I came across this question in a coding competition. Given a number n, concatenate the binary representation of first n positive integers and return the decimal value of the resultant number formed. Since the answer can be large return answer modulo 10^9+7.
N can be as large as 10^9.
Eg:- n=4. Number formed=11011100(1=1,10=2,11=3,100=4). Decimal value of 11011100=220.
I found a stack overflow answer to this question but the problem is that it only contains a O(n) solution.
Link:- concatenate binary of first N integers and return decimal value
Since n can be up to 10^9 we need to come up with solution that is better than O(n).
Here's some Python code that provides a fast solution; it uses the same ideas as in Abhinav Mathur's post. It requires Python >= 3.8, but it doesn't use anything particularly fancy from Python, and could easily be translated into another language. You'd need to write algorithms for modular exponentiation and modular inverse if they're not already available in the target language.
First, for testing purposes, let's define the slow and obvious version:
# Modulus that results are reduced by,
M = 10 ** 9 + 7
def slow_binary_concat(n):
"""
Concatenate binary representations of 1 through n (inclusive).
Reinterpret the resulting binary string as an integer.
"""
concatenation = "".join(format(k, "b") for k in range(n + 1))
return int(concatenation, 2) % M
Checking that we get the expected result:
>>> slow_binary_concat(4)
220
>>> slow_binary_concat(10)
462911642
Now we'll write a faster version. First, we split the range [1, n) into subintervals such that within each subinterval, all numbers have the same length in binary. For example, the range [1, 10) would be split into four subintervals: [1, 2), [2, 4), [4, 8) and [8, 10). Here's a function to do that splitting:
def split_by_bit_length(n):
"""
Split the numbers in [1, n) by bit-length.
Produces triples (a, b, 2**k). Each triple represents a subinterval
[a, b) of [1, n), with a < b, all of whose elements has bit-length k.
"""
a = 1
while n > a:
b = 2 * a
yield (a, min(n, b), b)
a = b
Example output:
>>> list(split_by_bit_length(10))
[(1, 2, 2), (2, 4, 4), (4, 8, 8), (8, 10, 16)]
Now for each subinterval, the value of the concatenation of all numbers in that subinterval is represented by a fairly simple mathematical sum, which can be computed in exact form. Here's a function to compute that sum modulo M:
def subinterval_concat(a, b, l):
"""
Concatenation of values in [a, b), all of which have the same bit-length k.
l is 2**k.
Equivalently, sum(i * l**(b - 1 - i)) for i in range(a, b)) modulo M.
"""
n = b - a
inv = pow(l - 1, -1, M)
q = (pow(l, n, M) - 1) * inv
return (a * q + (q - n) * inv) % M
I won't go into the evaluation of the sum here: it's a bit off-topic for this site, and it's hard to express without a good way to render formulas. If you want the details, that's a topic for https://math.stackexchange.com, or a page of fairly simple algebra.
Finally, we want to put all the intervals together. Here's a function to do that.
def fast_binary_concat(n):
"""
Fast version of slow_binary_concat.
"""
acc = 0
for a, b, l in split_by_bit_length(n + 1):
acc = (acc * pow(l, b - a, M) + subinterval_concat(a, b, l)) % M
return acc
A comparison with the slow version shows that we get the same results:
>>> fast_binary_concat(4)
220
>>> fast_binary_concat(10)
462911642
But the fast version can easily be evaluated for much larger inputs, where using the slow version would be infeasible:
>>> fast_binary_concat(10**9)
827129560
>>> fast_binary_concat(10**18)
945204784
You just have to note a simple pattern. Taking up your example for n=4, let's gradually build the solution starting from n=1.
1 -> 1 #1
2 -> 2^2(1) + 2 #6
3 -> 2^2[2^2(1)+2] + 3 #27
4 -> 2^3{2^2[2^2(1)+2]+3} + 4 #220
If you expand the coefficients of each term for n=4, you'll get the coefficients as:
1 -> (2^3)*(2^2)*(2^2)
2 -> (2^3)*(2^2)
3 -> (2^3)
4 -> (2^0)
Let the N be total number of bits in the string representation of our required number, and D(x) be the number of bits in x. The coefficients can then be written as
1 -> 2^(N-D(1))
2 -> 2^(N-D(1)-D(2))
3 -> 2^(N-D(1)-D(2)-D(3))
... and so on
Since the value of D(x) will be the same for all x between range (2^t, 2^(t+1)-1) for some given t, you can break the problem into such ranges and solve for each range using mathematics (not iteration). Since the number of such ranges will be log2(Given N), this should work in the given time limit.
As an example, the various ranges become:
1. 1 (D(x) = 1)
2. 2-3 (D(x) = 2)
3. 4-7 (D(x) = 3)
4. 8-15 (D(x) = 4)
I am trying to make a function to round a floating point number to a defined length of digits. What I have come up with so far is this:
import Numeric;
digs :: Integral x => x -> [x] <br>
digs 0 = [] <br>
digs x = digs (x `div` 10) ++ [x `mod` 10]
roundTo x t = let d = length $ digs $ round x <br>
roundToMachine x t = (fromInteger $ round $ x * 10^^t) * 10^^(-t)
in roundToMachine x (t - d)
I am using the digs function to determine the number of digits before the comma to optimize the input value (i.e. move everything past the comma, so 1.234 becomes 0.1234 * 10^1)
The roundTo function seems to work for most input, however for some inputs I get strange results, e.g. roundTo 1.0014 4 produces 1.0010000000000001 instead of 1.001.
The problem in this example is caused by calculating 1001 * 1.0e-3 (which returns 1.0010000000000001)
Is this simply a problem in the number representation of Haskell I have to live with or is there a better way to round a floating point number to a specific length of digits?
I realise this question was posted almost 2 years back, but I thought I'd have a go at an answer that didn't require a string conversion.
-- x : number you want rounded, n : number of decimal places you want...
truncate' :: Double -> Int -> Double
truncate' x n = (fromIntegral (floor (x * t))) / t
where t = 10^n
-- How to answer your problem...
λ truncate' 1.0014 3
1.001
-- 2 digits of a recurring decimal please...
λ truncate' (1/3) 2
0.33
-- How about 6 digits of pi?
λ truncate' pi 6
3.141592
I've not tested it thoroughly, so if you find numbers this doesn't work for let me know!
This isn't a haskell problem as much as a floating point problem. Since each floating point number is implemented in a finite number of bits, there exist numbers that can't be represented completely accurately. You can also see this by calculating 0.1 + 0.2, which awkwardly returns 0.30000000000000004 instead of 0.3. This has to do with how floating point numbers are implemented for your language and hardware architecture.
The solution is to continue using your roundTo function for doing computation (it's as accurate as you'll get without special libraries), but if you want to print it to the screen then you should use string formatting such as the Text.Printf.printf function. You can specify the number of digits to round to when converting to a string with something like
import Text.Printf
roundToStr :: (PrintfArg a, Floating a) => Int -> a -> String
roundToStr n f = printf ("%0." ++ show n ++ "f") f
But as I mentioned, this will return a string rather than a number.
EDIT:
A better way might be
roundToStr :: (PrintfArg a, Floating a) => Int -> a -> String
roundToStr n f = printf (printf "%%0.%df" n) f
but I haven't benchmarked to see which is actually faster. Both will work exactly the same though.
EDIT 2:
As #augustss has pointed out, you can do it even easier with just
roundToStr :: (PrintfArg a, Floating a) => Int -> a -> String
roundToStr = printf "%0.*f"
which uses a formatting rule that I was previously unaware of.
I also think that avoiding string conversion is the way to go; however, I would modify the previous post (from schanq) to use round instead of floor:
round' :: Double -> Integer -> Double
round' num sg = (fromIntegral . round $ num * f) / f
where f = 10^sg
> round' 4 3.99999
4.0
> round' 4 4.00001
4.0
Multiplication of two n-bit numbers A and B can be understood as a sum of shifts:
(A << i1) + (A << i2) + ...
where i1, i2, ... are numbers of bits that are set to 1 in B.
Now lets replace PLUS with OR to get new operation I actually need:
(A << i1) | (A << i2) | ...
This operation is quite similar to regular multiplication for which there exists many faster algorithms (Schönhage-Strassen for example).
Is a similar algorithm for operation I presented here?
The size of the numbers is 6000 bits.
edit:
For some reason I have no link/button to post comments (any idea why?) so I will edit my question insead.
I indeed search for faster than O(n^2) algorithm for the operation defined above.
And yes, I am aware that it is not ordinary multiplication.
Is there a similar algorithm? I think probably not.
Is there some way to speed things up beyond O(n^2)? Possibly. If you consider a number A to be the analogue of A(x) = Σanxn where an are the binary digits of A, then your operation with bitwise ORs (let's call it A ⊕ B ) can be expressed as follows, where "⇔" means "analogue"
A ⇔ A(x) = Σanxn
B ⇔ B(x) = Σbnxn
C = A ⊕ B ⇔ C(x) = f(A(x)B(x)) = f(V(x)) where f(V(x)) = f(Σvnxn) = Σu(vn)xn where u(vn) = 0 if vn = 0, u(vn) = 1 otherwise.
Basically you are doing the equivalent of taking two polynomials and multiplying them together, then identifying all the nonzero terms. From a bit-string standpoint, this means treating the bitstring as an array of samples of zeros or ones, convolving the two arrays, and collapsing the resulting samples that are nonzero. There are fast convolution algorithms that are O(n log n), using FFTs for instance, and the "collapsing" step here is O(n)... but somehow I wonder if the O(n log n) evaluation of fast convolution treats something (like multiplication of large integers) as O(1) so you wouldn't actually get a faster algorithm. Either that, or the constants for orders of growth are so large that you'd have to have thousands of bits before you got any speed advantage. ORing is so simple.
edit: there appears to be something called "binary convolution" (see this book for example) that sounds awfully relevant here, but I can't find any good links to the theory behind it and whether there are fast algorithms.
edit 2: maybe the term is "logical convolution" or "bitwise convolution"... here's a page from CPAN (bleah!) talking a little about it along with Walsh and Hadamard transforms which are kind of the bitwise equivalent to Fourier transforms... hmm, no, that seems to be the analog for XOR rather than OR.
You can do this O(#1-bits in A * #1-bits in B).
a-bitnums = set(x : ((1<<x) & A) != 0)
b-bitnums = set(x : ((1<<x) & B) != 0)
c-set = 0
for a-bit in a-bitnums:
for b-bit in b-bitnums:
c-set |= 1 << (a-bit + b-bit)
This might be worthwhile if A and B are sparse in the number
of 1 bits present.
I presume, you are asking the name for the additive technique you have given
when you write "Is a similar algorithm for operation I presented here?"...
Have you looked at the Peasant multiplication technique?
Please read up the Wikipedia description if you do not get the 3rd column in this example.
B X A
27 X 15 : 1
13 30 : 1
6 60 : 0
3 120 : 1
1 240 : 1
B is 27 == binary form 11011b
27x15 = 15 + 30 + 120 + 240
= 15<<0 + 15<<1 + 15<<3 + 15<<4
= 405
Sounds familiar?
Here is your algorithm.
Choose the smaller number as your A
Initialize C as your result area
while B is not zero,
if lsb of B is 1, add A to C
left shift A once
right shift B once
C has your multiplication result (unless you rolled over sizeof C)
Update If you are trying to get a fast algorithm for the shift and OR operation across 6000 bits,
there might actually be one. I'll think a little more on that.
It would appear like 'blurring' one number over the other. Interesting.
A rather crude example here,
110000011 X 1010101 would look like
110000011
110000011
110000011
110000011
---------------
111111111111111
The number of 1s in the two numbers will decide the amount of blurring towards a number with all its bits set.
Wonder what you want to do with it...
Update2 This is the nature of the shift+OR operation with two 6000 bit numbers.
The result will be 12000 bits of course
the operation can be done with two bit streams; but, need not be done to its entirety
the 'middle' part of the 12000 bit stream will almost certainly be all 1s (provided both numbers are non-zero)
the problem will be in identifying the depth to which we need to process this operation to get both ends of the 12000 bit stream
the pattern at the two ends of the stream will depend on the largest consecutive 1s present in both the numbers
I have not yet got to a clean algorithm for this yet. Have updated for anyone else wanting to recheck or go further from here. Also, describing the need for such an operation might motivate further interest :-)
The best I could up with is to use a fast out on the looping logic. Combined with the possibility of using the Non-Zero approach as described by themis, you can answer you question by inspecting less than 2% of the N^2 problem.
Below is some code that gives the timing for numbers that are between 80% and 99% zero.
When the numbers get around 88% zero, using themis' approach switches to being better (was not coded in the sample below, though).
This is not a highly theoretical solution, but it is practical.
OK, here is some "theory" of the problem space:
Basically, each bit for X (the output) is the OR summation of the bits on the diagonal of a grid constructed by having the bits of A along the top (MSB to LSB left to right) and the bits of B along the side (MSB to LSB from top to bottom). Since the bit of X is 1 if any on the diagonal is 1, you can perform an early out on the cell traversal.
The code below does this and shows that even for numbers that are ~87% zero, you only have to check ~2% of the cells. For more dense (more 1's) numbers, that percentage drops even more.
In other words, I would not worry about tricky algorithms and just do some efficient logic checking. I think the trick is to look at the bits of your output as the diagonals of the grid as opposed to the bits of A shift-OR with the bits of B. The trickiest thing is this case is keeping track of the bits you can look at in A and B and how to index the bits properly.
Hopefully this makes sense. Let me know if I need to explain this a bit further (or if you find any problems with this approach).
NOTE: If we knew your problem space a bit better, we could optimize the algorithm accordingly. If your numbers are mostly non-zero, then this approach is better than themis since his would result is more computations and storage space needed (sizeof(int) * NNZ).
NOTE 2: This assumes the data is basically bits, and I am using .NET's BitArray to store and access the data. I don't think this would cause any major headaches when translated to other languages. The basic idea still applies.
using System;
using System.Collections;
namespace BigIntegerOr
{
class Program
{
private static Random r = new Random();
private static BitArray WeightedToZeroes(int size, double pctZero, out int nnz)
{
nnz = 0;
BitArray ba = new BitArray(size);
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
ba[i] = (r.NextDouble() < pctZero) ? false : true;
if (ba[i]) nnz++;
}
return ba;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// make sure there are enough bytes to hold the 6000 bits
int size = (6000 + 7) / 8;
int bits = size * 8;
Console.WriteLine("PCT ZERO\tSECONDS\t\tPCT CELLS\tTOTAL CELLS\tNNZ APPROACH");
for (double pctZero = 0.8; pctZero < 1.0; pctZero += 0.01)
{
// fill the "BigInts"
int nnzA, nnzB;
BitArray a = WeightedToZeroes(bits, pctZero, out nnzA);
BitArray b = WeightedToZeroes(bits, pctZero, out nnzB);
// this is the answer "BigInt" that is at most twice the size minus 1
int xSize = bits * 2 - 1;
BitArray x = new BitArray(xSize);
int LSB, MSB;
LSB = MSB = bits - 1;
// stats
long cells = 0;
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
for (int i = 0; i < xSize; i++)
{
// compare using the diagonals
for (int bit = LSB; bit < MSB; bit++)
{
cells++;
x[i] |= (b[MSB - bit] && a[bit]);
if (x[i]) break;
}
// update the window over the bits
if (LSB == 0)
{
MSB--;
}
else
{
LSB--;
}
//Console.Write(".");
}
// stats
TimeSpan elapsed = DateTime.Now.Subtract(start);
double pctCells = (cells * 100.0) / (bits * bits);
Console.WriteLine(pctZero.ToString("p") + "\t\t" +elapsed.TotalSeconds.ToString("00.000") + "\t\t" +
pctCells.ToString("00.00") + "\t\t" + cells.ToString("00000000") + "\t" + (nnzA * nnzB).ToString("00000000"));
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Just use any FFT Polynomial Multiplication Algorithm and transform all resulting coefficients that are greater than or equal 1 into 1.
Example:
10011 * 10001
[1 x^4 + 0 x^3 + 0 x^2 + 1 x^1 + 1 x^0] * [1 x^4 + 0 x^3 + 0 x^2 + 0 x^1 + 1 x^0]
== [1 x^8 + 0 x^7 + 0 x^6 + 1 x^5 + 2 x^4 + 0 x^3 + 0 x^2 + 1 x^1 + 1 x^0]
-> [1 x^8 + 0 x^7 + 0 x^6 + 1 x^5 + 1 x^4 + 0 x^3 + 0 x^2 + 1 x^1 + 1 x^0]
-> 100110011
For an example of the algorithm, check:
http://www.cs.pitt.edu/~kirk/cs1501/animations/FFT.html
BTW, it is of linearithmic complexity, i.e., O(n log(n))
Also see:
http://everything2.com/title/Multiplication%2520using%2520the%2520Fast%2520Fourier%2520Transform
A question I got on my last interview:
Design a function f, such that:
f(f(n)) == -n
Where n is a 32 bit signed integer; you can't use complex numbers arithmetic.
If you can't design such a function for the whole range of numbers, design it for the largest range possible.
Any ideas?
You didn't say what kind of language they expected... Here's a static solution (Haskell). It's basically messing with the 2 most significant bits:
f :: Int -> Int
f x | (testBit x 30 /= testBit x 31) = negate $ complementBit x 30
| otherwise = complementBit x 30
It's much easier in a dynamic language (Python). Just check if the argument is a number X and return a lambda that returns -X:
def f(x):
if isinstance(x,int):
return (lambda: -x)
else:
return x()
How about:
f(n) = sign(n) - (-1)ⁿ * n
In Python:
def f(n):
if n == 0: return 0
if n >= 0:
if n % 2 == 1:
return n + 1
else:
return -1 * (n - 1)
else:
if n % 2 == 1:
return n - 1
else:
return -1 * (n + 1)
Python automatically promotes integers to arbitrary length longs. In other languages the largest positive integer will overflow, so it will work for all integers except that one.
To make it work for real numbers you need to replace the n in (-1)ⁿ with { ceiling(n) if n>0; floor(n) if n<0 }.
In C# (works for any double, except in overflow situations):
static double F(double n)
{
if (n == 0) return 0;
if (n < 0)
return ((long)Math.Ceiling(n) % 2 == 0) ? (n + 1) : (-1 * (n - 1));
else
return ((long)Math.Floor(n) % 2 == 0) ? (n - 1) : (-1 * (n + 1));
}
Here's a proof of why such a function can't exist, for all numbers, if it doesn't use extra information(except 32bits of int):
We must have f(0) = 0. (Proof: Suppose f(0) = x. Then f(x) = f(f(0)) = -0 = 0. Now, -x = f(f(x)) = f(0) = x, which means that x = 0.)
Further, for any x and y, suppose f(x) = y. We want f(y) = -x then. And f(f(y)) = -y => f(-x) = -y. To summarize: if f(x) = y, then f(-x) = -y, and f(y) = -x, and f(-y) = x.
So, we need to divide all integers except 0 into sets of 4, but we have an odd number of such integers; not only that, if we remove the integer that doesn't have a positive counterpart, we still have 2(mod4) numbers.
If we remove the 2 maximal numbers left (by abs value), we can get the function:
int sign(int n)
{
if(n>0)
return 1;
else
return -1;
}
int f(int n)
{
if(n==0) return 0;
switch(abs(n)%2)
{
case 1:
return sign(n)*(abs(n)+1);
case 0:
return -sign(n)*(abs(n)-1);
}
}
Of course another option, is to not comply for 0, and get the 2 numbers we removed as a bonus. (But that's just a silly if.)
Thanks to overloading in C++:
double f(int var)
{
return double(var);
}
int f(double var)
{
return -int(var);
}
int main(){
int n(42);
std::cout<<f(f(n));
}
Or, you could abuse the preprocessor:
#define f(n) (f##n)
#define ff(n) -n
int main()
{
int n = -42;
cout << "f(f(" << n << ")) = " << f(f(n)) << endl;
}
This is true for all negative numbers.
f(n) = abs(n)
Because there is one more negative number than there are positive numbers for twos complement integers, f(n) = abs(n) is valid for one more case than f(n) = n > 0 ? -n : n solution that is the same same as f(n) = -abs(n). Got you by one ... :D
UPDATE
No, it is not valid for one case more as I just recognized by litb's comment ... abs(Int.Min) will just overflow ...
I thought about using mod 2 information, too, but concluded, it does not work ... to early. If done right, it will work for all numbers except Int.Min because this will overflow.
UPDATE
I played with it for a while, looking for a nice bit manipulation trick, but I could not find a nice one-liner, while the mod 2 solution fits in one.
f(n) = 2n(abs(n) % 2) - n + sgn(n)
In C#, this becomes the following:
public static Int32 f(Int32 n)
{
return 2 * n * (Math.Abs(n) % 2) - n + Math.Sign(n);
}
To get it working for all values, you have to replace Math.Abs() with (n > 0) ? +n : -n and include the calculation in an unchecked block. Then you get even Int.Min mapped to itself as unchecked negation does.
UPDATE
Inspired by another answer I am going to explain how the function works and how to construct such a function.
Lets start at the very beginning. The function f is repeatedly applied to a given value n yielding a sequence of values.
n => f(n) => f(f(n)) => f(f(f(n))) => f(f(f(f(n)))) => ...
The question demands f(f(n)) = -n, that is two successive applications of f negate the argument. Two further applications of f - four in total - negate the argument again yielding n again.
n => f(n) => -n => f(f(f(n))) => n => f(n) => ...
Now there is a obvious cycle of length four. Substituting x = f(n) and noting that the obtained equation f(f(f(n))) = f(f(x)) = -x holds, yields the following.
n => x => -n => -x => n => ...
So we get a cycle of length four with two numbers and the two numbers negated. If you imagine the cycle as a rectangle, negated values are located at opposite corners.
One of many solution to construct such a cycle is the following starting from n.
n => negate and subtract one
-n - 1 = -(n + 1) => add one
-n => negate and add one
n + 1 => subtract one
n
A concrete example is of such an cycle is +1 => -2 => -1 => +2 => +1. We are almost done. Noting that the constructed cycle contains an odd positive number, its even successor, and both numbers negate, we can easily partition the integers into many such cycles (2^32 is a multiple of four) and have found a function that satisfies the conditions.
But we have a problem with zero. The cycle must contain 0 => x => 0 because zero is negated to itself. And because the cycle states already 0 => x it follows 0 => x => 0 => x. This is only a cycle of length two and x is turned into itself after two applications, not into -x. Luckily there is one case that solves the problem. If X equals zero we obtain a cycle of length one containing only zero and we solved that problem concluding that zero is a fixed point of f.
Done? Almost. We have 2^32 numbers, zero is a fixed point leaving 2^32 - 1 numbers, and we must partition that number into cycles of four numbers. Bad that 2^32 - 1 is not a multiple of four - there will remain three numbers not in any cycle of length four.
I will explain the remaining part of the solution using the smaller set of 3 bit signed itegers ranging from -4 to +3. We are done with zero. We have one complete cycle +1 => -2 => -1 => +2 => +1. Now let us construct the cycle starting at +3.
+3 => -4 => -3 => +4 => +3
The problem that arises is that +4 is not representable as 3 bit integer. We would obtain +4 by negating -3 to +3 - what is still a valid 3 bit integer - but then adding one to +3 (binary 011) yields 100 binary. Interpreted as unsigned integer it is +4 but we have to interpret it as signed integer -4. So actually -4 for this example or Int.MinValue in the general case is a second fixed point of integer arithmetic negation - 0 and Int.MinValue are mapped to themselve. So the cycle is actually as follows.
+3 => -4 => -3 => -4 => -3
It is a cycle of length two and additionally +3 enters the cycle via -4. In consequence -4 is correctly mapped to itself after two function applications, +3 is correctly mapped to -3 after two function applications, but -3 is erroneously mapped to itself after two function applications.
So we constructed a function that works for all integers but one. Can we do better? No, we cannot. Why? We have to construct cycles of length four and are able to cover the whole integer range up to four values. The remaining values are the two fixed points 0 and Int.MinValue that must be mapped to themselves and two arbitrary integers x and -x that must be mapped to each other by two function applications.
To map x to -x and vice versa they must form a four cycle and they must be located at opposite corners of that cycle. In consequence 0 and Int.MinValue have to be at opposite corners, too. This will correctly map x and -x but swap the two fixed points 0 and Int.MinValue after two function applications and leave us with two failing inputs. So it is not possible to construct a function that works for all values, but we have one that works for all values except one and this is the best we can achieve.
Using complex numbers, you can effectively divide the task of negating a number into two steps:
multiply n by i, and you get n*i, which is n rotated 90° counter-clockwise
multiply again by i, and you get -n
The great thing is that you don't need any special handling code. Just multiplying by i does the job.
But you're not allowed to use complex numbers. So you have to somehow create your own imaginary axis, using part of your data range. Since you need exactly as much imaginary (intermediate) values as initial values, you are left with only half the data range.
I tried to visualize this on the following figure, assuming signed 8-bit data. You would have to scale this for 32-bit integers. The allowed range for initial n is -64 to +63.
Here's what the function does for positive n:
If n is in 0..63 (initial range), the function call adds 64, mapping n to the range 64..127 (intermediate range)
If n is in 64..127 (intermediate range), the function subtracts n from 64, mapping n to the range 0..-63
For negative n, the function uses the intermediate range -65..-128.
Works except int.MaxValue and int.MinValue
public static int f(int x)
{
if (x == 0) return 0;
if ((x % 2) != 0)
return x * -1 + (-1 *x) / (Math.Abs(x));
else
return x - x / (Math.Abs(x));
}
The question doesn't say anything about what the input type and return value of the function f have to be (at least not the way you've presented it)...
...just that when n is a 32-bit integer then f(f(n)) = -n
So, how about something like
Int64 f(Int64 n)
{
return(n > Int32.MaxValue ?
-(n - 4L * Int32.MaxValue):
n + 4L * Int32.MaxValue);
}
If n is a 32-bit integer then the statement f(f(n)) == -n will be true.
Obviously, this approach could be extended to work for an even wider range of numbers...
for javascript (or other dynamically typed languages) you can have the function accept either an int or an object and return the other. i.e.
function f(n) {
if (n.passed) {
return -n.val;
} else {
return {val:n, passed:1};
}
}
giving
js> f(f(10))
-10
js> f(f(-10))
10
alternatively you could use overloading in a strongly typed language although that may break the rules ie
int f(long n) {
return n;
}
long f(int n) {
return -n;
}
Depending on your platform, some languages allow you to keep state in the function. VB.Net, for example:
Function f(ByVal n As Integer) As Integer
Static flag As Integer = -1
flag *= -1
Return n * flag
End Function
IIRC, C++ allowed this as well. I suspect they're looking for a different solution though.
Another idea is that since they didn't define the result of the first call to the function you could use odd/evenness to control whether to invert the sign:
int f(int n)
{
int sign = n>=0?1:-1;
if (abs(n)%2 == 0)
return ((abs(n)+1)*sign * -1;
else
return (abs(n)-1)*sign;
}
Add one to the magnitude of all even numbers, subtract one from the magnitude of all odd numbers. The result of two calls has the same magnitude, but the one call where it's even we swap the sign. There are some cases where this won't work (-1, max or min int), but it works a lot better than anything else suggested so far.
Exploiting JavaScript exceptions.
function f(n) {
try {
return n();
}
catch(e) {
return function() { return -n; };
}
}
f(f(0)) => 0
f(f(1)) => -1
For all 32-bit values (with the caveat that -0 is -2147483648)
int rotate(int x)
{
static const int split = INT_MAX / 2 + 1;
static const int negativeSplit = INT_MIN / 2 + 1;
if (x == INT_MAX)
return INT_MIN;
if (x == INT_MIN)
return x + 1;
if (x >= split)
return x + 1 - INT_MIN;
if (x >= 0)
return INT_MAX - x;
if (x >= negativeSplit)
return INT_MIN - x + 1;
return split -(negativeSplit - x);
}
You basically need to pair each -x => x => -x loop with a y => -y => y loop. So I paired up opposite sides of the split.
e.g. For 4 bit integers:
0 => 7 => -8 => -7 => 0
1 => 6 => -1 => -6 => 1
2 => 5 => -2 => -5 => 2
3 => 4 => -3 => -4 => 3
A C++ version, probably bending the rules somewhat but works for all numeric types (floats, ints, doubles) and even class types that overload the unary minus:
template <class T>
struct f_result
{
T value;
};
template <class T>
f_result <T> f (T n)
{
f_result <T> result = {n};
return result;
}
template <class T>
T f (f_result <T> n)
{
return -n.value;
}
void main (void)
{
int n = 45;
cout << "f(f(" << n << ")) = " << f(f(n)) << endl;
float p = 3.14f;
cout << "f(f(" << p << ")) = " << f(f(p)) << endl;
}
x86 asm (AT&T style):
; input %edi
; output %eax
; clobbered regs: %ecx, %edx
f:
testl %edi, %edi
je .zero
movl %edi, %eax
movl $1, %ecx
movl %edi, %edx
andl $1, %eax
addl %eax, %eax
subl %eax, %ecx
xorl %eax, %eax
testl %edi, %edi
setg %al
shrl $31, %edx
subl %edx, %eax
imull %ecx, %eax
subl %eax, %edi
movl %edi, %eax
imull %ecx, %eax
.zero:
xorl %eax, %eax
ret
Code checked, all possible 32bit integers passed, error with -2147483647 (underflow).
Uses globals...but so?
bool done = false
f(int n)
{
int out = n;
if(!done)
{
out = n * -1;
done = true;
}
return out;
}
This Perl solution works for integers, floats, and strings.
sub f {
my $n = shift;
return ref($n) ? -$$n : \$n;
}
Try some test data.
print $_, ' ', f(f($_)), "\n" for -2, 0, 1, 1.1, -3.3, 'foo' '-bar';
Output:
-2 2
0 0
1 -1
1.1 -1.1
-3.3 3.3
foo -foo
-bar +bar
Nobody ever said f(x) had to be the same type.
def f(x):
if type(x) == list:
return -x[0]
return [x]
f(2) => [2]
f(f(2)) => -2
I'm not actually trying to give a solution to the problem itself, but do have a couple of comments, as the question states this problem was posed was part of a (job?) interview:
I would first ask "Why would such a function be needed? What is the bigger problem this is part of?" instead of trying to solve the actual posed problem on the spot. This shows how I think and how I tackle problems like this. Who know? That might even be the actual reason the question is asked in an interview in the first place. If the answer is "Never you mind, assume it's needed, and show me how you would design this function." I would then continue to do so.
Then, I would write the C# test case code I would use (the obvious: loop from int.MinValue to int.MaxValue, and for each n in that range call f(f(n)) and checking the result is -n), telling I would then use Test Driven Development to get to such a function.
Only if the interviewer continues asking for me to solve the posed problem would I actually start to try and scribble pseudocode during the interview itself to try and get to some sort of an answer. However, I don't really think I would be jumping to take the job if the interviewer would be any indication of what the company is like...
Oh, this answer assumes the interview was for a C# programming related position. Would of course be a silly answer if the interview was for a math related position. ;-)
I would you change the 2 most significant bits.
00.... => 01.... => 10.....
01.... => 10.... => 11.....
10.... => 11.... => 00.....
11.... => 00.... => 01.....
As you can see, it's just an addition, leaving out the carried bit.
How did I got to the answer? My first thought was just a need for symmetry. 4 turns to get back where I started. At first I thought, that's 2bits Gray code. Then I thought actually standard binary is enough.
Here is a solution that is inspired by the requirement or claim that complex numbers can not be used to solve this problem.
Multiplying by the square root of -1 is an idea, that only seems to fail because -1 does not have a square root over the integers. But playing around with a program like mathematica gives for example the equation
(18494364652+1) mod (232-3) = 0.
and this is almost as good as having a square root of -1. The result of the function needs to be a signed integer. Hence I'm going to use a modified modulo operation mods(x,n) that returns the integer y congruent to x modulo n that is closest to 0. Only very few programming languages have suc a modulo operation, but it can easily be defined. E.g. in python it is:
def mods(x, n):
y = x % n
if y > n/2: y-= n
return y
Using the equation above, the problem can now be solved as
def f(x):
return mods(x*1849436465, 2**32-3)
This satisfies f(f(x)) = -x for all integers in the range [-231-2, 231-2]. The results of f(x) are also in this range, but of course the computation would need 64-bit integers.
C# for a range of 2^32 - 1 numbers, all int32 numbers except (Int32.MinValue)
Func<int, int> f = n =>
n < 0
? (n & (1 << 30)) == (1 << 30) ? (n ^ (1 << 30)) : - (n | (1 << 30))
: (n & (1 << 30)) == (1 << 30) ? -(n ^ (1 << 30)) : (n | (1 << 30));
Console.WriteLine(f(f(Int32.MinValue + 1))); // -2147483648 + 1
for (int i = -3; i <= 3 ; i++)
Console.WriteLine(f(f(i)));
Console.WriteLine(f(f(Int32.MaxValue))); // 2147483647
prints:
2147483647
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-2147483647
Essentially the function has to divide the available range into cycles of size 4, with -n at the opposite end of n's cycle. However, 0 must be part of a cycle of size 1, because otherwise 0->x->0->x != -x. Because of 0 being alone, there must be 3 other values in our range (whose size is a multiple of 4) not in a proper cycle with 4 elements.
I chose these extra weird values to be MIN_INT, MAX_INT, and MIN_INT+1. Furthermore, MIN_INT+1 will map to MAX_INT correctly, but get stuck there and not map back. I think this is the best compromise, because it has the nice property of only the extreme values not working correctly. Also, it means it would work for all BigInts.
int f(int n):
if n == 0 or n == MIN_INT or n == MAX_INT: return n
return ((Math.abs(n) mod 2) * 2 - 1) * n + Math.sign(n)
Nobody said it had to be stateless.
int32 f(int32 x) {
static bool idempotent = false;
if (!idempotent) {
idempotent = true;
return -x;
} else {
return x;
}
}
Cheating, but not as much as a lot of the examples. Even more evil would be to peek up the stack to see if your caller's address is &f, but this is going to be more portable (although not thread safe... the thread-safe version would use TLS). Even more evil:
int32 f (int32 x) {
static int32 answer = -x;
return answer;
}
Of course, neither of these works too well for the case of MIN_INT32, but there is precious little you can do about that unless you are allowed to return a wider type.
I could imagine using the 31st bit as an imaginary (i) bit would be an approach that would support half the total range.
works for n= [0 .. 2^31-1]
int f(int n) {
if (n & (1 << 31)) // highest bit set?
return -(n & ~(1 << 31)); // return negative of original n
else
return n | (1 << 31); // return n with highest bit set
}
The problem states "32-bit signed integers" but doesn't specify whether they are twos-complement or ones-complement.
If you use ones-complement then all 2^32 values occur in cycles of length four - you don't need a special case for zero, and you also don't need conditionals.
In C:
int32_t f(int32_t x)
{
return (((x & 0xFFFFU) << 16) | ((x & 0xFFFF0000U) >> 16)) ^ 0xFFFFU;
}
This works by
Exchanging the high and low 16-bit blocks
Inverting one of the blocks
After two passes we have the bitwise inverse of the original value. Which in ones-complement representation is equivalent to negation.
Examples:
Pass | x
-----+-------------------
0 | 00000001 (+1)
1 | 0001FFFF (+131071)
2 | FFFFFFFE (-1)
3 | FFFE0000 (-131071)
4 | 00000001 (+1)
Pass | x
-----+-------------------
0 | 00000000 (+0)
1 | 0000FFFF (+65535)
2 | FFFFFFFF (-0)
3 | FFFF0000 (-65535)
4 | 00000000 (+0)
:D
boolean inner = true;
int f(int input) {
if(inner) {
inner = false;
return input;
} else {
inner = true;
return -input;
}
}
return x ^ ((x%2) ? 1 : -INT_MAX);
I'd like to share my point of view on this interesting problem as a mathematician. I think I have the most efficient solution.
If I remember correctly, you negate a signed 32-bit integer by just flipping the first bit. For example, if n = 1001 1101 1110 1011 1110 0000 1110 1010, then -n = 0001 1101 1110 1011 1110 0000 1110 1010.
So how do we define a function f that takes a signed 32-bit integer and returns another signed 32-bit integer with the property that taking f twice is the same as flipping the first bit?
Let me rephrase the question without mentioning arithmetic concepts like integers.
How do we define a function f that takes a sequence of zeros and ones of length 32 and returns a sequence of zeros and ones of the same length, with the property that taking f twice is the same as flipping the first bit?
Observation: If you can answer the above question for 32 bit case, then you can also answer for 64 bit case, 100 bit case, etc. You just apply f to the first 32 bit.
Now if you can answer the question for 2 bit case, Voila!
And yes it turns out that changing the first 2 bits is enough.
Here's the pseudo-code
1. take n, which is a signed 32-bit integer.
2. swap the first bit and the second bit.
3. flip the first bit.
4. return the result.
Remark: The step 2 and the step 3 together can be summerised as (a,b) --> (-b, a). Looks familiar? That should remind you of the 90 degree rotation of the plane and the multiplication by the squar root of -1.
If I just presented the pseudo-code alone without the long prelude, it would seem like a rabbit out of the hat, I wanted to explain how I got the solution.