This is a simple task but i can't seem to figure out how to do it
Here is a sample function structure
private double GetGCD(double num1, double num2)
{
//should return the GCD of the two double
}
test data
num1 = 6;
num2 = 3;
*return value must be 3*
num1 = 8.8;
num2 = 6.6;
*return value must be 2.2*
num1 = 5.1;
num2 = 8.5;
*return value must be 1.7*
note: maximum decimal places is 1.
programming language is not important. i just need the algorthm
please help.. thank you!
If you have only one decimal place, multiply the numbers by 10, convert them to integers and run an integer GCD function.
This will also save you floating point precision errors.
Quoting this answer, the base Euclidean algorithm in Python (for integers!) is:
def gcd(a, b):
"""Calculate the Greatest Common Divisor of a and b.
Unless b==0, the result will have the same sign as b (so that when
b is divided by it, the result comes out positive).
"""
while b:
a, b = b, a%b
return a
So, your code should be something like:
def gcd_floats(x,y):
return gcd( int(x*10), int(y*10) )/10
When it's 8.8 and 6.6 then you can find the GCD of 88 and 66 and then divide it by 10.
There are zillions of places on the web to find code for the GCD function. Since, strictly speaking, it is only defined on integers, I suggest you multiply your doubles by 10, work out the GCD and divide the result by 10. This will save you a world of pain arising from using the wrong datatype.
here is a source from google with some java code : http://www.merriampark.com/gcd.htm this is pretty comprehensive.
There is no such thing as the GCD of a number which is not discrete. However, your case is more specific. If your input is not a Double, but a Decimal, then you can convert it to a Fraction, multiply the denominators, find the GCD of the numerators and divide back down. That is:
8.800 = 8800/1000 = 44/5 (by GCD)
6.600 = 6600/1000 = 33/5 (by GCD)
5.100 = 5100/1000 = 51/10
8.500 = 8500/1000 = 17/2
It's useful to simplify the fractions in this step in order to avoid our numbers getting too large.
Move to a common denominator:
44*5/5*5 = 220/25
33*5/5*5 = 165/25
51*2/2*10 = 102/20
17*10/2*10 = 170/20
GCD of numerator:
gcd(165,220) = 55
gcd(102,170) = 34
So answers are 55/25 and 34/20.
Using 2 methods
The traditional division method
Euclid's method
class GCD
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int a = (int)(1.2*10);
int b = (int)(3.4*10);
System.out.println((float)gcd(a, b)/10);
}
// 1
public static int gcd(int a, int b)
{
if(b==0)
return a;
else
return gcd(b, (int)a%b);
}
// 2
public static int gcd(int a, int b)
{
int k,i;
if(a>b)
k = b;
else
k = a;
for(i=k; i>=2; i--)
{
if( (a%i==0)&&(b%i==0) )
{
break;
}
}
return i;
}
}
Related
Edit: my main question is that I want to replicate the TI-84 plus RNG algorithm on my computer, so I can write it in a language like Javascript or Lua, to test it faster.
I tried using an emulator, but it turned out to be slower than the calculator.
Just for the people concerned: There is another question like this, but answer to that question just says how to transfer already-generated numbers over to the computer. I don't want this. I already tried something like it, but I had to leave the calculator running all weekend, and it still wasn't done.
The algorithm being used is from the paper Efficient and portable combined random number generators by P. L'Ecuyer.
You can find the paper here and download it for free from here.
The algorithm used by the Ti calculators is on the RHS side of p. 747. I've included a picture.
I've translated this into a C++ program
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
long s1,s2;
double Uniform(){
long Z,k;
k = s1 / 53668;
s1 = 40014*(s1-k*53668)-k*12211;
if(s1<0)
s1 = s1+2147483563;
k = s2/52774;
s2 = 40692*(s2-k*52774)-k*3791;
if(s2<0)
s2 = s2+2147483399;
Z=s1-s2;
if(Z<1)
Z = Z+2147483562;
return Z*(4.656613e-10);
}
int main(){
s1 = 12345; //Gotta love these seed values!
s2 = 67890;
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
cout<<std::setprecision(10)<<Uniform()<<endl;
}
Note that the initial seeds are s1 = 12345 and s2 = 67890.
And got an output from a Ti-83 (sorry, I couldn't find a Ti-84 ROM) emulator:
This matches what my implementation produces
I've just cranked the output precision on my implementation and get the following results:
0.9435973904
0.9083188494
0.1466878273
0.5147019439
0.4058096366
0.7338123019
0.04399198693
0.3393625207
Note that they diverge from Ti's results in the less significant digits. This may be a difference in the way the two processors (Ti's Z80 versus my X86) perform floating point calculations. If so, it will be hard to overcome this issue. Nonetheless, the random numbers will still generate in the same sequence (with the caveat below) since the sequence relies on only integer mathematics, which are exact.
I've also used the long type to store intermediate values. There's some risk that the Ti implementation relies on integer overflow (I didn't read L'Ecuyer's paper too carefully), in which case you would have to adjust to int32_t or a similar type to emulate this behaviour. Assuming, again, that the processors perform similarly.
Edit
This site provides a Ti-Basic implementation of the code as follows:
:2147483563→mod1
:2147483399→mod2
:40014→mult1
:40692→mult2
#The RandSeed Algorithm
:abs(int(n))→n
:If n=0 Then
: 12345→seed1
: 67890→seed2
:Else
: mod(mult1*n,mod1)→seed1
: mod(n,mod2)→seed2
:EndIf
#The rand() Algorithm
:Local result
:mod(seed1*mult1,mod1)→seed1
:mod(seed2*mult2,mod2)→seed2
:(seed1-seed2)/mod1→result
:If result<0
: result+1→result
:Return result
I translated this into C++ for testing:
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
long mod1 = 2147483563;
long mod2 = 2147483399;
long mult1 = 40014;
long mult2 = 40692;
long seed1,seed2;
void Seed(int n){
if(n<0) //Perform an abs
n = -n;
if(n==0){
seed1 = 12345; //Gotta love these seed values!
seed2 = 67890;
} else {
seed1 = (mult1*n)%mod1;
seed2 = n%mod2;
}
}
double Generate(){
double result;
seed1 = (seed1*mult1)%mod1;
seed2 = (seed2*mult2)%mod2;
result = (double)(seed1-seed2)/(double)mod1;
if(result<0)
result = result+1;
return result;
}
int main(){
Seed(0);
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
cout<<setprecision(10)<<Generate()<<endl;
}
This gave the following results:
0.9435974025
0.908318861
0.1466878292
0.5147019502
0.405809642
0.7338123114
0.04399198747
0.3393625248
0.9954663411
0.2003402617
which match those achieved with the implementation based on the original paper.
I implemented rand, randInt, randM and randBin in Python. Thanks Richard for the C code. All implemented commands work as expected. You can also find it in this Gist.
import math
class TIprng(object):
def __init__(self):
self.mod1 = 2147483563
self.mod2 = 2147483399
self.mult1 = 40014
self.mult2 = 40692
self.seed1 = 12345
self.seed2 = 67890
def seed(self, n):
n = math.fabs(math.floor(n))
if (n == 0):
self.seed1 = 12345
self.seed2 = 67890
else:
self.seed1 = (self.mult1 * n) % self.mod1
self.seed2 = (n)% self.mod2
def rand(self, times = 0):
# like TI, this will return a list (array in python) if times == 1,
# or an integer if times isn't specified
if not(times):
self.seed1 = (self.seed1 * self.mult1) % self.mod1
self.seed2 = (self.seed2 * self.mult2)% self.mod2
result = (self.seed1 - self.seed2)/self.mod1
if(result<0):
result = result+1
return result
else:
return [self.rand() for _ in range(times)]
def randInt(self, minimum, maximum, times = 0):
# like TI, this will return a list (array in python) if times == 1,
# or an integer if times isn't specified
if not(times):
if (minimum < maximum):
return (minimum + math.floor((maximum- minimum + 1) * self.rand()))
else:
return (maximum + math.floor((minimum - maximum + 1) * self.rand()))
else:
return [self.randInt(minimum, maximum) for _ in range(times)]
def randBin(self, numtrials, prob, times = 0):
if not(times):
return sum([(self.rand() < prob) for _ in range(numtrials)])
else:
return [self.randBin(numtrials, prob) for _ in range(times)]
def randM(self, rows, columns):
# this will return an array of arrays
matrixArr = [[0 for x in range(columns)] for x in range(rows)]
# we go from bottom to top, from right to left
for row in reversed(range(rows)):
for column in reversed(range(columns)):
matrixArr[row][column] = self.randInt(-9, 9)
return matrixArr
testPRNG = TIprng()
testPRNG.seed(0)
print(testPRNG.randInt(0,100))
testPRNG.seed(0)
print(testPRNG.randM(3,4))
The algorithm used by the TI-Basic rand command is L'Ecuyer's algorithm according to TIBasicDev.
rand generates a uniformly-distributed pseudorandom number (this page
and others will sometimes drop the pseudo- prefix for simplicity)
between 0 and 1. rand(n) generates a list of n uniformly-distributed
pseudorandom numbers between 0 and 1. seed→rand seeds (initializes)
the built-in pseudorandom number generator. The factory default seed
is 0.
L'Ecuyer's algorithm is used by TI calculators to generate
pseudorandom numbers.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find any source published by Texas Instruments backing up this claim, so I cannot with certainty that this is the algorthm used. I am also uncertain what exactly is referred to by L'Ecuyer's algorithm.
Here is a C++ program that works:
#include<cmath>
#include<iostream>
#include<iomanip>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
double seed1 = 12345;
double seed2 = 67890;
double mod1 = 2147483563;
double mod2 = 2147483399;
double result;
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
seed1 = seed1*40014-mod1*floor((seed1*40014)/mod1);
seed2 = seed2*40692-mod2*floor((seed2*40692)/mod2);
result = (seed1 - seed2)/mod1;
if(result < 0)
{result = result + 1;}
cout<<setprecision(10)<<result<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
I saw the following interview question on some online forum. What is a good solution for this?
Get the last 1000 digits of 5^1234566789893943
Simple algorithm:
1. Maintain a 1000-digits array which will have the answer at the end
2. Implement a multiplication routine like you do in school. It is O(d^2).
3. Use modular exponentiation by squaring.
Iterative exponentiation:
array ans;
int a = 5;
while (p > 0) {
if (p&1) {
ans = multiply(ans, a)
}
p = p>>1;
ans = multiply(ans, ans);
}
multiply: multiplies two large number using the school method and return last 1000 digits.
Time complexity: O(d^2*logp) where d is number of last digits needed and p is power.
A typical solution for this problem would be to use modular arithmetic and exponentiation by squaring to compute the remainder of 5^1234566789893943 when divided by 10^1000. However in your case this will still not be good enough as it would take about 1000*log(1234566789893943) operations and this is not too much, but I will propose a more general approach that would work for greater values of the exponent.
You will have to use a bit more complicated number theory. You can use Euler's theorem to get the remainder of 5^1234566789893943 modulo 2^1000 a lot more efficiently. Denote that r. It is also obvious that 5^1234566789893943 is divisible by 5^1000.
After that you need to find a number d such that 5^1000*d = r(modulo 2^1000). To solve this equation you should compute 5^1000(modulo 2^1000). After that all that is left is to do division modulo 2^1000. Using again Euler's theorem this can be done efficiently. Use that x^(phi(2^1000)-1)*x =1(modulo 2^1000). This approach is way faster and is the only feasible solution.
The key phrase is "modular exponentiation". Python has that built in:
Python 3.4.1 (v3.4.1:c0e311e010fc, May 18 2014, 10:38:22) [MSC v.1600 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
>>> help(pow)
Help on built-in function pow in module builtins:
pow(...)
pow(x, y[, z]) -> number
With two arguments, equivalent to x**y. With three arguments,
equivalent to (x**y) % z, but may be more efficient (e.g. for ints).
>>> digits = pow(5, 1234566789893943, 10**1000)
>>> len(str(digits))
1000
>>> digits
4750414775792952522204114184342722049638880929773624902773914715850189808476532716372371599198399541490535712666678457047950561228398126854813955228082149950029586996237166535637925022587538404245894713557782868186911348163750456080173694616157985752707395420982029720018418176528050046735160132510039430638924070731480858515227638960577060664844432475135181968277088315958312427313480771984874517274455070808286089278055166204573155093723933924226458522505574738359787477768274598805619392248788499020057331479403377350096157635924457653815121544961705226996087472416473967901157340721436252325091988301798899201640961322478421979046764449146045325215261829432737214561242087559734390139448919027470137649372264607375942527202021229200886927993079738795532281264345533044058574930108964976191133834748071751521214092905298139886778347051165211279789776682686753139533912795298973229094197221087871530034608077419911440782714084922725088980350599242632517985214513078773279630695469677448272705078125
>>>
The technique we need to know is exponentiation by squaring and modulus. We also need to use BigInteger in Java.
Simple code in Java:
BigInteger m = //BigInteger of 10^1000
BigInteger pow(BigInteger a, long b) {
if (b == 0) {
return BigInteger.ONE;
}
BigInteger val = pow(a, b/2);
if (b % 2 == 0)
return (val.multiply(val)).mod(m);
else
return (val.multiply(val).multiply(a)).mod(m);
}
In Java, the function modPow has done it all for you (thank Java).
Use congruence and apply modular arithmetic.
Square and multiply algorithm.
If you divide any number in base 10 by 10 then the remainder represents
the last digit. i.e. 23422222=2342222*10+2
So we know:
5=5(mod 10)
5^2=25=5(mod 10)
5^4=(5^2)*(5^2)=5*5=5(mod 10)
5^8=(5^4)*(5^4)=5*5=5(mod 10)
... and keep going until you get to that exponent
OR, you can realize that as we keep going you keep getting 5 as your remainder.
Convert the number to a string.
Loop on the string, starting at the last index up to 1000.
Then reverse the result string.
I posted a solution based on some hints here.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
vector<char> multiplyArrays(const vector<char> &data1, const vector<char> &data2, int k) {
int sz1 = data1.size();
int sz2 = data2.size();
vector<char> result(sz1+sz2,0);
for(int i=sz1-1; i>=0; --i) {
char carry = 0;
for(int j=sz2-1; j>=0; --j) {
char value = data1[i] * data2[j]+result[i+j+1]+carry;
carry = value/10;
result[i+j+1] = value % 10;
}
result[i]=carry;
}
if(sz1+sz2>k){
vector<char> lastKElements(result.begin()+(sz1+sz2-k), result.end());
return lastKElements;
}
else
return result;
}
vector<char> calculate(unsigned long m, unsigned long n, int k) {
if(n == 0) {
return vector<char>(1, 1);
} else if(n % 2) { // odd number
vector<char> tmp(1, m);
vector<char> result1 = calculate(m, n-1, k);
return multiplyArrays(result1, tmp, k);
} else {
vector<char> result1 = calculate(m, n/2, k);
return multiplyArrays(result1, result1, k);
}
}
int main(int argc, char const *argv[]){
vector<char> v=calculate(5,8,1000);
for(auto c : v){
cout<<static_cast<unsigned>(c);
}
}
I don't know if Windows can show a big number (Or if my computer is fast enough to show it) But I guess you COULD use this code like and algorithm:
ulong x = 5; //There are a lot of libraries for other languages like C/C++ that support super big numbers. In this case I'm using C#'s default `Uint64` number.
for(ulong i=1; i<1234566789893943; i++)
{
x = x * x; //I will make the multiplication raise power over here
}
string term = x.ToString(); //Store the number to a string. I remember strings can store up to 1 billion characters.
char[] number = term.ToCharArray(); //Array of all the digits
int tmp=0;
while(number[tmp]!='.') //This will search for the period.
tmp++;
tmp++; //After finding the period, I will start storing 1000 digits from this index of the char array
string thousandDigits = ""; //Here I will store the digits.
for (int i = tmp; i <= 1000+tmp; i++)
{
thousandDigits += number[i]; //Storing digits
}
Using this as a reference, I guess if you want to try getting the LAST 1000 characters of this array, change to this in the for of the above code:
string thousandDigits = "";
for (int i = 0; i > 1000; i++)
{
thousandDigits += number[number.Length-i]; //Reverse array... ¿?
}
As I don't work with super super looooong numbers, I don't know if my computer can get those, I tried the code and it works but when I try to show the result in console it just leave the pointer flickering xD Guess it's still working. Don't have a pro Processor. Try it if you want :P
Here is an interview question:
Input:
Integer N; different positive integers a1, a2 ... aN;
Output:
the minimum positive integer m, which cannot be represented in the form m = x1*a1+x2*a2+...xN*aN, where xi={0,1}.
naive solution:
public static void calcAllSums(int[] arr, int sum, int curIndex, Hashtable<Integer,Boolean> sums){
if (curIndex == arr.length) return;
int sum1 = sum+arr[curIndex];
int sum2 = sum;
sums.put(sum1, true);
sums.put(sum2, true);
calcAllSums(arr, sum1, curIndex+1, sums);
calcAllSums(arr, sum2, curIndex+1, sums);
}
public static void main(String[] args){
int[] arr = {1,3,5};
Hashtable<Integer,Boolean> sums = new Hashtable<Integer,Boolean>();
calcAllSums(arr, 0, 0, sums);
int i=0;
while (sums.containsKey(i)) i++;
System.out.println(i);
}
i calculated all possible sums, and iterated until i found an integer which is not in the list
For extremely fast all-sums-of-3-numbers code,
see explanation at polygenelubricants.com of code by Aliaksei Safryhin. The series of
statements like
*pTo++ += short(*pFrom++) << 8; *pTo++ += short(*pFrom++) << 8;
may look clumsy and slow, but in my tests ran many times faster than shifted-bit-map methods. Also see Al Zimmermann's Son of Darts and How can I improve this algorithm for solving a modified Postage Stamp puzzle? and if you can find darts.pdf by John Morris, 7 July 2010, it contains code of a fairly fast enumerator for first-missing-subset-sums for 3 to 20 numbers.
Since the minimal difference between two successive numbers is the least of the an factors, and 0 is representable, I'd say
minn(an) - 1
Of course, if minn(an) = 1, you could make a similar reasoning for the second-to-minimum.
I need help solving problem N from this earlier competition:
Problem N: Digit Sums
Given 3 positive integers A, B and C,
find how many positive integers less
than or equal to A, when expressed in
base B, have digits which sum to C.
Input will consist of a series of
lines, each containing three integers,
A, B and C, 2 ≤ B ≤ 100, 1 ≤ A, C ≤
1,000,000,000. The numbers A, B and C
are given in base 10 and are separated
by one or more blanks. The input is
terminated by a line containing three
zeros.
Output will be the number of numbers,
for each input line (it must be given
in base 10).
Sample input
100 10 9
100 10 1
750000 2 2
1000000000 10 40
100000000 100 200
0 0 0
Sample output
10
3
189
45433800
666303
The relevant rules:
Read all input from the keyboard, i.e. use stdin, System.in, cin or equivalent. Input will be redirected from a file to form the input to your submission.
Write all output to the screen, i.e. use stdout, System.out, cout or equivalent. Do not write to stderr. Do NOT use, or even include, any module that allows direct manipulation of the screen, such as conio, Crt or anything similar. Output from your program is redirected to a file for later checking. Use of direct I/O means that such output is not redirected and hence cannot be checked. This could mean that a correct program is rejected!
Unless otherwise stated, all integers in the input will fit into a standard 32-bit computer word. Adjacent integers on a line will be separated by one or more spaces.
Of course, it's fair to say that I should learn more before trying to solve this, but i'd really appreciate it if someone here told me how it's done.
Thanks in advance, John.
Other people pointed out trivial solution: iterate over all numbers from 1 to A. But this problem, actually, can be solved in nearly constant time: O(length of A), which is O(log(A)).
Code provided is for base 10. Adapting it for arbitrary base is trivial.
To reach above estimate for time, you need to add memorization to recursion. Let me know if you have questions about that part.
Now, recursive function itself. Written in Java, but everything should work in C#/C++ without any changes. It's big, but mostly because of comments where I try to clarify algorithm.
// returns amount of numbers strictly less than 'num' with sum of digits 'sum'
// pay attention to word 'strictly'
int count(int num, int sum) {
// no numbers with negative sum of digits
if (sum < 0) {
return 0;
}
int result = 0;
// imagine, 'num' == 1234
// let's check numbers 1233, 1232, 1231, 1230 manually
while (num % 10 > 0) {
--num;
// check if current number is good
if (sumOfDigits(num) == sum) {
// one more result
++result;
}
}
if (num == 0) {
// zero reached, no more numbers to check
return result;
}
num /= 10;
// Using example above (1234), now we're left with numbers
// strictly less than 1230 to check (1..1229)
// It means, any number less than 123 with arbitrary digit appended to the right
// E.g., if this digit in the right (last digit) is 3,
// then sum of the other digits must be "sum - 3"
// and we need to add to result 'count(123, sum - 3)'
// let's iterate over all possible values of last digit
for (int digit = 0; digit < 10; ++digit) {
result += count(num, sum - digit);
}
return result;
}
Helper function
// returns sum of digits, plain and simple
int sumOfDigits(int x) {
int result = 0;
while (x > 0) {
result += x % 10;
x /= 10;
}
return result;
}
Now, let's write a little tester
int A = 12345;
int C = 13;
// recursive solution
System.out.println(count(A + 1, C));
// brute-force solution
int total = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= A; ++i) {
if (sumOfDigits(i) == C) {
++total;
}
}
System.out.println(total);
You can write more comprehensive tester checking all values of A, but overall solution seems to be correct. (I tried several random A's and C's.)
Don't forget, you can't test solution for A == 1000000000 without memorization: it'll run too long. But with memorization, you can test it even for A == 10^1000.
edit
Just to prove a concept, poor man's memorization. (in Java, in other languages hashtables are declared differently) But if you want to learn something, it might be better to try to do it yourself.
// hold values here
private Map<String, Integer> mem;
int count(int num, int sum) {
// no numbers with negative sum of digits
if (sum < 0) {
return 0;
}
String key = num + " " + sum;
if (mem.containsKey(key)) {
return mem.get(key);
}
// ...
// continue as above...
// ...
mem.put(key, result);
return result;
}
Here's the same memoized recursive solution that Rybak posted, but with a simpler implementation, in my humble opinion:
HashMap<String, Integer> cache = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
int count(int bound, int base, int sum) {
// No negative digit sums.
if (sum < 0)
return 0;
// Handle one digit case.
if (bound < base)
return (sum <= bound) ? 1 : 0;
String key = bound + " " + sum;
if (cache.containsKey(key))
return cache.get(key);
int count = 0;
for (int digit = 0; digit < base; digit++)
count += count((bound - digit) / base, base, sum - digit);
cache.put(key, count);
return count;
}
This is not the complete solution (no input parsing). To get the number in base B, repeatedly take the modulo B, and then divide by B until the result is 0. This effectively computes the base-B digit from the right, and then shifts the number right.
int A,B,C; // from input
for (int x=1; x<A; x++)
{
int sumDigits = 0;
int v = x;
while (v!=0) {
sumDigits += (v % B);
v /= B;
}
if (sumDigits==C)
cout << x;
}
This is a brute force approach. It may be possible to compute this quicker by determining which sets of base B digits add up to C, arranging these in all permutations that are less than A, and then working backwards from that to create the original number.
Yum.
Try this:
int number, digitSum, resultCounter = 0;
for(int i=1; i<=A, i++)
{
number = i; //to avoid screwing up our counter
digitSum = 0;
while(number > 1)
{
//this is the next "digit" of the number as it would be in base B;
//works with any base including 10.
digitSum += (number % B);
//remove this digit from the number, square the base, rinse, repeat
number /= B;
}
digitSum += number;
//Does the sum match?
if(digitSum == C)
resultCounter++;
}
That's your basic algorithm for one line. Now you wrap this in another For loop for each input line you received, preceded by the input collection phase itself. This process can be simplified, but I don't feel like coding your entire answer to see if my algorithm works, and this looks right whereas the simpler tricks are harder to pass by inspection.
The way this works is by modulo dividing by powers of the base. Simple example, 1234 in base 10:
1234 % 10 = 4
1234 / 10 = 123 //integer division truncates any fraction
123 % 10 = 3 //sum is 7
123 / 10 = 12
12 % 10 = 2 //sum is 9
12 / 10 = 1 //end condition, add this and the sum is 10
A harder example to figure out by inspection would be the same number in base 12:
1234 % 12 = 10 //you can call it "A" like in hex, but we need a sum anyway
1234 / 12 = 102
102 % 12 = 6 // sum 16
102/12 = 8
8 % 12 = 8 //sum 24
8 / 12 = 0 //end condition, sum still 24.
So 1234 in base 12 would be written 86A. Check the math:
8*12^2 + 6*12 + 10 = 1152 + 72 + 10 = 1234
Have fun wrapping the rest of the code around this.
Is there any very fast method to find a binary logarithm of an integer number? For example, given a number
x=52656145834278593348959013841835216159447547700274555627155488768 such algorithm must find y=log(x,2) which is 215. x is always a power of 2.
The problem seems to be really simple. All what is required is to find the position of the most significant 1 bit. There is a well-known method FloorLog, but it is not very fast especially for the very long multi-words integers.
What is the fastest method?
A quick hack: Most floating-point number representations automatically normalise values, meaning that they effectively perform the loop Christoffer Hammarström mentioned in hardware. So simply converting from an integer to FP and extracting the exponent should do the trick, provided the numbers are within the FP representation's exponent range! (In your case, your integer input requires multiple machine words, so multiple "shifts" will need to be performed in the conversion.)
If the integers are stored in a uint32_t a[], then my obvious solution would be as follows:
Run a linear search over a[] to find the highest-valued non-zero uint32_t value a[i] in a[] (test using uint64_t for that search if your machine has native uint64_t support)
Apply the bit twiddling hacks to find the binary log b of the uint32_t value a[i] you found in step 1.
Evaluate 32*i+b.
The answer is implementation or language dependent. Any implementation can store the number of significant bits along with the data, as it is often useful. If it must be calculated, then find the most significant word/limb and the most significant bit in that word.
If you're using fixed-width integers then the other answers already have you pretty-well covered.
If you're using arbitrarily large integers, like int in Python or BigInteger in Java, then you can take advantage of the fact that their variable-size representation uses an underlying array, so the base-2 logarithm can be computed easily and quickly in O(1) time using the length of the underlying array. The base-2 logarithm of a power of 2 is simply one less than the number of bits required to represent the number.
So when n is an integer power of 2:
In Python, you can write n.bit_length() - 1 (docs).
In Java, you can write n.bitLength() - 1 (docs).
You can create an array of logarithms beforehand. This will find logarithmic values up to log(N):
#define N 100000
int naj[N];
naj[2] = 1;
for ( int i = 3; i <= N; i++ )
{
naj[i] = naj[i-1];
if ( (1 << (naj[i]+1)) <= i )
naj[i]++;
}
The array naj is your logarithmic values. Where naj[k] = log(k).
Log is based on two.
This uses binary search for finding the closest power of 2.
public static int binLog(int x,boolean shouldRoundResult){
// assuming 32-bit integer
int lo=0;
int hi=31;
int rangeDelta=hi-lo;
int expGuess=0;
int guess;
while(rangeDelta>1){
expGuess=(lo+hi)/2; // or (loGuess+hiGuess)>>1
guess=1<<expGuess;
if(guess<x){
lo=expGuess;
} else if(guess>x){
hi=expGuess;
} else {
lo=hi=expGuess;
}
rangeDelta=hi-lo;
}
if(shouldRoundResult && hi>lo){
int loGuess=1<<lo;
int hiGuess=1<<hi;
int loDelta=Math.abs(x-loGuess);
int hiDelta=Math.abs(hiGuess-x);
if(loDelta<hiDelta)
expGuess=lo;
else
expGuess=hi;
} else {
expGuess=lo;
}
int result=expGuess;
return result;
}
The best option on top of my head would be a O(log(logn)) approach, by using binary search. Here is an example for a 64-bit ( <= 2^63 - 1 ) number (in C++):
int log2(int64_t num) {
int res = 0, pw = 0;
for(int i = 32; i > 0; i --) {
res += i;
if(((1LL << res) - 1) & num)
res -= i;
}
return res;
}
This algorithm will basically profide me with the highest number res such as (2^res - 1 & num) == 0. Of course, for any number, you can work it out in a similar matter:
int log2_better(int64_t num) {
var res = 0;
for(i = 32; i > 0; i >>= 1) {
if( (1LL << (res + i)) <= num )
res += i;
}
return res;
}
Note that this method relies on the fact that the "bitshift" operation is more or less O(1). If this is not the case, you would have to precompute either all the powers of 2, or the numbers of form 2^2^i (2^1, 2^2, 2^4, 2^8, etc.) and do some multiplications(which in this case aren't O(1)) anymore.
The example in the OP is an integer string of 65 characters, which is not representable by a INT64 or even INT128. It is still very easy to get the Log(2,x) from this string by converting it to a double-precision number. This at least gives you easy access to integers upto 2^1023.
Below you find some form of pseudocode
# 1. read the string
string="52656145834278593348959013841835216159447547700274555627155488768"
# 2. extract the length of the string
l=length(string) # l = 65
# 3. read the first min(l,17) digits in a float
float=to_float(string(1: min(17,l) ))
# 4. multiply with the correct power of 10
float = float * 10^(l-min(17,l) ) # float = 5.2656145834278593E64
# 5. Take the log2 of this number and round to the nearest integer
log2 = Round( Log(float,2) ) # 215
Note:
some computer languages can convert arbitrary strings into a double precision number. So steps 2,3 and 4 could be replaced by x=to_float(string)
Step 5 could be done quicker by just reading the double-precision exponent (bits 53 up to and including 63) and subtracting 1023 from it.
Quick example code: If you have awk you can quickly test this algorithm.
The following code creates the first 300 powers of two:
awk 'BEGIN{for(n=0;n<300; n++) print 2^n}'
The following reads the input and does the above algorithm:
awk '{ l=length($0); m = (l > 17 ? 17 : l)
x = substr($0,1,m) * 10^(l-m)
print log(x)/log(2)
}'
So the following bash-command is a convoluted way to create a consecutive list of numbers from 0 to 299:
$ awk 'BEGIN{for(n=0;n<300; n++) print 2^n}' | awk '{ l=length($0); m = (l > 17 ? 17 : l); x = substr($0,1,m) * 10^(l-m); print log(x)/log(2) }'
0
1
2
...
299