I have this formula:
index = (a * k) % M
which maps a number 'k', from an input set K of distinct numbers, into it's position in a hashtable. I was wondering how to write a non-brute force program that finds such 'M' and 'a' so that 'M' is minimal, and there are no collisions for the given set K.
If, instead of a numeric multiplication you could perform a logic computation (and / or /not), I think that the optimal solution (minimum value of M) would be as small as card(K) if you could get a function that related each value of K (once ordered) with its position in the set.
Theoretically, it must be possible to write a truth table for such a relation (bit a bit), and then simplify the minterms through a Karnaugh Table with a proper program. Depending on the desired number of bits, the computational complexity would be affordable... or not.
If a is co-prime to M then a * k = a * k' mod M if, and only if, k = k' mod M, so you might as well use a = 1, which is always co-prime to M. This also covers all the cases in which M is prime, because all the numbers except 0 are then co-prime to M.
If a and M are not co-prime, then they share a common factor, say b, so a = x * b and M = y * b. In this case anything multiplied by a will also be divisible by b mod M, and you might as well by working mod y, not mod M, so there is nothing to be gained by using an a not co-prime to M.
So for the problem you state, you could save some time by leaving a=1 and trying all possible values of M.
If you are e.g. using 32-bit integers and really calculating not (a * k) mod M but ((a * k) mod 2^32) mod M you might be able to find cases where values of a other than 1 do better than a=1 because of what happens in (a * k) mod 2^32.
Related
Given a number N (where N <= 10^18) and an array A(consisting of at most 20 elements). I have to tell if it is possible to form N by multiplying some elements of the array. Note that, I can use any element multiple times.
Example: N = 8 and A = {2, 3}. Here, 8 = 2 * 2 * 2. So the answer is YES. But if N = 15, then I can't form 15 as a product of one or more elements using them any number of times. So in this case the answer is NO.
How can I approach this problem?
Simple pseudocode:
A_divisors = set()
for x in A:
if num % x == 0:
A_divisors.add(x)
candidates = A_divisors.clone()
seen = set()
while(candidates.size()):
size = divisors.size()
new_candidates = set()
for y in candidates:
for x in A_divisors:
if num % (x * y) == 0 and (x * y) not in seen:
new_candidates.add(x * y)
seen.add(x * y)
if x * y == num:
return true
candidates = new_candidates
return false
Complexity: O(|A| * k * log k), with k being amount of divisors. The log k would be the cost of adding and checking if element is present in the set. With a hash based approach it would be O(1) and can be removed. I am also assuming %, * operations to be O(1).
Since you show no code or algorithm, I'll just give one idea. If you want more help, please show more of your own work on the problem.
Note that N can be at most 60 bits long. This is small enough that N could be decomposed into its prime factors pretty quickly. So first work up a good factoring algorithm for numbers of that size.
Your algorithm would factor N and each of the elements in your array A. If there is any prime factor of N that does not divide into any element of A then your answer is NO. This is the case in your example of N = 15.
Now you work with the prime factors and their exponents in N and in the elements of A. Now you want to find a subset (or, more properly, a sub-multiset) of A where the exponents for each prime add up to that in N. This greatly reduces the sizes of your numbers thus makes the problem easier.
That last part is not trivial. Work more on this problem and show us some of your work, then we can continue helping you.
You can follow below approach:
Form 2 queues: Q2 and Q3.
Add 2 in Q2 and 3 in Q3.
Get the minimum of the head of both queues, lets say h. Remove h from the corresponding queue. Check if it is equal to the number N. If yes, return true. If it is greater than N, return false.
If it is less than N, then add 2*h in Q2 and 3*h in Q3. Repeat steps 3 to 4.
Please note that when the minimum h comes from Q3, you need not to add 2*h into Q2. That is because you already have added that element in Q3 before. (I will leave it for you to deduce}. Keep on doing this procedure until your h is greater than N.
If you have more such numbers, you can form there queues as well. I think this is an optimal solution in case you have more numbers to process.
Can you guess the time and space complexity of this?
We are given an integer 'N' . We can choose any 2 numbers (a and b) in the range (1 to z) . The value of L is given by,
L = Max(( (N%a) %b) %N)
We have to calculate the number of pairs (a,b) which give(s) the value 'L' .
I know the brute-force , one, O(n2) solution.
Is there any more efficient way to solve this problem?!
The only way I can decipher Max(( (N%a) %b) %N) is that the max is taken over all a, b pairs. If I am wrong, please disregard the rest.
In case z > N/2:
First, observe that if both a and b are greater than N, then (N%a) % b yields N, so (N%a) %b) %N yields 1, which is unsatisfactory small. Therefore at least one of them shall be less than N.
Second, observe (better yet, prove) that the maximal value of N % a is achieved when a is N/2 + 1 for even N, and (N + 1)/2 for odd (important note: it is a half of the next multiple of 2 after N). Call it a maximizer.
Finally, observe that any b greater than that modulo leaves it untouched. Prove that this is indeed the desired maximum.
Now you have enough facts to come up with effectively a one-line program (don't forget the a > N, b = maximizer case).
The same logic works for z < N/2. Finding the maximizer is a bit trickier, but still possible in O(1) (see the important note above).
i'm working on image processing, and i'm writing a parallel algorithm that iterates over all the pixels in an image, and changes the surrounding pixels based on it's value. In this algorithm, minor non-deterministic is acceptable, but i'd rather minimize it by only querying distant pixels simultaneously. Could someone give me an algorithm that bijectively maps the integers below n to the integers below n, in a fast and simple manner, such that two integers that are close to each other before mapping are likely to be far apart after application.
For simplicity let's say n is a power of two. Could you simply reverse the order of the least significant log2(n) bits of the number?
Considering the pixels to be a one dimentional array you could use a hash function j = i*p % n where n is the zero based index of the last pixel and p is a prime number chosen to place the pixel far enough away at each step. % is the remainder operator in C, mathematically I'd write j(i) = i p (mod n).
So if you want to jump at least 10 rows at each iteration, choose p > 10 * w where w is the screen width. You'll want to have a lookup table for p as a function of n and w of course.
Note that j hits every pixel as i goes from 0 to n.
CORRECTION: Use (mod (n + 1)), not (mod n). The last index is n, which cannot be reached using mod n since n (mod n) == 0.
Apart from reverting the bit order, you can use modulo. Say N is a prime number (like 521), so for all x = 0..520 you define a function:
f(x) = x * fac mod N
which is bijection on 0..520. fac is arbitrary number different from 0 and 1. For example for N = 521 and fac = 122 you get the following mapping:
which as you can see is quite uniform and not many numbers are near the diagonal - there are some, but it is a small proportion.
During an assignment, I was asked to show that a hash table of size m (m>3, m is prime) that is less than half full, and that uses quadratic checking (hash(k, i) = (h(k) + i^2) mod m) we will always find a free spot.
I've checked and arrived to the conclusion that the spots that will be found (when h(k)=0) are 0 mod m, 1 mod m, 4 mod m, 9 mod m, ...
My problem is that I can't figure a way to show that it will always find the free spot. I've tested it myself with different values of m, and also have proven myself that if the hash table is more than half full, we might never find a free spot.
Can anyone please hint me towards the way to solve this?
Thanks!
0, 1, 4, ..., ((m-1)/2)^2 are all distinct mod m. Why?
Suppose two numbers from that range, i^2 and j^2, are equivalent mod m.
Then i^2 - j^2 = (i-j)(i+j) = 0 (mod m). Since m is prime, m must divide one of those factors. But the factors are both less than m, so one of them ((i-j)) is 0. That is, i = j.
Since we are starting at 0, more than half the slots that are distinct. If you can only fill less than m/2 of them, at least one remains open.
Let's break the proof down.
Setup
First, some background.
With a hash table, we define a probe sequence P. For any item q, following P will eventually lead to the right item in the hash table. The probe sequence is just a series of functions {h_0, ..., h_M-1} where h_i is a hash function.
To insert an item q into the table, we look at h_0(q), h_1(q), and so on, until we find an empty spot. To find q later, we examine the same sequence of locations.
In general, the probe sequence is of the form h_i(q) = [h(q) + c(i)] mod M, for a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number. The function c(i) is the collision-resolution strategy, which must have two properties:
First, c(0) = 0. This means that the first probe in the sequence must be equal to just performing the hash.
Second, the values {c(0) mod M, ..., c(M-1) mod M} must contain every integer between 0 and M-1. This means that if you keep trying to find empty spots, the probe sequence will eventually probe every array position.
Applying quadratic probing
Okay, we've got the setup of how the hash table works. Let's look at quadratic probing. This just means that for our c(i) we're using a general quadratic equation of the form ai^2 + bi + c, though for most implementations you'll usually just see c(i) = i^2 (that is, b, c = 0).
Does quadratic probing meet the two properties we talked about before? Well, it's certainly true that c(0) = 0 here, since (0)^2 is indeed 0, so it meets the first property. What about the second property?
It turns out that in general, the answer is no.
Theorem. When quadratic probing is used in a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number, only the first floor[M/2] probes in the probe sequence are distinct.
Let's see why this is the case, using a proof by contradiction.
Say that the theorem is wrong. Then that means there are two values a and b such that 0 <= a < b < floor[M/2] that probe the same position.
h_a(q) and h_b(q) must probe the same position, by (1), so h_a(q) = h_b(q).
h_a(q) = h_b(q) ==> h(q) + c(a) = h(q) + c(b), mod M.
The h(q) on both sides cancel. Our c(i) is just c(i) = i^2, so we have a^2 = b^2.
Solving the quadratic equation in (4) gives us a^2 - b^2 = 0, mod M. This is a difference of two squares, so the solution is (a - b)(a + b) = 0, mod M.
But remember, we said M was a prime number. The only way that (a - b)(a + b) can be zero mod M is if [case I] (a - b) is zero, or [case II] (a + b) is zero mod M.
Case I can't be right, because we said that a != b, so a - b must be something other than zero.
The only way for (a + b) to be zero mod M is for a + b to be equal to be a multiple of M or zero. They clearly can't be zero, since they're both bigger than zero. And since they're both less than floor[M/2], their sum must be less than M. So case II can't be right either.
Thus, if the theorem were wrong, one of two quantities must be zero, neither of which can possibly be zero -- a contradiction! QED: quadratic probing doesn't satisfy property two once your table is more than half full and if your table size is a prime number. The proof is complete!
From Wikipedia:
For prime m > 2, most choices of c1 and c2 will make h(k,i) distinct for i in [0,(m − 1) / 2]. Such choices include c1 = c2 = 1/2, c1 = c2 = 1, and c1 = 0,c2 = 1. Because there are only about m/2 distinct probes for a given element, it is difficult to guarantee that insertions will succeed when the load factor is > 1/2.
See the quadratic probing section in Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in C++ for a proof that m/2 elements are distinct when m is prime.
I have a series
S = i^(m) + i^(2m) + ............... + i^(km) (mod m)
0 <= i < m, k may be very large (up to 100,000,000), m <= 300000
I want to find the sum. I cannot apply the Geometric Progression (GP) formula because then result will have denominator and then I will have to find modular inverse which may not exist (if the denominator and m are not coprime).
So I made an alternate algorithm making an assumption that these powers will make a cycle of length much smaller than k (because it is a modular equation and so I would obtain something like 2,7,9,1,2,7,9,1....) and that cycle will repeat in the above series. So instead of iterating from 0 to k, I would just find the sum of numbers in a cycle and then calculate the number of cycles in the above series and multiply them. So I first found i^m (mod m) and then multiplied this number again and again taking modulo at each step until I reached the first element again.
But when I actually coded the algorithm, for some values of i, I got cycles which were of very large size. And hence took a large amount of time before terminating and hence my assumption is incorrect.
So is there any other pattern we can find out? (Basically I don't want to iterate over k.)
So please give me an idea of an efficient algorithm to find the sum.
This is the algorithm for a similar problem I encountered
You probably know that one can calculate the power of a number in logarithmic time. You can also do so for calculating the sum of the geometric series. Since it holds that
1 + a + a^2 + ... + a^(2*n+1) = (1 + a) * (1 + (a^2) + (a^2)^2 + ... + (a^2)^n),
you can recursively calculate the geometric series on the right hand to get the result.
This way you do not need division, so you can take the remainder of the sum (and of intermediate results) modulo any number you want.
As you've noted, doing the calculation for an arbitrary modulus m is difficult because many values might not have a multiplicative inverse mod m. However, if you can solve it for a carefully selected set of alternate moduli, you can combine them to obtain a solution mod m.
Factor m into p_1, p_2, p_3 ... p_n such that each p_i is a power of a distinct prime
Since each p is a distinct prime power, they are pairwise coprime. If we can calculate the sum of the series with respect to each modulus p_i, we can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to reassemble them into a solution mod m.
For each prime power modulus, there are two trivial special cases:
If i^m is congruent to 0 mod p_i, the sum is trivially 0.
If i^m is congruent to 1 mod p_i, then the sum is congruent to k mod p_i.
For other values, one can apply the usual formula for the sum of a geometric sequence:
S = sum(j=0 to k, (i^m)^j) = ((i^m)^(k+1) - 1) / (i^m - 1)
TODO: Prove that (i^m - 1) is coprime to p_i or find an alternate solution for when they have a nontrivial GCD. Hopefully the fact that p_i is a prime power and also a divisor of m will be of some use... If p_i is a divisor of i. the condition holds. If p_i is prime (as opposed to a prime power), then either the special case i^m = 1 applies, or (i^m - 1) has a multiplicative inverse.
If the geometric sum formula isn't usable for some p_i, you could rearrange the calculation so you only need to iterate from 1 to p_i instead of 1 to k, taking advantage of the fact that the terms repeat with a period no longer than p_i.
(Since your series doesn't contain a j=0 term, the value you want is actually S-1.)
This yields a set of congruences mod p_i, which satisfy the requirements of the CRT.
The procedure for combining them into a solution mod m is described in the above link, so I won't repeat it here.
This can be done via the method of repeated squaring, which is O(log(k)) time, or O(log(k)log(m)) time, if you consider m a variable.
In general, a[n]=1+b+b^2+... b^(n-1) mod m can be computed by noting that:
a[j+k]==b^{j}a[k]+a[j]
a[2n]==(b^n+1)a[n]
The second just being the corollary for the first.
In your case, b=i^m can be computed in O(log m) time.
The following Python code implements this:
def geometric(n,b,m):
T=1
e=b%m
total = 0
while n>0:
if n&1==1:
total = (e*total + T)%m
T = ((e+1)*T)%m
e = (e*e)%m
n = n/2
//print '{} {} {}'.format(total,T,e)
return total
This bit of magic has a mathematical reason - the operation on pairs defined as
(a,r)#(b,s)=(ab,as+r)
is associative, and the rule 1 basically means that:
(b,1)#(b,1)#... n times ... #(b,1)=(b^n,1+b+b^2+...+b^(n-1))
Repeated squaring always works when operations are associative. In this case, the # operator is O(log(m)) time, so repeated squaring takes O(log(n)log(m)).
One way to look at this is that the matrix exponentiation:
[[b,1],[0,1]]^n == [[b^n,1+b+...+b^(n-1))],[0,1]]
You can use a similar method to compute (a^n-b^n)/(a-b) modulo m because matrix exponentiation gives:
[[b,1],[0,a]]^n == [[b^n,a^(n-1)+a^(n-2)b+...+ab^(n-2)+b^(n-1)],[0,a^n]]
Based on the approach of #braindoper a complete algorithm which calculates
1 + a + a^2 + ... +a^n mod m
looks like this in Mathematica:
geometricSeriesMod[a_, n_, m_] :=
Module[ {q = a, exp = n, factor = 1, sum = 0, temp},
While[And[exp > 0, q != 0],
If[EvenQ[exp],
temp = Mod[factor*PowerMod[q, exp, m], m];
sum = Mod[sum + temp, m];
exp--];
factor = Mod[Mod[1 + q, m]*factor, m];
q = Mod[q*q, m];
exp = Floor[ exp /2];
];
Return [Mod[sum + factor, m]]
]
Parameters:
a is the "ratio" of the series. It can be any integer (including zero and negative values).
n is the highest exponent of the series. Allowed are integers >= 0.
mis the integer modulus != 0
Note: The algorithm performs a Mod operation after every arithmetic operation. This is essential, if you transcribe this algorithm to a language with a limited word length for integers.