Is there any simple way to make this small program faster? I've made it for an assignment, and it's correct but too slow. The aim of the program is to print the nth pair of primes where the difference between the two is two, given n.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
bool isPrime(int number) {
for (int i = 3; i <= number/2; i += 2) {
if (!(number%i)) {
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
int findNumber(int n) {
int prevPrime, currentNumber = 3;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
do {
prevPrime = currentNumber;
do {
currentNumber+=2;
} while (!isPrime(currentNumber));
} while (!(currentNumber - 2 == prevPrime));
}
return currentNumber;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int numberin, numberout;
scanf ("%d", &numberin);
numberout = findNumber(numberin);
printf("%d %d\n", numberout - 2, numberout);
return 0;
}
I considered using some kind of array or list that would contain all primes found up until the current number and divide each number by this list instead of all numbers, but we haven't really covered these different data structures yet so I feel I should be able to solve this problem without. I'm just starting with C, but I have some experience in Python and Java.
To find pairs of primes which differ by 2, you only need to find one prime and then add 2 and test if it is also prime.
if (isPrime(x) && isPrime(x+2)) { /* found pair */ }
To find primes the best algorithm is the Sieve of Eratosthenes. You need to build a lookup table up to (N) where N is the maximum number that you can get. You can use the Sieve to get in O(1) if a number is prime. While building the Sieve you can build a list of sorted primes.
If your N is big you can also profit from the fact that a number P is prime iif it doesn't have any prime factors <= SQRT(P) (because if it has a factor > SQRT(N) then it should also have one < SQRT(N)). You can build a Sieve of Eratosthenes with size SQRT(N) to get a list of primes and then test if any of those prime divides P. If none divides P, P is prime.
With this approach you can test numbers up to 1 billion or so relatively fast and with little memory.
Here is an improvement to speed up the loop in isPrime:
bool isPrime(int number) {
for (int i = 3; i * i <= number; i += 2) { // Changed the loop condition
if (!(number%i)) {
return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
You are calling isPrime more often than necessary. You wrote
currentNummber = 3;
/* ... */
do {
currentNumber+=2;
} while (!isPrime(currentNumber));
...which means that isPrime is called for every odd number. However, when you identified that e.g. 5 is prime, you can already tell that 10, 15, 20 etc. are not going to be prime, so you don't need to test them.
This approach of 'crossing-out' multiples of primes is done when using a sieve filter, see e.g. Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm in C for an implementation of a sieve filter for primes in C.
Avoid testing ever 3rd candidate
Pairs of primes a, a+2 may only be found a = 6*n + 5. (except pair 3,5).
Why?
a + 0 = 6*n + 5 Maybe a prime
a + 2 = 6*n + 7 Maybe a prime
a + 4 = 6*n + 9 Not a prime when more than 3 as 6*n + 9 is a multiple of 3
So rather than test ever other integer with + 2, test with
a = 5;
loop {
if (isPrime(a) && isPrime(a+2)) PairCount++;
a += 6;
}
Improve loop exit test
Many processors/compilers, when calculating the remainder, will also have available, for nearly "free" CPU time cost, the quotient. YMMV. Use the quotient rather than i <= number/2 or i*i <= number to limit the test loop.
Use of sqrt() has a number of problems: range of double vs. int, exactness, conversion to/from integer. Recommend avoid sqrt() for this task.
Use unsigned for additional range.
bool isPrime(unsigned x) {
// With OP's selective use, the following line is not needed.
// Yet needed for a general purpose `isPrime()`
if (x%2 == 0) return x == 2;
if (x <= 3) return x == 3;
unsigned p = 1;
unsigned quotient, remainder;
do {
p += 2;
remainder = x%p;
if (remainder == 0) return false;
quotient = x/p; // quotient for "free"
} while (p < quotient); // Low cost compare
return true;
}
Related
#define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
int main() {
int anz;
scanf("%d", &anz);
time_t start = time(0);
int *primZ = malloc(anz * sizeof(int));
primZ[0] = 2;
int Num = 0;
for (int i = 1, num = 3; i < anz; num += 2) {
for (int j = 1; j < i; j++) {
if (num % primZ[j] == 0) {
num += 2;
j = 0;
}
//this part
if (primZ[j] > i / 2)
break;
}
primZ[i] = num;
i++;
printf("%d ,",num);
}
time_t delta = time(0) - start;
printf("%d", delta);
getchar();
getchar();
return 0;
}
The code works perfectly fine, the question is why. The part if(primZ[j] > i/2) makes the program 2 - 3 times faster. It was actually meant to be if(primZ[j] > num/3) which makes perfect sense because num can only be an odd number. But it is the number of found prime numbers. It makes no sense to me. Please explain.
You check if the prime is composite by checking if it divisible by already found prime numbers. But in doing so you only have to check up to and including the square root of the number because any number larger than that that divides the number will leave a smaller number than the square root of the number.
For example 33 is composite, but you only have to check numbers up to 5 to realize that, you don't need to check it being divisible by 11 because it leaves 3 (33/11=3) which we already checked.
This means that you could improve your algorithm by
for (int j = 1; j < i; j++) {
if( primZ[j]*primZ[j] > num )
break;
if (num % primZ[j] == 0) {
num += 2;
j = 0;
}
}
The reason you can get away with comparing with cutting of at i/2 is due to the distribution of the prime numbers. The prime counting function is approximately i = num/log(num) and then you get that i/2 > sqrt(num).
The reason is that the actual bound is much tighter than num/3 - you could use:
if (primZ[j] > sqrt(num))
The reason for that being that if a prime higher than the square root of num divides num, there must also be a lower prime that does (since the result of such a division must be lower than the square root).
This means that as long as i/2 is higher than sqrt(num), the code will work. What happens is that the number of primes lower than a number grows faster than the square root of that number, meaning that (completely accidentally) i/2 is a safe bound to use.
You can check out how your i value behaves here - they call it pi(x), the number of primes less than x.
It makes sense, since if n has two factors one of them is surely less than or equal to n/2, sense the program found no factors of i in primZ that are less than or equal to i/2 it means there's no factors of i -except 1 of course-.
Sense primZ is sorted in ascending order and j only increases, when primeZ[j] > i/2 it indicates that there's no factors of i in primZ that are less than i/2.
P.S.The point of starting the search is stated in the first part of the for statement num=3 , and the recurring statement num += 2 ensures you only test odd numbers
Well, there are lots of such questions available in SO as well as other forums. However, none of these helped.
I wrote a program in "C" to find number of primes within a range. The range i in long int. I am using Sieve of Eratosthenes" algorithm. I am using an array of long ints to store all the numbers from 1 till the limit. I could not think of a better approach to achieve without using an array. The code works fine, till 10000000. But after that, it runs out of memory and exits. Below is my code.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
typedef unsigned long uint_32;
int main() {
uint_32 i, N, *list, cross=0, j=4, k, primes_cnt = 0;
clock_t start, end;
double exec_time;
system("cls");
printf("Enter N\n");
scanf("%lu", &N);
list = (uint_32 *) malloc( (N+1) * sizeof(uint_32));
start = clock();
for(i=0; i<=N+1; i++) {
list[i] = i;
}
for(i=0; cross<=N/2; i++) {
if(i == 0)
cross = 2;
else if(i == 1)
cross = 3;
else {
for(j=cross+1; j<=N; j++) {
if(list[j] != 0){
cross = list[j];
break;
}
}
}
for(k=cross*2; k<=N; k+=cross) {
if(k <= N)
list[k] = 0;
}
}
for(i=2; i<=N; i++) {
if(list[i] == 0)
continue;
else
primes_cnt++;
}
printf("%lu", primes_cnt);
end = clock();
exec_time = (double) (end-start);
printf("\n%f", exec_time);
return 0;
}
I am stuck and can't think of a better way to achieve this. Any help will be hugely appreciated. Thanks.
Edit:
My aim is to generate and print all prime numbers below the range. As printing consumed a lot of time, I thought of getting the first step right.
There are other algorithm that does not require you to generate prime number up to N to count number of prime below N. The easiest algorithm to implement is Legendre Prime Counting. The algorithm requires you to generate only sqrt(N) prime to determine the number of prime below N.
The idea behind the algorithm is that
pi(n) = phi(n, sqrt(n)) + pi(sqrt(n)) - 1
where
pi(n) = number of prime below N
phi(n, m) = number of number below N that is not divisible by any prime below m.
That's mean phi(n, sqrt(n)) = number of prime between sqrt(n) to n. For how to calculate the phi, you can go to the following link (Feasible implementation of a Prime Counting Function)
The reason why it is more efficient is because it is easiest to compute phi(n, m) than to compute pi(n). Let say that I want to compute phi(100, 3) means that how many number below or equal to 100 that does not divisible by 2 and 3. You can do as following. phi(100, 3) = 100 - 100/2 - 100/3 + 100/6.
Your code uses about 32 times as much memory as it needs. Note that since you initialized list[i] = i the assignment cross = list[j] can be replaced with cross = j, making it possible to replace list with a bit vector.
However, this is not enough to bring the range to 264, because your implementation would require 261 bytes (2 exbibytes) of memory, so you need to optimize some more.
The next thing to notice is that you do not need to go up to N/2 when "crossing" the numbers: √N is sufficient (you should be able to prove this by thinking about the result of dividing a composite number by its divisors above √N). This brings memory requirements within your reach, because your "crossing" primes would fit in about 4 GB of memory.
Once you have an array of crossing primes, you can build a partial sieve for any range without keeping in memory all ranges that precede it. This is called the Segmented sieve. You can find details on it, along with a simple implementation, on the page of primesieve generator. Another advantage of this approach is that you can parallelize it, bringing the time down even further.
You can tweak the algorithm a bit to calculate the prime numbers in chunks.
Load a part of the array (as much as fits the memory), and in addition hold a list of all known prime numbers.
Whenever you load a chunk, first go through the already known prime numbers, and similar to the regular sieve, set all non primes as such.
Then, go over the array again, mark whatever you can, and add to the list the new prime numbers found.
When done, you'll have a list containing all your prime numbers.
I could see that the approach you are using is the basic implementation of Eratosthenes, that first stick out all the 2's multiple and then 3's multiple and so on.
But I have a better solution to the question. Actually, there is question on spoj PRINT. Please go through it and do check the constraints it follows. Below is my code snippet for this problem:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<math.h>
#include<cstdlib>
int num[46500] = {0},prime[5000],prime_index = -1;
int main() {
/* First, calculate the prime up-to the sqrt(N) (preferably greater than, but near to
sqrt(N) */
prime[++prime_index] = 2; int i,j,k;
for(i=3; i<216; i += 2) {
if(num[i] == 0) {
prime[++prime_index] = i;
for(j = i*i, k = 2*i; j<=46500; j += k) {
num[j] = 1;
}
}
}
for(; i<=46500; i+= 2) {
if(num[i] == 0) {
prime[++prime_index] = i;
}
}
int t; // Stands for number of test cases
scanf("%i",&t);
while(t--) {
bool arr[1000005] = {0}; int m,n,j,k;
scanf("%i%i",&m,&n);
if(m == 1)
m++;
if(m == 2 && m <= n) {
printf("2\n");
}
int sqt = sqrt(n) + 1;
for(i=0; i<=prime_index; i++) {
if(prime[i] > sqt) {
sqt = i;
break;
}
}
for(; m<=n && m <= prime[prime_index]; m++) {
if(m&1 && num[m] == 0) {
printf("%i\n",m);
}
}
if(m%2 == 0) {
m++;
}
for(i=1; i<=sqt; i++) {
j = (m%prime[i]) ? (m + prime[i] - m%prime[i]) : (m);
for(k=j; k<=n; k += prime[i]) {
arr[k-m] = 1;
}
}
for(i=0; i<=n-m; i += 2) {
if(!arr[i]) {
printf("%i\n",m+i);
}
}
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
I hope you got the point:
And, as you mentioned that your program is working fine up-to 10^7 but above it fails, it must be because you must be running out of the memory.
NOTE: I'm sharing my code only for knowledge purpose. Please, don't copy and paste it, until you get the point.
I've been trying to solve the SPOJ problem of Prime number Generator Algorithm.
Here is the question
Peter wants to generate some prime numbers for his cryptosystem. Help
him! Your task is to generate all prime numbers between two given
numbers!
Input
The input begins with the number t of test cases in a single line
(t<=10). In each of the next t lines there are two numbers m and n (1
<= m <= n <= 1000000000, n-m<=100000) separated by a space.
Output
For every test case print all prime numbers p such that m <= p <= n,
one number per line, test cases separated by an empty line.
It is very easy, but the online judge is showing error, I didn't get what the problem meant by 'test cases' and why that 1000000 range is necessary to use.
Here is my code.
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
int i, num1, num2, j;
int div = 0;
scanf("%d %d", &num1, &num2);
for(i=num1; i<=num2; i++)
{
for(j=1; j<=i; j++)
{
if(i%j == 0)
{
div++;
}
}
if(div == 2)
{
printf("%d\n", i);
}
div = 0;
}
return 0;
}
I can't comment on the alogirthm and whether the 100000 number range allows optimisations but the reason that your code is invalid is because it doesn't seem to be parsing the input properly. The input will be something like:
2
123123123 123173123
987654321 987653321
That is the first line will give the number of sets of input you will get with each line then being a set of inputs. Your program, at a glance, looks like it is just reading the first line looking for two numbers.
I assume the online judge is just looking for the correct output (and possibly reasonable running time?) so if you correct for the right input it should work no matter what inefficiencies are in your algorithm (as others have started commenting on).
The input begins with the number t of test cases in a single line (t<=10)
you haven't got test cases in your programm.
Its wrong
And sorry for my English
2 - //the number of test cases
1 10 - // numbers n,m
3 5 - // numbers
Your programm will work only in first line.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main()
{
int test;
scanf("%d",&test);
while(test--)
{
unsigned int low,high,i=0,j=2,k,x=0,y=0,z;
unsigned long int a[200000],b[200000];
scanf("%d",&low);
scanf("%d",&high);
for(i=low;i<=high;i++)
a[x++]=i;
for(i=2;i<=32000;i++)
b[y++]=i;
i=0;
while(b[i]*b[i]<=high)
{
if(b[i]!=0)
{
k=i;
for(;k<y;k+=j)
{
if(k!=i)
{
b[k]=0;
}
}
}
i+=1;j+=1;
}
for(i=0;i<y;i++)
{
if(b[i]!=0 && (b[i]>=low && b[i]<=sqrt(high)))
printf("%d\n",b[i]);
}
int c=0;
for(i=0;i<y;i++)
{
if(b[i]!=0 && (b[i]>=1 && b[i]<=sqrt(high)))
b[c++]=b[i];
}
int m=a[0];
for(i=0;i<c;i++)
{
z=(m/b[i])*b[i];k=z-m;
if(k!=0)
k += b[i];
for(;k<x;)
{
if(a[k]!=0)
{
a[k]=0;
}
k+=b[i];
}
}
for(i=0;i<x;i++)
{
if(a[i]!=0 && (a[i]>=2 && a[i]<=(high)))
printf("%d\n",a[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
To find primes between m,n where 1 <= m <= n <= 1000000000, n-m<=100000, you need first to prepare the core primes from 2 to sqrt(1000000000) < 32000. Simple contiguous sieve of Eratosthenes is more than adequate for this. (Having sieved the core bool sieve[] array (a related C code is here), do make a separate array int core_primes[] containing the core primes, condensed from the sieve array, in an easy to use form, since you have more than one offset segment to sieve by them.)
Then, for each given separate segment, just sieve it using the prepared core primes. 100,000 is short enough, and without evens it's only 50,000 odds. You can use one pre-allocated array and adjust the addressing scheme for each new pair m,n. The i-th entry in the array will represent the number o + 2i where o is an odd start of a given segment.
See also:
Is a Recursive-Iterative Method Better than a Purely Iterative Method to find out if a number is prime?
Find n primes after a given prime number, without using any function that checks for primality
offset sieve of Eratoshenes
A word about terminology: this is not a "segmented sieve". That refers to the sieving of successive segments, one after another, updating the core primes list as we go. Here the top limit is known in advance and its square root is very small.
The same core primes are used to sieve each separate offset segment, so this may be better described as an "offset" sieve of Eratosthenes. For each segment being sieved, only the core primes not greater than its top limit's square root need be used of course; but the core primes are not updated while each such offset segment is sieved (updating the core primes is the signature feature of the "segmented" sieve).
For such small numbers you can simply search for all primes between 1 and 1000000000.
Take 62.5 mByte of RAM to create a binary array (one bit for each odd number, because we already know that no even number (except of 2) is a prime).
Set all bits to 0 to indicate that they are primes, than use a Sieve of Eratosthenes to set bits to 1 of all number that are not primes.
Do the sieve once, store the resulting list of numbers.
int num;
bool singleArray[100000];
static unsigned long allArray[1000000];
unsigned long nums[10][2];
unsigned long s;
long n1, n2;
int count = 0;
long intermediate;
scanf("%d", &num);
for(int i = 0; i < num; ++i)
{
scanf("%lu", &n1);
scanf("%lu", &n2);
nums[i][0] = n1;
nums[i][1] = n2;
}
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
{
singleArray[i] = true;
}
for(int i = 0; i < num; ++i)
{
s = sqrt(nums[i][1]);
for(unsigned long k = 2; k <= s; ++k)
{
for (unsigned long j = nums[i][0]; j <= nums[i][1]; ++j)
{
intermediate = j - nums[i][0];
if(!singleArray[intermediate])
{
continue;
}
if((j % k == 0 && k != j) || (j == 1))
{
singleArray[intermediate] = false;
}
}
}
for(unsigned long m = nums[i][0]; m <= nums[i][1]; ++m)
{
intermediate = m - nums[i][0];
if(singleArray[intermediate])
{
allArray[count++] = m;
}
}
for(int p = 0; p < (nums[i][1] - nums[i][0]); ++p)
{
singleArray[p] = true;
}
}
for(int n = 0; n < count; ++n)
{
printf("%lu\n", allArray[n]);
}
}
Your upper bound is 10^9. The Sieve of Eratosthenes is O(N loglogN) which is too much for that bound.
Here are a few ideas:
Faster primality tests
The problem with a naive solution where you loop over the range [i, j] and check whether each number is prime is that it takes O(sqrt(N)) to test whether a number is prime which is too much if you deal with several cases.
However, you could try a smarter primality testing algorithm. Miller-Rabin is polynomial in the number of bits of N, and for N <= 10^9, you only need to check a = 2, 7 and 61.
Note that I haven't actually tried this, so I can't guarantee it would work.
Segmented sieve
As #KaustavRay mentioned, you could use a segmented sieve. The underlying idea is that if a number N is composite, then it has a prime divisor that is at most sqrt(N).
We use the Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm to find the prime numbers below 32,000 (roughly sqrt(10^9)), and then for each number in the range [i, j] check whether there is any prime below 32,000 that divides it.
By the prime number theorem about one in log(N) numbers are prime which is small enough to squeeze in the time limit.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
// your code here
unsigned long int m,n,i,j;int N;
cin>>N;
for(;N>0;N--)
{
cin>>m>>n;
if(m<3)
switch (n)
{
case 1: cout<<endl;continue;
case 2: cout<<2<<endl;
continue;
default:cout<<2<<endl;m=3;
}
if(m%2==0) m++;
for(i=m;i<=n;i+=2)
{
for(j=3;j<=i/j;j+=2)
if(i%j==0)
{j=0;break;}
if(j)
cout<<i<<endl;
}
cout<<endl;
}return 0;}
This is a program to count the number of divisors for a number, but it is giving one less divisor than there actually is for that number.
#include <stdio.h>
int i = 20;
int divisor;
int total;
int main()
{
for (divisor = 1; divisor <= i; divisor++)
{
if ((i % divisor == 0) && (i != divisor))
{
total = total++;
}
}
printf("%d %d\n", i, total);
return 0;
}
The number 20 has 6 divisors, but the program says that there are 5 divisors.
&& (i != divisor)
means that 20 won't be considered a divisor. If you want it to be considered, ditch that bit of code, and you'll get the whole set, {1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20}.
Even if you didn't want the number counted as a divisor, you could still ditch that code and just use < instead of <= in the for statement.
And:
total = total++;
is totally unnecessary. It may even be undefined, I'm just too lazy to check at the moment and it's not important since nobody writes code like that for long :-)
Use either:
total = total + 1;
or (better):
total++;
Divisor counting is perhaps simpler and certainly faster than any of these. The key fact to note is that if p is a divisor of n, then so is n/p. Whenever p is not the square root of n, then you get TWO divisors per division test, not one.
int divcount(int n)
{
int i, j, count=0;
for (i=1, j=n; i<j; j = n/++i)
{
if (i*j == n)
count += 2;
}
if (i == j && i*j == n)
++count;
return count;
}
That gets the job done with sqrt(n) divisions, and sqrt(n) multiplications. I choose that because, while j=n/i and another j%i can be done with a single division instruction on most CPUs, I haven't seen compilers pick up on that optimization. Since multiplication is single-clock on modern desktop processors, the i*j == n test is much cheaper than a second division.
PS: If you need a list of divisors, they come up in the loop as i and j values, and perhaps as the i==j==sqrt(n) value at the end, if n is a square.
You have added an extra check && (i != divisor) as explained in given answer.
Here, I wrote the same program using the prime factorisation. This is quick way to find the number of divisor for large number (reference).
// this function return the number of divisor for n.
// if n = (m^a) (n^b) ... where m, n.. are prime factors of n
// then number of divisor d(n) = (a+1)*(b+1)..
int divisorcount(int n){
int divider = 2;
int limit = n/2;
int divisorCount = 1;
int power = 0;
// loop through i=2...n/2
while(divider<=limit){
if(n%divider==0){
// dividing numper using prime factor
// (as smallest number devide a number
// is it's prime factor) and increase the
// power term for prime factor.
power++;
n/=divider;
}
else{
if(power != 0){
// use the prime factor count to calculate
// divisor count.
divisorCount*=(power+1);
}
power = 0;
divider++;
// if n become 1 then we have completed the
// prime factorization of n.
if(n==1){
break;
}
}
}
return divisorCount;
}
I've been interested in the problem of finding a better prime number recognizer for years. I realize this is a huge area of academic research and study - my interest in this is really just for fun. Here was my first attempt at a possible solution, in C (below).
My question is, can you suggest an improvement (without citing some other reference on the net, I'm looking for actual C code)? What I'm trying to get from this is a better understanding of determining performance complexity of a solution like this.
Am I right in concluding that the complexity of this solution is O(n^2)?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
/* isprime */
/* Test if each number in the list from stdin is prime. */
/* Output will only print the prime numbers in the list. */
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int returnValue = 0;
int i;
int ceiling;
int input = 0;
int factorFound = 0;
while (scanf("%d", &input) != EOF) {
ceiling = (int)sqrt(input);
if (input == 1) {
factorFound = 1;
}
for (i = 2; i <= ceiling; i++) {
if (input % i == 0) {
factorFound = 1;
}
}
if (factorFound == 0) {
printf("%d\n", input);
}
factorFound = 0;
}
return returnValue;
}
for (i = 2; i <= ceiling; i++) {
if (input % i == 0) {
factorFound = 1;
break;
}
}
This is the first improvement to make and still stay within the bounds of "same" algorithm. It doesn't require any math at all to see this one.
Beyond that, once you see that input is not divisible by 2, there is no need to check for 4, 6, 8, etc. If any even number divided into input, then surely 2 would have because it divides all even numbers.
If you want to step outside of the algorithm a little bit, you could use a loop like the one that Sheldon L. Cooper provides in his answer. (This is just easier than having him correct my code from the comments though his efforts are much appreciated)
this takes advantage of the fact that every prime other than 2 and 3 is of the form n*6 + 1 or n*6 - 1 for some positive integer n. To see this, just note that if m = n*6 + 2 or m = n*6 + 4, then n is divisible by 2. if m = n*6 + 3 then it is divisible by 3.
In fact, we can take this further. If p1, p2, .., pk are the first k primes, then all of the integers that are coprime to their product mark out 'slots' that all remaining primes must fit into.
to see this, just let k# be the product of all primes up to pk. then if gcd(k#, m) = g, g divides n*k# + m and so this sum is trivially composite if g != 1. so if you wanted to iterate in terms of 5# = 30, then your coprime integers are 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23 and 29.
technically, I didn't prove my last claim. It's not much more difficult
if g = gcd(k#, m), then for any integer, n, g divides n*k# + m because it divides k# so it must also divide n*k#. But it divides m as well so it must divide the sum. Above I only proved it for n = 1. my bad.
Also, I should note that none of this is changing the fundamental complexity of the algoritm, it will still be O(n^1/2). All it is doing is drastically reducing the coefficient that gets used to calculate actual expected run times.
The time complexity for each primality test in your algorithm is O(sqrt(n)).
You can always use the fact that all primes except 2 and 3 are of the form: 6*k+1 or 6*k-1. For example:
int is_prime(int n) {
if (n <= 1) return 0;
if (n == 2 || n == 3) return 1;
if (n % 2 == 0 || n % 3 == 0) return 0;
int k;
for (k = 6; (k-1)*(k-1) <= n; k += 6) {
if (n % (k-1) == 0 || n % (k+1) == 0) return 0;
}
return 1;
}
This optimization does not improve the asymptotic complexity.
EDIT
Given that in your code you are testing numbers repeatedly, you might want to pre-calculate a list of primes. There are only 4792 primes less than or equal to the square root of INT_MAX (assuming 32 bit ints).
Furthermore, if the input numbers are relatively small you can try calculating a sieve.
Here's a combination of both ideas:
#define UPPER_BOUND 46340 /* floor(sqrt(INT_MAX)) */
#define PRIME_COUNT 4792 /* number of primes <= UPPER_BOUND */
int prime[PRIME_COUNT];
int is_prime_aux[UPPER_BOUND];
void fill_primes() {
int p, m, c = 0;
for (p = 2; p < UPPER_BOUND; p++)
is_prime_aux[p] = 1;
for (p = 2; p < UPPER_BOUND; p++) {
if (is_prime_aux[p]) {
prime[c++] = p;
for (m = p*p; m < UPPER_BOUND; m += p)
is_prime_aux[m] = 0;
}
}
}
int is_prime(int n) {
if (n <= 1) return 0;
if (n < UPPER_BOUND) return is_prime_aux[n];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < PRIME_COUNT && prime[i]*prime[i] <= n; i++)
if (n % prime[i] == 0)
return 0;
return 1;
}
Call fill_primes at the beginning of your program, before starting to process queries. It runs pretty fast.
Your code there only has complexity O(sqrt(n)lg(n)). If you assume basic mathematical operations are O(1) (true until you start using bignums), then it's just O(sqrt(n)).
Note that primality testing can be performed in faster-than-O(sqrt(n)lg(n)) time. This site has a number of implementations of the AKS primality test, which has been proven to operate in O((log n)^12) time.
There are also some very, very fast probalistic tests - while fast, they sometimes give an incorrect result. For example, the Fermat primality test:
Given a number p we want to test for primality, pick a random number a, and test whether a^(p-1) mod p = 1. If false, p is definitely not prime. If true, p is probably prime. By repeating the test with different random values of a, the probability of a false positive can be reduced.
Note that this specific test has some flaws to it - see the Wikipedia page for details, and other probabilistic primality tests you can use.
If you want to stick with the current approach, there are a number of minor improvements which can still be made - as others have pointed out, after 2, all further primes are odd, so you can skip two potential factors at a time in the loop. You can also break out immediately when you find a factor. However, this doesn't change the asymptotic worst-case behavior of your algorithm, which remains at O(sqrt(n)lg(n)) - it just changes the best case (to O(lg(n))), and reduces the constant factor by roughly one-half.
A simple improvement would be to change the for loop to break out when it finds a factor:
for (i = 2; i <= ceiling && !factorFound; i++) {
if (input % i == 0) {
factorFound = 1;
Another possibility would be to increment the counter by 2 (after checking 2 itself).
can you suggest an improvement
Here you go ... not for the algorithm, but for the program itself :)
If you aren't going to use argc and argv, get rid of them
What if I input "fortytwo"? Compare scanf() == 1, not != EOF
No need to cast the value of sqrt()
returnValue is not needed, you can return a constant: return 0;
Instead of having all of the functionality inside the main() function, separate your program in as many functions as you can think of.
You can make small cuts to your algorithm without adding too much code complexity.
For example, you can skip the even numbers on your verification, and stop the search as soon as you find a factor.
if (input < 2 || (input != 2 && input % 2 == 0))
factorFound = 1;
if (input > 3)
for (i = 3; i <= ceiling && !factorFound; i += 2)
if (input % i == 0)
factorFound = 1;
Regarding the complexity, if n is your input number, wouldn't the complexity be O(sqrt(n)), as you are doing roughly at most sqrt(n) divisions and comparisons?
Even numbers(except 2) cannot be prime numbers. So, once we know that the number is not even, we can just check if odd numbers are it's factors.
for (i = 3; i <= ceiling; i += 2) {
if (input % i == 0) {
factorFound = 1;
break;
}
}
The time complexity of your program is O(n*m^0.5). With n the number of primes in the input. And m the size of the biggest prime in the input, or MAX_INT if you prefer. So complexity could also be written as O(n) with n the number of primes to check.
With Big-O, n is (usually) the size of the input, in your case that would be the number of primes to check. If I make this list twice as big (for example duplicating it), it would take (+-) exactly twice as long, thus O(n).
Here's my algorithm, Complexity remains O(n^0.5) but i managed to remove some expensive operations in the code...
The algorithm's slowest part is the modulus operation, i've managed to eliminate sqrt or doing i * i <= n
This way i save precious cycles...its based on the fact that sum of odd numbers is always a perfect square.
Since we are iterating over odd numbers anyway, why not exploit it? :)
int isPrime(int n)
{
int squares = 1;
int odd = 3;
if( ((n & 1) == 0) || (n < 9)) return (n == 2) || ((n > 1) && (n & 1));
else
{
for( ;squares <= n; odd += 2)
{
if( n % odd == 0)
return 0;
squares+=odd;
}
return 1;
}
}
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int IsPrime (int n) {
int i, sqrtN;
if (n < 2) { return 0; } /* 1, 0, and negatives are nonprime */
if (n == 2) { return 2; }
if ((n % 2) == 0) { return 0; } /* Check for even numbers */
sqrtN = sqrt((double)n)+1; /* We don't need to search all the way up to n */
for (i = 3; i < sqrtN; i += 2) {
if (n % i == 0) { return 0; } /* Stop, because we found a factor! */
}
return n;
}
int main()
{
int n;
printf("Enter a positive integer: ");
scanf("%d",&n);
if(IsPrime(n))
printf("%d is a prime number.",n);
else
printf("%d is not a prime number.",n);
return 0;
}
There is no way to improve the algorithm. There may be tiny ways to improve your code, but not the base speed (and complexity) of the algorithm.
EDIT: Of course, since he doesn't need to know all the factors, just whether or not it is a prime number. Great spot.