Related
After asking this question on math.stackexchange.com I figured this might be a better place after all...
I have a small list of positive numbers rounded to (say) two decimals:
1.15 (can be 1.145 - 1.154999...)
1.92 (can be 1.915 - 1.924999...)
2.36 (can be 2.355 - 2.364999...)
2.63 (can be 2.625 - 2.634999...)
2.78 (can be 2.775 - 2.784999...)
3.14 (can be 3.135 - 3.144999...)
24.04 (can be 24.035 - 24.044999...)
I suspect that these numbers are fractions of integers and that all numerators or all denominators are equal. Choosing 100 as a common denominator would work in this case, that would leave the last value as 2404/100. But there could be a 'simpler' solution with much smaller integers.
How do I efficiently find the smallest common numerator and/or denominator? Or (if that is different) the one that would result in the smallest maximum denominator resp. numerator?
Of course I could brute force for small lists/numbers and few decimals. That would find 83/72, 138/72, 170/72, 189/72, 200/72, 226/72 and 1731/72 for this example.
Assuming the numbers don't have too many significant digits and aren't too big you can try increasing the denominator until you find a valid solution. It is not just brute-forcing. Additionally the following script is staying at the number violating the constraints as long as there is nothing found, in the hope of getting the denominator higher faster, without having to calculate for the non-problematic numbers.
It works based on the following formula:
x / y < a / b if x * b < a * y
This means a denominator d is valid if:
ceil(loNum * d / loDen) * hiDen < hiNum * d
The ceil(...) part calculates the smallest possible numerator satisfying the constraint of the low boundary and the rest is checking if it also satysfies the high boundary.
Better would be to work with real integer calculations, e.g. just longs in Java, then the ceil part becomes:
(loNum * d + loDen - 1) / loDen
function findRatios(arr) {
let lo = [], hi = [], consecutive = 0, d = 1
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
let x = '' + arr[i], len = x.length, dot = x.indexOf('.'),
num = parseInt(x.substr(0, dot) + x.substr(dot + 1)) * 10,
den = Math.pow(10, len - dot),
loGcd = gcd(num - 5, den), hiGcd = gcd(num + 5, den)
lo[i] = {num: (num - 5) / loGcd, den: den / loGcd}
hi[i] = {num: (num + 5) / hiGcd, den: den / hiGcd}
}
for (let index = 0; consecutive < arr.length; index = (index + 1) % arr.length) {
if (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index])) {
consecutive = 1
d++
while (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index]))
d++
} else {
consecutive++
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
console.log(Math.ceil(lo[i].num * d / lo[i].den) + ' / ' + d)
}
function gcd(x, y) {
while(y) {
let t = y
y = x % y
x = t
}
return x
}
function valid(d, lo, hi) {
let n = Math.ceil(lo.num * d / lo.den)
return n * hi.den < hi.num * d
}
findRatios([1.15, 1.92, 2.36, 2.63, 2.78, 3.14, 24.04])
I'm looking for algorithm working in loop which will generate any natural number n with using only incrementation and multiplication by 2 well trivial way is known (increment number n times) but I'm looking for something a little bit faster. Honestly I don't even know how I should start this.
Basically, what you want to do is shift in the bits of the number from the right, starting with the MSB.
For example, if your number is 70, then the binary of it is 0b1000110. So, you want to "shift in" the bits 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0.
To shift in a zero, you simply double the number. To shift in a one, you double the number, then increment it.
if (bit_to_be_shifted_in != 0)
x = (x * 2) + 1;
else
x = x * 2;
So, if you're given an array of bits from MSB to LSB (i.e. from left to right), then the C code looks like this:
x = 0;
for (i = 0; i < number_of_bits; i++)
{
if (bits[i] != 0)
x = x * 2 + 1;
else
x = x * 2;
}
One way of doing this is to go backwards. If it's an odd number, subtract one. If it's even, divide by 2.
while(n > 0) {
n & 1 ? n &= ~1 : n >>= 1;
}
I have three numbers x, y , z.
For a range between numbers x and y.
How can i find the total numbers whose % with z is 0 i.e. how many numbers between x and y are divisible by z ?
It can be done in O(1): find the first one, find the last one, find the count of all other.
I'm assuming the range is inclusive. If your ranges are exclusive, adjust the bounds by one:
find the first value after x that is divisible by z. You can discard x:
x_mod = x % z;
if(x_mod != 0)
x += (z - x_mod);
find the last value before y that is divisible by y. You can discard y:
y -= y % z;
find the size of this range:
if(x > y)
return 0;
else
return (y - x) / z + 1;
If mathematical floor and ceil functions are available, the first two parts can be written more readably. Also the last part can be compressed using math functions:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return max((y - x) / z + 1, 0);
if the input is guaranteed to be a valid range (x >= y), the last test or max is unneccessary:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return (y - x) / z + 1;
(2017, answer rewritten thanks to comments)
The number of multiples of z in a number n is simply n / z
/ being the integer division, meaning decimals that could result from the division are simply ignored (for instance 17/5 => 3 and not 3.4).
Now, in a range from x to y, how many multiples of z are there?
Let see how many multiples m we have up to y
0----------------------------------x------------------------y
-m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---
You see where I'm going... to get the number of multiples in the range [ x, y ], get the number of multiples of y then subtract the number of multiples before x, (x-1) / z
Solution: ( y / z ) - (( x - 1 ) / z )
Programmatically, you could make a function numberOfMultiples
function numberOfMultiples(n, z) {
return n / z;
}
to get the number of multiples in a range [x, y]
numberOfMultiples(y) - numberOfMultiples(x-1)
The function is O(1), there is no need of a loop to get the number of multiples.
Examples of results you should find
[30, 90] รท 13 => 4
[1, 1000] รท 6 => 166
[100, 1000000] รท 7 => 142843
[777, 777777777] รท 7 => 111111001
For the first example, 90 / 13 = 6, (30-1) / 13 = 2, and 6-2 = 4
---26---39---52---65---78---91--
^ ^
30<---(4 multiples)-->90
I also encountered this on Codility. It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to come up with a good solution, so I figured I would share what I think is an elegant solution!
Straightforward Approach 1/2:
O(N) time solution with a loop and counter, unrealistic when N = 2 billion.
Awesome Approach 3:
We want the number of digits in some range that are divisible by K.
Simple case: assume range [0 .. n*K], N = n*K
N/K represents the number of digits in [0,N) that are divisible by K, given N%K = 0 (aka. N is divisible by K)
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6}| = 3 = 9/3
Similarly,
N/K + 1 represents the number of digits in [0,N] divisible by K
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6 9}| = 4 = 9/3 + 1
I think really understanding the above fact is the trickiest part of this question, I cannot explain exactly why it works.
The rest boils down to prefix sums and handling special cases.
Now we don't always have a range that begins with 0, and we cannot assume the two bounds will be divisible by K.
But wait! We can fix this by calculating our own nice upper and lower bounds and using some subtraction magic :)
First find the closest upper and lower in the range [A,B] that are divisible by K.
Upper bound (easier): ex. B = 10, K = 3, new_B = 9... the pattern is B - B%K
Lower bound: ex. A = 10, K = 3, new_A = 12... try a few more and you will see the pattern is A - A%K + K
Then calculate the following using the above technique:
Determine the total number of digits X between [0,B] that are divisible by K
Determine the total number of digits Y between [0,A) that are divisible by K
Calculate the number of digits between [A,B] that are divisible by K in constant time by the expression X - Y
Website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/count_div/
class CountDiv {
public int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
int firstDivisible = A%K == 0 ? A : A + (K - A%K);
int lastDivisible = B%K == 0 ? B : B - B%K; //B/K behaves this way by default.
return (lastDivisible - firstDivisible)/K + 1;
}
}
This is my first time explaining an approach like this. Feedback is very much appreciated :)
This is one of the Codility Lesson 3 questions. For this question, the input is guaranteed to be in a valid range. I answered it using Javascript:
function solution(x, y, z) {
var totalDivisibles = Math.floor(y / z),
excludeDivisibles = Math.floor((x - 1) / z),
divisiblesInArray = totalDivisibles - excludeDivisibles;
return divisiblesInArray;
}
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoQX3MJC-8AP/
(I actually wanted to ask about some of the other comments on this page but I don't have enough rep points yet).
Divide y-x by z, rounding down. Add one if y%z < x%z or if x%z == 0.
No mathematical proof, unless someone cares to provide one, but test cases, in Perl:
#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More;
sub multiples_in_range {
my ($x, $y, $z) = #_;
return 0 if $x > $y;
my $ret = int( ($y - $x) / $z);
$ret++ if $y%$z < $x%$z or $x%$z == 0;
return $ret;
}
for my $z (2 .. 10) {
for my $x (0 .. 2*$z) {
for my $y (0 .. 4*$z) {
is multiples_in_range($x, $y, $z),
scalar(grep { $_ % $z == 0 } $x..$y),
"[$x..$y] mod $z";
}
}
}
done_testing;
Output:
$ prove divrange.pl
divrange.pl .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=3405, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.20 usr 0.02 sys + 0.26 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.49 CPU)
Result: PASS
Let [A;B] be an interval of positive integers including A and B such that 0 <= A <= B, K be the divisor.
It is easy to see that there are N(A) = โA / Kโ = floor(A / K) factors of K in interval [0;A]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
โยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทโยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยท>
0 A
Similarly, there are N(B) = โB / Kโ = floor(B / K) factors of K in interval [0;B]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
โยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทยทยทยทยทยทxยทยทยทโยทยทยทยทxยทยทยท>
0 B
Then N = N(B) - N(A) equals to the number of K's (the number of integers divisible by K) in range (A;B]. The point A is not included, because the subtracted N(A) includes this point. Therefore, the result should be incremented by one, if A mod K is zero:
N := N(B) - N(A)
if (A mod K = 0)
N := N + 1
Implementation in PHP
function solution($A, $B, $K) {
if ($K < 1)
return 0;
$c = floor($B / $K) - floor($A / $K);
if ($A % $K == 0)
$c++;
return (int)$c;
}
In PHP, the effect of the floor function can be achieved by casting to the integer type:
$c = (int)($B / $K) - (int)($A / $K);
which, I think, is faster.
Here is my short and simple solution in C++ which got 100/100 on codility. :)
Runs in O(1) time. I hope its not difficult to understand.
int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
// write your code in C++11
int cnt=0;
if( A%K==0 or B%K==0)
cnt++;
if(A>=K)
cnt+= (B - A)/K;
else
cnt+=B/K;
return cnt;
}
(floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) - (high%d==0)
Explanation:
There are a/d numbers divisible by d from 0.0 to a. (d!=0)
Therefore (floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) will give numbers divisible in the range (low,high] (Note that low is excluded and high is included in this range)
Now to remove high from the range just subtract (high%d==0)
Works for integers, floats or whatever (Use fmodf function for floats)
Won't strive for an o(1) solution, this leave for more clever person:) Just feel this is a perfect usage scenario for function programming. Simple and straightforward.
> x,y,z=1,1000,6
=> [1, 1000, 6]
> (x..y).select {|n| n%z==0}.size
=> 166
EDIT: after reading other's O(1) solution. I feel shamed. Programming made people lazy to think...
Division (a/b=c) by definition - taking a set of size a and forming groups of size b. The number of groups of this size that can be formed, c, is the quotient of a and b. - is nothing more than the number of integers within range/interval ]0..a] (not including zero, but including a) that are divisible by b.
so by definition:
Y/Z - number of integers within ]0..Y] that are divisible by Z
and
X/Z - number of integers within ]0..X] that are divisible by Z
thus:
result = [Y/Z] - [X/Z] + x (where x = 1 if and only if X is divisible by Y otherwise 0 - assuming the given range [X..Y] includes X)
example :
for (6, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 6/2 + 1 (as 6%2 == 0) = 6 - 3 + 1 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
for (5, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 5/2 + 0 (as 5%2 != 0) = 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
The time complexity of the solution will be linear.
Code Snippet :
int countDiv(int a, int b, int m)
{
int mod = (min(a, b)%m==0);
int cnt = abs(floor(b/m) - floor(a/m)) + mod;
return cnt;
}
here n will give you count of number and will print sum of all numbers that are divisible by k
int a = sc.nextInt();
int b = sc.nextInt();
int k = sc.nextInt();
int first = 0;
if (a > k) {
first = a + a/k;
} else {
first = k;
}
int last = b - b%k;
if (first > last) {
System.out.println(0);
} else {
int n = (last - first)/k+1;
System.out.println(n * (first + last)/2);
}
Here is the solution to the problem written in Swift Programming Language.
Step 1: Find the first number in the range divisible by z.
Step 2: Find the last number in the range divisible by z.
Step 3: Use a mathematical formula to find the number of divisible numbers by z in the range.
func solution(_ x : Int, _ y : Int, _ z : Int) -> Int {
var numberOfDivisible = 0
var firstNumber: Int
var lastNumber: Int
if y == x {
return x % z == 0 ? 1 : 0
}
//Find first number divisible by z
let moduloX = x % z
if moduloX == 0 {
firstNumber = x
} else {
firstNumber = x + (z - moduloX)
}
//Fist last number divisible by z
let moduloY = y % z
if moduloY == 0 {
lastNumber = y
} else {
lastNumber = y - moduloY
}
//Math formula
numberOfDivisible = Int(floor(Double((lastNumber - firstNumber) / z))) + 1
return numberOfDivisible
}
public static int Solution(int A, int B, int K)
{
int count = 0;
//If A is divisible by K
if(A % K == 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K) + 1;
}
//If A is not divisible by K
else if(A % K != 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K);
}
return count;
}
This can be done in O(1).
Here you are a solution in C++.
auto first{ x % z == 0 ? x : x + z - x % z };
auto last{ y % z == 0 ? y : y - y % z };
auto ans{ (last - first) / z + 1 };
Where first is the first number that โ [x; y] and is divisible by z, last is the last number that โ [x; y] and is divisible by z and ans is the answer that you are looking for.
This problem is from the 2011 Codesprint (http://csfall11.interviewstreet.com/):
One of the basics of Computer Science is knowing how numbers are represented in 2's complement. Imagine that you write down all numbers between A and B inclusive in 2's complement representation using 32 bits. How many 1's will you write down in all ?
Input:
The first line contains the number of test cases T (<1000). Each of the next T lines contains two integers A and B.
Output:
Output T lines, one corresponding to each test case.
Constraints:
-2^31 <= A <= B <= 2^31 - 1
Sample Input:
3
-2 0
-3 4
-1 4
Sample Output:
63
99
37
Explanation:
For the first case, -2 contains 31 1's followed by a 0, -1 contains 32 1's and 0 contains 0 1's. Thus the total is 63.
For the second case, the answer is 31 + 31 + 32 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 99
I realize that you can use the fact that the number of 1s in -X is equal to the number of 0s in the complement of (-X) = X-1 to speed up the search. The solution claims that there is a O(log X) recurrence relation for generating the answer but I do not understand it. The solution code can be viewed here: https://gist.github.com/1285119
I would appreciate it if someone could explain how this relation is derived!
Well, it's not that complicated...
The single-argument solve(int a) function is the key. It is short, so I will cut&paste it here:
long long solve(int a)
{
if(a == 0) return 0 ;
if(a % 2 == 0) return solve(a - 1) + __builtin_popcount(a) ;
return ((long long)a + 1) / 2 + 2 * solve(a / 2) ;
}
It only works for non-negative a, and it counts the number of 1 bits in all integers from 0 to a inclusive.
The function has three cases:
a == 0 -> returns 0. Obviously.
a even -> returns the number of 1 bits in a plus solve(a-1). Also pretty obvious.
The final case is the interesting one. So, how do we count the number of 1 bits from 0 to an odd number a?
Consider all of the integers between 0 and a, and split them into two groups: The evens, and the odds. For example, if a is 5, you have two groups (in binary):
000 (aka. 0)
010 (aka. 2)
100 (aka. 4)
and
001 (aka 1)
011 (aka 3)
101 (aka 5)
Observe that these two groups must have the same size (because a is odd and the range is inclusive). To count how many 1 bits there are in each group, first count all but the last bits, then count the last bits.
All but the last bits looks like this:
00
01
10
...and it looks like this for both groups. The number of 1 bits here is just solve(a/2). (In this example, it is the number of 1 bits from 0 to 2. Also, recall that integer division in C/C++ rounds down.)
The last bit is zero for every number in the first group and one for every number in the second group, so those last bits contribute (a+1)/2 one bits to the total.
So the third case of the recursion is (a+1)/2 + 2*solve(a/2), with appropriate casts to long long to handle the case where a is INT_MAX (and thus a+1 overflows).
This is an O(log N) solution. To generalize it to solve(a,b), you just compute solve(b) - solve(a), plus the appropriate logic for worrying about negative numbers. That is what the two-argument solve(int a, int b) is doing.
Cast the array into a series of integers. Then for each integer do:
int NumberOfSetBits(int i)
{
i = i - ((i >> 1) & 0x55555555);
i = (i & 0x33333333) + ((i >> 2) & 0x33333333);
return (((i + (i >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F) * 0x01010101) >> 24;
}
Also this is portable, unlike __builtin_popcount
See here: How to count the number of set bits in a 32-bit integer?
when a is positive, the better explanation was already been posted.
If a is negative, then on a 32-bit system each negative number between a and zero will have 32 1's bits less the number of bits in the range from 0 to the binary representation of positive a.
So, in a better way,
long long solve(int a) {
if (a >= 0){
if (a == 0) return 0;
else if ((a %2) == 0) return solve(a - 1) + noOfSetBits(a);
else return (2 * solve( a / 2)) + ((long long)a + 1) / 2;
}else {
a++;
return ((long long)(-a) + 1) * 32 - solve(-a);
}
}
In the following code, the bitsum of x is defined as the count of 1 bits in the two's complement representation of the numbers between 0 and x (inclusive), where Integer.MIN_VALUE <= x <= Integer.MAX_VALUE.
For example:
bitsum(0) is 0
bitsum(1) is 1
bitsum(2) is 1
bitsum(3) is 4
..etc
10987654321098765432109876543210 i % 10 for 0 <= i <= 31
00000000000000000000000000000000 0
00000000000000000000000000000001 1
00000000000000000000000000000010 2
00000000000000000000000000000011 3
00000000000000000000000000000100 4
00000000000000000000000000000101 ...
00000000000000000000000000000110
00000000000000000000000000000111 (2^i)-1
00000000000000000000000000001000 2^i
00000000000000000000000000001001 (2^i)+1
00000000000000000000000000001010 ...
00000000000000000000000000001011 x, 011 = x & (2^i)-1 = 3
00000000000000000000000000001100
00000000000000000000000000001101
00000000000000000000000000001110
00000000000000000000000000001111
00000000000000000000000000010000
00000000000000000000000000010001
00000000000000000000000000010010 18
...
01111111111111111111111111111111 Integer.MAX_VALUE
The formula of the bitsum is:
bitsum(x) = bitsum((2^i)-1) + 1 + x - 2^i + bitsum(x & (2^i)-1 )
Note that x - 2^i = x & (2^i)-1
Negative numbers are handled slightly differently than positive numbers. In this case the number of zeros is subtracted from the total number of bits:
Integer.MIN_VALUE <= x < -1
Total number of bits: 32 * -x.
The number of zeros in a negative number x is equal to the number of ones in -x - 1.
public class TwosComplement {
//t[i] is the bitsum of (2^i)-1 for i in 0 to 31.
private static long[] t = new long[32];
static {
t[0] = 0;
t[1] = 1;
int p = 2;
for (int i = 2; i < 32; i++) {
t[i] = 2*t[i-1] + p;
p = p << 1;
}
}
//count the bits between x and y inclusive
public static long bitsum(int x, int y) {
if (y > x && x > 0) {
return bitsum(y) - bitsum(x-1);
}
else if (y >= 0 && x == 0) {
return bitsum(y);
}
else if (y == x) {
return Integer.bitCount(y);
}
else if (x < 0 && y == 0) {
return bitsum(x);
} else if (x < 0 && x < y && y < 0 ) {
return bitsum(x) - bitsum(y+1);
} else if (x < 0 && x < y && 0 < y) {
return bitsum(x) + bitsum(y);
}
throw new RuntimeException(x + " " + y);
}
//count the bits between 0 and x
public static long bitsum(int x) {
if (x == 0) return 0;
if (x < 0) {
if (x == -1) {
return 32;
} else {
long y = -(long)x;
return 32 * y - bitsum((int)(y - 1));
}
} else {
int n = x;
int sum = 0; //x & (2^i)-1
int j = 0;
int i = 1; //i = 2^j
int lsb = n & 1; //least significant bit
n = n >>> 1;
while (n != 0) {
sum += lsb * i;
lsb = n & 1;
n = n >>> 1;
i = i << 1;
j++;
}
long tot = t[j] + 1 + sum + bitsum(sum);
return tot;
}
}
}
An interview question:
Given a function f(x) that 1/4 times returns 0, 3/4 times returns 1.
Write a function g(x) using f(x) that 1/2 times returns 0, 1/2 times returns 1.
My implementation is:
function g(x) = {
if (f(x) == 0){ // 1/4
var s = f(x)
if( s == 1) {// 3/4 * 1/4
return s // 3/16
} else {
g(x)
}
} else { // 3/4
var k = f(x)
if( k == 0) {// 1/4 * 3/4
return k // 3/16
} else {
g(x)
}
}
}
Am I right? What's your solution?(you can use any language)
If you call f(x) twice in a row, the following outcomes are possible (assuming that
successive calls to f(x) are independent, identically distributed trials):
00 (probability 1/4 * 1/4)
01 (probability 1/4 * 3/4)
10 (probability 3/4 * 1/4)
11 (probability 3/4 * 3/4)
01 and 10 occur with equal probability. So iterate until you get one of those
cases, then return 0 or 1 appropriately:
do
a=f(x); b=f(x);
while (a == b);
return a;
It might be tempting to call f(x) only once per iteration and keep track of the two
most recent values, but that won't work. Suppose the very first roll is 1,
with probability 3/4. You'd loop until the first 0, then return 1 (with probability 3/4).
The problem with your algorithm is that it repeats itself with high probability. My code:
function g(x) = {
var s = f(x) + f(x) + f(x);
// s = 0, probability: 1/64
// s = 1, probability: 9/64
// s = 2, probability: 27/64
// s = 3, probability: 27/64
if (s == 2) return 0;
if (s == 3) return 1;
return g(x); // probability to go into recursion = 10/64, with only 1 additional f(x) calculation
}
I've measured average number of times f(x) was calculated for your algorithm and for mine. For yours f(x) was calculated around 5.3 times per one g(x) calculation. With my algorithm this number reduced to around 3.5. The same is true for other answers so far since they are actually the same algorithm as you said.
P.S.: your definition doesn't mention 'random' at the moment, but probably it is assumed. See my other answer.
Your solution is correct, if somewhat inefficient and with more duplicated logic. Here is a Python implementation of the same algorithm in a cleaner form.
def g ():
while True:
a = f()
if a != f():
return a
If f() is expensive you'd want to get more sophisticated with using the match/mismatch information to try to return with fewer calls to it. Here is the most efficient possible solution.
def g ():
lower = 0.0
upper = 1.0
while True:
if 0.5 < lower:
return 1
elif upper < 0.5:
return 0
else:
middle = 0.25 * lower + 0.75 * upper
if 0 == f():
lower = middle
else:
upper = middle
This takes about 2.6 calls to g() on average.
The way that it works is this. We're trying to pick a random number from 0 to 1, but we happen to stop as soon as we know whether the number is 0 or 1. We start knowing that the number is in the interval (0, 1). 3/4 of the numbers are in the bottom 3/4 of the interval, and 1/4 are in the top 1/4 of the interval. We decide which based on a call to f(x). This means that we are now in a smaller interval.
If we wash, rinse, and repeat enough times we can determine our finite number as precisely as possible, and will have an absolutely equal probability of winding up in any region of the original interval. In particular we have an even probability of winding up bigger than or less than 0.5.
If you wanted you could repeat the idea to generate an endless stream of bits one by one. This is, in fact, provably the most efficient way of generating such a stream, and is the source of the idea of entropy in information theory.
Given a function f(x) that 1/4 times returns 0, 3/4 times returns 1
Taking this statement literally, f(x) if called four times will always return zero once and 1 3 times. This is different than saying f(x) is a probabalistic function and the 0 to 1 ratio will approach 1 to 3 (1/4 vs 3/4) over many iterations. If the first interpretation is valid, than the only valid function for f(x) that will meet the criteria regardless of where in the sequence you start from is the sequence 0111 repeating. (or 1011 or 1101 or 1110 which are the same sequence from a different starting point). Given that constraint,
g()= (f() == f())
should suffice.
As already mentioned your definition is not that good regarding probability. Usually it means that not only probability is good but distribution also. Otherwise you can simply write g(x) which will return 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0 - it will return them 50/50, but numbers won't be random.
Another cheating approach might be:
var invert = false;
function g(x) {
invert = !invert;
if (invert) return 1-f(x);
return f(x);
}
This solution will be better than all others since it calls f(x) only one time. But the results will not be very random.
A refinement of the same approach used in btilly's answer, achieving an average ~1.85 calls to f() per g() result (further refinement documented below achieves ~1.75, tbilly's ~2.6, Jim Lewis's accepted answer ~5.33). Code appears lower in the answer.
Basically, I generate random integers in the range 0 to 3 with even probability: the caller can then test bit 0 for the first 50/50 value, and bit 1 for a second. Reason: the f() probabilities of 1/4 and 3/4 map onto quarters much more cleanly than halves.
Description of algorithm
btilly explained the algorithm, but I'll do so in my own way too...
The algorithm basically generates a random real number x between 0 and 1, then returns a result depending on which "result bucket" that number falls in:
result bucket result
x < 0.25 0
0.25 <= x < 0.5 1
0.5 <= x < 0.75 2
0.75 <= x 3
But, generating a random real number given only f() is difficult. We have to start with the knowledge that our x value should be in the range 0..1 - which we'll call our initial "possible x" space. We then hone in on an actual value for x:
each time we call f():
if f() returns 0 (probability 1 in 4), we consider x to be in the lower quarter of the "possible x" space, and eliminate the upper three quarters from that space
if f() returns 1 (probability 3 in 4), we consider x to be in the upper three-quarters of the "possible x" space, and eliminate the lower quarter from that space
when the "possible x" space is completely contained by a single result bucket, that means we've narrowed x down to the point where we know which result value it should map to and have no need to get a more specific value for x.
It may or may not help to consider this diagram :-):
"result bucket" cut-offs 0,.25,.5,.75,1
0=========0.25=========0.5==========0.75=========1 "possible x" 0..1
| | . . | f() chooses x < vs >= 0.25
| result 0 |------0.4375-------------+----------| "possible x" .25..1
| | result 1| . . | f() chooses x < vs >= 0.4375
| | | . ~0.58 . | "possible x" .4375..1
| | | . | . | f() chooses < vs >= ~.58
| | ||. | | . | 4 distinct "possible x" ranges
Code
int g() // return 0, 1, 2, or 3
{
if (f() == 0) return 0;
if (f() == 0) return 1;
double low = 0.25 + 0.25 * (1.0 - 0.25);
double high = 1.0;
while (true)
{
double cutoff = low + 0.25 * (high - low);
if (f() == 0)
high = cutoff;
else
low = cutoff;
if (high < 0.50) return 1;
if (low >= 0.75) return 3;
if (low >= 0.50 && high < 0.75) return 2;
}
}
If helpful, an intermediary to feed out 50/50 results one at a time:
int h()
{
static int i;
if (!i)
{
int x = g();
i = x | 4;
return x & 1;
}
else
{
int x = i & 2;
i = 0;
return x ? 1 : 0;
}
}
NOTE: This can be further tweaked by having the algorithm switch from considering an f()==0 result to hone in on the lower quarter, to having it hone in on the upper quarter instead, based on which on average resolves to a result bucket more quickly. Superficially, this seemed useful on the third call to f() when an upper-quarter result would indicate an immediate result of 3, while a lower-quarter result still spans probability point 0.5 and hence results 1 and 2. When I tried it, the results were actually worse. A more complex tuning was needed to see actual benefits, and I ended up writing a brute-force comparison of lower vs upper cutoff for second through eleventh calls to g(). The best result I found was an average of ~1.75, resulting from the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 8th calls to g() seeking low (i.e. setting low = cutoff).
Here is a solution based on central limit theorem, originally due to a friend of mine:
/*
Given a function f(x) that 1/4 times returns 0, 3/4 times returns 1. Write a function g(x) using f(x) that 1/2 times returns 0, 1/2 times returns 1.
*/
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <ctime>
#include <cstdio>
using namespace std;
int f() {
if (rand() % 4 == 0) return 0;
return 1;
}
int main() {
srand(time(0));
int cc = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++) { //number of different runs
int c = 0;
int limit = 10000; //the bigger the limit, the more we will approach %50 percent
for (int i=0; i<limit; ++i) c+= f();
cc += c < limit*0.75 ? 0 : 1; // c will be 0, with probability %50
}
printf("%d\n",cc); //cc is gonna be around 500
return 0;
}
Since each return of f() represents a 3/4 chance of TRUE, with some algebra we can just properly balance the odds. What we want is another function x() which returns a balancing probability of TRUE, so that
function g() {
return f() && x();
}
returns true 50% of the time.
So let's find the probability of x (p(x)), given p(f) and our desired total probability (1/2):
p(f) * p(x) = 1/2
3/4 * p(x) = 1/2
p(x) = (1/2) / 3/4
p(x) = 2/3
So x() should return TRUE with a probability of 2/3, since 2/3 * 3/4 = 6/12 = 1/2;
Thus the following should work for g():
function g() {
return f() && (rand() < 2/3);
}
Assuming
P(f[x] == 0) = 1/4
P(f[x] == 1) = 3/4
and requiring a function g[x] with the following assumptions
P(g[x] == 0) = 1/2
P(g[x] == 1) = 1/2
I believe the following definition of g[x] is sufficient (Mathematica)
g[x_] := If[f[x] + f[x + 1] == 1, 1, 0]
or, alternatively in C
int g(int x)
{
return f(x) + f(x+1) == 1
? 1
: 0;
}
This is based on the idea that invocations of {f[x], f[x+1]} would produce the following outcomes
{
{0, 0},
{0, 1},
{1, 0},
{1, 1}
}
Summing each of the outcomes we have
{
0,
1,
1,
2
}
where a sum of 1 represents 1/2 of the possible sum outcomes, with any other sum making up the other 1/2.
Edit.
As bdk says - {0,0} is less likely than {1,1} because
1/4 * 1/4 < 3/4 * 3/4
However, I am confused myself because given the following definition for f[x] (Mathematica)
f[x_] := Mod[x, 4] > 0 /. {False -> 0, True -> 1}
or alternatively in C
int f(int x)
{
return (x % 4) > 0
? 1
: 0;
}
then the results obtained from executing f[x] and g[x] seem to have the expected distribution.
Table[f[x], {x, 0, 20}]
{0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0}
Table[g[x], {x, 0, 20}]
{1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1}
This is much like the Monty Hall paradox.
In general.
Public Class Form1
'the general case
'
'twiceThis = 2 is 1 in four chance of 0
'twiceThis = 3 is 1 in six chance of 0
'
'twiceThis = x is 1 in 2x chance of 0
Const twiceThis As Integer = 7
Const numOf As Integer = twiceThis * 2
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, _
ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Const tries As Integer = 1000
y = New List(Of Integer)
Dim ct0 As Integer = 0
Dim ct1 As Integer = 0
Debug.WriteLine("")
''show all possible values of fx
'For x As Integer = 1 To numOf
' Debug.WriteLine(fx)
'Next
'test that gx returns 50% 0's and 50% 1's
Dim stpw As New Stopwatch
stpw.Start()
For x As Integer = 1 To tries
Dim g_x As Integer = gx()
'Debug.WriteLine(g_x.ToString) 'used to verify that gx returns 0 or 1 randomly
If g_x = 0 Then ct0 += 1 Else ct1 += 1
Next
stpw.Stop()
'the results
Debug.WriteLine((ct0 / tries).ToString("p1"))
Debug.WriteLine((ct1 / tries).ToString("p1"))
Debug.WriteLine((stpw.ElapsedTicks / tries).ToString("n0"))
End Sub
Dim prng As New Random
Dim y As New List(Of Integer)
Private Function fx() As Integer
'1 in numOf chance of zero being returned
If y.Count = 0 Then
'reload y
y.Add(0) 'fx has only one zero value
Do
y.Add(1) 'the rest are ones
Loop While y.Count < numOf
End If
'return a random value
Dim idx As Integer = prng.Next(y.Count)
Dim rv As Integer = y(idx)
y.RemoveAt(idx) 'remove the value selected
Return rv
End Function
Private Function gx() As Integer
'a function g(x) using f(x) that 50% of the time returns 0
' that 50% of the time returns 1
Dim rv As Integer = 0
For x As Integer = 1 To twiceThis
fx()
Next
For x As Integer = 1 To twiceThis
rv += fx()
Next
If rv = twiceThis Then Return 1 Else Return 0
End Function
End Class