I have a very long number, lets sayAn int or a long unsigned int would definitely not be able to store this number. I would like to do some mathematical computation using large numbers, somewhere around 100-300 numbers. Is there any way that i could make mathematical calculation on these large numbers?12123423543456546747578934578934578934578975893475 89375893758934573578934753475897689574689897348967 54896758946758567873894573254789723573589235787897 574208527357345897
There are libraries around that support storage of, and operations on, large integer types. Have a look at the GNU MP Bignum Library, for an example (follow this link).
Is it possible to store the number as strings and compute them bytes by bytes?
Or, create a newly defined typed which stores a very large int. let's say 1024 buts instead or 32 bits. Is this possible?
Last edited by valthyx; 08-06-2011 at 09:10 AM.
This is not going to be as capable and fast as an established big number library, but
yes, you can store your digits as ints or chars, in an array, of either type.
I used int's and set up 3 arrays. I used one array for the lower number, one array for the upper number, and one array to hold the answer.
Then work your calculations through the digits, in a loop. The answer array needs to be sized a bit bigger than the other two arrays, unless you're careful.Code:1023456677889 <== Upper Number 4451268039975 <== Lower Number ============= 0000000000000 <== Answer
A variable you use for every column, holds any "carry" for the next column, if that should be needed.
A number is just a representation of a quantity, using a string of digits, so using a string of digits like this, felt very natural. I thought the speed of it was entirely satisfactory, as well. I don't believe it will put GNU's library to shame, however.
Yes, one way of storing a large number is storing it in a string. Operations such as addition are not too hard this way.Originally Posted by valthyx
Yes also quite doable, but for this kind of thing it's really a lot nicer if you do it in C++, because then you can do operator overloading, and template the class based on the size. So for my own bigint library, I can give it 1024 as the size and then just treat it largely as I would a normal int.Or, create a newly defined typed which stores a very large int. let's say 1024 buts instead or 32 bits. Is this possible?
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
What about this, will it work?
I am not sure how to implement the multiplication. Could someone please help me. Thank you.Code:struct newint { char m[2000]; }; struct newint myNewint1, myNewint2; myNewint1.m = "12345"; myNewint2.m = "11111"; int i; for (i = 0; i != '\0'; i++) { // (multiply) myNewint1.m[i] * myNewint2.m[i]; }
What about this, will it work?
I am not sure how to implement the multiplication. Could someone please help me. Thank you.Code:struct newint { char m[2000]; }; struct newint myNewint1, myNewint2; myNewint1.m = "12345"; myNewint2.m = "11111"; int i; for (i = 0; i != '\0'; i++) { // (multiply) myNewint1.m[i] * myNewint2.m[i]; }
Think about how you would solve it on paper. It's basic math and hopefully you should have learned it in school.
He's not kidding. Solve it on paper first. You do implement this algorithm exactly the same way as it is done on paper.
If that's too hard for you, then start with just incrementing the value (i.e. adding one). Then once you know how to do that, try making it add two numbers. Then once you've got that you can perhaps get the multiplication. You don't have to start with the hardest part.
My homepage
Advice: Take only as directed - If symptoms persist, please see your debugger
Linus Torvalds: "But it clearly is the only right way. The fact that everybody else does it some other way only means that they are wrong"
It is quite difficult to multiply. For example, I have "1234" and "9694". I would start with
1. 4*4 = 8 (this is fine)
2. 9*3 = 27 (i have to bring the 2 to the next multiplication)
3. 3*6+2 = ....
These would be very difficult, especially manipulating them in a string. Is there any simpler way?
No it isn't
All you need is one extra variable to hold the carry over.These would be very difficult, especially manipulating them in a string. Is there any simpler way?
This really is the simplest way, but if you think it is to difficult then maybe you should do something simpler until you get better at C and/or math.
And who says a char array has to be a string. You can store the digits as 0-9 instead of '0'-'9'. The compiler couldn't care less about it.
Then when you want to print it add '0' to each digit.
Last edited by _Mike; 08-07-2011 at 07:31 AM.
LOL... CLASSIC .... Care to try that again?
Could anyone please give me an example, just a simple, for me to get an idea of. Thank you.
The concept is just to take each step, just like you would if you were multiplying by hand:
When your multiplier (bottom number) is two digits or longer, you have to watch your columns in the answer array, more closely. You may even want to use an array for each digit in the multiplier, and then add them up at the last step.Code:12345 x 8 ====== 8 * 5 = 40 answer[0] = 0, carry = 4 8 * 4 = 32 answer[1] = (carry + 2) = 6, carry = 3 8 * 3 = 24 answer[2] = (carry + 4) = 7, carry = 2 8 * 2 = 16 answer[3] = (carry + 6) = 8, carry = 1 8 * 1 = 8 answer[3] = (carry + 8) = 9, carry = 0 ================================================= answer = 98760
Since you have to multiply through once for every digit in the multiplier, you need to put the multiplier for loop, as your outer loop in your nested for loops. Your multiplicand loop will be the inner loop:
Code:for(each digit in the multiplier) { //bottom number loop (multiplier) for each digit in the multiplicand) { top number loop (multiplicand) //code for your multiplication goes here } }
It is a rather fundamental thing that, if you can't multiply two values on paper, you will not be able to describe how to do it either. If you can't describe how to do something, you can't expect to be able to instruct a computer to do it. After all, a computer is just an pedantic ignoramus that will do exactly what your code tells it to do: faithfully, unambiguously, and without question. Your side of that bargain is to give it code that contains precise and meaningful instructions.
Someone who manages to compute 4*4 as 8 almost certainly has a problem with precision.
