Getting wrong answer for Project Euler #27 - c++

I'm working on Project Euler #27 in C++:
Euler published the remarkable quadratic formula:
n² + n + 41
It turns out that the formula will produce 40 primes for the
consecutive values n = 0 to 39. However, when n = 40, 40² + 40 + 41 =
40(40 + 1) + 41 is divisible by 41, and certainly when n = 41, 41² +
41 + 41 is clearly divisible by 41.
Using computers, the incredible formula n² − 79n + 1601 was
discovered, which produces 80 primes for the consecutive values n = 0
to 79. The product of the coefficients, −79 and 1601, is −126479.
Considering quadratics of the form:
n² + an + b, where |a| < 1000 and |b| < 1000
where |n| is the modulus/absolute value of n
e.g. |11| = 11 and |−4| = 4
Find the product of the coefficients, a and b, for the quadratic
expression that produces the maximum number of primes for consecutive
values of n, starting with n = 0.
I keep getting -60939 when the real answer is -59231. What am I missing?
#include <iostream>
#include "Helper.h"
using namespace std;
int formula(int a, int b, int n) {
return ((n * n) + (a * n) + b);
}
int main() {
int most = 0;
int ansA = 0;
int ansB = 0;
bool end = false;
for(int a = 999; a >= -999; a--) {
for(int b = 999; b >= 2; b--) { //b must be prime
if(Helper::isPrime(b)) {
end = false;
for(int n = 0; !end; n++) {
if(!Helper::isPrime(formula(a, b, n))) {
if(n-1 > most) {
most = n-1;
ansA = a;
ansB = b;
}
end = true;
}
}
}
}
}
cout << ansA << " * " << ansB << " = " << ansA * ansB << " with " << most << " primes." << endl;
return 0;
}
In case it's the problem, here is my isPrime function:
bool Helper::isPrime(int num) {
if(num == 2)
return true;
if(num % 2 == 0 || num == 1 || num == 0)
return false;
int root = (int) sqrt((double)num) + 1;
for(int i = root; i >= 2; i--) {
if (num % i == 0)
return false;
}
return true;
}

You are allowing a to be negative, and your formula returns an int. Does calling Helper::isPrime with a negative number even make sense (in other words, does Helper::isPrime take an unsigned int?)

Here is my java version. Hope it helps:
static int function(int n, int a, int b){
return n*n + a*n + b;
}
static int consequitive_Primes(int a, int b, HashSet<Integer> primes){
int n = 0;
int number = 0;
while(true){
if(!primes.contains(function(n, a, b)))
break;
number++;
n++;
}
return number;
}
static HashSet<Integer> primes (int n){
ArrayList<Integer> primes = new ArrayList<Integer>();
primes.add(3);
for(int i=3; i<n;i+=2){
boolean isPrime = true;
for(Integer k:primes){
if(i%k==0){
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
if(isPrime) primes.add(i);
}
return new HashSet<Integer>(primes);
}
static long q27(){
HashSet<Integer> primes = primes(1000);
int max = 0;
int max_ab = 0;
for(int a = -999; a<1000;a++){
for(int b = -999; b<1000;b++){
int prime_No = consequitive_Primes(a,b,primes);
if(max<prime_No){
max = prime_No;
max_ab = a*b;
}
}
}
return max_ab;
}

Related

The next prime number

Among the given input of two numbers, check if the second number is exactly the next prime number of the first number. If so return "YES" else "NO".
#include <iostream>
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int nextPrime(int x){
int y =x;
for(int i=2; i <=sqrt(y); i++){
if(y%i == 0){
y = y+2;
nextPrime(y);
return (y);
}
}
return y;
}
int main()
{
int n,m, x(0);
cin >> n >> m;
x = n+2;
if(n = 2 && m == 3){
cout << "YES\n";
exit(0);
}
nextPrime(x) == m ? cout << "YES\n" : cout << "NO\n";
return 0;
}
Where is my code running wrong? It only returns true if next number is either +2 or +4.
Maybe it has something to do with return statement.
I can tell you two things you are doing wrong:
Enter 2 4 and you will check 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, ... for primality forever.
The other thing is
y = y+2;
nextPrime(y);
return (y);
should just be
return nextPrime(y + 2);
Beyond that your loop is highly inefficient:
for(int i=2; i <=sqrt(y); i++){
Handle even numbers as special case and then use
for(int i=3; i * i <= y; i += 2){
Using a different primality test would also be faster. For example Miller-Rabin primality test:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdint>
#include <array>
#include <ranges>
#include <cassert>
#include <bitset>
#include <bit>
// square and multiply algorithm for a^d mod n
uint32_t pow_n(uint32_t a, uint32_t d, uint32_t n) {
if (d == 0) __builtin_unreachable();
unsigned shift = std::countl_zero(d) + 1;
uint32_t t = a;
int32_t m = d << shift;
for (unsigned i = 32 - shift; i > 0; --i) {
t = ((uint64_t)t * t) % n;
if (m < 0) t = ((uint64_t)t * a) % n;
m <<= 1;
}
return t;
}
bool test(uint32_t n, unsigned s, uint32_t d, uint32_t a) {
uint32_t x = pow_n(a, d, n);
//std::cout << " x = " << x << std::endl;
if (x == 1 || x == n - 1) return true;
for (unsigned i = 1; i < s; ++i) {
x = ((uint64_t)x * x) % n;
if (x == n - 1) return true;
}
return false;
}
bool is_prime(uint32_t n) {
static const std::array witnesses{2u, 3u, 5u, 7u, 11u};
static const std::array bounds{
2'047u, 1'373'653u, 25'326'001u, 3'215'031'751u, UINT_MAX
};
static_assert(witnesses.size() == bounds.size());
if (n == 2) return true; // 2 is prime
if (n % 2 == 0) return false; // other even numbers are not
if (n <= witnesses.back()) { // I know the first few primes
return (std::ranges::find(witnesses, n) != std::end(witnesses));
}
// write n = 2^s * d + 1 with d odd
unsigned s = 0;
uint32_t d = n - 1;
while (d % 2 == 0) {
++s;
d /= 2;
}
// test widtnesses until the bounds say it's a sure thing
auto it = bounds.cbegin();
for (auto a : witnesses) {
//std::cout << a << " ";
if (!test(n, s, d, a)) return false;
if (n < *it++) return true;
}
return true;
}
And yes, that is an awful lot of code but it runs very few times.
Something to do with the return statement
I would say so
y = y+2;
nextPrime(y);
return (y);
can be replaced with
return nextPrime(y + 2);
Your version calls nextPrime but fails to do anything with the return value, instead it just returns y.
It would be more usual to code the nextPrime function with another loop, instead of writing a recursive function.

Choose maximum number in array so that their GCD is > 1

Question:
Given an array arr[] with N integers.
What is the maximum number of items that can be chosen from the array so that their GCD is greater than 1?
Example:
4
30 42 105 1
Answer: 3
Constransts
N <= 10^3
arr[i] <= 10^18
My take:
void solve(int i, int gcd, int chosen){
if(i > n){
maximize(res, chosen);
return;
}
solve(i+1, gcd, chosen);
if(gcd == -1) solve(i+1, arr[i], chosen+1);
else{
int newGcd = __gcd(gcd, arr[i]);
if(newGcd > 1) solve(i+1, newGcd, chosen+1);
}
}
After many tries, my code still clearly got TLE, is there any more optimized solution for this problem?
Interesting task you have. I implemented two variants of solutions.
All algorithms that are used in my code are: Greatest Common Divisor (through Euclidean Algorithm), Binary Modular Exponentiation, Pollard Rho, Trial Division, Fermat Primality Test.
First variant called SolveCommon() iteratively finds all possible unique factors of all numbers by computing pairwise Greatest Common Divisor.
When all possible unique factors are found one can compute count of each unique factor inside each number. Finally maximal count for any factor will be final answer.
Second variant called SolveFactorize() finds all factor by doing factorization of each number using three algorithms: Pollard Rho, Trial Division, Fermat Primality Test.
Pollard-Rho factorization algorithm is quite fast, it has time complexity O(N^(1/4)), so for 64-bit number it will take around 2^16 iterations. To compare, Trial Division algorithm has complexity of O(N^(1/2)) which is square times slower than Pollard Rho. So in code below Pollard Rho can handle 64 bit inputs, although not very fast.
First variant SolveCommon() is much faster than second SolveFactorize(), especially if numbers are quite large, timings are provided in console output after following code.
Code below as an example provides test of random 100 numbers each 20 bit. 64 bit 1000 numbers are too large to handle by SolveFactorize() method, but SolveCommon() method solves 1000 64-bit numbers within 1-2 seconds.
Try it online!
#include <cstdint>
#include <random>
#include <tuple>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <cmath>
#include <map>
#define LN { std::cout << "LN " << __LINE__ << std::endl; }
using u64 = uint64_t;
using u128 = unsigned __int128;
static std::mt19937_64 rng{123}; //{std::random_device{}()};
auto CurTime() {
return std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
}
static auto const gtb = CurTime();
double Time() {
return std::llround(std::chrono::duration_cast<
std::chrono::duration<double>>(CurTime() - gtb).count() * 1000) / 1000.0;
}
u64 PowMod(u64 a, u64 b, u64 const c) {
u64 r = 1;
while (b != 0) {
if (b & 1)
r = (u128(r) * a) % c;
a = (u128(a) * a) % c;
b >>= 1;
}
return r;
}
bool IsFermatPrp(u64 N, size_t ntrials = 24) {
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat_primality_test
if (N <= 10)
return N == 2 || N == 3 || N == 5 || N == 7;
for (size_t trial = 0; trial < ntrials; ++trial)
if (PowMod(rng() % (N - 3) + 2, N - 1, N) != 1)
return false;
return true;
}
bool FactorTrialDivision(u64 N, std::vector<u64> & factors, u64 limit = u64(-1)) {
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_division
if (N <= 1)
return true;
while ((N & 1) == 0) {
factors.push_back(2);
N >>= 1;
}
for (u64 d = 3; d <= limit && d * d <= N; d += 2)
while (N % d == 0) {
factors.push_back(d);
N /= d;
}
if (N > 1)
factors.push_back(N);
return N == 1;
}
u64 GCD(u64 a, u64 b) {
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm
while (b != 0)
std::tie(a, b) = std::make_tuple(b, a % b);
return a;
}
bool FactorPollardRho(u64 N, std::vector<u64> & factors) {
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollard%27s_rho_algorithm
auto f = [N](auto x) -> u64 { return (u128(x + 1) * (x + 1)) % N; };
auto DiffAbs = [](auto x, auto y){ return x >= y ? x - y : y - x; };
if (N <= 1)
return true;
if (IsFermatPrp(N)) {
factors.push_back(N);
return true;
}
for (size_t trial = 0; trial < 8; ++trial) {
u64 x = rng() % (N - 2) + 1;
size_t total_steps = 0;
for (size_t cycle = 1;; ++cycle) {
bool good = true;
u64 y = x;
for (u64 i = 0; i < (u64(1) << cycle); ++i) {
x = f(x);
++total_steps;
u64 const d = GCD(DiffAbs(x, y), N);
if (d > 1) {
if (d == N) {
good = false;
break;
}
//std::cout << N << ": " << d << ", " << total_steps << std::endl;
if (!FactorPollardRho(d, factors))
return false;
if (!FactorPollardRho(N / d, factors))
return false;
return true;
}
}
if (!good)
break;
}
}
factors.push_back(N);
return false;
}
void Factor(u64 N, std::vector<u64> & factors) {
if (N <= 1)
return;
if (1) {
FactorTrialDivision(N, factors, 1 << 8);
N = factors.back();
factors.pop_back();
}
FactorPollardRho(N, factors);
}
size_t SolveFactorize(std::vector<u64> const & nums) {
std::unordered_map<u64, size_t> cnts;
std::vector<u64> factors;
std::set<u64> unique_factors;
for (auto num: nums) {
factors.clear();
Factor(num, factors);
//std::cout << num << ": "; for (auto f: factors) std::cout << f << " "; std::cout << std::endl;
unique_factors.clear();
unique_factors.insert(factors.begin(), factors.end());
for (auto f: unique_factors)
++cnts[f];
}
size_t max_cnt = 0;
for (auto [_, cnt]: cnts)
max_cnt = std::max(max_cnt, cnt);
return max_cnt;
}
size_t SolveCommon(std::vector<u64> const & nums) {
size_t const K = nums.size();
std::set<u64> cmn(nums.begin(), nums.end()), cmn2, tcmn;
std::map<u64, bool> used;
cmn.erase(1);
while (true) {
cmn2.clear();
used.clear();
for (auto i = cmn.rbegin(); i != cmn.rend(); ++i) {
auto j = i;
++j;
for (; j != cmn.rend(); ++j) {
auto gcd = GCD(*i, *j);
if (gcd != 1) {
used[*i] = true;
used[*j] = true;
cmn2.insert(gcd);
cmn2.insert(*i / gcd);
cmn2.insert(*j / gcd);
break;
}
}
if (!used[*i])
tcmn.insert(*i);
}
cmn2.erase(1);
if (cmn2.empty())
break;
cmn = cmn2;
}
//for (auto c: cmn) std::cout << c << " "; std::cout << std::endl;
std::unordered_map<u64, size_t> cnts;
for (auto num: nums)
for (auto c: tcmn)
if (num % c == 0)
++cnts[c];
size_t max_cnt = 0;
for (auto [_, cnt]: cnts)
max_cnt = std::max(max_cnt, cnt);
return max_cnt;
}
void TestRandom() {
size_t const cnt_nums = 1000;
std::vector<u64> nums;
for (size_t i = 0; i < cnt_nums; ++i) {
nums.push_back((rng() & ((u64(1) << 20) - 1)) | 1);
//std::cout << nums.back() << " ";
}
//std::cout << std::endl;
{
auto tb = Time();
std::cout << "common " << SolveCommon(nums) << " time " << (Time() - tb) << std::endl;
}
{
auto tb = Time();
std::cout << "factorize " << SolveFactorize(nums) << " time " << (Time() - tb) << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
TestRandom();
}
Output:
common 325 time 0.061
factorize 325 time 0.005
I think you need to search among all possible prime numbers to find out which prime number can divide most element in the array.
Code:
std::vector<int> primeLessEqualThanN(int N) {
std::vector<int> primes;
for (int x = 2; x <= N; ++x) {
bool isPrime = true;
for (auto& p : primes) {
if (x % p == 0) {
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
if (isPrime) primes.push_back(x);
}
return primes;
}
int maxNumberGCDGreaterThan1(int N, std::vector<int>& A) {
int A_MAX = *std::max_element(A.begin(), A.end()); // largest number in A
std::vector<int> primes = primeLessEqualThanN(std::sqrt(A_MAX));
int max_count = 0;
for (auto& p : primes) {
int count = 0;
for (auto& n : A)
if (n % p == 0)
count++;
max_count = count > max_count ? count : max_count;
}
return max_count;
}
Note that in this way you cannot find out the value of the GCD, the code is based on that we dont need to know it.

Count of binary numbers from 1 to n

I want to find the number of numbers between 1 and n that are valid numbers in base two (binary).
1 ≤ n ≤ 10^9
For example, suppose n is equal to 101.
Input: n = 101
In this case, the answer is 5
Output: 1, 10, 11, 100, 101 -> 5
Another example
Input: n = 13
Output: 1, 10, 11 -> 3
Here is my code...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n, c = 0;
cin >> n;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i)
{
int temp = i;
bool flag = true;
while(temp != 0) {
int rem = temp % 10;
if (rem > 1)
{
flag = false;
break;
}
temp /= 10;
}
if (flag)
{
c++;
}
}
cout << c;
return 0;
}
But I want more speed.
(With only one loop or maybe without any loop)
Thanks in advance!
The highest binary number that will fit in a d-digit number d1 d2 ... dn is
b1 b2 ... bn where
bi = 0 if di = 0, and
bi = 1 otherwise.
A trivial implementation using std::to_string:
int max_binary(int input) {
int res = 0;
auto x = std::to_string(input);
for (char di : x) {
int bi = x == '0' ? 0 : 1;
res = 2 * res + bi;
}
return res;
}
Details:
In each step, if the digit was one, then we add 2 to the power of the number of digits we have.
If the number was greater than 1, then all cases are possible for that number of digits, and we can also count that digit itself and change the answer altogether (-1 is because we do not want to calculate the 0).
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
long long int n, res = 0, power = 1;
cin >> n;
while(n != 0) {
int rem = n % 10;
if (rem == 1) {
res += power;
} else if (rem > 1) {
res = 2 * power - 1;
}
n /= 10;
power *= 2;
}
cout << res;
return 0;
}

Checking if a number is a palindrome

I've tried to check whether a number is a palindrome with the following code:
unsigned short digitsof (unsigned int x)
{
unsigned short n = 0;
while (x)
{
x /= 10;
n++;
}
return n;
}
bool ispalindrome (unsigned int x)
{
unsigned short digits = digitsof (x);
for (unsigned short i = 1; i <= digits / 2; i++)
{
if (x % (unsigned int)pow (10, i) != x % (unsigned int)pow (10, digits - 1 + i))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
However, the following code isn't able to check for palindromes - false is always returned even if the number is a palindrome.
Can anyone point out the error?
(Please note: I'm not interested to make it into a string and reverse it to see where the problem is: rather, I'm interested to know where the error is in the above code.)
I personally would just build a string from the number, and then treat it as a normal palindrome check (check that each character in the first half matches the ones at length()-index).
x % (unsigned int)pow (10, i) is not the ith digit.
The problem is this:
x % (unsigned int)pow (10, i)
Lets try:
x =504405
i =3
SO I want 4.
x % 10^3 => 504405 %1000 => 405 NOT 4
How about
x / (unsigned int)pow (10, i -1) % 10
Just for more info! The following two functions are working for me:
double digitsof (double x)
{
double n = 0;
while (x > 1)
{
x /= 10;
n++;
}
return n;
}
bool ispalindrome (double x)
{
double digits = digitsof (x);
double temp = x;
for(double i = 1; i <= digits/2; i++)
{
float y = (int)temp % 10;
cout<<y<<endl;
temp = temp/10;
float z = (int)x / (int)pow(10 , digits - i);
cout<<(int)z<<endl;
x = (int)x % (int)pow(10 , digits - i);
if(y != z)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Code to check if given number is palindrome or not in JAVA
import java.util.*;
public class HelloWorld{
private static int countDigits(int num) {
int count = 0;
while(num>0) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
public static boolean isPalin(int num) {
int digs = HelloWorld.countDigits(num);
int divderToFindMSD = 1;
int divderToFindLSD = 1;
for (int i = 0; i< digs -1; i++)
divderToFindMSD *= 10;
int mid = digs/2;
while(mid-- != 0)
{
int msd = (num/divderToFindMSD)%10;
int lsd = (num/divderToFindLSD)%10;
if(msd!=lsd)
return false;
divderToFindMSD /= 10;
divderToFindLSD *= 10;
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String []args) {
boolean isPalin = HelloWorld.isPalin(1221);
System.out.println("Results: " + isPalin);
}
}
I have done this with my own solution which is restricted with these conditions
Do not convert int to string.
Do not use any helper function.
var inputNumber = 10801
var firstDigit = 0
var lastDigit = 0
var quotient = inputNumber
while inputNumber > 0 {
lastDigit = inputNumber % 10
var tempNum = inputNumber
var count = 0
while tempNum > 0 {
tempNum = tempNum / 10
count = count + 1
}
var n = 1
for _ in 1 ..< count {
n = n * 10
}
firstDigit = quotient / n
if firstDigit != lastDigit {
print("Not a palindrome :( ")
break
}
quotient = quotient % n
inputNumber = inputNumber / 10
}
if firstDigit == lastDigit {
print("It's a palindrome :D :D ")
}

Miller-Rabin primality test issue in C++

I've been trying to implement the algorithm from wikipedia and while it's never outputting composite numbers as primes, it's outputting like 75% of primes as composites.
Up to 1000 it gives me this output for primes:
3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 41, 97, 193, 257, 641, 769
As far as I know, my implementation is EXACTLY the same as the pseudo-code algorithm. I've debugged it line by line and it produced all of the expected variable values (I was following along with my calculator). Here's my function:
bool primeTest(int n)
{
int s = 0;
int d = n - 1;
while (d % 2 == 0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
// this is the LOOP from the pseudo-algorithm
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int range = n - 4;
int a = rand() % range + 2;
//int a = rand() % (n/2 - 2) + 2;
bool skip = false;
long x = long(pow(a, d)) % n;
if (x == 1 || x == n - 1)
continue;
for (int r = 1; r < s; r++)
{
x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
if (x == 1)
{
// is not prime
return false;
}
else if (x == n - 1)
{
skip = true;
break;
}
}
if (!skip)
{
// is not prime
return false;
}
}
// is prime
return true;
}
Any help would be appreciated D:
EDIT: Here's the entire program, edited as you guys suggested - and now the output is even more broken:
bool primeTest(int n);
int main()
{
int count = 1; // number of found primes, 2 being the first of course
int maxCount = 10001;
long n = 3;
long maxN = 1000;
long prime = 0;
while (count < maxCount && n <= maxN)
{
if (primeTest(n))
{
prime = n;
cout << prime << endl;
count++;
}
n += 2;
}
//cout << prime;
return 0;
}
bool primeTest(int n)
{
int s = 0;
int d = n - 1;
while (d % 2 == 0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int range = n - 4;
int a = rand() % range + 2;
//int a = rand() % (n/2 - 2) + 2;
bool skip = false;
//long x = long(pow(a, d)) % n;
long x = a;
for (int z = 1; z < d; z++)
{
x *= x;
}
x = x % n;
if (x == 1 || x == n - 1)
continue;
for (int r = 1; r < s; r++)
{
//x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
x = (x * x) % n;
if (x == 1)
{
return false;
}
else if (x == n - 1)
{
skip = true;
break;
}
}
if (!skip)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
Now the output of primes, from 3 to 1000 (as before), is:
3, 5, 17, 257
I see now that x gets too big and it just turns into a garbage value, but I wasn't seeing that until I removed the "% n" part.
The likely source of error is the two calls to the pow function. The intermediate results will be huge (especially for the first call) and will probably overflow, causing the error. You should look at the modular exponentiation topic at Wikipedia.
Source of problem is probably here:
x = long(pow(x, 2)) % n;
pow from C standard library works on floating point numbers, so using it is a very bad idea if you just want to compute powers modulo n. Solution is really simple, just square the number by hand:
x = (x * x) % n