Related
I have tried to solve the problem above but I got stuck. I guess that it all comes to factorization by non-prime numbers. The number could be really big - about 10^15.
What I attempted to do is to factor the x and all the Fibonacci numbers up to about 155th(this is the one that is over 10^30, and that means that I can not include its factors in my x's factors), then just like in normal factorization, I loop from the highest Fibonacci number to the lowest and check if my x has all the factors of the i-th Fibonacci number. If it does then I divide x by it. When I get to the i=1(I looped through all the Fibonacci factors table), I just check if my x is equal to 1. If it is, then my answer is YES, otherwise it is NO.
This solution does not work, because sometimes it divides x in way which rules out further division, so I tried to split it into two loops - the first one can divide the x by only Fibonacci numbers which have at least one number which does not belong to the Fibonacci sequence, and the second one can divide by every number.
I took factored Fibonacci numbers from this website: http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibtable.html
Here is an example which destroys the 1st idea:
x=2^10 × 3^5 × 5^2 × 7 × 11 × 17 × 23 × 47 × 89 × 1103
I divide it by: 48th number, 12th, 11th, 10th and after that I can't get rid of the 17 so my answer is no, but it should be yes dividing by: 48th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 10th, 6th, 5th, 3*4th.
My 2nd idea is a little bit weird so that is why I wrote it. Is my solution correct? Or maybe there is another which can determine if the number can be written as a product of Fibonacci numbers? (Note that x can be really big)
Without relying on any special properties of Fibonnacci numbers, you could categorise this as a coin change problem, where the available coins are the Fibonacci numbers, and the target must be achieved via multiplication instead of addition.
A solution is then to use a recursive algorithm combined with memoization to avoid the same subproblem to be solved repeatedly (principle of dynamic programming).
Here is a demo implementation in JavaScript, which runs the algorithm for the problem you mentioned in the question:
// Preprocessing: collect all Fibonacci numbers with 15 digits or less:
let fib = [];
let a = 1, b = 2;
while (b < 1e16) {
fib.push(b);
[a, b] = [b, a+b];
}
fib.reverse(); // Put greatest Fib numbers first
let memo = new Map(); // For memoization
function solve(n, start=0) {
if (n === 1) return true;
let result = memo.get(n);
if (result === undefined) { // Not in map:
let i;
for (i = start; i < fib.length; i++) {
if (n % fib[i] == 0) {
// Try solving problem after division by this factor:
if (solve(n / fib[i], i)) break;
}
}
result = i < fib.length;
memo.set(n, result);
}
return result;
}
// Example input from question:
n = 2**10 * 3**5 * 5**2 * 7 * 11 * 17 * 23 * 47 * 89 * 1103
console.log(n, solve(n)); // 864126051784934400 true
Your first idea is almost correct: a tiny modification makes it work. By Carmichael's theorem, every Fibonacci number except 1, 8, and 144 has a prime divisor that does not divide any smaller Fibonacci number. Since 8 and 144 can both be written as the product of Fibonacci numbers themselves, we can ignore them when trying to find divisors.
// Given: integer N
F <- [2, 3, 5, 8, 13...] // All Fibonacci numbers x, 1 < x <= N
F.reverse() // put in decreasing order
for x in F:
if x == 8 or x == 144: continue
while N % x == 0:
N = N / x
return (N == 1)
Ignoring 8 and 144, this works because if f is the largest Fibonacci number dividing N, then f has a prime factor p that no earlier Fibonacci number has, so we have to divide p out of N as many times as possible if it is to be written as a product of Fibonacci numbers.
In fact, up to the isomorphism of replacing (8 with 2^3) and (144 with 2^4 * 3^2 or 8 * 2 * 3^2), this factorization has to be unique by that argument.
Having a sequence of n <= 10^6 integers, all not exceeding m <= 3*10^6, I'd like to count how many coprime pairs are in it. Two numbers are coprime if their greatest common divisor is 1.
It can be done trivially in O(n^2 log n), but this is obviously way to slow, as the limit suggests something closer to O(n log n). One thing than can be done quickly is factoring out all the numbers, and also throwing out multiple occurences of the same prime in each, but that doesn't lead to any significant improvement. I also thought of counting the opposite - pairs that have a common divisor. It could be done in groups - firstly counting all the pairs that their smallest common prime divisor is 2, then 3, 5, and etc., but it seems to me like an other dead end.
I've come up with a slightly faster alternative based on your answer. On my work PC my C++ implementation (bottom) takes about 350ms to solve any problem instance; on my old laptop, it takes just over 1s. This algorithm avoids all division and modulo operations, and uses only O(m) space.
As with your algorithm, the basic idea is to apply the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle by enumerating every number 2 <= i <= m that contains no repeated factors exactly once, and for each such i, counting the number of numbers in the input that are divisible by i and either adding or subtracting this from the total. The key difference is that we can do the counting part "stupidly", simply by testing whether each possible multiple of i appears in the input, and this still takes just O(m log m) time.
How many times does the innermost line c += v[j].freq; in countCoprimes() repeat? The body of the outer loop is executed once for each number 2 <= i <= m that contains no repeated prime factors; this iteration count is trivially upper-bounded by m. The inner loop advances i steps at a time through the range [2..m], so the number of operations it performs during a single outer loop iteration is upper-bounded by m / i. Therefore the total number of iterations of the innermost line is upper-bounded by the sum from i=2 to m of m/i. The m factor can be moved outside the sum to get an upper bound of
m * sum{i=2..m}(1/i)
That sum is a partial sum in a harmonic series, and it is upper-bounded by log(m), so the total number of innermost loop iterations is O(m log m).
extendedEratosthenes() is designed to reduce constant factors by avoiding all divisions and keeping to O(m) memory usage. All countCoprimes() actually needs to know for a number 2 <= i <= m is (a) whether it has repeated prime factors, and if it doesn't, (b) whether it has an even or odd number of prime factors. To calculate (b) we can make use of the fact that the Sieve of Eratosthenes effectively "hits" any given i with its distinct prime factors in increasing order, so we can just flip a bit (the parity field in struct entry) to keep track of whether i has an even or odd number of factors. Each number starts with a prod field equal to 1; to record (a) we simply "knock out" any number that contains the square of a prime number as a factor by setting its prod field to 0. This field serves a dual purpose: if v[i].prod == 0, it indicates that i was discovered to have repeated factors; otherwise it contains the product of the (necessarily distinct) factors discovered so far. The (fairly minor) utility of this is that it allows us to stop the main sieve loop at the square root of m, instead of going all the way up to m: by now, for any given i that has no repeated factors, either v[i].prod == i, in which case we have found all the factors for i, or v[i].prod < i, in which case i must have exactly one factor > sqrt(3000000) that we have not yet accounted for. We can find all such remaining "large factors" with a second, non-nested loop.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct entry {
int freq; // Frequency that this number occurs in the input list
int parity; // 0 for even number of factors, 1 for odd number
int prod; // Product of distinct prime factors
};
const int m = 3000000; // Maximum input value
int n = 0; // Will be number of input values
vector<entry> v;
void extendedEratosthenes() {
int i;
for (i = 2; i * i <= m; ++i) {
if (v[i].prod == 1) {
for (int j = i, k = i; j <= m; j += i) {
if (--k) {
v[j].parity ^= 1;
v[j].prod *= i;
} else {
// j has a repeated factor of i: knock it out.
v[j].prod = 0;
k = i;
}
}
}
}
// Fix up numbers with a prime factor above their square root.
for (; i <= m; ++i) {
if (v[i].prod && v[i].prod != i) {
v[i].parity ^= 1;
}
}
}
void readInput() {
int i;
while (cin >> i) {
++v[i].freq;
++n;
}
}
void countCoprimes() {
__int64 total = static_cast<__int64>(n) * (n - 1) / 2;
for (int i = 2; i <= m; ++i) {
if (v[i].prod) {
// i must have no repeated factors.
int c = 0;
for (int j = i; j <= m; j += i) {
c += v[j].freq;
}
total -= (v[i].parity * 2 - 1) * static_cast<__int64>(c) * (c - 1) / 2;
}
}
cerr << "Total number of coprime pairs: " << total << "\n";
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
cerr << "Initialising array...\n";
entry initialElem = { 0, 0, 1 };
v.assign(m + 1, initialElem);
cerr << "Performing extended Sieve of Eratosthenes...\n";
extendedEratosthenes();
cerr << "Reading input...\n";
readInput();
cerr << "Counting coprimes...\n";
countCoprimes();
return 0;
}
Further exploiting the ideas I mentioned in my question, I actually managed to come up with a solution myself. As some of you may be interested in it, I will describe it briefly. It does work in O(m log m + n), I've already implemented it in C++ and tested - solves the biggest cases (10^6 integers) in less than 5 seconds.
We have n integers, all not greater than m. We start by doing Eratosthenes Sieve mapping each integer up to m to it's smalles prime factor, allowing us to factor out any number not greater than m in O(log m) time. Then for all given numbers A[i], as long as there is some prime p than divides A[i] in a power greater than one, we divide A[i] by it, because when asking if two numbers are coprime we can omit the exponents. That leaves us with all A[i] being products of distinct primes.
Now, let us assume that we were able to construct in a reasonable time a table T, such that T[i] is number of entries A[j] such that i divides A[j]. This is somehow similar to the approach #Brainless took in his second answer. Constructing table T quickly was the technic I spoke about in the comments below my question.
From now, we will work by Inclusion-Exclusion Principle. Having T, for each i we calculate P[i] - the amount of pairs (j,k) such that A[j] and A[k] are both divisible by i. Then to compute the answer, sum all P[i], taking minus sign before those P[i] for which i has an even number of prime divisors. Note that all prime divisors of i are distinct, because for all other indices i P[i] equals 0. By Inclusion-Exclusion each pair will be counted only once. To see this differently, take a pair A[i] and A[j], assuming that they share exactly k common prime divisors. Then this pair will be counted k times, then discounted kC2 times, counted kC3 times, discounted kC4 times... for nCk see the Newton's Symbol. Some mathematical manipulation makes us see that the considered pair will be counted 1 - (1-1)^k = 1 times, what concludes the proof.
Steps made so far required O(m log log m) for the Sieve and O(m) for computing the result. The last thing to do is to construct array T. We could for every A[i] just increment T[j] for all j dividing i. As A[i] can have at most O(sqrt(A[i])) divisors (and in practice even less than that) then we could construct T in O(n sqrt m). But we can do better than that!
Take two-dimensional array W. At each moment a following invariant holds - if for each non-zero W[i][j] we would increment the counter in table T by W[i][j] for all numbers that divide i, and also share the exact exponents i has in j smallest primes divisors of i, then T would be constructed properly. As this may seem a little confusing, let's see it in action. At start, to make the invariant true, for each A[i] we just increment W[A[i]][0]. Also note that a number not exceeding m can have at most O(log m) prime divisors, so the overall size of W is O(m log m). Now we see that an information stored in W[i][j] can be "pushed forward" in a following way: consider p to be (j+1)-th prime divisor of i, assuming it has one. Then some divisor of i can either have p with an exponent same as in i, or lower. First of these cases is W[i][j+1] - we add another prime that has to be "fully taken" by a divisor. Second case is W[i/p][j] as a divisor of i that doesn't have p with a highest exponent must also divide i/p. And that's it! We consider all i in descending order, then j in ascending order. We "push forward" information from W[i][j]. See that if i has exactly j prime divisors, then the information from it cannot be pushed, but we don't really need that! If i has j prime divisors, then W[i][j] basically says: increment by W[i][j] only index i in array T. So when all the information has been pushed to "last rows" in each W[i] we pass through those rows and finish constructing T. As each cell of W[i][j] has been visited once, this algorithm takes O(m log m) time, and also O(n) at the begining. That concludes the construction. Here's some C++ code from the actual implementation:
FORD(i,SIZE(W)-1,2) //i in descending order
{
int v = i, p;
FOR(j,0,SIZE(W[i])-2) //exclude last row
{
p = S[v]; //j-th divisor; S[v] - smallest prime divisor of v
while (v%p == 0) v /= p;
W[i][j+1] += W[i][j];
W[i/p][j] += W[i][j];
}
T[i] = W[i].back();
}
At the end I'd say that I think array T can be constructed faster and simpler than what I've shown. If anyone has some neat idea about how it could be done, I would appreciate all feedback.
Here's an idea based on the formula for the complete sequence 1..n, found on http://oeis.org/A018805:
a(n) = 2*( Sum phi(j), j=1..n ) - 1, where phi is Euler's totient function
Iterate over the sequence, S. For each term, S_i:
for each of the prime factors, p, of S_i:
if a hash for p does not exist:
create a hash with index p that points to a set of all indexes of S except i,
and a counter set to 1, representing how many terms of S are divisible by p so far
else:
delete i in the existing set of indexes and increment the counter
Sort the hashes for S_i's prime factors by their counters in descending order. Starting with
the largest counter (which means the smallest set), make a list of indexes up to i that are also
members of the next smallest set, until the sets are exhausted. Add the remaining number of
indexes in the list to the cumulative total.
Example:
sum phi' [4,7,10,15,21]
S_0: 4
prime-hash [2:1-4], counters [2:1]
0 indexes up to i in the set for prime 2
total 0
S_1: 7
prime hash [2:1-4; 7:0,2-4], counters [2:1, 7:1]
1 index up to i in the set for prime 7
total 1
S_2: 10
prime hash [2:1,3-4; 5:0-1,3-4; 7:0,2-4], counters [2:2, 5:1, 7:1]
1 index up to i in the set for prime 2, which is also a member
of the set for prime 5
total 2
S_3: 15
prime hash [2:1,3-4; 5:0-1,4; 7:0,2-4; 3:0-2,4], counters [2:2: 5:2, 7:1, 3:1]
2 indexes up to i in the set for prime 5, which are also members
of the set for prime 3
total 4
S_4: 21
prime hash [2:1,3-4; 5:0-1,4; 7:0,2-3; 3:0-2], counters [2:2: 5:2, 7:2, 3:2]
2 indexes up to i in the set for prime 7, which are also members
of the set for prime 3
total 6
6 coprime pairs:
(4,7),(4,15),(4,21),(7,10),(7,15),(10,21)
I would suggest :
1) Use Eratosthene to get a list of sorted prime numbers under 10^6.
2) For each number n in the list, get it's prime factors. Associate it another number f(n) in the following way : let's say that the prime factors of n are 3, 7 and 17. Then the binary representation of f(n) is :
`0 1 0 1 0 0 1`
The first digit (0 here) is associated to the prime number 2, the second (1 here) is associated to the prime number 3, etc ...
Therefore 2 numbers n and m are coprime iff f(n) & f(m) = 0.
3) It's easy to see that there is a N such that for each n : f(n) <= (2^N) - 1. This means that the biggest number f(n) is smaller or equal to a number whose binary representation is :
`1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1`
Here N is the number of 1 in the above sequence. Get this N and sort the list of numbers f(n). Let's call this list L.
If you want to optimize: in this list, instead of sorting duplicates, store a pair containing f(n) and the number of times f(n) is duplicated.
4) Iterate from 1 to N in this way : initialize i = 1 0 0 0 0, and at each iteration, move the digit 1 to the right with all other values kept to 0 (implement it using bitshift).
At each iteration, iterate over L to get the number d(i) of elements l in L such that i & l != 0 (be careful if you use the above optimization). In other words, for each i, get the number of elements in L which are not coprimes with i, and name this number d(i). Add the total
D = d(1) + d(2) + ... + d(N)
5) This number D is the number of pairs which are not coprime in the original list. The number of coprime pairs is :
M*(M-1)/2 - D
where M is the number of elements in the original list. The complexity of this method is O(n log(n)).
Good luck !
My previous answer was wrong, apologies. I propose here a modification:
Once you get the prime divisors of each number of the list, associate to each prime number p the number l(p) of numbers in the list which has p as divisor. For example consider the prime number 5, and the list's number which can be divided by 5 are 15, 100 and 255. Then l(5)=3.
To achieve it in O(n logn), iterate over the list and for each number in this list, iterate over it's prime factors; for each prime factor p, increment its l(p).
Then the number of pairs which are not coprime and can be divided by p is
l(p)*(l(p) - 1) / 2
Sum this number for all prime p, and you will get the number of pairs in the list which are not coprime (note that l(p) can be 0). Let say this sum is D, then the answer is
M*(M-1)/2 - D
where M is the length of the list. Good luck !
I'm trying to solve pretty complex problem with divisors and number theory.
Namely for a given number m we can say that k is cool divisor if k<m k|m (k divides m evenly), and for a given number n the number k^n (k to the power of n) is not divisor of m. Let s(x) - number of cool divisors of x.
Now for given a and b we should find D = s(a) + s(a+1) + s(a+2) + s(a+3) + ... + s(a+b).
Limits for all values:
(1 <= a <= 10^6), (1 <= b <= 10^7), (2<=n<=10)
Example
Let's say a=32, b=1, n=3;
x = 32, n = 3 divisors of 32 are {1,2,4,8,16,32}. However only {4,8,16} fill the conditions so s(32) = 3
x = 33, n = 3 divisors of 33 are {1,3,11,33}. Only the numbers {3,11} fill the conditions so s(33)=2;
D = s(32) + s(33) = 3 + 2 = 5
What I have tried
We should answer all those questions for 100 test cases in 3 seconds time limit.
I have two ideas, the first one: I iterate in the interval [a, a+b] and for each value i in the range I check how many cool divisors are there for that value, we can check this in O(sqrt(N)) if the function for getting number of power of N is considered as O(1) so the total function for this is O(B*sqrt(B)).
The second one, I'm now sure if it will work and how fast it will be. First I do a precomputation, I have a for loop that iterates from 1 to N, where N = 10^7
and now in the range [2, N] for each number whose divisor is i, where i is in the range [2,N] and I check if i to the power of n is not divisor of j then we update that the number j has one more cool divisor. With this I think that the complexity will be O(NlogN) and for the answers O(B).
Your first idea works but you can improve it.
Instead of checking all numbers from 1 to sqrt(N) whether they are cool divisors, you can factorize N=*p0^q0*p1^q1*p2^q2...pk^qk*. Then the number of cool divisors should then be (q0+1)(q1+1)...(qk+1) - (q0/n+1)(q1/n+1)...(qk/n+1).
So you can first preprocess and find out all the prime numbers using some existing algo like Sieve of Eratosthenes and for each number N between [a,a+b] you do a factorization. The complexity should be roughly O(BlogB).
Your second idea works as well.
For each number i between [2,a+b], you can just check the multiples of i between [a,a+b] and see whether i is a cool divisor of those multiples. The complexity should be O(BlogB) as well. Some tricks can be played in this idea to speed up the program is that, once you don't need to use divide/mod operations from time to time to check whether i is a cool divisor. You can compute the first number m between [a, a+b] that i^n|m. This m should be m=ceiling(a/(i^n))(i^n). And then you know i^n|m+p*i does not hold for p between [1,i^(n-1) - 1] and holds for p=i^n-1. Basically, you know i is not a cool divisor every i^(n-1) multiples, and you do not need to use divide/mod to figure it out, which will speed the program up.
How to check if n can be partitioned to sum of a sequence of consecutive prime numbers.
For example, 12 is equal to 5+7 which 5 and 7 are consecutive primes, but 20 is equal to 3+17 which 3 and 17 are not consecutive.
Note that, repetition is not allowed.
My idea is to find and list all primes below n, then use 2 loops to sum all primes. The first 2 numbers, second 2 numbers, third 2 numbers etc. and then first 3 numbers, second 3 numbers and so far. But it takes lot of time and memory.
Realize that a consecutive list of primes is defined only by two pieces of information, the starting and the ending prime number. You just have to find these two numbers.
I assume that you have all the primes at your disposal, sorted in the array called primes. Keep three variables in memory: sum which initially is 2 (the smallest prime), first_index and last_index which are initially 0 (index of the smallest prime in array primes).
Now you have to "tweak" these two indices, and "travel" the array along the way in the loop:
If sum == n then finish. You have found your sequence of primes.
If sum < n then enlarge the list by adding next available prime. Increment last_index by one, and then increment sum by the value of new prime, which is primes[last_index]. Repeat the loop. But if primes[last_index] is larger than n then there is no solution, and you must finish.
If sum > n then reduce the list by removing the smallest prime from the list. Decrement sum by that value, which is primes[first_index], and then increment first_index by one. Repeat the loop.
Dialecticus's algorithm is the classic O(m)-time, O(1)-space way to solve this type of problem (here I'll use m to represent the number of prime numbers less than n). It doesn't depend on any mysterious properties of prime numbers. (Interestingly, for the particular case of prime numbers, AlexAlvarez's algorithm is also linear time!) Dialecticus gives a clear and correct description, but seems at a loss to explain why it is correct, so I'll try to do this here. I really think it's valuable to take the time to understand this particular algorithm's proof of correctness: although I had to read a number of explanations before it finally "sank in", it was a real "Aha!" moment when it did! :) (Also, problems that can be efficiently solved in the same manner crop up quite a lot.)
The candidate solutions this algorithm tries can be represented as number ranges (i, j), where i and j are just the indexes of the first and last prime number in a list of prime numbers. The algorithm gets its efficiency by ruling out (that is, not considering) sets of number ranges in two different ways. To prove that it always gives the right answer, we need to show that it never rules out the only range with the right sum. To that end, it suffices to prove that it never rules out the first (leftmost) range with the right sum, which is what we'll do here.
The first rule it applies is that whenever we find a range (i, j) with sum(i, j) > n, we rule out all ranges (i, k) having k > j. It's easy to see why this is justified: the sum can only get bigger as we add more terms, and we have determined that it's already too big.
The second, trickier rule, crucial to the linear time complexity, is that whenever we advance the starting point of a range (i, j) from i to i+1, instead of "starting again" from (i+1, i+1), we start from (i+1, j) -- that is, we avoid considering (i+1, k) for all i+1 <= k < j. Why is it OK to do this? (To put the question the other way: Couldn't it be that doing this causes us to skip over some range with the right sum?)
[EDIT: The original version of the next paragraph glossed over a subtlety: we might have advanced the range end point to j on any previous step.]
To see that it never skips a valid range, we need to think about the range (i, j-1). For the algorithm to advance the starting point of the current range, so that it changes from (i, j) to (i+1, j), it must have been that sum(i, j) > n; and as we will see, to get to a program state in which the range (i, j) is being considered in the first place, it must have been that sum(i, j-1) < n. That second claim is subtle, because there are two different ways to arrive in such a program state: either we just incremented the end point, meaning that the previous range was (i, j-1) and this range was found to be too small (in which case our desired property sum(i, j-1) < n obviously holds); or we just incremented the start point after considering (i-1, j) and finding it to be too large (in which case it's not obvious that the property still holds).
What we do know, however, is that regardless of whether the end point was increased from j-1 to j on the previous step, it was definitely increased at some time before the current step -- so let's call the range that triggered this end point increase (k, j-1). Clearly sum(k, j-1) < n, since this was (by definition) the range that caused us to increase the end point from j-1 to j; and just as clearly k <= i, since we only process ranges in increasing order of their start points. Since i >= k, sum(i, j-1) is just the same as sum(k, j-1) but with zero or more terms removed from the left end, and all of these terms are positive, so it must be that sum(i, j-1) <= sum(k, j-1) < n.
So we have established that whenever we increase i to i+1, we know that sum(i, j-1) < n. To finish the analysis of this rule, what we (again) need to make use of is that dropping terms from either end of this sum can't make it any bigger. Removing the first term leaves us with sum(i+1, j-1) <= sum(i, j-1) < n. Starting from that sum and successively removing terms from the other end leaves us with sum(i+1, j-2), sum(i+1, j-3), ..., sum(i+1, i+1), all of which we know must be less than n -- that is, none of the ranges corresponding to these sums can be valid solutions. Therefore we can safely avoid considering them in the first place, and that's exactly what the algorithm does.
One final potential stumbling block is that it might seem that, since we are advancing two loop indexes, the time complexity should be O(m^2). But notice that every time through the loop body, we advance one of the indexes (i or j) by one, and we never move either of them backwards, so if we are still running after 2m loop iterations we must have i + j = 2m. Since neither index can ever exceed m, the only way for this to hold is if i = j = m, which means that we have reached the end: i.e. we are guaranteed to terminate after at most 2m iterations.
The fact that primes have to be consecutive allows to solve quite efficiently this problem in terms of n. Let me suppose that we have previously computed all the primes less or equal than n. Therefore, we can easily compute sum(i) as the sum of the first i primes.
Having this function precomputed, we can loop over the primes less or equal than n and see whether there exists a length such that starting with that prime we can sum up to n. But notice that for a fixed starting prime, the sequence of sums is monotone, so we can binary search over the length.
Thus, let k be the number of primes less or equal than n. Precomputing the sums has cost O(k) and the loop has cost O(klogk), dominating the cost. Using the Prime number theorem, we know that k = O(n/logn), and then the whole algorithm has cost O(n/logn log(n/logn)) = O(n).
Let me put a code in C++ to make it clearer, hope there are not bugs:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
typedef long long ll;
int main() {
//Get the limit for the numbers
int MAX_N;
cin >> MAX_N;
//Compute the primes less or equal than MAX_N
vector<bool> is_prime(MAX_N + 1, true);
for (int i = 2; i*i <= MAX_N; ++i) {
if (is_prime[i]) {
for (int j = i*i; j <= MAX_N; j += i) is_prime[j] = false;
}
}
vector<int> prime;
for (int i = 2; i <= MAX_N; ++i) if (is_prime[i]) prime.push_back(i);
//Compute the prefixed sums
vector<ll> sum(prime.size() + 1, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < prime.size(); ++i) sum[i + 1] = sum[i] + prime[i];
//Get the number of queries
int n_queries;
cin >> n_queries;
for (int z = 1; z <= n_queries; ++z) {
int n;
cin >> n;
//Solve the query
bool found = false;
for (int i = 0; i < prime.size() and prime[i] <= n and not found; ++i) {
//Do binary search over the lenght of the sum:
//For all x < ini, [i, x] sums <= n
int ini = i, fin = int(prime.size()) - 1;
while (ini <= fin) {
int mid = (ini + fin)/2;
int value = sum[mid + 1] - sum[i];
if (value <= n) ini = mid + 1;
else fin = mid - 1;
}
//Check the candidate of the binary search
int candidate = ini - 1;
if (candidate >= i and sum[candidate + 1] - sum[i] == n) {
found = true;
cout << n << " =";
for (int j = i; j <= candidate; ++j) {
cout << " ";
if (j > i) cout << "+ ";
cout << prime[j];
}
cout << endl;
}
}
if (not found) cout << "No solution" << endl;
}
}
Sample input:
1000
5
12
20
28
17
29
Sample output:
12 = 5 + 7
No solution
28 = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 11
17 = 2 + 3 + 5 + 7
29 = 29
I'd start by noting that for a pair of consecutive primes to sum to the number, one of the primes must be less than N/2, and the other prime must be greater than N/2. For them to be consecutive primes, they must be the primes closest to N/2, one smaller and the other larger.
If you're starting with a table of prime numbers, you basically do a binary search for N/2. Look at the primes immediately larger and smaller than that. Add those numbers together and see if they sum to your target number. If they don't, then it can't be the sum of two consecutive primes.
If you don't start with a table of primes, it works out pretty much the same way--you still start from N/2 and find the next larger prime (we'll call that prime1). Then you subtract N-prime1 to get a candidate for prime2. Check if that's prime, and if it is, search the range prime2...N/2 for other primes to see if there was a prime in between. If there's a prime in between your number is a sum of non-consecutive primes. If there's no other prime in that range, then it is a sum of consecutive primes.
The same basic idea applies for sequences of 3 or more primes, except that (of course) your search starts from N/3 (or whatever number of primes you want to sum to get to the number).
So, for three consecutive primes to sum to N, 2 of the three must be the first prime smaller than N/3 and the first prime larger than N/3. So, we start by finding those, then compute N-(prime1+prime2). That gives use our third candidate. We know these three numbers sum to N. We still need to prove that this third number is a prime. If it is prime, we need to verify that it's consecutive to the other two.
To give a concrete example, for 10 we'd start from 3.333. The next smaller prime is 3 and the next larger is 5. Those add to 8. 10-8 = 2. 2 is prime and consecutive to 3, so we've found the three consecutive primes that add to 10.
There are some other refinements you can make as well. The most obvious would be based on the fact that all primes (other than 2) are odd numbers. Therefore (assuming we can ignore 2), an even number can only be the sum of an even number of primes, and an odd number can only be a sum of an odd number of primes. So, given 123456789, we know immediately that it can't possibly be the sum of 2 (or 4, 6, 8, 10, ...) consecutive primes, so the only candidates to consider are 3, 5, 7, 9, ... primes. Of course, the opposite works as well: given, say, 12345678, the simple fact that it's even lets us immediately rule out the possibility that it could be the sum of 3, 5, 7 or 9 consecutive primes; we only need to consider sequences of 2, 4, 6, 8, ... primes. We violate this basic rule only when we get to a large enough number of primes that we could include 2 as part of the sequence.
I haven't worked through the math to figure out exactly how many that would be be for a given number, but I'm pretty sure it should be fairly easy and it's something we want to know anyway (because it's the upper limit on the number of consecutive primes to look for for a given number). If we use M for the number of primes, the limit should be approximately M <= sqrt(N), but that's definitely only an approximation.
I know that this question is a little old, but I cannot refrain from replying to the analysis made in the previous answers. Indeed, it has been emphasized that all the three proposed algorithms have a run-time that is essentially linear in n. But in fact, it is not difficult to produce an algorithm that runs at a strictly smaller power of n.
To see how, let us choose a parameter K between 1 and n and suppose that the primes we need are already tabulated (if they must be computed from scratch, see below). Then, here is what we are going to do, to search a representation of n as a sum of k consecutive primes:
First we search for k<K using the idea present in the answer of Jerry Coffin; that is, we search k primes located around n/k.
Then to explore the sums of k>=K primes we use the algorithm explained in the answer of Dialecticus; that is, we begin with a sum whose first element is 2, then we advance the first element one step at a time.
The first part, that concerns short sums of big primes, requires O(log n) operations to binary search one prime close to n/k and then O(k) operations to search for the other k primes (there are a few simple possible implementations). In total this makes a running time
R_1=O(K^2)+O(Klog n).
The second part, that is about long sums of small primes, requires us to consider sums of consecutive primes p_1<\dots<p_k where the first element is at most n/K.
Thus, it requires to visit at most n/K+K primes (one can actually save a log factor by a weak version of the prime number theorem). Since in the algorithm every prime is visited at most O(1) times, the running time is
R_2=O(n/K) + O(K).
Now, if log n < K < \sqrt n we have that the first part runs with O(K^2) operations and the second part runs in O(n/K). We optimize with the choice K=n^{1/3}, so that the overall running time is
R_1+R_2=O(n^{2/3}).
If the primes are not tabulated
If we also have to find the primes, here is how we do it.
First we use Erathostenes, that in C_2=O(T log log T) operations finds all the primes up to T, where T=O(n/K) is the upper bound for the small primes visited in the second part of the algorithm.
In order to perform the first part of the algorithm we need, for every k<K, to find O(k) primes located around n/k. The Riemann hypothesis implies that there are at least k primes in the interval [x,x+y] if y>c log x (k+\sqrt x) for some constant c>0. Therefore a priori we need to find the primes contained in an interval I_k centered at n/k with width |I_k|= O(k log n)+O(\sqrt {n/k} log n).
Using the sieve Eratosthenes to sieve the interval I_k requires O(|I_k|log log n) + O(\sqrt n) operations. If k<K<\sqrt n we get a time complexity C_1=O(\sqrt n log n log log n) for every k<K.
Summing up, the time complexity C_1+C_2+R_1+R_2 is maximized when
K = n^{1/4} / (log n \sqrt{log log n}).
With this choice have the sublinear time complexity
R_1+R_2+C_1+C_2 = O(n^{3/4}\sqrt{log log n}.
If we do not assume the Riemann Hypothesis we will have to search on larger intervals, but we still get at the end a sublinear time complexity. If instead we assume stronger conjectures on prime gaps, we may only need to search on intervals I_k with width |I_k|=k (log n)^A for some A>0. Then, instead of Erathostenes, we can use other deterministic primality tests. For example, suppose that you can test a single number for primality in O((log n)^B) operations, for some B>0.
Then you can search the interval I_k in O(k(log n)^{A+B}) operations. In this case the optimal K is still K\approx n^{1/3}, up to logarithmic factors, and so the total complexity is O(n^{2/3}(log n)^D for some D>0.
I am having difficulty deciding what the time complexity of Euclid's greatest common denominator algorithm is. This algorithm in pseudo-code is:
function gcd(a, b)
while b ≠ 0
t := b
b := a mod b
a := t
return a
It seems to depend on a and b. My thinking is that the time complexity is O(a % b). Is that correct? Is there a better way to write that?
One trick for analyzing the time complexity of Euclid's algorithm is to follow what happens over two iterations:
a', b' := a % b, b % (a % b)
Now a and b will both decrease, instead of only one, which makes the analysis easier. You can divide it into cases:
Tiny A: 2a <= b
Tiny B: 2b <= a
Small A: 2a > b but a < b
Small B: 2b > a but b < a
Equal: a == b
Now we'll show that every single case decreases the total a+b by at least a quarter:
Tiny A: b % (a % b) < a and 2a <= b, so b is decreased by at least half, so a+b decreased by at least 25%
Tiny B: a % b < b and 2b <= a, so a is decreased by at least half, so a+b decreased by at least 25%
Small A: b will become b-a, which is less than b/2, decreasing a+b by at least 25%.
Small B: a will become a-b, which is less than a/2, decreasing a+b by at least 25%.
Equal: a+b drops to 0, which is obviously decreasing a+b by at least 25%.
Therefore, by case analysis, every double-step decreases a+b by at least 25%. There's a maximum number of times this can happen before a+b is forced to drop below 1. The total number of steps (S) until we hit 0 must satisfy (4/3)^S <= A+B. Now just work it:
(4/3)^S <= A+B
S <= lg[4/3](A+B)
S is O(lg[4/3](A+B))
S is O(lg(A+B))
S is O(lg(A*B)) //because A*B asymptotically greater than A+B
S is O(lg(A)+lg(B))
//Input size N is lg(A) + lg(B)
S is O(N)
So the number of iterations is linear in the number of input digits. For numbers that fit into cpu registers, it's reasonable to model the iterations as taking constant time and pretend that the total running time of the gcd is linear.
Of course, if you're dealing with big integers, you must account for the fact that the modulus operations within each iteration don't have a constant cost. Roughly speaking, the total asymptotic runtime is going to be n^2 times a polylogarithmic factor. Something like n^2 lg(n) 2^O(log* n). The polylogarithmic factor can be avoided by instead using a binary gcd.
The suitable way to analyze an algorithm is by determining its worst case scenarios.
Euclidean GCD's worst case occurs when Fibonacci Pairs are involved.
void EGCD(fib[i], fib[i - 1]), where i > 0.
For instance, let's opt for the case where the dividend is 55, and the divisor is 34 (recall that we are still dealing with fibonacci numbers).
As you may notice, this operation costed 8 iterations (or recursive calls).
Let's try larger Fibonacci numbers, namely 121393 and 75025. We can notice here as well that it took 24 iterations (or recursive calls).
You can also notice that each iterations yields a Fibonacci number. That's why we have so many operations. We can't obtain similar results only with Fibonacci numbers indeed.
Hence, the time complexity is going to be represented by small Oh (upper bound), this time. The lower bound is intuitively Omega(1): case of 500 divided by 2, for instance.
Let's solve the recurrence relation:
We may say then that Euclidean GCD can make log(xy) operation at most.
There's a great look at this on the wikipedia article.
It even has a nice plot of complexity for value pairs.
It is not O(a%b).
It is known (see article) that it will never take more steps than five times the number of digits in the smaller number. So the max number of steps grows as the number of digits (ln b). The cost of each step also grows as the number of digits, so the complexity is bound by O(ln^2 b) where b is the smaller number. That's an upper limit, and the actual time is usually less.
See here.
In particular this part:
Lamé showed that the number of steps needed to arrive at the greatest common divisor for two numbers less than n is
So O(log min(a, b)) is a good upper bound.
Here's intuitive understanding of runtime complexity of Euclid's algorithm. The formal proofs are covered in various texts such as Introduction to Algorithms and TAOCP Vol 2.
First think about what if we tried to take gcd of two Fibonacci numbers F(k+1) and F(k). You might quickly observe that Euclid's algorithm iterates on to F(k) and F(k-1). That is, with each iteration we move down one number in Fibonacci series. As Fibonacci numbers are O(Phi ^ k) where Phi is golden ratio, we can see that runtime of GCD was O(log n) where n=max(a, b) and log has base of Phi. Next, we can prove that this would be the worst case by observing that Fibonacci numbers consistently produces pairs where the remainders remains large enough in each iteration and never become zero until you have arrived at the start of the series.
We can make O(log n) where n=max(a, b) bound even more tighter. Assume that b >= a so we can write bound at O(log b). First, observe that GCD(ka, kb) = GCD(a, b). As biggest values of k is gcd(a,c), we can replace b with b/gcd(a,b) in our runtime leading to more tighter bound of O(log b/gcd(a,b)).
Here is the analysis in the book Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in C by Mark Allen Weiss (second edition, 2.4.4):
Euclid's algorithm works by continually computing remainders until 0 is reached. The last nonzero remainder is the answer.
Here is the code:
unsigned int Gcd(unsigned int M, unsigned int N)
{
unsigned int Rem;
while (N > 0) {
Rem = M % N;
M = N;
N = Rem;
}
Return M;
}
Here is a THEOREM that we are going to use:
If M > N, then M mod N < M/2.
PROOF:
There are two cases. If N <= M/2, then since the remainder is smaller
than N, the theorem is true for this case. The other case is N > M/2.
But then N goes into M once with a remainder M - N < M/2, proving the
theorem.
So, we can make the following inference:
Variables M N Rem
initial M N M%N
1 iteration N M%N N%(M%N)
2 iterations M%N N%(M%N) (M%N)%(N%(M%N)) < (M%N)/2
So, after two iterations, the remainder is at most half of its original value. This would show that the number of iterations is at most 2logN = O(logN).
Note that, the algorithm computes Gcd(M,N), assuming M >= N.(If N > M, the first iteration of the loop swaps them.)
Worst case will arise when both n and m are consecutive Fibonacci numbers.
gcd(Fn,Fn−1)=gcd(Fn−1,Fn−2)=⋯=gcd(F1,F0)=1 and nth Fibonacci number is 1.618^n, where 1.618 is the Golden ratio.
So, to find gcd(n,m), number of recursive calls will be Θ(logn).
The worst case of Euclid Algorithm is when the remainders are the biggest possible at each step, ie. for two consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence.
When n and m are the number of digits of a and b, assuming n >= m, the algorithm uses O(m) divisions.
Note that complexities are always given in terms of the sizes of inputs, in this case the number of digits.
Gabriel Lame's Theorem bounds the number of steps by log(1/sqrt(5)*(a+1/2))-2, where the base of the log is (1+sqrt(5))/2. This is for the the worst case scenerio for the algorithm and it occurs when the inputs are consecutive Fibanocci numbers.
A slightly more liberal bound is: log a, where the base of the log is (sqrt(2)) is implied by Koblitz.
For cryptographic purposes we usually consider the bitwise complexity of the algorithms, taking into account that the bit size is given approximately by k=loga.
Here is a detailed analysis of the bitwise complexity of Euclid Algorith:
Although in most references the bitwise complexity of Euclid Algorithm is given by O(loga)^3 there exists a tighter bound which is O(loga)^2.
Consider; r0=a, r1=b, r0=q1.r1+r2 . . . ,ri-1=qi.ri+ri+1, . . . ,rm-2=qm-1.rm-1+rm rm-1=qm.rm
observe that: a=r0>=b=r1>r2>r3...>rm-1>rm>0 ..........(1)
and rm is the greatest common divisor of a and b.
By a Claim in Koblitz's book( A course in number Theory and Cryptography) is can be proven that: ri+1<(ri-1)/2 .................(2)
Again in Koblitz the number of bit operations required to divide a k-bit positive integer by an l-bit positive integer (assuming k>=l) is given as: (k-l+1).l ...................(3)
By (1) and (2) the number of divisons is O(loga) and so by (3) the total complexity is O(loga)^3.
Now this may be reduced to O(loga)^2 by a remark in Koblitz.
consider ki= logri +1
by (1) and (2) we have: ki+1<=ki for i=0,1,...,m-2,m-1 and ki+2<=(ki)-1 for i=0,1,...,m-2
and by (3) the total cost of the m divisons is bounded by: SUM [(ki-1)-((ki)-1))]*ki for i=0,1,2,..,m
rearranging this: SUM [(ki-1)-((ki)-1))]*ki<=4*k0^2
So the bitwise complexity of Euclid's Algorithm is O(loga)^2.
For the iterative algorithm, however, we have:
int iterativeEGCD(long long n, long long m) {
long long a;
int numberOfIterations = 0;
while ( n != 0 ) {
a = m;
m = n;
n = a % n;
numberOfIterations ++;
}
printf("\nIterative GCD iterated %d times.", numberOfIterations);
return m;
}
With Fibonacci pairs, there is no difference between iterativeEGCD() and iterativeEGCDForWorstCase() where the latter looks like the following:
int iterativeEGCDForWorstCase(long long n, long long m) {
long long a;
int numberOfIterations = 0;
while ( n != 0 ) {
a = m;
m = n;
n = a - n;
numberOfIterations ++;
}
printf("\nIterative GCD iterated %d times.", numberOfIterations);
return m;
}
Yes, with Fibonacci Pairs, n = a % n and n = a - n, it is exactly the same thing.
We also know that, in an earlier response for the same question, there is a prevailing decreasing factor: factor = m / (n % m).
Therefore, to shape the iterative version of the Euclidean GCD in a defined form, we may depict as a "simulator" like this:
void iterativeGCDSimulator(long long x, long long y) {
long long i;
double factor = x / (double)(x % y);
int numberOfIterations = 0;
for ( i = x * y ; i >= 1 ; i = i / factor) {
numberOfIterations ++;
}
printf("\nIterative GCD Simulator iterated %d times.", numberOfIterations);
}
Based on the work (last slide) of Dr. Jauhar Ali, the loop above is logarithmic.
Yes, small Oh because the simulator tells the number of iterations at most. Non Fibonacci pairs would take a lesser number of iterations than Fibonacci, when probed on Euclidean GCD.
At every step, there are two cases
b >= a / 2, then a, b = b, a % b will make b at most half of its previous value
b < a / 2, then a, b = b, a % b will make a at most half of its previous value, since b is less than a / 2
So at every step, the algorithm will reduce at least one number to at least half less.
In at most O(log a)+O(log b) step, this will be reduced to the simple cases. Which yield an O(log n) algorithm, where n is the upper limit of a and b.
I have found it here