Skip to main content

binary - No builtin function for bitwise rotation?


There appears to be no builtin Mathematica function for bitwise rotation. Is that true?


I suppose I can write my function:


ROR[x_, k_] := FromDigits[RotateRight[IntegerDigits[x, 2, 32], k]]

Obviously this will be a lot more inefficient than a builtin function because in machine code a rotate right is a single instruction. Is this my only option?



Answer




This should be reasonably efficient.


BitRotateRight[n_Integer, m_Integer] /; n > 0 && m >= 0 :=
BitShiftRight[n, m] + BitShiftLeft[Mod[n, 2^m], (BitLength[n] - m)]

Will need to modify for left rotations if you want to support negative m. I added the restriction that n be positive. Not exactly sure what should be the behavior for negative n.


Quick example:


BitRotateRight[111, 5]

(* Out[2]= 63 *)


IntegerDigits[111, 2]

(* Out[3]= {1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1} *)

--- Edit ---


The question has been raised as to whether this approach is correct, or efficient for machine integers. Having looked more closely at the original post I agree it is not quite correct. The thing to do is to use a fixed length of e.g. 32 bits. I will show variants on this theme below. I hard-coded that lenght of 32 in several places. Obviously it could instead be an input parameter.


This is my first try, suitably modified, and made Listable for efficiency testing.


SetAttributes[BitRotateRight, Listable];

BitRotateRight[n_Integer, m_Integer] /; n > 0 && m >= 0 :=

BitShiftRight[n, m] + BitShiftLeft[Mod[n, 2^m], (32 - m)]

Here is a compiled version.


BitRotateRightC = 
Compile[{{n, _Integer}, {m, _Integer}},
BitShiftRight[n, m] + BitShiftLeft[Mod[n, 2^m], (32 - m)],
RuntimeAttributes -> Listable];

Here is a variant that is not Listable but instead operates directly on a rank 1 tensor.


BitRotateRightC2 = 

Compile[{{n, _Integer, 1}, {m, _Integer}},
BitShiftRight[n, m] + BitShiftLeft[Mod[n, 2^m], (32 - m)]];

Last we'll show the code from the original post. I alter so that it computes, rather than shows, the machine integer result. Specifically, we use FromDigits to base 2 and do not try to show it as a bit string.


SetAttributes[ROR, Listable]
ROR[x_, k_] := FromDigits[RotateRight[IntegerDigits[x, 2, 32], k], 2]

We'll show testing on a list of a million or so machine integers.


n = 2^20;
SeedRandom[1111];

tt = RandomInteger[{0, 2^30}, n];

Timing[uu1 = BitRotateRight[tt, 3];]
(* Out[130]= {4.912000, Null} *)

Timing[uu2 = BitRotateRightC[tt, 3];]
(* Out[146]= {0.808000, Null} *)

Timing[uu2b = BitRotateRightC2[tt, 3];]
(* Out[147]= {0.044000, Null} *)


Timing[uu3 = ROR[tt, 3];]
(* Out[148]= {7.336000, Null} *)

I also did a version of ROR using Compile. It took about the same time as BitRotateRight. Also if I remove the positivity checks from BitRotateRight then it becomes somewhat faster (takes 3.2 seconds). So ROR is clearly slower, but not by all that much, than my first attempt.


Let's check for agreement.


uu1 = uu2 == uu2b == uu3
(* Out[149]= True *)

The middle two are of course packed array results. The outer ones are not. Compiling gives a factor of 5 improvement in speed, and working directly on a rank 1 tensor is an order of magnitude faster still.



--- End edit ---


--- Edit 2 ---


Actually it is best just to use basic listability, provided one is willing to forego type checking or do it differently than I had done. Suppose we clear prior definitions and then start with the one below.


BitRotateRight[n_, m_Integer] := 
BitShiftRight[n, m] + BitShiftLeft[Mod[n, 2^m], (32 - m)]

Here is that example with 2^20 elements.


Timing[uu1b = BitRotateRight[tt, 3];]
(* Out[192]= {0.048000, Null} *)


In[193]:= uu1b == uu2
(* True *)

Probably I should just have done it this way from the beginning. That said, using Compile and showing runs that give no error or warning messages had its own advantage. It aptly demonstrates that the standard Mathematica evaluator is not being used. That is to say, the computation stays in the VM and runtime library. It was this secondary goal that (mis?)lead me in the compilation direction.


--- End edit 2 ---


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.