As described in RFC1071, an extra 0-byte should be added to the last byte when calculating checksum in the situation of odd count of bytes:
But in the "C" code algorithm, only the last byte is added:
The above code does work on little-endian machine where [Z,0] equals Z, but I think there's some problem on big-endian one where [Z,0] equals Z*256.
So I wonder whether the example "C" code in RFC1071 only works on little-endian machine?
-------------New Added---------------
There's one more example of "breaking the sum into two groups" described in RFC1071:
We can just take the data here (addr[]={0x00, 0x01, 0xf2}) for example:
Here, "standard" represents the situation described in the formula [2], while "C-code" representing the C code algorithm situation.
As we can see, in "standard" situation, the final sum is f201 regardless of endian-difference since there's no endian-issue with the abstract form of [Z,0] after "Swap". But it matters in "C-code" situation because f2 is always the low-byte whether in big-endian or in little-endian.
Thus, the checksum is variable with the same data(addr&count) on different endian.
I think you're right. The code in the RFC adds the last byte in as low-order, regardless of whether it is on a litte-endian or big-endian machine.
In these examples of code on the web we see they have taken special care with the last byte:
https://github.com/sjaeckel/wireshark/blob/master/epan/in_cksum.c
and in
http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/tcpdump/tcpdump-23/tcpdump/print-ip.c
it does this:
if (nleft == 1)
sum += htons(*(u_char *)w<<8);
Which means that this text in the RFC is incorrect:
Therefore, the sum may be calculated in exactly the same way
regardless of the byte order ("big-endian" or "little-endian")
of the underlaying hardware. For example, assume a "little-
endian" machine summing data that is stored in memory in network
("big-endian") order. Fetching each 16-bit word will swap
bytes, resulting in the sum; however, storing the result
back into memory will swap the sum back into network byte order.
The following code in place of the original odd byte handling is portable (i.e. will work on both big- and little-endian machines), and doesn't depend on an external function:
if (count > 0)
{
char buf2[2] = {*addr, 0};
sum += *(unsigned short *)buf2;
}
(Assumes addr is char * or const char *).
Related
I'm trying to understand the names of the items in the VkFormat enum, and so far I think I get all the structure of the names of all of the (non-block) formats, but I can't figure out what it means when they have a suffix of PACK8, PACK16, PACK32. If I add up the channel sizes, they always add up to 8, 16, or 32, nothing irregular, so I don't understand what it would mean to bit-pack these values, since they seem to be 100% efficient, using all their bits.
As usual, the documentation is not very helpful, just saying the format is packed without saying what that means.
The PACK fields mean exactly what the specification says they mean:
whole texels or attributes are stored in a single data element, rather than individual components occupying a single data element
Though if you find that too confusing, you could just look at the actual format descriptions. Vulkan goes into excruciating detail about them, to the point of needless repetition.
The difference between VK_FORMAT_B8G8R8A8_RGB and VK_FORMAT_B8G8R8A8_RGB_PACK32 is the same difference between a uint8_t[4] and a uint32_t. One is an array ("individual components"), while the other is a single value ("single data element") made up of smaller values.
If you have a uint8_t color[4] array, which stores B8G8R8A8, then color[0] stores the blue component. The order of the components in the array is defined by the order of the components in the format's name.
If you have a uint32_t color value, which stores B8G8R8A8, then (color & 0xFF000000) >> 24 will retrieve the blue component. The highest byte is the first, followed by the next highest and so forth.
The reason the packed-vs-not-packed distinction matters is because of endian issues. Arrays of bytes don't have endian issues. But values packed into 16 or 32-bits do have endian issues. The endian of the packed formats is always assumed to be the native endian of the host.
I'm currently learning C# and my first project (as a learning experiment) is to create a DBF reader. I'm having some difficulty understanding "packing" according to this: http://www.developerfusion.com/pix/articleimages/dec05/structs1.jpg
If I specified a packing of 2, wouldn't all structure elements begin on a 2-byte boundary, and if I specified a packing of 4, wouldn't all structure elements begin on a 4-byte boundary, and also consume a minimum of 4 bytes each?
For instance, a byte element would be placed on a 4 byte boundary, and the element following it (in a sequential layout) would be located on the next 4-byte boundary (losing 3 bytes to padding)?
In the image shown, in the "pack=4" it shows a byte that is on a 2 byte boundary, following a short.
If I understand the picture correctly, pack equal to n means that one variable cannot be stored "between" two packs of lengths n. In other words, bytes which compose a variable cannot cross one pack's boundary. This is only true if the size of a variable is less or equal to the size of a pack.
Let's take Pack = 4 as an example. Here, we can safely store a byte and a short in one pack, because they require 3 bytes of memory together. But since there is only one byte in the pack left, it requires one byte of padding to be able to store an int into the data structure, because what's left in the pack is too little to store the whole int.
I hope the explanation makes sense.
Looking at the picture again, I think it would be better if all data were aligned to the same side of a pack, either to bottom or top. This would make it clearer what's going on.
For the problem of producing a bit-pattern with exactly n set bits, I know of two practical methods, but they both have limitations I'm not happy with.
First, you can enumerate all of the possible word values which have that many bits set in a pre-computed table, and then generate a random index into that table to pick out a possible result. This has the problem that as the output size grows the list of candidate outputs eventually becomes impractically large.
Alternatively, you can pick n non-overlapping bit positions at random (for example, by using a partial Fisher-Yates shuffle) and set those bits only. This approach, however, computes a random state in a much larger space than the number of possible results. For example, it may choose the first and second bits out of three, or it might, separately, choose the second and first bits.
This second approach must consume more bits from the random number source than are strictly required. Since it is choosing n bits in a specific order when their order is unimportant, this means that it is making an arbitrary distinction between n! different ways of producing the same result, and consuming at least floor(log_2(n!)) more bits than are necessary.
Can this be avoided?
There is obviously a third approach of iteratively computing and counting off the legal permutations until a random index is reached, but that's simply a space-for-time trade-off on the first approach, and isn't directly helpful unless there is an efficient way to count off those n permutations.
clarification
The first approach requires picking a single random number between zero and (where w is the output size), as this is the number of possible solutions.
The second approach requires picking n random values between zero and w-1, zero and w-2, etc., and these have a product of , which is times larger than the first approach.
This means that the random number source has been forced to produce bits to distinguish n! different results which are all equivalent. I'd like to know if there's an efficient method to avoid relying on this superfluous randomness. Perhaps by using an algorithm which produces an un-ordered list of bit positions, or by directly computing the nth unique permutation of bits.
Seems like you want a variant of Floyd's algorithm:
Algorithm to select a single, random combination of values?
Should be especially useful in your case, because the containment test is a simple bitmask operation. This will require only k calls to the RNG. In the code below, I assume you have randint(limit) which produces a uniform random from 0 to limit-1, and that you want k bits set in a 32-bit int:
mask = 0;
for (j = 32 - k; j < 32; ++j) {
r = randint(j+1);
b = 1 << r;
if (mask & b) mask |= (1 << j);
else mask |= b;
}
How many bits of entropy you need here depends on how randint() is implemented. If k > 16, set it to 32 - k and negate the result.
Your alternative suggestion of generating a single random number representing one combination among the set (mathematicians would call this a rank of the combination) is simpler if you use colex order rather than lexicographic rank. This code, for example:
for (i = k; i >= 1; --i) {
while ((b = binomial(n, i)) > r) --n;
buf[i-1] = n;
r -= b;
}
will fill the array buf[] with indices from 0 to n-1 for the k-combination at colex rank r. In your case, you'd replace buf[i-1] = n with mask |= (1 << n). The binomial() function is binomial coefficient, which I do with a lookup table (see this). That would make the most efficient use of entropy, but I still think Floyd's algorithm would be a better compromise.
[Expanding my comment:] If you only have a little raw entropy available, then use a PRNG to stretch it further. You only need enough raw entropy to seed a PRNG. Use the PRNG to do the actual shuffle, not the raw entropy. For the next shuffle reseed the PRNG with some more raw entropy. That spreads out the raw entropy and makes less of a demand on your entropy source.
If you know exactly the range of numbers you need out of the PRNG, then you can, carefully, set up your own LCG PRNG to cover the appropriate range while needing the minimum entropy to seed it.
ETA: In C++there is a next_permutation() method. Try using that. See std::next_permutation Implementation Explanation for more.
Is this a theory problem or a practical problem?
You could still do the partial shuffle, but keep track of the order of the ones and forget the zeroes. There are log(k!) bits of unused entropy in their final order for your future consumption.
You could also just use the recurrence (n choose k) = (n-1 choose k-1) + (n-1 choose k) directly. Generate a random number between 0 and (n choose k)-1. Call it r. Iterate over all of the bits from the nth to the first. If we have to set j of the i remaining bits, set the ith if r < (i-1 choose j-1) and clear it, subtracting (i-1 choose j-1), otherwise.
Practically, I wouldn't worry about the couple of words of wasted entropy from the partial shuffle; generating a random 32-bit word with 16 bits set costs somewhere between 64 and 80 bits of entropy, and that's entirely acceptable. The growth rate of the required entropy is asymptotically worse than the theoretical bound, so I'd do something different for really big words.
For really big words, you might generate n independent bits that are 1 with probability k/n. This immediately blows your entropy budget (and then some), but it only uses linearly many bits. The number of set bits is tightly concentrated around k, though. For a further expected linear entropy cost, I can fix it up. This approach has much better memory locality than the partial shuffle approach, so I'd probably prefer it in practice.
I would use solution number 3, generate the i-th permutation.
But do you need to generate the first i-1 ones?
You can do it a bit faster than that with kind of divide and conquer method proposed here: Returning i-th combination of a bit array and maybe you can improve the solution a bit
Background
From the formula you have given - w! / ((w-n)! * n!) it looks like your problem set has to do with the binomial coefficient which deals with calculating the number of unique combinations and not permutations which deals with duplicates in different positions.
You said:
"There is obviously a third approach of iteratively computing and counting off the legal permutations until a random index is reached, but that's simply a space-for-time trade-off on the first approach, and isn't directly helpful unless there is an efficient way to count off those n permutations.
...
This means that the random number source has been forced to produce bits to distinguish n! different results which are all equivalent. I'd like to know if there's an efficient method to avoid relying on this superfluous randomness. Perhaps by using an algorithm which produces an un-ordered list of bit positions, or by directly computing the nth unique permutation of bits."
So, there is a way to efficiently compute the nth unique combination, or rank, from the k-indexes. The k-indexes refers to a unique combination. For example, lets say that the n choose k case of 4 choose 3 is taken. This means that there are a total of 4 numbers that can be selected (0, 1, 2, 3), which is represented by n, and they are taken in groups of 3, which is represented by k. The total number of unique combinations can be calculated as n! / ((k! * (n-k)!). The rank of zero corresponds to the k-index of (2, 1, 0). Rank one is represented by the k-index group of (3, 1, 0), and so forth.
Solution
There is a formula that can be used to very efficiently translate between a k-index group and the corresponding rank without iteration. Likewise, there is a formula for translating between the rank and corresponding k-index group.
I have written a paper on this formula and how it can be seen from Pascal's Triangle. The paper is called Tablizing The Binomial Coeffieicent.
I have written a C# class which is in the public domain that implements the formula described in the paper. It uses very little memory and can be downloaded from the site. It performs the following tasks:
Outputs all the k-indexes in a nice format for any N choose K to a file. The K-indexes can be substituted with more descriptive strings or letters.
Converts the k-index to the proper lexicographic index or rank of an entry in the sorted binomial coefficient table. This technique is much faster than older published techniques that rely on iteration. It does this by using a mathematical property inherent in Pascal's Triangle and is very efficient compared to iterating over the entire set.
Converts the index in a sorted binomial coefficient table to the corresponding k-index. The technique used is also much faster than older iterative solutions.
Uses Mark Dominus method to calculate the binomial coefficient, which is much less likely to overflow and works with larger numbers. This version returns a long value. There is at least one other method that returns an int. Make sure that you use the method that returns a long value.
The class is written in .NET C# and provides a way to manage the objects related to the problem (if any) by using a generic list. The constructor of this class takes a bool value called InitTable that when true will create a generic list to hold the objects to be managed. If this value is false, then it will not create the table. The table does not need to be created in order to use the 4 above methods. Accessor methods are provided to access the table.
There is an associated test class which shows how to use the class and its methods. It has been extensively tested with at least 2 cases and there are no known bugs.
The following tested example code demonstrates how to use the class and will iterate through each unique combination:
public void Test10Choose5()
{
String S;
int Loop;
int N = 10; // Total number of elements in the set.
int K = 5; // Total number of elements in each group.
// Create the bin coeff object required to get all
// the combos for this N choose K combination.
BinCoeff<int> BC = new BinCoeff<int>(N, K, false);
int NumCombos = BinCoeff<int>.GetBinCoeff(N, K);
// The Kindexes array specifies the indexes for a lexigraphic element.
int[] KIndexes = new int[K];
StringBuilder SB = new StringBuilder();
// Loop thru all the combinations for this N choose K case.
for (int Combo = 0; Combo < NumCombos; Combo++)
{
// Get the k-indexes for this combination.
BC.GetKIndexes(Combo, KIndexes);
// Verify that the Kindexes returned can be used to retrive the
// rank or lexigraphic order of the KIndexes in the table.
int Val = BC.GetIndex(true, KIndexes);
if (Val != Combo)
{
S = "Val of " + Val.ToString() + " != Combo Value of " + Combo.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(S);
}
SB.Remove(0, SB.Length);
for (Loop = 0; Loop < K; Loop++)
{
SB.Append(KIndexes[Loop].ToString());
if (Loop < K - 1)
SB.Append(" ");
}
S = "KIndexes = " + SB.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(S);
}
}
So, the way to apply the class to your problem is by considering each bit in the word size as the total number of items. This would be n in the n!/((k! (n - k)!) formula. To obtain k, or the group size, simply count the number of bits set to 1. You would have to create a list or array of the class objects for each possible k, which in this case would be 32. Note that the class does not handle N choose N, N choose 0, or N choose 1 so the code would have to check for those cases and return 1 for both the 32 choose 0 case and 32 choose 32 case. For 32 choose 1, it would need to return 32.
If you need to use values not much larger than 32 choose 16 (the worst case for 32 items - yields 601,080,390 unique combinations), then you can use 32 bit integers, which is how the class is currently implemented. If you need to use 64 bit integers, then you will have to convert the class to use 64 bit longs. The largest value that a long can hold is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 which is 2 ^ 64. The worst case for n choose k when n is 64 is 64 choose 32. 64 choose 32 is 1,832,624,140,942,590,534 - so a long value will work for all 64 choose k cases. If you need numbers bigger than that, then you will probably want to look into using some sort of big integer class. In C#, the .NET framework has a BigInteger class. If you are working in a different language, it should not be hard to port.
If you are looking for a very good PRNG, one of the fastest, lightweight, and high quality output is the Tiny Mersenne Twister or TinyMT for short . I ported the code over to C++ and C#. it can be found here, along with a link to the original author's C code.
Rather than using a shuffling algorithm like Fisher-Yates, you might consider doing something like the following example instead:
// Get 7 random cards.
ulong Card;
ulong SevenCardHand = 0;
for (int CardLoop = 0; CardLoop < 7; CardLoop++)
{
do
{
// The card has a value of between 0 and 51. So, get a random value and
// left shift it into the proper bit position.
Card = (1UL << RandObj.Next(CardsInDeck));
} while ((SevenCardHand & Card) != 0);
SevenCardHand |= Card;
}
The above code is faster than any shuffling algorithm (at least for obtaining a subset of random cards) since it only works on 7 cards instead of 52. It also packs the cards into individual bits within a single 64 bit word. It makes evaluating poker hands much more efficient as well.
As a side, note, the best binomial coefficient calculator I have found that works with very large numbers (it accurately calculated a case that yielded over 15,000 digits in the result) can be found here.
What is a quick and easy way to 'checksum' an array of floating point numbers, while allowing for a specified small amount of inaccuracy?
e.g. I have two algorithms which should (in theory, with infinite precision) output the same array. But they work differently, and so floating point errors will accumulate differently, though the array lengths should be exactly the same. I'd like a quick and easy way to test if the arrays seem to be the same. I could of course compare the numbers pairwise, and report the maximum error; but one algorithm is in C++ and the other is in Mathematica and I don't want the bother of writing out the numbers to a file or pasting them from one system to another. That's why I want a simple checksum.
I could simply add up all the numbers in the array. If the array length is N, and I can tolerate an error of 0.0001 in each number, then I would check if abs(sum1-sum2)<0.0001*N. But this simplistic 'checksum' is not robust, e.g. to an error of +10 in one entry and -10 in another. (And anyway, probability theory says that the error probably grows like sqrt(N), not like N.) Of course, any checksum is a low-dimensional summary of a chunk of data so it will miss some errors, if not most... but simple checksums are nonetheless useful for finding non-malicious bug-type errors.
Or I could create a two-dimensional checksum, [sum(x[n]), sum(abs(x[n]))]. But is the best I can do, i.e. is there a different function I might use that would be "more orthogonal" to the sum(x[n])? And if I used some arbitrary functions, e.g. [sum(f1(x[n])), sum(f2(x[n]))], then how should my 'raw error tolerance' translate into 'checksum error tolerance'?
I'm programming in C++, but I'm happy to see answers in any language.
i have a feeling that what you want may be possible via something like gray codes. if you could translate your values into gray codes and use some kind of checksum that was able to correct n bits you could detect whether or not the two arrays were the same except for n-1 bits of error, right? (each bit of error means a number is "off by one", where the mapping would be such that this was a variation in the least significant digit).
but the exact details are beyond me - particularly for floating point values.
i don't know if it helps, but what gray codes solve is the problem of pathological rounding. rounding sounds like it will solve the problem - a naive solution might round and then checksum. but simple rounding always has pathological cases - for example, if we use floor, then 0.9999999 and 1 are distinct. a gray code approach seems to address that, since neighbouring values are always single bit away, so a bit-based checksum will accurately reflect "distance".
[update:] more exactly, what you want is a checksum that gives an estimate of the hamming distance between your gray-encoded sequences (and the gray encoded part is easy if you just care about 0.0001 since you can multiple everything by 10000 and use integers).
and it seems like such checksums do exist: Any error-correcting code can be used for error detection. A code with minimum Hamming distance, d, can detect up to d − 1 errors in a code word. Using minimum-distance-based error-correcting codes for error detection can be suitable if a strict limit on the minimum number of errors to be detected is desired.
so, just in case it's not clear:
multiple by minimum error to get integers
convert to gray code equivalent
use an error detecting code with a minimum hamming distance larger than the error you can tolerate.
but i am still not sure that's right. you still get the pathological rounding in the conversion from float to integer. so it seems like you need a minimum hamming distance that is 1 + len(data) (worst case, with a rounding error on each value). is that feasible? probably not for large arrays.
maybe ask again with better tags/description now that a general direction is possible? or just add tags now? we need someone who does this for a living. [i added a couple of tags]
I've spent a while looking for a deterministic answer, and been unable to find one. If there is a good answer, it's likely to require heavy-duty mathematical skills (functional analysis).
I'm pretty sure there is no solution based on "discretize in some cunning way, then apply a discrete checksum", e.g. "discretize into strings of 0/1/?, where ? means wildcard". Any discretization will have the property that two floating-point numbers very close to each other can end up with different discrete codes, and then the discrete checksum won't tell us what we want to know.
However, a very simple randomized scheme should work fine. Generate a pseudorandom string S from the alphabet {+1,-1}, and compute csx=sum(X_i*S_i) and csy=sum(Y_i*S_i), where X and Y are my original arrays of floating point numbers. If we model the errors as independent Normal random variables with mean 0, then it's easy to compute the distribution of csx-csy. We could do this for several strings S, and then do a hypothesis test that the mean error is 0. The number of strings S needed for the test is fixed, it doesn't grow linearly in the size of the arrays, so it satisfies my need for a "low-dimensional summary". This method also gives an estimate of the standard deviation of the error, which may be handy.
Try this:
#include <complex>
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
// PARAMETERS
const size_t no_freqs = 3;
const double freqs[no_freqs] = {0.05, 0.16, 0.39}; // (for example)
int main() {
std::complex<double> spectral_amplitude[no_freqs];
for (size_t i = 0; i < no_freqs; ++i) spectral_amplitude[i] = 0.0;
size_t n_data = 0;
{
std::complex<double> datum;
while (std::cin >> datum) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < no_freqs; ++i) {
spectral_amplitude[i] += datum * std::exp(
std::complex<double>(0.0, 1.0) * freqs[i] * double(n_data)
);
}
++n_data;
}
}
std::cout << "Fuzzy checksum:\n";
for (size_t i = 0; i < no_freqs; ++i) {
std::cout << real(spectral_amplitude[i]) << "\n";
std::cout << imag(spectral_amplitude[i]) << "\n";
}
std::cout << "\n";
return 0;
}
It returns just a few, arbitrary points of a Fourier transform of the entire data set. These make a fuzzy checksum, so to speak.
How about computing a standard integer checksum on the data obtained by zeroing the least significant digits of the data, the ones that you don't care about?
There's a common way to store multiple values in one variable, by using a bitmask. For example, if a user has read, write and execute privileges on an item, that can be converted to a single number by saying read = 4 (2^2), write = 2 (2^1), execute = 1 (2^0) and then add them together to get 7.
I use this technique in several web applications, where I'd usually store the variable into a field and give it a type of MEDIUMINT or whatever, depending on the number of different values.
What I'm interested in, is whether or not there is a practical limit to the number of values you can store like this? For example, if the number was over 64, you couldn't use (64 bit) integers any more. If this was the case, what would you use? How would it affect your program logic (ie: could you still use bitwise comparisons)?
I know that once you start getting really large sets of values, a different method would be the optimal solution, but I'm interested in the boundaries of this method.
Off the top of my head, I'd write a set_bit and get_bit function that could take an array of bytes and a bit offset in the array, and use some bit-twiddling to set/get the appropriate bit in the array. Something like this (in C, but hopefully you get the idea):
// sets the n-th bit in |bytes|. num_bytes is the number of bytes in the array
// result is 0 on success, non-zero on failure (offset out-of-bounds)
int set_bit(char* bytes, unsigned long num_bytes, unsigned long offset)
{
// make sure offset is valid
if(offset < 0 || offset > (num_bytes<<3)-1) { return -1; }
//set the right bit
bytes[offset >> 3] |= (1 << (offset & 0x7));
return 0; //success
}
//gets the n-th bit in |bytes|. num_bytes is the number of bytes in the array
// returns (-1) on error, 0 if bit is "off", positive number if "on"
int get_bit(char* bytes, unsigned long num_bytes, unsigned long offset)
{
// make sure offset is valid
if(offset < 0 || offset > (num_bytes<<3)-1) { return -1; }
//get the right bit
return (bytes[offset >> 3] & (1 << (offset & 0x7));
}
I've used bit masks in filesystem code where the bit mask is many times bigger than a machine word. think of it like an "array of booleans";
(journalling masks in flash memory if you want to know)
many compilers know how to do this for you. Adda bit of OO code to have types that operate senibly and then your code starts looking like it's intent, not some bit-banging.
My 2 cents.
With a 64-bit integer, you can store values up to 2^64-1, 64 is only 2^6. So yes, there is a limit, but if you need more than 64-its worth of flags, I'd be very interested to know what they were all doing :)
How many states so you need to potentially think about? If you have 64 potential states, the number of combinations they can exist in is the full size of a 64-bit integer.
If you need to worry about 128 flags, then a pair of bit vectors would suffice (2^64 * 2).
Addition: in Programming Pearls, there is an extended discussion of using a bit array of length 10^7, implemented in integers (for holding used 800 numbers) - it's very fast, and very appropriate for the task described in that chapter.
Some languages ( I believe perl does, not sure ) permit bitwise arithmetic on strings. Giving you a much greater effective range. ( (strlen * 8bit chars ) combinations )
However, I wouldn't use a single value for superimposition of more than one /type/ of data. The basic r/w/x triplet of 3-bit ints would probably be the upper "practical" limit, not for space efficiency reasons, but for practical development reasons.
( Php uses this system to control its error-messages, and I have already found that its a bit over-the-top when you have to define values where php's constants are not resident and you have to generate the integer by hand, and to be honest, if chmod didn't support the 'ugo+rwx' style syntax I'd never want to use it because i can never remember the magic numbers )
The instant you have to crack open a constants table to debug code you know you've gone too far.
Old thread, but it's worth mentioning that there are cases requiring bloated bit masks, e.g., molecular fingerprints, which are often generated as 1024-bit arrays which we have packed in 32 bigint fields (SQL Server not supporting UInt32). Bit wise operations work fine - until your table starts to grow and you realize the sluggishness of separate function calls. The binary data type would work, were it not for T-SQL's ban on bitwise operators having two binary operands.
For example .NET uses array of integers as an internal storage for their BitArray class.
Practically there's no other way around.
That being said, in SQL you will need more than one column (or use the BLOBS) to store all the states.
You tagged this question SQL, so I think you need to consult with the documentation for your database to find the size of an integer. Then subtract one bit for the sign, just to be safe.
Edit: Your comment says you're using MySQL. The documentation for MySQL 5.0 Numeric Types states that the maximum size of a NUMERIC is 64 or 65 digits. That's 212 bits for 64 digits.
Remember that your language of choice has to be able to work with those digits, so you may be limited to a 64-bit integer anyway.