I made a program for codechef and its wrong apparantly (although all tests have been positive). The code is:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int g (int a,int b){
return b == 0 ? a : g(b, a % b);
}
int l (int a, int b){
return (a*b)/(g(a,b));
}
int main() {
int n;
cin >> n;
int a[n],b[n];
for (int x = 0;x<n;x++){
cin >> a[x] >> b[x];
}
for (int x = 0;x<n;x++){
cout << g(a[x],b[x]) << " "<< l(a[x],b[x]) << endl;
}
return 0;
}
Codechef won't tell me what integers dont work, and im pretty sure my gcd function is legit.
Since gcd is properly defined as the largest non-negative common divisor, you can save yourself the annoying details of signed division, e.g.,
static unsigned gcd (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
/* additional iteration if (a < b) : */
for (unsigned t = 0; (t = b) != 0; a = t)
b = a % b;
return a;
}
Likewise for lcm; but the problem here is that (a*b) may overflow. So if you have two large (signed) int values that are co-prime, say: 2147483647 and 2147483629, then gcd(a,b) == 1, and (a*b)/g overflows.
A reasonable assumption on most platforms is that unsigned long long is twice the width of unsigned - although strictly speaking, it doesn't have to be. This is also a good reason to use exact types like [u]int32_t and [u]int64_t.
One thing you can be sure of is that a/g or b/g will not cause any issues. So a possible implementation might be:
static unsigned long long lcm (unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
return ((unsigned long long) a) * (b / gcd(a, b)));
}
If your test values are 'positive' (which is what I think you mean), you can cast them prior to (unsigned) prior to call. Better yet - replace all your int variables with unsigned int (though the loop variables are fine), and save yourself the trouble to begin with.
Related
can anybody tell me why my Combination function is always resulting 0 ?
I also tried to make it calculate the combination without the use of the permutation function but the factorial and still the result is 0;
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
int factorial(int& n)
{
if (n <= 1)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
n = n-1;
return (n+1) * factorial(n);
}
}
int permutation(int& a, int& b)
{
int x = a-b;
return factorial(a) / factorial(x);
}
int Combination(int& a, int& b)
{
return permutation(a,b) / factorial(b);
}
int main()
{
int f, s;
cin >> f >> s;
cout << permutation(f,s) << endl;
cout << Combination(f,s);
return 0;
}
Your immediate problem is that that you pass a modifiable reference to your function. This means that you have Undefined Behaviour here:
return (n+1) * factorial(n);
// ^^^ ^^^
because factorial(n) modifies n, and is indeterminately sequenced with (n+1). A similar problem exists in Combination(), where b is modified twice in the same expression:
return permutation(a,b) / factorial(b);
// ^^^ ^^^
You will get correct results if you pass n, a and b by value, like this:
int factorial(int n)
Now, factorial() gets its own copy of n, and doesn't affect the n+1 you're multiplying it with.
While we're here, I should point out some other flaws in the code.
Avoid using namespace std; - it has traps for the unwary (and even for the wary!).
You can write factorial() without modifying n once you pass by value (rather than by reference):
int factorial(const int n)
{
if (n <= 1) {
return 1;
} else {
return n * factorial(n-1);
}
}
Consider using iterative code to compute factorial.
We should probably be using unsigned int, since the operations are meaningless for negative numbers. You might consider unsigned long or unsigned long long for greater range.
Computing one factorial and dividing by another is not only inefficient, it also risks unnecessary overflow (when a is as low as 13, with 32-bit int). Instead, we can multiply just down to the other number:
unsigned int permutation(const unsigned int a, const unsigned int b)
{
if (a < b) return 0;
unsigned int permutations = 1;
for (unsigned int i = a; i > a-b; --i) {
permutations *= i;
}
return permutations;
}
This works with much higher a, when b is small.
We didn't need the <cmath> header for anything.
Suggested fixed code:
unsigned int factorial(const unsigned int n)
{
unsigned int result = 1;
for (unsigned int i = 2; i <= n; ++i) {
result *= i;
}
return result;
}
unsigned int permutation(const unsigned int a, const unsigned int b)
{
if (a < b) return 0;
unsigned int result = 1;
for (unsigned int i = a; i > a-b; --i) {
result *= i;
}
return result;
}
unsigned int combination(const unsigned int a, const unsigned int b)
{
// C(a, b) == C(a, a - b), but it's faster to compute with small b
if (b > a - b) {
return combination(a, a - b);
}
return permutation(a,b) / factorial(b);
}
You dont calculate with the pointer value you calculate withe the pointer address.
I wrote a simple C++ program that computes permutations/factorials in 2 different methods. The problem arises when I try to use the longer method (p1) with 20 and 2. Granted, "20!" is a HUGE number. Is there a limit with integers when calculating the factorial using the recursion method?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int p1(int n, int r);
int p2(int n, int r);
int factorial(int x);
int main()
{
cout << p1(10, 8) << endl;
cout << p2(10, 8) << endl;
cout << p1(4, 3) << endl;
cout << p2(4, 3) << endl;
cout << p1(20, 2) << endl; // THE NUMBER PRINTS INCORRECTLY HERE
cout << p2(20, 2) << endl;
system("PAUSE");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
int p1(int n, int r) // long version, recursively calls factorial
{
return (factorial(n) / factorial(n - r));
}
int factorial(int x)
{
if (x == 0)
return 1;
else if (x > 0)
return (x * factorial(x - 1));
}
int p2(int n, int r) // shortcut, does arithmetic in for loop
{
int answer = n;
for (int i = 1; i < r; i++)
{
answer *= n - 1;
n--;
}
return answer;
}
20! is 2.4*10^18
You can check out a reference of limits.h to see what the limits are.
consider that 2^32 is 4.2*10^9. long int is usually a 32-bit value.
consider that 2^64 is 1.8*10^19, so a 64-bit integer will get you through 20! but no more. unsigned long long int should do it for you then.
unsigned long long int p1(int n, int r)
{
return (factorial(n) / factorial(n - r));
}
unsigned long long int factorial(unsigned long long int x)
{
if (x == 0)
return 1;
else if (x > 0)
return (x * factorial(x - 1));
}
unsigned long long int p2(int n, int r)
{
unsigned long long int answer = n;
for (int i = 1; i < r; i++)
{
answer *= n - 1;
n--;
}
return answer;
}
If you are allowed in this assignment, consider using float or double, unless you need absolute precision, or just need to get to 20 and be done. If you do need absolute precision and to perform a factorial above 20, you will have to devise a way to store a larger integer in a byte array like #z32a7ul states.
Also you can save an operation by doing answer *= --n; to pre-decrement n before you use it.
20! exceeds the integer range. Your shortcut function doesn't exceed simply because you don't calculate the whole faculty, but 20*19
If you really need it, you may create a class that holds a variable-length array of bytes, and define operators on it. In that case, only the available memory and your patiance will limit the size of numbers. I think Scheme (a LISP dialect) does something like that.
Find the smallest number which is divisible by all numbers from 1 to N, without leaving any remainder. As number can be very large we take the answer modulo 1000000007.
I think the smallest number that would be divisible by all the number from 1 to N,would be LCM(1..N).
Example: for N = 5, that smallest number would be 60.
As 60 is the smallest number divisible by all the number form (1-5).
But for some strange reason its giving me wrong answer for large N(1000), etc.
What can cause the possible error here, is my login correct here?
Here's what i tried to Implement.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
vector<long long> lcmArr;
const long long mod = 1000000007;
long long gcd(long long a, long long b){
if(b == 0)
{
return a;
}
return gcd(b, a%b);
}
long long lcmFumction(long long a, long long b)
{
return (a*b)/gcd(a,b);
}
int main() {
lcmArr.clear();lcmArr.resize(1002);
lcmArr[0] =0; lcmArr[1] = 1;
for(int i =2; i <=1000; i++){
lcmArr[i] = lcmFumction(lcmArr[i-1], i)%mod;
//cout<<lcmArr[i-1]<<" ";
}
int T;
cin >> T;
while(T--) {
int N;
cin>>N;
cout<<lcmArr[N]<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
The problem is when you calculate LCM, you use division,
And
((A/B)/C) mod M != (((A/B) mod M)/C)mod M
For example (10/5/2) % 2 != ((10/5)%2)/2)%2
You should use modular inverse to calculate that.
Some explanation about modular inverse.
If we have:
(a*b) % m = 1, then b is modular inverse of a, as b % m = (1/a) % m.
Thus, if we need to calculate (x/a) % m, we can make it become (x * b ) %m.
And we know that (A*B*C)% m = ((A * B) % m)*C)% m, so, in your case, modular inverse will come in handy.
I know the answer above has already been accepted, but I think that won't be enough to solve your problem. The problem lies in the fact that the first modular LCM will take away all divisors you need to check in subsequent GCD calls, so the answer will still be wrong.
One possible solution is to keep an array of factors for the answer. Each factor will be each number from 1..N, divided by GCD(number, [all previous numbers]). For this to work, you have to code a special GCD that computes the result between a single number and an array of factors. This C++ code shows how this would work:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define lli long long int
using namespace std;
vector<lli> T;
lli gcd(lli a, lli b) {
if(b == 0)
return a;
return gcd(b, a%b);
}
lli gcd_vector(vector<lli>& a, lli b) {
lli ma = 1;
for(int i=0; i<T.size(); i++)
ma = ma*T[i]%b;
return gcd(b, ma);
}
int main() {
lli answer = 1;
for(int i=1; i<=1000; i++) {
lli factor = i/gcd_vector(T, i);
T.push_back(factor);
answer = (answer*factor)%1000000007;
}
cout << answer << endl;
}
Suppose I have two long longs, a and b, that I need to multiply, then get the value mod k for some large k, such that a, b, and k are all in the range of long long but not of int. For simplicity, a, b < k.
Thus the code would be:
long long a, b, k;
cin >> a >> b >> k;
cout << (a * b)%k << "\n";
However, since a and b are so large, if you multiply like above, and it overflows and becomes negative, then mod k would be a negative number and incorrect.
How can you ensure that the value mod k is correct?
Edit: As a bonus, how does this work in Java? Is it the same, as expected? Or is BigInteger needed?
Many compilers offer a 128-bit integral type. For example, with g++ you can make a function
static inline int64_t mulmod(int64_t x, int64_t y, int64_t m)
{
return ( (__int128_t)x * y) % m;
}
Aside: if you can, try to stick to unsigned integer types when you're doing modular arithmetic. The rounding behavior of integer division makes using % very awkward when signed values are involved.
If you know the values are less than ULONGLONG_MAX/2 (so an add won't overflow), you can do the multiply one bit at a time:
unsigned long long mulmod(unsigned long long a, unsigned long unsigned long b, long long m) {
unsigned long long rv = 0;
a %= m;
b %= m;
while (b) {
if (b&1) { rv += a; if (rv >= m) rv -= m; }
a += a; if (a >= m) a -= m;
b >>= 1; }
return rv; }
If you know you're running on gcc/x86_64, you could try:
unsigned long mulmod(unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long m) {
unsigned long rv;
asm ("mulq %2; divq %3" : "=d"(rv), "+a"(a): "S"(b), "c"(m));
return rv;
}
which will work up to ULONG_MAX
If your numbers get bigger than that, you'll need to go to a multiprecision library such as GMP
I need to use pow in my c++ program and if i call the pow() function this way:
long long test = pow(7, e);
Where
e is an integer value with the value of 23.
I always get 821077879 as a result. If i calculate it with the windows calculator i get 27368747340080916343.. Whats wrong here? ):
I tried to cast to different types but nothing helped here... What could be the reason for this? How i can use pow() correctly?
Thanks!
The result is doesn't fit in long long.
If you want to deal with very big numbers then use a library like GMP
Or store it as a floating point (which won't be as precise).
Applying modulo:
const unsigned int b = 5; // base
const unsigned int e = 27; // exponent
const unsigned int m = 7; // modulo
unsigned int r = 1; // remainder
for (int i = 0; i < e; ++i)
r = (r * b) % m;
// r is now (pow(5,27) % 7)
723 is too big to fit into a long long (assuming it's 64 bits). The value is getting truncated.
Edit: Oh, why didn't you say that you wanted pow(b, e) % m instead of just pow(b, e)? That makes things a whole lot simpler, because you don't need bigints after all. Just do all your arithmetic mod m. Pubby's solution works, but here's a faster one (O(log e) instead of O(e)).
unsigned int powmod(unsigned int b, unsigned int e, unsigned int m)
{
assert(m != 0);
if (e == 0)
{
return 1;
}
else if (e % 2 == 0)
{
unsigned int squareRoot = powmod(b, e / 2, m);
return (squareRoot * squareRoot) % m;
}
else
{
return (powmod(b, e - 1, m) * b) % m;
}
}
See it live: https://ideone.com/YsG7V
#include<iostream>
#include<cmath>
int main()
{
long double ldbl = pow(7, 23);
double dbl = pow(7, 23);
std::cout << ldbl << ", " << dbl << std::endl;
}
Output: 2.73687e+19, 2.73687e+19