That will be the shortest answer in my SO life: lookup table.
Apparently, I need to explain a bit: "if you have enough memory to play with" means, we've got all the memory we need (nevermind technical possibility). Now, you don't need to store lookup table for more than a byte or two. While it'll technically be Ω(log(n)) rather than O(1), just reading a number you need is Ω(log(n)), so if that's a problem, then the answer is, impossible—which is even shorter.
Which of two answers they expect from you on an interview, no one knows.
There's yet another trick: while engineers can take a number and talk about Ω(log(n)), where n is the number, computer scientists will say that actually we're to measure running time as a function of a length of an input, so what engineers call Ω(log(n)) is actually Ω(k), where k is the number of bytes. Still, as I said before, just reading a number is Ω(k), so there's no way we can do better than that.
There's only one way I can think of to accomplish this task in O(1)... that is to 'cheat' and use a physical device (with linear or even parallel programming I think the limit is O(log(k)) where k represents the number of bytes of the number).
However you could very easily imagine a physical device that connects each bit an to output line with a 0/1 voltage. Then you could just electronically read of the total voltage on a 'summation' line in O(1). It would be quite easy to make this basic idea more elegant with some basic circuit elements to produce the output in whatever form you want (e.g. a binary encoded output), but the essential idea is the same and the electronic circuit would produce the correct output state in fixed time.
I imagine there are also possible quantum computing possibilities, but if we're allowed to do that, I would think a simple electronic circuit is the easier solution.
I have actually done this using a bit of sleight of hand: a single lookup table with 16 entries will suffice and all you have to do is break the binary rep into nibbles (4-bit tuples). The complexity is in fact O(1) and I wrote a C++ template which was specialized on the size of the integer you wanted (in # bits)… makes it a constant expression instead of indetermined.
fwiw you can use the fact that (i & -i) will return you the LS one-bit and simply loop, stripping off the lsbit each time, until the integer is zero — but that’s an old parity trick.
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a = 3;
int orig = a;
int count = 0;
while(a>0)
{
a = a >> 1 << 1;
if(orig-a==1)
count++;
orig = a >> 1;
a = orig;
}
System.out.println("Number of 1s are: "+count);
}
The following is a C solution using bit operators:
int numberOfOneBitsInInteger(int input) {
int numOneBits = 0;
int currNum = input;
while (currNum != 0) {
if ((currNum & 1) == 1) {
numOneBits++;
}
currNum = currNum >> 1;
}
return numOneBits;
}
The following is a Java solution using powers of 2:
public static int numOnesInBinary(int n) {
if (n < 0) return -1;
int j = 0;
while ( n > Math.pow(2, j)) j++;
int result = 0;
for (int i=j; i >=0; i--){
if (n >= Math.pow(2, i)) {
n = (int) (n - Math.pow(2,i));
result++;
}
}
return result;
}
The below method can count the number of 1s in negative numbers as well.
private static int countBits(int number) {
int result = 0;
while(number != 0) {
result += number & 1;
number = number >>> 1;
}
return result;
}
However, a number like -1 is represented in binary as 11111111111111111111111111111111 and so will require a lot of shifting. If you don't want to do so many shifts for small negative numbers, another way could be as follows:
private static int countBits(int number) {
boolean negFlag = false;
if(number < 0) {
negFlag = true;
number = ~number;
}
int result = 0;
while(number != 0) {
result += number & 1;
number = number >> 1;
}
return negFlag? (32-result): result;
}
def find_consecutive_1(n)
num = n.to_s(2)
arr = num.split("")
counter = 0
max = 0
arr.each do |x|
if x.to_i==1
counter +=1
else
max = counter if counter > max
counter = 0
end
max = counter if counter > max
end
max
end
puts find_consecutive_1(439)