Related
Is there a way to find programmatically the consecutive natural numbers?
On the Internet I found some examples using either factorization or polynomial solving.
Example 1
For n(n−1)(n−2)(n−3) = 840
n = 7, -4, (3+i√111)/2, (3-i√111)/2
Example 2
For n(n−1)(n−2)(n−3) = 1680
n = 8, −5, (3+i√159)/2, (3-i√159)/2
Both of those examples give 4 results (because both are 4th degree equations), but for my use case I'm only interested in the natural value. Also the solution should work for any sequences size of consecutive numbers, in other words, n(n−1)(n−2)(n−3)(n−4)...
The solution can be an algorithm or come from any open math library. The parameters passed to the algorithm will be the product and the degree (sequences size), like for those two examples the product is 840 or 1640 and the degree is 4 for both.
Thank you
If you're interested only in natural "n" solution then this reasoning may help:
Let's say n(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)...(n-k) = A
The solution n=sthen verifies:
remainder of A/s = 0
remainder of A/(s-1) = 0
remainder of A/(s-2) = 0
and so on
Now, we see that s is in the order of t= A^(1/k) : A is similar to s*s*s*s*s... k times. So we can start with v= (t-k) and finish at v= t+1. The solution will be between these two values.
So the algo may be, roughly:
s= 0
t= (int) (A^(1/k)) //this truncation by leave out t= v+1. Fix it in the loop
theLoop:
for (v= t-k to v= t+1, step= +1)
{ i=0
while ( i <= k )
{ if (A % (v - k + i) > 0 ) // % operator to find the reminder
continue at theLoop
i= i+1
}
// All are valid divisors, solution found
s = v
break
}
if (s==0)
not natural solution
Assuming that:
n is an integer, and
n > 0, and
k < n
Then approximately:
n = FLOOR( (product ** (1/(k+1)) + (k+1)/2 )
The only cases I have found where this isn't exactly right is when k is very close to n. You can of course check it by back-calculating the product and see if it matches. If not, it almost certainly is only 1 or 2 in higher than this estimate, so just keep incrementing n until the product matches. (I can write this up in pseudocode if you need it)
First time posting here, so if I make a mistake with something let me know and I'd be more than happy to fix it!
Given N events, each of which have an individual probability (from 0 to 100%) of occurring, I'd like to determine the probability of 0 to N of those events occurring together.
For example, if I have event 1, 2, 3,...,N and 5 (E1, E2, E3...,EN) where the individual probability of a specific event occurring is as follows:
E1 = 30% probability of occurring
E2 = 40% probability of occurring
E3 = 50% probability of occurring
...
EN = x% probability of occurring
I'd like to know the probability of having:
none of these events occurring
any 1 of these events occurring
any 2 of these events occurring
any 3 of these events occurring
...
all N of these events occurring
I understand that having 0 events occurring is (1-E1)(1-E2)...(1-EN) and that having all N events occurring is E1*E2*...*E3. However, I do not know how to calculate the other possibilities (1 to N-1 events occurring).
I have been looking for some recursive algorithm (binomial compound distribution) that could solve this but I have not found any explicit formula that does this. Wondering if any of you guys could help!
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: The events are indeed independent.
Sounds like Poisson binomial
wikipedia link.
There's an explicit recursive formula but beware of numerical stability.
where
Something like the following recursive program should work.
function ans = probability_vector(probabilities)
if len(probabilities) == 0
% No events can happen.
ans = [1];
elseif len(probabilities) == 1
% 0 or 1 events can happen.
ans = [1 - probabilities[1], probabilities[1]];
else
half = ceil(len(probabilities)/2);
ans_half1 = probability_vector(probabilities[1: half]);
ans_half2 = probability_vector(probabilities[half + 1: end]);
ans = convolve(ans_half1, ans_half2)
end
return
end
And if p is a probability vector, then p[i+1] is the probability of i of the events happening.
See http://matlabtricks.com/post-3/the-basics-of-convolution for an explanation of the magic conv operator that does the meat of the work.
You need to compute your own version of Pascal's triangle, with probabilities (instead of counts) in each location. Row 0 will be the single figure 1.00; row 1 consists of two values, P(E1) and 1-P(E1). Below that, in row k, each position is P(Ek)[above-right entry] + (1-P(Ek))[above-left entry]. I recommend a lower-triangular matrix for this, something like:
1.00
0.30 0.70
0.12 0.46 0.42 # These are 0.3*0.4 | 0.3*0.6 + 0.7*0.4 | 0.7*0.6
0.06 0.29 0.44 0.21 # 0.12*0.5 | 0.12*0.5 + 0.46*0.5 | ...
See how it works? In array / matrix notation for a matrix M, given event probabilities in vector P, this looks something like
M[k, i] = P[k] * M[k-1, i] +
(1-P[k]) * M[k-1, i] + P[k] * M[k-1, i-1]
The above is a nice recursive definition. Note that my earlier "above-right" reference in the lower-matrix notation is simply a row above; above-left is exactly that: row k-1, column i-1.
When you're done, the bottom row of the matrix will be the probabilities of getting N, N-1, N-2, ... 0 of the events. If you want these probabilities in the opposite order, then simply switch the coefficients P[k] and 1-P[k]
Does that get you moving toward a solution?
After tons of research and some help from the answers here, I've come up with the following code:
function [ prob_numSites ] = probability_activationSite( prob_distribution_site )
N = length(prob_distribution_site); % number of events
notProb = 1 - prob_distribution_site; % find probability of no occurrence
syms x; % create symbolic variable
prob_number = 1; % initializing prob_number to 1
for i = 1:N
prob_number = prob_number*(prob_distribution_site(i)*x + notProb(i));
end
prob_number_polynomial = expand(prob_number); % expands the function into a polynomial
revProb_numSites = coeffs(prob_number_polynomial); % returns the coefficients of the above polynomial (ie probability of 0 to N events, where first coefficient is N events occurring, last coefficient is 0 events occurring)
prob_numSites = fliplr(revProb_numSites); % reverses order of coefficients
This takes in probability of certain number of individual events occurring and returns array of the probability of 0 to N events occurring.
(This answer helped a lot).
None of these answers seemed to worked/was understandable for me so I computed it and made it myself in python:
def combin(n, k):
if k > n//2:
k = n-k
x = 1
y = 1
i = n-k+1
while i <= n:
x = (x*i)//y
y += 1
i += 1
return x
# proba being the probability of each of the N evenments, each being different from one another.
for i in range(N,0,-1):
print(i)
if sums[i]> 0:
continue
print(combin(N,i))
for j in itertools.combinations(proba, i):
sums[i]+=np.prod(j)
for i in range(N,0,-1):
for j in range(i+1,N+1):
icomb = combin(j,i)
sums[str(i)] -= icomb*sums[str(j)]
the math is not super simple:
Let $C_{w_n}$ be the set of all unordered sets $(i,j,k...n)$
where $i,j,k...n\in w$
$Co(i,proba) = sum{C_{w_i}} - sum_{u from i+1..n}{(u \choose i) sum{C_{w_u}}}$*
$Co(i, P)$ being the probability of i events occuring given $P = {p_i...p_n}$, the bernouilli probability of each event.
I have a variable, between 0 and 1, which should dictate the likelyhood that a second variable, a random number between 0 and 1, is greater than 0.5. In other words, if I were to generate the second variable 1000 times, the average should be approximately equal to the first variable's value. How do I make this code?
Oh, and the second variable should always be capable of producing either 0 or 1 in any condition, just more or less likely depending on the value of the first variable. Here is a link to a graph which models approximately how I would like the program to behave. Each equation represents a separate value for the first variable.
You have a variable p and you are looking for a mapping function f(x) that maps random rolls between x in [0, 1] to the same interval [0, 1] such that the expected value, i.e. the average of all rolls, is p.
You have chosen the function prototype
f(x) = pow(x, c)
where c must be chosen appropriately. If x is uniformly distributed in [0, 1], the average value is:
int(f(x) dx, [0, 1]) == p
With the integral:
int(pow(x, c) dx) == pow(x, c + 1) / (c + 1) + K
one gets:
c = 1/p - 1
A different approach is to make p the median value of the distribution, such that half of the rolls fall below p, the other half above p. This yields a different distribution. (I am aware that you didn't ask for that.) Now, we have to satisfy the condition:
f(0.5) == pow(0.5, c) == p
which yields:
c = log(p) / log(0.5)
With the current function prototype, you cannot satisfy both requirements. Your function is also asymmetric (f(x, p) != f(1-x, 1-p)).
Python functions below:
def medianrand(p):
"""Random number between 0 and 1 whose median is p"""
c = math.log(p) / math.log(0.5)
return math.pow(random.random(), c)
def averagerand(p):
"""Random number between 0 and 1 whose expected value is p"""
c = 1/p - 1
return math.pow(random.random(), c)
You can do this by using a dummy. First set the first variable to a value between 0 and 1. Then create a random number in the dummy between 0 and 1. If this dummy is bigger than the first variable, you generate a random number between 0 and 0.5, and otherwise you generate a number between 0.5 and 1.
In pseudocode:
real a = 0.7
real total = 0.0
for i between 0 and 1000 begin
real dummy = rand(0,1)
real b
if dummy > a then
b = rand(0,0.5)
else
b = rand(0.5,1)
end if
total = total + b
end for
real avg = total / 1000
Please note that this algorithm will generate average values between 0.25 and 0.75. For a = 1 it will only generate random values between 0.5 and 1, which should average to 0.75. For a=0 it will generate only random numbers between 0 and 0.5, which should average to 0.25.
I've made a sort of pseudo-solution to this problem, which I think is acceptable.
Here is the algorithm I made;
a = 0.2 # variable one
b = 0 # variable two
b = random.random()
b = b^(1/(2^(4*a-1)))
It doesn't actually produce the average results that I wanted, but it's close enough for my purposes.
Edit: Here's a graph I made that consists of a large amount of datapoints I generated with a python script using this algorithm;
import random
mod = 6
div = 100
for z in xrange(div):
s = 0
for i in xrange (100000):
a = (z+1)/float(div) # variable one
b = random.random() # variable two
c = b**(1/(2**((mod*a*2)-mod)))
s += c
print str((z+1)/float(div)) + "\t" + str(round(s/100000.0, 3))
Each point in the table is the result of 100000 randomly generated points from the algorithm; their x positions being the a value given, and their y positions being their average. Ideally they would fit to a straight line of y = x, but as you can see they fit closer to an arctan equation. I'm trying to mess around with the algorithm so that the averages fit the line, but I haven't had much luck as of yet.
Given N integer intervals [lo_i,hi_i].
From each interval chose a number such that bitwise OR of them become given number X.(It doesn't matter if the result has more 1 bits than X; i.e. if the generated number is Y, (X&Y)==X should hold)
I guess this problem is NP complete, though I haven't found an NP hard problem easily reducible to this.
But for those sets that contain 2^(mostSignificantDigit) - 1, I would do as a heuristic: Firstly, try the number 1...1 (mostSignificantDigit-1 ones), secondly a number with the most significant bit and as many other bits as possible set. This heuristic is only bad in the case that you would have required a number from the set with the most significant bit set and a few different less significant bits.
With this heuristic, you can also pick amongst those sets the largest number 1....1 as a further heuristic.
Let's generalize the problem a little. I'm going to write bitwise operators like OR and AND and SR (shift right).
Given a natural number X, intervals [lo_1, hi_1], ..., [lo_N, hi_N] consisting of natural numbers, and a bit b in {0, 1}, determine whether there exist natural numbers y_1 in [lo_1, hi_1], ..., y_N in [lo_N, hi_N] such that, letting Y = y_1 OR ... OR y_N, it holds that (X AND Y) = X and that there exists i such that x_i <= hi_i - b.
The base case for my recursive algorithm is when lo_1 = hi_1 = lo_2 = ... = hi_n = 0. There exists a solution if and only if X = 0 and b = 0.
Inductively, prepare a subproblem by letting X' = X SR 1 and lo_i' = lo_i SR 1 and hi_i' = hi_i SR 1. Let Odd(i) be true if and only if hi_i AND 1 = 1. Let Odd+(i) be true if and only if Odd(i) and lo_i < hi_i. If X AND 1 = 0:
If there exists i such that Odd+(i), then let b' = 0. Otherwise, let b' = b.
If X AND 1 = 1:
If there exist distinct i and j such that Odd+(i) and Odd(j), then let b' = 0. If there exists no j such that Odd(j), then let b' = 1. Otherwise, let b' = b.
Return the answer for the subproblem.
Let me start with an example -
I have a range of numbers from 1 to 9. And let's say the target number that I want is 29.
In this case the minimum number of operations that are required would be (9*3)+2 = 2 operations. Similarly for 18 the minimum number of operations is 1 (9*2=18).
I can use any of the 4 arithmetic operators - +, -, / and *.
How can I programmatically find out the minimum number of operations required?
Thanks in advance for any help provided.
clarification: integers only, no decimals allowed mid-calculation. i.e. the following is not valid (from comments below): ((9/2) + 1) * 4 == 22
I must admit I didn't think about this thoroughly, but for my purpose it doesn't matter if decimal numbers appear mid-calculation. ((9/2) + 1) * 4 == 22 is valid. Sorry for the confusion.
For the special case where set Y = [1..9] and n > 0:
n <= 9 : 0 operations
n <=18 : 1 operation (+)
otherwise : Remove any divisor found in Y. If this is not enough, do a recursion on the remainder for all offsets -9 .. +9. Offset 0 can be skipped as it has already been tried.
Notice how division is not needed in this case. For other Y this does not hold.
This algorithm is exponential in log(n). The exact analysis is a job for somebody with more knowledge about algebra than I.
For more speed, add pruning to eliminate some of the search for larger numbers.
Sample code:
def findop(n, maxlen=9999):
# Return a short postfix list of numbers and operations
# Simple solution to small numbers
if n<=9: return [n]
if n<=18: return [9,n-9,'+']
# Find direct multiply
x = divlist(n)
if len(x) > 1:
mults = len(x)-1
x[-1:] = findop(x[-1], maxlen-2*mults)
x.extend(['*'] * mults)
return x
shortest = 0
for o in range(1,10) + range(-1,-10,-1):
x = divlist(n-o)
if len(x) == 1: continue
mults = len(x)-1
# We spent len(divlist) + mults + 2 fields for offset.
# The last number is expanded by the recursion, so it doesn't count.
recursion_maxlen = maxlen - len(x) - mults - 2 + 1
if recursion_maxlen < 1: continue
x[-1:] = findop(x[-1], recursion_maxlen)
x.extend(['*'] * mults)
if o > 0:
x.extend([o, '+'])
else:
x.extend([-o, '-'])
if shortest == 0 or len(x) < shortest:
shortest = len(x)
maxlen = shortest - 1
solution = x[:]
if shortest == 0:
# Fake solution, it will be discarded
return '#' * (maxlen+1)
return solution
def divlist(n):
l = []
for d in range(9,1,-1):
while n%d == 0:
l.append(d)
n = n/d
if n>1: l.append(n)
return l
The basic idea is to test all possibilities with k operations, for k starting from 0. Imagine you create a tree of height k that branches for every possible new operation with operand (4*9 branches per level). You need to traverse and evaluate the leaves of the tree for each k before moving to the next k.
I didn't test this pseudo-code:
for every k from 0 to infinity
for every n from 1 to 9
if compute(n,0,k):
return k
boolean compute(n,j,k):
if (j == k):
return (n == target)
else:
for each operator in {+,-,*,/}:
for every i from 1 to 9:
if compute((n operator i),j+1,k):
return true
return false
It doesn't take into account arithmetic operators precedence and braces, that would require some rework.
Really cool question :)
Notice that you can start from the end! From your example (9*3)+2 = 29 is equivalent to saying (29-2)/3=9. That way we can avoid the double loop in cyborg's answer. This suggests the following algorithm for set Y and result r:
nextleaves = {r}
nops = 0
while(true):
nops = nops+1
leaves = nextleaves
nextleaves = {}
for leaf in leaves:
for y in Y:
if (leaf+y) or (leaf-y) or (leaf*y) or (leaf/y) is in X:
return(nops)
else:
add (leaf+y) and (leaf-y) and (leaf*y) and (leaf/y) to nextleaves
This is the basic idea, performance can be certainly be improved, for instance by avoiding "backtracks", such as r+a-a or r*a*b/a.
I guess my idea is similar to the one of Peer Sommerlund:
For big numbers, you advance fast, by multiplication with big ciphers.
Is Y=29 prime? If not, divide it by the maximum divider of (2 to 9).
Else you could subtract a number, to reach a dividable number. 27 is fine, since it is dividable by 9, so
(29-2)/9=3 =>
3*9+2 = 29
So maybe - I didn't think about this to the end: Search the next divisible by 9 number below Y. If you don't reach a number which is a digit, repeat.
The formula is the steps reversed.
(I'll try it for some numbers. :) )
I tried with 2551, which is
echo $((((3*9+4)*9+4)*9+4))
But I didn't test every intermediate result whether it is prime.
But
echo $((8*8*8*5-9))
is 2 operations less. Maybe I can investigate this later.