We Keep Coding

Using threads to modify an object

I'm new to threads. I wanted to get two threads to increment an integer to a certain value. because int type is immutable, I switched to atomic integer. I also tried to wrap an int to a class and that didn't work either. I also tried static/volatile int and that didn't work. I also tried to use fairness policy. The main issue is that "counterObj" is not incremented correctly and is still set to 0 even though it is injected to both threads.
My expected running behavior:
thread value
thread 0 0
thread 1 1
thread 0 2
...
What I wrote so far:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
int increments = 100;
AtomicInteger counterObj = new AtomicInteger(0);
CounterThread th1 = new CounterThread("1", counterObj, increments);
CounterThread th2 = new CounterThread("2", counterObj, increments);
th1.start();
th2.start();
System.out.println(counterObj.get());
}
}
and
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class CounterThread implements Runnable {
private final String threadID;
private AtomicInteger counterObj;
private int bound;
public CounterThread(String threadID, AtomicInteger counter, int bound) {
this.threadID = threadID;
this.counterObj = counter;
this.bound = bound;
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
while (counterObj.get() < bound) {
synchronized (this) {
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
}
}
System.out.println("Thread " + threadID + " finished");
}
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread thread = new Thread(this, threadID);
thread.join();
thread.start();
}
}
Cheers!

I think your program is exiting before your threads get a chance to do anything (probably due to the ordering of your starts and joins. I would move your thread starting logic into your main(or launch) method. Something like the following.
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new MyCounterRunnable("1", counterObj, increments));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new MyCounterRunnable("2", counterObj, increments));
Then, in your main, you need to call join after starting the threads...as follows:
thread1.start(); // starts first thread.
thread2.start(); // starts second thread.
thread1.join(); // don't let main exit until thread 1 is done.
thread2.join(); // don't let main exit until thread 2 is done.

What you really are wanting is for only one thread to increment an int at a time.
The int variable is the resource you want in the synchronized block, so the different threads can increment it one at a time.
This can be done using syncrhonize alone.
Disclaimer: I didn't run the code so it could have some typo or Exceptions to be removed from the Application class.
public class Application {
private int theVar = 0;
private int increments = 100;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public synchronized addOne(){
this.theVar++;
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
Runnable counter1 = new Counter(this, increments), counter2 = new Counter(this, increments);
Thread t1 = new Thread(counter1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(counter2);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
A counter class
public class Counter implements Runnable{
private Application app;
int rounds = -1;
public Counter(Application app, rounds){
this.app = app;
this.rounds = rounds;
}
public void run(){
while(int i=0; i<rounds; i++){
this.app.addOne();
}
}
}

AtomicInteger takes care of atomicity itself, so you shouldn't need to use synchronized -- but only if you play by the rules, and do your atomic operations in one call.
You're failing to do this, because you call counterObj.get() then depending on the result counterObj.incrementAndGet(). You need to avoid this because you want the check and the update to be part of the same atomic chunk of work.
You can get close with:
while(counterObj.incrementAndGet() < bound) {} ;
But this will always increment at least once, which may be once too many.
Slightly more involved:
IntUnaryOperator incrementWithLimit = x ->
( x < bound ? x + 1 : x );
while(counterObj.updateAndGet(incrementWithLimit) < bound) {};
That is, we've created a function that increments a number only if it's lower than bound, and we tell AtomicInteger to apply that.

There are a couple of issues with your code:
Thread.join method works only if the thread has started, else it does nothing. So you must reorder your code, but if you just move the join method after start, when starting the first thread by calling CounterThread.start, the main thread will wait until the started thread has finished, blocked in the Thread.join method, and only then will continue to starting the second one. A solution is to make an additional method in the CounterThread class, that will be called after both threads have been started:
public void waitFinish() throws InterruptedException {
thread.join();
}
synchronized (this) is synchronizing on the CounterThread instance that has been created when you called new CounterThread(...), but you have two instances so each will be synchronizing on a different object. For synchronized to work, you need to use a common instance of an object, in this case you can use the shared counterObj.
Only the AtomicInteger methods are guaranteed to be thread safe, so after you check if the bound has been reached outside the synchronized block, when entering the synchronized block the value can already be changed by another thread. So you need to do a recheck inside the synchronized block OR to first synchronize on the shared lock(counterObj) before the check and increment.
while (true) {
synchronized (counterObj) {
if (counterObj.get() < bound)
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
else break;
}
}
Note that the AtomicInteger class synchronized methods aren't helping now, but because it is a mutable object, it helps to use it as a shared lock. If you used an Integer instead, being immutable, a new instance will have been created when you incremented it. So now, it's only function is a wrapper holding the integer result.
Putting it all together:
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Application app = new Application();
try {
app.launch();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void launch() throws InterruptedException {
int increments = 100;
AtomicInteger counterObj = new AtomicInteger(0);
CounterThread th1 = new CounterThread("1", counterObj, increments);
CounterThread th2 = new CounterThread("2", counterObj, increments);
th1.start();
th2.start();
th1.waitFinish();
th2.waitFinish();
System.out.println(counterObj.get());
}
}
public class CounterThread implements Runnable {
private final String threadID;
private AtomicInteger counterObj;
private int bound;
private Thread thread;
public CounterThread(String threadID, AtomicInteger counter, int bound) {
this.threadID = threadID;
this.counterObj = counter;
this.bound = bound;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (counterObj) {
if (counterObj.get() < bound)
counterObj.incrementAndGet();
else break;
}
}
System.out.println("Thread " + threadID + " finished");
}
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
thread = new Thread(this, threadID);
thread.start();
}
public void waitFinish() throws InterruptedException {
thread.join();
}
}

I've included a double check on the AtomicInteger, this appears to be what you've been trying to accomplish.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class DualCounters{
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
AtomicInteger i = new AtomicInteger(0);
int bounds = 3;
Thread a = new Thread(()->{
int last = 0;
while(i.get()<bounds){
synchronized(i){
if(i.get()<bounds){
last = i.getAndIncrement();
}
}
}
System.out.println("a last " + last);
});
Thread b = new Thread(()->{
int last = 0;
while(i.get()<bounds){
synchronized(i){
if(i.get()<bounds){
last = i.getAndIncrement();
}
}
}
System.out.println("b last " + last);
});
a.start();
b.start();
a.join();
b.join();
System.out.println(i.get() + " afterwards");
}
}
The double check is a broken concept in java, the AtomicInteger offers tools for accomplishing this without any synchronization.
int a;
while((a = i.getAndIncrement())<bounds){
...
}
Now a will never be greater than bounds inside of the while loop. When the loop is finished i and a could have a value greater than bounds.
If that was an issue, there is always the other method getAndUpdate
while((a = i.getAndUpdate(i->i<bounds?i+1:i)<bounds){
...
}

Unable to understand sync

Hey I am trying to make 10 threads in a synchronized manner and I came up with the code below however I am not able to understand a part of it as mentioned below. I am still really new to java, I tried looking up synchronized threading from
Here but still I am clueless.
class question3 {
public static void main(String arg[]) throws Exception {
for (int i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
data di = new data();
System.out.println(di.count);
}
}
}
class item {
static int count = 0;
}
class data extends item implements Runnable {
item d = this;
Thread t;
data() {
t = new Thread(this);
t.start();
}
public void run() {
d = syn.increment(d);
}
}
class syn {
synchronized static item increment(item i) {
i.count++;
return (i);
}
}
I am not sure what this part of code does?
public void run() {
d = syn.increment(d);
}
}
class syn {
synchronized static item increment(item i) {
i.count++;
return (i);
}
}

the run function is used when starting the thread, this is a must function you need to override when implement Runnable. When calling Thread.start(), the run function will be called.
The class syn contains a synchronized method, it is simply mean that only one thread can access it each time, thus make the incerment function thread safe.
object d has a static variable count meaning all instances of item class (and data ) share the same count, so all threads increment the same variable
the line d = syn.increment(d); is basically count++ but in a thread safe way

Java Threads: How to print alphabets and numbers using two threads one at a time

I am trying to work around with threads in java. Though I understand that threads output are unpredictable, However was wondering if there is a way to do that.
I have to implement two threads, one prints alphabets(a,b,c...z) and other prints numbers(1,2,3....26). Have to implement it in such a way that the output should be a,1,b,2,c,3,d,4......z,26. Below is my code but it doesn't give the desired output.
public class ThreadsExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable1();
Thread t = new Thread(r);
Runnable r2 = new Runnable2();
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t.start();
t2.start();
}
}
class Runnable2 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(char i='a';i<='z';i++) {
System.out.print(i+",");
}
}
}
class Runnable1 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i=1;i<=26;i++) {
System.out.print(i+",");
}
}
}
What tweak should I make in the code to get the desired output? How does synchronization helps here? Or is it really possible when working with Threads at all?
PS: This is not an assignment or some exercise. Its self learning.

It is possible. You need to synchronize it well.
Approach Pseudocode
query some (synchronized) state
state will tell whether nums or chars are allowed
if state allows char and caller will put chars, do it now and change state and wake up waiting threads
if not, wait
if state allows numbers and caller will put numbers, do it now and change state and wake up waiting threads
if not, wait
Java code
public class ThreadsExample {
public static ThreadsExample output = new ThreadsExample ();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable1();
Thread t = new Thread(r);
Runnable r2 = new Runnable2();
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t.start();
t2.start();
}
private Object syncher = new Object (); // we use an explicit synch Object, you could use annotation on methods, too. like ABHISHEK did.
// explicit allows to deal with more complex situations, especially you could have more the one locking Object
private int state = 0; // 0 allows chars, 1 allows ints
public void print (char pChar) {
synchronized (syncher) { // prevent the other print to access state
while (true) {
if (state == 0) { // char are allowed
System.out.print(pChar + ","); // print it
state = 1; // now allow ints
syncher.notify(); // wake up all waiting threads
return;
} else { // not allowed for now
try {
syncher.wait(); // wait on wake up
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
}
public void print (int pInt) {
synchronized (syncher) {
while (true) {
if (state == 1) {
System.out.print(pInt + ",");
state = 0;
syncher.notify();
return;
} else {
try {
syncher.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
}
}
class Runnable2 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(char i='a';i<='z';i++) {
ThreadsExample.output.print(i);
}
}
}
class Runnable1 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i=1;i<=26;i++) {
ThreadsExample.output.print(i);
}
}
}
Output
a,1,b,2,c,3,d,4,e,5,f,6,g,7,h,8,i,9,j,10,k,11,l,12,m,13,n,14,o,15,p,16,q,17,r,18,s,19,t,20,u,21,v,22,w,23,x,24,y,25,z,26,

The whole idea of threads: it represents a "stream of activity" that executes code independent of other threads.
In your case, you want that these two threads go in "lockstep". Thread A does one step, then Thread B, then A, then B.
In order to get there, the two threads need something "synchronize" on - in other words: A sends a signal to B when it has done its steps - and B has to wait for that signal. Then B does its thing, signals to A, ...
For starters, a simple boolean value would do. One thread sets it to true, the other to false (to indicate when it has made its step). Then the thread waits for the boolean to toggle again.
As you intend to learn things, I would just start experimenting from there. In case you want to take detours, look here for example. This might help as well.

HERE IS THE CODE::
You need to create 2 threads and implement wait and notify methods correctly you can also refer "Create two threads, one display odd & other even numbers" for your answer.
public class ThreadClass {
volatile int i = 1;
volatile Character c = 'a';
volatile boolean state = true;
synchronized public void printAlphabet() {
try {
while (!state) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " +c);
state = false;
c++;
notifyAll();
}
synchronized public void printNumbers() {
try {
while (state) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + i);
state = true;
i++;
notifyAll();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadClass threadClass = new ThreadClass();
Thread t1 = new Thread() {
int k = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
while (k < 26) {
threadClass.printAlphabet();
k++;
}
}
};
t1.setName("Thread1");
Thread t2 = new Thread() {
int j = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
while (j < 26) {
threadClass.printNumbers();
j++;
}
}
};
t2.setName("Thread2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

Your threads are running at the same time. But not the way you want it, as mentioned above. You will see blocks of data from thread 1 and then a block of data from thread 2; and this is because of thread scheduling. Thread 1 is just queuing its output before thread 2.
To test this theory, increase your output to a 1000 records for example as the alphabet and 26 numbers are not as large to see this.
By doing so, you will see these 'blocks' of data. There is a way to do what you mentioned, but it is not advisable as this is not demonstrating how threads actually work but rather you forcing it to work that way.

With less Code:
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private static int n = 1;
private static char c = 'a';
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 26; i++) {
synchronized (this) {
try {
notifyAll();
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("A")) {
System.out.print(c + ",");
c++;
} else {
System.out.print(n + ",");
n++;
}
if (i != 26) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class PrintAlphabetNumberJob {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable();
Thread tAlphabet = new Thread(r, "A");
Thread tNumber = new Thread(r, "N");
tAlphabet.start();
Thread.sleep(100);
tNumber.start();
}
}

Print alternately with three threads [duplicate]

I am trying to print numbers from 1 to 10 using three threads. thread 1 prints 1, 2 prints 2, 3 prints 3, 4 is printed by thread 1 again and so on.
I have created a shared printer resource that helps those threads to print number. But I am getting confused as how can i make the number to be visible by all threads.
The problem is eachthread is seeing their own copy of number while I need the same number to be shared by all threads.
I am trying to create this example for learning purposes. I have seen other pages on SO that had same kind of problem but I am not able to get the concept.
Any help is appreciated.
how is this example diffrent from what I am doing?
Printing Even and Odd using two Threads in Java
public class PrintAlternateNumber {
public static void main(String args[]) {
SharedPrinter printer = new SharedPrinter();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new myRunnable2(printer,10,1),"1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new myRunnable2(printer,10,2),"2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(new myRunnable2(printer,10,3),"3");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
class myRunnable2 implements Runnable {
int max;
SharedPrinter printer;
int threadNumber;
int number=1;
myRunnable2(SharedPrinter printer,int max,int threadNumber) {
this.max=max;
this.printer=printer;
this.threadNumber=threadNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(" The thread that just entered run "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
for(int i =1;i<max;i++){
try {
printer.print(i,threadNumber);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class SharedPrinter {
boolean canPrintFlag=false;
public synchronized void print(int number,int threadNumber) throws InterruptedException{
if(number%3==threadNumber) {
canPrintFlag=true;
}
while(!canPrintFlag)
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is waiting as it cannot print " + number);
wait();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" printed "+number);
canPrintFlag=false;
notifyAll();
}
}
//output
//The thread that just entered run 2
// The thread that just entered run 3
//The thread that just entered run 1
//3 is waiting as it cannot print 1
//1 printed 1
//1 is waiting as it cannot print 2
//3 is waiting as it cannot print 1
//2 is waiting as it cannot print 1
Technique second
it is still incomplete but I am close
output
0printed by0
2printed by2
1printed by1
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
class AlternateNumber {
public static void main(String args[]) {
printerHell ph = new printerHell();
BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(10);
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
queue.add(i);
}
Thread t1 = new Thread(new myRunnableHell(queue,0,ph),"0");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new myRunnableHell(queue,1,ph),"1");
Thread t3 = new Thread(new myRunnableHell(queue,2,ph),"2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
class myRunnableHell implements Runnable {
BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
int threadNumber;
printerHell ph;
myRunnableHell(BlockingQueue<Integer> queue, int threadNumber,printerHell ph) {
this.queue=queue;
this.threadNumber=threadNumber;
this.ph=ph;
};
int currentNumber;
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=0;i<queue.size();i++)
{
currentNumber=queue.remove();
if(threadNumber%3==currentNumber)
{
ph.print(currentNumber);
}
}
}
}
class printerHell {
public synchronized void print(int Number)
{
System.out.println(Number + "printed by" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}

Please see my solution here..
Using simple wait/notify
https://stackoverflow.com/a/31668619/1044396
Using cyclic barriers:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/23752952/1044396
For your query on 'How different it is from even/odd thread problem.
--> it is almost same ... instead of maintaining two states have one more state to call the third thread, so I believe,this can be extended any number of threads.
EDIT:
You may view this approach when you want to have 'n' number of threads to do the work sequentially.(Instead of having different classes t1,t2,t3 etc)
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/a/98305/78940
EDIT2:
Copying the code here again for the above solution
I tried to solve using a single class 'Thrd' which gets initialized with its starting number.
ThreadConfig class which as size of total number of threads you want to create.
State class which maintains the state of the previous thread.(to maintain ordering)
Here you go..(please review and let me know your views)
EDIT:
How it works -->
when a thread Tx gets a chance to execute.. it will set state variable's state with x. So a next thread(Tx+1) waiting , will get a chance once state gets updated. This way you can maintain the ordering of threads.
I hope i am able to explain the code. Please run it and see or let me know for any specific queries on the below code
1)
package com.kalyan.concurrency;
public class ThreadConfig {
public static final int size = 5;
}
2) package com.kalyan.concurrency;
public class State {
private volatile int state ;
public State() {
this.state =3;
}
public State(int state) {
this.state = state;
}
public int getState() {
return state;
}
public void setState(int state) {
this.state = state;
}
}
3) package com.kalyan.concurrency;
public class Thrd implements Runnable {
int i ;
int name;
int prevThread;
State s;
public Thrd(int i,State s) {
this.i=i;
this.name=i;
this.prevThread=i-1;
if(prevThread == 0) prevThread=ThreadConfig.size;
this.s=s;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(i<50)
{
synchronized(s)
{
while(s.getState() != prevThread)
{
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
synchronized(s)
{
//if(s.getState() ==3)
if(s.getState()==prevThread)
System.out.println("t"+ name+ i);
s.setState(name);
i = i +ThreadConfig.size ;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
4)
package com.kalyan.concurrency;
public class T1t2t3 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
State s = new State(ThreadConfig.size);
for(int i=1;i<=ThreadConfig.size;i++)
{
Thread T = new Thread(new Thrd(i,s));
T.start();
}
}
}
OUTPUT:
t11
t22
t33
t44
t55
t16
t27
t38
t49
t510
t111
t212
t313
t414
t515
t116..............

I hope I understood you right, but there are to main "features" in java to make a variable being shared between threads:
the volatile keyword
volatile int number = 1;
AtomicInteger (a standard java class -> no library)
AtomicInteger number = new AtomicInteger(1);
These two techniques should both do what you want, however I have no experience using it, I just came upon this word, didn't know what it means and did some digging.
Some stuff to read: ;)
volatile for java explained --> http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-volatile-keyword-0
a better explanation (with IMAGES!!) but for c# (which is still the same usage) --> http://igoro.com/archive/volatile-keyword-in-c-memory-model-explained/
And a link to some usages of AtomicInteger --> https://stackoverflow.com/a/4818753/4986655
I hope I could help you or at least send you in the right direction :)
- superfuzzy

Mutithreading Synchronization

Synchronization works well with the below code.
public class Main implements Runnable {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main m = new Main();
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(m);
t.start();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
// Synchronization isn't working here.
public class Main implements Runnable {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Main());
t.start();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
This question was asked in an interview. I was a bit confused about this so I'm trying to understand why synchronization isn't working with the second code snippet. Can anybody explain me why synchronization won't work with the second code snippet ?

Because synchronization is applied for if you are working on single object.
In first case you have single runnable object of Main i.e. m
In second case you have independent objects of Main.
for(int i=0;i<2;i++){
Thread t = new Thread(new Main()); // independent objects for each thread
t.start();
}
Explaination:
If you see the code you will find below line
synchronized (this) {
this refers to the object itself. So lock is applied based on this object. So in case of multiple Main class object they work independently where as in single object synchronization is applied for that object only.
For more information refer : Intrinsic Locks and Synchronization
Code from the documentation
public class MsLunch {
private long c1 = 0;
private long c2 = 0;
private Object lock1 = new Object();
private Object lock2 = new Object();
public void inc1() {
synchronized(lock1) { // lock is acquired using lock1 object
c1++;
}
}
public void inc2() {
synchronized(lock2) { // lock is acquired using lock1 object
c2++;
}
}
}
In this example you can call both the methods inc1() and inc2() using single object at same time because lock is acquired on different objects. This will help you understand it better.
So in your case lock is acquired on this(object itself). So whenever you have multiple object then it will work independently and when you have single object then it will work synchronously.

You are creating two objects here.
synchronized(this) block will synchronize access to the same object if multiple threads try to access it.

synchronized (this)
"this" is the current object instance. In the first example, instance of Main class is created before invoking the thread and same instance is used. Therefore synchronization works.
But in the second example, in each iteration of the loop in main(), new instance of Main is created. synchronized(this) will not work because there are multiple instances of Main class.

in Java syncronized(object) is effectively using object as an exclusive lock for the code block within syncronized. It may be more obvious why the second version doesn't work if we make the lock explicit, and observe how many instances of the lock get created in each case:
public class Lock {
}
public class Main(Lock lock) implements Runnable {
public static void main(String[] args) {
correct()
incorrect()
}
public static void incorrect() {
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
//New lock created each iteration
Main m = new Main(new Lock())
Thread t = new Thread(m);
t.start();
}
}
public static void correct() {
//One lock used for all iterations
Main m = new Main(new Lock())
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(m);
t.start();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(lock) {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}

// Synchronization isn't working here.
public class Main implements Runnable {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Main());
t.start();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
In above example there are 3 threads and 3 Main objects, each thread is taking a lock on different Main object so synchronization will not work.For synchronization to work we should have all threads to take a lock on the single object. Here 3 threads are not taking the lock on a single object but 3 different objects. Each thread is taking a lock on each main object which is not shared among threads. In Thread t = new Thread(m); all threads take a lock on single Main(m) object.

I would have answered that question with a question of my own:
What do you mean, it doesn't work?
The first example serializes the System.out.println() calls and, for the reasons given in several of the other answers here, the second example doesn't serialize the calls, but so what?
System.out is a java.io.PrintWriter, and PrintWriter is inherently thread-safe. Neither of the two examples needs synchronization at all.