I am trying to solve a execise, which amis to find the Last Digit of a Large Fibonacci Number, and I try to search for others' solution, and I find one here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/program-find-last-digit-nth-fibonnaci-number/, then I copy and paste the method 2, and I just changed the ll f[60] = {0}; to ll f[60]; but this doesn't work properly on CLion, my test code
int n; std:cin>>n;
`
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
std::cout << findLastDigit(i) << '\n';
}
return 0;
}` the error: SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault). Could someone give me a hint or reference or something?
Correct me if I'm totally off base here, but if I'm looking at this correctly, you don't need to actually calculate anything ::
the last digit of Fibonacci sequence numbers appears to have a predictable pattern that repeats every 60th time, as such (starting with F.0 ) :
011235831459437077415617853819099875279651673033695493257291
011235831459437077415617853819099875279651673033695493257291
011235831459437077415617853819099875279651673033695493257291
011235831459437077415617853819099875279651673033695493257291
011235831459437077415617853819099875279651673033695493257291 ….etc
So all you have to do is quickly compute the list from F.0 to F.59, then take whatever insanely large input , modulo-% 60, and simply look up this reference array.
———————————————
UPDATE 1 : upon further research, it seems there's more of a pattern to it :
last 1 : every 60
last 2 : every 300 ( 5x)
last 3 : every 1,500 ( 5x)
last 4 % 5,000 : every 7,500 ( 5x)
last 4 : every 15,000 (10x)
last 5 % 50,000 : every 75,000 ( 5x)
last 5 : every 150,000 (10x)
For a large number, you probably want to utilize a cache. Could you do something like this?
// Recursive solution
int fib(int n, int cache[]) {
if (n == 0) {
return 0;
}
if (n == 1) {
return 1;
}
if (cache[n]!= 0) {
return cache[n];
}
cache[n] = fib(n - 1, cache) + fib(n - 2, cache);
return cache[n];
}
// Iterative solution
int fib(int n) {
int cache[n + 1];
cache[0] = 0;
cache[1] = 1;
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++) {
cache[i] = cache[i - 1] + cache[i - 2];
}
return cache[n];
}
(Re-write)
Segfaults are caused when trying to read or write an illegal memory location.
Running the original code already produces an access violation on my machine.
I modified the original code at two locations. I replaced #include<bits/stdc++.h> with #include <iostream> and added one line of debug output:
// Optimized Program to find last
// digit of nth Fibonacci number
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef long long int ll;
// Finds nth fibonacci number
ll fib(ll f[], ll n)
{
// 0th and 1st number of
// the series are 0 and 1
f[0] = 0;
f[1] = 1;
// Add the previous 2 numbers
// in the series and store
// last digit of result
for (ll i = 2; i <= n; i++)
f[i] = (f[i - 1] + f[i - 2]) % 10;
cout << "n (valid range 0, ... ,59): " << n << endl;
return f[n];
}
// Returns last digit of n'th Fibonacci Number
int findLastDigit(int n)
{
ll f[60] = {0};
// Precomputing units digit of
// first 60 Fibonacci numbers
fib(f, 60);
return f[n % 60];
}
// Driver code
int main ()
{
ll n = 1;
cout << findLastDigit(n) << endl;
n = 61;
cout << findLastDigit(n) << endl;
n = 7;
cout << findLastDigit(n) << endl;
n = 67;
cout << findLastDigit(n) << endl;
return 0;
}
Compiling and running it on my machine:
$ g++ fib_original.cpp
$ ./a.out
n (valid range 0, ... ,59): 60
zsh: abort ./a.out
ll f[60] has indices ranging from 0 to 59 and index 60 is out of range.
Compiling and running the same code on https://www.onlinegdb.com/
n (valid range 0, ... ,59): 60
1
n (valid range 0, ... ,59): 60
1
n (valid range 0, ... ,59): 60
3
n (valid range 0, ... ,59): 60
3
Although it is an out-of-range access that environment handles it just fine.
In order to find the reason why it is running with array initialization and crashing without on your machine needs some debugging on your machine.
My suspicion is that when the array gets initialized the memory layout changes allowing to use the one additional entry.
Please note that access outside of the array bounds is undefined behavior as explained in Accessing an array out of bounds gives no error, why?.
Related
for example, if I enter 12, I want to get 81 41 as the set bits in 12 are 1100
This is what I have for now, I do not think I am implementing the for loop correctly
#include <stdio.h>
void bin(unsigned n)
{
char list[6];
int x = 0, y = 1;
/* step 1 */
if (n > 1)
bin(n / 2);
/* step 2 */
list[x] = n % 2;
x++;
/*for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) {
printf("%d\n",list[i]);
}*/
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 5) {
printf("32%i",y);
}
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 4) {
printf("16%i",y);
}
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 3) {
printf("8%i",y);
}
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 2) {
printf("4%i",y);
}
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 1) {
printf("2%i",y);
}
if(list[i] == 1 && i == 0) {
printf("1%i",y);
}
}
}
I checked that I was correctly storing the bytes in the array, and it outputted correctly, but when I try to look for them one at a time in a loop, it seems to get stuck on the 32 bit integer, so for 12, it would print 321 321
This program has Undefined Behaviour from accessing uninitialized values of list. I'm going to refactor this code so its easier to talk about, but know this refactored code is still incorrect.
x is always 0. y is always 1. x++ has no effect. This function can be rewritten as:
void bin(unsigned n)
{
char list[6];
if (n > 1)
bin(n / 2);
list[0] = n % 2;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
if (list[i] == 1) {
switch (i) {
case 5: printf("321"); break;
case 4: printf("161"); break;
case 3: printf("81"); break;
case 2: printf("41"); break;
case 1: printf("21"); break;
case 0: printf("11"); break;
}
}
}
}
There are some problems here.
Firstly, list is not shared between calls to bin, nor are any other variables.
In every call to bin, only list[0] is assigned a value - all others indices contain uninitialized values. You are (un)lucky in that these values are seemingly never 1.
With your example of 12 as the starting value:
When you initially call bin(12), what happens is:
bin(12) calls bin(6), bin(6) calls bin(3), bin(3) calls bin(1).
Starting from the end and working backwards, in bin(1):
n = 1, so list[0] = n % 2; assigns 1. The loop checks each element of list for the value 1, finds it when the index (i) equals 0, and prints 11.
This is repeated in bin(3), as 3 % 2 is also 1, and again this result is assigned to the first element of list. Again, we print 11.
In bin(6), 6 % 2 is 0. The loop finds no elements of list that equal 1. Nothing is printed.
And again, this is repeated in bin(12), as 12 % 2 is 0. Nothing is printed.
To reiterate, it is pure luck that this program appears to work. Accessing list[1] through list[4] (i < 5 ensures you never access the last element) in each function call is Undefined Behaviour. It is generally not worth reasoning about a program once UB has been invoked.
When dealing with bits, it would be a good time to use some bitwise operators.
Here is a program that more-or-less does what you have described.
It assumes 32-bit unsigned (consider using fixed width types from <stdint.h> to be more precise).
This program works by repeatedly shifting the bits of our initial value to the right b number of places and testing if the rightmost bit is set.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
unsigned num = argc > 1 ? atoi(argv[1]) : 42;
unsigned b = 32;
while (b--)
if ((num >> b) & 1)
printf("%u1 ", 1 << b);
putchar('\n');
}
$ ./a.out 12
81 41
I'm trying to create a pseudo-random generator API, but numbers generated by xorshift have unrandom nature. You can see the algorithm and tests here:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/* basic random stream structure */
typedef struct Random64 {
uint64_t seed;
uint64_t current;
} Random64;
/* returns a new stream of uint64_t values */
Random64 new_rand64(uint64_t seed) {
Random64 new_stream;
if (seed == 0) {
perror("SEED MUST BE A NON-ZERO VALUE");
}
new_stream.seed = new_stream.current = seed;
return new_stream;
}
/* returns the next random value from sequence initialized with seed */
uint64_t next64(Random64* stream) {
uint64_t cur = stream->current;
cur ^= cur << 13;
cur ^= cur >> 35;
cur ^= cur << 30;
return stream->current = cur;
}
/* returns the first digit of given number */
uint64_t get_first_digit(uint64_t num) {
while (num >= 10) {
num /= 10;
}
return num;
}
/* returns the last digit of given number */
uint64_t get_last_digit(uint64_t num) {
return num % 10;
}
int main(void) {
Random64 stream = new_rand64(12358101632999);
uint64_t lasts[10] = {0};
uint64_t firsts[10] = {0};
/* test */
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i) {
uint64_t val = next64(&stream);
++lasts[get_last_digit(val)];
++firsts[get_first_digit(val)];
}
/* print all last digits */
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
printf("Last %d occurs %llu times\n", i, lasts[i]);
}
putchar('\n');
/* print all first digits */
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
printf("First %d occurs %llu times\n", i, firsts[i]);
}
return 0;
}
The problem I'm facing is this output from my test above:
Last 0 occurs 9925 times
Last 1 occurs 9976 times
Last 2 occurs 9799 times
Last 3 occurs 10042 times
Last 4 occurs 10056 times
Last 5 occurs 9942 times
Last 6 occurs 10281 times
Last 7 occurs 9913 times
Last 8 occurs 10107 times
Last 9 occurs 9959 times
First 0 occurs 0 times
First 1 occurs 51813 times < "one" occurs almost 9 times more than other numbers
First 2 occurs 6036 times
First 3 occurs 5909 times
First 4 occurs 6081 times
First 5 occurs 6122 times
First 6 occurs 5993 times
First 7 occurs 6103 times
First 8 occurs 5936 times
First 9 occurs 6007 times
I know that some versions of xorshift have troubles with higher and/or lower bits, but I tried all variations (including CUDA's version) described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xorshift, and ALL of them give predictive results.
Where is the mistake? Are there any alternatives (except linear congruential RNGs) for this kind of task?
You're looking at random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 (UINT64_MAX). All numbers between 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 start with a 1, so the skewed distribution is to be expected.
I'm a computer engineering student and next semester I am going to start C course. So in order to prepare myself a bit, I have started learning C by myself and stumbled across an interesting task, designed for, how it seemed to me at first sight, not a very advanced level.
The task is to write a program to compute the value of a given position in Pascal's Triangle. And the formula given to compute it is written as element = row! / ( position! * (row - position)! )
I've written a simple console program that seems to work okay, until I get to testing it with large numbers.
When trying this program with row 16 and position 3, it calculates the value as 0, although it's obvious that there can't be such a value (in fact it should compute the value as 560), all cells of this triangle are supposed to be integers and be greater than one.
I suppose I'm experiencing a problem with storing and processing large numbers. The factorial function seems to work okay, and the formula I used works until I get to trying large numbers
So far the best solution was found here - How do you printf an unsigned long long int(the format specifier for unsigned long long int)? using inttypes.h library with type uint64_t but it still doesn't give me the result I need.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
void clear_input(void);
uint64_t factorial(int x);
int main()
{
// Printing
printf("This program computes the value of a given position in Pascal's Triangle.\n");
printf("You will be asked for row and position of the value.\n");
printf("Note that the rows and positions starts from 0.\n");
printf("\n");
printf(" 1 * 0 \n");
printf(" 1 1 * 1 \n");
printf(" 1 2 1 * 2 \n");
printf(" 1 3 3 1 * 3 \n");
printf(" 1 4 6 4 1 * 4 \n");
printf(" **************** \n");
printf(" 0 1 2 3 4 \n");
printf("\n");
// Initializing
int row, pos;
// Input Row
printf("Enter the row: ");
scanf("%d", &row);
clear_input();
// Input Position
printf("Enter the position in the row: ");
scanf("%d", &pos);
clear_input();
// Initializing
uint64_t element, element_1, element_2, element_3, element_4;
// Previously written as -> element = ( factorial(row) ) / ( factorial(pos) * factorial(row - pos) );
// Doesn't fix the problem
element_1 = factorial(row);
element_2 = factorial(pos);
element_3 = factorial(row - pos);
element_4 = element_2 * element_3;
element = element_1 / element_4;
// Print result
printf("\n");
printf("%"PRIu64"\n", element_1); // Temporary output
printf("%"PRIu64"\n", element_2); // Temporary output
printf("%"PRIu64"\n", element_3); // Temporary output
printf("%"PRIu64"\n", element_4); // Temporary output
printf("\n");
printf("The element is %"PRIu64"", element);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
void clear_input(void) // Temporary function to clean input from the keyboard
{
while(getchar() != '\n');
}
uint64_t factorial(int x) // Function to calculate factorial
{
int f = 1, i = x;
if (x == 0) {
return 1;
}
while (i != 1) {
f = f * i;
i = i - 1;
}
return f;
}
Factorials get really big really fast (scroll down a little to see the list). Even a 64-bit number is only good up to 20!. So you have to do a little preprocessing before you start multiplying.
The general idea is to factor the numerator and the denominator, and remove all of the common factors. Since the results of Pascal's Triangle are always integers, you are guaranteed that the denominator will be 1 after all common factors have been removed.
For example let's say you have row=35 and position=10. Then the calculation is
element = 35! / (10! * 25!)
which is
35 * 34 * 33 * ... * 26 * 25 * 24 * ... * 3 * 2 * 1
---------------------------------------------------
10! * 25 * 24 * ... * 3 * 2 * 1
So the first simplification is that the larger factorial in the denominator cancels all of the smaller terms of the numerator. Which leaves
35 * 34 * 33 * ... * 26
-----------------------
10 * 9 * 8 * ... * 1
Now we need to remove the remaining common factors in the numerator and denominator. It helps to put all the number of the numerator in an array. Then, for each number in the denominator, compute the greatest common divisor (gcd) and divide the numerator and denominator by the gcd.
The following code demonstrates the technique.
array[10] = { 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26 };
for ( d = 10; d >= 2; d-- )
{
temp = d;
for ( i = 0; i < 10 && temp > 1; i++ )
{
common = gcd( array[i], temp );
array[i] /= common;
temp /= common;
}
}
Here's what the code does step by step
d=10 i=0 temp=10 array[0]=35 ==> gcd(35,10)=5, so array[0]=35/5=7 and temp=10/5=2
d=10 i=1 temp=2 array[1]=34 ==> gcd(34, 2)=2, so array[1]=34/2=17 and temp=2/2=1
inner loop breaks because temp==1
d=9 i=0 temp=9 array[0]=7 ==> gcd(7,9)=1, so nothing changes
d=9 i=1 temp=9 array[1]=17 ==> gcd(17,9)=1, so nothing changes
d=9 i=2 temp=9 array[2]=33 ==> gcd(33,9)=3, so array[2]=11 and temp=3
d=9 i=3 ==> gcd(32,3)=1
d=9 i=4 ==> gcd(31,3)=1
d=9 i=5 temp=3 array[5]=30 ==> gcd(30,3)=3, so array[5]=10 and temp=1
inner loop breaks
When all is said and done the array ends up as
array[10] = { 1, 17, 11, 1, 31, 1, 29, 14, 3, 26 }
Multiply those numbers together and the answer is 183579396, and the entire calculation could be performed using 32-bit ints. In general, as long as the answer fits into 32-bits, the calculations can be done with 32-bits.
(my C is rusty, so this may not be super accurate)
Your factorial function is returning a uint64_t, but it's doing the computation with regular ints. If you changed f and i to uint64_t I think you'll avoid your current integer overflow issue.
However, you're still going to run into overflow pretty quickly (uint64_t will overflow around 21!). To avoid this you can be a bit smarter with the algorithm. With row=16 and position=3, you need 16! / (3! * 13!). You can cancel out most of the terms (16!/13! is just 14*15*16) and end up with 14*15*16 / (1*2*3). This'll let your program go a lot further than row 21.
When you are calculating the factorial, even though you are returning a 64-bit integer it won't make a difference if you are using regular int variables for your intermediate calculations. Change to this:
uint64_t factorial(uint64_t x)
{
uint64_t f = 1, i = x;
if (x == 0) {
return 1;
}
while (i != 1) {
f = f * i;
i = i - 1;
}
return f;
}
Also, think about how you can rearrange the equation so that you don't have to calculate really large intermediate values. For example you could rearrange to this:
element = ( factorial(row) / factorial(pos) ) / factorial(row - pos);
Then you won't be multiplying two factorials together and getting a really large number.
Also, when you compute factorial(row) / factorial(pos) you can eliminate terms that will be in both factorial(row) and factorial(pos), so you don't need to calculate the entire factorials.
This will work:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf ("\n");
int n = 10;
int i;
int j;
int x[n];
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
x[i] = 0;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
for (j = n - 1; j >= 1; j--)
x[j] = x[j-1] + x[j];
x[0] = 1;
int s = n - i;
for (j = 0; j < s; j++)
printf (" ");
for (j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
if (x[j] != 0)
printf (" %3d", x[j]);
}
printf ("\n");
}
printf ("\n");
return 0;
}
I am working on project euler #14 :
Question:
The following iterative sequence is defined for the set of positive integers:
n → n/2 (n is even)
n → 3n + 1 (n is odd)
Using the rule above and starting with 13, we generate the following sequence:
13 → 40 → 20 → 10 → 5 → 16 → 8 → 4 → 2 → 1
It can be seen that this sequence (starting at 13 and finishing at 1) contains 10 terms. Although it has not been proved yet (Collatz Problem), it is thought that all starting numbers finish at 1.
Which starting number, under one million, produces the longest chain?
NOTE: Once the chain starts the terms are allowed to go above one million.
Problem:
When I run this code, the first for loop runs as expected. But then the variable num seems to not increment in the for loop and stays on 2 (which isn't even in the perameters of num I gave to start out with), giving the output:
2
0
1
1
repeating over and over again. Not sure why this is happening and can't find anything online.
Code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int maxcount = 0;
for (int num = 5; num < 2000000; num++) {
printf("%d\n0\n\n", num);
int count = 0;
while (num >= 1) {
count++;
if (num == 2) {
num = 1;
printf("1\n%d\n\n", count);
}
if (num > 1) {
if (num % 2 == 0) {
num = num / 2;
printf("%d\n%d\n\n", num, count);
}
else {
num = (3 * num) + 1;
printf("%d\n%d\n\n", num, count);
}
}
if (num == 1) {
break;
}
}
if (count > maxcount) {
maxcount = count;
}
}
printf("%d", maxcount);
return 0;
}
You need to introduce a new variable. You are doing:
for (int num = 5; num < 2000000; num++) {
/* collatz stuff, which modifies num, and eventually
causes it to become 1
*/
}
so when the num++ portion of the for loop runs, num becomes 2.
What you want is
for (int start = 5 ; start < 2000000 ; start++) {
int num = start;
/* collatz stuff, which modifies num */
}
since the variable start is never modified by the loop body, it will keep going up in sequence by 1, without interference.
In the while loop, you change the value of the loop variable (num).
You start with num = 5, and the inner while loop then follows Collatz's rules and gets to 1, at which point the while-loop ends.
Then the for-loop ends, and num is incremented to 2 by num++, and the next iteration of the loop begins.
In the second iteration, the while-loop immediately sees num == 2, so it sets num = 1, and the while loop ends. Then the for-loop ends, incrementing num to 2, and the cycle continues forever.
As others have said, you just need to leave the loop variable alone and use a different variable in the inner loop.
EDIT: When I upload the code to the automatic testing platform the program doesn't crash there - it returns the correct result, but takes too long (exceeds 5 seconds)... wtf...
For university I have to implement a function that returns the number of steps taken from the input to reach 1, by following the collatz conjecture. The conjecture is very simple - given any integer number:
1. If it is even - divide it by two (n/2)
2. If it is odd - times it by 3 and add one (n*3+1)
The conjecture is that all numbers will eventually reach 1. We don't have to prove or check this, we just need to return the steps taken for a given number.
We have done this problem before, but this time we must check much larger numbers (they specify to use long instead of int) AND use recursion. They have given us skeleton code, and asked us to implement only the function - so all of my code is contained inside
int lengthCollatz(long n) { //mycode }
The skeleton code in the main collects two input values - a and b, where a < b <100000000. It checks how many steps it takes for each number between a and b, following the collatz sequence, to reach 1, and then returns the number with the highest amount of steps taken.
The function I added seems to work perfectly fine, but at larger values (when input 2 is in the millions) it seems to crash for no reason and gives no error. I've tried changing everything to unsigned longs and even long longs to see if something is overflowing - in that case the program just gets stuck... I don't understand what's wrong, please help me diagnose the error. P.S. How can I improve the speed of these calculations? We have a limit of 5 seconds.
All of my code is inside the lengthCollatz function (and the length global variable just above it) Can you identify the problem?
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAX64 9223372036854775807L /* 2ˆ63 -1 */
int length = 0;
int lengthCollatz(long n) {
length++;
//if not 1
if(n!=1){
//if odd
if(n&1) {
lengthCollatz(n=n*3+1);
}
//if even
else {
lengthCollatz(n/=2);
}
}
//if reached n = 1
else {
//return amount of steps taken
int returnLength = length;
length = 0;
return returnLength;
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int n, a, b, len=-1;
scanf ("%d %d", &a, &b);
while (a <= b) {
int l = lengthCollatz(a);
if (l > len) {
n = a;
len = l;
}
a++;
}
printf("%d\n", n);
return 0;
}
Updated function:
int lengthCollatz(long n) {
if(n==1){
//return depthRecursion;
}
else {
if(n&1) {
n=n*3+1;
}
else {
n/=2;
}
return lengthCollatz(n);
}
}
Here's one alternative version which does not segfault for the input range given by OP:
int collatz(unsigned long n)
{
if (n == 1)
return 1;
else if (n & 1)
return 1 + collatz(n * 3 + 1);
else
return 1 + collatz(n >> 1);
}
AFAICT, it works OK, but it's very slow. 29 seconds on my mediocre PC. An optimized version runs two seconds faster by not calling itself when the result can be precomputed, but that version borders on manual loop unrolling. FWIW:
int collatz(unsigned long n)
{
if (n == 1)
return 1;
if (n & 1)
return 2 + collatz((n * 3 + 1) >> 1);
// Is n dividable by 16?
if (n & 0xF == 0)
return 4 + collatz(n >> 4);
// Is n dividable by 8?
if (n & 0x7 == 0)
return 3 + collatz(n >> 3);
// Is n dividable by 4?
if (n & 0x3 == 0)
return 2 + collatz(n >> 2);
return 1 + collatz(n >> 1);
}
There are of course other ways to solve this, but to finish in five seconds? Please post the solution if you find one.