I'd need to perform a bitwise operation (or a serie) so that:
0 1 = 0
1 1 = 1
1 0 = 0
so far AND (&) works fine but I also need that
0 0 = 1
and here AND (&) is not the correct one.
I'm using it in a jquery grep function that reads:
jQuery.grep(json, function (e, index) {
return (e.value & (onoff << 3)) != 0;
});
where onoff could be either 1 or 0 and e.value is a representation of a 4 bits string (i.e. could be "1001"). In this above example I'm testing first bit on the left (<< 3).
Can this be done with a serie of AND, OR, XOR?
This is just XNOR(a, b), which is equal to NOT(XOR(a, b)), i.e. exclusive OR with the output inverted. In C and C-like languages this would be:
!(a ^ b)
or in your specific case:
return !((e.value >> 3) ^ onoff);
Having said that, you could just test for equality:
return (e.value >> 3) == onoff;
This looks roughly like XOR which has the following results table:
0 0 = 0
0 1 = 1
1 0 = 1
1 1 = 0
Now you want to have the opposite, meaning that you want 1 if both inputs are the same value. And this leads us to NOT XOR
0 0 = 1
0 1 = 0
1 0 = 0
1 1 = 1
Related
I'm solving the following problem with cp_model from ortools.sat.python in Python, but I'm looking for a more efficient solver.
Problem:
Let's have n boolean variables A, B, C, ...
The goal is to find all possible/feasible combinations on boolean values that satisfy a set of rules. There are 3 types of rules:
One and only one of (A, B) might be true. I'm applying this as:
model.AddBoolXOr([A,B])
model.Add(A == False).OnlyEnforceIf(B)
model.Add(B == False).OnlyEnforceIf(A)
At most one of (C, D, E) might be true. I'm applying this as:
model.Add(C == False).OnlyEnforceIf(D)
model.Add(C == False).OnlyEnforceIf(E)
model.Add(D == False).OnlyEnforceIf(C)
model.Add(D == False).OnlyEnforceIf(E)
model.Add(E == False).OnlyEnforceIf(C)
model.Add(E == False).OnlyEnforceIf(D)
F is only possible when (A and ~C) or (B and (C or E)). First I'm converting this to CNF: (A or B) and (B or ~C) and (A or C or E). Then I insert that to the model:
model.Add(F == False).OnlyEnforceIf([A.Not(), B.Not()])
model.Add(F == False).OnlyEnforceIf([B.Not(), C])
model.Add(F == False).OnlyEnforceIf([A.Not(), C.Not(), E.Not()])
The result for above looks like:
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1 1
1 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1
Since my problem is big, I'm looking for a more efficient solution. I found minisat but I'm not sure if it is possible to express the above constraints in the DIMACS form and make minisat calculate all feasible solutions (by default it finds first and stops).
Is there any there solver capable of solving such a problem?
what a convoluted way of writing the model.
1)
model.Add(a + b == 1)
or
model.AddBoolOr([a, b])
model.AddImplication(a, b.Not())
model.AddImplication(b, a.Not())
model.Add(c + d + e <= 1)
or
model.AddImplication(c, d.Not())
model.AddImplication(c, e.Not())
model.AddImplication(d, c.Not())
model.AddImplication(d, e.Not())
model.AddImplication(e, c.Not())
model.AddImplication(e, d.Not())
Create 1 bool var for each and
(A and ~C) <=> G
model.AddImplication(G, A)
model.AddImplication(G, C.Not())
model.AddBoolOr([A.Not(), C, G.Not())
then F is only possible if x1 or x2 or x3
model.AddBoolOr([F.Not(), x1, x2, x3])
How do I code this if statement (let's say in c++):
if (condition1 == true and condition2 == true (when condition3 == true))
{
// condition2 need to be true only when condition3 is true
}
When figuring out how to express any boolean-predicate it helps to build a truth-table that lists the possible values of each boolean value in separate columns and the expected output in its own column. The values in each column increment by +1 as though each column is a binary-digit in a base-2 number.
Like so:
A B C Output
---------------------
0 0 0 ?
0 0 1 ?
0 1 0 ?
0 1 1 ?
1 0 0 ?
1 0 1 ?
1 1 0 ?
1 1 1 ?
Based on your question's title (and not the example pseudocode that you posted), I assume you want this output:
A B C Output
---------------------
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0
0 1 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1
...which is just a trivial AND between all 3 values:
bool a = ...
bool b = ...
bool c = ...
if( a && b && c )
{
do_the_thing();
}
I'm trying to implement an oscilloscope for a digital input and send it over a serial port for debugging. I have the scope software sending Matlab a string like "000000111111111000000001111111000000". I'd like to plot this. Is there any way for me to split this string into a vector. It doesn't seem Matlab allows you to use strsplit() without a delimiter. I'd rather not bog up the communications with a delimiter between each byte.
With MATLAB's weak typing, this is actually quite easy:
>> str = '000000111111111000000001111111000000'
str = 000000111111111000000001111111000000
>> class(str)
ans = char
>> vec = str - '0'
vec =
Columns 1 through 22:
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Columns 23 through 36:
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
>> class(vec)
ans = double
This subtracts the ordinal value of the character '0' from each character in the string, leaving the numerical values 0 or 1.
You can use sscanf with a single value width:
a = '000000111111111000000001111111000000'
b = sscanf(a, '%1d');
Which returns:
>> b.'
ans =
Columns 1 through 18
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Columns 19 through 36
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
A quick and fast solution is:
data = '000001111111110000000000111111111110000000';
vec = str2double(cellstr(data.').');
It will produce a column vector of numeric values. If you want a row vector as output, just use a single transpose:
vec = str2double(cellstr(data.'));
I'm surprised how difficult this is to do. But here's what I came up with:
str = '000001111111110000000000111111111110000000'; %test string
y = cellfun(#(x) str2num(x), regexp(str,'\d','match'));
plot(y);
regexp() seems to be the only way to go. By default, it return indexes of matches so you need to specify 'match'. Then you end up with a cell array of strings. The only good way to convert this into a numerical array is one item at a time with str2num().
I hope this helps someone else out who is assuming there is a straight forward function as I assumed. And if anyone knows a way to do this without converting my "01...01....01....01....00....00....00....00" stream of bytes into the ascii representations of the binary numbers: "49.....49.....49....49....48....48....48....48", I'd love to hear it.
I have been stuck with this problem for two days and I still can't get it right.
Basically, I have a 2D array with relations between certain numbers (in given range):
0 = the order doesn't matter
1 = the first number (number in left column) should be first
2 = the second number (number in upper row) should be first
So, I have some 2D array, for example this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
And my goal is to create a new array of given numbers (0 - 6) in such a way that it is following the rules from the 2D array (e.g. 0 is before 2 but it is after 6). I probably also have to check if such array exists and then create the array. And get something like this:
6 0 2 1 4 5
My Code
(It doesn't really matter, but I prefer c++)
So far I tried to start with ordered array 0123456 and then swap elements according to the table (but that obviously can't work). I also tried inserting the number in front of the other number according to the table, but it doesn't seem to work either.
// My code example
// I have:
// relArr[n][n] - array of relations
// resArr = {1, 2, ... , n} - result array
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int x = 0; x < n; x++) {
if (relArr[i][x] == 1) {
// Finding indexes of first (i) and second (x) number
int iI = 0;
int iX = 0;
while (resArr[iX] != x)
iX++;
while (resArr[iI] != i)
iI++;
// Placing the (i) before (x) and shifting array
int tmp, insert = iX+1;
if (iX < iI) {
tmp = resArr[iX];
resArr[iX] = resArr[iI];
while (insert < iI+1) {
int tt = resArr[insert];
resArr[insert] = tmp;
tmp = tt;
insert++;
}
}
} else if (relArr[i][x] == 2) {
int iI = 0;
int iX = 0;
while (resArr[iX] != x)
iX++;
while (resArr[iI] != i)
iI++;
int tmp, insert = iX-1;
if (iX > iI) {
tmp = resArr[iX];
resArr[iX] = resArr[iI];
while (insert > iI-1) {
int tt = resArr[insert];
resArr[insert] = tmp;
tmp = tt;
insert--;
}
}
}
}
}
I probably miss correct way how to check whether or not it is possible to create the array. Feel free to use vectors if you prefer them.
Thanks in advance for your help.
You seem to be re-ordering the output at the same time as you're reading the input. I think you should parse the input into a set of rules, process the rules a bit, then re-order the output at the end.
What are the constraints of the problem? If the input says that 0 goes before 1:
| 0 1
--+----
0 | 1
1 |
does it also guarantee that it will say that 1 comes after 0?
| 0 1
--+----
0 |
1 | 2
If so you can forget about the 2s and look only at the 1s:
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
--+--------------
0 | 1
1 |
2 | 1 1
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 | 1
From reading the input I would store a list of rules. I'd use std::vector<std::pair<int,int>> for this. It has the nice feature that yourPair.first comes before yourPair.second :)
0 before 2
2 before 1
2 before 4
6 before 0
You can discard any rules where the second value is never the first value of a different rule.
0 before 2
6 before 0
This list would then need to be sorted so that "... before x" and "x before ..." are guaranteed to be in that order.
6 before 0
0 before 2
Then move 6, 0, and 2 to the front of the list 0123456, giving you 6021345.
Does that help?
Thanks for the suggestion.
As suggested, only ones 1 are important in 2D array. I used them to create vector of directed edges and then I implemented Topological Sort. I decide to use this Topological Sorting Algorithm. It is basically Topological Sort, but it also checks for the cycle.
This successfully solved my problem.
i want to generate a pseudo-random bool stream based on a modulo operation on another stream of integers (say X), so the operation would be
return ( X % 2);
The only problem is that X is a stream of integers that always ends in 1, so for instance would be somehing like 1211, 1221, 1231, 1241 .... is there a way for me to disregard the last bit (without using string manip) so the test doesnt always pass or always fail?
How about (X / 10) % 2 then?
If you'd otherwise be happy to use the last bits, use the penultimate bits instead:
return (x & 0x2) >> 1;
So say the next number from your stream is 23:
1 0 1 1 1 // 23 in binary
& 0 0 0 1 0 // 0x2 in binary
-----------
0 0 0 1 0
Shifting that right by one bit (>> 1) gives 1. With 25, the answer would be 0:
1 1 0 0 1
& 0 0 0 1 0
-----------
0 0 0 0 0
return ( x%20/10 );