Optimizing a program for solving ax+by=c with positve integers - c

I am writing a program that for any given positive integers a < b < c will output YES if there is a solution to ax+by=c where x and y are also positive integers (x,y > 0), or NO if there isn't a solution. Keep in mind that I need to work with big numbers.
The approach I take for solving this problem is that I subtract b from c and I check if this number is divisable by a.
Here's my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(){
unsigned long long int a, b, c;
scanf("%I64u %I64u %I64u", &a, &b, &c);
while(c>=a+b){ //if c becomes less than a+b, than there's no sollution
c-=b;
if(c%a==0){
printf("YES");
return 0;
}
}
printf("NO");
return 0;
}
is there a more optimised way to find wether ax+by=c has positive sollutions? I tried reading about linear Diophantine equations, but all I found is a way to find integer sollutions (but not positive).

My approach so far.
Use Euclidean Algorithm to find GCD(a, b)
There are solutions (in integers) to ax + by = c if and only if GCD(a, b) divides c. No integer solutions means no positive solutions.
use Extended Euclidean Algorithm to solve the Diophantine equation and return NO if it gives non-positive solutions.
For comparisons it's hard to find examples that take longer than a second but in deciding on thousands of random equations the performance difference is noticeable. This Lecture has a solution for finding the number of positive
solutions to a Linear Diophantine Equation.
typedef unsigned long long int BigInt;
int pos_solvable(BigInt a, BigInt b, BigInt c) {
/* returns 1 if there exists x, y > 0 s.t. ax + by = c
* where 0 < a < b < c
* returns 0, otherwise
*/
BigInt gcd = a, bb = b, temp;
while (bb) { /* Euclidean Algorithm */
temp = bb;
bb = gcd % bb;
gcd = temp;
}
if (c % gcd) { /* no integer (or positive) solution */
return 0;
} else {
/* Extended Euclidean Algorithm */
BigInt s = 0, old_s = 1;
BigInt t = 1, old_t = 0;
BigInt r = b / gcd, old_r = a / gcd;
while (r > 0) {
BigInt quotient = old_r / r;
BigInt ds = quotient * s;
BigInt dt = quotient * t;
if (ds > old_s || dt > old_t)
return 0; /* will give non-positive solution */
temp = s;
s = old_s - ds;
old_s = temp;
temp = t;
t = old_t - dt;
old_t = temp;
temp = r;
r = old_r - quotient * r;
old_r = temp;
}
return 1;
}
}

The following is a comment but too big for the comment section.
This is posted to help others dig into this problem a little deeper.
OP: Incorporate any of in your post if you like.
What is still needed are some challenging a,b,c.
#include <limits.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
//#define LLF "%I64u"
#define LLF "%llu"
int main(void) {
unsigned long long int a, b, c, x, y, sum, c0;
// scanf(LLF LLF LLF, &a, &b, &c);
c = c0 = ULLONG_MAX;
b = 10000223;
a = 10000169;
y = 0;
sum = a + b;
time_t t0 = time(NULL);
while (c >= sum) { //if c becomes less than a+b, than there's no solution
c -= b;
if (c % a == 0) {
break;
}
}
if (c % a == 0) {
y = (c0 - c) / b;
x = c / a;
printf("YES " LLF "*" LLF " + " LLF "*" LLF " = " LLF "\n", a, x, b, y, c);
} else {
printf("NO\n");
}
time_t t1 = time(NULL);
printf("time :" LLF "\n", (unsigned long long) (t1 - t0));
return 0;
}
Output
YES 10000169*1844638544065 + 10000223*4688810 = 18446697184563946985
time :0

Related

Finding GCD using divison method in C

So I wanted to write a function to calculate the Gcd or HCF of two numbers using the Divison method.This is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void gcd(int x, int y)
{
int g,l;
if (x >= y)
{
g = x;
l = y;
}
else
{
g = y;
l = x;
}
while (g % l != 0)
{
g = l;
l = g % l;
}
printf("The GCD of %d and %d is %d", x, y, l);
}
int main(void)
{
gcd(8, 3);
return 0;
}
I am getting no output with this(error?): Process returned -1073741676 (0xC0000094)
Is there a problem with my loop?
In:
g = l;
l = g % l;
the assignment g = l loses the value of g before g % l is calculated. Change it to:
int t = g % l;
g = l;
l = t;
I use this loop while to find the gcd of two numbers like this:
void gcd(int x, int y)
{
int k=x,l=y;
if(x>0&&y>0)
{
while(x!=0&&y!=0)
{
if(x>y)
{
x=x-y;
}
else
{
y=y-x;
}
}
}
printf("\nThe GCD of %d and %d is %d", k, l, x);
}
int main(void)
{
gcd(758,306);
return 0;
}
Examples:
Input:
x=758 , y=306
x=27 , y=45
x=3 , y=8
Output:
printf("\nThe GCD of 758 and 306 is 2");
printf("\nThe GCD of 27 and 45 is 9");
printf("\nThe GCD of 3 and 8 is 1");
First of all, take into account that you are exchanging the numbers when x >= y which means that you try to put in x the smaller of the two. For GDC, there's no need to do
this, as the remainder of a division by a bigger number is always the original number, so if you have the sequence 3, 8, the first remainder will be 3, and the numbers switch positions automatically as part of the algorithm. So there's no need to operate with g (I guess for greater) and l (for lesser) so you can avoid that.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void gcd(int x, int y)
{
int g,l;
if (x >= y)
{
g = x;
l = y;
}
else
{
g = y;
l = x;
}
Then, in this second part (the loop part) you have to take into account that you are calculating g % l twice in the same loop run (this is not the Euclides' algorithm).
while (g % l != 0)
{
g = l;
l = g % l;
}
You should better use a new variable r (for remainder, but I should recommend you to use longer, descriptive names) so you have always an idea of what the variable holds.
int r;
while ((r = g % l) != 0) {
g = l;
l = r;
}
you see? I just do one division per loop, but you make a l = g % l; which modifies the value of l, making you go through two iterations of the loop in one.
The final program is:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int gcd(int greater, int lower)
{
int remainder;
while ((remainder = greater % lower) != 0) {
printf("g=%d, l=%d, r=%d\n", greater, lower, remainder);
greater = lower;
lower = remainder;
}
return lower; /* remember that remainder got 0 in the last loop */
}
int main(void)
{
int x = 6, y = 8;
printf("The GCD of %d and %d is %d\n",
x, y, gcd(x, y));
printf("The GCD of %d and %d is %d\n",
y, x, gcd(y, x));
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
(I have added a trace printf in the gcd() loop to show how the variables are changing, and both calculations ---changing the parameter values--- to show what I said above about the automatic change in order. Also, it's better to use the gcd() as a function that returns the value, and let main() decide if it wants to print results, or use the value for something else.
Enjoy it!! :)

Efficient algorithm to calculate the sum of number of base2 digits (number of bits) over an interval of positive integers

Let's say I've been given two integers a, b where a is a positive integer and is smaller than b. I have to find an efficient algorithm that's going to give me the sum of number of base2 digits (number of bits) over the interval [a, b]. For example, in the interval [0, 4] the sum of digits is equal to 9 because 0 = 1 digit, 1 = 1 digit, 2 = 2 digits, 3 = 2 digits and 4 = 3 digits.
My program is capable of calculating this number by using a loop but I'm looking for something more efficient for large numbers. Here are the snippets of my code just to give you an idea:
int numberOfBits(int i) {
if(i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return (int) log2(i) + 1;
}
}
The function above is for calculating the number of digits of one number in the interval.
The code below shows you how I use it in my main function.
for(i = a; i <= b; i++) {
l = l + numberOfBits(i);
}
printf("Digits: %d\n", l);
Ideally I should be able to get the number of digits by using the two values of my interval and using some special algorithm to do that.
Try this code, i think it gives you what you are needing to calculate the binaries:
int bit(int x)
{
if(!x) return 1;
else
{
int i;
for(i = 0; x; i++, x >>= 1);
return i;
}
}
The main thing to understand here is that the number of digits used to represent a number in binary increases by one with each power of two:
+--------------+---------------+
| number range | binary digits |
+==============+===============+
| 0 - 1 | 1 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 2 - 3 | 2 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 4 - 7 | 3 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 8 - 15 | 4 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 16 - 31 | 5 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 32 - 63 | 6 |
+--------------+---------------+
| ... | ... |
A trivial improvement over your brute force algorithm would then be to figure out how many times this number of digits has increased between the two numbers passed in (given by the base two logarithm) and add up the digits by multiplying the count of numbers that can be represented by the given number of digits (given by the power of two) with the number of digits.
A naive implementation of this algorithm is:
int digits_sum_seq(int a, int b)
{
int sum = 0;
int i = 0;
int log2b = b <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(b));
int log2a = a <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(a)) + 1;
sum += (pow(2, log2a) - a) * (log2a);
for (i = log2b; i > log2a; i--)
sum += pow(2, i - 1) * i;
sum += (b - pow(2, log2b) + 1) * (log2b + 1);
return sum;
}
It can then be improved by the more efficient versions of the log and pow functions seen in the other answers.
First, we can improve the speed of log2, but that only gives us a fixed factor speed-up and doesn't change the scaling.
Faster log2 adapted from: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#IntegerLogLookup
The lookup table method takes only about 7 operations to find the log
of a 32-bit value. If extended for 64-bit quantities, it would take
roughly 9 operations. Another operation can be trimmed off by using
four tables, with the possible additions incorporated into each. Using
int table elements may be faster, depending on your architecture.
Second, we must re-think the algorithm. If you know that numbers between N and M have the same number of digits, would you add them up one by one or would you rather do (M-N+1)*numDigits?
But if we have a range where multiple numbers appear what do we do? Let's just find the intervals of same digits, and add sums of those intervals. Implemented below. I think that my findEndLimit could be further optimized with a lookup table.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned int fastLog2(unsigned int v)
{
static const char LogTable256[256] =
{
#define LT(n) n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n
-1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
LT(4), LT(5), LT(5), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6),
LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7)
};
register unsigned int t, tt; // temporaries
if (tt = v >> 16)
{
return (t = tt >> 8) ? 24 + LogTable256[t] : 16 + LogTable256[tt];
}
else
{
return (t = v >> 8) ? 8 + LogTable256[t] : LogTable256[v];
}
}
unsigned int numberOfBits(unsigned int i)
{
if (i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return fastLog2(i) + 1;
}
}
unsigned int findEndLimit(unsigned int sx, unsigned int ex)
{
unsigned int sy = numberOfBits(sx);
unsigned int ey = numberOfBits(ex);
unsigned int mx;
unsigned int my;
if (sy == ey) // this also means sx == ex
return ex;
// assumes sy < ey
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
while (ex - sx != 1) {
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
if (my == ey) {
ex = mx;
ey = numberOfBits(ex);
}
else {
sx = mx;
sy = numberOfBits(sx);
}
}
return sx+1;
}
int main(void)
{
unsigned int a, b, m;
unsigned long l;
clock_t start, end;
l = 0;
a = 0;
b = UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
unsigned int i;
for (i = a; i < b; ++i) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
if (i == b) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
end = clock();
printf("Naive\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
l=0;
start = clock();
do {
m = findEndLimit(a, b);
l += (b-m + 1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
b = m-1;
} while (b > a);
l += (b-a+1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
end = clock();
printf("Binary search\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
From 0 to UINT_MAX
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 25.722492s
Binary search
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 0.000025s
My findEndLimit can take long time in some edge cases:
From UINT_MAX/16+1 to UINT_MAX/8
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 1.651067s
Binary search
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 4.921520s
Conceptually, you would need to split the task to two subproblems -
1) find the sum of digits from 0..M, and from 0..N, then subtract.
2) find the floor(log2(x)), because eg for the number 77 the numbers 64,65,...77 all have 6 digits, the next 32 have 5 digits, the next 16 have 4 digits and so on, which makes a geometric progression.
Thus:
int digits(int a) {
if (a == 0) return 1; // should digits(0) be 0 or 1 ?
int b=(int)floor(log2(a)); // use any all-integer calculation hack
int sum = 1 + (b+1) * (a- (1<<b) +1); // added 1, due to digits(0)==1
while (--b)
sum += (b + 1) << b; // shortcut for (b + 1) * (1 << b);
return sum;
}
int digits_range(int a, int b) {
if (a <= 0 || b <= 0) return -1; // formulas work for strictly positive numbers
return digits(b)-digits(a-1);
}
As efficiency depends on the tools available, one approach would be doing it "analog":
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
unsigned long long pow2sum_min(unsigned long long n, long long unsigned m)
{
if (m >= n)
{
return 1;
}
--n;
return (2ULL << n) + pow2sum_min(n, m);
}
#define LN(x) (log2(x)/log2(M_E))
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if (2 >= argc)
{
fprintf(stderr, "%s a b\n", argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
long a = atol(argv[1]), b = atol(argv[2]);
if (0L >= a || 0L >= b || b < a)
{
puts("Na ...!");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
/* Expand intevall to cover full dimensions: */
unsigned long long a_c = pow(2, floor(log2(a)));
unsigned long long b_c = pow(2, floor(log2(b+1)) + 1);
double log2_a_c = log2(a_c);
double log2_b_c = log2(b_c);
unsigned long p2s = pow2sum_min(log2_b_c, log2_a_c) - 1;
/* Integral log2(x) between a_c and b_c: */
double A = ((b_c * (LN(b_c) - 1))
- (a_c * (LN(a_c) - 1)))/LN(2)
+ (b+1 - a);
/* "Integer"-integral - integral of log2(x)'s inverse function (2**x) between log(a_c) and log(b_c): */
double D = p2s - (b_c - a_c)/LN(2);
/* Corrective from a_c/b_c to a/b : */
double C = (log2_b_c - 1)*(b_c - (b+1)) + log2_a_c*(a - a_c);
printf("Total used digits: %lld\n", (long long) ((A - D - C) +.5));
}
:-)
The main thing here is the number and kind of iterations done.
Number is
log(floor(b_c)) - log(floor(a_c))
times
doing one
n - 1 /* Integer decrement */
2**n + s /* One bit-shift and one integer addition */
for each iteration.
Here's an entirely look-up based approach. You don't even need the log2 :)
Algorithm
First we precompute interval limits where the number of bits would change and create a lookup table. In other words we create an array limits[2^n], where limits[i] gives us the biggest integer that can be represented with (i+1) bits. Our array is then {1, 3, 7, ..., 2^n-1}.
Then, when we want to determine the sum of bits for our range, we must first match our range limits a and b with the smallest index for which a <= limits[i] and b <= limits[j] holds, which will then tell us that we need (i+1) bits to represent a, and (j+1) bits to represent b.
If the indexes are the same, then the result is simply (b-a+1)*(i+1), otherwise we must separately get the number of bits from our value to the edge of same number of bits interval, and add up total number of bits for each interval between as well. In any case, simple arithmetic.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned long bitsnumsum(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
// generate lookup table
// limits[i] is the max. number we can represent with (i+1) bits
static const unsigned int limits[32] =
{
#define LTN(n) n*2u-1, n*4u-1, n*8u-1, n*16u-1, n*32u-1, n*64u-1, n*128u-1, n*256u-1
LTN(1),
LTN(256),
LTN(256*256),
LTN(256*256*256)
};
// make it work for any order of arguments
if (b < a) {
unsigned int c = a;
a = b;
b = c;
}
// find interval of a
unsigned int i = 0;
while (a > limits[i]) {
++i;
}
// find interval of b
unsigned int j = i;
while (b > limits[j]) {
++j;
}
// add it all up
unsigned long sum = 0;
if (i == j) {
// a and b in the same range
// conveniently, this also deals with j == 0
// so no danger to do [j-1] below
return (i+1) * (unsigned long)(b - a + 1);
}
else {
// add sum of digits in range [a, limits[i]]
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - a + 1);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[j], b]
sum += (j+1) * (unsigned long)(b - limits[j-1]);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[i], limits[j]]
for (++i; i<j; ++i) {
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - limits[i-1]);
}
return sum;
}
}
int main(void)
{
clock_t start, end;
unsigned int a=0, b=UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
printf("Sum of binary digits for numbers in range "
"[%u, %u]: %lu\n", a, b, bitsnumsum(a, b));
end = clock();
printf("Time: %fs\n", ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
$ ./lookup
Sum of binary digits for numbers in range [0, 4294967295]: 133143986178
Time: 0.000282s
Algorithm
The main idea is to find the n2 = log2(x) rounded down. That is the number of digits in x. Let pow2 = 1 << n2. n2 * (pow2 - x + 1) is the number of digits in the values [x...pow2]. Now find the sun of digits in the powers of 2 from 1 to n2-1
Code
I am certain various simplifications can be made.
Untested code. Will review later.
// Let us use unsigned for everything.
unsigned ulog2(unsigned value) {
unsigned result = 0;
if (0xFFFF0000u & value) {
value >>= 16; result += 16;
}
if (0xFF00u & value) {
value >>= 8; result += 8;
}
if (0xF0u & value) {
value >>= 4; result += 4;
}
if (0xCu & value) {
value >>= 2; result += 2;
}
if (0x2 & value) {
value >>= 1; result += 1;
}
return result;
}
unsigned bit_count_helper(unsigned x) {
if (x == 0) {
return 1;
}
unsigned n2 = ulog2(x);
unsigned pow2 = 1u << n;
unsigned sum = n2 * (pow2 - x + 1u); // value from pow2 to x
while (n2 > 0) {
// ... + 5*16 + 4*8 + 3*4 + 2*2 + 1*1
pow2 /= 2;
sum += n2 * pow2;
}
return sum;
}
unsigned bit_count(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
assert(a < b);
return bit_count_helper(b - 1) - bit_count_helper(a);
}
For this problem your solution is the simplest, the one called "naive" where you look for every element in the sequence or in your case interval for check something or execute operations.
Naive Algorithm
Assuming that a and b are positive integers with b greater than a let's call the dimension/size of the interval [a,b], n = (b-a).
Having our number of elements n and using some notations of algorithms (like big-O notation link), the worst case cost is O(n*(numberOfBits_cost)).
From this we can see that we can speed up our algorithm by using a faster algorithm for computing numberOfBits() or we need to find a way to not look at every element of the interval that costs us n operations.
Intuition
Now looking at a possible interval [6,14] you can see that for 6 and 7 we need 3 digits, with 4 need for 8,9,10,11,12,13,14. This results in calling numberOfBits() for every number that use the same number of digits to be represented, while the following multiplication operation would be faster:
(number_in_subinterval)*digitsForThisInterval
((14-8)+1)*4 = 28
((7-6)+1)*3 = 6
So we reduced the looping on 9 elements with 9 operations to only 2.
So writing a function that use this intuition will give us a more efficient in time, not necessarily in memory, algorithm. Using your numberOfBits() function I have created this solution:
int intuitionSol(int a, int b){
int digitsForA = numberOfBits(a);
int digitsForB = numberOfBits(b);
if(digitsForA != digitsForB){
//because a or b can be that isn't the first or last element of the
// interval that a specific number of digit can rappresent there is a need
// to execute some correction operation before on a and b
int tmp = pow(2,digitsForA) - a;
int result = tmp*digitsForA; //will containt the final result that will be returned
int i;
for(i = digitsForA + 1; i < digitsForB; i++){
int interval_elements = pow(2,i) - pow(2,i-1);
result = result + ((interval_elements) * i);
//printf("NumOfElem: %i for %i digits; sum:= %i\n", interval_elements, i, result);
}
int tmp1 = ((b + 1) - pow(2,digitsForB-1));
result = result + tmp1*digitsForB;
return result;
}
else {
int elements = (b - a) + 1;
return elements * digitsForA; // or digitsForB
}
}
Let's look at the cost, this algorithm costs is the cost of doing correction operation on a and b plus the most expensive one that of the for-loop. In my solution however I'm not looping over all elements but only on numberOfBits(b)-numberOfBits(a) that in the worst case, when [0,n], become log(n)-1 thats equivalent to O(log n).
To resume we passed from a linear operations cost O(n) to a logartmic one O(log n) in the worst case. Look on this diagram the diferinces between the two.
Note
When I talk about interval or sub-interval I refer to the interval of elements that use the same number of digits to represent the number in binary.
Following there are some output of my tests with the last one that shows the difference:
Considered interval is [0,4]
YourSol: 9 in time: 0.000015s
IntuitionSol: 9 in time: 0.000007s
Considered interval is [0,0]
YourSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
IntuitionSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [4,7]
YourSol: 12 in time: 0.000016s
IntuitionSol: 12 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [2,123456]
YourSol: 1967697 in time: 0.005010s
IntuitionSol: 1967697 in time: 0.000015s

Not Getting a Calculated Value of the Constant e

Not really sure what the problem is here. I know I have the factorial function correct because I tested it separately. But the function that calculates e is tripping me up. All I have to do is add all the values after each factorial has been calculated. But I am having trouble translating that into C code. The problem for sure is in my second function. Any help or pointers would be appreciated.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define NOERROR 0
#define DECIMAL_PLACES 16
#define EXPECTED_E 2.7182818284590452L
long calcFactorial(int);
double calcE(int);
long calcFactorial(int n)
{
long sum = 0;
sum = n;
if(n == 0)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
while(n != 1)
{
sum = sum * (n - 1);
n = n - 1;
}
printf("factorial sum: %ld\n", sum);
return sum;
}
}
double calcE(int n)
{
double e = 0;
int counter = 0;
for (counter = 0; counter < DECIMAL_PLACES; counter++)
{
e = e + (1/calcFactorial(n));
n--;
}
printf("Expected e value: %0.16Lf\n", EXPECTED_E);
printf("Calculated e value: %0.16d\n", e);
return e;
}
int main()
{
calcE(10);
}
You have a lot of errors in your code:
using long to store floating point result. Use double
passing n but looping using a bigger value: n becomes negative after a while: infinite loop
e = e + (1/calcFactorial(counter)); adds 0 to e most of the time because calcFactorial returns an integer (long)
EXPECTED_E constant had L suffix, which means long. Not what you want.
Fixed version:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define NOERROR 0
#define DECIMAL_PLACES 16
#define EXPECTED_E 2.7182818284590452
long calcFactorial(int);
void calcE(int);
long calcFactorial(int n)
{
long sum = 0;
sum = n;
if(n == 0)
{
return 1;
}
else
{
while(n != 1)
{
sum *= (n - 1);
n = n - 1;
}
return sum;
}
}
void calcE(int n)
{
double e = 0;
int counter = 0;
for (counter = 0; counter < n; counter++)
{
e = e + (1.0/calcFactorial(counter));
}
printf("Expected e value: %0.16lf\n", EXPECTED_E);
printf("Calculated e value: %0.16lf\n", e);
}
int main( )
{
calcE(10);
}
This code outputs:
Expected e value: 2.7182818284590451
Calculated e value: 2.7182815255731922
Note: you are limited to a given maximum for n because after that you'll overflow long. Maybe consider using long long or unsigned long long for the factorial part (and even with that you're severely limited).
Jean-François Fabre highlighted your formal errors quite well, but it is not so far fetched to calculate with integers up to the final division--which must be done with floats, of course. The trick can be done with a method called binary splitting and, to my own surprise, it works very well native doubles, only one decimal digit off. It is also very simple to implement (code below written with legibility in mind).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#define BS_AFU 0
#define BS_AOK 1
static int exp1_bin_split(uint64_t a, uint64_t b, uint64_t *P, uint64_t *Q){
int err = BS_AOK;
uint64_t p1, q1, p2, q2, t1, one;
one = 1UL;
t1 = b - a;
if(t1 == one){
*P = one;
*Q = b;
return err;
}
t1 = (a + b) >> 1;
err = exp1_bin_split(a, t1, &p1, &q1);
if(err != BS_AOK){
return err;
}
err = exp1_bin_split(t1, b, &p2, &q2);
if(err != BS_AOK){
return err;
}
*P = q2 * p1 + p2;
*Q = q1 * q2;
return err;
}
#include <float.h>
static int exp1(double *a){
int err = BS_AOK;
uint64_t p = 0UL, q = 0UL, zero = 0UL;
double dp, dq;
// DBL_DIG + 2 = 17 here on my machine
// had DBL_DIG + 1 first but found out via T&E that
// one more is still inside the precision of a binary64
err = exp1_bin_split(zero, DBL_DIG + 2, &p, &q);
if(err != BS_AOK){
return err;
}
p = p + q;
dp = (double) p;
dq = (double) q;
*a = dp/dq;
return err;
}
int main(void){
double e = 0.0;
int err = BS_AOK;
err = exp1(&e);
if(err != BS_AOK){
fprintf(stderr,"Something went wrong in computing e\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
printf("exp(1) ~ 2.7182818284590452353602874713526624978\nexp1 ~ %.20g\n",e);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
It uses the same algorithm as you do but does not compute the individual fractions and sums them up as floats but does it all at once with integers such that we have a large fraction at the end to resemble the approximation of exp(1). That explanation is a bit over-simplified, please read the linked paper for the details.

algorithm to convert decimal to fraction expression

supposing I have a decimal like
0.30000000000000027
What would be the best algorithm to know the same number expressed as a fraction
So given certain x find y that satisfies x=1/y in c or haskell
I was thinking
1/3> 0.30 >1/4
Iterating left and right side til one of them converges and > becomes =
so first iteration would look like
1/1 > 0.30000000000000027 > 1/somethinghere
1/2 > 0.30000000000000027 > 1/increase or decrease this
1/3 > 0.30000000000000027 ...
I want to clarify that I could easily do
0.30000000000000027 = 30000000000000027/ 10^17
but I want to do
0.30000000000000027 = 1/x
In c or haskell
Voila (converts almost properly to a normal fraction):
int gcd(int a, int b)
{
if (a == 0) return b;
if (b == 0) return a;
if (a > b)
return gcd(b, a % b);
else
return gcd(a, b % a);
}
struct frac {
int num;
int denom;
};
struct frac to_frac(double x, int precision)
{
int denom = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < precision; i++) {
denom *= 10;
}
int num = x * denom + 0.5; // hack: round if imprecise
int gcdiv = gcd(num, denom);
struct frac f;
f.num = num / gcdiv;
f.denom = denom / gcdiv;
return f;
}
Have you looked into continued fractions? They give very good approximations of numbers.
Don't know haskell, here it is in pseudo-code:
raw_denom = 1/x;
print "1/" floor(raw_denom) " >= " x " >= 1/" ceil(raw_denom)

Subtraction without minus sign in C

How can I subtract two integers in C without the - operator?
int a = 34;
int b = 50;
You can convert b to negative value using negation and adding 1:
int c = a + (~b + 1);
printf("%d\n", c);
-16
This is two's complement sign negation. Processor is doing it when you use '-' operator when you want to negate value or subtrackt it.
Converting float is simpler. Just negate first bit (shoosh gave you example how to do this).
EDIT:
Ok, guys. I give up. Here is my compiler independent version:
#include <stdio.h>
unsigned int adder(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
unsigned int loop = 1;
unsigned int sum = 0;
unsigned int ai, bi, ci;
while (loop) {
ai = a & loop;
bi = b & loop;
ci = sum & loop;
sum = sum ^ ai ^ bi; // add i-th bit of a and b, and add carry bit stored in sum i-th bit
loop = loop << 1;
if ((ai&bi)|(ci&ai)|(ci&bi)) sum = sum^loop; // add carry bit
}
return sum;
}
unsigned int sub(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
return adder(a, adder(~b, 1)); // add negation + 1 (two's complement here)
}
int main() {
unsigned int a = 35;
unsigned int b = 40;
printf("%u - %u = %d\n", a, b, sub(a, b)); // printf function isn't compiler independent here
return 0;
}
I'm using unsigned int so that any compiler will treat it the same.
If you want to subtract negative values, then do it that way:
unsgined int negative15 = adder(~15, 1);
Now we are completly independent of signed values conventions. In my approach result all ints will be stored as two's complement - so you have to be careful with bigger ints (they have to start with 0 bit).
Pontus is right, 2's complement is not mandated by the C standard (even if it is the de facto hardware standard). +1 for Phil's creative answers; here's another approach to getting -1 without using the standard library or the -- operator.
C mandates three possible representations, so you can sniff which is in operation and get a different -1 for each:
negation= ~1;
if (negation+1==0) /* one's complement arithmetic */
minusone= ~1;
else if (negation+2==0) /* two's complement arithmetic */
minusone= ~0;
else /* sign-and-magnitude arithmetic */
minusone= ~0x7FFFFFFE;
r= a+b*minusone;
The value 0x7FFFFFFFE would depend on the width (number of ‘value bits’) of the type of integer you were interested in; if unspecified, you have more work to find that out!
+ No bit setting
+ Language independent
+ Can be adjusted for different number types (int, float, etc)
- Almost certainly not your C homework answer (which is likely to be about bits)
Expand a-b:
a-b = a + (-b)
= a + (-1).b
Manufacture -1:
float: pi = asin(1.0);
(with minusone_flt = sin(3.0/2.0*pi);
math.h) or = cos(pi)
or = log10(0.1)
complex: minusone_cpx = (0,1)**2; // i squared
integer: minusone_int = 0; minusone_int--; // or convert one of the floats above
+ No bit setting
+ Language independent
+ Independent of number type (int, float, etc)
- Requires a>b (ie positive result)
- Almost certainly not your C homework answer (which is likely to be about bits)
a - b = c
restricting ourselves to the number space 0 <= c < (a+b):
(a - b) mod(a+b) = c mod(a+b)
a mod(a+b) - b mod(a+b) = c mod(a+b)
simplifying the second term:
(-b).mod(a+b) = (a+b-b).mod(a+b)
= a.mod(a+b)
substituting:
a.mod(a+b) + a.mod(a+b) = c.mod(a+b)
2a.mod(a+b) = c.mod(a+b)
if b>a, then b-a>0, so:
c.mod(a+b) = c
c = 2a.mod(a+b)
So, if a is always greater than b, then this would work.
Given that encoding integers to support two's complement is not mandated in C, iterate until done. If they want you to jump through flaming hoops, no need to be efficient about it!
int subtract(int a, int b)
{
if ( b < 0 )
return a+abs(b);
while (b-- > 0)
--a;
return a;
}
Silly question... probably silly interview!
For subtracting in C two integers you only need:
int subtract(int a, int b)
{
return a + (~b) + 1;
}
I don't believe that there is a simple an elegant solution for float or double numbers like for integers. So you can transform your float numbers in arrays and apply an algorithm similar with one simulated here
If you want to do it for floats, start from a positive number and change its sign bit like so:
float f = 3;
*(int*)&f |= 0x80000000;
// now f is -3.
float m = 4 + f;
// m = 1
You can also do this for doubles using the appropriate 64 bit integer. in visual studio this is __int64 for instance.
I suppose this
b - a = ~( a + ~b)
Assembly (accumulator) style:
int result = a;
result -= b;
As the question asked for integers not ints, you could implement a small interpreter than uses Church numerals.
Create a lookup table for every possible case of int-int!
Not tested. Without using 2's complement:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int sillyNegate(int x) {
if (x <= 0)
return abs(x);
else {
// setlocale(LC_ALL, "C"); // if necessary.
char buffer[256];
snprintf(buffer, 255, "%c%d", 0x2d, x);
sscanf(buffer, "%d", &x);
return x;
}
}
Assuming the length of an int is much less than 255, and the snprintf/sscanf round-trip won't produce any unspecified behavior (right? right?).
The subtraction can be computed using a - b == a + (-b).
Alternative:
#include <math.h>
int moreSillyNegate(int x) {
return x * ilogb(0.5); // ilogb(0.5) == -1;
}
This would work using integer overflow:
#include<limits.h>
int subtractWithoutMinusSign(int a, int b){
return a + (b * (INT_MAX + INT_MAX + 1));
}
This also works for floats (assuming you make a float version…)
For the maximum range of any data type , one's complement provide the negative value decreased by 1 to any corresponding value. ex:
~1 --------> -2
~2---------> -3
and so on... I will show you this observation using little code snippet
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a , b;
a=10;
b=~a; // b-----> -11
printf("%d\n",a+~b+1);// equivalent to a-b
return 0;
}
Output: 0
Note : This is valid only for the range of data type. means for int data type this rule will be applicable only for the value of range[-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647].
Thankyou .....May this help you
Iff:
The Minuend is greater or equal to 0, or
The Subtrahend is greater or equal to 0, or
The Subtrahend and the Minuend are less than 0
multiply the Minuend by -1 and add the result to the Subtrahend:
SUB + (MIN * -1)
Else multiply the Minuend by 1 and add the result to the Subtrahend.
SUB + (MIN * 1)
Example (Try it online):
#include <stdio.h>
int subtract (int a, int b)
{
if ( a >= 0 || b >= 0 || ( a < 0 && b < 0 ) )
{
return a + (b * -1);
}
return a + (b * 1);
}
int main (void)
{
int x = -1;
int y = -5;
printf("%d - %d = %d", x, y, subtract(x, y) );
}
Output:
-1 - -5 = 4
int num1, num2, count = 0;
Console.WriteLine("Enter two numebrs");
num1 = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
num2 = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
if (num1 < num2)
{
num1 = num1 + num2;
num2 = num1 - num2;
num1 = num1 - num2;
}
for (; num2 < num1; num2++)
{
count++;
}
Console.WriteLine("The diferrence is " + count);
void main()
{
int a=5;
int b=7;
while(b--)a--;
printf("sud=%d",a);
}

Resources