Sunday, June 8, 2008

The Factorial Base

We've all heard of binary and decimal as systems to represent integers. The idea is simple: In the decimal number 328, 3 reflects three hundreds, 2 reflects two tens and the 8 adds in eight ones.

The same number is 101001000 in binary. Specifically, one 256, one 64 and one 8. 256, 64 and 8 are the eighth, sixth and third powers of two, and those occur as ones that many spaces over from the right side of the number.

Clearly, numbers are longer in binary than they are in decimal, but the digits are much simpler in binary. If all we cared about was reducing the number of digits, we could use base 20, or 2008 or the largest number we could think of.

Of course the tradeoff that comes is that it can be hard to make up and keep straight all the extra digits we would need. For example, the decimal number 1330 only needs three digits in base 11, but each of those digits is the digit "10", because 1330 = 10 * 112 + 10 * 11 + 10. How would we write this? One option is the hexadecimal system where 10 is a, 11 is b and so on. Then 1330 (base 10) = aaa (base 11). We can take this all the way up to base 36 using all 26 letters, in which case a long decimal number like 2621102907451 (base 10) compacts down to xg48zv3v (base 36).

But for a small number like 10, it seems unreasonable to write it as "a" just to save one digit. What if there was some way to have small digits for small numbers and compact representations for large numbers? It turns out there is a way to do this using the "factorial base" or "factoradix".

In factoradix, the rightmost digit is base 2, the next one is base 3, and so on. As an example, here's how you would calculate the factoradix notation for 99:

First we notice that 99 gives a remainder of 1 when divided by 2. The quotient is 49. We keep both of these numbers: 1 because it is the rightmost digit of the factoradix representation of 99 and 49 because we need it for the next steps. Next, 49 divided by 3 is 16 with remainder 1. So 1 is the next digit and so far we have _11 as our representation with the _ part still to be filled in (we can't know how many digits it will be, yet). Divide 16 by 4, quotient: 4, remainder: 0. Last, divide 4 by 5 to get a remainder of 4 and quotient of 0 (0 means the algorithm is finished). Combining all the remainders, 4011 ends up as the factoradix notation for 99. Longer yes, but with a simpler choice of digits.

We don't need to go through the details, but larger numbers make the opposite tradeoff in factoradix. A 1 with 47 zeros behind it becomes 4z7,h0x,ipf,5gr,0bc,l7l,977,460,068,952,315,551,220 which is only 39 digits long. A 1 with 100 zeros is only 69 digits long, but we need some way to encode digits like "58".

What do some more of these representations look like? First, the Perl function below encapsulates the algorithm above.

sub factoradix {
my $n = shift;
my $base = Math::BigInt->new(2);
my (@digits, $digit);
while ($n->bcmp(0)) {
($n, $digit) = $n->bdiv($base);
unshift @digits, $digit->bstr();
$base->binc();
}
return [ @digits ];
}

Using this function, here's how the powers of ten start out in factoradix:
For 100, we get 1
For 101, we get 120
For 102, we get 4,020
For 103, we get 121,220
For 104, we get 1,651,220
For 105, we get 23,551,220
For 106, we get 266,251,220
For 107, we get 2,750,051,220
For 108, we get 25,551,151,220
For 109, we get 210,564,451,220
For 1010, we get 1,7a5,726,651,220
For 1015, we get 2d,caa,584,234,451,220
For 1020, we get 1k2,13c,54a,a81,881,151,220
For 1025, we get g2i,h8c,8f7,bc3,5b8,250,051,220
For 1030, we get 3,7mf,cdg,584,64c,f8b,c01,182,251,220
For 1035, we get c,4tr,pn8,9ef,g2b,d3f,34b,225,975,551,220
For 1040, we get x,tkt,18i,jep,8bh,g9j,f7e,1bb,652,056,651,220
For 1064, we get g,lqd,ila,9ii,ju0,a5m,bas,91k,7l5,m66,1ii,4h5,462,7a5,726,651,220

Every power of ten larger than 1064 seems to use a digit that we don't have a letter for (and I checked up to 101400!). Of course, all we need to do is add more symbols, maybe hearts or that thing The Artist Formerly Known as Prince uses...

What do you think is the next factoradix question to investigate?

3 comments:

Unknown said...

The next question that comes to my mind is what do addition and multiplication look like?

What do the factors of a number look like?

Would the factoradix method of encoding integers offer enhanced security to computer codes? Perhaps prime numbers would be harder to crack in a factoradix base.

What happens if you use only primes in generating the converted number? Where the first digit is from division by 1, the next digit from division by 2, the next ... by 3, then ... by 5, then 7 and so on.

wellons said...

Steve,

A lot of good questions. I'll address the first couple now. Addition is easy and basically the same. One must simply remember that carrying happens at a different threshold for each place.

Multiplication on the other hand, is quite different. In ordinary multiplication, you multiply each digit of one number by the entire other number and shift each of these products by a different amount to the left before adding.

However, shifting doesn't work the way you would expect at all. In decimal, shifting one place to the left is the same as "multiply by ten". In Factoradix, shifting does something much different to the number. Exactly what it is, I will leave as a puzzle to the readers, for now.

Finally, as an example, the decimal number 7777777777771111111111221211333333333 has two prime factors: 55435268531 and 140303781038269777640291543.

This multiplication in factoradix is (underscores added for alignment)
_______91347d7c22883b46705620321
X__________________8b88465130121
________________________________
thr3mhaok44k3j26f92d108212030201

Notice for (confusing) one thing that the length of the product is not close to the sum of the lengths of the factors, unlike what always happens in decimal.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Anonymous said...

i am enjoying this and judging by the comment date you mite not even see this, but one question that come to mind is how do i calculate the decimal amount from a factorial one? you showed how one would find the factorial version of a decimal number but not vice versa.