I am interested in simulating the phenomenon of "regression to the mean". Say a 0-1 vector V of length N is "gifted" if the number of 1s in V is greater than N/2 + 5*sqrt(N).
I want Maple to evaluate a string of M 0-1 lists, each of length N, to determine whether they are gifted.
Then, given that list V[i] is gifted, I want to evaluate the probability that list V[i+1] is gifted.
So far my code is failing in a strange way. So far all the code is supposed to do is create the list of sums (called 'total') and the list 'g' which carries a 0 if total[i] <= N/2 + 5sqrt(N), and a 1 otherwise.
Here is the code:
RS:=proc(N) local ra,i:
ra:=rand(0..1):
[seq(ra(),i=1..N)]:
end:
Gift:=proc(N,M) local total, i, g :
total:=[seq(add(RS(N)),i=1..M)]:
g:=[seq(0,i=1..M)]:
for i from 1 to M do
if total[i] > (N/2 + 5*(N^(1/2))) then
g[i]:=1
fi:
od:
print(total, g)
end:
The trouble is, Maple responds, when I try Gift(100,20),
"Error, (in Gift) cannot determine if this expression is true or false: 5*100^(1/2) < -2"
or, when I try Gift(10000,20), "Error, (in Gift) cannot determine if this expression is true or false: 5*10000^(1/2) < -103."
Where are these negative numbers coming from? And why can't Maple tell whether 5(10000)^{1/2} < -103 or not?
The negative quantities are simply the part of the inequality that results when the portion with the radical is moved to one side and the purely rational portion is moved to the other.
Use an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of the conditional test. For example,
if is( total[i] > (N/2 + 5*N^(1/2)) ) then
...etc
or, say,
temp := evalf(N/2 + 5*N^(1/2));
for i from 1 to M do
if total[i] > temp then
...etc
From the Maple online help:
Important: The evalb command does not simplify expressions. It may return false for a relation that is true. In such a case, apply a simplification to the relation before using evalb.
...
You must convert symbolic arguments to floating-point values when using the evalb command for inequalities that use <, <=, >, or >=.
In this particular example, Maple chokes when trying to determine if the symbolic square root is less than -2, though it tried its best to simplify before quitting.
One fix is to apply evalf to inequalities. Rather than, say, evalb(x < y), you would write evalb(evalf(x < y)).
As to why Maple can't handle these inequalities, I don't know.
Related
Determining the square root through successive approximation is implemented using the following algorithm:
Begin by guessing that the square root is x / 2. Call that guess g.
The actual square root must lie between g and x/g. At each step in the successive approximation, generate a new guess by averaging g and x/g.
Repeat step 2 until the values of g and x/g are as close together as the precision of the hardware allows. In Java, the best way to check for this condition is to test whether the average is equal to either of the values used to generate it.
What really confuses me is the last statement of step 3. I interpreted it as follows:
private double sqrt(double x) {
double g = x / 2;
while(true) {
double average = (g + x/g) / 2;
if(average == g || average == x/g) break;
g = average;
}
return g;
}
This seems to just cause an infinite loop. I am following the algorithm exactly, if the average equals either g or x/g (the two values used to generate it) then we have our answer ?
Why would anyone ever use that approach, when they could simply use the formulas for (2n^2) = 4n^2 and (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, to populate each bit in the mantissa, and divide the exponent by two, multiplying the mantissa by two iff the the mod of the exponent with two equals 1?
To check if g and x/g are as close as the HW allow, look at the relative difference and compare
it with the epsilon for your floating point format. If it is within a small integer multiple of epsilon, you are OK.
Relative difference of x and y, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference
The epsilon for 32-bit IEEE floats is about 1.0e-7, as in one of the other answers here, but that answer used the absolute rather than the relative difference.
In practice, that means something like:
Math.abs(g-x/g)/Math.max(Math.abs(g),Math.abs(x/g)) < 3.0e-7
Never compare floating point values for equality. The result is not reliable.
Use a epsilon like so:
if(Math.abs(average-g) < 1e-7 || Math.abs(average-x/g) < 1e-7)
You can change the epsilon value to be whatever you need. Probably best is something related to the original x.
I'm working on a homework problem that asks me this:
Tiven a finite set of numbers, and a target number, find if the set can be used to calculate the target number using basic math operations (add, sub, mult, div) and using each number in the set exactly once (so I need to exhaust the set). This has to be done with recursion.
So, for example, if I have the set
{1, 2, 3, 4}
and target 10, then I could get to it by using
((3 * 4) - 2)/1 = 10.
I'm trying to phrase the algorithm in pseudo-code, but so far haven't gotten too far. I'm thinking graphs are the way to go, but would definitely appreciate help on this. thanks.
This isn't meant to be the fastest solution, but rather an instructive one.
It recursively generates all equations in postfix notation
It also provides a translation from postfix to infix notation
There is no actual arithmetic calculation done, so you have to implement that on your own
Be careful about division by zero
With 4 operands, 4 possible operators, it generates all 7680 = 5 * 4! * 4^3
possible expressions.
5 is Catalan(3). Catalan(N) is the number of ways to paranthesize N+1 operands.
4! because the 4 operands are permutable
4^3 because the 3 operators each have 4 choice
This definitely does not scale well, as the number of expressions for N operands is [1, 8, 192, 7680, 430080, 30965760, 2724986880, ...].
In general, if you have n+1 operands, and must insert n operators chosen from k possibilities, then there are (2n)!/n! k^n possible equations.
Good luck!
import java.util.*;
public class Expressions {
static String operators = "+-/*";
static String translate(String postfix) {
Stack<String> expr = new Stack<String>();
Scanner sc = new Scanner(postfix);
while (sc.hasNext()) {
String t = sc.next();
if (operators.indexOf(t) == -1) {
expr.push(t);
} else {
expr.push("(" + expr.pop() + t + expr.pop() + ")");
}
}
return expr.pop();
}
static void brute(Integer[] numbers, int stackHeight, String eq) {
if (stackHeight >= 2) {
for (char op : operators.toCharArray()) {
brute(numbers, stackHeight - 1, eq + " " + op);
}
}
boolean allUsedUp = true;
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
if (numbers[i] != null) {
allUsedUp = false;
Integer n = numbers[i];
numbers[i] = null;
brute(numbers, stackHeight + 1, eq + " " + n);
numbers[i] = n;
}
}
if (allUsedUp && stackHeight == 1) {
System.out.println(eq + " === " + translate(eq));
}
}
static void expression(Integer... numbers) {
brute(numbers, 0, "");
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
expression(1, 2, 3, 4);
}
}
Before thinking about how to solve the problem (like with graphs), it really helps to just look at the problem. If you find yourself stuck and can't seem to come up with any pseudo-code, then most likely there is something that is holding you back; Some other question or concern that hasn't been addressed yet. An example 'sticky' question in this case might be, "What exactly is recursive about this problem?"
Before you read the next paragraph, try to answer this question first. If you knew what was recursive about the problem, then writing a recursive method to solve it might not be very difficult.
You want to know if some expression that uses a set of numbers (each number used only once) gives you a target value. There are four binary operations, each with an inverse. So, in other words, you want to know if the first number operated with some expression of the other numbers gives you the target. Well, in other words, you want to know if some expression of the 'other' numbers is [...]. If not, then using the first operation with the first number doesn't really give you what you need, so try the other ops. If they don't work, then maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Edit: I thought of this for an infix expression of four operators without parenthesis, since a comment on the original question said that parenthesis were added for the sake of an example (for clarity?) and the use of parenthesis was not explicitly stated.
Well, you didn't mention efficiency so I'm going to post a really brute force solution and let you optimize it if you want to. Since you can have parantheses, it's easy to brute force it using Reverse Polish Notation:
First of all, if your set has n numbers, you must use exactly n - 1 operators. So your solution will be given by a sequence of 2n - 1 symbols from {{your given set}, {*, /, +, -}}
st = a stack of length 2n - 1
n = numbers in your set
a = your set, to which you add *, /, +, -
v[i] = 1 if the NUMBER i has been used before, 0 otherwise
void go(int k)
{
if ( k > 2n - 1 )
{
// eval st as described on Wikipedia.
// Careful though, it might not be valid, so you'll have to check that it is
// if it evals to your target value great, you can build your target from the given numbers. Otherwise, go on.
return;
}
for ( each symbol x in a )
if ( x isn't a number or x is a number but v[x] isn't 1 )
{
st[k] = x;
if ( x is a number )
v[x] = 1;
go(k + 1);
}
}
Generally speaking, when you need to do something recursively it helps to start from the "bottom" and think your way up.
Consider: You have a set S of n numbers {a,b,c,...}, and a set of four operations {+,-,*,/}. Let's call your recursive function that operates on the set F(S)
If n is 1, then F(S) will just be that number.
If n is 2, F(S) can be eight things:
pick your left-hand number from S (2 choices)
then pick an operation to apply (4 choices)
your right-hand number will be whatever is left in the set
Now, you can generalize from the n=2 case:
Pick a number x from S to be the left-hand operand (n choices)
Pick an operation to apply
your right hand number will be F(S-x)
I'll let you take it from here. :)
edit: Mark poses a valid criticism; the above method won't get absolutely everything. To fix that problem, you need to think about it in a slightly different way:
At each step, you first pick an operation (4 choices), and then
partition S into two sets, for the left and right hand operands,
and recursively apply F to both partitions
Finding all partitions of a set into 2 parts isn't trivial itself, though.
Your best clue about how to approach this problem is the fact that your teacher/professor wants you to use recursion. That is, this isn't a math problem - it is a search problem.
Not to give too much away (it is homework after all), but you have to spawn a call to the recursive function using an operator, a number and a list containing the remaining numbers. The recursive function will extract a number from the list and, using the operation passed in, combine it with the number passed in (which is your running total). Take the running total and call yourself again with the remaining items on the list (you'll have to iterate the list within the call but the sequence of calls is depth-first). Do this once for each of the four operators unless Success has been achieved by a previous leg of the search.
I updated this to use a list instead of a stack
When the result of the operation is your target number and your list is empty, then you have successfully found the set of operations (those that traced the path to the successful leaf) - set the Success flag and unwind. Note that the operators aren't on a list nor are they in the call: the function itself always iterates over all four. Your mechanism for "unwinding" the operator sequence from the successful leaf to get the sequence is to return the current operator and number prepended to the value returned by recursive call (only one of which will be successful since you stop at success - that, obviously, is the one to use). If none are successful, then what you return isn't important anyhow.
Update This is much harder when you have to consider expressions like the one that Daniel posted. You have combinatorics on the numbers and the groupings (numbers due to the fact that / and - are order sensitive even without grouping and grouping because it changes precedence). Then, of course, you also have the combinatorics of the operations. It is harder to manage the differences between (4 + 3) * 2 and 4 + (3 * 2) because grouping doesn't recurse like operators or numbers (which you can just iterate over in a breadth-first manner while making your (depth-first) recursive calls).
Here's some Python code to get you started: it just prints all the possible expressions, without worrying too much about redundancy. You'd need to modify it to evaluate expressions and compare to the target number, rather than simply printing them.
The basic idea is: given a set S of numbers, partition S into two subsets left and right in all possible ways (where we don't care about the order or the elements in left and right), such that left and right are both nonempty. Now for each of these partitions, find all ways of combining the elements in left (recursively!), and similarly for right, and combine the two resulting values with all possible operators. The recursion bottoms out when a set has just one element, in which case there's only one value possible.
Even if you don't know Python, the expressions function should be reasonably easy to follow; the splittings function contains some Python oddities, but all it does is to find all the partitions of the list l into left and right pieces.
def splittings(l):
n = len(l)
for i in xrange(2**n):
left = [e for b, e in enumerate(l) if i & 2**b]
right = [e for b, e in enumerate(l) if not i & 2**b]
yield left, right
def expressions(l):
if len(l) == 1:
yield l[0]
else:
for left, right in splittings(l):
if not left or not right:
continue
for el in expressions(left):
for er in expressions(right):
for operator in '+-*/':
yield '(' + el + operator + er + ')'
for x in expressions('1234'):
print x
pusedo code:
Works(list, target)
for n in list
tmp=list.remove(n)
return Works(tmp,target+n) or Works(tmp,target-n) or Works(tmp, n-target) or ...
then you just have to put the base case in. I think I gave away to much.
maple code, no matter write this matrix in procedure or not, still get error, how to summation to infinity
DetAn:= (n)-> LinearAlgebra:-Determinant(
Matrix(
n, n,
(i,j)->
if j >= i and (j-i)::even then
(j-i+1)*(j-1)!/(i-1)!*a(j-i+1)*x
elif i-j = 1 then -1
else 0
end if
)
):
Summation(DetAn(k)*z^k/k!, k=0..infinity);
Update:
a(i) could be a := t -> t^2
You will get an error for the given input because the sum (or Summation) command has normal evaluation rules for procedure arguments and so will try to evaluate DetAn(n) for nonumeric symbolic n. You'd get the same error message (from the Matrix constructor) if you just called,
DetAn(n);
where n is an unassigned name.
But delaying that premature evaluation isn't going to get a result.
Summation('DetAn'(k)*z^k/k!, k=0..infinity);
LinearAlgebra:-Determinant is not going to cough up a closed form result for symbolic n. You can get a recursive summation formula for DetAn(n), ie. as a sum of terms involving DetAn(j-1) or DetAn(j-2) from j=1..n/2. I don't know whether you could hammer on that for a generating function.
Consider what kind of answer you are looking for, if only from the Determinant call. Are hoping for a nested sum (nested to a fixed, finite depth)?
What is a(i)?
Why is the determinant in terms of powers of x, while z comes into the summation terms?
Mathematica can simply take infintiy as a limit:
Sum[(1/2)^i, {i, 0, Infinity}]
Out= 2
I didn't try with your example but its worth a shot.
Days ago, my teacher told me it was possible to check if a given point is inside a given rectangle using only bit operators. Is it true? If so, how can I do that?
This might not answer your question but what you are looking for could be this.
These are the tricks compiled by Sean Eron Anderson and he even put a bounty of $10 for those who can find a single bug. The closest thing I found here is a macro that finds if any integer X has a word which is between M and N
Determine if a word has a byte between m and n
When m < n, this technique tests if a word x contains an unsigned byte value, such that m < value < n. It uses 7 arithmetic/logical operations when n and m are constant.
Note: Bytes that equal n can be reported by likelyhasbetween as false positives, so this should be checked by character if a certain result is needed.
Requirements: x>=0; 0<=m<=127; 0<=n<=128
#define likelyhasbetween(x,m,n) \
((((x)-~0UL/255*(n))&~(x)&((x)&~0UL/255*127)+~0UL/255*(127-(m)))&~0UL/255*128)
This technique would be suitable for a fast pretest. A variation that takes one more operation (8 total for constant m and n) but provides the exact answer is:
#define hasbetween(x,m,n) \
((~0UL/255*(127+(n))-((x)&~0UL/255*127)&~(x)&((x)&~0UL/255*127)+~0UL/255*(127-(m)))&~0UL/255*128)
It is possible if the number is a finite positive integer.
Suppose we have a rectangle represented by the (a1,b1) and (a2,b2). Given a point (x,y), we only need to evaluate the expression (a1<x) & (x<a2) & (b1<y) & (y<b2). So the problems now is to find the corresponding bit operation for the expression c
Let ci be the i-th bit of the number c (which can be obtained by masking ci and bit shift). We prove that for numbers with at most n bit, c<d is equivalent to r_(n-1), where
r_i = ((ci^di) & ((!ci)&di)) | (!(ci^di) & r_(i-1))
Prove: When the ci and di are different, the left expression might be true (depends on ((!ci)&di)), otherwise the right expression might be true (depends on r_(i-1) which is the comparison of next bit).
The expression ((!ci)&di) is actually equivalent to the bit comparison ci < di. Hence, this recursive relation return true that it compares the bit by bit from left to right until we can decide c is smaller than d.
Hence there is an purely bit operation expression corresponding to the comparison operator, and so it is possible to find a point inside a rectangle with pure bitwise operation.
Edit: There is actually no need for condition statement, just expands the r_(n+1), then done.
x,y is in the rectangle {x0<x<x1 and y0<y<y1} if {x0<x and x<x1 and y0<y and y<y1}
If we can simulate < with bit operators, then we're good to go.
What does it mean to say something is < in binary? Consider
a: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
b: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
In the above, a>b, because it contains the first 1 whose counterpart in b is 0. We are those seeking the leftmost bit such that myBit!=otherBit. (== or equiv is a bitwise operator which can be represented with and/or/not)
However we need some way through to propagate information in one bit to many bits. So we ask ourselves this: can we "code" a function using only "bit" operators, which is equivalent to if(q,k,a,b) = if q[k] then a else b. The answer is yes:
We create a bit-word consisting of replicating q[k] onto every bit. There are two ways I can think of to do this:
1) Left-shift by k, then right-shift by wordsize (efficient, but only works if you have shift operators which duplicate the last bit)
2) Inefficient but theoretically correct way:
We left-shift q by k bits
We take this result and and it with 10000...0
We right-shift this by 1 bit, and or it with the non-right-shifted version. This copies the bit in the first place to the second place. We repeat this process until the entire word is the same as the first bit (e.g. 64 times)
Calling this result mask, our function is (mask and a) or (!mask and b): the result will be a if the kth bit of q is true, other the result will be b
Taking the bit-vector c=a!=b and a==1111..1 and b==0000..0, we use our if function to successively test whether the first bit is 1, then the second bit is 1, etc:
a<b :=
if(c,0,
if(a,0, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,1,
if(a,1, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,2,
if(a,2, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,3,
if(a,3, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(...
if(c,64,
if(a,64, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
A_EQUAL_B)
)
...)
)
)
)
)
This takes wordsize steps. It can however be written in 3 lines by using a recursively-defined function, or a fixed-point combinator if recursion is not allowed.
Then we just turn that into an even larger function: xMin<x and x<xMax and yMin<y and y<yMax
I'm working on a homework problem that asks me this:
Tiven a finite set of numbers, and a target number, find if the set can be used to calculate the target number using basic math operations (add, sub, mult, div) and using each number in the set exactly once (so I need to exhaust the set). This has to be done with recursion.
So, for example, if I have the set
{1, 2, 3, 4}
and target 10, then I could get to it by using
((3 * 4) - 2)/1 = 10.
I'm trying to phrase the algorithm in pseudo-code, but so far haven't gotten too far. I'm thinking graphs are the way to go, but would definitely appreciate help on this. thanks.
This isn't meant to be the fastest solution, but rather an instructive one.
It recursively generates all equations in postfix notation
It also provides a translation from postfix to infix notation
There is no actual arithmetic calculation done, so you have to implement that on your own
Be careful about division by zero
With 4 operands, 4 possible operators, it generates all 7680 = 5 * 4! * 4^3
possible expressions.
5 is Catalan(3). Catalan(N) is the number of ways to paranthesize N+1 operands.
4! because the 4 operands are permutable
4^3 because the 3 operators each have 4 choice
This definitely does not scale well, as the number of expressions for N operands is [1, 8, 192, 7680, 430080, 30965760, 2724986880, ...].
In general, if you have n+1 operands, and must insert n operators chosen from k possibilities, then there are (2n)!/n! k^n possible equations.
Good luck!
import java.util.*;
public class Expressions {
static String operators = "+-/*";
static String translate(String postfix) {
Stack<String> expr = new Stack<String>();
Scanner sc = new Scanner(postfix);
while (sc.hasNext()) {
String t = sc.next();
if (operators.indexOf(t) == -1) {
expr.push(t);
} else {
expr.push("(" + expr.pop() + t + expr.pop() + ")");
}
}
return expr.pop();
}
static void brute(Integer[] numbers, int stackHeight, String eq) {
if (stackHeight >= 2) {
for (char op : operators.toCharArray()) {
brute(numbers, stackHeight - 1, eq + " " + op);
}
}
boolean allUsedUp = true;
for (int i = 0; i < numbers.length; i++) {
if (numbers[i] != null) {
allUsedUp = false;
Integer n = numbers[i];
numbers[i] = null;
brute(numbers, stackHeight + 1, eq + " " + n);
numbers[i] = n;
}
}
if (allUsedUp && stackHeight == 1) {
System.out.println(eq + " === " + translate(eq));
}
}
static void expression(Integer... numbers) {
brute(numbers, 0, "");
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
expression(1, 2, 3, 4);
}
}
Before thinking about how to solve the problem (like with graphs), it really helps to just look at the problem. If you find yourself stuck and can't seem to come up with any pseudo-code, then most likely there is something that is holding you back; Some other question or concern that hasn't been addressed yet. An example 'sticky' question in this case might be, "What exactly is recursive about this problem?"
Before you read the next paragraph, try to answer this question first. If you knew what was recursive about the problem, then writing a recursive method to solve it might not be very difficult.
You want to know if some expression that uses a set of numbers (each number used only once) gives you a target value. There are four binary operations, each with an inverse. So, in other words, you want to know if the first number operated with some expression of the other numbers gives you the target. Well, in other words, you want to know if some expression of the 'other' numbers is [...]. If not, then using the first operation with the first number doesn't really give you what you need, so try the other ops. If they don't work, then maybe it just wasn't meant to be.
Edit: I thought of this for an infix expression of four operators without parenthesis, since a comment on the original question said that parenthesis were added for the sake of an example (for clarity?) and the use of parenthesis was not explicitly stated.
Well, you didn't mention efficiency so I'm going to post a really brute force solution and let you optimize it if you want to. Since you can have parantheses, it's easy to brute force it using Reverse Polish Notation:
First of all, if your set has n numbers, you must use exactly n - 1 operators. So your solution will be given by a sequence of 2n - 1 symbols from {{your given set}, {*, /, +, -}}
st = a stack of length 2n - 1
n = numbers in your set
a = your set, to which you add *, /, +, -
v[i] = 1 if the NUMBER i has been used before, 0 otherwise
void go(int k)
{
if ( k > 2n - 1 )
{
// eval st as described on Wikipedia.
// Careful though, it might not be valid, so you'll have to check that it is
// if it evals to your target value great, you can build your target from the given numbers. Otherwise, go on.
return;
}
for ( each symbol x in a )
if ( x isn't a number or x is a number but v[x] isn't 1 )
{
st[k] = x;
if ( x is a number )
v[x] = 1;
go(k + 1);
}
}
Generally speaking, when you need to do something recursively it helps to start from the "bottom" and think your way up.
Consider: You have a set S of n numbers {a,b,c,...}, and a set of four operations {+,-,*,/}. Let's call your recursive function that operates on the set F(S)
If n is 1, then F(S) will just be that number.
If n is 2, F(S) can be eight things:
pick your left-hand number from S (2 choices)
then pick an operation to apply (4 choices)
your right-hand number will be whatever is left in the set
Now, you can generalize from the n=2 case:
Pick a number x from S to be the left-hand operand (n choices)
Pick an operation to apply
your right hand number will be F(S-x)
I'll let you take it from here. :)
edit: Mark poses a valid criticism; the above method won't get absolutely everything. To fix that problem, you need to think about it in a slightly different way:
At each step, you first pick an operation (4 choices), and then
partition S into two sets, for the left and right hand operands,
and recursively apply F to both partitions
Finding all partitions of a set into 2 parts isn't trivial itself, though.
Your best clue about how to approach this problem is the fact that your teacher/professor wants you to use recursion. That is, this isn't a math problem - it is a search problem.
Not to give too much away (it is homework after all), but you have to spawn a call to the recursive function using an operator, a number and a list containing the remaining numbers. The recursive function will extract a number from the list and, using the operation passed in, combine it with the number passed in (which is your running total). Take the running total and call yourself again with the remaining items on the list (you'll have to iterate the list within the call but the sequence of calls is depth-first). Do this once for each of the four operators unless Success has been achieved by a previous leg of the search.
I updated this to use a list instead of a stack
When the result of the operation is your target number and your list is empty, then you have successfully found the set of operations (those that traced the path to the successful leaf) - set the Success flag and unwind. Note that the operators aren't on a list nor are they in the call: the function itself always iterates over all four. Your mechanism for "unwinding" the operator sequence from the successful leaf to get the sequence is to return the current operator and number prepended to the value returned by recursive call (only one of which will be successful since you stop at success - that, obviously, is the one to use). If none are successful, then what you return isn't important anyhow.
Update This is much harder when you have to consider expressions like the one that Daniel posted. You have combinatorics on the numbers and the groupings (numbers due to the fact that / and - are order sensitive even without grouping and grouping because it changes precedence). Then, of course, you also have the combinatorics of the operations. It is harder to manage the differences between (4 + 3) * 2 and 4 + (3 * 2) because grouping doesn't recurse like operators or numbers (which you can just iterate over in a breadth-first manner while making your (depth-first) recursive calls).
Here's some Python code to get you started: it just prints all the possible expressions, without worrying too much about redundancy. You'd need to modify it to evaluate expressions and compare to the target number, rather than simply printing them.
The basic idea is: given a set S of numbers, partition S into two subsets left and right in all possible ways (where we don't care about the order or the elements in left and right), such that left and right are both nonempty. Now for each of these partitions, find all ways of combining the elements in left (recursively!), and similarly for right, and combine the two resulting values with all possible operators. The recursion bottoms out when a set has just one element, in which case there's only one value possible.
Even if you don't know Python, the expressions function should be reasonably easy to follow; the splittings function contains some Python oddities, but all it does is to find all the partitions of the list l into left and right pieces.
def splittings(l):
n = len(l)
for i in xrange(2**n):
left = [e for b, e in enumerate(l) if i & 2**b]
right = [e for b, e in enumerate(l) if not i & 2**b]
yield left, right
def expressions(l):
if len(l) == 1:
yield l[0]
else:
for left, right in splittings(l):
if not left or not right:
continue
for el in expressions(left):
for er in expressions(right):
for operator in '+-*/':
yield '(' + el + operator + er + ')'
for x in expressions('1234'):
print x
pusedo code:
Works(list, target)
for n in list
tmp=list.remove(n)
return Works(tmp,target+n) or Works(tmp,target-n) or Works(tmp, n-target) or ...
then you just have to put the base case in. I think I gave away to much.