Related
I was working on an algorithm in Java to find all primes up to a certain number. It was supposed to be an improvement of an earlier method of doing so, which was the following:
public static int[] generatePrimesUpTo(int max)
{
int[] primes = new int[max];
primes[0]=2;
int p = 1;
for (int i=3;i<max;i+=2)
{
if (isPrime(i))
{
primes[p]=i;
p+=1;
}
}
return primes;
}
public static boolean isPrime(int a)
{
for (int i=3;i<((int)Math.sqrt(a)+1);i+=2)
{
if (a%i==0)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Which just checks for a number N wether or not it is divisible by a smaller number, starting at 2 and ending at sqrt(N).
Now the new approach was to divide N only by smaller prime numbers which the algorithm had found earlier. I thought it would speed up the process quite a lot since it would have to do a lot less calculations.
public static int[] generatePrimes(int num)
{
int[] primes = new int[num];
int p = 3;
primes[0] = 2;
primes[1] = 3;
primes[2] = 5;
boolean prime;
for (int i=7;i<num;i+=2)
{
prime = true;
for (int j=0;primes[j+1]<(Math.sqrt(i)+1);j++)
{
if (i%primes[j]==0)
{
prime = false;
break;
}
}
if (prime)
{
primes[p]=i;
p++;
}
}
return primes;
}
However, there seems to be almost no difference in speed for Nmax = 10^7.
For Nmax = 10^8 the new one was 20% faster, but my computer was more active during the calculation of the old one and I tried 10^8 only once.
Could anyone tell me about why this new approach isn't that much faster? Or what I could do to improve the algorithm more?
Thanks in advance!
You should think about whether there isn't a method to find all primes in a range that is much faster than checking each prime individually. For example, you will check many numbers whether they are divisible by 73. But the fact is, that you can much faster determine all the numbers divisible by 73 (they are 73, 2*73, 3*73, 4*73 etc.).
By the way: You calculate Math.sqrt (j) in each single iteration of the loop. Moving that calculation outside the loop might make your code considerably faster.
Your second algorithm is faster. I don't know why you only saw a 20% improvement. Here are the results of my tests, with separate implementations:
10^6:
First: 00:00:01.0553813 67240405 steps
Second: 00:00:00.2416291 13927398 steps
Sieve: 00:00:00.0269685 3122044 steps
10^7:
First: 00:00:26.4524301 1741210134 steps
Second: 00:00:04.6647486 286144934 steps
Sieve: 00:00:00.3011046 32850047 steps
10^8:
First: 00:12:00.8986644 46474124250 steps
Second: 00:01:43.1543445 6320928466 steps
Sieve: 00:00:03.6146328 342570200 steps
The last algorithm was the Sieve of Eratosthenes which is a much better algorithm. I implemented all of these in C# for one processor, with the first two based on your code with minor changes like testing primes[j]*primes[j] <= i.
The implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes I used was pretty basic,
Boolean[] definitelyComposite = new Boolean[max]; // initialized automatically to false
int p = 0;
for (long i = 2; i < max; i++)
{
numSteps++;
if (!definitelyComposite[i])
{
primes[p] = i;
p++;
for (long j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
{
numSteps++;
definitelyComposite[j] = true;
}
}
}
and it could be improved. For example, except for when i is 2, I could have used j+= 2*i in the loop.
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
Let's assume that we have a pair of numbers (a, b). We can get a new pair (a + b, b) or (a, a + b) from the given pair in a single step.
Let the initial pair of numbers be (1,1). Our task is to find number k, that is, the least number of steps needed to transform (1,1) into the pair where at least one number equals n.
I solved it by finding all the possible pairs and then return min steps in which the given number is formed, but it taking quite long time to compute.I guess this must be somehow related with finding gcd.can some one please help or provide me some link for the concept.
Here is the program that solved the issue but it is not cleat to me...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define INF 1000000000
int n,r=INF;
int f(int a,int b){
if(b<=0)return INF;
if(a>1&&b==1)return a-1;
return f(b,a-a/b*b)+a/b;
}
int main(){
cin>>n;
for(int i=1;i<=n/2;i++){
r=min(r,f(n,i));
}
cout<<(n==1?0:r)<<endl;
}
My approach to such problems(one I got from projecteuler.net) is to calculate the first few terms of the sequence and then search in oeis for a sequence with the same terms. This can result in a solutions order of magnitude faster. In your case the sequence is probably: http://oeis.org/A178031 but unfortunately it has no easy to use formula.
:
As the constraint for n is relatively small you can do a dp on the minimum number of steps required to get to the pair (a,b) from (1,1). You take a two dimensional array that stores the answer for a given pair and then you do a recursion with memoization:
int mem[5001][5001];
int solve(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0) {
return mem[a][b] = b + 1;
}
if (mem[a][b] != -1) {
return mem[a][b];
}
if (a == 1 && b == 1) {
return mem[a][b] = 0;
}
int res;
if (a > b) {
swap(a,b);
}
if (mem[a][b%a] == -1) { // not yet calculated
res = solve(a, b%a);
} else { // already calculated
res = mem[a][b%a];
}
res += b/a;
return mem[a][b] = res;
}
int main() {
memset(mem, -1, sizeof(mem));
int n;
cin >> n;
int best = -1;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
int temp = solve(n, i);
if (best == -1 || temp < best) {
best = temp;
}
}
cout << best << endl;
}
In fact in this case there is not much difference between dp and BFS, but this is the general approach to such problems. Hope this helps.
EDIT: return a big enough value in the dp if a is zero
You can use the breadth first search algorithm to do this. At each step you generate all possible NEXT steps that you havent seen before. If the set of next steps contains the result you're done if not repeat. The number of times you repeat this is the minimum number of transformations.
First of all, the maximum number you can get after k-3 steps is kth fibinocci number. Let t be the magic ratio.
Now, for n start with (n, upper(n/t) ).
If x>y:
NumSteps(x,y) = NumSteps(x-y,y)+1
Else:
NumSteps(x,y) = NumSteps(x,y-x)+1
Iteratively calculate NumSteps(n, upper(n/t) )
PS: Using upper(n/t) might not always provide the optimal solution. You can do some local search around this value for the optimal results. To ensure optimality you can try ALL the values from 0 to n-1, in which worst case complexity is O(n^2). But, if the optimal value results from a value close to upper(n/t), the solution is O(nlogn)
I came across this problem during an interview forum.,
Given an int array which might contain duplicates, find the largest subset of it which form a sequence.
Eg. {1,6,10,4,7,9,5}
then ans is 4,5,6,7
Sorting is an obvious solution. Can this be done in O(n) time.
My take on the problem is that this cannot be done O(n) time & the reason is that if we could do this in O(n) time we could do sorting in O(n) time also ( without knowing the upper bound).
As a random array can contain all the elements in sequence but in random order.
Does this sound a plausible explanation ? your thoughts.
I believe it can be solved in O(n) if you assume you have enough memory to allocate an uninitialized array of a size equal to the largest value, and that allocation can be done in constant time. The trick is to use a lazy array, which gives you the ability to create a set of items in linear time with a membership test in constant time.
Phase 1: Go through each item and add it to the lazy array.
Phase 2: Go through each undeleted item, and delete all contiguous items.
In phase 2, you determine the range and remember it if it is the largest so far. Items can be deleted in constant time using a doubly-linked list.
Here is some incredibly kludgy code that demonstrates the idea:
int main(int argc,char **argv)
{
static const int n = 8;
int values[n] = {1,6,10,4,7,9,5,5};
int index[n];
int lists[n];
int prev[n];
int next_existing[n]; //
int prev_existing[n];
int index_size = 0;
int n_lists = 0;
// Find largest value
int max_value = 0;
for (int i=0; i!=n; ++i) {
int v=values[i];
if (v>max_value) max_value=v;
}
// Allocate a lazy array
int *lazy = (int *)malloc((max_value+1)*sizeof(int));
// Set items in the lazy array and build the lists of indices for
// items with a particular value.
for (int i=0; i!=n; ++i) {
next_existing[i] = i+1;
prev_existing[i] = i-1;
int v = values[i];
int l = lazy[v];
if (l>=0 && l<index_size && index[l]==v) {
// already there, add it to the list
prev[n_lists] = lists[l];
lists[l] = n_lists++;
}
else {
// not there -- create a new list
l = index_size;
lazy[v] = l;
index[l] = v;
++index_size;
prev[n_lists] = -1;
lists[l] = n_lists++;
}
}
// Go through each contiguous range of values and delete them, determining
// what the range is.
int max_count = 0;
int max_begin = -1;
int max_end = -1;
int i = 0;
while (i<n) {
// Start by searching backwards for a value that isn't in the lazy array
int dir = -1;
int v_mid = values[i];
int v = v_mid;
int begin = -1;
for (;;) {
int l = lazy[v];
if (l<0 || l>=index_size || index[l]!=v) {
// Value not in the lazy array
if (dir==1) {
// Hit the end
if (v-begin>max_count) {
max_count = v-begin;
max_begin = begin;
max_end = v;
}
break;
}
// Hit the beginning
begin = v+1;
dir = 1;
v = v_mid+1;
}
else {
// Remove all the items with value v
int k = lists[l];
while (k>=0) {
if (k!=i) {
next_existing[prev_existing[l]] = next_existing[l];
prev_existing[next_existing[l]] = prev_existing[l];
}
k = prev[k];
}
v += dir;
}
}
// Go to the next existing item
i = next_existing[i];
}
// Print the largest range
for (int i=max_begin; i!=max_end; ++i) {
if (i!=max_begin) fprintf(stderr,",");
fprintf(stderr,"%d",i);
}
fprintf(stderr,"\n");
free(lazy);
}
I would say there are ways to do it. The algorithm is the one you already describe, but just use a O(n) sorting algorithm. As such exist for certain inputs (Bucket Sort, Radix Sort) this works (this also goes hand in hand with your argumentation why it should not work).
Vaughn Cato suggested implementation is working like this (its working like a bucket sort with the lazy array working as buckets-on-demand).
As shown by M. Ben-Or in Lower bounds for algebraic computation trees, Proc. 15th ACM Sympos. Theory Comput., pp. 80-86. 1983 cited by J. Erickson in pdf Finding Longest Arithmetic Progressions, this problem cannot be solved in less than O(n log n) time (even if the input is already sorted into order) when using an algebraic decision tree model of computation.
Earlier, I posted the following example in a comment to illustrate that sorting the numbers does not provide an easy answer to the question: Suppose the array is given already sorted into ascending order. For example, let it be (20 30 35 40 47 60 70 80 85 95 100). The longest sequence found in any subsequence of the input is 20,40,60,80,100 rather than 30,35,40 or 60,70,80.
Regarding whether an O(n) algebraic decision tree solution to this problem would provide an O(n) algebraic decision tree sorting method: As others have pointed out, a solution to this subsequence problem for a given multiset does not provide a solution to a sorting problem for that multiset. As an example, consider set {2,4,6,x,y,z}. The subsequence solver will give you the result (2,4,6) whenever x,y,z are large numbers not in arithmetic sequence, and it will tell you nothing about the order of x,y,z.
What about this? populate a hash-table so each value stores the start of the range seen so far for that number, except for the head element that stores the end of the range. O(n) time, O(n) space. A tentative Python implementation (you could do it with one traversal keeping some state variables, but this way seems more clear):
def longest_subset(xs):
table = {}
for x in xs:
start = table.get(x-1, x)
end = table.get(x+1, x)
if x+1 in table:
table[end] = start
if x-1 in table:
table[start] = end
table[x] = (start if x-1 in table else end)
start, end = max(table.items(), key=lambda pair: pair[1]-pair[0])
return list(range(start, end+1))
print(longest_subset([1, 6, 10, 4, 7, 9, 5]))
# [4, 5, 6, 7]
here is a un-optimized O(n) implementation, maybe you will find it useful:
hash_tb={}
A=[1,6,10,4,7,9,5]
for i in range(0,len(A)):
if not hash_tb.has_key(A[i]):
hash_tb[A[i]]=A[i]
max_sq=[];cur_seq=[]
for i in range(0,max(A)):
if hash_tb.has_key(i):
cur_seq.append(i)
else:
if len(cur_seq)>len(max_sq):
max_sq=cur_seq
cur_seq=[]
print max_sq
Is there any nice algorithm to find the nearest prime number to a given real number? I only need to search within the first 100 primes or so.
At present, I've a bunch of prime numbers stored in an array and I'm checking the difference one number at a time (O(n)?).
Rather than a sorted list of primes, given the relatively small range targetted, have an array indexed by all the odd numbers in the range (you know there are no even primes except the special case of 2) and containing the closest prime. Finding the solution becomes O(1) time-wise.
I think the 100th prime is circa 541. an array of 270 [small] ints is all that is needed.
This approach is particularly valid, given the relative high density of primes (in particular relative to odd numbers), in the range below 1,000. (As this affects the size of a binary tree)
If you only need to search in the first 100 primes or so, just create a sorted table of those primes, and do a binary search. This will either get you to one prime number, or a spot between two, and you check which of those is closer.
Edit: Given the distribution of primes in that range, you could probably speed things up (a tiny bit) by using an interpolation search -- instead of always starting at the middle of the table, use linear interpolation to guess at a more accurate starting point. The 100th prime number should be somewhere around 250 or so (at a guess -- I haven't checked), so if (for example) you wanted the one closest to 50, you'd start about 1/5th of the way into the array instead of halfway. You can pretty much treat the primes as starting at 1, so just divide the number you want by the largest in your range to get a guess at the starting point.
Answers so far are rather complicated, given the task in hand. The first hundred primes are all less then 600. I would create an array of size 600 and place in each the value of the nearest prime to that number. Then, given a number to test, I would round it both up and down using the floor and ceil functions to get one or two candidate answers. A simple comparison with the distances to these numbers will give you a very fast answer.
The simplest approach would be to store the primes in a sorted list and modify your algorithm to do a binary search.
The standard binary search algorithm would return null for a miss, but it should be straight-forward to modify it for your purposes.
The fastest algorithm? Create a lookup table with p[100]=541 elements and return the result for floor(x), with special logic for x on [2,3]. That would be O(1).
You should sort your number in array then you can use binary search. This algorithm is O(log n) performance in worst case.
public static boolean p(int n){
for(int i=3;i*i<=n;i+=2) {
if(n%i==0)
return false;
}
return n%2==0? false: true; }
public static void main(String args[]){
String n="0";
int x = Integer.parseInt(n);
int z=x;
int a=0;
int i=1;
while(!p(x)){
a = i*(int)Math.pow(-1, i);
i++;
x+=a;
}
System.out.println( (int) Math.abs(x-z));}
this is for n>=2.
In python:
>>> def nearest_prime(n):
incr = -1
multiplier = -1
count = 1
while True:
if prime(n):
return n
else:
n = n + incr
multiplier = multiplier * -1
count = count + 1
incr = multiplier * count
>>> nearest_prime(3)
3
>>> nearest_prime(4)
3
>>> nearest_prime(5)
5
>>> nearest_prime(6)
5
>>> nearest_prime(7)
7
>>> nearest_prime(8)
7
>>> nearest_prime(9)
7
>>> nearest_prime(10)
11
<?php
$N1Diff = null;
$N2Diff = null;
$n1 = null;
$n2 = null;
$number = 16;
function isPrime($x) {
for ($i = 2; $i < $x; $i++) {
if ($x % $i == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
for ($j = $number; ; $j--) {
if( isPrime($j) ){
$N1Diff = abs($number - $j);
$n1 = $j;
break;
}
}
for ($j = $number; ; $j++) {
if( isPrime($j) ){
$N2Diff = abs($number - $j);
$n2 = $j;
break;
}
}
if($N1Diff < $N2Diff) {
echo $n1;
} else if ($N1Diff2 < $N1Diff ){
echo $n2;
}
If you want to write an algorithm, A Wikipedia search for prime number led me to another article on the Sieve of Eratosthenes. The algorithm looks a bit simple and I'm thinking a recursive function would suit it well imo. (I could be wrong about that.)
If the array solution isn't a valid solution for you (it is the best one for your scenario), you can try the code below. After the "2 or 3" case, it will check every odd number away from the starting value until it finds a prime.
static int NearestPrime(double original)
{
int above = (int)Math.Ceiling(original);
int below = (int)Math.Floor(original);
if (above <= 2)
{
return 2;
}
if (below == 2)
{
return (original - 2 < 0.5) ? 2 : 3;
}
if (below % 2 == 0) below -= 1;
if (above % 2 == 0) above += 1;
double diffBelow = double.MaxValue, diffAbove = double.MaxValue;
for (; ; above += 2, below -= 2)
{
if (IsPrime(below))
{
diffBelow = original - below;
}
if (IsPrime(above))
{
diffAbove = above - original;
}
if (diffAbove != double.MaxValue || diffBelow != double.MaxValue)
{
break;
}
}
//edit to your liking for midpoint cases (4.0, 6.0, 9.0, etc)
return (int) (diffAbove < diffBelow ? above : below);
}
static bool IsPrime(int p) //intentionally incomplete due to checks in NearestPrime
{
for (int i = 3; i < Math.Sqrt(p); i += 2)
{
if (p % i == 0)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Lookup table whit size of 100 bytes; (unsigned chars)
Round real number and use lookup table.
Maybe we can find the left and right nearest prime numbers, and then compare to get the nearest one. (I've assumed that the next prime number shows up within next 10 occurrences)
def leftnearestprimeno(n):
n1 = n-1
while(n1 >= 0):
if isprime(n1):
return n1
else:
n1 -= 1
return -1
def rightnearestprimeno(n):
n1 = n+1
while(n1 < (n+10)):
if isprime(n1):
return n1
else:
n1 += 1
return -1
n = int(input())
a = leftnearestprimeno(n)
b = rightnearestprimeno(n)
if (n - a) < (b - n):
print("nearest: ", a)
elif (n - a) > (b - n):
print("nearest: ", b)
else:
print("nearest: ", a) #in case the difference is equal, choose min
#value
Simplest answer-
Every prime number can be represented in the form (6*x-1 and 6*X +1) (except 2 and 3).
let number is N.divide it with 6.
t=N/6;
now
a=(t-1)*6
b=(t+1)*6
and check which one is closer to N.