I write this code for show fibonacci series using recursion.But It not show correctly for n>43 (ex: for n=100 show:-980107325).
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
void fibonacciSeries(int);
void fibonacciSeries(int n)
{
static long d = 0, e = 1;
long c;
if (n>1)
{
c = d + e;
d = e;
e = c;
printf("%d \n", c);
fibonacciSeries(n - 1);
}
}
int main()
{
long a, n;
long long i = 0, j = 1, f;
printf("How many number you want to print in the fibonnaci series :\n");
scanf("%d", &n);
printf("\nFibonacci Series: ");
printf("%d", 0);
fibonacciSeries(n);
_getch();
return 0;
}
The value of fib(100) is so large that it will overflow even a 64 bit number. To operate on such large values, you need to do arbitrary-precision arithmetic. Arbitrary-precision arithmetic is not provided by C nor C++ standard libraries, so you'll need to either implement it yourself or use a library written by someone else.
For smaller values that do fit your long long, your problem is that you use the wrong printf format specifier. To print a long long, you need to use %lld.
Code overflows the range of the integer used long.
Could use long long, but even that may not handle Fib(100) which needs at least 69 bits.
Code could use long double if 1.0/LDBL_EPSILON > 3.6e20
Various libraries exist to handle very large integers.
For this task, all that is needed is a way to add two large integers. Consider using a string. An inefficient but simply string addition follows. No contingencies for buffer overflow.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <assert.h>
char *str_revese_inplace(char *s) {
char *left = s;
char *right = s + strlen(s);
while (right > left) {
right--;
char t = *right;
*right = *left;
*left = t;
left++;
}
return s;
}
char *str_add(char *ssum, const char *sa, const char *sb) {
const char *pa = sa + strlen(sa);
const char *pb = sb + strlen(sb);
char *psum = ssum;
int carry = 0;
while (pa > sa || pb > sb || carry) {
int sum = carry;
if (pa > sa) sum += *(--pa) - '0';
if (pb > sb) sum += *(--pb) - '0';
*psum++ = sum % 10 + '0';
carry = sum / 10;
}
*psum = '\0';
return str_revese_inplace(ssum);
}
int main(void) {
char fib[3][300];
strcpy(fib[0], "0");
strcpy(fib[1], "1");
int i;
for (i = 2; i <= 1000; i++) {
printf("Fib(%3d) %s.\n", i, str_add(fib[2], fib[1], fib[0]));
strcpy(fib[0], fib[1]);
strcpy(fib[1], fib[2]);
}
return 0;
}
Output
Fib( 2) 1.
Fib( 3) 2.
Fib( 4) 3.
Fib( 5) 5.
Fib( 6) 8.
...
Fib(100) 3542248xxxxxxxxxx5075. // Some xx left in for a bit of mystery.
Fib(1000) --> 43466...about 200 more digits...8875
You can print some large Fibonacci numbers using only char, int and <stdio.h> in C.
There is some headers :
#include <stdio.h>
#define B_SIZE 10000 // max number of digits
typedef int positive_number;
struct buffer {
size_t index;
char data[B_SIZE];
};
Also some functions :
void init_buffer(struct buffer *buffer, positive_number n) {
for (buffer->index = B_SIZE; n; buffer->data[--buffer->index] = (char) (n % 10), n /= 10);
}
void print_buffer(const struct buffer *buffer) {
for (size_t i = buffer->index; i < B_SIZE; ++i) putchar('0' + buffer->data[i]);
}
void fly_add_buffer(struct buffer *buffer, const struct buffer *client) {
positive_number a = 0;
size_t i = (B_SIZE - 1);
for (; i >= client->index; --i) {
buffer->data[i] = (char) (buffer->data[i] + client->data[i] + a);
buffer->data[i] = (char) (buffer->data[i] - (a = buffer->data[i] > 9) * 10);
}
for (; a; buffer->data[i] = (char) (buffer->data[i] + a), a = buffer->data[i] > 9, buffer->data[i] = (char) (buffer->data[i] - a * 10), --i);
if (++i < buffer->index) buffer->index = i;
}
Example usage :
int main() {
struct buffer number_1, number_2, number_3;
init_buffer(&number_1, 0);
init_buffer(&number_2, 1);
for (int i = 0; i < 2500; ++i) {
number_3 = number_1;
fly_add_buffer(&number_1, &number_2);
number_2 = number_3;
}
print_buffer(&number_1);
}
// print 131709051675194962952276308712 ... 935714056959634778700594751875
Best C type is still char ? The given code is printing f(2500), a 523 digits number.
Info : f(2e5) has 41,798 digits, see also Factorial(10000) and Fibonacci(1000000).
Well, you could want to try implementing BigInt in C++ or C.
Useful Material:
How to implement big int in C++
For this purporse you need implement BigInteger. There is no such build-in support in current c++. You can view few advises on stack overflow
Or you also can use some libs like GMP
Also here is some implementation:
E-maxx - on Russian language description.
Or find some open implementation on GitHub
Try to use a different format and printf, use unsigned to get wider range of digits.
If you use unsigned long long you should get until 18 446 744 073 709 551 615 so until the 93th number for fibonacci serie 12200160415121876738 but after this one you will get incorrect result because the 94th number 19740274219868223167 is too big for unsigned long long.
Keep in mind that the n-th fibonacci number is (approximately) ((1 + sqrt(5))/2)^n.
This allows you to get the value for n that allows the result to fit in 32 /64 unsigned integers. For signed remember that you lose one bit.
I need to convert a part of vectors of chars to an int.
If I have
std::vector<char> // which contains something like asdf1234dsdsd
and I want to take characters from the 4th till 7th position and convert it into an int.
The positions are always known.
How do I do it the fastest way ?
I tried to use global copy and got a weird answer. Instead of 2 I got 48.
If the positions are known, you can do it like this
int x = (c[4] - '0') * 1000 + (c[5] - '0') * 100 + (c[6] - '0') * 10 + c[7] - '0';
This is fairly flexible, although it doesn't check for overflow or anything fancy like that:
#include <algorithm>
int base10_digits(int a, char b) {
return 10 * a + (b - '0');
}
int result = std::accumulate(myvec.begin()+4, myvec.begin()+8, 0, base10_digits);
The reason copying didn't work is probably because of endianness, assuming the first char is the most significant:
int x = (int(c[4]) << 24) + (int(c[5]) << 16) + (int(c[6]) << 8) + c[7]
1.Take the address of the begin and end (one past the end) index.
2.Construct a std::string from it.
3.Feed it into a std::istringstream.
4.Extract the integer from the stringstream into a variable.
(This may be a bad idea!)
Try this:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
int vtoi(vector<char> vec, int beg, int end) // vector to int
{
int ret = 0;
int mult = pow(10 , (end-beg));
for(int i = beg; i <= end; i++) {
ret += (vec[i] - '0') * mult;
mult /= 10;
}
return ret;
}
#define pb push_back
int main() {
vector<char> vec;
vec.pb('1');
vec.pb('0');
vec.pb('3');
vec.pb('4');
cout << vtoi(vec, 0, 3) << "\n";
return 0;
}
long res = 0;
for(int i=0; i<vec.size(); i++)
{
res += vec[i] * pow (2, 8*(vec.size() - i - 1)); // 8 means number of bits in byte
}
Hey, my friends and I are trying to beat each other's runtimes for generating "Self Numbers" between 1 and a million. I've written mine in c++ and I'm still trying to shave off precious time.
Here's what I have so far,
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
bool v[1000000];
int main(void) {
long non_self = 0;
for(long i = 1; i < 1000000; ++i) {
if(!(v[i])) std::cout << i << '\n';
non_self = i + (i%10) + (i/10)%10 + (i/100)%10 + (i/1000)%10 + (i/10000)%10 +(i/100000)%10;
v[non_self] = 1;
}
std::cout << "1000000" << '\n';
return 0;
}
The code works fine now, I just want to optimize it.
Any tips? Thanks.
I built an alternate C solution that doesn't require any modulo or division operations:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int v[1100000];
int j1, j2, j3, j4, j5, j6, s, n=0;
memset(v, 0, sizeof(v));
for (j6=0; j6<10; j6++) {
for (j5=0; j5<10; j5++) {
for (j4=0; j4<10; j4++) {
for (j3=0; j3<10; j3++) {
for (j2=0; j2<10; j2++) {
for (j1=0; j1<10; j1++) {
s = j6 + j5 + j4 + j3 + j2 + j1;
v[n + s] = 1;
n++;
}
}
}
}
}
}
for (n=1; n<=1000000; n++) {
if (!v[n]) printf("%6d\n", n);
}
}
It generates 97786 self numbers including 1 and 1000000.
With output, it takes
real 0m1.419s
user 0m0.060s
sys 0m0.152s
When I redirect output to /dev/null, it takes
real 0m0.030s
user 0m0.024s
sys 0m0.004s
on my 3 Ghz quad core rig.
For comparison, your version produces the same number of numbers, so I assume we're either both correct or equally wrong; but your version chews up
real 0m0.064s
user 0m0.060s
sys 0m0.000s
under the same conditions, or about 2x as much.
That, or the fact that you're using longs, which is unnecessary on my machine. Here, int goes up to 2 billion. Maybe you should check INT_MAX on yours?
Update
I had a hunch that it may be better to calculate the sum piecewise. Here's my new code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
char v[1100000];
int j1, j2, j3, j4, j5, j6, s, n=0;
int s1, s2, s3, s4, s5;
memset(v, 0, sizeof(v));
for (j6=0; j6<10; j6++) {
for (j5=0; j5<10; j5++) {
s5 = j6 + j5;
for (j4=0; j4<10; j4++) {
s4 = s5 + j4;
for (j3=0; j3<10; j3++) {
s3 = s4 + j3;
for (j2=0; j2<10; j2++) {
s2 = s3 + j2;
for (j1=0; j1<10; j1++) {
v[s2 + j1 + n++] = 1;
}
}
}
}
}
}
for (n=1; n<=1000000; n++) {
if (!v[n]) printf("%d\n", n);
}
}
...and what do you know, that brought down the time for the top loop from 12 ms to 4 ms. Or maybe 8, my clock seems to be getting a bit jittery way down there.
State of affairs, Summary
The actual finding of self numbers up to 1M is now taking roughly 4 ms, and I'm having trouble measuring any further improvements. On the other hand, as long as output is to the console, it will continue to take about 1.4 seconds, my best efforts to leverage buffering notwithstanding. The I/O time so drastically dwarfs computation time that any further optimization would be essentially futile. Thus, although inspired by further comments, I've decided to leave well enough alone.
All times cited are on my (pretty fast) machine and are for comparison purposes with each other only. Your mileage may vary.
Generate the numbers once, copy the output into your code as a gigantic string. Print the string.
Those mods (%) look expensive. If you are allowed to move to base 16 (or even base 2), then you can probably code this a lot faster. If you have to stay in decimal, try creating an array of digits for each place (units, tens, hundreds) and build some rollover code. That will make summating the numbers far easier.
Alternatively, you could recognise the behaviour of the core self function (let's call it s):
s = n + f(b,n)
where f(b,n) is the sum of the digits of the number n in base b.
For base 10, it's clear that as the ones (also known as least significant) digit moves from 0,1,2,...,9, that n and f(b,n) proceed in lockstep as you move from n to n+1, it's only that 10% of the time that 9 rolls to 0 that it doesnt, so:
f(b,n+1) = f(b,n) + 1 // 90% of the time
thus the core self function s advances as
n+1 + f(b,n+1) = n + 1 + f(b,n) + 1 = n + f(b,n) + 2
s(n+1) = s(n) + 2 // again, 90% of the time
In the remaining (and easily identifiable) 10% of the time, the 9 rolls back to zero and adds one to the next digit, which in the simplest case subtracts (9-1) from the running total, but might cascade up through a series of 9s, to subtract 99-1, 999-1 etc.
So the first optimisation can remove most of the work from 90% of your cycles!
if ((n % 10) != 0)
{
n + f(b,n) = n-1 + f(b,n-1) + 2;
}
or
if ((n % 10) != 0)
{
s = old_s + 2;
}
That should be enough to substantially increase your performance without really changing your algorithm.
If you want more, then work out a simple algorithm for the change between iterations for the remaining 10%.
If you want your output to be fast, it may be worth investigating replacing iostream output with plain old printf() - depends on the rules for winning the competition whether this is important.
Multithread (use different arrays/ranges for every thread). Also, dont use more threads than your number of cpu cores =)
cout or printf within a loop will be slow. If you can remove any prints from a loop you will see significant performance increase.
Since the range is limited (1 to 1000000) the maximum sum of the digits does not exceed 9*6 = 54. This means that to implement the sieve a circular buffer of 54 elements should be perfectly sufficient (and the size of the sieve grows very slowly as the range increases).
You already have a sieve-based solution, but it is based on pre-building the full-length buffer (sieve of 1000000 elements), which is rather inelegant (if not completely unacceptable). The performance of your solution also suffers from non-locality of memory access.
For example, this is a possible very simple implementation
#define N 1000000U
void print_self_numbers(void)
{
#define NMARKS 64U /* make it 64 just in case (and to make division work faster :) */
unsigned char marks[NMARKS] = { 0 };
unsigned i, imark;
for (i = 1, imark = i; i <= N; ++i, imark = (imark + 1) % NMARKS)
{
unsigned digits, sum;
if (!marks[imark])
printf("%u ", i);
else
marks[imark] = 0;
sum = i;
for (digits = i; digits > 0; digits /= 10)
sum += digits % 10;
marks[sum % NMARKS] = 1;
}
}
(I'm not going for the best possible performance in terms of CPU clocks here, just illustrating the key idea with the circular buffer.)
Of course, the range can be easily turned into a parameter of the function, while the size of the curcular buffer can be easily calculated at run-time from the range.
As for "optimizations"... There's no point in trying to optimize the code that contains I/O operations. You won't achieve anything by such optimizations. If you want to analyze the performance of the algorithm itself, you'll have to put the generated numbers into an output array and print them later.
For such simple task, the best option would be to think of alternative algorithms to produce the same result. %10 is not usually considered a fast operation.
Why not use the recurrence relation given on the wikipedia page instead?
That should be blazingly fast.
EDIT: Ignore this .. the recurrence relation generates some but not all of the self numbers.
In fact only very few of them. Thats not particularly clear from thewikipedia page though :(
This may help speed up C++ iostreams output:
cin.tie(0);
ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
Put them in main before you start writing to cout.
I created a CUDA-based solution based on Carl Smotricz's second algorithm. The code to identify Self Numbers itself is extremely fast -- on my machine it executes in ~45 nanoseconds; this is about 150 x faster than Carl Smotricz's algorithm, which ran in 7 milliseconds on my machine.
There is a bottleneck, however, and that seems to be the PCIe interface. It took my code a whopping 43 milliseconds to move the computed data from the graphics card back to RAM. This might be optimizable, and I will look in to this.
Still, 45 nanosedons is pretty darn fast. Scary fast, actually, and I added code to my program which runs Carl Smotricz's algorithm and compares the results for accuracy. The results are accurate. Here is the program output (compiled in VS2008 64-bit, Windows7):
UPDATE
I recompiled this code in release mode with full optimization and using static runtime libraries, with signifigant results. The optimizer seems to have done very well with Carl's algorithm, reducing the runtime from 7 ms to 1 ms. The CUDA implementation sped up as well, from 35 us to 20 us. The memory copy from video card to RAM was unaffected.
Program Output:
Running on device: 'Quadro NVS 295'
Reference Implementation Ran In 15603 ticks (7 ms)
Kernel Executed in 40 ms -- Breakdown:
[kernel] : 35 us (0.09%)
[memcpy] : 40 ms (99.91%)
CUDA Implementation Ran In 111889 ticks (51 ms)
Compute Slots: 1000448 (1954 blocks X 512 threads)
Number of Errors: 0
The code is as follows:
file : main.h
#pragma once
#include <cstdlib>
#include <functional>
typedef std::pair<int*, size_t> sized_ptr;
static sized_ptr make_sized_ptr(int* ptr, size_t size)
{
return make_pair<int*, size_t>(ptr, size);
}
__host__ void ComputeSelfNumbers(sized_ptr hostMem, sized_ptr deviceMemory, unsigned const blocks, unsigned const threads);
inline std::string format_elapsed(double d)
{
char buf[256] = {0};
if( d < 0.00000001 )
{
// show in ps with 4 digits
sprintf(buf, "%0.4f ps", d * 1000000000000.0);
}
else if( d < 0.00001 )
{
// show in ns
sprintf(buf, "%0.0f ns", d * 1000000000.0);
}
else if( d < 0.001 )
{
// show in us
sprintf(buf, "%0.0f us", d * 1000000.0);
}
else if( d < 0.1 )
{
// show in ms
sprintf(buf, "%0.0f ms", d * 1000.0);
}
else if( d <= 60.0 )
{
// show in seconds
sprintf(buf, "%0.2f s", d);
}
else if( d < 3600.0 )
{
// show in min:sec
sprintf(buf, "%01.0f:%02.2f", floor(d/60.0), fmod(d,60.0));
}
// show in h:min:sec
else
sprintf(buf, "%01.0f:%02.0f:%02.2f", floor(d/3600.0), floor(fmod(d,3600.0)/60.0), fmod(d,60.0));
return buf;
}
inline std::string format_pct(double d)
{
char buf[256] = {0};
sprintf(buf, "%.2f", 100.0 * d);
return buf;
}
file: main.cpp
#define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
#include <windows.h>
#include "C:\CUDA\include\cuda_runtime.h"
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
#include <cmath>
#include <map>
#include <algorithm>
#include <list>
#include "main.h"
int main()
{
unsigned numVals = 1000000;
int* gold = new int[numVals];
memset(gold, 0, sizeof(int)*numVals);
LARGE_INTEGER li = {0}, li2 = {0};
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&li);
__int64 freq = li.QuadPart;
// get cuda properties...
cudaDeviceProp cdp = {0};
cudaError_t err = cudaGetDeviceProperties(&cdp, 0);
cout << "Running on device: '" << cdp.name << "'" << endl;
// first run the reference implementation
QueryPerformanceCounter(&li);
for( int j6=0, n = 0; j6<10; j6++ )
{
for( int j5=0; j5<10; j5++ )
{
for( int j4=0; j4<10; j4++ )
{
for( int j3=0; j3<10; j3++ )
{
for( int j2=0; j2<10; j2++ )
{
for( int j1=0; j1<10; j1++ )
{
int s = j6 + j5 + j4 + j3 + j2 + j1;
gold[n + s] = 1;
n++;
}
}
}
}
}
}
QueryPerformanceCounter(&li2);
__int64 ticks = li2.QuadPart-li.QuadPart;
cout << "Reference Implementation Ran In " << ticks << " ticks" << " (" << format_elapsed((double)ticks/(double)freq) << ")" << endl;
// now run the cuda version...
unsigned threads = cdp.maxThreadsPerBlock;
unsigned blocks = numVals/threads;
if( numVals%threads ) ++blocks;
unsigned computeSlots = blocks * threads; // this may be != the number of vals since we want 32-thread warps
// allocate device memory for test
int* deviceTest = 0;
err = cudaMalloc(&deviceTest, sizeof(int)*computeSlots);
err = cudaMemset(deviceTest, 0, sizeof(int)*computeSlots);
int* hostTest = new int[numVals]; // the repository for the resulting data on the host
memset(hostTest, 0, sizeof(int)*numVals);
// run the CUDA code...
LARGE_INTEGER li3 = {0}, li4={0};
QueryPerformanceCounter(&li3);
ComputeSelfNumbers(make_sized_ptr(hostTest, numVals), make_sized_ptr(deviceTest, computeSlots), blocks, threads);
QueryPerformanceCounter(&li4);
__int64 ticksCuda = li4.QuadPart-li3.QuadPart;
cout << "CUDA Implementation Ran In " << ticksCuda << " ticks" << " (" << format_elapsed((double)ticksCuda/(double)freq) << ")" << endl;
cout << "Compute Slots: " << computeSlots << " (" << blocks << " blocks X " << threads << " threads)" << endl;
unsigned errorCount = 0;
for( size_t i = 0; i < numVals; ++i )
{
if( gold[i] != hostTest[i] )
{
++errorCount;
}
}
cout << "Number of Errors: " << errorCount << endl;
return 0;
}
file: self.cu
#pragma warning( disable : 4231)
#include <windows.h>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
#include "main.h"
__global__ void SelfNum(int * slots)
{
__shared__ int N;
N = (blockIdx.x * blockDim.x) + threadIdx.x;
const int numDigits = 10;
__shared__ int digits[numDigits];
for( int i = 0, temp = N; i < numDigits; ++i, temp /= 10 )
{
digits[numDigits-i-1] = temp - 10 * (temp/10) /*temp % 10*/;
}
__shared__ int s;
s = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < numDigits; ++i )
s += digits[i];
slots[N+s] = 1;
}
__host__ void ComputeSelfNumbers(sized_ptr hostMem, sized_ptr deviceMem, const unsigned blocks, const unsigned threads)
{
LARGE_INTEGER li = {0};
QueryPerformanceFrequency(&li);
double freq = (double)li.QuadPart;
LARGE_INTEGER liStart = {0};
QueryPerformanceCounter(&liStart);
// run the kernel
SelfNum<<<blocks, threads>>>(deviceMem.first);
LARGE_INTEGER liKernel = {0};
QueryPerformanceCounter(&liKernel);
cudaMemcpy(hostMem.first, deviceMem.first, hostMem.second*sizeof(int), cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost); // dont copy the overflow - just throw it away
LARGE_INTEGER liMemcpy = {0};
QueryPerformanceCounter(&liMemcpy);
// display performance stats
double e = double(liMemcpy.QuadPart - liStart.QuadPart)/freq,
eKernel = double(liKernel.QuadPart - liStart.QuadPart)/freq,
eMemcpy = double(liMemcpy.QuadPart - liKernel.QuadPart)/freq;
double pKernel = eKernel/e,
pMemcpy = eMemcpy/e;
cout << "Kernel Executed in " << format_elapsed(e) << " -- Breakdown: " << endl
<< " [kernel] : " << format_elapsed(eKernel) << " (" << format_pct(pKernel) << "%)" << endl
<< " [memcpy] : " << format_elapsed(eMemcpy) << " (" << format_pct(pMemcpy) << "%)" << endl;
}
UPDATE2:
I refactored my CUDA implementation to try to speed it up a bit. I did this by unrolling loops manually, fixing some questionable use of __shared__ memory which might have been an error, and getting rid of some redundancy.
The output of my new kernel is:
Reference Implementation Ran In 69610 ticks (5 ms)
Kernel Executed in 2 ms -- Breakdown:
[kernel] : 39 us (1.57%)
[memcpy] : 2 ms (98.43%)
CUDA Implementation Ran In 62970 ticks (4 ms)
Compute Slots: 1000448 (1954 blocks X 512 threads)
Number of Errors: 0
The only code I changed is the kernel itself, so that's all I will post here:
__global__ void SelfNum(int * slots)
{
int N = (blockIdx.x * blockDim.x) + threadIdx.x;
int s = 0;
int temp = N;
s += temp - 10 * (temp/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
s += temp - 10 * ((temp/=10)/10) /*temp % 10*/;
slots[N+s] = 1;
}
I wonder if multi-threading would help. This algorithm looks like it would lend itself well to multi-threading. (Poor-man's test of this: Create two copies of the program and run them at the same time. If it runs in less than 200% of the time, multi-threading may help).
I was actually surprised that the code below was faster then any other posted here. I probably measured it wrong, but maybe it helps; or at least is interesting.
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/progress.hpp>
class SelfCalc
{
private:
bool array[1000000];
int non_self;
public:
SelfCalc()
{
memset(&array, 0, sizeof(array));
}
void operator()(const int i)
{
if (!(array[i]))
std::cout << i << '\n';
non_self = i + (i%10) + (i/10)%10 + (i/100)%10 + (i/1000)%10 + (i/10000)%10 +(i/100000)%10;
array[non_self] = true;
}
};
class IntIterator
{
private:
int value;
public:
IntIterator(const int _value):value(_value){}
int operator*(){ return value; }
bool operator!=(const IntIterator &v){ return value != v.value; }
int operator++(){ return ++value; }
};
int main()
{
boost::progress_timer t;
SelfCalc selfCalc;
IntIterator i(1), end(100000);
std::for_each(i, end, selfCalc);
std::cout << 100000 << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Fun problem. The problem as stated does not specify what base it must be in. I fiddled around with it some and wrote a base-2 version. It generates an extra few thousand entries because the termination point of 1,000,000 is not as natural with base-2. This pre-counts the number of bits in a byte for a table lookup. The generation of the result set (without the I/O) took 2.4 ms.
One interesting thing (assuming I wrote it correctly) is that the base-2 version has about 250,000 "self numbers" up to 1,000,000 while there are just under 100,000 base-10 self numbers in that range.
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
void StartTimer( _int64 *pt1 )
{
QueryPerformanceCounter( (LARGE_INTEGER*)pt1 );
}
double StopTimer( _int64 t1 )
{
_int64 t2, ldFreq;
QueryPerformanceCounter( (LARGE_INTEGER*)&t2 );
QueryPerformanceFrequency( (LARGE_INTEGER*)&ldFreq );
return ((double)( t2 - t1 ) / (double)ldFreq) * 1000.0;
}
#define RANGE 1000000
char sn[0x100000 + 32];
int bitCount[256];
// precompute bitcounts for each byte
void PreCountBits()
{
int i;
// generate count of bits in each byte
memset( bitCount, 0, sizeof( bitCount ));
for ( i = 0; i < 256; i++ )
{
int tmp = i;
while ( tmp )
{
if ( tmp & 0x01 )
bitCount[i]++;
tmp >>= 1;
}
}
}
void GenBase2( )
{
int i;
int *b1, *b2, *b3;
int b1sum, b2sum, b3sum;
i = 0;
for ( b1 = bitCount; b1 < bitCount + 256; b1++ )
{
b1sum = *b1;
for ( b2 = bitCount; b2 < bitCount + 256; b2++ )
{
b2sum = b1sum + *b2;
for ( b3 = bitCount; b3 < bitCount + 256; b3++ )
{
sn[i++ + *b3 + b2sum] = 1;
}
}
// 1000000 does not provide a great termination number for base 2. So check
// here. Overshoots the target some but avoids repeated checks
if ( i > RANGE )
return;
}
}
int main( int argc, char* argv[] )
{
int i = 0;
__int64 t1;
memset( sn, 0, sizeof( sn ));
StartTimer( &t1 );
PreCountBits();
GenBase2();
printf( "Generation time = %.3f\n", StopTimer( t1 ));
#if 1
for ( i = 1; i <= RANGE; i++ )
if ( !sn[i] ) printf( "%d\n", i );
#endif
return 0;
}
Maybe try just computing the recurrence relation defined below?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_number