This is an unsolved problem from my past arbitrary-precision rational numbers C++ assignment.
For calculation, I used this expression from Wikipedia (a being the initial guess, r being its remainder):
I ended up, just by guessing from experiments, with this approach:
Use an integer square root function on the numerator/denominator, use that as the guess
Iterate the continued fraction until the binary length of the denominator was at least the target precision
This worked well enough to get me through the official tests, however, from my testing, the precision was too high (sometimes almost double) – i.e. the code was inefficient – and I had no proof it worked on any input (and hence no confidence in the code).
A simplified excerpt from the code (natural/rational store arbitrary length numbers, assume all operations return fractions in their simplest form):
rational sqrt(rational input, int precision) {
rational guess(isqrt(input.numerator), isqrt(input.denominator)); // a
rational remainder = input - power(guess, 2); // r
rational result = guess;
rational expansion;
while (result.denominator.size() <= precision) {
expansion = remainder / (2 * guess + expansion);
result = guess + expansion;
// Handle rational results
if (power(root, 2) == input) {
break;
}
}
return result;
}
Can it be done better? If so, how?
Square roots can easily and very accurately be calculated by the General Continued Fractions (GCF). Being general means it can have any positive number as the numerator in contrast to the Regular or Simple Continued Fractions (RCF) where the numerators are all 1s. In order to comprehend the answer as a whole, it is best to start from the beginning.
The method used to solve the square root of any positive number n by a GFC (a + x) whereas a being the integral and x being the continued fractional part, is;
n − a^2
√n = a + x ⇒ n = a^2 + 2ax + x^2 ⇒ n − a^2 = x(2a + x) ⇒ x = _______
2a + x
Right at this moment you have a GCF since x nicely gets placed at the denominator and once you replace x with it's definition you get an indefinitely extending definition of x. Regarding a, you are free to choose it among integers which are less than the √n. So if you want to find √11 then a can be chosen among 1, 2 or 3. However it's always better to chose the biggest one in order to be able to simplify the GCF into an RCF at the next stage.
Remember that x = (n − a^2) / (2a + x) and n = 11 and a = 3. Now if we write the first two terms then we may simplify the GCF to RCF with all numerators as 1.
2 2 divide both 1
x = _____ ⇒ _________ ⇒ numerator and ⇒ _________ = x
6 + x 6 + 2 denominator by 2 3 + 1
_____ _____
6 + x 6 + x
Accordingly our RCF for √11 is;
1 ___
√11 = 3 + x ⇒ 3 + _____________ = [3;3,6]
1
3 + _________
1
6 + _____
1
3 + _....
6
Notice the coefficient notation [3; 3, 6, 3, 6, ...] which in this particular case resembles an infinite array. This is how RCF's are expressed in coefficient notation, the first item being the a and the tail after ; are the RCF coefficients of x. These two are sufficient since we already know that in RCF all numerators are fixed to 1.
Coming back to your precision question. You now have √11 = 3 + x where x is your RCF as [3;3,6,3,6,3,6...]. Normally you can try by picking a depth and reducing from right like [3,3,6,3,6,3,6...].reduceRight((p,c) => c + 1/p) as it would be done in JS. Not a precise enough result.? Then try it again from another depth. This is in fact how it is descriped in the linked wikipedia topic as bottom up. However it would be much efficient to go from left to right (top to bottom) by calculating the intermediate convergents one after the other, at a single pass. Every next intermediate convergent yields a better precision for you to test and decide weather to stop or continue. When you reach to a coefficient sufficient enough just stop there. Having said that, once you reach to the desired coefficient you may still do some fine tuning by increasing or decreasing that coefficient. Decreasing the coefficients at even indices or increasing the ones at odd indices would decrease the convergent and vice versa.
So in order to be able to do a left to right (top to bottom) analysis there is a special rule as
n2/d2 = (xn * n1 + n0)/(xn * d1 + d0)
We need to know last two interim convergents (n0/d0 and n1/d1) along with the current coefficient xn in order to be able calculate the next convergent (n2/d2).
We will start with two initial convergents as Infinity (n0/d0 = 1/0) and the a that we've chosen above (Remember √n = a + x) which is 3 so (n1/d1 = 3/1). Knowing that the 3 before the semicolon is in fact a, our first xn is the 3 right after the semicolon in our coefficients array [3;»» 3 ««,6,3,6,3,6...].
After we calculate n2/d2 and do our test, if need be, for the next step we will shift our convergents to the left so that we have the last two ready to calculate the next convergent. n0/d0 <- n1/d1 <- n2/d2
Here i present the table for the n2/d2 = (xn * n1 + n0)/(xn * d1 + d0) rule.
n0/d0 n1/d1 xn index n2/d2 decimal val.
_____ ______ __ _____ ________ ____________
1/0 3/1 3 1 odd 10/3 3.33333333..
3/1 10/3 6 2 evn 63/19 3.31578947..
10/3 63/19 3 3 odd 199/60 3.31666666..
63/19 199/60 6 4 evn 1257/379 3.31662269..
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
So as you may notice we are very quickly approaching to √11 which is 3.31662479... Note that the odd indices overshoot and evens undershoot due to cascading reciprocals. Since √11 is an irrational this will continue convergining indefinitely up until we say enough.
Remember, as mentioned earlier, once you reach to the desired coefficient you may still do some fine tuning by increasing or decreasing that coefficient (xn). Decreasing the coefficients at even indices or increasing the ones at odd indices would decrease the convergent and vice versa.
The problem here is, not all √n can simply be turned into RCF by a simple division as shown above. For a more generalized way to generate RCF from any √n you may check a more recent answer of mine.
Related
http://www.spoj.com/problems/SCALE/
I am trying to do it using recursion but getting TLE.
The tags of the problem say BINARY SEARCH.
How can one do it using binary search ?
Thanx in advance.
First thing to notice here is that if you had two weights of each size instead of one, then the problem would be quite trivial, as we we would only need to represent X in its base 3 representation and take corresponding number of weights. For, example if X=21 then we could take two times P_3 and one time P_2, and put those into another scale.
Now let's try to make something similar using the fact that we can add to both scales (including the one where X is placed):
Assume that X <= P_1+P_2+...+P_n, that would mean that X <= P_n + (P_n-1)/2 (easy to understand why). Therefore, X + P_(n-1) + P_(n-2)+...+P_1 < 2*P_n.
(*) What that means is that if we add some of the weights from 1 to n-1 to same scale as X, then the number on that scale still does
not have 2 in its n-th rightmost digit (either 0 or 1).
From now on assume that digit means a digit of a number in its base-3 representation (but it can temporarily become larger than 2 :P ). Now lets denote the total weight of first scale (where X is placed) as A=X and the other scale is B=0 and our goal is to make them equal (both A and B will change as we will make our progress) .
Let's iterate through all digits of the A from smallest to largest (leftmost). If the current digit index is i and it:
Equals to 0 then just ignore and proceed further
Equals to 1 then we place weight P_i=3^(i-1) on scale B.
Equals to 2 then we add P_i=3^(i-1) to scale A. Note that it would result in the increase of the digit (i+1).
Equals to 3 (yes this case is possible, if both current and previous digit were 2) add 1 to digit at index i+1 and go further (no weights are added to any scale).
Due to (*) obviously the procedure will run correctly (as the last digit will be equal to 1 in A), as we will choose only one weight from the set and place them correctly, and obviously the numbers A and B will be equal after the procedure is complete.
Now second case X > P_1+P_2+...+P_n. Obviously we cannot balance even if we place all weights on the second scale.
This completes the proof and shows when it is possible and the way how to place the weights to both scales to equalise them.
EDIT:
C++ code which I successfully submitted on SPOJ just now https://ideone.com/tbB7Ve
The solution to this problem is quite trivial. The idea is the same as #Yerken's answer, but expressed in a bit different way:
Only the first weight has a mass not divisible by 3. So the first weight is the only one has effect on balancing mod 3 property of the 2 scales:
If X mod 3 == 0, the first weight must not be used
If X mod 3 == 1, the first weight must be on scale B (the currently empty one)
If X mod 3 == 2, the first weight must be on scale A
Subtract both scales by weight(B) --> solution doesn't change, and now weight(A) is divisible by 3 while weight(B) == 0
Set X' = weight(A)/3 and divide every weights Pi by 3 ==> Solution doesn't change, and now it's the same problem with N' = N-1 and X' = (X+1)/3
pseudo-code:
listA <- empty
listB <- empty
for i = 1 to N {
if (X == 0) break for loop; // done!
if (X mod 3 == 1) then push i to listB;
if (X mod 3 == 2) then push i to listA;
X = (X + 1)/3; // integer division
}
hasSolution <- (X == 0)
C++ code: http://ideone.com/LXLGmE
Multiply two numbers without using * operator, and with minimum number of additions
For eg: If input is, 5*8, one of the following ways, can be add the bigger number smaller number of times, and that will be the answer. But how can I minimise the number of additions?
One strategy to minimize reduce the number of additions is to add things hierarchically. This is the same strategy that is used in the classic power algorithm, which follows the same technique for minimizing the number of multiplications.
Let's say you need
M = a * 8 = a + a + a + a + a + a + a + a
Once you calculate m2 = a + a, you can substitute it into the above addition and get
M = m2 + m2 + m2 + m2
Then you can calculate m4 = m2 + m2 and arrive at
M = m4 + m4
So, the result is calculated in 3 additions instead of the original 8. However, adding a value to itself can be replaced by a left-shift by 1 bit (if this is allowed), this greatly reducing the number of additions.
This technique can be elegantly implemented through analyzing the binary representation of one of the multiplicands (exactly as it is typically implemented in the power algorithm). E.g. if you need to calculate a * b you can do it in this fashion
int M = 0;
for (int m = a; b != 0; b >>= 1, m <<= 1)
if ((b & 1) != 0)
M += m;
The total number of additions such implementation will use is the total number of 1 bits in b. It will multiply 5 by 8 in 1 addition.
Note that in order to achieve the lowest the number of additions provided by this strategy, multiplying larger number by smaller number is not necessarily the best idea. E.g. multiplying by 8 uses less additions than multiplying by 5.
A better example will be 5 * 7. This is essentially the binary multiplication using old methods, but with clever choice of the multiplier.
If we can use left-shift and that doesn't count as an addition: choose the number with the smaller number of bits as the multiplier. This will be 5 in this case.
111
x 101
------
111
000x <== This is not an addition, only a left shift
111xx
-------
100011 <== 2 additions totally.
-------
If we cannot use left-shift: note that left shift is the same as doubling / additions. Then we will have to use a slightly different tactic. Since the multiplicand will be shifted the same number of times as the (position of MSB - 1), the number of additions will be the number with the lesser value of (position of MSB - 1) + (number of bits set). In the case of 5 * 8, the values are (3-1) + 2 = 4 and (4-1) = 3 respectively. The lesser is for 8 and hence use that as the multiplier.
101
x 1000
-------
000
000x <== left shift
000xx <== left shift
101xxx <== left shift
--------
101000 <== no addition needed, so 3 additions totally.
--------
The above has three shifts and zero additions.
I like Codor's suggestion of using shifts and having zero additions!
But if you can truly only use additions and no other operations like shifts, logs, subtractions, etc, I believe the minimal number of additions to compute a * b will be:
min{int[log2(a+1)] + numbits(a), int[log2(b+1)] + numbits(b)} - 2
where
numbits(n) is the number of ones in the binary representation of
integer n
For example, numbits(4)=1, numbits(5)=2, etc.
int[x] is the integer part of float x
For example, int[3.9]=3
Now, how did we get there? First look at your original example. You can at least group additions together. E.g.
8+8=16
16+16=32
32+8=40
To generalize this, if you need to multiply a b times by only using additions that used a or the results of additions already computed, you need:
int[log2(b+1)]-1 additions to compute all the 2^n.a intermediate numbers you need.
In your example, int[log2(5+1)]-1 = 2: you need 2 additions to compute 16 and 32
numbits(b)-1 additions to add all intermediate results together, where numbits(b) is the number of ones in the binary representation of b.
In your example, 5 = 2^2 + 2^0 so numbits(5)-1 = 1: you need 1 addition to do 32 + 8
Interestingly, this means that your statement
add the bigger number smaller number of times
is not always the recipe to minimize the number of additions.
For example, if you need to compute 2^9 * (2^9 - 1), you are better off computing additions based on (2^9-1) than on 2^9 even though 2^9 is larger. The fastest approach is:
x = (2^9-1) + (2^9-1)
And then
x = x+x
8 times for a total of 9 additions.
If instead you added 2^9 to itself, you would need 8 additions to get all the 2^k*2^9 first and then an additional 8 additions to add all these numbers together for a total of 16 additions.
suppose a is to be multiplied with b and we are storing the result in res, we add a to res only if b is odd, else keep dividing b by 2 and multiplying a by 2. this is done in a loop till b becomes 0. multiplication and division can be done using bitwise operator.
Let the two given numbers be 'a' and 'b'
1) Initialize result 'res' as 0.
2) Do following while 'b' is greater than 0
a) If 'b' is odd, add 'a' to 'res'
b) Double 'a' and halve 'b'
3) Return 'res'.
Suppose I have a real number. I want to approximate it with something of the form a+sqrt(b) for integers a and b. But I don't know the values of a and b. Of course I would prefer to get a good approximation with small values of a and b. Let's leave it undefined for now what is meant by "good" and "small". Any sensible definitions of those terms will do.
Is there a sane way to find them? Something like the continued fraction algorithm for finding fractional approximations of decimals. For more on the fractions problem, see here.
EDIT: To clarify, it is an arbitrary real number. All I have are a bunch of its digits. So depending on how good of an approximation we want, a and b might or might not exist. Brute force is naturally not a particularly good algorithm. The best I can think of would be to start adding integers to my real, squaring the result, and seeing if I come close to an integer. Pretty much brute force, and not a particularly good algorithm. But if nothing better exists, that would itself be interesting to know.
EDIT: Obviously b has to be zero or positive. But a could be any integer.
No need for continued fractions; just calculate the square-root of all "small" values of b (up to whatever value you feel is still "small" enough), remove everything before the decimal point, and sort/store them all (along with the b that generated it).
Then when you need to approximate a real number, find the radical whose decimal-portion is closet to the real number's decimal-portion. This gives you b - choosing the correct a is then a simple matter of subtraction.
This is actually more of a math problem than a computer problem, but to answer the question I think you are right that you can use continued fractions. What you do is first represent the target number as a continued fraction. For example, if you want to approximate pi (3.14159265) then the CF is:
3: 7, 15, 1, 288, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 7, 4 ...
The next step is create a table of CFs for square roots, then you compare the values in the table to the fractional part of the target value (here: 7, 15, 1, 288, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 7, 4...). For example, let's say your table had square roots for 1-99 only. Then you would find the closest match would be sqrt(51) which has a CF of 7: 7,14 repeating. The 7,14 is the closest to pi's 7,15. Thus your answer would be:
sqrt(51)-4
As the closest approximation given a b < 100 which is off by 0.00016. If you allow larger b's then you could get a better approximation.
The advantage of using CFs is that it is faster than working in, say, doubles or using floating point. For example, in the above case you only have to compare two integers (7 and 15), and you can also use indexing to make finding the closest entry in the table very fast.
This can be done using mixed integer quadratic programming very efficiently (though there are no run-time guarantees as MIQP is NP-complete.)
Define:
d := the real number you wish to approximate
b, a := two integers such that a + sqrt(b) is as "close" to d as possible
r := (d - a)^2 - b, is the residual of the approximation
The goal is to minimize r. Setup your quadratic program as:
x := [ s b t ]
D := | 1 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 |
| 0 0 0 |
c := [0 -1 0]^T
with the constraint that s - t = f (where f is the fractional part of d)
and b,t are integers (s is not)
This is a convex (therefore optimally solvable) mixed integer quadratic program since D is positive semi-definite.
Once s,b,t are computed, simply derive the answer using b=b, s=d-a and t can be ignored.
Your problem may be NP-complete, it would be interesting to prove if so.
Some of the previous answers use methods that are of time or space complexity O(n), where n is the largest “small number” that will be accepted. By contrast, the following method is O(sqrt(n)) in time, and O(1) in space.
Suppose that positive real number r = x + y, where x=floor(r) and 0 ≤ y < 1. We want to approximate r by a number of the form a + √b. If x+y ≈ a+√b then x+y-a ≈ √b, so √b ≈ h+y for some integer offset h, and b ≈ (h+y)^2. To make b an integer, we want to minimize the fractional part of (h+y)^2 over all eligible h. There are at most √n eligible values of h. See following python code and sample output.
import math, random
def findb(y, rhi):
bestb = loerror = 1;
for r in range(2,rhi):
v = (r+y)**2
u = round(v)
err = abs(v-u)
if round(math.sqrt(u))**2 == u: continue
if err < loerror:
bestb, loerror = u, err
return bestb
#random.seed(123456) # set a seed if testing repetitively
f = [math.pi-3] + sorted([random.random() for i in range(24)])
print (' frac sqrt(b) error b')
for frac in f:
b = findb(frac, 12)
r = math.sqrt(b)
t = math.modf(r)[0] # Get fractional part of sqrt(b)
print ('{:9.5f} {:9.5f} {:11.7f} {:5.0f}'.format(frac, r, t-frac, b))
(Note 1: This code is in demo form; the parameters to findb() are y, the fractional part of r, and rhi, the square root of the largest small number. You may wish to change usage of parameters. Note 2: The
if round(math.sqrt(u))**2 == u: continue
line of code prevents findb() from returning perfect-square values of b, except for the value b=1, because no perfect square can improve upon the accuracy offered by b=1.)
Sample output follows. About a dozen lines have been elided in the middle. The first output line shows that this procedure yields b=51 to represent the fractional part of pi, which is the same value reported in some other answers.
frac sqrt(b) error b
0.14159 7.14143 -0.0001642 51
0.11975 4.12311 0.0033593 17
0.12230 4.12311 0.0008085 17
0.22150 9.21954 -0.0019586 85
0.22681 11.22497 -0.0018377 126
0.25946 2.23607 -0.0233893 5
0.30024 5.29150 -0.0087362 28
0.36772 8.36660 -0.0011170 70
0.42452 8.42615 0.0016309 71
...
0.93086 6.92820 -0.0026609 48
0.94677 8.94427 -0.0024960 80
0.96549 11.95826 -0.0072333 143
0.97693 11.95826 -0.0186723 143
With the following code added at the end of the program, the output shown below also appears. This shows closer approximations for the fractional part of pi.
frac, rhi = math.pi-3, 16
print (' frac sqrt(b) error b bMax')
while rhi < 1000:
b = findb(frac, rhi)
r = math.sqrt(b)
t = math.modf(r)[0] # Get fractional part of sqrt(b)
print ('{:11.7f} {:11.7f} {:13.9f} {:7.0f} {:7.0f}'.format(frac, r, t-frac, b,rhi**2))
rhi = 3*rhi/2
frac sqrt(b) error b bMax
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 256
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 576
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 1296
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 2916
0.1415927 7.1414284 -0.000164225 51 6561
0.1415927 120.1415831 -0.000009511 14434 14641
0.1415927 120.1415831 -0.000009511 14434 32761
0.1415927 233.1415879 -0.000004772 54355 73441
0.1415927 346.1415895 -0.000003127 119814 164836
0.1415927 572.1415909 -0.000001786 327346 370881
0.1415927 911.1415916 -0.000001023 830179 833569
I do not know if there is any kind of standard algorithm for this kind of problem, but it does intrigue me, so here is my attempt at developing an algorithm that finds the needed approximation.
Call the real number in question r. Then, first I assume that a can be negative, in that case we can reduce the problem and now only have to find a b such that the decimal part of sqrt(b) is a good approximation of the decimal part of r. Let us now write r as r = x.y with x being the integer and y the decimal part.
Now:
b = r^2
= (x.y)^2
= (x + .y)^2
= x^2 + 2 * x * .y + .y^2
= 2 * x * .y + .y^2 (mod 1)
We now only have to find an x such that 0 = .y^2 + 2 * x * .y (mod 1) (approximately).
Filling that x into the formulas above we get b and can then calculate a as a = r - b. (All of these calculations have to be carefully rounded of course.)
Now, for the time being I am not sure if there is a way to find this x without brute forcing it. But even then, one can simple use a simple loop to find an x good enough.
I am thinking of something like this(semi pseudo code):
max_diff_low = 0.01 // arbitrary accuracy
max_diff_high = 1 - max_diff_low
y = r % 1
v = y^2
addend = 2 * y
x = 0
while (v < max_diff_high && v > max_diff_low)
x++;
v = (v + addend) % 1
c = (x + y) ^ 2
b = round(c)
a = round(r - c)
Now, I think this algorithm is fairly efficient, while even allowing you to specify the wished accuracy of the approximation. One thing that could be done that would turn it into an O(1) algorithm is calculating all the x and putting them into a lookup table. If one only cares about the first three decimal digits of r(for example), the lookup table would only have 1000 values, which is only 4kb of memory(assuming that 32bit integers are used).
Hope this is helpful at all. If anyone finds anything wrong with the algorithm, please let me know in a comment and I will fix it.
EDIT:
Upon reflection I retract my claim of efficiency. There is in fact as far as I can tell no guarantee that the algorithm as outlined above will ever terminate, and even if it does, it might take a long time to find a very large x that solves the equation adequately.
One could maybe keep track of the best x found so far and relax the accuracy bounds over time to make sure the algorithm terminates quickly, at the possible cost of accuracy.
These problems are of course non-existent, if one simply pre-calculates a lookup table.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
how to get uniformed random between a, b by a known uniformed random function RANDOM(0,1)
In the book of Introduction to algorithms, there is an excise:
Describe an implementation of the procedure Random(a, b) that only makes calls to Random(0,1). What is the expected running time of your procedure, as a function of a and b? The probability of the result of Random(a,b) should be pure uniformly distributed, as Random(0,1)
For the Random function, the results are integers between a and b, inclusively. For e.g., Random(0,1) generates either 0 or 1; Random(a, b) generates a, a+1, a+2, ..., b
My solution is like this:
for i = 1 to b-a
r = a + Random(0,1)
return r
the running time is T=b-a
Is this correct? Are the results of my solutions uniformly distributed?
Thanks
What if my new solution is like this:
r = a
for i = 1 to b - a //including b-a
r += Random(0,1)
return r
If it is not correct, why r += Random(0,1) makes r not uniformly distributed?
Others have explained why your solution doesn't work. Here's the correct solution:
1) Find the smallest number, p, such that 2^p > b-a.
2) Perform the following algorithm:
r=0
for i = 1 to p
r = 2*r + Random(0,1)
3) If r is greater than b-a, go to step 2.
4) Your result is r+a
So let's try Random(1,3).
So b-a is 2.
2^1 = 2, so p will have to be 2 so that 2^p is greater than 2.
So we'll loop two times. Let's try all possible outputs:
00 -> r=0, 0 is not > 2, so we output 0+1 or 1.
01 -> r=1, 1 is not > 2, so we output 1+1 or 2.
10 -> r=2, 2 is not > 2, so we output 2+1 or 3.
11 -> r=3, 3 is > 2, so we repeat.
So 1/4 of the time, we output 1. 1/4 of the time we output 2. 1/4 of the time we output 3. And 1/4 of the time we have to repeat the algorithm a second time. Looks good.
Note that if you have to do this a lot, two optimizations are handy:
1) If you use the same range a lot, have a class that computes p once so you don't have to compute it each time.
2) Many CPUs have fast ways to perform step 1 that aren't exposed in high-level languages. For example, x86 CPUs have the BSR instruction.
No, it's not correct, that method will concentrate around (a+b)/2. It's a binomial distribution.
Are you sure that Random(0,1) produces integers? it would make more sense if it produced floating point values between 0 and 1. Then the solution would be an affine transformation, running time independent of a and b.
An idea I just had, in case it's about integer values: use bisection. At each step, you have a range low-high. If Random(0,1) returns 0, the next range is low-(low+high)/2, else (low+high)/2-high.
Details and complexity left to you, since it's homework.
That should create (approximately) a uniform distribution.
Edit: approximately is the important word there. Uniform if b-a+1 is a power of 2, not too far off if it's close, but not good enough generally. Ah, well it was a spontaneous idea, can't get them all right.
No, your solution isn't correct. This sum'll have binomial distribution.
However, you can generate a pure random sequence of 0, 1 and treat it as a binary number.
repeat
result = a
steps = ceiling(log(b - a))
for i = 0 to steps
result += (2 ^ i) * Random(0, 1)
until result <= b
KennyTM: my bad.
I read the other answers. For fun, here is another way to find the random number:
Allocate an array with b-a elements.
Set all the values to 1.
Iterate through the array. For each nonzero element, flip the coin, as it were. If it is came up 0, set the element to 0.
Whenever, after a complete iteration, you only have 1 element remaining, you have your random number: a+i where i is the index of the nonzero element (assuming we start indexing on 0). All numbers are then equally likely. (You would have to deal with the case where it's a tie, but I leave that as an exercise for you.)
This would have O(infinity) ... :)
On average, though, half the numbers would be eliminated, so it would have an average case running time of log_2 (b-a).
First of all I assume you are actually accumulating the result, not adding 0 or 1 to a on each step.
Using some probabilites you can prove that your solution is not uniformly distibuted. The chance that the resulting value r is (a+b)/2 is greatest. For instance if a is 0 and b is 7, the chance that you get a value 4 is (combination 4 of 7) divided by 2 raised to the power 7. The reason for that is that no matter which 4 out of the 7 values are 1 the result will still be 4.
The running time you estimate is correct.
Your solution's pseudocode should look like:
r=a
for i = 0 to b-a
r+=Random(0,1)
return r
As for uniform distribution, assuming that the random implementation this random number generator is based on is perfectly uniform the odds of getting 0 or 1 are 50%. Therefore getting the number you want is the result of that choice made over and over again.
So for a=1, b=5, there are 5 choices made.
The odds of getting 1 involves 5 decisions, all 0, the odds of that are 0.5^5 = 3.125%
The odds of getting 5 involves 5 decisions, all 1, the odds of that are 0.5^5 = 3.125%
As you can see from this, the distribution is not uniform -- the odds of any number should be 20%.
In the algorithm you created, it is really not equally distributed.
The result "r" will always be either "a" or "a+1". It will never go beyond that.
It should look something like this:
r=0;
for i=0 to b-a
r = a + r + Random(0,1)
return r;
By including "r" into your computation, you are including the "randomness" of all the previous "for" loop runs.
Suppose you have a list of floating point numbers that are approximately multiples of a common quantity, for example
2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
which are approximately all multiples of 1.234. How would you characterize this "approximate gcd", and how would you proceed to compute or estimate it?
Strictly related to my answer to this question.
You can run Euclid's gcd algorithm with anything smaller then 0.01 (or a small number of your choice) being a pseudo 0. With your numbers:
3.700 = 1 * 2.468 + 1.232,
2.468 = 2 * 1.232 + 0.004.
So the pseudo gcd of the first two numbers is 1.232. Now you take the gcd of this with your last number:
6.1699 = 5 * 1.232 + 0.0099.
So 1.232 is the pseudo gcd, and the mutiples are 2,3,5. To improve this result, you may take the linear regression on the data points:
(2,2.468), (3,3.7), (5,6.1699).
The slope is the improved pseudo gcd.
Caveat: the first part of this is algorithm is numerically unstable - if you start with very dirty data, you are in trouble.
Express your measurements as multiples of the lowest one. Thus your list becomes 1.00000, 1.49919, 2.49996. The fractional parts of these values will be very close to 1/Nths, for some value of N dictated by how close your lowest value is to the fundamental frequency. I would suggest looping through increasing N until you find a sufficiently refined match. In this case, for N=1 (that is, assuming X=2.468 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of 0.3333 (two of the three values are .5 off of X * 1), which is unacceptably high. For N=2 (that is, assuming 2.468/2 is your fundamental frequency) you would find a standard deviation of virtually zero (all three values are within .001 of a multiple of X/2), thus 2.468/2 is your approximate GCD.
The major flaw in my plan is that it works best when the lowest measurement is the most accurate, which is likely not the case. This could be mitigated by performing the entire operation multiple times, discarding the lowest value on the list of measurements each time, then use the list of results of each pass to determine a more precise result. Another way to refine the results would be adjust the GCD to minimize the standard deviation between integer multiples of the GCD and the measured values.
This reminds me of the problem of finding good rational-number approximations of real numbers. The standard technique is a continued-fraction expansion:
def rationalizations(x):
assert 0 <= x
ix = int(x)
yield ix, 1
if x == ix: return
for numer, denom in rationalizations(1.0/(x-ix)):
yield denom + ix * numer, numer
We could apply this directly to Jonathan Leffler's and Sparr's approach:
>>> a, b, c = 2.468, 3.700, 6.1699
>>> b/a, c/a
(1.4991896272285252, 2.4999594813614263)
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(b/a), 3))
[(1, 1), (3, 2), (925, 617)]
>>> list(itertools.islice(rationalizations(c/a), 3))
[(2, 1), (5, 2), (30847, 12339)]
picking off the first good-enough approximation from each sequence. (3/2 and 5/2 here.) Or instead of directly comparing 3.0/2.0 to 1.499189..., you could notice than 925/617 uses much larger integers than 3/2, making 3/2 an excellent place to stop.
It shouldn't much matter which of the numbers you divide by. (Using a/b and c/b you get 2/3 and 5/3, for instance.) Once you have integer ratios, you could refine the implied estimate of the fundamental using shsmurfy's linear regression. Everybody wins!
I'm assuming all of your numbers are multiples of integer values. For the rest of my explanation, A will denote the "root" frequency you are trying to find and B will be an array of the numbers you have to start with.
What you are trying to do is superficially similar to linear regression. You are trying to find a linear model y=mx+b that minimizes the average distance between a linear model and a set of data. In your case, b=0, m is the root frequency, and y represents the given values. The biggest problem is that the independent variables X are not explicitly given. The only thing we know about X is that all of its members must be integers.
Your first task is trying to determine these independent variables. The best method I can think of at the moment assumes that the given frequencies have nearly consecutive indexes (x_1=x_0+n). So B_0/B_1=(x_0)/(x_0+n) given a (hopefully) small integer n. You can then take advantage of the fact that x_0 = n/(B_1-B_0), start with n=1, and keep ratcheting it up until k-rnd(k) is within a certain threshold. After you have x_0 (the initial index), you can approximate the root frequency (A = B_0/x_0). Then you can approximate the other indexes by finding x_n = rnd(B_n/A). This method is not very robust and will probably fail if the error in the data is large.
If you want a better approximation of the root frequency A, you can use linear regression to minimize the error of the linear model now that you have the corresponding dependent variables. The easiest method to do so uses least squares fitting. Wolfram's Mathworld has a in-depth mathematical treatment of the issue, but a fairly simple explanation can be found with some googling.
Interesting question...not easy.
I suppose I would look at the ratios of the sample values:
3.700 / 2.468 = 1.499...
6.1699 / 2.468 = 2.4999...
6.1699 / 3.700 = 1.6675...
And I'd then be looking for a simple ratio of integers in those results.
1.499 ~= 3/2
2.4999 ~= 5/2
1.6675 ~= 5/3
I haven't chased it through, but somewhere along the line, you decide that an error of 1:1000 or something is good enough, and you back-track to find the base approximate GCD.
The solution which I've seen and used myself is to choose some constant, say 1000, multiply all numbers by this constant, round them to integers, find the GCD of these integers using the standard algorithm and then divide the result by the said constant (1000). The larger the constant, the higher the precision.
This is a reformulaiton of shsmurfy's solution when you a priori choose 3 positive tolerances (e1,e2,e3)
The problem is then to search smallest positive integers (n1,n2,n3) and thus largest root frequency f such that:
f1 = n1*f +/- e1
f2 = n2*f +/- e2
f3 = n3*f +/- e3
We assume 0 <= f1 <= f2 <= f3
If we fix n1, then we get these relations:
f is in interval I1=[(f1-e1)/n1 , (f1+e1)/n1]
n2 is in interval I2=[n1*(f2-e2)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f2+e2)/(f1-e1)]
n3 is in interval I3=[n1*(f3-e3)/(f1+e1) , n1*(f3+e3)/(f1-e1)]
We start with n1 = 1, then increment n1 until the interval I2 and I3 contain an integer - that is floor(I2min) different from floor(I2max) same with I3
We then choose smallest integer n2 in interval I2, and smallest integer n3 in interval I3.
Assuming normal distribution of floating point errors, the most probable estimate of root frequency f is the one minimizing
J = (f1/n1 - f)^2 + (f2/n2 - f)^2 + (f3/n3 - f)^2
That is
f = (f1/n1 + f2/n2 + f3/n3)/3
If there are several integers n2,n3 in intervals I2,I3 we could also choose the pair that minimize the residue
min(J)*3/2=(f1/n1)^2+(f2/n2)^2+(f3/n3)^2-(f1/n1)*(f2/n2)-(f1/n1)*(f3/n3)-(f2/n2)*(f3/n3)
Another variant could be to continue iteration and try to minimize another criterium like min(J(n1))*n1, until f falls below a certain frequency (n1 reaches an upper limit)...
I found this question looking for answers for mine in MathStackExchange (here and here).
I've only managed (yet) to measure the appeal of a fundamental frequency given a list of harmonic frequencies (following the sound/music nomenclature), which can be useful if you have a reduced number of options and is feasible to compute the appeal of each one and then choose the best fit.
C&P from my question in MSE (there the formatting is prettier):
being v the list {v_1, v_2, ..., v_n}, ordered from lower to higher
mean_sin(v, x) = sum(sin(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
mean_cos(v, x) = sum(cos(2*pi*v_i/x), for i in {1, ...,n})/n
gcd_appeal(v, x) = 1 - sqrt(mean_sin(v, x)^2 + (mean_cos(v, x) - 1)^2)/2, which yields a number in the interval [0,1].
The goal is to find the x that maximizes the appeal. Here is the (gcd_appeal) graph for your example [2.468, 3.700, 6.1699], where you find that the optimum GCD is at x = 1.2337899957639993
Edit:
You may find handy this JAVA code to calculate the (fuzzy) divisibility (aka gcd_appeal) of a divisor relative to a list of dividends; you can use it to test which of your candidates makes the best divisor. The code looks ugly because I tried to optimize it for performance.
//returns the mean divisibility of dividend/divisor as a value in the range [0 and 1]
// 0 means no divisibility at all
// 1 means full divisibility
public double divisibility(double divisor, double... dividends) {
double n = dividends.length;
double factor = 2.0 / divisor;
double sum_x = -n;
double sum_y = 0.0;
double[] coord = new double[2];
for (double v : dividends) {
coordinates(v * factor, coord);
sum_x += coord[0];
sum_y += coord[1];
}
double err = 1.0 - Math.sqrt(sum_x * sum_x + sum_y * sum_y) / (2.0 * n);
//Might happen due to approximation error
return err >= 0.0 ? err : 0.0;
}
private void coordinates(double x, double[] out) {
//Bhaskara performant approximation to
//out[0] = Math.cos(Math.PI*x);
//out[1] = Math.sin(Math.PI*x);
long cos_int_part = (long) (x + 0.5);
long sin_int_part = (long) x;
double rem = x - cos_int_part;
if (cos_int_part != sin_int_part) {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem;
double cos_rem_s = common_s * rem - 1.0;
double sin_rem_s = cos_rem_s + common_s + 1.0;
out[0] = (((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (((sin_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L) * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
} else {
double common_s = 4.0 * rem - 4.0;
double sin_rem_s = common_s * rem;
double cos_rem_s = sin_rem_s + common_s + 3.0;
double common_2 = ((cos_int_part & 1L) * 8L - 4L);
out[0] = (common_2 * cos_rem_s) / (cos_rem_s + 5.0);
out[1] = (common_2 * sin_rem_s) / (sin_rem_s + 5.0);
}
}