I know how to write a code finding a GCD of 2 number . However, I am trying to solve a problem of finding a GCD of n number and I think the algorithm is a little bit different than using an Eucledian algorithm. My code can be compiled , but it always gave me the wrong result. For example when i put n = 2 , GCD of 16 and 12 it gave the answer 8. Here is my code :
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int a,b[100],c,d,e=0;
cin>>a;
for(c=0 ; c<a ; c++)
{
cin>>b[c];
}
for(c=0 ; c<a-1 ; c++)
{
if(c < 1)
{
d = b[c];
}
if(b[c] < d)
{
d = b[c];
}
}
while(d>0)
{
for(c=0 ; c<a ; c++)
{
if(b[c] % d < 1)
{
e++;
}
}
if(e == c)
{
cout<<d;
break;
}
d--;
}
}
Can you guys please find the mistake in my code?
Your code does not compute the greatest common divisor of the input array - it counts how many of the entries are evenly divisible by the smallest element d of the array, then how many are divisible by one smaller, and so on until d is 0. This has nothing to do with the GCD at all.
One easy way - though not necessarily the fastest - would be based on the fact that the GCD of three numbers must be the same as the GCD of any one of those numbers and the GCD of the other two.
gcd(a, b, c) = gcd(gcd(a, b), c) = gcd(a, gcd(b, c)) = gcd(gcd(a, c), b)
Extension to n inputs is elementary:
int result = a[0];
for (int i = 1; i < a.Length; ++i)
result = gcd(result, a[i]);
Code for the GCD of two numbers can be found all over the 'net, for example at Rosetta Code. One of my favourites is this plain iterative version:
int gcd (int a, int b)
{
while (b)
{
int t = b;
b = a % b;
a = t;
}
return a;
}
C# allows a more succinct formulation but in other languages this probably won't work (in C++ it would invoke undefined behaviour, for example):
static int gcd (int a, int b)
{
while (b != 0)
b = a % (a = b);
return a;
}
In case some find it helpful, here is an implementation of the Euclidean algorithm in JavaScript.
function EuclideanGCD(a, b) {
// Make sure a > b, interchange values
if (a < b) {
c = a;
a = b;
b = c
}
// If A = 0 then GCD(A,B) = B and we can stop.
if (a == 0) {
return b;
// If B = 0 then GCD(A,B) = A and we can stop.
} else if (b == 0) {
return a;
} else {
let gdc = 0;
let quotient = Math.floor(a / b); // Get the divisor
let remainder = a % b; // Get the remainder
// Make a recursive call, till we hit 0
gdc = EuclideanGCD(b, remainder);
return gdc;
}
}
var gcd = EuclideanGCD(234, 357);
console.log(gcd); // Outputs: 3
Related
I am writing a code for GCD in C++ but I am encountering a mysterious error that I can't seem to think of its probable reason.
In the below program if both the numbers are equal to i ... it will break and return the value of i.
But it doesn't seems to work because it outputs the result as 1.
int gcd2(int a, int b) {
int i,hcf=0;
if (b > a) {
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
}
for (i = 1; i <= b; ++i) {
if (a % i == 0 && b % i == 0) {
break;
}
}
return i;
}
But when I add a variable HCF in the same code :
int gcd2(int a, int b) {
int i,hcf=0;
if (b > a) {
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
}
for (i = 1; i <= b; ++i) {
if (a % i == 0 && b % i == 0) {
hcf = i;
}
}
return hcf;
}
It works. Why is that? Can anyone clarify?
The variable hfc is not the cause for the difference you notice. If we keep the difference but introduce a hfc in both versions we have:
int hfc = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= b; ++i) {
if (some_condition(i)) {
hfc = i;
break; // breaks out of the loop
}
}
return hfc;
vs
int hfc = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= b; ++i) {
if (some_condition(i)) {
hfc = i; // no break !!!
}
}
return hfc;
The first returns the first value of i for which some_condition(i) is true. The second version returns the last value of i for which some_condition(i) is true. This and the fact that any number is divisible by 1 explains the different results you get.
The simple difference between your two samples is whether the loop goes through the whole interval and whether the first or last match is returned.
Using break makes it to stop when the first number fulfilling the condition is found. As commenters note, 1 is the divider of all numbers, so you should rather have started with i = 2. However, this variant still won’t find the greatest common divisor in all cases.
On the other hand, the variable assignment can be called multiple times, so your second sample returns the last, i.e. greatest number found which is most likely your desired result.
I tried to write a program that receive from the user 5 integers and print the second minimum number.
Here is a sample of what I've tried:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main () {
int a,b,c,d,e;
cin>>a>>b>>c>>d>>e;
if (a>b && a<c && a<d && a<e)
cout<<a<<endl;
if (b>a && b<c && b<d && b<e)
cout<<b<<endl;
if (c>a && c<b && c<d && c<e)
cout<<c<<endl;
if (d>a && d<b && d<c && d<e)
cout <<d<<endl;
if (e>a && e<b && e<c && e<d)
cout <<e<<endl;
return 0;
}
When I enter 1 2 3 4 5 it prints the second minimum, but when I enter
5 4 3 2 1 Nothing will print on the screen. What am I doing wrong with this? Is there any other way to write my program?
The problem you have with your logic is that you do not enforce yourself to print only 1 item, and at least one item.
By using the 'else' part of the if/else syntax, you will ensure that only one branch can ever be hit. You can then follow this up with just an else at the end, as you know all other conditions are false.
Once you've done this, you'll see that you print the last value, (1) rather than the expected (4). This is because your logic regarding how to find the 2nd lowest is wrong. b>a is false for the case 5,4...
Note:
Every employed engineer, ever, would make this a loop in a std::vector / std::array, and I would suggest you point your teacher to this post because encouraging loops is a good thing rather than bad.
Something like
vector<int> data;
for (int i=0; i<5; ++i) {
int t;
cin >> t;
data.push_back(t);
}
std::nth_element(data.begin(), data.begin()+1, data.end(), std::greater<int>());
cout << data[1];
There are 120 possible permutations on 5 elements. Your code should output the correct number for all of them. So a fool-proof code would use 120 repetitions of a check, like the following:
if (a > b && b > c && c > d && d > e) // the order is a>b>c>d>e
cout << d;
else if (a > b && b > c && c > e && e > d) // the order is a>b>c>e>d
cout << e;
...
else if (e > d && d > c && c > a && e > b) // the order is e>d>c>a>b
cout << a;
else // the order is e>d>c>b>a
cout << b;
This is very long, inefficient and tricky code. If you do a typo in just one variable, it will output a wrong answer in some rare cases. Also, it doesn't handle the possibility of some inputs being equal.
If the number of inputs to a sorting algorithm is a known small constant, you can use an approach called sorting networks. This is a well-defined computer science problem, which has well-known optimal solutions for small numbers of inputs, and 5 certainly is small. An optimal sorting network for 5 inputs contains 9 comparators, and is described e.g. here.
Since you don't need to sort the numbers, but only to know the second smallest input, you can reduce the size of the network further, to 7 comparators.
The full sorting network (without the reduction from 9 to 7) translated to C++:
if (b < c)
swap(b, c);
if (d < e)
swap(d, e);
if (b < d)
swap(b, d);
if (a < c)
swap(a, c);
if (c < e)
swap(c, e);
if (a < d)
swap(a, d);
if (a < b)
swap(a, b);
if (c < d)
swap(c, d);
if (b < c)
swap(b, c);
// now the order is a ≥ b ≥ c ≥ d ≥ e
cout << d;
This code is also obscure - not obvious at all how and why it works - but at least it is small and in a sense optimal. Also, it's clear that it always prints something (so it fixes the original problem) and supports the case of partially equal inputs.
If you ever use such code in a larger project, you should document where you took it from, and test it. Fortunately, there are exactly 120 different possibilities (or 32, if you use the
zero-one principle), so there is a way to prove that this code has no bugs.
This should work for you. (Note that it might not be the best approach and you can minimize it with a function to calculate min and secondMin instead of the ugly copy paste of the logic but it will get you started:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main () {
int a,b,c,d,e;
int min, secondMin;
cin>>a>>b;
min = a < b ? a : b;
secondMin = a < b ? b : a;
cin>>c;
if (c < min)
{
secondMin = min;
min = c;
}
else if (c < secondMin)
{
secondMin = c;
}
cin>>d;
if (d < min)
{
secondMin = min;
min = d;
}
else if (c < secondMin)
{
secondMin = d;
}
cin>>e;
if (e < min)
{
secondMin = min;
min = e;
}
else if (e < secondMin)
{
secondMin = e;
}
cout << "min = " << min << ", secondMin = " << secondMin << endl;
return 0;
}
if you have any questions feel free to ask in the comment
#include <set>
std::set<int> values = { a, b, c, d, e }; // not an array.
int second_min = *std::next(values.begin(), 1); // not a loop
What about a recursive and more generic approach?
No arrays, no loops and not limited to just 5 integers.
The following function get_2nd_min() keeps track of the two lowest integers read from std::cin a total of count times:
#include <climits>
#include <cstddef>
#include <iostream>
int get_2nd_min(size_t count, int min = INT_MAX, int second_min = INT_MAX)
{
if (!count)
return second_min; // end of recursion
// read next value from cin
int value;
std::cin >> value;
// Does second_min need to be updated?
if (value < second_min) {
// Does min also need to be updated?
if (value < min) {
// new min found
second_min = min; // move the so far min to second_min
min = value; // update the new min
} else {
// value is lower than second_min but higher than min
second_min = value; // new second_min found, update it
}
}
// perform recursion
return get_2nd_min(count - 1, min, second_min);
}
In order to read 5 integers and obtain the 2nd lowest:
int second_min = get_2nd_min(5);
One approach is to first find the minimum number, min and then find the smallest value that isn't min. To do this first find the minimum value:
int min = std::min(a, std::min(b, std::min(c, std::min(d, e))));
Now we need to do the same again, but ignoring min. We can do this using a function called triMin which takes 3 values and discards any value that is the minimum:
int triMin(int currentMin, int left, int right)
{
if(currentMin == left) return right;
if(currentMin == right) return left;
return std::min(left, right);
}
You can now combine them to get the answer:
int a = 5, b = 4, c = 3, d = 2, e = 1;
int min = std::min(a, std::min(b, std::min(c, std::min(d, e))));
int min2 = triMin(min, a, triMin(min, b, triMin(min, c, triMin(min, d, e))));
std::cout << "Second min = " << min2 << std::endl;
This prints 2
This task can be fulfilled using one-pass algorithm. There is no need to use any collections (arrays, sets or anything).
This one-pass algorithm is memory efficient - it does not require storing all elements in collection (and wasting memory) and will work even with large number of elements when other solutions fail with out of memory.
General idea of this algorithm is like this:
take each number in order
you need two variables to store minimum and second minimum numbers from all already seen numbers.
when you get number you need to test it with current minumum to find if it is new minimum number.
if it is store it as minimum, store old minimum in second minimumnumber
otherwise check if it is less than second minimum number.
if it is store it as second minimum number.
now second minimum number contains answer for all already seen numbers.
repeat while there numbers that was not seen.
After investigating all numbers second minimum contain the answer.
Here is implementation with c++17 (link to wandbox):
#include <iostream>
#include <optional>
int main()
{
int a, b, c, d, e;
std::cin >> a >> b >> c >> d >> e;
// you can find second minimal number while going through each number once
auto find_current_answer = [minimum = std::optional<int>{}, next_to_minimum = std::optional<int>{}](int next) mutable {
// when receiving next number
// 1. check if it is new minimum
if (!minimum || minimum > next) {
// move values like this: next_to_minimum <- minimum <- next
next_to_minimum = std::exchange(minimum, next);
}
// 2. else check if it is new next_to_minimum
else if (!next_to_minimum || next_to_minimum > next) {
next_to_minimum = next;
}
// 3. return current answer
return next_to_minimum;
};
// repeat as much as you like
find_current_answer(a);
find_current_answer(b);
find_current_answer(c);
find_current_answer(d);
// store answer that is interesting to you
auto result = find_current_answer(e);
// if it has value - it is the answer
if (result) {
std::cout << "Answer: " << *result << '\n';
}
else {
std::cout << "Not enough numbers!\n";
}
}
Update
In this solution I'm using the min function:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int minDifferentFromFirstMin(int x, int y, int firstMin) {
if(x < y) {
if(x != firstMin) {
return x;
}
else {
return y;
}
}
if(y < x) {
if(y != firstMin) {
return y;
}
else {
return x;
}
}
//if x & y are equals, return one of them
return x;
}
int main () {
int a,b,c,d,e;
int iter11, iter12, iter13;
int iter21, iter22, iter23;
int firstMinimum, secondMinimum;
cin>>a>>b>>c>>d>>e;
//iteration 1: find the first minimum
iter11 = min(a, b);
iter12 = min(c, d);
iter13 = min(iter11, iter12);
firstMinimum = min(iter13, e);
//iteration 2: find the second minimum
iter21 = minDifferentFromFirstMin(a, b, firstMinimum);
iter22 = minDifferentFromFirstMin(c, d, firstMinimum);
iter23 = minDifferentFromFirstMin(iter21, iter22, firstMinimum);
secondMinimum = minDifferentFromFirstMin(iter23, e, firstMinimum);
cout<<secondMinimum<<endl;
}
I was just writing an improved linear version of a recursive Fibonacci algorithm, and realized that my boolean expressions look really bad and unreadable. Is there a cleaner way to do what I'm trying to do?
int fibonacci(int num) {
if (num <= 1)
return num;
// starts looking ugly here
int a = intExists(num-1);
int b = intExists(num-2);
bool aAndB = (a != -1 && b != -1);
bool justA = (a != -1 && b == -1);
bool justB = (a == -1 && b != -1);
int number = 0;
if (aAndB)
number = (a + b);
else if (justA)
number = (a + fibonacci(num - 2));
else if (justB)
number = (fibonacci(num-1) + b);
else
number = (fibonacci(num - 1) + fibonacci(num - 2));
map.push_back(Pair(num, number));
return number;
}
Thanks
If you're talking about:
bool aAndB = (a != -1 && b != -1);
then I would say, "no."
This code looks perfectly expressive to me. aAndB is initialized at the moment it comes in to being, and the conditions are very clear. This might look a bit odd when you're first starting out in C++, but before you know it it will be second nature and other constructs will seem silly.
One thing I would suggest is to make aAndB const if you don't intend to change it:
const bool aAndB = (a != -1 && b != -1);
This is even more expressive.
It also might give the compiler an additional opportunity to optimize your code.
Remember -- write code for humans to understand. Not for computers to understand.
Why don't you make a and b as bools and assign those as true if a == -1 and false otherwise. Then, the expressions will become easier to handle.
Could do a switch statement to clean up the if else statements a little. Other than that just add comments
You could rewrite it to use conditional branching, like this:
int fibonacci(int num) {
if (num <= 1)
return num;
int a = intExists(num-1);
int b = intExists(num-2);
const bool isA = (a != -1); // change in the definition
const bool isB = (b != -1); // change in the definition
int number = 0;
if (isA && isB)
number = (a + b);
else if (isA) // conditionnal branching
number = (a + fibonacci(num - 2));
else if (isB) // conditionnal branching
number = (fibonacci(num-1) + b);
else
number = (fibonacci(num - 1) + fibonacci(num - 2));
map.push_back(Pair(num, number));
return number;
}
I'm assuming that intExists(n) looks up map and if finds n in there, returns fibonacci(n) else it returns -1. Then you could do this:
int fibonacci(int num) {
if (num <= 1)
return num;
int a = intExists(num-1);
int b = intExists(num-2);
if (a == -1) // if a wasn't found, then compute it
a = fibonacci(num-1);
if (b == -1) // if b wasn't found, then compute it
b = fibonacci(num-2);
int number = a + b;
map.push_back(std::make_pair(num, number));
return number;
}
Bonus:
Here is another completely different implementation of fibonnacci() based on Binet's formula:
#include <cmath>
int fibonacci(int n) {
static const double e1 = 1.6180339887498948482045868343656; // = (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2
static const double e2 = -0.61803398874989484820458683436564; // = (1 - sqrt(5)) / 2
static const double c = 0.44721359549995793928183473374626; // = 1 / sqrt(5);
double f = c * (std::pow(e1, n) - std::pow(e2, n));
return static_cast<int>(f + 0.5);
}
int main() {
for (int n = 1; n < 15; ++n)
std::cout << fibonacci(n) << ' ';
}
It outputs:
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377
Plain C++ code is clean enough:
bool a = intExists(num-1);
bool b = intExists(num-2);
if (a && b) {
//
} else if (a) {
//
} else if (b) {
//
} else {
//
}
int a = intExists(num-1);
int b = intExists(num-2);
bool aAndB = (a != -1 && b != -1);
bool justA = (a != -1 && b == -1);
bool justB = (a == -1 && b != -1);
Quick look into the approach you took. Under what circumstances can justB be true? (Hint: never)
That should help you simplify your approach, although there are better approaches than memoization.
Changing intExists to return boolean values, you can do a switch-case statements like that:
bool a = intExists(num-1);
bool b = intExists(num-2);
switch ((a << 1) + b) {
default: // none exists
case 1: // only b exist
case 2: // only a exist
case 3: // both exists
}
The rationale is to transform those booleans in a binary number
A slightly drastic rewrite is to let an external function handle the lookup table.
That way you don't need to care about more than one value at a time.
This one uses map so I didn't have to write so much in order to test it, but it should be easy enough to adapt:
std::map<int, int> table;
int fibonacci(int num);
int value(int num)
{
int result = table[num];
if (!result)
{
result = fibonacci(num);
table[num] = result;
}
return result;
}
int fibonacci(int num)
{
if (num <= 2)
return 1;
return value(num - 1) + value(num - 2);
}
As of right now, my functioin finds the median of 3 numbers and sorts them, but it always makes three comparisons. I'm thinking I can use a nested if statement somewhere so that sometimes my function will only make two comparisons.
int median_of_3(int list[], int p, int r)
{
int median = (p + r) / 2;
if(list[p] > list[r])
exchange(list, p, r);
if(list[p] > list[median])
exchange(list, p, median);
if(list[r] > list[median])
exchange(list, r, median);
comparisons+=3; // 3 comparisons for each call to median_of_3
return list[r];
}
I'm not sure I see where I can make that nested if statement.
If you only need the median value, here's a branch-less solution based on min/max operators:
median = max(min(a,b), min(max(a,b),c));
Intel CPU's have SSE min/max vector instructions, so depending on your or your compiler's ability to vectorize, this can run extremely fast.
If we allow extra operations, we could use at most 2 comparisons to find the median.
The trick is to use exclusive or to find the relationship among three numbers.
void median3(int A[], int p, int r)
{
int m = (p+r)/2;
/* let a, b, c be the numbers to be compared */
int a = A[p], b = A[m], c = A[r];
int e = a-b;
int f = a-c;
if ((e^f) < 0) {
med_comparisons += 1;
/* a is the median with 1 comparison */
A[m] = a;
/* b < a < c ? */
if (b < c) /* b < a < c */ { A[p] = b, A[r] = c; }
else /* c < a < b */ { A[p] = c, A[r] = b; }
comparisons += 2;
} else {
med_comparisons += 2;
int g = b-c;
if ((e^g) < 0) {
/* c is the median with 2 comparisons */
A[m] = c;
/* a < c < b ? */
if (a < b) /* a < c < b */ { A[p] = a, A[r] = b; }
else /* b < c < a */ { A[p] = b, A[r] = a; }
} else {
/* b is the median with 2 comparisons */
A[m] = b;
/* c < b < a ? */
if (a > c) /* c < b < a */ { A[p] = c; A[r] = a; }
else /* a < b < c */ { /* do nothing */ }
}
comparisons += 3;
}
}
The first exclusive or (e^f) is to find out the difference of the sign bit between (a-b) and (a-c).
If they have different sign bit, then a is the median. Otherwise, a is either the minimum or the maximum. In that case, we need the second exclusive or (e^g).
Again, we are going to find out the difference of the sign bit between (a-b) and (b-c).
If they have different sign bit, one case is that a > b && b < c. In this case, we also get a > c because a is the maximum in this case. So we have a > c > b.
The other case is a < b && b > c && a < c. So we have a < c < b;
In both cases, c is the median.
If (a-b) and (b-c) have the same sign bit, then b is the median using similar arguments as above. Experiments shows that a random input will need 1.667 comparisons to find out the median and one extra comparison to get the order.
int m = (p + r) / 2;
if (list[p] < list[m])
if (list[p] >= list[r])
return list[p];
else if (list[m] < list[r])
return list[m];
else
if (list[p] < list[r])
return list[p];
return list[r];
To sort 3 items, you need exactly 3 comparisons.
To find the middle one by chance, you need 2.
To find the middle one exactly, you need on average 2+2/3 ~= 2.67 (with uniformly distributed random data)
if (a<b) {
// partial order = a,b
if (b<c) { } // 2 comparisons: order is a,b,c
else { // order is a,c,b or c,a,b
if (a<c) { } // order is a,c,b -- 3 comparisons
else { } // order is c,a,b -- 3 comparisons
}
} else {
// partial order = b,a
if (c<b) { } // 2 comparisons: order is c,b,a
else { // order is b,c,a or b,a,c
if (c>a) { } // order is b,a,c -- 3 comparisons
else { } // order is b,c,a -- 3 comparisons
}
}
As an additional side note: some languages (Fortran, IIRC), as well as some ISAs (VAX, again IIRC) support comparisons, where the next PC address is selected from three choices: LT,EQ,GT. With small enough alphabet this chance reduces slightly the number of needed comparisons.
Also this has probably no practical use, taken, that penalties from wrong branch predictions because of overly complex nested structures can be much larger than gain from a saved comparison.
More like this
#define MEDIAN(a,b,c) ( (a > b) ? max(b, min(a,c)) :
min(b, max(a,c)) )
Using only two comparisons:
double median_of_three(double left, double middle, double right)
{
double med = middle;
if (left < med) med = left;
if (right > med) med = right;
return med;
}
Python
#!/usr/bin/env python3
def bigger(a,b):
if a > b:
return a
else:
return b
def biggest(a,b,c):
return bigger(a,bigger(b,c))
def median(a,b,c):
big = biggest(a,b,c)
if big == a:
return bigger(b,c)
if big == b:
return bigger(a,c)
else:
return bigger(a,b)
to print the Median
print(median(20,18,19)) # => 19
Euler published the remarkable quadratic formula:
n² + n + 41
It turns out that the formula will produce 40 primes for the consecutive
values n = 0 to 39. However, when n =
40, 40^(2) + 40 + 41 = 40(40 + 1) + 41
is divisible by 41, and certainly when
n = 41, 41² + 41 + 41 is clearly
divisible by 41.
Using computers, the incredible formula n² − 79n + 1601 was
discovered, which produces 80 primes
for the consecutive values n = 0 to
79. The product of the coefficients, −79 and 1601, is −126479.
Considering quadratics of the form:
n² + an + b, where |a| < 1000 and |b| < 1000
where |n| is the modulus/absolute value of n
e.g. |11| = 11 and |−4| = 4
Find the product of the coefficients, a and b, for the
quadratic expression that produces the
maximum number of primes for
consecutive values of n, starting with
n = 0.
This is the problem for Euler 27.
I have attempted a solution for trying to find the equation n^2 + n + 41 to see if my logic is correct then I will attempt to see if it works on the actual problem. Here is my code (I will place comments explaining the whole program also, I would start reading from the int main function first) just make sure to read the comments so you can understand my logic:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
bool isPrime(int c) {
int test;
//Eliminate with some simple primes to start off with to increase speed...
if (c == 2) {
return true;
}
if (c == 3) {
return true;
}
if (c == 5) {
return true;
}
//Actual elimination starts here.
if (c <= 1 || c % 2 == 0 || c % 3 == 0 || c % 5 == 0) {
return false;
}
//Then using brute force test if c is divisible by anything lower than it except 1
//only if it gets past the first round of elimination, and if it doesn't
//pass this round return false.
for (test = c; test > 1; test--) {
if (c % test == 0) {
return false;
}
}
//If the c pasts all these tests it should be prime, therefore return true.
return true;
}
int main (int argc, char * const argv[]) {
//a as in n^2 + "a"n + b
int a = 0;
//b as in n^2 + an + "b"
int b = 0;
//n as in "n"^2 + a"n" + b
int n = 0;
//this will hold the result of n^2 + an + b so if n = 1 a = 1
//and b = 1 then c = 1^2 + 1(1) + 1 = 3
int c = 0;
//bestChain: This is to keep track for the longest chain of primes
//in a row found.
int bestChain = 0;
//chain: the current amount of primes in a row.
int chain = 0;
//bestAB: Will hold the value for the two numbers a and b that
// give the most consecutive primes.
int bestAB[2] = { 0 };
//Check every value of a in this loop
for (a = 0; a < 40; a++) {
//Check every value of b in this loop.
for (b = 0; b < 42; b++) {
//Give c a starting value
c = n*n + a*n + b;
//(1)Check if it is prime. And keep checking until it is not
//and keep incrementing n and the chain. (2)If it not prime then che
//ck if chain is the highest chain and assign the bestChain
// to the current chain. (3)Either way reset the values
// of n and chain.
//(1)
while (isPrime(c) == true) {
n++;
c = n*n + a*n + b;
chain++;
}
//(2)
if (bestChain < chain) {
bestChain = chain;
bestAB[0] = a;
bestAB[1] = b;
chain = 0;
n = 0;
}
//(3)
else {
n = 0;
chain = 0;
}
}
}
//Lastly print out the best values of a and b.
cout << bestAB[0] << " " << bestAB[1];
return 0;
}
But, I get the results 0 and 2 for a and b respectively, why is this so? Where am I going wrong? If it is still unclear just ask for more clarification on a specific area.
Your isprime method is inefficient -- but also wrong:
for (test = c; test > 1; test--) {
if (c % test == 0) {
return false;
}
}
in the first iteration of the for loop, test = c, so c % test is just c % c, which will always be 0. So your isprime method claims everything is non-prime (other than 2, 3, 5)
for (test = c; test > 1; test--) {
if (c % test == 0) {
return false;
}
}
Do you see the problem with that? If not, try working out some small sample values by hand.
As pointed out by others, your problem is in the isPrime method (test = c, so test % c = c % c == 0 is always true).
You can make your isPrime function run in O(sqrt(n)) instead of O(n) by initializing test to sqrt(c) (and only checking odd numbers). It is easy to see that if a number A is divisible by B < sqrt(A), then C = A/B must be > sqrt(A). Thus if there are no divisors < sqrt(A), there will be no divisors > sqrt(A).
Of course, you can run it a whole lot faster even, by using a probabilistic primality test, e.g. Miller-Rabin's primality test.
Also, I'm not sure, but I suspect you might reach the limit of int fairly quickly. It's probably a better idea to use unsigned long long from the start, before you start getting strange errors due to overflow & wrapping.