The title may not be correct, I was unsure how to phrase my question.
I am attempting to program with Python3.6 an asymmetric cipher similar to, I believe, that used with RSA encrypted communication
My logic understanding of this is as follows:
Person1 (p1) picks two prime numbers say 17 and 19
let p = 17 and q = 19
the product of these two numbers will be called n (n = p * q)
n = 323
p1 will then make public n
P1 will then make public another prime called e, e = 7
Person2(p2) wants to send p1 the letter H (72 in Ascii)
To do this p2 does the following ((72 ^ e) % n) and calls this value M
M = 13
p2 sends M to p1
p1 receives M and now needs to decrypt it
p1 can do this by calculating D where (e^D) % ((p-1)*(q-1)) = 1
In this example i know D = 247
With D p1 can calculate p2 message using M^D % n
which successfully gives 72 ('H' in ASCII)
With this said the following rules must apply:
GCD(e,m) = 1
where m = ((p-1)*(q-1))
otherwise (e^D) % ((p-1)*(q-1)) = 1 does not exist.
Now comes by issue! :)
Calculating D where the numbers are not so easy to work with.
Now please tell me if there is an easier way to calculate D but this is where I got upto using online aid.
(the example I looked at online used different values so they are as follows:
p=47
q=71
n = p*q = 3337
(p-1)*(q-1) = 3220
e = 79
Now we must find D. We know (e^D) % ((p-1)*(q-1)) = 1
Therefore D = 79^-1 % 3220
The equation is rewritten as 79*d = 1 mod 3220
This is where I get confused
Using regular Euclidean Algorithm gcd(79,3220) must equal 1 or there may not actually be a solution (are my descriptions correct here?)
3220 = 40*79 + 60 (79 goes into 3220 40 times with remainder 60)
79 = 1*60 + 19 (The last remainder 60 goes into 79 once with r 19)
60 = 3*19 + 3 (The last remainder 19 goes into 60 three times with r 3)
19 = 6*3 + 1 (The last remainder 3 goes into 19 6 times with r 1)
3 = 3*1 + 0 (The last remainder 1 goes into 3 three times with r 0)
The last nonzero remainder is the gcd. Thus gcd(79,3220) = 1 (as it should be)
The last step here I do not know what on earth is happening
I am told write the gcd(one) as a linear combination of 19 and 3220 by working back up the tree...
1 = 19-6*3
= 19-6*(60-3*19)
= 19*19 - 6*60
= 19*(79-60) - 6*60
= 19*79 - 25*60
= 19*79 - 25*(3220-40*79)
= 1019*79 - 25*3220
After this I am left with 1019*79 - 25*3220 = 1 and if i mod 3220 on both sides i get 1019*79 = 1 mod 3220
(the term that contains 3220 goes away because 3220 = 0 mod 3220).
Thus d = 1019.
So, the problem is to unwind the following sequence:
3220 = 40*79 + 60
79 = 1*60 + 19
60 = 3*19 + 3
19 = 6*3 + 1
3 = 3*1 + 0
First, forget the last row and start from the one with the last non-null remainder.
Then proceed step by step:
1 = 19 - 6*3 ; now expand 3
= 19 - 6*(60 - 3*19) = 19 - 6*60 + 18*19
= 19*19 - 6*60 ; now expand 19
= 19*(79 - 1*60) - 6*60 = 19*79 - 19*60 - 6*60
= 19*79 - 25*60 ; now expand 60
= 19*79 - 25*(3220 - 40*79) = 19*79 - 25*3220 + 1000*79
= 1019*79 - 25*3220 ; done
Note that the idea is to expand, at each step, the previous remainder. For instance, when expanding remainder 19 with: 79 - 1*60, you transform 19*19 - 6*60 into 19*(79 - 1*60) - 6*60. This lets you regroup around 79 and 60 and keep going.
Related
I found this question online and I really have no idea what the question is even asking. I would really appreciate some help in first understanding the question, and a solution if possible. Thanks!
To see if a number is divisible by 3, you need to add up the digits of its decimal notation, and check if the sum is divisible by 3.
To see if a number is divisible by 11, you need to split its decimal notation into pairs of digits (starting from the right end), add up corresponding numbers and check if the sum is divisible by 11.
For any prime p (except for 2 and 5) there exists an integer r such that a similar divisibility test exists: to check if a number is divisible by p, you need to split its decimal notation into r-tuples of digits (starting from the right end), add up these r-tuples and check whether their sum is divisible by p.
Given a prime int p, find the minimal r for which such divisibility test is valid and output it.
The input consists of a single integer p - a prime between 3 and 999983, inclusive, not equal to 5.
Example
input
3
output
1
input
11
output
2
This is a very cool problem! It uses modular arithmetic and some basic number theory to devise the solution.
Let's say we have p = 11. What divisibility rule applies here? How many digits at once do we need to take, to have a divisibility rule?
Well, let's try a single digit at a time. That would mean, that if we have 121 and we sum its digits 1 + 2 + 1, then we get 4. However we see, that although 121 is divisible by 11, 4 isn't and so the rule doesn't work.
What if we take two digits at a time? With 121 we get 1 + 21 = 22. We see that 22 IS divisible by 11, so the rule might work here. And in fact, it does. For p = 11, we have r = 2.
This requires a bit of intuition which I am unable to convey in text (I really have tried) but it can be proven that for a given prime p other than 2 and 5, the divisibility rule works for tuples of digits of length r if and only if the number 99...9 (with r nines) is divisible by p. And indeed, for p = 3 we have 9 % 3 = 0, while for p = 11 we have 9 % 11 = 9 (this is bad) and 99 % 11 = 0 (this is what we want).
If we want to find such an r, we start with r = 1. We check if 9 is divisible by p. If it is, then we found the r. Otherwise, we go further and we check if 99 is divisible by p. If it is, then we return r = 2. Then, we check if 999 is divisible by p and if so, return r = 3 and so on. However, the 99...9 numbers can get very large. Thankfully, to check divisibility by p we only need to store the remainder modulo p, which we know is small (at least smaller than 999983). So the code in C++ would look something like this:
int r(int p) {
int result = 1;
int remainder = 9 % p;
while (remainder != 0) {
remainder = (remainder * 10 + 9) % p;
result++;
}
return result;
}
I have no idea how they expect a random programmer with no background to figure out the answer from this.
But here is the brief introduction to modulo arithmetic that should make this doable.
In programming, n % k is the modulo operator. It refers to taking the remainder of n / k. It satisfies the following two important properties:
(n + m) % k = ((n % k) + (m % k)) % k
(n * m) % k = ((n % k) * (m % k)) % k
Because of this, for any k we can think of all numbers with the same remainder as somehow being the same. The result is something called "the integers modulo k". And it satisfies most of the rules of algebra that you're used to. You have the associative property, the commutative property, distributive law, addition by 0, and multiplication by 1.
However if k is a composite number like 10, you have the unfortunate fact that 2 * 5 = 10 which means that modulo 10, 2 * 5 = 0. That's kind of a problem for division.
BUT if k = p, a prime, then things become massively easier. If (a*m) % p = (b*m) % p then ((a-b) * m) % p = 0 so (a-b) * m is divisible by p. And therefore either (a-b) or m is divisible by p.
For any non-zero remainder m, let's look at the sequence m % p, m^2 % p, m^3 % p, .... This sequence is infinitely long and can only take on p values. So we must have a repeat where, a < b and m^a % p = m^b %p. So (1 * m^a) % p = (m^(b-a) * m^a) % p. Since m doesn't divide p, m^a doesn't either, and therefore m^(b-a) % p = 1. Furthermore m^(b-a-1) % p acts just like m^(-1) = 1/m. (If you take enough math, you'll find that the non-zero remainders under multiplication is a finite group, and all the remainders forms a field. But let's ignore that.)
(I'm going to drop the % p everywhere. Just assume it is there in any calculation.)
Now let's let a be the smallest positive number such that m^a = 1. Then 1, m, m^2, ..., m^(a-1) forms a cycle of length a. For any n in 1, ..., p-1 we can form a cycle (possibly the same, possibly different) n, n*m, n*m^2, ..., n*m^(a-1). It can be shown that these cycles partition 1, 2, ..., p-1 where every number is in a cycle, and each cycle has length a. THEREFORE, a divides p-1. As a side note, since a divides p-1, we easily get Fermat's little theorem that m^(p-1) has remainder 1 and therefore m^p = m.
OK, enough theory. Now to your problem. Suppose we have a base b = 10^i. The primality test that they are discussing is that a_0 + a_1 * b + a_2 * b^2 + a_k * b^k is divisible by a prime p if and only if a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k is divisible by p. Looking at (p-1) + b, this can only happen if b % p is 1. And if b % p is 1, then in modulo arithmetic b to any power is 1, and the test works.
So we're looking for the smallest i such that 10^i % p is 1. From what I showed above, i always exists, and divides p-1. So you just need to factor p-1, and try 10 to each power until you find the smallest i that works.
Note that you should % p at every step you can to keep those powers from getting too big. And with repeated squaring you can speed up the calculation. So, for example, calculating 10^20 % p could be done by calculating each of the following in turn.
10 % p
10^2 % p
10^4 % p
10^5 % p
10^10 % p
10^20 % p
This is an almost direct application of Fermat's little theorem.
First, you have to reformulate the "split decimal notation into tuples [...]"-condition into something you can work with:
to check if a number is divisible by p, you need to split its decimal notation into r-tuples of digits (starting from the right end), add up these r-tuples and check whether their sum is divisible by p
When you translate it from prose into a formula, what it essentially says is that you want
for any choice of "r-tuples of digits" b_i from { 0, ..., 10^r - 1 } (with only finitely many b_i being non-zero).
Taking b_1 = 1 and all other b_i = 0, it's easy to see that it is necessary that
It's even easier to see that this is also sufficient (all 10^ri on the left hand side simply transform into factor 1 that does nothing).
Now, if p is neither 2 nor 5, then 10 will not be divisible by p, so that Fermat's little theorem guarantees us that
, that is, at least the solution r = p - 1 exists. This might not be the smallest such r though, and computing the smallest one is hard if you don't have a quantum computer handy.
Despite it being hard in general, for very small p, you can simply use an algorithm that is linear in p (you simply look at the sequence
10 mod p
100 mod p
1000 mod p
10000 mod p
...
and stop as soon as you find something that equals 1 mod p).
Written out as code, for example, in Scala:
def blockSize(p: Int, n: Int = 10, r: Int = 1): Int =
if n % p == 1 then r else blockSize(p, n * 10 % p, r + 1)
println(blockSize(3)) // 1
println(blockSize(11)) // 2
println(blockSize(19)) // 18
or in Python:
def blockSize(p: int, n: int = 10, r: int = 1) -> int:
return r if n % p == 1 else blockSize(p, n * 10 % p, r + 1)
print(blockSize(3)) # 1
print(blockSize(11)) # 2
print(blockSize(19)) # 18
A wall of numbers, just in case someone else wants to sanity-check alternative approaches:
11 -> 2
13 -> 6
17 -> 16
19 -> 18
23 -> 22
29 -> 28
31 -> 15
37 -> 3
41 -> 5
43 -> 21
47 -> 46
53 -> 13
59 -> 58
61 -> 60
67 -> 33
71 -> 35
73 -> 8
79 -> 13
83 -> 41
89 -> 44
97 -> 96
101 -> 4
103 -> 34
107 -> 53
109 -> 108
113 -> 112
127 -> 42
131 -> 130
137 -> 8
139 -> 46
149 -> 148
151 -> 75
157 -> 78
163 -> 81
167 -> 166
173 -> 43
179 -> 178
181 -> 180
191 -> 95
193 -> 192
197 -> 98
199 -> 99
Thank you andrey tyukin.
Simple terms to remember:
When x%y =z then (x%y)%y again =z
(X+y)%z == (x%z + y%z)%z
keep this in mind.
So you break any number into some r digits at a time together. I.e. break 3456733 when r=6 into 3 * 10 power(6 * 1) + 446733 * 10 power(6 * 0).
And you can break 12536382626373 into 12 * 10 power (6 * 2). + 536382 * 10 power (6 * 1) + 626373 * 10 power (6 * 0)
Observe that here r is 6.
So when we say we combine the r digits and sum them together and apply modulo. We are saying we apply modulo to coefficients of above breakdown.
So how come coefficients sum represents whole number’s sum?
When the “10 power (6* anything)” modulo in the above break down becomes 1 then that particular term’s modulo will be equal to the coefficient’s modulo. That means the 10 power (r* anything) is of no effect. You can check why it will have no effect by using the formulas 1&2.
And the other similar terms 10 power (r * anything) also will have modulo as 1. I.e. if you can prove that (10 power r)modulo is 1. Then (10 power r * anything) is also 1.
But the important thing is we should have 10 power (r) equal to 1. Then every 10 power (r * anything) is 1 that leads to modulo of number equal to sum of r digits divided modulo.
Conclusion: find r in (10 power r) such that the given prime number will leave 1 as reminder.
That also mean the smallest 9…..9 which is divisible by given prime number decides r.
I need help with the following problem.
Given an integer m, I need to find the number of positive integers n and the integers, such that the factorial of n ends with exactly m zeroes.
I wrote this code it works fine and i get the right output, but it take way too much time as the numbers increase.
a = input()
while a:
x = []
m, n, fact, c, j = input(), 0, 1, 0, 0
z = 10*m
t = 10**m
while z - 1:
fact = 1
n = n + 1
for i in range(1, n + 1):
fact = fact * i
if fact % t == 0 and ((fact / t) % 10) != 0:
x.append(int(n))
c = c + 1
z = z - 1
for p in range(c):
print x[p],
a -= 1
print c
Could someone suggest me a more efficient way to do this. Presently, it takes 30 seconds for a test case asking for numbers with 250 trailing zeros in its factorial.
Thanks
To get number of trailing zeroes of n! efficiently you can put
def zeroes(value):
result = 0;
d = 5;
while (d <= value):
result += value // d; # integer division
d *= 5;
return result;
...
# 305: 1234! has exactly 305 trailing zeroes
print zeroes(1234)
In order to solve the problem (what numbers have n trailing zeroes in n!) you can use these facts:
number of zeroes is a monotonous function: f(x + a) >= f(x) if a >= 0.
if f(x) = y then x <= y * 5 (we count only 5 factors).
if f(x) = y then x >= y * 4 (let me leave this for you to prove)
Then implement binary search (on monotonous function).
E.g. in case of 250 zeroes we have the initial range to test [4*250..5*250] == [1000..1250]. Binary search narrows the range down into [1005..1009].
1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009 are all numbers such that they have exactly 250 trainling zeroes in factorial
Edit I hope I don't spoil the fun if I (after 2 years) prove the last conjecture (see comments below):
Each 5**n within facrtorial when multiplied by 2**n produces 10**n and thus n zeroes; that's why f(x) is
f(x) = [x / 5] + [x / 25] + [x / 125] + ... + [x / 5**n] + ...
where [...] stands for floor or integer part (e.g. [3.1415926] == 3). Let's perform easy manipulations:
f(x) = [x / 5] + [x / 25] + [x / 125] + ... + [x / 5**n] + ... <= # removing [...]
x / 5 + x / 25 + x / 125 + ... + x / 5**n + ... =
x * (1/5 + 1/25 + 1/125 + ... + 1/5**n + ...) =
x * (1/5 * 1/(1 - 1/5)) =
x * 1/5 * 5/4 =
x / 4
So far so good
f(x) <= x / 4
Or if y = f(x) then x >= 4 * y Q.E.D.
Focus on the number of 2s and 5s that makes up a number. e.g. 150 is made up of 2*3*5*5, there 1 pair of 2&5 so there's one trailing zero. Each time you increase the tested number, try figuring out how much 2 and 5s are in the number. From that, adding up previous results you can easily know how much zeros its factorial contains.
For example, 15!=15*...*5*4*3*2*1, starting from 2:
Number 2s 5s trailing zeros of factorial
2 1 0 0
3 1 0 0
4 2 0 0
5 2 1 1
6 3 1 1
...
10 5 2 2
...
15 7 3 3
..
24 12 6 6
25 12 8 8 <- 25 counts for two 5-s: 25 == 5 * 5 == 5**2
26 13 8 8
..
Refer to Peter de Rivaz's and Dmitry Bychenko's comments, they have got some good advices.
I was recently solving a problem when I encountered this one: APAC Round E Q2
Basically the question asks to find the smallest base (>1) in which if the number (input) is written then the number would only consist of 1s. Like 3 if represented in base 2 would become 1 (consisting of only 1s).
Now, I tried to solve this the brute force way trying out all bases from 2 till the number to find such a base. But the constraints required a more efficient one.
Can anyone provide some help on how to approach this?
Here is one suggestion: A number x that can be represented as all 1s in a base b can be written as x = b^n + b^(n-1) + b^(n-2) + ... + b^1 + 1
If you subtract 1 from this number you end up with a number divisble by b:
b^n + b^(n-1) + b^(n-2) + ... + b^1 which has the representation 111...110. Dividing by b means shifting it right once so the resulting number is now b^(n-1) + b^(n-2) + ... + b^1 or 111...111 with one digit less than before. Now you can repeat the process until you reach 0.
For example 13 which is 111 in base 3:
13 - 1 = 12 --> 110
12 / 3 = 4 --> 11
4 - 1 = 3 --> 10
3 / 3 = 1 --> 1
1 - 1 = 0 --> 0
Done => 13 can be represented as all 1s in base 3
So in order to check if a given number can be written with all 1s in a base b you can check if that number is divisble by b after subtracting 1. If not you can immediately start with the next base.
This is also pretty brute-forcey but it doesn't do any base conversions, only one subtraction, one divisions and one mod operation per iteration.
We can solve this in O( (log2 n)^2 ) complexity by recognizing that the highest power attainable in the sequence would correspond with the smallest base, 2, and using the formula for geometric sum:
1 + r + r^2 + r^3 ... + r^(n-1) = (1 - r^n) / (1 - r)
Renaming the variables, we get:
n = (1 - base^power) / (1 - base)
Now we only need to check power's from (floor(log2 n) + 1) down to 2, and for each given power, use a binary search for the base. For example:
n = 13:
p = floor(log2 13) + 1 = 4:
Binary search for base:
(1 - 13^4) / (1 - 13) = 2380
...
No match for power = 4.
Try power = 3:
(1 - 13^3) / (1 - 13) = 183
(1 - 6^3) / (1 - 6) = 43
(1 - 3^3) / (1 - 3) = 13 # match
For n around 10^18 we may need up to (floor(log2 (10^18)) + 1)^2 = 3600 iterations.
I'm wondering if there is a trick with number theory to compute this remainder without need to implement a BigInt division algorithm.
Haha, it's easy!
I can iterate over all digits, adding each parcel...
Using the properties:
1) (a+b) mod c = (a mod c + b mod c) mod c
2) (a*b) mod c = (a mod c * b mod c) mod c
The power of ten can be increased mod 1500 each step.
Its simple, just check these three things:
Divisibility by 1500
it has to be divisible by 100 (last two digits must be 00)
it has to be divisible by 5 (third digit from right has to be 0 or 5)
it has to be divisible by 3 (iterate over all digits, sum them, and the result has to be divisible by 3)
And if you want to know the remainder, its again simple:
Check for divisible by 5 and get remainder
get remainder from last 4 digits after division by 500, it will be from 0 to 499.
Check for divisible by 3 and get remainder
iterate over all digits, sum them, and get remainder from that after division by 3, it will be from 0 to 2.
and depending from this remainder increase the remainder from 1st step by this remainder multiplied by 500.
Example 1
1234567890 % 1500 = 390
7890 % 500 = 390
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 0 = 45 and 45 % 3 = 0, so nothing has to be added to 390 and the result is then 390.
Example 2
12345678901 % 1500 = 901
8901 % 500 = 401
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 0 + 1 = 46 and 46 % 3 = 1, so we have to add 1 * 500 to the result from 1st step, so 401 + 1 * 500 = 901.
Example 3
1357913579 % 1500 = 1079
3579 % 500 = 79
1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 = 50 and 50 % 3 = 2, so we have to add 2 * 500 to the result from 1st step, so 79 + 2 * 500 = 1079.
Hope this helps you.
I'm making a function that converts a number into a string with predefined characters. Original, I know. I started it, because it seemed fun at the time. To do on my own. Well, it's frustrating and not fun.
I want it to be like binary as in that any left character is worth more than its right neigbour. Binary is inefficient because every bit has only 1 positive value. Xnary is efficient, because a 'bit' is never 0.
The character set (in this case): A - Z.
A = 1 ..
Z = 26
AA = 27 ..
AZ = 52
BA = 53 ..
BZ = 2 * 26 (B) + 26 * 1 (Z) = 78... Right?
ZZ = 26 * 26 (Z) + 26 * 1 (Z) = 702?? Right??
I found this here, but there AA is the same as A and AAA. The result of the function is never AA or AAA.
The string A is different from AA and AAA however, so the number should be too. (Unlike binary 1, 01, 001 etc.) And since a longer string is always more valuable than a shorter... A < AA < AAA.
Does this make sense? I've tried to explain it before and have failed. I've also tried to make it before. =)
The most important thing: since A < AA < AAA, the value of 'my' ABC is higher than the value of the other script. Another difference: my script doesn't exist, because I keep failing.
I've tried with this algorithm:
N = 1000, Size = 3, (because 26 log(1000) = 2.x), so use 676, 26 and 1 for positions:
N = 1000
P0 = 1000 / 676 = 1.x = 1 = A
N = 1000 - 1 * 676 = 324
P1 = 324 / 26 = 12.x = 12 = L
N = 324 - 12 * 26 = 12
P1 = 12 / 1 = 12 = L
1000 => ALL
Sounds fair? Apparently it's crap. Because:
N = 158760, Size = 4, so use 17576, 676, 26 and 1
P0 = 158760 / 17576 = 9.x = 9 = I
N = 158760 - 9 * 17576 = 576
P1 = 576 / 676 = 0.x = 0 <<< OOPS
If 1 is A (the very first of the xnary), what's 0? Impossible is what it is.
So this one is a bust. The other one (on jsFiddle) is also a bust, because A != AA != AAA and that's a fact.
So what have I been missing for a few long nights?
Oh BTW: if you don't like numbers, don't read this.
PS. I've tried searching for similar questions but none are similar enough. The one references is most similar, but 'faulty' IMO.
Also known as Excel column numbering. It's easier if we shift by one, A = 0, ..., Z = 25, AA = 26, ..., at least for the calculations. For your scheme, all that's needed then is a subtraction of 1 before converting to Xnary resp. an addition after converting from.
So, with that modification, let's start finding the conversion. First, how many symbols do we need to encode n? Well, there are 26 one-digit numbers, 26^2 two-digit numbers, 26^3 three-digit numbers etc. So the total of numbers using at most d digits is 26^1 + 26^2 + ... + 26^d. That is the start of a geometric series, we know a closed form for the sum, 26*(26^d - 1)/(26-1). So to encode n, we need d digits if
26*(26^(d-1)-1)/25 <= n < 26*(26^d-1)/25 // remember, A = 0 takes one 'digit'
or
26^(d-1) <= (25*n)/26 + 1 < 26^d
That is, we need d(n) = floor(log_26(25*n/26+1)) + 1 digits to encode n >= 0. Now we must subtract the total of numbers needing at most d(n) - 1 digits to find the position of n in the d(n)-digit numbers, let's call it p(n) = n - 26*(26^(d(n)-1)-1)/25. And the encoding of n is then simply a d(n)-digit base-26 encoding of p(n).
The conversion in the other direction is then a base-26 expansion followed by an addition of 26*(26^(d-1) - 1)/25.
So for N = 1000, we encode n = 999, log_26(25*999/26+1) = log_26(961.5769...) = 2.x, we need 3 digits.
p(999) = 999 - 702 = 297
297 = 0*26^2 + 11*26 + 11
999 = ALL
For N = 158760, n = 158759 and log_26(25*158759/26+1) = 3.66..., we need four digits
p(158759) = 158759 - 18278 = 140481
140481 = 7*26^3 + 25*26^2 + 21*26 + 3
158759 = H Z V D
This appears to be a very standard "implement conversion from base 10 to base N" where N happens to be 26, and you're using letters to represent all digits.
If you have A-Z as a 26ary value, you can represent 0 through (26 - 1) (like binary can represent 0 - (2 - 1).
BZ = 1 * 26 + 25 *1 = 51
The analogue would be:
19 = 1 * 10 + 9 * 1 (1/B being the first non-zero character, and 9/Z being the largest digit possible).
You basically have the right idea, but you need to shift it so A = 0, not A = 1. Then everything should work relatively sanely.
In the lengthy answer by #Daniel I see a call to log() which is a red flag for performance. Here is a simple way without much complex math:
function excelize(colNum) {
var order = 0, sub = 0, divTmp = colNum;
do {
divTmp -= 26**order;
sub += 26**order;
divTmp = (divTmp - (divTmp % 26)) / 26;
order++;
} while(divTmp > 0);
var symbols = "0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
var tr = c => symbols[symbols.indexOf(c)+10];
Number(colNum-sub).toString(26).split('').map(c=>tr(c)).join('');
}
Explanation:
Since this is not base26, we need to substract the base times order for each additional symbol ("digit"). So first we count the order of the resulting number, and at the same time count the substract. And then we convert it to base 26 and substract that, and then shift the symbols to A-Z instead of 0-P.