( (bitfield[i] & (1<<j)) == 0) System.out.print(i*radix+j);
}
}
}
Case 2: 10 MB memory = 10 * 106 * 8 bits = 80 million bits
Solution:
For all possible 16-bit prefixes, there are 216 number of
integers = 65536, we need 216 * 4 * 8 = 2 million bits. We need build 65536 buckets. For each bucket, we need 4 bytes holding all possibilities because the worst case is all the 4 billion integers belong to the same bucket.
Build the counter of each bucket through the first pass through the file.
Scan the buckets, find the first one who has less than 65536 hit.
Build new buckets whose high 16-bit prefixes are we found in step2
through second pass of the file
Scan the buckets built in step3, find the first bucket which doesnt
have a hit.
The code is very similar to above one.
Conclusion:
We decrease memory through increasing file pass.
A clarification for those arriving late: The question, as asked, does not say that there is exactly one integer that is not contained in the file—at least that's not how most people interpret it. Many comments in the comment thread are about that variation of the task, though. Unfortunately the comment that introduced it to the comment thread was later deleted by its author, so now it looks like the orphaned replies to it just misunderstood everything. It's very confusing, sorry.
Assuming that "integer" means 32 bits: 10 MB of space is more than enough for you to count how many numbers there are in the input file with any given 16-bit prefix, for all possible 16-bit prefixes in one pass through the input file. At least one of the buckets will have be hit less than 216 times. Do a second pass to find of which of the possible numbers in that bucket are used already.
If it means more than 32 bits, but still of bounded size: Do as above, ignoring all input numbers that happen to fall outside the (signed or unsigned; your choice) 32-bit range.
If "integer" means mathematical integer: Read through the input once and keep track of the largest number length of the longest number you've ever seen. When you're done, output the maximum plus one a random number that has one more digit. (One of the numbers in the file may be a bignum that takes more than 10 MB to represent exactly, but if the input is a file, then you can at least represent the length of anything that fits in it).
Statistically informed algorithms solve this problem using fewer passes than deterministic approaches.
If very large integers are allowed then one can generate a number that is likely to be unique in O(1) time. A pseudo-random 128-bit integer like a GUID will only collide with one of the existing four billion integers in the set in less than one out of every 64 billion billion billion cases.
If integers are limited to 32 bits then one can generate a number that is likely to be unique in a single pass using much less than 10 MB. The odds that a pseudo-random 32-bit integer will collide with one of the 4 billion existing integers is about 93% (4e9 / 2^32). The odds that 1000 pseudo-random integers will all collide is less than one in 12,000 billion billion billion (odds-of-one-collision ^ 1000). So if a program maintains a data structure containing 1000 pseudo-random candidates and iterates through the known integers, eliminating matches from the candidates, it is all but certain to find at least one integer that is not in the file.
A detailed discussion on this problem has been discussed in Jon Bentley "Column 1. Cracking the Oyster" Programming Pearls Addison-Wesley pp.3-10
Bentley discusses several approaches, including external sort, Merge Sort using several external files etc., But the best method Bentley suggests is a single pass algorithm using bit fields, which he humorously calls "Wonder Sort" :)
Coming to the problem, 4 billion numbers can be represented in :
4 billion bits = (4000000000 / 8) bytes = about 0.466 GB
The code to implement the bitset is simple: (taken from solutions page )
#define BITSPERWORD 32
#define SHIFT 5
#define MASK 0x1F
#define N 10000000
int a[1 + N/BITSPERWORD];
void set(int i) { a[i>>SHIFT] |= (1<<(i & MASK)); }
void clr(int i) { a[i>>SHIFT] &= ~(1<<(i & MASK)); }
int test(int i){ return a[i>>SHIFT] & (1<<(i & MASK)); }
Bentley's algorithm makes a single pass over the file, setting the appropriate bit in the array and then examines this array using test macro above to find the missing number.
If the available memory is less than 0.466 GB, Bentley suggests a k-pass algorithm, which divides the input into ranges depending on available memory. To take a very simple example, if only 1 byte (i.e memory to handle 8 numbers ) was available and the range was from 0 to 31, we divide this into ranges of 0 to 7, 8-15, 16-22 and so on and handle this range in each of 32/8 = 4 passes.
HTH.
Since the problem does not specify that we have to find the smallest possible number that is not in the file we could just generate a number that is longer than the input file itself. :)
For the 1 GB RAM variant you can use a bit vector. You need to allocate 4 billion bits == 500 MB byte array. For each number you read from the input, set the corresponding bit to '1'. Once you done, iterate over the bits, find the first one that is still '0'. Its index is the answer.
If they are 32-bit integers (likely from the choice of ~4 billion numbers close to 232), your list of 4 billion numbers will take up at most 93% of the possible integers (4 * 109 / (232) ). So if you create a bit-array of 232 bits with each bit initialized to zero (which will take up 229 bytes ~ 500 MB of RAM; remember a byte = 23 bits = 8 bits), read through your integer list and for each int set the corresponding bit-array element from 0 to 1; and then read through your bit-array and return the first bit that's still 0.
In the case where you have less RAM (~10 MB), this solution needs to be slightly modified. 10 MB ~ 83886080 bits is still enough to do a bit-array for all numbers between 0 and 83886079. So you could read through your list of ints; and only record #s that are between 0 and 83886079 in your bit array. If the numbers are randomly distributed; with overwhelming probability (it differs by 100% by about 10-2592069) you will find a missing int). In fact, if you only choose numbers 1 to 2048 (with only 256 bytes of RAM) you'd still find a missing number an overwhelming percentage (99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999995%) of the time.
But let's say instead of having about 4 billion numbers; you had something like 232 - 1 numbers and less than 10 MB of RAM; so any small range of ints only has a small possibility of not containing the number.
If you were guaranteed that each int in the list was unique, you could sum the numbers and subtract the sum with one # missing to the full sum (½)(232)(232 - 1) = 9223372034707292160 to find the missing int. However, if an int occurred twice this method will fail.
However, you can always divide and conquer. A naive method, would be to read through the array and count the number of numbers that are in the first half (0 to 231-1) and second half (231, 232). Then pick the range with fewer numbers and repeat dividing that range in half. (Say if there were two less number in (231, 232) then your next search would count the numbers in the range (231, 3*230-1), (3*230, 232). Keep repeating until you find a range with zero numbers and you have your answer. Should take O(lg N) ~ 32 reads through the array.
That method was inefficient. We are only using two integers in each step (or about 8 bytes of RAM with a 4 byte (32-bit) integer). A better method would be to divide into sqrt(232) = 216 = 65536 bins, each with 65536 numbers in a bin. Each bin requires 4 bytes to store its count, so you need 218 bytes = 256 kB. So bin 0 is (0 to 65535=216-1), bin 1 is (216=65536 to 2*216-1=131071), bin 2 is (2*216=131072 to 3*216-1=196607). In python you'd have something like:
import numpy as np
nums_in_bin = np.zeros(65536, dtype=np.uint32)
for N in four_billion_int_array:
nums_in_bin[N // 65536] += 1
for bin_num, bin_count in enumerate(nums_in_bin):
if bin_count < 65536:
break # we have found an incomplete bin with missing ints (bin_num)
Read through the ~4 billion integer list; and count how many ints fall in each of the 216 bins and find an incomplete_bin that doesn't have all 65536 numbers. Then you read through the 4 billion integer list again; but this time only notice when integers are in that range; flipping a bit when you find them.
del nums_in_bin # allow gc to free old 256kB array
from bitarray import bitarray
my_bit_array = bitarray(65536) # 32 kB
my_bit_array.setall(0)
for N in four_billion_int_array:
if N // 65536 == bin_num:
my_bit_array[N % 65536] = 1
for i, bit in enumerate(my_bit_array):
if not bit:
print bin_num*65536 + i
break
Why make it so complicated? You ask for an integer not present in the file?
According to the rules specified, the only thing you need to store is the largest integer that you encountered so far in the file. Once the entire file has been read, return a number 1 greater than that.
There is no risk of hitting maxint or anything, because according to the rules, there is no restriction to the size of the integer or the number returned by the algorithm.
This can be solved in very little space using a variant of binary search.
Start off with the allowed range of numbers, 0 to 4294967295.
Calculate the midpoint.
Loop through the file, counting how many numbers were equal, less than or higher than the midpoint value.
If no numbers were equal, you're done. The midpoint number is the answer.
Otherwise, choose the range that had the fewest numbers and repeat from step 2 with this new range.
This will require up to 32 linear scans through the file, but it will only use a few bytes of memory for storing the range and the counts.
This is essentially the same as Henning's solution, except it uses two bins instead of 16k.
EDIT Ok, this wasn't quite thought through as it assumes the integers in the file follow some static distribution. Apparently they don't need to, but even then one should try this:
There are ≈4.3 billion 32-bit integers. We don't know how they are distributed in the file, but the worst case is the one with the highest Shannon entropy: an equal distribution. In this case, the probablity for any one integer to not occur in the file is
( (2³²-1)/2³² )⁴ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ⁰⁰⁰ ≈ .4
The lower the Shannon entropy, the higher this probability gets on the average, but even for this worst case we have a chance of 90% to find a nonoccurring number after 5 guesses with random integers. Just create such numbers with a pseudorandom generator, store them in a list. Then read int after int and compare it to all of your guesses. When there's a match, remove this list entry. After having been through all of the file, chances are you will have more than one guess left. Use any of them. In the rare (10% even at worst case) event of no guess remaining, get a new set of random integers, perhaps more this time (10->99%).
Memory consumption: a few dozen bytes, complexity: O(n), overhead: neclectable as most of the time will be spent in the unavoidable hard disk accesses rather than comparing ints anyway.
The actual worst case, when we do not assume a static distribution, is that every integer occurs max. once, because then only
1 - 4000000000/2³² ≈ 6%
of all integers don't occur in the file. So you'll need some more guesses, but that still won't cost hurtful amounts of memory.
If you have one integer missing from the range [0, 2^x - 1] then just xor them all together. For example:
>>> 0 ^ 1 ^ 3
2
>>> 0 ^ 1 ^ 2 ^ 3 ^ 4 ^ 6 ^ 7
5
(I know this doesn't answer the question exactly, but it's a good answer to a very similar question.)
They may be looking to see if you have heard of a probabilistic Bloom Filter which can very efficiently determine absolutely if a value is not part of a large set, (but can only determine with high probability it is a member of the set.)
Based on the current wording in the original question, the simplest solution is:
Find the maximum value in the file, then add 1 to it.
Use a BitSet. 4 billion integers (assuming up to 2^32 integers) packed into a BitSet at 8 per byte is 2^32 / 2^3 = 2^29 = approx 0.5 Gb.
To add a bit more detail - every time you read a number, set the corresponding bit in the BitSet. Then, do a pass over the BitSet to find the first number that's not present. In fact, you could do this just as effectively by repeatedly picking a random number and testing if it's present.
Actually BitSet.nextClearBit(0) will tell you the first non-set bit.
Looking at the BitSet API, it appears to only support 0..MAX_INT, so you may need 2 BitSets - one for +'ve numbers and one for -'ve numbers - but the memory requirements don't change.
If there is no size limit, the quickest way is to take the length of the file, and generate the length of the file+1 number of random digits (or just "11111..." s). Advantage: you don't even need to read the file, and you can minimize memory use nearly to zero. Disadvantage: You will print billions of digits.
However, if the only factor was minimizing memory usage, and nothing else is important, this would be the optimal solution. It might even get you a "worst abuse of the rules" award.
If we assume that the range of numbers will always be 2^n (an even power of 2), then exclusive-or will work (as shown by another poster). As far as why, let's prove it:
The Theory
Given any 0 based range of integers that has 2^n elements with one element missing, you can find that missing element by simply xor-ing the known values together to yield the missing number.
The Proof
Let's look at n = 2. For n=2, we can represent 4 unique integers: 0, 1, 2, 3. They have a bit pattern of:
0 - 00
1 - 01
2 - 10
3 - 11
Now, if we look, each and every bit is set exactly twice. Therefore, since it is set an even number of times, and exclusive-or of the numbers will yield 0. If a single number is missing, the exclusive-or will yield a number that when exclusive-ored with the missing number will result in 0. Therefore, the missing number, and the resulting exclusive-ored number are exactly the same. If we remove 2, the resulting xor will be 10 (or 2).
Now, let's look at n+1. Let's call the number of times each bit is set in n, x and the number of times each bit is set in n+1 y. The value of y will be equal to y = x * 2 because there are x elements with the n+1 bit set to 0, and x elements with the n+1 bit set to 1. And since 2x will always be even, n+1 will always have each bit set an even number of times.
Therefore, since n=2 works, and n+1 works, the xor method will work for all values of n>=2.
The Algorithm For 0 Based Ranges
This is quite simple. It uses 2*n bits of memory, so for any range <= 32, 2 32 bit integers will work (ignoring any memory consumed by the file descriptor). And it makes a single pass of the file.
long supplied = 0;
long result = 0;
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
result = result ^ supplied;
}
return result;
The Algorithm For Arbitrary Based Ranges
This algorithm will work for ranges of any starting number to any ending number, as long as the total range is equal to 2^n... This basically re-bases the range to have the minimum at 0. But it does require 2 passes through the file (the first to grab the minimum, the second to compute the missing int).
long supplied = 0;
long result = 0;
long offset = INT_MAX;
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
if (supplied < offset) {
offset = supplied;
}
}
reset_file_pointer();
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
result = result ^ (supplied - offset);
}
return result + offset;
Arbitrary Ranges
We can apply this modified method to a set of arbitrary ranges, since all ranges will cross a power of 2^n at least once. This works only if there is a single missing bit. It takes 2 passes of an unsorted file, but it will find the single missing number every time:
long supplied = 0;
long result = 0;
long offset = INT_MAX;
long n = 0;
double temp;
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
if (supplied < offset) {
offset = supplied;
}
}
reset_file_pointer();
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
n++;
result = result ^ (supplied - offset);
}
// We need to increment n one value so that we take care of the missing
// int value
n++
while (n == 1 || 0 != (n & (n - 1))) {
result = result ^ (n++);
}
return result + offset;
Basically, re-bases the range around 0. Then, it counts the number of unsorted values to append as it computes the exclusive-or. Then, it adds 1 to the count of unsorted values to take care of the missing value (count the missing one). Then, keep xoring the n value, incremented by 1 each time until n is a power of 2. The result is then re-based back to the original base. Done.
Here's the algorithm I tested in PHP (using an array instead of a file, but same concept):
function find($array) {
$offset = min($array);
$n = 0;
$result = 0;
foreach ($array as $value) {
$result = $result ^ ($value - $offset);
$n++;
}
$n++; // This takes care of the missing value
while ($n == 1 || 0 != ($n & ($n - 1))) {
$result = $result ^ ($n++);
}
return $result + $offset;
}
Fed in an array with any range of values (I tested including negatives) with one inside that range which is missing, it found the correct value each time.
Another Approach
Since we can use external sorting, why not just check for a gap? If we assume the file is sorted prior to the running of this algorithm:
long supplied = 0;
long last = read_int_from_file();
while (supplied = read_int_from_file()) {
if (supplied != last + 1) {
return last + 1;
}
last = supplied;
}
// The range is contiguous, so what do we do here? Let's return last + 1:
return last + 1;
Trick question, unless it's been quoted improperly. Just read through the file once to get the maximum integer n, and return n+1.
Of course you'd need a backup plan in case n+1 causes an integer overflow.
Check the size of the input file, then output any number which is too large to be represented by a file that size. This may seem like a cheap trick, but it's a creative solution to an interview problem, it neatly sidesteps the memory issue, and it's technically O(n).
void maxNum(ulong filesize)
{
ulong bitcount = filesize * 8; //number of bits in file
for (ulong i = 0; i < bitcount; i++)
{
Console.Write(9);
}
}
Should print 10 bitcount - 1, which will always be greater than 2 bitcount. Technically, the number you have to beat is 2 bitcount - (4 * 109 - 1), since you know there are (4 billion - 1) other integers in the file, and even with perfect compression they'll take up at least one bit each.
The simplest approach is to find the minimum number in the file, and return 1 less than that. This uses O(1) storage, and O(n) time for a file of n numbers. However, it will fail if number range is limited, which could make min-1 not-a-number.
The simple and straightforward method of using a bitmap has already been mentioned. That method uses O(n) time and storage.
A 2-pass method with 2^16 counting-buckets has also been mentioned. It reads 2*n integers, so uses O(n) time and O(1) storage, but it cannot handle datasets with more than 2^16 numbers. However, it's easily extended to (eg) 2^60 64-bit integers by running 4 passes instead of 2, and easily adapted to using tiny memory by using only as many bins as fit in memory and increasing the number of passes correspondingly, in which case run time is no longer O(n) but instead is O(n*log n).
The method of XOR'ing all the numbers together, mentioned so far by rfrankel and at length by ircmaxell answers the question asked in stackoverflow#35185, as ltn100 pointed out. It uses O(1) storage and O(n) run time. If for the moment we assume 32-bit integers, XOR has a 7% probability of producing a distinct number. Rationale: given ~ 4G distinct numbers XOR'd together, and ca. 300M not in file, the number of set bits in each bit position has equal chance of being odd or even. Thus, 2^32 numbers have equal likelihood of arising as the XOR result, of which 93% are already in file. Note that if the numbers in file aren't all distinct, the XOR method's probability of success rises.
Strip the white space and non numeric characters from the file and append 1. Your file now contains a single number not listed in the original file.
From Reddit by Carbonetc.
For some reason, as soon as I read this problem I thought of diagonalization. I'm assuming arbitrarily large integers.
Read the first number. Left-pad it with zero bits until you have 4 billion bits. If the first (high-order) bit is 0, output 1; else output 0. (You don't really have to left-pad: you just output a 1 if there are not enough bits in the number.) Do the same with the second number, except use its second bit. Continue through the file in this way. You will output a 4-billion bit number one bit at a time, and that number will not be the same as any in the file. Proof: it were the same as the nth number, then they would agree on the nth bit, but they don't by construction.
You can use bit flags to mark whether an integer is present or not.
After traversing the entire file, scan each bit to determine if the number exists or not.
Assuming each integer is 32 bit, they will conveniently fit in 1 GB of RAM if bit flagging is done.
Just for the sake of completeness, here is another very simple solution, which will most likely take a very long time to run, but uses very little memory.
Let all possible integers be the range from int_min to int_max, and
bool isNotInFile(integer) a function which returns true if the file does not contain a certain integer and false else (by comparing that certain integer with each integer in the file)
for (integer i = int_min; i <= int_max; ++i)
{
if (isNotInFile(i)) {
return i;
}
}
For the 10 MB memory constraint:
Convert the number to its binary representation.
Create a binary tree where left = 0 and right = 1.
Insert each number in the tree using its binary representation.
If a number has already been inserted, the leafs will already have been created.
When finished, just take a path that has not been created before to create the requested number.
4 billion number = 2^32, meaning 10 MB might not be sufficient.
EDIT
An optimization is possible, if two ends leafs have been created and have a common parent, then they can be removed and the parent flagged as not a solution. This cuts branches and reduces the need for memory.
EDIT II
There is no need to build the tree completely too. You only need to build deep branches if numbers are similar. If we cut branches too, then this solution might work in fact.
I will answer the 1 GB version:
There is not enough information in the question, so I will state some assumptions first:
The integer is 32 bits with range -2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647.
Pseudo-code:
var bitArray = new bit[4294967296]; // 0.5 GB, initialized to all 0s.
foreach (var number in file) {
bitArray[number + 2147483648] = 1; // Shift all numbers so they start at 0.
}
for (var i = 0; i < 4294967296; i++) {
if (bitArray[i] == 0) {
return i - 2147483648;
}
}
As long as we're doing creative answers, here is another one.
Use the external sort program to sort the input file numerically. This will work for any amount of memory you may have (it will use file storage if needed).
Read through the sorted file and output the first number that is missing.
Bit Elimination
One way is to eliminate bits, however this might not actually yield a result (chances are it won't). Psuedocode:
long val = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF; // (all bits set)
foreach long fileVal in file
{
val = val & ~fileVal;
if (val == 0) error;
}
Bit Counts
Keep track of the bit counts; and use the bits with the least amounts to generate a value. Again this has no guarantee of generating a correct value.
Range Logic
Keep track of a list ordered ranges (ordered by start). A range is defined by the structure:
struct Range
{
long Start, End; // Inclusive.
}
Range startRange = new Range { Start = 0x0, End = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF };
Go through each value in the file and try and remove it from the current range. This method has no memory guarantees, but it should do pretty well.
2128*1018 + 1 ( which is (28)16*1018 + 1 ) - cannot it be a universal answer for today? This represents a number that cannot be held in 16 EB file, which is the maximum file size in any current file system.
I think this is a solved problem (see above), but there's an interesting side case to keep in mind because it might get asked:
If there are exactly 4,294,967,295 (2^32 - 1) 32-bit integers with no repeats, and therefore only one is missing, there is a simple solution.
Start a running total at zero, and for each integer in the file, add that integer with 32-bit overflow (effectively, runningTotal = (runningTotal + nextInteger) % 4294967296). Once complete, add 4294967296/2 to the running total, again with 32-bit overflow. Subtract this from 4294967296, and the result is the missing integer.
The "only one missing integer" problem is solvable with only one run, and only 64 bits of RAM dedicated to the data (32 for the running total, 32 to read in the next integer).
Corollary: The more general specification is extremely simple to match if we aren't concerned with how many bits the integer result must have. We just generate a big enough integer that it cannot be contained in the file we're given. Again, this takes up absolutely minimal RAM. See the pseudocode.
# Grab the file size
fseek(fp, 0L, SEEK_END);
sz = ftell(fp);
# Print a '2' for every bit of the file.
for (c=0; c<sz; c++) {
for (b=0; b<4; b++) {
print "2";
}
}
As Ryan said it basically, sort the file and then go over the integers and when a value is skipped there you have it :)
EDIT at downvoters: the OP mentioned that the file could be sorted so this is a valid method.
If you don't assume the 32-bit constraint, just return a randomly generated 64-bit number (or 128-bit if you're a pessimist). The chance of collision is 1 in 2^64/(4*10^9) = 4611686018.4 (roughly 1 in 4 billion). You'd be right most of the time!
(Joking... kind of.)
I want to multiply two numbers, and detect if there was an overflow. What is the simplest way to do that?
Multiplying two 32 bit numbers results in a 64 bit answer, two 8s give a 16, etc. binary multiplication is simply shifting and adding. so if you had say two 32 bit operands and bit 17 set in operand A and any of the bits above 15 or 16 set in operand b you will overflow a 32 bit result. bit 17 shifted left 16 is bit 33 added to a 32.
So the question again is what are the size of your inputs and the size of your result, if the result is the same size then you have to find the most significant 1 of both operands add those bit locations if that result is bigger than your results space you will overflow.
EDIT
Yes multiplying two 3 bit numbers will result in either a 5 bit number or 6 bit number if there is a carry in the add. Likewise a 2 bit and 5 bit can result in 6 or 7 bits, etc. If the reason for this question posters question is to see if you have space in your result variable for an answer then this solution will work and is relatively fast for most languages on most processors. It can be significantly faster on some and significantly slower on others. It is generically fast (depending on how it is implemented of course) to just look at the number of bits in the operands. Doubling the size of the largest operand is a safe bet if you can do it within your language or processor. Divides are downright expensive (slow) and most processors dont have one much less at an arbitrary doubling of operand sizes. The fastest of course is to drop to assembler do the multiply and look at the overflow bit (or compare one of the result registers with zero). If your processor cant do the multiply in hardware then it is going to be slow no matter what you do. I am guessing that asm is not the right answer to this post despite being by far the fastest and has the most accurate overflow status.
binary makes multiplication trivial compared to decimal, for example take the binary numbers
0b100 *
0b100
Just like decimal math in school you (can) start with the least significant bit on the lower operand and multiply it against all the locations in the upper operand, except with binary there are only two choices you multiply by zero meaning you dont have to add to the result, or you multiply by one which means you just shift and add, no actual multiplication is necessary like you would have in decimal.
000 : 0 * 100
000 : 0 * 100
100 : 1 * 100
Add up the columns and the answer is 0b10000
Same as decimal math a 1 in the hundreds column means copy the top number and add two zeros, it works the same in any other base as well. So 0b100 times 0b110 is 0b1000, a one in the second column over so copy and add a zero + 0b10000 a one in the third column over so copy and add two zeros = 0b11000.
This leads to looking at the most significant bits in both numbers. 0b1xx * 0b1xx guarantees a 1xxxx is added to the answer, and that is the largest bit location in the add, no other single inputs to the final add have that column populated or a more significant column populated. From there you need only more bit in case the other bits being added up cause a carry.
Which happens with the worst case all ones times all ones, 0b111 * 0b111
0b00111 +
0b01110 +
0b11100
This causes a carry bit in the addition resulting in 0b110001. 6 bits. a 3 bit operand times a 3 bit operand 3+3=6 6 bits worst case.
So size of the operands using the most significant bit (not the size of the registers holding the values) determines the worst case storage requirement.
Well, that is true assuming positive operands. If you consider some of these numbers to be negative it changes things but not by much.
Minus 4 times 5, 0b1111...111100 * 0b0000....000101 = -20 or 0b1111..11101100
it takes 4 bits to represent a minus 4 and 4 bits to represent a positive 5 (dont forget your sign bit). Our result required 6 bits if you stripped off all the sign bits.
Lets look at the 4 bit corner cases
-8 * 7 = -56
0b1000 * 0b0111 = 0b1001000
-1 * 7 = -7 = 0b1001
-8 * -8 = 64 = 0b01000000
-1 * -1 = 2 = 0b010
-1 * -8 = 8 = 0b01000
7 * 7 = 49 = 0b0110001
Lets say we count positive numbers as the most significant 1 plus one and negative the most significant 0 plus one.
-8 * 7 is 4+4=8 bits actual 7
-1 * 7 is 1+4=5 bits, actual 4 bits
-8 * -8 is 4+4=8 bits, actual 8 bits
-1 * -1 is 1+1=2 bits, actual 3 bits
-1 * -8 is 1+4=5 bits, actual 5 bits
7 * 7 is 4+4=8 bits, actual 7 bits.
So this rule works, with the exception of -1 * -1, you can see that I called a minus one one bit, for the plus one thing find the zero plus one. Anyway, I argue that if this were a 4 bit * 4 bit machine as defined, you would have 4 bits of result at least and I interpret the question as how may more than 4 bits do I need to safely store the answer. So this rule serves to answer that question for 2s complement math.
If your question was to accurately determine overflow and then speed is secondary, then, well it is going to be really really slow for some systems, for every multiply you do. If this is the question you are asking, to get some of the speed back you need to tune it a little better for the language and/or processor. Double up the biggest operand, if you can, and check for non-zero bits above the result size, or use a divide and compare. If you cant double the operand sizes, divide and compare. Check for zero before the divide.
Actually your question doesnt specify what size of overflow you are talking about either. Good old 8086 16 bit times 16 bit gives a 32 bit result (hardware), it can never overflow. What about some of the ARMs that have a multiply, 32 bit times 32 bit, 32 bit result, easy to overflow. What is the size of your operands for this question, are they the same size or are they double the input size? Are you willing to perform multiplies that the hardware cannot do (without overflowing)? Are you writing a compiler library and trying to determine if you can feed the operands to the hardware for speed or if you have to perform the math without a hardware multiply. Which is the kind of thing you get if you cast up the operands, the compiler library will try to cast the operands back down before doing the multiply, depending on the compiler and its library of course. And it will use the count the bit trick determine to use the hardware multiply or a software one.
My goal here was to show how binary multiply works in a digestible form so you can see how much maximum storage you need by finding the location of a single bit in each operand. Now how fast you can find that bit in each operand is the trick. If you were looking for minimum storage requirements not maximum that is a different story because involves every single one of the significant bits in both operands not just one bit per operand, you have to do the multiply to determine minimum storage. If you dont care about maximum or minimum storage you have to just do the multiply and look for non zeros above your defined overflow limit or use a divide if you have the time or hardware.
Your tags imply you are not interested in floating point, floating point is a completely different beast, you cannot apply any of these fixed point rules to floating point, they DO NOT work.
Check if one is less than a maximum value divided by the other. (All values are taken as absolute).
2's complementness hardly has anything to do with it, since the multiplication overflows if x*(2n - x)>2M, which is equal to (x*2n - x2)>2M, or x2 < (x*2n - 2M), so you'll have to compare overflowing numbers anyway (x2 may overflow, while result may not).
If your number are not from the largest integral data type, then you might just cast them up, multiply and compare with the maximum of the number's original type. E.g. in Java, when multiplying two int, you can cast them to long and compare the result to Integer.MAX_VALUE or Integer.MIN_VALUE (depending on sign combination), before casting the result down to int.
If the type already is the largest, then check if one is less than the maximum value divided by the other. But do not take the absolute value! Instead you need separate comparison logic for each of the sign combinations negneg, pospos and posneg (negpos can obviously be reduced to posneg, and pospos might be reduced to neg*neg). First test for 0 arguments to allow safe divisions.
For actual code, see the Java source of MathUtils class of the commons-math 2, or ArithmeticUtils of commons-math 3. Look for public static long mulAndCheck(long a, long b). The case for positive a and b is
// check for positive overflow with positive a, positive b
if (a <= Long.MAX_VALUE / b) {
ret = a * b;
} else {
throw new ArithmeticException(msg);
}
I want to multiply two (2's complement) numbers, and detect if there was an overflow. What is the simplest way to do that?
Various languages do not specify valid checking for overflow after it occurs and so prior tests are required.
With some types, a wider integer type may not exist, so a general solution should limit itself to a single type.
The below (Ref) only requires compares and known limits to the integer range. It returns 1 if a product overflow will occur, else 0.
int is_undefined_mult1(int a, int b) {
if (a > 0) {
if (b > 0) {
return a > INT_MAX / b; // a positive, b positive
}
return b < INT_MIN / a; // a positive, b not positive
}
if (b > 0) {
return a < INT_MIN / b; // a not positive, b positive
}
return a != 0 && b < INT_MAX / a; // a not positive, b not positive
}
Is this the simplest way?
Perhaps, yet it is complete and handle all cases known to me - including rare non-2's complement.
Alternatives to Pavel Shved's solution ...
If your language of choice is assembler, then you should be able to check the overflow flag. If not, you could write a custom assembler routine that sets a variable if the overflow flag was set.
If this is not acceptable, you can find the most signficant set bit of both values (absolutes). If the sum exceeds the number of bits in the integer (or unsigned) then you will have an overflow if they are multiplied together.
Hope this helps.
In C, here's some maturely optimized code that handles the full range of corner cases:
int
would_mul_exceed_int(int a, int b) {
int product_bits;
if (a == 0 || b == 0 || a == 1 || b == 1) return (0); /* always okay */
if (a == INT_MIN || b == INT_MIN) return (1); /* always underflow */
a = ABS(a);
b = ABS(b);
product_bits = significant_bits_uint((unsigned)a);
product_bits += significant_bits_uint((unsigned)b);
if (product_bits == BITS(int)) { /* cases where the more expensive test is required */
return (a > INT_MAX / b); /* remember that IDIV and similar are very slow (dozens - hundreds of cycles) compared to bit shifts, adds */
}
return (product_bits > BITS(int));
}
Full example with test cases here
The benefit of the above approach is it doesn't require casting up to a larger type, so the approach could work on larger integer types.
The main question: How many digits?
Let me explain. I have a number in binary system: 11000000 and in decimal is 192.
After converting to decimal, how many digits it will have (in dicimal)? In my example, it's 3 digits. But, it isn't a problem. I've searched over internet and found one algorithm for integral part and one for fractional part. I'm not quite understand them, but (I think) they works.
When converting from binary to octal, it's more easy: each 3 bits give you 1 digit in octal. Same for hex: each 4 bits = 1 hex digit.
But, I'm very curious, what to do, if I have a number in P numeral system and want to convert it to the Q numeral system? I know how to do it (I think, I know :)), but, 1st of all, I want to know how many digits in Q system it will take (u no, I must preallocate space).
Writing n in base b takes ceiling(log base b (n)) digits.
The ratio you noticed (octal/binary) is log base 8 (n) / log base 2 (n) = 3.
(From memory, will it stick?)
There was an error in my previous answer: look at the comment by Ben Schwehn.
Sorry for the confusion, I found and explain the error I made in my previous answer below.
Please use the answer provided by Paul Tomblin. (rewritten to use P, Q and n)
Y = ln(P^n) / ln(Q)
Y = n * ln(P) / ln(Q)
So Y (rounded up) is the number of characters you need in system Q to express the highest number you can encode in n characters in system P.
I have no answer (that wouldn't convert the number already and take up that many space in a temporary variable) to get the bare minimum for a given number 1000(bin) = 8(dec) while you would reserve 2 decimal positions using this formula.
If a temporary memory usage isn't a problem, you might cheat and use (Python):
len(str(int(otherBaseStr,P)))
This will give you the number of decimals needed to convert a number in base P, cast as a string (otherBaseStr), into decimals.
Old WRONG answer:
If you have a number in P numeral system of length n
Then you can calculate the highest number that is possible in n characters:
P^(n-1)
To express this highest number in number system Q you need to use logarithms (because they are the inverse to exponentiation):
log((P^(n-1))/log(Q)
(n-1)*log(P) / log(Q)
For example
11000000 in binary is 8 characters.
To get it in Decimal you would need:
(8-1)*log(2) / log(10) = 2.1 digits (round up to 3)
Reason it was wrong:
The highest number that is possible in n characters is
(P^n) - 1
not
P^(n-1)
If you have a number that's X digits long in base B, then the maximum value that can be represented is B^X - 1. So if you want to know how many digits it might take in base C, then you have to find the number Y that C^Y - 1 is at least as big as B^X - 1. The way to do that is to take the logarithm in base C of B^X-1. And since the logarithm (log) of a number in base C is the same as the natural log (ln) of that number divided by the natural log of C, that becomes:
Y = ln((B^X)-1) / ln(C) + 1
and since ln(B^X) is X * ln(B), and that's probably faster to calculate than ln(B^X-1) and close enough to the right answer, rewrite that as
Y = X * ln(B) / ln(C) + 1
Covert that to your favourite language. Because we dropped the "-1", we might end up with one digit more than you need in some cases. But even better, you can pre-calculate ln(B)/ln(C) and just multiply it by new "X"s and the length of the number you are trying to convert changes.
Calculating the number of digit can be done using the formulas given by the other answers, however, it might actually be faster to allocate a buffer of maximum size first and then return the relevant part of that buffer instead of calculating a logarithm.
Note that the worst case for the buffer size happens when you convert to binary, which gives you a buffer size of 32 characters for 32-bit integers.
Converting a number to an arbitrary base could be done using the C# function below (The code would look very similar in other languages like C or Java):
public static string IntToString(int value, char[] baseChars)
{
// 32 is the worst cast buffer size for base 2 and int.MaxValue
int i = 32;
char[] buffer = new char[i];
int targetBase= baseChars.Length;
do
{
buffer[--i] = baseChars[value % targetBase];
value = value / targetBase;
}
while (value > 0);
char[] result = new char[32 - i];
Array.Copy(buffer, i, result, 0, 32 - i);
return new string(result);
}
The keyword here is "logarithm", here are some suggestive links:
http://www.adug.org.au/MathsCorner/MathsCornerLogs2.htm
http://staff.spd.dcu.ie/johnbcos/download/Fermat%20material/Fermat_Record_Number/HOW_MANY.html
look at the logarithms base P and base Q. Round down to nearest integer.
The logarithm base P can be computed using your favorite base (10 or e): log_P(x) = log_10(x)/log_10(P)
You need to compute the length of the fractional part separately.
For binary to decimal, there are as many decimal digits as there are bits. For example, binary 0.11001101001001 is decimal 0.80133056640625, both 14 digits after the radix point.
For decimal to binary, there are two cases. If the decimal fraction is dyadic, then there are as many bits as decimal digits (same as for binary to decimal above). If the fraction is not dyadic, then the number of bits is infinite.
(You can use my decimal/binary converter to experiment with this.)