I just come across this interesting question from a book and I am unable to find the answer.
I have a given number X and a target number Y, task is to find such permutation of all the digits of X such that it is closest to Y.
Numbers are in form of array. No array size limit is given there.
Example
Given number X = 1212
Target number Y = 1500
Answer = 1221
Here, abs(1500-1221) is smallest among all permutations of X.
Given number X = 1212
Target number Y = 1900
Answer = 2112
Here, abs(1900-2112) is smallest among all permutations of X.
Given number X = 1029
Target number Y = 2000
Answer = 2019
Here, abs(2000-2019) is smallest among all permutations of X.
One of the solution I can find is to generate all permutations of the given number and at each stage calculates the difference. But this is very slow.
I tried to find the greedy approach, where I will iterate through all the indices of the target number Y and at each index I will put that digit of the given number X such that abs(Y[i] - X[i]) is minimum. But this fails for many cases.
I am trying to think of a DP approach, but unable to come up with any.
Any lead to the answer will be helpful.
Edit -
Adding pseudo code for my greedy approach
for each index i in [0,Y]:
min_index = 0;
for each index j in [1, X.length]:
if abs(X[j] - Y[i]) < abs(X[min_index] - Y[i]):
min_val = j
print X[min_index]
remove min_index from X
Example X = 1212 and Y = 1900.
step 1 - output 1 and remove index 0 from X.
step 2 - output 2 and remove index 1 from X.
step 3 - output 1 and remove index 2 from X.
step 2 - output 1 and remove index 3 from X.
answer = 1212 which is wrong (correct answer is 2112).
So fails for this test case and lots more.
So, the problem can be seen as follow:
Starting from the largest significant digits, for each of these index, there are three cases:
The current digit will be less than the desired digit, so for the rest of the digits, we try to create the largest number possible => for the rest of the digits, we sorted them in descending order , i.e if we have 0, 2, 7, 5 left -> we will create 7520
The current digit will be larger than the desired digit, so for the rest of the digits, we try to create the smallest number possible => for the rest of the digits, we sorted them in ascending order , i.e if we have 0, 2, 7, 5 left -> we will create 0275
If the current digit is equal to the desired digit, we will append it to the prefix and try to find better match in next iteration.
Pseudo-code:
int prefix, result;
for each index i from 0 to Y.length() {
int larger = prefix + smallestDigitLargerThan(Y(i)) + OtherDigitInAscendingOrder;
int smaller = prefix + largestDigitSmallerThan(Y(i)) + OtherDigitInDescendingOrder;
update result based on larger and smaller;
if there is no digit equals to Y(i)
break;
else {
remove Y(i) in X
prefix = prefix*10 + Y(i)
}
}
}
if prefix == Y {
//We have a full match
return prefix;
}
return result;
For example
X = 1029
Y = 2000
At index 0 -> Y(0) = 2,
int smaller = 0 (prefix) + 1(largest digit that is less than 2) + 920 (other digit in descending order) = 1920
int larger = 0 (prefix) + 9(smallest digit that is greater than 2) + 012 (other digit in ascending order) = 9012
int result = 1920
int prefix = 2
At index 1 -> Y(1) = 0,
int smaller = //Not exist
int larger = 2 + 1 + 09 = 2109
int result = 1920
int prefix = 20
At index 2 -> Y(2) = 0,
int smaller = //Not exist
int larger = 20 + 1 + 9 = 2019
int result = 2019
//Break as there is no digit match Y(2) = 0 from X
Other example:
X = 1212
Y = 1500
At index 0 -> Y(0) = 1,
int smaller = //Not exist
int larger = 0 + 2 + 112 = 2112
int result = 2112
int prefix = 1
At index 1 -> Y(1) = 5,
int smaller = 1 + 2 + 21 = 1221
int larger = //Not exist
int result = 1221
//Break from here as there is no digit match Y(1) = 5 in X
Beam search with width of 3 could be an approach. The idea is to construct the numbers from the largest to the smallest digit, and filling the rest with zeros. You construct the nearest and the second nearest numbers at each step for each number in the beam, and discarding all numbers which are worse than the top three. (In fact you're needing a beam size of two at most. The case of three is only needed, if the distance of two entries in the beams are equal.) During computation the constructed numbers Aand B should never be equal (except for the special case that X only contains the same digit.)
Here are the beams for the second example. The * denotes the best beam, and no * means that both are equally good:
2000* -> 2100* -> 2112*
2200 -> 2211
1000 -> 1200
1100
This is for the first example:
1000 -> 1200* -> 1221*
1100 -> 1122
2000 -> 2100
2200
Third example needs a beam size of 3 for second step, because the distance of second best beams 1900 and 2100 to 2000 is 100:
1000 -> 1900 -> 1901
1100
2000* -> 2000* -> 2019*
2100 2109
Note: I've joined the 3. and the 4. step in all examples.
The numbers X = 1992and Y = 2000 are an interesting example
1000 -> 1900 -> 1992*
1200
2000* -> 2100 -> 2199
2900
because the best beam is changing during computation.
I wrote a small python program for demonstration:
import sys
X = sys.argv[1]
Y = int(sys.argv[2])
def remove(s, i):
return s[:i] + s[i+1:]
def expand(t):
result = set()
val = t[0]
chars = t[1]
index = len(val) - len(chars)
for i in range(len(chars)):
s = val[:index] + chars[i]
r = remove(chars, i)
if index < len(val):
s += val[index + 1:]
result.add((s, r))
return result
beams = [("0" * len(X), X)]
for i in range(len(X)):
newBeams = set()
for t in beams:
newBeams.update(expand(t))
beams = sorted(newBeams, key = lambda t: abs(Y - int(t[0])))[:3]
print beams
print "Result:", beams[0][0]
The code is not optimal but this algorithm has polynomial running time, O(n² ln n) at most, and this estimate is very generous.
I was wondering if there is an algorithm that checks wether a given number is factorable into a set of prime numbers and if no give out the nearest number.
The problem comes always up when I use the FFT.
Thanks a lot for your help guys.
In general this looks like a hard problem, particularly finding the next largest integer that factors into your set of primes. However, if your set of primes isn't too big, one approach would be to turn this into an integer optimization problem by taking the logs. Here is how to find the smallest number > n that factors into a set of primes p_1...p_k
choose integers x_1,...,x_k to minimize (x_1 log p_1 + ... + x_k log p_k - log n)
Subject to:
x_1 log p_1 + ... + x_k log p_k >= log n
x_i >= 0 for all i
The x_i will give you the exponents for the primes. Here is an implementation in R using lpSolve:
minfact<-function(x,p){
sol<-lp("min",log(p),t(log(p)),">=",log(x),all.int=T)
prod(p^sol$solution)
}
> p<-c(2,3,13,31)
> x<-124363183
> y<-minfact(x,p)
> y
[1] 124730112
> factorize(y)
Big Integer ('bigz') object of length 13:
[1] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 13 13 31 31
> y-x
[1] 366929
>
Using big integers, this works pretty well even for large numbers:
> p<-c(2,3,13,31,53,79)
> x<-as.bigz("1243631831278461278641361")
> y<-minfact(x,p)
y
>
Big Integer ('bigz') :
[1] 1243634072805560436129792
> factorize(y)
Big Integer ('bigz') object of length 45:
[1] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
[26] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 13 31 31 31 31 53 53 53
>
Your question is about well-known factorization problem - which could not be resolved with 'fast' (polynomial) time. Lenstra's elliptic algorithm is the most efficient (known) way in common case, but it requires strong knowledge of numbers theory - and it's also sub-exponential (but not polynomial).
Other algorithms are listed in the page by first link in my post, but such things as direct try (brute force) are much more slower, of cause.
Please, note, that under "could not be resolved with polynomial time" - I mean that there's no way to do this now - but not that such way does not exist (at least now, number theory can not provide such solution for this problem)
Here is a brute force method in C++. It returns the factorization of the nearest factorable number. If N has two equidistant factorable neighbours, it returns the smallest one.
GCC 4.7.3: g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++0x factorable-neighbour.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using ints = std::vector<int>;
ints factor(int n, const ints& primes) {
ints f(primes.size(), 0);
for (int i = 0; i < primes.size(); ++i) {
while (0< n && !(n % primes[i])) {
n /= primes[i];
++f[i]; } }
// append the "remainder"
f.push_back(n);
return f;
}
ints closest_factorable(int n, const ints& primes) {
int d = 0;
ints r;
while (true) {
r = factor(n + d, primes);
if (r[r.size() - 1] == 1) { break; }
++d;
r = factor(n - d, primes);
if (r[r.size() - 1] == 1) { break; }
}
r.pop_back();
return r; }
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < 30; ++i) {
for (const auto& f : closest_factorable(i, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11})) {
std::cout << f << " "; }
std::cout << "\n"; }
}
I suppose that you have a (small) set of prime numbers S and an integer n and you want to know is n factors only using number in S. The easiest way seems to be the following:
P <- product of s in S
while P != 1 do
P <- GCD(P, n)
n <- n/P
return n == 1
You compute the GCD using Euclid's algorithm.
The idea is the following: Suppose that S = {p1, p2, ... ,pk}. You can write n uniquely as
n = p1^n1 p2^n2 ... pk^nk * R
where R is coprime wrt the pi. You want to know whether R=1.
Then
GCD(n, P) = prod ( pi such that ni <> 0 ).
Therefore n/p decrease all those non zeros ni by 1 so that they eventually become 0. At the end only R remains.
For example: S = {2,3,5}, n = 5600 = 2^5*5^2*7. Then P = 2*3*5 = 30. One gets GCD(n, p)=10=2*5. And therefore n/GCD(n,p) = 560 = 2^4*5*7.
You are now back to the same problem: You want to know if 560 can be factored using S = {2,5} hence the loop. So the next steps are
GCD(560, 10) = 10. 560/GCD = 56 = 2^3 * 7.
GCD(56, 10) = 2. 56/2 = 28 = 2^2 * 7
GCD(28, 2) = 2. 28/2 = 14 = 2 * 7
GCD(14, 2) = 2. 14/2 = 7
GCD(7, 2) = 1 so that R = 7 ! Your answer if FALSE.
kissfft has a function
int kiss_fft_next_fast_size(int n)
that returns the next largest N that is an aggregate of 2,3,5.
Also related is a kf_factor function that factorizes a number n, pulling out the "nice" FFT primes first (e.g. 4's are pulled out before 2's)
Numbers whose only prime factors are 2, 3, or 5 are called ugly numbers.
Example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, ...
1 can be considered as 2^0.
I am working on finding nth ugly number. Note that these numbers are extremely sparsely distributed as n gets large.
I wrote a trivial program that computes if a given number is ugly or not. For n > 500 - it became super slow. I tried using memoization - observation: ugly_number * 2, ugly_number * 3, ugly_number * 5 are all ugly. Even with that it is slow. I tried using some properties of log - since that will reduce this problem from multiplication to addition - but, not much luck yet. Thought of sharing this with you all. Any interesting ideas?
Using a concept similar to Sieve of Eratosthenes (thanks Anon)
for (int i(2), uglyCount(0); ; i++) {
if (i % 2 == 0)
continue;
if (i % 3 == 0)
continue;
if (i % 5 == 0)
continue;
uglyCount++;
if (uglyCount == n - 1)
break;
}
i is the nth ugly number.
Even this is pretty slow. I am trying to find the 1500th ugly number.
A simple fast solution in Java. Uses approach described by Anon..
Here TreeSet is just a container capable of returning smallest element in it. (No duplicates stored.)
int n = 20;
SortedSet<Long> next = new TreeSet<Long>();
next.add((long) 1);
long cur = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
cur = next.first();
System.out.println("number " + (i + 1) + ": " + cur);
next.add(cur * 2);
next.add(cur * 3);
next.add(cur * 5);
next.remove(cur);
}
Since 1000th ugly number is 51200000, storing them in bool[] isn't really an option.
edit
As a recreation from work (debugging stupid Hibernate), here's completely linear solution. Thanks to marcog for idea!
int n = 1000;
int last2 = 0;
int last3 = 0;
int last5 = 0;
long[] result = new long[n];
result[0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < n; ++i) {
long prev = result[i - 1];
while (result[last2] * 2 <= prev) {
++last2;
}
while (result[last3] * 3 <= prev) {
++last3;
}
while (result[last5] * 5 <= prev) {
++last5;
}
long candidate1 = result[last2] * 2;
long candidate2 = result[last3] * 3;
long candidate3 = result[last5] * 5;
result[i] = Math.min(candidate1, Math.min(candidate2, candidate3));
}
System.out.println(result[n - 1]);
The idea is that to calculate a[i], we can use a[j]*2 for some j < i. But we also need to make sure that 1) a[j]*2 > a[i - 1] and 2) j is smallest possible.
Then, a[i] = min(a[j]*2, a[k]*3, a[t]*5).
I am working on finding nth ugly number. Note that these numbers are extremely sparsely distributed as n gets large.
I wrote a trivial program that computes if a given number is ugly or not.
This looks like the wrong approach for the problem you're trying to solve - it's a bit of a shlemiel algorithm.
Are you familiar with the Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm for finding primes? Something similar (exploiting the knowledge that every ugly number is 2, 3 or 5 times another ugly number) would probably work better for solving this.
With the comparison to the Sieve I don't mean "keep an array of bools and eliminate possibilities as you go up". I am more referring to the general method of generating solutions based on previous results. Where the Sieve gets a number and then removes all multiples of it from the candidate set, a good algorithm for this problem would start with an empty set and then add the correct multiples of each ugly number to that.
My answer refers to the correct answer given by Nikita Rybak.
So that one could see a transition from the idea of the first approach to that of the second.
from collections import deque
def hamming():
h=1;next2,next3,next5=deque([]),deque([]),deque([])
while True:
yield h
next2.append(2*h)
next3.append(3*h)
next5.append(5*h)
h=min(next2[0],next3[0],next5[0])
if h == next2[0]: next2.popleft()
if h == next3[0]: next3.popleft()
if h == next5[0]: next5.popleft()
What's changed from Nikita Rybak's 1st approach is that, instead of adding next candidates into single data structure, i.e. Tree set, one can add each of them separately into 3 FIFO lists. This way, each list will be kept sorted all the time, and the next least candidate must always be at the head of one ore more of these lists.
If we eliminate the use of the three lists above, we arrive at the second implementation in Nikita Rybak' answer. This is done by evaluating those candidates (to be contained in three lists) only when needed, so that there is no need to store them.
Simply put:
In the first approach, we put every new candidate into single data structure, and that's bad because too many things get mixed up unwisely. This poor strategy inevitably entails O(log(tree size)) time complexity every time we make a query to the structure. By putting them into separate queues, however, you will see that each query takes only O(1) and that's why the overall performance reduces to O(n)!!! This is because each of the three lists is already sorted, by itself.
I believe you can solve this problem in sub-linear time, probably O(n^{2/3}).
To give you the idea, if you simplify the problem to allow factors of just 2 and 3, you can achieve O(n^{1/2}) time starting by searching for the smallest power of two that is at least as large as the nth ugly number, and then generating a list of O(n^{1/2}) candidates. This code should give you an idea how to do it. It relies on the fact that the nth number containing only powers of 2 and 3 has a prime factorization whose sum of exponents is O(n^{1/2}).
def foo(n):
p2 = 1 # current power of 2
p3 = 1 # current power of 3
e3 = 0 # exponent of current power of 3
t = 1 # number less than or equal to the current power of 2
while t < n:
p2 *= 2
if p3 * 3 < p2:
p3 *= 3
e3 += 1
t += 1 + e3
candidates = [p2]
c = p2
for i in range(e3):
c /= 2
c *= 3
if c > p2: c /= 2
candidates.append(c)
return sorted(candidates)[n - (t - len(candidates))]
The same idea should work for three allowed factors, but the code gets more complex. The sum of the powers of the factorization drops to O(n^{1/3}), but you need to consider more candidates, O(n^{2/3}) to be more precise.
A lot of good answers here, but I was having trouble understanding those, specifically how any of these answers, including the accepted one, maintained the axiom 2 in Dijkstra's original paper:
Axiom 2. If x is in the sequence, so is 2 * x, 3 * x, and 5 * x.
After some whiteboarding, it became clear that the axiom 2 is not an invariant at each iteration of the algorithm, but actually the goal of the algorithm itself. At each iteration, we try to restore the condition in axiom 2. If last is the last value in the result sequence S, axiom 2 can simply be rephrased as:
For some x in S, the next value in S is the minimum of 2x,
3x, and 5x, that is greater than last. Let's call this axiom 2'.
Thus, if we can find x, we can compute the minimum of 2x, 3x, and 5x in constant time, and add it to S.
But how do we find x? One approach is, we don't; instead, whenever we add a new element e to S, we compute 2e, 3e, and 5e, and add them to a minimum priority queue. Since this operations guarantees e is in S, simply extracting the top element of the PQ satisfies axiom 2'.
This approach works, but the problem is that we generate a bunch of numbers we may not end up using. See this answer for an example; if the user wants the 5th element in S (5), the PQ at that moment holds 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 15 15 20 25. Can we not waste this space?
Turns out, we can do better. Instead of storing all these numbers, we simply maintain three counters for each of the multiples, namely, 2i, 3j, and 5k. These are candidates for the next number in S. When we pick one of them, we increment only the corresponding counter, and not the other two. By doing so, we are not eagerly generating all the multiples, thus solving the space problem with the first approach.
Let's see a dry run for n = 8, i.e. the number 9. We start with 1, as stated by axiom 1 in Dijkstra's paper.
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| # | i | j | k | 2i | 3j | 5k | S |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| initial | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | {1} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | {1,2} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | {1,2,3} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 5 | {1,2,3,4} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 5 | {1,2,3,4,5} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6,8} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
| 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 9 | 10 | {1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9} |
+---------+---+---+---+----+----+----+-------------------+
Notice that S didn't grow at iteration 6, because the minimum candidate 6 had already been added previously. To avoid this problem of having to remember all of the previous elements, we amend our algorithm to increment all the counters whenever the corresponding multiples are equal to the minimum candidate. That brings us to the following Scala implementation.
def hamming(n: Int): Seq[BigInt] = {
#tailrec
def next(x: Int, factor: Int, xs: IndexedSeq[BigInt]): Int = {
val leq = factor * xs(x) <= xs.last
if (leq) next(x + 1, factor, xs)
else x
}
#tailrec
def loop(i: Int, j: Int, k: Int, xs: IndexedSeq[BigInt]): IndexedSeq[BigInt] = {
if (xs.size < n) {
val a = next(i, 2, xs)
val b = next(j, 3, xs)
val c = next(k, 5, xs)
val m = Seq(2 * xs(a), 3 * xs(b), 5 * xs(c)).min
val x = a + (if (2 * xs(a) == m) 1 else 0)
val y = b + (if (3 * xs(b) == m) 1 else 0)
val z = c + (if (5 * xs(c) == m) 1 else 0)
loop(x, y, z, xs :+ m)
} else xs
}
loop(0, 0, 0, IndexedSeq(BigInt(1)))
}
Basicly the search could be made O(n):
Consider that you keep a partial history of ugly numbers. Now, at each step you have to find the next one. It should be equal to a number from the history multiplied by 2, 3 or 5. Chose the smallest of them, add it to history, and drop some numbers from it so that the smallest from the list multiplied by 5 would be larger than the largest.
It will be fast, because the search of the next number will be simple:
min(largest * 2, smallest * 5, one from the middle * 3),
that is larger than the largest number in the list. If they are scarse, the list will always contain few numbers, so the search of the number that have to be multiplied by 3 will be fast.
Here is a correct solution in ML. The function ugly() will return a stream (lazy list) of hamming numbers. The function nth can be used on this stream.
This uses the Sieve method, the next elements are only calculated when needed.
datatype stream = Item of int * (unit->stream);
fun cons (x,xs) = Item(x, xs);
fun head (Item(i,xf)) = i;
fun tail (Item(i,xf)) = xf();
fun maps f xs = cons(f (head xs), fn()=> maps f (tail xs));
fun nth(s,1)=head(s)
| nth(s,n)=nth(tail(s),n-1);
fun merge(xs,ys)=if (head xs=head ys) then
cons(head xs,fn()=>merge(tail xs,tail ys))
else if (head xs<head ys) then
cons(head xs,fn()=>merge(tail xs,ys))
else
cons(head ys,fn()=>merge(xs,tail ys));
fun double n=n*2;
fun triple n=n*3;
fun ij()=
cons(1,fn()=>
merge(maps double (ij()),maps triple (ij())));
fun quint n=n*5;
fun ugly()=
cons(1,fn()=>
merge((tail (ij())),maps quint (ugly())));
This was first year CS work :-)
To find the n-th ugly number in O (n^(2/3)), jonderry's algorithm will work just fine. Note that the numbers involved are huge so any algorithm trying to check whether a number is ugly or not has no chance.
Finding all of the n smallest ugly numbers in ascending order is done easily by using a priority queue in O (n log n) time and O (n) space: Create a priority queue of numbers with the smallest numbers first, initially including just the number 1. Then repeat n times: Remove the smallest number x from the priority queue. If x hasn't been removed before, then x is the next larger ugly number, and we add 2x, 3x and 5x to the priority queue. (If anyone doesn't know the term priority queue, it's like the heap in the heapsort algorithm). Here's the start of the algorithm:
1 -> 2 3 5
1 2 -> 3 4 5 6 10
1 2 3 -> 4 5 6 6 9 10 15
1 2 3 4 -> 5 6 6 8 9 10 12 15 20
1 2 3 4 5 -> 6 6 8 9 10 10 12 15 15 20 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 6 8 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 18 20 25 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 -> 8 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 18 20 25 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 -> 9 10 10 12 12 15 15 16 18 20 24 25 30 40
Proof of execution time: We extract an ugly number from the queue n times. We initially have one element in the queue, and after extracting an ugly number we add three elements, increasing the number by 2. So after n ugly numbers are found we have at most 2n + 1 elements in the queue. Extracting an element can be done in logarithmic time. We extract more numbers than just the ugly numbers but at most n ugly numbers plus 2n - 1 other numbers (those that could have been in the sieve after n-1 steps). So the total time is less than 3n item removals in logarithmic time = O (n log n), and the total space is at most 2n + 1 elements = O (n).
I guess we can use Dynamic Programming (DP) and compute nth Ugly Number. Complete explanation can be found at http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/ugly-numbers/
#include <iostream>
#define MAX 1000
using namespace std;
// Find Minimum among three numbers
long int min(long int x, long int y, long int z) {
if(x<=y) {
if(x<=z) {
return x;
} else {
return z;
}
} else {
if(y<=z) {
return y;
} else {
return z;
}
}
}
// Actual Method that computes all Ugly Numbers till the required range
long int uglyNumber(int count) {
long int arr[MAX], val;
// index of last multiple of 2 --> i2
// index of last multiple of 3 --> i3
// index of last multiple of 5 --> i5
int i2, i3, i5, lastIndex;
arr[0] = 1;
i2 = i3 = i5 = 0;
lastIndex = 1;
while(lastIndex<=count-1) {
val = min(2*arr[i2], 3*arr[i3], 5*arr[i5]);
arr[lastIndex] = val;
lastIndex++;
if(val == 2*arr[i2]) {
i2++;
}
if(val == 3*arr[i3]) {
i3++;
}
if(val == 5*arr[i5]) {
i5++;
}
}
return arr[lastIndex-1];
}
// Starting point of program
int main() {
long int num;
int count;
cout<<"Which Ugly Number : ";
cin>>count;
num = uglyNumber(count);
cout<<endl<<num;
return 0;
}
We can see that its quite fast, just change the value of MAX to compute higher Ugly Number
Using 3 generators in parallel and selecting the smallest at each iteration, here is a C program to compute all ugly numbers below 2128 in less than 1 second:
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#if 0
typedef unsigned long long ugly_t;
#define UGLY_MAX (~(ugly_t)0)
#else
typedef __uint128_t ugly_t;
#define UGLY_MAX (~(ugly_t)0)
#endif
int print_ugly(int i, ugly_t u) {
char buf[64], *p = buf + sizeof(buf);
*--p = '\0';
do { *--p = '0' + u % 10; } while ((u /= 10) != 0);
return printf("%d: %s\n", i, p);
}
int main() {
int i = 0, n2 = 0, n3 = 0, n5 = 0;
ugly_t u, ug2 = 1, ug3 = 1, ug5 = 1;
#define UGLY_COUNT 110000
ugly_t ugly[UGLY_COUNT];
while (i < UGLY_COUNT) {
u = ug2;
if (u > ug3) u = ug3;
if (u > ug5) u = ug5;
if (u == UGLY_MAX)
break;
ugly[i++] = u;
print_ugly(i, u);
if (u == ug2) {
if (ugly[n2] <= UGLY_MAX / 2)
ug2 = 2 * ugly[n2++];
else
ug2 = UGLY_MAX;
}
if (u == ug3) {
if (ugly[n3] <= UGLY_MAX / 3)
ug3 = 3 * ugly[n3++];
else
ug3 = UGLY_MAX;
}
if (u == ug5) {
if (ugly[n5] <= UGLY_MAX / 5)
ug5 = 5 * ugly[n5++];
else
ug5 = UGLY_MAX;
}
}
return 0;
}
Here are the last 10 lines of output:
100517: 338915443777200000000000000000000000000
100518: 339129266201729628114355465608000000000
100519: 339186548067800934969350553600000000000
100520: 339298130282929870605468750000000000000
100521: 339467078447341918945312500000000000000
100522: 339569540691046437734055936000000000000
100523: 339738624000000000000000000000000000000
100524: 339952965770562084651663360000000000000
100525: 340010386766614455386112000000000000000
100526: 340122240000000000000000000000000000000
Here is a version in Javascript usable with QuickJS:
import * as std from "std";
function main() {
var i = 0, n2 = 0, n3 = 0, n5 = 0;
var u, ug2 = 1n, ug3 = 1n, ug5 = 1n;
var ugly = [];
for (;;) {
u = ug2;
if (u > ug3) u = ug3;
if (u > ug5) u = ug5;
ugly[i++] = u;
std.printf("%d: %s\n", i, String(u));
if (u >= 0x100000000000000000000000000000000n)
break;
if (u == ug2)
ug2 = 2n * ugly[n2++];
if (u == ug3)
ug3 = 3n * ugly[n3++];
if (u == ug5)
ug5 = 5n * ugly[n5++];
}
return 0;
}
main();
here is my code , the idea is to divide the number by 2 (till it gives remainder 0) then 3 and 5 . If at last the number becomes one it's a ugly number.
you can count and even print all ugly numbers till n.
int count = 0;
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++) {
int temp = i;
while (temp % 2 == 0) temp=temp / 2;
while (temp % 3 == 0) temp=temp / 3;
while (temp % 5 == 0) temp=temp / 5;
if (temp == 1) {
cout << i << endl;
count++;
}
}
This problem can be done in O(1).
If we remove 1 and look at numbers between 2 through 30, we will notice that there are 22 numbers.
Now, for any number x in the 22 numbers above, there will be a number x + 30 in between 31 and 60 that is also ugly. Thus, we can find at least 22 numbers between 31 and 60. Now for every ugly number between 31 and 60, we can write it as s + 30. So s will be ugly too, since s + 30 is divisible by 2, 3, or 5. Thus, there will be exactly 22 numbers between 31 and 60. This logic can be repeated for every block of 30 numbers after that.
Thus, there will be 23 numbers in the first 30 numbers, and 22 for every 30 after that. That is, first 23 uglies will occur between 1 and 30, 45 uglies will occur between 1 and 60, 67 uglies will occur between 1 and 30 etc.
Now, if I am given n, say 137, I can see that 137/22 = 6.22. The answer will lie between 6*30 and 7*30 or between 180 and 210. By 180, I will have 6*22 + 1 = 133rd ugly number at 180. I will have 154th ugly number at 210. So I am looking for 4th ugly number (since 137 = 133 + 4)in the interval [2, 30], which is 5. The 137th ugly number is then 180 + 5 = 185.
Another example: if I want the 1500th ugly number, I count 1500/22 = 68 blocks. Thus, I will have 22*68 + 1 = 1497th ugly at 30*68 = 2040. The next three uglies in the [2, 30] block are 2, 3, and 4. So our required ugly is at 2040 + 4 = 2044.
The point it that I can simply build a list of ugly numbers between [2, 30] and simply find the answer by doing look ups in O(1).
Here is another O(n) approach (Python solution) based on the idea of merging three sorted lists. The challenge is to find the next ugly number in increasing order. For example, we know the first seven ugly numbers are [1,2,3,4,5,6,8]. The ugly numbers are actually from the following three lists:
list 1: 1*2, 2*2, 3*2, 4*2, 5*2, 6*2, 8*2 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 2 )
list 2: 1*3, 2*3, 3*3, 4*3, 5*3, 6*3, 8*3 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 3 )
list 3: 1*5, 2*5, 3*5, 4*5, 5*5, 6*5, 8*5 ... ( multiply each ugly number by 5 )
So the nth ugly number is the nth number of the list merged from the three lists above:
1, 1*2, 1*3, 2*2, 1*5, 2*3 ...
def nthuglynumber(n):
p2, p3, p5 = 0,0,0
uglynumber = [1]
while len(uglynumber) < n:
ugly2, ugly3, ugly5 = uglynumber[p2]*2, uglynumber[p3]*3, uglynumber[p5]*5
next = min(ugly2, ugly3, ugly5)
if next == ugly2: p2 += 1 # multiply each number
if next == ugly3: p3 += 1 # only once by each
if next == ugly5: p5 += 1 # of the three factors
uglynumber += [next]
return uglynumber[-1]
STEP I: computing three next possible ugly numbers from the three lists
ugly2, ugly3, ugly5 = uglynumber[p2]*2, uglynumber[p3]*3, uglynumber[p5]*5
STEP II, find the one next ugly number as the smallest of the three above:
next = min(ugly2, ugly3, ugly5)
STEP III: moving the pointer forward if its ugly number was the next ugly number
if next == ugly2: p2+=1
if next == ugly3: p3+=1
if next == ugly5: p5+=1
note: not using if with elif nor else
STEP IV: adding the next ugly number into the merged list uglynumber
uglynumber += [next]
Is there an algorithm for figuring out the following things?
If the result of a division is a repeating decimal (in binary).
If it repeats, at what digit (represented as a power of 2) does the repetition start?
What digits repeat?
Some examples:
1/2 = 1/10 = 0.1 // 1 = false, 2 = N/A, 3 = N/A, 4 = N/A
1/3 = 1/11 = 0.010101... // 1 = true, 2 = -2, 3 = 10
2/3 = 10/11 = 0.101010... // 1 = true, 2 = -1, 3 = 10
4/3 = 100/11 = 1.010101... // 1 = true, 2 = 0, 3 = 10
1/5 = 1/101 = 0.001100110011... // 1 = true, 2 = -3, 3 = 1100
Is there a way to do this? Efficiency is a big concern. A description of the algorithm would be preferred over code, but I'll take what answer I can get.
It's also worth noting that the base isn't a big deal; I can convert the algorithm over to binary (or if it's in, say base 256 to use chars for ease, I could just use that). I say this because if you're explaining it might be easier for you to explain in base 10 :).
if the divisor is not a power of 2 (in general, contains prime factors not shared with the base of representation)
repeat cycle length will be driven by the largest prime factor of the dividend (but not connected with the length of the representation of that factor -- see 1/7 in decimal), but the first cycle length may differ from the repeat unit (e.g. 11/28 = 1/4+1/7 in decimal).
the actual cycle will depend on the numerator.
I can give a hint - repeating decimals in base ten are all fraction with the denominator having at least one prime factors other than two and five. If the denominator contains no prime factors two or five, they can always be represented with a denominator of all nines. Then the nominator is the repeating part and the number of nines is the length of the repeating part.
3 _
- = 0.3
9
1 142857 ______
- = ------ = 0.142857
7 999999
If there are prime factors two or five in the denominator, the repeating part starts not at the first position.
17 17 ______
-- = ----- = 0.4857142
35 5 * 7
But I cannot remember how to derive the non-repeating part and its length.
This seem to translate well to base two. Only fraction with a power of two denominator are non-repeating. This can be easily checked by asserting that only a single bit in the denominator is set.
1/2 = 1/10 = 0.1
1/4 = 1/100 = 0.01
3/4 = 11/100 = 0.11
5/8 = 101/1000 = 0.101
All fraction with odd denominators should be repeating and the pattern and its length can be obtained by expressing the fraction with a denominator in the form 2^n-1.
__
1/3 = 1/(2^2-1) = 1/11 = 0.01
__
2/3 = 2/(2^2-1) = 10/11 = 0.10
__
4/3 => 1 + 1/3 => 1.01
__
10/3 => 3 + 1/3 => 11.01
____
1/5 = 3/15 = 3/(2^4-1) = 11/1111 = 0.0011
________
11/17 = 165/255 = 11/(2^8-1) = 10100101/11111111 = 0.10100101
As for base ten, I cannot tell how to handle denominators containing but not being a power of two - for example 12 = 3 * 2^2.
First of all, one of your examples is wrong. The repeating part of 1/5 is 0011 rather than 1100, and it begins at the very beginning of the fractional part.
A repeating decimal is something like:
a/b = c + d(2-n + 2-n-k + 2-n-2k + ...)
= c + 2-n * d / (1 - 2-k)
in which n and d are what you want.
For example,
1/10(dec) = 1/1010(bin) = 0.0001100110011... // 1 = true, 2 = -1, 3 = 0011
could be represented by the formula with
a = 1, b = 10(dec), c = 0, d = 0.0011(bin), n = 1, k = 4;
(1 - 2-k) = 0.1111
Therefore, 1/10 = 0.1 * 0.0011/0.1111. The key part of a repeating decimal representation is generated by dividing by (2n - 1) or its any multiple of 2. So you can either find a way to express your denominator as such (like building constant tables), or do a big number division (which is relatively slow) and find the loop. There's no quick way to do this.
Check out decimal expansion, and specifically about the period of a fraction.
You can do a long division, noting the remainders. The structure of the remainders will give you the structure of any rational decimal:
the last remainder is zero: it is a decimal without any repeating part
the first and the last remainder are equal: the decimal is repeating right after the dot
the distance between the first and the first remainder equal to the last are the non-repeating digits, the remainder is the repeating part
In general the distances will give you the amount of digits for each part.
You can see this algorithm coded in C++ in the method decompose() here.
Try 228142/62265, it has a period of 1776 digits!
To find the repeating pattern, just keep track of the values you use along the line:
1/5 = 1/101:
1 < 101 => 0
(decimal separator here)
10 < 101 => 0
100 < 101 => 0
1000 >= 101 => 1
1000 - 101 = 11
110 >= 101 => 1
110 - 101 = 1
10 -> match
As you reach the same value as you had at the second bit, the process will just repeat from that point producing the same bit pattern over and over. You have the pattern "0011" repeating from the second bit (first after decimal separator).
If you want the pattern to start with a "1", you can just rotate it until it matches that condition:
"0011" from the second bit
"0110" from the third bit
"1100" from the fourth bit
Edit:
Example in C#:
void FindPattern(int n1, int n2) {
int digit = -1;
while (n1 >= n2) {
n2 <<= 1;
digit++;
}
Dictionary<int, int> states = new Dictionary<int, int>();
bool found = false;
while (n1 > 0 || digit >= 0) {
if (digit == -1) Console.Write('.');
n1 <<= 1;
if (states.ContainsKey(n1)) {
Console.WriteLine(digit >= 0 ? new String('0', digit + 1) : String.Empty);
Console.WriteLine("Repeat from digit {0} length {1}.", states[n1], states[n1] - digit);
found = true;
break;
}
states.Add(n1, digit);
if (n1 < n2) {
Console.Write('0');
} else {
Console.Write('1');
n1 -= n2;
}
digit--;
}
if (!found) {
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("No repeat.");
}
}
Called with your examples it outputs:
.1
No repeat.
.01
Repeat from digit -1 length 2.
.10
Repeat from digit -1 length 2.
1.0
Repeat from digit 0 length 2.
.0011
Repeat from digit -1 length 4.
As others have noted, the answer involves a long division.
Here is a simple python function which does the job:
def longdiv(numerator,denominator):
digits = []
remainders = [0]
n = numerator
while n not in remainders: # until repeated remainder or no remainder
remainders.append(n) # add remainder to collection
digits.append(n//denominator) # add integer division to result
n = n%denominator * 10 # remainder*10 for next iteration
# Result
result = list(map(str,digits)) # convert digits to strings
result = ''.join(result) # combine list to string
if not n:
result = result[:1]+'.'+result[1:] # Insert . into string
else:
recurring = remainders.index(n)-1 # first recurring digit
# Insert '.' and then surround recurring part in brackets:
result = result[:1]+'.'+result[1:recurring]+'['+result[recurring:]+']'
return result;
print(longdiv(31,8)) # 3.875
print(longdiv(2,13)) # 0.[153846]
print(longdiv(13,14)) # 0.9[285714]
It’s heavily commented, so it shouldn’t be too hard to write in other languages, such as JavaScript.
The most important parts, as regards recurring decimals are:
keep a collection of remainders; the first remainder of 0 is added as a convenience for the next step
divide, noting the integer quotient and the remainder
if the new remainder is 0 you have a terminating decimal
if the new remainder is already in the collection, you have a recurring decimal
repeat, adlib and fade etc
The rest of the function is there to format the results.