How to create the most compact mapping n → isprime(n) up to a limit N? - algorithm

Naturally, for bool isprime(number) there would be a data structure I could query.
I define the best algorithm, to be the algorithm that produces a data structure with lowest memory consumption for the range (1, N], where N is a constant.
Just an example of what I am looking for: I could represent every odd number with one bit e.g. for the given range of numbers (1, 10], starts at 3: 1110
The following dictionary can be squeezed more, right? I could eliminate multiples of five with some work, but numbers that end with 1, 3, 7 or 9 must be there in the array of bits.
How do I solve the problem?

The fastest algorithm for general prime testing is AKS. The Wikipedia article describes it at lengths and links to the original paper.
If you want to find big numbers, look into primes that have special forms like Mersenne primes.
The algorithm I usually implement (easy to understand and code) is as follows (in Python):
def isprime(n):
"""Returns True if n is prime."""
if n == 2:
return True
if n == 3:
return True
if n % 2 == 0:
return False
if n % 3 == 0:
return False
i = 5
w = 2
while i * i <= n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += w
w = 6 - w
return True
It's a variant of the classic O(sqrt(N)) algorithm. It uses the fact that a prime (except 2 and 3) is of form 6k - 1 or 6k + 1 and looks only at divisors of this form.
Sometimes, If I really want speed and the range is limited, I implement a pseudo-prime test based on Fermat's little theorem. If I really want more speed (i.e. avoid O(sqrt(N)) algorithm altogether), I precompute the false positives (see Carmichael numbers) and do a binary search. This is by far the fastest test I've ever implemented, the only drawback is that the range is limited.

A pretty simple and concise brute-force solution to check whether a number N is prime: simply check if there is any divisor of N from 2 up to the square root of N (see why here if interested).
The following code is compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3:
from math import sqrt
from itertools import count, islice
def is_prime(n):
return n > 1 and all(n % i for i in islice(count(2), int(sqrt(n) - 1)))
And here's a simpler Python 3 only implementation:
def is_prime(n):
return n > 1 and all(n % i for i in range(2, int(n ** 0.5) + 1))
Here are the extended versions of the above for clarity:
from math import sqrt
from itertools import count, islice
def is_prime(n):
if n < 2:
return False
for divisor in islice(count(2), int(sqrt(n) - 1)):
if n % divisor == 0:
return False
return True
def is_prime(n):
if n < 2:
return False
for divisor in range(2, int(n ** 0.5) + 1):
if n % divisor == 0:
return False
return True
This is not meant to be anything near the fastest nor the most optimal primality check algorithm, it only accomplishes the goal of being simple and concise, which also reduces implementation errors. It has a time complexity of O(sqrt(n)).
If you are looking for faster algorithms to check whether a number is prime, you might be interested in the following:
Finding primes & proving primality: brief overview and explanation of the most famous primality tests and their history.
Probabilistic primality tests (Wikipedia): these can be incorporated in the above code rather easily to skip the brute force if they do not pass, as an example there is this excellent answer to the duplicate of this question.
Fast deterministic primaliry tests (Wikipedia)
This Q&A Fastest way to list all primes below N along with the pyprimesieve library.
Implementation notes
You might have noticed that in the Python 2 compatible implementation I am using itertools.count() in combination with itertools.islice() instead of a simple range() or xrange() (the old Python 2 generator range, which in Python 3 is the default). This is because in CPython 2 xrange(N) for some N such that N > 263 ‒ 1 (or N > 231 ‒ 1 depending on the implementation) raises an OverflowError. This is an unfortunate CPython implementation detail.
We can use itertools to overcome this issue. Since we are counting up from 2 to infinity using itertools.count(2), we'll reach sqrt(n) after sqrt(n) - 1 steps, and we can limit the generator using itertools.islice().

There are many efficient ways to test primality (and this isn't one of them), but the loop you wrote can be concisely rewritten in Python:
def is_prime(a):
return all(a % i for i in xrange(2, a))
That is, a is prime if all numbers between 2 and a (not inclusive) give non-zero remainder when divided into a.

This is the most efficient way to see if a number is prime, if you only have a few queries. If you ask a lot of numbers if they are prime, try Sieve of Eratosthenes.
import math
def is_prime(n):
if n == 2:
return True
if n % 2 == 0 or n <= 1:
return False
sqr = int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1
for divisor in range(3, sqr, 2):
if n % divisor == 0:
return False
return True

If a is a prime then the while x: in your code will run forever, since x will remain True.
So why is that while there?
I think you wanted to end the for loop when you found a factor, but didn't know how, so you added that while since it has a condition. So here is how you do it:
def is_prime(a):
x = True
for i in range(2, a):
if a%i == 0:
x = False
break # ends the for loop
# no else block because it does nothing ...
if x:
print "prime"
else:
print "not prime"

I compared the efficiency of the most popular suggestions to determine if a number is prime. I used python 3.6 on ubuntu 17.10; I tested with numbers up to 100.000 (you can test with bigger numbers using my code below).
This first plot compares the functions (which are explained further down in my answer), showing that the last functions do not grow as fast as the first one when increasing the numbers.
And in the second plot we can see that in case of prime numbers the time grows steadily, but non-prime numbers do not grow so fast in time (because most of them can be eliminated early on).
Here are the functions I used:
this answer and this answer suggested a construct using all():
def is_prime_1(n):
return n > 1 and all(n % i for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1))
This answer used some kind of while loop:
def is_prime_2(n):
if n <= 1:
return False
if n == 2:
return True
if n == 3:
return True
if n % 2 == 0:
return False
if n % 3 == 0:
return False
i = 5
w = 2
while i * i <= n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += w
w = 6 - w
return True
This answer included a version with a for loop:
def is_prime_3(n):
if n <= 1:
return False
if n % 2 == 0 and n > 2:
return False
for i in range(3, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1, 2):
if n % i == 0:
return False
return True
And I mixed a few ideas from the other answers into a new one:
def is_prime_4(n):
if n <= 1: # negative numbers, 0 or 1
return False
if n <= 3: # 2 and 3
return True
if n % 2 == 0 or n % 3 == 0:
return False
for i in range(5, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1, 2):
if n % i == 0:
return False
return True
Here is my script to compare the variants:
import math
import pandas as pd
import seaborn as sns
import time
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def is_prime_1(n):
...
def is_prime_2(n):
...
def is_prime_3(n):
...
def is_prime_4(n):
...
default_func_list = (is_prime_1, is_prime_2, is_prime_3, is_prime_4)
def assert_equal_results(func_list=default_func_list, n):
for i in range(-2, n):
r_list = [f(i) for f in func_list]
if not all(r == r_list[0] for r in r_list):
print(i, r_list)
raise ValueError
print('all functions return the same results for integers up to {}'.format(n))
def compare_functions(func_list=default_func_list, n):
result_list = []
n_measurements = 3
for f in func_list:
for i in range(1, n + 1):
ret_list = []
t_sum = 0
for _ in range(n_measurements):
t_start = time.perf_counter()
is_prime = f(i)
t_end = time.perf_counter()
ret_list.append(is_prime)
t_sum += (t_end - t_start)
is_prime = ret_list[0]
assert all(ret == is_prime for ret in ret_list)
result_list.append((f.__name__, i, is_prime, t_sum / n_measurements))
df = pd.DataFrame(
data=result_list,
columns=['f', 'number', 'is_prime', 't_seconds'])
df['t_micro_seconds'] = df['t_seconds'].map(lambda x: round(x * 10**6, 2))
print('df.shape:', df.shape)
print()
print('', '-' * 41)
print('| {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11s} |'.format(
'is_prime', 'count', 'percent'))
df_sub1 = df[df['f'] == 'is_prime_1']
print('| {:11s} | {:11,d} | {:9.1f} % |'.format(
'all', df_sub1.shape[0], 100))
for (is_prime, count) in df_sub1['is_prime'].value_counts().iteritems():
print('| {:11s} | {:11,d} | {:9.1f} % |'.format(
str(is_prime), count, count * 100 / df_sub1.shape[0]))
print('', '-' * 41)
print()
print('', '-' * 69)
print('| {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11s} |'.format(
'f', 'is_prime', 't min (us)', 't mean (us)', 't max (us)'))
for f, df_sub1 in df.groupby(['f', ]):
col = df_sub1['t_micro_seconds']
print('|{0}|{0}|{0}|{0}|{0}|'.format('-' * 13))
print('| {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11.2f} | {:11.2f} | {:11.2f} |'.format(
f, 'all', col.min(), col.mean(), col.max()))
for is_prime, df_sub2 in df_sub1.groupby(['is_prime', ]):
col = df_sub2['t_micro_seconds']
print('| {:11s} | {:11s} | {:11.2f} | {:11.2f} | {:11.2f} |'.format(
f, str(is_prime), col.min(), col.mean(), col.max()))
print('', '-' * 69)
return df
Running the function compare_functions(n=10**5) (numbers up to 100.000) I get this output:
df.shape: (400000, 5)
-----------------------------------------
| is_prime | count | percent |
| all | 100,000 | 100.0 % |
| False | 90,408 | 90.4 % |
| True | 9,592 | 9.6 % |
-----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| f | is_prime | t min (us) | t mean (us) | t max (us) |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_1 | all | 0.57 | 2.50 | 154.35 |
| is_prime_1 | False | 0.57 | 1.52 | 154.35 |
| is_prime_1 | True | 0.89 | 11.66 | 55.54 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_2 | all | 0.24 | 1.14 | 304.82 |
| is_prime_2 | False | 0.24 | 0.56 | 304.82 |
| is_prime_2 | True | 0.25 | 6.67 | 48.49 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_3 | all | 0.20 | 0.95 | 50.99 |
| is_prime_3 | False | 0.20 | 0.60 | 40.62 |
| is_prime_3 | True | 0.58 | 4.22 | 50.99 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_4 | all | 0.20 | 0.89 | 20.09 |
| is_prime_4 | False | 0.21 | 0.53 | 14.63 |
| is_prime_4 | True | 0.20 | 4.27 | 20.09 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, running the function compare_functions(n=10**6) (numbers up to 1.000.000) I get this output:
df.shape: (4000000, 5)
-----------------------------------------
| is_prime | count | percent |
| all | 1,000,000 | 100.0 % |
| False | 921,502 | 92.2 % |
| True | 78,498 | 7.8 % |
-----------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| f | is_prime | t min (us) | t mean (us) | t max (us) |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_1 | all | 0.51 | 5.39 | 1414.87 |
| is_prime_1 | False | 0.51 | 2.19 | 413.42 |
| is_prime_1 | True | 0.87 | 42.98 | 1414.87 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_2 | all | 0.24 | 2.65 | 612.69 |
| is_prime_2 | False | 0.24 | 0.89 | 322.81 |
| is_prime_2 | True | 0.24 | 23.27 | 612.69 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_3 | all | 0.20 | 1.93 | 67.40 |
| is_prime_3 | False | 0.20 | 0.82 | 61.39 |
| is_prime_3 | True | 0.59 | 14.97 | 67.40 |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
| is_prime_4 | all | 0.18 | 1.88 | 332.13 |
| is_prime_4 | False | 0.20 | 0.74 | 311.94 |
| is_prime_4 | True | 0.18 | 15.23 | 332.13 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I used the following script to plot the results:
def plot_1(func_list=default_func_list, n):
df_orig = compare_functions(func_list=func_list, n=n)
df_filtered = df_orig[df_orig['t_micro_seconds'] <= 20]
sns.lmplot(
data=df_filtered, x='number', y='t_micro_seconds',
col='f',
# row='is_prime',
markers='.',
ci=None)
plt.ticklabel_format(style='sci', axis='x', scilimits=(3, 3))
plt.show()

One can use sympy.
import sympy
sympy.ntheory.primetest.isprime(33393939393929292929292911111111)
True
From sympy docs. The first step is looking for trivial factors, which if found enables a quick return. Next, if the sieve is large enough, use bisection search on the sieve. For small numbers, a set of deterministic Miller-Rabin tests are performed with bases that are known to have no counterexamples in their range. Finally if the number is larger than 2^64, a strong BPSW test is performed. While this is a probable prime test and we believe counterexamples exist, there are no known counterexamples

According to wikipedia, the Sieve of Eratosthenes has complexity O(n * (log n) * (log log n)) and requires O(n) memory - so it's a pretty good place to start if you aren't testing for especially large numbers.

bool isPrime(int n)
{
// Corner cases
if (n <= 1) return false;
if (n <= 3) return true;
// This is checked so that we can skip
// middle five numbers in below loop
if (n%2 == 0 || n%3 == 0) return false;
for (int i=5; i*i<=n; i=i+6)
if (n%i == 0 || n%(i+2) == 0)
return false;
return true;
}
This is just c++ implementation of above

For large numbers you cannot simply naively check whether the candidate number N is divisible by none of the numbers less than sqrt(N). There are much more scalable tests available, such as the Miller-Rabin primality test. Below you have implementation in python:
def is_prime(x):
"""Fast implementation fo Miller-Rabin primality test, guaranteed to be correct."""
import math
def get_sd(x):
"""Returns (s: int, d: int) for which x = d*2^s """
if not x: return 0, 0
s = 0
while 1:
if x % 2 == 0:
x /= 2
s += 1
else:
return s, x
if x <= 2:
return x == 2
# x - 1 = d*2^s
s, d = get_sd(x - 1)
if not s:
return False # divisible by 2!
log2x = int(math.log(x) / math.log(2)) + 1
# As long as Riemann hypothesis holds true, it is impossible
# that all the numbers below this threshold are strong liars.
# Hence the number is guaranteed to be a prime if no contradiction is found.
threshold = min(x, 2*log2x*log2x+1)
for a in range(2, threshold):
# From Fermat's little theorem if x is a prime then a^(x-1) % x == 1
# Hence the below must hold true if x is indeed a prime:
if pow(a, d, x) != 1:
for r in range(0, s):
if -pow(a, d*2**r, x) % x == 1:
break
else:
# Contradicts Fermat's little theorem, hence not a prime.
return False
# No contradiction found, hence x must be a prime.
return True
You can use it to find huge prime numbers:
x = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
for e in range(1000):
if is_prime(x + e):
print('%d is a prime!' % (x + e))
break
# 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000133 is a prime!
If you are testing random integers probably you want to first test whether the candidate number is divisible by any of the primes smaller than, say 1000, before you call Miller-Rabin. This will help you filter out obvious non-primes such as 10444344345.

Python 3:
def is_prime(a):
return a > 1 and all(a % i for i in range(2, int(a**0.5) + 1))

Way too late to the party, but hope this helps. This is relevant if you are looking for big primes:
To test large odd numbers you need to use the Fermat-test and/or Miller-Rabin test.
These tests use modular exponentiation which is quite expensive, for n bits exponentiation you need at least n big int multiplication and n big int divison. Which means the complexity of modular exponentiation is O(n³).
So before using the big guns, you need to do quite a few trial divisions. But don't do it naively, there is a way to do them fast.
First multiply as many primes together as many fits into a the words you use for the big integers. If you use 32 bit words, multiply 3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29=3234846615 and compute the greatest common divisor with the number you test using the Euclidean algorithm. After the first step the number is reduced below the word size and continue the algorithm without performing complete big integer divisions. If the GCD != 1, that means one of the primes you multiplied together divides the number, so you have a proof it's not prime. Then continue with 31*37*41*43*47 = 95041567, and so on.
Once you tested several hundred (or thousand) primes this way, you can do 40 rounds of Miller-Rabin test to confirm the number is prime, after 40 rounds you can be certain the number is prime there is only 2^-80 chance it's not (it's more likely your hardware malfunctions...).

I have got a prime function which works until (2^61)-1 Here:
from math import sqrt
def isprime(num): num > 1 and return all(num % x for x in range(2, int(sqrt(num)+1)))
Explanation:
The all() function can be redefined to this:
def all(variables):
for element in variables:
if not element: return False
return True
The all() function just goes through a series of bools / numbers and returns False if it sees 0 or False.
The sqrt() function is just doing the square root of a number.
For example:
>>> from math import sqrt
>>> sqrt(9)
>>> 3
>>> sqrt(100)
>>> 10
The num % x part returns the remainder of num / x.
Finally, range(2, int(sqrt(num))) means that it will create a list that starts at 2 and ends at int(sqrt(num)+1)
For more information about range, have a look at this website!
The num > 1 part is just checking if the variable num is larger than 1, becuase 1 and 0 are not considered prime numbers.
I hope this helped :)

In Python:
def is_prime(n):
return not any(n % p == 0 for p in range(2, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1))
A more direct conversion from mathematical formalism to Python would use all(n % p != 0... ), but that requires strict evaluation of all values of p. The not any version can terminate early if a True value is found.

best algorithm for Primes number javascript
function isPrime(num) {
if (num <= 1) return false;
else if (num <= 3) return true;
else if (num % 2 == 0 || num % 3 == 0) return false;
var i = 5;
while (i * i <= num) {
if (num % i == 0 || num % (i + 2) == 0) return false;
i += 6;
}
return true
}

A prime number is any number that is only divisible by 1 and itself. All other numbers are called composite.
The simplest way, of finding a prime number, is to check if the input number is a composite number:
function isPrime(number) {
// Check if a number is composite
for (let i = 2; i < number; i++) {
if (number % i === 0) {
return false;
}
}
// Return true for prime numbers
return true;
}
The program has to divide the value of number by all the whole numbers from 1 and up to the its value. If this number can be divided evenly not only by one and itself it is a composite number.
The initial value of the variable i has to be 2 because both prime and composite numbers can be evenly divided by 1.
for (let i = 2; i < number; i++)
Then i is less than number for the same reason. Both prime and composite numbers can be evenly divided by themselves. Therefore there is no reason to check it.
Then we check whether the variable can be divided evenly by using the remainder operator.
if (number % i === 0) {
return false;
}
If the remainder is zero it means that number can be divided evenly, hence being a composite number and returning false.
If the entered number didn't meet the condition, it means it's a prime number and the function returns true.

Smallest memory? This isn't smallest, but is a step in the right direction.
class PrimeDictionary {
BitArray bits;
public PrimeDictionary(int n) {
bits = new BitArray(n + 1);
for (int i = 0; 2 * i + 3 <= n; i++) {
bits.Set(i, CheckPrimality(2 * i + 3));
}
}
public PrimeDictionary(IEnumerable<int> primes) {
bits = new BitArray(primes.Max());
foreach(var prime in primes.Where(p => p != 2)) {
bits.Set((prime - 3) / 2, true);
}
}
public bool IsPrime(int k) {
if (k == 2) {
return true;
}
if (k % 2 == 0) {
return false;
}
return bits[(k - 3) / 2];
}
}
Of course, you have to specify the definition of CheckPrimality.

To find if the number or numbers in a range is/are prime.
#!usr/bin/python3
def prime_check(*args):
for arg in args:
if arg > 1: # prime numbers are greater than 1
for i in range(2,arg): # check for factors
if(arg % i) == 0:
print(arg,"is not Prime")
print(i,"times",arg//i,"is",arg)
break
else:
print(arg,"is Prime")
# if input number is less than
# or equal to 1, it is not prime
else:
print(arg,"is not Prime")
return
# Calling Now
prime_check(*list(range(101))) # This will check all the numbers in range 0 to 100
prime_check(#anynumber) # Put any number while calling it will check.

myInp=int(input("Enter a number: "))
if myInp==1:
print("The number {} is neither a prime not composite no".format(myInp))
elif myInp>1:
for i in range(2,myInp//2+1):
if myInp%i==0:
print("The Number {} is not a prime no".format(myInp))
print("Because",i,"times",myInp//i,"is",myInp)
break
else:
print("The Number {} is a prime no".format(myInp))
else:
print("Alas the no {} is a not a prime no".format(myInp))

public static boolean isPrime(int number) {
if(number < 2)
return false;
else if(number == 2 || number == 3)
return true;
else {
for(int i=2;i<=number/2;i++)
if(number%i == 0)
return false;
else if(i==number/2)
return true;
}
return false;
}

Most of previous answers are correct but here is one more way to test to see a number is prime number. As refresher, prime numbers are whole number greater than 1 whose only factors are 1 and itself.(source)
Solution:
Typically you can build a loop and start testing your number to see if it's divisible by 1,2,3 ...up to the number you are testing ...etc but to reduce the time to check, you can divide your number by half of the value of your number because a number cannot be exactly divisible by anything above half of it's value.
Example if you want to see 100 is a prime number you can loop through up to 50.
Actual code:
def find_prime(number):
if(number ==1):
return False
# we are dividiing and rounding and then adding the remainder to increment !
# to cover not fully divisible value to go up forexample 23 becomes 11
stop=number//2+number%2
#loop through up to the half of the values
for item in range(2,stop):
if number%item==0:
return False
print(number)
return True
if(find_prime(3)):
print("it's a prime number !!")
else:
print("it's not a prime")

We can use java streams to implement this in O(sqrt(n)); Consider that noneMatch is a shortCircuiting method that stops the operation when finds it unnecessary for determining the result:
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
int n = in.nextInt();
System.out.println(n == 2 ? "Prime" : IntStream.rangeClosed(2, ((int)(Math.sqrt(n)) + 1)).noneMatch(a -> n % a == 0) ? "Prime" : "Not Prime");

With help of Java-8 streams and lambdas, it can be implemented like this in just few lines:
public static boolean isPrime(int candidate){
int candidateRoot = (int) Math.sqrt( (double) candidate);
return IntStream.range(2,candidateRoot)
.boxed().noneMatch(x -> candidate % x == 0);
}
Performance should be close to O(sqrt(N)). Maybe someone find it useful.

### is_prime(number) =
### if number % p1 !=0 for all p1(prime numbers) < (sqrt(number) + 1),
### filter numbers that are not prime from divisors
import math
def check_prime(N, prime_numbers_found = [2]):
if N == 2:
return True
if int(math.sqrt(N)) + 1 > prime_numbers_found[-1]:
divisor_range = prime_numbers_found + list(range(prime_numbers_found[-1] + 1, int(math.sqrt(N)) + 1+ 1))
else:
divisor_range = prime_numbers_found
#print(divisor_range, N)
for number in divisor_range:
if number not in prime_numbers_found:
if check_prime(number, prime_numbers_found):
prime_numbers_found.append(number)
if N % number == 0:
return False
else:
if N % number == 0:
return False
return True

bool isPrime(int n) {
if(n <= 3)
return (n > 1)==0? false: true;
else if(n%2 == 0 || n%3 == 0)
return false;
int i = 5;
while(i * i <= n){
if(n%i == 0 || (n%(i+2) == 0))
return false;
i = i + 6;
}
return true;
}
For any number, the minimum iterations to check if the number is prime or not can be from 2 to square root of the number. To reduce the iterations, even more, we can check if the number is divisible by 2 or 3 as maximum numbers can be eliminated by checking if the number is divisible by 2 or 3. Further any prime number greater than 3 can be expressed as 6k+1 or 6k-1. So the iteration can go from 6k+1 to the square root of the number.

Let me suggest you the perfect solution for 64 bit integers. Sorry to use C#. You have not already specified it as python in your first post. I hope you can find a simple modPow function and analyze it easily.
public static bool IsPrime(ulong number)
{
return number == 2
? true
: (BigInterger.ModPow(2, number, number) == 2
? ((number & 1) != 0 && BinarySearchInA001567(number) == false)
: false)
}
public static bool BinarySearchInA001567(ulong number)
{
// Is number in list?
// todo: Binary Search in A001567 (https://oeis.org/A001567) below 2 ^ 64
// Only 2.35 Gigabytes as a text file http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/Pseudoprimes/index-2-to-64.html
}

BEST SOLUTION
I an unsure if I understand the concept of Time complexity: O(sqrt(n)) and Space complexity: O(1) in this context but the
function prime(n) is probably the fastest way (least iterations)
to calculate if a number is prime number of any size.
https://github.com/ganeshkbhat/fastprimenumbers
This probably is the BEST solution in the internet as of today 11th
March 2022. Feedback and usage is welcome.
This same code can be applied in any languages like C, C++, Go Lang,
Java, .NET, Python, Rust, etc with the same logic and have performance
benefits. It is pretty fast. I have not seen this implemented before
and has been indigenously done.
If you are looking at the speed and performance here is the """BEST""" hopeful solution I can give:
Max iterations 16666 for n == 100000 instead of 100000 of conventional
way
The codes can also be found here: https://github.com/ganeshkbhat/fastprimecalculations
If you use it for your project please spend 2 minutes of your time crediting me by letting me know by either sending me an email, or logging an Github issue with subject heading [User], or star my Github project. But let me know here https://github.com/ganeshkbhat/fastprimecalculations. I would love to know the fans and users of the code logic
def prime(n):
if ((n == 2 or n == 3 or n == 5 or n == 7)):
return True
if (n == 1 or ((n > 7) and (n % 5 == 0 or n % 7 == 0 or n % 2 == 0 or n % 3 == 0))):
return False
if ( type((n - 1) / 6) == int or type((n + 1) / 6) == int):
for i in range(1, n):
factorsix = (i * 6)
five = n / (5 + factorsix)
seven = n / (7 + factorsix)
if ( ((five > 1) and type(five) == int) or ((seven > 1) and type(five) == int) ):
return False;
if (factorsix > n):
break;
return True
return False
Here is an analysis of all the ways of calculation:
Conventional way of checking for prime:
def isPrimeConventionalWay(n):
count = 0
if (n <= 1):
return False;
# Check from 2 to n-1
# Max iterations 99998 for n == 100000
for i in range(2,n):
# Counting Iterations
count += 1
if (n % i == 0):
print("count: Prime Conventional way", count)
return False;
print("count: Prime Conventional way", count)
return True;
SQUAREROOT way of checking for prime:
def isPrimeSquarerootWay(num):
count = 0
# if not is_number num return False
if (num < 2):
print("count: Prime Squareroot way", count)
return False
s = math.sqrt(num)
for i in range(2, num):
# Counting Iterations
count += 1
if (num % i == 0):
print("count: Prime Squareroot way", count)
return False
print("count: Prime Squareroot way", count)
return True
OTHER WAYS:
def isprimeAKSWay(n):
"""Returns True if n is prime."""
count = 0
if n == 2:
return True
if n == 3:
return True
if n % 2 == 0:
return False
if n % 3 == 0:
return False
i = 5
w = 2
while i * i <= n:
count += 1
if n % i == 0:
print("count: Prime AKS - Mersenne primes - Fermat's little theorem or whatever way", count)
return False
i += w
w = 6 - w
print("count: Prime AKS - Mersenne primes - Fermat's little theorem or whatever way", count)
return True
SUGGESTED way of checking for prime:
def prime(n):
count = 0
if ((n == 2 or n == 3 or n == 5 or n == 7)):
print("count: Prime Unconventional way", count)
return True
if (n == 1 or ((n > 7) and (n % 5 == 0 or n % 7 == 0 or n % 2 == 0 or n % 3 == 0))):
print("count: Prime Unconventional way", count)
return False
if (((n - 1) / 6).is_integer()) or (((n + 1) / 6).is_integer()):
for i in range(1, n):
# Counting Iterations
count += 1
five = 5 + (i * 6)
seven = 7 + (i * 6)
if ((((n / five) > 1) and (n / five).is_integer()) or (((n / seven) > 1) and ((n / seven).is_integer()))):
print("count: Prime Unconventional way", count)
return False;
if ((i * 6) > n):
# Max iterations 16666 for n == 100000 instead of 100000
break;
print("count: Prime Unconventional way", count)
return True
print("count: Prime Unconventional way", count)
return False
Tests to compare with the traditional way of checking for prime numbers.
def test_primecalculations():
count = 0
iterations = 100000
arr = []
for i in range(1, iterations):
traditional = isPrimeConventionalWay(i)
newer = prime(i)
if (traditional == newer):
count = count + 1
else:
arr.push([traditional, newer, i])
print("[count, iterations, arr] list: ", count, iterations, arr)
if (count == iterations):
return True
return False
# print("Tests Passed: ", test_primecalculations())
You will see the results of count of number of iterations as below for check of prime number: 100007:
print("Is Prime 100007: ", isPrimeConventionalWay(100007))
print("Is Prime 100007: ", isPrimeSquarerootWay(100007))
print("Is Prime 100007: ", prime(100007))
print("Is Prime 100007: ", isprimeAKSWay(100007))
count: Prime Conventional way 96
Is Prime 100007: False
count: Prime Squareroot way 96
Is Prime 100007: False
count: Prime Unconventional way 15
Is Prime 100007: False
count: Prime AKS - Mersenne primes - Fermat's little theorem or whatever way 32
Is Prime 100007: False
Here are some performance tests and results below:
import time
isPrimeConventionalWayArr = []
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr = []
primeArr = []
isprimeAKSWayArr = []
def tests_performance_isPrimeConventionalWayArr():
global isPrimeConventionalWayArr
for i in range(1, 1000000):
start = time.perf_counter_ns()
isPrimeConventionalWay(30000239)
end = time.perf_counter_ns()
isPrimeConventionalWayArr.append(end - start)
tests_performance_isPrimeConventionalWayArr()
def tests_performance_isPrimeSquarerootWayArr():
global isPrimeSquarerootWayArr
for i in range(1, 1000000):
start = time.perf_counter_ns()
isPrimeSquarerootWay(30000239)
end = time.perf_counter_ns()
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr.append(end - start)
tests_performance_isPrimeSquarerootWayArr()
def tests_performance_primeArr():
global primeArr
for i in range(1, 1000000):
start = time.perf_counter_ns()
prime(30000239)
end = time.perf_counter_ns()
primeArr.append(end - start)
tests_performance_primeArr()
def tests_performance_isprimeAKSWayArr():
global isprimeAKSWayArr
for i in range(1, 1000000):
start = time.perf_counter_ns()
isprimeAKSWay(30000239)
end = time.perf_counter_ns()
isprimeAKSWayArr.append(end - start)
tests_performance_isprimeAKSWayArr()
print("isPrimeConventionalWayArr: ", sum(isPrimeConventionalWayArr)/len(isPrimeConventionalWayArr))
print("isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: ", sum(isPrimeSquarerootWayArr)/len(isPrimeSquarerootWayArr))
print("primeArr: ", sum(primeArr)/len(primeArr))
print("isprimeAKSWayArr: ", sum(isprimeAKSWayArr)/len(isprimeAKSWayArr))
Sample 1 Million Iterations
Iteration 1:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1749.97224997225
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 1835.6258356258356
primeArr (suggested): 475.2365752365752
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1177.982377982378
Iteration 2:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1803.141403141403
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2184.222484222484
primeArr (suggested): 572.6434726434726
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1403.3838033838033
Iteration 3:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1876.941976941977
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2190.43299043299
primeArr (suggested): 569.7365697365698
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1449.4147494147494
Iteration 4:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1873.2779732779734
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2177.154777154777
primeArr (suggested): 590.4243904243905
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1401.9143019143019
Iteration 5:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1891.1986911986912
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2218.093218093218
primeArr (suggested): 571.6938716938716
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1397.6471976471976
Iteration 6:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1868.8454688454688
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2168.034368034368
primeArr (suggested): 566.3278663278663
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1393.090193090193
Iteration 7:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1879.4764794764794
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2199.030199030199
primeArr (suggested): 574.055874055874
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1397.7587977587978
Iteration 8:
isPrimeConventionalWayArr: 1789.2868892868894
isPrimeSquarerootWayArr: 2182.3258823258825
primeArr (suggested): 569.3206693206694
isprimeAKSWayArr: 1407.1486071486072

Similar idea to the algorithm which has been mentioned
public static boolean isPrime(int n) {
if(n == 2 || n == 3) return true;
if((n & 1 ) == 0 || n % 3 == 0) return false;
int limit = (int)Math.sqrt(n) + 1;
for(int i = 5, w = 2; i <= limit; i += w, w = 6 - w) {
if(n % i == 0) return false;
numChecks++;
}
return true;
}

When I have to do a fast verification, I write this simple code based on the basic division between numbers lower than square root of input.
def isprime(n):
if n%2==0:
return n==2
else:
cota = int(n**0.5)+1
for ind in range(3,2,cota):
if n%ind==0:
print(ind)
return False
is_one = n==1
return True != is_one
isprime(22783)
The last True != n==1 is to avoid the case n=1.

Related

Count the number of zero digit in an integer number?

I wonder if there is a way to count the number of zero digit in an integer number by using only these operations: +, -, * and /
Others operations such as cast, div, mod, ... are not allowed.
Input: 16085021
Output: 2
It is a major restriction that numbers cannot be compared in a way to know that one is less than the other, and only equality checks can be done.
In my opinion that means there is nothing much else you can do than repeatedly add 1 to a variable until it hits a target (n) and derive from that what the least significant digit is of the original number n. This is of course terribly slow and not scalable, but it works in theory.
Here is a demo in Python using only ==, +, - and /:
n = 16085021
count = 0
while True:
# find out what least significant digit is
digit = 0
i = 0
while True:
if n == i:
break
digit = digit + 1
if digit == 10:
digit = 0
i = i + 1
# count any zero digit
if digit == 0:
count = count + 1
# shift that digit out of n
n = (n - digit) / 10
if n == 0:
break
print(count) # 2
Modulo can be implemented with subtractions: a % b = subtract b from a until you end up with something < b and that's the result. You say we can only use the == comparison operator, but we are only interested in modulo 10, so we can just check equality to 0, 1, ..., 9.
def modulo10WithSubtractions(a):
if a == 0 || a == 1 || ... || a == 9:
return a
while True:
a = a - b
if a == 0 || a == 1 || ... || a == 9:
return a
Integer division by 10 can be implemented in a similar fashion: a // 10 = add 10 to itself as many times as possible without exceeding a.
def div10WithAdditions(a):
if a == 0 || a == 1 || ... || a == 9:
return 0
k = 0
while True:
k += 1
if a - k*10 == 0 || a - k*10 == 1 || ... || a - k*10 == 9:
return k
Then we can basically do the classical algorithm:
count = 0
while True:
lastDigit = modulo10WithSubtractions(a)
if lastDigit == 0:
count += 1
a = div10WithAdditions(a)
if a == 0:
break
Asuuming / means integer division, then this snippet does the job.
int zeros = 0;
while(num > 0){
if(num / 10 == (num + 9) / 10){
zeros++;
}
num /= 10;
}

Algorithm for equiprobable random square binary matrices with two non-adjacent non-zeros in each row and column

It would be great if someone could point me towards an algorithm that would allow me to :
create a random square matrix, with entries 0 and 1, such that
every row and every column contain exactly two non-zero entries,
two non-zero entries cannot be adjacent,
all possible matrices are equiprobable.
Right now I manage to achieve points 1 and 2 doing the following : such a matrix can be transformed, using suitable permutations of rows and columns, into a diagonal block matrix with blocks of the form
1 1 0 0 ... 0
0 1 1 0 ... 0
0 0 1 1 ... 0
.............
1 0 0 0 ... 1
So I start from such a matrix using a partition of [0, ..., n-1] and scramble it by permuting rows and columns randomly. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to integrate the adjacency condition, and I am quite sure that my algorithm won't treat all the matrices equally.
Update
I have managed to achieve point 3. The answer was actually straight under my nose : the block matrix I am creating contains all the information needed to take into account the adjacency condition. First some properties and definitions:
a suitable matrix defines permutations of [1, ..., n] that can be build like so: select a 1 in row 1. The column containing this entry contains exactly one other entry equal to 1 on a row a different from 1. Again, row a contains another entry 1 in a column which contains a second entry 1 on a row b, and so on. This starts a permutation 1 -> a -> b ....
For instance, with the following matrix, starting with the marked entry
v
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 5
0 1 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
we get permutation 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 2 -> 6 -> 4 -> 1.
the cycles of such a permutation lead to the block matrix I mentioned earlier. I also mentioned scrambling the block matrix using arbitrary permutations on the rows and columns to rebuild a matrix compatible with the requirements.
But I was using any permutation, which led to some adjacent non-zero entries. To avoid that, I have to choose permutations that separate rows (and columns) that are adjacent in the block matrix. Actually, to be more precise, if two rows belong to a same block and are cyclically consecutive (the first and last rows of a block are considered consecutive too), then the permutation I want to apply has to move these rows into non-consecutive rows of the final matrix (I will call two rows incompatible in that case).
So the question becomes : How to build all such permutations ?
The simplest idea is to build a permutation progressively by randomly adding rows that are compatible with the previous one. As an example, consider the case n = 6 using partition 6 = 3 + 3 and the corresponding block matrix
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Here rows 1, 2 and 3 are mutually incompatible, as are 4, 5 and 6. Choose a random row, say 3.
We will write a permutation as an array: [2, 5, 6, 4, 3, 1] meaning 1 -> 2, 2 -> 5, 3 -> 6, ... This means that row 2 of the block matrix will become the first row of the final matrix, row 5 will become the second row, and so on.
Now let's build a suitable permutation by choosing randomly a row, say 3:
p = [3, ...]
The next row will then be chosen randomly among the remaining rows that are compatible with 3 : 4, 5and 6. Say we choose 4:
p = [3, 4, ...]
Next choice has to be made among 1 and 2, for instance 1:
p = [3, 4, 1, ...]
And so on: p = [3, 4, 1, 5, 2, 6].
Applying this permutation to the block matrix, we get:
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Doing so, we manage to vertically isolate all non-zero entries. Same has to be done with the columns, for instance by using permutation p' = [6, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2] to finally get
0 1 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 5
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
6 3 5 1 4 2 |
So this seems to work quite efficiently, but building these permutations needs to be done with caution, because one can easily be stuck: for instance, with n=6 and partition 6 = 2 + 2 + 2, following the construction rules set up earlier can lead to p = [1, 3, 2, 4, ...]. Unfortunately, 5 and 6 are incompatible, so choosing one or the other makes the last choice impossible. I think I've found all situations that lead to a dead end. I will denote by r the set of remaining choices:
p = [..., x, ?], r = {y} with x and y incompatible
p = [..., x, ?, ?], r = {y, z} with y and z being both incompatible with x (no choice can be made)
p = [..., ?, ?], r = {x, y} with x and y incompatible (any choice would lead to situation 1)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with x, y and z being cyclically consecutive (choosing x or z would lead to situation 2, choosing y to situation 3)
p = [..., w, ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with xwy being a 3-cycle (neither x nor y can be chosen, choosing z would lead to situation 3)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with wxyz being a 4-cycle (any choice would lead to situation 4)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with xyz being a 3-cycle (choosing w would lead to situation 4, choosing any other would lead to situation 4)
Now it seems that the following algorithm gives all suitable permutations:
As long as there are strictly more than 5 numbers to choose, choose randomly among the compatible ones.
If there are 5 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain a 3-cycle or a 4-cycle, break that cycle (i.e. choose a number belonging to that cycle).
If there are 4 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain three cyclically consecutive numbers, choose one of them.
If there are 3 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain two cyclically consecutive numbers, choose one of them.
I am quite sure that this allows me to generate all suitable permutations and, hence, all suitable matrices.
Unfortunately, every matrix will be obtained several times, depending on the partition that was chosen.
Intro
Here is some prototype-approach, trying to solve the more general task of
uniform combinatorial sampling, which for our approach here means: we can use this approach for everything which we can formulate as SAT-problem.
It's not exploiting your problem directly and takes a heavy detour. This detour to the SAT-problem can help in regards to theory (more powerful general theoretical results) and efficiency (SAT-solvers).
That being said, it's not an approach if you want to sample within seconds or less (in my experiments), at least while being concerned about uniformity.
Theory
The approach, based on results from complexity-theory, follows this work:
GOMES, Carla P.; SABHARWAL, Ashish; SELMAN, Bart. Near-uniform sampling of combinatorial spaces using XOR constraints. In: Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems. 2007. S. 481-488.
The basic idea:
formulate the problem as SAT-problem
add randomly generated xors to the problem (acting on the decision-variables only! that's important in practice)
this will reduce the number of solutions (some solutions will get impossible)
do that in a loop (with tuned parameters) until only one solution is left!
search for some solution is being done by SAT-solvers or #SAT-solvers (=model-counting)
if there is more than one solution: no xors will be added but a complete restart will be done: add random-xors to the start-problem!
The guarantees:
when tuning the parameters right, this approach achieves near-uniform sampling
this tuning can be costly, as it's based on approximating the number of possible solutions
empirically this can also be costly!
Ante's answer, mentioning the number sequence A001499 actually gives a nice upper bound on the solution-space (as it's just ignoring adjacency-constraints!)
The drawbacks:
inefficient for large problems (in general; not necessarily compared to the alternatives like MCMC and co.)
need to change / reduce parameters to produce samples
those reduced parameters lose the theoretical guarantees
but empirically: good results are still possible!
Parameters:
In practice, the parameters are:
N: number of xors added
L: minimum number of variables part of one xor-constraint
U: maximum number of variables part of one xor-constraint
N is important to reduce the number of possible solutions. Given N constant, the other variables of course also have some effect on that.
Theory says (if i interpret correctly), that we should use L = R = 0.5 * #dec-vars.
This is impossible in practice here, as xor-constraints hurt SAT-solvers a lot!
Here some more scientific slides about the impact of L and U.
They call xors of size 8-20 short-XORS, while we will need to use even shorter ones later!
Implementation
Final version
Here is a pretty hacky implementation in python, using the XorSample scripts from here.
The underlying SAT-solver in use is Cryptominisat.
The code basically boils down to:
Transform the problem to conjunctive normal-form
as DIMACS-CNF
Implement the sampling-approach:
Calls XorSample (pipe-based + file-based)
Call SAT-solver (file-based)
Add samples to some file for later analysis
Code: (i hope i did warn you already about the code-quality)
from itertools import count
from time import time
import subprocess
import numpy as np
import os
import shelve
import uuid
import pickle
from random import SystemRandom
cryptogen = SystemRandom()
""" Helper functions """
# K-ARY CONSTRAINT GENERATION
# ###########################
# SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints.
# CP, 2005, 3709. Jg., S. 827-831.
def next_var_index(start):
next_var = start
while(True):
yield next_var
next_var += 1
class s_index():
def __init__(self, start_index):
self.firstEnvVar = start_index
def next(self,i,j,k):
return self.firstEnvVar + i*k +j
def gen_seq_circuit(k, input_indices, next_var_index_gen):
cnf_string = ''
s_index_gen = s_index(next_var_index_gen.next())
# write clauses of first partial sum (i.e. i=0)
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[0]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(0,0,k)) + ' 0\n')
for i in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(0, i, k)) + ' 0\n')
# write clauses for general case (i.e. 0 < i < n-1)
for i in range(1, len(input_indices)-1):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, 0, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
for u in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u-1, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
# last clause for last variable
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[-1]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(len(input_indices)-2, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
return (cnf_string, (len(input_indices)-1)*k, 2*len(input_indices)*k + len(input_indices) - 3*k - 1)
# K=2 clause GENERATION
# #####################
def gen_at_most_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(2, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
def gen_at_least_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
k = len(vars) - 2
vars = [-var for var in vars]
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(k, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
# Adjacency conflicts
# ###################
def get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X):
conflicts = set()
for x in range(N):
for y in range(N):
if x < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x+1,y)))
if y < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x,y+1)))
cnf = '' # slow string appends
for (var_a, var_b) in conflicts:
var_a_ = X[var_a]
var_b_ = X[var_b]
cnf += '-' + var_a_ + ' ' + '-' + var_b_ + ' 0 \n'
return cnf, len(conflicts)
# Build SAT-CNF
#############
def build_cnf(N, verbose=False):
var_counter = count(1)
N_CLAUSES = 0
X = np.zeros((N, N), dtype=object)
for a in range(N):
for b in range(N):
X[a,b] = str(next(var_counter))
# Adjacency constraints
CNF, N_CLAUSES = get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X)
# k=2 constraints
NEXT_VAR = N*N+1
for row in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
for col in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
# build final cnf
CNF = 'p cnf ' + str(NEXT_VAR-1) + ' ' + str(N_CLAUSES) + '\n' + CNF
return X, CNF, NEXT_VAR-1
# External tools
# ##############
def get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_ALL_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
# .cnf not part of arg!
p = subprocess.Popen(['./gen-wff', CNF_IN_fp,
str(N_DEC_VARS), str(N_ALL_VARS),
str(s), str(min_l), str(max_l), 'xored'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.xor') # file not needed
return CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.cnf'
def solve(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS):
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647) # actually no reason to do it; but can't hurt either
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
# solution found!
vars = parse_solution(result)[:N_DEC_VARS]
# forbid solution (DeMorgan)
negated_vars = list(map(lambda x: x*(-1), vars))
with open(CNF_IN_fp, 'a') as f:
f.write( (str(negated_vars)[1:-1] + ' 0\n').replace(',', ''))
# assume solve is treating last constraint despite not changing header!
# solve again
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647)
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp) # not needed anymore
return True, False, None
else:
return True, True, vars
else:
return False, False, None
def parse_solution(output):
# assumes there is one
vars = []
for line in output.split("\n"):
if line:
if line[0] == 'v':
line_vars = list(map(lambda x: int(x), line.split()[1:]))
vars.extend(line_vars)
return vars
# Core-algorithm
# ##############
def xorsample(X, CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
start_time = time()
while True:
# add s random XOR constraints to F
xored_cnf_fp = get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l)
state_lvl1, state_lvl2, var_sol = solve(xored_cnf_fp, N_DEC_VARS)
print('------------')
if state_lvl1 and state_lvl2:
print('FOUND')
d = shelve.open('N_15_70_4_6_TO_PLOT')
d[str(uuid.uuid4())] = (pickle.dumps(var_sol), time() - start_time)
d.close()
return True
else:
if state_lvl1:
print('sol not unique')
else:
print('no sol found')
print('------------')
""" Run """
N = 15
N_DEC_VARS = N*N
X, CNF, N_VARS = build_cnf(N)
with open('my_problem.cnf', 'w') as f:
f.write(CNF)
counter = 0
while True:
print('sample: ', counter)
xorsample(X, 'my_problem', N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, 70, 4, 6)
counter += 1
Output will look like (removed some warnings):
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
sol not unique
------------
------------
FOUND
Core: CNF-formulation
We introduce one variable for every cell of the matrix. N=20 means 400 binary-variables.
Adjancency:
Precalculate all symmetry-reduced conflicts and add conflict-clauses.
Basic theory:
a -> !b
<->
!a v !b (propositional logic)
Row/Col-wise Cardinality:
This is tough to express in CNF and naive approaches need an exponential number
of constraints.
We use some adder-circuit based encoding (SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints) which introduces new auxiliary-variables.
Remark:
sum(var_set) <= k
<->
sum(negated(var_set)) >= len(var_set) - k
These SAT-encodings can be put into exact model-counters (for small N; e.g. < 9). The number of solutions equals Ante's results, which is a strong indication for a correct transformation!
There are also interesting approximate model-counters (also heavily based on xor-constraints) like approxMC which shows one more thing we can do with the SAT-formulation. But in practice i have not been able to use these (approxMC = autoconf; no comment).
Other experiments
I did also build a version using pblib, to use more powerful cardinality-formulations
for the SAT-CNF formulation. I did not try to use the C++-based API, but only the reduced pbencoder, which automatically selects some best encoding, which was way worse than my encoding used above (which is best is still a research-problem; often even redundant-constraints can help).
Empirical analysis
For the sake of obtaining some sample-size (given my patience), i only computed samples for N=15. In this case we used:
N=70 xors
L,U = 4,6
I also computed some samples for N=20 with (100,3,6), but this takes a few mins and we reduced the lower bound!
Visualization
Here some animation (strengthening my love-hate relationship with matplotlib):
Edit: And a (reduced) comparison to brute-force uniform-sampling with N=5 (NXOR,L,U = 4, 10, 30):
(I have not yet decided on the addition of the plotting-code. It's as ugly as the above one and people might look too much into my statistical shambles; normalizations and co.)
Theory
Statistical analysis is probably hard to do as the underlying problem is of such combinatoric nature. It's even not entirely obvious how that final cell-PDF should look like. In the case of N=odd, it's probably non-uniform and looks like a chess-board (i did brute-force check N=5 to observe this).
One thing we can be sure about (imho): symmetry!
Given a cell-PDF matrix, we should expect, that the matrix is symmetric (A = A.T).
This is checked in the visualization and the euclidean-norm of differences over time is plotted.
We can do the same on some other observation: observed pairings.
For N=3, we can observe the following pairs:
0,1
0,2
1,2
Now we can do this per-row and per-column and should expect symmetry too!
Sadly, it's probably not easy to say something about the variance and therefore the needed samples to speak about confidence!
Observation
According to my simplified perception, current-samples and the cell-PDF look good, although convergence is not achieved yet (or we are far away from uniformity).
The more important aspect are probably the two norms, nicely decreasing towards 0.
(yes; one could tune some algorithm for that by transposing with prob=0.5; but this is not done here as it would defeat it's purpose).
Potential next steps
Tune parameters
Check out the approach using #SAT-solvers / Model-counters instead of SAT-solvers
Try different CNF-formulations, especially in regards to cardinality-encodings and xor-encodings
XorSample is by default using tseitin-like encoding to get around exponentially grow
for smaller xors (as used) it might be a good idea to use naive encoding (which propagates faster)
XorSample supports that in theory; but the script's work differently in practice
Cryptominisat is known for dedicated XOR-handling (as it was build for analyzing cryptography including many xors) and might gain something by naive encoding (as inferring xors from blown-up CNFs is much harder)
More statistical-analysis
Get rid of XorSample scripts (shell + perl...)
Summary
The approach is very general
This code produces feasible samples
It should be not hard to prove, that every feasible solution can be sampled
Others have proven theoretical guarantees for uniformity for some params
does not hold for our params
Others have empirically / theoretically analyzed smaller parameters (in use here)
(Updated test results, example run-through and code snippets below.)
You can use dynamic programming to calculate the number of solutions resulting from every state (in a much more efficient way than a brute-force algorithm), and use those (pre-calculated) values to create equiprobable random solutions.
Consider the example of a 7x7 matrix; at the start, the state is:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0
meaning that there are seven adjacent unused columns. After adding two ones to the first row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,0,0,1,0,0
with two columns that now have a one in them. After adding ones to the second row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,1,0,1,0,1
After three rows are filled, there is a possibility that a column will have its maximum of two ones; this effectively splits the matrix into two independent zones:
1,1,1,0,2,0,1 -> 1,1,1,0 + 0,1
These zones are independent in the sense that the no-adjacent-ones rule has no effect when adding ones to different zones, and the order of the zones has no effect on the number of solutions.
In order to use these states as signatures for types of solutions, we have to transform them into a canonical notation. First, we have to take into account the fact that columns with only 1 one in them may be unusable in the next row, because they contain a one in the current row. So instead of a binary notation, we have to use a ternary notation, e.g.:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1
where the 2 means that this column was used in the current row (and not that there are 2 ones in the column). At the next step, we should then convert the twos back into ones.
Additionally, we can also mirror the seperate groups to put them into their lexicographically smallest notation:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1 -> 0,1,1,2 + 0,1
Lastly, we sort the seperate groups from small to large, and then lexicographically, so that a state in a larger matrix may be e.g.:
0,0 + 0,1 + 0,0,2 + 0,1,0 + 0,1,0,1
Then, when calculating the number of solutions resulting from each state, we can use memoization using the canonical notation of each state as a key.
Creating a dictionary of the states and the number of solutions for each of them only needs to be done once, and a table for larger matrices can probably be used for smaller matrices too.
Practically, you'd generate a random number between 0 and the total number of solutions, and then for every row, you'd look at the different states you could create from the current state, look at the number of unique solutions each one would generate, and see which option leads to the solution that corresponds with your randomly generated number.
Note that every state and the corresponding key can only occur in a particular row, so you can store the keys in seperate dictionaries per row.
TEST RESULTS
A first test using unoptimized JavaScript gave very promising results. With dynamic programming, calculating the number of solutions for a 10x10 matrix now takes a second, where a brute-force algorithm took several hours (and this is the part of the algorithm that only needs to be done once). The size of the dictionary with the signatures and numbers of solutions grows with a diminishing factor approaching 2.5 for each step in size; the time to generate it grows with a factor of around 3.
These are the number of solutions, states, signatures (total size of the dictionaries), and maximum number of signatures per row (largest dictionary per row) that are created:
size unique solutions states signatures max/row
4x4 2 9 6 2
5x5 16 73 26 8
6x6 722 514 107 40
7x7 33,988 2,870 411 152
8x8 2,215,764 13,485 1,411 596
9x9 179,431,924 56,375 4,510 1,983
10x10 17,849,077,140 218,038 13,453 5,672
11x11 2,138,979,146,276 801,266 38,314 14,491
12x12 304,243,884,374,412 2,847,885 104,764 35,803
13x13 50,702,643,217,809,908 9,901,431 278,561 96,414
14x14 9,789,567,606,147,948,364 33,911,578 723,306 238,359
15x15 2,168,538,331,223,656,364,084 114,897,838 1,845,861 548,409
16x16 546,386,962,452,256,865,969,596 ... 4,952,501 1,444,487
17x17 155,420,047,516,794,379,573,558,433 12,837,870 3,754,040
18x18 48,614,566,676,379,251,956,711,945,475 31,452,747 8,992,972
19x19 17,139,174,923,928,277,182,879,888,254,495 74,818,773 20,929,008
20x20 6,688,262,914,418,168,812,086,412,204,858,650 175,678,000 50,094,203
(Additional results obtained with C++, using a simple 128-bit integer implementation. To count the states, the code had to be run using each state as a seperate signature, which I was unable to do for the largest sizes. )
EXAMPLE
The dictionary for a 5x5 matrix looks like this:
row 0: 00000 -> 16 row 3: 101 -> 0
1112 -> 1
row 1: 20002 -> 2 1121 -> 1
00202 -> 4 1+01 -> 0
02002 -> 2 11+12 -> 2
02020 -> 2 1+121 -> 1
0+1+1 -> 0
row 2: 10212 -> 1 1+112 -> 1
12012 -> 1
12021 -> 2 row 4: 0 -> 0
12102 -> 1 11 -> 0
21012 -> 0 12 -> 0
02121 -> 3 1+1 -> 1
01212 -> 1 1+2 -> 0
The total number of solutions is 16; if we randomly pick a number from 0 to 15, e.g. 13, we can find the corresponding (i.e. the 14th) solution like this:
state: 00000
options: 10100 10010 10001 01010 01001 00101
signature: 00202 02002 20002 02020 02002 00202
solutions: 4 2 2 2 2 4
This tells us that the 14th solution is the 2nd solution of option 00101. The next step is:
state: 00101
options: 10010 01010
signature: 12102 02121
solutions: 1 3
This tells us that the 2nd solution is the 1st solution of option 01010. The next step is:
state: 01111
options: 10100 10001 00101
signature: 11+12 1112 1+01
solutions: 2 1 0
This tells us that the 1st solution is the 1st solution of option 10100. The next step is:
state: 11211
options: 01010 01001
signature: 1+1 1+1
solutions: 1 1
This tells us that the 1st solutions is the 1st solution of option 01010. The last step is:
state: 12221
options: 10001
And the 5x5 matrix corresponding to randomly chosen number 13 is:
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1
And here's a quick'n'dirty code example; run the snippet to generate the signature and solution count dictionary, and generate a random 10x10 matrix (it takes a second to generate the dictionary; once that is done, it generates random solutions in half a millisecond):
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
function random_matrix(n, memo) {
var matrix = [], empty = [], state = [], prev = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = state[i] = prev[i] = 0;
var total = memo[0][signature(empty, empty)];
var pick = Math.floor(Math.random() * total);
document.write("solution " + pick.toLocaleString('en-US') +
" from a total of " + total.toLocaleString('en-US') + "<br>");
for (var row = 1; row <= n; row++) {
var options = find_options(state, prev);
for (var i in options) {
var state_copy = state.slice();
for (var j in state_copy) state_copy[j] += options[i][j];
var sig = signature(state_copy, options[i]);
var solutions = memo[row][sig];
if (pick < solutions) {
matrix.push(options[i].slice());
prev = options[i].slice();
state = state_copy.slice();
break;
}
else pick -= solutions;
}
}
return matrix;
function find_options(state, prev) {
var options = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var option = empty.slice();
++option[i]; ++option[j];
options.push(option);
}
}
return options;
}
}
var size = 10;
var memo = memoize(size);
var matrix = random_matrix(size, memo);
for (var row in matrix) document.write(matrix[row] + "<br>");
The code snippet below shows the dictionary of signatures and solution counts for a matrix of size 10x10. I've used a slightly different signature format from the explanation above: the zones are delimited by a '2' instead of a plus sign, and a column which has a one in the previous row is marked with a '3' instead of a '2'. This shows how the keys could be stored in a file as integers with 2×N bits (padded with 2's).
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
var memo = memoize(10);
for (var i in memo) {
document.write("row " + i + ":<br>");
for (var j in memo[i]) {
document.write(""" + j + "": " + memo[i][j] + "<br>");
}
}
Just few thoughts. Number of matrices satisfying conditions for n <= 10:
3 0
4 2
5 16
6 722
7 33988
8 2215764
9 179431924
10 17849077140
Unfortunatelly there is no sequence with these numbers in OEIS.
There is one similar (A001499), without condition for neighbouring one's. Number of nxn matrices in this case is 'of order' as A001499's number of (n-1)x(n-1) matrices. That is to be expected since number
of ways to fill one row in this case, position 2 one's in n places with at least one zero between them is ((n-1) choose 2). Same as to position 2 one's in (n-1) places without the restriction.
I don't think there is an easy connection between these matrix of order n and A001499 matrix of order n-1, meaning that if we have A001499 matrix than we can construct some of these matrices.
With this, for n=20, number of matrices is >10^30. Quite a lot :-/
This solution use recursion in order to set the cell of the matrix one by one. If the random walk finish with an impossible solution then we rollback one step in the tree and we continue the random walk.
The algorithm is efficient and i think that the generated data are highly equiprobable.
package rndsqmatrix;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
public class RndSqMatrix {
/**
* Generate a random matrix
* #param size the size of the matrix
* #return the matrix encoded in 1d array i=(x+y*size)
*/
public static int[] generate(final int size) {
return generate(size, new int[size * size], new int[size],
new int[size]);
}
/**
* Build a matrix recursivly with a random walk
* #param size the size of the matrix
* #param matrix the matrix encoded in 1d array i=(x+y*size)
* #param rowSum
* #param colSum
* #return
*/
private static int[] generate(final int size, final int[] matrix,
final int[] rowSum, final int[] colSum) {
// generate list of valid positions
final List<Integer> positions = new ArrayList();
for (int y = 0; y < size; y++) {
if (rowSum[y] < 2) {
for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) {
if (colSum[x] < 2) {
final int p = x + y * size;
if (matrix[p] == 0
&& (x == 0 || matrix[p - 1] == 0)
&& (x == size - 1 || matrix[p + 1] == 0)
&& (y == 0 || matrix[p - size] == 0)
&& (y == size - 1 || matrix[p + size] == 0)) {
positions.add(p);
}
}
}
}
}
// no valid positions ?
if (positions.isEmpty()) {
// if the matrix is incomplete => return null
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if (rowSum[i] != 2 || colSum[i] != 2) {
return null;
}
}
// the matrix is complete => return it
return matrix;
}
// random walk
Collections.shuffle(positions);
for (int p : positions) {
// set '1' and continue recursivly the exploration
matrix[p] = 1;
rowSum[p / size]++;
colSum[p % size]++;
final int[] solMatrix = generate(size, matrix, rowSum, colSum);
if (solMatrix != null) {
return solMatrix;
}
// rollback
matrix[p] = 0;
rowSum[p / size]--;
colSum[p % size]--;
}
// we can't find a valid matrix from here => return null
return null;
}
public static void printMatrix(final int size, final int[] matrix) {
for (int y = 0; y < size; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) {
System.out.print(matrix[x + y * size]);
System.out.print(" ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
public static void printStatistics(final int size, final int count) {
final int sumMatrix[] = new int[size * size];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
final int[] matrix = generate(size);
for (int j = 0; j < sumMatrix.length; j++) {
sumMatrix[j] += matrix[j];
}
}
printMatrix(size, sumMatrix);
}
public static void checkAlgorithm() {
final int size = 8;
final int count = 2215764;
final int divisor = 122;
final int sumMatrix[] = new int[size * size];
for (int i = 0; i < count/divisor ; i++) {
final int[] matrix = generate(size);
for (int j = 0; j < sumMatrix.length; j++) {
sumMatrix[j] += matrix[j];
}
}
int total = 0;
for(int i=0; i < sumMatrix.length; i++) {
total += sumMatrix[i];
}
final double factor = (double)total / (count/divisor);
System.out.println("Factor=" + factor + " (theory=16.0)");
}
public static void benchmark(final int size, final int count,
final boolean parallel) {
final long begin = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (!parallel) {
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
generate(size);
}
} else {
IntStream.range(0, count).parallel().forEach(i -> generate(size));
}
final long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("rate="
+ (double) (end - begin) / count + "ms/matrix");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
checkAlgorithm();
benchmark(8, 10000, true);
//printStatistics(8, 2215764/36);
printStatistics(8, 2215764);
}
}
The output is:
Factor=16.0 (theory=16.0)
rate=0.2835ms/matrix
552969 554643 552895 554632 555680 552753 554567 553389
554071 554847 553441 553315 553425 553883 554485 554061
554272 552633 555130 553699 553604 554298 553864 554028
554118 554299 553565 552986 553786 554473 553530 554771
554474 553604 554473 554231 553617 553556 553581 553992
554960 554572 552861 552732 553782 554039 553921 554661
553578 553253 555721 554235 554107 553676 553776 553182
553086 553677 553442 555698 553527 554850 553804 553444
Here is a very fast approach of generating the matrix row by row, written in Java:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
int n = 100;
Random rnd = new Random();
byte[] mat = new byte[n*n];
byte[] colCount = new byte[n];
//generate row by row
for (int x = 0; x < n; x++) {
//generate a random first bit
int b1 = rnd.nextInt(n);
while ( (x > 0 && mat[(x-1)*n + b1] == 1) || //not adjacent to the one above
(colCount[b1] == 2) //not in a column which has 2
) b1 = rnd.nextInt(n);
//generate a second bit, not equal to the first one
int b2 = rnd.nextInt(n);
while ( (b2 == b1) || //not the same as bit 1
(x > 0 && mat[(x-1)*n + b2] == 1) || //not adjacent to the one above
(colCount[b2] == 2) || //not in a column which has 2
(b2 == b1 - 1) || //not adjacent to b1
(b2 == b1 + 1)
) b2 = rnd.nextInt(n);
//fill the matrix values and increment column counts
mat[x*n + b1] = 1;
mat[x*n + b2] = 1;
colCount[b1]++;
colCount[b2]++;
}
String arr = Arrays.toString(mat).substring(1, n*n*3 - 1);
System.out.println(arr.replaceAll("(.{" + n*3 + "})", "$1\n"));
}
It essentially generates each a random row at a time. If the row will violate any of the conditions, it is generated again (again randomly). I believe this will satisfy condition 4 as well.
Adding a quick note that it will spin forever for N-s where there is no solutions (like N=3).

Count number of 1 digits in 11 to the power of N

I came across an interesting problem:
How would you count the number of 1 digits in the representation of 11 to the power of N, 0<N<=1000.
Let d be the number of 1 digits
N=2 11^2 = 121 d=2
N=3 11^3 = 1331 d=2
Worst time complexity expected O(N^2)
The simple approach where you compute the number and count the number of 1 digits my getting the last digit and dividing by 10, does not work very well. 11^1000 is not even representable in any standard data type.
Powers of eleven can be stored as a string and calculated quite quickly that way, without a generalised arbitrary precision math package. All you need is multiply by ten and add.
For example, 111 is 11. To get the next power of 11 (112), you multiply by (10 + 1), which is effectively the number with a zero tacked the end, added to the number: 110 + 11 = 121.
Similarly, 113 can then be calculated as: 1210 + 121 = 1331.
And so on:
11^2 11^3 11^4 11^5 11^6
110 1210 13310 146410 1610510
+11 +121 +1331 +14641 +161051
--- ---- ----- ------ -------
121 1331 14641 161051 1771561
So that's how I'd approach, at least initially.
By way of example, here's a Python function to raise 11 to the n'th power, using the method described (I am aware that Python has support for arbitrary precision, keep in mind I'm just using it as a demonstration on how to do this an an algorithm, which is how the question was tagged):
def elevenToPowerOf(n):
# Anything to the zero is 1.
if n == 0: return "1"
# Otherwise, n <- n * 10 + n, once for each level of power.
num = "11"
while n > 1:
n = n - 1
# Make multiply by eleven easy.
ten = num + "0"
num = "0" + num
# Standard primary school algorithm for adding.
newnum = ""
carry = 0
for dgt in range(len(ten)-1,-1,-1):
res = int(ten[dgt]) + int(num[dgt]) + carry
carry = res // 10
res = res % 10
newnum = str(res) + newnum
if carry == 1:
newnum = "1" + newnum
# Prepare for next multiplication.
num = newnum
# There you go, 11^n as a string.
return num
And, for testing, a little program which works out those values for each power that you provide on the command line:
import sys
for idx in range(1,len(sys.argv)):
try:
power = int(sys.argv[idx])
except (e):
print("Invalid number [%s]" % (sys.argv[idx]))
sys.exit(1)
if power < 0:
print("Negative powers not allowed [%d]" % (power))
sys.exit(1)
number = elevenToPowerOf(power)
count = 0
for ch in number:
if ch == '1':
count += 1
print("11^%d is %s, has %d ones" % (power,number,count))
When you run that with:
time python3 prog.py 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1000
you can see that it's both accurate (checked with bc) and fast (finished in about half a second):
11^0 is 1, has 1 ones
11^1 is 11, has 2 ones
11^2 is 121, has 2 ones
11^3 is 1331, has 2 ones
11^4 is 14641, has 2 ones
11^5 is 161051, has 3 ones
11^6 is 1771561, has 3 ones
11^7 is 19487171, has 3 ones
11^8 is 214358881, has 2 ones
11^9 is 2357947691, has 1 ones
11^10 is 25937424601, has 1 ones
11^11 is 285311670611, has 4 ones
11^12 is 3138428376721, has 2 ones
11^1000 is 2469932918005826334124088385085221477709733385238396234869182951830739390375433175367866116456946191973803561189036523363533798726571008961243792655536655282201820357872673322901148243453211756020067624545609411212063417307681204817377763465511222635167942816318177424600927358163388910854695041070577642045540560963004207926938348086979035423732739933235077042750354729095729602516751896320598857608367865475244863114521391548985943858154775884418927768284663678512441565517194156946312753546771163991252528017732162399536497445066348868438762510366191040118080751580689254476068034620047646422315123643119627205531371694188794408120267120500325775293645416335230014278578281272863450085145349124727476223298887655183167465713337723258182649072572861625150703747030550736347589416285606367521524529665763903537989935510874657420361426804068643262800901916285076966174176854351055183740078763891951775452021781225066361670593917001215032839838911476044840388663443684517735022039957481918726697789827894303408292584258328090724141496484460001, has 105 ones
real 0m0.609s
user 0m0.592s
sys 0m0.012s
That may not necessarily be O(n2) but it should be fast enough for your domain constraints.
Of course, given those constraints, you can make it O(1) by using a method I call pre-generation. Simply write a program to generate an array you can plug into your program which contains a suitable function. The following Python program does exactly that, for the powers of eleven from 1 to 100 inclusive:
def mulBy11(num):
# Same length to ease addition.
ten = num + '0'
num = '0' + num
# Standard primary school algorithm for adding.
result = ''
carry = 0
for idx in range(len(ten)-1, -1, -1):
digit = int(ten[idx]) + int(num[idx]) + carry
carry = digit // 10
digit = digit % 10
result = str(digit) + result
if carry == 1:
result = '1' + result
return result
num = '1'
print('int oneCountInPowerOf11(int n) {')
print(' static int numOnes[] = {-1', end='')
for power in range(1,101):
num = mulBy11(num)
count = sum(1 for ch in num if ch == '1')
print(',%d' % count, end='')
print('};')
print(' if ((n < 0) || (n > sizeof(numOnes) / sizeof(*numOnes)))')
print(' return -1;')
print(' return numOnes[n];')
print('}')
The code output by this script is:
int oneCountInPowerOf11(int n) {
static int numOnes[] = {-1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,1,1,4,2,3,1,4,2,1,4,4,1,5,5,1,5,3,6,6,3,6,3,7,5,7,4,4,2,3,4,4,3,8,4,8,5,5,7,7,7,6,6,9,9,7,12,10,8,6,11,7,6,5,5,7,10,2,8,4,6,8,5,9,13,14,8,10,8,7,11,10,9,8,7,13,8,9,6,8,5,8,7,15,12,9,10,10,12,13,7,11,12};
if ((n < 0) || (n > sizeof(numOnes) / sizeof(*numOnes)))
return -1;
return numOnes[n];
}
which should be blindingly fast when plugged into a C program. On my system, the Python code itself (when you up the range to 1..1000) runs in about 0.6 seconds and the C code, when compiled, finds the number of ones in 111000 in 0.07 seconds.
Here's my concise solution.
def count1s(N):
# When 11^(N-1) = result, 11^(N) = (10+1) * result = 10*result + result
result = 1
for i in range(N):
result += 10*result
# Now count 1's
count = 0
for ch in str(result):
if ch == '1':
count += 1
return count
En c#:
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var res = Elevento(1000);
var countOf1 = res.Select(x => int.Parse(x.ToString())).Count(s => s == 1);
Console.WriteLine(countOf1);
}
private static string Elevento(int n)
{
if (n == 0) return "1";
//Otherwise, n <- n * 10 + n, once for each level of power.
var num = "11";
while (n > 1)
{
n--;
// Make multiply by eleven easy.
var ten = num + "0";
num = "0" + num;
//Standard primary school algorithm for adding.
var newnum = "";
var carry = 0;
foreach (var dgt in Enumerable.Range(0, ten.Length).Reverse())
{
var res = int.Parse(ten[dgt].ToString()) + int.Parse(num[dgt].ToString()) + carry;
carry = res/10;
res = res%10;
newnum = res + newnum;
}
if (carry == 1)
newnum = "1" + newnum;
// Prepare for next multiplication.
num = newnum;
}
//There you go, 11^n as a string.
return num;
}

Caculating total combinations

I don't know how to go about this programming problem.
Given two integers n and m, how many numbers exist such that all numbers have all digits from 0 to n-1 and the difference between two adjacent digits is exactly 1 and the number of digits in the number is atmost 'm'.
What is the best way to solve this problem? Is there a direct mathematical formula?
Edit: The number cannot start with 0.
Example:
for n = 3 and m = 6 there are 18 such numbers (210, 2101, 21012, 210121 ... etc)
Update (some people have encountered an ambiguity):
All digits from 0 to n-1 must be present.
This Python code computes the answer in O(nm) by keeping track of the numbers ending with a particular digit.
Different arrays (A,B,C,D) are used to track numbers that have hit the maximum or minimum of the range.
n=3
m=6
A=[1]*n # Number of ways of being at digit i and never being to min or max
B=[0]*n # number of ways with minimum being observed
C=[0]*n # number of ways with maximum being observed
D=[0]*n # number of ways with both being observed
A[0]=0 # Cannot start with 0
A[n-1]=0 # Have seen max so this 1 moves from A to C
C[n-1]=1 # Have seen max if start with highest digit
t=0
for k in range(m-1):
A2=[0]*n
B2=[0]*n
C2=[0]*n
D2=[0]*n
for i in range(1,n-1):
A2[i]=A[i+1]+A[i-1]
B2[i]=B[i+1]+B[i-1]
C2[i]=C[i+1]+C[i-1]
D2[i]=D[i+1]+D[i-1]
B2[0]=A[1]+B[1]
C2[n-1]=A[n-2]+C[n-2]
D2[0]=C[1]+D[1]
D2[n-1]=B[n-2]+D[n-2]
A=A2
B=B2
C=C2
D=D2
x=sum(d for d in D2)
t+=x
print t
After doing some more research, I think there may actually be a mathematical approach after all, although the math is advanced for me. Douglas S. Stones pointed me in the direction of Joseph Myers' (2008) article, BMO 2008–2009 Round 1 Problem 1—Generalisation, which derives formulas for calculating the number of zig-zag paths across a rectangular board.
As I understand it, in Anirudh's example, our board would have 6 rows of length 3 (I believe this would mean n=3 and r=6 in the article's terms). We can visualize our board so:
0 1 2 example zig-zag path: 0
0 1 2 1
0 1 2 0
0 1 2 1
0 1 2 2
0 1 2 1
Since Myers' formula m(n,r) would generate the number for all the zig-zag paths, that is, the number of all 6-digit numbers where all adjacent digits are consecutive and digits are chosen from (0,1,2), we would still need to determine and subtract those that begin with zero and those that do not include all digits.
If I understand correctly, we may do this in the following way for our example, although generalizing the concept to arbitrary m and n may prove more complicated:
Let m(3,6) equal the number of 6-digit numbers where all adjacent digits
are consecutive and digits are chosen from (0,1,2). According to Myers,
m(3,r) is given by formula and also equals OEIS sequence A029744 at
index r+2, so we have
m(3,6) = 16
How many of these numbers start with zero? Myers describes c(n,r) as the
number of zig-zag paths whose colour is that of the square in the top
right corner of the board. In our case, c(3,6) would include the total
for starting-digit 0 as well as starting-digit 2. He gives c(3,2r) as 2^r,
so we have
c(3,6) = 8. For starting-digit 0 only, we divide by two to get 4.
Now we need to obtain only those numbers that include all the digits in
the range, but how? We can do this be subtracting m(n-1,r) from m(n,r).
In our case, we have all the m(2,6) that would include only 0's and 1's,
and all the m(2,6) that would include 1's and 2's. Myers gives
m(2,anything) as 2, so we have
2*m(2,6) = 2*2 = 4
But we must remember that one of the zero-starting numbers is included
in our total for 2*m(2,6), namely 010101. So all together we have
m(3,6) - c(3,6)/2 - 4 + 1
= 16 - 4 - 4 + 1
= 9
To complete our example, we must follow a similar process for m(3,5),
m(3,4) and m(3,3). Since it's late here, I might follow up tomorrow...
One approach could be to program it recursively, calling the function to add as well as subtract from the last digit.
Haskell code:
import Data.List (sort,nub)
f n m = concatMap (combs n) [n..m]
combs n m = concatMap (\x -> combs' 1 [x]) [1..n - 1] where
combs' count result
| count == m = if test then [concatMap show result] else []
| otherwise = combs' (count + 1) (result ++ [r + 1])
++ combs' (count + 1) (result ++ [r - 1])
where r = last result
test = (nub . sort $ result) == [0..n - 1]
Output:
*Main> f 3 6
["210","1210","1012","2101","12101","10121","21210","21012"
,"21010","121210","121012","121010","101212","101210","101012"
,"212101","210121","210101"]
In response to Anirudh Rayabharam's comment, I hope the following code will be more 'pseudocode' like. When the total number of digits reaches m, the function g outputs 1 if the solution has hashed all [0..n-1], and 0 if not. The function f accumulates the results for g for starting digits [1..n-1] and total number of digits [n..m].
Haskell code:
import qualified Data.Set as S
g :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> (S.Set Int, Int) -> Int
g n m digitCount lastDigit (hash,hashCount)
| digitCount == m = if test then 1 else 0
| otherwise =
if lastDigit == 0
then g n m d' (lastDigit + 1) (hash'',hashCount')
else if lastDigit == n - 1
then g n m d' (lastDigit - 1) (hash'',hashCount')
else g n m d' (lastDigit + 1) (hash'',hashCount')
+ g n m d' (lastDigit - 1) (hash'',hashCount')
where test = hashCount' == n
d' = digitCount + 1
hash'' = if test then S.empty else hash'
(hash',hashCount')
| hashCount == n = (S.empty,hashCount)
| S.member lastDigit hash = (hash,hashCount)
| otherwise = (S.insert lastDigit hash,hashCount + 1)
f n m = foldr forEachNumDigits 0 [n..m] where
forEachNumDigits numDigits accumulator =
accumulator + foldr forEachStartingDigit 0 [1..n - 1] where
forEachStartingDigit startingDigit accumulator' =
accumulator' + g n numDigits 1 startingDigit (S.empty,0)
Output:
*Main> f 3 6
18
(0.01 secs, 571980 bytes)
*Main> f 4 20
62784
(1.23 secs, 97795656 bytes)
*Main> f 4 25
762465
(11.73 secs, 1068373268 bytes)
model your problem as 2 superimposed lattices in 2 dimensions, specifically as pairs (i,j) interconnected with oriented edges ((i0,j0),(i1,j1)) where i1 = i0 + 1, |j1 - j0| = 1, modified as follows:
dropping all pairs (i,j) with j > 9 and its incident edges
dropping all pairs (i,j) with i > m-1 and its incident edges
dropping edge ((0,0), (1,1))
this construction results in a structure like in this diagram:
:
the requested numbers map to paths in the lattice starting at one of the green elements ((0,j), j=1..min(n-1,9)) that contain at least one pink and one red element ((i,0), i=1..m-1, (i,n-1), i=0..m-1 ). to see this, identify the i-th digit j of a given number with point (i,j). including pink and red elements ('extremal digits') guarantee that all available diguts are represented in the number.
Analysis
for convenience, let q1, q2 denote the position-1.
let q1 be the position of a number's first digit being either 0 or min(n-1,9).
let q2 be the position of a number's first 0 if the digit at position q1 is min(n-1,9) and vv.
case 1: first extremal digit is 0
the number of valid prefixes containing no 0 can be expressed as sum_{k=1..min(n-1,9)} (paths_to_0(k,1,q1), the function paths_to_0 being recursively defined as
paths_to_0(0,q1-1,q1) = 0;
paths_to_0(1,q1-1,q1) = 1;
paths_to_0(digit,i,q1) = 0; if q1-i < digit;
paths_to_0(x,_,_) = 0; if x >= min(n-1,9)
// x=min(n-1,9) mustn't occur before position q2,
// x > min(n-1,9) not at all
paths_to_0(x,_,_) = 0; if x <= 0;
// x=0 mustn't occur before position q1,
// x < 0 not at all
and else paths_to_0(digit,i,q1) =
paths_to_0(digit+1,i+1,q1) + paths_to_0(digit-1,i+1,q1);
similarly we have
paths_to_max(min(n-1,9),q2-1,q2) = 0;
paths_to_max(min(n-2,8),q2-1,q2) = 1;
paths_to_max(digit,i,q2) = 0 if q2-i < n-1;
paths_to_max(x,_,_) = 0; if x >= min(n-1,9)
// x=min(n-1,9) mustn't occur before
// position q2,
// x > min(n-1,9) not at all
paths_to_max(x,_,_) = 0; if x < 0;
and else paths_to_max(digit,q1,q2) =
paths_max(digit+1,q1+1,q2) + paths_to_max(digit-1,q1+1,q2);
and finally
paths_suffix(digit,length-1,length) = 2; if digit > 0 and digit < min(n-1,9)
paths_suffix(digit,length-1,length) = 1; if digit = 0 or digit = min(n-1,9)
paths_suffix(digit,k,length) = 0; if length > m-1
or length < q2
or k > length
paths_suffix(digit,k,0) = 1; // the empty path
and else paths_suffix(digit,k,length) =
paths_suffix(digit+1,k+1,length) + paths_suffix(digit-1,k+1,length);
... for a grand total of
number_count_case_1(n, m) =
sum_{first=1..min(n-1,9), q1=1..m-1-(n-1), q2=q1..m-1, l_suffix=0..m-1-q2} (
paths_to_0(first,1,q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,q1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
case 2: first extremal digit is min(n-1,9)
case 2.1: initial digit is not min(n-1,9)
this is symmetrical to case 1 with all digits d replaced by min(n,10) - d. as the lattice structure is symmetrical, this means number_count_case_2_1 = number_count_case_1.
case 2.2: initial digit is min(n-1,9)
note that q1 is 1 and the second digit must be min(n-2,8).
thus
number_count_case_2_2 (n, m) =
sum_{q2=1..m-2, l_suffix=0..m-2-q2} (
paths_to_max(1,1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
so the grand grand total will be
number_count ( n, m ) = 2 * number_count_case_1 (n, m) + number_count_case_2_2 (n, m);
Code
i don't know whether a closed expression for number_count exists, but the following perl code will compute it (the code is but a proof of concept as it does not use memoization techniques to avoid recomputing results already obtained):
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($n, $m) = ( 5, 7 ); # for example
$n = ($n > 10) ? 10 : $n; # cutoff
sub min
sub paths_to_0 ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d == 0) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 0; }
if (($d == 1) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if ($until - $at < $d) { return 0; }
if (($d <= 0) || ($d >= $n))) { return 0; }
return paths_to_0($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_to_0($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_to_0
sub paths_to_max ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d == $n-1) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 0; }
if (($d == $n-2) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if ($until - $at < $n-1) { return 0; }
if (($d < 0) || ($d >= $n-1)) { return 0; }
return paths_to_max($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_to_max($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_to_max
sub paths_suffix ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d < $n-1) && ($d > 0) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 2; }
if ((($d == $n-1) && ($d == 0)) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if (($until > $m-1) || ($at > $until)) { return 0; }
if ($until == 0) { return 1; }
return paths_suffix($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_suffix($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_suffix
#
# main
#
number_count =
sum_{first=1..min(n-1,9), q1=1..m-1-(n-1), q2=q1..m-1, l_suffix=0..m-1-q2} (
paths_to_0(first,1,q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,q1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
my ($number_count, $number_count_2_2) = (0, 0);
my ($first, $q1, i, $l_suffix);
for ($first = 1; $first <= $n-1; $first++) {
for ($q1 = 1; $q1 <= $m-1 - ($n-1); $q1++) {
for ($q2 = $q1; $q2 <= $m-1; $q2++) {
for ($l_suffix = 0; $l_suffix <= $m-1 - $q2; $l_suffix++) {
$number_count =
$number_count
+ paths_to_0($first,1,$q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,$q1,$q2)
+ paths_suffix($n-1,$q2,$l_suffix+$q2)
;
}
}
}
}
#
# case 2.2
#
for ($q2 = 1; $q2 <= $m-2; $q2++) {
for ($l_suffix = 0; $l_suffix <= $m-2 - $q2; $l_suffix++) {
$number_count_2_2 =
$number_count_2_2
+ paths_to_max(1,1,$q2)
+ paths_suffix($n-1,$q2,$l_suffix+$q2)
;
}
}
$number_count = 2 * $number_count + number_count_2_2;

How to find the number of values in a given range divisible by a given value?

I have three numbers x, y , z.
For a range between numbers x and y.
How can i find the total numbers whose % with z is 0 i.e. how many numbers between x and y are divisible by z ?
It can be done in O(1): find the first one, find the last one, find the count of all other.
I'm assuming the range is inclusive. If your ranges are exclusive, adjust the bounds by one:
find the first value after x that is divisible by z. You can discard x:
x_mod = x % z;
if(x_mod != 0)
x += (z - x_mod);
find the last value before y that is divisible by y. You can discard y:
y -= y % z;
find the size of this range:
if(x > y)
return 0;
else
return (y - x) / z + 1;
If mathematical floor and ceil functions are available, the first two parts can be written more readably. Also the last part can be compressed using math functions:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return max((y - x) / z + 1, 0);
if the input is guaranteed to be a valid range (x >= y), the last test or max is unneccessary:
x = ceil (x, z);
y = floor (y, z);
return (y - x) / z + 1;
(2017, answer rewritten thanks to comments)
The number of multiples of z in a number n is simply n / z
/ being the integer division, meaning decimals that could result from the division are simply ignored (for instance 17/5 => 3 and not 3.4).
Now, in a range from x to y, how many multiples of z are there?
Let see how many multiples m we have up to y
0----------------------------------x------------------------y
-m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---m---
You see where I'm going... to get the number of multiples in the range [ x, y ], get the number of multiples of y then subtract the number of multiples before x, (x-1) / z
Solution: ( y / z ) - (( x - 1 ) / z )
Programmatically, you could make a function numberOfMultiples
function numberOfMultiples(n, z) {
return n / z;
}
to get the number of multiples in a range [x, y]
numberOfMultiples(y) - numberOfMultiples(x-1)
The function is O(1), there is no need of a loop to get the number of multiples.
Examples of results you should find
[30, 90] ÷ 13 => 4
[1, 1000] ÷ 6 => 166
[100, 1000000] ÷ 7 => 142843
[777, 777777777] ÷ 7 => 111111001
For the first example, 90 / 13 = 6, (30-1) / 13 = 2, and 6-2 = 4
---26---39---52---65---78---91--
^ ^
30<---(4 multiples)-->90
I also encountered this on Codility. It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to come up with a good solution, so I figured I would share what I think is an elegant solution!
Straightforward Approach 1/2:
O(N) time solution with a loop and counter, unrealistic when N = 2 billion.
Awesome Approach 3:
We want the number of digits in some range that are divisible by K.
Simple case: assume range [0 .. n*K], N = n*K
N/K represents the number of digits in [0,N) that are divisible by K, given N%K = 0 (aka. N is divisible by K)
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6}| = 3 = 9/3
Similarly,
N/K + 1 represents the number of digits in [0,N] divisible by K
ex. N = 9, K = 3, Num digits = |{0 3 6 9}| = 4 = 9/3 + 1
I think really understanding the above fact is the trickiest part of this question, I cannot explain exactly why it works.
The rest boils down to prefix sums and handling special cases.
Now we don't always have a range that begins with 0, and we cannot assume the two bounds will be divisible by K.
But wait! We can fix this by calculating our own nice upper and lower bounds and using some subtraction magic :)
First find the closest upper and lower in the range [A,B] that are divisible by K.
Upper bound (easier): ex. B = 10, K = 3, new_B = 9... the pattern is B - B%K
Lower bound: ex. A = 10, K = 3, new_A = 12... try a few more and you will see the pattern is A - A%K + K
Then calculate the following using the above technique:
Determine the total number of digits X between [0,B] that are divisible by K
Determine the total number of digits Y between [0,A) that are divisible by K
Calculate the number of digits between [A,B] that are divisible by K in constant time by the expression X - Y
Website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/count_div/
class CountDiv {
public int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
int firstDivisible = A%K == 0 ? A : A + (K - A%K);
int lastDivisible = B%K == 0 ? B : B - B%K; //B/K behaves this way by default.
return (lastDivisible - firstDivisible)/K + 1;
}
}
This is my first time explaining an approach like this. Feedback is very much appreciated :)
This is one of the Codility Lesson 3 questions. For this question, the input is guaranteed to be in a valid range. I answered it using Javascript:
function solution(x, y, z) {
var totalDivisibles = Math.floor(y / z),
excludeDivisibles = Math.floor((x - 1) / z),
divisiblesInArray = totalDivisibles - excludeDivisibles;
return divisiblesInArray;
}
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoQX3MJC-8AP/
(I actually wanted to ask about some of the other comments on this page but I don't have enough rep points yet).
Divide y-x by z, rounding down. Add one if y%z < x%z or if x%z == 0.
No mathematical proof, unless someone cares to provide one, but test cases, in Perl:
#!perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use Test::More;
sub multiples_in_range {
my ($x, $y, $z) = #_;
return 0 if $x > $y;
my $ret = int( ($y - $x) / $z);
$ret++ if $y%$z < $x%$z or $x%$z == 0;
return $ret;
}
for my $z (2 .. 10) {
for my $x (0 .. 2*$z) {
for my $y (0 .. 4*$z) {
is multiples_in_range($x, $y, $z),
scalar(grep { $_ % $z == 0 } $x..$y),
"[$x..$y] mod $z";
}
}
}
done_testing;
Output:
$ prove divrange.pl
divrange.pl .. ok
All tests successful.
Files=1, Tests=3405, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.20 usr 0.02 sys + 0.26 cusr 0.01 csys = 0.49 CPU)
Result: PASS
Let [A;B] be an interval of positive integers including A and B such that 0 <= A <= B, K be the divisor.
It is easy to see that there are N(A) = ⌊A / K⌋ = floor(A / K) factors of K in interval [0;A]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x··●·····x········x········x···>
0 A
Similarly, there are N(B) = ⌊B / K⌋ = floor(B / K) factors of K in interval [0;B]:
1K 2K 3K 4K 5K
●········x········x········x········x···●····x···>
0 B
Then N = N(B) - N(A) equals to the number of K's (the number of integers divisible by K) in range (A;B]. The point A is not included, because the subtracted N(A) includes this point. Therefore, the result should be incremented by one, if A mod K is zero:
N := N(B) - N(A)
if (A mod K = 0)
N := N + 1
Implementation in PHP
function solution($A, $B, $K) {
if ($K < 1)
return 0;
$c = floor($B / $K) - floor($A / $K);
if ($A % $K == 0)
$c++;
return (int)$c;
}
In PHP, the effect of the floor function can be achieved by casting to the integer type:
$c = (int)($B / $K) - (int)($A / $K);
which, I think, is faster.
Here is my short and simple solution in C++ which got 100/100 on codility. :)
Runs in O(1) time. I hope its not difficult to understand.
int solution(int A, int B, int K) {
// write your code in C++11
int cnt=0;
if( A%K==0 or B%K==0)
cnt++;
if(A>=K)
cnt+= (B - A)/K;
else
cnt+=B/K;
return cnt;
}
(floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) - (high%d==0)
Explanation:
There are a/d numbers divisible by d from 0.0 to a. (d!=0)
Therefore (floor)(high/d) - (floor)(low/d) will give numbers divisible in the range (low,high] (Note that low is excluded and high is included in this range)
Now to remove high from the range just subtract (high%d==0)
Works for integers, floats or whatever (Use fmodf function for floats)
Won't strive for an o(1) solution, this leave for more clever person:) Just feel this is a perfect usage scenario for function programming. Simple and straightforward.
> x,y,z=1,1000,6
=> [1, 1000, 6]
> (x..y).select {|n| n%z==0}.size
=> 166
EDIT: after reading other's O(1) solution. I feel shamed. Programming made people lazy to think...
Division (a/b=c) by definition - taking a set of size a and forming groups of size b. The number of groups of this size that can be formed, c, is the quotient of a and b. - is nothing more than the number of integers within range/interval ]0..a] (not including zero, but including a) that are divisible by b.
so by definition:
Y/Z - number of integers within ]0..Y] that are divisible by Z
and
X/Z - number of integers within ]0..X] that are divisible by Z
thus:
result = [Y/Z] - [X/Z] + x (where x = 1 if and only if X is divisible by Y otherwise 0 - assuming the given range [X..Y] includes X)
example :
for (6, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 6/2 + 1 (as 6%2 == 0) = 6 - 3 + 1 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
for (5, 12, 2) we have 12/2 - 5/2 + 0 (as 5%2 != 0) = 6 - 2 + 0 = 4 // {6, 8, 10, 12}
The time complexity of the solution will be linear.
Code Snippet :
int countDiv(int a, int b, int m)
{
int mod = (min(a, b)%m==0);
int cnt = abs(floor(b/m) - floor(a/m)) + mod;
return cnt;
}
here n will give you count of number and will print sum of all numbers that are divisible by k
int a = sc.nextInt();
int b = sc.nextInt();
int k = sc.nextInt();
int first = 0;
if (a > k) {
first = a + a/k;
} else {
first = k;
}
int last = b - b%k;
if (first > last) {
System.out.println(0);
} else {
int n = (last - first)/k+1;
System.out.println(n * (first + last)/2);
}
Here is the solution to the problem written in Swift Programming Language.
Step 1: Find the first number in the range divisible by z.
Step 2: Find the last number in the range divisible by z.
Step 3: Use a mathematical formula to find the number of divisible numbers by z in the range.
func solution(_ x : Int, _ y : Int, _ z : Int) -> Int {
var numberOfDivisible = 0
var firstNumber: Int
var lastNumber: Int
if y == x {
return x % z == 0 ? 1 : 0
}
//Find first number divisible by z
let moduloX = x % z
if moduloX == 0 {
firstNumber = x
} else {
firstNumber = x + (z - moduloX)
}
//Fist last number divisible by z
let moduloY = y % z
if moduloY == 0 {
lastNumber = y
} else {
lastNumber = y - moduloY
}
//Math formula
numberOfDivisible = Int(floor(Double((lastNumber - firstNumber) / z))) + 1
return numberOfDivisible
}
public static int Solution(int A, int B, int K)
{
int count = 0;
//If A is divisible by K
if(A % K == 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K) + 1;
}
//If A is not divisible by K
else if(A % K != 0)
{
count = (B / K) - (A / K);
}
return count;
}
This can be done in O(1).
Here you are a solution in C++.
auto first{ x % z == 0 ? x : x + z - x % z };
auto last{ y % z == 0 ? y : y - y % z };
auto ans{ (last - first) / z + 1 };
Where first is the first number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z, last is the last number that ∈ [x; y] and is divisible by z and ans is the answer that you are looking for.

Resources