Using Java btw. But Usually people seem to do this sort of thing with.
int numDigits = (int)(log10(num)+1); //can explicitly floor, or casting to int will do that
but log10(0) = -INF, which means my length is being set to the largest negative integer value.
I suppose I could make a condition
if (numDigits is negative)
numDigits = 1 //not 0 because I'm counting 0 as 1 digit.
This is being used to implement a natural number constructor, just so people have context to my problem.
The code you listed would mean that -10 has a numDigits value of 1 which I believe is incorrect.
How about converting the number to string and getting the string length?
If you have a particular optimization problem, then go for the log solution:
int length = (number ==0) ? 1 : (int)Math.log10(number) + 1;
Else, I recommand you use the String.valueOf solution, since it is much more readable and easier to understand for future developpers/maintainers:
int length = String.valueOf(number).length();
Related
Fibonacci sequence is obtained by starting with 0 and 1 and then adding the two last numbers to get the next one.
All positive integers can be represented as a sum of a set of Fibonacci numbers without repetition. For example: 13 can be the sum of the sets {13}, {5,8} or {2,3,8}. But, as we have seen, some numbers have more than one set whose sum is the number. If we add the constraint that the sets cannot have two consecutive Fibonacci numbers, than we have a unique representation for each number.
We will use a binary sequence (just zeros and ones) to do that. For example, 17 = 1 + 3 + 13. Then, 17 = 100101. See figure 2 for a detailed explanation.
I want to turn some integers into this representation, but the integers may be very big. How to I do this efficiently.
The problem itself is simple. You always pick the largest fibonacci number less than the remainder. You can ignore the the constraint with the consecutive numbers (since if you need both, the next one is the sum of both so you should have picked that one instead of the initial two).
So the problem remains how to quickly find the largest fibonacci number less than some number X.
There's a known trick that starting with the matrix (call it M)
1 1
1 0
You can compute fibbonacci number by matrix multiplications(the xth number is M^x). More details here: https://www.nayuki.io/page/fast-fibonacci-algorithms . The end result is that you can compute the number you're look in O(logN) matrix multiplications.
You'll need large number computations (multiplications and additions) if they don't fit into existing types.
Also store the matrices corresponding to powers of two you compute the first time, since you'll need them again for the results.
Overall this should be O((logN)^2 * large_number_multiplications/additions)).
First I want to tell you that I really liked this question, I didn't know that All positive integers can be represented as a sum of a set of Fibonacci numbers without repetition, I saw the prove by induction and it was awesome.
To respond to your question I think that we have to figure how the presentation is created. I think that the easy way to find this is that from the number we found the closest minor fibonacci item.
For example if we want to present 40:
We have Fib(9)=34 and Fib(10)=55 so the first element in the presentation is Fib(9)
since 40 - Fib(9) = 6 and (Fib(5) =5 and Fib(6) =8) the next element is Fib(5). So we have 40 = Fib(9) + Fib(5)+ Fib(2)
Allow me to write this in C#
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<int> fibPresentation = new List<int>();
int numberToPresent = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
while (numberToPresent > 0)
{
int k =1;
while (CalculateFib(k) <= numberToPresent)
{
k++;
}
numberToPresent = numberToPresent - CalculateFib(k-1);
fibPresentation.Add(k-1);
}
}
static int CalculateFib(int n)
{
if (n == 1)
return 1;
int a = 0;
int b = 1;
// In N steps compute Fibonacci sequence iteratively.
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
int temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp + b;
}
return a;
}
}
Your result will be in fibPresentation
This encoding is more accurately called the "Zeckendorf representation": see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_coding
A greedy approach works (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeckendorf%27s_theorem) and here's some Python code that converts a number to this representation. It uses the first 100 Fibonacci numbers and works correctly for all inputs up to 927372692193078999175 (and incorrectly for any larger inputs).
fibs = [0, 1]
for _ in xrange(100):
fibs.append(fibs[-2] + fibs[-1])
def zeck(n):
i = len(fibs) - 1
r = 0
while n:
if fibs[i] <= n:
r |= 1 << (i - 2)
n -= fibs[i]
i -= 1
return r
print bin(zeck(17))
The output is:
0b100101
As the greedy approach seems to work, it suffices to be able to invert the relation N=Fn.
By the Binet formula, Fn=[φ^n/√5], where the brackets denote the nearest integer. Then with n=floor(lnφ(√5N)) you are very close to the solution.
17 => n = floor(7.5599...) => F7 = 13
4 => n = floor(4.5531) => F4 = 3
1 => n = floor(1.6722) => F1 = 1
(I do not exclude that some n values can be off by one.)
I'm not sure if this is an efficient enough for you, but you could simply use Backtracking to find a(the) valid representation.
I would try to start the backtracking steps by taking the biggest possible fib number and only switch to smaller ones if the consecutive or the only once constraint is violated.
I have written this code to check if a number is prime (for numbers upto 10^9+7)
Is this a good method ??
What will be the time complexity for this ??
What I have done is that I have made a unordered_set which stores the prime numbers upto sqrt(n).
When checking if a number is prime or not if first check if its is less than the max number in the table.
If it is less it is searched in the table so the complexity should be O(1) in this case.
If it is more the number is put through a divisibility test with the numbers from the set of number containing the prime numbers.
#include<iostream>
#include<set>
#include<math.h>
#include<unordered_set>
#define sqrt10e9 31623
using namespace std;
unordered_set<long long> primeSet = { 2, 3 }; //used for fast lookups
void genrate_prime_set(long range) //this generates prime number upto sqrt(10^9+7)
{
bool flag;
set<long long> tempPrimeSet = { 2, 3 }; //a temporay set is used for genration
set<long long>::iterator j;
for (int i = 3; i <= range; i = i + 2)
{
//cout << i << " ";
flag = true;
for (j = tempPrimeSet.begin(); *j * *j <= i; ++j)
{
if (i % (*j) == 0)
{
flag = false;
break;
}
}
if (flag)
{
primeSet.insert(i);
tempPrimeSet.insert(i);
}
}
}
bool is_prime(long long i,unordered_set<long long> primeSet)
{
bool flag = true;
if(i <= sqrt10e9) //if number exist in the lookup table
return primeSet.count(i);
//if it doesn't iterate through the table
for (unordered_set<long long>::iterator j = primeSet.begin(); j != primeSet.end(); ++j)
{
if (*j * *j <= i && i % (*j) == 0)
{
flag = false;
break;
}
}
return flag;
}
int main()
{
//long long testCases, a, b, kiwiCount;
bool primeFlag = true;
//unordered_set<int> primeNum;
genrate_prime_set(sqrt10e9);
cout << primeSet.size()<<"\n";
cout << is_prime(9999991,primeSet);
return 0;
}
This doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient way to do the job at hand.
Although it probably won't make a big difference in the end, the efficient way to generate all the primes up to some specific limit is clearly to use a sieve--the sieve of Eratosthenes is simple and fast. There are a couple of modifications that can be faster, but for the small size you're dealing with, they're probably not worthwhile.
These normally produce their output in a more effective format than you're currently using as well. In particular, you typically just dedicate one bit to each possible prime (i.e., each odd number) and end up with it zeroed if the number is composite, and one if it's prime (you can, of course, reverse the sense if you prefer).
Since you only need one bit for each odd number from 3 to 31623, this requires only about 16 K bits, or about 2K bytes--a truly minuscule amount of memory by modern standards (especially: little enough to fit in L1 cache quite easily).
Since the bits are stored in order, it's also trivial to compute and test by the factors up to the square root of the number you're testing instead of testing against all the numbers in the table (including those greater than the square root of the number you're testing, which is obviously a waste of time). This also optimizes access to the memory in case some of it's not in the cache (i.e., you can access all the data in order, making life as easy as possible for the hardware prefetcher).
If you wanted to optimize further, I'd consider just using the sieve to find all primes up to 109+7, and look up inputs. Whether this is a win will depend (heavily) upon the number of queries you can expect to receive. A quick check shows that a simple implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes can find all primes up to 109 in about 17 seconds. After that, each query is (of course) essentially instantaneous (i.e., the cost of a single memory read). This does require around 120 megabytes of memory for the result of the sieve, which would once have been a major consideration, but (except on fairly limited systems) normally wouldn't be any more.
The very short answer: do research on the subject, starting with the term "Miller-Rabin"
The short answer is no:
Looking for factors of a number is a poor way to check for primality
Exhaustively searching through primes is a poor way to look for factors
Especially if you search through every prime, rather than just the ones less than or equal to the square root of the number
Doing a primality test on each number of them is a poor way to generate a list of primes
Also, you should take in primeSet by reference rather than copy, if it really needs to be a parameter.
Note: testing small primes to see if they divide a number is a useful first step of a primality test, but should generally only be used for the smallest primes before switching to a better method
No, it's not a very good way to determine if a number is prime. Here is pseudocode for a simple primality test that is sufficient for numbers in your range; I'll leave it to you to translate to C++:
function isPrime(n)
d := 2
while d * d <= n
if n % d == 0
return False
d := d + 1
return True
This works by trying every potential divisor up to the square root of the input number n; if no divisor has been found, then the input number could not be composite, meaning of the form n = p × q, because one of the two divisors p or q must be less than the square root of n while the other is greater than the square root of n.
There are better ways to determine primality; for instance, after initially checking if the number is even (and hence prime only if n = 2), it is only necessary to test odd potential divisors, halving the amount of work necessary. If you have a list of primes up to the square root of n, you can use that list as trial divisors and make the process even faster. And there are other techniques for larger n.
But that should be enough to get you started. When you are ready for more, come back here and ask more questions.
I can only suggest a way to use a library function in Java to check the primality of a number. As for the other questions, I do not have any answers.
The java.math.BigInteger.isProbablePrime(int certainty) returns true if this BigInteger is probably prime, false if it's definitely composite. If certainty is ≤ 0, true is returned. You should try and use it in your code. So try rewriting it in Java
Parameters
certainty - a measure of the uncertainty that the caller is willing to tolerate: if the call returns true the probability that this BigInteger is prime exceeds (1 - 1/2^certainty). The execution time of this method is proportional to the value of this parameter.
Return Value
This method returns true if this BigInteger is probably prime, false if it's definitely composite.
Example
The following example shows the usage of math.BigInteger.isProbablePrime() method
import java.math.*;
public class BigIntegerDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// create 3 BigInteger objects
BigInteger bi1, bi2, bi3;
// create 3 Boolean objects
Boolean b1, b2, b3;
// assign values to bi1, bi2
bi1 = new BigInteger("7");
bi2 = new BigInteger("9");
// perform isProbablePrime on bi1, bi2
b1 = bi1.isProbablePrime(1);
b2 = bi2.isProbablePrime(1);
b3 = bi2.isProbablePrime(-1);
String str1 = bi1+ " is prime with certainity 1 is " +b1;
String str2 = bi2+ " is prime with certainity 1 is " +b2;
String str3 = bi2+ " is prime with certainity -1 is " +b3;
// print b1, b2, b3 values
System.out.println( str1 );
System.out.println( str2 );
System.out.println( str3 );
}
}
Output
7 is prime with certainity 1 is true
9 is prime with certainity 1 is false
9 is prime with certainity -1 is true
the simplest way to calculate 2^32 is 2*2*2*2*2......= 4294967296
, I want to know that is there any other way to get 4294967296? (2^16 * 2^16 is treated as the same method as 2*2*2.... )
and How many ways to calculate it?
Is there any function to calculate it?
I can't come up with any methods to calculate it without 2*2*2...
2 << 31
is a bit shift. It effectively raises 2 to the 32nd power.
Options:
1 << 32
2^32 = (2^32 - 1) + 1 = (((2^32 - 1) + 1) - 1) + 1 = ...
Arrange 32 items on a table. Count the ways you can choose subsets of them.
If you are not much of a fan of binary magic, then I would suggest quickpower.This function computes xn in O(logn) time.
int qpower(int x,int n)
{
if(n==0)return 1;
if(n==1)return x;
int mid=qpower(x,n/2);
if(n%2==0)return mid*mid;
return x*mid*mid;
}
If you are on a common computer you can left bitshift 2 by 31 (i.e. 2<<31) to obtain 2^32.
In standard C:
unsigned long long x = 2ULL << 31;
unsigned long long is needed since a simple unsigned long is not guaranteed to be large enough to store the value of 2<<31.
In section 5.2.4.2.1 paragraph 1 of the C99 standard:
... the
following shall be replaced by expressions that have the same type as would an
expression that is an object of the corresponding type converted according to the integer
promotions. Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or greater in magnitude (absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign.
— maximum value for an object of type unsigned long int
ULONG_MAX 4294967295 // 2^32 - 1
— maximum value for an object of type unsigned long long int
ULLONG_MAX 18446744073709551615 // 2^64 - 1
Why not using Math.Pow() (in .NET). I think most language (or environment) would support the similar function for you:
Math.Pow(2,32);
In Groovy/Java you can do something like following with long number (signed integer can be max 2^31 in Java)
long twoPOW32 = 1L << 32;
Let me be clear at start that this is a contrived example and not a real world problem.
If I have a problem of creating a random number between 0 to 10. I do this 11 times making sure that a previously occurred number is not drawn again, if I get a repeated number,
I create another random number again to make sure it has not be seen earlier. So essentially I get a a sequence of unique numbers from 0 - 10 in a random order
e.g. 3 1 2 0 5 9 4 8 10 6 7 and so on
Now to come up with logic to make sure that the random numbers are unique and not one which we have drawn before, we could use many approaches
Use C++ std::bitset and set the bit corresponding to the index equal to value of each random no. and check it next time when a new random number is drawn.
Or
Use a std::map<int,int> to count the number of times or even simple C array with some sentinel values stored in that array to indicate if that number has occurred or not.
If I have to avoid these methods above and use some mathematical/logical/bitwise operation to find whether a random number has been draw before or not, is there a way?
You don't want to do it the way you suggest. Consider what happens when you have already selected 10 of the 11 items; your random number generator will cycle until it finds the missing number, which might be never, depending on your random number generator.
A better solution is to create a list of numbers 0 to 10 in order, then shuffle the list into a random order. The normal algorithm for doing this is due to Knuth, Fisher and Yates: starting at the first element, swap each element with an element at a location greater than the current element in the array.
function shuffle(a, n)
for i from n-1 to 1 step -1
j = randint(i)
swap(a[i], a[j])
We assume an array with indices 0 to n-1, and a randint function that sets j to the range 0 <= j <= i.
Use an array and add all possible values to it. Then pick one out of the array and remove it. Next time, pick again until the array is empty.
Yes, there is a mathematical way to do it, but it is a bit expansive.
have an array: primes[] where primes[i] = the i'th prime number. So its beginning will be [2,3,5,7,11,...].
Also store a number mult Now, once you draw a number (let it be i) you check if mult % primes[i] == 0, if it is - the number was drawn before, if it wasn't - then the number was not. chose it and do mult = mult * primes[i].
However, it is expansive because it might require a lot of space for large ranges (the possible values of mult increases exponentially
(This is a nice mathematical approach, because we actually look at a set of primes p_i, the array of primes is only the implementation to the abstract set of primes).
A bit manipulation alternative for small values is using an int or long as a bitset.
With this approach, to check a candidate i is not in the set you only need to check:
if (pow(2,i) & set == 0) // not in the set
else //already in the set
To enter an element i to the set:
set = set | pow(2,i)
A better approach will be to populate a list with all the numbers, shuffle it with fisher-yates shuffle, and iterate it for generating new random numbers.
If I have to avoid these methods above and use some
mathematical/logical/bitwise operation to find whether a random number
has been draw before or not, is there a way?
Subject to your contrived constraints yes, you can imitate a small bitset using bitwise operations:
You can choose different integer types on the right according to what size you need.
bitset code bitwise code
std::bitset<32> x; unsigned long x = 0;
if (x[i]) { ... } if (x & (1UL << i)) { ... }
// assuming v is 0 or 1
x[i] = v; x = (x & ~(1UL << i)) | ((unsigned long)v << i);
x[i] = true; x |= (1UL << i);
x[i] = false; x &= ~(1UL << i);
For a larger set (beyond the size in bits of unsigned long long), you will need an array of your chosen integer type. Divide the index by the width of each value to know what index to look up in the array, and use the modulus for the bit shifts. This is basically what bitset does.
I'm assuming that the various answers that tell you how best to shuffle 10 numbers are missing the point entirely: that your contrived constraints are there because you do not in fact want or need to know how best to shuffle 10 numbers :-)
Keep a variable too map the drawn numbers. The i'th bit of that variable will be 1 if the number was drawn before:
int mapNumbers = 0;
int generateRand() {
if (mapNumbers & ((1 << 11) - 1) == ((1 << 11) - 1)) return; // return if all numbers have been generated
int x;
do {
x = newVal();
} while (!x & mapNumbers);
mapNumbers |= (1 << x);
return x;
}
I have a number say 123456. Each of these digits means something individually to me. I would like to be able to select say the fourth digit in this string of numbers (4) and assign it to variable.
My question is how would I go about doing this in mvc?
int number = 123456;
int fourth = number.ToString()[3];
Is this what you want?
Of course, it goes without saying that number has to have at least 4 digits.
Why not just convert it to a string and pull out the n-th character?
It'll be slower than some other methods, but I'm sure you and anyone else reading that piece of code will know exactly what it does.
Assuming you want to do this server-side:
int n = {the index of the digit you're intersted in};
int theNumber = 1233456;
char theDigit = theNumber.ToString()[n];
If you need to do this client-side in javascript you can do the following:
n = {the index of the digit you're interseted in};
theNumber = 123456;
digit = (theNumber + "")[n];