Related
I have string "0011" and want all of the combinations without duplicate.
that's means I want a string with a combination of two '0' and two '1';
for example : [0011,0101,0110,1001,1010,1100]
I tried with this and the result is exactly what i need.
private void permutation(String result, String str, HashSet hashset) {
if (str.length()==0 && !hashSet.contains(result)){
System.out.println(result);
hashSet.add(result);
return;
}
IntStream.range(0,str.length()).forEach(pos->permutation(result+ str.charAt(pos), str.substring(0, pos) + str.substring(pos+1),hashset));
}
if i remove HashSet, this code will produce 24 results instead of 6 results.
but the time complexity of this code is O(n!).
how to avoid it to create a duplicate string and reduce the time complexity?
Probably something like this can be faster than n! even on small n
The idea is to count how many bits we need should be in resulting item and
iterate through all posible values and filter only those than have same number of bits. It will work similar amount of time with only one 1 and for 50%/50% of 0 and 1
function bitCount(n) {
n = n - ((n >> 1) & 0x55555555)
n = (n & 0x33333333) + ((n >> 2) & 0x33333333)
return ((n + (n >> 4) & 0xF0F0F0F) * 0x1010101) >> 24
}
function perm(inp) {
const bitString = 2;
const len = inp.length;
const target = bitCount(parseInt(inp, bitString));
const min = (Math.pow(target, bitString) - 1);
const max = min << (len - target);
const result = [];
for (let i = min; i < max + 1; i++) {
if (bitCount(i) === target) {
result.push(i.toString(bitString).padStart(len, '0'));
}
}
return result;
}
const inp = '0011';
const res = perm(inp);
console.log('result',res);
P.s. My first idea was probably faster than upper code. But upper is easier to implement
first idea was to convert string to int
and use bitwise left shift but only for one digit every time. it still depends on n. and can be larger or smaller than upper solution. but bitwise shift is faster itself.
example
const input = '0011'
const len = input.length;
step1: calc number of bits = 2;
then generate first element = 3(Dec) is = '0011' in bin
step2 move last from the right bit one position left with << operator: '0101'
step3 move again: '1001'
step4: we are reached `len` so use next bit:100'1' : '1010'
step5: repeat:'1100'
step6: move initial 3 << 1: '0110'
repeat above steps: '1010'
step8: '1100'
it will generate duplicates so probably can be improved
Hope it helps
The worst case time complexity cannot be improved because there can be no duplicates in a string. However, in case of a multi-set, we could prune a lot of sub-trees to prevent duplicates.
The key idea is to permute the string using traditional backtracking algorithm but prevent swapping if the character has been previously swapped to prevent duplicates.
Here is a C++ code snippet that prevents duplicates and doesn't use any memory for lookup.
bool shouldSwap(const string& str, size_t start, size_t index) {
for (auto i = start; i < index; ++i) {
if (str[i] == str[index])
return false;
}
return true;
}
void permute(string& str, size_t index)
{
if (index >= str.size()) {
cout << str << endl;;
return;
}
for (size_t i = index; i < str.size(); ++i) {
if(shouldSwap(str, index, i)) {
swap(str[index], str[i]);
permute(str, index + 1);
swap(str[index], str[i]);
}
}
}
Running demo. Also refer to SO answer here and Distinct permutations for more references.
Also, note that the time complexity of this solution is O(n2 n!)
O(n) for printing a string
O(n) for iterating over the string to generate swaps and recurrence.
O(n!) possible states for the number of permutations.
my c program is running to slow (right now it is around 40 seconds without parallelization). I have tried using openmp which has brought the timing down significantly but I am looking to use simple and natural ways to make my code run faster other than using parallel for loops. The basic structure of the code is that is takes some command line arguments as inputs and then saves those inputs as variables. Then it recursively computes a variable called Rplus1 using the math.h library and the complex.h library. The problem of the code and where it is taking most of it's time is at the bottom where there are nested for loops. My goal is to get the whole code running in under 5 seconds but as of now it runs in about 40 seconds without using parallel for loops. Please Help!
#include "time.h"
#include "stdio.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "complex.h"
#include "math.h"
#include "string.h"
#include "unistd.h"
#include "omp.h"
#define PI 3.14159265
int main (int argc, char *argv[]){
if(argc >= 8){
double start1 = omp_get_wtime();
// command line arguments are aligned in the following order: [theta] [number of layers in superlattice] [material_1] [lat const_1] [number of unit cells_1] [material_2] [lat const_2] [number of unit cells_2] .... [material_N] [lat const_N] [number of unit cells_N] [Log/Linear] [number of repeating superlattice layers] [yes/no]
int N;
sscanf(argv[2],"%d",&N); // Number of layers in superlattice specified by second input argument
if(strcmp(argv[argc-1],"yes") == 0) //If the substrate is included then add one more layer to the N variable
{
N = N+1;
}
int total;
sscanf(argv[argc-2],"%d",&total); // Number of repeating superlattice layers specified by second to last argument
double layers[N][6], horizangle[1001], vertangle[1001];
double complex (*F_hkl)[1001][1001] = malloc(N*1001*1001*sizeof(complex double)), (*F_0)[1001][1001] = malloc(N*1001*1001*sizeof(complex double)), (*g)[1001][1001] = malloc(N*1001*1001*sizeof(complex double)), (*g_0)[1001][1001] = malloc(N*1001*1001*sizeof(complex double)),SF_table[10];// this array will hold the unit cell structure factors for all of the materials selected for each wavevector in the beam spectrum
double real, real2, lam, c_light = 299792458, h_pl = 4.135667516e-15,E = 10e3, r_0 = 2.818e-15, Lccd = 1.013;// just a few variables to hold values through calculations and constants, speed of light, plancks const, photon energy, and detector distance from sample
double angle;
double complex z;// just a variable to hold complex numbers throughout calculations
int i,j,m,n,t; // integers to index through arrays
lam = (h_pl*c_light)/E;
sscanf(argv[1],"%lf",&angle); //first argument is the angle of incidence, read it
angle = angle*(PI/180.0);
angle2 = -angle;
double (*table)[10] = malloc(10*9*sizeof(double)); // this array holds all the coefficients to calculate the atomic scattering factor below
double (*table2)[10] = malloc(10*2*sizeof(double));
FILE*datfile1 = fopen("/home/vhosts/xraydev.engr.wisc.edu/data/coef_table.bin","rb"); // read the binary file containg all the coefficients
fread(table,sizeof(double),90,datfile1);
fclose(datfile1);
FILE*datfile2 = fopen("/home/vhosts/xraydev.engr.wisc.edu/data/dispersioncs.bin","rb");
fread(table2,sizeof(double),20,datfile2);
fclose(datfile2);
// Calculate scattering factors for all elements
double a,b;
double k_z = (sin(angle)/lam)*1e-10; // incorporate angular dependence of SF but neglect 0.24 degree divergence because of approximation
for(i = 0;i<10;i++) // for each element...
{
SF_table[i] = 0;
for(j = 0;j<4;j++) // summation
{
a = table[2*j][i];
b = table[2*j+1][i];
SF_table[i] = SF_table[i] + a * exp(-b*k_z*k_z);
}
SF_table[i] = SF_table[i] + table[8][i] + table2[0][i] + table2[1][i]*I;
}
free(table);
double mm = 4.0, (*phi)[1001][1001] = malloc(N*1001*1001*sizeof(double));
for(i = 1; i < N+1; i++) // for each layer of material...
{
sscanf(argv[i*3+1],"%lf",&layers[i-1][1]); // get out of plane lattice constant
sscanf(argv[i*3+2],"%lf",&layers[i-1][2]); // get the number of unit cells in the layer
layers[i-1][1] = layers[i-1][1]*1e-10; // convert lat const input to meters
// Define reciprocal space positions at the incident angle h, k, l
layers[i-1][3] = 0; // h
layers[i-1][4] = 0; // k
double l; // l calculated for each wavevector in the spectrum because l changes with angle of incidence
for (m = 0; m < 1001; m++)
{
for (n = 0; n <1001; n++)
{
l = 4;
phi[i-1][m][n] = 2*PI*layers[i-1][1]*sin(angle)/lam; // Caculate phi for each layer
if(strcmp(argv[i*3],"GaAs") == 0)
{
F_hkl[i-1][m][n] = (2+2*cexp(I*PI*l))*(SF_table[2]+SF_table[3]*cexp(I*PI*l/2));
F_0[i-1][m][n] = 0.5*8.0*(31 + table2[0][2] + table2[1][2]*I) + 0.5*8.0*(33 + table2[0][3] + table2[1][3]*I);
g[i-1][m][n] = 2*r_0*F_hkl[i-1][m][n]/mm/layers[i-1][1]*cos(2*angle[m][n]);
g_0[i-1][m][n] = 2*r_0*F_0[i-1][m][n]/mm/layers[i-1][1];
}
if(strcmp(argv[i*3],"AlGaAs") == 0)
{
F_hkl[i-1][m][n] = (2+2*cexp(I*PI*l))*((0.76*SF_table[2]+ 0.24*SF_table[4])+SF_table[3]*cexp(I*PI*l/2));
F_0[i-1][m][n] = 0.24*4.0*(13 + table2[0][4] + table2[1][4]*I) + 0.76*4.0*(31 + table2[0][2] + table2[1][2]*I) + 4.0*(33 + table2[0][3] + table2[1][3]*I);
g[i-1][m][n] = 2*r_0*F_hkl[i-1][m][n]/mm/layers[i-1][1]*cos(2*angle[m][n]);
g_0[i-1][m][n] = 2*r_0*F_0[i-1][m][n]/mm/layers[i-1][1];
}
}
}
}
double complex (*Rplus1)[1001] = malloc(1001*1001*sizeof(double complex));
for (m = 0; m < 1001; m++)
{
for (n = 0; n <1001; n++)
{
Rplus1[m][n] = 0.0;
}
}
double stop1 = omp_get_wtime();
for(i=1;i<N;i++) // For each layer of the film
{
for(j=0;j<layers[i][2];j++) // For each unit cell
{
for (m = 0; m < 1001; m++) // For each row of the diffraction pattern
{
for (n = 0; n <1001; n++) // For each column of the diffraction pattern
{
Rplus1[m][n] = -I*g[i][m][n] + ((1-I*g_0[i][m][n])*(1-I*g_0[i][m][n]))/(I*g[i][m][n] + (cos(-2*phi[i][m][n])+I*sin(-2*phi[i][m][n]))/Rplus1[m][n]);
}
}
}
}
double stop2 = omp_get_wtime();
double elapsed1 = (double)(stop1 - start1);// Second user defined function to use Durbin and Follis recursive formula
double elapsed2 = (double)(stop2 - start1);// Second user defined function to use Durbin and Follis recursive formula
printf("main() through before diffraction function took %f seconds to run\n\n",elapsed1);
printf("main() through after diffraction function took %f seconds to run\n\n",elapsed2);
}
}
We are given n points in a 3d space ,we need to find count of all points that are strictly less than atleast one of the points in the 3d space
i.e.
x1<x2 and y1<y2 and z1<z2
so (x1,y1,z1) would be one such point.
For example,Given points
1 4 2
4 3 2
2 5 3
(1,4,2)<(2,5,3)
So the answer for the above case should be the count of such points i.e. 1.
I know this can be solved through a O(n^2) algorithm but i need something faster,i tried sorting through one dimension and then searching only over the greater part of the key , but its still o(n^2) worst case.
What is the efficient way to do this?
There is a way to optimize your search that may be faster than O(n^2) - I would welcome counter-sample input.
Keep three lists of the indexes of the points, sorted by x, y and z respectively. Make a fourth list associating each point with it's place in each of the lists (indexes in the code below; e. g., indexes[0] = [5,124,789] would mean the first point is 5th in the x-sorted list, 124th in the y-sorted list, and 789th in the z-sorted list).
Now iterate over the points - pick the list where the point is highest and test the point against the higher indexed points in the list, exiting early if the point is strictly less than one of them. If a point is low on all three lists, the likelihood of finding a strictly higher point is greater. Otherwise, a higher place in one of the lists means less iterations.
JavaScript code:
function strictlyLessThan(p1,p2){
return p1[0] < p2[0] && p1[1] < p2[1] && p1[2] < p2[2];
}
// iterations
var it = 0;
function f(ps){
var res = 0,
indexes = new Array(ps.length);
// sort by x
var sortedX =
ps.map(function(x,i){ return i; })
.sort(function(a,b){ return ps[a][0] - ps[b][0]; });
// record index of point in x-sorted list
for (var i=0; i<sortedX.length; i++){
indexes[sortedX[i]] = [i,null,null];
}
// sort by y
var sortedY =
ps.map(function(x,i){ return i; })
.sort(function(a,b){ return ps[a][1] - ps[b][1]; });
// record index of point in y-sorted list
for (var i=0; i<sortedY.length; i++){
indexes[sortedY[i]][1] = i;
}
// sort by z
var sortedZ =
ps.map(function(x,i){ return i; })
.sort(function(a,b){ return ps[a][2] - ps[b][2]; });
// record index of point in z-sorted list
for (var i=0; i<sortedZ.length; i++){
indexes[sortedZ[i]][2] = i;
}
// check for possible greater points only in the list
// where the point is highest
for (var i=0; i<ps.length; i++){
var listToCheck,
startIndex;
if (indexes[i][0] > indexes[i][1]){
if (indexes[i][0] > indexes[i][2]){
listToCheck = sortedX;
startIndex = indexes[i][0];
} else {
listToCheck = sortedZ;
startIndex = indexes[i][2];
}
} else {
if (indexes[i][1] > indexes[i][2]){
listToCheck = sortedY;
startIndex = indexes[i][1];
} else {
listToCheck = sortedZ;
startIndex = indexes[i][2];
}
}
var j = startIndex + 1;
while (listToCheck[j] !== undefined){
it++;
var point = ps[listToCheck[j]];
if (strictlyLessThan(ps[i],point)){
res++;
break;
}
j++;
}
}
return res;
}
// var input = [[5,0,0],[4,1,0],[3,2,0],[2,3,0],[1,4,0],[0,5,0],[4,0,1],[3,1,1], [2,2,1],[1,3,1],[0,4,1],[3,0,2],[2,1,2],[1,2,2],[0,3,2],[2,0,3], [1,1,3],[0,2,3],[1,0,4],[0,1,4],[0,0,5]];
var input = new Array(10000);
for (var i=0; i<input.length; i++){
input[i] = [Math.random(),Math.random(),Math.random()];
}
console.log(input.length + ' points');
console.log('result: ' + f(input));
console.log(it + ' iterations not including sorts');
I doubt that the worst-case complexity can be reduced below N×N, because it is possible to create input where no point is strictly less than any other point:
For any value n, consider the plane that intersects with the Z, Y and Z axis at (n,0,0), (0,n,0) and (0,0,n), described by the equation x+y+z=n. If the input consists of points on such a plane, none of the points is strictly less than any other point.
Example of worst-case input:
(5,0,0) (4,1,0) (3,2,0) (2,3,0) (1,4,0) (0,5,0)
(4,0,1) (3,1,1) (2,2,1) (1,3,1) (0,4,1)
(3,0,2) (2,1,2) (1,2,2) (0,3,2)
(2,0,3) (1,1,3) (0,2,3)
(1,0,4) (0,1,4)
(0,0,5)
However, the average complexity can be reduced to much less than N×N, e.g. with this approach:
Take the first point from the input and put it in a list.
Take the second point from the input, and compare it to the first
point in the list. If it is strictly less, discard the new point. If
it is strictly greater, replace the point in the list with the new
point. If it is neither, add the point to the list.
For each new point from the input, compare it to each point in the
list. If it is stricly less than any point in the list, discard the
new point. If it is strictly greater, replace the point in the list
with the new point, and also discard any further points in the list
which are strictly less than the new point. If the new point is not
strictly less or greater than any point in the list, add the new
point to the list.
After checking every point in the input, the result is the number of
points in the input minus the number of points in the list.
Since the probability that for any two random points a and b either a<b or b<a is 25%, the list won't grow to be very large (unless the input is specifically crafted to contain few or no points that are strictly less than any other point).
Limited testing with the code below (100 cases) with 1,000,000 randomly distributed points in a cubic space shows that the average list size is around 116 (with a maximum of 160), and the number of checks whether a point is strictly less than another point is around 1,333,000 (with a maximum of 2,150,000).
(And a few tests with 10,000,000 points show that the average number of checks is around 11,000,000 with a list size around 150.)
So in practice, the average complexity is close to N rather than N×N.
function xyzLessCount(input) {
var list = [input[0]]; // put first point in list
for (var i = 1; i < input.length; i++) { // check every point in input
var append = true;
for (var j = 0; j < list.length; j++) { // against every point in list
if (xyzLess(input[i], list[j])) { // new point < list point
append = false;
break; // continue with next point
}
if (xyzLess(list[j], input[i])) { // new point > list point
list[j] = input[i]; // replace list point
for (var k = list.length - 1; k > j; k--) {
if (xyzLess(list[k], list[j])) { // check rest of list
list.splice(k, 1); // remove list point
}
}
append = false;
break; // continue with next point
}
}
if (append) list.push(input[i]); // append new point to list
}
return input.length - list.length;
function xyzLess(a, b) {
return a.x < b.x && a.y < b.y && a.z < b.z;
}
}
var points = []; // random test data
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
points.push({x: Math.random(), y: Math.random(), z: Math.random()});
}
document.write("1000000 → " + xyzLessCount(points));
What I am trying to do is make it so that the game I am creating will randomly change characters every 5 seconds.
I got this working via a timer, the only problem is I don't want them repeating, I'm currently working on dummy code so it's just changing the screen colour, but how can I make it so that it doesn't repeat the number it just called?
if (timer <= 0)
{
num = rand.Next(2);
timer = 5.0f;
}
That is the current code and then in the draw I've literally just done "if num equals a certain number then change background colour".
I tried adding a prev_num checker but I can't get it to work properly (here it is)
if (timer <= 0)
{
prev_number = num;
num = rand.Next(2);
if (prev_number == num)
{
num = rand.Next(2);
}
else
{
timer = 5.0f;
}
}
Consider that if you're picking (for example) a random number from 1-5 then there are five possible outcomes, so you would use rand.Next(5) to select the zero-based "ordinal" or index of the outcome, then convert it into the range you actually want (in this case, by adding one).
If you want a random number from 0-4, excluding the number you just picked, then there are only four possible outcomes, not five - if the previous number was 3, then the possible outcomes are 0, 1, 2 or 4. You can then simplify your algorithm by choosing one of those four outcomes (rand.Next(4)) and mapping that ordinal to your desired range. A simple mapping would be to say if the new random number is below the previous number, return it as-is, otherwise (if equal or greater) add one.
int new_num = rand.Next(4);
if(new_num >= prev_num)
{
new_num++;
}
Your new number is now guaranteed to be in the same range as the previous number, but not equal to it.
Maybe just put it into a loop instead of a single check?
Also, I think because your timer was inside the else then it was not always
updated correctly.
if (timer <= 0)
{
tempNum = rand.Next(2);
do
{
tempNum = rand.Next(2);
}
while (tempNum == num)
num = tempNum;
timer = 5.0f;
}
Create an array of sequential numbers and then shuffle them (like a deck of cards) when your application begins.
int[] numbers = new int[100];
for(int i = 0; i < numbers.Length; i++)
numbers[i] = i;
Shuffle(numbers);
Using a function to shuffle the list:
public static void Shuffle<T>(IList<T> list)
{
Random rng = new Random();
int n = list.Count;
while (n > 1) {
n--;
int k = rng.Next(n + 1);
T value = list[k];
list[k] = list[n];
list[n] = value;
}
}
You can then access them sequentially out of the list. They will be random as the list was shuffled, but you won't have any repetitions since each number only exists once in the list.
if (timer <= 0)
{
num = numbers[index];
index++;
timer = 5.0f;
}
What is the best method to find the number of digits of a positive integer?
I have found this 3 basic methods:
conversion to string
String s = new Integer(t).toString();
int len = s.length();
for loop
for(long long int temp = number; temp >= 1;)
{
temp/=10;
decimalPlaces++;
}
logaritmic calculation
digits = floor( log10( number ) ) + 1;
where you can calculate log10(x) = ln(x) / ln(10) in most languages.
First I thought the string method is the dirtiest one but the more I think about it the more I think it's the fastest way. Or is it?
There's always this method:
n = 1;
if ( i >= 100000000 ) { n += 8; i /= 100000000; }
if ( i >= 10000 ) { n += 4; i /= 10000; }
if ( i >= 100 ) { n += 2; i /= 100; }
if ( i >= 10 ) { n += 1; }
Well the correct answer would be to measure it - but you should be able to make a guess about the number of CPU steps involved in converting strings and going through them looking for an end marker
Then think how many FPU operations/s your processor can do and how easy it is to calculate a single log.
edit: wasting some more time on a monday morning :-)
String s = new Integer(t).toString();
int len = s.length();
One of the problems with high level languages is guessing how much work the system is doing behind the scenes of an apparently simple statement. Mandatory Joel link
This statement involves allocating memory for a string, and possibly a couple of temporary copies of a string. It must parse the integer and copy the digits of it into a string, possibly having to reallocate and move the existing memory if the number is large. It might have to check a bunch of locale settings to decide if your country uses "," or ".", it might have to do a bunch of unicode conversions.
Then finding the length has to scan the entire string, again considering unicode and any local specific settings such as - are you in a right->left language?.
Alternatively:
digits = floor( log10( number ) ) + 1;
Just because this would be harder for you to do on paper doesn't mean it's hard for a computer! In fact a good rule in high performance computing seems to have been - if something is hard for a human (fluid dynamics, 3d rendering) it's easy for a computer, and if it's easy for a human (face recognition, detecting a voice in a noisy room) it's hard for a computer!
You can generally assume that the builtin maths functions log/sin/cos etc - have been an important part of computer design for 50years. So even if they don't map directly into a hardware function in the FPU you can bet that the alternative implementation is pretty efficient.
I don't know, and the answer may well be different depending on how your individual language is implemented.
So, stress test it! Implement all three solutions. Run them on 1 through 1,000,000 (or some other huge set of numbers that's representative of the numbers the solution will be running against) and time how long each of them takes.
Pit your solutions against one another and let them fight it out. Like intellectual gladiators. Three algorithms enter! One algorithm leaves!
Test conditions
Decimal numeral system
Positive integers
Up to 10 digits
Language: ActionScript 3
Results
digits: [1,10],
no. of runs: 1,000,000
random sample: 8777509,40442298,477894,329950,513,91751410,313,3159,131309,2
result: 7,8,6,6,3,8,3,4,6,1
CONVERSION TO STRING: 724ms
LOGARITMIC CALCULATION: 349ms
DIV 10 ITERATION: 229ms
MANUAL CONDITIONING: 136ms
Note: Author refrains from making any conclusions for numbers with more than 10 digits.
Script
package {
import flash.display.MovieClip;
import flash.utils.getTimer;
/**
* #author Daniel
*/
public class Digits extends MovieClip {
private const NUMBERS : uint = 1000000;
private const DIGITS : uint = 10;
private var numbers : Array;
private var digits : Array;
public function Digits() {
// ************* NUMBERS *************
numbers = [];
for (var i : int = 0; i < NUMBERS; i++) {
var number : Number = Math.floor(Math.pow(10, Math.random()*DIGITS));
numbers.push(number);
}
trace('Max digits: ' + DIGITS + ', count of numbers: ' + NUMBERS);
trace('sample: ' + numbers.slice(0, 10));
// ************* CONVERSION TO STRING *************
digits = [];
var time : Number = getTimer();
for (var i : int = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
digits.push(String(numbers[i]).length);
}
trace('\nCONVERSION TO STRING - time: ' + (getTimer() - time));
trace('sample: ' + digits.slice(0, 10));
// ************* LOGARITMIC CALCULATION *************
digits = [];
time = getTimer();
for (var i : int = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
digits.push(Math.floor( Math.log( numbers[i] ) / Math.log(10) ) + 1);
}
trace('\nLOGARITMIC CALCULATION - time: ' + (getTimer() - time));
trace('sample: ' + digits.slice(0, 10));
// ************* DIV 10 ITERATION *************
digits = [];
time = getTimer();
var digit : uint = 0;
for (var i : int = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
digit = 0;
for(var temp : Number = numbers[i]; temp >= 1;)
{
temp/=10;
digit++;
}
digits.push(digit);
}
trace('\nDIV 10 ITERATION - time: ' + (getTimer() - time));
trace('sample: ' + digits.slice(0, 10));
// ************* MANUAL CONDITIONING *************
digits = [];
time = getTimer();
var digit : uint;
for (var i : int = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
var number : Number = numbers[i];
if (number < 10) digit = 1;
else if (number < 100) digit = 2;
else if (number < 1000) digit = 3;
else if (number < 10000) digit = 4;
else if (number < 100000) digit = 5;
else if (number < 1000000) digit = 6;
else if (number < 10000000) digit = 7;
else if (number < 100000000) digit = 8;
else if (number < 1000000000) digit = 9;
else if (number < 10000000000) digit = 10;
digits.push(digit);
}
trace('\nMANUAL CONDITIONING: ' + (getTimer() - time));
trace('sample: ' + digits.slice(0, 10));
}
}
}
This algorithm might be good also, assuming that:
Number is integer and binary encoded (<< operation is cheap)
We don't known number boundaries
var num = 123456789L;
var len = 0;
var tmp = 1L;
while(tmp < num)
{
len++;
tmp = (tmp << 3) + (tmp << 1);
}
This algorithm, should have speed comparable to for-loop (2) provided, but a bit faster due to (2 bit-shifts, add and subtract, instead of division).
As for Log10 algorithm, it will give you only approximate answer (that is close to real, but still), since analytic formula for computing Log function have infinite loop and can't be calculated precisely Wiki.
Use the simplest solution in whatever programming language you're using. I can't think of a case where counting digits in an integer would be the bottleneck in any (useful) program.
C, C++:
char buffer[32];
int length = sprintf(buffer, "%ld", (long)123456789);
Haskell:
len = (length . show) 123456789
JavaScript:
length = String(123456789).length;
PHP:
$length = strlen(123456789);
Visual Basic (untested):
length = Len(str(123456789)) - 1
conversion to string: This will have to iterate through each digit, find the character that maps to the current digit, add a character to a collection of characters. Then get the length of the resulting String object. Will run in O(n) for n=#digits.
for-loop: will perform 2 mathematical operation: dividing the number by 10 and incrementing a counter. Will run in O(n) for n=#digits.
logarithmic: Will call log10 and floor, and add 1. Looks like O(1) but I'm not really sure how fast the log10 or floor functions are. My knowledge of this sort of things has atrophied with lack of use so there could be hidden complexity in these functions.
So I guess it comes down to: is looking up digit mappings faster than multiple mathematical operations or whatever is happening in log10? The answer will probably vary. There could be platforms where the character mapping is faster, and others where doing the calculations is faster. Also to keep in mind is that the first method will creats a new String object that only exists for the purpose of getting the length. This will probably use more memory than the other two methods, but it may or may not matter.
You can obviously eliminate the method 1 from the competition, because the atoi/toString algorithm it uses would be similar to method 2.
Method 3's speed depends on whether the code is being compiled for a system whose instruction set includes log base 10.
For very large integers, the log method is much faster. For instance, with a 2491327 digit number (the 11920928th Fibonacci number, if you care), Python takes several minutes to execute the divide-by-10 algorithm, and milliseconds to execute 1+floor(log(n,10)).
import math
def numdigits(n):
return ( int(math.floor(math.log10(n))) + 1 )
Regarding the three methods you propose for "determining the number of digits necessary to represent a given number in a given base", I don't like any of them, actually; I prefer the method I give below instead.
Re your method #1 (strings): Anything involving converting back-and-forth between strings and numbers is usually very slow.
Re your method #2 (temp/=10): This is fatally flawed because it assumes that x/10 always means "x divided by 10". But in many programming languages (eg: C, C++), if "x" is an integer type, then "x/10" means "integer division", which isn't the same thing as floating-point division, and it introduces round-off errors at every iteration, and they accumulate in a recursive formula such as your solution #2 uses.
Re your method #3 (logs): it's buggy for large numbers (at least in C, and probably other languages as well), because floating-point data types tend not to be as precise as 64-bit integers.
Hence I dislike all 3 of those methods: #1 works but is slow, #2 is broken, and #3 is buggy for large numbers. Instead, I prefer this, which works for numbers from 0 up to about 18.44 quintillion:
unsigned NumberOfDigits (uint64_t Number, unsigned Base)
{
unsigned Digits = 1;
uint64_t Power = 1;
while ( Number / Power >= Base )
{
++Digits;
Power *= Base;
}
return Digits;
}
Keep it simple:
long long int a = 223452355415634664;
int x;
for (x = 1; a >= 10; x++)
{
a = a / 10;
}
printf("%d", x);
You can use a recursive solution instead of a loop, but somehow similar:
#tailrec
def digits (i: Long, carry: Int=1) : Int = if (i < 10) carry else digits (i/10, carry+1)
digits (8345012978643L)
With longs, the picture might change - measure small and long numbers independently against different algorithms, and pick the appropriate one, depending on your typical input. :)
Of course nothing beats a switch:
switch (x) {
case 0: case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: case 5: case 6: case 7: case 8: case 9: return 1;
case 10: case 11: // ...
case 99: return 2;
case 100: // you get the point :)
default: return 10; // switch only over int
}
except a plain-o-array:
int [] size = {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,... };
int x = 234561798;
return size [x];
Some people will tell you to optimize the code-size, but yaknow, premature optimization ...
log(x,n)-mod(log(x,n),1)+1
Where x is a the base and n is the number.
Here is the measurement in Swift 4.
Algorithms code:
extension Int {
var numberOfDigits0: Int {
var currentNumber = self
var n = 1
if (currentNumber >= 100000000) {
n += 8
currentNumber /= 100000000
}
if (currentNumber >= 10000) {
n += 4
currentNumber /= 10000
}
if (currentNumber >= 100) {
n += 2
currentNumber /= 100
}
if (currentNumber >= 10) {
n += 1
}
return n
}
var numberOfDigits1: Int {
return String(self).count
}
var numberOfDigits2: Int {
var n = 1
var currentNumber = self
while currentNumber > 9 {
n += 1
currentNumber /= 10
}
return n
}
}
Measurement code:
var timeInterval0 = Date()
for i in 0...10000 {
i.numberOfDigits0
}
print("timeInterval0: \(Date().timeIntervalSince(timeInterval0))")
var timeInterval1 = Date()
for i in 0...10000 {
i.numberOfDigits1
}
print("timeInterval1: \(Date().timeIntervalSince(timeInterval1))")
var timeInterval2 = Date()
for i in 0...10000 {
i.numberOfDigits2
}
print("timeInterval2: \(Date().timeIntervalSince(timeInterval2))")
Output
timeInterval0: 1.92149806022644
timeInterval1: 0.557608008384705
timeInterval2: 2.83262193202972
On this measurement basis String conversion is the best option for the Swift language.
I was curious after seeing #daniel.sedlacek results so I did some testing using Swift for numbers having more than 10 digits. I ran the following script in the playground.
let base = [Double(100090000000), Double(100050000), Double(100050000), Double(100000200)]
var rar = [Double]()
for i in 1...10 {
for d in base {
let v = d*Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(1000000000)))
rar.append(v*Double(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(1000000000))))
rar.append(Double(1)*pow(1,Double(i)))
}
}
print(rar)
var timeInterval = NSDate().timeIntervalSince1970
for d in rar {
floor(log10(d))
}
var newTimeInterval = NSDate().timeIntervalSince1970
print(newTimeInterval-timeInterval)
timeInterval = NSDate().timeIntervalSince1970
for d in rar {
var c = d
while c > 10 {
c = c/10
}
}
newTimeInterval = NSDate().timeIntervalSince1970
print(newTimeInterval-timeInterval)
Results of 80 elements
0.105069875717163 for floor(log10(x))
0.867973804473877 for div 10 iterations
Adding one more approach to many of the already mentioned approaches.
The idea is to use binarySearch on an array containing the range of integers based on the digits of the int data type.
The signature of Java Arrays class binarySearch is :
binarySearch(dataType[] array, dataType key) which returns the index of the search key, if it is contained in the array; otherwise, (-(insertion point) – 1).
The insertion point is defined as the point at which the key would be inserted into the array.
Below is the implementation:
static int [] digits = {9,99,999,9999,99999,999999,9999999,99999999,999999999,Integer.MAX_VALUE};
static int digitsCounter(int N)
{
int digitCount = Arrays.binarySearch(digits , N<0 ? -N:N);
return 1 + (digitCount < 0 ? ~digitCount : digitCount);
}
Please note that the above approach only works for : Integer.MIN_VALUE <= N <= Integer.MAX_VALUE, but can be easily extended for Long data type by adding more values to the digits array.
For example,
I) for N = 555, digitCount = Arrays.binarySearch(digits , 555) returns -3 (-(2)-1) as it's not present in the array but is supposed to be inserted at point 2 between 9 & 99 like [9, 55, 99].
As the index we got is negative we need to take the bitwise compliment of the result.
At last, we need to add 1 to the result to get the actual number of digits in the number N.
In Swift 5.x, you get the number of digit in integer as below :
Convert to string and then count number of character in string
let nums = [1, 7892, 78, 92, 90]
for i in nums {
let ch = String(describing: i)
print(ch.count)
}
Calculating the number of digits in integer using loop
var digitCount = 0
for i in nums {
var tmp = i
while tmp >= 1 {
tmp /= 10
digitCount += 1
}
print(digitCount)
}
let numDigits num =
let num = abs(num)
let rec numDigitsInner num =
match num with
| num when num < 10 -> 1
| _ -> 1 + numDigitsInner (num / 10)
numDigitsInner num
F# Version, without casting to a string.