Related
I am solving this problem where we need to reach from X=0 to X=N.We can only take a step of 2 or 3 at a time.
For each step of 2 we have a probability of 0.2 and for each step of 3 we have a probability of 0.8.How can we find the total probability to reach N.
e.g. for reaching 5,
2+3 with probability =0.2 * 0.8=0.16
3+2 with probability =0.8 * 0.2=0.16 total = 0.32.
My initial thoughts:
Number of ways can be found out by simple Fibonacci sequence.
f(n)=f(n-3)+f(n-2);
But how do we remember the numbers so that we can multiply them to find the probability?
This can be solved using Dynamic programming.
Lets call the function F(N) = probability to reach 0 using only 2 and 3 when the starting number is N
F(N) = 0.2*F(N-2) + 0.3*F(N-3)
Base case:
F(0) = 1 and F(k)= 0 where k< 0
So the DP code would be somthing like that:
F[0] = 1;
for(int i = 1;i<=N;i++){
if(i>=3)
F[i] = 0.2*F[i-2] + 0.8*F[i-3];
else if(i>=2)
F[i] = 0.2*F[i-2];
else
F[i] = 0;
}
return F[N];
This algorithm would run in O(N)
Some clarifications about this solution: I assume the only allowed operation for generating the number from 2s and 3s is addition (your definition would allow substraction aswell) and the input-numbers are always valid (2 <= input). Definition: a unique row of numbers means: no other row with the same number of 3s and 2s in another order is in scope.
We can reduce the problem into multiple smaller problems:
Problem A: finding all sequences of numbers that can sum up to the given number. (Unique rows of numbers only)
Start by finding the minimum-number of 3s required to build the given number, which is simply input % 2. The maximum-number of 3s that can be used to build the input can be calculated this way:
int max_3 = (int) (input / 3);
if(input - max_3 == 1)
--max_3;
Now all sequences of numbers that sum up to input must hold between input % 2 and max_3 3s. The 2s can be easily calculated from a given number of 3s.
Problem B: calculating the probability for a given list and it's permutations to be the result
For each unique row of numbers, we can easily derive all permutations. Since these consist of the same number, they have the same likeliness to appear and produce the same sum. The likeliness can be calculated easily from the row: 0.8 ^ number_of_3s * 0.2 ^ number_of_2s. Next step would be to calculate the number of different permuatations. Calculating all distinct sets with a specific number of 2s and 3s can be done this way: Calculate all possible distributions of 2s in the set: (number_of_2s + number_of_3s)! / (number_of_3s! * numer_of_2s!). Basically just the number of possible distinct permutations.
Now from theory to praxis
Since the math is given, the rest is pretty straight forward:
define prob:
input: int num
output: double
double result = 0.0
int min_3s = (num % 2)
int max_3s = (int) (num / 3)
if(num - max_3 == 1)
--max_3
for int c3s in [min_3s , max_3s]
int c2s = (num - (c3s * 3)) / 2
double p = 0.8 ^ c3s * 0.2 * c2s
p *= (c3s + c2s)! / (c3s! * c2s!)
result += p
return result
Instead of jumping into the programming, you can use math.
Let p(n) be the probability that you reach the location that is n steps away.
Base cases:
p(0)=1
p(1)=0
p(2)=0.2
Linear recurrence relation
p(n+3)=0.2 p(n+1) + 0.8 p(n)
You can solve this in closed form by finding the exponential solutions to the linear recurrent relation.
c^3 = 0.2 c + 0.8
c = 1, (-5 +- sqrt(55)i)/10
Although this was cubic, c=1 will always be a solution in this type of problem since there is a constant nonzero solution.
Because the roots are distinct, all solutions are of the form a1(1)^n + a2((-5+sqrt(55)i) / 10)^n + a3((-5-sqrt(55)i)/10)^n. You can solve for a1, a2, and a3 using the initial conditions:
a1=5/14
a2=(99-sqrt(55)i)/308
a3=(99+sqrt(55)i)/308
This gives you a nonrecursive formula for p(n):
p(n)=5/14+(99-sqrt(55)i)/308((-5+sqrt(55)i)/10)^n+(99+sqrt(55)i)/308((-5-sqrt(55)i)/10)^n
One nice property of the non-recursive formula is that you can read off the asymptotic value of 5/14, but that's also clear because the average value of a jump is 2(1/5)+ 3(4/5) = 14/5, and you almost surely hit a set with density 1/(14/5) of the integers. You can use the magnitudes of the other roots, 2/sqrt(5)~0.894, to see how rapidly the probabilities approach the asymptotics.
5/14 - (|a2|+|a3|) 0.894^n < p(n) < 5/14 + (|a2|+|a3|) 0.894^n
|5/14 - p(n)| < (|a2|+|a3|) 0.894^n
f(n, p) = f(n-3, p*.8) + f(n -2, p*.2)
Start p at 1.
If n=0 return p, if n <0 return 0.
Instead of using the (terribly inefficient) recursive algorithm, start from the start and calculate in how many ways you can reach subsequent steps, i.e. using 'dynamic programming'. This way, you can easily calculate the probabilities and also have a complexity of only O(n) to calculate everything up to step n.
For each step, memorize the possible ways of reaching that step, if any (no matter how), and the probability of reaching that step. For the zeroth step (the start) this is (1, 1.0).
steps = [(1, 1.0)]
Now, for each consecutive step n, get the previously computed possible ways poss and probability prob to reach steps n-2 and n-3 (or (0, 0.0) in case of n < 2 or n < 3 respectively), add those to the combined possibilities and probability to reach that new step, and add them to the list.
for n in range(1, 10):
poss2, prob2 = steps[n-2] if n >= 2 else (0, 0.0)
poss3, prob3 = steps[n-3] if n >= 3 else (0, 0.0)
steps.append( (poss2 + poss3, prob2 * 0.2 + prob3 * 0.8) )
Now you can just get the numbers from that list:
>>> for n, (poss, prob) in enumerate(steps):
... print "%s\t%s\t%s" % (n, poss, prob)
0 1 1.0
1 0 0.0
2 1 0.2
3 1 0.8
4 1 0.04
5 2 0.32 <-- 2 ways to get to 5 with combined prob. of 0.32
6 2 0.648
7 3 0.096
8 4 0.3856
9 5 0.5376
(Code is in Python)
Note that this will get you both the number of possible ways of reaching a certain step (e.g. "first 2, then 3" or "first 3, then 2" for 5), and the probability to reach that step in one go. Of course, if you need only the probability, you can just use single numbers instead of tuples.
Working on project Euler problem (26), and wanting to use an algorithm looking for the prime, p with the largest order of 10 modulo p. Essentially the problem is to look for the denominator which creates the longest repetend in a decimal. After a bunch of wikipedia reading, it looks like the prime described above would fulfill that. But, unfortunately, it looks like taking the very large powers of 10 results in an error. My question then is : is there a way of getting around this error (making the numbers smaller), or should I abandon this strategy and just do long division (with the plan being to focus on the primes).
[of note, in the order_ten method I can get it to run if I limit the powers of 10 to 300 and probably can go a bit long, which goes along with the length of a long]
import math
def prime_seive(limit):
seive_list = [True]*limit
seive_list[0] = seive_list[1] = False
for i in range(2, limit):
if seive_list[i] == True :
n = 2
while i*n < limit :
seive_list[i*n] = False #get rid of multiples
n = n+1
prime_numbers = [i for i,j in enumerate(seive_list) if j == True]
return prime_numbers
def order_ten(n) :
for k in range(1, n) :
if (math.pow(10,k) -1)%n == 0:
return k
primes = prime_seive(1000)
max_order = 0
max_order_d = -1
for x in reversed(primes) :
order = order_ten(x)
if order > max_order :
max_order = order
max_order_d = x
print max_order
print max_order_d
I suspect that the problem is that your numbers get to large when first taking a large power of ten and then computing the value mod n. (For instance If I asked you to compute 10^11 mod 11, you could remark than 10 mod 11 is (-1) and thus 10^11 mod 11 is just (-1)^11 mod 11 ie. -1.)
Maybe you could try programming your own exponentiation routine mod n, something like (in pseudo code)
myPow (int k, int n) {
if (k==0) return 1;
else return ((myPow(k-1,n)*10)%n);
}
This way you never deal with numbers larger than n.
The way it is written you will get a linear complexity in k for computing the power, and thus a quadratic complexity in n for your function order_ten(n). If this is too slow for you could improve the function myPow to use some smart exponentiation.
Given: set A = {a0, a1, ..., aN-1} (1 ≤ N ≤ 100), with 2 ≤ ai ≤ 500.
Asked: Find the sum of all least common multiples (LCM) of all subsets of A of size at least 2.
The LCM of a setB = {b0, b1, ..., bk-1} is defined as the minimum integer Bmin such that bi | Bmin, for all 0 ≤ i < k.
Example:
Let N = 3 and A = {2, 6, 7}, then:
LCM({2, 6}) = 6
LCM({2, 7}) = 14
LCM({6, 7}) = 42
LCM({2, 6, 7}) = 42
----------------------- +
answer 104
The naive approach would be to simply calculate the LCM for all O(2N) subsets, which is not feasible for reasonably large N.
Solution sketch:
The problem is obtained from a competition*, which also provided a solution sketch. This is where my problem comes in: I do not understand the hinted approach.
The solution reads (modulo some small fixed grammar issues):
The solution is a bit tricky. If we observe carefully we see that the integers are between 2 and 500. So, if we prime factorize the numbers, we get the following maximum powers:
2 8
3 5
5 3
7 3
11 2
13 2
17 2
19 2
Other than this, all primes have power 1. So, we can easily calculate all possible states, using these integers, leaving 9 * 6 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 states, which is nearly 70000. For other integers we can make a dp like the following: dp[70000][i], where i can be 0 to 100. However, as dp[i] is dependent on dp[i-1], so dp[70000][2] is enough. This leaves the complexity to n * 70000 which is feasible.
I have the following concrete questions:
What is meant by these states?
Does dp stand for dynamic programming and if so, what recurrence relation is being solved?
How is dp[i] computed from dp[i-1]?
Why do the big primes not contribute to the number of states? Each of them occurs either 0 or 1 times. Should the number of states not be multiplied by 2 for each of these primes (leading to a non-feasible state space again)?
*The original problem description can be found from this source (problem F). This question is a simplified version of that description.
Discussion
After reading the actual contest description (page 10 or 11) and the solution sketch, I have to conclude the author of the solution sketch is quite imprecise in their writing.
The high level problem is to calculate an expected lifetime if components are chosen randomly by fair coin toss. This is what's leading to computing the LCM of all subsets -- all subsets effectively represent the sample space. You could end up with any possible set of components. The failure time for the device is based on the LCM of the set. The expected lifetime is therefore the average of the LCM of all sets.
Note that this ought to include the LCM of sets with only one item (in which case we'd assume the LCM to be the element itself). The solution sketch seems to sabotage, perhaps because they handled it in a less elegant manner.
What is meant by these states?
The sketch author only uses the word state twice, but apparently manages to switch meanings. In the first use of the word state it appears they're talking about a possible selection of components. In the second use they're likely talking about possible failure times. They could be muddling this terminology because their dynamic programming solution initializes values from one use of the word and the recurrence relation stems from the other.
Does dp stand for dynamic programming?
I would say either it does or it's a coincidence as the solution sketch seems to heavily imply dynamic programming.
If so, what recurrence relation is being solved? How is dp[i] computed from dp[i-1]?
All I can think is that in their solution, state i represents a time to failure , T(i), with the number of times this time to failure has been counted, dp[i]. The resulting sum would be to sum all dp[i] * T(i).
dp[i][0] would then be the failure times counted for only the first component. dp[i][1] would then be the failure times counted for the first and second component. dp[i][2] would be for the first, second, and third. Etc..
Initialize dp[i][0] with zeroes except for dp[T(c)][0] (where c is the first component considered) which should be 1 (since this component's failure time has been counted once so far).
To populate dp[i][n] from dp[i][n-1] for each component c:
For each i, copy dp[i][n-1] into dp[i][n].
Add 1 to dp[T(c)][n].
For each i, add dp[i][n-1] to dp[LCM(T(i), T(c))][n].
What is this doing? Suppose you knew that you had a time to failure of j, but you added a component with a time to failure of k. Regardless of what components you had before, your new time to fail is LCM(j, k). This follows from the fact that for two sets A and B, LCM(A union B} = LCM(LCM(A), LCM(B)).
Similarly, if we're considering a time to failure of T(i) and our new component's time to failure of T(c), the resultant time to failure is LCM(T(i), T(c)). Note that we recorded this time to failure for dp[i][n-1] configurations, so we should record that many new times to failure once the new component is introduced.
Why do the big primes not contribute to the number of states?
Each of them occurs either 0 or 1 times. Should the number of states not be multiplied by 2 for each of these primes (leading to a non-feasible state space again)?
You're right, of course. However, the solution sketch states that numbers with large primes are handled in another (unspecified) fashion.
What would happen if we did include them? The number of states we would need to represent would explode into an impractical number. Hence the author accounts for such numbers differently. Note that if a number less than or equal to 500 includes a prime larger than 19 the other factors multiply to 21 or less. This makes such numbers amenable for brute forcing, no tables necessary.
The first part of the editorial seems useful, but the second part is rather vague (and perhaps unhelpful; I'd rather finish this answer than figure it out).
Let's suppose for the moment that the input consists of pairwise distinct primes, e.g., 2, 3, 5, and 7. Then the answer (for summing all sets, where the LCM of 0 integers is 1) is
(1 + 2) (1 + 3) (1 + 5) (1 + 7),
because the LCM of a subset is exactly equal to the product here, so just multiply it out.
Let's relax the restriction that the primes be pairwise distinct. If we have an input like 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, and 5, then the multiplication looks like
(1 + (2^2 - 1) 2) (1 + (2^3 - 1) 3) (1 + (2^1 - 1) 5),
because 2 appears with multiplicity 2, and 3 appears with multiplicity 3, and 5 appears with multiplicity 1. With respect to, e.g., just the set of 3s, there are 2^3 - 1 ways to choose a subset that includes a 3, and 1 way to choose the empty set.
Call a prime small if it's 19 or less and large otherwise. Note that integers 500 or less are divisible by at most one large prime (with multiplicity). The small primes are more problematic. What we're going to do is to compute, for each possible small portion of the prime factorization of the LCM (i.e., one of the ~70,000 states), the sum of LCMs for the problem derived by discarding the integers that could not divide such an LCM and leaving only the large prime factor (or 1) for the other integers.
For example, if the input is 2, 30, 41, 46, and 51, and the state is 2, then we retain 2 as 1, discard 30 (= 2 * 3 * 5; 3 and 5 are small), retain 41 as 41 (41 is large), retain 46 as 23 (= 2 * 23; 23 is large), and discard 51 (= 3 * 17; 3 and 17 are small). Now, we compute the sum of LCMs using the previously described technique. Use inclusion-exclusion to get rid of the subsets whose LCM whose small portion properly divides the state instead of being exactly equal. Maybe I'll work a complete example later.
What is meant by these states?
I think here, states refer to if the number is in set B = {b0, b1, ..., bk-1} of LCMs of set A.
Does dp stand for dynamic programming and if so, what recurrence relation is being solved?
dp in the solution sketch stands for dynamic programming, I believe.
How is dp[i] computed from dp[i-1]?
It's feasible that we can figure out the state of next group of LCMs from previous states. So, we only need array of 2, and toggle back and forth.
Why do the big primes not contribute to the number of states? Each of them occurs either 0 or 1 times. Should the number of states not be multiplied by 2 for each of these primes (leading to a non-feasible state space again)?
We can use Prime Factorization and exponents only to present the number.
Here is one example.
6 = (2^1)(3^1)(5^0) -> state "1 1 0" to represent 6
18 = (2^1)(3^2)(5^0) -> state "1 2 0" to represent 18
Here is how we can get LMC of 6 and 18 using Prime Factorization
LCM (6,18) = (2^(max(1,1)) (3^ (max(1,2)) (5^max(0,0)) = (2^1)(3^2)(5^0) = 18
2^9 > 500, 3^6 > 500, 5^4 > 500, 7^4>500, 11^3 > 500, 13^3 > 500, 17^3 > 500, 19^3 > 500
we can use only count of exponents of prime number 2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19 to represent the LCMs in the set B = {b0, b1, ..., bk-1}
for the given set A = {a0, a1, ..., aN-1} (1 ≤ N ≤ 100), with 2 ≤ ai ≤ 500.
9 * 6 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 <= 70000, so we only need two of dp[9][6][4][4][3][3][3][3] to keep tracks of all LCMs' states. So, dp[70000][2] is enough.
I put together a small C++ program to illustrate how we can get sum of LCMs of the given set A = {a0, a1, ..., aN-1} (1 ≤ N ≤ 100), with 2 ≤ ai ≤ 500. In the solution sketch, we need to loop through 70000 max possible of LCMs.
int gcd(int a, int b) {
int remainder = 0;
do {
remainder = a % b;
a = b;
b = remainder;
} while (b != 0);
return a;
}
int lcm(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0 || b == 0) {
return 0;
}
return (a * b) / gcd(a, b);
}
int sum_of_lcm(int A[], int N) {
// get the max LCM from the array
int max = A[0];
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++) {
max = lcm(max, A[i]);
}
max++;
//
int dp[max][2];
memset(dp, 0, sizeof(dp));
int pri = 0;
int cur = 1;
// loop through n x 70000
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
for (int v = 1; v < max; v++) {
int x = A[i];
if (dp[v][pri] > 0) {
x = lcm(A[i], v);
dp[v][cur] = (dp[v][cur] == 0) ? dp[v][pri] : dp[v][cur];
if ( x % A[i] != 0 ) {
dp[x][cur] += dp[v][pri] + dp[A[i]][pri];
} else {
dp[x][cur] += ( x==v ) ? ( dp[v][pri] + dp[v][pri] ) : ( dp[v][pri] ) ;
}
}
}
dp[A[i]][cur]++;
pri = cur;
cur = (pri + 1) % 2;
}
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
dp[A[i]][pri] -= 1;
}
long total = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < max; j++) {
if (dp[j][pri] > 0) {
total += dp[j][pri] * j;
}
}
cout << "total:" << total << endl;
return total;
}
int test() {
int a[] = {2, 6, 7 };
int n = sizeof(a)/sizeof(a[0]);
int total = sum_of_lcm(a, n);
return 0;
}
Output
total:104
The states are one more than the powers of primes. You have numbers up to 2^8, so the power of 2 is in [0..8], which is 9 states. Similarly for the other states.
"dp" could well stand for dynamic programming, I'm not sure.
The recurrence relation is the heart of the problem, so you will learn more by solving it yourself. Start with some small, simple examples.
For the large primes, try solving a reduced problem without using them (or their equivalents) and then add them back in to see their effect on the final result.
I need to write an algorithm for a given problem: You have infinite pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters. Write a class method that will output all combinations of coins such that the total is 99 cents.
It seems like a permutation nPr problem. Any algoritham for it?
Regards,
Priyank
I think this problem is most easily answered using recursion w a table of denominations
{5000, 2000, ... 1} // $50's to one penny
You would start with:
WaysToMakeChange(10000, 0) // ie. $100...highest denomination index is 0 ($50)
WaysToMakeChange(amount, maxdenomindex) would calculate using 0 or more of the maxdenom
the recurance is something like
WaysToMakeChange(amount - usedbymaxdenom, maxdenomindex - 1)
I programmed this and it can be optimized in many ways:
1) multithreading
2) caching. This is very important. B/c of the way the algorithm works, WaysToMakeChange(m,n) will be called many times with the same initial values:
For example. Changing $100 can be done by:
1 $50 + 0 $20's + 0 $10's + ways to $50 dollars with highest currency $5 (ie. WaysToMakeChange(5000, index for $5)
0 $50 + 2 $20's + 1 $10's + ways to $50 dollars with highest currency $5 (ie. WaysToMakeChange(5000, index for $5)
Clearly WaysToMakeChange(5000, index for $5) can be cached so that the subsequent call does not need to be made
3) Shortcircuiting the lowest recursion.
Suppose static const int denom[] = {5000, 2000, 1000, 500, 200, 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1};
The first test for WaysToMakeChange(int total, int coinIndex) should be something like:
if( coins[_countof(coins)-1] == 1 && coinIndex == _countof(coins) - 2){
return total / coins[_countof(coins)-2] + 1;
}
What does this mean? Well if your lowest denom is 1 then you only have to go as far as the second lowest denom (say a nickel). Then there are 1+ total/second lowest denom left. For example:
49c -> 5 nickels + 4 pennies. 4 nickels + 9 pennies....49 pennies = 1+ total/second lowest denom left
The easiest way is probably to spend a few moments thinking about the problem. There is a relatively nice, recursive, algorithm that lends itself neatly to either memoization or reworking into a dynamic programming solution.
This problem is classic Dynamic Programming problem. You can read about it here
http://www.algorithmist.com/index.php/Coin_Change
the python code is:
def count( n, m ):
if n == 0:
return 1
if n < 0:
return 0
if m <= 0 and n >= 1:
return 0
return count( n, m - 1 ) + count( n - S[m], m )
Here S[m] gives the value of the denomination and S is a sorted array of denominations
This problem seems like it is a diophantine equation, i.e. for a*x + b*y + ... = n, find a solution, where all letters are integers. The simplest, but not the most elegant solution would be an iterative one (displayed in python, note that I skip variable l because it resembles the number 1):
dioph_combinations = list()
for i in range(0, 99, 25):
for j in range(0, 99-i, 10):
for k in range(0, 99-i-j, 5):
for m in range(0, 99-i-j-k, 1):
if i + j + k + m == 99:
dioph_combinations.append( (i/25, j/10, k/5, m) )
The resulting list dioph_combinations will contain the possible combinations.
Let me start with an example -
I have a range of numbers from 1 to 9. And let's say the target number that I want is 29.
In this case the minimum number of operations that are required would be (9*3)+2 = 2 operations. Similarly for 18 the minimum number of operations is 1 (9*2=18).
I can use any of the 4 arithmetic operators - +, -, / and *.
How can I programmatically find out the minimum number of operations required?
Thanks in advance for any help provided.
clarification: integers only, no decimals allowed mid-calculation. i.e. the following is not valid (from comments below): ((9/2) + 1) * 4 == 22
I must admit I didn't think about this thoroughly, but for my purpose it doesn't matter if decimal numbers appear mid-calculation. ((9/2) + 1) * 4 == 22 is valid. Sorry for the confusion.
For the special case where set Y = [1..9] and n > 0:
n <= 9 : 0 operations
n <=18 : 1 operation (+)
otherwise : Remove any divisor found in Y. If this is not enough, do a recursion on the remainder for all offsets -9 .. +9. Offset 0 can be skipped as it has already been tried.
Notice how division is not needed in this case. For other Y this does not hold.
This algorithm is exponential in log(n). The exact analysis is a job for somebody with more knowledge about algebra than I.
For more speed, add pruning to eliminate some of the search for larger numbers.
Sample code:
def findop(n, maxlen=9999):
# Return a short postfix list of numbers and operations
# Simple solution to small numbers
if n<=9: return [n]
if n<=18: return [9,n-9,'+']
# Find direct multiply
x = divlist(n)
if len(x) > 1:
mults = len(x)-1
x[-1:] = findop(x[-1], maxlen-2*mults)
x.extend(['*'] * mults)
return x
shortest = 0
for o in range(1,10) + range(-1,-10,-1):
x = divlist(n-o)
if len(x) == 1: continue
mults = len(x)-1
# We spent len(divlist) + mults + 2 fields for offset.
# The last number is expanded by the recursion, so it doesn't count.
recursion_maxlen = maxlen - len(x) - mults - 2 + 1
if recursion_maxlen < 1: continue
x[-1:] = findop(x[-1], recursion_maxlen)
x.extend(['*'] * mults)
if o > 0:
x.extend([o, '+'])
else:
x.extend([-o, '-'])
if shortest == 0 or len(x) < shortest:
shortest = len(x)
maxlen = shortest - 1
solution = x[:]
if shortest == 0:
# Fake solution, it will be discarded
return '#' * (maxlen+1)
return solution
def divlist(n):
l = []
for d in range(9,1,-1):
while n%d == 0:
l.append(d)
n = n/d
if n>1: l.append(n)
return l
The basic idea is to test all possibilities with k operations, for k starting from 0. Imagine you create a tree of height k that branches for every possible new operation with operand (4*9 branches per level). You need to traverse and evaluate the leaves of the tree for each k before moving to the next k.
I didn't test this pseudo-code:
for every k from 0 to infinity
for every n from 1 to 9
if compute(n,0,k):
return k
boolean compute(n,j,k):
if (j == k):
return (n == target)
else:
for each operator in {+,-,*,/}:
for every i from 1 to 9:
if compute((n operator i),j+1,k):
return true
return false
It doesn't take into account arithmetic operators precedence and braces, that would require some rework.
Really cool question :)
Notice that you can start from the end! From your example (9*3)+2 = 29 is equivalent to saying (29-2)/3=9. That way we can avoid the double loop in cyborg's answer. This suggests the following algorithm for set Y and result r:
nextleaves = {r}
nops = 0
while(true):
nops = nops+1
leaves = nextleaves
nextleaves = {}
for leaf in leaves:
for y in Y:
if (leaf+y) or (leaf-y) or (leaf*y) or (leaf/y) is in X:
return(nops)
else:
add (leaf+y) and (leaf-y) and (leaf*y) and (leaf/y) to nextleaves
This is the basic idea, performance can be certainly be improved, for instance by avoiding "backtracks", such as r+a-a or r*a*b/a.
I guess my idea is similar to the one of Peer Sommerlund:
For big numbers, you advance fast, by multiplication with big ciphers.
Is Y=29 prime? If not, divide it by the maximum divider of (2 to 9).
Else you could subtract a number, to reach a dividable number. 27 is fine, since it is dividable by 9, so
(29-2)/9=3 =>
3*9+2 = 29
So maybe - I didn't think about this to the end: Search the next divisible by 9 number below Y. If you don't reach a number which is a digit, repeat.
The formula is the steps reversed.
(I'll try it for some numbers. :) )
I tried with 2551, which is
echo $((((3*9+4)*9+4)*9+4))
But I didn't test every intermediate result whether it is prime.
But
echo $((8*8*8*5-9))
is 2 operations less. Maybe I can investigate this later.