I am solving project Euler question 58. Here a square is created by starting with 1 and spiralling anticlockwise in the following way (here is side length equal to 7:
37 36 35 34 33 32 31
38 17 16 15 14 13 30
39 18 5 4 3 12 29
40 19 6 1 2 11 28
41 20 7 8 9 10 27
42 21 22 23 24 25 26
43 44 45 46 47 48 49
The question is to find out when we keep spiralling around the square, when the ratio of primes in the diagonals and the amount of numbers in the diagonal is smaller than 0.10.
I am convinced I have the solution with the code below (see code comments for clarification), but the site states that the answer is wrong when I am entering it.
require 'prime'
# We use a mathematical derivation of the corner values, keep increasing the value till we find a ratio smaller
# than 0.10 and increase the grid_size and amount of numbers on diagonals each iteration
side_length = 3 # start with grid size of 3x3 so that we do not get into trouble with 1x1 grid
prime_count = 3 # 3, 5, 7 are prime and on a diagonal in a 3x3 grid
diagonal_size = 5
prime_ratio = 1 # dummy value bigger than 0.10 so we can start the loop
while prime_ratio >= 0.10
# Add one to prime count for each corner if it is prime
# Corners are given by n2 (top left), n2-n+1, n2-2n+2, and n2-3n+3
prime_count += 1 if (side_length**2).prime?
prime_count += 1 if (side_length**2-side_length+1).prime?
prime_count += 1 if (side_length**2-2*side_length+2).prime?
prime_count += 1 if (side_length**2-3*side_length+3).prime?
# Divide amount of primes counted by the diagonal length to get prime ratio
prime_ratio = prime_count/diagonal_size.to_f
# Increase the side length by two (full spiral) and diagonal size by four
side_length += 2 and diagonal_size += 4
end
puts side_length-2 #-2 to account for last addition in while-loop
# => 26612
It probably is wrong and site is right. I am stuck on this problem for quite some time now. Can anyone point me the mistake?
side_length += 2 and diagonal_size += 4 should be at the beginning of the loop.
Couldn't check, I do not have ruby installed, but I can reproduce the same problem on my python solution.
Related
Suppose we have two, one dimensional arrays of values a and b which both have length N. I want to create a new array c such that c(n)=dot(a(n:N), b(1:N-n+1)) I can of course do this using a simple loop:
for n=1:N
c(n)=dot(a(n:N), b(1:N-n+1));
end
but given that this is such a simple operation which resembles a convolution I was wondering if there isn't a more efficient method to do this (using Matlab).
A solution using 1D convolution conv:
out = conv(a, flip(b));
c = out(ceil(numel(out)/2):end);
In conv the first vector is multiplied by the reversed version of the second vector so we need to compute the convolution of a and the flipped b and trim the unnecessary part.
This is an interesting problem!
I am going to assume that a and b are column vectors of the same length. Let us consider a simple example:
a = [9;10;2;10;7];
b = [1;3;6;10;10];
% yields:
c = [221;146;74;31;7];
Now let's see what happens when we compute the convolution of these vectors:
>> conv(a,b)
ans =
9
37
86
166
239
201
162
170
70
>> conv2(a, b.')
ans =
9 27 54 90 90
10 30 60 100 100
2 6 12 20 20
10 30 60 100 100
7 21 42 70 70
We notice that c is the sum of elements along the lower diagonals of the result of conv2. To show it clearer we'll transpose to get the diagonals in the same order as values in c:
>> triu(conv2(a.', b))
ans =
9 10 2 10 7
0 30 6 30 21
0 0 12 60 42
0 0 0 100 70
0 0 0 0 70
So now it becomes a question of summing the diagonals of a matrix, which is a more common problem with existing solution, for example this one by Andrei Bobrov:
C = conv2(a.', b);
p = sum( spdiags(C, 0:size(C,2)-1) ).'; % This gives the same result as the loop.
I was giving a test for a company called Code Nation and came across this question which asked me to calculate how many times a number k appears in the submatrix M[n][n]. Now there was a example which said Input like this.
5
1 2 3 2 5
36
M[i][j] is to calculated by a[i]*a[j]
which on calculation turn I could calculate.
1,2,3,2,5
2,4,6,4,10
3,6,9,6,15
2,4,6,4,10
5,10,15,10,25
Now I had to calculate how many times 36 appears in sub matrix of M.
The answer was 5.
I am unable to comprehend how to calculate this submatrix. How to represent it?
I had a naïve approach which resulted in many matrices of which I think none are correct.
One of them is Submatrix[i][j]
1 2 3 2 5
3 9 18 24 39
6 18 36 60 99
15 33 69 129 228
33 66 129 258 486
This was formed by adding all the numbers before it 0,0 to i,j
In this 36 did not appear 5 times so i know this is incorrect. If you can back it up with some pseudo code it will be icing on the cake.
Appreciate the help
[Edit] : Referred Following link 1 link 2
My guess is that you have to compute how many submatrices of M have sum equal to 36.
Here is Matlab code:
a=[1,2,3,2,5];
n=length(a);
M=a'*a;
count = 0;
for a0 = 1:n
for b0 = 1:n
for a1 = a0:n
for b1 = b0:n
A = M(a0:a1,b0:b1);
if (sum(A(:))==36)
count = count + 1;
end
end
end
end
end
count
This prints out 5.
So you are correctly computing M, but then you have to consider every submatrix of M, for example, M is
1,2,3,2,5
2,4,6,4,10
3,6,9,6,15
2,4,6,4,10
5,10,15,10,25
so one possible submatrix is
1,2,3
2,4,6
3,6,9
and if you add up all of these, then the sum is equal to 36.
There is an answer on cstheory which gives an O(n^3) algorithm for this.
I have a m x n matrix and want to be able to calculate sums of arbitrary rectangular submatrices. This will happen several times for the given matrix. What data structure should I use?
For example I want to find sum of rectangle in matrix
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
Sum is 68.
What I'll do is accumulating it row by row:
1 2 3 4
6 8 10 12
15 18 21 24
28 32 36 40
And then, if I want to find sum of the matrix I just accumulate 28,32,36,40 = 136. Only four operation instead of 15.
If I want to find sum of second and third row, I just accumulate 15,18,21,24 and subtract 1, 2, 3, 4. = 6+8+10+12+15+18+21+24 = 68.
But in this case I can use another matrix, accumulating this one by columns:
1 3 6 10
5 11 18 26
9 19 30 42
13 27 42 58
and in this case I just sum 26 and 42 = 68. Only 2 operation instead of 8. For wider sub-matrix is is efficient to use second method and matrix, for higher - first one. Can I somehow split merge this to methods to one matrix?
So I just sum to corner and subtract another two?
You're nearly there with your method. The solution is to use a summed area table (aka Integral Image):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summed_area_table
The key idea is you do one pass through your matrix and accumulate such that "the value at any point (x, y) in the summed area table is just the sum of all the pixels above and to the left of (x, y), inclusive.".
Then you can compute the sum inside any rectangle in constant time with four lookups.
Why can't you just add them using For loops?
int total = 0;
for(int i = startRow; i = endRow; i++)
{
for(int j = startColumn; j = endColumn; j++)
{
total += array[i][j];
}
}
Where your subarray ("rectangle") would go from startRow to endRow (width) and startColumn to endColumn (height).
I have the following problem:
An image is given and I am doing some blob detection. As a limit, lets say I have a max of 16 blobs and from each blob I calculate the centroid (x,y position).
If no distorion happends, these centroids are arranged in an equidistant 4x4 grid but they could be really much distorted.
The assumption is that they keep more or less the grid form but they could be really much warped.
I need to sort the blobs such that I know which one is the nearest left, right, up and down. So the best would be to write these blobs into a matrix.
If this is not enough, it could happen that I detect less then 16 and then I also need to sort them into a matrix.
Does anyone know how this could be efficiently solved in Matlab?
Thanks.
[update 1:]
I uploaded an image and the red numbers are the numbers which my blob detection algorithm assign each blob.
The resulting matrix should look like this with these numbers:
1 2 4 3
6 5 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 16 14 15
e.g. I start with blob 11 and the nearest right number is 12 and so on
[update 2:]
The posted solution looks quite nice. In reality it could happen, that one of the outer spots is missing or maybe two ... I know that this makes everything much more complicated and I just want to get a feeling if this is worth spending time.
These problems arise if you analyze a wavefront with a shack-hartmann wavefront sensor and you want to increase the dynamic range :-)
The spots could be really warped such that the dividing lines are not orthogonal any more.
Maybe someone knows a good literature for classification algorithms.
Best solution would be one, which could be implemented on a FPGA without to much effort but this is at this stage not so much important.
This will work as long as the blobs form a square and are relatively ordered:
Image:
Code:
bw = imread('blob.jpg');
bw = im2bw(bw);
rp = regionprops(bw,'Centroid');
% Must be a square
side = sqrt(length(rp));
centroids = vertcat(rp.Centroid);
centroid_labels = cellstr(num2str([1:length(rp)]'));
figure(1);
imshow(bw);
hold on;
text(centroids(:,1),centroids(:,2),centroid_labels,'Color','r','FontSize',60);
hold off;
% Find topleft element - minimum distance from origin
[~,topleft_idx] = min(sqrt(centroids(:,1).^2+centroids(:,2).^2));
% Find bottomright element - maximum distance from origin
[~,bottomright_idx] = max(sqrt(centroids(:,1).^2+centroids(:,2).^2));
% Find bottom left element - maximum normal distance from line formed by
% topleft and bottom right blob
A = centroids(bottomright_idx,2)-centroids(topleft_idx,2);
B = centroids(topleft_idx,1)-centroids(bottomright_idx,1);
C = -B*centroids(topleft_idx,2)-A*centroids(topleft_idx,1);
[~,bottomleft_idx] = max(abs(A*centroids(:,1)+B*centroids(:,2)+C)/sqrt(A^2+B^2));
% Sort blobs based on distance from line formed by topleft and bottomleft
% blob
A = centroids(bottomleft_idx,2)-centroids(topleft_idx,2);
B = centroids(topleft_idx,1)-centroids(bottomleft_idx,1);
C = -B*centroids(topleft_idx,2)-A*centroids(topleft_idx,1);
[~,leftsort_idx] = sort(abs(A*centroids(:,1)+B*centroids(:,2)+C)/sqrt(A^2+B^2));
% Reorder centroids and redetermine bottomright_idx and bottomleft_idx
centroids = centroids(leftsort_idx,:);
bottomright_idx = find(leftsort_idx == bottomright_idx);
bottomleft_idx = find(leftsort_idx == bottomleft_idx);
% Sort blobs based on distance from line formed by bottomleft and
% bottomright blob
A = centroids(bottomright_idx,2)-centroids(bottomleft_idx,2);
B = centroids(bottomleft_idx,1)-centroids(bottomright_idx,1);
C = -B*centroids(bottomleft_idx,2)-A*centroids(bottomleft_idx,1);
[~,bottomsort_idx] = sort(abs(A*reshape(centroids(:,1),side,side)+B*reshape(centroids(:,2),side,side)+C)/sqrt(A^2+B^2),'descend');
disp(leftsort_idx(bsxfun(#plus,bottomsort_idx,0:side:side^2-1)));
Output:
2 12 13 20 25 31
4 11 15 19 26 32
1 7 14 21 27 33
3 8 16 22 28 34
6 9 17 24 29 35
5 10 18 23 30 36
Just curious, are you using this to automate camera calibration through a checkerboard or something?
UPDATE:
For skewed image
tform = maketform('affine',[1 0 0; .5 1 0; 0 0 1]);
bw = imtransform(bw,tform);
Output:
1 4 8 16 21 25
2 5 10 18 23 26
3 6 13 19 27 29
7 9 17 24 30 32
11 14 20 28 33 35
12 15 22 31 34 36
For rotated image:
bw = imrotate(bw,20);
Output:
1 4 10 17 22 25
2 5 12 18 24 28
3 6 14 21 26 31
7 9 16 23 30 32
8 13 19 27 33 35
11 15 20 29 34 36
I'm trying to solve this problem and I'm new to backtracking algorithms,
The problem is about making a pyramid like this so that a number sitting on two numbers is the sum of them. Every number in the pyramid has to be different and less than 100. Like this:
88
39 49
15 24 25
4 11 13 12
1 3 8 5 7
Any pointers on how to do this using backtracking?
Not necessarily backtracking but the property you are asking for is interestingly very similar to the Pascal Triangle property.
The Pascal Triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle), which is used for efficient computation of binomial coefficient among other things, is a pyramid where a number is equal to the sum of the two numbers above it with the top being 1.
As you can see you are asking the opposite property where a number is the sum of the numbers below it.
1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
For instance in the Pascal Triangle above, if you wanted the top of your pyramid to be 56, your pyramid will be a reconstruction bottom up of the Pascal Triangle starting from 56 and that will give something like:
56
21 35
6 15 20
1 5 10 10
Again that's not a backtracking solution and this might not give you a good enough solution for every single N though I thought this was an interesting approximation that was worth noting.