No, that is correct, those two n represent slightly different things. n + 3 is the value after n XOR n + 1 XOR n + 2, so the n in the array index expression is n + 2 from the explaination and n + 3 results from (n + 2) + 1. I thought about how I could make this less confusing but it just became more confusing in my mind, so just used n in both cases.

▲ Thorrez 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm now seeing that they're different. However, this sounds a bit off to me:

>n + 3 is the value after n XOR n + 1 XOR n + 2, so the n in the array index expression is n + 2 from the explaination and n + 3 results from (n + 2) + 1.

The reason I think it's off is that array index expression the start of the sum is 1, but in the explanation the start of the sum is n. So I don't think it's as simple as the ending being different by 2.

▲ danbruc 15 hours ago | parent [-]

In the array expression the array values and the index depend on n and both vary, in the explanation the n is fixed. Let us do an example starting at say 8.

  n =  8   [  8, 1,  9, 0 ][ 8 % 4] =  8 = n
  n =  9   [  9, 1, 10, 0 ][ 9 % 4] =  1 
  n = 10   [ 10, 1, 11, 0 ][10 % 4] = 11 = n + 1
  n = 11   [ 11, 1, 12, 0 ][11 % 4] =  0

  n =  8   n                         = 8               =  8 = n
           n ^ n + 1                 = 8 ^ 9           =  1
           n ^ n + 1 ^ n + 2         = 8 ^ 9 ^ 10      = 11 = n + 3
           n ^ n + 1 ^ n + 2 ^ n + 3 = 8 ^ 9 ^ 10 ^ 11 =  0

So in the explanation we get 11 = n + 3 still with reference to the starting value n = 8, in the array expression on the other hand we have moved on to n = 10 when we pull 11 = n + 1 out of the array.

	▲	danbruc 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Amendment to the parent comment. Note that the arrays contain values like 9 and 10 that are not the XOR of 1 to n for any n but they will also never be accessed because when they appear in the array, then the index used will point to a different element. Also because we end up back at zero when ever n % 4 == 3, there is some flexibility about the starting point. I wrote 1 to n because that is what the article used, but it would be mathematically cleaner to start at zero which actually changes nothing because XORing with zero does nothing. And we do not have to start at zero at all, we can start at any number divisible by four and less than n because the running XOR sum will become zero just before each multiple of four. So XORing together 0...n, 1...n, 4...n, 8...n or generally 4k...n will give the same result. The explanation part looked at one cycle starting at 4k and ending at 4k + 3 with the running XOR sum being back at zero. Maybe this would have been the less confusing explanation, just using 4k instead of using n again with the constraint that it is divisible by four.