How to convert 10^4 to binary - math

I need to convert 10^4 to binary
expanding it will give me a large number and dividing that by 2 a bunch of times will be really inefficient
10^4 = 10000
how do i do it directly


I would write a recursive function, the pseudo-code is here:
int Convert_to_binary (x):
if(x == 0):
return 1;
if(x == 1):
return 10;
if(x%2 == 1):
return Convert_to_binary(x-1)+1;
if(x%2 == 0):
return Convert_to_binary(x/2)*10;
This will return the binary format as an integer like 2 is 10 in binary and 1 is 1
in binary format and 3 is 11 and so on


There is a quick method to convert decimal number to binary form,
0^2 = 1
1^2 = 2
2^2 = 4
2^3 = 12
2^4 = 16
2^5 = 32
2^6 = 64
2^7 = 128
2^8 = 256
2^9 = 512
2^10 = 1024
2^11 = 2048
2^12 = 4096
2^13 = 8192
2^14 = 16384
Since we want to find binary of 10000, we can stop at 2^13. The number 13 means that the binary of 10000 is 14 bit long(0-13).
1000 - 8192 = 1808
so we next want to find the number's that sum up to 1808 from the 2^0 to 2^10 (2^10<1808). it's not difficult to find whch are those numbers from the table
2^10 = 1024
2^9 = 512
2^8 = 256
2^4 = 16
1024+512+256+16 = 1808
That means in the binary form of the decimal number 10000 only the 13, 10, 9, 8, 4 bit position's are '1' other bit position's are '0'.
so the binary of 10000 is,
```
10011100010000
```
It's easy to remember the above table so we don't need to use the very basic
tedious method to convert a decimal number to binary form.

Related

Is there a mathematical formula for two's complement multiplication when dealing with overflow?

For instance, given a word size of 4 bits:
0b1001 * 0b0111 = 0b1111 // -7 * 7 = -1
0b0111 * 0b0111 = 0b0001 // 7 * 7 = 1
0b0111 * 0b0110 = 0b1010 // 7 * 6 = -6
0b1001 * 0b0110 = 0b0110 // -7 * 6 = 6
There's undoubtedly some modular arithmetic going on here, but the way you take mod seems to be quite inconsistent. Is there a neat mathematical formulation of two's complement multiplication?

The nice thing about twos complement is that addition, subtraction, and multiplication of signed operands are exactly the same operations, bit-for-bit, as the ones for unsigned operands, so the computer doesn't need to care whether you think of them as signed or not.
In terms of modular arithmetic as well, the operations mean exactly the same thing. With 4 bit words, when you say:
r = a * b;
You get r = a * b mod 16.
The only difference between signed and unsigned is the value we assign in our heads to the residues mod 16. If we think of the words as unsigned then we have values 0-15. But 15 = -1 mod 16, 14 = -2 mod 16, etc, and if we think of the words as signed, then we just think of the values -8 to 7 instead of 0 to 15.
The reminder operator % that you get in C, java, etc, is annoying in the way it handles negative numbers. If you wanted to express your 4-bit multiply using that operator in larger words, then you could say:
a * b = ( (a * b % 16) + 24 ) % 16 - 8
If the remainder operator worked "properly" so that -1 % 16 == 15, then you could write a * b = (a * b + 8) % 16 - 8

How to compute floor(log2(5**x)) without floating point arithmetic or long integer computation

The problem is how do we compute the integer value of floor(log2(5^x)) without floating point arithmetic or long integer computation? I'm looking for a simple, efficient and mathematically elegant way.
Observations:
The formula is just the number of bits in 5**x (plus 1)
Attempts:
I tried to simplify it to:
floor(x*log2(5))
In my use case, x is not extremely large, probably just 1-100. While an elegant formula that works for small values would suffice me, I would be interested in a formula/algorithm that works for any value of x
I'm making a reference software implementation of universal numbers (type III). I want to make everything easily convertible to microcode by purely using bitwise and basic operations. This is one of the formulas i need to simplify.

As you correctly note, log2(5**x) == x * log2(5). log2(5) is a constant, which can be approximated to 2.3219281.
However, floats aren't allowed per the question. Not an issue!
log2_5 = 23219281;
scale = 10000000; // note log2_5/scale is the actual value
result = x * log2_5;
output = (result - (result % scale)) / scale;
By reducing result by result % scale, dividing it by scale will be an integer division, not a float.

for a simple, efficient and mathematically elegant way... floor(x*log2(5))
Since x has integer values 1 to 100, various tests can to made to find the "best" that uses an integer multiply and a divide by power_of_2.
f(x) = x*a integer_divide power_of_2
For
f(x) = floor(x*log2(5)) = floor(x*some_float_c) the value of some_float_c is bounded by 100 minimum and maximums below.
x f(x) mn mx
f(x)/x (f(x) + 1)/x
1 2 2.00000 3.00000
2 4 2.00000 2.50000
3 6 2.00000 2.33333
...
59 136 2.30508 2.32203
...
87 202 2.32184 2.33333
...
98 227 2.31633 2.32653
99 229 2.31313 2.32323
100 232 2.32000 2.33000
The maximum min is 2.32184 and the minimum max is 2.32203, :
2.32184... <= some_float_c < 2.32203...
Since we cannot use float, find some_integer/some_power_of_2
2.32184... <= some_integer/some_power_of_2 < 2.32203...
ceil(some_power_of_2 * 2.32184...) <= some_integer < floor(some_power_of_2 * 2.32203...)
min max
2.32184 2.32203
2 5 4
4 10 9
8 19 18
...
1024 2378 2377
2048 4756 4755
4096 9511 9511 < first one where min <= max
8192 19021 19022
So 9511/4096 is the "simplest" and is a "best" candidate.
f(x) = (x*9511) integer_divide_by_power_of_2 4096
// In C
unsigned y = (x*9511u) >> 12;

Here is a very rough approximation, but it can help if you want to obtain it mentally
5^3 = 125
2^7 = 128
So for raising to the power of n:
5^n ~~ 2^(7n/3)
So 5^12 is near 2^28 might require up to 29 bits.
It's a bit overestimated because 2^7 > 5^3, so 28 bits are enough, a good usage is to simply round the fraction upper.
If I evaluate in Smalltalk:
(1 to: 50) reject: [:i | (5 raisedTo: i) highBit = (i*7/3) ceiling].
I get:
#(31 34 37 40 43 46 49)
You see that the very simple formulation works up to 5^30 which is not that bad.

BCD to Decimal And Decimal to BCD

I am writing a library for RTC module in Arduino where the data is stored in BCD. I know how the Decimal number is converted into BCD but having some problem while writing it programmatically. After searching the internet I got two formulas which are as follows and working perfectly but cannot understand how it is calculating.
1. Formula1
DEC to BCD
(value / 10 * 16) + (value % 10)
Example
DEC -> 40 which converted to 01000000 in BCD which is again equal to 64.
So if I put into the formula I get the same result.
(40/10 * 16) + (40%10)
= (4*16) + 0
= 64
BCD to DEC
(value / 16 * 10) + (value % 16)
2. Formula2
DEC to BCD
val + 6 * (val / 10)
BCD to DEC
val - 6 * (val >> 4)
If anyone can explain it in details it will be helpful.
Thanks to all in advance.

The correct conversion functions are:
byte bcdToDec(byte val)
{
return( (val/16*10) + (val%16) );
}
byte decToBcd(byte val)
{
return( (val/10*16) + (val%10) );
}
Why does this work? Let's take a single digit 5. In binary, it's
0101 = 5
Now let's take that same digit, shift it four places to the left by adding four zeroes to the right:
0101 0000 = 50 BCD
That's how BCD works. Since it takes four binary digits to represent the decimal digits 0 through 9, each single decimal digit is represented by four bits. The key is that shifting four places in binary multiplies or divides by 16, so that's the reason for the 16 values in the formulas.
So let's take 96:
0110 = 6
1001 = 9
1001 0110 = 96 BCD

Fill three numbers inside One number

I am trying to fit 3 numbers inside 1 number.But numbers will be only between 0 and 11.So their (base) is 12.For example i have 7,5,2 numbers.I come up with something like this:
Three numbers into One number :
7x12=84
84x5=420
420+2=422
Now getting back Three numbers from One number :
422 MOD 12 = 2 (the third number)
422 - 2 = 420
420 / 12 = 35
And i understanded that 35 is multiplication of first and the second number (i.e 7 and 5)
And now i cant get that 7 and 5 anyone knows how could i ???

(I started typing this answer before the other one got posted, but this one is more specific to Arduino then the other one, so I'm leaving it)
The code
You can use bit shifting to get multiple small numbers into one big number, in code it would look like this:
int a, b, c;
//putting then together
int big = (a << 8) + (b << 4) + c;
//separating them again
a = (big >> 8) & 15;
b = (big >> 4) & 15;
c = big & 15;
This code only works when a, b and c are all in the range [0, 15] witch appears to be enough for you case.
How it works
The >> and << operators are the bitshift operators, in short a << n shifts every bit in a by n places to the left, this is equivalent to multiplying by 2^n. Similarly, a >> n shifts to to the right. An example:
11 << 3 == 120 //0000 1011 -> 0101 1000
The & operator performs a bitwise and on the two operands:
6 & 5 == 4 // 0110
// & 0101
//-> 0100
These two operators are combined to "pack" and "unpack" the three numbers. For the packing every small number is shifted a bit to the left and they are all added together. This is how the bits of big now look (there are 16 of them because ints in Arduino are 16 bits wide):
0000aaaabbbbcccc
When unpacking, the bits are shifted to the right again, and they are bitwise anded together with 15 to filter out any excess bits. This is what that last operation looks like to get b out again:
00000000aaaabbbb //big shifted 4 bits to the right
& 0000000000001111 //anded together with 15
-> 000000000000bbbb //gives the original number b

All is working exactly like in base 10 (or 16). Here after your corrected example.
Three numbers into One number :
7x12^2=1008
5*12^1=60
2*12^0=2
1008+60+2=1070
Now getting back Three numbers from One number :
1070 MOD 12 = 2 (the third number)
1070/12 = 89 (integer division) => 89 MOD 12 = 5
89 / 12 = 7
Note also that the maximum value will be 11*12*12+11*12+11=1727.
If this is really programming related, you will be using 16bits instead of 3*8 bits so sparing one byte. An easyer method not using base 12 would be fit each number into half a byte (better code efficiency and same transmission length):
7<<(4+4) + 5<<4 + 2 = 1874
1874 & 0x000F = 2
1874>>4 & 0x000F = 5
1874>>8 & 0x0F = 7
Because MOD(12) and division by 12 is much less efficient than working with powers of 2

you can use the principle of the positional notation to change from one or the other in any base
Treat yours numbers (n0,n1,...,nm) as a digit of a big number in the base B of your choosing so the new number is
N = n0*B^0 + n1*B^1 + ... + nm*B^m
to revert the process is also simple, while your number is greater than 0 find its modulo in respect to the base to get to get the first digit, then subtracts that digit and divide for the base, repeat until finish while saving each digit along the way
digit_list = []
while N > 0 do:
d = N mod B
N = (N - d) / B
digit_list.append( d )
then if N is N = n0*B^0 + n1*B^1 + ... + nm*B^m doing N mod B give you n0, then subtract it leaving you with n1*B^1 + ... + nm*B^m and divide by B to reduce the exponents of all B and that is the new N, N = n1*B^0 + ... + nm*B^(m-1) repetition of that give you all the digit you start with
here is a working example in python
def compact_num( num_list, base=12 ):
return sum( n*pow(base,i) for i,n in enumerate(num_list) )
def decompact_num( n, base=12):
if n==0:
return [0]
result = []
while n:
n,d = divmod(n,base)
result.append(d)
return result
example
>>> compact_num([2,5,7])
1070
>>> decompact_num(1070)
[2, 5, 7]
>>> compact_num([10,2],16)
42
>>> decompact_num(42,16)
[10, 2]
>>>

How to find x mod 15 without using any Arithmetic Operations?

We are given a unsigned integer, suppose. And without using any arithmetic operators ie + - / * or %, we are to find x mod 15. We may use binary bit manipulations.
As far as I could go, I got this based on 2 points.
a = a mod 15 = a mod 16 for a<15
Let a = x mod 15
then a = x - 15k (for some non-negative k).
ie a = x - 16k + k...
ie a mod 16 = ( x mod 16 + k mod 16 ) mod 16
ie a mod 15 = ( x mod 16 + k mod 16 ) mod 16
ie a = ( x mod 16 + k mod 16 ) mod 16
OK. Now to implement this. A mod16 operations is basically & OxF. and k is basically x>>4
So a = ( x & OxF + (x>>4) & OxF ) & OxF.
It boils down to adding 2 4-bit numbers. Which can be done by bit expressions.
sum[0] = a[0] ^ b[0]
sum[1] = a[1] ^ b[1] ^ (a[0] & b[0])
...
and so on
This seems like cheating to me. I'm hoping for a more elegant solution

This reminds me of an old trick from base 10 called "casting out the 9s". This was used for checking the result of large sums performed by hand.
In this case 123 mod 9 = 1 + 2 + 3 mod 9 = 6.
This happens because 9 is one less than the base of the digits (10). (Proof omitted ;) )
So considering the number in base 16 (Hex). you should be able to do:
0xABCE123 mod 0xF = (0xA + 0xB + 0xC + 0xD + 0xE + 0x1 + 0x2 + 0x3 ) mod 0xF
= 0x42 mod 0xF
= 0x6
Now you'll still need to do some magic to make the additions disappear. But it gives the right answer.
UPDATE:
Heres a complete implementation in C++. The f lookup table takes pairs of digits to their sum mod 15. (which is the same as the byte mod 15). We then repack these results and reapply on half as much data each round.
#include <iostream>
uint8_t f[256]={
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,
6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,
7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9,10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,
10,11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,
11,12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,
12,13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,
13,14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,
14,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,0};
uint64_t mod15( uint64_t in_v )
{
uint8_t * in = (uint8_t*)&in_v;
// 12 34 56 78 12 34 56 78 => aa bb cc dd
in[0] = f[in[0]] | (f[in[1]]<<4);
in[1] = f[in[2]] | (f[in[3]]<<4);
in[2] = f[in[4]] | (f[in[5]]<<4);
in[3] = f[in[6]] | (f[in[7]]<<4);
// aa bb cc dd => AA BB
in[0] = f[in[0]] | (f[in[1]]<<4);
in[1] = f[in[2]] | (f[in[3]]<<4);
// AA BB => DD
in[0] = f[in[0]] | (f[in[1]]<<4);
// DD => D
return f[in[0]];
}
int main()
{
uint64_t x = 12313231;
std::cout<< mod15(x)<<" "<< (x%15)<<std::endl;
}

Your logic is somewhere flawed but I can't put a finger on it. Think about it yourself, your final formula operates on first 8 bits and ignores the rest. That could only be valid if the part you throw away (9+ bits) are always the multiplication of 15. However, in reality (in binary numbers) 9+ bits are always multiplications of 16 but not 15. For example try putting 1 0000 0000 and 11 0000 0000 in your formula. Your formula will give 0 as a result for both cases, while in reality the answer is 1 and 3.
In essense I'm almost sure that your task can not be solved without loops. And if you are allowed to use loops - then it's nothing easier than to implement bitwiseAdd function and do whatever you like with it.
Added:
Found your problem. Here it is:
... a = x - 15k (for some non-negative k).
... and k is basically x>>4
It equals x>>4 only by pure coincidence for some numbers. Take any big example, for instance x=11110000. By your calculation k = 15, while in reality it is k=16: 16*15 = 11110000.

Resources