A new method of Fire&Forget.

# On Binary Splitting

The method of binary splitting to evaluate sums of rational numbers is well known. A slightly more detailed overview (with some code examples) is given in [2] (preprint in [1]) for the sums of rational numbers.

The binary splitting algorithm uses the divide&conquer method to keep the single operations as small as possible for as long as possible. Another advantage of this method is that all operands are of roughly the same size which is favored by all of the fast multiplication algorithms like e.g.: FFT. Asymmetric Toom-Cook algorithms exist but only for a handful of different relations.

The basic idea for divide&conquer is to evaluate (with ) as . That keeps the sizes equal if the sizes of are equal, too. In times of multi-core processors the ability to process as many of the operations in parallel as there are cores available is also not a thing one should deem as insignificant too easily.

But there is also something named CPU-cache, a still very finite but very fast memory where the CPU keeps its bricks and mortar it works with, so it might be a good idea too keep as many things in this memory as possible. Here divide&conquer is not the most ideal algorithm because it has to grab its material from different parts of the memory a lot of times. Although the access to memory can be assumed to be but the hidden constant can get very large for the different types of memory. So large, that it might be better to use an asymptotically worse algorithm if it is able to keep all data in the CPU-cache. In the case of multiplication it is the school book algorithm here for the first level if . fits into a single CPU register, e.g. the product of two 32-bit values fits into one 64-bit CPU-register.

An example with libtommath (checks and balances omitted)

#define BIN_SPLIT_TUNABLE_CONSTANT 64 void mp_bin_split(mp_digit *array, int n, mp_int * result) { mp_digit first_half, second_half; int i; mp_int tmp; if (n == 0) { mp_set(result, 1); return; } if (n <= BIN_SPLIT_TUNABLE_CONSTANT) { mp_set(result, array[0]); for (i = 1; i < n; i++) mp_mul_d(result, array[i], result); return; } first_half = n / 2; second_half = n - first_half; mp_bin_split(array, second_half, result); mp_init(&tmp); mp_bin_split(array + second_half, first_half, &tmp); mp_mul(result, &tmp, result); mp_clear(&tmp); }

If `BIN_SPLIT_TUNABLE_CONSTANT`

is set very small it could be a fruitful idea to do the splitting by hand (`mp_word`

is defined to be large enough to hold the product of two `mp_digit`

).

/* ---- snip --- */ if (n <= 8 ) { mp_set(result, array[0]); for (i = 1; i < n; i++) mp_mul_d(result, array[i], result); return; } if (n == 8 ) { mp_word s1,s2,s3,s4; mp_digit carry, a[8],b[8], c1[8]={0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0}, c2[8]={0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0},*temp; double C1[16],C2[16]; s1 = array[0] * array[1]; array[0] = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); array[1] = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); s2 = array[2] * array[3]; array[2] = (unsigned long) (s2 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); array[3] = (unsigned long) (s2 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); s3 = array[4] * array[5]; array[4] = (unsigned long) (s3 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); array[5] = (unsigned long) (s3 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); s4 = array[6] * array[7]; array[6] = (unsigned long) (s4 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); array[7] = (unsigned long) (s4 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); if(array[1] == 0 && array[3] == 0 && array[5] == 0 && array[7] == 0){ s1 = s1 * s2; a[0] = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); a[1] = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); s2 = s3 * s4; b[0] = (unsigned long) (s2 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); b[1] = (unsigned long) (s2 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); if(a[1] == 0 && b[1] == 0){ s1 = s1 * s2; a[0] = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); a[1] = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); if(a[1] == 0){ result->dp[0] = a[0]; result->used = 1; return; } result->dp[0] = a[0]; result->dp[1] = a[1]; result->used = 2; return; } k = (a[1] == 0)?1:2; l = (b[1] == 0)?1:2; temp = result->dp; for(i=0;i<k;i++){ carry = 0; temp = result->dp + i; for(j=0;j<MIN(l,4-i);j++){ s1 = ((mp_word)*temp) + (mp_word)a[i] * (mp_word)b[j] + (mp_word)carry; *temp++ = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); carry = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); } if(i+j<4){ *temp = carry; } } result->used = 4; mp_clamp(result); return; } else{ a[0] = array[0]; a[1] = array[1]; b[0] = array[2]; b[1] = array[3]; k = (a[1] == 0)?1:2; l = (b[1] == 0)?1:2; temp = c1; for(i=0;i<k;i++){ carry = 0; temp = c1 + i; for(j=0;j<MIN(l,4-i);j++){ s1 = ((mp_word)*temp) + (mp_word)a[i] * (mp_word)b[j] + (mp_word)carry; *temp++ = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); carry = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); } if(i+j<4){ *temp = carry; } } a[0] = array[4]; a[1] = array[5]; b[0] = array[6]; b[1] = array[7]; k = (a[1] == 0)?1:2; l = (b[1] == 0)?1:2; temp = c2; for(i=0;i<k;i++){ carry = 0; temp = c2 + i; for(j=0;j<MIN(l,4-i);j++){ s1 = ((mp_word)*temp) + (mp_word)a[i] * (mp_word)b[j] + (mp_word)carry; *temp++ = (unsigned long) (s1 & ((mp_word) MP_MASK)); carry = (unsigned long) (s1 >> ((mp_word) DIGIT_BIT)); } if(i+j<4){ *temp = carry; } } for(i = 0,j=0;i<8;i++,j+=2){ if(i < 8){ C1[j] = (double) (c1[i] & MP_DIGIT_MASK); C1[j+1] = (double)((c1[i] >> MP_DIGIT_BIT_HALF ) & MP_DIGIT_MASK); C2[j] = (double) (c2[i] & MP_DIGIT_MASK); C2[j+1] = (double)((c2[i] >> MP_DIGIT_BIT_HALF ) & MP_DIGIT_MASK); } if(i >= 8){ C1[j] = 0.0; C1[j+1] = 0.0; C2[j] = 0.0; C2[j+1] = 0.0; } } mp_fft(C1,C2,16); carry = 0; for(i=0;i<16;i++){ s1 = carry; carry = 0; s1 += (mp_word)(round(C2[i])); if(s1 >= MP_DIGIT_HALF){ carry = s1 / (mp_word)MP_DIGIT_HALF; s1 = s1 % (mp_word)MP_DIGIT_HALF; } C2[i] = (double)s1; } mp_grow(result,17); for(i=0,j=0;j<16;i++,j+=2){ result->dp[i] = (mp_digit)(round(C2[j+1]))& MP_DIGIT_MASK; result->dp[i] <<= MP_DIGIT_BIT_HALF; result->dp[i] |= (mp_digit)(round(C2[j])) & MP_DIGIT_MASK; result->used++; } if(carry){ result->dp[i] = carry; result->used++; } mp_clamp(result); return; } } /* ---- snap --- */

And if you think you have seen the worst waste of blog-space you’ve never met the kind of programmers who’s products are described in detail at thedailywtf.com.

[1] Haible, Bruno, and Thomas Papanikolaou. “Fast multiprecision evaluation of series of rational numbers.” (1997). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.32.3698&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[2] Haible, Bruno, and Thomas Papanikolaou. “Fast multiprecision evaluation of series of rational numbers”. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1998.

# Things that are falling apart II

Some might remember that I tried to insulate the kitchen. After all of the material arrived (seems to have been a matter of renaming the stuff without telling the staff) and had their drying time—just while I pondered whether it is dry enough to put on the fine-cast a breath of ozone came upon and reached my nostrils. Still looking for the whereabout of such a nasty smell the faint but distinct noise of electrical discharges resonated within the wall behind the newly laid insulation. To say that I uttered some curses that would have made an old midwife blush would be inadequate to describe the choice of my words but the wall had to be ripped open. And so I did. With hammer and chisel I ploughed my way through the brickwork, looking for the source of the unwelcome odor and—Lo and behold!—it was found: Continue reading

# Adventures of a Programmer: Parser Writing Peril XVI

Back to the experiment with balancing multiplicands which failed despite the advantage it must have shown based on the theory and if the margin of this blog post would have been wider I could even proof that it is better!

*stomps foot*

And it *is* better! All I have done was to comment the wrong line out and instead of getting two distinct benchmarks the second benchmark was the sum of both that let me think that balancing needs about twice the time than normal multiplication.

Moral of the story: if some results look suspicious, they mostly are. Or would you buy a machine that generates energy for free?

So, how does the real benchmark look?

Well, differently ;-)

The method is as described before but let me talk a bit about the numbers to be tested.

It should be obvious that the balancing will make sense only for numbers large enough to pass the cut-off point of the Toom-Cook algorithms (T-C 2 {Karatsuba} and 3 are implemented in Libtommath) otherwise it would slow the multiplication down—costly overhead without any effect. The cut-off points will differ from architecture to architecture and mine are (in mp_digits): TC2 = 48,TC3 190 and for the very big numbers FFT=4000 (which is oversimplified but I’m working at it).

The tests for the small numbers run 1,000 times each. Time is in seconds.

</tr

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

50 * 100 | 0.04 | 0.07 |

100 * 150 | 0.14 | 0.15 |

100 * 200 | 0.18 | 0.19 |

150 * 300 | 0.35 | 0.34 |

100 * 400 | 0.37 | 0.44 |

200 * 400 | 0.79 | 0.61 |

300 * 400 | 0.98 | 0.91 |

150 * 500 | 0.62 | 0.63 |

250 * 500 | 1.13 | 0.81 |

350 * 500 | 1.38 | 1.19 |

400 * 500 | 1.35 | 1.28 |

450 * 500 | 1.30 | 1.30 |

50 * 600 | 0.53 | 0.54 |

100 * 600 | 1.00 | 0.60 |

150 * 600 | 1.42 | 0.75 |

200 * 600 | 1.31 | 1.12 |

250 * 600 | 1.44 | 1.14 |

300 * 600 | 1.78 | 1.37 |

350 * 600 | 1.81 | 1.45 |

400 * 600 | 1.83 | 1.78 |

450 * 600 | 1.86 | 1.57 |

500 * 600 | 1.74 | 1.68 |

550 * 600 | 1.62 | 1.88 |

50 * 700 | 0.61 | 0.63 |

100 * 700 | 1.18 | 1.21 |

150 * 700 | 1.69 | 0.97 |

200 * 700 | 2.83 | 1.39 |

250 * 700 | 3.23 | 1.55 |

300 * 700 | 2.16 | 1.91 |

350 * 700 | 2.22 | 1.44 |

400 * 700 | 2.34 | 1.87 |

450 * 700 | 2.35 | 2.06 |

500 * 700 | 2.32 | 2.27 |

550 * 700 | 2.26 | 2.09 |

600 * 700 | 2.68 | 2.76 |

650 * 700 | 2.39 | 2.53 |

50 * 800 | 0.69 | 0.74 |

100 * 800 | 1.36 | 1.42 |

150 * 800 | 1.95 | 1.91 |

200 * 800 | 3.34 | 1.70 |

250 * 800 | 3.84 | 1.90 |

300 * 800 | 4.46 | 2.35 |

350 * 800 | 3.18 | 2.25 |

400 * 800 | 2.85 | 1.70 |

450 * 800 | 2.91 | 2.22 |

500 * 800 | 2.93 | 2.60 |

550 * 800 | 2.88 | 2.70 |

600 * 800 | 3.73 | 3.07 |

650 * 800 | 3.51 | 3.51 |

700 * 800 | 3.16 | 3.37 |

750 * 800 | 2.82 | 2.96 |

50 * 900 | 0.78 | 0.83 |

100 * 900 | 1.54 | 1.57 |

150 * 900 | 2.21 | 2.15 |

200 * 900 | 3.94 | 3.43 |

250 * 900 | 4.48 | 2.20 |

300 * 900 | 5.29 | 2.64 |

350 * 900 | 5.72 | 2.42 |

400 * 900 | 6.00 | 2.29 |

450 * 900 | 6.20 | 2.01 |

500 * 900 | 3.58 | 2.64 |

550 * 900 | 3.55 | 2.99 |

600 * 900 | 4.91 | 3.56 |

650 * 900 | 4.79 | 3.76 |

700 * 900 | 4.33 | 5.07 |

750 * 900 | 4.07 | 4.21 |

800 * 900 | 3.73 | 4.07 |

850 * 900 | 3.68 | 3.89 |

50 * 1000 | 0.87 | 0.93 |

100 * 1000 | 1.72 | 1.78 |

150 * 1000 | 2.50 | 2.49 |

200 * 1000 | 4.35 | 4.01 |

250 * 1000 | 5.12 | 4.38 |

300 * 1000 | 5.99 | 3.03 |

350 * 1000 | 6.55 | 3.07 |

400 * 1000 | 6.96 | 2.80 |

450 * 1000 | 7.25 | 2.62 |

500 * 1000 | 7.44 | 2.32 |

550 * 1000 | 7.57 | 2.96 |

600 * 1000 | 5.86 | 3.64 |

650 * 1000 | 5.74 | 3.99 |

700 * 1000 | 5.55 | 4.40 |

750 * 1000 | 5.35 | 6.00 |

800 * 1000 | 5.08 | 6.12 |

850 * 1000 | 5.08 | 5.26 |

900 * 1000 | 4.87 | 5.01 |

950 * 1000 | 4.28 | 4.51 |

Some points a more off than others, that might have a reason in the actual numbers which get produced with a cheap PRNG and are used over the whole loop. Let me repeat the last round ([50,950] * 1,000) with a different number each time. (Generating thousands of large numbers takes some time but we can ignore it, it is the same for both)

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

50 * 1000 | 5.03 | 3.87 |

100 * 1000 | 5.05 | 3.84 |

150 * 1000 | 4.99 | 3.85 |

200 * 1000 | 4.99 | 3.86 |

250 * 1000 | 5.00 | 3.89 |

300 * 1000 | 5.00 | 3.85 |

350 * 1000 | 5.00 | 3.86 |

400 * 1000 | 5.00 | 3.92 |

450 * 1000 | 4.99 | 3.85 |

500 * 1000 | 5.05 | 3.87 |

550 * 1000 | 4.99 | 3.89 |

600 * 1000 | 5.05 | 3.86 |

650 * 1000 | 4.98 | 3.88 |

700 * 1000 | 5.08 | 3.86 |

750 * 1000 | 5.05 | 3.88 |

800 * 1000 | 4.98 | 3.84 |

850 * 1000 | 5.01 | 3.94 |

900 * 1000 | 5.12 | 3.86 |

950 * 1000 | 5.03 | 3.85 |

Oh?

Let’s use libtomath’s own tool `mp_rand`

,too:

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

50 * 1000 | 8.50 | 7.34 |

100 * 1000 | 8.50 | 7.37 |

150 * 1000 | 8.49 | 7.38 |

200 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.35 |

250 * 1000 | 8.48 | 7.34 |

300 * 1000 | 8.50 | 7.39 |

350 * 1000 | 8.48 | 7.36 |

400 * 1000 | 8.49 | 7.35 |

450 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.30 |

500 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.33 |

550 * 1000 | 8.49 | 7.37 |

600 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.33 |

650 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.32 |

700 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.34 |

750 * 1000 | 8.51 | 7.34 |

800 * 1000 | 8.46 | 7.36 |

850 * 1000 | 8.49 | 7.37 |

900 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.33 |

950 * 1000 | 8.46 | 7.38 |

The function `mp_rand`

is more exact as it makes sure that the MSD is always different from zero. This gives an interesting effect: the balanced version is even faster when both multiplicands have been ordered to have the same size. So let me get something to read while the following script runs:

for i in `seq 50 50 1000`; do for j in `seq 50 50 $i`; do ./testbalancing $i $j;done;done

The last round is the most significant:

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

1000 * 50 | 1.31 | 1.32 |

1000 * 100 | 1.72 | 1.67 |

1000 * 150 | 2.03 | 1.90 |

1000 * 200 | 2.75 | 2.30 |

1000 * 250 | 2.99 | 2.35 |

1000 * 300 | 3.26 | 2.60 |

1000 * 350 | 3.37 | 2.66 |

1000 * 400 | 3.49 | 2.79 |

1000 * 450 | 3.57 | 2.98 |

1000 * 500 | 3.66 | 3.31 |

1000 * 550 | 3.73 | 3.63 |

1000 * 600 | 4.26 | 4.20 |

1000 * 650 | 4.49 | 4.41 |

1000 * 700 | 4.85 | 4.86 |

1000 * 750 | 5.15 | 5.18 |

1000 * 800 | 5.63 | 5.40 |

1000 * 850 | 6.28 | 5.88 |

1000 * 900 | 6.92 | 6.30 |

1000 * 950 | 7.67 | 6.80 |

1000 * 1000 | 8.47 | 7.36 |

As I said at the start of this post: “If some result look suspicious, they mostly are.”, so let’s do a check:

Mmh…

n = strtoul(argv[1],NULL,10); m = strtoul(argv[2],NULL,10); --- for(n=0;n<1000;n++){ ... mp_rand(&a,n); mp_rand(&b,m); }

Ouch!

Now if that’s not embarassing, I don’t know what else is ;-)

Ok, now on with the real one. The round with one thousand first to see if the results are reasonable now.

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

50 * 1000 | 0.920000 | 1.060000 |

100 * 1000 | 1.770000 | 1.930000 |

150 * 1000 | 2.400000 | 2.460000 |

200 * 1000 | 4.640000 | 4.070000 |

250 * 1000 | 5.140000 | 4.560000 |

300 * 1000 | 6.380000 | 2.880000 |

350 * 1000 | 7.080000 | 2.980000 |

400 * 1000 | 7.420000 | 2.860000 |

450 * 1000 | 7.210000 | 2.520000 |

500 * 1000 | 7.360000 | 2.410000 |

550 * 1000 | 7.560000 | 2.980000 |

600 * 1000 | 5.940000 | 3.630000 |

650 * 1000 | 5.910000 | 3.600000 |

700 * 1000 | 5.760000 | 4.270000 |

750 * 1000 | 5.440000 | 6.060000 |

800 * 1000 | 5.210000 | 5.880000 |

850 * 1000 | 5.460000 | 5.380000 |

900 * 1000 | 5.190000 | 5.100000 |

950 * 1000 | 4.410000 | 4.400000 |

1000 * 1000 | 3.540000 | 3.530000 |

Yepp, that makes more sense; the data supports the theory. There is a jump about 300*1,000, increases smoothly (more or less) up to about 700*1,000 and…oh, forgot to switch off the shortcuts. Aaaaaand again ;-)

Number Pair | Normal Multiplication | Balanced Multiplication |
---|---|---|

50 * 1000 | 1.040000 | 0.870000 |

100 * 1000 | 1.870000 | 2.010000 |

150 * 1000 | 2.670000 | 2.400000 |

200 * 1000 | 4.610000 | 3.980000 |

250 * 1000 | 5.180000 | 4.510000 |

300 * 1000 | 6.330000 | 3.000000 |

350 * 1000 | 6.770000 | 2.850000 |

400 * 1000 | 7.030000 | 2.890000 |

450 * 1000 | 7.490000 | 2.430000 |

500 * 1000 | 7.600000 | 2.450000 |

550 * 1000 | 7.730000 | 2.980000 |

600 * 1000 | 5.680000 | 3.620000 |

650 * 1000 | 6.110000 | 3.990000 |

700 * 1000 | 5.890000 | 4.350000 |

750 * 1000 | 5.630000 | 5.910000 |

800 * 1000 | 5.150000 | 6.110000 |

850 * 1000 | 5.360000 | 5.250000 |

900 * 1000 | 5.180000 | 5.090000 |

950 * 1000 | 4.620000 | 4.340000 |

1000 * 1000 | 4.160000 | 4.290000 |

Nearly the same. There are two peaks where the differences are close to the Toom-Cook cut-off point. I’ll put the full table after the fold but the conclusion is that this kind of balancing makes most sense between about 3/10 and 7/10 and both multiplicands should be larger than the Toom-Cook 3 cut-off.

Continue reading

# Adventures of a Programmer: Parser Writing Peril XV

To test the last try of balancing multiplication in libtommath I needed to generate some large numbers. Really large numbers. Tens of millions of decimal digits long numbers. Using e.g.: `stdin`

as the input needs patience and has limits regarding the length of the argument buffer. It is more elegant to produce them directly with the conditions that the bits should be more or less uniformly distributed, can get generated fast and have no unwelcome side effects.

There is a function in libtommath called `mp_rand`

which produces a pseudo-random integer of a given size but it does not meet the above conditions. It uses a slow method involving elementary functions like `add`

and `shift`

but that is negligible. It uses `rand()`

which *has* side effects. The first one is that is not in the C-standard ISO/IEC 9899/2011 but in Posix (POSIX.1-2001) and the second one is that calls to `rand()`

might be implemented in a cryptographically secure way and its usage reduces the entropy pool without a good reason when used to generate large numbers for mere testing.

The method I used was to take a simple PRNG (pseudo random number generator) and copy the generated small 32-bit integers direct into the digits.

int make_large_number(mp_int * c, int size) { int e; if ((e = mp_grow(c, size)) != MP_OKAY) { return e; } c->used = size; while (size--) { c->dp[size] = (mp_digit)(light_random() & MP_MASK); } mp_clamp(c); return MP_OKAY; }

With `light_random()`

a small generator of the form [ [4] based on [3] see also [2] ] (48271 is a primitive root modulo ).

#include <stdint.h> static unsigned int seed = 1; int light_random(void) { int32_t result; result = seed; result = 48271 * (result % 44488) - 3399 * (int32_t) (result / 44488); if (result < 0){ result += ((1U<<31) -1); } seed = result; return result; } void slight_random(unsigned int grain){ /* The seed of the Lehmer-PRNg above must be co-prime to the modulus. The modulus 2^31-1 is prime (Mersenne prime M_{31}) so all numbers in [1,2^31-2] are co-prime with the exception of zero. */ seed = (grain)?seed:1; }

The method used to compute the remainder is called Schrage’s method[1]. Let me give a short description.

Given than , so and such that we can write

I’ll ommit the full proof and point to the paper but will give a short sketch of it.

Expanding the inner fractions

and with the additional conditions and the fraction is much smaller than unity.

With the Taylor expansion in hand and replacing with we get

As both and are smaller than unity and with

much smaller than unity we can state that

This allows us to conclude that

Put in the values and we have the code from above.

The period is which is enough to fill the maximum number of digits assuming `sizeof(int) = 4`

. With 28 bit long digits it is good enough for numbers up to 18,100,795,794 decimal digits.

[1] Schrage, L., *A More Portable Fortran Random Number Generator*, ACM Trans. Math. Software 5, 132-138, 1979.

[2] Stephen K. Park and Keith W. Miller and Paul K. Stockmeyer, *Another Test for Randomness: Response*, Communications of the ACM 36.7 (1993): 108-110.

[3] Lehmer, D. H., *Mathematical methods in large-scale computing units*, Proceedings of a Second Symposium on Large-Scale Digital Calculating Machinery, 1949,141–146. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1951.

[4] Park, Stephen K., and Keith W. Miller, *Random number generators: good ones are hard to find*, Communications of the ACM 31.10 (1988): 1192-1201.

# Adventures of a Programmer: Parser Writing Peril XIV

As I noted in my last post, the big integer library libtommath lacks a method to balance the multiplicands in size. The method to do it is quite simple and based on the rule:

Where are the multiplicands and is a multiplier of positive integer value. Example shall be :

If we use a binary multiplier instead of the decimal one we can use simple shifting to do the multiplication and we should use the big-number digits instead of the decimal ones, too, I think.

Here denotes the cut-off point marking the minimum size of the smaller multiplicand. This could be as small as 1 (one) but I would take that as a special value where the algorithm used in `mp_*_d`

will show better results (and it should be done in `mp_mul`

directly).

The other cut-off point is the relation of . It should be smaller than 1 (one), of course, but how much? ? Or even earlier at ? Hard to tell without a test but I think and will do for a start.

A straightforward implementation could be

#define MP_C1 2 #define MP_C2 0.5f int mp_balance_mult(mp_int *a, mp_int *b, mp_int *c){ int e, count,len_a, len_b; mp_int a_0,a_1; /* get digit size of a and b */ len_a = a->used; len_b = b->used; /* check if size of smaller one is larger than C1 */ if(MIN(len_a,len_b) < MP_C1){ //printf("Checkpoint C1 failed with length(a) = %d, length(b) = %d\n", // a->used,b->used); mp_mul(a,b,c); return MP_OKAY; } /* check if the sizes of both differ enough (smaller than C2)*/ if(( (float)MAX(len_a,len_b) / (float)MIN(len_a,len_b)) < MP_C2){ //printf("Checkpoint C2 failed with %f\n",( (float)len_a / (float)len_b)); mp_mul(a,b,c); return MP_OKAY; } /*Make sure that a is the larger one */ if(len_a < len_b){ mp_exch(a,b); } /* cut larger one in two parts a1, a0 with the smaller part a0 of the same length as the smaller input number b_0 */ mp_init_size(&a_0,b->used); a_0.used = b->used; mp_init_size(&a_1,a->used - b->used); a_1.used = a->used - b->used; /* fill smaller part a_0 */ for (count = 0; count < b->used ; count++) { a_0.dp[count] = a->dp[count]; } /* fill bigger part a_1 with the counter already at the right place*/ for (; count < a->used; count++) { a_1.dp[count-b->used] = a->dp[count]; } /* Speciale aanbieding: Zeeuwse mosselen maar 1,11 EUR/kg! */ mp_clamp(&a_0); mp_clamp(&a_1); /* a_1 = a_1 * b_0 */ mp_mul(&a_1,b,&a_1); /* a_1 = a_1 * 2^(length(a_0)) */ mp_lshd(&a_1,b->used); /* a_0 = a_0 * b_0 */ mp_mul(&a_0,b,&a_0); /* c = a_1 + a_0 */ mp_add(&a_1,&a_0,c); /* Don't mess with the input more than necessary */ if(len_a < len_b){ mp_exch(a,b); } return MP_OKAY; }

To make it short: it is slower and needs twice the time on average in contrast to the native multiplication algorithms tested with two numbers in relation with , using other relations makes it even worse.

So we can call it, with good conscience, an utter failure. Back to the blackboard.

# Adventures of a Programmer: Parser Writing Peril XIII

The biggest native integer libtommath allowed to set directly seems to be[1] an `unsigned long`

in the function `mp_set_int`

. The biggest native integer used, on the other side, is hidden behind `mp_word`

which is the type able to hold twice the size of `mp_digit`

and can be larger than an `unsigned long`

.

I need for my calculator some ways to work with native numbers without much ado where *ado* means a lot of conditionals, preprocessor directives, complicated data structures and all that mess. One of the ways to avoid it is to use the digits of the large integers directly if the large integer has only one. An example? Ok, an example.

Take the partial harmonic series, for example

If you calculate it with the help of the binary-splitting algorithm, especially than, a lot of the numbers involved are in the range of native integers and hold only on digit of the big numbers. The initialization of the big numbers in libtommath set them to 8 digits at least (the responsible variable is `MP_PREC`

in `tommath.h`

) and consumes costly heap memory to do so.

Fredrik Johansson proposed in a blogpost to postpone the reducing of the fraction to the very end. It is not much but it is something so let’s follow his advice and do so using my rational library (as mostly: without any error checking for less code-cluttering).

static mp_rat h_temp; mp_rat *_harmonics(unsigned long a, unsigned long b) { unsigned long m; mp_rat ta, tb; mp_int p, q, r, s; mp_word ps, qr; int e; if (b - a == 1) { mpq_set_int(&h_temp, (long) 1, (long) a); return &h_temp; } m = (a + b) >> 1; mpq_init_multi(&ta, &tb, NULL); // This is not necessarily necessary mp_init_multi(&p, &q, &r, &s, NULL); mpq_exch(_harmonics(a, m), &ta); mpq_exch(_harmonics(m, b), &tb); mp_exch(&ta.numerator, &p); mp_exch(&ta.denominator, &q); mp_exch(&tb.numerator, &r); mp_exch(&tb.denominator, &s); if ((&p)->used == 1 && (&s)->used == 1) { ps = (&p)->dp[0] * (mp_word) (&s)->dp[0]; mp_set_word(&ta.numerator, ps); } else { mp_mul(&p, &s, &ta.numerator); } if ((&q)->used == 1 && (&r)->used == 1) { qr = (&q)->dp[0] * (mp_word) (&r)->dp[0]; mp_set_word(&tb.numerator, qr); } else { mp_mul(&q, &r, &tb.numerator); } mp_add(&ta.numerator, &tb.numerator, &h_temp.numerator); mp_mul(&q, &s, &h_temp.denominator); mp_clear_multi(&p, &q, &r, &s, NULL); mpq_clear_multi(&ta, &tb, NULL); return &h_temp; } int harmonics(unsigned long n, mp_rat * c) { mpq_init(&h_temp); mpq_exch(_harmonics(1, n + 1), c); mpq_reduce(c); mpq_clear(&h_temp); return 1; }

The library `libtommath`

is not very friendly if used in such a way but I cannot find out a better way to implement the binary splitting algorithm. This implementation of the partial harmonic series for example, is much slower than Fredriks implementation with `gmpy`

(but faster than the native `Python`

one, at least ;-) ). It takes about 0.67 seconds for but already 193.61 seconds—yes, over 3 minutes!— for . That is definitely too much.

Funny thing: the normal algorithm is much faster, just 40 seconds for but also slower for smaller values, like about 1.09 seconds for whith the cut-off point at about on my machine. And it is *asymptotically* slower, I measured some points in between to find out. It is really time to implement fast multiplication in full in `libtommath`

.

Some of the problems with the first algorithm might have their reason in the nonexistent balancing of the multiplicands. There is a balancing function in the pull-queue but it seems to be a port from Ruby which makes it impossible to accept because of Ruby’s license (given that the submitter is not the original programmer of the Ruby code which I haven’t checked.)

static mp_rat h_temp; mp_rat * _harmonics(unsigned long a,unsigned long b){ unsigned long m; mp_rat ta,tb; if(b-a==1){ mpq_set_int(&h_temp,(long)1,(long)a); return &h_temp; } m = (a+b)>>1; mpq_init_multi(&ta,&tb,NULL); mpq_exch(_harmonics(a,m),&ta); mpq_exch(_harmonics(m,b),&tb); mpq_add(&ta,&tb,&h_temp); mpq_clear_multi(&ta,&tb,NULL); return &h_temp; } // use the same caller as above

However, it was just meant to be used as an example for `mp_set_word`

which I’ll present here:

#if (MP_PREC > 1) int mp_set_word(mp_int *c,mp_word w){ mp_zero(c); if(w == 0){ return MP_OKAY; } do{ c->dp[c->used++] = (mp_digit)w&MP_MASK; }while( (w >>= DIGIT_BIT) > 0 && c->used < MP_PREC); if( w != 0 ){ return MP_VAL; } return MP_OKAY; } #else #warning variable "MP_PREC" should be at least 2 #endif

The preprocessor mess is necessary even if the constant `MP_PREC`

should be at least 8 (eight) but, as I can tell you from some very bad experience, one never knows.

[1] The reason for the stylistically awkward subjunctive is: I mean it. I really could have overseen an already implemented function doing exactly what I wanted in the first place and hence is not a case of NIH. This time ;-)