I am trying to split an array into n equal parts by calculating start and end indices. The address of the start and end elements will be passed into a function that will sort these arrays. For example, if arraySize = 1000, and n=2, the indices will be 0, 499, 999. So far I have the below code but for odd n, it is splitting it into more than n arrays. Another way I thought of doing this is by running through the loop n times, but I'm not sure where to start.
int chunkSize = arraySize / numThreads;
for (int start = 0; start < arraySize; start += chunkSize) {
int end = start + chunkSize - 1;
if (end > arraySize - 1) {
end = arraySize - 1;
}
InsertionSort(&array[start], end - start + 1);
}
EDIT: Here's something else I came up with. It seems to be working, but I need to do some more thorough testing. I've drawn this out multiple times and traced it by hand. Hopefully, there aren't any edge cases that will fail. I am already restricting n >= arraySize.
int chunkSize = arraySize / numThreads;
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++) {
int start = i * chunkSize;
int end = start + chunkSize - 1;
if (i == numThreads - 1) {
end = arraySize - 1;
}
for (int i = start; i <= end; i++) {
printf("%d ", array[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
Calculate the minimum chunk size with the truncating division. Then calculate the remainder. Distribute this remainder by adding 1 to some chunks:
Pseudo-code:
chunk_size = array_size / N
bonus = array_size - chunk_size * N // i.e. remainder
for (start = 0, end = chunk_size;
start < array_size;
start = end, end = start + chunk_size)
{
if (bonus) {
end++;
bonus--;
}
/* do something with array slice over [start, end) interval */
}
For instance if array_size is 11 and N == 4, 11/N yields 2. The remainder ("bonus") is 3: 11 - 2*3. Thus the first three iterations of the loop will add 1 to the size: 3 3 3. The bonus then hits zero and the last chunk size will just be 2.
What we are doing here is nothing more than distributing an error term in a discrete quantization, in a way that is satisfactory somehow. This is exactly what happens when a line segment is drawn on a raster display with the Bresenham algorithm, or when an image is reduced to a smaller number of colors using Floyd-Steinberg dithering, et cetera.
You need to calculate your chunk size so that it is "rounded up", not down. You could do it using % operator and a more complex formula, but just using simple if is probably easier to understand:
int chunkSize = arraySize / numThreads;
if (chunkSize * numThreads < arraySize) {
// In case arraySize is not exactly divisible by numThreads,
// we now end up with one extra smaller chunk at the end.
// Fix this by increseing chunkSize by one byte,
// so we'll end up with numThread chunks and smaller last chunk.
++chunkSize;
}
I hope this would help:
int chunkSize = arraySize / numThreads;
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads-1; i++) {
start = i* chunkSize;
end = start + chunkSize - 1;
InsertionSort(&array[start], end + 1);
}
//Last chunk with all the remaining content
start = end + 1;
end = arraySize - 1;
InsertionSort(&array[start], end + 1);
Related
I need to find all the palindromes of π with 50 million digits 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286... (goes on and on...)
I've stored all the digits of π in a char array. Now I need to search and count the number of 'palindromes' of length 2 to 15. For example, 535, 979, 33, 88, 14941, etc. are all valid results.
The final output I want is basically like the following.
Palindrome length Number of Palindromes of this length
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2 1234 (just an example)
3 1245
4 689
... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...
15 0
pseudocode of my logic so far - it works but takes forever
//store all digits in a char array
char *piArray = (char *)malloc(NUM_PI_DIGITS * sizeof(char));
int count = 0; //count for the number of palindromes
//because we only need to find palindroms that are 2 - 15 digits long
for(int i = 2; i <= 15; i++){
//loop through the piArray and find all the palindromes with i digits long
for(int j = 0; j < size_of_piArray; j++){
//check if the the sub array piArray[j:j+i] is parlindrom, if so, add a count
bool isPalindrome = true;
for (int k = 0; k < i / 2; k++)
{
if (piArray [j + k] != piArray [j + i - 1 - k])
{
isPalindrom = false;
break;
}
}
if(isPalindrome){
count++;
}
}
}
The problem I am facing now is that it takes too long to loop through the array of this large size (15-2)=13 times. Is there any better way to do this?
Here is a C version adapted from the approach proposed by Caius Jard:
void check_pi_palindromes(int NUM_PI_DIGITS, int max_length, int counts[]) {
// store all digits in a char array
int max_span = max_length / 2;
int start = max_span;
int end = NUM_PI_DIGITS + max_span;
char *pi = (char *)malloc(max_span + NUM_PI_DIGITS + max_span);
// read of generate the digits starting at position `max_span`
[...]
// clear an initial and trailing area to simplify boundary testing
memset(pi, ' ', start);
memset(pi + end, ' ', max_span);
// clear the result array
for (int i = 0; i <= max_length; i++) {
count[i] = 0;
}
// loop through the pi array and find all the palindromes
for (int i = start; i < end; i++) {
if (pi[i + 1] == pi[i - 1]) { //center of an odd length palindrome
count[3]++;
for (n = 2; n <= max_span && pi[i + n] == pi[i - n]; n++) {
count[n * 2 + 1]++;
}
}
if (pi[i] == pi[i - 1]) { //center of an even length palindrome
count[2]++;
for (n = 1; n <= max_span && pi[i + n] == pi[i - n]; n++) {
count[n * 2]++;
}
}
}
}
For each position in the array, it scans in both directions for palindromes of odd and even lengths with these advantages:
single pass through the array
good cache locality because all reads from the array are in a small span from the current position
fewer tests as larger palindromes are only tested as extensions of smaller ones.
A small working prefix and suffix is used to avoid the need to special case the beginning and end of the sequence.
I can't solve it for C, as I'm a C# dev but I expect the conversion will be trivial - I've tried to keep it as basic as possible
char[] pi = "3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286".ToCharArray(); //get a small piece as an array of char
int[] lenCounts = new int[16]; //make a new int array with slots 0-15
for(int i = 1; i < pi.Length-1; i++){
if(pi[i+1] == pi[i-1]){ //center of an odd length pal
int n = 2;
while(pi[i+n] == pi[i-n] && n <= 7) n++;
lenCounts[((n-1)*2+1)]++;
} else if(pi[i] == pi[i-1]){ //center of an even length pal
int n = 1;
while(pi[i+n] == pi[i-1-n] && n <= 7) n++;
lenCounts[n*2]++;
}
}
This demonstrates the "crawl the string looking for a palindrome center then crawl away from it in both directions looking for equal chars" technique..
..the only thing I'm not sure on, and it has occurred in the Pi posted, is what you want to do if palindromes overlap:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286
This contains 939 and overlapping with it, 3993. The algo above will find both, so if overlaps are not to be allowed then you might need to extend it to deal with eliminating earlier palindromes if they're overlapped by a longer one found later
You can play with the c# version at https://dotnetfiddle.net/tkQzBq - it has some debug print lines in too. Fiddles are limited to a 10 second execution time so I don't know if you'll be able to time the full 50 megabyte 😀 - you might have to run this algo locally for that one
Edit: fixed a bug in the answer but I haven't fixed it in the fiddle; I did have while(.. n<lenCounts.Length) i.e. allowing n to reach 15, but that would be an issue because it's in both directions.. nshould go to 7 to remain in range of the counts array. I've patched that by hard coding 7 but you might want to make it dependent on array length/2 etc
Well, I think it can't be done less than O(len*n), and that you are doing this O(len^2*n), where 2 <= len <= 15, is almost the same since the K coefficient doesn't change the O notation in this case, but if you want to avoid this extra loop, you can check these links, it shouldn't be hard to add a counter for each length since these codes are counting all of them, with maximum possible length:
source1, source2, source3.
NOTE: Mostly it's better to reach out GeekForGeeks when you are looking for algorithms or optimizations.
EDIT: one of the possible ways with O(n^2) time complexity and O(n)
Auxiliary Space. You can change unordered_map by array if you wish, anyway here the key will be the length and the value will be the count of palindromes with that length.
unordered_map<int, int> countPalindromes(string& s) {
unordered_map<int, int> m;
for (int i = 0; i < s.length(); i++) {
// check for odd length palindromes
for (int j = 0; j <= i; j++) {
if (!s[i + j])
break;
if (s[i - j] == s[i + j]) {
// check for palindromes of length
// greater than 1
if ((i + j + 1) - (i - j) > 1)
m[(i + j + 1) - (i - j)]++;
} else
break;
}
// check for even length palindromes
for (int j = 0; j <= i; j++) {
if (!s[i + j + 1])
break;
if (s[i - j] == s[i + j + 1]) {
// check for palindromes of length
// greater than 1
if ((i + j + 2) - (i - j) > 1)
m[(i + j + 2) - (i - j)]++;
} else
break;
}
}
return m;
}
According to Wikipedia and other sources I had went through, you need matrix m[n][W]; n - number of items and W - total capacity of knapsack. This matrix get really big, sometimes too big to handle it in C program. I know that dynamic programming is based on saving time for memory but still, is there any solution where can you save time and memory?
Pseudo-code for Knapsack problem:
// Input:
// Values (stored in array v)
// Weights (stored in array w)
// Number of distinct items (n)
// Knapsack capacity (W)
for j from 0 to W do
m[0, j] := 0
end for
for i from 1 to n do
for j from 0 to W do
if w[i] <= j then
m[i, j] := max(m[i-1, j], m[i-1, j-w[i]] + v[i])
else
m[i, j] := m[i-1, j]
end if
end for
end for
Lets say, that W = 123456789 and n = 100. In this case we get really big matrix m[100][123456789]. I was thinking how to implement this, but best I have in my mind is just to save which items was selected with one bit (0/1). Is this possible? Or is there any other approach for this problem?
int32 -> 32 * 123456789 * 100 bits
one_bit -> 1 * 123456789 * 100 bits
I hope this is not stupid question and thanks for your effort.
EDIT - working C code:
long int i, j;
long int *m[2];
m[0] = (long int *) malloc(sizeof(long int)*(W+1));
m[1] = (long int *) malloc(sizeof(long int)*(W+1));
for(i = 0; i <= W; i++){
m[0][i] = 0;
}
int read = 0;
int write = 1;
int tmp;
long int percent = (W+1)*(n)/100;
long int counter = 0;
for(i = 1; i <= n; i++){
for(j = 0; j <= W; j++){
if(w[i-1] <= j){
m[write][j] = max(m[read][j],(v[i-1]) + m[read][j-(w[i-1])]);
}else{
m[write][j] = m[read][j];
}
counter++;
if(counter == percent){
printf("."); //printing dot (.) for each percent
fflush(stdout);
counter = 0;
}
}
tmp = read;
read = write;
write = tmp;
}
printf("\n%ld\n", m[read][W]);
free(m[0]);
free(m[1]);
Knapsack problem can be solved using O(W) space.
At each step of the iteration you need only 2 rows - current state of the array m[i] and m[i + 1].
current = 1
int m[2][W]
set NONE for all elements of m # that means we are not able to process this state
m[0][0] = 0 # this is our start point, initially empty knapsack
FOR i in [1..n] do
next = 3 - current; /// just use 1 or 2 based on the current index
for j in [0...W] do
m[next][j] = m[current][j]
FOR j in [w[i]..W] do
if m[current][j - w[i]] is not NONE then # process only reachable positions
m[next][j] = max(m[next][j], m[current][j - w[i]] + v[i]);
current = next; /// swap current state and the produced one
Also it is possible to use only 1 array. Here is the pseudocode
FOR i in [1..n] do
FOR j in [w[i]..W] do
m[j] = max(m[j], m[j - w[i]] + v[i]);
You can decrease the space use from m[100][123456789] into m[2][123456789] by this observation:
Look at this part of the code, at any time, you only need to refer to two rows of the matrix i and i - 1
if w[i] <= j then
m[i, j] := max(m[i-1, j], m[i-1, j-w[i]] + v[i])
else
m[i, j] := m[i-1, j]
end if
You can use this trick:
int current = 1;
//.........
if w[i] <= j then
m[current, j] := max(m[1 - current, j], m[1 - current, j-w[i]] + v[i])
else
m[i, j] := m[1 - current, j]
end if
current = 1 - current;
I have a simple (brute-force) recursive solver algorithm that takes lots of time for bigger values of OpxCnt variable. For small values of OpxCnt, no problem, works like a charm. The algorithm gets very slow as the OpxCnt variable gets bigger. This is to be expected but any optimization or a different algorithm ?
My final goal is that :: I want to read all the True values in the map array by
executing some number of read operations that have the minimum operation
cost. This is not the same as minimum number of read operations.
At function completion, There should be no True value unread.
map array is populated by some external function, any member may be 1 or 0.
For example ::
map[4] = 1;
map[8] = 1;
1 read operation having Adr=4,Cnt=5 has the lowest cost (35)
whereas
2 read operations having Adr=4,Cnt=1 & Adr=8,Cnt=1 costs (27+27=54)
#include <string.h>
typedef unsigned int Ui32;
#define cntof(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
#define ZERO(x) do{memset(&(x), 0, sizeof(x));}while(0)
typedef struct _S_MB_oper{
Ui32 Adr;
Ui32 Cnt;
}S_MB_oper;
typedef struct _S_MB_code{
Ui32 OpxCnt;
S_MB_oper OpxLst[20];
Ui32 OpxPay;
}S_MB_code;
char map[65536] = {0};
static int opx_ListOkey(S_MB_code *px_kod, char *pi_map)
{
int cost = 0;
char map[65536];
memcpy(map, pi_map, sizeof(map));
for(Ui32 o = 0; o < px_kod->OpxCnt; o++)
{
for(Ui32 i = 0; i < px_kod->OpxLst[o].Cnt; i++)
{
Ui32 adr = px_kod->OpxLst[o].Adr + i;
// ...
if(adr < cntof(map)){map[adr] = 0x0;}
}
}
for(Ui32 i = 0; i < cntof(map); i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0x0){return -1;}
}
// calculate COST...
for(Ui32 o = 0; o < px_kod->OpxCnt; o++)
{
cost += 12;
cost += 13;
cost += (2 * px_kod->OpxLst[o].Cnt);
}
px_kod->OpxPay = (Ui32)cost; return cost;
}
static int opx_FindNext(char *map, int pi_idx)
{
int i;
if(pi_idx < 0){pi_idx = 0;}
for(i = pi_idx; i < 65536; i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0x0){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
static int opx_FindZero(char *map, int pi_idx)
{
int i;
if(pi_idx < 0){pi_idx = 0;}
for(i = pi_idx; i < 65536; i++)
{
if(map[i] < 0x1){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
static int opx_Resolver(S_MB_code *po_bst, S_MB_code *px_wrk, char *pi_map, Ui32 *px_idx, int _min, int _max)
{
int pay, kmax, kmin = 1;
if(*px_idx >= px_wrk->OpxCnt)
{
return opx_ListOkey(px_wrk, pi_map);
}
_min = opx_FindNext(pi_map, _min);
// ...
if(_min < 0){return -1;}
kmax = (_max - _min) + 1;
// must be less than 127 !
if(kmax > 127){kmax = 127;}
// is this recursion the last one ?
if(*px_idx >= (px_wrk->OpxCnt - 1))
{
kmin = kmax;
}
else
{
int zero = opx_FindZero(pi_map, _min);
// ...
if(zero > 0)
{
kmin = zero - _min;
// enforce kmax limit !?
if(kmin > kmax){kmin = kmax;}
}
}
for(int _cnt = kmin; _cnt <= kmax; _cnt++)
{
px_wrk->OpxLst[*px_idx].Adr = (Ui32)_min;
px_wrk->OpxLst[*px_idx].Cnt = (Ui32)_cnt;
(*px_idx)++;
pay = opx_Resolver(po_bst, px_wrk, pi_map, px_idx, (_min + _cnt), _max);
(*px_idx)--;
if(pay > 0)
{
if((Ui32)pay < po_bst->OpxPay)
{
memcpy(po_bst, px_wrk, sizeof(*po_bst));
}
}
}
return (int)po_bst->OpxPay;
}
int main()
{
int _max = -1, _cnt = 0;
S_MB_code best = {0};
S_MB_code work = {0};
// SOME TEST DATA...
map[ 4] = 1;
map[ 8] = 1;
/*
map[64] = 1;
map[72] = 1;
map[80] = 1;
map[88] = 1;
map[96] = 1;
*/
// SOME TEST DATA...
for(int i = 0; i < cntof(map); i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0)
{
_max = i; _cnt++;
}
}
// num of Opx can be as much as num of individual bit(s).
if(_cnt > cntof(work.OpxLst)){_cnt = cntof(work.OpxLst);}
best.OpxPay = 1000000000L; // invalid great number...
for(int opx_cnt = 1; opx_cnt <= _cnt; opx_cnt++)
{
int rv;
Ui32 x = 0;
ZERO(work); work.OpxCnt = (Ui32)opx_cnt;
rv = opx_Resolver(&best, &work, map, &x, -42, _max);
}
return 0;
}
You can use dynamic programming to calculate the lowest cost that covers the first i true values in map[]. Call this f(i). As I'll explain, you can calculate f(i) by looking at all f(j) for j < i, so this will take time quadratic in the number of true values -- much better than exponential. The final answer you're looking for will be f(n), where n is the number of true values in map[].
A first step is to preprocess map[] into a list of the positions of true values. (It's possible to do DP on the raw map[] array, but this will be slower if true values are sparse, and cannot be faster.)
int pos[65536]; // Every position *could* be true
int nTrue = 0;
void getPosList() {
for (int i = 0; i < 65536; ++i) {
if (map[i]) pos[nTrue++] = i;
}
}
When we're looking at the subproblem on just the first i true values, what we know is that the ith true value must be covered by a read that ends at i. This block could start at any position j <= i; we don't know, so we have to test all i of them and pick the best. The key property (Optimal Substructure) that enables DP here is that in any optimal solution to the i-sized subproblem, if the read that covers the ith true value starts at the jth true value, then the preceding j-1 true values must be covered by an optimal solution to the (j-1)-sized subproblem.
So: f(i) = min(f(j) + score(pos(j+1), pos(i)), with the minimum taken over all 1 <= j < i. pos(k) refers to the position of the kth true value in map[], and score(x, y) is the score of a read from position x to position y, inclusive.
int scores[65537]; // We effectively start indexing at 1
scores[0] = 0; // Covering the first 0 true values requires 0 cost
// Calculate the minimum score that could allow the first i > 0 true values
// to be read, and store it in scores[i].
// We can assume that all lower values have already been calculated.
void calcF(int i) {
int bestStart, bestScore = INT_MAX;
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) { // Always executes at least once
int attemptScore = scores[j] + score(pos[j + 1], pos[i]);
if (attemptScore < bestScore) {
bestStart = j + 1;
bestScore = attemptScore;
}
}
scores[i] = bestScore;
}
int score(int i, int j) {
return 25 + 2 * (j + 1 - i);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
// Set up map[] however you want
getPosList();
for (int i = 1; i <= nTrue; ++i) {
calcF(i);
}
printf("Optimal solution has cost %d.\n", scores[nTrue]);
return 0;
}
Extracting a Solution from Scores
Using this scheme, you can calculate the score of an optimal solution: it's simply f(n), where n is the number of true values in map[]. In order to actually construct the solution, you need to read back through the table of f() scores to infer which choice was made:
void printSolution() {
int i = nTrue;
while (i) {
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (scores[i] == scores[j] + score(pos[j + 1], pos[i])) {
// We know that a read can be made from pos[j + 1] to pos[i] in
// an optimal solution, so let's make it.
printf("Read from %d to %d for cost %d.\n", pos[j + 1], pos[i], score(pos[j + 1], pos[i]));
i = j;
break;
}
}
}
}
There may be several possible choices, but all of them will produce optimal solutions.
Further Speedups
The solution above will work for an arbitrary scoring function. Because your scoring function has a simple structure, it may be that even faster algorithms can be developed.
For example, we can prove that there is a gap width above which it is always beneficial to break a single read into two reads. Suppose we have a read from position x-a to x, and another read from position y to y+b, with y > x. The combined costs of these two separate reads are 25 + 2 * (a + 1) + 25 + 2 * (b + 1) = 54 + 2 * (a + b). A single read stretching from x-a to y+b would cost 25 + 2 * (y + b - x + a + 1) = 27 + 2 * (a + b) + 2 * (y - x). Therefore the single read costs 27 - 2 * (y - x) less. If y - x > 13, this difference goes below zero: in other words, it can never be optimal to include a single read that spans a gap of 12 or more.
To make use of this property, inside calcF(), final reads could be tried in decreasing order of start-position (i.e. in increasing order of width), and the inner loop stopped as soon as any gap width exceeds 12. Because that read and all subsequent wider reads tried would contain this too-large gap and therefore be suboptimal, they need not be tried.
I would like to split a range of numbers into roughly equal size in C using OpenMP. For example, if I have a range from 7 through 24 and number of threads is 8. I would like the first thread to begin from 7 and end at 9. Second thread begin from 10 and end at 12. Third thread begin from 13 and end at 14. Fourth thread begin at 15 and end at 16 and so forth... Until the last thread begins at 23 and ends at 24. The code that I wrote is as follows, but it is not getting the previously explained results. I am wondering if there is something that I missed that I can do or is there a more efficient way of doing this? Your help is greatly appreciated.
Note of predefined declaration of variables based on the example given above:
first = 7
last = 24
size = 2 (which signifies the amount of numbers per thread)
r = 2 (r signifies remainder)
nthreads = 8
myid = is the thread ID in a range of 0 to 7
if (r > 0)
{
if (myid == 0)
{
start = first + myid*size;
end = start + size;
}
else if (myid == nthreads - 1)
{
start = first + myid*size + myid;
end = last;
}
else
{
start = first + myid*size + myid;
end = start + size;
}
}
else
{
start = first + myid*size;
if (myid == nthreads - 1) end = last;
else end = start + size - 1;
}
As far as I remember, #pragma omp parallel for automatically divides work between threads in equal chunks, and is ok in most situations.
However, if you want to do this manually, here is a piece of code which does what you want:
int len = last - first + 1;
int chunk = len / nthreads;
int r = len % nthreads;
if (myid < r) {
start = first + (chunk + 1) * myid;
end = start + chunk;
} else {
start = first + (chunk + 1) * r + chunk * (myid - r);
end = start + chunk - 1;
}
If there are no additional restrictions, such distribution is indeed optimal.
// assuming half-open interval
int n = ((end-begin) + omp_get_num_threads() - 1)/omp_get_num_threads();
int first = begin + n*omp_get_thread_num();
int last = max(first + n, end);
I have had to start to learning C as part of a project that I am doing. I have started doing the 'euler' problems in it and am having trouble with the first one. I have to find the sum of all multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000. Could someone please help me. Thanks.
#include<stdio.h>
int start;
int sum;
int main() {
while (start < 1001) {
if (start % 3 == 0) {
sum = sum + start;
start += 1;
} else {
start += 1;
}
if (start % 5 == 0) {
sum = sum + start;
start += 1;
} else {
start += 1;
}
printf("%d\n", sum);
}
return(0);
}
You've gotten some great answers so far, mainly suggesting something like:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
int i;
int soln = 0;
for (i = 1; i < 1000; i++)
{
if ((i % 3 == 0) || (i % 5 == 0))
{
soln += i;
}
}
printf("%d\n", soln);
return 0;
}
So I'm going to take a different tack. I know you're doing this to learn C, so this may be a bit of a tangent.
Really, you're making the computer work too hard for this :). If we figured some things out ahead of time, it could make the task easier.
Well, how many multiples of 3 are less than 1000? There's one for each time that 3 goes into 1000 - 1.
mult3 = ⌊ (1000 - 1) / 3 ⌋ = 333
(the ⌊ and ⌋ mean that this is floor division, or, in programming terms, integer division, where the remainder is dropped).
And how many multiples of 5 are less than 1000?
mult5 = ⌊ (1000 - 1) / 5 ⌋ = 199
Now what is the sum of all the multiples of 3 less than 1000?
sum3 = 3 + 6 + 9 + ... + 996 + 999 = 3×(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 332 + 333) = 3×∑i=1 to mult3 i
And the sum of all the multiples of 5 less than 1000?
sum5 = 5 + 10 + 15 + ... + 990 + 995 = 5×(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 198 + 199) = 5×∑i = 1 to mult5 i
Some multiples of 3 are also multiples of 5. Those are the multiples of 15.
Since those count towards mult3 and mult5 (and therefore sum3 and sum5) we need to know mult15 and sum15 to avoid counting them twice.
mult15 = ⌊ (1000 - 1) /15 ⌋ = 66
sum15 = 15 + 30 + 45 + ... + 975 + 990 = 15×(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 65 + 66) = 15×∑i = 1 to mult15 i
So the solution to the problem "find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below 1000" is then
soln = sum3 + sum5 - sum15
So, if we wanted to, we could implement this directly:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
int i;
int const mult3 = (1000 - 1) / 3;
int const mult5 = (1000 - 1) / 5;
int const mult15 = (1000 - 1) / 15;
int sum3 = 0;
int sum5 = 0;
int sum15 = 0;
int soln;
for (i = 1; i <= mult3; i++) { sum3 += 3*i; }
for (i = 1; i <= mult5; i++) { sum5 += 5*i; }
for (i = 1; i <= mult15; i++) { sum15 += 15*i; }
soln = sum3 + sum5 - sum15;
printf("%d\n", soln);
return 0;
}
But we can do better. For calculating individual sums, we have Gauss's identity which says the sum from 1 to n (aka ∑i = 1 to n i) is n×(n+1)/2, so:
sum3 = 3×mult3×(mult3+1) / 2
sum5 = 5×mult5×(mult5+1) / 2
sum15 = 15×mult15×(mult15+1) / 2
(Note that we can use normal division or integer division here - it doesn't matter since one of n or n+1 must be divisible by 2)
Now this is kind of neat, since it means we can find the solution without using a loop:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int const mult3 = (1000 - 1) / 3;
int const mult5 = (1000 - 1) / 5;
int const mult15 = (1000 - 1) / 15;
int const sum3 = (3 * mult3 * (mult3 + 1)) / 2;
int const sum5 = (5 * mult5 * (mult5 + 1)) / 2;
int const sum15 = (15 * mult15 * (mult15 + 1)) / 2;
int const soln = sum3 + sum5 - sum15;
printf("%d\n", soln);
return 0;
}
Of course, since we've gone this far we could crank out the entire thing by hand:
sum3 = 3×333×(333+1) / 2 = 999×334 / 2 = 999×117 = 117000 - 117 = 116883
sum5 = 5×199×(199+1) / 2 = 995×200 / 2 = 995×100 = 99500
sum15 = 15×66×(66+1) / 2 = 990×67 / 2 = 495 × 67 = 33165
soln = 116883 + 99500 - 33165 = 233168
And write a much simpler program:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("233168\n");
return 0;
}
You could change your ifs:
if ((start % 3 == 0) || (start % 5 == 0))
sum += start;
start ++;
and don´t forget to initialize your sum with zero and start with one.
Also, change the while condition to < 1000.
You would be much better served by a for loop, and combining your conditionals.
Not tested:
int main()
{
int x;
int sum = 0;
for (x = 1; x <= 1000; x++)
if (x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0)
sum += x;
printf("%d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
The answers are all good, but won't help you learn C.
What you really need to understand is how to find your own errors. A debugger could help you, and the most powerful debugger in C is called "printf". You want to know what your program is doing, and your program is not a "black box".
Your program already prints the sum, it's probably wrong, and you want to know why. For example:
printf("sum:%d start:%d\n", sum, start);
instead of
printf("%d\n", sum);
and save it into a text file, then try to understand what's going wrong.
does the count start with 1 and end with 999?
does it really go from 1 to 999 without skipping numbers?
does it work on a smaller range?
Eh right, well i can see roughly where you are going, I'm thinking the only thing wrong with it has been previously mentioned. I did this problem before on there, obviously you need to step through every multiple of 3 and 5 and sum them. I did it this way and it does work:
int accumulator = 0;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i += 3)
accumulator += i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i +=5) {
if (!(i%3==0)) {
accumulator += i;
}
}
printf("%d", accumulator);
EDIT: Also note its not 0 to 1000 inclusive, < 1000 stops at 999 since it is the last number below 1000, you have countered that by < 1001 which means you go all the way to 1000 which is a multiple of 5 meaning your answer will be 1000 higher than it should be.
You haven't said what the program is supposed to do, or what your problem is. That makes it hard to offer help.
At a guess, you really ought to initialize start and sum to zero, and perhaps the printf should be outside the loop.
Really you need a debugger, and to single-step through the code so that you can see what it's actually doing. Your basic problem is that the flow of control isn't going where you think it is, and rather than provide correct code as others have done, I'll try to explain what your code does. Here's what happens, step-by-step (I've numbered the lines):
1: while (start < 1001) {
2: if (start % 3 == 0) {
3: sum = sum + start;
4: start += 1;
5: }
6: else {
7: start += 1;
8: }
9:
10: if (start % 5 == 0) {
11: sum = sum + start;
12: start += 1;
13: }
14: else {
15: start += 1;
16: }
17: printf("%d\n", sum);
18: }
line 1. sum is 0, start is 0. Loop condition true.
line 2. sum is 0, start is 0. If condition true.
line 3. sum is 0, start is 0. sum <- 0.
line 4. sum is 0, start is 0. start <- 1.
line 5. sum is 0, start is 1. jump over "else" clause
line 10. sum is 0, start is 1. If condition false, jump into "else" clause.
line 15. sum is 0, start is 1. start <- 2.
line 16 (skipped)
line 17. sum is 0, start is 2. Print "0\n".
line 18. sum is 0, start is 2. Jump to the top of the loop.
line 1. sum is 0, start is 2. Loop condition true.
line 2. sum is 0, start is 2. If condtion false, jump into "else" clause.
line 7. sum is 0, start is 2. start <- 3.
line 10. sum is 0, start is 3. If condition false, jump into "else" clause.
line 15. sum is 0, start is 3. start <- 4.
line 17. sum is 0, start is 4. Print "0\n".
You see how this is going? You seem to think that at line 4, after doing sum += 1, control goes back to the top of the loop. It doesn't, it goes to the next thing after the "if/else" construct.
You have forgotten to initialize your variables,
The problem with your code is that your incrementing the 'start' variable twice. This is due to having two if..else statements. What you need is an if..else if..else statement as so:
if (start % 3 == 0) {
sum = sum + start;
start += 1;
}
else if (start % 5 == 0) {
sum = sum + start;
start += 1;
}
else {
start += 1;
}
Or you could be more concise and write it as follows:
if(start % 3 == 0)
sum += start;
else if(start % 5 == 0)
sum += start;
start++;
Either of those two ways should work for you.
Good luck!
Here's a general solution which works with an arbitrary number of factors:
#include <stdio.h>
#define sum_multiples(BOUND, ...) \
_sum_multiples(BOUND, (unsigned []){ __VA_ARGS__, 0 })
static inline unsigned sum_single(unsigned bound, unsigned base)
{
unsigned n = bound / base;
return base * (n * (n + 1)) / 2;
}
unsigned _sum_multiples(unsigned bound, unsigned bases[])
{
unsigned sum = 0;
for(unsigned i = 0; bases[i]; ++i)
{
sum += sum_single(bound, bases[i]);
for(unsigned j = i + 1; bases[j]; ++j)
sum -= sum_single(bound, bases[i] * bases[j]);
}
return sum;
}
int main(void)
{
printf("%u\n", sum_multiples(999, 3, 5));
return 0;
}