I am trying to simulate the propagation of a worm across a network made of 100,000 computers. The simulation itself is very simple and I don't need any help except that for some reason, I am only getting every third random number.
Only the computers whose index modulo 1000 is less than 10 can be infected so when 1000 computers are infected, the program should be done. For some reason, my program only gets 329. When I lower the goal number and check the contents of the array, only every third computer has been changed and it is a consistent pattern. For example at the end of the array, only computers 98001, 98004, 98007, 99002, 99005, 99008 are changed even though the computers in between (98002, 98003, etc.) should be changed as well. The pattern holds all the way to the beginning of the array. When I try to get all 1000 changed, the program goes into an infinite loop and is stuck at 329.
Edit: I just discovered that if I lower the NETSIZE to 10,000 and the goal in the while loop to 100, it doesn't skip anything. Does that mean the problem has something to do with a rounding error? Someone who knows more about C than me must know the answer.
Thanks.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NETSIZE 100000
double rand01();
void initNetwork();
unsigned char network[NETSIZE];
int scanrate = 3;
int infectedCount;
int scans;
int ind;
int time;
int main(void) {
initNetwork();
time = 0;
infectedCount = 1;
while (infectedCount < 1000) { //changing 1000 to 329 stops the infinite loop
scans = infectedCount * scanrate;
for (int j = 0; j < scans; j++) {
ind = (int) (rand01() * NETSIZE);
if (network[ind] == 0) {
network[ind] = 1;
infectedCount++;
}
}
time++;
}
for (int k = 0; k < NETSIZE; k++) {
if (network[k] == 1) printf("%d at %d\n", network[k], k);
}
}
double rand01() {
double temp;
temp = (rand() + 0.1) / (RAND_MAX + 1.0);
return temp;
}
void initNetwork() {
for (int i = 0; i < NETSIZE; i++) {
if (i % 1000 < 10) {
network[i] = 0;
} else {
network[i] = 2;
}
}
network[1000] = 1;
}
In the above code, I expect the code to run until the 1000 vulnerable indexes are changed from 0 to 1.
Converting comments into an answer.
What is RAND_MAX on your system? If it is a 15-bit or 16-bit value, you probably aren't getting good enough quantization when converted to double. If it is a 31-bit or bigger number, that (probably) won't be the issue. You need to investigate what values are generated by just the rand01() function with different seeds, plus the multiplication and cast to integer — simply print the results and sort -n | uniq -c to see how uniform the results are.
On my system RAND_MAX is only 32767. Do you think that might be why my results might not be granular enough? Now that you've made me think about it, there would only be 32,767 possible values and my network array is 100,000 possible values. Which corresponds about about the 1/3 results I am getting.
Yes, I think that is very probably the problem. You want 100,000 different values, but your random number generator can only generate about 33,000 different values, which is awfully close to your 1:3 metric. It also explains immediately why you got good results when you reduced the multiplier from 100,000 to 10,000.
You could try:
double rand01(void)
{
assert(RAND_MAX == 32767);
return ((rand() << 15) + rand()) / ((RAND_MAX + 1.0) * (RAND_MAX + 1.0));
}
Or you could use an alternative random number generator — for example, POSIX defines both the drand48() family of functions and
random(), with corresponding seed-setting functions where needed.
Yeah, the problem I am having is that the RAND_MAX value on my system is only 32767 and I am trying to effectively spread that out over 100,000 values which results in about only every third number ever showing up.
In my defense, the person who suggested the rand01() function has a PhD in Computer Science, but I think he ran this code on our school's main computer which probably has a much bigger RAND_MAX value.
#JonathanLeffler deserves credit for this solution.
I don't know where I am doing wrong in trying to calculate prime factorizations using Pollard's rho algorithm.
#include<stdio.h>
#define f(x) x*x-1
int pollard( int );
int gcd( int, int);
int main( void ) {
int n;
scanf( "%d",&n );
pollard( n );
return 0;
}
int pollard( int n ) {
int i=1,x,y,k=2,d;
x = rand()%n;
y = x;
while(1) {
i++;
x = f( x ) % n;
d = gcd( y-x, n);
if(d!=1 && d!=n)
printf( "%d\n", d);
if(i == k) {
y = x;
k = 2 * k;
}
}
}
int gcd( int a, int b ) {
if( b == 0)
return a;
else
return gcd( b, a % b);
}
One immediate problem is, as Peter de Rivaz suspected the
#define f(x) x*x-1
Thus the line
x = f(x)%n;
becomes
x = x*x-1%n;
and the precedence of % is higher than that of -, hence the expression is implicitly parenthesised as
x = (x*x) - (1%n);
which is equivalent to x = x*x - 1; (I assume n > 1, anyway it's x = x*x - constant;) and if you start with a value x >= 2, you have overflow before you had a realistic chance of finding a factor:
2 -> 2*2-1 = 3 -> 3*3 - 1 = 8 -> 8*8 - 1 = 63 -> 3968 -> 15745023 -> overflow if int is 32 bits
That doesn't immediately make it impossible that gcd(y-x,n) is a factor, though. It just makes it likely that at a stage where theoretically, you would have found a factor, the overflow destroys the common factor that mathematically would exist - more likely than a common factor introduced by overflow.
Overflow of signed integers is undefined behaviour, so there are no guarantees how the programme behaves, but usually it behaves consistently so the iteration of f still produces a well-defined sequence for which the algorithm in principle works.
Another problem is that y-x will frequently be negative, and then the computed gcd can also be negative - often -1. In that case, you print -1.
And then, it is a not too rare occurrence that iterating f from a starting value doesn't detect a common factor because the cycles modulo both prime factors (for the example of n a product of two distinct primes) have equal length and are entered at the same time. You make no attempt at detecting such a case; whenever gcd(|y-x|, n) == n, any further work in that sequence is pointless, so you should break out of the loop when d == n.
Also, you never check whether n is a prime, in which case trying to find a factor is a futile undertaking from the start.
Furthermore, after fixing f(x) so that the % n applies to the complete result of f(x), you have the problem that x*x still overflows for relatively small x (with the standard signed 32-bit ints, for x >= 46341), so factoring larger n may fail due to overflow. At least, you should use unsigned long long for the computations, so that overflow is avoided for n < 2^32. However, factorising such small numbers is typically done more efficiently with trial division. Pollard's Rho method and other advanced factoring algorithms are meant for larger numbers, where trial division is no longer efficient or even feasible.
I'm just a novice at C++, and I am new to Stack Overflow, so some of what I have written is going to look sloppy, but this should get you going in the right direction. The program posted here should generally find and return one non-trivial factor of the number you enter at the prompt, or it will apologize if it cannot find such a factor.
I tested it with a few semiprime numbers, and it worked for me. For 371156167103, it finds 607619 without any detectable delay after I hit the enter key. I didn't check it with larger numbers than this. I used unsigned long long variables, but if possible, you should get and use a library that provides even larger integer types.
Editing to add, the single call to the method f for X and 2 such calls for Y is intentional and is in accordance with the way the algorithm works. I thought to nest the call for Y inside another such call to keep it on one line, but I decided to do it this way so it's easier to follow.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
typedef unsigned long long ULL;
ULL pollard(ULL numberToFactor);
ULL gcd(ULL differenceBetweenCongruentFunctions, ULL numberToFactor);
ULL f(ULL x, ULL numberToFactor);
int main(void)
{
ULL factor;
ULL n;
std::cout<<"Enter the number for which you want a prime factor: ";
std::cin>>n;
factor = pollard(n);
if (factor == 0) std::cout<<"No factor found. Your number may be prime, but it is not certain.\n\n";
else std::cout<<"One factor is: "<<factor<<"\n\n";
}
ULL pollard(ULL n)
{
ULL x = 2ULL;
ULL y = 2ULL;
ULL d = 1ULL;
while(d==1||d==n)
{
x = f(x,n);
y = f(y,n);
y = f(y,n);
if (y>x)
{
d = gcd(y-x, n);
}
else
{
d = gcd(x-y, n);
}
}
return d;
}
ULL gcd(ULL a, ULL b)
{
if (a==b||a==0)
return 0; // If x==y or if the absolute value of (x-y) == the number to be factored, then we have failed to find
// a factor. I think this is not proof of primality, so the process could be repeated with a new function.
// For example, by replacing x*x+1 with x*x+2, and so on. If many such functions fail, primality is likely.
ULL currentGCD = 1;
while (currentGCD!=0) // This while loop is based on Euclid's algorithm
{
currentGCD = b % a;
b=a;
a=currentGCD;
}
return b;
}
ULL f(ULL x, ULL n)
{
return (x * x + 1) % n;
}
Sorry for the long delay getting back to this. As I mentioned in my first answer, I am a novice at C++, which will be evident in my excessive use of global variables, excessive use of BigIntegers and BigUnsigned where other types might be better, lack of error checking, and other programming habits on display which a more skilled person might not exhibit. That being said, let me explain what I did, then will post the code.
I am doing this in a second answer because the first answer is useful as a very simple demo of how a Pollard's Rho algorithm is to implement once you understand what it does. And what it does is to first take 2 variables, call them x and y, assign them the starting values of 2. Then it runs x through a function, usually (x^2+1)%n, where n is the number you want to factor. And it runs y through the same function twice each cycle. Then the difference between x and y is calculated, and finally the greatest common divisor is found for this difference and n. If that number is 1, then you run x and y through the function again.
Continue this process until the GCD is not 1 or until x and y are equal again. If the GCD is found which is not 1, then that GCD is a non-trivial factor of n. If x and y become equal, then the (x^2+1)%n function has failed. In that case, you should try again with another function, maybe (x^2+2)%n, and so on.
Here is an example. Take 35, for which we know the prime factors are 5 and 7. I'll walk through Pollard Rho and show you how it finds a non-trivial factor.
Cycle #1: X starts at 2. Then using the function (x^2+1)%n, (2^2+1)%35, we get 5 for x. Y starts at 2 also, and after one run through the function, it also has a value of 5. But y always goes through the function twice, so the second run is (5^2+1)%35, or 26. The difference between x and y is 21. The GCD of 21 (the difference) and 35 (n) is 7. We have already found a prime factor of 35! Note that the GCD for any 2 numbers, even extremely large exponents, can be found very quickly by formula using Euclid's algorithm, and that's what the program I will post here does.
On the subject of the GCD function, I am using one library I downloaded for this program, a library that allows me to use BigIntegers and BigUnsigned. That library also has a GCD function built in, and I could have used it. But I decided to stay with the hand-written GCD function for instructional purposes. If you want to improve the program's execution time, it might be a good idea to use the library's GCD function because there are faster methods than Euclid, and the library may be written to use one of those faster methods.
Another side note. The .Net 4.5 library supports the use of BigIntegers and BigUnsigned also. I decided not to use that for this program because I wanted to write the whole thing in C++, not C++/CLI. You could get better performance from the .Net library, or you might not. I don't know, but I wanted to share that that is also an option.
I am jumping around a bit here, so let me start now by explaining in broad strokes what the program does, and lastly I will explain how to set it up on your computer if you use Visual Studio 11 (also called Visual Studio 2012).
The program allocates 3 arrays for storing the factors of any number you give it to process. These arrays are 1000 elements wide, which is excessive, maybe, but it ensures any number with 1000 prime factors or less will fit.
When you enter the number at the prompt, it assumes the number is composite and puts it in the first element of the compositeFactors array. Then it goes through some admittedly inefficient while loops, which use Miller-Rabin to check if the number is composite. Note this test can either say a number is composite with 100% confidence, or it can say the number is prime with extremely high (but not 100%) confidence. The confidence is adjustable by a variable confidenceFactor in the program. The program will make one check for every value between 2 and confidenceFactor, inclusive, so one less total check than the value of confidenceFactor itself.
The setting I have for confidenceFactor is 101, which does 100 checks. If it says a number is prime, the odds that it is really composite are 1 in 4^100, or the same as the odds of correctly calling the flip of a fair coin 200 consecutive times. In short, if it says the number is prime, it probably is, but the confidenceFactor number can be increased to get greater confidence at the cost of speed.
Here might be as good a place as any to mention that, while Pollard's Rho algorithm can be pretty effective factoring smaller numbers of type long long, the Miller-Rabin test to see if a number is composite would be more or less useless without the BigInteger and BigUnsigned types. A BigInteger library is pretty much a requirement to be able to reliably factor large numbers all the way to their prime factors like this.
When Miller Rabin says the factor is composite, it is factored, the factor stored in a temp array, and the original factor in the composites array divided by the same factor. When numbers are identified as likely prime, they are moved into the prime factors array and output to screen. This process continues until there are no composite factors left. The factors tend to be found in ascending order, but this is coincidental. The program makes no effort to list them in ascending order, but only lists them as they are found.
Note that I could not find any function (x^2+c)%n which will factor the number 4, no matter what value I gave c. Pollard Rho seems to have a very hard time with all perfect squares, but 4 is the only composite number I found which is totally impervious to it using functions in the format described. Therefore I added a check for an n of 4 inside the pollard method, returning 2 instantly if so.
So to set this program up, here is what you should do. Go to https://mattmccutchen.net/bigint/ and download bigint-2010.04.30.zip. Unzip this and put all of the .hh files and all of the C++ source files in your ~\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0\VC\include directory, excluding the Sample and C++ Testsuite source files. Then in Visual Studio, create an empty project. In the solution explorer, right click on the resource files folder and select Add...existing item. Add all of the C++ source files in the directory I just mentioned. Then also in solution expolorer, right click the Source Files folder and add a new item, select C++ file, name it, and paste the below source code into it, and it should work for you.
Not to flatter overly much, but there are folks here on Stack Overflow who know a great deal more about C++ than I do, and if they modify my code below to make it better, that's fantastic. But even if not, the code is functional as-is, and it should help illustrate the principles involved in programmatically finding prime factors of medium sized numbers. It will not threaten the general number field sieve, but it can factor numbers with 12 - 14 digit prime factors in a reasonably short time, even on an old Core2 Duo computer like the one I am using.
The code follows. Good luck.
#include <string>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include "BigIntegerLibrary.hh"
typedef BigInteger BI;
typedef BigUnsigned BU;
using std::string;
using std::cin;
using std::cout;
BU pollard(BU numberToFactor);
BU gcda(BU differenceBetweenCongruentFunctions, BU numberToFactor);
BU f(BU x, BU numberToFactor, int increment);
void initializeArrays();
BU getNumberToFactor ();
void factorComposites();
bool testForComposite (BU num);
BU primeFactors[1000];
BU compositeFactors[1000];
BU tempFactors [1000];
int primeIndex;
int compositeIndex;
int tempIndex;
int numberOfCompositeFactors;
bool allJTestsShowComposite;
int main ()
{
while(1)
{
primeIndex=0;
compositeIndex=0;
tempIndex=0;
initializeArrays();
compositeFactors[0] = getNumberToFactor();
cout<<"\n\n";
if (compositeFactors[0] == 0) return 0;
numberOfCompositeFactors = 1;
factorComposites();
}
}
void initializeArrays()
{
for (int i = 0; i<1000;i++)
{
primeFactors[i] = 0;
compositeFactors[i]=0;
tempFactors[i]=0;
}
}
BU getNumberToFactor ()
{
std::string s;
std::cout<<"Enter the number for which you want a prime factor, or 0 to quit: ";
std::cin>>s;
return stringToBigUnsigned(s);
}
void factorComposites()
{
while (numberOfCompositeFactors!=0)
{
compositeIndex = 0;
tempIndex = 0;
// This while loop finds non-zero values in compositeFactors.
// If they are composite, it factors them and puts one factor in tempFactors,
// then divides the element in compositeFactors by the same amount.
// If the element is prime, it moves it into tempFactors (zeros the element in compositeFactors)
while (compositeIndex < 1000)
{
if(compositeFactors[compositeIndex] == 0)
{
compositeIndex++;
continue;
}
if(testForComposite(compositeFactors[compositeIndex]) == false)
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = compositeFactors[compositeIndex];
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = 0;
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
else
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = pollard (compositeFactors[compositeIndex]);
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] /= tempFactors[tempIndex];
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
}
compositeIndex = 0;
// This while loop moves all remaining non-zero values from compositeFactors into tempFactors
// When it is done, compositeFactors should be all 0 value elements
while (compositeIndex < 1000)
{
if (compositeFactors[compositeIndex] != 0)
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = compositeFactors[compositeIndex];
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = 0;
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
else compositeIndex++;
}
compositeIndex = 0;
tempIndex = 0;
// This while loop checks all non-zero elements in tempIndex.
// Those that are prime are shown on screen and moved to primeFactors
// Those that are composite are moved to compositeFactors
// When this is done, all elements in tempFactors should be 0
while (tempIndex<1000)
{
if(tempFactors[tempIndex] == 0)
{
tempIndex++;
continue;
}
if(testForComposite(tempFactors[tempIndex]) == false)
{
primeFactors[primeIndex] = tempFactors[tempIndex];
cout<<primeFactors[primeIndex]<<"\n";
tempFactors[tempIndex]=0;
primeIndex++;
tempIndex++;
}
else
{
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = tempFactors[tempIndex];
tempFactors[tempIndex]=0;
compositeIndex++;
tempIndex++;
}
}
compositeIndex=0;
numberOfCompositeFactors=0;
// This while loop just checks to be sure there are still one or more composite factors.
// As long as there are, the outer while loop will repeat
while(compositeIndex<1000)
{
if(compositeFactors[compositeIndex]!=0) numberOfCompositeFactors++;
compositeIndex ++;
}
}
return;
}
// The following method uses the Miller-Rabin primality test to prove with 100% confidence a given number is composite,
// or to establish with a high level of confidence -- but not 100% -- that it is prime
bool testForComposite (BU num)
{
BU confidenceFactor = 101;
if (confidenceFactor >= num) confidenceFactor = num-1;
BU a,d,s, nMinusOne;
nMinusOne=num-1;
d=nMinusOne;
s=0;
while(modexp(d,1,2)==0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
allJTestsShowComposite = true; // assume composite here until we can prove otherwise
for (BI i = 2 ; i<=confidenceFactor;i++)
{
if (modexp(i,d,num) == 1)
continue; // if this modulus is 1, then we cannot prove that num is composite with this value of i, so continue
if (modexp(i,d,num) == nMinusOne)
{
allJTestsShowComposite = false;
continue;
}
BU exponent(1);
for (BU j(0); j.toInt()<=s.toInt()-1;j++)
{
exponent *= 2;
if (modexp(i,exponent*d,num) == nMinusOne)
{
// if the modulus is not right for even a single j, then break and increment i.
allJTestsShowComposite = false;
continue;
}
}
if (allJTestsShowComposite == true) return true; // proven composite with 100% certainty, no need to continue testing
}
return false;
/* not proven composite in any test, so assume prime with a possibility of error =
(1/4)^(number of different values of i tested). This will be equal to the value of the
confidenceFactor variable, and the "witnesses" to the primality of the number being tested will be all integers from
2 through the value of confidenceFactor.
Note that this makes this primality test cryptographically less secure than it could be. It is theoretically possible,
if difficult, for a malicious party to pass a known composite number for which all of the lowest n integers fail to
detect that it is composite. A safer way is to generate random integers in the outer "for" loop and use those in place of
the variable i. Better still if those random numbers are checked to ensure no duplicates are generated.
*/
}
BU pollard(BU n)
{
if (n == 4) return 2;
BU x = 2;
BU y = 2;
BU d = 1;
int increment = 1;
while(d==1||d==n||d==0)
{
x = f(x,n, increment);
y = f(y,n, increment);
y = f(y,n, increment);
if (y>x)
{
d = gcda(y-x, n);
}
else
{
d = gcda(x-y, n);
}
if (d==0)
{
x = 2;
y = 2;
d = 1;
increment++; // This changes the pseudorandom function we use to increment x and y
}
}
return d;
}
BU gcda(BU a, BU b)
{
if (a==b||a==0)
return 0; // If x==y or if the absolute value of (x-y) == the number to be factored, then we have failed to find
// a factor. I think this is not proof of primality, so the process could be repeated with a new function.
// For example, by replacing x*x+1 with x*x+2, and so on. If many such functions fail, primality is likely.
BU currentGCD = 1;
while (currentGCD!=0) // This while loop is based on Euclid's algorithm
{
currentGCD = b % a;
b=a;
a=currentGCD;
}
return b;
}
BU f(BU x, BU n, int increment)
{
return (x * x + increment) % n;
}
As far as I can see, Pollard Rho normally uses f(x) as (x*x+1) (e.g. in these lecture notes ).
Your choice of x*x-1 appears not as good as it often seems to get stuck in a loop:
x=0
f(x)=-1
f(f(x))=0
have wrote the code for what i see to be a good algorithm for finding the greatest prime factor for a large number using recursion. My program crashes with any number greater than 4 assigned to the variable huge_number though. I am not good with recursion and the assignment does not allow any sort of loop.
#include <stdio.h>
long long prime_factor(int n, long long huge_number);
int main (void)
{
int n = 2;
long long huge_number = 60085147514;
long long largest_prime = 0;
largest_prime = prime_factor(n, huge_number);
printf("%ld\n", largest_prime);
return 0;
}
long long prime_factor (int n, long long huge_number)
{
if (huge_number / n == 1)
return huge_number;
else if (huge_number % n == 0)
return prime_factor (n, huge_number / n);
else
return prime_factor (n++, huge_number);
}
any info as to why it is crashing and how i could improve it would be greatly appreciated.
Even fixing the problem of using post-increment so that the recursion continues forever, this is not a good fit for a recursive solution - see here for why, but it boils down to how fast you can reduce the search space.
While your division of huge_number whittles it down pretty fast, the vast majority of recursive calls are done by simply incrementing n. That means you're going to use a lot of stack space.
You would be better off either:
using an iterative solution where you won't blow out the stack (if you just want to solve the problem) (a); or
finding a more suitable problem for recursion if you're just trying to learn recursion.
(a) An example of such a beast, modeled on your recursive solution, is:
#include <stdio.h>
long long prime_factor_i (int n, long long huge_number) {
while (n < huge_number) {
if (huge_number % n == 0) {
huge_number /= n;
continue;
}
n++;
}
return huge_number;
}
int main (void) {
int n = 2;
long long huge_number = 60085147514LL;
long long largest_prime = 0;
largest_prime = prime_factor_i (n, huge_number);
printf ("%lld\n", largest_prime);
return 0;
}
As can be seen from the output of that iterative solution, the largest factor is 10976461. That means the final batch of recursions in your recursive solution would require a stack depth of ten million stack frames, not something most environments will contend with easily.
If you really must use a recursive solution, you can reduce the stack space to the square root of that by using the fact that you don't have to check all the way up to the number, but only up to its square root.
In addition, other than 2, every other prime number is odd, so you can further halve the search space by only checking two plus the odd numbers.
A recursive solution taking those two things into consideration would be:
long long prime_factor_r (int n, long long huge_number) {
// Debug code for level checking.
// static int i = 0;
// printf ("recursion level = %d\n", ++i);
// Only check up to square root.
if (n * n >= huge_number)
return huge_number;
// If it's a factor, reduce the number and try again.
if (huge_number % n == 0)
return prime_factor_r (n, huge_number / n);
// Select next "candidate" prime to check against, 2 -> 3,
// 2n+1 -> 2n+3 for all n >= 1.
if (n == 2)
return prime_factor_r (3, huge_number);
return prime_factor_r (n + 2, huge_number);
}
You can see I've also removed the (awkward, in my opinion) construct:
if something then
return something
else
return something else
I much prefer the less massively indented code that comes from:
if something then
return something
return something else
But that's just personal preference. In any case, that gets your recursion level down to 1662 (uncomment the debug code to verify) rather than ten million, a rather sizable reduction but still not perfect. That runs okay in my environment.
You meant n+1 instead of n++. n++ increments n after using it, so the recursive call gets the original value of n.
You are overflowing stack, because n++ post-increments the value, making a recursive call with the same values as in the current invocation.
the crash reason is stack overflow. I add a counter to your program and execute it(on ubuntu 10.04 gcc 4.4.3) the counter stop at "218287" before core dump. the better solution is using loop instead of recursion.
This small C script checks if a number is a prime... Unfortunately it doesn't fully work. I am aware of the inefficiency of the script (e.g. sqrt optimization), these are not the problem.
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int n, m;
printf("Enter an integer, that will be checked:\n"); // Set 'n' from commandline
scanf("%d", &n); // Set 'n' from commandline
//n = 5; // To specify 'n' inside code.
for (m = n-1; m >= 1; m--) {
if (m == 1) {
printf("The entered integer IS a prime.\n");
break;
}
if (n % m == 0) {
printf("The entered integer IS NOT a prime.\n");
break;
}
}
return 0;
}
I tested the programm with a lot of numbers and it worked... Then I tried a bigger number (1231231231231236) which is clearly not a prime...
BUT: the program told me it was!?
What am I missing...?
The number "1231231231231236" is too big to fit in an "int" data type. Add a printf statement to show what number your program thinks you gave it, and if that's prime, your program works fine; else, you might have a problem that merits checking. Adding support for integers of arbitary size requires considerable extra effort.
The reason you are having this problem is that intrinsic data types like int have a fixed size - probably 32 bits, or 4 bytes, for int. Given that, variables of type int can only represent 2^32 unique values - about 4 billion. Even if you were using unsigned int (you're not), the int type couldn't be used to store numbers bigger than around 4 billion. Your number is several orders of magnitude larger than that and, as such, when you try to put your input into the int variable, something happens, but I can tell you what doesn't happen: it doesn't get assigned the value 1231231231231236.
Hard to know without more details, but if your ints are 32-bit, then the value you've passed is outside the allowable range, which will no doubt be represented as something other than the value you've passed. You may want to consider using unsigned int instead.
The given number is too large for integer in C. Probably it only accepted a part of it. Try Printing the value of n.
I'm working on Project Euler #14 in C and have figured out the basic algorithm; however, it runs insufferably slow for large numbers, e.g. 2,000,000 as wanted; I presume because it has to generate the sequence over and over again, even though there should be a way to store known sequences (e.g., once we get to a 16, we know from previous experience that the next numbers are 8, 4, 2, then 1).
I'm not exactly sure how to do this with C's fixed-length array, but there must be a good way (that's amazingly efficient, I'm sure). Thanks in advance.
Here's what I currently have, if it helps.
#include <stdio.h>
#define UPTO 2000000
int collatzlen(int n);
int main(){
int i, l=-1, li=-1, c=0;
for(i=1; i<=UPTO; i++){
if( (c=collatzlen(i)) > l) l=c, li=i;
}
printf("Greatest length:\t\t%7d\nGreatest starting point:\t%7d\n", l, li);
return 1;
}
/* n != 0 */
int collatzlen(int n){
int len = 0;
while(n>1) n = (n%2==0 ? n/2 : 3*n+1), len+=1;
return len;
}
Your original program needs 3.5 seconds on my machine. Is it insufferably slow for you?
My dirty and ugly version needs 0.3 seconds. It uses a global array to store the values already calculated. And use them in future calculations.
int collatzlen2(unsigned long n);
static unsigned long array[2000000 + 1];//to store those already calculated
int main()
{
int i, l=-1, li=-1, c=0;
int x;
for(x = 0; x < 2000000 + 1; x++) {
array[x] = -1;//use -1 to denote not-calculated yet
}
for(i=1; i<=UPTO; i++){
if( (c=collatzlen2(i)) > l) l=c, li=i;
}
printf("Greatest length:\t\t%7d\nGreatest starting point:\t%7d\n", l, li);
return 1;
}
int collatzlen2(unsigned long n){
unsigned long len = 0;
unsigned long m = n;
while(n > 1){
if(n > 2000000 || array[n] == -1){ // outside range or not-calculated yet
n = (n%2 == 0 ? n/2 : 3*n+1);
len+=1;
}
else{ // if already calculated, use the value
len += array[n];
n = 1; // to get out of the while-loop
}
}
array[m] = len;
return len;
}
Given that this is essentially a throw-away program (i.e. once you've run it and got the answer, you're not going to be supporting it for years :), I would suggest having a global variable to hold the lengths of sequences already calculated:
int lengthfrom[UPTO] = {};
If your maximum size is a few million, then we're talking megabytes of memory, which should easily fit in RAM at once.
The above will initialise the array to zeros at startup. In your program - for each iteration, check whether the array contains zero. If it does - you'll have to keep going with the computation. If not - then you know that carrying on would go on for that many more iterations, so just add that to the number you've done so far and you're done. And then store the new result in the array, of course.
Don't be tempted to use a local variable for an array of this size: that will try to allocate it on the stack, which won't be big enough and will likely crash.
Also - remember that with this sequence the values go up as well as down, so you'll need to cope with that in your program (probably by having the array longer than UPTO values, and using an assert() to guard against indices greater than the size of the array).
If I recall correctly, your problem isn't a slow algorithm: the algorithm you have now is fast enough for what PE asks you to do. The problem is overflow: you sometimes end up multiplying your number by 3 so many times that it will eventually exceed the maximum value that can be stored in a signed int. Use unsigned ints, and if that still doesn't work (but I'm pretty sure it does), use 64 bit ints (long long).
This should run very fast, but if you want to do it even faster, the other answers already addressed that.