Related
After asking this question on math.stackexchange.com I figured this might be a better place after all...
I have a small list of positive numbers rounded to (say) two decimals:
1.15 (can be 1.145 - 1.154999...)
1.92 (can be 1.915 - 1.924999...)
2.36 (can be 2.355 - 2.364999...)
2.63 (can be 2.625 - 2.634999...)
2.78 (can be 2.775 - 2.784999...)
3.14 (can be 3.135 - 3.144999...)
24.04 (can be 24.035 - 24.044999...)
I suspect that these numbers are fractions of integers and that all numerators or all denominators are equal. Choosing 100 as a common denominator would work in this case, that would leave the last value as 2404/100. But there could be a 'simpler' solution with much smaller integers.
How do I efficiently find the smallest common numerator and/or denominator? Or (if that is different) the one that would result in the smallest maximum denominator resp. numerator?
Of course I could brute force for small lists/numbers and few decimals. That would find 83/72, 138/72, 170/72, 189/72, 200/72, 226/72 and 1731/72 for this example.
Assuming the numbers don't have too many significant digits and aren't too big you can try increasing the denominator until you find a valid solution. It is not just brute-forcing. Additionally the following script is staying at the number violating the constraints as long as there is nothing found, in the hope of getting the denominator higher faster, without having to calculate for the non-problematic numbers.
It works based on the following formula:
x / y < a / b if x * b < a * y
This means a denominator d is valid if:
ceil(loNum * d / loDen) * hiDen < hiNum * d
The ceil(...) part calculates the smallest possible numerator satisfying the constraint of the low boundary and the rest is checking if it also satysfies the high boundary.
Better would be to work with real integer calculations, e.g. just longs in Java, then the ceil part becomes:
(loNum * d + loDen - 1) / loDen
function findRatios(arr) {
let lo = [], hi = [], consecutive = 0, d = 1
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
let x = '' + arr[i], len = x.length, dot = x.indexOf('.'),
num = parseInt(x.substr(0, dot) + x.substr(dot + 1)) * 10,
den = Math.pow(10, len - dot),
loGcd = gcd(num - 5, den), hiGcd = gcd(num + 5, den)
lo[i] = {num: (num - 5) / loGcd, den: den / loGcd}
hi[i] = {num: (num + 5) / hiGcd, den: den / hiGcd}
}
for (let index = 0; consecutive < arr.length; index = (index + 1) % arr.length) {
if (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index])) {
consecutive = 1
d++
while (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index]))
d++
} else {
consecutive++
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
console.log(Math.ceil(lo[i].num * d / lo[i].den) + ' / ' + d)
}
function gcd(x, y) {
while(y) {
let t = y
y = x % y
x = t
}
return x
}
function valid(d, lo, hi) {
let n = Math.ceil(lo.num * d / lo.den)
return n * hi.den < hi.num * d
}
findRatios([1.15, 1.92, 2.36, 2.63, 2.78, 3.14, 24.04])
This source code is an implementation for the epsilon-constraint method. How can I replace the fmincon() function with PSO or GA optimization algorithm (I do not want to use a build-in function).
This code for the main function
x0 = [1 1]; % Starting point
UB = [1 1]; % Upper bound
LB = [0 0]; % Lower bound
options = optimset('LargeScale', 'off', 'MaxFunEvals', 1000, ...
'TolFun', 1e-6, 'TolCon', 1e-6, 'disp', 'off');
% Create constraint bound vector:
n = 50; % Number of Pareto points
eps_min = -1;
eps_max = 0;
eps = eps_min:(eps_max - eps_min)/(n-1):eps_max;
% Solve scalarized problem for each epsilon value:
xopt = zeros(n,length(x0));
for i=1:n
xopt(i,:)=fmincon('obj_eps', x0, [], [], [], [], LB, UB,...
'nonlcon_eps', options, eps(i));
end
This is the constraints function:
function [C,constraintViolation] = nonlcon_eps(x, eps)
constraintViolation= 0;
Ceq = [];
C(1) =x(2)+(x(1)-1)^3;
if C(1) > 0
constraintViolation= constraintViolation+ 1;
end
C(2) = -x(1) - eps;
if C(2) > 0
constraintViolation= constraintViolation+ 1;
end
This is the objective function:
function f = obj_eps(x, ~)
f = 2*x(1)-x(2);
I have replaced this part:
for i=1:n
xopt(i,:)=fmincon('obj_eps', x0, [], [], [], [], LB, UB,'nonlcon_eps', options, eps(i));
end
with this:
maxIteration = 1000;
dim = 2;
n = 50; % Number of Pareto points
eps_min = -1;
eps_max = 0;
EpsVal = eps_min:(eps_max - eps_min)/(n-1):eps_max;
for i=1:n
[gbest]= PSOalgo(N,T,lb,ub,dim,fobj,fcon,EpsVal(i));
end
function [gbest]= PSOalgo(N,maxite,lb,ub,dim,fobj,fcon,EpsVal)
% initialization
wmax=0.9; % inertia weight
wmin=0.4; % inertia weight
c1=2; % acceleration factor
c2=2; % acceleration factor
% pso initialization
X=initialization(N,dim,ub,lb);
v = 0.1*X; % initial velocity
for i=1:N
fitnessX(i,1)= fobj(X(i,:));
end
[fmin0,index0]= min(fitnessX);
pbest= X; % initial pbest
pbestfitness = fitnessX;
gbest= X(index0,:); % initial gbest
gbestfitness = fmin0;
ite=0; % Loop counter
while ite<maxite
w=wmax-(wmax-wmin)*ite/maxite; % update inertial weight
% pso velocity updates
for i=1:N
for j=1:dim
v(i,j)=w*v(i,j)+c1*rand()*(pbest(i,j)- X(i,j)) + c2*rand()*(gbest(1,j)- X(i,j));
end
end
% pso position update
for i=1:N
for j=1:dim
X(i,j)= X(i,j)+v(i,j);
end
% Check boundries
FU=X(i,:)>ub;
FL=X(i,:)<lb;
X(i,:)=(X(i,:).*(~(FU+FL)))+ub.*FU+lb.*FL;
% evaluating fitness
fitnessX(i,1) = fobj(X(i,:));
[~,constraintViolation(i,1)] = fcon(X(i,:), EpsVal);
end
% updating pbest and fitness
for i=1:N
if fitnessX(i,1) < pbestfitness(i,1) && constraintViolation(i,1) == 0
pbest(i,:)= X(i,:);
pbestfitness(i,1)= fitnessX(i,1);
end
[~,constraintViolation(i,1)] = fcon(pbest(i,:), EpsVal);
end
% updating gbest and best fitness
for i=1:N
if pbestfitness(i,1)<gbestfitness && constraintViolation(i,1) == 0
gbest=pbest(i,:);
gbestfitness= pbestfitness(i,1);
end
end
ite = ite+1;
end
end
However, when I run the code the output is only one solution, while it should be 50 (n=50). This because all other solution do not satisfy the constraints. How can modify the code to get one solution at each run(n=1:50)
UPDATE:
I have included PSOalgo() code and did some modification. The output now is 50 solutions.However, the obtained result is not correct.
fmincon () result:
PSO result:
In the problem Im working on there is such a part of code, as shown below. The definition part is just to show you the sizes of arrays. Below I pasted vectorized version - and it is >2x slower. Why it happens so? I know that i happens if vectorization requiers large temporary variables, but (it seems) it is not true here.
And generally, what (other than parfor, with I already use) can I do to speed up this code?
maxN = 100;
levels = maxN+1;
xElements = 101;
umn = complex(zeros(levels, levels));
umn2 = umn;
bessels = ones(xElements, xElements, levels); % 1.09 GB
posMcontainer = ones(xElements, xElements, maxN);
tic
for j = 1 : xElements
for i = 1 : xElements
for n = 1 : 2 : maxN
nn = n + 1;
mm = 1;
for m = 1 : 2 : n
umn(nn, mm) = bessels(i, j, nn) * posMcontainer(i, j, m);
mm = mm + 1;
end
end
end
end
toc % 0.520594 seconds
tic
for j = 1 : xElements
for i = 1 : xElements
for n = 1 : 2 : maxN
nn = n + 1;
m = 1:2:n;
numOfEl = ceil(n/2);
umn2(nn, 1:numOfEl) = bessels(i, j, nn) * posMcontainer(i, j, m);
end
end
end
toc % 1.275926 seconds
sum(sum(umn-umn2)) % veryfying, if all done right
Best regards,
Alex
From the profiler:
Edit:
In reply to #Jason answer, this alternative takes the same time:
for n = 1:2:maxN
nn(n) = n + 1;
numOfEl(n) = ceil(n/2);
end
for j = 1 : xElements
for i = 1 : xElements
for n = 1 : 2 : maxN
umn2(nn(n), 1:numOfEl(n)) = bessels(i, j, nn(n)) * posMcontainer(i, j, 1:2:n);
end
end
end
Edit2:
In reply to #EBH :
The point is to do the following:
parfor i = 1 : xElements
for j = 1 : xElements
umn = complex(zeros(levels, levels)); % cleaning
for n = 0:maxN
mm = 1;
for m = -n:2:n
nn = n + 1; % for indexing
if m < 0
umn(nn, mm) = bessels(i, j, nn) * negMcontainer(i, j, abs(m));
end
if m > 0
umn(nn, mm) = bessels(i, j, nn) * posMcontainer(i, j, m);
end
if m == 0
umn(nn, mm) = bessels(i, j, nn);
end
mm = mm + 1; % for indexing
end % m
end % n
beta1 = sum(sum(Aj1.*umn));
betaSumSq1(i, j) = abs(beta1).^2;
beta2 = sum(sum(Aj2.*umn));
betaSumSq2(i, j) = abs(beta2).^2;
end % j
end % i
I speeded it up as much, as I was able to. What you have written is taking only the last bessels and posMcontainer values, so it does not produce the same result. In the real code, those two containers are filled not with 1, but with some precalculated values.
After your edit, I can see that umn is just a temporary variable for another calculation. It still can be mostly vectorizable:
betaSumSq1 = zeros(xElements); % preallocating
betaSumSq2 = zeros(xElements); % preallocating
% an index matrix to fetch the right values from negMcontainer and
% posMcontainer:
indmat = tril(repmat([0 1;1 0],ceil((maxN+1)/2),floor(levels/2)));
indmat(end,:) = [];
% an index matrix to fetch the values in correct order for umn:
b_ind = repmat([1;0],ceil((maxN+1)/2),1);
b_ind(end) = [];
tempind = logical([fliplr(indmat) b_ind indmat+triu(ones(size(indmat)))]);
% permute the arrays to prevent squeeze:
PM = permute(posMcontainer,[3 1 2]);
NM = permute(negMcontainer,[3 1 2]);
B = permute(bessels,[3 1 2]);
for k = 1 : maxN+1 % third dim
for jj = 1 : xElements % columns
b = B(:,jj,k); % get one vector of B
% perform b*NM for every row of NM*indmat, than flip the result:
neg = fliplr(bsxfun(#times,bsxfun(#times,indmat,NM(:,jj,k).'),b));
% perform b*PM for every row of PM*indmat:
pos = bsxfun(#times,bsxfun(#times,indmat,PM(:,jj,k).'),b);
temp = [neg mod(1:levels,2).'.*b pos].'; % concat neg and pos
% assign them to the right place in umn:
umn = reshape(temp(tempind.'),[levels levels]).';
beta1 = Aj1.*umn;
betaSumSq1(jj,k) = abs(sum(beta1(:))).^2;
beta2 = Aj2.*umn;
betaSumSq2(jj,k) = abs(sum(beta2(:))).^2;
end
end
This reduce running time from ~95 seconds to less 3 seconds (both without parfor), so it improves in almost 97%.
I would suspect it is memory allocation. You are re-allocating the m array in a 3 deep loop.
try rearranging the code:
tic
for n = 1 : 2 : maxN
nn = n + 1;
m = 1:2:n;
numOfEl = ceil(n/2);
for j = 1 : xElements
for i = 1 : xElements
umn2(nn, 1:numOfEl) = bessels(i, j, nn) * posMcontainer(i, j, m);
end
end
end
toc % 1.275926 seconds
I was trying this in Igor pro, which a similar language, but with different optimizations. So the direct translations don't time the same way as Matlab (vectorized was slightly faster in Igor). But reordering the loops did speed up the vectorized form.
In your second part of the code, that is setting umn2, inside the loops, you have:
nn = n + 1;
m = 1:2:n;
numOfEl = ceil(n/2);
Those 3 lines don't require any input from the i and j loops, they only use the n loop. So reordering the loops such that i and j are inside the n loop will mean that those 3 lines are done xElements^2 (100^2) times less often. I suspect it is that m = 1:2:n line that takes time, since that is allocating an array.
I'm doing this exercise by Andrew NG about using k-means to reduce the number of colors in an image. It worked correctly but I'm afraid it's a little slow because of all the for loops in the code, so I'd like to vectorize them. But there are those loops that I just can't seem to vectorize effectively. Please help me, thank you very much!
Also if possible please give some feedback on my coding style :)
Here is the link of the exercise, and here is the dataset.
The correct result is given in the link of the exercise.
And here is my code:
function [] = KMeans()
Image = double(imread('bird_small.tiff'));
[rows,cols, RGB] = size(Image);
Points = reshape(Image,rows * cols, RGB);
K = 16;
Centroids = zeros(K,RGB);
s = RandStream('mt19937ar','Seed',0);
% Initialization :
% Pick out K random colours and make sure they are all different
% from each other! This prevents the situation where two of the means
% are assigned to the exact same colour, therefore we don't have to
% worry about division by zero in the E-step
% However, if K = 16 for example, and there are only 15 colours in the
% image, then this while loop will never exit!!! This needs to be
% addressed in the future :(
% TODO : Vectorize this part!
done = false;
while done == false
RowIndex = randperm(s,rows);
ColIndex = randperm(s,cols);
RowIndex = RowIndex(1:K);
ColIndex = ColIndex(1:K);
for i = 1 : K
for j = 1 : RGB
Centroids(i,j) = Image(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),j);
end
end
Centroids = sort(Centroids,2);
Centroids = unique(Centroids,'rows');
if size(Centroids,1) == K
done = true;
end
end;
% imshow(imread('bird_small.tiff'))
%
% for i = 1 : K
% hold on;
% plot(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),'r+','MarkerSize',50)
% end
eps = 0.01; % Epsilon
IterNum = 0;
while 1
% E-step: Estimate membership given parameters
% Membership: The centroid that each colour is assigned to
% Parameters: Location of centroids
Dist = pdist2(Points,Centroids,'euclidean');
[~, WhichCentroid] = min(Dist,[],2);
% M-step: Estimate parameters given membership
% Membership: The centroid that each colour is assigned to
% Parameters: Location of centroids
% TODO: Vectorize this part!
OldCentroids = Centroids;
for i = 1 : K
PointsInCentroid = Points((find(WhichCentroid == i))',:);
NumOfPoints = size(PointsInCentroid,1);
% Note that NumOfPoints is never equal to 0, as a result of
% the initialization. Or .... ???????
if NumOfPoints ~= 0
Centroids(i,:) = sum(PointsInCentroid , 1) / NumOfPoints ;
end
end
% Check for convergence: Here we use the L2 distance
IterNum = IterNum + 1;
Margins = sqrt(sum((Centroids - OldCentroids).^2, 2));
if sum(Margins > eps) == 0
break;
end
end
IterNum;
Centroids ;
% Load the larger image
[LargerImage,ColorMap] = imread('bird_large.tiff');
LargerImage = double(LargerImage);
[largeRows,largeCols,NewRGB] = size(LargerImage); % RGB is always 3
% TODO: Vectorize this part!
largeRows
largeCols
NewRGB
% Replace each of the pixel with the nearest centroid
NewPoints = reshape(LargerImage,largeRows * largeCols, NewRGB);
Dist = pdist2(NewPoints,Centroids,'euclidean');
[~,WhichCentroid] = min(Dist,[],2);
NewPoints = Centroids(WhichCentroid,:);
LargerImage = reshape(NewPoints,largeRows,largeCols,NewRGB);
% for i = 1 : largeRows
% for j = 1 : largeCols
% Dist = pdist2(Centroids,reshape(LargerImage(i,j,:),1,RGB),'euclidean');
% [~,WhichCentroid] = min(Dist);
% LargerImage(i,j,:) = Centroids(WhichCentroid,:);
% end
% end
% Display new image
imshow(uint8(round(LargerImage)),ColorMap)
UPDATE: Replaced
for i = 1 : K
for j = 1 : RGB
Centroids(i,j) = Image(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),j);
end
end
with
for i = 1 : K
Centroids(i,:) = Image(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),:);
end
I think this may be vectorized further by using linear indexing, but for now I should just focus on the while loop since it takes most of the time.
Also when I tried #Dev-iL's suggestion and replaced
for i = 1 : K
PointsInCentroid = Points((find(WhichCentroid == i))',:);
NumOfPoints = size(PointsInCentroid,1);
% Note that NumOfPoints is never equal to 0, as a result of
% the initialization. Or .... ???????
if NumOfPoints ~= 0
Centroids(i,:) = sum(PointsInCentroid , 1) / NumOfPoints ;
end
end
with
E = sparse(1:size(WhichCentroid), WhichCentroid' , 1, Num, K, Num);
Centroids = (E * spdiags(1./sum(E,1)',0,K,K))' * Points ;
the results were always worse: With K = 16, the first takes 2,414s , the second takes 2,455s ; K = 32, the first takes 4,529s , the second takes 5,022s. Seems like vectorization does not help, but maybe there's something wrong with my code :( .
Replaced
for i = 1 : K
for j = 1 : RGB
Centroids(i,j) = Image(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),j);
end
end
with
for i = 1 : K
Centroids(i,:) = Image(RowIndex(i),ColIndex(i),:);
end
I think this may be vectorized further by using linear indexing, but for now I should just focus on the while loop since it takes most of the time.
Also when I tried #Dev-iL's suggestion and replaced
for i = 1 : K
PointsInCentroid = Points((find(WhichCentroid == i))',:);
NumOfPoints = size(PointsInCentroid,1);
% Note that NumOfPoints is never equal to 0, as a result of
% the initialization. Or .... ???????
if NumOfPoints ~= 0
Centroids(i,:) = sum(PointsInCentroid , 1) / NumOfPoints ;
end
end
with
E = sparse(1:size(WhichCentroid), WhichCentroid' , 1, Num, K, Num);
Centroids = (E * spdiags(1./sum(E,1)',0,K,K))' * Points ;
the results were always worse: With K = 16, the first takes 2,414s , the second takes 2,455s ; K = 32, the first took 4,529s , the second took 5,022s. Seems like vectorization did not help in this case.
However, when I replaced
Dist = pdist2(Points,Centroids,'euclidean');
[~, WhichCentroid] = min(Dist,[],2);
(in the while loop) with
Dist = bsxfun(#minus,dot(Centroids',Centroids',1)' / 2 , Centroids * Points' );
[~, WhichCentroid] = min(Dist,[],1);
WhichCentroid = WhichCentroid';
the code ran much faster, especially when K is large (K=32)
Thank you everyone!
I have three numbers x, y , z.
For a range between numbers x and y.
How can i find the total numbers whose % with z is 0 i.e. how many numbers between x and y are divisible by z ?
It can be done in O(1): find the first one, find the last one, find the count of all other.
I'm assuming the range is inclusive. If your ranges are exclusive, adjust the bounds by one:
find the first value after x that is divisible by z. You can discard x:
x_mod = x % z;
if(x_mod != 0)
x += (z - x_mod);
find the last value before y that is divisible by y. You can discard y:
y -= y % z;
find the size of this range:
if(x > y)
return 0;
else
return (y - x) / z + 1;
If mathematical floor and ceil functions are available, the first two parts can be written more readably. Also the last part can be compressed using math functions:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return max((y - x) / z + 1, 0);
if the input is guaranteed to be a valid range (x >= y), the last test or max is unneccessary:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return (y - x) / z + 1;
(2017, answer rewritten thanks to comments)
The number of multiples of z in a number n is simply n / z
/ being the integer division, meaning decimals that could result from the division are simply ignored (for instance 17/5 => 3 and not 3.4).
Now, in a range from x to y, how many multiples of z are there?
Let see how many multiples m we have up to y
0----------------------------------x------------------------y
-m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---
You see where I'm going... to get the number of multiples in the range [ x, y ], get the number of multiples of y then subtract the number of multiples before x, (x-1) / z
Solution: ( y / z ) - (( x - 1 ) / z )
Programmatically, you could make a function numberOfMultiples
function numberOfMultiples(n, z) {
return n / z;
}
to get the number of multiples in a range [x, y]
numberOfMultiples(y) - numberOfMultiples(x-1)
The function is O(1), there is no need of a loop to get the number of multiples.
Examples of results you should find
[30, 90] ÷ 13 => 4
[1, 1000] ÷ 6 => 166
[100, 1000000] ÷ 7 => 142843
[777, 777777777] ÷ 7 => 111111001
For the first example, 90 / 13 = 6, (30-1) / 13 = 2, and 6-2 = 4
---26---39---52---65---78---91--
^ ^
30<---(4 multiples)-->90
I also encountered this on Codility. It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to come up with a good solution, so I figured I would share what I think is an elegant solution!
Straightforward Approach 1/2:
O(N) time solution with a loop and counter, unrealistic when N = 2 billion.
Awesome Approach 3:
We want the number of digits in some range that are divisible by K.
Simple case: assume range [0 .. n*K], N = n*K
N/K represents the number of digits in [0,N) that are divisible by K, given N%K = 0 (aka. N is divisible by K)
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6}| = 3 = 9/3
Similarly,
N/K + 1 represents the number of digits in [0,N] divisible by K
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6 9}| = 4 = 9/3 + 1
I think really understanding the above fact is the trickiest part of this question, I cannot explain exactly why it works.
The rest boils down to prefix sums and handling special cases.
Now we don't always have a range that begins with 0, and we cannot assume the two bounds will be divisible by K.
But wait! We can fix this by calculating our own nice upper and lower bounds and using some subtraction magic :)
First find the closest upper and lower in the range [A,B] that are divisible by K.
Upper bound (easier): ex. B = 10, K = 3, new_B = 9... the pattern is B - B%K
Lower bound: ex. A = 10, K = 3, new_A = 12... try a few more and you will see the pattern is A - A%K + K
Then calculate the following using the above technique:
Determine the total number of digits X between [0,B] that are divisible by K
Determine the total number of digits Y between [0,A) that are divisible by K
Calculate the number of digits between [A,B] that are divisible by K in constant time by the expression X - Y
Website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/count_div/
class CountDiv {
public int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
int firstDivisible = A%K == 0 ? A : A + (K - A%K);
int lastDivisible = B%K == 0 ? B : B - B%K; //B/K behaves this way by default.
return (lastDivisible - firstDivisible)/K + 1;
}
}
This is my first time explaining an approach like this. Feedback is very much appreciated :)
This is one of the Codility Lesson 3 questions. For this question, the input is guaranteed to be in a valid range. I answered it using Javascript:
function solution(x, y, z) {
var totalDivisibles = Math.floor(y / z),
excludeDivisibles = Math.floor((x - 1) / z),
divisiblesInArray = totalDivisibles - excludeDivisibles;
return divisiblesInArray;
}
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoQX3MJC-8AP/
(I actually wanted to ask about some of the other comments on this page but I don't have enough rep points yet).
Divide y-x by z, rounding down. Add one if y%z < x%z or if x%z == 0.
No mathematical proof, unless someone cares to provide one, but test cases, in Perl:
#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More;
sub multiples_in_range {
my ($x, $y, $z) = #_;
return 0 if $x > $y;
my $ret = int( ($y - $x) / $z);
$ret++ if $y%$z < $x%$z or $x%$z == 0;
return $ret;
}
for my $z (2 .. 10) {
for my $x (0 .. 2*$z) {
for my $y (0 .. 4*$z) {
is multiples_in_range($x, $y, $z),
scalar(grep { $_ % $z == 0 } $x..$y),
"[$x..$y] mod $z";
}
}
}
done_testing;
Output:
$ prove divrange.pl
divrange.pl .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=3405, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.20 usr 0.02 sys + 0.26 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.49 CPU)
Result: PASS
Let [A;B] be an interval of positive integers including A and B such that 0 <= A <= B, K be the divisor.
It is easy to see that there are N(A) = ⌊A / K⌋ = floor(A / K) factors of K in interval [0;A]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x··●·····x········x········x···>
0 A
Similarly, there are N(B) = ⌊B / K⌋ = floor(B / K) factors of K in interval [0;B]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x········x········x···●····x···>
0 B
Then N = N(B) - N(A) equals to the number of K's (the number of integers divisible by K) in range (A;B]. The point A is not included, because the subtracted N(A) includes this point. Therefore, the result should be incremented by one, if A mod K is zero:
N := N(B) - N(A)
if (A mod K = 0)
N := N + 1
Implementation in PHP
function solution($A, $B, $K) {
if ($K < 1)
return 0;
$c = floor($B / $K) - floor($A / $K);
if ($A % $K == 0)
$c++;
return (int)$c;
}
In PHP, the effect of the floor function can be achieved by casting to the integer type:
$c = (int)($B / $K) - (int)($A / $K);
which, I think, is faster.
Here is my short and simple solution in C++ which got 100/100 on codility. :)
Runs in O(1) time. I hope its not difficult to understand.
int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
// write your code in C++11
int cnt=0;
if( A%K==0 or B%K==0)
cnt++;
if(A>=K)
cnt+= (B - A)/K;
else
cnt+=B/K;
return cnt;
}
(floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) - (high%d==0)
Explanation:
There are a/d numbers divisible by d from 0.0 to a. (d!=0)
Therefore (floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) will give numbers divisible in the range (low,high] (Note that low is excluded and high is included in this range)
Now to remove high from the range just subtract (high%d==0)
Works for integers, floats or whatever (Use fmodf function for floats)
Won't strive for an o(1) solution, this leave for more clever person:) Just feel this is a perfect usage scenario for function programming. Simple and straightforward.
> x,y,z=1,1000,6
=> [1, 1000, 6]
> (x..y).select {|n| n%z==0}.size
=> 166
EDIT: after reading other's O(1) solution. I feel shamed. Programming made people lazy to think...
Division (a/b=c) by definition - taking a set of size a and forming groups of size b. The number of groups of this size that can be formed, c, is the quotient of a and b. - is nothing more than the number of integers within range/interval ]0..a] (not including zero, but including a) that are divisible by b.
so by definition:
Y/Z - number of integers within ]0..Y] that are divisible by Z
and
X/Z - number of integers within ]0..X] that are divisible by Z
thus:
result = [Y/Z] - [X/Z] + x (where x = 1 if and only if X is divisible by Y otherwise 0 - assuming the given range [X..Y] includes X)
example :
for (6, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 6/2 + 1 (as 6%2 == 0) = 6 - 3 + 1 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
for (5, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 5/2 + 0 (as 5%2 != 0) = 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
The time complexity of the solution will be linear.
Code Snippet :
int countDiv(int a, int b, int m)
{
int mod = (min(a, b)%m==0);
int cnt = abs(floor(b/m) - floor(a/m)) + mod;
return cnt;
}
here n will give you count of number and will print sum of all numbers that are divisible by k
int a = sc.nextInt();
int b = sc.nextInt();
int k = sc.nextInt();
int first = 0;
if (a > k) {
first = a + a/k;
} else {
first = k;
}
int last = b - b%k;
if (first > last) {
System.out.println(0);
} else {
int n = (last - first)/k+1;
System.out.println(n * (first + last)/2);
}
Here is the solution to the problem written in Swift Programming Language.
Step 1: Find the first number in the range divisible by z.
Step 2: Find the last number in the range divisible by z.
Step 3: Use a mathematical formula to find the number of divisible numbers by z in the range.
func solution(_ x : Int, _ y : Int, _ z : Int) -> Int {
var numberOfDivisible = 0
var firstNumber: Int
var lastNumber: Int
if y == x {
return x % z == 0 ? 1 : 0
}
//Find first number divisible by z
let moduloX = x % z
if moduloX == 0 {
firstNumber = x
} else {
firstNumber = x + (z - moduloX)
}
//Fist last number divisible by z
let moduloY = y % z
if moduloY == 0 {
lastNumber = y
} else {
lastNumber = y - moduloY
}
//Math formula
numberOfDivisible = Int(floor(Double((lastNumber - firstNumber) / z))) + 1
return numberOfDivisible
}
public static int Solution(int A, int B, int K)
{
int count = 0;
//If A is divisible by K
if(A % K == 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K) + 1;
}
//If A is not divisible by K
else if(A % K != 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K);
}
return count;
}
This can be done in O(1).
Here you are a solution in C++.
auto first{ x % z == 0 ? x : x + z - x % z };
auto last{ y % z == 0 ? y : y - y % z };
auto ans{ (last - first) / z + 1 };
Where first is the first number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z, last is the last number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z and ans is the answer that you are looking for.