Given 2 arrays of length n, a and b, I want to find the number of pairs such that Gcd(a[i], b[j]) == 1 in less than O(n^2).
EDIT: Have a look at this
If the size of numbers in $O(n)$, you can use the following method to do it in $O(nlog(n))$ (from here):
Efficient approach: An efficient solution is to generate all the prime factors of integers in the given array. Using hash, store the count of every element which is a prime factor of any of the number in the array. If the element does not contain any common prime factor with other elements, it always forms a co-prime pair with other elements.
For generating prime factors please go through the article Prime Factorization using Sieve in O(log n).
You can find the implementation of the algorithm in C++ in that source as well.
Moreover, if you are limitted for te precomputation, you cn use O(\sqrt(n)) for prime factoring, and your algorithm will be in O(n\sqrt(n)).
I am looking to generate derangements uniformly at random. In other words: shuffle a vector so that no element stays in its original place.
Requirements:
uniform sampling (each derangement is generated with equal probability)
a practical implementation is faster than the rejection method (i.e. keep generating random permutations until we find a derangement)
None of the answers I found so far are satisfactory in that they either don't sample uniformly (or fail to prove uniformity) or do not make a practical comparison with the rejection method. About 1/e = 37% of permutations are derangements, which gives a clue about what performance one might expect at best relative to the rejection method.
The only reference I found which makes a practical comparison is in this thesis which benchmarks 7.76 s for their proposed algorithm vs 8.25 s for the rejection method (see page 73). That's a speedup by a factor of only 1.06. I am wondering if something significantly better (> 1.5) is possible.
I could implement and verify various algorithms proposed in papers, and benchmark them. Doing this correctly would take quite a bit of time. I am hoping that someone has done it, and can give me a reference.
Here is an idea for an algorithm that may work for you. Generate the derangement in cycle notation. So (1 2) (3 4 5) represents the derangement 2 1 4 5 3. (That is (1 2) is a cycle and so is (3 4 5).)
Put the first element in the first place (in cycle notation you can always do this) and take a random permutation of the rest. Now we just need to find out where the parentheses go for the cycle lengths.
As https://mathoverflow.net/questions/130457/the-distribution-of-cycle-length-in-random-derangement notes, in a permutation, a random cycle is uniformly distributed in length. They are not randomly distributed in derangements. But the number of derangements of length m is m!/e rounded up for even m and down for odd m. So what we can do is pick a length uniformly distributed in the range 2..n and accept it with the probability that the remaining elements would, proceeding randomly, be a derangement. This cycle length will be correctly distributed. And then once we have the first cycle length, we repeat for the next until we are done.
The procedure done the way I described is simpler to implement but mathematically equivalent to taking a random derangement (by rejection), and writing down the first cycle only. Then repeating. It is therefore possible to prove that this produces all derangements with equal probability.
With this approach done naively, we will be taking an average of 3 rolls before accepting a length. However we then cut the problem in half on average. So the number of random numbers we need to generate for placing the parentheses is O(log(n)). Compared with the O(n) random numbers for constructing the permutation, this is a rounding error. However it can be optimized by noting that the highest probability for accepting is 0.5. So if we accept with twice the probability of randomly getting a derangement if we proceeded, our ratios will still be correct and we get rid of most of our rejections of cycle lengths.
If most of the time is spent in the random number generator, for large n this should run at approximately 3x the rate of the rejection method. In practice it won't be as good because switching from one representation to another is not actually free. But you should get speedups of the order of magnitude that you wanted.
this is just an idea but i think it can produce a uniformly distributed derangements.
but you need a helper buffer with max of around N/2 elements where N is the size of the items to be arranged.
first is to choose a random(1,N) position for value 1.
note: 1 to N instead of 0 to N-1 for simplicity.
then for value 2, position will be random(1,N-1) if 1 fall on position 2 and random(1,N-2) otherwise.
the algo will walk the list and count only the not-yet-used position until it reach the chosen random position for value 2, of course the position 2 will be skipped.
for value 3 the algo will check if position 3 is already used. if used, pos3 = random(1,N-2), if not, pos3 = random(1,N-3)
again, the algo will walk the list and count only the not-yet-used position until reach the count=pos3. and then position the value 3 there.
this will goes for the next values until totally placed all the values in positions.
and that will generate a uniform probability derangements.
the optimization will be focused on how the algo will reach pos# fast.
instead of walking the list to count the not-yet-used positions, the algo can used a somewhat heap like searching for the positions not yet used instead of counting and checking positions 1 by 1. or any other methods aside from heap-like searching. this is a separate problem to be solved: how to reached an unused item given it's position-count in a list of unused-items.
I'm curious ... and mathematically uninformed. So I ask innocently, why wouldn't a "simple shuffle" be sufficient?
for i from array_size downto 1: # assume zero-based arrays
j = random(0,i-1)
swap_elements(i,j)
Since the random function will never produce a value equal to i it will never leave an element where it started. Every element will be moved "somewhere else."
Let d(n) be the number of derangements of an array A of length n.
d(n) = (n-1) * (d(n-1) + d(n-2))
The d(n) arrangements are achieved by:
1. First, swapping A[0] with one of the remaining n-1 elements
2. Next, either deranging all n-1 remaning elements, or deranging
the n-2 remaining that excludes the index
that received A[0] from the initial matrix.
How can we generate a derangement uniformly at random?
1. Perform the swap of step 1 above.
2. Randomly decide which path we're taking in step 2,
with probability d(n-1)/(d(n-1)+d(n-2)) of deranging all remaining elements.
3. Recurse down to derangements of size 2-3 which are both precomputed.
Wikipedia has d(n) = floor(n!/e + 0.5) (exactly). You can use this to calculate the probability of step 2 exactly in constant time for small n. For larger n the factorial can be slow, but all you need is the ratio. It's approximately (n-1)/n. You can live with the approximation, or precompute and store the ratios up to the max n you're considering.
Note that (n-1)/n converges very quickly.
I came across a segmented implementation of sieve of Eratosthenes which promises to run many times faster than the conventional version.
Can someone please explain how segmentation improves the running time?
Note that I want to find prime numbers in [1,b].
It works on this idea: (for finding prime numbers till 10^9)
We first generate the sieving primes below sqrt(10^9) which are needed to cross-off multiples. Then we start crossing-off the multiples of the first prime 2 until we reach a multiple of 2 >= segment_size, if this happens we calculate the index of that multiple in the next segment using (multiple - segment_size) and store it in a separate array (next[]). We then cross-off the multiples of the next sieving primes using the same procedure. Once we have crossed-off the multiples of all sieving primes in the first segment we iterate over the sieve array and print out (or count) the primes.
In order to sieve the next segment we reset the sieve array and we increment the lower offset by segment_size. Then we start crossing-off multiples again, for each sieving prime we retrieve the sieve index from the next array and we start crossing-off multiples from there on...
A segmented sieve does all the same operations as a regular sieve, so the big-O time complexity is unchanged. The difference is in the use of memory. If the sieve is small enough to fit in memory, there is no difference. As the size of the sieve increases, locality of reference becomes a factor, so the sieving process slows down. In the extreme case, if the sieve doesn't fit in memory and has to be paged to disk, the sieving process will become very slow. A segmented sieve keeps the memory size constant, and presumably small, so all accesses of the sieve are local, thus fast.
Even if the sieve fits completely into RAM, locality of access still makes a big difference. A C++ implementation of the odds-only Eratosthenes takes almost half a minute to sieve the first 2^32 numbers; the same implementation initialising the same sieve in small, 256 KByte segments (2^21 bits which represent 2^22 numbers) takes only 8.5 seconds on my aging Nehalem with its 256 KByte L2 cache.
The speed-up from sieving in small cache-friendly segments diminishes in the higher regions of the range, since the sieve has to iterate over all factors up to sqrt(n) every time, regardless of how small or big the segment is. This is most notable for segments close to 2^64 where the small factors comprise 203,280,221 primes (i.e. a full 32-bit sieve).
Segmented operation still beats full sieving, though. You can sieve segments close to 2^64 to the tune of millions of primes per second, tens of millions per second in lower regions. That's counting the primes, not the raw number ore. Full sieves are just not practical beyond 2^32 or so, even if you have oodles of memory.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Unique (non-repeating) random numbers in O(1)?
How do you efficiently generate a list of K non-repeating integers between 0 and an upper bound N
I want to generate random number in a certain diapason, and I must be sure, that each new number is not a duplicate of formers. One solution is to store formerly generated numbers in a container and each new number checks aginst the container. If there is such number in the container, then we generate agin, else we use and add it to the container. But with each new number this operation is becoming slower and slower. Is there any better approach, or any rand function that can work faster and ensure uniqueness of the generation?
EDIT: Yes, there is a limit (for example from 0 to 1.000.000.000). But I want to generate 100.000 unique numbers! (Would be great if the solution will be by using Qt features.)
Is there a range for the random numbers? If you have a limit for random numbers and you keep generating unique random numbers, then you'll end up with a list of all numbers from x..y in random order, where x-y is the valid range of your random numbers. If this is the case, you might improve speed greatly by simply generating the list of all numbers x..y and shuffling it, instead of generating the numbers.
I think there are 3 possible approaches, depending on range-size, and performance pattern needed you can use another algorithm.
Create a random number, see if it is in (a sorted) list. If not add and return, else try another.
Your list will grow and consume memory with every number you need. If every number is 32 bit, it will grow with at least 32 bits every time.
Every new random number increases the hit-ratio and this will make it slower.
O(n^2) - I think
Create an bit-array for every number in the range. Mark with 1/True if already returned.
Every number now only takes 1 bit, this can still be a problem if the range is big, but every number now only allocates 1 bit.
Every new random number increases the hit-ratio and this will make it slower.
O(n*2)
Pre-populate a list with all the numbers, shuffle it, and return the Nth number.
The list will not grow, returning numbers will not get slower,
but generating the list might take a long time, and a lot of memory.
O(1)
Depending on needed speed, you could store all lists in a database. There's no need for them to be in memory except speed.
Fill out a list with the numbers you need, then shuffle the list and pick your numbers from one end.
If you use a simple 32-bit linear congruential RNG (such as the so-called "Minimal Standard"), all you have to do is store the seed value you use and compare each generated number to it. If you ever reach that value again, your sequence is starting to repeat itself and you're out of values. This is O(1), but of course limited to 2^32-1 values (though I suppose you could use a 64-bit version as well).
There is a class of pseudo-random number generators that, I believe, has the properties you want: the Linear congruential generator. If defined properly, it will produce a list of integers from 0 to N-1, with no two numbers repeating until you've used all of the numbers in the list once.
#include <stdint.h>
/*
* Choose these values as follows:
*
* The MODULUS and INCREMENT must be relatively prime.
* The MULTIPLIER-1 must be divisible by all prime factors of the MODULUS.
* The MULTIPLIER-1 must be divisible by 4, if the MODULUS is divisible by 4.
*
* In addition, modulus must be <= 2**32 (0x0000000100000000ULL).
*
* A small example would be 8, 5, 3.
* A larger example would be 256, 129, 251.
* A useful example would be 0x0000000100000000ULL, 1664525, 1013904223.
*/
#define MODULUS (0x0000000100000000ULL)
#define MULTIPLIER (1664525)
#define INCREMENT (1013904223)
static uint64_t seed;
uint32_t lcg( void ) {
uint64_t temp;
temp = seed * MULTIPLIER + INCREMENT; // 64-bit intermediate product
seed = temp % MODULUS; // 32-bit end-result
return (uint32_t) seed;
}
All you have to do is choose a MODULUS such that it is larger than the number of numbers you'll need in a given run.
It wouldn't be random if there is such a pattern?
As far as I know you would have to store and filter all unwanted numbers...
unsigned int N = 1000;
vector <unsigned int> vals(N);
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < vals.size(); ++i)
vals[i] = i;
std::random_shuffle(vals.begin(), vals.end());
unsigned int random_number_1 = vals[0];
unsigned int random_number_2 = vals[1];
unsigned int random_number_3 = vals[2];
//etc
You could store the numbers in a vector, and get them by index (1..n-1). After each random generation, remove the indexed number from the vector, then generate the next number in the interval 1..n-2. etc.
If they can't be repeated, they aren't random.
EDIT:
Furthermore..
if they can't be repeated, they don't fit in a finite computer
How many random numbers do you need? Maybe you can apply a shuffle algorithm to a precalculated array of random numbers?
There is no way a random generator will output values depending on previously outputted values, because they wouldn't be random. However, you can improve performance by using different pools of random values each with values combined by a different salt value, which will divide the quantity of numbers to check by the quantity of pools you have.
If the range of the random number doesn't matter you could use a really large range of random numbers and hope you don't get any collisions. If your range is billions of times larger than the number of elements you expect to create your chances of a collision are small but still there. If the numbers don't to have an actual random distribution you could have a two part number {counter}{random x digits} that would ensure a unique number but it wouldn't be randomly distributed.
There's not going to be a pure functional approach that isn't O(n^2) on the number of results returned so far - every time a number is generated you will need to check against every result so far. Additionally, think about what happens when you're returning e.g. the 1000th number out of 1000 - you will require on average 1000 tries until the random algorithm comes up with the last unused number, with each attempt requiring an average of 499.5 comparisons with the already-generated numbers.
It should be clear from this that your description as posted is not quite exactly what you want. The better approach, as others have said, is to take a list of e.g. 1000 numbers upfront, shuffle it, and then return numbers from that list incrementally. This will guarantee you're not returning any duplicates, and return the numbers in O(1) time after the initial setup.
You can allocate enough memory for array of bits with 1 bit for each possible number. and check/set bits for every generated number. for example for numbers from 0 to 65535 you will need only 8192 (8kb) of memory.
Here's an interesting solution I came up with:
Assume you have numbers 1 to 1000 - and you don't have enough memory.
You could put all 1000 numbers into an array, and remove them one by one, but you'll get memory overflow error.
You could split the array in two, so you have an array of 1-500 and one empty array
You could then check if the number exists in array 1, or doesn't exist in the second array.
So assuming you have 1000 numbers, you can get a random number from 1-1000. If its less than 500, check array 1 and remove it if present. If it's NOT in array 2, you can add it.
This halves your memory usage.
If you propogate this using recursion, you can split your 500 array into a 250 and empty array.
Assuming empty arrays use no space, you can decrease your memory usage quite a bit.
Searching will be massively faster too, because if you break it down a lot, you generate a number such as 29. It's less than 500, less than 250, less than 125, less than 62, less than 31, greater than 15, so you do those 6 calculations, then check the array containing an average of 16/2 items - 8 in total.
I should patent this search, although I bet it already exists!
Especially given the desired number of values, you want a Linear Feedback Shift Register.
Why?
No shuffle step, nor a need to keep track of values you've already hit. As long as you go less than the full period, you should be fine.
It turns out that the Wikipedia article has some C++ code examples which are more tested than anything I would give you off the top of my head. Note that you'll want to be pulling values from inside the loops -- the loops just iterate the shift register through. You can see this in the snippet here.
(Yes, I know this was mentioned, briefly in the dupe -- saw it as I was revising. Given it hasn't been brought up here and is the best way to solve the poster's question, I think it should be brought up again.)
Let's say size=100.000 then create an array with this size. Create random numbers then put them into array.Problem is which index that number will be ? randomNumber%size will give you index.
When u put next number, use that function for index and check this value is exist or not. If not exist put it if exist then create new number and try that. U can create in fastest way with this way. Disadvange of this way is you will never find numbers which last section is same.
For example for last sections is
1231232444556
3458923444556
you will never have such numbers in your list even if they are totally different but last sections are same.
First off, there's a huge difference between random and pseudorandom. There's no way to generate perfectly random numbers from a deterministic process (such as a computer) without bringing in some physical process like latency between keystrokes or another entropy source.
The approach of saving all the numbers generated will slow down the computation rather quickly; the more numbers you have, the larger your storage needs, until you've filled up all available memory. A better method would be (as someone's already suggested) using a well known pseudorandom number generator such as the Linear Congruential Generator; it's super fast, requiring only modular multiplication and addition, and the theory behind it gets a lot of mention in Vol. 2 of Knuth's TAOCP. That way, the theory involved guarantees a rather large period before repetition, and the only storage needed are the parameters and seed used.
If you have no problem when a value can be calculated by the previous one, LFSR and LCG are fine. When you don't want that one output value can be calculated by another, you can use a block cipher in counter mode to generate the output sequence, given that the cipher block length is equal to the output length.
Use Hashset generic class . This class does not contain same values. You can put in all of your generated numbers then u can use them in Hashset.You can also check it if it is exist or not .Hashset can determine existence of items in fastest way.Hashset does not slow when list become bigger and this is biggest feature of it.
For example :
HashSet<int> array = new HashSet<int>();
array.Add(1);
array.Add(2);
array.Add(1);
foreach (var item in array)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Console.ReadKey();