Related
I would like to understand how to solve the Codility ArrayRecovery challenge, but I don't even know what branch of knowledge to consult. Is it combinatorics, optimization, computer science, set theory, or something else?
Edit:
The branch of knowledge to consult is constraint programming, particularly constraint propagation. You also need some combinatorics to know that if you take k numbers at a time from the range [1..n], with the restriction that no number can be bigger than the one before it, that works out to be
(n+k-1)!/k!(n-1)! possible combinations
which is the same as the number of combinations with replacements of n things taken k at a time, which has the mathematical notation . You can read about why it works out like that here.
Peter Norvig provides an excellent example of how to solve this kind of problem with his Sudoku solver.
You can read the full description of the ArrayRecovery problem via the link above. The short story is that there is an encoder that takes a sequence of integers in the range 1 up to some given limit (say 100 for our purposes) and for each element of the input sequence outputs the most recently seen integer that is smaller than the current input, or 0 if none exists.
input 1, 2, 3, 4 => output 0, 1, 2, 3
input 2, 4, 3 => output 0, 2, 2
The full task is, given the output (and the range of allowable input), figure out how many possible inputs could have generated it. But before I even get to that calculation, I'm not confident about how to even approach formulating the equation. That is what I am asking for help with. (Of course a full solution would be welcome, too, if it is explained.)
I just look at some possible outputs and wonder. Here are some sample encoder outputs and the inputs I can come up with, with * meaning any valid input and something like > 4 meaning any valid input greater than 4. If needed, inputs are referred to as A1, A2, A3, ... (1-based indexing)
Edit #2
Part of the problem I was having with this challenge is that I did not manually generate the exactly correct sets of possible inputs for an output. I believe the set below is correct now. Look at this answer's edit history if you want to see my earlier mistakes.
output #1: 0, 0, 0, 4
possible inputs: [>= 4, A1 >= * >= 4, 4, > 4]
output #2: 0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4 # A5 ↴ See more in discussion below
possible inputs: [>= 2, A1 >= * >=2, 2, 3, 4, > 4]
output #3: 0, 0, 0, 4, 3, 1
possible inputs: none # [4, 3, 1, 1 >= * > 4, 4, > 1] but there is no number 1 >= * > 4
The second input sequence is very tightly constrained compared to the first just by adding 2 more outputs. The third sequence is so constrained as to be impossible.
But the set of constraints on A5 in example #2 is a bit harder to articulate. Of course A5 > O5, that is the basic constraint on all the inputs. But any output > A4 and after O5 has to appear in the input after A4, so A5 has to be an element of the set of numbers that comes after A5 that is also > A4. Since there is only 1 such number (A6 == 4), A5 has to be it, but it gets more complicated if there is a longer string of numbers that follow. (Editor's note: actually it doesn't.)
As the output set gets longer, I worry these constraints just get more complicated and harder to get right. I cannot think of any data structures for efficiently representing these in a way that leads to efficiently calculating the number of possible combinations. I also don't quite see how to algorithmically add constraint sets together.
Here are the constraints I see so far for any given An
An > On
An <= min(Set of other possible numbers from O1 to n-1 > On). How to define the set of possible numbers greater than On?
Numbers greater than On that came after the most recent occurrence of On in the input
An >= max(Set of other possible numbers from O1 to n-1 < On). How to define the set of possible numbers less than On?
Actually this set is empty because On is, by definition, the largest possible number from the previous input sequence. (Which it not to say it is strictly the largest number from the previous input sequence.)
Any number smaller than On that came before the last occurrence of it in the input would be ineligible because of the "nearest" rule. No numbers smaller that On could have occurred after the most recent occurrence because of the "nearest" rule and because of the transitive property: if Ai < On and Aj < Ai then Aj < On
Then there is the set theory:
An must be an element of the set of unaccounted-for elements of the set of On+1 to Om, where m is the smallest m > n such that Om < On. Any output after such Om and larger than Om (which An is) would have to appear as or after Am.
An element is unaccounted-for if it is seen in the output but does not appear in the input in a position that is consistent with the rest of the output. Obviously I need a better definition than this in order to code and algorithm to calculate it.
It seems like perhaps some kind of set theory and/or combinatorics or maybe linear algebra would help with figuring out the number of possible sequences that would account for all of the unaccounted-for outputs and fit the other constraints. (Editor's note: actually, things never get that complicated.)
The code below passes all of Codility's tests. The OP added a main function to use it on the command line.
The constraints are not as complex as the OP thinks. In particular, there is never a situation where you need to add a restriction that an input be an element of some set of specific integers seen elsewhere in the output. Every input position has a well-defined minimum and maximum.
The only complication to that rule is that sometimes the maximum is "the value of the previous input" and that input itself has a range. But even then, all the values like that are consecutive and have the same range, so the number of possibilities can be calculated with basic combinatorics, and those inputs as a group are independent of the other inputs (which only serve to set the range), so the possibilities of that group can be combined with the possibilities of other input positions by simple multiplication.
Algorithm overview
The algorithm makes a single pass through the output array updating the possible numbers of input arrays after every span, which is what I am calling repetitions of numbers in the output. (You might say maximal subsequences of the output where every element is identical.) For example, for output 0,1,1,2 we have three spans: 0, 1,1 and 2. When a new span begins, the number of possibilities for the previous span is calculated.
This decision was based on a few observations:
For spans longer than 1 in length, the minimum value of the input
allowed in the first position is whatever the value is of the input
in the second position. Calculating the number of possibilities of a
span is straightforward combinatorics, but the standard formula
requires knowing the range of the numbers and the length of the span.
Every time the value of the
output changes (and a new span beings), that strongly constrains the value of the previous span:
When the output goes up, the only possible reason is that the previous input was the value of the new, higher output and the input corresponding to the position of the new, higher output, was even higher.
When an output goes down, new constraints are established, but those are a bit harder to articulate. The algorithm stores stairs (see below) in order to quantify the constraints imposed when the output goes down
The aim here was to confine the range of possible values for every span. Once we do that accurately, calculating the number of combinations is straightforward.
Because the encoder backtracks looking to output a number that relates to the input in 2 ways, both smaller and closer, we know we can throw out numbers that are larger and farther away. After a small number appears in the output, no larger number from before that position can have any influence on what follows.
So to confine these ranges of input when the output sequence decreased, we need to store stairs - a list of increasingly larger possible values for the position in the original array. E.g for 0,2,5,7,2,4 stairs build up like this: 0, 0,2, 0,2,5, 0,2,5,7, 0,2, 0,2,4.
Using these bounds we can tell for sure that the number in the position of the second 2 (next to last position in the example) must be in (2,5], because 5 is the next stair. If the input were greater than 5, a 5 would have been output in that space instead of a 2. Observe, that if the last number in the encoded array was not 4, but 6, we would exit early returning 0, because we know that the previous number couldn't be bigger than 5.
The complexity is O(n*lg(min(n,m))).
Functions
CombinationsWithReplacement - counts number of combinations with replacements of size k from n numbers. E.g. for (3, 2) it counts 3,3, 3,2, 3,1, 2,2, 2,1, 1,1, so returns 6 It is the same as choose(n - 1 + k, n - 1).
nextBigger - finds next bigger element in a range. E.g. for 4 in sub-array 1,2,3,4,5 it returns 5, and in sub-array 1,3 it returns its parameter Max.
countSpan (lambda) - counts how many different combinations a span we have just passed can have. Consider span 2,2 for 0,2,5,7,2,2,7.
When curr gets to the final position, curr is 7 and prev is the final 2 of the 2,2 span.
It computes maximum and minimum possible values of the prev span. At this point stairs consist of 2,5,7 then maximum possible value is 5 (nextBigger after 2 in the stair 2,5,7). A value of greater than 5 in this span would have output a 5, not a 2.
It computes a minimum value for the span (which is the minimum value for every element in the span), which is prev at this point, (remember curr at this moment equals to 7 and prev to 2). We know for sure that in place of the final 2 output, the original input has to have 7, so the minimum is 7. (This is a consequence of the "output goes up" rule. If we had 7,7,2 and curr would be 2 then the minimum for the previous span (the 7,7) would be 8 which is prev + 1.
It adjusts the number of combinations. For a span of length L with a range of n possibilities (1+max-min), there are possibilities, with k being either L or L-1 depending on what follows the span.
For a span followed by a larger number, like 2,2,7, k = L - 1 because the last position of the 2,2 span has to be 7 (the value of the first number after the span).
For a span followed by a smaller number, like 7,7,2, k = L because
the last element of 7,7 has no special constraints.
Finally, it calls CombinationsWithReplacement to find out the number of branches (or possibilities), computes new res partial results value (remainder values in the modulo arithmetic we are doing), and returns new res value and max for further handling.
solution - iterates over the given Encoder Output array. In the main loop, while in a span it counts the span length, and at span boundaries it updates res by calling countSpan and possibly updates the stairs.
If the current span consists of a bigger number than the previous one, then:
Check validity of the next number. E.g 0,2,5,2,7 is invalid input, becuase there is can't be 7 in the next-to-last position, only 3, or 4, or 5.
It updates the stairs. When we have seen only 0,2, the stairs are 0,2, but after the next 5, the stairs become 0,2,5.
If the current span consists of a smaller number then the previous one, then:
It updates stairs. When we have seen only 0,2,5, our stairs are 0,2,5, but after we have seen 0,2,5,2 the stairs become 0,2.
After the main loop it accounts for the last span by calling countSpan with -1 which triggers the "output goes down" branch of calculations.
normalizeMod, extendedEuclidInternal, extendedEuclid, invMod - these auxiliary functions help to deal with modulo arithmetic.
For stairs I use storage for the encoded array, as the number of stairs never exceeds current position.
#include <algorithm>
#include <cassert>
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
const int Modulus = 1'000'000'007;
int CombinationsWithReplacement(int n, int k);
template <class It>
auto nextBigger(It begin, It end, int value, int Max) {
auto maxIt = std::upper_bound(begin, end, value);
auto max = Max;
if (maxIt != end) {
max = *maxIt;
}
return max;
}
auto solution(std::vector<int> &B, const int Max) {
auto res = 1;
const auto size = (int)B.size();
auto spanLength = 1;
auto prev = 0;
// Stairs is the list of numbers which could be smaller than number in the next position
const auto stairsBegin = B.begin();
// This includes first entry (zero) into stairs
// We need to include 0 because we can meet another zero later in encoded array
// and we need to be able to find in stairs
auto stairsEnd = stairsBegin + 1;
auto countSpan = [&](int curr) {
const auto max = nextBigger(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, prev, Max);
// At the moment when we switch from the current span to the next span
// prev is the number from previous span and curr from current.
// E.g. 1,1,7, when we move to the third position cur = 7 and prev = 1.
// Observe that, in this case minimum value possible in place of any of 1's can be at least 2=1+1=prev+1.
// But if we consider 7, then we have even more stringent condition for numbers in place of 1, it is 7
const auto min = std::max(prev + 1, curr);
const bool countLast = prev > curr;
const auto branchesCount = CombinationsWithReplacement(max - min + 1, spanLength - (countLast ? 0 : 1));
return std::make_pair(res * (long long)branchesCount % Modulus, max);
};
for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i) {
const auto curr = B[i];
if (curr == prev) {
++spanLength;
}
else {
int max;
std::tie(res, max) = countSpan(curr);
if (prev < curr) {
if (curr > max) {
// 0,1,5,1,7 - invalid because number in the fourth position lies in [2,5]
// and so in the fifth encoded position we can't something bigger than 5
return 0;
}
// It is time to possibly shrink stairs.
// E.g if we had stairs 0,2,4,9,17 and current value is 5,
// then we no more interested in 9 and 17, and we change stairs to 0,2,4,5.
// That's because any number bigger than 9 or 17 also bigger than 5.
const auto s = std::lower_bound(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, curr);
stairsEnd = s;
*stairsEnd++ = curr;
}
else {
assert(curr < prev);
auto it = std::lower_bound(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, curr);
if (it == stairsEnd || *it != curr) {
// 0,5,1 is invalid sequence because original sequence lloks like this 5,>5,>1
// and there is no 1 in any of the two first positions, so
// it can't appear in the third position of the encoded array
return 0;
}
}
spanLength = 1;
}
prev = curr;
}
res = countSpan(-1).first;
return res;
}
template <class T> T normalizeMod(T a, T m) {
if (a < 0) return a + m;
return a;
}
template <class T> std::pair<T, std::pair<T, T>> extendedEuclidInternal(T a, T b) {
T old_x = 1;
T old_y = 0;
T x = 0;
T y = 1;
while (true) {
T q = a / b;
T t = a - b * q;
if (t == 0) {
break;
}
a = b;
b = t;
t = x; x = old_x - x * q; old_x = t;
t = y; y = old_y - y * q; old_y = t;
}
return std::make_pair(b, std::make_pair(x, y));
}
// Returns gcd and Bezout's coefficients
template <class T> std::pair<T, std::pair<T, T>> extendedEuclid(T a, T b) {
if (a > b) {
if (b == 0) return std::make_pair(a, std::make_pair(1, 0));
return extendedEuclidInternal(a, b);
}
else {
if (a == 0) return std::make_pair(b, std::make_pair(0, 1));
auto p = extendedEuclidInternal(b, a);
std::swap(p.second.first, p.second.second);
return p;
}
}
template <class T> T invMod(T a, T m) {
auto p = extendedEuclid(a, m);
assert(p.first == 1);
return normalizeMod(p.second.first, m);
}
int CombinationsWithReplacement(int n, int k) {
int res = 1;
for (long long i = n; i < n + k; ++i) {
res = res * i % Modulus;
}
int denom = 1;
for (long long i = k; i > 0; --i) {
denom = denom * i % Modulus;
}
res = res * (long long)invMod(denom, Modulus) % Modulus;
return res;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Only the above is needed for the Codility challenge. Below is to run on the command line.
//
// Compile with: gcc -std=gnu++14 -lc++ -lstdc++ array_recovery.cpp
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <string.h>
// Usage: 0 1 2,3, 4 M
// Last arg is M, the max value for an input.
// Remaining args are B (the output of the encoder) separated by commas and/or spaces
// Parentheses and brackets are ignored, so you can use the same input form as Codility's tests: ([1,2,3], M)
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int Max;
std::vector<int> B;
const char* delim = " ,[]()";
if (argc < 2 ) {
printf("Usage: %s M 0 1 2,3, 4... \n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
for (int i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
char* parse;
parse = strtok(argv[i], delim);
while (parse != NULL)
{
B.push_back(atoi(parse));
parse = strtok (NULL, delim);
}
}
Max = B.back();
B.pop_back();
printf("%d\n", solution(B, Max));
return 0;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Only the above is needed for the Codility challenge. Below is to run on the command line.
//
// Compile with: gcc -std=gnu++14 -lc++ -lstdc++ array_recovery.cpp
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <string.h>
// Usage: M 0 1 2,3, 4
// first arg is M, the max value for an input.
// remaining args are B (the output of the encoder) separated by commas and/or spaces
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int Max;
std::vector<int> B;
const char* delim = " ,";
if (argc < 3 ) {
printf("Usage: %s M 0 1 2,3, 4... \n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
Max = atoi(argv[1]);
for (int i = 2; i < argc; i++) {
char* parse;
parse = strtok(argv[i], delim);
while (parse != NULL)
{
B.push_back(atoi(parse));
parse = strtok (NULL, delim);
}
}
printf("%d\n", solution(B, Max));
return 0;
}
Let's see an example:
Max = 5
Array is
0 1 3 0 1 1 3
1
1 2..5
1 3 4..5
1 3 4..5 1
1 3 4..5 1 2..5
1 3 4..5 1 2..5 >=..2 (sorry, for a cumbersome way of writing)
1 3 4..5 1 3..5 >=..3 4..5
Now count:
1 1 2 1 3 2 which amounts to 12 total.
Here's an idea. One known method to construct the output is to use a stack. We pop it while the element is greater or equal, then output the smaller element if it exists, then push the greater element onto the stack. Now what if we attempted to do this backwards from the output?
First we'll demonstrate the stack method using the c∅dility example.
[2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6]
2: output 0, stack [2]
5: output 2, stack [2,5]
3: pop 5, output, 2, stack [2,3]
7: output 3, stack [2,3,7]
... etc.
Final output: [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
Now let's try reconstruction! We'll use stack both as the imaginary stack and as the reconstituted input:
(Input: [2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6])
Output: [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
* Something >3 that reached 3 in the stack
stack = [3, 3 < *]
* Something >7 that reached 7 in the stack
but both of those would've popped before 3
stack = [3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >3, 7 qualifies
stack = [3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >2, 3 qualifies
stack = [2, 3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >2 and >=3 since 3 reached 2
stack = [2, 2 < *, 3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
Let's attempt your examples:
Example 1:
[0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4]
* Something >4
stack = [4, 4 < *]
* Something >3, 4 qualifies
stack = [3, 4, 4 < *]
* Something >2, 3 qualifies
stack = [2, 3, 4, 4 < *]
* The rest is non-increasing with lowerbound 2
stack = [y >= x, x >= 2, 2, 3, 4, >4]
Example 2:
[0, 0, 0, 4]
* Something >4
stack [4, 4 < *]
* Non-increasing
stack = [z >= y, y >= 4, 4, 4 < *]
Calculating the number of combinations is achieved by multiplying together the possibilities for all the sections. A section is either a bounded single cell; or a bound, non-increasing subarray of one or more cells. To calculate the latter we use the multi-choose binomial, (n + k - 1) choose (k - 1). Consider that we can express the differences between the cells of a bound, non-increasing sequence of 3 cells as:
(ub - cell_3) + (cell_3 - cell_2) + (cell_2 - cell_1) + (cell_1 - lb) = ub - lb
Then the number of ways to distribute ub - lb into (x + 1) cells is
(n + k - 1) choose (k - 1)
or
(ub - lb + x) choose x
For example, the number of non-increasing sequences between
(3,4) in two cells is (4 - 3 + 2) choose 2 = 3: [3,3] [4,3] [4,4]
And the number of non-increasing sequences between
(3,4) in three cells is (4 - 3 + 3) choose 3 = 4: [3,3,3] [4,3,3] [4,4,3] [4,4,4]
(Explanation attributed to Brian M. Scott.)
Rough JavaScript sketch (the code is unreliable; it's only meant to illustrate the encoding. The encoder lists [lower_bound, upper_bound], or a non-increasing sequence as [non_inc, length, lower_bound, upper_bound]):
function f(A, M){
console.log(JSON.stringify(A), M);
let i = A.length - 1;
let last = A[i];
let s = [[last,last]];
if (A[i-1] == last){
let d = 1;
s.splice(1,0,['non_inc',d++,last,M]);
while (i > 0 && A[i-1] == last){
s.splice(1,0,['non_inc',d++,last,M]);
i--
}
} else {
s.push([last+1,M]);
i--;
}
if (i == 0)
s.splice(0,1);
for (; i>0; i--){
let x = A[i];
if (x < s[0][0])
s = [[x,x]].concat(s);
if (x > s[0][0]){
let [l, _l] = s[0];
let [lb, ub] = s[1];
s[0] = [x+1, M];
s[1] = [lb, x];
s = [[l,_l], [x,x]].concat(s);
}
if (x == s[0][0]){
let [l,_l] = s[0];
let [lb, ub] = s[1];
let d = 1;
s.splice(0,1);
while (i > 0 && A[i-1] == x){
s =
[['non_inc', d++, lb, M]].concat(s);
i--;
}
if (i > 0)
s = [[l,_l]].concat(s);
}
}
// dirty fix
if (s[0][0] == 0)
s.splice(0,1);
return s;
}
var a = [2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6]
var b = [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
console.log(JSON.stringify(a));
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,0,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,2,0,0,0,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,0,2,3,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,2,2]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,4)));
b = [0,3,5,6]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,3,0]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
This is a question given in this presentation. Dynamic Programming
now i have implemented the algorithm using recursion and it works fine for small values. But when n is greater than 30 it becomes really slow.The presentation mentions that for large values of n one should consider something similar to
the matrix form of Fibonacci numbers .I am having trouble undestanding how to use the matrix form of Fibonacci numbers to come up with a solution.Can some one give me some hints or pseudocode
Thanks
Yes, you can use the technique from fast Fibonacci implementations to solve this problem in time O(log n)! Here's how to do it.
Let's go with your definition from the problem statement that 1 + 3 is counted the same as 3 + 1. Then you have the following recurrence relation:
A(0) = 1
A(1) = 1
A(2) = 1
A(3) = 2
A(k+4) = A(k) + A(k+1) + A(k+3)
The matrix trick here is to notice that
| 1 0 1 1 | |A( k )| |A(k) + A(k-2) + A(k-3)| |A(k+1)|
| 1 0 0 0 | |A(k-1)| | A( k ) | |A( k )|
| 0 1 0 0 | |A(k-2)| = | A(k-1) | = |A(k-1)|
| 0 0 1 0 | |A(k-3)| | A(k-2) | = |A(k-2)|
In other words, multiplying a vector of the last four values in the series produces a vector with those values shifted forward by one step.
Let's call that matrix there M. Then notice that
|A( k )| |A(k+2)|
|A(k-1)| |A(k+1)|
M^2 |A(k-2)| = |A( k )|
|A(k-3)| |A(k-1)|
In other words, multiplying by the square of this matrix shifts the series down two steps. More generally:
|A( k )| | A(k+n) |
|A(k-1)| |A(k-1 + n)|
M^n |A(k-2)| = |A(k-2 + n)|
|A(k-3)| |A(k-3 + n)|
So multiplying by Mn shifts the series down n steps. Now, if we want to know the value of A(n+3), we can just compute
|A(3)| |A(n+3)|
|A(2)| |A(n+2)|
M^n |A(1)| = |A(n+1)|
|A(0)| |A(n+2)|
and read off the top entry of the vector! This can be done in time O(log n) by using exponentiation by squaring. Here's some code that does just that. This uses a matrix library I cobbled together a while back:
#include "Matrix.hh"
#include <cstdint>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
/* Naive implementations of A. */
uint64_t naiveA(int n) {
if (n == 0) return 1;
if (n == 1) return 1;
if (n == 2) return 1;
if (n == 3) return 2;
return naiveA(n-1) + naiveA(n-3) + naiveA(n-4);
}
/* Constructs and returns the giant matrix. */
Matrix<4, 4, uint64_t> M() {
Matrix<4, 4, uint64_t> result;
fill(result.begin(), result.end(), uint64_t(0));
result[0][0] = 1;
result[0][2] = 1;
result[0][3] = 1;
result[1][0] = 1;
result[2][1] = 1;
result[3][2] = 1;
return result;
}
/* Constructs the initial vector that we multiply the matrix by. */
Vector<4, uint64_t> initVec() {
Vector<4, uint64_t> result;
result[0] = 2;
result[1] = 1;
result[2] = 1;
result[3] = 1;
return result;
}
/* O(log n) time for raising a matrix to a power. */
Matrix<4, 4, uint64_t> fastPower(const Matrix<4, 4, uint64_t>& m, int n) {
if (n == 0) return Identity<4, uint64_t>();
auto half = fastPower(m, n / 2);
if (n % 2 == 0) return half * half;
else return half * half * m;
}
/* Fast implementation of A(n) using matrix exponentiation. */
uint64_t fastA(int n) {
if (n == 0) return 1;
if (n == 1) return 1;
if (n == 2) return 1;
if (n == 3) return 2;
auto result = fastPower(M(), n - 3) * initVec();
return result[0];
}
/* Some simple test code showing this in action! */
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
cout << setw(2) << i << ": " << naiveA(i) << ", " << fastA(i) << endl;
}
}
Now, how would this change if 3 + 1 and 1 + 3 were treated as equivalent? This means that we can think about solving this problem in the following way:
Let A(n) be the number of ways to write n as a sum of 1s, 3s, and 4s.
Let B(n) be the number of ways to write n as a sum of 1s and 3s.
Let C(n) be the number of ways to write n as a sum of 1s.
We then have the following:
A(n) = B(n) for all n ≤ 3, since for numbers in that range the only options are to use 1s and 3s.
A(n + 4) = A(n) + B(n + 4), since your options are either (1) use a 4 or (2) not use a 4, leaving the remaining sum to use 1s and 3s.
B(n) = C(n) for all n ≤ 2, since for numbers in that range the only options are to use 1s.
B(n + 3) = B(n) + C(n + 3), sine your options are either (1) use a 3 or (2) not use a 3, leaving the remaining sum to use only 1s.
C(0) = 1, since there's only one way to write 0 as a sum of no numbers.
C(n+1) = C(n), since the only way to write something with 1s is to pull out a 1 and write the remaining number as a sum of 1s.
That's a lot to take in, but do notice the following: we ultimately care about A(n), and to evaluate it, we only need to know the values of A(n), A(n-1), A(n-2), A(n-3), B(n), B(n-1), B(n-2), B(n-3), C(n), C(n-1), C(n-2), and C(n-3).
Let's imagine, for example, that we know these twelve values for some fixed value of n. We can learn those twelve values for the next value of n as follows:
C(n+1) = C(n)
B(n+1) = B(n-2) + C(n+1) = B(n-2) + C(n)
A(n+1) = A(n-3) + B(n+1) = A(n-3) + B(n-2) + C(n)
And the remaining values then shift down.
We can formulate this as a giant matrix equation:
A( n ) A(n-1) A(n-2) A(n-3) B( n ) B(n-1) B(n-2) C( n )
| 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 | |A( n )| = |A(n+1)|
| 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | |A(n-1)| = |A( n )|
| 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 | |A(n-2)| = |A(n-1)|
| 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 | |A(n-3)| = |A(n-2)|
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 | |B( n )| = |B(n+1)|
| 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 | |B(n-1)| = |B( n )|
| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 | |B(n-2)| = |B(n-1)|
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 | |C( n )| = |C(n+1)|
Let's call this gigantic matrix here M. Then if we compute
|2| // A(3) = 2, since 3 = 3 or 3 = 1 + 1 + 1
|1| // A(2) = 1, since 2 = 1 + 1
|1| // A(1) = 1, since 1 = 1
M^n |1| // A(0) = 1, since 0 = (empty sum)
|2| // B(3) = 2, since 3 = 3 or 3 = 1 + 1 + 1
|1| // B(2) = 1, since 2 = 1 + 1
|1| // B(1) = 1, since 1 = 1
|1| // C(3) = 1, since 3 = 1 + 1 + 1
We'll get back a vector whose first entry is A(n+3), the number of ways to write n+3 as a sum of 1's, 3's, and 4's. (I've actually coded this up to check it - it works!) You can then use the technique for computing Fibonacci numbers using a matrix to a power efficiently that you saw with Fibonacci numbers to solve this in time O(log n).
Here's some code doing that:
#include "Matrix.hh"
#include <cstdint>
#include <iomanip>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
/* Naive implementations of A, B, and C. */
uint64_t naiveC(int n) {
return 1;
}
uint64_t naiveB(int n) {
return (n < 3? 0 : naiveB(n-3)) + naiveC(n);
}
uint64_t naiveA(int n) {
return (n < 4? 0 : naiveA(n-4)) + naiveB(n);
}
/* Constructs and returns the giant matrix. */
Matrix<8, 8, uint64_t> M() {
Matrix<8, 8, uint64_t> result;
fill(result.begin(), result.end(), uint64_t(0));
result[0][3] = 1;
result[0][6] = 1;
result[0][7] = 1;
result[1][0] = 1;
result[2][1] = 1;
result[3][2] = 1;
result[4][6] = 1;
result[4][7] = 1;
result[5][4] = 1;
result[6][5] = 1;
result[7][7] = 1;
return result;
}
/* Constructs the initial vector that we multiply the matrix by. */
Vector<8, uint64_t> initVec() {
Vector<8, uint64_t> result;
result[0] = 2;
result[1] = 1;
result[2] = 1;
result[3] = 1;
result[4] = 2;
result[5] = 1;
result[6] = 1;
result[7] = 1;
return result;
}
/* O(log n) time for raising a matrix to a power. */
Matrix<8, 8, uint64_t> fastPower(const Matrix<8, 8, uint64_t>& m, int n) {
if (n == 0) return Identity<8, uint64_t>();
auto half = fastPower(m, n / 2);
if (n % 2 == 0) return half * half;
else return half * half * m;
}
/* Fast implementation of A(n) using matrix exponentiation. */
uint64_t fastA(int n) {
if (n == 0) return 1;
if (n == 1) return 1;
if (n == 2) return 1;
if (n == 3) return 2;
auto result = fastPower(M(), n - 3) * initVec();
return result[0];
}
/* Some simple test code showing this in action! */
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
cout << setw(2) << i << ": " << naiveA(i) << ", " << fastA(i) << endl;
}
}
This is a very interesting sequence. It is almost but not quite the order-4 Fibonacci (a.k.a. Tetranacci) numbers. Having extracted the doubling formulas for Tetranacci from its companion matrix, I could not resist doing it again for this very similar recurrence relation.
Before we get into the actual code, some definitions and a short derivation of the formulas used are in order. Define an integer sequence A such that:
A(n) := A(n-1) + A(n-3) + A(n-4)
with initial values A(0), A(1), A(2), A(3) := 1, 1, 1, 2.
For n >= 0, this is the number of integer compositions of n into parts from the set {1, 3, 4}. This is the sequence that we ultimately wish to compute.
For convenience, define a sequence T such that:
T(n) := T(n-1) + T(n-3) + T(n-4)
with initial values T(0), T(1), T(2), T(3) := 0, 0, 0, 1.
Note that A(n) and T(n) are simply shifts of each other. More precisely, A(n) = T(n+3) for all integers n. Accordingly, as elaborated by another answer, the companion matrix for both sequences is:
[0 1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0]
[0 0 0 1]
[1 1 0 1]
Call this matrix C, and let:
a, b, c, d := T(n), T(n+1), T(n+2), T(n+3)
a', b', c', d' := T(2n), T(2n+1), T(2n+2), T(2n+3)
By induction, it can easily be shown that:
[0 1 0 0]^n = [d-c-a c-b b-a a]
[0 0 1 0] [ a d-c c-b b]
[0 0 0 1] [ b b+a d-c c]
[1 1 0 1] [ c c+b b+a d]
As seen above, for any n, C^n can be fully determined from its rightmost column alone. Furthermore, multiplying C^n with its rightmost column produces the rightmost column of C^(2n):
[d-c-a c-b b-a a][a] = [a'] = [a(2d - 2c - a) + b(2c - b)]
[ a d-c c-b b][b] [b'] [ a^2 + c^2 + 2b(d - c)]
[ b b+a d-c c][c] [c'] [ b(2a + b) + c(2d - c)]
[ c c+b b+a d][d] [d'] [ b^2 + d^2 + 2c(a + b)]
Thus, if we wish to compute C^n for some n by repeated squaring, we need only perform matrix-vector multiplication per step instead of the full matrix-matrix multiplication.
Now, the implementation, in Python:
# O(n) integer additions or subtractions
def A_linearly(n):
a, b, c, d = 0, 0, 0, 1 # T(0), T(1), T(2), T(3)
if n >= 0:
for _ in range(+n):
a, b, c, d = b, c, d, a + b + d
else: # n < 0
for _ in range(-n):
a, b, c, d = d - c - a, a, b, c
return d # because A(n) = T(n+3)
# O(log n) integer multiplications, additions, subtractions.
def A_by_doubling(n):
n += 3 # because A(n) = T(n+3)
if n >= 0:
a, b, c, d = 0, 0, 0, 1 # T(0), T(1), T(2), T(3)
else: # n < 0
a, b, c, d = 1, 0, 0, 0 # T(-1), T(0), T(1), T(2)
# Unroll the final iteration to avoid computing extraneous values
for i in reversed(range(1, abs(n).bit_length())):
w = a*(2*(d - c) - a) + b*(2*c - b)
x = a*a + c*c + 2*b*(d - c)
y = b*(2*a + b) + c*(2*d - c)
z = b*b + d*d + 2*c*(a + b)
if (n >> i) & 1 == 0:
a, b, c, d = w, x, y, z
else: # (n >> i) & 1 == 1
a, b, c, d = x, y, z, w + x + z
if n & 1 == 0:
return a*(2*(d - c) - a) + b*(2*c - b) # w
else: # n & 1 == 1
return a*a + c*c + 2*b*(d - c) # x
print(all(A_linearly(n) == A_by_doubling(n) for n in range(-1000, 1001)))
Because it was rather trivial to code, the sequence is extended to negative n in the usual way. Also provided is a simple linear implementation to serve as a point of reference.
For n large enough, the logarithmic implementation above is 10-20x faster than directly exponentiating the companion matrix with numpy, by a simple (i.e. not rigorous, and likely flawed) timing comparison. And by my estimate, it would still take ~100 years to compute A(10**12)! Even though the algorithm above has room for improvement, that number is simply too large. On the other hand, computing A(10**12) mod M for some M is much more attainable.
A direct relation to Lucas and Fibonacci numbers
It turns out that T(n) is even closer to the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers than it is to Tetranacci. To see this, note that the characteristic polynomial for T(n) is x^4 - x^3 - x - 1 = 0 which factors into (x^2 - x - 1)(x^2 + 1) = 0. The first factor is the characteristic polynomial for Fibonacci & Lucas! The 4 roots of (x^2 - x - 1)(x^2 + 1) = 0 are the two Fibonacci roots, phi and psi = 1 - phi, and i and -i--the two square roots of -1.
The closed-form expression or "Binet" formula for T(n) will have the general form:
T(n) = U(n) + V(n)
U(n) = p*(phi^n) + q*(psi^n)
V(n) = r*(i^n) + s*(-i)^n
for some constant coefficients p, q, r, s.
Using the initial values for T(n), solving for the coefficients, applying some algebra, and noting that the Lucas numbers have the closed-form expression: L(n) = phi^n + psi^n, we can derive the following relations:
L(n+1) - L(n) L(n-1) F(n) + F(n-2)
U(n) = ------------- = -------- = ------------
5 5 5
where L(n) is the n'th Lucas number with L(0), L(1) := 2, 1 and F(n) is the n'th Fibonacci number with F(0), F(1) := 0, 1. And we also have:
V(n) = 1 / 5 if n = 0 (mod 4)
| -2 / 5 if n = 1 (mod 4)
| -1 / 5 if n = 2 (mod 4)
| 2 / 5 if n = 3 (mod 4)
Which is ugly, but trivial to code. Note that the numerator of V(n) can also be succinctly expressed as cos(n*pi/2) - 2sin(n*pi/2) or (3-(-1)^n) / 2 * (-1)^(n(n+1)/2), but we use the piece-wise definition for clarity.
Here's an even nicer, more direct identity:
T(n) + T(n+2) = F(n)
Essentially, we can compute T(n) (and therefore A(n)) by using Fibonacci & Lucas numbers. Theoretically, this should be much more efficient than the Tetranacci-like approach.
It is known that the Lucas numbers can computed more efficiently than Fibonacci, therefore we will compute A(n) from the Lucas numbers. The most efficient, simple Lucas number algorithm I know of is one by L.F. Johnson (see his 2010 paper: Middle and Ripple, fast simple O(lg n) algorithms for Lucas Numbers). Once we have a Lucas algorithm, we use the identity: T(n) = L(n - 1) / 5 + V(n) to compute A(n).
# O(log n) integer multiplications, additions, subtractions
def A_by_lucas(n):
n += 3 # because A(n) = T(n+3)
offset = (+1, -2, -1, +2)[n % 4]
L = lf_johnson_2010_middle(n - 1)
return (L + offset) // 5
def lf_johnson_2010_middle(n):
"-> n'th Lucas number. See [L.F. Johnson 2010a]."
#: The following Lucas identities are used:
#:
#: L(2n) = L(n)^2 - 2*(-1)^n
#: L(2n+1) = L(2n+2) - L(2n)
#: L(2n+2) = L(n+1)^2 - 2*(-1)^(n+1)
#:
#: The first and last identities are equivalent.
#: For the unrolled iteration, the following is also used:
#:
#: L(2n+1) = L(n)*L(n+1) - (-1)^n
#:
#: Since this approach uses only square multiplications per loop,
#: It turns out to be slightly faster than standard Lucas doubling,
#: which uses 1 square and 1 regular multiplication.
if n >= 0:
a, b, sign = 2, 1, +1 # L(0), L(1), (-1)^0
else: # n < 0
a, b, sign = -1, 2, -1 # L(-1), L(0), (-1)^(-1)
# unroll the last iteration to avoid computing unnecessary values
for i in reversed(range(1, abs(n).bit_length())):
a = a*a - 2*sign # L(2k)
c = b*b + 2*sign # L(2k+2)
b = c - a # L(2k+1)
sign = +1
if (n >> i) & 1:
a, b = b, c
sign = -1
if n & 1:
return a*b - sign
else:
return a*a - 2*sign
You may verify that A_by_lucas produces the same results as the previous A_by_doubling function, but is roughly 5x faster. Still not fast enough to compute A(10**12) in any reasonable amount of time!
You can easily improve your current recursion implementation by adding memoization which makes the solution fast again. C# code:
// Dictionary to store computed values
private static Dictionary<int, long> s_Solutions = new Dictionary<int, long>();
private static long Count134(int value) {
if (value == 0)
return 1;
else if (value <= 0)
return 0;
long result;
// Improvement: Do we have the value computed?
if (s_Solutions.TryGetValue(value, out result))
return result;
result = Count134(value - 4) +
Count134(value - 3) +
Count134(value - 1);
// Improvement: Store the value computed for future use
s_Solutions.Add(value, result);
return result;
}
And so you can easily call
Console.Write(Count134(500));
The outcome (which takes about 2 milliseconds) is
3350159379832610737
I have three numbers x, y , z.
For a range between numbers x and y.
How can i find the total numbers whose % with z is 0 i.e. how many numbers between x and y are divisible by z ?
It can be done in O(1): find the first one, find the last one, find the count of all other.
I'm assuming the range is inclusive. If your ranges are exclusive, adjust the bounds by one:
find the first value after x that is divisible by z. You can discard x:
x_mod = x % z;
if(x_mod != 0)
x += (z - x_mod);
find the last value before y that is divisible by y. You can discard y:
y -= y % z;
find the size of this range:
if(x > y)
return 0;
else
return (y - x) / z + 1;
If mathematical floor and ceil functions are available, the first two parts can be written more readably. Also the last part can be compressed using math functions:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return max((y - x) / z + 1, 0);
if the input is guaranteed to be a valid range (x >= y), the last test or max is unneccessary:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return (y - x) / z + 1;
(2017, answer rewritten thanks to comments)
The number of multiples of z in a number n is simply n / z
/ being the integer division, meaning decimals that could result from the division are simply ignored (for instance 17/5 => 3 and not 3.4).
Now, in a range from x to y, how many multiples of z are there?
Let see how many multiples m we have up to y
0----------------------------------x------------------------y
-m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---
You see where I'm going... to get the number of multiples in the range [ x, y ], get the number of multiples of y then subtract the number of multiples before x, (x-1) / z
Solution: ( y / z ) - (( x - 1 ) / z )
Programmatically, you could make a function numberOfMultiples
function numberOfMultiples(n, z) {
return n / z;
}
to get the number of multiples in a range [x, y]
numberOfMultiples(y) - numberOfMultiples(x-1)
The function is O(1), there is no need of a loop to get the number of multiples.
Examples of results you should find
[30, 90] ÷ 13 => 4
[1, 1000] ÷ 6 => 166
[100, 1000000] ÷ 7 => 142843
[777, 777777777] ÷ 7 => 111111001
For the first example, 90 / 13 = 6, (30-1) / 13 = 2, and 6-2 = 4
---26---39---52---65---78---91--
^ ^
30<---(4 multiples)-->90
I also encountered this on Codility. It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to come up with a good solution, so I figured I would share what I think is an elegant solution!
Straightforward Approach 1/2:
O(N) time solution with a loop and counter, unrealistic when N = 2 billion.
Awesome Approach 3:
We want the number of digits in some range that are divisible by K.
Simple case: assume range [0 .. n*K], N = n*K
N/K represents the number of digits in [0,N) that are divisible by K, given N%K = 0 (aka. N is divisible by K)
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6}| = 3 = 9/3
Similarly,
N/K + 1 represents the number of digits in [0,N] divisible by K
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6 9}| = 4 = 9/3 + 1
I think really understanding the above fact is the trickiest part of this question, I cannot explain exactly why it works.
The rest boils down to prefix sums and handling special cases.
Now we don't always have a range that begins with 0, and we cannot assume the two bounds will be divisible by K.
But wait! We can fix this by calculating our own nice upper and lower bounds and using some subtraction magic :)
First find the closest upper and lower in the range [A,B] that are divisible by K.
Upper bound (easier): ex. B = 10, K = 3, new_B = 9... the pattern is B - B%K
Lower bound: ex. A = 10, K = 3, new_A = 12... try a few more and you will see the pattern is A - A%K + K
Then calculate the following using the above technique:
Determine the total number of digits X between [0,B] that are divisible by K
Determine the total number of digits Y between [0,A) that are divisible by K
Calculate the number of digits between [A,B] that are divisible by K in constant time by the expression X - Y
Website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/count_div/
class CountDiv {
public int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
int firstDivisible = A%K == 0 ? A : A + (K - A%K);
int lastDivisible = B%K == 0 ? B : B - B%K; //B/K behaves this way by default.
return (lastDivisible - firstDivisible)/K + 1;
}
}
This is my first time explaining an approach like this. Feedback is very much appreciated :)
This is one of the Codility Lesson 3 questions. For this question, the input is guaranteed to be in a valid range. I answered it using Javascript:
function solution(x, y, z) {
var totalDivisibles = Math.floor(y / z),
excludeDivisibles = Math.floor((x - 1) / z),
divisiblesInArray = totalDivisibles - excludeDivisibles;
return divisiblesInArray;
}
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoQX3MJC-8AP/
(I actually wanted to ask about some of the other comments on this page but I don't have enough rep points yet).
Divide y-x by z, rounding down. Add one if y%z < x%z or if x%z == 0.
No mathematical proof, unless someone cares to provide one, but test cases, in Perl:
#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More;
sub multiples_in_range {
my ($x, $y, $z) = #_;
return 0 if $x > $y;
my $ret = int( ($y - $x) / $z);
$ret++ if $y%$z < $x%$z or $x%$z == 0;
return $ret;
}
for my $z (2 .. 10) {
for my $x (0 .. 2*$z) {
for my $y (0 .. 4*$z) {
is multiples_in_range($x, $y, $z),
scalar(grep { $_ % $z == 0 } $x..$y),
"[$x..$y] mod $z";
}
}
}
done_testing;
Output:
$ prove divrange.pl
divrange.pl .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=3405, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.20 usr 0.02 sys + 0.26 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.49 CPU)
Result: PASS
Let [A;B] be an interval of positive integers including A and B such that 0 <= A <= B, K be the divisor.
It is easy to see that there are N(A) = ⌊A / K⌋ = floor(A / K) factors of K in interval [0;A]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x··●·····x········x········x···>
0 A
Similarly, there are N(B) = ⌊B / K⌋ = floor(B / K) factors of K in interval [0;B]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x········x········x···●····x···>
0 B
Then N = N(B) - N(A) equals to the number of K's (the number of integers divisible by K) in range (A;B]. The point A is not included, because the subtracted N(A) includes this point. Therefore, the result should be incremented by one, if A mod K is zero:
N := N(B) - N(A)
if (A mod K = 0)
N := N + 1
Implementation in PHP
function solution($A, $B, $K) {
if ($K < 1)
return 0;
$c = floor($B / $K) - floor($A / $K);
if ($A % $K == 0)
$c++;
return (int)$c;
}
In PHP, the effect of the floor function can be achieved by casting to the integer type:
$c = (int)($B / $K) - (int)($A / $K);
which, I think, is faster.
Here is my short and simple solution in C++ which got 100/100 on codility. :)
Runs in O(1) time. I hope its not difficult to understand.
int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
// write your code in C++11
int cnt=0;
if( A%K==0 or B%K==0)
cnt++;
if(A>=K)
cnt+= (B - A)/K;
else
cnt+=B/K;
return cnt;
}
(floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) - (high%d==0)
Explanation:
There are a/d numbers divisible by d from 0.0 to a. (d!=0)
Therefore (floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) will give numbers divisible in the range (low,high] (Note that low is excluded and high is included in this range)
Now to remove high from the range just subtract (high%d==0)
Works for integers, floats or whatever (Use fmodf function for floats)
Won't strive for an o(1) solution, this leave for more clever person:) Just feel this is a perfect usage scenario for function programming. Simple and straightforward.
> x,y,z=1,1000,6
=> [1, 1000, 6]
> (x..y).select {|n| n%z==0}.size
=> 166
EDIT: after reading other's O(1) solution. I feel shamed. Programming made people lazy to think...
Division (a/b=c) by definition - taking a set of size a and forming groups of size b. The number of groups of this size that can be formed, c, is the quotient of a and b. - is nothing more than the number of integers within range/interval ]0..a] (not including zero, but including a) that are divisible by b.
so by definition:
Y/Z - number of integers within ]0..Y] that are divisible by Z
and
X/Z - number of integers within ]0..X] that are divisible by Z
thus:
result = [Y/Z] - [X/Z] + x (where x = 1 if and only if X is divisible by Y otherwise 0 - assuming the given range [X..Y] includes X)
example :
for (6, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 6/2 + 1 (as 6%2 == 0) = 6 - 3 + 1 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
for (5, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 5/2 + 0 (as 5%2 != 0) = 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
The time complexity of the solution will be linear.
Code Snippet :
int countDiv(int a, int b, int m)
{
int mod = (min(a, b)%m==0);
int cnt = abs(floor(b/m) - floor(a/m)) + mod;
return cnt;
}
here n will give you count of number and will print sum of all numbers that are divisible by k
int a = sc.nextInt();
int b = sc.nextInt();
int k = sc.nextInt();
int first = 0;
if (a > k) {
first = a + a/k;
} else {
first = k;
}
int last = b - b%k;
if (first > last) {
System.out.println(0);
} else {
int n = (last - first)/k+1;
System.out.println(n * (first + last)/2);
}
Here is the solution to the problem written in Swift Programming Language.
Step 1: Find the first number in the range divisible by z.
Step 2: Find the last number in the range divisible by z.
Step 3: Use a mathematical formula to find the number of divisible numbers by z in the range.
func solution(_ x : Int, _ y : Int, _ z : Int) -> Int {
var numberOfDivisible = 0
var firstNumber: Int
var lastNumber: Int
if y == x {
return x % z == 0 ? 1 : 0
}
//Find first number divisible by z
let moduloX = x % z
if moduloX == 0 {
firstNumber = x
} else {
firstNumber = x + (z - moduloX)
}
//Fist last number divisible by z
let moduloY = y % z
if moduloY == 0 {
lastNumber = y
} else {
lastNumber = y - moduloY
}
//Math formula
numberOfDivisible = Int(floor(Double((lastNumber - firstNumber) / z))) + 1
return numberOfDivisible
}
public static int Solution(int A, int B, int K)
{
int count = 0;
//If A is divisible by K
if(A % K == 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K) + 1;
}
//If A is not divisible by K
else if(A % K != 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K);
}
return count;
}
This can be done in O(1).
Here you are a solution in C++.
auto first{ x % z == 0 ? x : x + z - x % z };
auto last{ y % z == 0 ? y : y - y % z };
auto ans{ (last - first) / z + 1 };
Where first is the first number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z, last is the last number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z and ans is the answer that you are looking for.
I am trying to find an algorithm to count from 0 to 2n-1 but their bit pattern reversed. I care about only n LSB of a word. As you may have guessed I failed.
For n=3:
000 -> 0
100 -> 4
010 -> 2
110 -> 6
001 -> 1
101 -> 5
011 -> 3
111 -> 7
You get the idea.
Answers in pseudo-code is great. Code fragments in any language are welcome, answers without bit operations are preferred.
Please don't just post a fragment without even a short explanation or a pointer to a source.
Edit: I forgot to add, I already have a naive implementation which just bit-reverses a count variable. In a sense, this method is not really counting.
This is, I think easiest with bit operations, even though you said this wasn't preferred
Assuming 32 bit ints, here's a nifty chunk of code that can reverse all of the bits without doing it in 32 steps:
unsigned int i;
i = (i & 0x55555555) << 1 | (i & 0xaaaaaaaa) >> 1;
i = (i & 0x33333333) << 2 | (i & 0xcccccccc) >> 2;
i = (i & 0x0f0f0f0f) << 4 | (i & 0xf0f0f0f0) >> 4;
i = (i & 0x00ff00ff) << 8 | (i & 0xff00ff00) >> 8;
i = (i & 0x0000ffff) << 16 | (i & 0xffff0000) >> 16;
i >>= (32 - n);
Essentially this does an interleaved shuffle of all of the bits. Each time around half of the bits in the value are swapped with the other half.
The last line is necessary to realign the bits so that bin "n" is the most significant bit.
Shorter versions of this are possible if "n" is <= 16, or <= 8
At each step, find the leftmost 0 digit of your value. Set it, and clear all digits to the left of it. If you don't find a 0 digit, then you've overflowed: return 0, or stop, or crash, or whatever you want.
This is what happens on a normal binary increment (by which I mean it's the effect, not how it's implemented in hardware), but we're doing it on the left instead of the right.
Whether you do this in bit ops, strings, or whatever, is up to you. If you do it in bitops, then a clz (or call to an equivalent hibit-style function) on ~value might be the most efficient way: __builtin_clz where available. But that's an implementation detail.
This solution was originally in binary and converted to conventional math as the requester specified.
It would make more sense as binary, at least the multiply by 2 and divide by 2 should be << 1 and >> 1 for speed, the additions and subtractions probably don't matter one way or the other.
If you pass in mask instead of nBits, and use bitshifting instead of multiplying or dividing, and change the tail recursion to a loop, this will probably be the most performant solution you'll find since every other call it will be nothing but a single add, it would only be as slow as Alnitak's solution once every 4, maybe even 8 calls.
int incrementBizarre(int initial, int nBits)
// in the 3 bit example, this should create 100
mask=2^(nBits-1)
// This should only return true if the first (least significant) bit is not set
// if initial is 011 and mask is 100
// 3 4, bit is not set
if(initial < mask)
// If it was not, just set it and bail.
return initial+ mask // 011 (3) + 100 (4) = 111 (7)
else
// it was set, are we at the most significant bit yet?
// mask 100 (4) / 2 = 010 (2), 001/2 = 0 indicating overflow
if(mask / 2) > 0
// No, we were't, so unset it (initial-mask) and increment the next bit
return incrementBizarre(initial - mask, mask/2)
else
// Whoops we were at the most significant bit. Error condition
throw new OverflowedMyBitsException()
Wow, that turned out kinda cool. I didn't figure in the recursion until the last second there.
It feels wrong--like there are some operations that should not work, but they do because of the nature of what you are doing (like it feels like you should get into trouble when you are operating on a bit and some bits to the left are non-zero, but it turns out you can't ever be operating on a bit unless all the bits to the left are zero--which is a very strange condition, but true.
Example of flow to get from 110 to 001 (backwards 3 to backwards 4):
mask 100 (4), initial 110 (6); initial < mask=false; initial-mask = 010 (2), now try on the next bit
mask 010 (2), initial 010 (2); initial < mask=false; initial-mask = 000 (0), now inc the next bit
mask 001 (1), initial 000 (0); initial < mask=true; initial + mask = 001--correct answer
Here's a solution from my answer to a different question that computes the next bit-reversed index without looping. It relies heavily on bit operations, though.
The key idea is that incrementing a number simply flips a sequence of least-significant bits, for example from nnnn0111 to nnnn1000. So in order to compute the next bit-reversed index, you have to flip a sequence of most-significant bits. If your target platform has a CTZ ("count trailing zeros") instruction, this can be done efficiently.
Example in C using GCC's __builtin_ctz:
void iter_reversed(unsigned bits) {
unsigned n = 1 << bits;
for (unsigned i = 0, j = 0; i < n; i++) {
printf("%x\n", j);
// Compute a mask of LSBs.
unsigned mask = i ^ (i + 1);
// Length of the mask.
unsigned len = __builtin_ctz(~mask);
// Align the mask to MSB of n.
mask <<= bits - len;
// XOR with mask.
j ^= mask;
}
}
Without a CTZ instruction, you can also use integer division:
void iter_reversed(unsigned bits) {
unsigned n = 1 << bits;
for (unsigned i = 0, j = 0; i < n; i++) {
printf("%x\n", j);
// Find least significant zero bit.
unsigned bit = ~i & (i + 1);
// Using division to bit-reverse a single bit.
unsigned rev = (n / 2) / bit;
// XOR with mask.
j ^= (n - 1) & ~(rev - 1);
}
}
void reverse(int nMaxVal, int nBits)
{
int thisVal, bit, out;
// Calculate for each value from 0 to nMaxVal.
for (thisVal=0; thisVal<=nMaxVal; ++thisVal)
{
out = 0;
// Shift each bit from thisVal into out, in reverse order.
for (bit=0; bit<nBits; ++bit)
out = (out<<1) + ((thisVal>>bit) & 1)
}
printf("%d -> %d\n", thisVal, out);
}
Maybe increment from 0 to N (the "usual" way") and do ReverseBitOrder() for each iteration. You can find several implementations here (I like the LUT one the best).
Should be really quick.
Here's an answer in Perl. You don't say what comes after the all ones pattern, so I just return zero. I took out the bitwise operations so that it should be easy to translate into another language.
sub reverse_increment {
my($n, $bits) = #_;
my $carry = 2**$bits;
while($carry > 1) {
$carry /= 2;
if($carry > $n) {
return $carry + $n;
} else {
$n -= $carry;
}
}
return 0;
}
Here's a solution which doesn't actually try to do any addition, but exploits the on/off pattern of the seqence (most sig bit alternates every time, next most sig bit alternates every other time, etc), adjust n as desired:
#define FLIP(x, i) do { (x) ^= (1 << (i)); } while(0)
int main() {
int n = 3;
int max = (1 << n);
int x = 0;
for(int i = 1; i <= max; ++i) {
std::cout << x << std::endl;
/* if n == 3, this next part is functionally equivalent to this:
*
* if((i % 1) == 0) FLIP(x, n - 1);
* if((i % 2) == 0) FLIP(x, n - 2);
* if((i % 4) == 0) FLIP(x, n - 3);
*/
for(int j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
if((i % (1 << j)) == 0) FLIP(x, n - (j + 1));
}
}
}
How about adding 1 to the most significant bit, then carrying to the next (less significant) bit, if necessary. You could speed this up by operating on bytes:
Precompute a lookup table for counting in bit-reverse from 0 to 256 (00000000 -> 10000000, 10000000 -> 01000000, ..., 11111111 -> 00000000).
Set all bytes in your multi-byte number to zero.
Increment the most significant byte using the lookup table. If the byte is 0, increment the next byte using the lookup table. If the byte is 0, increment the next byte...
Go to step 3.
With n as your power of 2 and x the variable you want to step:
(defun inv-step (x n) ; the following is a function declaration
"returns a bit-inverse step of x, bounded by 2^n" ; documentation
(do ((i (expt 2 (- n 1)) ; loop, init of i
(/ i 2)) ; stepping of i
(s x)) ; init of s as x
((not (integerp i)) ; breaking condition
s) ; returned value if all bits are 1 (is 0 then)
(if (< s i) ; the loop's body: if s < i
(return-from inv-step (+ s i)) ; -> add i to s and return the result
(decf s i)))) ; else: reduce s by i
I commented it thoroughly as you may not be familiar with this syntax.
edit: here is the tail recursive version. It seems to be a little faster, provided that you have a compiler with tail call optimization.
(defun inv-step (x n)
(let ((i (expt 2 (- n 1))))
(cond ((= n 1)
(if (zerop x) 1 0)) ; this is really (logxor x 1)
((< x i)
(+ x i))
(t
(inv-step (- x i) (- n 1))))))
When you reverse 0 to 2^n-1 but their bit pattern reversed, you pretty much cover the entire 0-2^n-1 sequence
Sum = 2^n * (2^n+1)/2
O(1) operation. No need to do bit reversals
Edit: Of course original poster's question was about to do increment by (reversed) one, which makes things more simple than adding two random values. So nwellnhof's answer contains the algorithm already.
Summing two bit-reversal values
Here is one solution in php:
function RevSum ($a,$b) {
// loop until our adder, $b, is zero
while ($b) {
// get carry (aka overflow) bit for every bit-location by AND-operation
// 0 + 0 --> 00 no overflow, carry is "0"
// 0 + 1 --> 01 no overflow, carry is "0"
// 1 + 0 --> 01 no overflow, carry is "0"
// 1 + 1 --> 10 overflow! carry is "1"
$c = $a & $b;
// do 1-bit addition for every bit location at once by XOR-operation
// 0 + 0 --> 00 result = 0
// 0 + 1 --> 01 result = 1
// 1 + 0 --> 01 result = 1
// 1 + 1 --> 10 result = 0 (ignored that "1", already taken care above)
$a ^= $b;
// now: shift carry bits to the next bit-locations to be added to $a in
// next iteration.
// PHP_INT_MAX here is used to ensure that the most-significant bit of the
// $b will be cleared after shifting. see link in the side note below.
$b = ($c >> 1) & PHP_INT_MAX;
}
return $a;
}
Side note: See this question about shifting negative values.
And as for test; start from zero and increment value by 8-bit reversed one (10000000):
$value = 0;
$add = 0x80; // 10000000 <-- "one" as bit reversed
for ($count = 20; $count--;) { // loop 20 times
printf("%08b\n", $value); // show value as 8-bit binary
$value = RevSum($value, $add); // do addition
}
... will output:
00000000
10000000
01000000
11000000
00100000
10100000
01100000
11100000
00010000
10010000
01010000
11010000
00110000
10110000
01110000
11110000
00001000
10001000
01001000
11001000
Let assume number 1110101 and our task is to find next one.
1) Find zero on highest position and mark position as index.
11101010 (4th position, so index = 4)
2) Set to zero all bits on position higher than index.
00001010
3) Change founded zero from step 1) to '1'
00011010
That's it. This is by far the fastest algorithm since most of cpu's has instructions to achieve this very efficiently. Here is a C++ implementation which increment 64bit number in reversed patern.
#include <intrin.h>
unsigned __int64 reversed_increment(unsigned __int64 number)
{
unsigned long index, result;
_BitScanReverse64(&index, ~number); // returns index of the highest '1' on bit-reverse number (trick to find the highest '0')
result = _bzhi_u64(number, index); // set to '0' all bits at number higher than index position
result |= (unsigned __int64) 1 << index; // changes to '1' bit on index position
return result;
}
Its not hit your requirements to have "no bits" operations, however i fear there is now way how to achieve something similar without them.
8 bits representing the number 7 look like this:
00000111
Three bits are set.
What are the algorithms to determine the number of set bits in a 32-bit integer?
This is known as the 'Hamming Weight', 'popcount' or 'sideways addition'.
Some CPUs have a single built-in instruction to do it and others have parallel instructions which act on bit vectors. Instructions like x86's popcnt (on CPUs where it's supported) will almost certainly be fastest for a single integer. Some other architectures may have a slow instruction implemented with a microcoded loop that tests a bit per cycle (citation needed - hardware popcount is normally fast if it exists at all.).
The 'best' algorithm really depends on which CPU you are on and what your usage pattern is.
Your compiler may know how to do something that's good for the specific CPU you're compiling for, e.g. C++20 std::popcount(), or C++ std::bitset<32>::count(), as a portable way to access builtin / intrinsic functions (see another answer on this question). But your compiler's choice of fallback for target CPUs that don't have hardware popcnt might not be optimal for your use-case. Or your language (e.g. C) might not expose any portable function that could use a CPU-specific popcount when there is one.
Portable algorithms that don't need (or benefit from) any HW support
A pre-populated table lookup method can be very fast if your CPU has a large cache and you are doing lots of these operations in a tight loop. However it can suffer because of the expense of a 'cache miss', where the CPU has to fetch some of the table from main memory. (Look up each byte separately to keep the table small.) If you want popcount for a contiguous range of numbers, only the low byte is changing for groups of 256 numbers, making this very good.
If you know that your bytes will be mostly 0's or mostly 1's then there are efficient algorithms for these scenarios, e.g. clearing the lowest set with a bithack in a loop until it becomes zero.
I believe a very good general purpose algorithm is the following, known as 'parallel' or 'variable-precision SWAR algorithm'. I have expressed this in a C-like pseudo language, you may need to adjust it to work for a particular language (e.g. using uint32_t for C++ and >>> in Java):
GCC10 and clang 10.0 can recognize this pattern / idiom and compile it to a hardware popcnt or equivalent instruction when available, giving you the best of both worlds. (https://godbolt.org/z/qGdh1dvKK)
int numberOfSetBits(uint32_t i)
{
// Java: use int, and use >>> instead of >>. Or use Integer.bitCount()
// C or C++: use uint32_t
i = i - ((i >> 1) & 0x55555555); // add pairs of bits
i = (i & 0x33333333) + ((i >> 2) & 0x33333333); // quads
i = (i + (i >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F; // groups of 8
return (i * 0x01010101) >> 24; // horizontal sum of bytes
}
For JavaScript: coerce to integer with |0 for performance: change the first line to i = (i|0) - ((i >> 1) & 0x55555555);
This has the best worst-case behaviour of any of the algorithms discussed, so will efficiently deal with any usage pattern or values you throw at it. (Its performance is not data-dependent on normal CPUs where all integer operations including multiply are constant-time. It doesn't get any faster with "simple" inputs, but it's still pretty decent.)
References:
https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html
https://catonmat.net/low-level-bit-hacks for bithack basics, like how subtracting 1 flips contiguous zeros.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_weight
http://gurmeet.net/puzzles/fast-bit-counting-routines/
http://aggregate.ee.engr.uky.edu/MAGIC/#Population%20Count%20(Ones%20Count)
How this SWAR bithack works:
i = i - ((i >> 1) & 0x55555555);
The first step is an optimized version of masking to isolate the odd / even bits, shifting to line them up, and adding. This effectively does 16 separate additions in 2-bit accumulators (SWAR = SIMD Within A Register). Like (i & 0x55555555) + ((i>>1) & 0x55555555).
The next step takes the odd/even eight of those 16x 2-bit accumulators and adds again, producing 8x 4-bit sums. The i - ... optimization isn't possible this time so it does just mask before / after shifting. Using the same 0x33... constant both times instead of 0xccc... before shifting is a good thing when compiling for ISAs that need to construct 32-bit constants in registers separately.
The final shift-and-add step of (i + (i >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F widens to 4x 8-bit accumulators. It masks after adding instead of before, because the maximum value in any 4-bit accumulator is 4, if all 4 bits of the corresponding input bits were set. 4+4 = 8 which still fits in 4 bits, so carry between nibble elements is impossible in i + (i >> 4).
So far this is just fairly normal SIMD using SWAR techniques with a few clever optimizations. Continuing on with the same pattern for 2 more steps can widen to 2x 16-bit then 1x 32-bit counts. But there is a more efficient way on machines with fast hardware multiply:
Once we have few enough "elements", a multiply with a magic constant can sum all the elements into the top element. In this case byte elements. Multiply is done by left-shifting and adding, so a multiply of x * 0x01010101 results in x + (x<<8) + (x<<16) + (x<<24). Our 8-bit elements are wide enough (and holding small enough counts) that this doesn't produce carry into that top 8 bits.
A 64-bit version of this can do 8x 8-bit elements in a 64-bit integer with a 0x0101010101010101 multiplier, and extract the high byte with >>56. So it doesn't take any extra steps, just wider constants. This is what GCC uses for __builtin_popcountll on x86 systems when the hardware popcnt instruction isn't enabled. If you can use builtins or intrinsics for this, do so to give the compiler a chance to do target-specific optimizations.
With full SIMD for wider vectors (e.g. counting a whole array)
This bitwise-SWAR algorithm could parallelize to be done in multiple vector elements at once, instead of in a single integer register, for a speedup on CPUs with SIMD but no usable popcount instruction. (e.g. x86-64 code that has to run on any CPU, not just Nehalem or later.)
However, the best way to use vector instructions for popcount is usually by using a variable-shuffle to do a table-lookup for 4 bits at a time of each byte in parallel. (The 4 bits index a 16 entry table held in a vector register).
On Intel CPUs, the hardware 64bit popcnt instruction can outperform an SSSE3 PSHUFB bit-parallel implementation by about a factor of 2, but only if your compiler gets it just right. Otherwise SSE can come out significantly ahead. Newer compiler versions are aware of the popcnt false dependency problem on Intel.
https://github.com/WojciechMula/sse-popcount state-of-the-art x86 SIMD popcount for SSSE3, AVX2, AVX512BW, AVX512VBMI, or AVX512 VPOPCNT. Using Harley-Seal across vectors to defer popcount within an element. (Also ARM NEON)
Counting 1 bits (population count) on large data using AVX-512 or AVX-2
related: https://github.com/mklarqvist/positional-popcount - separate counts for each bit-position of multiple 8, 16, 32, or 64-bit integers. (Again, x86 SIMD including AVX-512 which is really good at this, with vpternlogd making Harley-Seal very good.)
Some languages portably expose the operation in a way that can use efficient hardware support if available, otherwise some library fallback that's hopefully decent.
For example (from a table by language):
C++ has std::bitset<>::count(), or C++20 std::popcount(T x)
Java has java.lang.Integer.bitCount() (also for Long or BigInteger)
C# has System.Numerics.BitOperations.PopCount()
Python has int.bit_count() (since 3.10)
Not all compilers / libraries actually manage to use HW support when it's available, though. (Notably MSVC, even with options that make std::popcount inline as x86 popcnt, its std::bitset::count still always uses a lookup table. This will hopefully change in future versions.)
Also consider the built-in functions of your compiler when the portable language doesn't have this basic bit operation. In GNU C for example:
int __builtin_popcount (unsigned int x);
int __builtin_popcountll (unsigned long long x);
In the worst case (no single-instruction HW support) the compiler will generate a call to a function (which in current GCC uses a shift/and bit-hack like this answer, at least for x86). In the best case the compiler will emit a cpu instruction to do the job. (Just like a * or / operator - GCC will use a hardware multiply or divide instruction if available, otherwise will call a libgcc helper function.) Or even better, if the operand is a compile-time constant after inlining, it can do constant-propagation to get a compile-time-constant popcount result.
The GCC builtins even work across multiple platforms. Popcount has almost become mainstream in the x86 architecture, so it makes sense to start using the builtin now so you can recompile to let it inline a hardware instruction when you compile with -mpopcnt or something that includes that (e.g. https://godbolt.org/z/Ma5e5a). Other architectures have had popcount for years, but in the x86 world there are still some ancient Core 2 and similar vintage AMD CPUs in use.
On x86, you can tell the compiler that it can assume support for popcnt instruction with -mpopcnt (also implied by -msse4.2). See GCC x86 options. -march=nehalem -mtune=skylake (or -march= whatever CPU you want your code to assume and to tune for) could be a good choice. Running the resulting binary on an older CPU will result in an illegal-instruction fault.
To make binaries optimized for the machine you build them on, use -march=native (with gcc, clang, or ICC).
MSVC provides an intrinsic for the x86 popcnt instruction, but unlike gcc it's really an intrinsic for the hardware instruction and requires hardware support.
Using std::bitset<>::count() instead of a built-in
In theory, any compiler that knows how to popcount efficiently for the target CPU should expose that functionality through ISO C++ std::bitset<>. In practice, you might be better off with the bit-hack AND/shift/ADD in some cases for some target CPUs.
For target architectures where hardware popcount is an optional extension (like x86), not all compilers have a std::bitset that takes advantage of it when available. For example, MSVC has no way to enable popcnt support at compile time, and it's std::bitset<>::count always uses a table lookup, even with /Ox /arch:AVX (which implies SSE4.2, which in turn implies the popcnt feature.) (Update: see below; that does get MSVC's C++20 std::popcount to use x86 popcnt, but still not its bitset<>::count. MSVC could fix that by updating their standard library headers to use std::popcount when available.)
But at least you get something portable that works everywhere, and with gcc/clang with the right target options, you get hardware popcount for architectures that support it.
#include <bitset>
#include <limits>
#include <type_traits>
template<typename T>
//static inline // static if you want to compile with -mpopcnt in one compilation unit but not others
typename std::enable_if<std::is_integral<T>::value, unsigned >::type
popcount(T x)
{
static_assert(std::numeric_limits<T>::radix == 2, "non-binary type");
// sizeof(x)*CHAR_BIT
constexpr int bitwidth = std::numeric_limits<T>::digits + std::numeric_limits<T>::is_signed;
// std::bitset constructor was only unsigned long before C++11. Beware if porting to C++03
static_assert(bitwidth <= std::numeric_limits<unsigned long long>::digits, "arg too wide for std::bitset() constructor");
typedef typename std::make_unsigned<T>::type UT; // probably not needed, bitset width chops after sign-extension
std::bitset<bitwidth> bs( static_cast<UT>(x) );
return bs.count();
}
See asm from gcc, clang, icc, and MSVC on the Godbolt compiler explorer.
x86-64 gcc -O3 -std=gnu++11 -mpopcnt emits this:
unsigned test_short(short a) { return popcount(a); }
movzx eax, di # note zero-extension, not sign-extension
popcnt rax, rax
ret
unsigned test_int(int a) { return popcount(a); }
mov eax, edi
popcnt rax, rax # unnecessary 64-bit operand size
ret
unsigned test_u64(unsigned long long a) { return popcount(a); }
xor eax, eax # gcc avoids false dependencies for Intel CPUs
popcnt rax, rdi
ret
PowerPC64 gcc -O3 -std=gnu++11 emits (for the int arg version):
rldicl 3,3,0,32 # zero-extend from 32 to 64-bit
popcntd 3,3 # popcount
blr
This source isn't x86-specific or GNU-specific at all, but only compiles well with gcc/clang/icc, at least when targeting x86 (including x86-64).
Also note that gcc's fallback for architectures without single-instruction popcount is a byte-at-a-time table lookup. This isn't wonderful for ARM, for example.
C++20 has std::popcount(T)
Current libstdc++ headers unfortunately define it with a special case if(x==0) return 0; at the start, which clang doesn't optimize away when compiling for x86:
#include <bit>
int bar(unsigned x) {
return std::popcount(x);
}
clang 11.0.1 -O3 -std=gnu++20 -march=nehalem (https://godbolt.org/z/arMe5a)
# clang 11
bar(unsigned int): # #bar(unsigned int)
popcnt eax, edi
cmove eax, edi # redundant: if popcnt result is 0, return the original 0 instead of the popcnt-generated 0...
ret
But GCC compiles nicely:
# gcc 10
xor eax, eax # break false dependency on Intel SnB-family before Ice Lake.
popcnt eax, edi
ret
Even MSVC does well with it, as long as you use -arch:AVX or later (and enable C++20 with -std:c++latest). https://godbolt.org/z/7K4Gef
int bar(unsigned int) PROC ; bar, COMDAT
popcnt eax, ecx
ret 0
int bar(unsigned int) ENDP ; bar
In my opinion, the "best" solution is the one that can be read by another programmer (or the original programmer two years later) without copious comments. You may well want the fastest or cleverest solution which some have already provided but I prefer readability over cleverness any time.
unsigned int bitCount (unsigned int value) {
unsigned int count = 0;
while (value > 0) { // until all bits are zero
if ((value & 1) == 1) // check lower bit
count++;
value >>= 1; // shift bits, removing lower bit
}
return count;
}
If you want more speed (and assuming you document it well to help out your successors), you could use a table lookup:
// Lookup table for fast calculation of bits set in 8-bit unsigned char.
static unsigned char oneBitsInUChar[] = {
// 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F (<- n)
// =====================================================
0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, // 0n
1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, // 1n
: : :
4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 8, // Fn
};
// Function for fast calculation of bits set in 16-bit unsigned short.
unsigned char oneBitsInUShort (unsigned short x) {
return oneBitsInUChar [x >> 8]
+ oneBitsInUChar [x & 0xff];
}
// Function for fast calculation of bits set in 32-bit unsigned int.
unsigned char oneBitsInUInt (unsigned int x) {
return oneBitsInUShort (x >> 16)
+ oneBitsInUShort (x & 0xffff);
}
These rely on specific data type sizes so they're not that portable. But, since many performance optimisations aren't portable anyway, that may not be an issue. If you want portability, I'd stick to the readable solution.
From Hacker's Delight, p. 66, Figure 5-2
int pop(unsigned x)
{
x = x - ((x >> 1) & 0x55555555);
x = (x & 0x33333333) + ((x >> 2) & 0x33333333);
x = (x + (x >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F;
x = x + (x >> 8);
x = x + (x >> 16);
return x & 0x0000003F;
}
Executes in ~20-ish instructions (arch dependent), no branching.Hacker's Delight is delightful! Highly recommended.
I think the fastest way—without using lookup tables and popcount—is the following. It counts the set bits with just 12 operations.
int popcount(int v) {
v = v - ((v >> 1) & 0x55555555); // put count of each 2 bits into those 2 bits
v = (v & 0x33333333) + ((v >> 2) & 0x33333333); // put count of each 4 bits into those 4 bits
return ((v + (v >> 4) & 0xF0F0F0F) * 0x1010101) >> 24;
}
It works because you can count the total number of set bits by dividing in two halves, counting the number of set bits in both halves and then adding them up. Also know as Divide and Conquer paradigm. Let's get into detail..
v = v - ((v >> 1) & 0x55555555);
The number of bits in two bits can be 0b00, 0b01 or 0b10. Lets try to work this out on 2 bits..
---------------------------------------------
| v | (v >> 1) & 0b0101 | v - x |
---------------------------------------------
0b00 0b00 0b00
0b01 0b00 0b01
0b10 0b01 0b01
0b11 0b01 0b10
This is what was required: the last column shows the count of set bits in every two bit pair. If the two bit number is >= 2 (0b10) then and produces 0b01, else it produces 0b00.
v = (v & 0x33333333) + ((v >> 2) & 0x33333333);
This statement should be easy to understand. After the first operation we have the count of set bits in every two bits, now we sum up that count in every 4 bits.
v & 0b00110011 //masks out even two bits
(v >> 2) & 0b00110011 // masks out odd two bits
We then sum up the above result, giving us the total count of set bits in 4 bits. The last statement is the most tricky.
c = ((v + (v >> 4) & 0xF0F0F0F) * 0x1010101) >> 24;
Let's break it down further...
v + (v >> 4)
It's similar to the second statement; we are counting the set bits in groups of 4 instead. We know—because of our previous operations—that every nibble has the count of set bits in it. Let's look an example. Suppose we have the byte 0b01000010. It means the first nibble has its 4bits set and the second one has its 2bits set. Now we add those nibbles together.
v = 0b01000010
(v >> 4) = 0b00000100
v + (v >> 4) = 0b01000010 + 0b00000100
It gives us the count of set bits in a byte, in the second nibble 0b01000110 and therefore we mask the first four bytes of all the bytes in the number (discarding them).
0b01000110 & 0x0F = 0b00000110
Now every byte has the count of set bits in it. We need to add them up all together. The trick is to multiply the result by 0b10101010 which has an interesting property. If our number has four bytes, A B C D, it will result in a new number with these bytes A+B+C+D B+C+D C+D D. A 4 byte number can have maximum of 32 bits set, which can be represented as 0b00100000.
All we need now is the first byte which has the sum of all set bits in all the bytes, and we get it by >> 24. This algorithm was designed for 32 bit words but can be easily modified for 64 bit words.
If you happen to be using Java, the built-in method Integer.bitCount will do that.
I got bored, and timed a billion iterations of three approaches. Compiler is gcc -O3. CPU is whatever they put in the 1st gen Macbook Pro.
Fastest is the following, at 3.7 seconds:
static unsigned char wordbits[65536] = { bitcounts of ints between 0 and 65535 };
static int popcount( unsigned int i )
{
return( wordbits[i&0xFFFF] + wordbits[i>>16] );
}
Second place goes to the same code but looking up 4 bytes instead of 2 halfwords. That took around 5.5 seconds.
Third place goes to the bit-twiddling 'sideways addition' approach, which took 8.6 seconds.
Fourth place goes to GCC's __builtin_popcount(), at a shameful 11 seconds.
The counting one-bit-at-a-time approach was waaaay slower, and I got bored of waiting for it to complete.
So if you care about performance above all else then use the first approach. If you care, but not enough to spend 64Kb of RAM on it, use the second approach. Otherwise use the readable (but slow) one-bit-at-a-time approach.
It's hard to think of a situation where you'd want to use the bit-twiddling approach.
Edit: Similar results here.
unsigned int count_bit(unsigned int x)
{
x = (x & 0x55555555) + ((x >> 1) & 0x55555555);
x = (x & 0x33333333) + ((x >> 2) & 0x33333333);
x = (x & 0x0F0F0F0F) + ((x >> 4) & 0x0F0F0F0F);
x = (x & 0x00FF00FF) + ((x >> 8) & 0x00FF00FF);
x = (x & 0x0000FFFF) + ((x >> 16)& 0x0000FFFF);
return x;
}
Let me explain this algorithm.
This algorithm is based on Divide and Conquer Algorithm. Suppose there is a 8bit integer 213(11010101 in binary), the algorithm works like this(each time merge two neighbor blocks):
+-------------------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | <- x
| 1 0 | 0 1 | 0 1 | 0 1 | <- first time merge
| 0 0 1 1 | 0 0 1 0 | <- second time merge
| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 | <- third time ( answer = 00000101 = 5)
+-------------------------------+
This is one of those questions where it helps to know your micro-architecture. I just timed two variants under gcc 4.3.3 compiled with -O3 using C++ inlines to eliminate function call overhead, one billion iterations, keeping the running sum of all counts to ensure the compiler doesn't remove anything important, using rdtsc for timing (clock cycle precise).
inline int pop2(unsigned x, unsigned y)
{
x = x - ((x >> 1) & 0x55555555);
y = y - ((y >> 1) & 0x55555555);
x = (x & 0x33333333) + ((x >> 2) & 0x33333333);
y = (y & 0x33333333) + ((y >> 2) & 0x33333333);
x = (x + (x >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F;
y = (y + (y >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F;
x = x + (x >> 8);
y = y + (y >> 8);
x = x + (x >> 16);
y = y + (y >> 16);
return (x+y) & 0x000000FF;
}
The unmodified Hacker's Delight took 12.2 gigacycles. My parallel version (counting twice as many bits) runs in 13.0 gigacycles. 10.5s total elapsed for both together on a 2.4GHz Core Duo. 25 gigacycles = just over 10 seconds at this clock frequency, so I'm confident my timings are right.
This has to do with instruction dependency chains, which are very bad for this algorithm. I could nearly double the speed again by using a pair of 64-bit registers. In fact, if I was clever and added x+y a little sooner I could shave off some shifts. The 64-bit version with some small tweaks would come out about even, but count twice as many bits again.
With 128 bit SIMD registers, yet another factor of two, and the SSE instruction sets often have clever short-cuts, too.
There's no reason for the code to be especially transparent. The interface is simple, the algorithm can be referenced on-line in many places, and it's amenable to comprehensive unit test. The programmer who stumbles upon it might even learn something. These bit operations are extremely natural at the machine level.
OK, I decided to bench the tweaked 64-bit version. For this one sizeof(unsigned long) == 8
inline int pop2(unsigned long x, unsigned long y)
{
x = x - ((x >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555);
y = y - ((y >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555);
x = (x & 0x3333333333333333) + ((x >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333);
y = (y & 0x3333333333333333) + ((y >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333);
x = (x + (x >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F;
y = (y + (y >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F;
x = x + y;
x = x + (x >> 8);
x = x + (x >> 16);
x = x + (x >> 32);
return x & 0xFF;
}
That looks about right (I'm not testing carefully, though). Now the timings come out at 10.70 gigacycles / 14.1 gigacycles. That later number summed 128 billion bits and corresponds to 5.9s elapsed on this machine. The non-parallel version speeds up a tiny bit because I'm running in 64-bit mode and it likes 64-bit registers slightly better than 32-bit registers.
Let's see if there's a bit more OOO pipelining to be had here. This was a bit more involved, so I actually tested a bit. Each term alone sums to 64, all combined sum to 256.
inline int pop4(unsigned long x, unsigned long y,
unsigned long u, unsigned long v)
{
enum { m1 = 0x5555555555555555,
m2 = 0x3333333333333333,
m3 = 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F,
m4 = 0x000000FF000000FF };
x = x - ((x >> 1) & m1);
y = y - ((y >> 1) & m1);
u = u - ((u >> 1) & m1);
v = v - ((v >> 1) & m1);
x = (x & m2) + ((x >> 2) & m2);
y = (y & m2) + ((y >> 2) & m2);
u = (u & m2) + ((u >> 2) & m2);
v = (v & m2) + ((v >> 2) & m2);
x = x + y;
u = u + v;
x = (x & m3) + ((x >> 4) & m3);
u = (u & m3) + ((u >> 4) & m3);
x = x + u;
x = x + (x >> 8);
x = x + (x >> 16);
x = x & m4;
x = x + (x >> 32);
return x & 0x000001FF;
}
I was excited for a moment, but it turns out gcc is playing inline tricks with -O3 even though I'm not using the inline keyword in some tests. When I let gcc play tricks, a billion calls to pop4() takes 12.56 gigacycles, but I determined it was folding arguments as constant expressions. A more realistic number appears to be 19.6gc for another 30% speed-up. My test loop now looks like this, making sure each argument is different enough to stop gcc from playing tricks.
hitime b4 = rdtsc();
for (unsigned long i = 10L * 1000*1000*1000; i < 11L * 1000*1000*1000; ++i)
sum += pop4 (i, i^1, ~i, i|1);
hitime e4 = rdtsc();
256 billion bits summed in 8.17s elapsed. Works out to 1.02s for 32 million bits as benchmarked in the 16-bit table lookup. Can't compare directly, because the other bench doesn't give a clock speed, but looks like I've slapped the snot out of the 64KB table edition, which is a tragic use of L1 cache in the first place.
Update: decided to do the obvious and create pop6() by adding four more duplicated lines. Came out to 22.8gc, 384 billion bits summed in 9.5s elapsed. So there's another 20% Now at 800ms for 32 billion bits.
Why not iteratively divide by 2?
count = 0
while n > 0
if (n % 2) == 1
count += 1
n /= 2
I agree that this isn't the fastest, but "best" is somewhat ambiguous. I'd argue though that "best" should have an element of clarity
The Hacker's Delight bit-twiddling becomes so much clearer when you write out the bit patterns.
unsigned int bitCount(unsigned int x)
{
x = ((x >> 1) & 0b01010101010101010101010101010101)
+ (x & 0b01010101010101010101010101010101);
x = ((x >> 2) & 0b00110011001100110011001100110011)
+ (x & 0b00110011001100110011001100110011);
x = ((x >> 4) & 0b00001111000011110000111100001111)
+ (x & 0b00001111000011110000111100001111);
x = ((x >> 8) & 0b00000000111111110000000011111111)
+ (x & 0b00000000111111110000000011111111);
x = ((x >> 16)& 0b00000000000000001111111111111111)
+ (x & 0b00000000000000001111111111111111);
return x;
}
The first step adds the even bits to the odd bits, producing a sum of bits in each two. The other steps add high-order chunks to low-order chunks, doubling the chunk size all the way up, until we have the final count taking up the entire int.
For a happy medium between a 232 lookup table and iterating through each bit individually:
int bitcount(unsigned int num){
int count = 0;
static int nibblebits[] =
{0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4};
for(; num != 0; num >>= 4)
count += nibblebits[num & 0x0f];
return count;
}
From http://ctips.pbwiki.com/CountBits
This can be done in O(k), where k is the number of bits set.
int NumberOfSetBits(int n)
{
int count = 0;
while (n){
++ count;
n = (n - 1) & n;
}
return count;
}
It's not the fastest or best solution, but I found the same question in my way, and I started to think and think. finally I realized that it can be done like this if you get the problem from mathematical side, and draw a graph, then you find that it's a function which has some periodic part, and then you realize the difference between the periods... so here you go:
unsigned int f(unsigned int x)
{
switch (x) {
case 0:
return 0;
case 1:
return 1;
case 2:
return 1;
case 3:
return 2;
default:
return f(x/4) + f(x%4);
}
}
I think the Brian Kernighan's method will be useful too...
It goes through as many iterations as there are set bits. So if we have a 32-bit word with only the high bit set, then it will only go once through the loop.
int countSetBits(unsigned int n) {
unsigned int n; // count the number of bits set in n
unsigned int c; // c accumulates the total bits set in n
for (c=0;n>0;n=n&(n-1)) c++;
return c;
}
Published in 1988, the C Programming Language 2nd Ed. (by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie) mentions this in exercise 2-9. On April 19, 2006 Don Knuth pointed out to me that this method "was first published by Peter Wegner in CACM 3 (1960), 322. (Also discovered independently by Derrick Lehmer and published in 1964 in a book edited by Beckenbach.)"
The function you are looking for is often called the "sideways sum" or "population count" of a binary number. Knuth discusses it in pre-Fascicle 1A, pp11-12 (although there was a brief reference in Volume 2, 4.6.3-(7).)
The locus classicus is Peter Wegner's article "A Technique for Counting Ones in a Binary Computer", from the Communications of the ACM, Volume 3 (1960) Number 5, page 322. He gives two different algorithms there, one optimized for numbers expected to be "sparse" (i.e., have a small number of ones) and one for the opposite case.
private int get_bits_set(int v)
{
int c; // 'c' accumulates the total bits set in 'v'
for (c = 0; v>0; c++)
{
v &= v - 1; // Clear the least significant bit set
}
return c;
}
Few open questions:-
If the number is negative then?
If the number is 1024 , then the "iteratively divide by 2" method will iterate 10 times.
we can modify the algo to support the negative number as follows:-
count = 0
while n != 0
if ((n % 2) == 1 || (n % 2) == -1
count += 1
n /= 2
return count
now to overcome the second problem we can write the algo like:-
int bit_count(int num)
{
int count=0;
while(num)
{
num=(num)&(num-1);
count++;
}
return count;
}
for complete reference see :
http://goursaha.freeoda.com/Miscellaneous/IntegerBitCount.html
I use the below code which is more intuitive.
int countSetBits(int n) {
return !n ? 0 : 1 + countSetBits(n & (n-1));
}
Logic : n & (n-1) resets the last set bit of n.
P.S : I know this is not O(1) solution, albeit an interesting solution.
What do you means with "Best algorithm"? The shorted code or the fasted code? Your code look very elegant and it has a constant execution time. The code is also very short.
But if the speed is the major factor and not the code size then I think the follow can be faster:
static final int[] BIT_COUNT = { 0, 1, 1, ... 256 values with a bitsize of a byte ... };
static int bitCountOfByte( int value ){
return BIT_COUNT[ value & 0xFF ];
}
static int bitCountOfInt( int value ){
return bitCountOfByte( value )
+ bitCountOfByte( value >> 8 )
+ bitCountOfByte( value >> 16 )
+ bitCountOfByte( value >> 24 );
}
I think that this will not more faster for a 64 bit value but a 32 bit value can be faster.
I wrote a fast bitcount macro for RISC machines in about 1990. It does not use advanced arithmetic (multiplication, division, %), memory fetches (way too slow), branches (way too slow), but it does assume the CPU has a 32-bit barrel shifter (in other words, >> 1 and >> 32 take the same amount of cycles.) It assumes that small constants (such as 6, 12, 24) cost nothing to load into the registers, or are stored in temporaries and reused over and over again.
With these assumptions, it counts 32 bits in about 16 cycles/instructions on most RISC machines. Note that 15 instructions/cycles is close to a lower bound on the number of cycles or instructions, because it seems to take at least 3 instructions (mask, shift, operator) to cut the number of addends in half, so log_2(32) = 5, 5 x 3 = 15 instructions is a quasi-lowerbound.
#define BitCount(X,Y) \
Y = X - ((X >> 1) & 033333333333) - ((X >> 2) & 011111111111); \
Y = ((Y + (Y >> 3)) & 030707070707); \
Y = (Y + (Y >> 6)); \
Y = (Y + (Y >> 12) + (Y >> 24)) & 077;
Here is a secret to the first and most complex step:
input output
AB CD Note
00 00 = AB
01 01 = AB
10 01 = AB - (A >> 1) & 0x1
11 10 = AB - (A >> 1) & 0x1
so if I take the 1st column (A) above, shift it right 1 bit, and subtract it from AB, I get the output (CD). The extension to 3 bits is similar; you can check it with an 8-row boolean table like mine above if you wish.
Don Gillies
if you're using C++ another option is to use template metaprogramming:
// recursive template to sum bits in an int
template <int BITS>
int countBits(int val) {
// return the least significant bit plus the result of calling ourselves with
// .. the shifted value
return (val & 0x1) + countBits<BITS-1>(val >> 1);
}
// template specialisation to terminate the recursion when there's only one bit left
template<>
int countBits<1>(int val) {
return val & 0x1;
}
usage would be:
// to count bits in a byte/char (this returns 8)
countBits<8>( 255 )
// another byte (this returns 7)
countBits<8>( 254 )
// counting bits in a word/short (this returns 1)
countBits<16>( 256 )
you could of course further expand this template to use different types (even auto-detecting bit size) but I've kept it simple for clarity.
edit: forgot to mention this is good because it should work in any C++ compiler and it basically just unrolls your loop for you if a constant value is used for the bit count (in other words, I'm pretty sure it's the fastest general method you'll find)
C++20 std::popcount
The following proposal has been merged http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p0553r4.html and should add it to a the <bit> header.
I expect the usage to be like:
#include <bit>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
std::cout << std::popcount(0x55) << std::endl;
}
I'll give it a try when support arrives to GCC, GCC 9.1.0 with g++-9 -std=c++2a still doesn't support it.
The proposal says:
Header: <bit>
namespace std {
// 25.5.6, counting
template<class T>
constexpr int popcount(T x) noexcept;
and:
template<class T>
constexpr int popcount(T x) noexcept;
Constraints: T is an unsigned integer type (3.9.1 [basic.fundamental]).
Returns: The number of 1 bits in the value of x.
std::rotl and std::rotr were also added to do circular bit rotations: Best practices for circular shift (rotate) operations in C++
You can do:
while(n){
n = n & (n-1);
count++;
}
The logic behind this is the bits of n-1 is inverted from rightmost set bit of n.
If n=6, i.e., 110 then 5 is 101 the bits are inverted from rightmost set bit of n.
So if we & these two we will make the rightmost bit 0 in every iteration and always go to the next rightmost set bit. Hence, counting the set bit. The worst time complexity will be O(log n) when every bit is set.
I'm particularly fond of this example from the fortune file:
#define BITCOUNT(x) (((BX_(x)+(BX_(x)>>4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F) % 255)
#define BX_(x) ((x) - (((x)>>1)&0x77777777)
- (((x)>>2)&0x33333333)
- (((x)>>3)&0x11111111))
I like it best because it's so pretty!
Java JDK1.5
Integer.bitCount(n);
where n is the number whose 1's are to be counted.
check also,
Integer.highestOneBit(n);
Integer.lowestOneBit(n);
Integer.numberOfLeadingZeros(n);
Integer.numberOfTrailingZeros(n);
//Beginning with the value 1, rotate left 16 times
n = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
n = Integer.rotateLeft(n, 1);
System.out.println(n);
}
I found an implementation of bit counting in an array with using of SIMD instruction (SSSE3 and AVX2). It has in 2-2.5 times better performance than if it will use __popcnt64 intrinsic function.
SSSE3 version:
#include <smmintrin.h>
#include <stdint.h>
const __m128i Z = _mm_set1_epi8(0x0);
const __m128i F = _mm_set1_epi8(0xF);
//Vector with pre-calculated bit count:
const __m128i T = _mm_setr_epi8(0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4);
uint64_t BitCount(const uint8_t * src, size_t size)
{
__m128i _sum = _mm128_setzero_si128();
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i += 16)
{
//load 16-byte vector
__m128i _src = _mm_loadu_si128((__m128i*)(src + i));
//get low 4 bit for every byte in vector
__m128i lo = _mm_and_si128(_src, F);
//sum precalculated value from T
_sum = _mm_add_epi64(_sum, _mm_sad_epu8(Z, _mm_shuffle_epi8(T, lo)));
//get high 4 bit for every byte in vector
__m128i hi = _mm_and_si128(_mm_srli_epi16(_src, 4), F);
//sum precalculated value from T
_sum = _mm_add_epi64(_sum, _mm_sad_epu8(Z, _mm_shuffle_epi8(T, hi)));
}
uint64_t sum[2];
_mm_storeu_si128((__m128i*)sum, _sum);
return sum[0] + sum[1];
}
AVX2 version:
#include <immintrin.h>
#include <stdint.h>
const __m256i Z = _mm256_set1_epi8(0x0);
const __m256i F = _mm256_set1_epi8(0xF);
//Vector with pre-calculated bit count:
const __m256i T = _mm256_setr_epi8(0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4,
0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4);
uint64_t BitCount(const uint8_t * src, size_t size)
{
__m256i _sum = _mm256_setzero_si256();
for (size_t i = 0; i < size; i += 32)
{
//load 32-byte vector
__m256i _src = _mm256_loadu_si256((__m256i*)(src + i));
//get low 4 bit for every byte in vector
__m256i lo = _mm256_and_si256(_src, F);
//sum precalculated value from T
_sum = _mm256_add_epi64(_sum, _mm256_sad_epu8(Z, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(T, lo)));
//get high 4 bit for every byte in vector
__m256i hi = _mm256_and_si256(_mm256_srli_epi16(_src, 4), F);
//sum precalculated value from T
_sum = _mm256_add_epi64(_sum, _mm256_sad_epu8(Z, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(T, hi)));
}
uint64_t sum[4];
_mm256_storeu_si256((__m256i*)sum, _sum);
return sum[0] + sum[1] + sum[2] + sum[3];
}
A fast C# solution using a pre-calculated table of Byte bit counts with branching on the input size.
public static class BitCount
{
public static uint GetSetBitsCount(uint n)
{
var counts = BYTE_BIT_COUNTS;
return n <= 0xff ? counts[n]
: n <= 0xffff ? counts[n & 0xff] + counts[n >> 8]
: n <= 0xffffff ? counts[n & 0xff] + counts[(n >> 8) & 0xff] + counts[(n >> 16) & 0xff]
: counts[n & 0xff] + counts[(n >> 8) & 0xff] + counts[(n >> 16) & 0xff] + counts[(n >> 24) & 0xff];
}
public static readonly uint[] BYTE_BIT_COUNTS =
{
0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4,
1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5,
1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7,
1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7,
2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6,
3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7,
3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7,
4, 5, 5, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 7, 7, 8
};
}
I always use this in competitive programming, and it's easy to write and is efficient:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int countOnes(int n) {
bitset<32> b(n);
return b.count();
}
There are many algorithm to count the set bits; but i think the best one is the faster one!
You can see the detailed on this page:
Bit Twiddling Hacks
I suggest this one:
Counting bits set in 14, 24, or 32-bit words using 64-bit instructions
unsigned int v; // count the number of bits set in v
unsigned int c; // c accumulates the total bits set in v
// option 1, for at most 14-bit values in v:
c = (v * 0x200040008001ULL & 0x111111111111111ULL) % 0xf;
// option 2, for at most 24-bit values in v:
c = ((v & 0xfff) * 0x1001001001001ULL & 0x84210842108421ULL) % 0x1f;
c += (((v & 0xfff000) >> 12) * 0x1001001001001ULL & 0x84210842108421ULL)
% 0x1f;
// option 3, for at most 32-bit values in v:
c = ((v & 0xfff) * 0x1001001001001ULL & 0x84210842108421ULL) % 0x1f;
c += (((v & 0xfff000) >> 12) * 0x1001001001001ULL & 0x84210842108421ULL) %
0x1f;
c += ((v >> 24) * 0x1001001001001ULL & 0x84210842108421ULL) % 0x1f;
This method requires a 64-bit CPU with fast modulus division to be efficient. The first option takes only 3 operations; the second option takes 10; and the third option takes 15.