I need to write an algorithm that takes a positive integer x. If integer x is 0, the algorithm returns 0. If it's any other number, the algorithm returns 1.
Here's the catch. I need to condense the algorithm into one equation. i.e. no conditionals. Basically, I need a single equation that equates to 0 if x is zero and 1 if x > 0.
EDIT: As per my comment below. I realize that I wasn't clear enough. I am entering the formula into a system that I don't have control over, hence they strange restrictions.
However, I learned a couple tricks that could be useful in the future!
In C and C++, you can use this trick:
!!x
In those languages, !x evaluates to 1 if x is zero and 0 otherwise. Therefore, !!x evaluates to 1 if x is nonzero and 0 otherwise.
Hope this helps!
Try return (int)(x > 0)
In every programming language I know, (int)(TRUE) == 1 and (int)(FALSE) == 0
Assuming 32-bit integers:
int negX = -x;
return negX >> 31;
Negating x puts a 1 in the highest bit. Shifting right by 31 places moves that 1 to the lowest bit, and fills with 0s. This does nothing to a 0, but converts all positive integers to 1.
This is basically the sign function, but since you specified a positive integer input, you can drop the part that converts negative numbers to -1.
Since virtually every system I know of uses IEEE-754 representation for floating-point numbers, you could just rely on its behavior (namely, that 0.0 / 0.0 is NaN, and NaN != NaN). Pseudo-C (-Java, ...) follows:
float oneOrNAN = (float)(x) / (float)(x);
return oneOrNAN == oneOrNAN;
Like I said, I wasn't clear enough in my problem description. When I said equation, I meant a purely algebraic equation.
I did find an acceptable solution: Y = X/(X - .001)
If it's zero you get 0/ -.001 which is just 0. Any other number, you get 5/4.999 which is close enough to 1 for my particular situation.
However, this is interesting:
!!x
Thanks for the tip!
Related
I need to write a function that takes the sixth root of something (equivalently, raises something to the 1/6 power), and checks if the answer is an integer. I want this function to be as fast and as optimized as possible, and since this function needs to run a lot, I'm thinking it might be best to not have to calculate the whole root.
How would I write a function (language agnostic, although Python/C/C++ preferred) that returns False (or 0 or something equivalent) before having to compute the entirety of the sixth root? For instance, if I was taking the 6th root of 65, then my function should, upon realizing that that the result is not an int, stop calculating and return False, instead of first computing that the 6th of 65 is 2.00517474515, then checking if 2.00517474515 is an int, and finally returning False.
Of course, I'm asking this question under the impression that it is faster to do the early termination thing than the complete computation, using something like
print(isinstance(num**(1/6), int))
Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated. I would also be interested in answers that are generalizable to lots of fractional powers, not just x^(1/6).
Here are some ideas of things you can try that might help eliminate non-sixth-powers quickly. For actual sixth powers, you'll still end up eventually needing to compute the sixth root.
Check small cases
If the numbers you're given have a reasonable probability of being small (less than 12 digits, say), you could build a table of small cases and check against that. There are only 100 sixth powers smaller than 10**12. If your inputs will always be larger, then there's little value in this test, but it's still a very cheap test to make.
Eliminate small primes
Any small prime factor must appear with an exponent that's a multiple of 6. To avoid too many trial divisions, you can bundle up some of the small factors.
For example, 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 19 * 23 = 223092870, which is small enough to fit in single 30-bit limb in Python, so a single modulo operation with that modulus should be fast.
So given a test number n, compute g = gcd(n, 223092870), and if the result is not 1, check that n is exactly divisible by g ** 6. If not, n is not a sixth power, and you're done. If n is exactly divisible by g**6, repeat with n // g**6.
Check the value modulo 124488 (for example)
If you carried out the previous step, then at this point you have a value that's not divisible by any prime smaller than 25. Now you can do a modulus test with a carefully chosen modulus: for example, any sixth power that's relatively prime to 124488 = 8 * 9 * 7 * 13 * 19 is congruent to one of the six values [1, 15625, 19657, 28729, 48385, 111385] modulo 124488. There are larger moduli that could be used, at the expense of having to check more possible residues.
Check whether it's a square
Any sixth power must be a square. Since Python (at least, Python >= 3.8) has a built-in integer square root function that's reasonably fast, it's efficient to check whether the value is a square before going for computing a full sixth root. (And if it is a square and you've already computed the square root, now you only need to extract a cube root rather than a sixth root.)
Use floating-point arithmetic
If the input is not too large, say 90 digits or smaller, and it's a sixth power then floating-point arithmetic has a reasonable chance of finding the sixth root exactly. However, Python makes no guarantees about the accuracy of a power operation, so it's worth making some additional checks to make sure that the result is within the expected range. For larger inputs, there's less chance of floating-point arithmetic getting the right result. The sixth root of (2**53 + 1)**6 is not exactly representable as a Python float (making the reasonable assumption that Python's float type matches the IEEE 754 binary64 format), and once n gets past 308 digits or so it's too large to fit into a float anyway.
Use integer arithmetic
Once you've exhausted all the cheap tricks, you're left with little choice but to compute the floor of the sixth root, then compare the sixth power of that with the original number.
Here's some Python code that puts together all of the tricks listed above. You should do your own timings targeting your particular use-case, and choose which tricks are worth keeping and which should be adjusted or thrown out. The order of the tricks will also be significant.
from math import gcd, isqrt
# Sixth powers smaller than 10**12.
SMALL_SIXTH_POWERS = {n**6 for n in range(100)}
def is_sixth_power(n):
"""
Determine whether a positive integer n is a sixth power.
Returns True if n is a sixth power, and False otherwise.
"""
# Sanity check (redundant with the small cases check)
if n <= 0:
return n == 0
# Check small cases
if n < 10**12:
return n in SMALL_SIXTH_POWERS
# Try a floating-point check if there's a realistic chance of it working
if n < 10**90:
s = round(n ** (1/6.))
if n == s**6:
return True
elif (s - 1) ** 6 < n < (s + 1)**6:
return False
# No conclusive result; fall through to the next test.
# Eliminate small primes
while True:
g = gcd(n, 223092870)
if g == 1:
break
n, r = divmod(n, g**6)
if r:
return False
# Check modulo small primes (requires that
# n is relatively prime to 124488)
if n % 124488 not in {1, 15625, 19657, 28729, 48385, 111385}:
return False
# Find the square root using math.isqrt, throw out non-squares
s = isqrt(n)
if s**2 != n:
return False
# Compute the floor of the cube root of s
# (which is the same as the floor of the sixth root of n).
# Code stolen from https://stackoverflow.com/a/35276426/270986
a = 1 << (s.bit_length() - 1) // 3 + 1
while True:
d = s//a**2
if a <= d:
return a**3 == s
a = (2*a + d)//3
Determining the square root through successive approximation is implemented using the following algorithm:
Begin by guessing that the square root is x / 2. Call that guess g.
The actual square root must lie between g and x/g. At each step in the successive approximation, generate a new guess by averaging g and x/g.
Repeat step 2 until the values of g and x/g are as close together as the precision of the hardware allows. In Java, the best way to check for this condition is to test whether the average is equal to either of the values used to generate it.
What really confuses me is the last statement of step 3. I interpreted it as follows:
private double sqrt(double x) {
double g = x / 2;
while(true) {
double average = (g + x/g) / 2;
if(average == g || average == x/g) break;
g = average;
}
return g;
}
This seems to just cause an infinite loop. I am following the algorithm exactly, if the average equals either g or x/g (the two values used to generate it) then we have our answer ?
Why would anyone ever use that approach, when they could simply use the formulas for (2n^2) = 4n^2 and (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, to populate each bit in the mantissa, and divide the exponent by two, multiplying the mantissa by two iff the the mod of the exponent with two equals 1?
To check if g and x/g are as close as the HW allow, look at the relative difference and compare
it with the epsilon for your floating point format. If it is within a small integer multiple of epsilon, you are OK.
Relative difference of x and y, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference
The epsilon for 32-bit IEEE floats is about 1.0e-7, as in one of the other answers here, but that answer used the absolute rather than the relative difference.
In practice, that means something like:
Math.abs(g-x/g)/Math.max(Math.abs(g),Math.abs(x/g)) < 3.0e-7
Never compare floating point values for equality. The result is not reliable.
Use a epsilon like so:
if(Math.abs(average-g) < 1e-7 || Math.abs(average-x/g) < 1e-7)
You can change the epsilon value to be whatever you need. Probably best is something related to the original x.
I am a freshman in high-school who has some time on his hands, and I decided it would be beneficial to write some programs that demonstrate what commonly used functions do. I have always wondered what exactly goes into the greater than and less than operators, so I have set out to define them by myself. The only roadblock that I have encountered is how one can assert that a value is negative or positive, without using the greater than or less than operators. So far, I have something that looks like this:
a = 34
b = 42
c = a - b
puts "A is Greater than B" while is_positive?(c)
Does anybody have ideas on how I would define is_positive?(c)?
This question should not be tagged ruby but mathematics.
Then you absolutely do need the equality operator.
If you want to restrict yourself to just the + and - operators, you have no other way of deciding whether a or b is greater, than to count up from 0 and see which value you hit first (which of course is tested using the equality operator)
You mean operator <=> that return -1 first argument is less, 0 if equal and 1 if greater than second? Or maybe you mean sign function that return -1 if argument is less than 0, 0 if is 0 or 1 if is greater than 0?
Days ago, my teacher told me it was possible to check if a given point is inside a given rectangle using only bit operators. Is it true? If so, how can I do that?
This might not answer your question but what you are looking for could be this.
These are the tricks compiled by Sean Eron Anderson and he even put a bounty of $10 for those who can find a single bug. The closest thing I found here is a macro that finds if any integer X has a word which is between M and N
Determine if a word has a byte between m and n
When m < n, this technique tests if a word x contains an unsigned byte value, such that m < value < n. It uses 7 arithmetic/logical operations when n and m are constant.
Note: Bytes that equal n can be reported by likelyhasbetween as false positives, so this should be checked by character if a certain result is needed.
Requirements: x>=0; 0<=m<=127; 0<=n<=128
#define likelyhasbetween(x,m,n) \
((((x)-~0UL/255*(n))&~(x)&((x)&~0UL/255*127)+~0UL/255*(127-(m)))&~0UL/255*128)
This technique would be suitable for a fast pretest. A variation that takes one more operation (8 total for constant m and n) but provides the exact answer is:
#define hasbetween(x,m,n) \
((~0UL/255*(127+(n))-((x)&~0UL/255*127)&~(x)&((x)&~0UL/255*127)+~0UL/255*(127-(m)))&~0UL/255*128)
It is possible if the number is a finite positive integer.
Suppose we have a rectangle represented by the (a1,b1) and (a2,b2). Given a point (x,y), we only need to evaluate the expression (a1<x) & (x<a2) & (b1<y) & (y<b2). So the problems now is to find the corresponding bit operation for the expression c
Let ci be the i-th bit of the number c (which can be obtained by masking ci and bit shift). We prove that for numbers with at most n bit, c<d is equivalent to r_(n-1), where
r_i = ((ci^di) & ((!ci)&di)) | (!(ci^di) & r_(i-1))
Prove: When the ci and di are different, the left expression might be true (depends on ((!ci)&di)), otherwise the right expression might be true (depends on r_(i-1) which is the comparison of next bit).
The expression ((!ci)&di) is actually equivalent to the bit comparison ci < di. Hence, this recursive relation return true that it compares the bit by bit from left to right until we can decide c is smaller than d.
Hence there is an purely bit operation expression corresponding to the comparison operator, and so it is possible to find a point inside a rectangle with pure bitwise operation.
Edit: There is actually no need for condition statement, just expands the r_(n+1), then done.
x,y is in the rectangle {x0<x<x1 and y0<y<y1} if {x0<x and x<x1 and y0<y and y<y1}
If we can simulate < with bit operators, then we're good to go.
What does it mean to say something is < in binary? Consider
a: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
b: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
In the above, a>b, because it contains the first 1 whose counterpart in b is 0. We are those seeking the leftmost bit such that myBit!=otherBit. (== or equiv is a bitwise operator which can be represented with and/or/not)
However we need some way through to propagate information in one bit to many bits. So we ask ourselves this: can we "code" a function using only "bit" operators, which is equivalent to if(q,k,a,b) = if q[k] then a else b. The answer is yes:
We create a bit-word consisting of replicating q[k] onto every bit. There are two ways I can think of to do this:
1) Left-shift by k, then right-shift by wordsize (efficient, but only works if you have shift operators which duplicate the last bit)
2) Inefficient but theoretically correct way:
We left-shift q by k bits
We take this result and and it with 10000...0
We right-shift this by 1 bit, and or it with the non-right-shifted version. This copies the bit in the first place to the second place. We repeat this process until the entire word is the same as the first bit (e.g. 64 times)
Calling this result mask, our function is (mask and a) or (!mask and b): the result will be a if the kth bit of q is true, other the result will be b
Taking the bit-vector c=a!=b and a==1111..1 and b==0000..0, we use our if function to successively test whether the first bit is 1, then the second bit is 1, etc:
a<b :=
if(c,0,
if(a,0, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,1,
if(a,1, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,2,
if(a,2, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(c,3,
if(a,3, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
if(...
if(c,64,
if(a,64, B_LESSTHAN_A, A_LESSTHAN_B),
A_EQUAL_B)
)
...)
)
)
)
)
This takes wordsize steps. It can however be written in 3 lines by using a recursively-defined function, or a fixed-point combinator if recursion is not allowed.
Then we just turn that into an even larger function: xMin<x and x<xMax and yMin<y and y<yMax
I'm looking for a decent, elegant method of calculating this simple logic.
Right now I can't think of one, it's spinning my head.
I am required to do some action only 15% of the time.
I'm used to "50% of the time" where I just mod the milliseconds of the current time and see if it's odd or even, but I don't think that's elegant.
How would I elegantly calculate "15% of the time"? Random number generator maybe?
Pseudo-code or any language are welcome.
Hope this is not subjective, since I'm looking for the "smartest" short-hand method of doing that.
Thanks.
Solution 1 (double)
get a random double between 0 and 1 (whatever language you use, there must be such a function)
do the action only if it is smaller than 0.15
Solution 2 (int)
You can also achieve this by creating a random int and see if it is dividable to 6 or 7. UPDATE --> This is not optimal.
You can produce a random number between 0 and 99, and check if it's less than 15:
if (rnd.Next(100) < 15) ...
You can also reduce the numbers, as 15/100 is the same as 3/20:
if (rnd.Next(20) < 3) ...
Random number generator would give you the best randomness. Generate a random between 0 and 1, test for < 0.15.
Using the time like that isn't true random, as it's influenced by processing time. If a task takes less than 1 millisecond to run, then the next random choice will be the same one.
That said, if you do want to use the millisecond-based method, do milliseconds % 20 < 3.
Just use a PRNG. Like always, it's a performance v. accuracy trade-off. I think making your own doing directly off the time is a waste of time (pun intended). You'll probably get biasing effects even worse than a run of the mill linear congruential generator.
In Java, I would use nextInt:
myRNG.nextInt(100) < 15
Or (mostly) equivalently:
myRNG.nextInt(20) < 3
There are way to get a random integer in other languages (multiple ways actually, depending how accurate it has to be).
Using modulo arithmetic you can easily do something every Xth run like so
(6 will give you ruthly 15%
if( microtime() % 6 === ) do it
other thing:
if(rand(0,1) >= 0.15) do it
boolean array[100] = {true:first 15, false:rest};
shuffle(array);
while(array.size > 0)
{
// pop first element of the array.
if(element == true)
do_action();
else
do_something_else();
}
// redo the whole thing again when no elements are left.
Here's one approach that combines randomness and a guarantee that eventually you get a positive outcome in a predictable range:
Have a target (15 in your case), a counter (initialized to 0), and a flag (initialized to false).
Accept a request.
If the counter is 15, reset the counter and the flag.
If the flag is true, return negative outcome.
Get a random true or false based on one of the methods described in other answers, but use a probability of 1/(15-counter).
Increment counter
If result is true, set flag to true and return a positive outcome. Else return a negative outcome.
Accept next request
This means that the first request has probability of 1/15 of return positive, but by the 15th request, if no positive result has been returned, there's a probability of 1/1 of a positive result.
This quote is from a great article about how to use a random number generator:
Note: Do NOT use
y = rand() % M;
as this focuses on the lower bits of
rand(). For linear congruential random
number generators, which rand() often
is, the lower bytes are much less
random than the higher bytes. In fact
the lowest bit cycles between 0 and 1.
Thus rand() may cycle between even and
odd (try it out). Note rand() does not
have to be a linear congruential
random number generator. It's
perfectly permissible for it to be
something better which does not have
this problem.
and it contains formulas and pseudo-code for
r = [0,1) = {r: 0 <= r < 1} real
x = [0,M) = {x: 0 <= x < M} real
y = [0,M) = {y: 0 <= y < M} integer
z = [1,M] = {z: 1 <= z <= M} integer