Is there any input that SHA-1 will compute to a hex value of fourty-zeros, i.e. "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000"?
Yes, it's just incredibly unlikely. I.e. one in 2^160, or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006842277657836021%.
Also, becuase SHA1 is cryptographically strong, it would also be computationally unfeasible (at least with current computer technology -- all bets are off for emergent technologies such as quantum computing) to find out what data would result in an all-zero hash until it occurred in practice. If you really must use the "0" hash as a sentinel be sure to include an appropriate assertion (that you did not just hash input data to your "zero" hash sentinel) that survives into production. It is a failure condition your code will permanently need to check for. WARNING: Your code will permanently be broken if it does.
Depending on your situation (if your logic can cope with handling the empty string as a special case in order to forbid it from input) you could use the SHA1 hash ('da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709') of the empty string. Also possible is using the hash for any string not in your input domain such as sha1('a') if your input has numeric-only as an invariant. If the input is preprocessed to add any regular decoration then a hash of something without the decoration would work as well (eg: sha1('abc') if your inputs like 'foo' are decorated with quotes to something like '"foo"').
I don't think so.
There is no easy way to show why it's not possible. If there was, then this would itself be the basis of an algorithm to find collisions.
Longer analysis:
The preprocessing makes sure that there is always at least one 1 bit in the input.
The loop over w[i] will leave the original stream alone, so there is at least one 1 bit in the input (words 0 to 15). Even with clever design of the bit patterns, at least some of the values from 0 to 15 must be non-zero since the loop doesn't affect them.
Note: leftrotate is circular, so no 1 bits will get lost.
In the main loop, it's easy to see that the factor k is never zero, so temp can't be zero for the reason that all operands on the right hand side are zero (k never is).
This leaves us with the question whether you can create a bit pattern for which (a leftrotate 5) + f + e + k + w[i] returns 0 by overflowing the sum. For this, we need to find values for w[i] such that w[i] = 0 - ((a leftrotate 5) + f + e + k)
This is possible for the first 16 values of w[i] since you have full control over them. But the words 16 to 79 are again created by xoring the first 16 values.
So the next step could be to unroll the loops and create a system of linear equations. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader ;-) The system is interesting since we have a loop that creates additional equations until we end up with a stable result.
Basically, the algorithm was chosen in such a way that you can create individual 0 words by selecting input patterns but these effects are countered by xoring the input patterns to create the 64 other inputs.
Just an example: To make temp 0, we have
a = h0 = 0x67452301
f = (b and c) or ((not b) and d)
= (h1 and h2) or ((not h1) and h3)
= (0xEFCDAB89 & 0x98BADCFE) | (~0x98BADCFE & 0x10325476)
= 0x98badcfe
e = 0xC3D2E1F0
k = 0x5A827999
which gives us w[0] = 0x9fb498b3, etc. This value is then used in the words 16, 19, 22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-79.
Word 1, similarly, is used in words 1, 17, 20, 23, 25-26, 28-29, 31-79.
As you can see, there is a lot of overlap. If you calculate the input value that would give you a 0 result, that value influences at last 32 other input values.
The post by Aaron is incorrect. It is getting hung up on the internals of the SHA1 computation while ignoring what happens at the end of the round function.
Specifically, see the pseudo-code from Wikipedia. At the end of the round, the following computation is done:
h0 = h0 + a
h1 = h1 + b
h2 = h2 + c
h3 = h3 + d
h4 = h4 + e
So an all 0 output can happen if h0 == -a, h1 == -b, h2 == -c, h3 == -d, and h4 == -e going into this last section, where the computations are mod 2^32.
To answer your question: nobody knows whether there exists an input that produces all zero outputs, but cryptographers expect that there are based upon the simple argument provided by daf.
Without any knowledge of SHA-1 internals, I don't see why any particular value should be impossible (unless explicitly stated in the description of the algorithm). An all-zero value is no more or less probable than any other specific value.
Contrary to all of the current answers here, nobody knows that. There's a big difference between a probability estimation and a proof.
But you can safely assume it won't happen. In fact, you can safely assume that just about ANY value won't be the result (assuming it wasn't obtained through some SHA-1-like procedures). You can assume this as long as SHA-1 is secure (it actually isn't anymore, at least theoretically).
People doesn't seem realize just how improbable it is (if all humanity focused all of it's current resources on finding a zero hash by bruteforcing, it would take about xxx... ages of the current universe to crack it).
If you know the function is safe, it's not wrong to assume it won't happen. That may change in the future, so assume some malicious inputs could give that value (e.g. don't erase user's HDD if you find a zero hash).
If anyone still thinks it's not "clean" or something, I can tell you that nothing is guaranteed in the real world, because of quantum mechanics. You assume you can't walk through a solid wall just because of an insanely low probability.
[I'm done with this site... My first answer here, I tried to write a nice answer, but all I see is a bunch of downvoting morons who are wrong and can't even tell the reason why are they doing it. Your community really disappointed me. I'll still use this site, but only passively]
Contrary to all answers here, the answer is simply No.
The hash value always contains bits set to 1.
Related
In Maxima, I am trying to simplify the expression
sqrt(1 - sin(x)) * sqrt(1 + sin(x))
to yield
cos(x)
I properly restricted the definition of x
declare(x, real) $
assume(x > 0, x < %pi/2) $
and tried several simplification commands including radcan, trigsimp, trigreduce and trigexpand, but without any success. How can this be done?
Try trigsimp(rootscontract(expr))
The restrictions you assert do not uniquely determine the simplified result you request.
It would seem both harmless and obviously unnecessary to declare or assume the following:
declare(9, real)
assume(9>0)
and yet, sqrt(9) is still the set {-3, +3}, mathematically speaking, as opposed to "what I learned in 6th grade".
Stavros' suggestion give |cos(x)|, which is not quite what the original questioner wanted.
Another way of getting the same result, one which may more explicitly exhibit the -in general falseness - of the result, is to square and then use the semi-bogus sqrt, that attempts to pick the positive answer.
trigsimp (sqrt(expand(expr^2)));
If you think this is a way of simplifying expr, note that it changes -3 to 3.
I am writing a parser for a query engine. My parser DCG query is not deterministic.
I will be using the parser in a relational manner, to both check and synthesize queries.
Is it appropriate for a parser DCG to not be deterministic?
In code:
If I want to be able to use query/2 both ways, does it require that
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true;
false.
or should I be able to obtain
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true.
nevertheless, given that the first snippet would require me to use it as such
?- bagof(X, phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]), [true]).
true.
when using it to check a formula?
The first question to ask yourself, is your grammar deterministic, or in the terminology of grammars, unambiguous. This is not asking if your DCG is deterministic, but if the grammar is unambiguous. That can be answered with basic parsing concepts, no use of DCG is needed to answer that question. In other words, is there only one way to parse a valid input. The standard book for this is "Compilers : principles, techniques, & tools" (WorldCat)
Now you are actually asking about three different uses for parsing.
A recognizer.
A parser.
A generator.
If your grammar is unambiguous then
For a recognizer the answer should only be true for valid input that can be parsed and false for invalid input.
For the parser it should be deterministic as there is only one way to parse the input. The difference between a parser and an recognizer is that a recognizer only returns true or false and a parser will return something more, typically an abstract syntax tree.
For the generator, it should be semi-deterministic so that it can generate multiple results.
Can all of this be done with one, DCG, yes. The three different ways are dependent upon how you use the input and output of the DCG.
Here is an example with a very simple grammar.
The grammar is just an infix binary expression with one operator and two possible operands. The operator is (+) and the operands are either (1) or (2).
expr(expr(Operand_1,Operator,Operand_2)) -->
operand(Operand_1),
operator(Operator),
operand(Operand_2).
operand(operand(1)) --> "1".
operand(operand(2)) --> "2".
operator(operator(+)) --> "+".
recognizer(Input) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
parser(Input,Ast) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(Ast),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
generator(Generated) :-
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]),
string_codes(Generated,Codes).
:- begin_tests(expr).
recognizer_test_case_success("1+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("1+2").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+2").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_success(Input)) ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
recognizer_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
parser_test_case_success("1+1",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("1+2",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(2))).
parser_test_case_success("2+1",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("2+2",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(2))).
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_success(Input,Expected_ast)) ] ) :-
parser(Input,Ast),
assertion( Ast == Expected_ast).
parser_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
parser(Input,_).
test(generator,all(Generated == ["1+1","1+2","2+1","2+2"]) ) :-
generator(Generated).
:- end_tests(expr).
The grammar is unambiguous and has only 4 valid strings which are all unique.
The recognizer is deterministic and only returns true or false.
The parser is deterministic and returns a unique AST.
The generator is semi-deterministic and returns all 4 valid unique strings.
Example run of the test cases.
?- run_tests.
% PL-Unit: expr ........... done
% All 11 tests passed
true.
To expand a little on the comment by Daniel
As Daniel notes
1 + 2 + 3
can be parsed as
(1 + 2) + 3
or
1 + (2 + 3)
So 1+2+3 is an example as you said is specified by a recursive DCG and as I noted a common way out of the problem is to use parenthesizes to start a new context. What is meant by starting a new context is that it is like getting a new clean slate to start over again. If you are creating an AST, you just put the new context, items in between the parenthesizes, as a new subtree at the current node.
With regards to write_canonical/1, this is also helpful but be aware of left and right associativity of operators. See Associative property
e.g.
+ is left associative
?- write_canonical(1+2+3).
+(+(1,2),3)
true.
^ is right associative
?- write_canonical(2^3^4).
^(2,^(3,4))
true.
i.e.
2^3^4 = 2^(3^4) = 2^81 = 2417851639229258349412352
2^3^4 != (2^3)^4 = 8^4 = 4096
The point of this added info is to warn you that grammar design is full of hidden pitfalls and if you have not had a rigorous class in it and done some of it you could easily create a grammar that looks great and works great and then years latter is found to have a serious problem. While Python was not ambiguous AFAIK, it did have grammar issues, it had enough issues that when Python 3 was created, many of the issues were fixed. So Python 3 is not backward compatible with Python 2 (differences). Yes they have made changes and libraries to make it easier to use Python 2 code with Python 3, but the point is that the grammar could have used a bit more analysis when designed.
The only reason why code should be non-deterministic is that your question has multiple answers. In that case, you'd of course want your query to have multiple solutions. Even then, however, you'd like it to not leave a choice point after the last solution, if at all possible.
Here is what I mean:
"What is the smaller of two numbers?"
min_a(A, B, B) :- B < A.
min_a(A, B, A) :- A =< B.
So now you ask, "what is the smaller of 1 and 2" and the answer you expect is "1":
?- min_a(1, 2, Min).
Min = 1.
?- min_a(2, 1, Min).
Min = 1 ; % crap...
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 2).
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 1).
true ; % crap...
false.
So that's not bad code but I think it's still crap. This is why, for the smaller of two numbers, you'd use something like the min() function in SWI-Prolog.
Similarly, say you want to ask, "What are the even numbers between 1 and 10"; you write the query:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 2 =:= 0.
X = 2 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 8 ;
X = 10.
... and that's fine, but if you then ask for the numbers that are multiple of 3, you get:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 3 =:= 0.
X = 3 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 9 ;
false. % crap...
The "low-hanging fruit" are the cases where you as a programmer would see that there cannot be non-determinism, but for some reason your Prolog is not able to deduce that from the code you wrote. In most cases, you can do something about it.
On to your actual question. If you can, write your code so that there is non-determinism only if there are multiple answers to the question you'll be asking. When you use a DCG for both parsing and generating, this sometimes means you end up with two code paths. It feels clumsy but it is easier to write, to read, to understand, and probably to make efficient. As a word of caution, take a look at this question. I can't know that for sure, but the problems that OP is running into are almost certainly caused by unnecessary non-determinism. What probably happens with larger inputs is that a lot of choice points are left behind, there is a lot of memory that cannot be reclaimed, a lot of processing time going into book keeping, huge solution trees being traversed only to get (as expected) no solutions.... you get the point.
For examples of what I mean, you can take a look at the implementation of library(dcg/basics) in SWI-Prolog. Pay attention to several things:
The documentation is very explicit about what is deterministic, what isn't, and how non-determinism is supposed to be useful to the client code;
The use of cuts, where necessary, to get rid of choice points that are useless;
The implementation of number//1 (towards the bottom) that can "generate extract a number".
(Hint: use the primitives in this library when you write your own parser!)
I hope you find this unnecessarily long answer useful.
I have a fairly large expression that involves a lot of subexpressions of the form (100*A^3 + 200*A^2 + 100*A)*x or (-A^2 - A)*y or (100*A^2 + 100*A)*z
I know, but I don't know how to tell Maxima this, that it in this case is valid to make the approximation A+1 ~ A, thereby effectively removing anything but the highest power of A in each coefficient.
I'm now looking for functions, tools, or methods that I can use to guide Maxima in dropping various terms that aren't important.
I have attempted with subst, but that requires me to specify each and every factor separately, because:
subst([A+1=B], (A+2)*(A+1)*2);
subst([A+1=B], (A+2)*(A*2+2));
(%o1) 2*(A+2)*B
(%o2) (A+2)*(2*A+2)
(that is, I need to add one expression for each slightly different variant)
I tried with ratsimp, but that's too eager to change every occurrence:
ratsubst(B, A+1, A*(A+1)*2);
ratsubst(B, A+1, A*(A*2+2));
(%o3) 2*B^2-2*B
(%o4) 2*B^2-2*B
which isn't actually simpler, as I would have preferred the answer to have been given as 2*B^2.
In another answer, (https://stackoverflow.com/a/22695050/5999883) the functions let and letsimp were suggested for the task of substituting values, but I fail to get them to really do anything:
x:(A+1)*A;
let ( A+1, B );
letsimp(x);
(x)A*(A+1)
(%o6) A+1 --\> B
(%o7) A^2+A
Again, I'd like to approximate this expression to A^2 (B^2, whatever it's called).
I understand that this is, in general, a hard problem (is e.g. A^2 + 10^8*A still okay to approximate as A^2?) but I think that what I'm looking for is a function or method of calculation that would be a little bit smarter than subst and can recognize that the same substitution could be done in the expression A^2+A as in the expression 100*A^2+100*A or -A^2-A instead of making me create a list of three (or twenty) individual substitutions when calling subst. The "nice" part of the full expression that I'm working on is that each of these A factors are of the form k*A^n*(A+1)^m for various small integers n, m, so I never actually end up with the degenerate case mentioned above.
(I was briefly thinking of re-expressing my expression as a polynomial in A, but this will not work as the only valid approximation of the expression (A^3+A^2+A)*x + y is A^3*x + y -- I know nothing about the relative sizes of x and y.
DISCLAIMER: This question is only for those who have access to the econometrics toolbox in Matlab.
The Situation: I would like to use Matlab to simulate N observations from an ARIMA(p, d, q) model using the econometrics toolbox. What's the difficulty? I would like the innovations to be simulated with deterministic, time-varying variance.
Question 1) Can I do this using the in-built matlab simulate function without altering it myself? As near as I can tell, this is not possible. From my reading of the docs, the innovations can either be specified to have a constant variance (ie same variance for each innovation), or be specified to be stochastically time-varying (eg a GARCH model), but they cannot be deterministically time-varying, where I, the user, choose their values (except in the trivial constant case).
Question 2) If the answer to question 1 is "No", then does anyone see any reason why I can't edit the simulate function from the econometrics toolbox as follows:
a) Alter the preamble such that the function won't throw an error if the Variance field in the input model is set to a numeric vector instead of a numeric scalar.
b) Alter line 310 of simulate from:
E(:,(maxPQ + 1:end)) = Z * sqrt(variance);
to
E(:,(maxPQ + 1:end)) = (ones(NumPath, 1) * sqrt(variance)) .* Z;
where NumPath is the number of paths to be simulated, and it can be assumed that I've included an error trap to ensure that the (input) deterministic variance path stored in variance is of the right length (ie equal to the number of observations to be simulated per path).
Any help would be most appreciated. Apologies if the question seems basic, I just haven't ever edited one of Mathwork's own functions before and didn't want to do something foolish.
UPDATE (2012-10-18): I'm confident that the code edit I've suggested above is valid, and I'm mostly confident that it won't break anything else. However it turns out that implementing the solution is not trivial due to file permissions. I'm currently talking with Mathworks about the best way to achieve my goal. I'll post the results here once I have them.
It's been a week and a half with no answer, so I think I'm probably okay to post my own answer at this point.
In response to my question 1), no, I have not found anyway to do this with the built-in matlab functions.
In response to my question 2), yes, what I have posted will work. However, it was a little more involved than I imagined due to matlab file permissions. Here is a step-by-step guide:
i) Somewhere in your matlab path, create the directory #arima_Custom.
ii) In the command window, type edit arima. Copy the text of this file into a new m file and save it in the directory #arima_Custom with the filename arima_Custom.m.
iii) Locate the econometrics toolbox on your machine. Once found, look for the directory #arima in the toolbox. This directory will probably be located (on a Linux machine) at something like $MATLAB_ROOT/toolbox/econ/econ/#arima (on my machine, $MATLAB_ROOT is at /usr/local/Matlab/R2012b). Copy the contents of #arima to #arima_Custom, except do NOT copy the file arima.m.
iv) Open arima_Custom for editing, ie edit arima_Custom. In this file change line 1 from:
classdef (Sealed) arima < internal.econ.LagIndexableTimeSeries
to
classdef (Sealed) arima_Custom < internal.econ.LagIndexableTimeSeries
Next, change line 406 from:
function OBJ = arima(varargin)
to
function OBJ = arima_Custom(varargin)
Now, change line 993 from:
if isa(OBJ.Variance, 'double') && (OBJ.Variance <= 0)
to
if isa(OBJ.Variance, 'double') && (sum(OBJ.Variance <= 0) > 0)
v) Open the simulate.m located in #arima_Custom for editing (we copied it there in step iii). It is probably best to open this file by navigating to it manually in the Current Folder window, to ensure the correct simulate.m is opened. In this file, alter line 310 from:
E(:,(maxPQ + 1:end)) = Z * sqrt(variance);
to
%Check that the input variance is of the right length (if it isn't scalar)
if isscalar(variance) == 0
if size(variance, 2) ~= 1
error('Deterministic variance must be a column vector');
end
if size(variance, 1) ~= numObs
error('Deterministic variance vector is incorrect length relative to number of observations');
end
else
variance = variance(ones(numObs, 1));
end
%Scale innovations using deterministic variance
E(:,(maxPQ + 1:end)) = sqrt(ones(numPaths, 1) * variance') .* Z;
And we're done!
You should now be able to simulate with deterministically time-varying variance using the arima_Custom class, for example (for an ARIMA(0,1,0)):
ARIMAModel = arima_Custom('D', 1, 'Variance', ScalarVariance, 'Constant', 0);
ARIMAModel.Variance = TimeVaryingVarianceVector;
[X, e, VarianceVector] = simulate(ARIMAModel, NumObs, 'numPaths', NumPaths);
Further, you should also still be able to use matlab's original arima class, since we didn't alter it.
I am coding a survey that outputs a .csv file. Within this csv I have some entries that are space delimited, which represent multi-select questions (e.g. questions with more than one response). In the end I want to parse these space delimited entries into their own columns and create headers for them so i know where they came from.
For example I may start with this (note that the multiselect columns have an _M after them):
Q1, Q2_M, Q3, Q4_M
6, 1 2 88, 3, 3 5 99
6, , 3, 1 2
and I want to go to this:
Q1, Q2_M_1, Q2_M_2, Q2_M_88, Q3, Q4_M_1, Q4_M_2, Q4_M_3, Q4_M_5, Q4_M_99
6, 1, 1, 1, 3, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1
6,,,,3,1,1,0,0,0
I imagine this is a relatively common issue to deal with but I have not been able to find it in the R section. Any ideas how to do this in R after importing the .csv ? My general thoughts (which often lead to inefficient programs) are that I can:
(1) pull column numbers that have the special suffix with grep()
(2) loop through (or use an apply) each of the entries in these columns and determine the levels of responses and then create columns accordingly
(3) loop through (or use an apply) and place indicators in appropriate columns to indicate presence of selection
I appreciate any help and please let me know if this is not clear.
I agree with ran2 and aL3Xa that you probably want to change the format of your data to have a different column for each possible reponse. However, if you munging your dataset to a better format proves problematic, it is possible to do what you asked.
process_multichoice <- function(x) lapply(strsplit(x, " "), as.numeric)
q2 <- c("1 2 3 NA 4", "2 5")
processed_q2 <- process_multichoice(q2)
[[1]]
[1] 1 2 3 NA 4
[[2]]
[1] 2 5
The reason different columns for different responses are suggested is because it is still quite unpleasant trying to retrieve any statistics from the data in this form. Although you can do things like
# Number of reponses given
sapply(processed_q2, length)
#Frequency of each response
table(unlist(processed_q2), useNA = "ifany")
EDIT: One more piece of advice. Keep the code that processes your data separate from the code that analyses it. If you create any graphs, keep the code for creating them separate again. I've been down the road of mixing things together, and it isn't pretty. (Especially when you come back to the code six months later.)
I am not entirely sure what you trying to do respectively what your reasons are for coding like this. Thus my advice is more general – so just feel to clarify and I will try to give a more concrete response.
1) I say that you are coding the survey on your own, which is great because it means you have influence on your .csv file. I would NEVER use different kinds of separation in the same .csv file. Just do the naming from the very beginning, just like you suggested in the second block.
Otherwise you might geht into trouble with checkboxes for example. Let's say someone checks 3 out of 5 possible answers, the next only checks 1 (i.e. "don't know") . Now it will be much harder to create a spreadsheet (data.frame) type of results view as opposed to having an empty field (which turns out to be an NA in R) that only needs to be recoded.
2) Another important question is whether you intend to do a panel survey(i.e longitudinal study asking the same participants over and over again) . That (among many others) would be a good reason to think about saving your data to a MySQL database instead of .csv . RMySQL can connect directly to the database and access its tables and more important its VIEWS.
Views really help with survey data since you can rearrange the data in different views, conditional on many different needs.
3) Besides all the personal / opinion and experience, here's some (less biased) literature to get started:
Complex Surveys: A Guide to Analysis Using R (Wiley Series in Survey Methodology
The book is comparatively simple and leaves out panel surveys but gives a lot of R Code and examples which should be a practical start.
To prevent re-inventing the wheel you might want to check LimeSurvey, a pretty decent (not speaking of the templates :) ) tool for survey conductors. Besides I TYPO3 CMS extensions pbsurvey and ke_questionnaire (should) work well too (only tested pbsurvey).
Multiple choice items should always be coded as separate variables. That is, if you have 5 alternatives and multiple choice, you should code them as i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i.e. each one is a binary variable (0-1). I see that you have values 3 5 99 for Q4_M variable in the first example. Does that mean that you have 99 alternatives in an item? Ouch...
First you should go on and create separate variables for each alternative in a multiple choice item. That is, do:
# note that I follow your example with Q4_M variable
dtf_ins <- as.data.frame(matrix(0, nrow = nrow(<initial dataframe>), ncol = 99))
# name vars appropriately
names(dtf_ins) <- paste("Q4_M_", 1:99, sep = "")
now you have a data.frame with 0s, so what you need to do is to get 1s in an appropriate position (this is a bit cumbersome), a function will do the job...
# first you gotta change spaces to commas and convert character variable to a numeric one
y <- paste("c(", gsub(" ", ", ", x), ")", sep = "")
z <- eval(parse(text = y))
# now you assing 1 according to indexes in z variable
dtf_ins[1, z] <- 1
And that's pretty much it... basically, you would like to reconsider creating a data.frame with _M variables, so you can write a function that does this insertion automatically. Avoid for loops!
Or, even better, create a matrix with logicals, and just do dtf[m] <- 1, where dtf is your multiple-choice data.frame, and m is matrix with logicals.
I would like to help you more on this one, but I'm recuperating after a looong night! =) Hope that I've helped a bit! =)
Thanks for all the responses. I agree with most of you that this format is kind of silly but it is what I have to work with (survey is coded and going into use next week). This is what I came up with from all the responses. I am sure this is not the most elegant or efficient way to do it but I think it should work.
colnums <- grep("_M",colnames(dat))
responses <- nrow(dat)
for (i in colnums) {
vec <- as.vector(dat[,i]) #turn into vector
b <- lapply(strsplit(vec," "),as.numeric) #split up and turn into numeric
c <- sort(unique(unlist(b))) #which values were used
newcolnames <- paste(colnames(dat[i]),"_",c,sep="") #column names
e <- matrix(nrow=responses,ncol=length(c)) #create new matrix for indicators
colnames(e) <- newcolnames
#next loop looks for responses and puts indicators in the correct places
for (i in 1:responses) {
e[i,] <- ifelse(c %in% b[[i]],1,0)
}
dat <- cbind(dat,e)
}
Suggestions for improvement are welcome.