Related
I need to find the sum of all multiples of 7 and 11 below 926. Here is what I have so far:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int sum = 0;
for (for i = 1; sum<926; i++)
sum = sum + 7*i + 11*i;
std::cout << "The sum is "<<sum;
return 0;
}
You are calculating
(7+11)* (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10) == 18*55 == 990
Your program stops at 990 because it is the first number > 926.
This is calculating "the lowest cumulative multiple of (7+11) greater or equal 926".
This is of course not what you want.
In order to find "the sum of all multiples of 7 and 11 below 926" you should check all numbers below 926 for being a multiple of 7 or 11.
I am not sure whether you are supposed to only add up those which are a multiple of 7 AND a multiple of 11 (which would be only the multiples of 77) or whether you are supposed to add up all which are a multiple of 7 and those which are a multiple of 11. This is a unclear area between English phrasing and programming expressions.
Read the assignment again, it might be clearer in there.
So lets simplify to "the sum of all multiples of 7 and 11 below 78", for discussing the algorithm instead of language precision.
The answer is either:
7+11+14+21+22+28+33+35+42+44+49+55+56+63+66+70+77
or
77
After you decided you will easily find a way to detect a multiple of something. (Hint: read up on % operator).
I intentionally do not give a full solution, or even code for it, because of:
How do I ask and answer homework questions?
There is a fable about Guass quickly responding to a teacher busy-work assignment to sum the numbers 1..100. Guass quickly answered 5050; that is (100 + 1) * 100/2. For an evenly spaced sequence, this can be summarized as (a[0] + a[n-1]) * n /2; since the average value of the sequence will be (a[0] + a[n-1]) / 2; and the number of elements n.
Thus, the sequence 2,4,...200 = (202 / 2) * 100 or 1010.
And the sequence 77,154,231, ... 77 * n will be ((77 * (n+1))/2) * n.
So, you just have to figure out N.
I am coding in hackerrank and came across this problem:
https://www.hackerrank.com/challenges/power-calculation
My code works for small files and big numbers. As for the big files, it times out. Could someone make it more efficient.
My code:
z = []
def modexp(a, n, m):
bits = []
while n:
bits.append(n%2)
n /= 2
solution = 1
bits.reverse()
for x in bits:
solution = (solution*solution)%m
if x:
solution = (solution*a)%m
return solution
for _ in xrange(int(input())):
while True:
try:
x = raw_input()
sum =0
z = x.split(' ')
power = int(z[1])
limit = int(z[0])
for i in range(0,limit+1):
sum = sum%100 + modexp(i%100,power, pow(10,2))
if sum < 10:
print '%02d' % sum
if sum > 10:
print sum%100
except:
break
Sample data - input:
10
487348 808701
204397 738749
814036 784709
713222 692670
890568 452450
686541 933150
935447 202322
559883 847002
468195 111274
833627 238704
Sample output:
76
13
76
75
24
51
20
54
90
42
One can easily reduce the number of power evaluations by observing that its values mod 100 have a period of 100. Thus
decompose K = M*100+L by computing M=K/100; L=K%100;.
Then
for k=0 to L the power modexp(k%100,N,100) occurs M+1 times,
for k=L+1 to 99 it occurs M times in the sum.
Thus each power sum can be reduced to 99 power computations
One can reduce the effort to compute the powers even more by observing that increasing powers of the same number are periodic in the last two digits. Generally the sequence
1, a % m, a**2 % m, a**3 % m, a**4 % m, ...
becomes periodic after some point that is given by the highest multiplicity of a prime factor. One period length is given by the value of m in Euler's totient function.
The totient value of 100=2²·5² is phi(100)=(2-1)·2·(5-1)·5=40. The offset before the period sets in is at most 2, it follows that for all integers a
a**2 % 100 == a**42 % 100 = a**82 % 100 = ...
a**3 % 100 == a**43 % 100 = a**83 % 100 = ...
and so on.
Which means that for N>41 one can reduce the exponent to N=2+(N-2) % 40. (Indeed one can replace 40 by 20 in that reduction.)
And as a final remark that will not have much impact on running times, only on the complexity of the code:
There is a shorter way to implement modexp, this algorithm is also a standard exercise to identify loop invariants:
def modexp(a, n, m):
solution = 1
apower = a
while n:
if (n%2): solution = (solution*apower) % m
n /= 2
apower = (apower*apower) % m
return solution
I was assigned this problem I have to solve:
There are plenty of guided activities in a certain swimming pool. Therefore, the usage rules are very strict:
The free time slots are only one minute long. After using a free slot, we must wait for at least x seconds before using another slot. You have the list of free slots, and you want to swim for at least m minutes. What is the maximum x that allows it?
Input
Input consists of several cases. Every case begins with the number of minutes m and the number of slots n, followed by n triples H:M:S, indicating that there is a lane that is free for one minute starting at H:M:S. Assume 2 ≤ m ≤ n ≤ 1000, that the hours are between 00:00:00 and 23:59:00, and that there are no overlaps between time slots. The final entry is marked with a special case with m = n = 0.
Output
For every case, print the maximum x that permits a total bath time of m or more minutes.
What would be a possible implementation using binary search over the variable x to maximize it?
Outputs of the problem:
input:
4 8
00:10:40 00:35:30 01:00:00 01:55:00 02:10:00 03:15:00 12:00:20 23:59:00
output: x = 11000
This doesn't require any search at all. Transform the list from free time-slots to a list of waiting-time between timeslots in seconds (take into account you're swimming for one minute):
waiting_time[]
for i in [1, length(time_slots))
waiting_time[i - 1] = delta_minutes(time_slots[i - 1], time_slots[i]) * 60 - 60
Sort the list of waiting-times
sortDesc(waiting_time)
Since you've got to wait m - 1 times, x must be chosen such that at least x waiting-times are at least equally long. Since we're searching for the maximum x, the smallest waiting-time must be exactly as long as x, which is the m - 1th element in our array.
Putting it all together:
minX(input[], m):
waiting_time[]
for i in [1, length(input)):
waiting_time[i - 1] = delta_minutes(time_slots[i - 1], time_slots[i]) * 60 - 60
sortDesc(waiting_time)
return waiting_time[m - 1]
What is the fastest way to find the sum of decimal digits?
The following code is what I wrote but it is very very slow for range 1 to 1000000000000000000
long long sum_of_digits(long long input) {
long long total = 0;
while (input != 0) {
total += input % 10;
input /= 10;
}
return total;
}
int main ( int argc, char** argv) {
for ( long long i = 1L; i <= 1000000000000000000L; i++) {
sum_of_digits(i);
}
return 0;
}
I'm assuming what you are trying to do is along the lines of
#include <iostream>
const long long limit = 1000000000000000000LL;
int main () {
long long grand_total = 0;
for (long long ii = 1; ii <= limit; ++ii) {
grand_total += sum_of_digits(i);
}
std::cout << "Grand total = " << grand_total << "\n";
return 0;
}
This won't work for two reasons:
It will take a long long time.
It will overflow.
To deal with the overflow problem, you will either have to put a bound on your upper limit or use some bignum package. I'll leave solving that problem up to you.
To deal with the computational burden you need to get creative. If you know the upper limit is limited to powers of 10 this is fairly easy. If the upper limit can be some arbitrary number you will have to get a bit more creative.
First look at the problem of computing the sum of digits of all integers from 0 to 10n-1 (e.g., 0 to 9 (n=1), 0 to 99 (n=2), etc.) Denote the sum of digits of all integers from 10n-1 as Sn. For n=1 (0 to 9), this is just 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 (9*10/2). Thus S1=45.
For n=2 (0 to 99), you are summing 0-9 ten times and you are summing 0-9 ten times again. For n=3 (0 to 999), you are summing 0-99 ten times and you are summing 0-9 100 times. For n=4 (0 to 9999), you are summing 0-999 ten times and you are summing 0-9 1000 times. In general, Sn=10Sn-1+10n-1S1 as a recursive expression. This simplifies to Sn=(9n10n)/2.
If the upper limit is of the form 10n, the solution is the above Sn plus one more for the number 1000...000. If the upper limit is an arbitrary number you will need to get creative once again. Think along the lines that went into developing the formula for Sn.
You can break this down recursively. The sum of the digits of an 18-digit number are the sums of the first 9 digits plus the last 9 digits. Likewise the sum of the digits of a 9-bit number will be the sum of the first 4 or 5 digits plus the sum of the last 5 or 4 digits. Naturally you can special-case when the value is 0.
Reading your edit: computing that function in a loop for i between 1 and 1000000000000000000 takes a long time. This is a no brainer.
1000000000000000000 is one billion billion. Your processor will be able to do at best billions of operations per second. Even with a nonexistant 4-5 Ghz processor, and assuming best case it compiles down to an add, a mod, a div, and a compare jump, you could only do 1 billion iterations per second, meaning it will take on the order of 1 billion seconds.
You probably don't want to do it in a bruteforce way. This seems to be more of a logical thinking question.
Note - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = N(N+1)/2 = 45.
---- Changing the answer to make it clearer after David's comment
See David's answer - I had it wrong
Quite late to the party, but anyways, here is my solution. Sorry it's in Python and not C++, but it should be relatively easy to translate. And because this is primarily an algorithm problem, I hope that's ok.
As for the overflow problem, the only thing that comes to mind is to use arrays of digits instead of actual numbers. Given this algorithm I hope it won't affect performance too much.
https://gist.github.com/frnhr/7608873
It uses these three recursions I found by looking and poking at the problem. Rather then trying to come up with some general and arcane equations, here are three examples. A general case should be easily visible from those.
relation 1
Reduces function calls with arbitrary argument to several recursive calls with more predictable arguments for use in relations 2 and 3.
foo(3456) == foo(3000)
+ foo(400) + 400 * (3)
+ foo(50) + 50 * (3 + 4)
+ foo(6) + 6 * (3 + 4 + 5)
relation 2
Reduce calls with an argument in the form L*10^M (e.g: 30, 7000, 900000) to recursive call usable for relation 3. These triangular numbers popped in quite uninvited (but welcome) :)
triangular_numbers = [0, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36] # 0 not used
foo(3000) == 3 * foo(1000) + triangular_numbers[3 - 1] * 1000
Only useful if L > 1. It holds true for L = 1 but is trivial. In that case, go directly to relation 3.
relation 3
Recursively reduce calls with argument in format 1*10^M to a call with argument that's divided by 10.
foo(1000) == foo(100) * 10 + 44 * 100 + 100 - 9 # 44 and 9 are constants
Ultimately you only have to really calculate the sum or digits for numbers 0 to 10, and it turns out than only up to 3 of these calculations are needed. Everything else is taken care of with this recursion. I'm pretty sure it runs in O(logN) time. That's FAAST!!!!!11one
On my laptop it calculates the sum of digit sums for a given number with over 1300 digits in under 7 seconds! Your test (1000000000000000000) gets calculated in 0.000112057 seconds!
I think you cannot do better than O(N) where N is the number of digits in the given number(which is not computationally expensive)
However if I understood your question correctly (the range) you want to output the sum of digits for a range of numbers. In that case, you can increment by one when you go from number0 to number9 and then decrease by 8.
You will need to cheat - look for mathematical patterns that let you short-cut your computations.
For example, do you really need to test that input != 0 every time? Does it matter if you add 0/10 several times? Since it won't matter, consider unrolling the loop.
Can you do the calculation in a larger base, eg, base 10^2, 10^3, etcetera, that might allow you to reduce the number of digits, which you'll then have to convert back to base 10? If this works, you'll be able to implement a cache more easily.
Consider looking at compiler intrinsics that let you give hints to the compiler for branch prediction.
Given that this is C++, consider implementing this using template metaprogramming.
Given that sum_of_digits is purely functional, consider caching the results.
Now, most of those suggestions will backfire - but the point I'm making is that if you have hit the limits of what your computer can do for a given algorithm, you do need to find a different solution.
This is probably an excellent starting point if you want to investigate this in detail: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DigitSum.html
Possibility 1:
You could make it faster by feeding the result of one iteration of the loop into the next iteration.
For example, if i == 365, the result is 14. In the next loop, i == 366 -- 1 more than the previous result. The sum is also 1 more: 3 + 6 + 6 = 15.
Problems arise when there is a carry digit. If i == 99 (ie. result = 18), the next loop's result isn't 19, it's 1. You'll need extra code to detect this case.
Possibility 2:
While thinking though the above, it occurred to me that the sequence of results from sum_of_digits when graphed would resemble a sawtooth. With some analysis of the resulting graph (which I leave as an exercise for the reader), it may be possible to identify a method to allow direct calculation of the sum result.
However, as some others have pointed out: Even with the fastest possible implementation of sum_of_digits and the most optimised loop code, you can't possibly calculate 1000000000000000000 results in any useful timeframe, and certainly not in less than one second.
Edit: It seems you want the the sum of the actual digits such that: 12345 = 1+2+3+4+5 not the count of digits, nor the sum of all numbers 1 to 12345 (inclusive);
As such the fastest you can get is:
long long sum_of_digits(long long input) {
long long total = input % 10;
while ((input /= 10) != 0)
total += input % 10;
return total;
}
Which is still going to be slow when you're running enough iterations. Your requirement of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000L iterations is One Million, Million, Million. Given 100 Million takes around 10,000ms on my computer, one can expect that it will take 100ms per 1 million records, and you want to do that another million million times. There are only 86400 seconds in a day, so at best we can compute around 86,400 Million records per day. It would take one computer
Lets suppose your method could be performed in a single float operation (somehow), suppose you are using the K computer which is currently the fastest (Rmax) supercomputer at over 10 petaflops, if you do the math that is = 10,000 Million Million floating operations per second. This means that your 1 Million, Million, Million loop will take the world's fastest non-distributed supercomputer 100 seconds to compute the sums (IF it took 1 float operation to calculate, which it can't), so you will need to wait around for quite some time for computers to become 100 so much more powerful for your solution to be runable in under one second.
What ever you're trying to do, you're either trying to do an unsolvable problem in near real-time (eg: graphics calculation related) or you misunderstand the question / task that was given you, or you are expected to perform something faster than any (non-distributed) computer system can do.
If your task is actually to sum all the digits of a range as you show and then output them, the answer is not to improve the for loop. for example:
1 = 0
10 = 46
100 = 901
1000 = 13501
10000 = 180001
100000 = 2250001
1000000 = 27000001
10000000 = 315000001
100000000 = 3600000001
From this you could work out a formula to actually compute the total sum of all digits for all numbers from 1 to N. But it's not clear what you really want, beyond a much faster computer.
No the best, but simple:
int DigitSumRange(int a, int b) {
int s = 0;
for (; a <= b; a++)
for(c : to_string(a))
s += c-48;
return s;
}
A Python function is given below, which converts the number to a string and then to a list of digits and then finds the sum of these digits.
def SumDigits(n):
ns=list(str(n))
z=[int(d) for d in ns]
return(sum(z))
In C++ one of the fastest way can be using strings.
first of all get the input from users in a string. Then add each element of string after converting it into int. It can be done using -> (str[i] - '0').
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
int main()
{ string str;
cin>>str;
long long int sum=0;
for(long long int i=0;i<str.length();i++){
sum = sum + (str[i]-'0');
}
cout<<sum;
}
The formula for finding the sum of the digits of numbers between 1 to N is:
(1 + N)*(N/2)
[http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57919.html][1]
There is a class written in C# which supports a number with more than the supported max-limit of long.
You can find it here. [Oyster.Math][2]
Using this class, I have generated a block of code in c#, may be its of some help to you.
using Oyster.Math;
class Program
{
private static DateTime startDate;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
startDate = DateTime.Now;
Console.WriteLine("Finding Sum of digits from {0} to {1}", 1L, 1000000000000000000L);
sum_of_digits(1000000000000000000L);
Console.WriteLine("Time Taken for the process: {0},", DateTime.Now - startDate);
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void sum_of_digits(long input)
{
var answer = IntX.Multiply(IntX.Parse(Convert.ToString(1 + input)), IntX.Parse(Convert.ToString(input / 2)), MultiplyMode.Classic);
Console.WriteLine("Sum: {0}", answer);
}
}
Please ignore this comment if it is not relevant for your context.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20171225182632/http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57919.html
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20171223050751/http://intx.codeplex.com/
If you want to find the sum for the range say 1 to N then simply do the following
long sum = N(N+1)/2;
it is the fastest way.
Well, after solving this problem by naive STL set,I was reading the forum entries,there I find this entry :
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
#define MAX 100
using namespace std;
int main(){
int res=(MAX-1)*(MAX-1);
for(int i=2;i<MAX;i++)
for(int j=i*i;j<=MAX;j=j*i)
res = res-int(MAX*(log(i)/log(j)))+1;
cout<<res<<endl;
return 0;
}
The author's explanation :
Maximum will be 99*99. I subtracted occurrences of those numbers which are powers of some lower numbers (2-100): -
For example: -
4^2,4^3,4^4 (i.e. 3 should be subtracted) as they will be duplicates from lower number powers as in 2^4,2^6,2^8
This program is giving correct answer check here but I am unable to get the implemented logic,to be precise I am not getting how the duplicates are determined. Could somebody help ?
I may be missing something, but it seems to me this program gives the wrong answer. It's off by one. If I set MAX to 10, it's off by two.
I have read that some players like to produce approximate answers and then dictionary-attack the Project Euler servers to brute-force the problem. Other players consider that rather against the spirit of the thing.
Anyway—an algorithm like this (starting with N*M and eliminating duplicates) is the right way to tackle the problem, but as written this code doesn't make much sense to me. Note that in any case int(MAX*(log(i)/log(j))) is very sensitive to rounding error; but even if you eliminate that source of error by using integer arithmetic, the program still gives the wrong answer.
EDIT: How can we (correctly) count the duplicates?
First you must understand that two numbers are only the same if they have the same prime factorization. So there are only going to be duplicates a1b1 = a2b2 when a1 and a2 are distinct integer powers of the same integer, which I'll call x. For example,
97 = 314; this is possible because 9 and 3 are both powers of 3.
86 = 49; this is possible because 8 and 4 are both powers of 2.
So we have established that for all duplicates, a1 = xe1 and a2 = xe2 for some integers x, e1, and e1.
Then with a little algebra,
a1b1 = a2b2
xe1b1 = xe2b2
e1b1 = e2b2
Going back to the earlier examples,
97 = 314 because 2×7 = 1×14.
86 = 49 because 3×6 = 2×9.
So to find all duplicates for any given x, you only need to find duplicates for the simpler expression eb where 2 ≤ xe ≤ 100 and 2 ≤ b ≤ 100.
Here is a picture of that simpler problem, for x=3 and b ranging only from 2 to 10. I've marked two places where there are duplicates.
e=1 a=3 *********
e=2 a=9 * * * * * * * * *
e=3 a=27 * * * * * * * * *
e=4 a=81 * * * * * * * * *
| |
1*8 = 2*4 = 4*2 3*8 = 4*6
3^8 = 9^4 = 81^2 27^8 = 81^6
And here are the duplicates:
e=1 a=3 *********
e=2 a=9 x x x x * * * * *
e=3 a=27 x x x * x * * * *
e=4 a=81 x x x x x * * * *
The C++ program you found is trying to count them by visiting each pair of overlapping rows i and j, and calculating how much of row i overlaps row j. But again, unless I'm missing something, the program seems hopelessly imprecise. And it misses some pairs of rows entirely (you never have i=9 and j=27, or i=27 and j=81).
first, it sets res to 99*99 at line 6, because MAX was defined as 100. Then it enters a loop, with the condition that i is smaller than MAX. then it enters this pseudocode loop
int i;
int j;
int x=2;
for( j = i2; j <= MAX , j = ix)
{
res = res- (MAX* ( jlog(i) )+1;
x++;
}
sorry 'bout the not using <pre><code> above; but if I did I could not use <sup>
Please note log(a)/log(x) is the same as xlog(a)
comments on question because <sup> does not work there:
2log(2) = 1 because 21 = 2
2log(4) = 2 because 22 = 2
log(x) == 10log(x)
log(10) = 1
glog(x) = y => gy = x
Well, the question involves ways to combine two numbers chosen from a range. There are 99 possible numbers, so the number of combinations is 99 * 99, with possible duplicates. His basic algorithm here is to figure out how many duplicates are present, and subtract that value from the maximum.
As for counting duplicates, it might help intuitively to think of the numbers in terms of their prime factors. Raising a number to an integer power means multiplying it by itself; so, represented as a list of primes, this is equivalent to simply concatenating the lists. For instance, 6 is {2, 3}, so 6^3 would be {2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3}. Note that if you count how many times each prime appears in the list, x^n will always have the same proportions as x, for instance 6^n will have an equal quantity of 2's and 3's. So, any two numbers in the range with the same proportion between primes must both be powers of some number.
So, in the full list, each distinct proportion of prime factors will appear repeatedly as x^2, x^3, x^4..., (x^3)^2, (x^3)^4..., (x^4)^2..., etc., where x is the smallest number with that proportion; more precisely, (x^m)^n where (x^m) <= 100 and 2 <= n <= 100. Since (x^m)^n is equal to x^(mn), counting duplicates amounts to counting the ways that x^(mn) can also be <= 100.
There are (at least) two ways to approach this problem. One is to start your count of distinct values at 0, and add one for each calculated value that hasn't been seen before. The other way is to calculate the maximum number of values, and then subtract one for each duplicate.
The poster is attempting the second methed. a can range from 2 to 100 for 99 values, as can b, so there are 99 * 99 produced values. The poster then attempts to subtract the duplicate values to get the correct answer.
Edit: However, the poster has written an incorrect algorithm.
For instance, setting MAX = 8 or 9. For 8 it should give 44 but it gives 45. For 9 it should give 54 but gives 56. Either they lucked out and happened across an algorithm that gives the correct answer for some inputs, or they reverse-engineered an algorithm that worked when MAX = 100 but not for all other values.