Related
Question : Given an integer(n) denoting the no. of particles initially
Given an array of sizes of these particles
These particles can go into any number of simulations (possibly none)
In one simualtion two particles combines to give another particle with size as the difference between the size of them (possibly 0).
Find the smallest particle that can be formed.
constraints
n<=1000
size<=1e9
Example 1
3
30 10 8
Output
2
Explaination- 10 - 8 is the smallest we can achive
Example 2
4
1 2 4 8
output
1
explanation
We cannot make another 1 so as to get 0 so smallest without any simulation is 1
example 3
5
30 27 26 10 6
output
0
30-26=4
10-6 =4
4-4 =0
My thinking: I can only think of the brute force solution which will obviously time out. Can anyone help me out here with just the approach? I think it's related to dynamic programming
I think this can be solved in O(n^2log(n))
Consider your third example: 30 27 26 10 6
Sort the input to make it : 6 10 26 27 30
Build a list of differences for each (i,j) combination.
For:
i = 1 -> 4 20 21 24
i = 2 -> 16, 17, 20
i = 3 -> 1, 4
i = 4 -> 3
There is no list for i = 5 why? because it is already considered for combination with other particles before.
Now consider the below cases:
Case 1
The particle i is not combined with any other particle yet. This means some other particle should have been combined with a particle other than i.
This suggests us that we need to search for A[i] in the lists j = 1 to N except for j = i.
Get the nearest value. This can be done using binary search. Because your difference lists are sorted! Then your result for now is |A[i] - NearestValueFound|
Case 2
The particle i is combined with some other particle.
Take example i = 1 above and lets consider that its combined with particle 2. The result is 4.
So search for 4 in all the lists except list 2 - because we consider that particle 2 is already combined with particle 1 and we shouldn't search list 2.
Do we have a best match? It seems we have a match 4 found in the list 3. It needn't be 0 - in this case it is 0 so just return 0.
Repeat Case 1, 2 for all particles. Time complexity is O(n^2log(n)), because you are doing a binary search on all lists for each i except the list i.
import itertools as it
N = int(input())
nums = list()
for i in range(N):
nums.append(int(input()))
_min = min(nums)
def go(li):
global _min
if len(li)>1:
for i in it.combinations(li, 2):
temp = abs(i[0] - i[1])
if _min > temp:
_min = temp
k = li.copy()
k.remove(i[0])
k.remove(i[1])
k.append(temp)
go(k)
go(nums)
print(_min)
I'm trying to figure out a way to do a certain "reduction"
I have a varying number of matrices of varying size, e.g
1 2 2 2 5 6...70 70
3 7 8 9 7 7...88 89
1 3 4
2 7 7
3 8 8
9 9 9
.
.
44 49 49 49 49 49 49
50 50 50 50 50 50 50
87 87 88 89 90 91 92
What I need to do (and I hope that I'm explaining this clearly enough) is to combine any possible
combination of columns from these matrices, this means that one column might be
1
3
1
2
3
9
.
.
.
44
50
87
Which would reduce down to
1
2
3
9
.
.
.
44
50
87
The reason why I'm doing this is because I need to find the smallest unique combined column
What am I trying to accomplish
For those interested, I'm trying to find the smallest set of gene knockouts
to disable reactions. Here, every matrix represents a reactions, and the columns represent the indices of
the genes that would disable that reaction.
The method may be as brute force as needed, as these matrices rarely become overwhelmingly large,
and the reaction combinations won't be long either
The problem
I can't (as far as I know) create a for loop with an arbitrary number of iterators, and the number of
matrices (reactions to disable) is arbitrary.
Clarification
If I have matrices A,B,C with columns a1,a2...b1,b2...c1...cn what I need
are the columns [a1 b1 c1], [a1, b1, c2], ..., [a1 b1 cn] ... [an bn cn]
Solution
Courtesy of Michael Ohlrogge below.
Extension of his answer, for completeness
His solution ends with
MyProd = product(Array_of_ColGroups...)
Which gets the job done
And picking up where he left off
collection = collect(MyProd); #MyProd is an iterator
merged_cols = Array[] # the rows of 'collection' are arrays of arrays
for (i,v) in enumerate(collection)
# I apologize for this line
push!(merged_cols, sort!(unique(vcat(v...))))
end
# find all lengths so I can find which is the minimum
lengths = map(x -> length(x), merged_cols);
loc_of_shortest = find(broadcast((x,y) -> length(x) == y, merged_cols,minimum(lengths)))
best_gene_combos = merged_cols[loc_of_shortest]
tl;dr - complete solution:
# example matrices
a = rand(1:50, 8,4); b = rand(1:50, 10,5); c = rand(1:50, 12,4);
Matrices = [a,b,c];
toJagged(x) = [x[:,i] for i in 1:size(x,2)];
JaggedMatrices = [toJagged(x) for x in Matrices];
Combined = [unique(i) for i in JaggedMatrices[1]];
for n in 2:length(JaggedMatrices)
Combined = [unique([i;j]) for i in Combined, j in JaggedMatrices[n]];
end
Lengths = [length(s) for s in Combined];
Minima = findin(Lengths, min(Lengths...));
SubscriptsArray = ind2sub(size(Lengths), Minima);
ComboTuples = [((i[j] for i in SubscriptsArray)...) for j in 1:length(Minima)]
Explanation:
Assume you have matrix a and b
a = rand(1:50, 8,4);
b = rand(1:50, 10,5);
Express them as a jagged array, columns first
A = [a[:,i] for i in 1:size(a,2)];
B = [b[:,i] for i in 1:size(b,2)];
Concatenate rows for all column combinations using a list comprehension; remove duplicates on the spot:
Combined = [unique([i;j]) for i in A, j in B];
You now have all column combinations of a and b, as concatenated rows with duplicates removed. Find the lengths easily:
Lengths = [length(s) for s in Combined];
If you have more than two matrices, perform this process iteratively in a for loop, e.g. by using the Combined matrix in place of a. e.g. if you have a matrix c:
c = rand(1:50, 12,4);
C = [c[:,i] for i in 1:size(c,2)];
Combined = [unique([i;j]) for i in Combined, j in C];
Once you have the Lengths array as a multidimensional array (as many dimensions as input matrices, where the size of each dimension is the number of columns in each matrix), you can find the column combinations that correspond to the lowest value (there may well be more than one combination), via a simple ind2sub operation:
Minima = findin(Lengths, min(Lengths...));
SubscriptsArray = ind2sub(size(Lengths), Minima)
(e.g. for a randomized run with 3 input matrices, I happened to get 4 results with the minimal length of 19. The result of ind2sub was ([4,4,3,4,4],[3,3,4,5,3],[1,3,3,3,4])
You can convert this further to a list of "Column Combination" tuples with a (somewhat ugly) list comprehension:
ComboTuples = [((i[j] for i in SubscriptsArray)...) for j in 1:length(Minima)]
# results in:
# 5-element Array{Tuple{Int64,Int64,Int64},1}:
# (4,3,1)
# (4,3,3)
# (3,4,3)
# (4,5,3)
# (4,3,4)
Ok, let's see if I understand this. You've got n matrices and want all combinations with one column from each of the n matrices? If so, how about the product() (for Cartesian product) from the Iterators package?
using Iterators
n = 3
Array_of_Arrays = [rand(3,3) for idx = 1:n] ## arbitrary representation of your set of arrays.
Array_of_ColGroups = Array(Array, length(Array_of_Arrays))
for (idx, MyArray) in enumerate(Array_of_Arrays)
Array_of_ColGroups[idx] = [MyArray[:,jdx] for jdx in 1:size(MyArray,2)]
end
MyProd = product(Array_of_ColGroups...)
This will create an iterator object which you can then loop over to consider the specific combinations of columns.
So I have a rectilinear grid that can be described with 2 vectors. 1 for the x-coordinates of the cell centres and one for the y-coordinates. These are just points with spacing like x spacing is 50 scaled to 10 scaled to 20 (55..45..30..10,10,10..10,12..20,20,20) and y spacing is 60 scaled to 40 scaled to 60 (60,60,60,55..42,40,40,40..40,42..60,60) and the grid is made like this
e.g. x = 1 2 3, gridx = 1 2 3, y = 10 11 12, gridy = 10 10 10
1 2 3 11 11 11
1 2 3 12 12 12
so then cell centre 1 is 1,10 cc2 is 2,10 etc.
Now Im trying to formulate an algorithm to calculate the positions of the cell edges in the x and y direction. So like my first idea was to first get the first edge using x(1)-[x(2)-x(1)]/2, in the real case x(2)-x(1) is equal to 60 and x(1) = 16348.95 so celledge1 = x(1)-30 = 16318.95. Then after calculating the first one I go through a loop and calculate the rest like this:
for aa = 2:length(x)+1
celledge1(aa) = x(aa-1) + [x(aa-1)-celledge(aa-1)]
end
And I did the same for y. This however does not work and my y vector in the area where the edge spacing should be should be 40 is 35,45,35,45... approx.
Anyone have any idea why this doesnt work and can point me in the right direction. Cheers
Edit: Tried to find a solution using geometric alebra:
We are trying to find the points A,B,C,....H. From basic geometry we know:
c1 (centre 1) = [A+B]/2 and c2 = [B+C]/2 etc. etc.
So we have 7 equations and 8 variables. We also know the the first few distances between centres are equal (60,60,60,60) therefore the first segment is 60 too.
B - A = 60
So now we have 8 equations and 8 variables so I made this algorithm in Matlab:
edgex = zeros(length(DATA2.x)+1,1);
edgey = zeros(length(DATA2.y)+1,1);
edgex(1) = (DATA2.x(1)*2-diffx(1))/2;
edgey(1) = (DATA2.y(1)*2-diffy(1))/2;
for aa = 2:length(DATA2.x)+1
edgex(aa) = DATA2.x(aa-1)*2-edgex(aa-1);
end
for aa = 2:length(DATA2.y)+1
edgey(aa) = DATA2.y(aa-1)*2-edgey(aa-1);
end
And I still got the same answer as before with the y spacing going 35,45,35,45 where it should be 40,40,40... Could it be an accuracy error??
Edit: here are the numbers if ur interested and I did the same computation as above only in excel: http://www.filedropper.com/workoutedges
It seems you're just trying to interpolate your data. You can do this with the built-in interp1
x = [30 24 19 16 8 7 16 22 29 31];
xi = interp1(2:2:numel(x)*2, x, 1:(numel(x)*2+1), 'linear', 'extrap');
This just sets up the original data as the even-indexed elements and interpolates the odd indices, including extrapolation for the two end points.
Results:
xi =
Columns 1 through 11:
33.0000 30.0000 27.0000 24.0000 21.5000 19.0000 17.5000 16.0000 12.0000 8.0000 7.5000
Columns 12 through 21:
7.0000 11.5000 16.0000 19.0000 22.0000 25.5000 29.0000 30.0000 31.0000 32.0000
I am searching for a method to create, in a fast way a random matrix A with the follwing properties:
A = transpose(A)
A(i,i) = 0 for all i
A(i,j) >= 0 for all i, j
sum(A) =~ degree; the sum of rows are randomly distributed by a distribution I want to specify (here =~ means approximate equality).
The distribution degree comes from a matrix orig, specifically degree=sum(orig), thus I know that matrices with this distribution exist.
For example: orig=[0 12 7 5; 12 0 1 9; 7 1 0 3; 5 9 3 0]
orig =
0 12 7 5
12 0 1 9
7 1 0 3
5 9 3 0
sum(orig)=[24 22 11 17];
Now one possible matrix A=[0 11 5 8, 11 0 4 7, 5 4 0 2, 8 7 2 0] is
A =
0 11 5 8
11 0 4 7
5 4 0 2
8 7 2 0
with sum(A)=[24 22 11 17].
I am trying this for quite some time, but unfortunatly my two ideas didn't work:
version 1:
I switch Nswitch times two random elements: A(k1,k3)--; A(k1,k4)++; A(k2,k3)++; A(k2,k4)--; (the transposed elements aswell).
Unfortunatly, Nswitch = log(E)*E (with E=sum(sum(nn))) in order that the Matrices are very uncorrelated. As my E > 5.000.000, this is not feasible (in particular, as I need at least 10 of such matrices).
version 2:
I create the matrix according to the distribution from scratch. The idea is, to fill every row i with degree(i) numbers, based on the distribution of degree:
nn=orig;
nnR=zeros(size(nn));
for i=1:length(nn)
degree=sum(nn);
howmany=degree(i);
degree(i)=0;
full=rld_cumsum(degree,1:length(degree));
rr=randi(length(full),[1,howmany]);
ff=full(rr);
xx=i*ones([1,length(ff)]);
nnR = nnR + accumarray([xx(:),ff(:)],1,size(nnR));
end
A=nnR;
However, while sum(A')=degree, sum(A) systematically deviates from degree, and I am not able to find the reason for that.
Small deviations from degree are fine of course, but there seem to be systmatical deviations in particulat of the matrices contain in some places large numbers.
I would be very happy if somebody could either show me a fast method for version1, or a reason for the systematic deviation of the distribution in version 2, or a method to create such matrices in a different way. Thank you!
Edit:
This is the problem in matsmath's proposed solution:
Imagine you have the matrix:
orig =
0 12 3 1
12 0 1 9
3 1 0 3
1 9 3 0
with r(i)=[16 22 7 13].
Step 1: r(1)=16, my random integer partition is p(i)=[0 7 3 6].
Step 2: Check that all p(i)<=r(i), which is the case.
Step 3:
My random matrix starts looks like
A =
0 7 3 6
7 0 . .
3 . 0 .
6 . . 0
with the new row sum vector rnew=[r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)]=[15 4 7]
Second iteration (here the problem occures):
Step 1: rnew(1)=15, my random integer partition is p(i)=[0 A B]: rnew(1)=15=A+B.
Step 2: Check that all p(i)<=rnew(i), which gives A<=4, B<=7. So A+B<=11, but A+B has to be 15. contradiction :-/
Edit2:
This is the code representing (to the best of my knowledge) the solution posted by David Eisenstat:
orig=[0 12 3 1; 12 0 1 9; 3 1 0 3; 1 9 3 0];
w=[2.2406 4.6334 0.8174 1.6902];
xfull=zeros(4);
for ii=1:1000
rndmat=[poissrnd(w(1),1,4); poissrnd(w(2),1,4); poissrnd(w(3),1,4); poissrnd(w(4),1,4)];
kkk=rndmat.*(ones(4)-eye(4)); % remove diagonal
hhh=sum(sum(orig))/sum(sum(kkk))*kkk; % normalisation
xfull=xfull+hhh;
end
xf=xfull/ii;
disp(sum(orig)); % gives [16 22 7 13]
disp(sum(xf)); % gives [14.8337 9.6171 18.0627 15.4865] (obvious systematic problem)
disp(sum(xf')) % gives [13.5230 28.8452 4.9635 10.6683] (which is also systematically different from [16, 22, 7, 13]
Since it's enough to approximately preserve the degree sequence, let me propose a random distribution where each entry above the diagonal is chosen according to a Poisson distribution. My intuition is that we want to find weights w_i such that the i,j entry for i != j has mean w_i*w_j (all of the diagonal entries are zero). This gives us a nonlinear system of equations:
for all i, (sum_{j != i} w_i*w_j) = d_i,
where d_i is the degree of i. Equivalently,
for all i, w_i * (sum_j w_j) - w_i^2 = d_i.
The latter can be solved by applying Newton's method as described below from a starting solution of w_i = d_i / sqrt(sum_j d_j).
Once we have the w_is, we can sample repeatedly using poissrnd to generate samples of multiple Poisson distributions at once.
(If I have time, I'll try implementing this in numpy.)
The Jacobian matrix of the equation system for a 4 by 4 problem is
(w_2 + w_3 + w_4) w_1 w_1 w_1
w_2 (w_1 + w_3 + w_4) w_2 w_2
w_3 w_3 (w_1 + w_2 + w_4) w_3
w_4 w_4 w_4 (w_1 + w_2 + w_3).
In general, let A be a diagonal matrix where A_{i,i} = sum_j w_j - 2*w_i. Let u = [w_1, ..., w_n]' and v = [1, ..., 1]'. The Jacobian can be written J = A + u*v'. The inverse is given by the Sherman--Morrison formula
A^-1*u*v'*A^-1
J^-1 = (A + u*v')^-1 = A^-1 - -------------- .
1 + v'*A^-1*u
For the Newton step, we need to compute J^-1*y for some given y. This can be done straightforwardly in time O(n) using the above equation. I'll add more detail when I get the chance.
First approach (based on version2)
Let your row sum vector given by the matrix orig [r(1),r(2),...,r(n)].
Step 1. Take a random integer partition of the integer r(1) into exactly n-1 parts, say p(2), p(3), ..., p(n)
Step 2. Check if p(i)<=r(i) for all i=2...n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 3. Fill out your random matrix first row and colum by the entries 0, p(2), ... , p(n), and consider the new row sum vector [r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)].
Repeat these steps with a matrix of order n-1.
The point is, that you randomize one row at a time, and reduce the problem to searching for a matrix of size one less.
As pointed out by OP in the comment, this naive algorithm fails. The reason is that the matrices in question have a further necessary condition on their entries as follows:
FACT:
If A is an orig matrix with row sums [r(1), r(2), ..., r(n)] then necessarily for every i=1..n it holds that r(i)<=-r(i)+sum(r(j),j=1..n).
That is, any row sum, say the ith, r(i), is necessarily at most as big as the sum of the other row sums (not including r(i)).
In light of this, a revised algorithm is possible. Note that in Step 2b. we check if the new row sum vector has the property discussed above.
Step 1. Take a random integer partition of the integer r(1) into exactly n-1 parts, say p(2), p(3), ..., p(n)
Step 2a. Check if p(i)<=r(i) for all i=2...n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 2b. Check if r(i)-p(i)<=-r(i)+p(i)+sum(r(j)-p(j),j=2..n) for all i=2..n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 3. Fill out your random matrix first row and colum by the entries 0, p(2), ... , p(n), and consider the new row sum vector [r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)].
Second approach (based on version1)
I am not sure if this approach gives you random matrices, but it certainly gives you different matrices.
The idea here is to change some parts of your orig matrix locally, in a way which maintains all of its properties.
You should look for a random 2x2 submatrix below the main diagonal which contains strictly positive entries, like [[a,b],[c,d]] and perturbe its contents by a random value r to [[a+r,b-r],[c-r,d+r]]. You make the same change above the main diagonal too, to keep your new matrix symmetric. Here the point is that the changes within the entries "cancel" each other out.
Of course, r should be chosen in a way such that b-r>=0 and c-r>=0.
You can pursue this idea to modify larger submatrices too. For example, you might choose 3 random row coordinates r1, r2, r2 and 3 random column coordinates c1, c2, and c3 and then make changes in your orig matrix at the 9 positions (ri,cj) as follows: you change your 3x3 submatrix [[a b c],[d e f], [g h i]] to [[a-r b+r c] [d+r e f-r], [g h-r i+r]]. You do the same at the transposed places. Again, the random value r must be chosen in a way so that a-r>=0 and f-r>=0 and h-r>=0. Moreover, c1 and r1, and c3 and r3 must be distinct as you can't change the 0 entries in the main diagonal of the matrix orig.
You can repeat such things over and over again, say 100 times, until you find something which looks random. Note that this idea uses the fact that you have existing knowledge of a solution, this is the matrix orig, while the first approach does not use such knowledge at all.
I was asked this question in a test and I need help with regards to how I should approach the solution, not the actual answer. The question is
You have been given a 7 digit number(with each digit being distinct and 0-9). The number has this property
product of first 3 digits = product of last 3 digits = product of central 3 digits
Identify the middle digit.
Now, I can do this on paper by brute force(trial and error), the product is 72 and digits being
8,1,9,2,4,3,6
Now how do I approach the problem in a no brute force way?
Let the number is: a b c d e f g
So as per the rule(1):
axbxc = cxdxe = exfxg
more over we have(2):
axb = dxe and
cxd = fxg
This question can be solved with factorization and little bit of hit/trial.
Out of the digits from 1 to 9, 5 and 7 can rejected straight-away since these are prime numbers and would not fit in the above two equations.
The digits 1 to 9 can be factored as:
1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 2X2, 6 = 2X3, 8 = 2X2X2, 9 = 3X3
After factorization we are now left with total 7 - 2's, 4 - 3's and the number 1.
As for rule 2 we are left with only 4 possibilities, these 4 equations can be computed by factorization logic since we know we have overall 7 2's and 4 3's with us.
1: 1X8(2x2x2) = 2X4(2x2)
2: 1X6(3x2) = 3X2
3: 4(2x2)X3 = 6(3x2)X2
4: 9(3x3)X2 = 6(3x2)X3
Skipping 5 and 7 we are left with 7 digits.
With above equations we have 4 digits with us and are left with remaining 3 digits which can be tested through hit and trial. For example, if we consider the first case we have:
1X8 = 2X4 and are left with 3,6,9.
we have axbxc = cxdxe we can opt c with these 3 options in that case the products would be 24, 48 and 72.
24 cant be correct since for last three digits we are left with are 6,9,4(=216)
48 cant be correct since for last three digits we are left with 3,9,4(=108)
72 could be a valid option since the last three digits in that case would be 3,6,4 (=72)
This question is good to solve with Relational Programming. I think it very clearly lets the programmer see what's going on and how the problem is solved. While it may not be the most efficient way to solve problems, it can still bring desired clarity and handle problems up to a certain size. Consider this small example from Oz:
fun {FindDigits}
D1 = {Digit}
D2 = {Digit}
D3 = {Digit}
D4 = {Digit}
D5 = {Digit}
D6 = {Digit}
D7 = {Digit}
L = [D1 D2 D3] M = [D3 D4 D5] E= [D5 D6 D7] TotL in
TotL = [D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7]
{Unique TotL} = true
{ProductList L} = {ProductList M} = {ProductList E}
TotL
end
(Now this would be possible to parameterize furthermore, but non-optimized to illustrate the point).
Here you first pick 7 digits with a function Digit/0. Then you create three lists, L, M and E consisting of the segments, as well as a total list to return (you could also return the concatenation, but I found this better for illustration).
Then comes the point, you specify relations that have to be intact. First, that the TotL is unique (distinct in your tasks wording). Then the next one, that the segment products have to be equal.
What now happens is that a search is conducted for your answers. This is a depth-first search strategy, but could also be breadth-first, and a solver is called to bring out all solutions. The search strategy is found inside the SolveAll/1 function.
{Browse {SolveAll FindDigits}}
Which in turns returns this list of answers:
[[1 8 9 2 4 3 6] [1 8 9 2 4 6 3] [3 6 4 2 9 1 8]
[3 6 4 2 9 8 1] [6 3 4 2 9 1 8] [6 3 4 2 9 8 1]
[8 1 9 2 4 3 6] [8 1 9 2 4 6 3]]
At least this way forward is not using brute force. Essentially you are searching for answers here. There might be heuristics that let you find the correct answer sooner (some mathematical magic, perhaps), or you can use genetic algorithms to search the space or other well-known strategies.
Prime factor of distinct digit (if possible)
0 = 0
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 2 x 2
5 = 5
6 = 2 x 3
7 = 7
8 = 2 x 2 x 2
9 = 3 x 3
In total:
7 2's + 4 3's + 1 5's + 1 7's
With the fact that When A=B=C, composition of prime factor of A must be same as composition of prime factor of B and that of C, 0 , 5 and 7 are excluded since they have unique prime factor that can never match with the fact.
Hence, 7 2's + 4 3's are left and we have 7 digit (1,2,3,4,6,8,9). As there are 7 digits only, the number is formed by these digits only.
Recall the fact, A, B and C must have same composition of prime factors. This implies that A, B and C have same number of 2's and 3's in their composition. So, we should try to achieve (in total for A and B and C):
9 OR 12 2's AND
6 3's
(Must be product of 3, lower bound is total number of prime factor of all digits, upper bound is lower bound * 2)
Consider point 2 (as it has one possibility), A has 2 3's and same for B and C. To have more number of prime factor in total, we need to put digit in connection digit between two product (third or fifth digit). Extract digits with prime factor 3 into two groups {3,6} and {9} and put digit into connection digit. The only possible way is to put 9 in connection digit and 3,6 on unconnected product. That mean xx9xx36 or 36xx9xx (order of 3,6 is not important)
With this result, we get 9 x middle x connection digit = connection digit x 3 x 6. Thus, middle = (3 x 6) / 9 = 2
My answer actually extends #Ansh's answer.
Let abcdefg be the digits of the number. Then
ab=de
cd=fg
From these relations we can exclude 0, 5 and 7 because there are no other multipliers of these numbers between 0 and 9. So we are left with seven numbers and each number is included once in each answer. We are going to examine how we can pair the numbers (ab, de, cd, fg).
What happens with 9? It can't be combined with 3 or 6 since then their product will have three times the factor 3 and we have at total 4 factors of 3. Similarly, 3 and 6 must be combined at least one time together in response to the two factors of 9. This gives a product of 18 and so 9 must be combined at least once with 2.
Now if 9x2 is in a corner then 3x6 must be in the middle. Meaning in the other corner there must be another multiplier of 3. So 9 and 2 are in the middle.
Let's suppose ab=3x6 (The other case is symmetric). Then d must be 9 or 2. But if d is 9 then f or g must be multiplier of 3. So d is 2 and e is 9. We can stop here and answer the middle digit is
2
Now we have 2c = fg and the remaining choices are 1, 4, 8. We see that the only solutions are c = 4, f = 1, g = 8 and c = 4, f = 8, g = 1.
So if is 3x6 is in the left corner we have the following solutions:
3642918, 3642981, 6342918, 6342981
If 3x6 is in the right corner we have the following solutions which are the reverse of the above:
8192463, 1892463, 8192436, 1892436
Here is how you can consider the problem:
Let's note the final solution N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 for the 3 numbers N1N2N3, N3N4N5 and N5N6N7
0, 5 and 7 are to exclude because they are prime and no other ciphers is a multiple of them. So if they had divided one of the 3 numbers, no other number could have divided the others.
So we get the 7 remaining ciphers : 1234689
where the product of the ciphers is 2^7*3^4
(N1*N2*N3) and (N5*N6*N7) are equals so their product is a square number. We can then remove, one of the number (N4) from the product of the previous point to find a square number (i.e. even exponents on both numbers)
N4 can't be 1, 3, 4, 6, 9.
We conclude N4 is 2 or 8
If N4 is 8 and it divides (N3*N4*N5), we can't use the remaining even numbers (2, 4, 6) to divides
both (N1*N2*N3) and (N6*N7*N8) by 8. So N4 is 2 and 8 does not belong to the second group (let's put it in N1).
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8XX, 2nd group: X2X 3rd group: XXX
Note: at this point we know that the product is 72 because it is 2^3*3^2 (the square root of 2^6*3^4) but the result is not really important. We have made the difficult part knowing the 7 numbers and the middle position.
Then, we know that we have to distribute 2^3 on (N1*N2*N3), (N3*N4*N5), (N5*N6*N7) because 2^3*2*2^3=2^7
We already gave 8 to N1, 2 to N4 and we place 6 to N6, and 4 to N5 position, resulting in each of the 3 numbers being a multiple of 8.
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8XX, 2nd group: X24 3rd group: 46X
We have the same way of thinking considering the odd number, we distribute 3^2, on each part knowing that we already have a 6 in the last group.
Last group will then get the 3. And first and second ones the 9.
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8X9, 2nd group: 924 3rd group: 463
And, then 1 at N2, which is the remaining position.
This problem is pretty easy if you look at the number 72 more carefully.
We have our number with this form abcdefg
and abc = cde = efg, with those digits 8,1,9,2,4,3,6
So, first, we can conclude that 8,1,9 must be one of the triple, because, there is no way 1 can go with other two numbers to form 72.
We can also conclude that 1 must be in the start/end of the whole number or middle of the triple.
So now we have 819defg or 918defg ...
Using some calculations with the rest of those digits, we can see that only 819defg is possible, because, we need 72/9 = 8,so only 2,4 is valid, while we cannot create 72/8 = 9 from those 2,4,3,6 digits, so -> 81924fg or 81942fg and 819 must be the triple that start or end our number.
So the rest of the job is easy, we need either 72/4 = 18 or 72/2 = 36, now, we can have our answers: 8192436 or 8192463.
7 digits: 8,1,9,2,4,3,6
say XxYxZ = 72
1) pick any two from above 7 digits. say X,Y
2) divide 72 by X and then Y.. you will get the 3rd number i.e Z.
we found XYZ set of 3-digits which gives result 72.
now repeat 1) and 2) with remaining 4 digits.
this time we found ABC which multiplies to 72.
lets say, 7th digit left out is I.
3) divide 72 by I. result R
4) divide R by one of XYZ. check if result is in ABC.
if No, repeat the step 3)
if yes, found the third pair.(assume you divided R by Y and the result is B)
YIB is the third pair.
so... solution will be.
XZYIBAC
You have your 7 numbers - instead of looking at it in groups of 3 divide up the number as such:
AB | C | D | E | FG
Get the value of AB and use it to get the value of C like so: C = ABC/AB
Next you want to do the same thing with the trailing 2 digits to find E using FG. E = EFG/FG
Now that you have C & E you can solve for D
Since CDE = ABC then D = ABC/CE
Remember your formulas - instead of looking at numbers create a formula aka an algorithm that you know will work every time.
ABC = CDE = EFG However, you have to remember that your = signs have to balance. You can see that D = ABC/CE = EFG/CE Once you know that, you can figure out what you need in order to solve the problem.
Made a quick example in a fiddle of the code:
http://jsfiddle.net/4ykxx9ve/1/
var findMidNum = function() {
var num = [8, 1, 9, 2, 4, 3, 6];
var ab = num[0] * num[1];
var fg = num[5] * num[6];
var abc = num[0] * num[1] * num[2];
var cde = num[2] * num[3] * num[4];
var efg = num[4] * num[5] * num[6];
var c = abc/ab;
var e = efg/fg;
var ce = c * e
var d = abc/ce;
console.log(d); //2
}();
You have been given a 7 digit number(with each digit being distinct and 0-9). The number has this property
product of first 3 digits = product of last 3 digits = product of central 3 digits
Identify the middle digit.
Now, I can do this on paper by brute force(trial and error), the product is 72 and digits being
8,1,9,2,4,3,6
Now how do I approach the problem in a no brute force way?
use linq and substring functions
example var item = array.Skip(3).Take(3) in such a way that you have a loop
for(f =0;f<charlen.length;f++){
var xItemSum = charlen[f].Skip(f).Take(f).Sum(f => f.Value);
}
// untested code