As an answer to a particular problem, I have to print n*k^n - (n-1)*k.
for(i=0;i<n;i++){
c=(c%p*k%p)%p;
c=(c%p*n%p)%p;
d=((n-1)%p*k%p)%p;
s=(c%p-d%p)%p;
cout<<s<<endl;
}
Initially c=1, p=1000000007 and s is my final answer.
I have to take the modulo of s with respect to p.
For large values of n, s becomes negative. This happens because the modulo value changes. So even if c>d, it is possible that c%p<d%p. For n=1000000000 and k=25, s=-727999801. I am not being able to think of a suitable workaround.
-2 % 7 = 5, because -2 = 7 * (-1) + 5, while c++ modulo operation would return -2, so to get positive number you just need to add p.
if (s < 0) s += p;
I advise you to rewrite your code in the following way:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
c = (c * (k % p)) % p;
}
c = (c * (n % p)) % p;
int d = ((n - 1) % p * (k % p)) % p;
int s = (c - d) % p;
if (s < 0) s += p;
cout << s << endl;
To check with some small inputs you can use the following line:
cout << (n * (int)pow(k, n) - (n-1)*k) % p << endl;
Try to run with this input:
const int n = 5;
const int p = 7;
const int k = 10;
int c = 1;
You will see that without if (s < 0) s += p; it is -1. This line fixes it to 6 - the right answer.
Related
Question is as follows :
Given two numbers n and k. For each number in the interval [1, n], your task is to calculate its largest divisor that is not divisible by k. Print the sum of all these divisors.
Note: k is always a prime number.
t=3*10^5,1<=n<=10^9, 2<=k<=10^9
My approach toward the question:
for every i in range 1 to n, the required divisors is i itself,only when that i is not a multiple of k.
If that i is multiple of k, then we have to find the greatest divisor of a number and match with k. If it does not match, then this divisor is my answer. otherwise, 2nd largest divisor is my answer.
for example,take n=10 and k=2, required divisors for every i in range 1 to 10 is 1, 1, 3, 1, 5, 3, 7, 1, 9, 5. sum of these divisors are 36. So ans=36.
My code,which works for a few test cases and failed for some.
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
#define ll long long int
ll div2(ll n, ll k) {
if (n % k != 0 || n == 1) {
return n;
}
else {
for (int i = 2; i * i <= n; i++) {
if (n % i == 0) {
ll aa = n / i;
if (aa % k != 0) {
return aa;
}
}
}
}
return 1;
}
int main() {
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(NULL);
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
ll n, k;
cin >> n >> k;
ll sum = 0, pp;
for (pp = 1; pp <= n; pp++) {
//cout << div2(pp, k);
sum = sum + div2(pp, k);
}
cout << sum << '\n';
}
}
Can someone help me where I am doing wrong or suggest me some faster logic to do this question as some of my test cases is showing TIME LIMIT EXCEED
after looking every possible explanation , i modify my code as follows:
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
#define ll long long int
int main() {
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(NULL);
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
ll n, i;
ll k, sum;
cin >> n >> k;
sum = (n * (n + 1)) / 2;
for (i = k; i <= n; i = i + k) {
ll dmax = i / k;
while (dmax % k == 0) {
dmax = dmax / k;
}
sum = (sum - i) + dmax;
}
cout << sum << '\n';
}
}
But still it is giving TIME LIMIT EXCEED for 3 test cases. Someone please help.
Like others already said, look at the constraints: t=3*10^5,1<=n<=10^9, 2<=k<=10^9.
If your test has a complexity O(n), which computing the sum via a loop has, you'll end up doing a t * n ~ 10^14. That's too much.
This challenge is a math one. You'll need to use two facts:
as you already saw, if i = j * k^s with j%k != 0, the largest divisor is j;
sum_{i=1}^t i = (t * (t+1)) / 2
We start with
S = sum(range(1, n)) = n * (n+1) / 2
then for all number of the form k * x we added too much, let's correct:
S = S - sum(k*x for x in range(1, n/k)) + sum(x for x in range(1, n/k))
= S - (k - 1) * (n/k) * (n/k + 1) / 2
continue for number of the form k^2 * x ... then k^p * x until the sum is empty...
Ok, people start writing code, so here's a small Python function:
def so61867604(n, k):
S = (n * (n+1)) // 2
k_pow = k
while k_pow <= n:
up = n // k_pow
S = S - (k - 1) * (up * (up + 1)) // 2
k_pow *= k
return S
and in action here https://repl.it/repls/OlivedrabKeyProjections
In itself this is more of a mathematical problem:
If cur = [1..n], as you have already noticed, the largest divisor = dmax = cur is, if cur % k != 0, otherwise dmax must be < cur. From k we know that it is at most divisible into other prime numbers... Since we want to make sure that dmax is not divisible by k we can do this with a while loop... whereby this is certainly also more elegantly possible (since dmax must be a prime number again due to the prime factorization).
So this should look like this (without guarantee just typed down - maybe I missed something in my thinking):
#include <iostream>
int main() {
unsigned long long n = 10;
unsigned long long k = 2;
for (auto cur_n = decltype(n){1}; cur_n <= n; cur_n++)
{
if (cur_n % k != 0) {
std::cout << "Largest divisor for " << cur_n << ": " << cur_n << " (SELF)" << std::endl;
} else {
unsigned long long dmax= cur_n/k;
while (dmax%k == 0)
dmax= dmax/k;
std::cout << "Largest divisor for " << cur_n << ": " << dmax<< std::endl;
}
}
}
I wonder if something like this is what One Lyner means.
(Note, this code has two errors in it, which are described in the comments, as well as can be elucidated by One Lyner's new code.)
C++ code:
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define ll long long int
int main()
{
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(NULL);
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
ll n;
ll k, _k, result;
vector<ll> powers;
cin >> n >> k;
result = n * (n + 1) / 2;
_k = k;
while (_k <= n) {
powers.push_back(_k);
_k = _k * k;
}
for (ll p : powers) {
ll num_js = n / p;
result -= num_js * (num_js + 1) / 2 * (p - 1);
int i = 0;
while (p * powers[i] <= n) {
result += powers[i] * (p - 1);
i = i + 1;
}
}
cout << result << '\n';
}
}
I've been trying to implement the algorithm from wikipedia and while it's never outputting composite numbers as primes, it's outputting like 75% of primes as composites.
Up to 1000 it gives me this output for primes:
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 41, 97, 193, 257, 641, 769
As far as I know, my implementation is EXACTLY the same as the pseudo-code algorithm. I've debugged it line by line and it produced all of the expected variable values (I was following along with my calculator). Here's my function:
bool primeTest(int n)
{
int s = 0;
int d = n - 1;
while (d % 2 == 0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
// this is the LOOP from the pseudo-algorithm
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int range = n - 4;
int a = rand() % range + 2;
//int a = rand() % (n/2 - 2) + 2;
bool skip = false;
long x = long(pow(a, d)) % n;
if (x == 1 || x == n - 1)
continue;
for (int r = 1; r < s; r++)
{
x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
if (x == 1)
{
// is not prime
return false;
}
else if (x == n - 1)
{
skip = true;
break;
}
}
if (!skip)
{
// is not prime
return false;
}
}
// is prime
return true;
}
Any help would be appreciated D:
EDIT: Here's the entire program, edited as you guys suggested - and now the output is even more broken:
bool primeTest(int n);
int main()
{
int count = 1; // number of found primes, 2 being the first of course
int maxCount = 10001;
long n = 3;
long maxN = 1000;
long prime = 0;
while (count < maxCount && n <= maxN)
{
if (primeTest(n))
{
prime = n;
cout << prime << endl;
count++;
}
n += 2;
}
//cout << prime;
return 0;
}
bool primeTest(int n)
{
int s = 0;
int d = n - 1;
while (d % 2 == 0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int range = n - 4;
int a = rand() % range + 2;
//int a = rand() % (n/2 - 2) + 2;
bool skip = false;
//long x = long(pow(a, d)) % n;
long x = a;
for (int z = 1; z < d; z++)
{
x *= x;
}
x = x % n;
if (x == 1 || x == n - 1)
continue;
for (int r = 1; r < s; r++)
{
//x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
x = (x * x) % n;
if (x == 1)
{
return false;
}
else if (x == n - 1)
{
skip = true;
break;
}
}
if (!skip)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Now the output of primes, from 3 to 1000 (as before), is:
3, 5, 17, 257
I see now that x gets too big and it just turns into a garbage value, but I wasn't seeing that until I removed the "% n" part.
The likely source of error is the two calls to the pow function. The intermediate results will be huge (especially for the first call) and will probably overflow, causing the error. You should look at the modular exponentiation topic at Wikipedia.
Source of problem is probably here:
x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
pow from C standard library works on floating point numbers, so using it is a very bad idea if you just want to compute powers modulo n. Solution is really simple, just square the number by hand:
x = (x * x) % n
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.
I'm working on problem 9 in Project Euler:
There exists exactly one Pythagorean triplet for which a + b + c = 1000.
Find the product abc.
The following code I wrote uses Euclid's formula for generating primes. For some reason my code returns "0" as an answer; even though the variable values are correct for the first few loops. Since the problem is pretty easy, some parts of the code aren't perfectly optimized; I don't think that should matter. The code is as follows:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int placeholder; //for cin at the end so console stays open
int a, b, c, m, n, k;
a = 0; b = 0; c = 0;
m = 0; n = 0; k = 0; //to prevent initialization warnings
int sum = 0;
int product = 0;
/*We will use Euclid's (or Euler's?) formula for generating primitive
*Pythagorean triples (a^2 + b^2 = c^2): For any "m" and "n",
*a = m^2 - n^2 ; b = 2mn ; c = m^2 + n^2 . We will then cycle through
*values of a scalar/constant "k", to make sure we didn't miss anything.
*/
//these following loops will increment m, n, and k,
//and see if a+b+c is 1000. If so, all loops will break.
for (int iii = 1; m < 1000; iii++)
{
m = iii;
for (int ii = 1; n < 1000; ii++)
{
n = ii;
for (int i = 1; k <=1000; i++)
{
sum = 0;
k = i;
a = (m*m - n*n)*k;
b = (2*m*n)*k;
c = (m*m + n*n)*k;
if (sum == 1000) break;
}
if (sum == 1000) break;
}
if (sum == 1000) break;
}
product = a * b * c;
cout << "The product abc of the Pythagorean triplet for which a+b+c = 1000 is:\n";
cout << product << endl;
cin >> placeholder;
return 0;
}
And also, is there a better way to break out of multiple loops without using "break", or is "break" optimal?
Here's the updated code, with only the changes:
for (m = 2; m < 1000; m++)
{
for (int n = 2; n < 1000; n++)
{
for (k = 2; (k < 1000) && (m > n); k++)
{
sum = 0;
a = (m*m - n*n)*k;
b = (2*m*n)*k;
c = (m*m + n*n)*k;
sum = a + b + c;
if ((sum == 1000) && (!(k==0))) break;
}
It still doesn't work though (now gives "1621787660" as an answer). I know, a lot of parentheses.
The new problem is that the solution occurs for k = 1, so starting your k at 2 misses the answer outright.
Instead of looping through different k values, you can just check for when the current sum divides 1000 evenly. Here's what I mean (using the discussed goto statement):
for (n = 2; n < 1000; n++)
{
for (m = n + 1; m < 1000; m++)
{
sum = 0;
a = (m*m - n*n);
b = (2*m*n);
c = (m*m + n*n);
sum = a + b + c;
if(1000 % sum == 0)
{
int k = 1000 / sum;
a *= k;
b *= k;
c *= k;
goto done;
}
}
}
done:
product = a * b * c;
I also switched around the two for loops so that you can just initialize m as being larger than n instead of checking every iteration.
Note that with this new method, the solution doesn't occur for k = 1 (just a difference in how the loops are run, this isn't a problem)
Presumably sum is supposed to be a + b + c. However, nowhere in your code do you actually do this, which is presumably your problem.
To answer the final question: Yes, you can use a goto. Breaking out of multiple nested loops is one of the rare occasions when it isn't considered harmful.
I've been working on a Rabin-Karp string matching function in C++ and I'm not getting any results out of it. I have a feeling that I'm not computing some of the values correctly, but I don't know which one(s).
Prototype
void rabinKarp(string sequence, string pattern, int d, int q);
Function Implementation
void rabinKarp(string sequence, string pattern, int d, int q)
{
//d is the |∑|
//q is the prime number to use to lessen spurious hits
int n = sequence.length(); //Length of the sequence
int m = pattern.length(); //Length of the pattern
double temp = static_cast<double> (m - 1.0);
double temp2 = pow(static_cast<double> (d), temp); //Exponentiate d
int h = (static_cast<int>(temp2)) % q; //High Order Position of an m-digit window
int p = 0; //Pattern decimal value
int t = 0; //Substring decimal value
for (int i = 1; i < m; i++) { //Preprocessing
p = (d*p + (static_cast<int>(pattern[i]) - 48)) % q;
t = (d*t + (static_cast<int>(sequence[i])-48)) % q;
}
for (int s = 0; s < (n-m); s++) { //Matching(Iterate through all possible shifts)
if (p == t) {
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) {
if (pattern[j] == sequence[s+j]) {
cout << "Pattern occurs with shift: " << s << endl;
}
}
}
if (s < (n-m)) {
t = (d*(t - ((static_cast<int>(sequence[s+1]) - 48)*h)) + (static_cast<int>(sequence[s + m + 1]) - 48)) % q;
}
}
return;
}
In my function call I pass 2359023141526739921 as the sequence, 31415 as the pattern, 10 as the radix, and 13 as the prime. I expect there to be one actual match and one spurious hit, but I never get the output statement from the matching part of the function. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks in Advance, Madison
The big gotcha in coding the Rabin Karp is the modulo operator. When two numbers X and Y are congruent modulo Q then (X % Q) should equal (Y % Q) but on the C++ compiler you're using they will only be equal if X and Y are both positive or both negative. If X is positive and Y is negative then (X % Q) will be positive and (Y % Q) will negative. In fact (X % Q)-Q == (Y % Q) in this case.
The work around is to check for negative values after each modulo and if there are any to add q to the variable, so your preprocessing loop becomes :
p = (d*p + pattern[i]) % q;
if ( p < 0 ) p += q;
t = (d*t + sequence[i]) % q;
if ( t < 0 ) t += q;
t in the main loop needs to have a similar check added.
Unless you've redefined ^, it is computing xor, not exponentiation. Also, you should be careful about overflowing the maximum value of an int before you perform %.