Maxima interface to Lisp bit-functions



On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM, van Nek <van.nek at arcor.de> wrote:
> Am 17 Mar 2008 um 13:55 hat Stavros Macrakis geschrieben:
>  > I would recommend that you choose either lsh or rsh as fundamental,
>  > and simplify the other one to it, e.g. rsh(x,2) == lsh(x,-2).
>
>  Stavros, my intention is the here, to make clear the shift direction just by the functions
>  name. The original Lisp function ash (artihmetric shift) doesn't do so. But you are right,
>  lsh(x,-1) is understandable as a shift to the right.

The name ash in Lisp is a historical remnant.  lsh with a negative
shift treated the integer as a fixed-size word and shifted in zeroes
from the left; while ash shifted in ones from the left for negative
numbers.  With arbitrary-sized integers, the distinction is
meaningless.  Having one function rather than two is always better.
Consider the identity lsh(x,1)-rsh(x,-1)=0.  If rsh simplifies to lsh,
this is handled trivially by the unmodified + simplifier.  If not,
there needs to be a special case in the + simplifier or a special
simplification function.

>  integer_length(-1) returns 0, because for negative integers it returns the position of the
>  leftmost zero (the leftmost 1 in case of positive ints).
>  So integer_length(-2^100) returns 100.

So integer_length(-n-1) = integer_length(n) for n>=0? And integer_length(0)=0?

>  > >  if at least one arg is a string, a Maxima list or constant but not an integer => merror
>  > Why not extend to non-integers?  logior(1/2,1/3) => 5/6;
>  It was not my intention to handle these numbers. I just looked into the Mathematica doc and
>  they also only care about integers.

>  Stavros, do you see an interesting application of such to rationals extended bitwise
>  operations ?

No applications in mind, it just seems like a natural extension, so
why give an error?  Why not just leave unsimplified until someone
comes along and programs this case? Certainly some cases are easy:
logop(m/2^i,n/2^i) == logop(m,n)/2^i and preserve all the useful
identities.  If you don't allow this, then simplifying logand(x,x) is
only correct if x is an integer.

>  > There are many other useful simplifications,
>  Right, these are useful simplifications. Can you give me any hint, how to manage them.

Take a look at, say, simpmin to see how to write simplifying routines.

            -s