I'm having some difficulty trying to figure out a puzzle that I'm working on.
The idea is to find the remaining total when subtracting the percentage.
This should be a fairly simple exercise but for one reason or another I'm having difficulty finding a result that works properly.
Please forgive my formatting, this is my first post.
from math import floor
def compute_active_users(n, b):
x = float(b)/float(n) * 100
x = x * 100
return floor((n - x))
print '-' * 25
print compute_active_users(1000,25) # Expected output: ------- 750
print '-' * 25
print compute_active_users(835,17) # Expected output: ------- 693
print '-' * 25
Results:
-------------------------
750.0
-------------------------
631.0
-------------------------
The following will do it:
def compute_active_users(n, b):
return n * (1 - b / 100.)
Here:
b / 100. converts the percentage into a fraction.
1 - ... computes the remaining fraction.
n * ... computes the remaining number of users.
Note that this will happily return a fractional number of users, so you may want to add rounding as the final step.
Related
When the program divides two user inputted numbers, then times that, the program returns 0 every time
correct = input("User, Input the amount of correct answers. :")
points_possible = input("User, Input the amount of points possible. :")
score = correct / points_possible
grade = score * 10
print grade
The expected output
if (1/2) * 10 = 5, but will output 0
If you are using Python 2.7 version, the input that would be taken from the console would always be in the form of strings. So, you'll need to convert it to integers.
#code in Python 3.5
correct = int(input("User, Input the amount of correct answers. :"))
points_possible = int(input("User, Input the amount of points possible. :"))
score = correct / points_possible
grade = score * 10
print(grade)
The reason why you're just getting 0 in Python 2 is that if integers are given then you'll get integer division only. If you want float division, you need to make sure there is a decimal point somewhere so that Python knows it doesn't have to truncate the value to an int.
#code in Python 2.7
correct = float(raw_input("User, Input the amount of correct answers. :"))
points_possible = float(raw_input("User, Input the amount of points possible. :"))
score = correct / points_possible
grade = score * 10.0
print grade
it's because python needs you to make it understand that you divide by a float: you can either add .0 at the end of the diviser or type 10/float(2)
What would be a good way to check if a number x, can be expressed as the sum of digits of x, to the power y.
For example, 512 works because 5 + 1 + 2 = 8, and 8^3 = 512.
I just need help with the general approach, and not really the code.
Thanks!
import math
def check(n):
# sum digits and take the logarithm of input according to sum
l = math.log(n, sum(int(e) for e in str(n)))
# if diff is very small, then yes it can be expressed
return l - int(l) < 1e-6, int(l) # skip second if only check is needed
check(4) # True, 1
check(512) # True, 3
check(511) # False, 3
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
How to improve the efficiency of this code?
Suppose you have to deal with really big inputs.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{ //This program finds out the largest prime factor of given input
long int n,big=1;
cin>>n;
for (long int i=2;i<n;i=i+2)
{
if (n%i==0)
big=i;
}
cout<<big;
return 0;
}
For a start, I don't think the code you have is giving you the largest prime factor anyway, it's simply giving you the largest factor, whether that be prime or composite(1).
If you're after the largest prime factor (or zero if there is none), it can be found by repeated integer division, similar to the way many implementations of the UNIX factor program work, and along the lines of:
def largestPrimeFactor(n):
if n < 2: return 0 # Special case
denom = 2 # Check every denominator
big = 0
while denom * denom <= n: # Beyond sqrt, no factors exist
if n % denom == 0: # Check factor, then divide
big = denom
n = n / denom
else:
denom = denom + 1 # Or advance to next number
if n > big: # What's left may be bigger
big = n
return big
If you wanted even more efficiency, you can change the way you modify the denominator each time through the loop. Once you've checked two, every other prime must be odd so you could avoid rechecking even numbers, effectively halving the time taken:
def largestPrimeFactor(n):
if n < 2: return 0 # Special case
while n % 2 == 0: n = n / 2 # Check and discard twos
if n == 1: return 2 # Return if it was ALL twos
denom = 3 # Check every denominator
big = 0
while denom * denom <= n: # Beyond sqrt, no factors exist
if n % denom == 0: # Check factor, then divide
big = denom
n = n / denom
else:
denom = denom + 2 # Or advance to next odd number
if n > big: # What's left may be bigger
big = n
return big
There's also another method which skips more composites and it relies on the mathematical fact that, other than 2 and 3, every other prime number is of the form 6n±1(2).
Some composites also have this form, such as 25 and 33, but you can wear a small amount of inefficiency here.
While the change to using odd numbers shaved off 50% from the original effort, this one shaves off another 33% from the odd-number variant:
def largestPrimeFactor(n):
if n < 2: return 0 # Special case
while n % 2 == 0: n = n / 2 # Check and discard twos
if n == 1: return 2 # Return if it was ALL twos
while n % 3 == 0: n = n / 3 # Check and discard threes
if n == 1: return 3 # Return if it was ALL threes
denom = 5 # Check every denominator
adder = 2 # Initial value to add
big = 0
while denom * denom <= n: # Beyond sqrt, no factors exist
if n % denom == 0: # Check factor, then divide
big = denom
n = n / denom
else:
denom = denom + adder # Or advance to next denominator,
adder = 6 - adder # alternating +2, +4
if n > big: # What's left may be bigger
big = n
return big
The trick here is to start at five, alternately adding two at four:
vv vv (false positives)
5 7 11 13 17 19 23 25 29 31 35 37 41 ...
9 15 21 27 33 39 (6n+3, n>0)
and you can see it skipping every third odd number (9, 15, 21, 27, ...) since it's a multiple of three, which is where the 33% further reduction comes from. You can also see the false positives for primes (25 and 33 in this case but more will happen).
(1) Your original heading called for the largest even prime factor and the most efficient code for finding that would be the blindingly fast:
if (n % 2 == 0)
cout << 2 << '\n';
else
cout << "None exists\n";
(since there's only one even prime). However, I doubt that's what you really wanted.
(2) Divide any non-negative number by six. If the remainder is 0, 2 or 4, then it's even and therefore non-prime (2 is a special case here):
6n + 0 = 2(3n + 0), an even number.
6n + 2 = 2(3n + 1), an even number.
6n + 4 = 2(3n + 2), an even number.
If the remainder is 3, then it is divisible by 3 and therefore non-prime (3 is a special case here):
6n + 3 = 3(2n + 1), a multiple of three.
That leaves just the remainders 1 and 5, and those numbers are all of the form 6n±1. So, handling 2 and 3 as special cases, start at 5 and alternately add 2 and 4 and you can guarantee that all the primes (and a few composites) will be caught in the net.
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.
I'm pretty new to Python (just started teaching myself a week ago), so my debugging skills are weak right now. I tried to make a program that would ask a user-submitted number of randomly-generated multiplication questions, with factors between 0 and 12, like a multiplication table test.
import math
import random
#establish a number of questions
questions = int(input("\n How many questions do you want? "))
#introduce score
score = 1
for question in range(questions):
x = random.randrange(0,13)
y = random.randrange(0,13)
#make the numbers strings, so they can be printed with strings
abc = str(x)
cba = str(y)
print("What is " + abc + "*" + cba +"?")
z = int(input("Answer here: "))
print z
a = x*y
#make the answer a string, so it can be printed if you get one wrong
answer = str(a)
if z > a or z < a:
print ("wrong, the answer is " + answer)
print("\n")
#this is the line that's being skipped
score = score - 1/questions
else:
print "Correct!"
print ("\n")
finalscore = score*100
finalestscore = str(finalscore)
print (finalestscore + "%")
The idea was that every time the user gets a question wrong, score (set to 1) goes down by 1/question,so when multiplied by 100 it gives a percentage of questions wrong. However, no matter the number of questions or the number gotten wrong, score remains 1, so finalestscore remains 100. Line 26 used to be:
if math.abs(z)-math.abs(a) != 0:
but 2.7.3 apparently doesn't acknowledge that math has an abs function.
Such a simple accumulator pattern doesn't seem like it would be an issue, even for an older version of Python. Help?
Try score = score - 1.0/questions
The problem is that you're doing integer division, which truncates to the nearest integer, so 1/questions will always give 0.
The problem is that you are using integers for all of your calculations. In particular, when you calculate 1/questions, it truncates (rounds down) to an integer because both values in the calculation are integers.
To avoid this, you could instead use 1.0/questions to make the calculations use floating point numbers instead (and not truncate)