So let't say I have numbers A=1483 and B = 635. My X=100.0
Let's say my allowed MARGIN is 10.0
What's the best way to get the closest number to X (can be floating point) that can divide into A and B with a remainder that is less that MARGIN?
For an answer K. A % K <= MARGIN, B % K <= MARGIN, with K being as close to X as possible, for example |K - X| < 100
Let's try and write the problem with mathematical notations.
What you have is Euclidean divisions:
A = Q1*X + R1
B = Q2*X + R2
You want to find the minimal |x| such that
A = Q1'*(X+x) + R1' , |R1'| <= M
B = Q2'*(X+x) + R2' , |R2'| <= M
To help you finding such x, you have relations like:
A = Q1*(X+x) + R1-Q1*x
B = Q2*(X+x) + R2-Q2*x
From here, you should first concentrate on how to solve the example you gave, then try and generalize.
1483 = 14*100 + 83 = 15*100 - 17
635 = 6*100 + 35 = 7*100 - 65
Should you can take x > 0 in order to reduce R2 (35) down to 10, or x < 0 to increase R1 (-17) up to -10?
In the first case, x should be in interval [25/6 , 45/6] to bring |R2'| <= M, but at the same time it must be in interval [73/14 , 93/14] to bring |R1'| <= M.
Do these intervals overlap?
if yes you have a solution.
if no, then you have to try further (decrement quotients Q1' and/or Q2')
Just check with any decent interpreter (Squeak/Pharo Smalltalk here)
{25/6 . 45/6. 73/14 . 93/14} sorted
= {(25/6) . (73/14) . (93/14) . (15/2)}
So they overlap, starting at x=73/14.
But maybe you would get a closer x in the other direction?
I have not given an algorithm, just a clue, up to you to continue. But you see that increment does not have to be random (like 0.001).
For now the best way I have found is a brute force method by finding the GCD of A and B and decrease by a small interval (0.001) and find the smallest c(K) where K >= X and c(x) = A % x + B % x
If I had found a way to differentiate c(x) correctly, I would've liked to find its gradient and use gradient descent to find the most optimal value without brute force.
Related
My problem is limited to unsigned integers of 256 bits.
I have a value x, and I need to descale it by the ratio n / d, where n < d.
The simple solution is of course x * n / d, but the problem is that x * n may overflow.
I am looking for any arithmetic trick which may help in reaching a result as accurate as possible.
Dividing each of n and d by gcd(n, d) before calculating x * n / d does not guarantee success.
Is there any process (iterative or other) which i can use in order to solve this problem?
Note that I am willing to settle on an inaccurate solution, but I'd need to be able to estimate the error.
NOTE: Using integer division instead of normal division
Let us suppose
x = ad + b
n = cd + e
Then find a,b,c,e as follows:
a = x/d
b = x%d
c = n/d
e = n%d
Then,
nx/d = acd + ae + bc + be/d
CALCULATING be/d
1. Represent e in binary form
2. Find b/d, 2b/d, 4b/d, 8b/d, ... 256b/d and their remainders
3. Find be/d = b*binary terms + their remainders
Example:
e = 101 in binary = 4+1
be/d = (b/d + 4b/d) + (b%d + 4b%d)/d
FINDING b/d, 2b/d, ... 256b/d
quotient(2*ib/d) = 2*quotient(ib /d) + (2*remainder(ib /d))/d
remainder(2*ib/d) = (2*remainder(ib/d))%d
Executes in O(number of bits)
I'm trying to clamp a number to the lower value of a series of numbers. For instance, if I have a series (sorry for the bad notation)
[pq] where p is any integer and q is any positive number.
Say if q is 50 my series will be ...-150, -100, -50, 0, 50, 100, 150...
Now what I'd like is to have a function f(y) which'll clamp any number to the next lowest number in the series.
For example, if I had the number 37 I'd be expecting the f(37) = 0 and I'd be expecting f(-37) = -50.
I've tried many algorithms involving modulus and integer division but I can't seem to figure it out. The latest I've tried is for example
(37 / q) * q which works great for positive numbers but doesn't work for any number between -50 and 0.
I've also tried ((37 - q) / q) * q but this won't work for negative cases which land exactly in the series.
EDIT
Assume that I do not have the entire series but only the multiplier p of the series.
You simply need to divide y by q using integer Euclidean division and then multiply the result by q again.
f(y) = (y / q) * q
where / represents Euclidean division.
In programming languages that do not immediately support Euclidean division you will have to either implement it manually or adjust the result of whatever division the language supports.
For example, in C and C++ Euclidean division for positive divisor q can be implemented through the native "Fortran-style" division as
(y >= 0 ? y : y - q + 1) / q
so in C or C++ the whole expression will look as
f(y) = (y >= 0 ? y : y - q + 1) / q * q
For 37 you get
f(37) = 37 / 50 * 50 = 0
For -37 you get
f(-37) = (-37 - 50 + 1) / 50 * 50 = -86 / 50 * 50 = -50
If you want a purely mathematical way, with no consideration given to computational efficiency, you could shift the input p into the positive integer range by adding a positive integer that is greater than or equal to |p| and is a multiple of q, and then shift it back by subtracting afterwards. p^2*q satisfies this.
This gives:
((p + p^2*q) / q) * q - p^2*q
You can subtract the modulus result once you've ensured it's positive. In some languages it will always be positive, but if not:
mod = p % q
positive_mod = (mod + q) % q
answer = p - positive_mod
Result in C++: https://ideone.com/kIuit8
Result in Python: https://ideone.com/w6wUgZ
How do I determine the square root of a floating point number? Is the Newton-Raphson method a good way? I have no hardware square root either. I also have no hardware divide (but I have implemented floating point divide).
If possible, I would prefer to reduce the number of divides as much as possible since they are so expensive.
Also, what should be the initial guess to reduce the total number of iterations???
Thank you so much!
When you use Newton-Raphson to compute a square-root, you actually want to use the iteration to find the reciprocal square root (after which you can simply multiply by the input--with some care for rounding--to produce the square root).
More precisely: we use the function f(x) = x^-2 - n. Clearly, if f(x) = 0, then x = 1/sqrt(n). This gives rise to the newton iteration:
x_(i+1) = x_i - f(x_i)/f'(x_i)
= x_i - (x_i^-2 - n)/(-2x_i^-3)
= x_i + (x_i - nx_i^3)/2
= x_i*(3/2 - 1/2 nx_i^2)
Note that (unlike the iteration for the square root), this iteration for the reciprocal square root involves no divisions, so it is generally much more efficient.
I mentioned in your question on divide that you should look at existing soft-float libraries, rather than re-inventing the wheel. That advice applies here as well. This function has already been implemented in existing soft-float libraries.
Edit: the questioner seems to still be confused, so let's work an example: sqrt(612). 612 is 1.1953125 x 2^9 (or b1.0011001 x 2^9, if you prefer binary). Pull out the even portion of the exponent (9) to write the input as f * 2^(2m), where m is an integer and f is in the range [1,4). Then we will have:
sqrt(n) = sqrt(f * 2^2m) = sqrt(f)*2^m
applying this reduction to our example gives f = 1.1953125 * 2 = 2.390625 (b10.011001) and m = 4. Now do a newton-raphson iteration to find x = 1/sqrt(f), using a starting guess of 0.5 (as I noted in a comment, this guess converges for all f, but you can do significantly better using a linear approximation as an initial guess):
x_0 = 0.5
x_1 = x_0*(3/2 - 1/2 * 2.390625 * x_0^2)
= 0.6005859...
x_2 = x_1*(3/2 - 1/2 * 2.390625 * x_1^2)
= 0.6419342...
x_3 = 0.6467077...
x_4 = 0.6467616...
So even with a (relatively bad) initial guess, we get rapid convergence to the true value of 1/sqrt(f) = 0.6467616600226026.
Now we simply assemble the final result:
sqrt(f) = x_n * f = 1.5461646...
sqrt(n) = sqrt(f) * 2^m = 24.738633...
And check: sqrt(612) = 24.738633...
Obviously, if you want correct rounding, careful analysis needed to ensure that you carry sufficient precision at each stage of the computation. This requires careful bookkeeping, but it isn't rocket science. You simply keep careful error bounds and propagate them through the algorithm.
If you want to correct rounding without explicitly checking a residual, you need to compute sqrt(f) to a precision of 2p + 2 bits (where p is precision of the source and destination type). However, you can also take the strategy of computing sqrt(f) to a little more than p bits, square that value, and adjust the trailing bit by one if necessary (which is often cheaper).
sqrt is nice in that it is a unary function, which makes exhaustive testing for single-precision feasible on commodity hardware.
You can find the OS X soft-float sqrtf function on opensource.apple.com, which uses the algorithm described above (I wrote it, as it happens). It is licensed under the APSL, which may or not be suitable for your needs.
Probably (still) the fastest implementation for finding the inverse square root and the 10 lines of code that I adore the most.
It's based on Newton Approximation, but with a few quirks. There's even a great story around this.
Easiest to implement (you can even implement this in a calculator):
def sqrt(x, TOL=0.000001):
y=1.0
while( abs(x/y -y) > TOL ):
y= (y+x/y)/2.0
return y
This is exactly equal to newton raphson:
y(new) = y - f(y)/f'(y)
f(y) = y^2-x and f'(y) = 2y
Substituting these values:
y(new) = y - (y^2-x)/2y = (y^2+x)/2y = (y+x/y)/2
If division is expensive you should consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_nth-root_algorithm .
Shifting algorithms:
Let us assume you have two numbers a and b such that least significant digit (equal to 1) is larger than b and b has only one bit equal to (eg. a=1000 and b=10). Let s(b) = log_2(b) (which is just the location of bit valued 1 in b).
Assume we already know the value of a^2. Now (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2. a^2 is already known, 2ab: shift a by s(b)+1, b^2: shift b by s(b).
Algorithm:
Initialize a such that a has only one bit equal to one and a^2<= n < (2*a)^2.
Let q=s(a).
b=a
sqra = a*a
For i = q-1 to -10 (or whatever significance you want):
b=b/2
sqrab = sqra + 2ab + b^2
if sqrab > n:
continue
sqra = sqrab
a=a+b
n=612
a=10000 (16)
sqra = 256
Iteration 1:
b=01000 (8)
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 24^2 = 576
sqrab < n => a=a+b = 24
Iteration 2:
b = 4
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 28^2 = 784
sqrab > n => a=a
Iteration 3:
b = 2
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 26^2 = 676
sqrab > n => a=a
Iteration 4:
b = 1
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 25^2 = 625
sqrab > n => a=a
Iteration 5:
b = 0.5
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 24.5^2 = 600.25
sqrab < n => a=a+b = 24.5
Iteration 6:
b = 0.25
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 24.75^2 = 612.5625
sqrab < n => a=a
Iteration 7:
b = 0.125
sqrab = (a+b)^2 = 24.625^2 = 606.390625
sqrab < n => a=a+b = 24.625
and so on.
A good approximation to square root on the range [1,4) is
def sqrt(x):
y = x*-0.000267
y = x*(0.004686+y)
y = x*(-0.034810+y)
y = x*(0.144780+y)
y = x*(-0.387893+y)
y = x*(0.958108+y)
return y+0.315413
Normalise your floating point number so the mantissa is in the range [1,4), use the above algorithm on it, and then divide the exponent by 2. No floating point divisions anywhere.
With the same CPU time budget you can probably do much better, but that seems like a good starting point.
Following is text from Data structure and algorithm analysis by Mark Allen Wessis.
Following x(i+1) should be read as x subscript of i+1, and x(i) should be
read as x subscript i.
x(i + 1) = (a*x(i))mod m.
It is also common to return a random real number in the open interval
(0, 1) (0 and 1 are not possible values); this can be done by
dividing by m. From this, a random number in any closed interval [a,
b] can be computed by normalizing.
The problem with this routine is that the multiplication could
overflow; although this is not an error, it affects the result and
thus the pseudo-randomness. Schrage gave a procedure in which all of
the calculations can be done on a 32-bit machine without overflow. We
compute the quotient and remainder of m/a and define these as q and
r, respectively.
In our case for M=2,147,483,647 A =48,271, q = 127,773, r = 2,836, and r < q.
We have
x(i + 1) = (a*x(i))mod m.---------------------------> Eq 1.
= ax(i) - m (floorof(ax(i)/m)).------------> Eq 2
Also author is mentioning about:
x(i) = q(floor of(x(i)/q)) + (x(i) mod Q).--->Eq 3
My question
what does author mean by random number is computed by normalizing?
How author came with Eq 2 from Eq 1?
How author came with Eq 3?
Normalizing means if you have X ∈ [0,1] and you need to get Y ∈ [a, b] you can compute
Y = a + X * (b - a)
EDIT:
2. Let's suppose
a = 3, x = 5, m = 9
Then we have
where [ax/m] means an integer part.
So we have 15 = [ax/m]*m + 6
We need to get 6. 15 - [ax/m]*m = 6 => ax - [ax/m]*m = 6 => x(i+1) = ax(i) - [ax(i)/m]*m
If you have a random number in the range [0,1], you can get a number in the range [2,5] (for example) by multiplying by 3 and adding 2.
Consider the problem in which you have a value of N and you need to calculate how many ways you can sum up to N dollars using [1,2,5,10,20,50,100] Dollar bills.
Consider the classic DP solution:
C = [1,2,5,10,20,50,100]
def comb(p):
if p==0:
return 1
c = 0
for x in C:
if x <= p:
c += comb(p-x)
return c
It does not take into effect the order of the summed parts. For example, comb(4) will yield 5 results: [1,1,1,1],[2,1,1],[1,2,1],[1,1,2],[2,2] whereas there are actually 3 results ([2,1,1],[1,2,1],[1,1,2] are all the same).
What is the DP idiom for calculating this problem? (non-elegant solutions such as generating all possible solutions and removing duplicates are not welcome)
Not sure about any DP idioms, but you could try using Generating Functions.
What we need to find is the coefficient of x^N in
(1 + x + x^2 + ...)(1+x^5 + x^10 + ...)(1+x^10 + x^20 + ...)...(1+x^100 + x^200 + ...)
(number of times 1 appears*1 + number of times 5 appears * 5 + ... )
Which is same as the reciprocal of
(1-x)(1-x^5)(1-x^10)(1-x^20)(1-x^50)(1-x^100).
You can now factorize each in terms of products of roots of unity, split the reciprocal in terms of Partial Fractions (which is a one time step) and find the coefficient of x^N in each (which will be of the form Polynomial/(x-w)) and add them up.
You could do some DP in calculating the roots of unity.
You should not go from begining each time, but at max from were you came from at each depth.
That mean that you have to pass two parameters, start and remaining total.
C = [1,5,10,20,50,100]
def comb(p,start=0):
if p==0:
return 1
c = 0
for i,x in enumerate(C[start:]):
if x <= p:
c += comb(p-x,i+start)
return c
or equivalent (it might be more readable)
C = [1,5,10,20,50,100]
def comb(p,start=0):
if p==0:
return 1
c = 0
for i in range(start,len(C)):
x=C[i]
if x <= p:
c += comb(p-x,i)
return c
Terminology: What you are looking for is the "integer partitions"
into prescibed parts (you should replace "combinations" in the title).
Ignoring the "dynamic programming" part of the question, a routine
for your problem is given in the first section of chapter 16
("Integer partitions", p.339ff) of the fxtbook, online at
http://www.jjj.de/fxt/#fxtbook