Ok so relatively prime means that two numbers have no common factors greater than 1. It can also be viewed as two numbers that have gcd = 1.
So along those lines, this is the code i wrote to find two relatively prime numbers e,z :
for(e = 0,flag=0; (flag==1); e++){
if( gcd( e, z ) == 1){ // z in this example is 60
flag = 1;
}
}
printf("e = %d\n",e);
and the gcd function is defined as :
int gcd(int i, int x){
if(x % i == 0) return( i );
return( gcd( x % i, x ) );
}
when I set z = 60, the e I get is e= 0 ... Actually I keep getting the same e with which I initialize the for loop
What am I doing wrong? Is there any other way of finding if two numbers are relatively prime?
EDIT:
Ok as per the suggestion from minitech here is the modified code:
for(e = 2,flag=0; !flag; e++){
if( gcd( e, z ) == 1){
flag = 1;
}
}
now when I set my z=60 , my e is coming out to be e = 60 which is again wrong. Correct answer should be e = 7
You shouldn’t start at zero
Your flag condition should be !flag
After fixing that, you will always get 1, because it’s relatively prime to everything. Try starting at z - 1 and decrementing if you want the biggest one. You should also just break; instead of keeping a flag.
This is a little fragile, since it can't handle a zero argument; e.g.,
gcd(z, z) = gcd(z, 0) = gcd(0, z) = |z|.
I'd go with something like:
unsigned gcd (unsigned u, unsigned v)
{
unsigned t;
for (; (t = v) != 0; u = t)
v = u % v;
return u;
}
I use unsigned types, because there's no reason to use negative arguments - they don't affect the result of a gcd, which is always non-negative.
Related
So say you are given the numbers 27 and 81. How would a program that tells you that the 4th root of 81 is 3 and the cubic root of 27 is three. (Both have the root of 3).
x = 16;
y = 4;
foo = same_root(16, 4); // foo = 2
root1 = find_root(16, 2); // root1 = 4
root2 = find_root(4, 2); // root2 = 2
For CommonRoot(a,b),
you say x'th root of a = y'th root of b,
which is the same as a^(1/x) = b^(1/y)
So isolating y :
//log_x is log base x
log_b(a^(1/x)) = 1/y
(1/x)log_b(a) = 1/y
x/log_b(a) = y
//Or
x/(log(a)/log(b)) = y
This function will take in entry x, which is the x of x'th root of a and return the corresponding y of y'th root of b. By doing a^(1/x) or b^(1/y), you find the common root.
So you can iterate through the values of x, waiting to get an integer y and if you do b^(1/y), you will get a common root. To be mentionned also, this method helps you finding multiple common roots and non-integer common roots.
So here's a pseudo-code example :
CommonRoot(float a, float b){
For(int x = 0; x < max(a,b); x++){ // max(a,b) is just to set a threshold of search,
//I haven't actually tested this, so I don't know what would be a good threshold
float y = x/(log(a)/log(b)); // gather a y for an x
If ( fPart(y) == 0){ // test if y is an integer
If( fPart(b^(1/y)) == 0){ // the answer might lead to a non-integer common root (such as 1.4 beeing a common root of 1.4^2 and 1.4^5)
return b^(1/y); //return the common root
}
}
}
return -1; //if it hasn't found anything, return -1 or error.
}
Please note that this algorithm will likely return the highest common root, not the lowest.
I had a lot of fun finding an optimized solution for you, I hope I helped :).
You can utilize that simple fact that powers of the same number are divisible by each other. And the product itself is a power of the same root. It means that we can have a simple recursive algorithm as follows:
Check if the smaller number divides the larger one.
If not - return false (-1 in the code below)
If yes, recursively repeat for the smaller number and the product
Our stopping conditions should be when both numbers are equal, but neither is 1, because 1 can't be a common root.
Here is C code implementing this idea (for positive numbers):
#include <stdio.h>
#define TEST(x, y) printf("%d, %d => %d\n", (x), (y), common_root((x),(y)))
int common_root(int a, int b)
{
int temp;
if (a == 1 || b == 1)
return -1;
if (a == b) {
return a;
}
if (a > b) {
// Swap to make sure a < b
temp = a;
a = b;
b = temp;
}
if ( (b % a) == 0) // Check if `b` divisible by `a`
return common_root(a, b/a);
else
return -1;
}
int main(void) {
TEST(1,2);
TEST(2,3);
TEST(6,10);
TEST(4, 16);
TEST(12, 24);
TEST(27, 81);
return 0;
}
Output:
1, 2 => -1
2, 3 => -1
6, 10 => -1
4, 16 => 4
12, 24 => -1
27, 81 => 3
Demo
I'm trying to find ex without using math.h. My code gives wrong anwsers when x is bigger or lower than ~±20. I tried to change all double types to long double types, but it gave some trash on input.
My code is:
#include <stdio.h>
double fabs1(double x) {
if(x >= 0){
return x;
} else {
return x*(-1);
}
}
double powerex(double x) {
double a = 1.0, e = a;
for (int n = 1; fabs1(a) > 0.001; ++n) {
a = a * x / n;
e += a;
}
return e;
}
int main(){
freopen("input.txt", "r", stdin);
freopen("output.txt", "w", stdout);
int n;
scanf("%d", &n);
for(int i = 0; i<n; i++) {
double number;
scanf("%lf", &number);
double e = powerex(number);
printf("%0.15g\n", e);
}
return 0;
}
Input:
8
0.0
1.0
-1.0
2.0
-2.0
100.0
-100.0
0.189376476361643
My output:
1
2.71825396825397
0.367857142857143
7.38899470899471
0.135379188712522
2.68811714181613e+043
-2.91375564689153e+025
1.20849374134639
Right output:
1
2.71828182845905
0.367879441171442
7.38905609893065
0.135335283236613
2.68811714181614e+43
3.72007597602084e-44
1.20849583696666
You can see that my answer for e−100 is absolutely incorrect. Why does my code output this? What can I do to improve this algorithm?
When x is negative, the sign of each term alternates. This means each successive sum switches widely in value rather than increasing more gradually when a positive power is used. This means that the loss in precision with successive terms has a large effect on the result.
To handle this, check the sign of x at the start. If it is negative, switch the sign of x to perform the calculation, then when you reach the end of the loop invert the result.
Also, you can reduce the number of iterations by using the following counterintuitive condtion:
e != e + a
On its face, it appears that this should always be true. However, the condition becomes false when the value of a is outside of the precision of the value of e, in which case adding a to e doesn't change the value of e.
double powerex(double x) {
double a = 1.0, e = a;
int invert = x<0;
x = fabs1(x);
for (int n = 1; e != e + a ; ++n) {
a = a * x / n;
e += a;
}
return invert ? 1/e : e;
}
We can optimize a bit more to remove one loop iteration by initializing e with 0 instead of a, and calculating the next term at the bottom of the loop instead of the top:
double powerex(double x) {
double a = 1.0, e = 0;
int invert = x<0;
x = fabs1(x);
for (int n = 1; e != e + a ; ++n) {
e += a;
a = a * x / n;
}
return invert ? 1/e : e;
}
For values of x above one or so, you may consider to handle the integer part separately and compute powers of e by squarings. (E.g. e^9 = ((e²)²)².e takes 4 multiplies)
Indeed, the general term of the Taylor development, x^n/n! only starts to decrease after n>x (you multiply each time by x/k), so the summation takes at least x terms. On another hand, e^n can be computed in at most 2lg(n) multiplies, which is more efficient and more accurate.
So I would advise
to take the fractional part of x and use Taylor,
when the integer part is positive, multiply by e raised to that power,
when the integer part is zero, you are done,
when the integer part is negative, divide by e raised to that power.
You can even spare more by considering quarters: in the worst case (x=1), Taylor requires 18 terms before the last one becomes negligible. If you consider subtracting from x the immediately inferior multiple of 1/4 (and compensate multiplying by precomputed powers of e), the number of terms drops to 12.
E.g. e^0.8 = e^(3/4+0.05) = 2.1170000166126747 . e^0.05
I have read about Fermat's primality test... it was nice but there was one flaw about Carmichael number... it shows that it coulnd't find the distiguish them with prime numbers..
My code:
bool fermat(long long p,int itr)
{
if(p==1)return false;
for(int i=0;i<itr;i++)
{
long long a=rand()%(p-1)+1;
if(modulo(a,p-1,p)!=1)
return false;
else
return true;
}
}
How can I find that p is prime without getting into the problem of Carmichael number? Any modification of this algo?
Pseudocode for the Miller-Rabin test, which gives a probabilistic answer, is shown below:
function isPrime(n, k=5)
if n < 2 then return False
for p in [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29]
if n % p == 0 then return n == p
s, d = 0, n-1
while d % 2 == 0
s, d = s+1, d/2
for i from 0 to k
x = powerMod(randint(2, n-1), d, n)
if x == 1 or x == n-1 then next i
for r from 1 to s
x = (x * x) % n
if x == 1 then return False
if x == n-1 then next i
return False
return True
That uses k (default 5) random bases. If you know in advance the limit on n you could chose a set of bases that gives a deterministic answer; see miller-rabin.appspot.com for lists of bases for various n.
I am trying to solve an online judge problem: http://opc.iarcs.org.in/index.php/problems/LEAFEAT
The problem in short:
If we are given an integer L and a set of N integers s1,s2,s3..sN, we have to find how many numbers there are from 0 to L-1 which are not divisible by any of the 'si's.
For example, if we are given, L = 20 and S = {3,2,5} then there are 6 numbers from 0 to 19 which are not divisible by 3,2 or 5.
L <= 1000000000 and N <= 20.
I used the Inclusion-Exclusion principle to solve this problem:
/*Let 'T' be the number of integers that are divisible by any of the 'si's in the
given range*/
for i in range 1 to N
for all subsets A of length i
if i is odd then:
T += 1 + (L-1)/lcm(all the elements of A)
else
T -= 1 + (L-1)/lcm(all the elements of A)
return T
Here is my code to solve this problem
#include <stdio.h>
int N;
long long int L;
int C[30];
typedef struct{int i, key;}subset_e;
subset_e A[30];
int k;
int gcd(a,b){
int t;
while(b != 0){
t = a%b;
a = b;
b = t;
}
return a;
}
long long int lcm(int a, int b){
return (a*b)/gcd(a,b);
}
long long int getlcm(int n){
if(n == 1){
return A[0].key;
}
int i;
long long int rlcm = lcm(A[0].key,A[1].key);
for(i = 2;i < n; i++){
rlcm = lcm(rlcm,A[i].key);
}
return rlcm;
}
int next_subset(int n){
if(k == n-1 && A[k].i == N-1){
if(k == 0){
return 0;
}
k--;
}
while(k < n-1 && A[k].i == A[k+1].i-1){
if(k <= 0){
return 0;
}
k--;
}
A[k].key = C[A[k].i+1];
A[k].i++;
return 1;
}
int main(){
int i,j,add;
long long int sum = 0,g,temp;
scanf("%lld%d",&L,&N);
for(i = 0;i < N; i++){
scanf("%d",&C[i]);
}
for(i = 1; i <= N; i++){
add = i%2;
for(j = 0;j < i; j++){
A[j].key = C[j];
A[j].i = j;
}
temp = getlcm(i);
g = 1 + (L-1)/temp;
if(add){
sum += g;
} else {
sum -= g;
}
k = i-1;
while(next_subset(i)){
temp = getlcm(i);
g = 1 + (L-1)/temp;
if(add){
sum += g;
} else {
sum -= g;
}
}
}
printf("%lld",L-sum);
return 0;
}
The next_subset(n) generates the next subset of size n in the array A, if there is no subset it returns 0 otherwise it returns 1. It is based on the algorithm described by the accepted answer in this stackoverflow question.
The lcm(a,b) function returns the lcm of a and b.
The get_lcm(n) function returns the lcm of all the elements in A.
It uses the property : LCM(a,b,c) = LCM(LCM(a,b),c)
When I submit the problem on the judge it gives my a 'Time Limit Exceeded'. If we solve this using brute force we get only 50% of the marks.
As there can be upto 2^20 subsets my algorithm might be slow, hence I need a better algorithm to solve this problem.
EDIT:
After editing my code and changing the function to the Euclidean algorithm, I am getting a wrong answer, but my code runs within the time limit. It gives me a correct answer to the example test but not to any other test cases; here is a link to ideone where I ran my code, the first output is correct but the second is not.
Is my approach to this problem correct? If it is then I have made a mistake in my code, and I'll find it; otherwise can anyone please explain what is wrong?
You could also try changing your lcm function to use the Euclidean algorithm.
int gcd(int a, int b) {
int t;
while (b != 0) {
t = b;
b = a % t;
a = t;
}
return a;
}
int lcm(int a, int b) {
return (a * b) / gcd(a, b);
}
At least with Python, the speed differences between the two are pretty large:
>>> %timeit lcm1(103, 2013)
100000 loops, best of 3: 9.21 us per loop
>>> %timeit lcm2(103, 2013)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.02 us per loop
Typically, the lowest common multiple of a subset of k of the s_i will exceed L for k much smaller than 20. So you need to stop early.
Probably, just inserting
if (temp >= L) {
break;
}
after
while(next_subset(i)){
temp = getlcm(i);
will be sufficient.
Also, shortcut if there are any 1s among the s_i, all numbers are divisible by 1.
I think the following will be faster:
unsigned gcd(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
unsigned r;
while(b) {
r = a%b;
a = b;
b = r;
}
return a;
}
unsigned recur(unsigned *arr, unsigned len, unsigned idx, unsigned cumul, unsigned bound) {
if (idx >= len || bound == 0) {
return bound;
}
unsigned i, g, s = arr[idx], result;
g = s/gcd(cumul,s);
result = bound/g;
for(i = idx+1; i < len; ++i) {
result -= recur(arr, len, i, cumul*g, bound/g);
}
return result;
}
unsigned inex(unsigned *arr, unsigned len, unsigned bound) {
unsigned i, result = bound, t;
for(i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
result -= recur(arr, len, i, 1, bound);
}
return result;
}
call it with
unsigned S[N] = {...};
inex(S, N, L-1);
You need not add the 1 for the 0 anywhere, since 0 is divisible by all numbers, compute the count of numbers 1 <= k < L which are not divisible by any s_i.
Create an array of flags with L entries. Then mark each touched leaf:
for(each size in list of sizes) {
length = 0;
while(length < L) {
array[length] = TOUCHED;
length += size;
}
}
Then find the untouched leaves:
for(length = 0; length < L; length++) {
if(array[length] != TOUCHED) { /* Untouched leaf! */ }
}
Note that there is no multiplication and no division involved; but you will need up to about 1 GiB of RAM. If RAM is a problem the you can use an array of bits (max. 120 MiB).
This is only a beginning though, as there are repeating patterns that can be copied instead of generated. The first pattern is from 0 to S1*S2, the next is from 0 to S1*S2*S3, the next is from 0 to S1*S2*S3*S4, etc.
Basically, you can set all values touched by S1 and then S2 from 0 to S1*S2; then copy the pattern from 0 to S1*S2 until you get to S1*S2*S3 and set all the S3's between S3 and S1*S2*S3; then copy that pattern until you get to S1*S2*S3*S4 and set all the S4's between S4 and S1*S2*S3*S4 and so on.
Next; if S1*S2*...Sn is smaller than L, you know the pattern will repeat and can generate the results for lengths from S1*S2*...Sn to L from the pattern. In this case the size of the array only needs to be S1*S2*...Sn and doesn't need to be L.
Finally, if S1*S2*...Sn is larger than L; then you could generate the pattern for S1*S2*...(Sn-1) and use that pattern to create the results from S1*S2*...(Sn-1) to S1*S2*...Sn. In this case if S1*S2*...(Sn-1) is smaller than L then the array doesn't need to be as large as L.
I'm afraid your problem understanding is maybe not correct.
You have L. You have a set S of K elements. You must count the sum of quotient of L / Si. For L = 20, K = 1, S = { 5 }, the answer is simply 16 (20 - 20 / 5). But K > 1, so you must consider the common multiples also.
Why loop through a list of subsets? It doesn't involve subset calculation, only division and multiple.
You have K distinct integers. Each number could be a prime number. You must consider common multiples. That's all.
EDIT
L = 20 and S = {3,2,5}
Leaves could be eaten by 3 = 6
Leaves could be eaten by 2 = 10
Leaves could be eaten by 5 = 4
Common multiples of S, less than L, not in S = 6, 10, 15
Actually eaten leaves = 20/3 + 20/2 + 20/5 - 20/6 - 20/10 - 20/15 = 6
You can keep track of the distance until then next touched leaf for each size. The distance to the next touched leaf will be whichever distance happens to be smallest, and you'd subtract this distance from all the others (and wrap whenever the distance is zero).
For example:
int sizes[4] = {2, 5, 7, 9};
int distances[4];
int currentLength = 0;
for(size = 0 to 3) {
distances[size] = sizes[size];
}
while(currentLength < L) {
smallest = INT_MAX;
for(size = 0 to 3) {
if(distances[size] < smallest) smallest = distances[size];
}
for(size = 0 to 3) {
distances[size] -= smallest;
if(distances[size] == 0) distances[size] = sizes[size];
}
while( (smallest > 1) && (currentLength < L) ) {
currentLength++;
printf("%d\n", currentLength;
smallest--;
}
}
#A.06: u r the one with username linkinmew on opc, rite?
Anyways, the answer just requires u to make all possible subsets, and then apply inclusion exclusion principle. This will fall well within the time bounds for the data given. For making all possible subsets, u can easily define a recursive function.
i don't know about programming but in math there is a single theorem which works on a set that has GCD 1
L=20, S=(3,2,5)
(1-1/p)(1-1/q)(1-1/r).....and so on
(1-1/3)(1-1/2)(1-1/5)=(2/3)(1/2)(4/5)=4/15
4/15 means there are 4 numbers in each set of 15 number which are not divisible by any number rest of it can be count manually eg.
16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (only 17 and 19 means there are only 2 numbers thatr can't be divided by any S)
4+2=6
6/20 means there are only 6 numbers in first 20 numbers that can't be divided by any s
Suppose one wanted to search for pairs of integers x and y a that satisfy some equation, such as (off the top of my head) 7 x^2 + x y - 3 y^2 = 5
(I know there are quite efficient methods for finding integer solutions to quadratics like that; but this is irrelevant for the purpose of the present question.)
The obvious approach is to use a simple double loop "for x = -max to max; for y = -max to max { blah}" But to allow the search to be stopped and resumed, a more convenient approach, picturing the possible integers of x and y as a square lattice of points in the plane, is to work round a "square spiral" outward from the origin, starting and stopping at (say) the top right corner.
So basically, I am asking for a simple and sound "pseudo-code" for the loops to start and stop this process at points (m, m) and (n, n) respectively.
For extra kudos, if the reader is inclined, I suggest also providing the loops if one of x can be assumed non-negative, or if both can be assumed non-negative. This is probably somewhat easier, especially the second.
I could whump this up myself without much difficulty, but am interested in seeing neat ideas of others.
This would make quite a good "constructive" interview challenge for those dreaded interviewers who like to torture candidates with white boards ;-)
def enumerateIntegerPairs(fromRadius, toRadius):
for radius in range(fromRadius, toRadius + 1):
if radius == 0: yield (0, 0)
for x in range(-radius, radius): yield (x, radius)
for y in range(-radius, radius): yield (radius, -y)
for x in range(-radius, radius): yield (-x, -radius)
for y in range(-radius, radius): yield (-radius, y)
Here is a straightforward implementation (also on ideone):
void turn(int *dr, int *dc) {
int tmp = *dc;
*dc = -*dr;
*dr = tmp;
}
int main(void) {
int N = 3;
int r = 0, c = 0;
int sz = 0;
int dr = 1, dc = 0, cnt = 0;
while (r != N+1 && c != N+1) {
printf("%d %d\n", r, c);
if (cnt == sz) {
turn(&dr, &dc);
cnt = 0;
if (dr == 0 && dc == -1) {
r++;
c++;
sz += 2;
}
}
cnt++;
r += dr;
c += dc;
}
return 0;
}
The key in the implementation is the turn function, that performs the right turn given a pair of {delta-Row, delta-Col}. The rest is straightforward arithmetic.