I did a recursive function to calculate x*y with x and y are all integers (x and y >= 0). My formula is:
x * y =
0, if x is equal 0
(x >> 1)*(y << 1), if x is an even number
(x >> 1)*(y << 1) + y, if x is an odd number
"<<" and ">>" are Left Shift and Right Shift Bitwise Operator. Here is my code:
int multiply(int x, int y) {
int y1 = 0;
if (x == 0) return 0;
else if (x % 3 == 0) {
y1 = y;
x = x >> 1;
y = y << 1;
return (multiply(x, y) + y1);
}
else if (x % 2 == 0) {
x = x >> 1;
y = y << 1;
return multiply(x, y);
}
}
The recursive function above is supposed to return (x*y) value but they were all wrong when i tested and i don't know why. What did i do wrong? How can i fix this?
Your problem is wit x % 3, what happens if x = 5? you skip it. Here is improved version of your code.
int multiply(int x, int y) {
if (x == 0)
return 0;
else if (x % 2 == 1)
return (multiply(x >> 1, y << 1) + y);
return multiply(x >> 1, y << 1);
}
or maybe even this:
int multiply(int x, int y) {
if (x == 0)
return 0;
int m = multiply(x >> 1, y << 1);
if (x % 2 == 1)
m += y;
return m;
}
Here is super fast version suggested by Andy:
int multiply(int x, int y) {
if (x == 0)
return 0;
int m = multiply(x >> 1, y << 1);
if (x & 1)
m += y;
return m;
}
As a challenge of speed, here is non recursive version:
int multiply (int x, int y) {
int y1 = 0;
for (; x > 0; x = (x >> 1), y = (y << 1))
if (x&1)
y1 += y;
return y1;
}
NOTE: I know this question is about recursive method but just as a challenge I wrote non-recursive algorithm.
You are not checking if x is odd correctly here:
else if (x % 3 == 0) { // e.g. fails on x = 1
Instead, you need to do
else if (x % 2 == 1) {
Here's a demo.
Note that this makes the following else check for even values of x redundant:
else if (x % 2 == 0) { // can just be an unconditional else
Also, since you are returning from the x == 0, and x % 2 == 1 branches, the else conditions can be removed as well. You can also factor out the repeated code to make the function simpler, like this:
int multiply(int x, int y) {
if (x == 0) return 0;
if (x % 2 == 1)
return (multiply(x >> 1, y << 1) + y);
else
return multiply(x >> 1, y << 1);
}
Here's a demo.
This is what i feel is the simplest approach to carry out recursive multiplication.
Do let me know if its efficient enough for you.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
float multiply(float a, float b) {
//no zeros bro
if (b == 0)
return 0;
//let the recursion begin
if (b > 0)
return x + multiply(a, b - 1);
//negatives stay away pliz
if (y < 0)
return -multiply(a, -b);
}
int main() {
float a, b, result;
cout << "Enter the two numbers";
cin >> a >> b;
result = multiply(a, b);
//And the result is.................
cout << result;
return 0;
}
Recursive function related to multiplication of natural numbers:
int multCool(int a, int b)
{
return (b==1 ? a: a+ multCool(a,b-1));
}
Related
I was creating a program to find the solution to the series x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - ... up to a certain term. The program is working but it is giving me wrong answers. Suppose if I take x = 5 and I wanted to find the sum up to 3 terms, it should give me 10.207(approx). But it is giving me an output of -15.8333. So please tell me where is the logical error in this program? I tried my best to find the error but I couldn't.
Here is the program:
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
int N;
unsigned long long int factorial(int x);
long double evaluate(int x, int y = 1, int i = 1) {
if (i >= N) return 0;
if (i % 2) return pow(x, y)/factorial(y) - evaluate(x, y + 2, i + 1);
return pow(x, y)/factorial(y) + evaluate(x, y + 2, i + 1);
}
int main() {
int x;
cout << "Please enter a number: ";
cin >> x;
cout << "Please enter the number of terms: ";
cin >> N;
long double result = evaluate(x);
cout << "The evaluation result of the series is " << result << endl;
}
unsigned long long int factorial(int x) {
if (x < 0) return -1;
if (x == 0) return 1;
return x * factorial(x - 1);
}
I think the bugs are in the evaluate function:
long double evaluate(int x, int y = 1, int i = 1) {
if (i > N) return 0;
if (i % 2) return pow(x, y) / factorial(y) + evaluate(x, y + 2, i + 1);
return -pow(x, y) / factorial(y) + evaluate(x, y + 2, i + 1);
}
Given two int I want to get all the common digits and print out them separated by spaces.
So for example, if int x=1234; int y=41567; then I want to print out: 1 4.
This is my code. It does not work properly. When I run it, it prints 0 1 2 3 4 5 then stops.
I don't want to use vector nor arrays.
void problema3() {
int x, y, kX=0, kY=0;
cout << "x="; cin >> x;
cout << "y="; cin >> y;
int cx = x;
int cy = y;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
kX = 0;
kY = 0;
x = cx;
y = cx;
while (x != 0 || kX==0) {
if (x % 10 == i) kX=1;
x /= 10;
}
while (y != 0 || kY == 0) {
if (y % 10 == i) kY=1;
y /= 10;
}
if (kX == 1 && kY == 1) cout << i << ' ';
}
}
int main()
{
problema3();
return 0;
}
If you're allowed to use std::set then you can do what you want as follows:
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
void print(int x, int y)
{
int individual_number1 = 0, individual_number2 = 0;
std::set<int> myset;
int savey = y;//this will be used to reset y when the 2nd do while loop finishes
do
{
individual_number1 = x % 10;
do
{
individual_number2 = y % 10;
if(individual_number1 == individual_number2)
{
myset.insert(individual_number1);
break;
}
y = y / 10;
}while( y > 0);
y = savey;
x = x / 10;
} while (x > 0);
//print out the element of the set
for(int i: myset)
{
std::cout<<i<<" ";
}
}
int main()
{
int x = 1234, y = 41567;
print(x, y);
return 0;
}
The output of the above program is as follows:
1 4
which can be seen here.
Your main bug is when assigning copies of cy.
//...
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
//...
x = cx;
y = cx; // <-- BUG! should read y = cy;
But that's not the only bug in your program.
Your digit detection logic is wrong. In particular, zero is not handled correctly, and since you did not put that reusable code in a function, your program is way more complex than it needs.
Here's the corrected logic for digit detection.
// checks if base 10 representation of a positive integer contains a certain digit (0-9)
bool hasDigit(int x, int d)
{
do
{
if (x % 10 == d)
return true;
x /= 10;
} while (x != 0);
return false;
}
Your main loop then becomes:
// assuming int x, y as inputs.
// ...
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
if (hasDigit(x, i) && hasDigit(y, i))
std::cout << i << ' ';
}
Which leaves very little room for bugs.
You can play with the code here: https://godbolt.org/z/5c5brEcEq
I am trying to implement my own square root function which gives square root's integral part only e.g. square root of 3 = 1.
I saw the method here and tried to implement the method
int mySqrt(int x)
{
int n = x;
x = pow(2, ceil(log(n) / log(2)) / 2);
int y=0;
while (y < x)
{
y = (x + n / x) / 2;
x = y;
}
return x;
}
The above method fails for input 8. Also, I don't get why it should work.
Also, I tried the method here
int mySqrt(int x)
{
if (x == 0) return 0;
int x0 = pow(2, (log(x) / log(2))/2) ;
int y = x0;
int diff = 10;
while (diff>0)
{
x0 = (x0 + x / x0) / 2; diff = y - x0;
y = x0;
if (diff<0) diff = diff * (-1);
}
return x0;
}
In this second way, for input 3 the loop continues ... indefinitely (x0 toggles between 1 and 2).
I am aware that both are essentially versions of Netwon's method but I can't figure out why they fail in certain cases and how could I make them work for all cases. I guess i have the correct logic in implementation. I debugged my code but still I can't find a way to make it work.
This one works for me:
uintmax_t zsqrt(uintmax_t x)
{
if(x==0) return 0;
uintmax_t yn = x; // The 'next' estimate
uintmax_t y = 0; // The result
uintmax_t yp; // The previous estimate
do{
yp = y;
y = yn;
yn = (y + x/y) >> 1; // Newton step
}while(yn ^ yp); // (yn != yp) shortcut for dumb compilers
return y;
}
returns floor(sqrt(x))
Instead of testing for 0 with a single estimate, test with 2 estimates.
When I was writing this, I noticed the result estimate would sometimes oscillate. This is because, if the exact result is a fraction, the algorithm could only jump between the two nearest values. So, terminating when the next estimate is the same as the previous will prevent an infinite loop.
Try this
int n,i;//n is the input number
i=0;
while(i<=n)
{
if((i*i)==n)
{
cout<<"The number has exact root : "<<i<<endl;
}
else if((i*i)>n)
{
cout<<"The integer part is "<<(i-1)<<endl;
}
i++;
}
Hope this helps.
You can try there C sqrt implementations :
// return the number that was multiplied by itself to reach N.
unsigned square_root_1(const unsigned num) {
unsigned a, b, c, d;
for (b = a = num, c = 1; a >>= 1; ++c);
for (c = 1 << (c & -2); c; c >>= 2) {
d = a + c;
a >>= 1;
if (b >= d)
b -= d, a += c;
}
return a;
}
// return the number that was multiplied by itself to reach N.
unsigned square_root_2(unsigned n){
unsigned a = n > 0, b;
if (n > 3)
for (a = n >> 1, b = (a + n / a) >> 1; b < a; a = b, b = (a + n / a) >> 1);
return a ;
}
Example of usage :
#include <assert.h>
int main(void){
unsigned num, res ;
num = 1847902954, res = square_root_1(num), assert(res == 42987);
num = 2, res = square_root_2(num), assert(res == 1);
num = 0, res = square_root_2(num), assert(res == 0);
}
Source
This question already has answers here:
The most efficient way to implement an integer based power function pow(int, int)
(21 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I've read that cmath calculates pow(a,b) by performing exp(b*log(a)). This should not be used when b is an integer, since it slows down calculations a lot. What alternatives are there when
calculating a lot of successive pow()s with the same constant a
it is known beforehand that b will definitely be an integer?
I am looking for fast alternatives which are efficient in these particular scenarios.
There are a number of faster alternatives I've collected over the years that typically rely on a recursive implementation of the function, and bit shifts to handle multiplication when warranted. The following provide functions tailored to integer, float and double. They come with the normal disclaimer: while faster not all possible test have been run and the user should validate input is sane before calling and on return... blah, blah, blah.. But, they are pretty darn useful:
I believe proper attribution goes to Geeks for Geeks Pow(x,n) as pointed out by blue moon. I had long since lost the links.. That looks like them. (minus a tweak or two).
/* Function to calculate x raised to the power y
Time Complexity: O(n)
Space Complexity: O(1)
Algorithmic Paradigm: Divide and conquer.
*/
int power1 (int x, unsigned int y)
{
if (y == 0)
return 1;
else if ((y % 2) == 0)
return power1 (x, y / 2) * power1 (x, y / 2);
else
return x * power1 (x, y / 2) * power1 (x, y / 2);
}
/* Function to calculate x raised to the power y in O(logn)
Time Complexity of optimized solution: O(logn)
*/
int power2 (int x, unsigned int y)
{
int temp;
if (y == 0)
return 1;
temp = power2 (x, y / 2);
if ((y % 2) == 0)
return temp * temp;
else
return x * temp * temp;
}
/* Extended version of power function that can work
for float x and negative y
*/
float powerf (float x, int y)
{
float temp;
if (y == 0)
return 1;
temp = powerf (x, y / 2);
if ((y % 2) == 0) {
return temp * temp;
} else {
if (y > 0)
return x * temp * temp;
else
return (temp * temp) / x;
}
}
/* Extended version of power function that can work
for double x and negative y
*/
double powerd (double x, int y)
{
double temp;
if (y == 0)
return 1;
temp = powerd (x, y / 2);
if ((y % 2) == 0) {
return temp * temp;
} else {
if (y > 0)
return x * temp * temp;
else
return (temp * temp) / x;
}
}
Non-recursive non-floating point answer
Replace uintmax_t/intmax_t with the type of your desire. Overflow not detected.
uintmax_t powjuu(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
uintmax_t z = 1;
uintmax_t base = x;
while (y) {
if (y & 1) { // or y%2
z *= base;
}
y >>= 1; // or y /= 2
base *= base;
}
return z;
}
intmax_t powjii(int x, int y) {
if (y < 0) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
return INTMAX_MAX;
case 1:
return 1;
case -1:
return y % 2 ? -1 : 1;
}
return 0;
}
intmax_t z = 1;
intmax_t base = x;
while (y) {
if (y & 1) {
z *= base;
}
y >>= 1;
base *= base;
}
return z;
}
You may want to check this. It's a fast algorithm to replace the pow function.
Im trying to implement the Miller-Rabin primality test according to the description in FIPS 186-3 C.3.1. No matter what I do, I cannot get it to work. The instructions are pretty specific, and I dont think I missed anything, and yet Im getting true for non-prime values.
What did I do wrong?
template <typename R, typename S, typename T>
T POW(R base, S exponent, const T mod){
T result = 1;
while (exponent){
if (exponent & 1)
result = (result * base) % mod;
exponent >>= 1;
base = (base * base) % mod;
}
return result;
}
// used uint64_t to prevent overflow, but only testing with small numbers for now
bool MillerRabin_FIPS186(uint64_t w, unsigned int iterations = 50){
srand(time(0));
unsigned int a = 0;
uint64_t W = w - 1; // dont want to keep calculating w - 1
uint64_t m = W;
while (!(m & 1)){
m >>= 1;
a++;
}
// skipped getting wlen
// when i had this function using my custom arbitrary precision integer class,
// and could get len(w), getting it and using it in an actual RBG
// made no difference
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < iterations; i++){
uint64_t b = (rand() % (W - 3)) + 2; // 2 <= b <= w - 2
uint64_t z = POW(b, m, w);
if ((z == 1) || (z == W))
continue;
else
for(unsigned int j = 1; j < a; j++){
z = POW(z, 2, w);
if (z == W)
continue;
if (z == 1)
return 0;// Composite
}
}
return 1;// Probably Prime
}
this:
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(33) << std::endl;
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(35) << std::endl;
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(37) << std::endl;
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(39) << std::endl;
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(45) << std::endl;
std::cout << MillerRabin_FIPS186(49) << std::endl;
is giving me:
0
1
1
1
0
1
The only difference between your implementation and Wikipedia's is that you forgot the second return composite statement. You should have a return 0 at the end of the loop.
Edit: As pointed out by Daniel, there is a second difference. The continue is continuing the inner loop, rather than the outer loop like it's supposed to.
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < iterations; i++){
uint64_t b = (rand() % (W - 3)) + 2; // 2 <= b <= w - 2
uint64_t z = POW(b, m, w);
if ((z == 1) || (z == W))
continue;
else{
int continueOuter = 0;
for(unsigned int j = 1; j < a; j++){
z = POW(z, 2, w);
if (z == W)
continueOuter = 1;
break;
if (z == 1)
return 0;// Composite
}
if (continueOuter) {continue;}
}
return 0; //This is the line you're missing.
}
return 1;// Probably Prime
Also, if the input is even, it will always return probably prime since a is 0. You should add an extra check at the start for that.
In the inner loop,
for(unsigned int j = 1; j < a; j++){
z = POW(z, 2, w);
if (z == W)
continue;
if (z == 1)
return 0;// Composite
}
you should break; instead of continue; when z == W. By continueing, in the next iteration of that loop, if there is one, z will become 1 and the candidate is possibly wrongly declared composite. Here, that happens for 17, 41, 73, 89 and 97 among the primes less than 100.