Maybe the reason for this is that school has been coming to an end, which means I have had to spend more time studying for exams recently. It’s reasonable to think that the slow mounting daunt of final exams would increase pressure and dilute focus. But really, I was working diligently for school before, and I managed to stress myself with exams more than enough in the past. The amount of free time I have also hasn’t changed for the worse. So I deem this an internal issue.
I think the problem is very clear: I piled up more and more tasks to work on at the same time. In effect, this hinders my progress since I can’t really focus on any single one of them, and thus I can’t do good work. To progress, I need to decide. I have to do one thing at a time.
Some things I just have to reject for now. That’s OK. I have to learn things stepbystep, one after the other. I have time for that. In fact, I can only maximize my skills if I can focus. But I can’t focus if I hastily attempt to master all skills at once. I want to be good at a broad range of tasks. But to be really good, I have to go deep as well. And from my recent experience, it seems obvious to me that I need a different approach. Now is the time to pick out a small set of challenges and really dive in. I have to fundamentally say no to all other enterprises that might distract me.
It’s also important that I let things pass. Over and over again, I have accumulated endless piles of bookmarks and notes on what to read and what to write. It’s great that I have this much to think about, but it’s also distracting. All of these reminders that I constantly jot down for myself–any systems that I try to develop to organize them–I’ll have to give up on that. So far, I’ve been doing this collecting out of fear of missing out on some valuable information. But building up such a backlog is not productive. Even worse, it simply diverts focus.
My strategy is this: don’t fixate what topics to work on, but fixate everything else. Then, don’t make any changes to the fixed set. I’m not going to rule out whole topics by themselves. Rather, I want to set myself a framework of conditions that make it easy to stay focused on the work that I want to do.
For example, no more text editor switching. Emacs is about good enough for all I need. And there certainly are no alternatives that would boost my productivity enough to make up for the distraction that the switch would incur.
Second, no more Rust (I know, I’m deeply torn myself). I want to improve my foundational knowledge. For 90% of that, I don’t need to sharpen my understanding of any fancy new languages. Instead, I’ll just stick to C and focus on content instead of language.
Third, no more HN (this will probably turn out as less HN in practice). Sure, HN is great for discovering things and also pretty good entertainment, but, really, it’s a distraction most of the time. If I need to find good material on a topic, I can just use HN to search for it directly (I already do that since Google search doesn’t work anymore). If I want to explore, then sure, I can use HN deliberately. But exposing myself to the plethora of fascinating projects that HN has to offer too often isn’t healthy (for months now, breakfast and HN have been coupled tightly).
I’m also deleting some of the stuff on this website that I don’t think is actually very interesting.
That’s all I have for now. I’ll probably think of more rules in the future. In that case, I’ll update this page. I’m putting this out here to hold myself accountable and to get better at getting things out there (something I generally want to improve at). Have fun exploring.
]]>What we want to parse are binary expressions like 7 + 42 * 9
, 2 * 3 / 4 * 5
, or 8 * (10  6)
. As always, when parsing such expressions, we have to be aware of the associativity of the operators involved and of their different levels of precedence. In this case it’s simple: +
, 
, *
, and /
all associate to the left, and *
and /
have higher precedence than +
and 
.
This means that we want to turn the above expressions into the following ASTs.^{1}
7 + 42 * 9
⇒ 7 + (42 * 9)
. *
has higher precedence than +
, so although they both associate to the left, *
binds tighter than +
.
2 * 3 / 4 * 5
⇒ ((2 * 3) / 4) * 5
. *
and /
have the same precedence and associate to the left.
8 * (10  6)
. Parentheses have the highest precedence.
The following grammar encodes the precedence and associativity constraints above. It is also not leftrecursive, and can be used in a recursive descent parser.^{2}
Instead of using algorithms like Shunting Yard or precedence climbing, the precedence of the operators is encoded directly in the various production rules. This is the simplest approach to take, but it works well in the implementation. Nora Sandler presents this method, and explains how to get there here on her blog. I recommend reading this article by Theodore Norvell if you want to learn more about paring expressions. It explains both the Shunting Yard algorithms and precedence climbing.
How would this grammar parse an expression like 7 + 42 * 9
? It starts at 7
, goes down the leftmost derivation of both expr
and term
, and then chooses the num
alternative in factor
. Next, +
is consumed by the optionally repeated part of expr
, and we go down another term
, with 42 * 9
as the rest of the input. The recursion mechanism at work here defers the partial tree consisting of (+ 7 <term>)
that we have parsed so far. Starting at 42
, term
now goes down the leftmost factor
again. This factor
becomes another num
, consuming 42
from the input. Now *
is consumed by the optionally repeated part of term
, and then factor
consumes the last numeric literal 9
. In total, the second term
in the expr
production rule produces the tree (* 42 9)
. Now that the end of the input has been reached, this tree is used to complete the first partial tree. This way we get (+ 7 (* 42 9))
as the result.
We’ll use the Megaparsec library of parser combinators for our implementation. The Megaparsec tutorial is quite thorough, and I recommend you give it a read if you want to use Megaparsec.
First off, let’s define a representation of the ASTs we wish to create:
 Expr.hs
data Expr
= Add Expr Expr  +
 Sub Expr Expr  
 Mul Expr Expr  *
 Div Expr Expr  /
 Num Int
deriving (Show, Eq)
The first Expr
represents the lefthand side of the binary expressions, and
the second Expr
represents the righthand side.
Next, we’ll need to define some helpers to start parsing. Here we mostly use the combinators found in Control.Applicative
and in Megaparsec’s Lexer module.
 Expr.hs
import Data.Void
import Control.Applicative hiding (many)
import Text.Megaparsec
import Text.Megaparsec.Char
import Text.Megaparsec.Char.Lexer as L
data Expr =  [...]
type Parser = Parsec Void String
spaceConsumer :: Parser ()
spaceConsumer = L.space space1 empty empty
pSymbol :: String > Parser String
pSymbol = L.symbol spaceConsumer
pLexeme :: Parser a > Parser a
pLexeme = L.lexeme spaceConsumer
pNum :: Parser Expr
pNum = Num <$> pLexeme L.decimal
pSymbol
and pLexeme
consume all white space after they are parsing. They don’t consume initial white space, so be careful about that. Now we can already parse numbers.
λ :l Expr
[1 of 2] Compiling Main ( Expr.hs, interpreted )
Ok, one module loaded.
λ parseTest (pNum <* eof) "7"
Num 7
λ parseTest (pNum <* eof) "43587"
Num 43587
λ parseTest (pNum <* eof) "blah"
1:1:

1  blah
 ^
unexpected 'b'
expecting integer
λ parseTest (pNum <* eof) "92 * 4"
1:4:

1  92 * 4
 ^
unexpected '*'
expecting end of input
As you can see, different numbers are all parsed correctly and invalid inputs are rejected with nice error messages generated by Megaparsec.
Let’s now start implementing the parser. We’ll build it up from the bottom, starting with factor
.
 Expr.hs
 [...]
inParens :: Parser a > Parser a
inParens = between (pSymbol "(") (pSymbol ")")
pFactor :: Parser Expr
pFactor = inParens pExpr <> pNum
pExpr :: Parser Expr
pExpr = undefined
How do we define pExpr
? It should parse a single term, and then go on to parse an infinite number of plus or minus characters, each followed by another term. term
has the same shape as expr
, so once we know how to implement expr
, we can also implement term
. Parsing the first term is simple:
 Expr.hs
 [...]
pTerm :: Parser Expr
pTerm =  [...]
pExpr :: Parser Expr
pExpr = do
lhs < pTerm
 ...
A parser that parses a +
or a 
and then parses another term might look like this: ((pSymbol "+" $> Add) <> (pSymbol "" $> Sub)) <*> pTerm
. It discards the symbol it parsed and instead returns the value constructor of the expression that belongs to that symbol. Then it applies the expression parsed by the pTerm
on the right to that value constructor. But there is an problem here though! The term that’s applied to the value constructor first is the righthand side of the binary expression. But the first parameter of the value constructor is defined to be the lefthand side. We need to flip
the parameters of the value constructor.
 Expr.hs
import Data.Functor (($>))
 [...]
pExpr :: Parser Expr
pExpr = do
 lhs :: Expr
lhs < pTerm
 rhs :: Expr > Expr
rhs < flip <$> pOperator <*> pTerm
pure $ rhs lhs
where
pOperator = (pSymbol "+" $> Add) <> (pSymbol "" $> Sub)
Let’s try it out again.
λ :l Expr
[1 of 2] Compiling Main ( Expr.hs, interpreted )
Ok, one module loaded.
λ parseTest (pExpr <* eof) "92 * 4"
1:7:

1  92 * 4
 ^
unexpected end of input
expecting '+', '', or digit
It doesn’t work yet, because we’re missing the zero or more repetitions part. For this, many
can be used, which will run the given parser zero or more times and return a list of all results. In our case, it returns a list of Expr > Expr
. A left fold can be used to apply the functions in this list to another, starting with lhs
. This will build the desired leftassociative tree of expressions.
 Expr.hs
 [...]
pTerm :: Parser Expr
pTerm = do
lhs < pFactor
rhs < many $ flip <$> pOperator <*> pFactor
pure $ foldl (\expr f > f expr) lhs rhs
where
pOperator = (pSymbol "*" $> Mul) <> (pSymbol "/" $> Div)
pExpr :: Parser Expr
pExpr = do
lhs < pTerm
rhs < many $ flip <$> pOperator <*> pTerm
pure $ foldl (\expr f > f expr) lhs rhs
where
pOperator = (pSymbol "+" $> Add) <> (pSymbol "" $> Sub)
Now it works! I formatted the GHCI output a bit so it’s easy to recognize that the trees in the output match those from the beginning of this post.
λ :l Expr
[1 of 2] Compiling Main ( Expr.hs, interpreted )
Ok, one module loaded.
λ parseTest (pExpr <* eof) "92 * 4"
Mul (Num 92) (Num 4)
λ parseTest (pExpr <* eof) "7 + 42 * 9"
Add
(Num 7)
(Mul
(Num 42)
(Num 9))
λ parseTest (pExpr <* eof) "2 * 3 / 4 * 5"
Mul
(Div
(Mul
(Num 2)
(Num 3))
(Num 4))
(Num 5)
λ parseTest (pExpr <* eof) "8 * (10  6)"
Mul
(Num 8)
(Sub
(Num 10)
(Num 6))
pTerm
and pExpr
are very similar and can easily be abstracted into a function that parses any leftassociative binary expression. Then, the production rule for any level of precedence can be implemented in a single line. Unary operators can also be added by extending pFactor
.
The code for this post can be found here. It includes such a generic function for parsing expressions.
I hope this post managed to convey my enthusiasm about the elegance of paring by recursive descent in Haskell! Feel free to reach out (email) if you find this interesting too, or if you have any questions/suggestions about the implementation presented here.
I used Quiver to create the diagrams. It has an option to embed diagrams as Iframes, but I decided not to, because I like how reliable and simple plain images are. ↩
The curly braces denote zero or more repititons of what’s inside them. A character in quotes refers to that literal character. The num
production rule/token is not included in the grammar. It refers to a numeric literal. ↩
C is not a contextfree language, which leads to the socalled typedefname problem ^{1}. The problem is that typedef
can be used to make types look like regular identifiers. This creates some situations where context is needed to determine whether the given identifier is a type. Since types and identifiers should be highlighted with different colors, I had to get that context.
While slowly iterating on the logic required to solve this problem, I got to a point where I could inspect the entire public dependency tree of all the header files included in a single source file. Header files are all I need to worry about here, since that is where all public type definitions live.
This revealed some pretty interesting patterns, some of which I have already shared on Twitter/X. What I found most interesting is that basically every program you will every write^{2} will somehow include the bits/wordsize.h
header file. Here is what it looks like on my machine:
/* Determine the wordsize from the preprocessor defines. */
#if defined __x86_64__ && !defined __ILP32__
# define __WORDSIZE 64
#else
# define __WORDSIZE 32
#define __WORDSIZE32_SIZE_ULONG 0
#define __WORDSIZE32_PTRDIFF_LONG 0
#endif
#ifdef __x86_64__
# define __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32 1
/* Both x8664 and x32 use the 64bit system call interface. */
# define __SYSCALL_WORDSIZE 64
#else
# define __WORDSIZE_TIME64_COMPAT32 0
#endif
As you can see, it simply defines the word size of the host processor. This information is then used all over the C standard library.
So, if you want your code to be used by the largest number of developers possible, contributing to this file is a great way to start!
Logarithm headmath is fun. I have become fascinated by the ability to calculate logarithmic functions in one’s head. To me, logarithms have always felt like a black box that couldn’t be conquered. They are a fundamental building block of mathematics. Yet every time I saw a logarithmic equation, I was quick to grab my calculator instead of solving the equation by hand. Over the last half year, I have spent some time improving my understanding of logarithms and learning how to compute the results of logarithmic equations by hand. Here is how I did it.
To me, the ability of computing logarithms purely by hand is greatly desirable. The number of concepts we can hold in working memory at any point in time is limited, so it makes sense to internalize as many conceptual building blocks as possible. With a good intuition for logarithmic expressions, you’ll be infinitely more comfortable dealing with equations involving logarithms and you’ll be able to deal with a level of complexity that would have been unthinkable to you before. Also they are going to be less daunting or distracting to you when they appear in some other context.
On another note, I think there is a lot to say in favor of the aesthetic beauty of performing computationally complex operations without any tools except for systematic analytic thought.
Firstly, why is it that we don’t all find logarithms to be intuitive? To answer this question, I found it helpful to think of mathematical operations in terms of the function they compute and that function’s inverse. For example, the addition $y = x + a$ yields the value $y$ from $x$ and $a$ and the inverse of the addition results in one of the arguments: $y  a = x$. You can find a table of different examples of this for numerous functions and the restrictions that apply here on Wikipedia. You will notice, that at any level of complexity the inverse function is generally more difficult to compute in your head or by hand than the original. The inverse as a standalone function is usually a more abstract operation than it’s counterpart that’s even harder to grasp as the complexity of the base operation increases. For example, a subtraction is often harder to compute manually than an addition and a multiplication is usually harder than both addition and subtraction.
For a long time, the limit of what I could realistically compute in my head – or rather approximate – was square roots. This was likely due to the fact that in German highschool they make us memorize the square and thereby also the square root of all numbers between 0 and 20. Later, this became the starting point for learning about parabolas, polynomials and so on.
I can’t recall whether I felt bored during those introductory classes, but I am certain many people disliked endlessly performing simple calculations applying the same operation over and over again. The method is somewhat boring, but it seems to me that memorizing a number of common function values and then drilling their relationships is useful in building a base from which to construct a deeper understanding and improved intuition. It’s also essential to have some examples memorized if you want to approximate the values of complex functions in a timely manner without using a calculator.
Earlier on, the same approach was used for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The general idea was introduced first, and then it was drilled for a while to get a feel for it. This is definitely not the ultimate learning strategy ^{1}, but it does highlight the importance of getting to a place where you don’t have to think about the basic operations anymore. They are just there in your head, right at your fingertips.
For example, what’s the square root of $17$? Not knowing how to algorithmically compute the best approximation of $\sqrt{17}$, we can make a pretty good intuitive guess by relying on our knowledge of square roots. We memorized that $\sqrt{16} = 4$, that the square of the next integer after $4$ is $5^2 = 25$ and that the function $f(x) = x^2$ is continuous. Based on this knowledge, we can quickly say that $\sqrt{17}$ must be somewhere in the lower part of the interval $[4, 5]$.
This gets us pretty far, but let’s keep going. To improve our guess without spending any time on (generally) random guesses, we can approximate $f(x)$ for $4 \leq x \leq 5$ as a linear function. Based on this, we can conclude that since $25  16 = 9$ and $\sqrt{25}  \sqrt{16} = 5  4 = 1$, $\sqrt{17} = \sqrt{16 + 1} \approx 4 + \frac{1}{9}$. All of these calculations can be easily performed in one’s head or quickly be scribbled down on a piece of paper. The figure below illustrates what I have just explained. Again, note that this doesn’t involve any calculations that are difficult to do by hand.
I hope you can see why this is so exciting! By simply memorizing of a few sample values and by internalizing the relationships of the operations we need through drilling, it’s possible to make very fast guesses about otherwise complex computations. To prove my point, let’s find out how close we got. $4 + \frac{1}{9} \approx 4.111$ and $\sqrt{17} = 4.123$: our guess was off by only $0.012$. Imagine if you could approximate something like $\log_{10}(64)$ just as quickly!
There is some confusion about the relationship between powers, roots, and logarithms. Some common operations such as addition and multiplication are commutative, unlike exponentiation, which is not. Commutativity means that $a + b = b + a$ and $a \cdot b = b \cdot a$: we can freely exchange the order of the operands. This is not the case with powers. Generally, $a^b$ is not the same as $b^a$ ^{2}. We can show that exponentiation cannot be commutative by choosing an example that doesn’t fulfill this property: $3^4 = 81 \neq 4^3 = 64$.
The fact that exponentiation is not commutative makes it possible to define two methods of undoing exponentiation: the nthroot and the logarithm. This may seem surprising, since we’re so used to commutative operations like addition and multiplication that have only a single inverse operation.
Suppose we are given an exponentiation $x = b^n$ where $b$ and $x$ are positive real numbers, $b \neq 1$, and $n$ is a positive integer. If we know the values of $n$ and $x$, the nthroot gives the value of $b = \sqrt[n]{x}$. Otherwise, if we know the values of $b$ and $x$, the logarithm of $x$ to the base $b$ gives the values of the exponent $n = \log_b(x)$.
Both the nthroot and the logarithm take the result of an exponentiation as input. Simply put, what makes them different is the missing piece they fill in. Logarithms can be used to calculate the exponent from the result value and the base. The nthroot, on the other hand, takes the result value and the original exponent, to compute the base.
The following figure helped me personally to better understand the relationship between the three functions.
It comes from a German mathematics textbook called Handbuch Mathematik^{3} which translates to Handbook Mathematics. The caption reads: “Relationship between power, root and logarithm or between value of power, base and exponent”. This illustration shows the triangular relationship between the three functions, which is key. The same idea is used in this answer on Stack Exchange to suggest an alternative notation for powers, roots, and logarithms that emphasizes this relationship.
Say we have an exponentiation $x = b^y$ where $y$, $b$ and $x$ are real numbers. From now on $b$ and $x$ are positive (excluding 0) and $b \neq 1$. For such an exponentiation, the logarithm of $x$ to the base $b$ is defined as
\[\log_b(x) = y ~~ \Leftrightarrow ~~ b^y = x\text{.}\]In the exponentiation $x = b^y$, if we know $x$ and $b$, the logarithm of $x$ to the base $b$ will give us the missing exponent. From this definition we get the following identities ^{4}:
\[\text{(1)} ~~~ x = b^{\log_b(x)} ~~~~~~ \text{(2)} ~~~ x = \log_b({b^x})\text{.}\]Both of these are crucial. Ideally, you’d want them to come to mind every time you’re looking to solve a logarithmic equation. While they represent fundamental relationships of the logarithmic and exponential form, their reverseness makes them difficult to think about.
Let’s start by digesting $x = b^{\log_b(x)}$. To break up the equation, we’ll call the logarithm in the exponent $a = \log_b(x)$. This means that, $a$ is the exponent to the base $b$ such that $b^a = x$. With this step of indirection, it’s easy to see why the equation must be true. Think of it like this: “Raise $b$ to the power $a$ of $b$ that satisfies the property that $b^a = x$.”.
The second equation $x = \log_b(b^x)$ is easier to understand. I like to ask myself the question: “What’s the exponent $x$ to the base $b$, such that $b^x = b^x$? It’s $x$!”.
Based on this knowledge alone, we are also able to induce the values of a few logarithmic expressions. For example, what is the value of $\log_a(a)$? Since $a = a^1$, we can rewrite this as $\log_a(a^1)$ or equally $\log_a(a^x)$ with $x = 1$. Now, it’s obvious from the second identity that the answer is 1. The same approach of relying on the laws of exponents works for $\log_a(1)$. If we rewrite this in the same way by substituting $a^0$ for $1$, we get $\log_a(a^0) = 0$.
The following is another central identity that opens up a lot of possibilities for us when it comes to computing logarithms manually.
\[\log_b(x \cdot y) = \log_b(x) + \log_b(y) ~~~~ \text{if} ~ y > 0\]The proof can be constructed from the two identities above and the rules of exponents. We start by using the first identity $x = b^{\log_b(b)}$ to substitute $x$ and $y$ in the left side of the equation:
\[\log_b(x \cdot y) = \log_b(b^{\log_b(x)} \cdot b^{\log_b(y)})\text{.}\]Using the law of exponents which states that $x^a \cdot x^b = x^{a + b}$, we can simplify this into
\[\log_b(b^{\log_b(x)} \cdot b^{\log_b(y)}) = \log_b(b^{\log_b(x) + \log_b(y)}) \text{.}\]Finally, the second identity $x = \log_b({b^x})$ is used to simplify this even further:
\[\log_b(b^{\log_b(x) + \log_b(y)}) = \log_b(x) + \log_b(y) \text{.}\]John Napier is said to have introduced this equation in 1614, and it quickly became famous because it allowed reducing complex multiplications to simple additions. Instead of performing the multiplication itself, people could simply look up the values of $\log_b(x)$ and $\log_b(y)$ and then add them together. This is one of the techniques we’ll use later to solve logarithmic equations by hand. Instead of looking up the values in a logarithm table, we’ll memorize a few key ones.
The laws of exponents also state that $x^a / x^b = x^{a  b}$. Hence, the above equation also works for division:
\[\log_b(x / y) = \log_b(x)  \log_b(y) ~~~~ \text{if} ~ y > 0 \text{.}\]There is another law of exponents which states that $(x^a)^b = x^{a \cdot b}$. Based on this, we get the following mindboggling equation:
\[\log_b(x^c) = c \cdot \log_b(x)\]This can be proved by first defining an auxiliary variable $y = \log_b(x)$, so that $b^y = x$ (first identity). By substituting $b^y$ for $x$, we get \(\log_b((b^y)^c)\). Next, we apply this law of exponents:
\[\log_b((b^y)^c) = \log_b(b^{y \cdot c})\text{.}\]Lastly, we again apply the second identity from the definition and the substitute the original definition of $y$:
\[\log_b(b^{y \cdot c}) = y \cdot c = c \cdot \log_b(x)\text{.}\]This is the last concept we need to get started calculating logarithms by hand. The ability to change the base of a logarithmic expression is very valuable to us, because it means that we only have to remember a relatively small set of values for a single base. We’re then able to convert between bases and thereby solve expressions in a variety of bases.
\[\log_b(x) = \frac{\log_a(x)}{\log_a(b)} ~~~~ \text{if} ~ a > 0\]Again, we’ll start by defining a variable $y = \log_b(x)$. It’s important to recall that this is only used to simplify subsequent equations and make them easy to grasp. We can transform the left side of the equation into the exponential form.
\[\log_b(x) = y ~~ \Leftrightarrow ~~ b^y = x\]From here, we continue by taking the logarithm of both sides to the desired base $a$. Like $b$, $a$ can be any positive real number except $1$.
\[\begin{align*} b^y &= x & &  ~ \log_a\\ \log_a(b^y) &= \log_a(x) \end{align*}\]We can further transform this equation using the ‘exponentiation as multiplication’ identity.
\[\begin{align*} \log_a(b^y) &= \log_a(x)\\[2pt] y \cdot \log_a(b) &= \log_a(x) \end{align*}\]The final step is to isolate the variable $y$ and to substitute the original $\log_b(x)$ for it.
\[\begin{align*} y \cdot \log_a(b) &= \log_a(x) & &  ~ \div \log_a(b)\\[2pt] y &= \frac{\log_a(x)}{\log_a(b)}\\[2pt] \log_b(x) &= \frac{\log_a(x)}{\log_a(b)} \end{align*}\]It might be a good idea to make flash cards for yourself to memorize the different identities or rules we can use to transform logarithmic equations. Don’t put too much on the same card. Instead, try to spread out the different insights over several cards.
Theorywise that’s all I am going to cover in this post. Obviously, there is a lot more to know about logarithms, which I have left out here for the sake of brevity. That said, all of this gives us a good foundation to expand on in the future. More importantly, it is enough for us to calculate the values of many different logarithmic expressions.
As mentioned above, logarithms were a huge breakthrough when they were first discovered, because they made complicated calculations relatively simple. In a time before machine computers, this was very valuable. The values of many different logarithmic expressions were calculated once and then collected into socalled logarithm tables. After transforming a given problem, you could look up the closest value in the table, and you’d have a pretty good estimate.
Of course, memorizing that many numbers would be a bit extreme. It’s not impossible, and it will certainly improve the accuracy of your approximations, but it’s not worth the time for most people. Therefore, we will reduce the set of values to memorize to the bare minimum.
We can change the base of any logarithm to a base we know if we know the value of the logarithm of the original base to the desired base. This means that we only need to memorize a range of logarithms to a single base, as well as some logarithms of other bases to the same base we’ve chosen. Here, I opted for base $10$ logarithms and conversions from the natural and binary logarithms, since they are the most common. The range that we need to memorize is also quite small, since multiplications can be broken up into additions. That is, it’s sufficient to know the values of $\log_{10}(8)$ and $\log_{10}(10)$ to calculate $\log_{10}(80)$ because
\[\log_{10}(80) = \log_{10}(10 \cdot 8) = \log_{10}(10) + \log_{10}(8) \text{.}\]Depending on how hard you want to make it for yourself, you can also choose different degrees of precision. As suggested by kqr, it’s possible to get quite satisfactory results with only a single digit of precision. For completeness, I also added a higher precision option for each value. It makes sense to memorize the higher precision values for the logarithms that you’ll use most often. Therefore, the default precision for $\log_{10}(e)$ and $\log_{10}(2)$ is slightly higher.
logarithm  base precision  base error  extra precision  extra precision error 
$\log_{10}(1)$  0  /  /  / 
$\log_{10}(10)$  1  /  /  / 
$\log_{10}(e)$  0.43  1.00 %  0.4343  0.00 % 
$\log_{10}(2)$  0.30  0.34 %  0.3010  0.01 % 
$\log_{10}(3)$  0.5  4.80 %  0.477  0.03 % 
$\log_{10}(4)$  0.6  0.34 %  0.602  0.01 % 
$\log_{10}(5)$  0.7  0.15 %  0.699  0.00 % 
$\log_{10}(6)$  0.8  2.81 %  0.778  0.02 % 
$\log_{10}(7)$  0.8  5.34 %  0.845  0.01 % 
$\log_{10}(8)$  0.9  0.34 %  0.903  0.01 % 
$\log_{10}(9)$  1.0  4.80 %  0.954  0.03 % 
As you can see, for each logarithmic expression there is a value with an error of less than 1 % (the one in green). Personally, I have chosen to memorize the following sequence of values. I find them relatively easy to remember because of their regularities. The downside of this is that some of the values have an error greater than 1 %. They also highlight a key characteristic of logarithmic growth, namely that the input value has to increase by some factor for the output value to increase by a constant amount^{5}.
$x$  $e$  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  
$\log_{10}(x)$  0.4343  0.0  0.3  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.85  0.9  0.95  1.0  
$\underset{+0.3}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.2}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.1}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.1}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.1}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.05}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.05}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.05}{⤻}$  $\underset{+0.05}{⤻}$ 
Again, I’d recommend you to create some flash cards for yourself to memorize these values. If you don’t care about precision that much, you can make it easier for yourself by using the more regular values in the lower table. Otherwise, use the upper table to pick and choose.
Now we’ve got most things covered. The last piece that’s missing is getting it all into your brain forever. The best way to start is to look up a bunch of exercises and work through them. For example, I found this one early on.
I said at the beginning of this post that you’d learn how to quickly calculate $\log_{10}(64)$ by hand. Now that we have a good idea of what we’re dealing with, this shouldn’t be too difficult.
Let’s think: we need to break up $64$ into an expression made up of logarithms, we know. This is not difficult, for example $64 = 8 \cdot 8$. The rest is easy:
\[\log_{10}(64) = \log_{10}(8 \cdot 8) = \log_{10}(8) + \log_{10}(8) \approx 0.9 + 0.9 = 1.8\text{.}\]Just writing this, I am filled with a rush of excitement and awe. Let’s see how close we got this time. $\log_{10}(64) = 1.8062$ which means we were off by only $0.0062$! We won’t get this close for all numbers and many expressions are more difficult than this one. But to me, it’s really amazing how easy this is.
Above, I talked about the historical use of logarithms to speed up multiplications of large factors. Now we can use this technique as well. This answer on Stack Exchange is a good example of how to do so. Using logarithms in this way has become somewhat obsolete now that we have so many computers. But if you are interested in how to do this, you should definitely read the answer.
Finally, I want to show how we can use our newfound knowledge to solve for any exponent. For example, let’s look at the following equation: $0.5^x = 0.1$. Here, we have an unknown in the exponent. By definition, we need to use logarithms here.
\[\begin{align*} 0.5^x &= 0.1 &  ~~ \log_{0.5}\\[2pt] x &= \log_{0.5}(0.1) \end{align*}\]This time, we need to change the logarithm’s base to 10. After doing so, we are left with values which we have memorized.
\[\begin{align*} x &= \log_{0.5}(0.1)\\[2pt] x &= \frac{\log_{10}(0.1)}{\log_{10}(0.5)}\\[2pt] x &= \frac{\log_{10}(1 / 10)}{\log_{10}(1 / 2)}\\[2pt] x &= \frac{\log_{10}(1)  \log_{10}(10)}{\log_{10}(1)  \log_{10}(2)}\\[2pt] x &\approx \frac{0  1}{0  0.3}\\[2pt] x &\approx \frac{1}{0.3}\\[2pt] x &\approx 3.33 \end{align*}\]With this post, I hope to share some of the joyful moments of insight I felt as I delved deeper into understanding logarithms. Here, I have focused mainly on how to deal with logarithmic equations and how to solve them manually. There is much more to know about logarithms, about their history, their modern use, and especially their connection to the exponential function. Still, I have tried to provide comprehensive explanations, and I hope you found them insightful.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or suggestions. I’m always curious about your feedback. Also, if you find any mistakes, I would be grateful if you could point them out so I can correct them.
For one, many students dislike this sort of learning so much that they completely lose interest in math. ↩
In fact there are only two distinct numbers n and m that fulfill the requirement that $n^m = m^n$ which are $2^4 = 4^2 = 16$. ↩
Scholl, W., & Drews, R. (1997). Handbuch Mathematik. Falken. ↩
Knuth, E. (1997). The art of computer programming: Fundamental algorithms (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. ↩
Abelson, H., Sussman, G. J., & Sussman, J. (1996). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (2nd ed.). Mit Press. 1.2.3 Orders of Growth ↩
One such library that I found early on was libelfin. It wasn’t perfect from that start because it is a bit dated now, only supporting DWARF 4 and missing features from the newer DWARF 5 standard, but I thought that I could work around this. The bigger problem was that libelfin is written in C++ while most the debugger is written in C.
It is pretty easy to call code written in C from C++ since a lot of C is still part of the subset of C that C++ supports. The problem with calling C++ code from C is that there are many features in C++ that C is missing. This means that the C++ interface must be simplified for C to be able to understand it.
The most important concept in C++ that C is missing is true object orientation. That is, in C you don’t get a this pointer for free; you need to handle it manually.
Let’s start with a simple example. Say we have a class that represents a rational number $r = p / q$ where $q \neq 0$. The declaration without any of the operations we need might look something like this, which will print 5 / 3
when we run it.
// rational.h
class Rational {
public:
int _numer;
int _denom;
Rational(int numer, int denom)
: _numer{numer}, _denom{denom} {}
};
This is how we might use it in C++:
// main.cc
#include <iostream>
#include "rational.h"
auto main() > int {
auto r = Rational(5, 3);
std::cout << r._numer << " / " << r._denom << std::endl;
return 0;
}
How do you write this as a C program using the Rational
class? After all, there is no such thing as a class in C. To solve this issue we can rely on one of the primitives that most systems languages have in common by virtue of running to the same type of computer: the pointer. We will allocate an instance of our class on the heap and then give the C program a pointer to that instance. This way we can keep track of the object to manipulate it. It’s also possible to use handles for this, but they are just pointers with extra steps and a bit overkill for us at this point.
The following is what we might want.
// main.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include "rational.h"
int main(void) {
void *r = make_rational(5, 3);
printf("%d / %d\n", get_numer(r), get_denom(r));
del_rational(&r);
return 0;
}
We need to extend our interface with all the new functions to construct, access and manually delete instances of Rational
.
// rational.h
class Rational { /* ... */ };
void *make_rational(int numer, int denom);
int get_numer(const void *r);
int get_denom(const void *r);
void del_rational(void **rp);
// rational.cc
#include "rational.h"
#include <cstdlib>
void *make_rational(int numer, int denom) {
// Allocate an instance on the heap.
Rational *r = static_cast<Rational*>(malloc(sizeof(Rational)));
r>_numer = numer;
r>_denom = denom;
return r;
}
int get_numer(const void *r) {
// Cast to access members.
const Rational *_r = static_cast<const Rational*>(r);
return _r>_numer;
}
int get_denom(const void *r) {
const Rational *_r = static_cast<const Rational*>(r);
return _r>_denom;
}
void del_rational(void **rp) {
Rational *_r = static_cast<Rational*>(*rp);
// Delete the instance on the heap.
free(_r);
// Delete the dangling pointer too.
*rp = nullptr;
}
The trick is to allocate instances on heap and then pass them around as void
pointers. We use C’s malloc
instead of the new
operator because the new
operator is a C++ only feature which raises a linker error. A good way to improve type safety is to typedef
an opaque type to represent the class on the C side, as suggested in this reply. This is the approach that we’ll be using later on, so keep on reading. Alternatively, if you have control over all of the C++ code (i.e. you don’t just wrap a library) you could follow this Stack Overflow answer too.
Now, ignoring how incredibly unsafe all of this is, there is a bigger problem we must face: this is not even close to compiling!
The reason for this is that when we #include "rational.h"
into main.c
, we essentially copy all the contents of rational.h
into the C source file. This means that we suddenly present the C compiler with a class declaration and other things that it doesn’t understand because they are part of a totally different language.
We can use the C preprocessor to help us here. Using the __cplusplus
macro, we can check whether to include the C++ parts in the interface. This way it’s hidden from the C compiler but available to the C++ compiler.
// rational.h
#ifdef __cplusplus
class Rational {
public:
int _numer;
int _denom;
Rational(int numer, int denom)
: _numer{numer}, _denom{denom} {}
};
#endif // __cplusplus
// ...
Using the two different compilers to build, the program could look like this: g++ c rational.cc && gcc main.c rational.o
.
Great it compiles! But uhh … now the linker signals an error. There are two problems left to fix. Firstly C++ uses a different ABI than C which means that the calling convention is different. Additionally, C++ compilers mangle the names of identifiers in the source code differently than C compilers do, so the linker can’t find them. Fortunately, C is the lingua franca of computer programming so C++ compilers can adapt their behavior in both of these aspects to that of C compilers. To do so, we just prefix all C++ declarations that should be used by C code with extern "C"
.
This is very simple to do in the rational.cc
source file, but requires some extra smartness in rational.h
. Again, extern "C"
is only a C++ feature, so it cannot be part of the header when the C compiler is looking at it. The solution to this is to use the __cplusplus
macro once more.
// rational.h
#ifdef __cplusplus
class Rational { /* ... */ };
#endif // __cplusplus
#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {
#endif // __cplusplus
void *make_rational(int numer, int denom);
int get_numer(const void *r);
int get_denom(const void *r);
void del_rational(void **rp);
#ifdef __cplusplus
} // extern "C"
#endif // __cplusplus
This wraps all of the function definitions in an extern "C"
block when the C++ compiler is looking at it. After making those changes to rational.h
and rational.cc
we get the following output.
g++ c rational.cc
gcc main.c rational.o
./a.out
5 / 3
We successfully created a class in C++ that we can now use in C!
Now that we have covered how to use the preprocessor to change the content of a file based on the compiler that’s looking at it, we can make the API a bit safer, too. To do that we create an opaque type that acts a proxy for the Rational
class on the C side. By only declaring this type, the C compiler will ensure that the pointers passed around in the interface are all of the same type (i.e. Rational
). However, it won’t let you dereference the pointers because the type is never really defined.
#ifdef __cplusplus
class Rational {
// ...
};
#else
// Opaque type as a C proxy for the class.
typedef struct Rational Rational;
#endif // __cplusplus
In addition to that we now replace all void *
with Rational *
. This will allow you to remote some of the static_cast
s from the beginning.
Above, we used malloc
and a cast to allocate the instance of Rational
to prevent a linker error later on. If we had used new
and delete
instead (which is the proper C++ way), we would have gotten linker errors like this one:
rational.cc:(.text+0x15): undefined reference to `operator new(unsigned long)'
Usually in a C++ program, this issue doesn’t arise because new
and delete
are provided in the C++ standard library. The problem is that we used a C compiler to build the executable, which doesn’t link the C++ standard library by default. The solution is to pass the linker flag lstdc++
to the compiler explicitly.
With new
we can also use normal C++ constructors, making everything more concise and safe:
// rational.cc
#include "rational.h"
extern "C" Rational *make_rational(int numer, int denom) {
// Now we're using the constructor.
Rational *r = new Rational(numer, denom);
return r;
}
// ...
extern "C" void del_rational(Rational **rp) {
delete *rp;
*rp = nullptr;
}
Exceptions are another feature of C++ that C doesn’t have. If the C++ code we wrapped throws an exception, the whole program will crash without doing any cleanup. This can be addressed in multiple ways, one of which is to pass fnoexceptions
to the C++ compiler to abort if a library throws an exception and to reject code that uses exceptions. The more realistic and safe approach is to carefully catch all exceptions at the language boundary.
If you take another look at the definition of rational numbers above, you’ll notice that we don’t actually ensure that $q \neq 0$. This will become problematic if we try to implement rational number arithmetic for our class. We’ll address this by throwing an exception in the constructor if the denominator is 0.
// rational.h
#ifdef __cplusplus
#include <stdexcept>
class Rational {
public:
int _numer;
int _denom;
Rational(int numer, int denom) {
this>_numer = numer;
if (denom == 0) {
throw std::domain_error("denominator is 0");
} else {
this>_denom = denom;
}
}
};
#endif // __cplusplus
// ...
Since we know now that the constructor might throw, we catch all exceptions in the wrapper and return a nullptr
in case of an exception. In general, it’s often a good idea to catch anything and return a generic error value such as null. In addition to that, you could add infinitely more complex errorhandling schemes at the language boundary.
// rational.cc
#include "rational.h"
extern "C" Rational *make_rational(int numer, int denom) {
try {
// Allocate an instance on the heap.
Rational *r = new Rational(numer, denom);
return r;
} catch (...) {
return nullptr;
}
}
In such a simple case it’s also feasible to check if the denominator is 0 in make_rational
but that doesn’t apply to more realistic examples.
You can find all the code for this post on my GitHub.
I ended up not using libelfin for my debugger, but I am glad that I had this opportunity to learn so much about calling C++ code from C. This is the first time that I documented any of the insights I discovered about a particular problem, and I am excited to find out what you think about it. Feel free to contact me through my about page. Your insights and perspectives would be greatly appreciated. I am committed to write more post like this one in the future and I hope you found it helpful ^^.
]]>