Related
We are given an integer 'N' . We can choose any 2 numbers (a and b) in the range (1 to z) . The value of L is given by,
L = Max(( (N%a) %b) %N)
We have to calculate the number of pairs (a,b) which give(s) the value 'L' .
I know the brute-force , one, O(n2) solution.
Is there any more efficient way to solve this problem?!
The only way I can decipher Max(( (N%a) %b) %N) is that the max is taken over all a, b pairs. If I am wrong, please disregard the rest.
In case z > N/2:
First, observe that if both a and b are greater than N, then (N%a) % b yields N, so (N%a) %b) %N yields 1, which is unsatisfactory small. Therefore at least one of them shall be less than N.
Second, observe (better yet, prove) that the maximal value of N % a is achieved when a is N/2 + 1 for even N, and (N + 1)/2 for odd (important note: it is a half of the next multiple of 2 after N). Call it a maximizer.
Finally, observe that any b greater than that modulo leaves it untouched. Prove that this is indeed the desired maximum.
Now you have enough facts to come up with effectively a one-line program (don't forget the a > N, b = maximizer case).
The same logic works for z < N/2. Finding the maximizer is a bit trickier, but still possible in O(1) (see the important note above).
Given the following pseudo-code, the question is how many times on average is the variable m being updated.
A[1...n]: array with n random elements
m = a[1]
for I = 2 to n do
if a[I] < m then m = a[I]
end for
One might answer that since all elements are random, then the variable will be updated on average on half the number of iterations of the for loop plus one for the initialization.
However, I suspect that there must be a better (and possibly the only correct) way to prove it using binomial distribution with p = 1/2. This way, the average number of updates on m would be
M = 1 + Σi=1 to n-1[k.Cn,k.pk.(1-p)(n-k)]
where Cn,k is the binomial coefficient. I have tried to solve this but I have stuck some steps after since I do not know how to continue.
Could someone explain me which of the two answers is correct and if it is the second one, show me how to calculate M?
Thank you for your time
Assuming the elements of the array are distinct, the expected number of updates of m is the nth harmonic number, Hn, which is the sum of 1/k for k ranging from 1 to n.
The summation formula can also be represented by the recursion:
H1 = 1
Hn = Hn−1+1/n (n > 1)
It's easy to see that the recursion corresponds to the problem.
Consider all permutations of n−1 numbers, and assume that the expected number of assignments is Hn−1. Now, every permutation of n numbers consists of a permutation of n−1 numbers, with a new smallest number inserted in one of n possible insertion points: either at the beginning, or after one of the n−1 existing values. Since it is smaller than every number in the existing series, it will only be assigned to m in the case that it was inserted at the beginning. That has a probability of 1/n, and so the expected number of assignments of a permutation of n numbers is Hn−1 + 1/n.
Since the expected number of assignments for a vector of length one is obviously 1, which is H1, we have an inductive proof of the recursion.
Hn is asymptotically equal to ln n + γ where γ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, approximately 0.577. So it increases without limit, but quite slowly.
The values for which m is updated are called left-to-right maxima, and you'll probably find more information about them by searching for that term.
I liked #rici answer so I decided to elaborate its central argument a little bit more so to make it clearer to me.
Let H[k] be the expected number of assignments needed to compute the min m of an array of length k, as indicated in the algorithm under consideration. We know that
H[1] = 1.
Now assume we have an array of length n > 1. The min can be in the last position of the array or not. It is in the last position with probability 1/n. It is not with probability 1 - 1/n. In the first case the expected number of assignments is H[n-1] + 1. In the second, H[n-1].
If we multiply the expected number of assignments of each case by their probabilities and sum, we get
H[n] = (H[n-1] + 1)*1/n + H[n-1]*(1 - 1/n)
= H[n-1]*1/n + 1/n + H[n-1] - H[n-1]*1/n
= 1/n + H[n-1]
which shows the recursion.
Note that the argument is valid if the min is either in the last position or in any the first n-1, not in both places. Thus we are using that all the elements of the array are different.
Suppose n, a, b are positive integers where n is not a prime number, such that n=ab with a≥b and (a−b) is small as possible. What would be the best algorithm to find the values of a and b if n is given?
I read a solution where they try to represent n as the difference between two squares via searching for a square S bigger than n such that S - n = (another square). Why would that be better than simply finding the prime factors of n and searching for the combination where a,b are factors of n and a - b is minimized?
Firstly....to answer why your approach
simply finding the prime factors of n and searching for the combination where a,b are factors of n and a - b is minimized
is not optimal:
Suppose your number is n = 2^7 * 3^4 * 5^2 * 7 * 11 * 13 (=259459200), well within range of int. From the combinatorics theory, this number has exactly (8 * 5 * 3 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 960) factors. So, firstly you find all of these 960 factors, then find all pairs (a,b) such that a * b = n, which in this case will be (6C1 + 9C2 + 11C3 + 13C4 + 14C5 + 15C6 + 16C7 + 16C8) ways. (if I'm not wrong, my combinatorics is a bit weak). This is of the order 1e5 if implemented optimally. Also, implementation of this approach is hard.
Now, why the difference of squares approach
represent S - n = Q, such that S and Q are perfect squares
is good:
This is because if you can represent S - n = Q, this implies, n = S - Q
=> n = s^2 - q^2
=> n = (s+q)(s-q)
=> Your reqd ans = 2 * q
Now, even if you iterate for all squares, you will either find your answer or terminate when difference of 2 consecutive squares is greater than n
But I don't think this will be doable for all n (eg. if n=6, there is no solution for (S,Q).)
Another approach:
Iterate from floor(sqrt(n)) to 1. The first number (say, x), such that x|n will be one of the numbers in the required pair (a,b). Other will be, obvs, y = x/n. So, your answer will be y - x.
This is O(sqrt(n)) time complex algorithm.
A general method could be this:
Find the prime factorization of your number: n = Π pi ai. Except for the worst cases where n is prime or semiprime, this will be substantially faster than O(n1/2) time of the iteration down from the square root, which won't divide the found factors out of the number.
Recall that the simplest, trial division, prime factorization is done by repeatedly trying to divide the number by increasing odd numbers (or by primes) below the number's square root, dividing out of the number each factor -- thus prime by construction -- as it is found (n := n/f).
Then, lazily enumerate the factors of n in order from its prime factorization. Stop after producing half of them. Having thus found n's (not necessarily prime) factor that is closest to its square root, find the second factor by simple division.
In case this must repeatedly run many times, it will greatly pay out to precalculate the needed primes below the n's square root, to use in the factorizations.
I saw this post: Finding even numbers in an array and I was thinking about how you could do it without feedback. Here's what I mean.
Given an array of length n containing at most e even numbers and a
function isEven that returns true if the input is even and false
otherwise, write a function that prints all the even numbers in the
array using the fewest number of calls to isEven.
The answer on the post was to use a binary search, which is neat since it doesn't mean the array has to be in order. The number of times you have to check if a number is even is e log n instead if n because you do a binary search (log n) to find one even number each time (e times).
But that idea means that you divide the array in half, test for evenness, then decide which half to keep based on the result.
My question is whether or not you can beat n calls on a fixed testing scheme where you check all the numbers you want for evenness without knowing the outcome, and then figure out where the even numbers are after you've done all the tests based on the results. So I guess it's no-feedback or blind or some term like that.
I was thinking about this for a while and couldn't come up with anything. The binary search idea doesn't work at all with this constraint, but maybe something else does? Even getting down to n/2 calls instead of n (yes, I know they are the same big-O) would be good.
The technical term for "no-feedback or blind" is "non-adaptive". O(e log n) calls still suffice, but the algorithm is rather more involved.
Instead of testing the evenness of products, we're going to test the evenness of sums. Let E ≠ F be distinct subsets of {1, …, n}. If we have one array x1, …, xn with even numbers at positions E and another array y1, …, yn with even numbers at positions F, how many subsets J of {1, …, n} satisfy
(∑i in J xi) mod 2 ≠ (∑i in J yi) mod 2?
The answer is 2n-1. Let i be an index such that xi mod 2 ≠ yi mod 2. Let S be a subset of {1, …, i - 1, i + 1, … n}. Either J = S is a solution or J = S union {i} is a solution, but not both.
For every possible outcome E, we need to make calls that eliminate every other possible outcome F. Suppose we make 2e log n calls at random. For each pair E ≠ F, the probability that we still cannot distinguish E from F is (2n-1/2n)2e log n = n-2e, because there are 2n possible calls and only 2n-1 fail to distinguish. There are at most ne + 1 choices of E and thus at most (ne + 1)ne/2 pairs. By a union bound, the probability that there exists some indistinguishable pair is at most n-2e(ne + 1)ne/2 < 1 (assuming we're looking at an interesting case where e ≥ 1 and n ≥ 2), so there exists a sequence of 2e log n calls that does the job.
Note that, while I've used randomness to show that a good sequence of calls exists, the resulting algorithm is deterministic (and, of course, non-adaptive, because we chose that sequence without knowledge of the outcomes).
You can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to do this. I'm going to change your notation a bit.
Suppose you have N numbers of which at most E are even. Choose a sequence of distinct prime powers q1,q2,...,qk such that their product is at least N^E, i.e.
qi = pi^ei
where pi is prime and ei > 0 is an integer and
q1 * q2 * ... * qk >= N^E
Now make a bunch of 0-1 matrices. Let Mi be the qi x N matrix where the entry in row r and column c has a 1 if c = r mod qi and a 0 otherwise. For example, if qi = 3^2, then row 2 has ones in columns 2, 11, 20, ... 2 + 9j and 0 elsewhere.
Now stack these matrices vertically to get a Q x N matrix M, where Q = q1 + q2 + ... + qk. The rows of M tell you which numbers to multiply together (the nonzero positions). This gives a total of Q products that you need to test for evenness. Call each row a "trial", and say that a "trial involves j" if the jth column of that row is nonempty. The theorem you need is the following:
THEOREM: The number in position j is even if and only if all trials involving j are even.
So you do a total of Q trials and then look at the results. If you choose the prime powers intelligently, then Q should be significantly smaller than N. There are asymptotic results that show you can always get Q on the order of
(2E log N)^2 / 2log(2E log N)
This theorem is actually a corollary of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. The only place that I've seen this used is in Combinatorial Group Testing. Apparently the problem originally arose when testing soldiers coming back from WWII for syphilis.
The problem you are facing is a form of group testing, type of a problem with the objective of reducing the cost of identifying certain elements of a set (up to d elements of a set of N elements).
As you've already stated, there are two basic principles via which the testing may be carried out:
Non-adaptive Group Testing, where all the tests to be performed are decided a priori.
Adaptive Group Testing, where we perform several tests, basing each test on the outcome of previous tests. Obviously, adaptive testing has a potential to reduce the cost, compared to non-adaptive testing.
Theoretical bounds for both principles have been studied, and are available in this Wiki article, or this paper.
For adaptive testing, the upper bound is O(d*log(N)) (as already described in this answer).
For non-adaptive testing, it can be shown that the upper bound is O(d*d/log(d)*log(N)), which is obviously larger than the upper bound for adaptive testing by a factor of d/log(d).
This upper bound for non-adaptive testing comes from an algorithm which uses disjunct matrices: matrices of dimension T x N ("number of tests" x "number of elements"), where each item can be either true (if an element was included in a test), or false (if it wasn't), with a property that any subset of d columns must differ from all other columns by at least a single row (test inclusion). This allows linear time of decoding (there are also "d-separable" matrices where fewer test are needed, but the time complexity for their decoding is exponential and not computationaly feasible).
Conclusion:
My question is whether or not you can beat n calls on a fixed testing scheme [...]
For such a scheme and a sufficiently large value of N, a disjunct matrix can be constructed which would have less than K * [d*d/log(d)*log(N)] rows. So, for large values of N, yes, you can beat it.
The underlying question (challenge) is kind of silly. If the binary search answer is acceptable (where it sums sub arrays and sends them to IsEven) then I can think of a way to do it with E or less calls to IsEven (assuming the numbers are integers of course).
JavaScript to demonstrate
// sort the array by only the first bit of the number
A.sort(function(x,y) { return (x & 1) - (y & 1); });
// all of the evens will be at the beginning
for(var i=0; i < E && i < A.length; i++) {
if(IsEven(A[i]))
Print(A[i]);
else
break;
}
Not exactly a solution, but just few thoughts.
It is easy to see that if a solution exists for array length n that takes less than n tests, then for any array length m > n it is easy to see that there is always a solution with less than m tests. So, if you have a solution for n = 2 or 3 or 4, then the problem is solved.
You can split the array into pairs of numbers and for each pair: if the sum is odd, then exactly one of them is even, otherwise if one of the numbers is even, then both of them are even. This way for each pair it takes either one or two tests. Best case:n/2 tests, worse case:n tests, if even and odd numbers are chosen with equal probability, then: 3n/4 tests.
My hunch is there is no solution with less than n tests. Not sure how to prove it.
UPDATE: The second solution can be extended in the following way.
Check if the sum of two numbers is even. If odd, then exactly one of them is even. Otherwise label the set as "homogeneous set of size 2". Take two "homogenous set"s of same size n. Pick one number from each set and check if their sum is even. If it is even, combine these two sets to a "homogeneous set of size 2n". Otherwise, it implies that one of those sets purely consists of even numbers and the other one purely odd numbers.
Best case:n/2 tests. Average case: 3*n/2. Worst case is still n. Worst case exists only when all the numbers are even or all the numbers are odd.
If we can add and multiply array elements, then we can compute every Boolean function (up to complementation) on the low-order bits. Simulate a circuit that encodes the positions of the even numbers as a number from 0 to nC0 + nC1 + ... + nCe - 1 represented in binary and use calls to isEven to read off the bits.
Number of calls used: within 1 of the information-theoretic optimum.
See also fully homomorphic encryption.
I have a series
S = i^(m) + i^(2m) + ............... + i^(km) (mod m)
0 <= i < m, k may be very large (up to 100,000,000), m <= 300000
I want to find the sum. I cannot apply the Geometric Progression (GP) formula because then result will have denominator and then I will have to find modular inverse which may not exist (if the denominator and m are not coprime).
So I made an alternate algorithm making an assumption that these powers will make a cycle of length much smaller than k (because it is a modular equation and so I would obtain something like 2,7,9,1,2,7,9,1....) and that cycle will repeat in the above series. So instead of iterating from 0 to k, I would just find the sum of numbers in a cycle and then calculate the number of cycles in the above series and multiply them. So I first found i^m (mod m) and then multiplied this number again and again taking modulo at each step until I reached the first element again.
But when I actually coded the algorithm, for some values of i, I got cycles which were of very large size. And hence took a large amount of time before terminating and hence my assumption is incorrect.
So is there any other pattern we can find out? (Basically I don't want to iterate over k.)
So please give me an idea of an efficient algorithm to find the sum.
This is the algorithm for a similar problem I encountered
You probably know that one can calculate the power of a number in logarithmic time. You can also do so for calculating the sum of the geometric series. Since it holds that
1 + a + a^2 + ... + a^(2*n+1) = (1 + a) * (1 + (a^2) + (a^2)^2 + ... + (a^2)^n),
you can recursively calculate the geometric series on the right hand to get the result.
This way you do not need division, so you can take the remainder of the sum (and of intermediate results) modulo any number you want.
As you've noted, doing the calculation for an arbitrary modulus m is difficult because many values might not have a multiplicative inverse mod m. However, if you can solve it for a carefully selected set of alternate moduli, you can combine them to obtain a solution mod m.
Factor m into p_1, p_2, p_3 ... p_n such that each p_i is a power of a distinct prime
Since each p is a distinct prime power, they are pairwise coprime. If we can calculate the sum of the series with respect to each modulus p_i, we can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to reassemble them into a solution mod m.
For each prime power modulus, there are two trivial special cases:
If i^m is congruent to 0 mod p_i, the sum is trivially 0.
If i^m is congruent to 1 mod p_i, then the sum is congruent to k mod p_i.
For other values, one can apply the usual formula for the sum of a geometric sequence:
S = sum(j=0 to k, (i^m)^j) = ((i^m)^(k+1) - 1) / (i^m - 1)
TODO: Prove that (i^m - 1) is coprime to p_i or find an alternate solution for when they have a nontrivial GCD. Hopefully the fact that p_i is a prime power and also a divisor of m will be of some use... If p_i is a divisor of i. the condition holds. If p_i is prime (as opposed to a prime power), then either the special case i^m = 1 applies, or (i^m - 1) has a multiplicative inverse.
If the geometric sum formula isn't usable for some p_i, you could rearrange the calculation so you only need to iterate from 1 to p_i instead of 1 to k, taking advantage of the fact that the terms repeat with a period no longer than p_i.
(Since your series doesn't contain a j=0 term, the value you want is actually S-1.)
This yields a set of congruences mod p_i, which satisfy the requirements of the CRT.
The procedure for combining them into a solution mod m is described in the above link, so I won't repeat it here.
This can be done via the method of repeated squaring, which is O(log(k)) time, or O(log(k)log(m)) time, if you consider m a variable.
In general, a[n]=1+b+b^2+... b^(n-1) mod m can be computed by noting that:
a[j+k]==b^{j}a[k]+a[j]
a[2n]==(b^n+1)a[n]
The second just being the corollary for the first.
In your case, b=i^m can be computed in O(log m) time.
The following Python code implements this:
def geometric(n,b,m):
T=1
e=b%m
total = 0
while n>0:
if n&1==1:
total = (e*total + T)%m
T = ((e+1)*T)%m
e = (e*e)%m
n = n/2
//print '{} {} {}'.format(total,T,e)
return total
This bit of magic has a mathematical reason - the operation on pairs defined as
(a,r)#(b,s)=(ab,as+r)
is associative, and the rule 1 basically means that:
(b,1)#(b,1)#... n times ... #(b,1)=(b^n,1+b+b^2+...+b^(n-1))
Repeated squaring always works when operations are associative. In this case, the # operator is O(log(m)) time, so repeated squaring takes O(log(n)log(m)).
One way to look at this is that the matrix exponentiation:
[[b,1],[0,1]]^n == [[b^n,1+b+...+b^(n-1))],[0,1]]
You can use a similar method to compute (a^n-b^n)/(a-b) modulo m because matrix exponentiation gives:
[[b,1],[0,a]]^n == [[b^n,a^(n-1)+a^(n-2)b+...+ab^(n-2)+b^(n-1)],[0,a^n]]
Based on the approach of #braindoper a complete algorithm which calculates
1 + a + a^2 + ... +a^n mod m
looks like this in Mathematica:
geometricSeriesMod[a_, n_, m_] :=
Module[ {q = a, exp = n, factor = 1, sum = 0, temp},
While[And[exp > 0, q != 0],
If[EvenQ[exp],
temp = Mod[factor*PowerMod[q, exp, m], m];
sum = Mod[sum + temp, m];
exp--];
factor = Mod[Mod[1 + q, m]*factor, m];
q = Mod[q*q, m];
exp = Floor[ exp /2];
];
Return [Mod[sum + factor, m]]
]
Parameters:
a is the "ratio" of the series. It can be any integer (including zero and negative values).
n is the highest exponent of the series. Allowed are integers >= 0.
mis the integer modulus != 0
Note: The algorithm performs a Mod operation after every arithmetic operation. This is essential, if you transcribe this algorithm to a language with a limited word length for integers.