Writing a program to solve problem four of project euler: Find the largest palindrome made from the product of two 2-digit numbers. Heres my reprex:
#include <iostream>
int reverseNumber(int testNum)
{
int reversedNum, remainder = 0;
int temp = testNum;
while(temp != 0)
{
remainder = temp % 10;
reversedNum = reversedNum * 10 + remainder;
temp /= 10;
}
return reversedNum;
}
int main()
{
const int MIN = 100;
int numOne = 99;
int product = 0;
for(int numTwo = 10; numTwo < 100; numTwo++)
{
product = numOne * numTwo;
if (reverseNumber(product) == product)
{
int solution = product;
std::cout << solution << '\n';
return 0;
}
}
return 0;
}
My main thought process behind this is that the for loop will go through every number from 10 to 99 and multiply it by 99. My intended outcome is for it to print 9009 which is the largest palindrome with 2 factors of 2 digits. So what I think should happen here is the for loop will go from 10 to 99, and each loop it should go through the parameters of the if statement which reverses the number and sees if it equals itself.
I've made sure it wasn't a compiler issue, as this is recurring between different compilers. The reverseNumber() function returns the proper number every time I've tested it, so that shouldn't be the problem, however this problem only occurs when the function is involved in the logical comparison. By this I mean if that even I set it equal to a variable and put the variable in the if parameters, the issue still occurs. I'm pretty much stumped. I just hope it's not some silly mistake as I've been on this for a couple days now.
int reversedNum, remainder = 0;
You should be aware that this gives you (in an automatic variable context) a zero remainder but an arbitrary reversedNum. This is actually one of the reasons some development shops have the "one variable per declaration" rule.
In other words, it should probably be:
int reversedNum = 0, remainder;
or even:
int reversedNum = 0;
int remainder;
One other thing that often helps out is to limit the scope of variable to as small an area as possible, only bringing them into existence when needed. An example of that would be:
int reverseNumber(int testNum) {
int reversedNum = 0;
while (testNum != 0) {
int remainder = testNum % 10;
reversedNum = reversedNum * 10 + remainder;
testNum /= 10;
}
return reversedNum;
}
In fact, I'd probably go further and eliminate remainder altogether since you only use it once:
reversedNum = reversedNum * 10 + testNum % 10;
You'll notice I've gotten rid of temp there as well. There's little to gain by putting testNum into a temporary variable since it's already a copy of the original (as it was passed in by value).
And one other note, more to do with the problem rather than the code. You seem to be assuming that there is a palindrome formed that is a multiple of 99. That may be the case but a cautious programmer wouldn't rely on it - if you're allowed to assume things like that, you could just replace your entire program with:
print 9009
Hence you should probably check all possibilities.
You also get the first one you find which is not necessarily the highest one (for example, let's assume that 99 * 17 and 99 * 29 are both palindromic - you don't want the first one.
And, since you're checking all possibilities, you probably don't want to stop at the first one, even if the nested loops are decrementing instead of incrementing. That's because, if 99 * 3 and 97 * 97 are both palindromic, you want the highest, not the first.
So a better approach may be to start high and do an exhaustive search, while also ensuring you ignore the palindrome check of candidates that are smaller that your current maximum, something like (pseudo-code)
# Current highest palindrome.
high = -1
# Check in reverse order, to quickly get a relatively high one.
for num1 in 99 .. 0 inclusive:
# Only need to check num2 values <= num1: if there was a
# better palindrome at (num2 * num1), we would have
# already found in with (num1 * num2).
for num2 in num1 .. 0 inclusive:
mult = num1 * num2
# Don't waste time doing palindrome check if it's
# not greater than current maximum - we can't use
# it then anyway. Also, if we find one, it's the
# highest possible for THIS num1 value (since num2
# is decreasing), so we can exit the num2 loop
# right away.
if mult > high:
if mult == reversed(mult):
high = mult
break
if high >= 0:
print "Solution is ", high
else:
print "No solution"
In addition to properly initializing your variables, if you want the largest palindrome, you should switch the direction of your for loop -- like:
for(int numTwo = 100; numTwo > 10; numTwo--) {
...
}
or else you are just printing the first palindrome within your specified range
I want to simulate the item score from total score.
For example, I have generated the total score, which has scores between 5 and 25. I would like to distribute this total score to five items with each having a 5-Likert score.
Then I used a while loop to check the condition in Stata 15. The code takes took too long to finish looping and I do not know whether I have made a mistake.
Perhaps someone would like to suggest another way to simulate the item score from the total score?
My code:
set obs 200
generate id=_n
generate u_i= rnormal(0, 0.5)
generate gr = runiform()>0.5
generate sex = runiform()>0.4
generate age = round(rnormal(65, 10))
expand 5
bysort id: generate time=_n
generate e_ij = rnormal(0, 1.0)
generate run=_n
*Generate Sum score 5-25
generate y = 3.0 + 2.0*gr + 0.2*age -1.2*sex + 0.5*time + u_i + e_ij
summarize y
replace y = round(y)
*Generate each item
forvalues k = 1(1)5 {
generate item`k' = runiform(1, 5)
replace item`k' = round(item`k')
}
egen sum_item=rowtotal(item1 item2 item3 item4 item5)
generate diff = y - sum_item
*Looping check if y=sum_item
forvalues a = 1(1)`=_N' {
quietly gsort -diff
while sum_item!=y[`a'] {
replace sum_item=. if sum_item!=y[_n]
forvalues k = 1(1)5 {
replace item`k' =. if sum_item==.
replace item`k' = runiform(1, 5) if item`k'==.
replace item`k' = round(item`k')
}
replace sum_item= item1 + item2+item3+item4+item5 if sum_item==.
replace diff = y - sum_item
if (sum_item==y[`a']) continue, break
}
}
The expected data that I would like to have:
As you can see, after running the loop I will always get 2-4 cases that the program keep running by generating item score (item1-item5) until the diff variable equals zero.
If I'm understanding correctly, you could loop something like the following (after setting all the items to initial values of 1, since possible values are 1 to 5):
capture generate rand_int = 0
replace rand_int = floor( 5 * runiform() + 1 ) // random int, 1 to 5
capture generate cnd = 0
forvalues k = 1(1)5 {
replace cnd = rand_int == `k' & sum_item < y & item`k' < 6
replace item`k' = item`k' + 1 if cnd
}
replace sum_item = item1+item2+item3+item4+item5
In words, that says is that if sum_item < y, then randomly add 1 to one of the items (as long as that item is not already equal to 5), and then you would keep doing it until sum_item == y for all rows.
So that's going to converge in roughly 20 iterations if the max value of y is 25 and items are from 1 to 5. I say "roughly" because there is a little waste in here when you add 1 to an item that is already equal to 5. You could ad some extra code for that, but I wouldn't bother if this is fast enough. E.g. for high values of item_sum it would be more efficient to start with initial values of 5 and randomly subtract 1 until it converges.
I'm not enough of a statistician to say that's the best or even an adequate way to do it, but intuitively to me it seems OK if you want a fairly uniform distribution of values. If you wanted the modal value to be 4, for example, that's a lot harder and not really a programming question any longer.
I have a few loops that I need in my program. I can write out the pseudo code, but I'm not entirely sure how to write them logically.
I need -
if (num is a multiple of 10) { do this }
if (num is within 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100) { do this }
else { do this } //this part is for 1-10, 21-30, 41-50, 61-70, 81-90
This is for a snakes and ladders board game, if it makes any more sense for my question.
I imagine the first if statement I'll need to use modulus. Would if (num == 100%10) be correct?
The second one I have no idea. I can write it out like if (num > 10 && num is < 21 || etc.), but there has to be something smarter than that.
For the first one, to check if a number is a multiple of use:
if (num % 10 == 0) // It's divisible by 10
For the second one:
if(((num - 1) / 10) % 2 == 1 && num <= 100)
But that's rather dense, and you might be better off just listing the options explicitly.
Now that you've given a better idea of what you are doing, I'd write the second one as:
int getRow(int num) {
return (num - 1) / 10;
}
if (getRow(num) % 2 == 0) {
}
It's the same logic, but by using the function we get a clearer idea of what it means.
if (num is a multiple of 10) { do this }
if (num % 10 == 0) {
// Do something
}
if (num is within 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100) { do this }
The trick here is to look for some sort of commonality among the ranges. Of course, you can always use the "brute force" method:
if ((num > 10 && num <= 20) ||
(num > 30 && num <= 40) ||
(num > 50 && num <= 60) ||
(num > 70 && num <= 80) ||
(num > 90 && num <= 100)) {
// Do something
}
But you might notice that, if you subtract 1 from num, you'll have the ranges:
10-19, 30-39, 50-59, 70-79, 90-99
In other words, all two-digit numbers whose first digit is odd. Next, you need to come up with a formula that expresses this. You can get the first digit by dividing by 10, and you can test that it's odd by checking for a remainder of 1 when you divide by 2. Putting that all together:
if ((num > 0) && (num <= 100) && (((num - 1) / 10) % 2 == 1)) {
// Do something
}
Given the trade-off between longer but maintainable code and shorter "clever" code, I'd pick longer and clearer every time. At the very least, if you try to be clever, please, please include a comment that explains exactly what you're trying to accomplish.
It helps to assume the next developer to work on the code is armed and knows where you live. :-)
If you are using GCC or any compiler that supports case ranges you can do this, but your code will not be portable.
switch(num)
{
case 11 ... 20:
case 31 ... 40:
case 51 ... 60:
case 71 ... 80:
case 91 ... 100:
// Do something
break;
default:
// Do something else
break;
}
This is for future visitors more so than a beginner. For a more general, algorithm-like solution, you can take a list of starting and ending values and check if a passed value is within one of them:
template<typename It, typename Elem>
bool in_any_interval(It first, It last, const Elem &val) {
return std::any_of(first, last, [&val](const auto &p) {
return p.first <= val && val <= p.second;
});
}
For simplicity, I used a polymorphic lambda (C++14) instead of an explicit pair argument. This should also probably stick to using < and == to be consistent with the standard algorithms, but it works like this as long as Elem has <= defined for it. Anyway, it can be used like this:
std::pair<int, int> intervals[]{
{11, 20}, {31, 40}, {51, 60}, {71, 80}, {91, 100}
};
const int num = 15;
std::cout << in_any_interval(std::begin(intervals), std::end(intervals), num);
There's a live example here.
The first one is easy. You just need to apply the modulo operator to your num value:
if ( ( num % 10 ) == 0)
Since C++ is evaluating every number that is not 0 as true, you could also write:
if ( ! ( num % 10 ) ) // Does not have a residue when divided by 10
For the second one, I think this is cleaner to understand:
The pattern repeats every 20, so you can calculate modulo 20.
All elements you want will be in a row except the ones that are dividable by 20.
To get those too, just use num-1 or better num+19 to avoid dealing with negative numbers.
if ( ( ( num + 19 ) % 20 ) > 9 )
This is assuming the pattern repeats forever, so for 111-120 it would apply again, and so on. Otherwise you need to limit the numbers to 100:
if ( ( ( ( num + 19 ) % 20 ) > 9 ) && ( num <= 100 ) )
With a couple of good comments in the code, it can be written quite concisely and readably.
// Check if it's a multiple of 10
if (num % 10 == 0) { ... }
// Check for whether tens digit is zero or even (1-10, 21-30, ...)
if ((num / 10) % 2 == 0) { ... }
else { ... }
You basically explained the answer yourself, but here's the code just in case.
if((x % 10) == 0) {
// Do this
}
if((x > 10 && x < 21) || (x > 30 && x < 41) || (x > 50 && x < 61) || (x > 70 && x < 81) || (x > 90 && x < 101)) {
// Do this
}
You might be overthinking this.
if (x % 10)
{
.. code for 1..9 ..
} else
{
.. code for 0, 10, 20 etc.
}
The first line if (x % 10) works because (a) a value that is a multiple of 10 calculates as '0', other numbers result in their remainer, (b) a value of 0 in an if is considered false, any other value is true.
Edit:
To toggle back-and-forth in twenties, use the same trick. This time, the pivotal number is 10:
if (((x-1)/10) & 1)
{
.. code for 10, 30, ..
} else
{
.. code for 20, 40, etc.
}
x/10 returns any number from 0 to 9 as 0, 10 to 19 as 1 and so on. Testing on even or odd -- the & 1 -- tells you if it's even or odd. Since your ranges are actually "11 to 20", subtract 1 before testing.
A plea for readability
While you already have some good answers, I would like to recommend a programming technique that will make your code more readable for some future reader - that can be you in six months, a colleague asked to perform a code review, your successor, ...
This is to wrap any "clever" statements into a function that shows exactly (with its name) what it is doing. While there is a miniscule impact on performance (from "function calling overhead") this is truly negligible in a game situation like this.
Along the way you can sanitize your inputs - for example, test for "illegal" values. Thus you might end up with code like this - see how much more readable it is? The "helper functions" can be hidden away somewhere (the don't need to be in the main module: it is clear from their name what they do):
#include <stdio.h>
enum {NO, YES, WINNER};
enum {OUT_OF_RANGE=-1, ODD, EVEN};
int notInRange(int square) {
return(square < 1 || square > 100)?YES:NO;
}
int isEndOfRow(int square) {
if (notInRange(square)) return OUT_OF_RANGE;
if (square == 100) return WINNER; // I am making this up...
return (square % 10 == 0)? YES:NO;
}
int rowType(unsigned int square) {
// return 1 if square is in odd row (going to the right)
// and 0 if square is in even row (going to the left)
if (notInRange(square)) return OUT_OF_RANGE; // trap this error
int rowNum = (square - 1) / 10;
return (rowNum % 2 == 0) ? ODD:EVEN; // return 0 (ODD) for 1-10, 21-30 etc.
// and 1 (EVEN) for 11-20, 31-40, ...
}
int main(void) {
int a = 12;
int rt;
rt = rowType(a); // this replaces your obscure if statement
// and here is how you handle the possible return values:
switch(rt) {
case ODD:
printf("It is an odd row\n");
break;
case EVEN:
printf("It is an even row\n");
break;
case OUT_OF_RANGE:
printf("It is out of range\n");
break;
default:
printf("Unexpected return value from rowType!\n");
}
if(isEndOfRow(10)==YES) printf("10 is at the end of a row\n");
if(isEndOfRow(100)==WINNER) printf("We have a winner!\n");
}
For the first one:
if (x % 10 == 0)
will apply to:
10, 20, 30, .. 100 .. 1000 ...
For the second one:
if (((x-1) / 10) % 2 == 1)
will apply for:
11-20, 31-40, 51-60, ..
We basically first do x-1 to get:
10-19, 30-39, 50-59, ..
Then we divide them by 10 to get:
1, 3, 5, ..
So we check if this result is odd.
As others have pointed out, making the conditions more concise won't speed up the compilation or the execution, and it doesn't necessarily help with readability either.
It can help in making your program more flexible, in case you decide later that you want a toddler's version of the game on a 6 x 6 board, or an advanced version (that you can play all night long) on a 40 x 50 board.
So I would code it as follows:
// What is the size of the game board?
#define ROWS 10
#define COLUMNS 10
// The numbers of the squares go from 1 (bottom-left) to (ROWS * COLUMNS)
// (top-left if ROWS is even, or top-right if ROWS is odd)
#define firstSquare 1
#define lastSquare (ROWS * COLUMNS)
// We haven't started until we roll the die and move onto the first square,
// so there is an imaginary 'square zero'
#define notStarted(num) (num == 0)
// and we only win when we land exactly on the last square
#define finished(num) (num == lastSquare)
#define overShot(num) (num > lastSquare)
// We will number our rows from 1 to ROWS, and our columns from 1 to COLUMNS
// (apologies to C fanatics who believe the world should be zero-based, which would
// have simplified these expressions)
#define getRow(num) (((num - 1) / COLUMNS) + 1)
#define getCol(num) (((num - 1) % COLUMNS) + 1)
// What direction are we moving in?
// On rows 1, 3, 5, etc. we go from left to right
#define isLeftToRightRow(num) ((getRow(num) % 2) == 1)
// On rows 2, 4, 6, etc. we go from right to left
#define isRightToLeftRow(num) ((getRow(num) % 2) == 0)
// Are we on the last square in the row?
#define isLastInRow(num) (getCol(num) == COLUMNS)
// And finally we can get onto the code
if (notStarted(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we haven't got our piece on the board yet
}
else
{
if (isLastInRow(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we're on the last square in a row
}
if (isRightToLeftRow(mySquare))
{
// Some code for when we're travelling from right to left
}
else
{
// Some code for when we're travelling from left to right
}
}
Yes, it's verbose, but it makes it clear exactly what's happening on the game board.
If I was developing this game to display on a phone or tablet, I'd make ROWS and COLUMNS variables instead of constants, so they can be set dynamically (at the start of a game) to match the screen size and orientation.
I'd also allow the screen orientation to be changed at any time, mid-game - all you need to do is switch the values of ROWS and COLUMNS, while leaving everything else (the current square number that each player is on, and the start/end squares of all the snakes and ladders) unchanged.
Then you 'just' have to draw the board nicely, and write code for your animations (I assume that was the purpose of your if statements) ...
You can try the following:
// Multiple of 10
if ((num % 10) == 0)
{
// Do something
}
else if (((num / 10) % 2) != 0)
{
// 11-20, 31-40, 51-60, 71-80, 91-100
}
else
{
// Other case
}
I know that this question has so many answers, but I will thrown mine here anyway...
Taken from Steve McConnell's Code Complete, 2nd Edition:
"Stair-Step Access Tables:
Yet another kind of table access is the stair-step method. This access method isn’t as direct as an index structure, but it doesn’t waste as much data space. The general idea of stair-step structures, illustrated in Figure 18-5, is that entries in a table are valid for ranges of data rather than for distinct data points.
Figure 18-5 The stair-step approach categorizes each entry by determining the level at which it hits a “staircase.” The “step” it hits determines its category.
For example, if you’re writing a grading program, the “B” entry range might be from 75 percent to 90 percent. Here’s a range of grades you might have to program someday:
To use the stair-step method, you put the upper end of each range into a table and then write a loop to check a score against the upper end of each range. When you find the point at which the score first exceeds the top of a range, you know what the grade is. With the stair-step technique, you have to be careful to handle the endpoints of the ranges properly. Here’s the code in Visual Basic that assigns grades to a group of students based on this example:
Although this is a simple example, you can easily generalize it to handle multiple students, multiple grading schemes (for example, different grades for different point levels on different assignments), and changes in the grading scheme."
Code Complete, 2nd Edition, pages 426 - 428 (Chapter 18).
I have this program that is supposed to search for perfect numbers.
(X is a perfect number if the sum of all numbers that divide X, divided by 2 is equal to X)
sum/2 = x
Now It has found the first four, which were known in Ancient Greece, so it's not really a anything awesome.
The next one should be 33550336.
I know it is a big number, but the program has been going for about 50 minutes, and still hasn't found 33550336.
Is it because I opened the .txt file where I store all the perfect numbers while the program was running, or is it because I don't have a PC fast enough to run it*, or because I'm using Python?
*NOTE: This same PC factorized 500 000 in 10 minutes (while also running the perfect number program and Google Chrome with 3 YouTube tabs), also using Python.
Here is the code to the program:
i = 2
a = open("perfect.txt", 'w')
a.close()
while True:
sum = 0
for x in range(1, i+1):
if i%x == 0:
sum += x
if sum / 2 == i:
a = open("perfect.txt", 'a')
a.write(str(i) + "\n")
a.close()
i += 1
The next one should be 33550336.
Your code (I fixed the indentation so that it does in principle what you want):
i = 2
a = open("perfect.txt", 'w')
a.close()
while True:
sum = 0
for x in range(1, i+1):
if i%x == 0:
sum += x
if sum / 2 == i:
a = open("perfect.txt", 'a')
a.write(str(i) + "\n")
a.close()
i += 1
does i divisions to find the divisors of i.
So to find the perfect numbers up to n, it does
2 + 3 + 4 + ... + (n-1) + n = n*(n+1)/2 - 1
divisions in the for loop.
Now, for n = 33550336, that would be
Prelude> 33550336 * (33550336 + 1) `quot` 2 - 1
562812539631615
roughly 5.6 * 1014 divisions.
Assuming your CPU could do 109 divisions per second (it most likely can't, 108 is a better estimate in my experience, but even that is for machine ints in C), that would take about 560,000 seconds. One day has 86400 seconds, so that would be roughly six and a half days (more than two months with the 108 estimate).
Your algorithm is just too slow to reach that in reasonable time.
If you don't want to use number-theory (even perfect numbers have a very simple structure, and if there are any odd perfect numbers, those are necessarily huge), you can still do better by dividing only up to the square root to find the divisors,
i = 2
a = open("perfect.txt", 'w')
a.close()
while True:
sum = 1
root = int(i**0.5)
for x in range(2, root+1):
if i%x == 0:
sum += x + i/x
if i == root*root:
sum -= x # if i is a square, we have counted the square root twice
if sum == i:
a = open("perfect.txt", 'a')
a.write(str(i) + "\n")
a.close()
i += 1
that only needs about 1.3 * 1011 divisions and should find the fifth perfect number in a couple of hours.
Without resorting to the explicit formula for even perfect numbers (2^(p-1) * (2^p - 1) for primes p such that 2^p - 1 is prime), you can speed it up somewhat by finding the prime factorisation of i and computing the divisor sum from that. That will make the test faster for all composite numbers, and much faster for most,
def factorisation(n):
facts = []
multiplicity = 0
while n%2 == 0:
multiplicity += 1
n = n // 2
if multiplicity > 0:
facts.append((2,multiplicity))
d = 3
while d*d <= n:
if n % d == 0:
multiplicity = 0
while n % d == 0:
multiplicity += 1
n = n // d
facts.append((d,multiplicity))
d += 2
if n > 1:
facts.append((n,1))
return facts
def divisorSum(n):
f = factorisation(n)
sum = 1
for (p,e) in f:
sum *= (p**(e+1) - 1)/(p-1)
return sum
def isPerfect(n):
return divisorSum(n) == 2*n
i = 2
count = 0
out = 10000
while count < 5:
if isPerfect(i):
print i
count += 1
if i == out:
print "At",i
out *= 5
i += 1
would take an estimated 40 minutes on my machine.
Not a bad estimate:
$ time python fastperf.py
6
28
496
8128
33550336
real 36m4.595s
user 36m2.001s
sys 0m0.453s
It is very hard to try and deduce why this has happened. I would suggest that you run your program either under a debugger and test several iteration manually to check if the code is really correct (I know you have already calculated 4 numbers but still). Alternatively it would be good to run your program under a python profiler just to see if it hasn't accidentally blocked on a lock or something.
It is possible, but not likely that this is an issue related to you opening the file while it is running. If it was an issue, there would have probably been some error message and/or program close/crash.
I would edit the program to write a log-type output to a file every so often. For example, everytime you have processed a target number that is an even multiple of 1-Million, write (open-append-close) the date-time and current-number and last-success-number to a log file.
You could then Type the file once in a while to measure progress.
According to the probabilities I've read about, switching doors should yield ~66% chance to pick the correct door. This code below is what I've come up with and it spits out roughly 50% wins instead of the 66% I am expecting. Any help on where I'm going wrong here would be much appreciated.
for (int count = 0; count < 10000; count++)
{
// Chooses which door contains DAT GRAND PRIZE YO.
wDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
// AI Contestants Door choice
aiDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
// Using oldChoice to ensure same door isn't picked.
oldChoice = aiDoor;
// Used in determining what door to open.
openedDoor = aiDoor;
// "Open" a door that is not the winning door and not the door chosen by player.
do
{
openedDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
}while (openedDoor != wDoor && openedDoor != aiDoor);
// Select new door between the remaining two.
do
{
aiDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
}while (aiDoor != oldChoice && aiDoor != openedDoor);
// Increment win counter if new door is correct.
if (aiDoor == wDoor)
{
chooseAgain++;
}
}
Your while conditions are the wrong way round:
while (openedDoor != wDoor && openedDoor != aiDoor)
should be
while (openedDoor == wDoor || openedDoor == aiDoor)
etc.
You have your conditions reversed. The do ... while (...) loops would performs as your comments describe, if they were repeat .. until(...), which has the opposite polarity for the termination tests.
Negate the conditions to implement the algorithm you want.
Note that in both cases you have at most two doors to choose from. Using that knowledge, you can determine the next door with at most a single use of rand() and no loop.
// "Open" a door that is not the winning door and not the door chosen by player.
do
{
openedDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
}while (openedDoor != wDoor && openedDoor != aiDoor);
This condition is false (i.e. the loop ends) when you've opened either the winning door (!) or the one the player picked. This is the opposite of what you want.
// Select new door between the remaining two.
do
{
aiDoor = rand() % 3 + 1;
}while (aiDoor != oldChoice && aiDoor != openedDoor);
This condition is false (i.e. the loop ends) when the player has picked either the same door as before or the opened door. This is also the opposite of what you want.
Reversing the conditions gives the expected result (~0.66).