input : integer ( i'll call it N ) and (1 <= N <= 5,000,000 )
output : integer, multiple of N and only contains 0,7
Ex.
Q1 input : 1 -> output : 7 ( 7 mod 1 == 0 )
Q2 input : 2 -> output : 70 ( 70 mod 2 == 0 )
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef long long ll;
int remaind(string num, ll m)
{
ll mod = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < num.size(); i++) {
int digit = num[i] - '0';
mod = mod * 10 + digit;
mod = mod % m;
}
return mod;
}
int main()
{
int n;
string ans;
cin >> n;
ans.append(n, '7');
for (int i = ans.length() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (remaind(ans, n) == 0)
{
cout << ans;
return 0;
}
ans.at(i) = '0';
}
return 0;
}
is there a way to lessen the time complexity?
i just tried very hard and it takes little bit more time to run while n is more than 1000000
ps. changed code
ps2. changed code again because of wrong code
ps3. optimize code again
ps4. rewrite post
Your approach is wrong, let's say you divide "70" by 5. Then you result will be 2 which is not right (just analyze your code to see why that happens).
You can really base your search upon numbers like 77777770000000, but think more about that - which numbers you need to add zeros and which numbers you do not.
Next, do not use strings! Think of reminder for a * b if you know reminder of a and reminder of b. When you program it, be careful with integer size, use 64 bit integers.
Now, what about a + b?
Finally, find reminders for numbers 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc (once again, do not use strings and still try to find reminder for any power of 10).
Well, if you do all that, you'll be able to easily solve the whole problem.
May I recommend any of the boost::bignum integer classes?
I suspect uint1024_t (or whatever... they also have 128, 256, and 512, bit ints already typedefed, and you can declare your own easily enough) will meet your needs, allowing you to perform a single %, rather than one per iteration. This may outweigh the performance lost when using bignum vs c++'s built-in ints.
2^1024 ~= 1.8e+308. Enough to represent any 308 digit number. That's probably excessive.
2^512 ~= 1.34e+154. Good for any 154 digit number.
etc.
I suspect you should first write a loop that went through n = 4e+6 -> 5e+6 and wrote out which string got the longest, then size your uint*_t appropriately. If that longest string length is more than 308 characters, you could just whip up your own:
typedef number<cpp_int_backend<LENGTH, LENGTH, unsigned_magnitude, unchecked, void> > myReallyUnsignedBigInt;
The modulo operator is probably the most expensive operation in that inner loop. Performing once per iteration on the outer loop rather than at the inner loop (O(n) vs O(n^2)) should save you quite a bit of time.
Will that plus the whole "not going to and from strings" thing pay for bignum's overhead? You'll have to try it and see.
I am new to C++ and I am trying to achieve a backward for loop, I founded solutions which works very well but I want to know what my version is not correct and making an infinite loop.
Here is a working version that I founded (I don't understand how we can decrease i in the condition..) :
for (unsigned i = size ; i-- > 0 ; )
{
// do stuff with i
}
Here is a version I wrote which works but don't go down to 0 (this way seems more logical to me) :
for (unsigned i = size-1 ; i > 0 ; i--)
{
// do stuff with i
}
If I say for exemple n=10, I will get this if I print i in the loop :
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
And here is the version which for me is the more logical and should go down to zero but is providing an infinite loop.
for (unsigned i = size-1 ; i >= 0 ; i--)
{
// do stuff with i
}
Could someone explain to me why the last version isn't working and what is the best choice to make ?
An unsigned number is always >= 0. (When it reaches zero a further decrement sets it to std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max())
So your final for loop is equivalent to
for (unsigned i = size-1 ; true ; i--)
which, of course, loops forever.
In your first loop, you have i-- > 0 as the stopping condition. When i is zero, i-- is an expression with value zero (so the loop halts), despite the fact that i is then set to std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max(). Some folk like (me included; cue the downvotes) to write i-->0 and regard --> as the slide operator. See What is the "-->" operator in C++?
The statement i >= 0 is always true because i is unsigned which means that is never below zero. If you decrease the value while i is zero, there will occur a so-called underflow and it will have a very high number.
The first version certainly gets the job done, so I would stick to it.
I can't understand how to count number of 1's in binary representation.
I have my code, and I hope someone can explain it for me.
Code:
int count (int x)
{
int nr=0;
while(x != 0)
{
nr+=x%2;
x/=2;
}
return nr;
}
Why while ? For example if i have 1011, it wouldn't stop at 0?
Why nr += x%2 ?
Why x/=2 ?!
First:
nr += x % 2;
Imagine x in binary:
...1001101
The Modulo operator returns the remainder from a / b.
Now the last bit of x is either a 0, in which case 2 will always go into x with 0 remainder, or a 1, in which case it returns a 1.
As you can see x % 2 will return (if the last bit is a one) a one, thus incrementing nr by one, or not, in which case nr is unchanged.
x /= 2;
This divides x by two, and because it is a integer, drops the remainder. What this means is is the binary was
....10
It will find out how many times 2 would go into it, in this case 1. It effectively drops the last digit of the binary number because in base 2 (binary) the number of times 2 goes into a number is just the same as 'shifting' everything down a space (This is a poor explanation, please ask if you need elaboration). This effectively 'iterates' through the binary number, allowing the line about to check the next bit.
This will iterate until the binary is just 1 and then half that, drop the remainder and x will equal 0,
while (x != 0)
in which case exit the loop, you have checked every bit.
Also:
'count`is possibly not the most descriptive name for a function, consider naming it something more descriptive of its purpose.
nr will always be a integer greater or equal to zero, so you should probably have the return type unsigned int
int count (int x)
{
int nr=0;
while(x != 0)
{
nr+=x%2;
x/=2;
}
return nr;
}
This program basically gives the numbers of set bits in a given integer.
For instance, lets start with the example integer 11 ( binary representation - 1011).
First flow will enter the while loop and check for the number, if it is equal to zero.
while(11 != 0)
Since 11 is not equal to zero it enter the while loop and nr is assigned the value 1 (11%2 = 1).nr += 11%2;
Then it executes the second line inside the loop (x = x/2). This line of code assigns the value 5 (11/2 = 5 ) to x.
Once done with the body of the while loop, it then again checks if x ie 5 is equal to zero.
while( 5 != 0).
Since it is not the case,the flow goes inside the while loop for the second time and nr is assigned the value 2 ( 1+ 5%2).
After that the value of x is divided by 2 (x/2, 5/2 = 2 )and it assigns 2 to x.
Similarly in the next loop, while (2 != 0 ), nr adds (2 + 2%2), since 2%2 is 0, value of nr remains 2 and value of x is decreased to 1 (2/2) in the next line.
1 is not eqaul to 0 so it enters the while loop for the third time.
In the third execution of the while loop nr value is increased to 3 (2 + 1%2).
After that value of x is reduced to 0 ( x = 1/2 which is 0).
Since it fails the check (while x != 0), the flow comes out of the loop.
At the end the value of nr (Which is the number of bits set in a given integer) is returned to the calling function.
Best way to understand the flow of a program is executing the program through a debugger. I strongly suggest you to execute the program once through a debugger.It will help you to understand the flow completely.
I have a few loops that I need in my program. I can write out the pseudo code, but I'm not entirely sure how to write them logically.
I need -
if (num is a multiple of 10) { do this }
if (num is within 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100) { do this }
else { do this } //this part is for 1-10, 21-30, 41-50, 61-70, 81-90
This is for a snakes and ladders board game, if it makes any more sense for my question.
I imagine the first if statement I'll need to use modulus. Would if (num == 100%10) be correct?
The second one I have no idea. I can write it out like if (num > 10 && num is < 21 || etc.), but there has to be something smarter than that.
For the first one, to check if a number is a multiple of use:
if (num % 10 == 0) // It's divisible by 10
For the second one:
if(((num - 1) / 10) % 2 == 1 && num <= 100)
But that's rather dense, and you might be better off just listing the options explicitly.
Now that you've given a better idea of what you are doing, I'd write the second one as:
int getRow(int num) {
return (num - 1) / 10;
}
if (getRow(num) % 2 == 0) {
}
It's the same logic, but by using the function we get a clearer idea of what it means.
if (num is a multiple of 10) { do this }
if (num % 10 == 0) {
// Do something
}
if (num is within 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100) { do this }
The trick here is to look for some sort of commonality among the ranges. Of course, you can always use the "brute force" method:
if ((num > 10 && num <= 20) ||
(num > 30 && num <= 40) ||
(num > 50 && num <= 60) ||
(num > 70 && num <= 80) ||
(num > 90 && num <= 100)) {
// Do something
}
But you might notice that, if you subtract 1 from num, you'll have the ranges:
10-19, 30-39, 50-59, 70-79, 90-99
In other words, all two-digit numbers whose first digit is odd. Next, you need to come up with a formula that expresses this. You can get the first digit by dividing by 10, and you can test that it's odd by checking for a remainder of 1 when you divide by 2. Putting that all together:
if ((num > 0) && (num <= 100) && (((num - 1) / 10) % 2 == 1)) {
// Do something
}
Given the trade-off between longer but maintainable code and shorter "clever" code, I'd pick longer and clearer every time. At the very least, if you try to be clever, please, please include a comment that explains exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
It helps to assume the next developer to work on the code is armed and knows where you live. :-)
If you are using GCC or any compiler that supports case ranges you can do this, but your code will not be portable.
switch(num)
{
case 11 ... 20:
case 31 ... 40:
case 51 ... 60:
case 71 ... 80:
case 91 ... 100:
// Do something
break;
default:
// Do something else
break;
}
This is for future visitors more so than a beginner. For a more general, algorithm-like solution, you can take a list of starting and ending values and check if a passed value is within one of them:
template<typename It, typename Elem>
bool in_any_interval(It first, It last, const Elem &val) {
return std::any_of(first, last, [&val](const auto &p) {
return p.first <= val && val <= p.second;
});
}
For simplicity, I used a polymorphic lambda (C++14) instead of an explicit pair argument. This should also probably stick to using < and == to be consistent with the standard algorithms, but it works like this as long as Elem has <= defined for it. Anyway, it can be used like this:
std::pair<int, int> intervals[]{
{11, 20}, {31, 40}, {51, 60}, {71, 80}, {91, 100}
};
const int num = 15;
std::cout << in_any_interval(std::begin(intervals), std::end(intervals), num);
There's a live example here.
The first one is easy. You just need to apply the modulo operator to your num value:
if ( ( num % 10 ) == 0)
Since C++ is evaluating every number that is not 0 as true, you could also write:
if ( ! ( num % 10 ) ) // Does not have a residue when divided by 10
For the second one, I think this is cleaner to understand:
The pattern repeats every 20, so you can calculate modulo 20.
All elements you want will be in a row except the ones that are dividable by 20.
To get those too, just use num-1 or better num+19 to avoid dealing with negative numbers.
if ( ( ( num + 19 ) % 20 ) > 9 )
This is assuming the pattern repeats forever, so for 111-120 it would apply again, and so on. Otherwise you need to limit the numbers to 100:
if ( ( ( ( num + 19 ) % 20 ) > 9 ) && ( num <= 100 ) )
With a couple of good comments in the code, it can be written quite concisely and readably.
// Check if it's a multiple of 10
if (num % 10 == 0) { ... }
// Check for whether tens digit is zero or even (1-10, 21-30, ...)
if ((num / 10) % 2 == 0) { ... }
else { ... }
You basically explained the answer yourself, but here's the code just in case.
if((x % 10) == 0) {
// Do this
}
if((x > 10 && x < 21) || (x > 30 && x < 41) || (x > 50 && x < 61) || (x > 70 && x < 81) || (x > 90 && x < 101)) {
// Do this
}
You might be overthinking this.
if (x % 10)
{
.. code for 1..9 ..
} else
{
.. code for 0, 10, 20 etc.
}
The first line if (x % 10) works because (a) a value that is a multiple of 10 calculates as '0', other numbers result in their remainer, (b) a value of 0 in an if is considered false, any other value is true.
Edit:
To toggle back-and-forth in twenties, use the same trick. This time, the pivotal number is 10:
if (((x-1)/10) & 1)
{
.. code for 10, 30, ..
} else
{
.. code for 20, 40, etc.
}
x/10 returns any number from 0 to 9 as 0, 10 to 19 as 1 and so on. Testing on even or odd -- the & 1 -- tells you if it's even or odd. Since your ranges are actually "11 to 20", subtract 1 before testing.
A plea for readability
While you already have some good answers, I would like to recommend a programming technique that will make your code more readable for some future reader - that can be you in six months, a colleague asked to perform a code review, your successor, ...
This is to wrap any "clever" statements into a function that shows exactly (with its name) what it is doing. While there is a miniscule impact on performance (from "function calling overhead") this is truly negligible in a game situation like this.
Along the way you can sanitize your inputs - for example, test for "illegal" values. Thus you might end up with code like this - see how much more readable it is? The "helper functions" can be hidden away somewhere (the don't need to be in the main module: it is clear from their name what they do):
#include <stdio.h>
enum {NO, YES, WINNER};
enum {OUT_OF_RANGE=-1, ODD, EVEN};
int notInRange(int square) {
return(square < 1 || square > 100)?YES:NO;
}
int isEndOfRow(int square) {
if (notInRange(square)) return OUT_OF_RANGE;
if (square == 100) return WINNER; // I am making this up...
return (square % 10 == 0)? YES:NO;
}
int rowType(unsigned int square) {
// return 1 if square is in odd row (going to the right)
// and 0 if square is in even row (going to the left)
if (notInRange(square)) return OUT_OF_RANGE; // trap this error
int rowNum = (square - 1) / 10;
return (rowNum % 2 == 0) ? ODD:EVEN; // return 0 (ODD) for 1-10, 21-30 etc.
// and 1 (EVEN) for 11-20, 31-40, ...
}
int main(void) {
int a = 12;
int rt;
rt = rowType(a); // this replaces your obscure if statement
// and here is how you handle the possible return values:
switch(rt) {
case ODD:
printf("It is an odd row\n");
break;
case EVEN:
printf("It is an even row\n");
break;
case OUT_OF_RANGE:
printf("It is out of range\n");
break;
default:
printf("Unexpected return value from rowType!\n");
}
if(isEndOfRow(10)==YES) printf("10 is at the end of a row\n");
if(isEndOfRow(100)==WINNER) printf("We have a winner!\n");
}
For the first one:
if (x % 10 == 0)
will apply to:
10, 20, 30, .. 100 .. 1000 ...
For the second one:
if (((x-1) / 10) % 2 == 1)
will apply for:
11-20, 31-40, 51-60, ..
We basically first do x-1 to get:
10-19, 30-39, 50-59, ..
Then we divide them by 10 to get:
1, 3, 5, ..
So we check if this result is odd.
As others have pointed out, making the conditions more concise won't speed up the compilation or the execution, and it doesn't necessarily help with readability either.
It can help in making your program more flexible, in case you decide later that you want a toddler's version of the game on a 6 x 6 board, or an advanced version (that you can play all night long) on a 40 x 50 board.
So I would code it as follows:
// What is the size of the game board?
#define ROWS 10
#define COLUMNS 10
// The numbers of the squares go from 1 (bottom-left) to (ROWS * COLUMNS)
// (top-left if ROWS is even, or top-right if ROWS is odd)
#define firstSquare 1
#define lastSquare (ROWS * COLUMNS)
// We haven't started until we roll the die and move onto the first square,
// so there is an imaginary 'square zero'
#define notStarted(num) (num == 0)
// and we only win when we land exactly on the last square
#define finished(num) (num == lastSquare)
#define overShot(num) (num > lastSquare)
// We will number our rows from 1 to ROWS, and our columns from 1 to COLUMNS
// (apologies to C fanatics who believe the world should be zero-based, which would
// have simplified these expressions)
#define getRow(num) (((num - 1) / COLUMNS) + 1)
#define getCol(num) (((num - 1) % COLUMNS) + 1)
// What direction are we moving in?
// On rows 1, 3, 5, etc. we go from left to right
#define isLeftToRightRow(num) ((getRow(num) % 2) == 1)
// On rows 2, 4, 6, etc. we go from right to left
#define isRightToLeftRow(num) ((getRow(num) % 2) == 0)
// Are we on the last square in the row?
#define isLastInRow(num) (getCol(num) == COLUMNS)
// And finally we can get onto the code
if (notStarted(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we haven't got our piece on the board yet
}
else
{
if (isLastInRow(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we're on the last square in a row
}
if (isRightToLeftRow(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we're travelling from right to left
}
else
{
// Some code for when we're travelling from left to right
}
}
Yes, it's verbose, but it makes it clear exactly what's happening on the game board.
If I was developing this game to display on a phone or tablet, I'd make ROWS and COLUMNS variables instead of constants, so they can be set dynamically (at the start of a game) to match the screen size and orientation.
I'd also allow the screen orientation to be changed at any time, mid-game - all you need to do is switch the values of ROWS and COLUMNS, while leaving everything else (the current square number that each player is on, and the start/end squares of all the snakes and ladders) unchanged.
Then you 'just' have to draw the board nicely, and write code for your animations (I assume that was the purpose of your if statements) ...
You can try the following:
// Multiple of 10
if ((num % 10) == 0)
{
// Do something
}
else if (((num / 10) % 2) != 0)
{
// 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100
}
else
{
// Other case
}
I know that this question has so many answers, but I will thrown mine here anyway...
Taken from Steve McConnell's Code Complete, 2nd Edition:
"Stair-Step Access Tables:
Yet another kind of table access is the stair-step method. This access method isn’t as direct as an index structure, but it doesn’t waste as much data space. The general idea of stair-step structures, illustrated in Figure 18-5, is that entries in a table are valid for ranges of data rather than for distinct data points.
Figure 18-5 The stair-step approach categorizes each entry by determining the level at which it hits a “staircase.” The “step” it hits determines its category.
For example, if you’re writing a grading program, the “B” entry range might be from 75 percent to 90 percent. Here’s a range of grades you might have to program someday:
To use the stair-step method, you put the upper end of each range into a table and then write a loop to check a score against the upper end of each range. When you find the point at which the score first exceeds the top of a range, you know what the grade is. With the stair-step technique, you have to be careful to handle the endpoints of the ranges properly. Here’s the code in Visual Basic that assigns grades to a group of students based on this example:
Although this is a simple example, you can easily generalize it to handle multiple students, multiple grading schemes (for example, different grades for different point levels on different assignments), and changes in the grading scheme."
Code Complete, 2nd Edition, pages 426 - 428 (Chapter 18).
I need to optimize an expression of the form:
(a > b) || (a > c)
I tried several optimized forms one of which is as follows:
(a * 2) > (b + c)
Optimization is not from the compiler's point of view. I would like to reduce the two >s to one.
This is based on the assumption that 1 <= (a, b, c) <= 26
However, this works only for some cases. Is the optimization I am trying to do, really possible? If yes, a start would be really helpful.
The answer is probably: you do not want to optimize that. Moreover, I doubt that there's any way to write this more efficiently. If you say that a, b and c are values between 1 and 26, you shouldn't be using integers (you don't need that precision) if you wanted to be optimal (in size) anyway.
If a > b, the expression a > c will not be executed anyway. So you have at maximum 2 (and at minimum 1) conditional operations, which is really not worth an optimization.
I'm quite doubtful this is even an optimisation in most cases.
a > b || a > c
will evaluate to:
compare a b
jump not greater
compare a c
jump not greater
where
a * 2 > b + c
gives:
shift a left 1 (in temp1)
add b to c (in temp2)
compare temp1 temp2
jump if not greater
As always with performance, it's always much better to base your decision on actual performance measurements (preferably on a selection of processor architectures).
The best I can come up with is this
char a, b, c;
std::cin >> a >> b >> c;
if (((b-a) | (c-a)) & 0x80) {
// a > b || a > c
}
With gcc -O2 this generates only one conditional branch
40072e: 29 c8 sub %ecx,%eax
400730: 29 ca sub %ecx,%edx
400732: 09 d0 or %edx,%eax
400734: a8 80 test $0x80,%al
400736: 74 17 je 40074f <main+0x3f>
This leverages the constraints of the input values, since the values cannot be greater than 26 then subtracting a from b will give you a negative value when a > b, in two's complement you know bit 7 will be set in that case - the same applies to c. I then OR both so that bit 7 indicates whether a > b || a > c, lastly we inspect bit 7 by AND with 0x80 and branch on that.
Update: Out of curiosity I timed 4 different ways of coding this. To generate test data I used a simple linear congruential pseudo-random number generator. I timed it in a loop for 100 million iterations. I assumed for simplicity that if the condition is true we want to add 5 to a counter, do nothing otherwise. I timed it using g++ (GCC) 4.6.3 20120306 (Red Hat 4.6.3-2) on an Intel Xeon X5570 # 2.93GHz using -O2 optimization level.
Here's the code (comment out all but one of the conditional variants):
#include <iostream>
unsigned myrand() {
static unsigned x = 1;
return (x = x * 1664525 + 1013904223);
}
int main() {
size_t count = 0;
for(size_t i=0; i<100000000; ++i ) {
int a = 1 + myrand() % 26;
int b = 1 + myrand() % 26;
int c = 1 + myrand() % 26;
count += 5 & (((b-a) | (c-a)) >> 31); // 0.635 sec
//if (((b-a) | (c-a)) & 0x80) count += 5; // 0.660 sec
//if (a > std::max(b,c)) count += 5; // 0.677 sec
//if ( a > b || a > c) count += 5; // 1.164 sec
}
std::cout << count << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The fastest is a modification on the suggestion in my answer, where we use sign extension to generate a mask that is either 32 1s or 32 0s depending on whether the condition is true of false, and use that to mask the 5 being added so that it either adds 5 or 0. This variation has no branches. The times are in a comment on each line. The slowest was the original expression ( a > b || a > c).