The problem is to find the number of divisors of a number
ex-
for 10
ans=4
since 1,2,5,10 are the numbers which are divisors
i.e. they are the factors
constraints are num<=10^6
I have implemented a code for the same but got TLE!!
here is my code
int isprime[MAX];
void seive()
{
int i,
j;
isprime[0] = isprime[1] = 1;
for (i = 4; i < MAX; i += 2)
isprime[i] = 1;
for (i = 3; i * i < MAX; i += 2) {
if (!isprime[i]) {
for (j = i * i; j < MAX; j += 2 * i)
isprime[j] = 1;
}
}
}
int main()
{
seive();
int t;
long long num;
scanf("%d", & t);
while (t--) {
scanf("%lld", & num);
cnt = 0;
for (j = 1; j * j <= num; j++) {
if (num % j == 0) {
cnt++;
if (num / j != j)
cnt++;
}
printf("%lld\n", cnt);
}
return 0;
}
Can somebody help me to optimize it?
I have also searched about it but didnot getting any sucess.
So Please help guys.
You could try computing this mathematically (I'm not sure this will be faster/easier). Basically, given the prime factorization of a number, you should be able to calculate the number of divisors without too much trouble.
If you have an input x decompose into something like
x = p1^a1 * p2^a2 * ... pn^an
Then the number of divisors should be
prod(ai + 1) for i in 1 to n
I would then look at finding the smallest prime < sqrt(x), dividing that out until you're left with just a prime. A sieve might still be useful and I don't know what kind of input you would be getting.
Now consider what the above statement says: the number of divisors in the product of the powers of the prime factorization (plus 1). Thus, if you only every care if the result is prime, then you should only ever consider numbers which are prime, or powers of primes. And within that, you then only need to consider powers such that a1 + 1 is prime.
That should significantly cut down your search space.
If the prime factorization of a number is:
x = p1^e1 * p2^e2 * ... * pk^ek
Then the number of divisors is:
(e1 + 1)*(e2 + 1)* ... *(ek + 1)
For this to be prime, you need all ei to be 0, except one, which needs to be a prime - 1.
This is only true for primes and powers of primes. So you need to find how many powers of primes are in [l, r]. For example, 2^6 has (6 + 1) = 7 prime factors.
Now you just need to sieve enough primes fast enough. You only need to sieve those in [l, r], so an interval of size max 10^6.
To sieve directly in this interval, remove multiples of 2 directly from [l, r], and same for the rest. You can sieve primes up to 10^6 and use those to do the interval sieving later.
You can do the necessary counting while you're sieving as well.
Related
Problem : Finding n prime numbers.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
void firstnprimes(int *a, int n){
if (n < 1){
printf("INVALID");
return;
}
int i = 0, j, k; // i is the primes counter
for (j = 2; i != n; j++){ // j is a candidate number
for (k = 0; k < i; k++)
{
if (j % a[k] == 0) // a[k] is k-th prime
break;
}
if (k == i) // end-of-loop was reached
a[i++] = j; // record the i-th prime, j
}
return;
}
int main(){
int n;
scanf_s("%d",&n);
int *a = (int *)malloc(n*sizeof(int));
firstnprimes(a,n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
printf("%d\n",a[i]);
system("pause");
return 0;
}
My function's inner loop runs for i times (at the most), where i is the number of prime numbers below a given candidate number, and the outer loop runs for (nth prime number - 2) times.
How can I derive the complexity of this algorithm in Big O notation?
Thanks in advance.
In pseudocode your code is
firstnprimes(n) = a[:n] # array a's first n entries
where
i = 0
a = [j for j in [2..]
if is_empty( [j for p in a[:i] if (j%p == 0)] )
&& (++i) ]
(assuming the short-circuiting is_empty which returns false as soon as the list is discovered to be non-empty).
What it does is testing each candidate number from 2 and up by all its preceding primes.
Melissa O'Neill analyzes this algorithm in her widely known JFP article and derives its complexity as O( n^2 ).
Basically, each of the n primes that are produced is paired up with (is tested by) all the primes preceding it (i.e. k-1 primes, for the k th prime) and the sum of the arithmetic progression 0...(n-1) is (n-1)n/2 which is O( n^2 ); and she shows that composites do not contribute any term which is more significant than that to the overall sum, as there are O(n log n) composites on the way to n th prime but the is_empty calculation fails early for them.
Here's how it goes: with m = n log n, there will be m/2 evens, for each of which the is_empty calculation takes just 1 step; m/3 multiples of 3 with 2 steps; m/5 with 3 steps; etc.
So the total contribution of the composites, overestimated by not dealing with the multiplicities (basically, counting 15 twice, as a multiple of both 3 and 5, etc.), is:
SUM{i = 1, ..., n} (i m / p_i) // p_i is the i-th prime
= m SUM{i = 1, ..., n} (i / p_i)
= n log(n) SUM{i = 1, ..., n} (i / p_i)
< n log(n) (n / log(n)) // for n > 14,000
= n^2
The inequality can be tested at Wolfram Alpha cloud sandbox as Sum[ i/Prime[i], {i, 14000}] Log[14000.0] / 14000.0 (which is 0.99921, and diminishing for bigger n, tested up to n = 2,000,000 where it's 0.963554).
The prime number theorem states that asymptotically, the number of primes less than n is equal to n/log n. Therefore, your inner loop will run Theta of i * max =n / log n * n times (assuming max=n).
Also, your outer loop runs on the order of n log n times, making the total complexity Theta of n / log n * n * n log n = n^3. In other words, this is not the most efficient algorithm.
Note that there are better approximations around (e.g. the n-th prime number is closer to:
n log n + n log log n - n + n log log n / log n + ...
But, since you are concerned with just big O, this approximation is good enough.
Also, there are much better algorithms for doing what you're looking to do. Look up the topic of pseudoprimes, for more information.
I'm writing a code in C that returns the number of times a positive integer can be expressed as sums of perfect squares of two positive integers.
R(n) is the number of couples (x,y) such that x² + y² = n where x, y, n are all
non negative integers.
To compute R(n), I need to first find the prime factorization of n.
The problem is that I've tried a lot of algorithm for prime factorization that I can use on C but I need my code to be as fast as possible, so I would appreciate it if anyone can give me what he/she considers as the fastest algorithm to compute the prime factorization of a number as large as 2147483742.
What an odd limit; 2147483742 = 2^31 + 94.
As others have pointed out, for a number this small trial division by primes is most likely fast enough. Only if it isn't, you could try Pollard's rho method:
/* WARNING! UNTESTED CODE! */
long rho(n, c) {
long t = 2;
long h = 2;
long d = 1;
while (d == 1) {
t = (t*t + c) % n;
h = (h*h + c) % n;
h = (h*h + c) % n;
d = gcd(t-h, n); }
if (d == n)
return rho(n, c+1);
return d;
}
Called as rho(n,1), this function returns a (possibly-composite) factor of n; put it in a loop and call it repeatedly if you want to find all the factors of n. You'll also need a primality checker; for your limit, a Rabin-Miller test with bases 2, 7 and 61 is proven accurate and reasonably fast. You can read more about programming with prime numbers at my blog.
But in any case, given such a small limit I think you are better off using trial division by primes. Anything else might be asymptotically faster but practically slower.
EDIT: This answer has received several recent upvotes, so I'm adding a simple program that does wheel factorization with a 2,3,5-wheel. Called as wheel(n), this program prints the factors of n in increasing order.
long wheel(long n) {
long ws[] = {1,2,2,4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6};
long f = 2; int w = 0;
while (f * f <= n) {
if (n % f == 0) {
printf("%ld\n", f);
n /= f;
} else {
f += ws[w];
w = (w == 10) ? 3 : (w+1);
}
}
printf("%ld\n", n);
return 0;
}
I discuss wheel factorization at my blog; the explanation is lengthy, so I won't repeat it here. For integers that fit in a long, it is unlikely that you will be able to significantly better the wheel function given above.
There's a fast way to cut down the number of candidates. This routine tries 2, then 3, then all the odd numbers not divisible by 3.
long mediumFactor(n)
{
if ((n % 2) == 0) return 2;
if ((n % 3) == 0) return 3;
try = 5;
inc = 2;
lim = sqrt(n);
while (try <= lim)
{
if ((n % try) == 0) return try;
try += inc;
inc = 6 - inc; // flip from 2 -> 4 -> 2
}
return 1; // n is prime
}
The alternation of inc between 2 and 4 is carefully aligned so that it skips all even numbers and numbers divisible by 3. For this case: 5 (+2) 7 (+4) 11 (+2) 13 (+4) 17
Trials stop at sqrt(n) because at least one factor must be at or below the square root. (If both factors were > sqrt(n) then the product of the factors would be greater than n.)
Number of tries is sqrt(m)/3, where m is the highest possible number in your series. For a limit of 2147483647, that yields a maximum of 15,448 divisions worst case (for a prime near 2147483647) including the 2 and 3 tests.
If the number is composite, total number of divisions is usually much less and will very rarely be more; even taking into account calling the routine repeatedly to get all the factors.
I wrote two algos to get the sum of the proper divisors of a given number,to find perfect number or abundant number.
long sum_divisors_1(int a)
{
int i, t;
long sum = 1;
for (i = 2, t = sqrt(a); i < t + 1; i++) {
if (a % i == 0) {
sum += i;
sum += a / i;
}
}
if (a % t == 0)
sum -= t;
return sum;
}
long sum_divisors_2(int a)
{
int i, sum;
sum = 0;
for (i = 1; i < (int) (a / 2 + 1); i++) {
if (a % i == 0)
sum += i;
}
return sum;
}
And I think they are both correct and the first one is faster. But I can only get the correct result from the second algo. Other parts of the code are the same.
Any suggestions? And how the proper divisors are found in real industrial programming?
Thanks in advance.
Your problem lies here:
if (a % t == 0)
sum -= t;
Since you're casting t to an int from a floating point, it will round down to an integer value. This also assumes that t is the actual square root when it isn't. This will evaluate to true when a number has factors x & x+1 (the unit test I posted as well fails when i = 6 because it's square root is 2.45 and 2 is a factor).
The check really should be:
if (t*t == a)
sum -= t;
This is an old question but I was browsing.
There's a much faster algorithm to find the sum of proper divisors.
Find the prime factors of a number using Sieve of Eratosthenes (or Atkin). With wheel factorisation the first 1m prime numbers will take maybe 30ms.
Then the sum of all divisors is
For each n
sum += (n ^ (m+1) - 1) / (n-1)
where n is the factor, m is the power of that factor.
Eg for 220
2^2 5 11 are the factors
So it's sum of
2 ^ (2+1) - 1 / 1 *
5 ^ (1+1) - 1 / 4 *
11 ^ (1+1) - 1 / 10
= 7 * 6 * 12
= 504
This is the sum of ALL divisors, so just subtract N
504-220 = 284
This should be a lot faster than trying all the numbers, especially if you precalculate the sieve and reuse it.
Here's a simple unit test I wrote in C# that will quickly invalidate #1 given #2 is correct:
for(int i = 4; i < 28124; i++)
{
Assert.AreEqual(sum_divisors_2(i), sum_divisors_1(i), "Failed when i = {0}", i);
}
Too big for a comment...
Templatetypedef solved your problem; however the fastest possible way to compute the prime factors is to precompute all the prime factors up to sqrt(MAX_INT) with Eratostene sieve, store it into an array and then use it to factorize the number a. This is really really really much faster.
I am trying to generate all the prime factors of a number n. When I give it the number 126 it gives me 2, 3 and 7 but when I give it say 8 it gives me 2, 4 and 8. Any ideas as to what I am doing wrong?
int findPrime(unsigned long n)
{
int testDivisor, i;
i = 0;
testDivisor = 2;
while (testDivisor < n + 1)
{
if ((testDivisor * testDivisor) > n)
{
//If the test divisor squared is greater than the current n, then
//the current n is either 1 or prime. Save it if prime and return
}
if (((n % testDivisor) == 0))
{
prime[i] = testDivisor;
if (DEBUG == 1) printf("prime[%d] = %d\n", i, prime[i]);
i++;
n = n / testDivisor;
}
testDivisor++;
}
return i;
}
You are incrementing testDivisor even when you were able to divide n by it. Only increase it when it is not divisible anymore. This will result in 2,2,2, so you have to modify it a bit further so you do not store duplicates, but since this is a homework assignment I think you should figure that one out yourself :)
Is this based on an algorithm your professor told you to implement or is it your own heuristic? In case it helps, some known algorithms for prime factorization are the Quadratic Sieve and the General Number Field Sieve.
Right now, you aren't checking if any divisors you find are prime. As long as n % testDivisor == 0 you are counting testDivisor as a prime factor. Also, you are only dividing through by testDivisor once. You could fix this a number of ways, one of which would be to replace the statement if (((n % testDivisor) == 0)) with while (((n % testDivisor) == 0)).
Fixing this by adding the while loop also ensures that you won't get composite numbers as divisors, as if they still divide n, a smaller prime factor must have also divided n and the while loop for that prime factor wouldn't have left early.
Here is code to find the Prime Factor:
long GetPrimeFactors(long num, long *arrResult)
{
long count = 0;
long arr[MAX_SIZE];
long i = 0;
long idx = 0;
for(i = 2; i <= num; i++)
{
if(IsPrimeNumber(i) == true)
arr[count++] = i;
}
while(1)
{
if(IsPrimeNumber(num) == true)
{
arrResult[idx++] = num;
break;
}
for(i = count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if( (num % arr[i]) == 0)
{
arrResult[idx++] = arr[i];
num = num / arr[i];
break;
}
}
}
return idx;
}
Reference: http://www.softwareandfinance.com/Turbo_C/Prime_Factor.html
You can use the quadratic sieve algorithm, which factors 170-bit integers in second and 220-bit integers in minute. There is a pure C implementation here that does not require GMP or an external library : https://github.com/michel-leonard/C-Quadratic-Sieve, it's able to provide you a list of the prime factors of N. Thank You.
What could be the simplest and time efficient logic to find out the factors of a given Number.
Is there any algorithm that exist, based on the same.
Actually, my real problem is to find out the no. of factors that exist for a given Number..
So Any algorithm, please let me know on this..
Thanks.
Actually, my real problem is to find out the no. of factors that exist for a given Number..
Well, this is different. Let n be the given number.
If n = p1^e1 * p2^e2 * ... * pk^ek, where each p is a prime number, then the number of factors of n is (e1 + 1)*(e2 + 1)* ... *(ek + 1). More on this here.
Therefore, it is enough to find the powers at which each prime factor appears. For example:
read given number in n
initial_n = n
num_factors = 1;
for (i = 2; i * i <= initial_n; ++i) // for each number i up until the square root of the given number
{
power = 0; // suppose the power i appears at is 0
while (n % i == 0) // while we can divide n by i
{
n = n / i // divide it, thus ensuring we'll only check prime factors
++power // increase the power i appears at
}
num_factors = num_factors * (power + 1) // apply the formula
}
if (n > 1) // will happen for example for 14 = 2 * 7
{
num_factors = num_factors * 2 // n is prime, and its power can only be 1, so multiply the number of factors by 2
}
For example, take 18. 18 = 2^1 * 3*2 => number of factors = (1 + 1)*(2 + 1) = 6. Indeed, the 6 factors of 18 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18.
Here's a little benchmark between my method and the method described and posted by #Maciej. His has the advantage of being easier to implement, while mine has the advantage of being faster if change to only iterate over the prime numbers, as I have done for this test:
class Program
{
static private List<int> primes = new List<int>();
private static void Sieve()
{
bool[] ok = new bool[2000];
for (int i = 2; i < 2000; ++i) // primes up to 2000 (only need up to sqrt of 1 000 000 actually)
{
if (!ok[i])
{
primes.Add(i);
for (int j = i; j < 2000; j += i)
ok[j] = true;
}
}
}
private static int IVlad(int n)
{
int initial_n = n;
int factors = 1;
for (int i = 0; primes[i] * primes[i] <= n; ++i)
{
int power = 0;
while (initial_n % primes[i] == 0)
{
initial_n /= primes[i];
++power;
}
factors *= power + 1;
}
if (initial_n > 1)
{
factors *= 2;
}
return factors;
}
private static int Maciej(int n)
{
int factors = 1;
int i = 2;
for (; i * i < n; ++i)
{
if (n % i == 0)
{
++factors;
}
}
factors *= 2;
if (i * i == n)
{
++factors;
}
return factors;
}
static void Main()
{
Sieve();
Console.WriteLine("Testing equivalence...");
for (int i = 2; i < 1000000; ++i)
{
if (Maciej(i) != IVlad(i))
{
Console.WriteLine("Failed!");
Environment.Exit(1);
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Equivalence confirmed!");
Console.WriteLine("Timing IVlad...");
Stopwatch t = new Stopwatch();
t.Start();
for (int i = 2; i < 1000000; ++i)
{
IVlad(i);
}
Console.WriteLine("Total milliseconds: {0}", t.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Console.WriteLine("Timing Maciej...");
t.Reset();
t.Start();
for (int i = 2; i < 1000000; ++i)
{
Maciej(i);
}
Console.WriteLine("Total milliseconds: {0}", t.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
}
Results on my machine:
Testing equivalence...
Equivalence confirmed!
Timing IVlad...
Total milliseconds: 2448
Timing Maciej...
Total milliseconds: 3951
Press any key to continue . . .
There is a large number of algorithms available - from simple trial devision to very sophisticated algorithms for large numbers. Have a look at Integer Factorization on Wikipedia and pick one that suits your needs.
Here is a short but inefficient C# implementation that finds the number of prime factors. If you need the number of factors (not prime factors) you have to store the prime factors with their multiplicity and calculate the number of factors afterwards.
var number = 3 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 11;
var numberFactors = 0;
var currentFactor = 2;
while (number > 1)
{
if (number % currentFactor == 0)
{
number /= currentFactor;
numberFactors++;
}
else
{
currentFactor++;
}
}
Here is a fruit of my short discussion with |/|ad :)
read given number in n
int divisorsCount = 1;
int i;
for(i = 2; i * i < n; ++i)
{
if(n % i == 0)
{
++divisorsCount;
}
}
divisorsCount *= 2;
if(i * i == n)
{
++divisorsCount;
}
Careful, this answer is not useful/fast for a single value of n.
Method 1:
You can get it in O(polylog(n)) if you maintain a look-up table (for the first prime factor of a number).
If gcd(a,b) == 1, then
no. of factors of a*b = (no. of factors of a) * (no. of factors of b)
Therefore, for a given number a*b, if gcd(a,b) != 1 then we can have two other numbers p and q where p = a and q = b/gcd(a,b). Thus, gcd(p,q) == 1. Now, we can recursively find the number of factors for p and q.
It will take only some small amount of efforts to ensure neither p nor q is 1.
P.S. This method is also useful when you need to know the number of factors of all numbers from 1 to n. It would be an order of O(nlogn + O(look-up table)).
Method 2: (I do not have ownership for this.)
If you have the look-up for first prime factor till n, then you can know it's all prime factors in O(logn) and thus find the number of factors from them.
P.S. Google 'Factorization in logn' for better explanation.
Euclid's Algorithm should suffice.