Printing long with a bit sequence - java

Right now, I am working on a chess engine, which stores each different representations of the board in 64bits, which I store in a long variable. Example:
private long wKing = 0b000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000;
The problem is, I am when I go to print it out, I instead am given the value on the bit sequence(8), not the actual sequence. Here is my print statement:
System.out.println(wKing);
How can I print this out so that it gives me the sequence instead, so i can use it for testing and printing out a representation of the board in the future? Thank you.

You can use Long.toBinaryString.
System.out.println(Long.toBinaryString(wKing));

Related

Within Android code, what suggests the characteristics a program is expecting from a variable?

I know if I run a program, it will likely express one way or another: what it is expecting from each variable. But I would like to determine on my own when I read over each page of Android code etc. e.g:
How could I determine what size or length an android program is expecting a string array to be?
Whether an integer or double, is expected to be positive or negative?
etc.
Help in this regard would be much appreciated.
You can set breakpoints in your code and examine all of the variables when the program pauses. This would give you a general idea of whether the integers were positive or negative, the length and content of the strings, etc. It could be useful if the code was poorly documented.
Assuming you are using Android Studio you can follow this guide:
https://developer.android.com/tools/debugging/debugging-studio.html

Multiple arithimetic operator store

I have been thinking to solve any problem like 1+2*4-5 with user entering it and program to solve it. I've read some questions on this site about storing arithmetic operator and the solution says to check by using switch which can't be applied here. I would be thankful if anybody could suggest any idea of how to make it.
I had a similar exercise not long ago, but in the question it was stated that the seperation is a space. So the user input would be 1 + 2 * 4 - 5, and i solved it that way. I will give you some tips but not paste the whole code.
-you read the input as a String
-you can use the String.split() method to devide the String into the pieces you need and they will be put in an array.(in this case: strArray[0]='1',strArray[1]='+', etc)
-you will need a for-loop to go trough every String in the array:
-the decimals will need to be converted to integers with the Integer.parseInt() method.
-The + - * / will need to be put in switch-statement.
(be careful how you construct your loop, think about how many times you want to go trough it and what you need in each loop)
I hope these tips helped.

BigDecimal precision above 1E22

for some reason I found myself coding some piece of software, that should be able to perfom some astronomic calculations.
While most of it will be about transfering the correct formula into Java, I found an annoying Problem right at the verry beginning of my "test how to calculate big numbers".
Well... Imagine the Sun (our Sun), which has a mass of (about and rounded, for more easy explaining) 10E30 kg. Ten with 30 following Zeros. All native datatypes are just unusuable for this. To mention: I KNOW that I could use 3000 to calculate things and just add trailing zeros in the output-view, but I hoped to keep it as precise as possible. So using short numbers will be my last resort only.
Comming to the Problem. Please have a look at the code:
BigDecimal combinedMass = new BigDecimal(1E22);
int massDistribution = 10;
Integer mD1 = massDistribution;
Integer mD2 = 100 - massDistribution;
BigDecimal starMass;
BigDecimal systemMass;
systemMass = combinedMass.divide(new BigDecimal("100")).multiply(new BigDecimal(mD1.toString()));
starMass = combinedMass.divide(new BigDecimal("100")).multiply(new BigDecimal(mD2.toString()));
System.out.println((systemMass).toEngineeringString());
System.out.println((starMass));
It will output 1000000000000000000000 and 9000000000000000000000, whats exactly what I did expect. But look at the combineMass Field. If I raise it to 1E23, the Output will change
I get 9999999999999999161139.20 and 89999999999999992450252.80...
So I know I could use jut BigInteger, because its more reliable in this case, but for the sake of precicion, sometimes the BigWhatEver may drop to something like 50.1258
Plus, I hope to get the 10.xE30 as output, whats only possible using bigDecimals.
I want to know: Is there no way avoidng this (that error appers above 1E23 for every value I tried), while keeping the ability to calculate Floating-Points? Should I cut the After-Decimal-Separator-Values for this Field to two digets?
And for something more to wonder about:
System.out.println(combinedMass.precision());
in relation with the code above will provide 23 for that case, but En+1 for most other values (Thats was when I grow really confused)
Thanks for advise.
You're using basic types without realizing it:
new BigDecimal(1E22);
Here, 1E22 is a primitive double, and you already lost precision by using it.
What you want is
new BigDecimal("10000000000000000000000");
or
new BigDecimal(10).pow(22);

Is there a way to change the internal radix of Java code?

If I want to write a program that deals almost exclusively with, say, base 8 math, is there a way to change the source code or JVM to perform all calculations with this radix without having to explicitly change it on every integer reference?
For example, instead of...
private static final int RADIX = 8;
// ... then, elsewhere ...
System.out.println(Integer.toString(3 + 7, RADIX));
... I could just do ...
System.out.println(3 + 7);
... and have it print the same result of 12? Is there some environment variable or in-code setting I can apply? Or is this simply not possible?
This may seem arcane or a "why in the world would you want to do this" scenario, but if you can imagine having to perform a large number of non-trivial calculations under a different base, then you can see how it would become extremely tedious extremely fast to have to keep manually converting numbers to the appropriate radix.
No, there is no feature like that.
A number is a number no matter what base you're talking about, the radix only comes in when converting to/from strings. If you have to do this all of the time, then create some utility methods that do the work, and always call them. Alternatively, write your own Integer-like class that handles the fromString/toString bit.
public final class OctalInteger extends Number implements Comparable<OctalInteger> {
// Basically a copy of Integer.java, but changes the methods dealing with Strings
}
No.
Also, why would you want that? Imagine how many pieces of code you would break that run in the same JVM - no one coding libraries would expect the default radix to suddenly change.
Your use of a constant is the right way to go.
You can't change default radix. But you can easily write your own print and println procedures which would print integers in octal base.

base-n series generator for a given number in java,,

I want to create a program for generating the series for the given base-n. ,
for example if my input is 2,then series shuould be, 00,01,10,11,etc.,(binary)
if my input is 10,then series shuould be,1,2,3,4,5,etc.,(decimal)
is there any general mechanism to find these numbers so that I can program for base-n.,
UPDATE:-
After,working out.,i face issue.
If I want to process that integer how to do that? Some body commented that, BaseInteger class I should use. please elaborate
You could use Integer's toString(int i, int radix) method for that.
For example:
Integer.toString(2, 2) // number 2, base 2
returns the string:
"10"
Note that the radix should be between 1 and 36.
You might be looking for something like this (take a peek at "Algorithm: Constructing Base b
Expansions"):
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/faculty/dkahrobaei/Integers%2520and%2520Algorithms.pdf
I think you should first figure in which format you need the results. If they should be Strings, Bart's answer would probably suit you. An integer representation, which does actually mean something else (e.g. the int 10 does mean 2 with base 2) seems awkward to me. If i would need something like you described, i would probably implement a BaseNumber class first.

Categories