expr-trees

Copyright (C) 2026 Vjeran Crnjak

License: GPL-3.0-only

Toolchain

Tested locally on Arch Linux with:

• gcc 15.2.1+r447+g6a64f6c3ebb8-1
• boost 1.89.0-4

Scope

This repo checks numbers from TAOCP 4A, answers to exercises 122 and 123.

Main files:

• fast_target_counter.cpp: fast target counter.
• representable_integers.cpp: counts all reachable integers.
• shape_count.cpp: counts grammar shapes.
• analytic_gf.py: counts grammar shapes much faster, directly from grammar def.
• openmp_bruteforce_representable.cpp: exhaustive OpenMP evaluator over the precedence grammar.
• openmp_catalan_representable.cpp: exhaustive OpenMP evaluator over all binary parenthesizations.
• openmp_bruteforce_witnesses.cpp: exhaustive OpenMP evaluator that writes one shortest witness per reachable integer.

Results

Confirmed target counts for =100:

• 122(a): 1641
• 122(b): 3366
• 122(c), errata grammar: 137375

Confirmed extra counts with leading minus:

• 122(a): 1362
• 122(b): 2759
• 122(c), errata grammar: 116222

Leading minus is just -(E)=100, so it is the same as solving E=-100.

Confirmed smallest unreachable positive integers:

• 123(a): 2284
• 123(b): 6964
• 123(c), old dot-only grammar: 14786

Confirmed counts of representable integers:

• 123(a): 27666
• 123(b): 136607
• 123(c): we get 218438

There is still an off by one in representable integers. errata says 218439. Three independent exhaustive programs gave 218438:

• representable_integers.cpp
• openmp_bruteforce_representable.cpp
• openmp_catalan_representable.cpp

The unrestricted Catalan program traversed exactly F_9 = 74,323,639,466 formal expressions and still gave 218438.

Old fascicle numbers are reproduced. Examples: 14786 for old 123(c), and the pre-errata grammar for dot-only numbers.

Grammar

expr -> <number> | <sum> | <product> | <quotient>
<sum> -> <term> + <term> | <term> - <term> | <sum> + <term> | <sum> - <term>
<term> -> <number> | <product> | <quotient>
<product> -> <factor> x <factor> | <product> x <factor> | (<quotient>) x <factor>
<quotient> -> <factor> / <factor> | <product> / <factor> | (<quotient>) / <factor>
<factor> -> <number> | (<sum>)
<number> -> <digit>

(b) extends number with:
<number> -> <digit> | <number><digit>

(c) extends number with ([errata](https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/err4a.tex)):
<number> -> <digit string> | .<digit string> | <digit string>.<digit string>
<digit string> -> <digit> | <digit string><digit>

Precedence and associativity alone are not enough to get least number of interesting expressions. That grammar is a superset of DEK's grammar. For example, 1-(2-3) is the same as 1-2+3. Also 7/(8*9) is the same as 7/8/9. DEK's grammar eliminates more "repeat" expressions.

Performance

fast_target_counter.cpp runs on 122(c), target 100, in about 28s on an AMD Ryzen 5 5600X with 4x32 GiB G.Skill F4-3200C14-32GTRG @ 3200 MT/s, built with g++ (GCC) 15.2.1.

The OpenMP exhaustive checkers keep little state in memory: no global witness tables, no expression strings in the count-only runs, and only thread-local integer sets/maps that are merged at the end.

Observed runtimes on the same machine:

• openmp_bruteforce_representable.cpp, 123(c), errata grammar, 12 threads: about 65s
• openmp_bruteforce_witnesses.cpp, same search plus shortest witnesses: 189.111s
• openmp_catalan_representable.cpp, unrestricted F_9 = 74,323,639,466 parenthesizations, 12 threads: about 10-11 min

DEK likely has a better algorithm. errata is from 2008, and DEK's code seems to handle these counts much more easily than our current programs. 28 seconds today in 2026 implies many more in 2008, so fast_target_counter.cpp is a bit slow.

Analytic Combinatorics

Since 2012 I have played with this problem. I first heard of it in "Diskontna matematika 1" course at FER, a play on Concrete Mathematics. If we extrapolate further, it will take me centuries if not millenia to go through all of the exercises in TAOCP.

Only later I found that this is a Dudeney's Digital Century puzzle problem solved by DEK in TAOCP 4A.

I counted these objects through brute force generation. That eventually led to using Mathematica on integer sequences, just to guess generating functions from the counts.

Later I worked through the Coursera course on Analytic Combinatorics. That makes this much cleaner: write the grammar, translate productions to equations, solve the system, then read off coefficients. A small SymPy script does exactly that:

• analytic_gf.py

It starts from the grammar, writes equations for the nonterminals, solves for <expression>(z), and expands coefficients.

The key translation is:

• union becomes +
• concatenation becomes *
• only digits contribute size, so each digit is z
• operators and parentheses have size 1

For errata (c) the script prints:

• digit_string = z*(digit_string + 1)
• number = digit_string*(digit_string + 2)
• expr = number + prod + quot + sum
• sum = 2*term*(sum + term)
• term = number + prod + quot
• prod = factor*(factor + prod + quot)
• quot = factor*(factor + prod + quot)
• factor = number + sum

and then:

• closed <number>(z) = -z*(z - 2)/(z - 1)^2
• closed <expression>(z) = (3*z^2 - 6*z - sqrt(17*z^4 - 68*z^3 + 82*z^2 - 28*z + 1) + 1) / (4*(z - 1)^2)
• n=9 gf_count=9875514250 comb_count=9875514250

This is 10 more than DEK's amended 9,875,514,240. The likely reason: the symbolic grammar count includes all 10 top-level <number> expressions that use all nine digits and no operator: .123456789, 123456789, 1.23456789, ..., 12345678.9. DEK's reported case count seems to exclude these trivial no-operator cases. I believe there are also libraries which will spit out efficient lexicographic enumeration algorithms as well. But when it comes to the actual problem of exercise 122, enumeration is not a fast approach.

Script also prints the unrestricted binary-parenthesization model

• F(z) = <number>(z) + 4*F(z)^2

which yields

• n=9 gf_count=74323639466 comb_count=74323639466

easy to predict total runtime of bruteforce.

Notes

The code can also be extended to keep witnesses. That would let it print shortest, longest, or all expressions of interest. Left as an exercise to the reader.