While trying to find prime numbers in a range (see problem description), I came across the following code:
(Code taken from here)
// For each prime in sqrt(N) we need to use it in the segmented sieve process.
for (i = 0; i < cnt; i++) {
p = myPrimes[i]; // Store the prime.
s = M / p;
s = s * p; // The closest number less than M that is composite number for this prime p.
for (int j = s; j <= N; j = j + p) {
if (j < M) continue; // Because composite numbers less than M are of no concern.
/* j - M = index in the array primesNow, this is as max index allowed in the array
is not N, it is DIFF_SIZE so we are storing the numbers offset from.
while printing we will add M and print to get the actual number. */
primesNow[j - M] = false;
}
}
// In this loop the first prime numbers for example say 2, 3 are also set to false.
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { // Hence we need to print them in case they're in range.
if (myPrimes[i] >= M && myPrimes[i] <= N) // Without this loop you will see that for a
// range (1, 30), 2 & 3 doesn't get printed.
cout << myPrimes[i] << endl;
}
// primesNow[] = false for all composite numbers, primes found by checking with true.
for (int i = 0; i < N - M + 1; ++i) {
// i + M != 1 to ensure that for i = 0 and M = 1, 1 is not considered a prime number.
if (primesNow[i] == true && (i + M) != 1)
cout << i + M << endl; // Print our prime numbers in the range.
}
However, I didn't find this code intuitive and it was not easy to understand.
Can someone explain the general idea behind the above algorithm?
What alternative algorithms are there to mark non-prime numbers in a range?
That's overly complicated. Let's start with a basic Sieve of Eratosthenes, in pseudocode, that outputs all the primes less than or equal to n:
function primes(n)
sieve := makeArray(2..n, True)
for p from 2 to n
if sieve[p]
output(p)
for i from p*p to n step p
sieve[p] := False
This function calls output on each prime p; output can print the primes, or sum the primes, or count them, or do whatever you want to do with them. The outer for loop considers each candidate prime in turn; The sieving occurs in the inner for loop where multiples of the current prime p are removed from the sieve.
Once you understand how that works, go here for a discussion of the segmented Sieve of Eratosthenes over a range.
Have you considered the sieve on a bit level, it can provide a bit larger number of primes, and with the buffer, you could modify it to find for example the primes between 2 and 2^60 using 64 bit ints, by reusing the same buffer, while preserving the offsets of the primes already discovered. The following will use an array of integers.
Declerations
#include <math.h> // sqrt(), the upper limit need to eliminate
#include <stdio.h> // for printing, could use <iostream>
Macros to manipulate bit, the following will use 32bit ints
#define BIT_SET(d, n) (d[n>>5]|=1<<(n-((n>>5)<<5)))
#define BIT_GET(d, n) (d[n>>5]&1<<(n-((n>>5)<<5)))
#define BIT_FLIP(d, n) (d[n>>5]&=~(1<<(n-((n>>5)<<5))))
unsigned int n = 0x80000; // the upper limit 1/2 mb, with 32 bits each
// will get the 1st primes upto 16 mb
int *data = new int[n]; // allocate
unsigned int r = n * 0x20; // the actual number of bits avalible
Could use zeros to save time but, on (1) for prime, is a bit more intuitive
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
data[i] = 0xFFFFFFFF;
unsigned int seed = 2; // the seed starts at 2
unsigned int uLimit = sqrt(r); // the upper limit for checking off the sieve
BIT_FLIP(data, 1); // one is not prime
Time to discover the primes this took under a half second
// untill uLimit is reached
while(seed < uLimit) {
// don't include itself when eliminating canidates
for(int i=seed+seed;i<r;i+=seed)
BIT_FLIP(data, i);
// find the next bit still active (set to 1), don't include the current seed
for(int i=seed+1;i<r;i++) {
if (BIT_GET(data, i)) {
seed = i;
break;
}
}
}
Now for the output this will consume the most time
unsigned long bit_index = 0; // the current bit
int w = 8; // the width of a column
unsigned pc = 0; // prime, count, to assist in creating columns
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
unsigned long long int b = 1; // double width, so there is no overflow
// if a bit is still set, include that as a result
while(b < 0xFFFFFFFF) {
if (data[i]&b) {
printf("%8.u ", bit_index);
if(((pc++) % w) == 0)
putchar('\n'); // add a new row
}
bit_index++;
b<<=1; // multiply by 2, to check the next bit
}
}
clean up
delete [] data;
Related
I should implement this summation in C ++. I have tried with this code, but with very high numbers up to 10 ^ 12 it takes too long.
The summation is:
For any positive integer k, let d(k) denote the number of positive divisors of k (including 1 and k itself).
For example, for the number 4: 1 has 1 divisor, 2 has two divisors, 3 has two divisors, and 4 has three divisors. So the result would be 8.
This is my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int findDivisors(long long n)
{
int c=0;
for(int j=1;j*j<=n;j++)
{
if(n%j==0)
{
c++;
if(j!=(n/j))
{
c++;
}
}
}
return c;
}
long long compute(long long n)
{
long long sum=0;
for(int i=1; i<=n; i++)
{
sum += (findDivisors(i));
}
return sum;
}
int main()
{
int n, divisors;
freopen("input.txt", "r", stdin);
freopen("output.txt", "w", stdout);
cin >> n;
cout << compute(n);
}
I think it's not just a simple optimization problem, but maybe I should change the algorithm entirely.
Would anyone have any ideas to speed it up? Thank you.
largest_prime_is_463035818's answer shows an O(N) solution, but the OP is trying to solve this problem
with very high numbers up to 1012.
The following is an O(N1/2) algorithm, based on some observations about the sum
n/1 + n/2 + n/3 + ... + n/n
In particular, we can count the number of terms with a specific value.
Consider all the terms n/k where k > n/2. There are n/2 of those and all are equal to 1 (integer division), so that their sum is n/2.
Similar considerations hold for the other dividends, so that we can write the following function
long long count_divisors(long long n)
{
auto sum{ n };
for (auto i{ 1ll }, k_old{ n }, k{ n }; i < k ; ++i, k_old = k)
{ // ^^^^^ it goes up to sqrt(n)
k = n / (i + 1);
sum += (k_old - k) * i;
if (i == k)
break;
sum += k;
}
return sum;
}
Here it is tested against the O(N) algorithm, the only difference in the results beeing the corner cases n = 0 and n = 1.
Edit
Thanks again to largest_prime_is_463035818, who linked the Wikipedia page about the divisor summatory function, where both an O(N) and an O(sqrt(N)) algorithm are mentioned.
An implementation of the latter may look like this
auto divisor_summatory(long long n)
{
auto sum{ 0ll };
auto k{ 1ll };
for ( ; k <= n / k; ++k )
{
sum += n / k;
}
--k;
return 2 * sum - k * k;
}
They also add this statement:
Finding a closed form for this summed expression seems to be beyond the techniques available, but it is possible to give approximations. The leading behavior of the series is given by
D(x) = xlogx + x(2γ - 1) + Δ(x)
where γ is the Euler–Mascheroni constant, and the error term is Δ(x) = O(sqrt(x)).
I used your brute force approach as reference to have test cases. The ones I used are
compute(12) == 35
cpmpute(100) == 482
Don't get confused by computing factorizations. There are some tricks one can play when factorizing numbers, but you actually don't need any of that. The solution is a plain simple O(N) loop:
#include <iostream>
#include <limits>
long long compute(long long n){
long long sum = n+1;
for (long long i=2; i < n ; ++i){
sum += n/i;
}
return sum;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << compute(12) << "\n";
std::cout << compute(100) << "\n";
}
Output:
35
482
Why does this work?
The key is in Marc Glisse's comment:
As often with this kind of problem, this sum actually counts pairs x,
y where x divides y, and the sum is arranged to count first all x
corresponding to a fixed y, but nothing says you have to keep it that
way.
I could stop here, because the comment already explains it all. Though, if it didn't click yet...
The trick is to realize that it is much simpler to count divisors of all numbers up to n rather than n-times counting divisors of individual numbers and take the sum.
You don't need to care about factorizations of eg 123123123 or 52323423 to count all divisors up to 10000000000. All you need is a change of perspective. Instead of trying to factorize numbers, consider the divisors. How often does the divisor 1 appear up to n? Simple: n-times. How often does the divisor 2 appear? Still simple: n/2 times, because every second number is divisible by 2. Divisor 3? Every 3rd number is divisible by 3. I hope you can see the pattern already.
You could even reduce the loop to only loop till n/2, because bigger numbers obviously appear only once as divisor. Though I didn't bother to go further, because the biggest change is from your O(N * sqrt(N)) to O(N).
Let's start off with some math and reduce the O(n * sq(n)) factorization to O(n * log(log(n))) and for counting the sum of divisors the overall complexity is O(n * log(log(n)) + n * n^(1/3)).
For instance:
In Codeforces himanshujaju explains how we can optimize the solution of finding divisors of a number.
I am simplifying it a little bit.
Let, n as the product of three numbers p, q, and r.
so assume p * q * r = n, where p <= q <= r.
The maximum value of p = n^(1/3).
Now we can loop over all prime numbers in a range [2, n^(1/3)]
and try to reduce the time complexity of prime factorization.
We will split our number n into two numbers x and y => x * y = n.
And x contains prime factors up to n^(1/3) and y deals with higher prime factors greater than n^(1/3).
Thus gcd(x, y) = 1.
Now define F(n) as the number of prime factors of n.
From multiplicative rules, we can say that
F(x * y) = F(x) * F(y), if gcd(x, y) = 1.
For finding F(n) => F(x * y) = F(x) * F(y)
So first find F(x) then F(y) will F(n/x)
And there will 3 cases to cover for y:
1. y is a prime number: F(y) = 2.
2. y is the square of a prime number: F(y) = 3.
3. y is a product of two distinct prime numbers: F(y) = 4.
So once we are done with finding F(x) and F(y), we are also done with finding F(x * y) or F(n).
In Cp-Algorithm there is also a nice explanation of how to count the number of divisors on a number. And also in GeeksForGeeks a nice coding example of how to count the number of divisors of a number in an efficient way. One can check the articles and can generate a nice solution to this problem.
C++ implementation
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
const int maxn = 1e6 + 11;
bool prime[maxn];
bool primesquare[maxn];
int table[maxn]; // for storing primes
void SieveOfEratosthenes()
{
for(int i = 2; i < maxn; i++){
prime[i] = true;
}
for(int i = 0; i < maxn; i++){
primesquare[i] = false;
}
// 1 is not a prime number
prime[1] = false;
for(int p = 2; p * p < maxn; p++){
// If prime[p] is not changed, then
// it is a prime
if(prime[p] == true){
// Update all multiples of p
for(int i = p * 2; i < maxn; i += p){
prime[i] = false;
}
}
}
int j = 0;
for(int p = 2; p < maxn; p++) {
if (prime[p]) {
// Storing primes in an array
table[j] = p;
// Update value in primesquare[p * p],
// if p is prime.
if(p < maxn / p) primesquare[p * p] = true;
j++;
}
}
}
// Function to count divisors
int countDivisors(int n)
{
// If number is 1, then it will have only 1
// as a factor. So, total factors will be 1.
if (n == 1)
return 1;
// ans will contain total number of distinct
// divisors
int ans = 1;
// Loop for counting factors of n
for(int i = 0;; i++){
// table[i] is not less than cube root n
if(table[i] * table[i] * table[i] > n)
break;
// Calculating power of table[i] in n.
int cnt = 1; // cnt is power of prime table[i] in n.
while (n % table[i] == 0){ // if table[i] is a factor of n
n = n / table[i];
cnt = cnt + 1; // incrementing power
}
// Calculating the number of divisors
// If n = a^p * b^q then total divisors of n
// are (p+1)*(q+1)
ans = ans * cnt;
}
// if table[i] is greater than cube root of n
// First case
if (prime[n])
ans = ans * 2;
// Second case
else if (primesquare[n])
ans = ans * 3;
// Third case
else if (n != 1)
ans = ans * 4;
return ans; // Total divisors
}
int main()
{
SieveOfEratosthenes();
int sum = 0;
int n = 5;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++){
sum += countDivisors(i);
}
cout << sum << endl;
return 0;
}
Output
n = 4 => 8
n = 5 => 10
Complexity
Time complexity: O(n * log(log(n)) + n * n^(1/3))
Space complexity: O(n)
Thanks, #largest_prime_is_463035818 for pointing out my mistake.
to find factors of number, i am using function void primeFactors(int n)
# include <stdio.h>
# include <math.h>
# include <iostream>
# include <map>
using namespace std;
// A function to print all prime factors of a given number n
map<int,int> m;
void primeFactors(int n)
{
// Print the number of 2s that divide n
while (n%2 == 0)
{
printf("%d ", 2);
m[2] += 1;
n = n/2;
}
// n must be odd at this point. So we can skip one element (Note i = i +2)
for (int i = 3; i <= sqrt(n); i = i+2)
{
// While i divides n, print i and divide n
while (n%i == 0)
{
int k = i;
printf("%d ", i);
m[k] += 1;
n = n/i;
}
}
// This condition is to handle the case whien n is a prime number
// greater than 2
if (n > 2)
m[n] += 1;
printf ("%d ", n);
cout << endl;
}
/* Driver program to test above function */
int main()
{
int n = 72;
primeFactors(n);
map<int,int>::iterator it;
int to = 1;
for(it = m.begin(); it != m.end(); ++it){
cout << it->first << " appeared " << it->second << " times "<< endl;
to *= (it->second+1);
}
cout << to << " total facts" << endl;
return 0;
}
You can check it here. Test case n = 72.
http://ideone.com/kaabO0
How do I solve above problem using above algo. (Can it be optimized more ?). I have to consider large numbers as well.
What I want to do ..
Take example for N = 864, we found X = 72 as (72 * 12 (no. of factors)) = 864)
There is a prime-factorizing algorithm for big numbers, but actually it is not often used in programming contests.
I explain 3 methods and you can implementate using this algorithm.
If you implementated, I suggest to solve this problem.
Note: In this answer, I use integer Q for the number of queries.
O(Q * sqrt(N)) solution per query
Your algorithm's time complexity is O(n^0.5).
But you are implementating with int (32-bit), so you can use long long integers.
Here's my implementation: http://ideone.com/gkGkkP
O(sqrt(maxn) * log(log(maxn)) + Q * sqrt(maxn) / log(maxn)) algorithm
You can reduce the number of loops because composite numbers are not neccesary for integer i.
So, you can only use prime numbers in the loop.
Algorithm:
Calculate all prime numbers <= sqrt(n) with Eratosthenes's sieve. The time complexity is O(sqrt(maxn) * log(log(maxn))).
In a query, loop for i (i <= sqrt(n) and i is a prime number). The valid integer i is about sqrt(n) / log(n) with prime number theorem, so the time complexity is O(sqrt(n) / log(n)) per query.
More efficient algorithm
There are more efficient algorithm in the world, but it is not used often in programming contests.
If you check "Integer factorization algorithm" on the internet or wikipedia, you can find the algorithm like Pollard's-rho or General number field sieve.
Well,I will show you the code.
# include <stdio.h>
# include <iostream>
# include <map>
using namespace std;
const long MAX_NUM = 2000000;
long prime[MAX_NUM] = {0}, primeCount = 0;
bool isNotPrime[MAX_NUM] = {1, 1}; // yes. can be improve, but it is useless when sieveOfEratosthenes is end
void sieveOfEratosthenes() {
//#see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
for (long i = 2; i < MAX_NUM; i++) { // it must be i++
if (!isNotPrime[i]) //if it is prime,put it into prime[]
prime[primeCount++] = i;
for (long j = 0; j < primeCount && i * prime[j] < MAX_NUM; j++) { /*foreach prime[]*/
// if(i * prime[j] >= MAX_NUM){ // if large than MAX_NUM break
// break;
// }
isNotPrime[i * prime[j]] = 1; // set i * prime[j] not a prime.as you see, i * prime[j]
if (!(i % prime[j])) //if this prime the min factor of i,than break.
// and it is the answer why not i+=( (i & 1) ? 2 : 1).
// hint : when we judge 2,prime[]={2},we set 2*2=4 not prime
// when we judge 3,prime[]={2,3},we set 3*2=6 3*3=9 not prime
// when we judge 4,prime[]={2,3},we set 4*2=8 not prime (why not set 4*3=12?)
// when we judge 5,prime[]={2,3,5},we set 5*2=10 5*3=15 5*5=25 not prime
// when we judge 6,prime[]={2,3,5},we set 6*2=12 not prime,than we can stop
// why not put 6*3=18 6*5=30 not prime? 18=9*2 30=15*2.
// this code can make each num be set only once,I hope it can help you to understand
// this is difficult to understand but very useful.
break;
}
}
}
void primeFactors(long n)
{
map<int,int> m;
map<int,int>::iterator it;
for (int i = 0; prime[i] <= n; i++) // we test all prime small than n , like 2 3 5 7... it musut be i++
{
while (n%prime[i] == 0)
{
cout<<prime[i]<<" ";
m[prime[i]] += 1;
n = n/prime[i];
}
}
cout<<endl;
int to = 1;
for(it = m.begin(); it != m.end(); ++it){
cout << it->first << " appeared " << it->second << " times "<< endl;
to *= (it->second+1);
}
cout << to << " total facts" << endl;
}
int main()
{
//first init for calculate all prime numbers,for example we define MAX_NUM = 2000000
// the result of prime[] should be stored, you primeFactors will use it
sieveOfEratosthenes();
//second loop for i (i*i <= n and i is a prime number). n<=MAX_NUM
int n = 72;
primeFactors(n);
n = 864;
primeFactors(n);
return 0;
}
My best shot at performance without getting overboard with special algos.
The Erathostenes' seive - the complexity of the below is O(N*log(log(N))) - because the inner j loop starts from i*i instead of i.
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
void erathostenes_sieve(size_t upToN, vector<size_t>& primes) {
primes.clear();
vector<bool> bitset(upToN+1, true); // if the bitset[i] is true, the i is prime
bitset[0]=bitset[1]=0;
// if i is 2, will jump to 3, otherwise will jump on odd numbers only
for(size_t i=2; i<=upToN; i+=( (i&1) ? 2 : 1)) {
if(bitset[i]) { // i is prime
primes.push_back(i);
// it is enough to start the next cycle from i*i, because all the
// other primality tests below it are already performed:
// e.g:
// - i*(i-1) was surely marked non-prime when we considered multiples of 2
// - i*(i-2) was tested at (i-2) if (i-2) was prime or earlier (if non-prime)
for(size_t j=i*i; j<upToN; j+=i) {
bitset[j]=false; // all multiples of the prime with value of i
// are marked non-prime, using **addition only**
}
}
}
}
Now factoring based on the primes (set in a sorted vector). Before this, let's examine the myth of sqrt being expensive but a large bunch of multiplications is not.
First of all, let us note that sqrt is not that expensive anymore: on older CPU-es (x86/32b) it used to be twice as expensive as a division (and a modulo operation is division), on newer architectures the CPU costs are equal. Since factorisation is all about % operations again and again, one may still consider sqrt now and then (e.g. if and when using it saves CPU time).
For example consider the following code for an N=65537 (which is the 6553-th prime) assuming the primes has 10000 entries
size_t limit=std::sqrt(N);
size_t largestPrimeGoodForN=std::distance(
primes.begin(),
std::upper_limit(primes.begin(), primes.end(), limit) // binary search
);
// go descendingly from limit!!!
for(int i=largestPrimeGoodForN; i>=0; i--) {
// factorisation loop
}
We have:
1 sqrt (equal 1 modulo),
1 search in 10000 entries - at max 14 steps, each involving 1 comparison, 1 right-shift division-by-2 and 1 increment/decrement - so let's say a cost equal with 14-20 multiplications (if ever)
1 difference because of std::distance.
So, maximal cost - 1 div and 20 muls? I'm generous.
On the other side:
for(int i=0; primes[i]*primes[i]<N; i++) {
// factorisation code
}
Looks much simpler, but as N=65537 is prime, we'll go through all the cycle up to i=64 (where we'll find the first prime which cause the cycle to break) - a total of 65 multiplications.
Try this with a a higher prime number and I guarantee you the cost of 1 sqrt+1binary search are better use of the CPU cycle than all the multiplications on the way in the simpler form of the cycle touted as a better performance solution
So, back to factorisation code:
#include <algorithm>
#include <math>
#include <unordered_map>
void factor(size_t N, std::unordered_map<size_t, size_t>& factorsWithMultiplicity) {
factorsWithMultiplicity.clear();
while( !(N & 1) ) { // while N is even, cheaper test than a '% 2'
factorsWithMultiplicity[2]++;
N = N >> 1; // div by 2 of an unsigned number, cheaper than the actual /2
}
// now that we know N is even, we start using the primes from the sieve
size_t limit=std::sqrt(N); // sqrt is no longer *that* expensive,
vector<size_t> primes;
// fill the primes up to the limit. Let's be generous, add 1 to it
erathostenes_sieve(limit+1, primes);
// we know that the largest prime worth checking is
// the last element of the primes.
for(
size_t largestPrimeIndexGoodForN=primes.size()-1;
largestPrimeIndexGoodForN<primes.size(); // size_t is unsigned, so after zero will underflow
// we'll handle the cycle index inside
) {
bool wasFactor=false;
size_t factorToTest=primes[largestPrimeIndexGoodForN];
while( !( N % factorToTest) ) {
wasFactor=true;// found one
factorsWithMultiplicity[factorToTest]++;
N /= factorToTest;
}
if(1==N) { // done
break;
}
if(wasFactor) { // time to resynchronize the index
limit=std::sqrt(N);
largestPrimeIndexGoodForN=std::distance(
primes.begin(),
std::upper_bound(primes.begin(), primes.end(), limit)
);
}
else { // no luck this time
largestPrimeIndexGoodForN--;
}
} // done the factoring cycle
if(N>1) { // N was prime to begin with
factorsWithMultiplicity[N]++;
}
}
I have this problem:
There are K lines of N numbers (32-bit). I have to choose the line with the max product of numbers.
The main problem is that N can go up to 20.
I'm trying to do this with logarithms:
ld sum = 0, max = 0;
int index = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < k; i ++) { // K lines
sum = 0, c = 0;
for(int j = 0; j < n; j ++) { // N numbers
cin >> t;
if(t < 0)
c++; // If the number is less than 0 i memorize it
if(t == 1 || t == -1) { // if numbers = 1 OR -1
sum += 0.00000001; // Because log(1) = 0
if(t == -1)
c ++;
}
else if(t == 0) { // if some number is equal to zero then the sum is = 0
sum = 0;
break;
}
else {
sum += log10(fabs(t));
}
}
if(c % 2 == 1) // if c is odd than multiply by -1
sum *= -1;
if(sum >= max) {
max = sum;
index = i;
}
if((sum - max) < eps) { // if sum is equal to max i'm also have to choose it
max = sum;
index = i;
}
}
cout << index + 1 << endl;
The program works in 50% of test cases. Is there a way to optimize my code?
In the case of t == -1, you increment c twice.
if you want to avoid bignum libs you can exploit that if you multiply b1 and b2 bits numbers then the result is b1+b2 bits long
so just sum the bit count of all multiplicants in a line together
and compare that
remember the results in some array
int bits(DWORD p) // count how many bits is p DWORD is 32bit unsigned int
{
DWORD m=0x80000000; int b=32;
for (;m;m>>=1,b--)
if (p>=m) break;
return b;
}
index sort the lines by the result bit count descending
if the first bitcount after sort is also the max then its line is the answer
if you have more than one max (more lines have the same bitcount and are the max also)
only then you have to multiply them together
Now the multiplication
you know should multiply all the max lines at once
each time all sub results are divisible by the same prime
divide them by it
this way the result will be truncated to much less bit count
so it should fit into 64 bit value
you should check out primes up to sqrt(max value)
when your max value is 32bit then check primes up to 65536
so you can make a static table of primes to check to speed thing up
also there is no point in checking primes bigger then your actual sub result
if you know how then this can be extremly speeded up by Sieves of Eratosthenes
but you will need to keep track of index offset after each division and use periodic sieve tables which is a bit complicated but doable
if you do not check all the primes but just few selected ones
then the result can still overflow
so you should handle that too (throw some error or something)
or divide all subresults by some value but that can invalidate the the result
Another multiplication approach
you can also sort the multiplicant by value
and check if some are present in all max lines
if yes then change them for one (or delete from lists)
this can be combined with the previous approach
bignum multiplication
you can make your own bignum multiplication
the result is max 20*32=640 bit
so the result will be array of unsigned ints (bit wide 8,16,32 ... whatever you like)
you can also handle the number as a string
look here for how to compute fast exact bignum square in C++
it contains also the multiplication approaches
and here NTT based Schönhage-Strassen multiplication in C++
but that will be slower for such small numbers like yours
at last you need to compare results
so compare from MSW do LSW and which ever line has bigger number in it is the max line
(MSW is most significant word, LSW is least significant word)
I think that this line is definitely wrong:
if(c % 2 == 1) // if c is odd than multiply by -1
sum *= -1;
If your product is in the range [0,1] then its logarithm will be negative and this will make it positive. I think you should keep it separate.
Here is the question:
The sum of the primes below 10 is 2+3+5+7=17.
Find the sum of all the primes not greater than given N.
Input Format :
The first line contains an integer T i.e. number of the test cases.
The next T lines will contains an integer N.
Output Format :
Print the value corresponding to each test case in seperate line.
Constraints :
1≤T≤104
1≤N≤106
https://www.hackerrank.com/contests/projecteuler/challenges/euler010
This is the link to the question.
So, i attempted to solve this question using sieve of Eratosthenes.
I pre calculated all primes below 10^6 which is the given limit for N.
6 out of the 7 test cases were accepted but the last test case give Timeout(TLE) .
I read the discussion forum and there they say that in order to solve the question we need to pre-calculate the sums of primes also.
So, i tried making an array of long long ints and tried storing all the sums in it. But this is giving me a segmentation fault.
So, how am I supposed to precalculate the sums of the primes?
Here is my code:
#include "header.h" //MAX is defined to be 1000000
bool sieve[MAX + 1]; // false = prime, true = composite
int main(void){
//0 and 1 are not primes
sieve[0] = sieve[1] = true;
//input limiting value
int n = MAX;
//cross out even numbers
for(int i = 4; i <= n; i += 2){
sieve[i] = true;
}
//use sieve of eratosthenes
for(int i = 3; i <= static_cast<int>(sqrt(n)); i += 2){
if(sieve[i] == false){
for(int j = i * i; j <= n; j += i)
sieve[j] = true;
}
}
long long p, ans = 0;
int t;
std::cin >> t;
while(t--){
std::cin >> p;
for(int i = 0; i <= p; ++i)
if(sieve[i] == false)
ans += i;
std::cout << ans << std::endl;
ans = 0;
}
return 0;
}
Given an array of primes prime[N], precomputing sums of primes can be done in a single for loop like this:
int sum[N];
sum[0] = primes[0];
for (int i = 1 ; i < N ; i++) {
sum[i] = prime[i]+sum[i-1];
}
You can use this array together with primes[] by running a binary search on primes, and picking the sum at the same position if the number being searched is prime, or at the prior position if the number is not prime.
I wrote this implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes in c++, but whenever the code reaches 59 (the 16th prime), it stops working. It can only reach 37 on my older machine. When I debug the program, all the variables seem to be working fine; the program simply crashes. Here it is: (I know it has a lot of comments, and lots are unnecessary.)
// Problem 7:What is the 10 001st prime number?
/*This program generates a list of prime numbers and uses the Sieve of Eratosthenes to find them.
*This is done by crossing out multiples of the first known prime (2), taking the first number
*not yet crossed out, and setting that as the next prime to "sieve" with.
*/
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int placeholder; //added at the end to prevent window from closing
const int sieve_size = 10000; //amount of #s to sieve through
const int solution_number = 10001; //# of primes to generate
long long solution; //the 10 001st prime #
long long current_sieve; //current # sieving with
int number_of_primes = 1; //we know the first prime -- 2
long long *primes = new long long [number_of_primes];
primes[0] = 2; //2 is the first prime
bool flag_havePrime = 0; //whether we have our next prime yet; used when saving a prime
bool sieve[sieve_size] = {0}; //0 is "could-be-prime" (not composite), 1 is composite.
sieve[0] = 1; //0 and 1 are not prime #s
sieve[1] = 1;
for (int i = 0; number_of_primes <= solution_number; i++) //each loop sieves with a different prime
{
current_sieve = primes[i];
//This next loop sieves through the array starting with the square of the number we will sieve with,
//this optimizes the run time of the program.
for (long long j=current_sieve*current_sieve; j <= sieve_size; j++)
if (j%current_sieve == 0) sieve[j] = 1;
/*This loop gets our next prime by looking through the array until
*it encounters a number not crossed out yet. If it encounters a prime,
*it increments the number of primes, then saves the new prime into
*primes[]. It also prints that prime (for debugging purposes).
*The "for" loop ends when it finds a prime, which it knows by encountering
*the "havePrime" flag. This needs to be reset before every run.
*/
for (long long j = primes[number_of_primes-1]+1; flag_havePrime == 0; j++)
{
if (sieve[j] == 0)
{
number_of_primes++;
primes[number_of_primes-1] = j; //because array counting starts # 0
cout << primes[number_of_primes-1] << endl; //because array counting starts # 0
flag_havePrime = 1;
}
}
flag_havePrime = 0; //resetting this flag
}
solution = primes[number_of_primes-1]; //because array counting starts # 0
delete[] primes;
primes = 0;
cout << "The 10 001st prime number is:\n";
cout << solution << endl;
cin >> placeholder;
return 0;
}
I'm thinking it could be an overflow problem?
Here's an updated snippet with only the changes:
const int sieve_size = 500000;
long long *primes = new long long [solution_number];
Debugging returns a (gasp) heap overflow though, but running the compiled version doesn't. The compiled version stops at 104759, going over by 1. That's probably easy enough to fix. But the program doesn't print the last bit, where it gives you the solution. Weird.
int number_of_primes = 1; //we know the first prime -- 2
long long *primes = new long long [number_of_primes];
This will create a one-element array. I'm pretty certain you'll need something bigger than that for storing the primes.
Specifically, as soon as you start setting values like primes[11] (for example), you're into the realm of undefined behaviour.
Perhaps there's a different variable you may want to consider using for the size in the new statement, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse :-)
There's a few other problems you also have in that code. The main one is that your sieve itself is only 10,000 elements long. The idea of a sieve is that you take a large number of things and filter out those not matching. For what it's worth, the 10,001st is a touch under 105,000 so your sieve should be at least that big.
Secondly, I've seen people use the square of a number to optimise finding of factors but not in this way:
for (long long j=current_sieve*current_sieve; j <= sieve_size; j++)
if (j%current_sieve == 0) sieve[j] = 1;
What you want is to start at double the current sieve and add it each time, something like:
for (long long j = current_sieve * 2; j < sieve_size; j += current_sieve)
sieve[j] = 1;
Here is a fixed version to compare with:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
const int sieve_size = 1 << 20;
const int solution_number = 10001;
int number_of_primes = 0;
vector<bool> sieve(sieve_size, true);
for (int i = 2; i < sieve_size; i++)
{
if (!sieve[i])
continue;
if (++number_of_primes == solution_number)
{
cout << "The 10 001st prime number is:" << i << endl;
return 0;
}
for (long long j = i*2; j < sieve_size; j += i)
sieve[j] = false;
}
}
Output:
The 10 001st prime number is:104743