C++ - Code Optimization - c++

I have a problem:
You are given a sequence, in the form of a string with characters ‘0’, ‘1’, and ‘?’ only. Suppose there are k ‘?’s. Then there are 2^k ways to replace each ‘?’ by a ‘0’ or a ‘1’, giving 2^k different 0-1 sequences (0-1 sequences are sequences with only zeroes and ones).
For each 0-1 sequence, define its number of inversions as the minimum number of adjacent swaps required to sort the sequence in non-decreasing order. In this problem, the sequence is sorted in non-decreasing order precisely when all the zeroes occur before all the ones. For example, the sequence 11010 has 5 inversions. We can sort it by the following moves: 11010 →→ 11001 →→ 10101 →→ 01101 →→ 01011 →→ 00111.
Find the sum of the number of inversions of the 2^k sequences, modulo 1000000007 (10^9+7).
For example:
Input: ??01
-> Output: 5
Input: ?0?
-> Output: 3
Here's my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string>
#include <string.h>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
void ProcessSequences(char *input)
{
int c = 0;
/* Count the number of '?' in input sequence
* 1??0 -> 2
*/
for(int i=0;i<strlen(input);i++)
{
if(*(input+i) == '?')
{
c++;
}
}
/* Get all possible combination of '?'
* 1??0
* -> ??
* -> 00, 01, 10, 11
*/
int seqLength = pow(2,c);
// Initialize 2D array of integer
int **sequencelist, **allSequences;
sequencelist = new int*[seqLength];
allSequences = new int*[seqLength];
for(int i=0; i<seqLength; i++){
sequencelist[i] = new int[c];
allSequences[i] = new int[500000];
}
//end initialize
for(int count = 0; count < seqLength; count++)
{
int n = 0;
for(int offset = c-1; offset >= 0; offset--)
{
sequencelist[count][n] = ((count & (1 << offset)) >> offset);
// cout << sequencelist[count][n];
n++;
}
// cout << std::endl;
}
/* Change '?' in former sequence into all possible bits
* 1??0
* ?? -> 00, 01, 10, 11
* -> 1000, 1010, 1100, 1110
*/
for(int d = 0; d<seqLength; d++)
{
int seqCount = 0;
for(int e = 0; e<strlen(input); e++)
{
if(*(input+e) == '1')
{
allSequences[d][e] = 1;
}
else if(*(input+e) == '0')
{
allSequences[d][e] = 0;
}
else
{
allSequences[d][e] = sequencelist[d][seqCount];
seqCount++;
}
}
}
/*
* Sort each sequences to increasing mode
*
*/
// cout<<endl;
int totalNum[seqLength];
for(int i=0; i<seqLength; i++){
int num = 0;
for(int j=0; j<strlen(input); j++){
if(j==strlen(input)-1){
break;
}
if(allSequences[i][j] > allSequences[i][j+1]){
int temp = allSequences[i][j];
allSequences[i][j] = allSequences[i][j+1];
allSequences[i][j+1] = temp;
num++;
j = -1;
}//endif
}//endfor
totalNum[i] = num;
}//endfor
/*
* Sum of all Num of Inversions
*/
int sum = 0;
for(int i=0;i<seqLength;i++){
sum = sum + totalNum[i];
}
// cout<<"Output: "<<endl;
int out = sum%1000000007;
cout<< out <<endl;
} //end of ProcessSequences method
int main()
{
// Get Input
char seq[500000];
// cout << "Input: "<<endl;
cin >> seq;
char *p = &seq[0];
ProcessSequences(p);
return 0;
}
the results were right for small size input, but for bigger size input I got time CPU time limit > 1 second. I also got exceeded memory size. How to make it faster and optimal memory use? What algorithm should I use and what better data structure should I use?, Thank you.

Dynamic programming is the way to go. Imagine You are adding the last character to all sequences.
If it is 1 then You get XXXXXX1. Number of swaps is obviously the same as it was for every sequence so far.
If it is 0 then You need to know number of ones already in every sequence. Number of swaps would increase by the amount of ones for every sequence.
If it is ? You just add two previous cases together
You need to calculate how many sequences are there. For every length and for every number of ones (number of ones in the sequence can not be greater than length of the sequence, naturally). You start with length 1, which is trivial, and continue with longer. You can get really big numbers, so You should calculate modulo 1000000007 all the time. The program is not in C++, but should be easy to rewrite (array should be initialized to 0, int is 32bit, long in 64bit).
long Mod(long x)
{
return x % 1000000007;
}
long Calc(string s)
{
int len = s.Length;
long[,] nums = new long[len + 1, len + 1];
long sum = 0;
nums[0, 0] = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i)
{
if(s[i] == '?')
{
sum = Mod(sum * 2);
}
for (int j = 0; j <= i; ++j)
{
if (s[i] == '0' || s[i] == '?')
{
nums[i + 1, j] = Mod(nums[i + 1, j] + nums[i, j]);
sum = Mod(sum + j * nums[i, j]);
}
if (s[i] == '1' || s[i] == '?')
{
nums[i + 1, j + 1] = nums[i, j];
}
}
}
return sum;
}
Optimalization
The code above is written to be as clear as possible and to show dynamic programming approach. You do not actually need array [len+1, len+1]. You calculate column i+1 from column i and never go back, so two columns are enough - old and new. If You dig more into it, You find out that row j of new column depends only on row j and j-1 of the old column. So You can go with one column if You actualize the values in the right direction (and do not overwrite values You would need).
The code above uses 64bit integers. You really need that only in j * nums[i, j]. The nums array contain numbers less than 1000000007 and 32bit integer is enough. Even 2*1000000007 can fit into 32bit signed int, we can make use of it.
We can optimize the code by nesting loop into conditions instead of conditions in the loop. Maybe it is even more natural approach, the only downside is repeating the code.
The % operator is, as every dividing, quite expensive. j * nums[i, j] is typically far smaller that capacity of 64bit integer, so we do not have to do modulo in every step. Just watch the actual value and apply when needed. The Mod(nums[i + 1, j] + nums[i, j]) can also be optimized, as nums[i + 1, j] + nums[i, j] would always be smaller than 2*1000000007.
And finally the optimized code. I switched to C++, I realized there are differences what int and long means, so rather make it clear:
long CalcOpt(string s)
{
long len = s.length();
vector<long> nums(len + 1);
long long sum = 0;
nums[0] = 1;
const long mod = 1000000007;
for (long i = 0; i < len; ++i)
{
if (s[i] == '1')
{
for (long j = i + 1; j > 0; --j)
{
nums[j] = nums[j - 1];
}
nums[0] = 0;
}
else if (s[i] == '0')
{
for (long j = 1; j <= i; ++j)
{
sum += (long long)j * nums[j];
if (sum > std::numeric_limits<long long>::max() / 2) { sum %= mod; }
}
}
else
{
sum *= 2;
if (sum > std::numeric_limits<long long>::max() / 2) { sum %= mod; }
for (long j = i + 1; j > 0; --j)
{
sum += (long long)j * nums[j];
if (sum > std::numeric_limits<long long>::max() / 2) { sum %= mod; }
long add = nums[j] + nums[j - 1];
if (add >= mod) { add -= mod; }
nums[j] = add;
}
}
}
return (long)(sum % mod);
}
Simplification
Time limit still exceeded? There is probably better way to do it. You can either
get back to the beginning and find out mathematically different way to calculate the result
or simplify actual solution using math
I went the second way. What we are doing in the loop is in fact convolution of two sequences, for example:
0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 6, 4, 1, 0, 0,... and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...
0*0 + 0*1 + 0*2 + 1*3 + 4*4 + 6*5 + 4*6 + 1*7 + 0*8...= 80
The first sequence is symmetric and the second is linear. It this case, the sum of convolution can be calculated from sum of the first sequence which is = 16 (numSum) and number from second sequence corresponding to the center of the first sequence, which is 5 (numMult). numSum*numMult = 16*5 = 80. We replace the whole loop with one multiplication if we are able to update those numbers in each step, which fortulately seems the case.
If s[i] == '0' then numSum does not change and numMult does not change.
If s[i] == '1' then numSum does not change, only numMult increments by 1, as we shift the whole sequence by one position.
If s[i] == '?' we add original and shiftet sequence together. numSum is multiplied by 2 and numMult increments by 0.5.
The 0.5 means a bit problem, as it is not the whole number. But we know, that the result would be whole number. Fortunately in modular arithmetics in this case exists inversion of two (=1/2) as a whole number. It is h = (mod+1)/2. As a reminder, inversion of 2 is such a number, that h*2=1 modulo mod. Implementation wisely it is easier to multiply numMult by 2 and divide numSum by 2, but it is just a detail, we would need 0.5 anyway. The code:
long CalcOptSimpl(string s)
{
long len = s.length();
long long sum = 0;
const long mod = 1000000007;
long numSum = (mod + 1) / 2;
long long numMult = 0;
for (long i = 0; i < len; ++i)
{
if (s[i] == '1')
{
numMult += 2;
}
else if (s[i] == '0')
{
sum += numSum * numMult;
if (sum > std::numeric_limits<long long>::max() / 4) { sum %= mod; }
}
else
{
sum = sum * 2 + numSum * numMult;
if (sum > std::numeric_limits<long long>::max() / 4) { sum %= mod; }
numSum = (numSum * 2) % mod;
numMult++;
}
}
return (long)(sum % mod);
}
I am pretty sure there exists some simple way to get this code, yet I am still unable to see it. But sometimes path is the goal :-)

If a sequence has N zeros with indexes zero[0], zero[1], ... zero[N - 1], the number of inversions for it would be (zero[0] + zero[1] + ... + zero[N - 1]) - (N - 1) * N / 2. (you should be able to prove it)
For example, 11010 has two zeros with indexes 2 and 4, so the number of inversions would be 2 + 4 - 1 * 2 / 2 = 5.
For all 2^k sequences, you can calculate the sum of two parts separately and then add them up.
1) The first part is zero[0] + zero[1] + ... + zero[N - 1]. Each 0 in the the given sequence contributes index * 2^k and each ? contributes index * 2^(k-1)
2) The second part is (N - 1) * N / 2. You can calculate this using a dynamic programming (maybe you should google and learn this first). In short, use f[i][j] to present the number of sequence with j zeros using the first i characters of the given sequence.

Related

Improving optimization of nested loop

I'm making a simple program to calculate the number of pairs in an array that are divisible by 3 array length and values are user determined.
Now my code is perfectly fine. However, I just want to check if there is a faster way to calculate it which results in less compiling time?
As the length of the array is 10^4 or less compiler takes less than 100ms. However, as it gets more to 10^5 it spikes up to 1000ms so why is this? and how to improve speed?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int N, i, b;
b = 0;
cin >> N;
unsigned int j = 0;
std::vector<unsigned int> a(N);
for (j = 0; j < N; j++) {
cin >> a[j];
if (j == 0) {
}
else {
for (i = j - 1; i >= 0; i = i - 1) {
if ((a[j] + a[i]) % 3 == 0) {
b++;
}
}
}
}
cout << b;
return 0;
}
Your algorithm has O(N^2) complexity. There is a faster way.
(a[i] + a[j]) % 3 == ((a[i] % 3) + (a[j] % 3)) % 3
Thus, you need not know the exact numbers, you need to know their remainders of division by three only. Zero remainder of the sum can be received with two numbers with zero remainders (0 + 0) and with two numbers with remainders 1 and 2 (1 + 2).
The result will be equal to r[1]*r[2] + r[0]*(r[0]-1)/2 where r[i] is the quantity of numbers with remainder equal to i.
int r[3] = {};
for (int i : a) {
r[i % 3]++;
}
std::cout << r[1]*r[2] + (r[0]*(r[0]-1)) / 2;
The complexity of this algorithm is O(N).
I've encountered this problem before, and while I don't find my particular solution, you could improve running times by hashing.
The code would look something like this:
// A C++ program to check if arr[0..n-1] can be divided
// in pairs such that every pair is divisible by k.
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
// Returns true if arr[0..n-1] can be divided into pairs
// with sum divisible by k.
bool canPairs(int arr[], int n, int k)
{
// An odd length array cannot be divided into pairs
if (n & 1)
return false;
// Create a frequency array to count occurrences
// of all remainders when divided by k.
map<int, int> freq;
// Count occurrences of all remainders
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
freq[arr[i] % k]++;
// Traverse input array and use freq[] to decide
// if given array can be divided in pairs
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
// Remainder of current element
int rem = arr[i] % k;
// If remainder with current element divides
// k into two halves.
if (2*rem == k)
{
// Then there must be even occurrences of
// such remainder
if (freq[rem] % 2 != 0)
return false;
}
// If remainder is 0, then there must be two
// elements with 0 remainder
else if (rem == 0)
{
if (freq[rem] & 1)
return false;
}
// Else number of occurrences of remainder
// must be equal to number of occurrences of
// k - remainder
else if (freq[rem] != freq[k - rem])
return false;
}
return true;
}
/* Driver program to test above function */
int main()
{
int arr[] = {92, 75, 65, 48, 45, 35};
int k = 10;
int n = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]);
canPairs(arr, n, k)? cout << "True": cout << "False";
return 0;
}
That works for a k (in your case 3)
But then again, this is not my code, but the code you can find in the following link. with a proper explanation. I didn't just paste the link since it's bad practice I think.

Finding Sum of Square of Digits Beginner Bug C++

So, I started learning C++ recently. This code is trying to add the sum of the squares of each numbers digits. For example: 243: 2*2 + 4*4 + 3*3 = 29.
int sumOfSquareDigits(int n) //BUG WITH INPUT OF 10, 100, 1000, etc.
{
int digits = findDigits(n);
int number;
int remainder;
int *allDigits = new int[digits];
for (int i = 0; i < digits; i++) { //assigns digits to array
if (i + 1 == digits){ //sees if there is a ones value left
allDigits[i] = n;
}
else {
remainder = (n % findPower10(digits - (i + 1)));
number = ((n - remainder) / findPower10(digits - (i + 1)));
allDigits[i] = number; //records leftmost digit
n = n - (allDigits[i] * findPower10(digits - (i + 1))); //gets rid of leftmost number and starts over
}
}
int result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < digits; i++) { //finds sum of squared digits
result = result + (allDigits[i] * allDigits[i]);
}
delete [] allDigits;
return result;
}
int findDigits(int n) //finds out how many digits the number has
{
int digits = 0;
int test;
do {
digits++;
test = findPower10(digits);
} while (n > test);
return digits;
}
int findPower10(int n) { //function for calculating powers of 10
int result = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
result = result * 10;
return result;
}
And after running the code, I've figured out that it (barely) mostly works. I've found that whenever a user inputs a value of 10, 100, 1000, etc. it always returns a value of 100. I'd like to solve this only using the iostream header.
Sorry if my code isn't too readable or organized! It would also be helpful if there are any shortcuts to my super long code, thanks!
The problem is in the findDigits function. For the values 10, 100, 1000 etc, it calculates the number of the digits minus one. This happens because of the comparison in the loop, you are stopping when n is less or equal to test, but in these cases n is equal test and you should run the next iteration.
So, you should change the line 33:
} while (n > test);
to:
} while (n >= test);
Now, it should work just fine. But it will not work for negative numbers (I don't know this is required, but the solution bellow works for that case too).
I came up with a much simpler solution:
int sumOfSquareDigits(int n)
{
// Variable to mantain the total sum of the squares
int sum = 0;
// This loop will change n until it is zero
while (n != 0) {
/// The current digit we will calculate the square is the rightmost digit,
// so we just get its value using the mod operator
int current = n % 10;
// Add its square to the sum
sum += current*current;
// You divide n by 10, this 'removes' one digit of n
n = n / 10;
}
return sum;
}
I found the problem challenging managed to reduce your code to the following lines:
long long sumOfSquareDigits(long long i) {
long long sum(0L);
do {
long long r = i % 10;
sum += (r * r);
} while(i /= 10);
return sum;
}
Haven't test it thoroughly but I think it works OK.

Count subarrays divisible by K

Given a sequence of n positive integers we need to count consecutive sub-sequences whose sum is divisible by k.
Constraints : N is up to 10^6 and each element up to 10^9 and K is up to 100
EXAMPLE : Let N=5 and K=3 and array be 1 2 3 4 1
Here answer is 4
Explanation : there exists, 4 sub-sequences whose sum is divisible by 3, they are
3
1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
My Attempt :
long long int count=0;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
long long int sum=0;
for(int j=i;j<n;j++)
{
sum=sum+arr[j];
if(sum%k==0)
{
count++;
}
}
}
But obviously its poor approach. Can their be better approach for this question? Please help.
Complete Question: https://www.hackerrank.com/contests/w6/challenges/consecutive-subsequences
Here is a fast O(n + k) solution:
1)Lets compute prefix sums pref[i](for 0 <= i < n).
2)Now we can compute count[i] - the number of prefixes with sum i modulo k(0 <= i < k).
This can be done by iterating over all the prefixes and making count[pref[i] % k]++.
Initially, count[0] = 1(an empty prefix has sum 0) and 0 for i != 0.
3)The answer is sum count[i] * (count[i] - 1) / 2 for all i.
4)It is better to compute prefix sums modulo k to avoid overflow.
Why does it work? Let's take a closer a look at a subarray divisible by k. Let's say that it starts in L position and ends in R position. It is divisible by k if and only if pref[L - 1] == pref[R] (modulo k) because their differnce is zero modulo k(by definition of divisibility). So for each fixed modulo, we can pick any two prefixes with this prefix sum modulo k(and there are exactly count[i] * (count[i] - 1) / 2 ways to do it).
Here is my code:
long long get_count(const vector<int>& vec, int k) {
//Initialize count array.
vector<int> cnt_mod(k, 0);
cnt_mod[0] = 1;
int pref_sum = 0;
//Iterate over the input sequence.
for (int elem : vec) {
pref_sum += elem;
pref_sum %= k;
cnt_mod[pref_sum]++;
}
//Compute the answer.
long long res = 0;
for (int mod = 0; mod < k; mod++)
res += (long long)cnt_mod[mod] * (cnt_mod[mod] - 1) / 2;
return res;
}
That have to make your calculations easier:
//Now we will move all numbers to [0..K-1]
long long int count=0;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
arr[i] = arr[i]%K;
}
//Now we will calculate cout of all shortest subsequences.
long long int sum=0;
int first(0);
std::vector<int> beg;
std::vector<int> end;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
if (arr[i] == 0)
{
count++;
continue;
}
sum += arr[i];
if (sum == K)
{
beg.push_back(first);
end.push_back(i);
count++;
}
else
{
while (sum > K)
{
sum -= arr[first];
first++;
}
if (sum == K)
{
beg.push_back(first);
end.push_back(i);
count++;
}
}
}
//this way we found all short subsequences. And we need to calculate all subsequences that consist of some short subsequencies.
int party(0);
for (int i = 0; i < beg.size() - 1; ++i)
{
if (end[i] == beg[i+1])
{
count += party + 1;
party++;
}
else
{
party = 0;
}
}
So, with max array size = 10^6 and max size of rest = 99, you will not have overflow even if you will need to summ all numbers in simple int32.
And time you will spend will be around O(n+n)

C++ convert binary to decimal for bit values greater than 64 bits

I am using this code to convert binary to decimal. But this code will not work for more 64 bits as __int64 holds only 8 bytes. Could you please tell suggest an algorithm to use to convert more than 64 bits to decimal values. Also my end result has to be string. Help is appreciated. Thanks.
int bin2dec(char *bin)
{
__int64 b, k, m, n;
__int64 len, sum = 0;
len = strlen(bin) - 1;
for(k = 0; k <= len; k++)
{
n = (bin[k] - '0'); // char to numeric value
if ((n > 1) || (n < 0))
{
puts("\n\n ERROR! BINARY has only 1 and 0!\n");
return (0);
}
for(b = 1, m = len; m > k; m--)
{
// 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 ... place-values, reversed here
b *= 2;
}
// sum it up
sum = sum + n * b;
}
return(sum);
}
Typically, when dealing with data bigger than what you can store in one integer unit, the solution is one of two things:
Use a character array/string to store the value as "ASCII" (in this one bit per char)
Use multiple integers in an array to store the values, using X bits per element.
There is nothing particularly different about the conversion, just that once you have done X bits, you shift to the next element.
By the way:
int bin2dec(char *bin)
{
int k, n;
int len;
__int64 sum = 0;
len = strlen(bin);
for(k = 0; k < len; k++)
{
n = (bin[k] - '0'); // char to numeric value
if ((n > 1) || (n < 0))
{
puts("\n\n ERROR! BINARY has only 1 and 0!\n");
return (0);
}
// sum it up
sum <<= 1;
sub += n;
}
return(sum);
}
is a bit simpler.
The algorithm is simple: keep dividing by powers of 10 in order to get each 10s place of the value. The trick is being able to store and divide by powers of 10 for numbers bigger than 64 bit. The algorithms for storing big numbers exist and you should find one, though they are not hard to right, they are bigger than is appropriate to type into an answer here at Stackoverflow.
But basically, you create an accumulator bignum, set it to 1 and start multiplying it by 10 until it is bigger in value than your target bignum. Then you divide it by 10 and start the algorithm:
while accum >= 1
divide source/accum place the dividend in your output string.
substract that number time accum from your source.
divide accum by 10 and loop
Do you recognize that algorithm? It is probably how you were taught to do long division in grade school. Well, that's how you "print" a binary number in decimal.
There are lots of ways to improve the performance of this. (Hint, you don't have to work in base 10. Work in base 10^8 for 32-bit ints or base 10^17 for 64-bit ints.) But first you need a library that will subtract, add, multiple, divide and compare bignums.
Of course a bignum library probably already has a toString function.
You can readily store big numbers (in any base) as a std::deque of digits -- using a deque makes it easy to add digits on either end. You can implement basic arithmetic operations on them, which makes it easy to convert binary to decimal using the standard multiply and add digits algorithm:
std::deque<char> &operator *=(std::deque<char> &a, unsigned b)
{
unsigned carry = 0;
for (auto d = a.rbegin(); d != a.rend(); d++) {
carry += (*d - '0') * b;
*d = (carry % 10) + '0';
carry /= 10; }
while (carry > 0) {
a.push_front((carry % 10) + '0');
carry /= 10; }
return a;
}
std::deque<char> &operator +=(std::deque<char> &a, unsigned b)
{
for (auto d = a.rbegin(); b > 0 && d != a.rend(); d++) {
b += (*d - '0');
*d = (b % 10) + '0';
b /= 10; }
while (b > 0) {
a.push_front((b % 10) + '0');
b /= 10; }
return a;
}
std::string bin2dec(char *bin) {
std::deque<char> tmp{'0'};
while (*bin) {
if (*bin != '0' && *bin != '1') {
puts("\n\n ERROR! BINARY has only 1 and 0!\n");
return ""; }
tmp *= 2;
if (*bin++ == '1')
tmp += 1; }
return std::string(tmp.begin(), tmp.end());
}
manually:
int binaryToDec(char *bin)
{
int k, n;
int len=strlen(bin);
int dec = 0;
for(k = 0; k < len; k++)
{
n = (bin[k] - '0');
dec <<= 1;
dec += n;
}
return(dec);
}
you can also consider a bitset:
std::bitset<64> input(*bin);
std::cout<<input.u_long();

Triangle numbers problem....show within 4 seconds

The sequence of triangle numbers is
generated by adding the natural
numbers. So the 7th triangle number
would be 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 =
28. The first ten terms would be:
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55,
...
Let us list the factors of the first
seven triangle numbers:
1: 1
3: 1,3
6: 1,2,3,6
10: 1,2,5,10
15: 1,3,5,15
21: 1,3,7,21
28: 1,2,4,7,14,28
We can see that 28 is the first
triangle number to have over five
divisors.
Given an integer n, display the first
triangle number having at least n
divisors.
Sample Input: 5
Output 28
Input Constraints: 1<=n<=320
I was obviously able to do this question, but I used a naive algorithm:
Get n.
Find triangle numbers and check their number of factors using the mod operator.
But the challenge was to show the output within 4 seconds of input. On high inputs like 190 and above it took almost 15-16 seconds. Then I tried to put the triangle numbers and their number of factors in a 2d array first and then get the input from the user and search the array. But somehow I couldn't do it: I got a lot of processor faults. Please try doing it with this method and paste the code. Or if there are any better ways, please tell me.
Here's a hint:
The number of divisors according to the Divisor function is the product of the power of each prime factor plus 1. For example, let's consider the exponential prime representation of 28:
28 = 22 * 30 * 50 * 71 * 110...
The product of each exponent plus one is: (2+1)*(0+1)*(0+1)*(1+1)*(0+1)... = 6, and sure enough, 28 has 6 divisors.
Now, consider that the nth triangular number can be computed in closed form as n(n+1)/2. We can multiply numbers written in the exponential prime form simply by adding up the exponents at each position. Dividing by two just means decrementing the exponent on the two's place.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Well, you don't go into a lot of detail about what you did, but I can give you an optimization that can be used, if you didn't think of it...
If you're using the straightforward method of trying to find factors of a number n, by using the mod operator, you don't need to check all the numbers < n. That obviously would take n comparisons...you can just go up to floor(sqrt(n)). For each factor you find, just divide n by that number, and you'll get the conjugate value, and not need to find it manually.
For example: say n is 15.
We loop, and try 1 first. Yep, the mod checks out, so it's a factor. We divide n by the factor to get the conjugate value, so we do (15 / 1) = 15...so 15 is a factor.
We try 2 next. Nope. Then 3. Yep, which also gives us (15 / 3) = 5.
And we're done, because 4 is > floor(sqrt(n)). Quick!
If you didn't think of it, that might be something you could leverage to improve your times...overall you go from O(n) to O(sqrt (n)) which is pretty good (though for numbers this small, constants may still weigh heavily.)
I was in a programming competition way back in school where there was some similar question with a run time limit. the team that "solved" it did as follows:
1) solve it with a brute force slow method.
2) write a program to just print out the answer (you found using the slow method), which will run sub second.
I thought this was bogus, but they won.
see Triangular numbers: a(n) = C(n+1,2) = n(n+1)/2 = 0+1+2+...+n. (Formerly M2535 N1002)
then pick the language you want implement it in, see this:
"... Python
import math
def diminishing_returns(val, scale):
if val < 0:
return -diminishing_returns(-val, scale)
mult = val / float(scale)
trinum = (math.sqrt(8.0 * mult + 1.0) - 1.0) / 2.0
return trinum * scale
..."
First, create table with two columns: Triangle_Number Count_of_Factors.
Second, derive from this a table with the same columns, but consisting only of the 320 rows of the lowest triangle number with a distinct number of factors.
Perform your speedy lookup to the second table.
If you solved the problem, you should be able to access the thread on Project Euler in which people post their (some very efficient) solutions.
If you're going to copy and paste a problem, please cite the source (unless it was your teacher who stole it); and I second Wouter van Niferick's comment.
Well, at least you got a good professor. Performance is important.
Since you have a program that can do the job, you can precalculate all of the answers for 1 .. 320.
Store them in an array, then simply subscript into the array to get the answer. That will be very fast.
Compile with care, winner of worst code of the year :D
#include <iostream>
bool isPrime( unsigned long long number ){
if( number != 2 && number % 2 == 0 )
return false;
for( int i = 3;
i < static_cast<unsigned long long>
( sqrt(static_cast<double>(number)) + 1 )
; i += 2 ){
if( number % i == 0 )
return false;
}
return true;
}
unsigned int p;
unsigned long long primes[1024];
void initPrimes(){
primes[0] = 2;
primes[1] = 3;
unsigned long long number = 5;
for( unsigned int i = 2; i < 1024; i++ ){
while( !isPrime(number) )
number += 2;
primes[i] = number;
number += 2;
}
return;
}
unsigned long long nextPrime(){
unsigned int ret = p;
p++;
return primes[ret];
}
unsigned long long numOfDivs( unsigned long long number ){
p = 0;
std::vector<unsigned long long> v;
unsigned long long prime = nextPrime(), divs = 1, i = 0;
while( number >= prime ){
i = 0;
while( number % prime == 0 ){
number /= prime;
i++;
}
if( i )
v.push_back( i );
prime = nextPrime();
}
for( unsigned n = 0; n < v.size(); n++ )
divs *= (v[n] + 1);
return divs;
}
unsigned long long nextTriNumber(){
static unsigned long long triNumber = 1, next = 2;
unsigned long long retTri = triNumber;
triNumber += next;
next++;
return retTri;
}
int main()
{
initPrimes();
unsigned long long n = nextTriNumber();
unsigned long long divs = 500;
while( numOfDivs(n) <= divs )
n = nextTriNumber();
std::cout << n;
std::cin.get();
}
def first_triangle_number_with_over_N_divisors(N):
n = 4
primes = [2, 3]
fact = [None, None, {2:1}, {3:1}]
def num_divisors (x):
num = 1
for mul in fact[x].values():
num *= (mul+1)
return num
while True:
factn = {}
for p in primes:
if p > n//2: break
r = n // p
if r * p == n:
factn = fact[r].copy()
factn[p] = factn.get(p,0) + 1
if len(factn)==0:
primes.append(n)
factn[n] = 1
fact.append(factn)
(x, y) = (n-1, n//2) if n % 2 == 0 else (n, (n-1)//2)
numdiv = num_divisors(x) * num_divisors(y)
if numdiv >= N:
print('Triangle number %d: %d divisors'
%(x*y, numdiv))
break
n += 1
>>> first_triangle_number_with_over_N_divisors(500)
Triangle number 76576500: 576 divisors
Dude here is ur code, go have a look. It calculates the first number that has divisors greater than 500.
void main() {
long long divisors = 0;
long long nat_num = 0;
long long tri_num = 0;
int tri_sqrt = 0;
while (1) {
divisors = 0;
nat_num++;
tri_num = nat_num + tri_num;
tri_sqrt = floor(sqrt((double)tri_num));
long long i = 0;
for ( i=tri_sqrt; i>=1; i--) {
long long remainder = tri_num % i;
if ( remainder == 0 && tri_num == 1 ) {
divisors++;
}
else if (remainder == 0 && tri_num != 1) {
divisors++;
divisors++;
}
}
if (divisors >100) {
cout <<"No. of divisors: "<<divisors<<endl<<tri_num<<endl;
}
if (divisors > 500)
break;
}
cout<<"Final Result: "<<tri_num<<endl;
system("pause");
}
Boojum's answer motivated me to write this little program. It seems to work well, although it does use a brute force method of computing primes. It's neat how all the natural numbers can be broken down into prime number components.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <vector>
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
typedef std::vector<size_t> uint_vector;
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// add a prime number to primes[]
void
primeAdd(uint_vector& primes)
{
size_t n;
if (primes.empty())
{
primes.push_back(2);
return;
}
for (n = *(--primes.end()) + 1; ; ++n)
{
// n is even -> not prime
if ((n & 1) == 0) continue;
// look for a divisor in [2,n)
for (size_t i = 2; i < n; ++i)
{
if ((n % i) == 0) continue;
}
// found a prime
break;
}
primes.push_back(n);
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
void
primeFactorize(size_t n, uint_vector& primes, uint_vector& f)
{
f.clear();
for (size_t i = 0; n > 1; ++i)
{
while (primes.size() <= i) primeAdd(primes);
while (f.size() <= i) f.push_back(0);
while ((n % primes[i]) == 0)
{
++f[i];
n /= primes[i];
}
}
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
int
main(int argc, char** argv)
{
// allow specifying number of TN's to be evaluated
size_t lim = 1000;
if (argc > 1)
{
lim = atoi(argv[1]);
}
if (lim == 0) lim = 1000;
// prime numbers
uint_vector primes;
// factors of (n), (n + 1)
uint_vector* f = new uint_vector();
uint_vector* f1 = new uint_vector();
// sum vector
uint_vector sum;
// prime factorize (n)
size_t n = 1;
primeFactorize(n, primes, *f);
// iterate over triangle-numbers
for (; n <= lim; ++n)
{
// prime factorize (n + 1)
primeFactorize(n + 1, primes, *f1);
while (f->size() < f1->size()) f->push_back(0);
while (f1->size() < f->size()) f1->push_back(0);
size_t numTerms = f->size();
// compute prime factors for (n * (n + 1) / 2)
sum.clear();
size_t i;
for (i = 0; i < numTerms; ++i)
{
sum.push_back((*f)[i] + (*f1)[i]);
}
--sum[0];
size_t numFactors = 1, tn = 1;
for (i = 0; i < numTerms; ++i)
{
size_t exp = sum[i];
numFactors *= (exp + 1);
while (exp-- != 0) tn *= primes[i];
}
std::cout
<< n << ". Triangle number "
<< tn << " has " << numFactors << " factors."
<< std::endl;
// prepare for next iteration
f->clear();
uint_vector* tmp = f;
f = f1;
f1 = tmp;
}
delete f;
delete f1;
return 0;
}