research!rsc

Versioned Go Commands

2018-02-23T10:09:00-05:00

What does it mean to add versioning to the go command? (Go & Versioning, Part 7)

Defining Go Modules

2018-02-22T17:00:00-05:00

How to specify what's in a module. (Go & Versioning, Part 6)

Reproducible, Verifiable, Verified Builds

2018-02-21T21:28:00-05:00

Consistent builds in versioned Go. (Go & Versioning, Part 5)

Minimal Version Selection

2018-02-21T16:41:00-05:00

How do builds select which versions to use? (Go & Versioning, Part 4)

Semantic Import Versioning

2018-02-21T12:31:00-05:00

How do you deploy an incompatible change to an existing package? (Go & Versioning, Part 3)

A Tour of Versioned Go (vgo)

2018-02-20T12:03:00-05:00

We need to add package versioning to Go. (Go & Versioning, Part 2)

Go += Package Versioning

2018-02-20T12:02:00-05:00

We need to add package versioning to Go. (Go & Versioning, Part 1)

Go & Versioning

2018-02-20T12:01:00-05:00

<nil>

How Many Go Developers Are There?

2017-07-13T13:00:00-04:00

Looks like at least half a million.

Glob Matching Can Be Simple And Fast Too

2017-04-24T10:00:00-04:00

Regular expression exponentials in another form.

Minimal Boolean Formulas

2011-05-18T00:00:00-04:00

28. That's the minimum number of AND or OR operators you need in order to write any Boolean function of five variables. Alex Healy and I computed that in April 2010. Until then, I believe no one had ever known that little fact. This post describes how we computed it and how we almost got scooped by Knuth's Volume 4A which considers the problem for AND, OR, and XOR.

A Naive Brute Force Approach

Any Boolean function of two variables can be written with at most 3 AND or OR operators: the parity function on two variables X XOR Y is (X AND Y') OR (X' AND Y), where X' denotes “not X.” We can shorten the notation by writing AND and OR like multiplication and addition: X XOR Y = X*Y' + X'*Y.

For three variables, parity is also a hardest function, requiring 9 operators: X XOR Y XOR Z = (X*Z'+X'*Z+Y')*(X*Z+X'*Z'+Y).

For four variables, parity is still a hardest function, requiring 15 operators: W XOR X XOR Y XOR Z = (X*Z'+X'*Z+W'*Y+W*Y')*(X*Z+X'*Z'+W*Y+W'*Y').

The sequence so far prompts a few questions. Is parity always a hardest function? Does the minimum number of operators alternate between 2ⁿ−1 and 2ⁿ+1?

I computed these results in January 2001 after hearing the problem from Neil Sloane, who suggested it as a variant of a similar problem first studied by Claude Shannon.

The program I wrote to compute a(4) computes the minimum number of operators for every Boolean function of n variables in order to find the largest minimum over all functions. There are 2⁴ = 16 settings of four variables, and each function can pick its own value for each setting, so there are 2¹⁶ different functions. To make matters worse, you build new functions by taking pairs of old functions and joining them with AND or OR. 2¹⁶ different functions means 2¹⁶·2¹⁶ = 2³² pairs of functions.

The program I wrote was a mangling of the Floyd-Warshall all-pairs shortest paths algorithm. That algorithm is:

// Floyd-Warshall all pairs shortest path
func compute():
    for each node i
        for each node j
            dist[i][j] = direct distance, or ∞
    
    for each node k
        for each node i
            for each node j
                d = dist[i][k] + dist[k][j]
                if d < dist[i][j]
                    dist[i][j] = d
    return

The algorithm begins with the distance table dist[i][j] set to an actual distance if i is connected to j and infinity otherwise. Then each round updates the table to account for paths going through the node k: if it's shorter to go from i to k to j, it saves that shorter distance in the table. The nodes are numbered from 0 to n, so the variables i, j, k are simply integers. Because there are only n nodes, we know we'll be done after the outer loop finishes.

The program I wrote to find minimum Boolean formula sizes is an adaptation, substituting formula sizes for distance.

// Algorithm 1
func compute()
    for each function f
        size[f] = ∞
    
    for each single variable function f = v
        size[f] = 0
    
    loop
        changed = false
        for each function f
            for each function g
                d = size[f] + 1 + size[g]
                if d < size[f OR g]
                    size[f OR g] = d
                    changed = true
                if d < size[f AND g]
                    size[f AND g] = d
                    changed = true
        if not changed
            return

Algorithm 1 runs the same kind of iterative update loop as the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, but it isn't as obvious when you can stop, because you don't know the maximum formula size beforehand. So it runs until a round doesn't find any new functions to make, iterating until it finds a fixed point.

The pseudocode above glosses over some details, such as the fact that the per-function loops can iterate over a queue of functions known to have finite size, so that each loop omits the functions that aren't yet known. That's only a constant factor improvement, but it's a useful one.

Another important detail missing above is the representation of functions. The most convenient representation is a binary truth table. For example, if we are computing the complexity of two-variable functions, there are four possible inputs, which we can number as follows.

X	Y	Value
false	false	00₂ = 0
false	true	01₂ = 1
true	false	10₂ = 2
true	true	11₂ = 3

The functions are then the 4-bit numbers giving the value of the function for each input. For example, function 13 = 1101₂ is true for all inputs except X=false Y=true. Three-variable functions correspond to 3-bit inputs generating 8-bit truth tables, and so on.

This representation has two key advantages. The first is that the numbering is dense, so that you can implement a map keyed by function using a simple array. The second is that the operations “f AND g” and “f OR g” can be implemented using bitwise operators: the truth table for “f AND g” is the bitwise AND of the truth tables for f and g.

That program worked well enough in 2001 to compute the minimum number of operators necessary to write any 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-variable Boolean function. Each round takes asymptotically O(2^2ⁿ·2^2ⁿ) = O(2^2ⁿ⁺¹) time, and the number of rounds needed is O(the final answer). The answer for n=4 is 15, so the computation required on the order of 15·2^2⁵ = 15·2³² iterations of the innermost loop. That was plausible on the computer I was using at the time, but the answer for n=5, likely around 30, would need 30·2⁶⁴ iterations to compute, which seemed well out of reach. At the time, it seemed plausible that parity was always a hardest function and that the minimum size would continue to alternate between 2ⁿ−1 and 2ⁿ+1. It's a nice pattern.

Exploiting Symmetry

Five years later, though, Alex Healy and I got to talking about this sequence, and Alex shot down both conjectures using results from the theory of circuit complexity. (Theorists!) Neil Sloane added this note to the entry for the sequence in his Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences:

%E A056287 Russ Cox conjectures that X₁ XOR ... XOR X_n is always a worst f and that a(5) = 33 and a(6) = 63. But (Jan 27 2006) Alex Healy points out that this conjecture is definitely false for large n. So what is a(5)?

Indeed. What is a(5)? No one knew, and it wasn't obvious how to find out.

In January 2010, Alex and I started looking into ways to speed up the computation for a(5). 30·2⁶⁴ is too many iterations but maybe we could find ways to cut that number.

In general, if we can identify a class of functions f whose members are guaranteed to have the same complexity, then we can save just one representative of the class as long as we recreate the entire class in the loop body. What used to be:

for each function f
    for each function g
        visit f AND g
        visit f OR g

can be rewritten as

for each canonical function f
    for each canonical function g
        for each ff equivalent to f
            for each gg equivalent to g
                visit ff AND gg
                visit ff OR gg

That doesn't look like an improvement: it's doing all the same work. But it can open the door to new optimizations depending on the equivalences chosen. For example, the functions “f” and “¬f” are guaranteed to have the same complexity, by DeMorgan's laws. If we keep just one of those two on the lists that “for each function” iterates over, we can unroll the inner two loops, producing:

for each canonical function f
    for each canonical function g
        visit f OR g
        visit f AND g
        visit ¬f OR g
        visit ¬f AND g
        visit f OR ¬g
        visit f AND ¬g
        visit ¬f OR ¬g
        visit ¬f AND ¬g

That's still not an improvement, but it's no worse. Each of the two loops considers half as many functions but the inner iteration is four times longer. Now we can notice that half of tests aren't worth doing: “f AND g” is the negation of “¬f OR ¬g,” and so on, so only half of them are necessary.

Let's suppose that when choosing between “f” and “¬f” we keep the one that is false when presented with all true inputs. (This has the nice property that f ^ (int32(f) >> 31) is the truth table for the canonical form of f.) Then we can tell which combinations above will produce canonical functions when f and g are already canonical:

for each canonical function f
    for each canonical function g
        visit f OR g
        visit f AND g
        visit ¬f AND g
        visit f AND ¬g

That's a factor of two improvement over the original loop.

Another observation is that permuting the inputs to a function doesn't change its complexity: “f(V, W, X, Y, Z)” and “f(Z, Y, X, W, V)” will have the same minimum size. For complex functions, each of the 5! = 120 permutations will produce a different truth table. A factor of 120 reduction in storage is good but again we have the problem of expanding the class in the iteration. This time, there's a different trick for reducing the work in the innermost iteration. Since we only need to produce one member of the equivalence class, it doesn't make sense to permute the inputs to both f and g. Instead, permuting just the inputs to f while fixing g is guaranteed to hit at least one member of each class that permuting both f and g would. So we gain the factor of 120 twice in the loops and lose it once in the iteration, for a net savings of 120. (In some ways, this is the same trick we did with “f” vs “¬f.”)

A final observation is that negating any of the inputs to the function doesn't change its complexity, because X and X' have the same complexity. The same argument we used for permutations applies here, for another constant factor of 2⁵ = 32.

The code stores a single function for each equivalence class and then recomputes the equivalent functions for f, but not g.

for each canonical function f
    for each function ff equivalent to f
        for each canonical function g
            visit ff OR g
            visit ff AND g
            visit ¬ff AND g
            visit ff AND ¬g

In all, we just got a savings of 2·120·32 = 7680, cutting the total number of iterations from 30·2⁶⁴ = 5×10²⁰ to 7×10¹⁶. If you figure we can do around 10⁹ iterations per second, that's still 800 days of CPU time.

The full algorithm at this point is:

// Algorithm 2
func compute():
    for each function f
        size[f] = ∞
    
    for each single variable function f = v
        size[f] = 0
    
    loop
        changed = false
        for each canonical function f
            for each function ff equivalent to f
                for each canonical function g
                    d = size[ff] + 1 + size[g]
                    changed |= visit(d, ff OR g)
                    changed |= visit(d, ff AND g)
                    changed |= visit(d, ff AND ¬g)
                    changed |= visit(d, ¬ff AND g)
        if not changed
            return

func visit(d, fg):
    if size[fg] != ∞
        return false
    
    record fg as canonical

    for each function ffgg equivalent to fg
        size[ffgg] = d
    return true

The helper function “visit” must set the size not only of its argument fg but also all equivalent functions under permutation or inversion of the inputs, so that future tests will see that they have been computed.

Methodical Exploration

There's one final improvement we can make. The approach of looping until things stop changing considers each function pair multiple times as their sizes go down. Instead, we can consider functions in order of complexity, so that the main loop builds first all the functions of minimum complexity 1, then all the functions of minimum complexity 2, and so on. If we do that, we'll consider each function pair at most once. We can stop when all functions are accounted for.

Applying this idea to Algorithm 1 (before canonicalization) yields:

// Algorithm 3
func compute()
    for each function f
        size[f] = ∞
    
    for each single variable function f = v
        size[f] = 0
    
    for k = 1 to ∞
        for each function f
            for each function g of size k − size(f) − 1
                if size[f AND g] == ∞
                    size[f AND g] = k
                    nsize++
                if size[f OR g] == ∞
                    size[f OR g] = k
                    nsize++
        if nsize == 2^2ⁿ
            return

Applying the idea to Algorithm 2 (after canonicalization) yields:

// Algorithm 4
func compute():
    for each function f
        size[f] = ∞
    
    for each single variable function f = v
        size[f] = 0
    
    for k = 1 to ∞
        for each canonical function f
            for each function ff equivalent to f
                for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1
                    visit(k, ff OR g)
                    visit(k, ff AND g)
                    visit(k, ff AND ¬g)
                    visit(k, ¬ff AND g)
        if nvisited == 2^2ⁿ
            return

func visit(d, fg):
    if size[fg] != ∞
        return
    
    record fg as canonical

    for each function ffgg equivalent to fg
        if size[ffgg] != ∞
            size[ffgg] = d
            nvisited += 2  // counts ffgg and ¬ffgg
    return

The original loop in Algorithms 1 and 2 considered each pair f, g in every iteration of the loop after they were computed. The new loop in Algorithms 3 and 4 considers each pair f, g only once, when k = size(f) + size(g) + 1. This removes the leading factor of 30 (the number of times we expected the first loop to run) from our estimation of the run time. Now the expected number of iterations is around 2⁶⁴/7680 = 2.4×10¹⁵. If we can do 10⁹ iterations per second, that's only 28 days of CPU time, which I can deliver if you can wait a month.

Our estimate does not include the fact that not all function pairs need to be considered. For example, if the maximum size is 30, then the functions of size 14 need never be paired against the functions of size 16, because any result would have size 14+1+16 = 31. So even 2.4×10¹⁵ is an overestimate, but it's in the right ballpark. (With hindsight I can report that only 1.7×10¹⁴ pairs need to be considered but also that our estimate of 10⁹ iterations per second was optimistic. The actual calculation ran for 20 days, an average of about 10⁸ iterations per second.)

Endgame: Directed Search

A month is still a long time to wait, and we can do better. Near the end (after k is bigger than, say, 22), we are exploring the fairly large space of function pairs in hopes of finding a fairly small number of remaining functions. At that point it makes sense to change from the bottom-up “bang things together and see what we make” to the top-down “try to make this one of these specific functions.” That is, the core of the current search is:

for each canonical function f
    for each function ff equivalent to f
        for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1
            visit(k, ff OR g)
            visit(k, ff AND g)
            visit(k, ff AND ¬g)
            visit(k, ¬ff AND g)

We can change it to:

for each missing function fg
    for each canonical function g
        for all possible f such that one of these holds
                * fg = f OR g
                * fg = f AND g
                * fg = ¬f AND g
                * fg = f AND ¬g
            if size[f] == k − size(g) − 1
                visit(k, fg)
                next fg

By the time we're at the end, exploring all the possible f to make the missing functions—a directed search—is much less work than the brute force of exploring all combinations.

As an example, suppose we are looking for f such that fg = f OR g. The equation is only possible to satisfy if fg OR g == fg. That is, if g has any extraneous 1 bits, no f will work, so we can move on. Otherwise, the remaining condition is that f AND ¬g == fg AND ¬g. That is, for the bit positions where g is 0, f must match fg. The other bits of f (the bits where g has 1s) can take any value. We can enumerate the possible f values by recursively trying all possible values for the “don't care” bits.

func find(x, any, xsize):
    if size(x) == xsize
        return x
    while any != 0
        bit = any AND −any  // rightmost 1 bit in any
        any = any AND ¬bit
        if f = find(x OR bit, any, xsize) succeeds
            return f
    return failure

It doesn't matter which 1 bit we choose for the recursion, but finding the rightmost 1 bit is cheap: it is isolated by the (admittedly surprising) expression “any AND −any.”

Given find, the loop above can try these four cases:

Formula	Condition	Base x	“Any” bits
fg = f OR g	fg OR g == fg	fg AND ¬g	g
fg = f OR ¬g	fg OR ¬g == fg	fg AND g	¬g
¬fg = f OR g	¬fg OR g == fg	¬fg AND ¬g	g
¬fg = f OR ¬g	¬fg OR ¬g == ¬fg	¬fg AND g	¬g

Rewriting the Boolean expressions to use only the four OR forms means that we only need to write the “adding bits” version of find.

The final algorithm is:

// Algorithm 5
func compute():
    for each function f
        size[f] = ∞
    
    for each single variable function f = v
        size[f] = 0
    
    // Generate functions.
    for k = 1 to max_generate
        for each canonical function f
            for each function ff equivalent to f
                for each canonical function g of size k − size(f) − 1
                    visit(k, ff OR g)
                    visit(k, ff AND g)
                    visit(k, ff AND ¬g)
                    visit(k, ¬ff AND g)

    // Search for functions.
    for k = max_generate+1 to ∞
        for each missing function fg
            for each canonical function g
                fsize = k − size(g) − 1
                if fg OR g == fg
                    if f = find(fg AND ¬g, g, fsize) succeeds
                        visit(k, fg)
                        next fg
                if fg OR ¬g == fg
                    if f = find(fg AND g, ¬g, fsize) succeeds
                        visit(k, fg)
                        next fg
                if ¬fg OR g == ¬fg
                    if f = find(¬fg AND ¬g, g, fsize) succeeds
                        visit(k, fg)
                        next fg
                if ¬fg OR ¬g == ¬fg
                    if f = find(¬fg AND g, ¬g, fsize) succeeds
                        visit(k, fg)
                        next fg
        if nvisited == 2^2ⁿ
            return

func visit(d, fg):
    if size[fg] != ∞
        return
    
    record fg as canonical

    for each function ffgg equivalent to fg
        if size[ffgg] != ∞
            size[ffgg] = d
            nvisited += 2  // counts ffgg and ¬ffgg
    return

func find(x, any, xsize):
    if size(x) == xsize
        return x
    while any != 0
        bit = any AND −any  // rightmost 1 bit in any
        any = any AND ¬bit
        if f = find(x OR bit, any, xsize) succeeds
            return f
    return failure

To get a sense of the speedup here, and to check my work, I ran the program using both algorithms on a 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E7200.

	————— # of Functions —————			———— Time ————
Size	Canonical	All	All, Cumulative	Generate	Search
0	1	10	10
1	2	82	92	< 0.1 seconds	3.4 minutes
2	2	640	732	< 0.1 seconds	7.2 minutes
3	7	4420	5152	< 0.1 seconds	12.3 minutes
4	19	25276	29696	< 0.1 seconds	30.1 minutes
5	44	117440	147136	< 0.1 seconds	1.3 hours
6	142	515040	662176	< 0.1 seconds	3.5 hours
7	436	1999608	2661784	0.2 seconds	11.6 hours
8	1209	6598400	9260184	0.6 seconds	1.7 days
9	3307	19577332	28837516	1.7 seconds	4.9 days
10	7741	50822560	79660076	4.6 seconds	[ 10 days ? ]
11	17257	114619264	194279340	10.8 seconds	[ 20 days ? ]
12	31851	221301008	415580348	21.7 seconds	[ 50 days ? ]
13	53901	374704776	790285124	38.5 seconds	[ 80 days ? ]
14	75248	533594528	1323879652	58.7 seconds	[ 100 days ? ]
15	94572	667653642	1991533294	1.5 minutes	[ 120 days ? ]
16	98237	697228760	2688762054	2.1 minutes	[ 120 days ? ]
17	89342	628589440	3317351494	4.1 minutes	[ 90 days ? ]
18	66951	468552896	3785904390	9.1 minutes	[ 50 days ? ]
19	41664	287647616	4073552006	23.4 minutes	[ 30 days ? ]
20	21481	144079832	4217631838	57.0 minutes	[ 10 days ? ]
21	8680	55538224	4273170062	2.4 hours	2.5 days
22	2730	16099568	4289269630	5.2 hours	11.7 hours
23	937	4428800	4293698430	11.2 hours	2.2 hours
24	228	959328	4294657758	22.0 hours	33.2 minutes
25	103	283200	4294940958	1.7 days	4.0 minutes
26	21	22224	4294963182	2.9 days	42 seconds
27	10	3602	4294966784	4.7 days	2.4 seconds
28	3	512	4294967296	[ 7 days ? ]	0.1 seconds

The bracketed times are estimates based on the work involved: I did not wait that long for the intermediate search steps. The search algorithm is quite a bit worse than generate until there are very few functions left to find. However, it comes in handy just when it is most useful: when the generate algorithm has slowed to a crawl. If we run generate through formulas of size 22 and then switch to search for 23 onward, we can run the whole computation in just over half a day of CPU time.

The computation of a(5) identified the sizes of all 616,126 canonical Boolean functions of 5 inputs. In contrast, there are just over 200 trillion canonical Boolean functions of 6 inputs. Determining a(6) is unlikely to happen by brute force computation, no matter what clever tricks we use.

Adding XOR

We've assumed the use of just AND and OR as our basis for the Boolean formulas. If we also allow XOR, functions can be written using many fewer operators. In particular, a hardest function for the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-input cases—parity—is now trivial. Knuth examines the complexity of 5-input Boolean functions using AND, OR, and XOR in detail in The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4A. Section 7.1.2's Algorithm L is the same as our Algorithm 3 above, given for computing 4-input functions. Knuth mentions that to adapt it for 5-input functions one must treat only canonical functions and gives results for 5-input functions with XOR allowed. So another way to check our work is to add XOR to our Algorithm 4 and check that our results match Knuth's.

Because the minimum formula sizes are smaller (at most 12), the computation of sizes with XOR is much faster than before:

	————— # of Functions —————
Size	Canonical	All	All, Cumulative	Time
0	1	10	10
1	3	102	112	< 0.1 seconds
2	5	1140	1252	< 0.1 seconds
3	20	11570	12822	< 0.1 seconds
4	93	109826	122648	< 0.1 seconds
5	366	936440	1059088	0.1 seconds
6	1730	7236880	8295968	0.7 seconds
7	8782	47739088	56035056	4.5 seconds
8	40297	250674320	306709376	24.0 seconds
9	141422	955812256	1262521632	95.5 seconds
10	273277	1945383936	3207905568	200.7 seconds
11	145707	1055912608	4263818176	121.2 seconds
12	4423	31149120	4294967296	65.0 seconds

Knuth does not discuss anything like Algorithm 5, because the search for specific functions does not apply to the AND, OR, and XOR basis. XOR is a non-monotone function (it can both turn bits on and turn bits off), so there is no test like our “if fg OR g == fg” and no small set of “don't care” bits to trim the search for f. The search for an appropriate f in the XOR case would have to try all f of the right size, which is exactly what Algorithm 4 already does.

Volume 4A also considers the problem of building minimal circuits, which are like formulas but can use common subexpressions additional times for free, and the problem of building the shallowest possible circuits. See Section 7.1.2 for all the details.

Code and Web Site

The web site boolean-oracle.swtch.com lets you type in a Boolean expression and gives back the minimal formula for it. It uses tables generated while running Algorithm 5; those tables and the programs described in this post are also available on the site.

Postscript: Generating All Permutations and Inversions

The algorithms given above depend crucially on the step “for each function ff equivalent to f,” which generates all the ff obtained by permuting or inverting inputs to f, but I did not explain how to do that. We already saw that we can manipulate the binary truth table representation directly to turn f into ¬f and to compute combinations of functions. We can also manipulate the binary representation directly to invert a specific input or swap a pair of adjacent inputs. Using those operations we can cycle through all the equivalent functions.

To invert a specific input, let's consider the structure of the truth table. The index of a bit in the truth table encodes the inputs for that entry. For example, the low bit of the index gives the value of the first input. So the even-numbered bits—at indices 0, 2, 4, 6, ...—correspond to the first input being false, while the odd-numbered bits—at indices 1, 3, 5, 7, ...—correspond to the first input being true. Changing just that bit in the index corresponds to changing the single variable, so indices 0, 1 differ only in the value of the first input, as do 2, 3, and 4, 5, and 6, 7, and so on. Given the truth table for f(V, W, X, Y, Z) we can compute the truth table for f(¬V, W, X, Y, Z) by swapping adjacent bit pairs in the original truth table. Even better, we can do all the swaps in parallel using a bitwise operation. To invert a different input, we swap larger runs of bits.

Function		Truth Table (`f` = f(V, W, X, Y, Z))
f(¬V, W, X, Y, Z)		`(f&0x55555555)<< 1 \| (f>> 1)&0x55555555`
f(V, ¬W, X, Y, Z)		`(f&0x33333333)<< 2 \| (f>> 2)&0x33333333`
f(V, W, ¬X, Y, Z)		`(f&0x0f0f0f0f)<< 4 \| (f>> 4)&0x0f0f0f0f`
f(V, W, X, ¬Y, Z)		`(f&0x00ff00ff)<< 8 \| (f>> 8)&0x00ff00ff`
f(V, W, X, Y, ¬Z)		`(f&0x0000ffff)<<16 \| (f>>16)&0x0000ffff`

Being able to invert a specific input lets us consider all possible inversions by building them up one at a time. The Gray code lets us enumerate all possible 5-bit input codes while changing only 1 bit at a time as we move from one input to the next:

0, 1, 3, 2, 6, 7, 5, 4,
12, 13, 15, 14, 10, 11, 9, 8,
24, 25, 27, 26, 30, 31, 29, 28,
20, 21, 23, 22, 18, 19, 17, 16

This minimizes the number of inversions we need: to consider all 32 cases, we only need 31 inversion operations. In contrast, visiting the 5-bit input codes in the usual binary order 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... would often need to change multiple bits, like when changing from 3 to 4.

To swap a pair of adjacent inputs, we can again take advantage of the truth table. For a pair of inputs, there are four cases: 00, 01, 10, and 11. We can leave the 00 and 11 cases alone, because they are invariant under swapping, and concentrate on swapping the 01 and 10 bits. The first two inputs change most often in the truth table: each run of 4 bits corresponds to those four cases. In each run, we want to leave the first and fourth alone and swap the second and third. For later inputs, the four cases consist of sections of bits instead of single bits.

Function		Truth Table (`f` = f(V, W, X, Y, Z))
f(W, V, X, Y, Z)		`f&0x99999999 \| (f&0x22222222)<<1 \| (f>>1)&0x22222222`
f(V, X, W, Y, Z)		`f&0xc3c3c3c3 \| (f&0x0c0c0c0c)<<1 \| (f>>1)&0x0c0c0c0c`
f(V, W, Y, X, Z)		`f&0xf00ff00f \| (f&0x00f000f0)<<1 \| (f>>1)&0x00f000f0`
f(V, W, X, Z, Y)		`f&0xff0000ff \| (f&0x0000ff00)<<8 \| (f>>8)&0x0000ff00`

Being able to swap a pair of adjacent inputs lets us consider all possible permutations by building them up one at a time. Again it is convenient to have a way to visit all permutations by applying only one swap at a time. Here Volume 4A comes to the rescue. Section 7.2.1.2 is titled “Generating All Permutations,” and Knuth delivers many algorithms to do just that. The most convenient for our purposes is Algorithm P, which generates a sequence that considers all permutations exactly once with only a single swap of adjacent inputs between steps. Knuth calls it Algorithm P because it corresponds to the “Plain changes” algorithm used by bell ringers in 17th century England to ring a set of bells in all possible permutations. The algorithm is described in a manuscript written around 1653!

We can examine all possible permutations and inversions by nesting a loop over all permutations inside a loop over all inversions, and in fact that's what my program does. Knuth does one better, though: his Exercise 7.2.1.2-20 suggests that it is possible to build up all the possibilities using only adjacent swaps and inversion of the first input. Negating arbitrary inputs is not hard, though, and still does minimal work, so the code sticks with Gray codes and Plain changes.

Zip Files All The Way Down

2010-03-18T00:00:00-04:00

Stephen Hawking begins A Brief History of Time with this story:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You're very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it's turtles all the way down!”

Scientists today are pretty sure that the universe is not actually turtles all the way down, but we can create that kind of situation in other contexts. For example, here we have video monitors all the way down and set theory books all the way down, and shopping carts all the way down.

And here's a computer storage equivalent: look inside r.zip. It's zip files all the way down: each one contains another zip file under the name r/r.zip. (For the die-hard Unix fans, r.tar.gz is gzipped tar files all the way down.) Like the line of shopping carts, it never ends, because it loops back onto itself: the zip file contains itself! And it's probably less work to put together a self-reproducing zip file than to put together all those shopping carts, at least if you're the kind of person who would read this blog. This post explains how.

Before we get to self-reproducing zip files, though, we need to take a brief detour into self-reproducing programs.

Self-reproducing programs

The idea of self-reproducing programs dates back to the 1960s. My favorite statement of the problem is the one Ken Thompson gave in his 1983 Turing Award address:

In college, before video games, we would amuse ourselves by posing programming exercises. One of the favorites was to write the shortest self-reproducing program. Since this is an exercise divorced from reality, the usual vehicle was FORTRAN. Actually, FORTRAN was the language of choice for the same reason that three-legged races are popular.

More precisely stated, the problem is to write a source program that, when compiled and executed, will produce as output an exact copy of its source. If you have never done this, I urge you to try it on your own. The discovery of how to do it is a revelation that far surpasses any benefit obtained by being told how to do it. The part about “shortest” was just an incentive to demonstrate skill and determine a winner.

Spoiler alert! I agree: if you have never done this, I urge you to try it on your own. The internet makes it so easy to look things up that it's refreshing to discover something yourself once in a while. Go ahead and spend a few days figuring out. This blog will still be here when you get back. (If you don't mind the spoilers, the entire Turing award address is worth reading.)

(Spoiler blocker.)

http://www.robertwechsler.com/projects.html

Let's try to write a Python program that prints itself. It will probably be a print statement, so here's a first attempt, run at the interpreter prompt:

>>> print 'hello'
hello

That didn't quite work. But now we know what the program is, so let's print it:

>>> print "print 'hello'"
print 'hello'

That didn't quite work either. The problem is that when you execute a simple print statement, it only prints part of itself: the argument to the print. We need a way to print the rest of the program too.

The trick is to use recursion: you write a string that is the whole program, but with itself missing, and then you plug it into itself before passing it to print.

>>> s = 'print %s'; print s % repr(s)
print 'print %s'

Not quite, but closer: the problem is that the string s isn't actually the program. But now we know the general form of the program: s = '%s'; print s % repr(s). That's the string to use.

>>> s = 's = %s; print s %% repr(s)'; print s % repr(s)
s = 's = %s; print s %% repr(s)'; print s % repr(s)

Recursion for the win.

This form of self-reproducing program is often called a quine, in honor of the philosopher and logician W. V. O. Quine, who discovered the paradoxical sentence:

“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

The simplest English form of a self-reproducing quine is a command like:

Print this, followed by its quotation:
“Print this, followed by its quotation:”

There's nothing particularly special about Python that makes quining possible. The most elegant quine I know is a Scheme program that is a direct, if somewhat inscrutable, translation of that sentiment:

((lambda (x) `(,x ',x))
'(lambda (x) `(,x ',x)))

I think the Go version is a clearer translation, at least as far as the quoting is concerned:

/* Go quine */
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
 fmt.Printf("%s%c%s%c\n", q, 0x60, q, 0x60)
}
var q = `/* Go quine */
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
 fmt.Printf("%s%c%s%c\n", q, 0x60, q, 0x60)
}
var q = `

(I've colored the data literals green throughout to make it clear what is program and what is data.)

The Go program has the interesting property that, ignoring the pesky newline at the end, the entire program is the same thing twice (/* Go quine */ ... q = `). That got me thinking: maybe it's possible to write a self-reproducing program using only a repetition operator. And you know what programming language has essentially only a repetition operator? The language used to encode Lempel-Ziv compressed files like the ones used by gzip and zip.

Self-reproducing Lempel-Ziv programs

Lempel-Ziv compressed data is a stream of instructions with two basic opcodes: literal(n) followed by n bytes of data means write those n bytes into the decompressed output, and repeat(d, n) means look backward d bytes from the current location in the decompressed output and copy the n bytes you find there into the output stream.

The programming exercise, then, is this: write a Lempel-Ziv program using just those two opcodes that prints itself when run. In other words, write a compressed data stream that decompresses to itself. Feel free to assume any reasonable encoding for the literal and repeat opcodes. For the grand prize, find a program that decompresses to itself surrounded by an arbitrary prefix and suffix, so that the sequence could be embedded in an actual gzip or zip file, which has a fixed-format header and trailer.

Spoiler alert! I urge you to try this on your own before continuing to read. It's a great way to spend a lazy afternoon, and you have one critical advantage that I didn't: you know there is a solution.

(Spoiler blocker.)

http://www.robertwechsler.com/thebest.html

By the way, here's r.gz, gzip files all the way down.

$ gunzip < r.gz > r
$ cmp r r.gz
$

The nice thing about r.gz is that even broken web browsers that ordinarily decompress downloaded gzip data before storing it to disk will handle this file correctly!

Enough stalling to hide the spoilers. Let's use this shorthand to describe Lempel-Ziv instructions: Ln and Rn are shorthand for literal(n) and repeat(n, n), and the program assumes that each code is one byte. L0 is therefore the Lempel-Ziv no-op; L5 hello prints hello; and so does L3 hel R1 L1 o.

Here's a Lempel-Ziv program that prints itself. (Each line is one instruction.)

	Code	Output
no-op	`L0`
no-op	`L0`
no-op	`L0`
print 4 bytes	`L4 L0 L0 L0 L4`	`L0 L0 L0 L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`L0 L0 L0 L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R4 L4 R4 L4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 L0 L0 L0 L0`	`L0 L0 L0 L0`

(The two columns Code and Output contain the same byte sequence.)

The interesting core of this program is the 6-byte sequence L4 R4 L4 R4 L4 R4, which prints the 8-byte sequence R4 L4 R4 L4 R4 L4 R4 L4. That is, it prints itself with an extra byte before and after.

When we were trying to write the self-reproducing Python program, the basic problem was that the print statement was always longer than what it printed. We solved that problem with recursion, computing the string to print by plugging it into itself. Here we took a different approach. The Lempel-Ziv program is particularly repetitive, so that a repeated substring ends up containing the entire fragment. The recursion is in the representation of the program rather than its execution. Either way, that fragment is the crucial point. Before the final R4, the output lags behind the input. Once it executes, the output is one code ahead.

The L0 no-ops are plugged into a more general variant of the program, which can reproduce itself with the addition of an arbitrary three-byte prefix and suffix:

	Code	Output
print 4 bytes	`L4 aa bb cc L4`	`aa bb cc L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`aa bb cc L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R4 L4 R4 L4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R4 xx yy zz`	`R4 xx yy zz`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R4 xx yy zz`

(The byte sequence in the Output column is aa bb cc, then the byte sequence from the Code column, then xx yy zz.)

It took me the better part of a quiet Sunday to get this far, but by the time I got here I knew the game was over and that I'd won. From all that experimenting, I knew it was easy to create a program fragment that printed itself minus a few instructions or even one that printed an arbitrary prefix and then itself, minus a few instructions. The extra aa bb cc in the output provides a place to attach such a program fragment. Similarly, it's easy to create a fragment to attach to the xx yy zz that prints itself, minus the first three instructions, plus an arbitrary suffix. We can use that generality to attach an appropriate header and trailer.

Here is the final program, which prints itself surrounded by an arbitrary prefix and suffix. [P] denotes the p-byte compressed form of the prefix P; similarly, [S] denotes the s-byte compressed form of the suffix S.

	Code	Output
print prefix	`[P]`	`P`
print p+1 bytes	`L`p+1 `[P] L`p+1	`[P] L`p+1
repeat last p+1 printed bytes	`R`p+1	`[P] L`p+1
print 1 byte	`L1 R`p+1	`R`p+1
print 1 byte	`L1 L1`	`L1`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R`p+1 `L1 L1 L4`	`R`p+1 `L1 L1 L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R`p+1 `L1 L1 L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R4 L4 R4 L4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R4 L4 R4 L4`
print 4 bytes	`L4 R4 L0 L0 L`s+1	`R4 L0 L0 L`s+1
repeat last 4 printed bytes	`R4`	`R4 L0 L0 L`s+1
no-op	`L0`
no-op	`L0`
print s+1 bytes	`L`s+1 `R`s+1 `[S]`	`R`s+1 `[S]`
repeat last s+1 bytes	`R`s+1	`R`s+1 `[S]`
print suffix	`[S]`	`S`

(The byte sequence in the Output column is P, then the byte sequence from the Code column, then S.)

Self-reproducing zip files

Now the rubber meets the road. We've solved the main theoretical obstacle to making a self-reproducing zip file, but there are a couple practical obstacles still in our way.

The first obstacle is to translate our self-reproducing Lempel-Ziv program, written in simplified opcodes, into the real opcode encoding. RFC 1951 describes the DEFLATE format used in both gzip and zip: a sequence of blocks, each of which is a sequence of opcodes encoded using Huffman codes. Huffman codes assign different length bit strings to different opcodes, breaking our assumption above that opcodes have fixed length. But wait! We can, with some care, find a set of fixed-size encodings that says what we need to be able to express.

In DEFLATE, there are literal blocks and opcode blocks. The header at the beginning of a literal block is 5 bytes:

If the translation of our L opcodes above are 5 bytes each, the translation of the R opcodes must also be 5 bytes each, with all the byte counts above scaled by a factor of 5. (For example, L4 now has a 20-byte argument, and R4 repeats the last 20 bytes of output.) The opcode block with a single repeat(20,20) instruction falls well short of 5 bytes:

Luckily, an opcode block containing two repeat(20,10) instructions has the same effect and is exactly 5 bytes:

Encoding the other sized repeats (Rp+1 and Rs+1) takes more effort and some sleazy tricks, but it turns out that we can design 5-byte codes that repeat any amount from 9 to 64 bytes. For example, here are the repeat blocks for 10 bytes and for 40 bytes:

The repeat block for 10 bytes is two bits too short, but every repeat block is followed by a literal block, which starts with three zero bits and then padding to the next byte boundary. If a repeat block ends two bits short of a byte but is followed by a literal block, the literal block's padding will insert the extra two bits. Similarly, the repeat block for 40 bytes is five bits too long, but they're all zero bits. Starting a literal block five bits too late steals the bits from the padding. Both of these tricks only work because the last 7 bits of any repeat block are zero and the bits in the first byte of any literal block are also zero, so the boundary isn't directly visible. If the literal block started with a one bit, this sleazy trick wouldn't work.

The second obstacle is that zip archives (and gzip files) record a CRC32 checksum of the uncompressed data. Since the uncompressed data is the zip archive, the data being checksummed includes the checksum itself. So we need to find a value x such that writing x into the checksum field causes the file to checksum to x. Recursion strikes back.

The CRC32 checksum computation interprets the entire file as a big number and computes the remainder when you divide that number by a specific constant using a specific kind of division. We could go through the effort of setting up the appropriate equations and solving for x. But frankly, we've already solved one nasty recursive puzzle today, and enough is enough. There are only four billion possibilities for x: we can write a program to try each in turn, until it finds one that works.

If you want to recreate these files yourself, there are a few more minor obstacles, like making sure the tar file is a multiple of 512 bytes and compressing the rather large zip trailer to at most 59 bytes so that Rs+1 is at most R64. But they're just a simple matter of programming.

So there you have it: r.gz (gzip files all the way down), r.tar.gz (gzipped tar files all the way down), and r.zip (zip files all the way down). I regret that I have been unable to find any programs that insist on decompressing these files recursively, ad infinitum. It would have been fun to watch them squirm, but it looks like much less sophisticated zip bombs have spoiled the fun.

If you're feeling particularly ambitious, here is rgzip.go, the Go program that generated these files. I wonder if you can create a zip file that contains a gzipped tar file that contains the original zip file. Ken Thompson suggested trying to make a zip file that contains a slightly larger copy of itself, recursively, so that as you dive down the chain of zip files each one gets a little bigger. (If you do manage either of these, please leave a comment.)

P.S. I can't end the post without sharing my favorite self-reproducing program: the one-line shell script #!/bin/cat.

UTF-8: Bits, Bytes, and Benefits

2010-03-05T00:00:00-05:00

UTF-8 is a way to encode Unicode code points—integer values from 0 through 10FFFF—into a byte stream, and it is far simpler than many people realize. The easiest way to make it confusing or complicated is to treat it as a black box, never looking inside. So let's start by looking inside. Here it is:


Unicode code points		UTF-8 encoding (binary)

00-7F	(7 bits)	0tuvwxyz
0080-07FF	(11 bits)	110pqrst 10uvwxyz
0800-FFFF	(16 bits)	1110jklm 10npqrst 10uvwxyz
010000-10FFFF	(21 bits)	11110efg 10hijklm 10npqrst 10uvwxyz

The convenient properties of UTF-8 are all consequences of the choice of encoding.

All ASCII files are already UTF-8 files.
The first 128 Unicode code points are the 7-bit ASCII character set, and UTF-8 preserves their one-byte encoding.
ASCII bytes always represent themselves in UTF-8 files. They never appear as part of other UTF-8 sequences.
All the non-ASCII UTF-8 sequences consist of bytes with the high bit set, so if you see the byte 0x7A in a UTF-8 file, you can be sure it represents the character z.
ASCII bytes are always represented as themselves in UTF-8 files. They cannot be hidden inside multibyte UTF-8 sequences.
The ASCII z 01111010 cannot be encoded as a two-byte UTF-8 sequence 11000001 10111010. Code points must be encoded using the shortest possible sequence. A corollary is that decoders must detect long-winded sequences as invalid. In practice, it is useful for a decoder to use the Unicode replacement character, code point FFFD, as the decoding of an invalid UTF-8 sequence rather than stop processing the text.
UTF-8 is self-synchronizing.
Let's call a byte of the form 10xxxxxx a continuation byte. Every UTF-8 sequence is a byte that is not a continuation byte followed by zero or more continuation bytes. If you start processing a UTF-8 file at an arbitrary point, you might not be at the beginning of a UTF-8 encoding, but you can easily find one: skip over continuation bytes until you find a non-continuation byte. (The same applies to scanning backward.)
Substring search is just byte string search.
Properties 2, 3, and 4 imply that given a string of correctly encoded UTF-8, the only way those bytes can appear in a larger UTF-8 text is when they represent the same code points. So you can use any 8-bit safe byte at a time search function, like strchr or strstr, to run the search.
Most programs that handle 8-bit files safely can handle UTF-8 safely.
This also follows from Properties 2, 3, and 4. I say “most” programs, because programs that take apart a byte sequence expecting one character per byte will not behave correctly, but very few programs do that. It is far more common to split input at newline characters, or split whitespace-separated fields, or do other similar parsing around specific ASCII characters. For example, Unix tools like cat, cmp, cp, diff, echo, head, tail, and tee can process UTF-8 files as if they were plain ASCII files. Most operating system kernels should also be able to handle UTF-8 file names without any special arrangement, since the only operations done on file names are comparisons and splitting at /. In contrast, tools like grep, sed, and wc, which inspect arbitrary individual characters, do need modification.
UTF-8 sequences sort in code point order.
You can verify this by inspecting the encodings in the table above. This means that Unix tools like join, ls, and sort (without options) don't need to handle UTF-8 specially.
UTF-8 has no “byte order.”
UTF-8 is a byte encoding. It is not little endian or big endian. Unicode defines a byte order mark (BOM) code point FFFE, which are used to determine the byte order of a stream of raw 16-bit values, like UCS-2 or UTF-16. It has no place in a UTF-8 file. Some programs like to write a UTF-8-encoded BOM at the beginning of UTF-8 files, but this is unnecessary (and annoying to programs that don't expect it).

UTF-8 does give up the ability to do random access using code point indices. Programs that need to jump to the nth Unicode code point in a file or on a line—text editors are the canonical example—will typically convert incoming UTF-8 to an internal representation like an array of code points and then convert back to UTF-8 for output, but most programs are simpler when written to manipulate UTF-8 directly.

Programs that make UTF-8 more complicated than it needs to be are typically trying to be too general, not wanting to make assumptions that might not be true of other encodings. But there are good tools to convert other encodings to UTF-8, and it is slowly becoming the standard encoding: even the fraction of web pages written in UTF-8 is nearing 50%. UTF-8 was explicitly designed to have these nice properties. Take advantage of them.

For more on UTF-8, see “Hello World or Καλημέρα κόσμε or こんにちは世界,” by Rob Pike and Ken Thompson, and also this history.

Notes: Property 6 assumes the tools do not strip the high bit from each byte. Such mangling was common years ago but is very uncommon now. Property 7 assumes the comparison is done treating the bytes as unsigned, but such behavior is mandated by the ANSI C standard for memcmp, strcmp, and strncmp.

Computing History at Bell Labs

2008-04-09T00:00:00-04:00

In 1997, on his retirement from Bell Labs, Doug McIlroy gave a fascinating talk about the “History of Computing at Bell Labs.” That page contains audio for the talk in Real Audio format (it was 1997). Almost ten years ago I transcribed the audio but never did anything with it. The transcript is below.

My favorite parts of the talk are the description of the bi-quinary decimal relay calculator and the description of a team that spent over a year tracking down a race condition bug in a missile detector (reliability was king: today you'd just stamp “cannot reproduce” and send the report back). But the whole thing contains many fantastic stories. It's well worth the read or listen. I also like his recollection of programming using cards: “It's the kind of thing you can be nostalgic about, but it wasn't actually fun.”

For more information, Bernard D. Holbrook and W. Stanley Brown's 1982 technical report “A History of Computing Research at Bell Laboratories (1937-1975)” covers the earlier history in more detail.

Corrections added August 19, 2009.

Transcript of “History of Computing at Bell Labs:”

Computing at Bell Labs is certainly an outgrowth of the mathematics department, which grew from that first hiring in 1897, G A Campbell. When Bell Labs was formally founded in 1925, what it had been was the engineering department of Western Electric. When it was formally founded in 1925, almost from the beginning there was a math department with Thornton Fry as the department head, and if you look at some of Fry's work, it turns out that he was fussing around in 1929 with trying to discover information theory. It didn't actually gel until twenty years later with Shannon.

1:10 Of course, most of the mathematics at that time was continuous. One was interested in analyzing circuits and propagation. And indeed, this is what led to the growth of computing in Bell Laboratories. The computations could not all be done symbolically. There were not closed form solutions. There was lots of numerical computation done. The math department had a fair stable of computers, which in those days meant people. [laughter]

2:00 And in the late '30s, George Stibitz had an idea that some of the work that they were doing on hand calculators might be automated by using some of the equipment that the Bell System was installing in central offices, namely relay circuits. He went home, and on his kitchen table, he built out of relays a binary arithmetic circuit. He decided that binary was really the right way to compute. However, when he finally came to build some equipment, he determined that binary to decimal conversion and decimal to binary conversion was a drag, and he didn't want to put it in the equipment, and so he finally built in 1939, a relay calculator that worked in decimal, and it worked in complex arithmetic. Do you have a hand calculator now that does complex arithmetic? Ten-digit, I believe, complex computations: add, subtract, multiply, and divide. The I/O equipment was teletypes, so essentially all the stuff to make such machines out of was there. Since the I/O was teletypes, it could be remotely accessed, and there were in fact four stations in the West Street Laboratories of Bell Labs. West Street is down on the left side of Manhattan. I had the good fortune to work there one summer, right next to a district where you're likely to get bowled over by rolling ?beads? hanging from racks or tumbling ?cabbages?. The building is still there. It's called Westbeth Apartments. It's now an artist's colony.

4:29 Anyway, in West Street, there were four separate remote stations from which the complex calculator could be accessed. It was not time sharing. You actually reserved your time on the machine, and only one of the four terminals worked at a time. In 1940, this machine was shown off to the world at the AMS annual convention, which happened to be held in Hanover at Dartmouth that year, and mathematicians could wonder at remote computing, doing computation on an electromechanical calculator at 300 miles away.

5:22 Stibitz went on from there to make a whole series of relay machines. Many of them were made for the government during the war. They were named, imaginatively, Mark I through Mark VI. I have read some of his patents. They're kind of fun. One is a patent on conditional transfer. [laughter] And how do you do a conditional transfer? Well these gadgets were, the relay calculator was run from your fingers, I mean the complex calculator. The later calculators, of course, if your fingers were a teletype, you could perfectly well feed a paper tape in, because that was standard practice. And these later machines were intended really to be run more from paper tape. And the conditional transfer was this: you had two teletypes, and there's a code that says "time to read from the other teletype". Loops were of course easy to do. You take paper and [laughter; presumably Doug curled a piece of paper to form a physical loop]. These machines never got to the point of having stored programs. But they got quite big. I saw, one of them was here in 1954, and I did see it, behind glass, and if you've ever seen these machines in the, there's one in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, and there's one in the Science Museum in San Jose, you know these machines that drop balls that go wandering sliding around and turning battle wheels and ringing bells and who knows what. It kind of looked like that. It was a very quiet room, with just a little clicking of relays, which is what a central office used to be like. It was the one air-conditioned room in Murray Hill, I think. This machine ran, the Mark VI, well I think that was the Mark V, the Mark VI actually went to Aberdeen. This machine ran for a good number of years, probably six, eight. And it is said that it never made an undetected error. [laughter]

8:30 What that means is that it never made an error that it did not diagnose itself and stop. Relay technology was very very defensive. The telephone switching system had to work. It was full of self-checking, and so were the calculators, so were the calculators that Stibitz made.

9:04 Arithmetic was done in bi-quinary, a two out of five representation for decimal integers, and if there weren't exactly two out of five relays activated it would stop. This machine ran unattended over the weekends. People would bring their tapes in, and the operator would paste everybody's tapes together. There was a beginning of job code on the tape and there was also a time indicator. If the machine ran out of time, it automatically stopped and went to the next job. If the machine caught itself in an error, it backed up to the current job and tried it again. They would load this machine on Friday night, and on Monday morning, all the tapes, all the entries would be available on output tapes.

Question: I take it they were using a different representation for loops and conditionals by then.

Doug: Loops were done actually by they would run back and forth across the tape now, on this machine.

10:40 Then came the transistor in '48. At Whippany, they actually had a transistorized computer, which was a respectable minicomputer, a box about this big, running in 1954, it ran from 1954 to 1956 solidly as a test run. The notion was that this computer might fly in an airplane. And during that two-year test run, one diode failed. In 1957, this machine called TRADIC, did in fact fly in an airplane, but to the best of my knowledge, that machine was a demonstration machine. It didn't turn into a production machine. About that time, we started buying commercial machines. It's wonderful to think about the set of different architectures that existed in that time. The first machine we got was called a CPC from IBM. And all it was was a big accounting machine with a very special plugboard on the side that provided an interpreter for doing ten-digit decimal arithmetic, including opcodes for the trig functions and square root.

12:30 It was also not a computer as we know it today, because it wasn't stored program, it had twenty-four memory locations as I recall, and it took its program instead of from tapes, from cards. This was not a total advantage. A tape didn't get into trouble if you dropped it on the floor. [laughter]. CPC, the operator would stand in front of it, and there, you would go through loops by taking cards out, it took human intervention, to take the cards out of the output of the card reader and put them in the ?top?. I actually ran some programs on the CPC ?...?. It's the kind of thing you can be nostalgic about, but it wasn't actually fun. [laughter]

13:30 The next machine was an IBM 650, and here, this was a stored program, with the memory being on drum. There was no operating system for it. It came with a manual: this is what the machine does. And Michael Wolontis made an interpreter called the L1 interpreter for this machine, so you could actually program in, the manual told you how to program in binary, and L1 allowed you to give something like 10 for add and 9 for subtract, and program in decimal instead. And of course that machine required interesting optimization, because it was a nice thing if the next program step were stored somewhere -- each program step had the address of the following step in it, and you would try to locate them around the drum so to minimize latency. So there were all kinds of optimizers around, but I don't think Bell Labs made ?...? based on this called "soap" from Carnegie Mellon. That machine didn't last very long. Fortunately, a machine with core memory came out from IBM in about '56, the 704. Bell Labs was a little slow in getting one, in '58. Again, the machine came without an operating system. In fact, but it did have Fortran, which really changed the world. It suddenly made it easy to write programs. But the way Fortran came from IBM, it came with a thing called the Fortran Stop Book. This was a list of what happened, a diagnostic would execute the halt instruction, the operator would go read the panel lights and discover where the machine had stopped, you would then go look up in the stop book what that meant. Bell Labs, with George Mealy and Glenn Hanson, made an operating system, and one of the things they did was to bring the stop book to heel. They took the compiler, replaced all the stop instructions with jumps to somewhere, and allowed the program instead of stopping to go on to the next trial. By the time I arrived at Bell Labs in 1958, this thing was running nicely.

16:36 Bell Labs continued to be a major player in operating systems. This was called BESYS. BE was the share abbreviation for Bell Labs. Each company that belonged to Share, which was the IBM users group, ahd a two letter abbreviation. It's hard to imagine taking all the computer users now and giving them a two-letter abbreviation. BESYS went through many generations, up to BESYS 5, I believe. Each one with innovations. IBM delivered a machine, the 7090, in 1960. This machine had interrupts in it, but IBM didn't use them. But BESYS did. And that sent IBM back to the drawing board to make it work. [Laughter]

17:48 Rob Pike: It also didn't have memory protection.

Doug: It didn't have memory protection either, and a lot of people actually got IBM to put memory protection in the 7090, so that one could leave the operating system resident in the presence of a wild program, an idea that the PC didn't discover until, last year or something like that. [laughter]

Big players then, Dick Hamming, a name that I'm sure everybody knows, was sort of the numerical analysis guru, and a seer. He liked to make outrageous predictions. He predicted in 1960, that half of Bell Labs was going to be busy doing something with computers eventually. ?...? exaggerating some ?...? abstract in his thought. He was wrong. Half was a gross underestimate. Dick Hamming retired twenty years ago, and just this June he completed his full twenty years term in the Navy, which entitles him again to retire from the Naval Postgraduate Institute in Monterey. Stibitz, incidentally died, I think within the last year. He was doing medical instrumentation at Dartmouth essentially, near the end.

20:00 Various problems intrigued, besides the numerical problems, which in fact were stock in trade, and were the real justification for buying machines, until at least the '70s I would say. But some non-numerical problems had begun to tickle the palette of the math department. Even G A Campbell got interested in graph theory, the reason being he wanted to think of all the possible ways you could take the three wires and the various parts of the telephone and connect them together, and try permutations to see what you could do about reducing side ?...? by putting things into the various parts of the circuit, and devised every possibly way of connecting the telephone up. And that was sort of the beginning of combinatorics at Bell Labs. John Reardon, a mathematician parlayed this into a major subject. Two problems which are now deemed as computing problems, have intrigued the math department for a very long time, and those are the minimum spanning tree problem, and the wonderfully ?comment about Joe Kruskal, laughter?

21:50 And in the 50s Bob Prim and Kruskal, who I don't think worked on the Labs at that point, invented algorithms for the minimum spanning tree. Somehow or other, computer scientists usually learn these algorithms, one of the two at least, as Dijkstra's algorithm, but he was a latecomer.

Another pet was the traveling salesman. There's been a long list of people at Bell Labs who played with that: Shen Lin and Ron Graham and David Johnson and dozens more, oh and ?...?. And then another problem is the Steiner minimum spanning tree, where you're allowed to add points to the graph. Every one of these problems grew, actually had a justification in telephone billing. One jurisdiction or another would specify that the way you bill for a private line network was in one jurisdiction by the minimum spanning tree. In another jurisdiction, by the traveling salesman route. NP-completeness wasn't a word in the vocabulary of ?...? [laughter]. And the Steiner problem came up because customers discovered they could beat the system by inventing offices in the middle of Tennessee that had nothing to do with their business, but they could put the office at a Steiner point and reduce their phone bill by adding to what the service that the Bell System had to give them. So all of these problems actually had some justification in billing besides the fun.

24:15 Come the 60s, we actually started to hire people for computing per se. I was perhaps the third person who was hired with a Ph.D. to help take care of the computers and I'm told that the then director and head of the math department, Hendrick Bode, had said to his people, "yeah, you can hire this guy, instead of a real mathematician, but what's he gonna be doing in five years?" [laughter]

25:02 Nevertheless, we started hiring for real in about '67. Computer science got split off from the math department. I had the good fortune to move into the office that I've been in ever since then. Computing began to make, get a personality of its own. One of the interesting people that came to Bell Labs for a while was Hao Wang. Is his name well known? [Pause] One nod. Hao Wang was a philosopher and logician, and we got a letter from him in England out of the blue saying "hey you know, can I come and use your computers? I have an idea about theorem proving." There was theorem proving in the air in the late 50s, and it was mostly pretty thin stuff. Obvious that the methods being proposed wouldn't possibly do anything more difficult than solve tic-tac-toe problems by enumeration. Wang had a notion that he could mechanically prove theorems in the style of Whitehead and Russell's great treatise Principia Mathematica in the early patr of the century. He came here, learned how to program in machine language, and took all of Volume I of Principia Mathematica -- if you've ever hefted Principia, well that's about all it's good for, it's a real good door stop. It's really big. But it's theorem after theorem after theorem in propositional calculus. Of course, there's a decision procedure for propositional calculus, but he was proving them more in the style of Whitehead and Russell. And when he finally got them all coded and put them into the computer, he proved the entire contents of this immense book in eight minutes. This was actually a neat accomplishment. Also that was the beginning of all the language theory. We hired people like Al Aho and Jeff Ullman, who probed around every possible model of grammars, syntax, and all of the things that are now in the standard undergraduate curriculum, were pretty well nailed down here, on syntax and finite state machines and so on were pretty well nailed down in the 60s. Speaking of finite state machines, in the 50s, both Mealy and Moore, who have two of the well-known models of finite state machines, were here.

28:40 During the 60s, we undertook an enormous development project in the guise of research, which was MULTICS, and it was the notion of MULTICS was computing was the public utility of the future. Machines were very expensive, and ?indeed? like you don't own your own electric generator, you rely on the power company to do generation for you, and it was seen that this was a good way to do computing -- time sharing -- and it was also recognized that shared data was a very good thing. MIT pioneered this and Bell Labs joined in on the MULTICS project, and this occupied five years of system programming effort, until Bell Labs pulled out, because it turned out that MULTICS was too ambitious for the hardware at the time, and also with 80 people on it was not exactly a research project. But, that led to various people who were on the project, in particular Ken Thompson -- right there -- to think about how to -- Dennis Ritchie and Rudd Canaday were in on this too -- to think about how you might make a pleasant operating system with a little less resources.

30:30 And Ken found -- this is a story that's often been told, so I won't go into very much of unix -- Ken found an old machine cast off in the corner, the PDP-7, and put up this little operating system on it, and we had immense GE635 available at the comp center at the time, and I remember as the department head, muscling in to use this little computer to be, to get to be Unix's first user, customer, because it was so much pleasanter to use this tiny machine than it was to use the big and capable machine in the comp center. And of course the rest of the story is known to everybody and has affected all college campuses in the country.

31:33 Along with the operating system work, there was a fair amount of language work done at Bell Labs. Often curious off-beat languages. One of my favorites was called Blodi, B L O D I, a block diagram compiler by Kelly and Vyssotsky. Perhaps the most interesting early uses of computers in the sense of being unexpected, were those that came from the acoustics research department, and what the Blodi compiler was invented in the acoustic research department for doing digital simulations of sample data system. DSPs are classic sample data systems, where instead of passing analog signals around, you pass around streams of numerical values. And Blodi allowed you to say here's a delay unit, here's an amplifier, here's an adder, the standard piece parts for a sample data system, and each one was described on a card, and with description of what it's wired to. It was then compiled into one enormous single straight line loop for one time step. Of course, you had to rearrange the code because some one part of the sample data system would feed another and produce really very efficient 7090 code for simulating sample data systems. By in large, from that time forth, the acoustic department stopped making hardware. It was much easier to do signal processing digitally than previous ways that had been analog. Blodi had an interesting property. It was the only programming language I know where -- this is not my original observation, Vyssotsky said -- where you could take the deck of cards, throw it up the stairs, and pick them up at the bottom of the stairs, feed them into the computer again, and get the same program out. Blodi had two, aside from syntax diagnostics, it did have one diagnostic when it would fail to compile, and that was "somewhere in your system is a loop that consists of all delays or has no delays" and you can imagine how they handled that.

35:09 Another interesting programming language of the 60s was Ken Knowlten's Beflix. This was for making movies on something with resolution kind of comparable to 640x480, really coarse, and the programming notion in here was bugs. You put on your grid a bunch of bugs, and each bug carried along some data as baggage, and then you would do things like cellular automata operations. You could program it or you could kind of let it go by itself. If a red bug is next to a blue bug then it turns into a green bug on the following step and so on. 36:28 He and Lillian Schwartz made some interesting abstract movies at the time. It also did some interesting picture processing. One wonderful picture of a reclining nude, something about the size of that blackboard over there, all made of pixels about a half inch high each with a different little picture in it, picked out for their density, and so if you looked at it close up it consisted of pickaxes and candles and dogs, and if you looked at it far enough away, it was a reclining nude. That picture got a lot of play all around the country.

Lorinda Cherry: That was with Leon, wasn't it? That was with Leon Harmon.

Doug: Was that Harmon?

Lorinda: ?...?

Doug: Harmon was also an interesting character. He did more things than pictures. I'm glad you reminded me of him. I had him written down here. Harmon was a guy who among other things did a block diagram compiler for writing a handwriting recognition program. I never did understand how his scheme worked, and in fact I guess it didn't work too well. [laughter] It didn't do any production ?things? but it was an absolutely immense sample data circuit for doing handwriting recognition. Harmon's most famous work was trying to estimate the information content in a face. And every one of these pictures which are a cliche now, that show a face digitized very coarsely, go back to Harmon's first psychological experiments, when he tried to find out how many bits of picture he needed to try to make a face recognizable. He went around and digitized about 256 faces from Bell Labs and did real psychological experiments asking which faces could be distinguished from other ones. I had the good fortune to have one of the most distinguishable faces, and consequently you'll find me in freshman psychology texts through no fault of my own.

39:15 Another thing going on the 60s was the halting beginning here of interactive computing. And again the credit has to go to the acoustics research department, for good and sufficient reason. They wanted to be able to feed signals into the machine, and look at them, and get them back out. They bought yet another weird architecture machine called the Packard Bell 250, where the memory elements were mercury delay lines.

Question: Packard Bell?

Doug: Packard Bell, same one that makes PCs today.

40:10 They hung this off of the comp center 7090 and put in a scheme for quickly shipping jobs into the job stream on the 7090. The Packard Bell was the real-time terminal that you could play with and repair stuff, ?...? off the 7090, get it back, and then you could play it. From that grew some graphics machines also, built by ?...? et al. And it was one of the old graphics machines in fact that Ken picked up to build Unix on.

40:55 Another thing that went on in the acoustics department was synthetic speech and music. Max Mathews, who was the the director of the department has long been interested in computer music. In fact since retirement he spent a lot of time with Pierre Boulez in Paris at a wonderful institute with lots of money simply for making synthetic music. He had a language called Music 5. Synthetic speech or, well first of all simply speech processing was pioneered particularly by John Kelly. I remember my first contact with speech processing. It was customary for computer operators, for the benefit of computer operators, to put a loudspeaker on the low bit of some register on the machine, and normally the operator would just hear kind of white noise. But if you got into a loop, suddenly the machine would scream, and this signal could be used to the operator "oh the machines in a loop. Go stop it and go on to the next job." I remember feeding them an Ackermann's function routine once. [laughter] They were right. It was a silly loop. But anyway. One day, the operators were ?...?. The machine started singing. Out of the blue. “Help! I'm caught in a loop.”. [laughter] And in a broad Texas accent, which was the recorded voice of John Kelly.

43:14 However. From there Kelly went on to do some speech synthesis. Of course there's been a lot more speech synthesis work done since, by 43:31 folks like Cecil Coker, Joe Olive. But they produced a record, which unfortunately I can't play because records are not modern anymore. And everybody got one in the Bell Labs Record, which is a magazine, contained once a record from the acoustics department, with both speech and music and one very famous combination where the computer played and sang "A Bicycle Built For Two".

?...?

44:32 At the same time as all this stuff is going on here, needless to say computing is going on in the rest of the Labs. it was about early 1960 when the math department lost its monopoly on computing machines and other people started buying them too, but for switching. The first experiments with switching computers were operational in around 1960. They were planned for several years prior to that; essentially as soon as the transistor was invented, the making of electronic rather than electromechanical switching machines was anticipated. Part of the saga of the switching machines is cheap memory. These machines had enormous memories -- thousands of words. [laughter] And it was said that the present worth of each word of memory that programmers saved across the Bell System was something like eleven dollars, as I recall. And it was worthwhile to struggle to save some memory. Also, programs were permanent. You were going to load up the switching machine with switching program and that was going to run. You didn't change it every minute or two. And it would be cheaper to put it in read only memory than in core memory. And there was a whole series of wild read-only memories, both tried and built. The first experimental Essex System had a thing called the flying spot store which was large photographic plates with bits on them and CRTs projecting on the plates and you would detect underneath on the photodetector whether the bit was set or not. That was the program store of Essex. The program store of the first ESS systems consisted of twistors, which I actually am not sure I understand to this day, but they consist of iron wire with a copper wire wrapped around them and vice versa. There were also experiments with an IC type memory called the waffle iron. Then there was a period when magnetic bubbles were all the rage. As far as I know, although microelectronics made a lot of memory, most of the memory work at Bell Labs has not had much effect on ?...?. Nice tries though.

48:28 Another thing that folks began to work on was the application of (and of course, right from the start) computers to data processing. When you owned equipment scattered through every street in the country, and you have a hundred million customers, and you have bills for a hundred million transactions a day, there's really some big data processing going on. And indeed in the early 60s, AT&T was thinking of making its own data processing computers solely for billing. Somehow they pulled out of that, and gave all the technology to IBM, and one piece of that technology went into use in high end equipment called tractor tapes. Inch wide magnetic tapes that would be used for a while.

49:50 By in large, although Bell Labs has participated until fairly recently in data processing in quite a big way, AT&T never really quite trusted the Labs to do it right because here is where the money is. I can recall one occasion when during strike of temporary employees, a fill-in employee like from the Laboratories and so on, lost a day's billing tape in Chicago. And that was a million dollars. And that's generally speaking the money people did not until fairly recently trust Bell Labs to take good care of money, even though they trusted the Labs very well to make extremely reliable computing equipment for switches. The downtime on switches is still spectacular by any industry standards. The design for the first ones was two hours down in 40 years, and the design was met. Great emphasis on reliability and redundancy, testing.

51:35 Another branch of computing was for the government. The whole Whippany Laboratories [time check] Whippany, where we took on contracts for the government particularly in the computing era in anti-missile defense, missile defense, and underwater sound. Missile defense was a very impressive undertaking. It was about in the early '63 time frame when it was estimated the amount of computation to do a reasonable job of tracking incoming missiles would be 30 M floating point operations a second. In the day of the Cray that doesn't sound like a great lot, but it's more than your high end PCs can do. And the machines were supposed to be reliable. They designed the machines at Whippany, a twelve-processor multiprocessor, to no specs, enormously rugged, one watt transistors. This thing in real life performed remarkably well. There were sixty-five missile shots, tests across the Pacific Ocean ?...? and Lorinda Cherry here actually sat there waiting for them to come in. [laughter] And only a half dozen of them really failed. As a measure of the interest in reliability, one of them failed apparently due to processor error. Two people were assigned to look at the dumps, enormous amounts of telemetry and logging information were taken during these tests, which are truly expensive to run. Two people were assigned to look at the dumps. A year later they had not found the trouble. The team was beefed up. They finally decided that there was a race condition in one circuit. They then realized that this particular kind of race condition had not been tested for in all the simulations. They went back and simulated the entire hardware system to see if its a remote possibility of any similar cases, found twelve of them, and changed the hardware. But to spend over a year looking for a bug is a sign of what reliability meant.

54:56 Since I'm coming up on the end of an hour, one could go on and on and on,

Crowd: go on, go on. [laughter]

55:10 Doug: I think I'd like to end up by mentioning a few of the programs that have been written at Bell Labs that I think are most surprising. Of course there are lots of grand programs that have been written.

I already mentioned the block diagram compiler.

Another really remarkable piece of work was eqn, the equation typesetting language, which has been imitated since, by Lorinda Cherry and Brian Kernighan. The notion of taking an auditory syntax, the way people talk about equations, but only talk, this was not borrowed from any written notation before, getting the auditory one down on paper, that was very successful and surprising.

Another of my favorites, and again Lorinda Cherry was in this one, with Bob Morris, was typo. This was a program for finding spelling errors. It didn't know the first thing about spelling. It would read a document, measure its statistics, and print out the words of the document in increasing order of what it thought the likelihood of that word having come from the same statistical source as the document. The words that did not come from the statistical source of the document were likely to be typos, and now I mean typos as distinct from spelling errors, where you actually hit the wrong key. Those tend to be off the wall, whereas phonetic spelling errors you'll never find. And this worked remarkably well. Typing errors would come right up to the top of the list. A really really neat program.

57:50 Another one of my favorites was by Brenda Baker called struct, which took Fortran programs and converted them into a structured programming language called Ratfor, which was Fortran with C syntax. This seemed like a possible undertaking, like something you do by the seat of the pants and you get something out. In fact, folks at Lockheed had done things like that before. But Brenda managed to find theorems that said there's really only one form, there's a canonical form into which you can structure a Fortran program, and she did this. It took your Fortran program, completely mashed it, put it out perhaps in almost certainly a different order than it was in Fortran connected by GOTOs, without any GOTOs, and the really remarkable thing was that authors of the program who clearly knew the way they wrote it in the first place, preferred it after it had been rearranged by Brendan. I was astonished at the outcome of that project.

59:19 Another first that happened around here was by Fred Grampp, who got interested in computer security. One day he decided he would make a program for sniffing the security arrangements on a computer, as a service: Fred would never do anything crooked. [laughter] This particular program did a remarkable job, and founded a whole minor industry within the company. A department was set up to take this idea and parlay it, and indeed ever since there has been some improvement in the way computer centers are managed, at least until we got Berkeley Unix.

60:24 And the last interesting program that I have time to mention is one by Ken Church. He was dealing with -- text processing has always been a continuing ?...? of the research, and in some sense it has an application to our business because we're handling speech, but he got into consulting with the department in North Carolina that has to translate manuals. There are millions of pages of manuals in the Bell System and its successors, and ever since we've gone global, these things had to get translated into many languages.

61:28 To help in this, he was making tools which would put up on the screen, graphed on the screen quickly a piece of text and its translation, because a translator, particularly a technical translator, wants to know, the last time we mentioned this word how was it translated. You don't want to be creative in translating technical text. You'd like to be able to go back into the archives and pull up examples of translated text. And the neat thing here is the idea for how do you align texts in two languages. You've got the original, you've got the translated one, how do you bring up on the screen, the two sentences that go together? And the following scam worked beautifully. This is on western languages. 62:33 Simply look for common four letter tetragrams, four letter combinations between the two and as best as you can, line them up as nearly linearly with the lengths of the two types as possible. And this very simple idea works like storm. Something for nothing. I like that.

63:10 The last thing is one slogan that sort of got started with Unix and is just rife within the industry now. Software tools. We were making software tools in Unix before we knew we were, just like the Molière character was amazed at discovering he'd been speaking prose all his life. [laughter] But then Kernighan and Plauger came along and christened what was going on, making simple generally useful and compositional programs to do one thing and do it well and to fit together. They called it software tools, made a book, wrote a book, and this notion now is abroad in the industry. And it really did begin all up in the little attic room where you [points?] sat for many years writing up here.

Oh I forgot to. I haven't used any slides. I've brought some, but I don't like looking at bullets and you wouldn't either, and I forgot to show you the one exhibit I brought, which I borrowed from Bob Kurshan. When Bell Labs was founded, it had of course some calculating machines, and it had one wonderful computer. This. That was bought in 1918. There's almost no other computing equipment from any time prior to ten years ago that still exists in Bell Labs. This is an integraph. It has two styluses. You trace a curve on a piece of paper with one stylus and the other stylus draws the indefinite integral here. There was somebody in the math department who gave this service to the whole company, with about 24 hours turnaround time, calculating integrals. Our recent vice president Arno Penzias actually did, he calculated integrals differently, with a different background. He had a chemical balance, and he cut the curves out of the paper and weighed them. This was bought in 1918, so it's eighty years old. It used to be shiny metal, it's a little bit rusty now. But it still works.

66:30 Well, that's a once over lightly of a whole lot of things that have gone on at Bell Labs. It's just such a fun place that one I said I just could go on and on. If you're interested, there actually is a history written. This is only one of about six volumes, this is the one that has the mathematical computer sciences, the kind of things that I've mostly talked about here. A few people have copies of them. For some reason, the AT&T publishing house thinks that because they're history they're obsolete, and they stopped printing them. [laughter]

Thank you, and that's all.

Using Uninitialized Memory for Fun and Profit

2008-03-14T00:00:00-04:00

This is the story of a clever trick that's been around for at least 35 years, in which array values can be left uninitialized and then read during normal operations, yet the code behaves correctly no matter what garbage is sitting in the array. Like the best programming tricks, this one is the right tool for the job in certain situations. The sleaziness of uninitialized data access is offset by performance improvements: some important operations change from linear to constant time.

Alfred Aho, John Hopcroft, and Jeffrey Ullman's 1974 book The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms hints at the trick in an exercise (Chapter 2, exercise 2.12):

Develop a technique to initialize an entry of a matrix to zero the first time it is accessed, thereby eliminating the O(||V||²) time to initialize an adjacency matrix.

Jon Bentley's 1986 book Programming Pearls expands on the exercise (Column 1, exercise 8; exercise 9 in the Second Edition):

One problem with trading more space for less time is that initializing the space can itself take a great deal of time. Show how to circumvent this problem by designing a technique to initialize an entry of a vector to zero the first time it is accessed. Your scheme should use constant time for initialization and each vector access; you may use extra space proportional to the size of the vector. Because this method reduces initialization time by using even more space, it should be considered only when space is cheap, time is dear, and the vector is sparse.

Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman's exercise talks about a matrix and Bentley's exercise talks about a vector, but for now let's consider just a simple set of integers.

One popular representation of a set of n integers ranging from 0 to m is a bit vector, with 1 bits at the positions corresponding to the integers in the set. Adding a new integer to the set, removing an integer from the set, and checking whether a particular integer is in the set are all very fast constant-time operations (just a few bit operations each). Unfortunately, two important operations are slow: iterating over all the elements in the set takes time O(m), as does clearing the set. If the common case is that m is much larger than n (that is, the set is only sparsely populated) and iterating or clearing the set happens frequently, then it could be better to use a representation that makes those operations more efficient. That's where the trick comes in.

Preston Briggs and Linda Torczon's 1993 paper, “An Efficient Representation for Sparse Sets,” describes the trick in detail. Their solution represents the sparse set using an integer array named dense and an integer n that counts the number of elements in dense. The dense array is simply a packed list of the elements in the set, stored in order of insertion. If the set contains the elements 5, 1, and 4, then n = 3 and dense[0] = 5, dense[1] = 1, dense[2] = 4:

Together n and dense are enough information to reconstruct the set, but this representation is not very fast. To make it fast, Briggs and Torczon add a second array named sparse which maps integers to their indices in dense. Continuing the example, sparse[5] = 0, sparse[1] = 1, sparse[4] = 2. Essentially, the set is a pair of arrays that point at each other:

Adding a member to the set requires updating both of these arrays:

add-member(i):
    dense[n] = i
    sparse[i] = n
    n++

It's not as efficient as flipping a bit in a bit vector, but it's still very fast and constant time.

To check whether i is in the set, you verify that the two arrays point at each other for that element:

is-member(i):
    return sparse[i] < n && dense[sparse[i]] == i

If i is not in the set, then it doesn't matter what sparse[i] is set to: either sparse[i] will be bigger than n or it will point at a value in dense that doesn't point back at it. Either way, we're not fooled. For example, suppose sparse actually looks like:

Is-member knows to ignore members of sparse that point past n or that point at cells in dense that don't point back, ignoring the grayed out entries:

Notice what just happened: sparse can have any arbitrary values in the positions for integers not in the set, those values actually get used during membership tests, and yet the membership test behaves correctly! (This would drive valgrind nuts.)

Clearing the set can be done in constant time:

clear-set():
    n = 0

Zeroing n effectively clears dense (the code only ever accesses entries in dense with indices less than n), and sparse can be uninitialized, so there's no need to clear out the old values.

This sparse set representation has one more trick up its sleeve: the dense array allows an efficient implementation of set iteration.

iterate():
    for(i=0; i<n; i++)
        yield dense[i]

Let's compare the run times of a bit vector implementation against the sparse set:

Operation	Bit Vector	Sparse set
is-member	O(1)	O(1)
add-member	O(1)	O(1)
clear-set	O(m)	O(1)
iterate	O(m)	O(n)

The sparse set is as fast or faster than bit vectors for every operation. The only problem is the space cost: two words replace each bit. Still, there are times when the speed differences are enough to balance the added memory cost. Briggs and Torczon point out that liveness sets used during register allocation inside a compiler are usually small and are cleared very frequently, making sparse sets the representation of choice.

Another situation where sparse sets are the better choice is work queue-based graph traversal algorithms. Iteration over sparse sets visits elements in the order they were inserted (above, 5, 1, 4), so that new entries inserted during the iteration will be visited later in the same iteration. In contrast, iteration over bit vectors visits elements in integer order (1, 4, 5), so that new elements inserted during traversal might be missed, requiring repeated iterations.

Returning to the original exercises, it is trivial to change the set into a vector (or matrix) by making dense an array of index-value pairs instead of just indices. Alternately, one might add the value to the sparse array or to a new array. The relative space overhead isn't as bad if you would have been storing values anyway.

Briggs and Torczon's paper implements additional set operations and examines performance speedups from using sparse sets inside a real compiler.

Play Tic-Tac-Toe with Knuth

2008-01-25T00:00:00-05:00

Section 7.1.2 of the Volume 4 pre-fascicle 0A of Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is titled “Boolean Evaluation.” In it, Knuth considers the construction of a set of nine boolean functions telling the correct next move in an optimal game of tic-tac-toe. In a footnote, Knuth tells this story:

This setup is based on an exhibit from the early 1950s at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, where the author was first introduced to the magic of switching circuits. The machine in Chicago, designed by researchers at Bell Telephone Laboratories, allowed me to go first; yet I soon discovered there was no way to defeat it. Therefore I decided to move as stupidly as possible, hoping that the designers had not anticipated such bizarre behavior. In fact I allowed the machine to reach a position where it had two winning moves; and it seized both of them! Moving twice is of course a flagrant violation of the rules, so I had won a moral victory even though the machine had announced that I had lost.

That story alone is fairly amusing. But turning the page, the reader finds a quotation from Charles Babbage's Passages from the Life of a Philosopher, published in 1864:

I commenced an examination of a game called “tit-tat-to” ... to ascertain what number of combinations were required for all the possible variety of moves and situations. I found this to be comparatively insignificant. ... A difficulty, however, arose of a novel kind. When the automaton had to move, it might occur that there were two different moves, each equally conducive to his winning the game. ... Unless, also, some provision were made, the machine would attempt two contradictory motions.

The only real winning move is not to play.

Crabs, the bitmap terror!

2008-01-09T00:00:00-05:00

Today, window systems seem as inevitable as hierarchical file systems, a fundamental building block of computer systems. But it wasn't always that way. This paper could only have been written in the beginning, when everything about user interfaces was up for grabs.

A bitmap screen is a graphic universe where windows, cursors and icons live in harmony, cooperating with each other to achieve functionality and esthetics. A lot of effort goes into making this universe consistent, the basic law being that every window is a self contained, protected world. In particular, (1) a window shall not be affected by the internal activities of another window. (2) A window shall not be affected by activities of the window system not concerning it directly, i.e. (2.1) it shall not notice being obscured (partially or totally) by other windows or obscuring (partially or totally) other windows, (2.2) it shall not see the image of the cursor sliding on its surface (it can only ask for its position).

Of course it is difficult to resist the temptation to break these rules. Violations can be destructive or non-destructive, useful or pointless. Useful non-destructive violations include programs printing out an image of the screen, or magnifying part of the screen in a lens window. Useful destructive violations are represented by the pen program, which allows one to scribble on the screen. Pointless non-destructive violations include a magnet program, where a moving picture of a magnet attracts the cursor, so that one has to continuously pull away from it to keep working. The first pointless, destructive program we wrote was crabs.

As the crabs walk over the screen, they leave gray behind, “erasing” the apps underfoot:

For the rest of the story, see Luca Cardelli's “Crabs: the bitmap terror!” (6.7MB). Additional details in “Crabs (History and Screen Dumps)” (57.1MB).