Our professor said that in computer logic it's important when you add a number to another so a+b and b+a are not always equal.
Though,I couldn't find an example of when they would be different and why they won't be equal.
I think it would have to do something with bits but then again ,I'm not sure.
Although you don't share a lot of context it sounds as if your professor did not elaborate on that or you missed something.
In the case that he was talking about logic in general, he could have meant that the behavior of the + operator depends on how you define it.
Example: The definition (+) a b := if (a==0) then 5 else 0 results in a + operator which is not associative, e.g. 1 + 0 would be 0 but 0 + 1 would be 5. There are many programming languages that allow this redefinition (overwriting) of standard operators.
But with the context you share, this is all speculative.
One obscure possibility is if one or other of a or b is a high-definition timer value - ticks since program start.
Due to the cpu cycle(s) consumed to pop one of the values before addition, it's possible the sum could be different dependant on the order.
One more possibility is if a and b are expressions with side effects. E.g.
int x = 0;
int a() {
x += 1;
return x;
}
int b() {
return x;
}
a() + b() will return 2 and b() + a() will return 1 (both from initial state).
Or it could be that a or b are NaN, in which case even a == a is false. Though this one isn't connected with "when you add a number to another".
I was watching the talk given by Martin Odersky as recommended by himself in the coursera scala course and I am quite curious about one aspect of it
var x = 0
async { x = x + 1 }
async { x = x * 2 }
So I get that it can give 2 if if the first statement gets executed first and then the second one:
x = 0;
x = x + 1;
x = x * 2; // this will be x = 2
I get how it can give 1 :
x = 0;
x = x * 2;
x = x + 1 // this will be x = 1
However how can it result 0? Is it possible that the statement don't execute at all?
Sorry for such an easy question but I'm really stuck at it
You need to think about interleaved execution. Remember that the CPU needs to read the value of x before it can work on it. So imagine the following:
Thread 1 reads x (reading 0)
Thread 2 reads x (reading 0)
Thread 1 writes x + 1 (writing 1)
Thread 2 writes x * 2 (writing 0)
I know this has already been answered, but maybe this is still useful:
Think of it as a sequence of atomic operations. The processor is doing one atomic operation at a time.
Here we have the following:
Read x
Write x
Add 1
Multiply 2
The following two sequences are guaranteed to happen in this order "within themselves":
Read x, Add 1, Write x
Read x, Multiply 2, Write x
However, if you are executing them in parallel, the time of execution of each atomic operation relative to any other atomic operation in the other sequence is random i.e. these two sequences interleave.
One of the possible order of execution will produce 0 which is given in the answer by Paul Butcher
Here is an illustration I found on the internet:
Each blue/purple block is one atomic operation, you can see how you can have different results based on the order of the blocks
To solve this problem you can use the keyword "synchronized"
My understanding is that if you mark two blocks of code (e.g. two methods) with synchronized within the same object then each block will own the lock of that object while being executed, so that the other block cannot be executed while the first hasn't finished yet. However, if you have two synchronised blocks in two different objects then they can execute in parallel.
I am taking coursera course and,for an assignment, I have written a code to count the change of an amount given a list of denominations. A doing a lot of research, I found explanations of various algorithms. In the recursive implementation, one of the base cases is if the amount money is 0 then the count is 1. I don't understand why but this is the only way the code works. I feel that is the amount is 0 then there is no way to make change for it and I should throw an exception. The code look like:
function countChange(amount : Int, denoms :List[Int]) : Int = {
if (amount == 0 ) return 1 ....
Any explanation is much appreciated.
To avoid speaking specifically about the Coursera problem, I'll refer to a simpler but similar problem.
How many outcomes are there for 2 coin flips? 4.
(H,H),(H,T),(T,H),(T,T)
How many outcomes are there for 1 coin flip? 2.
(H),(T)
How many outcomes are there for 0 coin flips? 1.
()
Expressing this recursively, how many outcomes are there for N coin flips? Let's call it f(N) where
f(N) = 2 * f(N - 1), for N > 0
f(0) = 1
The N = 0 trivial (base) case is chosen so that the non-trivial cases, defined recursively, work out correctly. Since we're doing multiplication in this example and the identity element for multiplication is 1, it makes sense to choose that as the base case.
Alternatively, you could argue from combinatorics: n choose 0 = 1, 0! = 1, etc.
So I've spent hours trying to work out exactly how this code produces prime numbers.
lazy val ps: Stream[Int] = 2 #:: Stream.from(3).filter(i =>
ps.takeWhile{j => j * j <= i}.forall{ k => i % k > 0});
I've used a number of printlns etc, but nothings making it clearer.
This is what I think the code does:
/**
* [2,3]
*
* takeWhile 2*2 <= 3
* takeWhile 2*2 <= 4 found match
* (4 % [2,3] > 1) return false.
* takeWhile 2*2 <= 5 found match
* (5 % [2,3] > 1) return true
* Add 5 to the list
* takeWhile 2*2 <= 6 found match
* (6 % [2,3,5] > 1) return false
* takeWhile 2*2 <= 7
* (7 % [2,3,5] > 1) return true
* Add 7 to the list
*/
But If I change j*j in the list to be 2*2 which I assumed would work exactly the same, it causes a stackoverflow error.
I'm obviously missing something fundamental here, and could really use someone explaining this to me like I was a five year old.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure that seeking a procedural/imperative explanation is the best way to gain understanding here. Streams come from functional programming and they're best understood from that perspective. The key aspects of the definition you've given are:
It's lazy. Other than the first element in the stream, nothing is computed until you ask for it. If you never ask for the 5th prime, it will never be computed.
It's recursive. The list of prime numbers is defined in terms of itself.
It's infinite. Streams have the interesting property (because they're lazy) that they can represent a sequence with an infinite number of elements. Stream.from(3) is an example of this: it represents the list [3, 4, 5, ...].
Let's see if we can understand why your definition computes the sequence of prime numbers.
The definition starts out with 2 #:: .... This just says that the first number in the sequence is 2 - simple enough so far.
The next part defines the rest of the prime numbers. We can start with all the counting numbers starting at 3 (Stream.from(3)), but we obviously need to filter a bunch of these numbers out (i.e., all the composites). So let's consider each number i. If i is not a multiple of a lesser prime number, then i is prime. That is, i is prime if, for all primes k less than i, i % k > 0. In Scala, we could express this as
nums.filter(i => ps.takeWhile(k => k < i).forall(k => i % k > 0))
However, it isn't actually necessary to check all lesser prime numbers -- we really only need to check the prime numbers whose square is less than or equal to i (this is a fact from number theory*). So we could instead write
nums.filter(i => ps.takeWhile(k => k * k <= i).forall(k => i % k > 0))
So we've derived your definition.
Now, if you happened to try the first definition (with k < i), you would have found that it didn't work. Why not? It has to do with the fact that this is a recursive definition.
Suppose we're trying to decide what comes after 2 in the sequence. The definition tells us to first determine whether 3 belongs. To do so, we consider the list of primes up to the first one greater than or equal to 3 (takeWhile(k => k < i)). The first prime is 2, which is less than 3 -- so far so good. But we don't yet know the second prime, so we need to compute it. Fine, so we need to first see whether 3 belongs ... BOOM!
* It's pretty easy to see that if a number n is composite then the square of one of its factors must be less than or equal to n. If n is composite, then by definition n == a * b, where 1 < a <= b < n (we can guarantee a <= b just by labeling the two factors appropriately). From a <= b it follows that a^2 <= a * b, so it follows that a^2 <= n.
Your explanations are mostly correct, you made only two mistakes:
takeWhile doesn't include the last checked element:
scala> List(1,2,3).takeWhile(_<2)
res1: List[Int] = List(1)
You assume that ps always contains only a two and a three but because Stream is lazy it is possible to add new elements to it. In fact each time a new prime is found it is added to ps and in the next step takeWhile will consider this new added element. Here, it is important to remember that the tail of a Stream is computed only when it is needed, thus takeWhile can't see it before forall is evaluated to true.
Keep these two things in mind and you should came up with this:
ps = [2]
i = 3
takeWhile
2*2 <= 3 -> false
forall on []
-> true
ps = [2,3]
i = 4
takeWhile
2*2 <= 4 -> true
3*3 <= 4 -> false
forall on [2]
4%2 > 0 -> false
ps = [2,3]
i = 5
takeWhile
2*2 <= 5 -> true
3*3 <= 5 -> false
forall on [2]
5%2 > 0 -> true
ps = [2,3,5]
i = 6
...
While these steps describe the behavior of the code, it is not fully correct because not only adding elements to the Stream is lazy but every operation on it. This means that when you call xs.takeWhile(f) not all values until the point when f is false are computed at once - they are computed when forall wants to see them (because it is the only function here that needs to look at all elements before it definitely can result to true, for false it can abort earlier). Here the computation order when laziness is considered everywhere (example only looking at 9):
ps = [2,3,5,7]
i = 9
takeWhile on 2
2*2 <= 9 -> true
forall on 2
9%2 > 0 -> true
takeWhile on 3
3*3 <= 9 -> true
forall on 3
9%3 > 0 -> false
ps = [2,3,5,7]
i = 10
...
Because forall is aborted when it evaluates to false, takeWhile doesn't calculate the remaining possible elements.
That code is easier (for me, at least) to read with some variables renamed suggestively, as
lazy val ps: Stream[Int] = 2 #:: Stream.from(3).filter(i =>
ps.takeWhile{p => p * p <= i}.forall{ p => i % p > 0});
This reads left-to-right quite naturally, as
primes are 2, and those numbers i from 3 up, that all of the primes p whose square does not exceed the i, do not divide i evenly (i.e. without some non-zero remainder).
In a true recursive fashion, to understand this definition as defining the ever increasing stream of primes, we assume that it is so, and from that assumption we see that no contradiction arises, i.e. the truth of the definition holds.
The only potential problem after that, is the timing of accessing the stream ps as it is being defined. As the first step, imagine we just have another stream of primes provided to us from somewhere, magically. Then, after seeing the truth of the definition, check that the timing of the access is okay, i.e. we never try to access the areas of ps before they are defined; that would make the definition stuck, unproductive.
I remember reading somewhere (don't recall where) something like the following -- a conversation between a student and a wizard,
student: which numbers are prime?
wizard: well, do you know what number is the first prime?
s: yes, it's 2.
w: okay (quickly writes down 2 on a piece of paper). And what about the next one?
s: well, next candidate is 3. we need to check whether it is divided by any prime whose square does not exceed it, but I don't yet know what the primes are!
w: don't worry, I'l give them to you. It's a magic I know; I'm a wizard after all.
s: okay, so what is the first prime number?
w: (glances over the piece of paper) 2.
s: great, so its square is already greater than 3... HEY, you've cheated! .....
Here's a pseudocode1 translation of your code, read partially right-to-left, with some variables again renamed for clarity (using p for "prime"):
ps = 2 : filter (\i-> all (\p->rem i p > 0) (takeWhile (\p->p^2 <= i) ps)) [3..]
which is also
ps = 2 : [i | i <- [3..], and [rem i p > 0 | p <- takeWhile (\p->p^2 <= i) ps]]
which is a bit more visually apparent, using list comprehensions. and checks that all entries in a list of Booleans are True (read | as "for", <- as "drawn from", , as "such that" and (\p-> ...) as "lambda of p").
So you see, ps is a lazy list of 2, and then of numbers i drawn from a stream [3,4,5,...] such that for all p drawn from ps such that p^2 <= i, it is true that i % p > 0. Which is actually an optimal trial division algorithm. :)
There's a subtlety here of course: the list ps is open-ended. We use it as it is being "fleshed-out" (that of course, because it is lazy). When ps are taken from ps, it could potentially be a case that we run past its end, in which case we'd have a non-terminating calculation on our hands (a "black hole"). It just so happens :) (and needs to ⁄ can be proved mathematically) that this is impossible with the above definition. So 2 is put into ps unconditionally, so there's something in it to begin with.
But if we try to "simplify",
bad = 2 : [i | i <- [3..], and [rem i p > 0 | p <- takeWhile (\p->p < i) bad]]
it stops working after producing just one number, 2: when considering 3 as the candidate, takeWhile (\p->p < 3) bad demands the next number in bad after 2, but there aren't yet any more numbers there. It "jumps ahead of itself".
This is "fixed" with
bad = 2 : [i | i <- [3..], and [rem i p > 0 | p <- [2..(i-1)] ]]
but that is a much much slower trial division algorithm, very far from the optimal one.
--
1 (Haskell actually, it's just easier for me that way :) )
Is there any benefit to structuring boolean expressions like:
if (0 < x) { ... }
instead of
if (x > 0) { ... }
I have always used the second way, always putting the variable as the first operand and using whatever boolean operator makes sense, but lately I have read code that uses the first method, and after getting over the initial weirdness I am starting to like it a lot more.
Now I have started to write all my boolean expressions to only use < or <= even if this means the variable isn't the first operand, like the above example. To me it seems to increase readability, but that might just be me :)
What do other people think about this?
Do whatever is most natural for whatever expression you are trying to compare.
If you're wondering about other operations (like ==) there are previous topics comparing the orderings of operands for those comparisons (and the reasons why).
It is mostly done to avoid the problem of using = instead of == in if conditions. To keep the consistency many people use the same for with other operators also. I do not see any problem in doing it.
Use whatever 'reads' best. One thing I'd point out is that if I'm testing to see if a value is within bounds, I try to write it so the bounds are on the 'outside' just like they might be in a mathematical expression:
So, to test that (0 < x <= 10):
if ((0 < x) && (x <= 10)) { ... }
instead of
if ((0 < x) && (10 >= x)) { ... }
or
if ((x > 0) && (10 >= x)) { ... }
I find this pattern make is somewhat easier to follow the logic.
An advantage for putting the number first is that it can prevent bug of using = when == is wanted.
if ( 0 == x ) // ok
if ( 0 = x ) //is a compiler error
compare to the subtle bug:
if ( x = 0 ) // assignment and not comparison. most likely a typo
To be honest it's unusual to write expressions with the variable on the right-side, and as a direct consequence of that unusualness readability suffers. Coding conventions have intrinsic value merely by virtue of being conventions; people are used to code being written in particular standard ways, x >= 0 being one example. Unnecessarily deviating from simple norms like these should be avoided without good cause.
The fact that you had to "get over the initial weirdness" should perhaps be a red flag.
I would not write 0 < x just as I would not use Hungarian notation in Java. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. The Romans write x >= 0. No, it's not a huge deal, it just seems like an unnecessary little quirk.