I am kind of stuck how to sort integers based on their greatest prime factor in ascending order. For example, we have 3 and 8. The order should be: 8, 3 because 8's prime factor (2) is less than 3's prime factor (3). If we have the same greatest prime factor for 2 numbers like 9 and 27, then the smaller number should be first. In this order: 9, 27
Okay, here's my code, but it needs some modification.
long long sort(long long integers[], long long primes[]) {
/* loop variables */
int i, j;
/* temporary variable */
long long tmp;
for (i = (SIZE - 1); i > 0; i--) {
for (j = 1; j <= i; j++) {
if (integers[j-1] > integers[j]) {
tmp = integers[j-1];
integers[j-1] = integers[j];
integers[j] = tmp;
}
}
}
}
It is also important to mention that integers[i]'s greatest prime factor is stored as primes[i]. Primes are already all set up and good, this thing only needs correct sorting.
I hope you can help me.
Thanks. :)
Surely you just need to use primes somewhere. In your current code you aren't using that variable at all, and it seems rather clear where it should go.
Bonus tip: look up the standard C library function qsort.
Related
I need to optimize this c code in order for it to run as fast as possible. I am quite new to code optimization in general. What should I begin with?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char*argv[]) {
int n, i, flag;
int sumOfPrimeNumbers; //sum of prime numbers
sumOfPrimeNumbers = 0;
do {
flag = 0;
scanf("%d", &n);
for(i=2;i < n;i++)
{
if(n%i==0) {
flag=1; // flag all non-prime numbers
break;
}
}
if(flag==0) {
sumOfPrimeNumbers = sumOfPrimeNumbers + n; // sum prime numbers
}
} while (n != 0);
printf("%d\n", sumOfPrimeNumbers);
return 0;
}
For small values of n (maybe values less than 66536?) you can use a table of precomputed answers, like "printf("%d\n", table[n]);".
For larger values you can split n into "zone" and "offset in zone", like "zone = n / zone_size; offset = n % zone_size;" and then use "zone" as an index into a precomputed table to determine an initial starting point (and skip a huge amount of work, like "sumOfPrimeNumbers = zoneStartTable[n / zone_size;"). The "offset in zone" part can be used with Sieve of Eratosthenes; which means that it's nicer for "zone_size" to be the product of the smallest primes (e.g. maybe like "zone_size = 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17;") because that makes it a little easier to create a Sieve of Eratosthenes from a non-zero starting point.
For this approach to work you will actually need 2 sieves - one to find primes from 1 to "sqrt(n)" so that you can mark multiples of those primes as "not prime" in the second sieve (which will contain values from "zone * zone_size" to n). This process can be accelerated by recognizing that the sieve for the smallest primes (that you used to determine "zone_size") create a pattern that repeats every "zone_size" numbers, and that pattern can be predetermined and then copied into both of the sieves to initialize the sieves, allowing you to skip marking the smallest primes in both sieves.
Improve the algorithm. Avoid premature optimizations
Rather than test up to n, search to the square root of n
// for(i=2;i < n;i++)
for (i=2; i <= n/i; i++)
Sieve of Eratosthenes
Form a list of found primes {2,3,5} and only test against those. As a new prime is found, append it to the list.
Many other optimizations possible.
I've been looking into this simple piece of code for 1.5 hrs now and do not find the mistake. I start going crazy ;)
Could anyone of you with a fresh mind and view give me a little hint, where I might have the mistake in? (I am relatively new to C)
The problem is: The code works fine for most of the numbers I entered and tested, but accidentically I found a number that does not work: 3486118 (or 55777888 which is a multiple of it) It goes right for the first loop(s), but after factor 2 it becomes an endless loop.
Here is my code: (any help is greatly appreciated)
// Program calculates prime factors of entered number and returns them
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
long int num, num_cp;
long int product=1;
/*prime number array up to 100.000*/
long int prime[] = {2, 3, **[...cut out MANY numbers...]** 99971, 99989, 99991};
printf("Please enter a positive integer:\n");
scanf("%li", &num);//55777888 or 3486118 not working... why?
//copy the entered number to keep the original for comparison with "product" and "break;" if equal
num_cp=num;
printf("prime factorization of %li:\n\n", num);
for (int i=0; i<sizeof(prime); i++) {
if (num_cp%prime[i]==0) {
num_cp/=prime[i];
product*=prime[i];
if (product==num) {
printf("%li\n\n", prime[i]);
break;
}
printf("%li*", prime[i]);
//If prime factor found but "product" is still not equal to "num" reset loop counter "i" to -1 (==0 in next loop)
i=-1;
}
}
printf("END");
return 0;
}
"I've been looking into this simple piece of code for 1.5 hrs now and do not find the mistake. I start going crazy ;)"
Don't. Leave it. Go away and eat a pizza. Veg out in front of your favourite movie. Have a shower. Aim for a new high-score on 2048 (or whatever). Your brain gets stuck in a rut and you are no longer seeing your code. You are only seeing what you think your code is.
When you get your brain out of the rut, then -- and only then -- go back and actually read the code you wrote. Not the code you think you wrote, but the code you actually wrote. Yes, they are different.
The prime factors of 55777888 are 2·2·2·2·2·1743059, where the last factor is too large to be contained in your list.
You can fix this in your code: When the product is equal to the product of the prime factors you have found, num_cp is 1. If num_cp is greater than one after you have exhausted your prime list, it is a factor of num. If num/num_cp is smaller than the largest prime you have checked, you can assume that the remaining value of num_cp is a prime. If it wasn't you'd have found more factors earlier.
You can fix this by adding an additional check after your main loop:
if (num_cp > 1) printf("%li\n\n", num_cp);
(If long int is a 64-bit number on your system, you're still not safe: The remaining factor might be made up of several numbers that are not in your array.)
Finally: Resetting the for loop counter so that the loop starts over isn't a good idea. It always starts from the beginning and re-checks primes that you have already checked. And it just isn't natural program flow, which makes it hard to read. A while loop instead of the inner if block would be more natural in my opinion.
Edit: To illustrate:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
long int num;
/* prime number array up to 100.000 */
long int prime[] = {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31};
int nprime = sizeof(prime) / sizeof(*prime);
num = 55;
printf("%li == ", num);
for (int i = 0; i < nprime; i++) {
long int p = prime[i];
if (num <= 1) break;
while (num % p == 0) {
num /= prime[i];
printf("%li", p);
if (num > 1) printf(" * ");
}
}
if (num > 1) printf("%li", num);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Things to note:
Instead of resetting the main loop counter i, a while loop is used, which consumes all repetitions of the same factor. If a prime p doesn't divide the number, the while loop isn't entered, just like an if clause.
I've removed the copy of num and used num throughout, mainly to remove clutter. I've also removed the product. Your logic that all prime factors should multiply to the original number, is good. But it also works the other way round: After dividing the number by all primes, we are left with 1. And we have to divide the number anyways. By removing the product, we have to keep track of only one variable instead of two.
I've moved the break condition to the front, so we catch negative numbers and 0 early.
That said, your way to code isn't wrong, just maybe a bit unusual in places.
I'm trying to design a sieve of eratosthenes in C but I've run into two strange problems which I can't figure out. Here's my basic program outline. Ask users to set a range to display primes from. If the range minimum is below 9, set the minimum as 9. Fill an array with all odd numbers in the range.
1) I'm trying to reduce memory usage by declaring variable size arrays like so:
if (max<=UINT_MAX)
unsigned int range[(max-min)/2];
else if (max<=ULONG_MAX)
unsigned long int range[(max-min)/2];
else if (max<=ULLONG_MAX)
unsigned long long int range[(max-min)/2];
Why doesn't this compile? Variables min and max are declared as ints earlier and limits.h is included. I've commented out the selection structure and just declared unsigned long long int range[(max-min)/2]; for now which compiles and works for now.
2) My code runs but it sometimes marks small primes as non primes.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<limits.h>
void prime(int min, int max)
{
int i, f=0;
//declare variable size array
/*if (max<=(int)UINT_MAX)
unsigned int range[(max-min)/2];
else if (max<=(int)ULONG_MAX)
unsigned long int range[(max-min)/2];
else if (max<=(int)ULLONG_MAX)*/
unsigned long long int range[(max-min)/2];
//fill array with all odd numbers
if (min%2==0)
{
for (i=min+1;i<=max;i+=2)
{
range[f]=i;
f+=1;
}
}
else
{
for (i=min;i<=max;i+=2)
{
range[f]=i;
f+=1;
}
}
//assign 0 to cell if divisible by any number other than itself
for (i=3;i<=sqrt(max);++i)
{
for (f=0;f<=((max-min)/2);f++)
{
if (range[f]%i==0 && f!=i)
range[f]=0;
}
}
//troubleshoot only: print full range
for (f=0;f<=((max-min)/2);f++)
{
printf("ALL: %d / %d\n", f, range[f]);
}
//display all primes
if (min==9) /*print primes lower than 9 for ranges where min<9*/
printf("2\n3\n5\n7\n");
for (f=0;f<=((max-min)/2);f++) /*print non 0 numbers in array*/
{
if (range[f]!=0)
printf("%d\n", range[f]);
}
}
int main(void)
{
int digits1, digits2;
printf("\n\n\nCalculate Prime Numbers\n");
printf("This program will display all prime numbers in a given range. \nPlease set the range.\n");
printf("Minimum: ");
scanf("%d", &digits1);
if (digits1<9)
digits1=9;
printf("Maximum: ");
scanf("%d", &digits2);
printf("Calculating...");
printf("All prime numbers between %d and %d are:\n", digits1, digits2);
prime(digits1, digits2);
getchar();
getchar();
}
For example, if digits=1 and digits2=200 my program outputs all primes between 1 and 200 except 11 and 13. 11 and 13 are sieved out and I can't figure out why this happens to more and more low numbers as digits2 is increased.
3) Finally, is my sieve a proper sieve of eratosthenes? It kind of works but I feel like there is a more efficient way of sieving out non primes but I can't figure out how to implement it. One of my goals for this program is to be as efficient as possible. Again, what I have right now is:
//assign 0 to cell if divisible by any number other than itself
for (i=3;i<=sqrt(max);++i)
{
for (f=0;f<=((max-min)/2);f++)
{
if (range[f]%i==0 && f!=i)
range[f]=0;
}
}
Thanks for reading all of that! I'm sorry for posting yet another sieve of eratosthenes related question and thank you in advance for the help!
No, it is not a proper sieve of Eratosthenes. No testing of remainders is involved in the sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm, Wikipedia is real clear on this I think. :) The whole point to it is to avoid the trial divisions, to get the primes for free, without testing.
How? By generating their multiples, from every prime that we identify, in ascending order one after another.
The multiples of a prime p are: 2p, 2p + p, 2p + p + p, ...
The odd multiples of a prime p are: 3p, 3p + 2p, 3p + 2p + 2p, ...
As we enumerate them, we mark them in the sieve array. Some will be marked twice or more, e.g. 15 will be marked for 3 and for 5 (because 3 * 5 == 5 * 3). Thus, we can start enumerating and marking from p2:
for( i=3; i*i < n; i += 2 )
if( !sieve[i] ) // if `i` is not marked as composite
for( j = i*i; j < n; j += 2*i )
{
sieve[j] = 1; // 1 for composite, initially all are 0s
}
The key to the sieve is this: we don't store the numbers in the array. It is not an array of INTs; it is an array of 1-bit flags, 0 or 1 in value. The index of an entry in the sieve array signifies the number for which the sieve holds its status: marked, i.e. composite, or not yet marked, i.e. potentially prime.
So in the end, all the non-marked entries signify the primes. You will need to devise an addressing scheme of course, e.g. an entry at index i might correspond to the number a + 2*i where a is the odd start of the range. Since your range starts at some offset, this scheme is known as offset sieve of Eratosthenes. A skeleton C implementation is here.
To minimize the memory use, we need to treat our array as a bit array. In C++ e.g. it is easy: we declare it as vector<bool> and it is automatically bit-packed for us. In C we'll have to do some bit packing and unpacking ourselves.
A word of advice: don't go skimpy on interim variables. Name every meaningful entity in your program. There shouldn't be any (max-min)/2 in your code; but instead define width = max - min and use that name. Leave optimizations in the small to the compiler. :)
To your first question: it's a scope thing. Your code is equivalent to
if (max<=UINT_MAX)
{ unsigned int range[(max-min)/2]; } // note the curly braces!
else if (max<=ULONG_MAX)
{ unsigned long int range[(max-min)/2]; }
else if (max<=ULLONG_MAX)
{ unsigned long long int range[(max-min)/2]; }
so there's three range array declarations here, each in its own scope, inside the corresponding block. Each is created on entry to its enclosing block ({) and is destroyed on exit from it (}). In other words, it doesn't exist for the rest of your prime function anymore. Practically it means that if you declare your variable inside an if block, you can only use it inside that block (between the corresponding braces { and } ).
Q1: you can not declare a symbol (here: range) twice in the same scope. It is not exactly your problem but you are trying to do this: you declare range within the if scope and it is not visible outside.
A simple program I wrote in C takes upwards of half an hour to run. I am surprised that C would take so long to run, because from what I can find on the internet C ( aside from C++ or Java ) is one of the faster languages.
// this is a program to find the first triangular number that is divisible by 500 factors
int main()
{
int a; // for triangular num loop
int b = 1; // limit for triangular num (1+2+3+......+b)
int c; // factor counter
int d; // divisor
int e = 1; // ends loop
long long int t = 0; // triangular number in use
while( e != 0 )
{
c = 0;
// create triangular number t
t = t + b;
b++;
// printf("%lld\n", t); // in case you want to see where it's at
// counts factors
for( d = 1 ; d != t ; d++ )
{
if( t % d == 0 )
{
c++;
}
}
// test to see if condition is met
if( c > 500 )
{
break;
}
}
printf("%lld is the first triangular number with more than 500 factors\n", t);
getchar();
return 0;
}
Granted the program runs through a lot of data, but none of it is ever saved, just tested and passed over.
I am using the Tiny C Compiler on Windows 8.
Is there a reason this runs so slowly? What would be a faster way of achieving the same result?
Thank you!
You're iterating over a ton of numbers you don't need to. By definition, a positive factor is any whole number that can be multiplied by another to obtain the desired product.
Ex: 12 = 1*12, 2*6, and 3*4
The order of multiplication are NOT considered when deciding factors. In other words,
Ex: 12 = 2*6 = 6*2
The order doesn't matter. 2 and 6 are factors once.
The square root is the one singleton that will come out of a factoring of a product that stands alone. All others are in pairs, and I hope that is clear. Given that, you can significantly speed up your code by doing the following:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
// this is a program to find the first triangular number that is divisible by 500 factors
int main()
{
int c = 0; // factor counter
long long int b = 0; // limit for triangular num (1+2+3+......+b)
long long int d; // divisor
long long int t = 0; // triangular number in use
long long int r = 0; // root of current test number
while (c <= 500)
{
c = 0;
// next triangular number
t += ++b;
// get closest root.
r = floor(sqrt(t));
// counts factors
for( d = 1 ; d < r; ++d )
{
if( t % d == 0 )
c += 2; // add the factor *pair* (there are two)
}
if (t % r == 0) // add the square root if it is applicable.
++c;
}
printf("%lld is the first triangular number with more than 500 factors\n", t);
return 0;
}
Running this on IDEOne.com takes less than two seconds to come up with the following:
Output
76576500 is the first triangular number with more than 500 factors
I hope this helps. (and I think that is the correct answer). There are certainly more efficient ways of doing this (see here for some spoilers if you're interested), but going with your code idea and seeing how far we could take it was the goal of this answer.
Finally, this finds the first number with MORE than 500 factors (i.e. 501 or more) as per your output message. Your comment at the top of the file indicates you're looking for the first number with 500-or-more, which does not match up with your output message.
Without any math analysis:
...
do
{
c = 0;
t += b;
b++;
for (d = 1; d < t; ++d)
{
if (!(t % d))
{
c++;
}
}
} while (c <= 500);
...
You are implementing an O(n^2) algorithm. It would be surprising if the code took less than a half an hour.
Refer to your computer science textbook for a better method compared to this brute force method of: check 1, 1 + 2, 1 + 2 + 3, etc.
You might be able to shorten the inner for loop. Does it really need to check all the way up to t for factors that divide the triangular number. For example, can 10 be evenly divisible by any number greater than 5? or 100 by any number greater than 50?
Thus, given a number N, what is the largest number that can evenly divide N?
Keep reading/researching this problem.
Also, as other people have mentioned, the outer loop could be simply coded as:
while (1)
{
// etc.
}
So, no need need to declare e, or a? Note, this doesn't affect the length of time, but your coding style indicates you are still learning and thus a reviewer would question everything your code does!!
You are doing some unnecessary operations, and I think those instructions are not at all required if we can check that simply.
first :
while(e!=0)
as you declared e=1, if you put only 1 in loop it will work. You are not updating value of e anywhere.
Change that and check whether it works fine or not.
One of the beautiful things about triangle numbers, is that if you have a triangle number, with a simple addition operation, you can have the next one.
This is a code I submitted at sphere online judge for generating prime numbers but I'm getting a segmentation fault. The objective is to generate prime numbers between the given range m to n (with n > m). This is implemented using the Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm. Please tell me where im going wrong. Thanks :)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main(){
long int m,n,c1,c2,c3;
int t;
scanf("%d",&t);
while(t--)
{
scanf("%d %d",&m,&n);
//create prime list
short int *prime;
prime = (short int*)malloc((n-m)*sizeof(short int));
//fill list with 0 - prime
for(c1 = 2; c1 <= n; c1++){
prime[c1] = 1;
}
//set 1 and 0 as not prime
prime[0]=0;
prime[1]=0;
//find primes then eliminate their multiples (0 = prime, 1 = composite)
for(c2 = 2;c2 <= (int)sqrt(n)+1;c2++){
if(prime[c2]){
c1=c2;
for(c3 = 2*c1;c3 <= n; c3 = c3+c1){
prime[c3] = 0;
}
}
}
//print primes
for(c1 = m; c1 <=n; c1++){
if(prime[c1]) printf("%d\n",c1);
}
}
return 0;
}
c3 can go up to n in the innermost loop, but you only may allocate less than n slots in your array. In fact, even if you allocated n slots, index n would be one more than the number of slots you allocated. At worst, you'd just corrupt some memory past the end of the array and hopefully not trash the stack. At best, I guess you get a segfault. You probably want to change your X <= n to X < n or allocate one more element in your array. In fact, you probably should just allocate (n + 1) * sizeof(short) bytes for your array.
Also, you never set t and you never never validate the user input. The latter may be okay if this is for a competition which would have constraints on input. Also, you never free the prime array, so you have a memory leak.
Of course it will you are allocating a memory which is (n-m) & you are acessing
prime[n] ,
Probably want to avoid this when prime is only 1 element long:
//set 1 and 0 as not prime
prime[0]=0;
prime[1]=0;
You malloc(n-m), but in the following loop you initialize prime[2..n]. n-m is at most 1E5, but n itself could be 1E9 (which is rather huge number). Your simple idea probably can not be implemented, because malloc(1E9) will probably fail. You need a smarter algorithm.