# Setting every $k^{th}$ bit of a number to zero

Given an arbitrary number $n$, what's the best way to set every $k^{th}$ bit to zero?

For example, given $354_{10}$=$101101010_2$, setting every 3rd bit counting from the right to zero would give me $66_{10}$=$001001010_2$.

I'm looking for a technique similar to the following for setting the leading bits to zero: If for instance I wanted to set the leading four bits to zero, I would calculate the desired answer $n'$ as

$$n_0=2^4 n \text{ } (\text{mod } 2^9)$$ $$n'=n_0/2^4$$

Of course, this question should generalize for numbers of different bases.

-

What you seem to be asking for is a way to express this operation in conventional mathematical notation. But conventional mathematical notation doesn't have standard symbols for bitwise operations. This isn't because those operations are somehow illegitimate, or because the conventional notation is somehow better. It's just because those operations were studied later than the other ones and are less entrenched in history. Where the conventional notation does provide a simple expression of a bit operation, as in your example, that is a coincidence.

So it's a bit of a puzzle what you are really looking for. If you need a way to express these operations compactly, you can make up your own compact notation, or you can look at the notation used by computer programming languages, which have solved this problem before, and the conventional notation is unlikely to make anything clearer. If you need an efficient algorithm to calculate the result of this operation, that is a different question, again unrelated to conventional mathematical notation. But the thing you seem to be asking for, a concise expression of this operation in standard number-theoretic symbols, I believe does not exist.

-
I was looking for a concise expression of the operation in standard number-theoretic symbols; I'm still hoping that it exists! –  Vincent Tjeng Mar 9 '14 at 22:41
@VincentTjeng Do you have a particular motivation for wanting this in standard number-theoretic terms? Or just hoping for purely aesthetic reasons? –  Erick Wong Mar 11 '14 at 5:24
I didn't know about enough about bitwise operators to realize that they could be used here; furthermore, I was writing a proof where I required this operation, and I thought that expressing this in standard number-theoretic terms would be clearer for the reader, since my proof is targeted at people without a computer programming background. (Aesthetically, it would also be great too.) –  Vincent Tjeng Mar 11 '14 at 16:28

One representation I can think of is with bitwise AND is $n \ \& \dots011011011011$. This is essentially a bitmask. There's also the double nested symbol mentioned here but I've never seen it before.

-

Not sure why you would want to do this, but here's a straightforward way.

Input: a base $b$, an integer $a = \sum_{i = 0}^n a_ib^i$, $a_n \ne 0$, and an integer $k \le n$.
Output: The integer $a' = \sum_{i \ne k} a_ib^i$, i.e., $a$ with $a_k$ set to $0$.

1. Set $A \gets a \mod{b^{k+1}}$.
2. Set $B \gets A - (A \mod{b^k})$.
3. Output $a-B$.

Repeat as needed to set several digits to $0$.

EDIT (after fix): So the result can be expressed as $a - (a \mod {b^{k+1}}) + (a \mod {b^k})$.

-
Hey there, doesn't this set $a_i$ to 0 for all $i>k$? I don't see how it maintains the information needed. –  Vincent Tjeng Mar 11 '14 at 2:53
Sorry, I was thinking in binary... Fixed. –  fkraiem Mar 11 '14 at 4:08
Thanks! I was slightly confused by the initial solution :) –  Vincent Tjeng Mar 11 '14 at 16:29