biginteger

In Python, long integers have unlimited precision. I would like to write a 16 byte (128 bit) integer to a file. struct from the standard library supports only up to 8 byte integers. array has the same limitation. Is there a way to do this without masking and shifting each integer? Some clarification here: I'm writing to a file that's going to be read in from non-Python programs, so pickle is out. All 128 bits are used. Sven Marnach Two possible solutions: Just pickle your long integer. This will write the integer in a special format which allows it to be read again, if this is all you want.

I'm looking for a replacement of the stock Delphi Data.FmtBcd library because I just hit its limits like maximum decimal digits it can represent and program terminates with EBcdOverflowException . For the curious, I'm calculating arithmetic series members and need to handle very large numbers - hundred-thousands positions are not so uncommon. And also get results in a reasonable time. I did rewritten part of the code to Python 3.2 for the testing purposes and calculation speed would be sufficient for the Delphi's equivalent. Some recommendations for a such library, preferably free or

So, I'm trying to improve some of the operations that .net 4's BigInteger class provide since the operations appear to be quadratic. I've made a rough Karatsuba implementation but it's still slower than I'd expect. The main problem seems to be that BigInteger provides no simple way to count the number of bits and, so, I have to use BigInteger.Log(..., 2). According to Visual Studio, about 80-90% of the time is spent calculating logarithms. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Numerics; namespace Test { class Program { static

This is my Sender entity @Entity public class Sender { @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.AUTO) private long senderId; ... ... public long getSenderId() { return senderId; } public void setSenderId(long senderId) { this.senderId = senderId; } } When I try to execute following query: StringBuilder query = new StringBuilder(); query.append("Select sender.* "); query.append("From sender "); query.append("INNER JOIN coupledsender_subscriber "); query.append("ON coupledsender_subscriber.Sender_senderId = sender.SenderId "); query.append("WHERE coupledsender_subscriber.Subscriber

public double[] result = new double[ ??? ]; I am storing results and total number of the results are bigger than the 2,147,483,647 which is max int32. I tried biginteger, ulong etc. but all of them gave me errors. How can I extend the size of the array that can store > 50,147,483,647 results (double) inside it? Thanks... An array of 2,147,483,648 double s will occupy 16GB of memory. For some people, that's not a big deal. I've got servers that won't even bother to hit the page file if I allocate a few of those arrays. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. When you are dealing with huge amounts of

This question: How to generate a random BigInteger describes a way to achieve the same semantics as Random.nextInt(int n) for BigIntegers. I would like to do the same for BigDecimal and Random.nextDouble(). One answer in the above question suggests creating a random BigInteger and then creating a BigDouble from it with a random scale. A very quick experiment shows this to be a very bad idea :) My intuition is that using this method would require the integer to be scaled by something like n-log10(R) , where n is the number of digits of precision required in the output and R is the random