During an assignment, I was asked to show that a hash table of size m (m>3, m is prime) that is less than half full, and that uses quadratic checking (hash(k, i) = (h(k) + i^2) mod m) we will always find a free spot.
I've checked and arrived to the conclusion that the spots that will be found (when h(k)=0) are 0 mod m, 1 mod m, 4 mod m, 9 mod m, ...
My problem is that I can't figure a way to show that it will always find the free spot. I've tested it myself with different values of m, and also have proven myself that if the hash table is more than half full, we might never find a free spot.
Can anyone please hint me towards the way to solve this?
Thanks!
0, 1, 4, ..., ((m-1)/2)^2 are all distinct mod m. Why?
Suppose two numbers from that range, i^2 and j^2, are equivalent mod m.
Then i^2 - j^2 = (i-j)(i+j) = 0 (mod m). Since m is prime, m must divide one of those factors. But the factors are both less than m, so one of them ((i-j)) is 0. That is, i = j.
Since we are starting at 0, more than half the slots that are distinct. If you can only fill less than m/2 of them, at least one remains open.
Let's break the proof down.
Setup
First, some background.
With a hash table, we define a probe sequence P. For any item q, following P will eventually lead to the right item in the hash table. The probe sequence is just a series of functions {h_0, ..., h_M-1} where h_i is a hash function.
To insert an item q into the table, we look at h_0(q), h_1(q), and so on, until we find an empty spot. To find q later, we examine the same sequence of locations.
In general, the probe sequence is of the form h_i(q) = [h(q) + c(i)] mod M, for a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number. The function c(i) is the collision-resolution strategy, which must have two properties:
First, c(0) = 0. This means that the first probe in the sequence must be equal to just performing the hash.
Second, the values {c(0) mod M, ..., c(M-1) mod M} must contain every integer between 0 and M-1. This means that if you keep trying to find empty spots, the probe sequence will eventually probe every array position.
Applying quadratic probing
Okay, we've got the setup of how the hash table works. Let's look at quadratic probing. This just means that for our c(i) we're using a general quadratic equation of the form ai^2 + bi + c, though for most implementations you'll usually just see c(i) = i^2 (that is, b, c = 0).
Does quadratic probing meet the two properties we talked about before? Well, it's certainly true that c(0) = 0 here, since (0)^2 is indeed 0, so it meets the first property. What about the second property?
It turns out that in general, the answer is no.
Theorem. When quadratic probing is used in a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number, only the first floor[M/2] probes in the probe sequence are distinct.
Let's see why this is the case, using a proof by contradiction.
Say that the theorem is wrong. Then that means there are two values a and b such that 0 <= a < b < floor[M/2] that probe the same position.
h_a(q) and h_b(q) must probe the same position, by (1), so h_a(q) = h_b(q).
h_a(q) = h_b(q) ==> h(q) + c(a) = h(q) + c(b), mod M.
The h(q) on both sides cancel. Our c(i) is just c(i) = i^2, so we have a^2 = b^2.
Solving the quadratic equation in (4) gives us a^2 - b^2 = 0, mod M. This is a difference of two squares, so the solution is (a - b)(a + b) = 0, mod M.
But remember, we said M was a prime number. The only way that (a - b)(a + b) can be zero mod M is if [case I] (a - b) is zero, or [case II] (a + b) is zero mod M.
Case I can't be right, because we said that a != b, so a - b must be something other than zero.
The only way for (a + b) to be zero mod M is for a + b to be equal to be a multiple of M or zero. They clearly can't be zero, since they're both bigger than zero. And since they're both less than floor[M/2], their sum must be less than M. So case II can't be right either.
Thus, if the theorem were wrong, one of two quantities must be zero, neither of which can possibly be zero -- a contradiction! QED: quadratic probing doesn't satisfy property two once your table is more than half full and if your table size is a prime number. The proof is complete!
From Wikipedia:
For prime m > 2, most choices of c1 and c2 will make h(k,i) distinct for i in [0,(m − 1) / 2]. Such choices include c1 = c2 = 1/2, c1 = c2 = 1, and c1 = 0,c2 = 1. Because there are only about m/2 distinct probes for a given element, it is difficult to guarantee that insertions will succeed when the load factor is > 1/2.
See the quadratic probing section in Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in C++ for a proof that m/2 elements are distinct when m is prime.
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).
I have this formula:
index = (a * k) % M
which maps a number 'k', from an input set K of distinct numbers, into it's position in a hashtable. I was wondering how to write a non-brute force program that finds such 'M' and 'a' so that 'M' is minimal, and there are no collisions for the given set K.
If, instead of a numeric multiplication you could perform a logic computation (and / or /not), I think that the optimal solution (minimum value of M) would be as small as card(K) if you could get a function that related each value of K (once ordered) with its position in the set.
Theoretically, it must be possible to write a truth table for such a relation (bit a bit), and then simplify the minterms through a Karnaugh Table with a proper program. Depending on the desired number of bits, the computational complexity would be affordable... or not.
If a is co-prime to M then a * k = a * k' mod M if, and only if, k = k' mod M, so you might as well use a = 1, which is always co-prime to M. This also covers all the cases in which M is prime, because all the numbers except 0 are then co-prime to M.
If a and M are not co-prime, then they share a common factor, say b, so a = x * b and M = y * b. In this case anything multiplied by a will also be divisible by b mod M, and you might as well by working mod y, not mod M, so there is nothing to be gained by using an a not co-prime to M.
So for the problem you state, you could save some time by leaving a=1 and trying all possible values of M.
If you are e.g. using 32-bit integers and really calculating not (a * k) mod M but ((a * k) mod 2^32) mod M you might be able to find cases where values of a other than 1 do better than a=1 because of what happens in (a * k) mod 2^32.
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.
The question is Number of solutions to a1 x1+a2 x2+....+an xn=k with constraints: 1)ai>0 and ai<=15 2)n>0 and n<=15 3)xi>=0 I was able to formulate a Dynamic programming solution but it is running too long for n>10^10. Please guide me to get a more efficient soution.
The code
int dp[]=new int[16];
dp[0]=1;
BigInteger seen=new BigInteger("0");
while(true)
{
for(int i=0;i<arr[0];i++)
{
if(dp[0]==0)
break;
dp[arr[i+1]]=(dp[arr[i+1]]+dp[0])%1000000007;
}
for(int i=1;i<15;i++)
dp[i-1]=dp[i];
seen=seen.add(new BigInteger("1"));
if(seen.compareTo(n)==0)
break;
}
System.out.println(dp[0]);
arr is the array containing coefficients and answer should be mod 1000000007 as the number of ways donot fit into an int.
Update for real problem:
The actual problem is much simpler. However, it's hard to be helpful without spoiling it entirely.
Stripping it down to the bare essentials, the problem is
Given k distinct positive integers L1, ... , Lk and a nonnegative integer n, how many different finite sequences (a1, ..., ar) are there such that 1. for all i (1 <= i <= r), ai is one of the Lj, and 2. a1 + ... + ar = n. (In other words, the number of compositions of n using only the given Lj.)
For convenience, you are also told that all the Lj are <= 15 (and hence k <= 15), and n <= 10^18. And, so that the entire computation can be carried out using 64-bit integers (the number of sequences grows exponentially with n, you wouldn't have enough memory to store the exact number for large n), you should only calculate the remainder of the sequence count modulo 1000000007.
To solve such a problem, start by looking at the simplest cases first. The very simplest cases are when only one L is given, then evidently there is one admissible sequence if n is a multiple of L and no admissible sequence if n mod L != 0. That doesn't help yet. So consider the next simplest cases, two L values given. Suppose those are 1 and 2.
0 has one composition, the empty sequence: N(0) = 1
1 has one composition, (1): N(1) = 1
2 has two compositions, (1,1); (2): N(2) = 2
3 has three compositions, (1,1,1);(1,2);(2,1): N(3) = 3
4 has five compositions, (1,1,1,1);(1,1,2);(1,2,1);(2,1,1);(2,2): N(4) = 5
5 has eight compositions, (1,1,1,1,1);(1,1,1,2);(1,1,2,1);(1,2,1,1);(2,1,1,1);(1,2,2);(2,1,2);(2,2,1): N(5) = 8
You may see it now, or need a few more terms, but you'll notice that you get the Fibonacci sequence (shifted by one), N(n) = F(n+1), thus the sequence N(n) satisfies the recurrence relation
N(n) = N(n-1) + N(n-2) (for n >= 2; we have not yet proved that, so far it's a hypothesis based on pattern-spotting). Now, can we see that without calculating many values? Of course, there are two types of admissible sequences, those ending with 1 and those ending with 2. Since that partitioning of the admissible sequences restricts only the last element, the number of ad. seq. summing to n and ending with 1 is N(n-1) and the number of ad. seq. summing to n and ending with 2 is N(n-2).
That reasoning immediately generalises, given L1 < L2 < ... < Lk, for all n >= Lk, we have
N(n) = N(n-L1) + N(n-L2) + ... + N(n-Lk)
with the obvious interpretation if we're only interested in N(n) % m.
Umm, that linear recurrence still leaves calculating N(n) as an O(n) task?
Yes, but researching a few of the mentioned keywords quickly leads to an algorithm needing only O(log n) steps ;)
Algorithm for misinterpreted problem, no longer relevant, but may still be interesting:
The question looks a little SPOJish, so I won't give a complete algorithm (at least, not before I've googled around a bit to check if it's a contest question). I hope no restriction has been omitted in the description, such as that permutations of such representations should only contribute one to the count, that would considerably complicate the matter. So I count 1*3 + 2*4 = 11 and 2*4 + 1*3 = 11 as two different solutions.
Some notations first. For m-tuples of numbers, let < | > denote the canonical bilinear pairing, i.e.
<a|x> = a_1*x_1 + ... + a_m*x_m. For a positive integer B, let A_B = {1, 2, ..., B} be the set of positive integers not exceeding B. Let N denote the set of natural numbers, i.e. of nonnegative integers.
For 0 <= m, k and B > 0, let C(B,m,k) = card { (a,x) \in A_B^m × N^m : <a|x> = k }.
Your problem is then to find \sum_{m = 1}^15 C(15,m,k) (modulo 1000000007).
For completeness, let us mention that C(B,0,k) = if k == 0 then 1 else 0, which can be helpful in theoretical considerations. For the case of a positive number of summands, we easily find the recursion formula
C(B,m+1,k) = \sum_{j = 0}^k C(B,1,j) * C(B,m,k-j)
By induction, C(B,m,_) is the convolution¹ of m factors C(B,1,_). Calculating the convolution of two known functions up to k is O(k^2), so if C(B,1,_) is known, that gives an O(n*k^2) algorithm to compute C(B,m,k), 1 <= m <= n. Okay for small k, but our galaxy won't live to see you calculating C(15,15,10^18) that way. So, can we do better? Well, if you're familiar with the Laplace-transformation, you'll know that an analogous transformation will convert the convolution product to a pointwise product, which is much easier to calculate. However, although the transformation is in this case easy to compute, the inverse is not. Any other idea? Why, yes, let's take a closer look at C(B,1,_).
C(B,1,k) = card { a \in A_B : (k/a) is an integer }
In other words, C(B,1,k) is the number of divisors of k not exceeding B. Let us denote that by d_B(k). It is immediately clear that 1 <= d_B(k) <= B. For B = 2, evidently d_2(k) = 1 if k is odd, 2 if k is even. d_3(k) = 3 if and only if k is divisible by 2 and by 3, hence iff k is a multiple of 6, d_3(k) = 2 if and only if one of 2, 3 divides k but not the other, that is, iff k % 6 \in {2,3,4} and finally, d_3(k) = 1 iff neither 2 nor 3 divides k, i.e. iff gcd(k,6) = 1, iff k % 6 \in {1,5}. So we've seen that d_2 is periodic with period 2, d_3 is periodic with period 6. Generally, like reasoning shows that d_B is periodic for all B, and the minimal positive period divides B!.
Given any positive period P of C(B,1,_) = d_B, we can split the sum in the convolution (k = q*P+r, 0 <= r < P):
C(B,m+1, q*P+r) = \sum_{c = 0}^{q-1} (\sum_{j = 0}^{P-1} d_B(j)*C(B,m,(q-c)*P + (r-j)))
+ \sum_{j = 0}^r d_B(j)*C(B,m,r-j)
The functions C(B,m,_) are no longer periodic for m >= 2, but there are simple formulae to obtain C(B,m,q*P+r) from C(B,m,r). Thus, with C(B,1,_) = d_B and C(B,m,_) known up to P, calculating C(B,m+1,_) up to P is an O(P^2) task², getting the data necessary for calculating C(B,m+1,k) for arbitrarily large k, needs m such convolutions, hence that's O(m*P^2).
Then finding C(B,m,k) for 1 <= m <= n and arbitrarily large k is O(n^2*P^2), in time and O(n^2*P) in space.
For B = 15, we have 15! = 1.307674368 * 10^12, so using that for P isn't feasible. Fortunately, the smallest positive period of d_15 is much smaller, so you get something workable. From a rough estimate, I would still expect the calculation of C(15,15,k) to take time more appropriately measured in hours than seconds, but it's an improvement over O(k) which would take years (for k in the region of 10^18).
¹ The convolution used here is (f \ast g)(k) = \sum_{j = 0}^k f(j)*g(k-j).
² Assuming all arithmetic operations are O(1); if, as in the OP, only the residue modulo some M > 0 is desired, that holds if all intermediate calculations are done modulo M.
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.