def digits(n):
total=0
for i in range(0,n):
if n/(10**(i))<1 and n/(10**(i-1))=>1:
total+=i
else:
total+=0
return total
I want to find the number of digits in 13 so I do the below
print digits(13)
it gives me $\0$ for every number I input into the function.
there's nothing wrong with what I've written as far as I can see:
if a number has say 4 digits say 1234 then dividing by 10^4 will make it less than 1: 0.1234 and dividing by 10^3 will make it 1.234
and by 10^3 will make it 1.234>1. when i satisfies BOTH conditions you know you have the correct number of digits.
what's failing here? Please can you advise me on the specific method I've tried
and not a different one?
Remember for every n there can only be one i which satisfies that condition.
so when you add i to the total there will only be i added so total returning total will give you i
your loop makes no sense at all. It goes from 0 to exact number - not what you want.
It looks like python, so grab a solution that uses string:
def digits(n):
return len(str(int(n))) # make sure that it's integer, than conver to string and return number of characters == number of digits
EDIT:
If you REALLY want to use a loop to count number of digits, you can do this this way:
def digits(n):
i = 0
while (n > 1):
n = n / 10
++i
return i
EDIT2:
since you really want to make your solution work, here is your problem. Provided, that you call your function like digits(5), 5 is of type integer, so your division is integer-based. That means, that 6/100 = 0, not 0.06.
def digits(n):
for i in range(0,n):
if n/float(10**(i))<1 and n/float(10**(i-1))=>1:
return i # we don't need to check anything else, this is the solution
return null # we don't the answer. This should not happen, but still, nice to put it here. Throwing an exception would be even better
I fixed it. Thanks for your input though :)
def digits(n):
for i in range(0,n):
if n/(10**(i))<1 and n/(10**(i-1))>=1:
return i
Related
I would like to assert that the most significant digit of a number is a particular value, but I don't actually know the length of the number. If it was the least significant digit, I know I could use the python mod (%) to check for it. But with an unknown number of digits, I'm unsure of how I could check this in z3.
For example, I may know that the left most digit is a 9, such as 9x, or 9xx, or 9xxx etc.
Thanks so much in advance
The generic way to do this would be to convert to a string and check that the first character matches:
from z3 import *
s = Solver()
n = Int('n')
s.add(SubString(IntToStr(n), 0, 1) == "9")
r = s.check()
if r == sat:
m = s.model()
print("n =", m[n])
else:
print("Solver said:", r)
This prints:
n = 9
Note that IntToStr expects its argument to be non-negative, so if you need to support negative numbers, you'll have to write extra code to accommodate for that. See https://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/theories-UnicodeStrings.shtml for details.
Aside While this will accomplish what you want in its generality, it may not be the most efficient way to encode this constraint. Since it goes through strings, the constraints generated might cause performance issues. If you have an upper limit on your number, it might be more efficient to code it explicitly. For instance, if you know your number is less than a 1000, I'd code it as (pseudocode):
n == 9 || n >= 90 && n <= 99 || n >= 900 && n <= 999
etc. until you have the range you needed covered. This would lead to much simpler constraints and perform a lot better in general. Note that this'll work even if you don't know the exact length, but have an upper bound on it. But of course, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve and what else you know about the number itself.
I am working on Project Euler, and my code is just taking way too long to compute. I am supposed to find the sum of all primes less than 2,000,000 , but my program would take years to complete. I would try some different ways to find primes, but the problem is that I only know one way.
Anyways, here is my code:
sum=2
flag=0
prime=3
while prime<2000000 do
for i=2,prime-1 do
if prime%i==0 then
flag=1
end
end
if flag==0 then
print(prime)
sum=sum+prime
end
prime=prime+1
flag=0
if prime==2000000 then
print(sum)
end
end
Does anyone know of any more ways to find primes, or even a way to optimize this? I always try to figure coding out myself, but this one is truly stumping me.
Anyways, thanks!
This code is based on Sieve of Eratosthenes.
Whenever a prime is found, its multiples are marked as non-prime. Remaining integers are primes.
nonprimes={}
max=2000000
sum=2
prime=3
while prime<max do
if not nonprimes[prime] then
-- found a prime
sum = sum + prime
-- marks multiples of prime
i=prime*prime
while i < max do
nonprimes[i] = true
i = i + 2*prime
end
end
-- primes cannot be even
prime = prime + 2
end
print(sum)
As an optimization, even numbers are never considered. It reduces array size and number of iterations by 2. This is also why considered multiple of a found prime are (2k+1)*prime.
Your program had some bugs and computing n^2 divisions is very expensive.
How do I get a random number in Lua to the eighth decimal?
Example : 0.00000001
I have tried the following and several variations of this but can not get the format i need.
math.randomseed( os.time() )
x = math.random(10000000,20000000) * 0.00000001
print(x)
i would like to put in say 200 and get this 0.00000200
Just grab a random number from 0-9, and slide it down 6 places. You can use format specifiers to create the string representation of the number that you desire. For floats we use %f, and indicate how many decimal places we want to have with an intermediate .n, where n is a number.
math.randomseed(os.time())
-- random(9) to exclude 0
print(('%.8f'):format(math.random(0, 9) * 1e-6))
--> '0.00000400'
string.format("%.8f",math.random())
to help anyone else. my question should have been worded a bit better. i wanted to be able to get random numbers and get it to the 8th decimal place.
but i wanted to be able to have those numbers from 1-10,000 so he is updated how i wanted it and the help of Oka got me to this
math.randomseed(os.time())
lowest = 1
highest = 7000
rand=('%.8f'):format(math.random(lowest, highest) / 100000000)
print(rand)
Hope this helps someone else or if it can be cleaned up please let me know
This is my code:
def is_prime(i)
j = 2
while j < i do
if i % j == 0
return false
end
j += 1
end
true
end
i = (600851475143 / 2)
while i >= 0 do
if (600851475143 % i == 0) && (is_prime(i) == true)
largest_prime = i
break
end
i -= 1
end
puts largest_prime
Why is it not returning anything? Is it too large of a calculation going through all the numbers? Is there a simple way of doing it without utilizing the Ruby prime library(defeats the purpose)?
All the solutions I found online were too advanced for me, does anyone have a solution that a beginner would be able to understand?
"premature optimization is (the root of all) evil". :)
Here you go right away for the (1) biggest, (2) prime, factor. How about finding all the factors, prime or not, and then taking the last (biggest) of them that is prime. When we solve that, we can start optimizing it.
A factor a of a number n is such that there exists some b (we assume a <= b to avoid duplication) that a * b = n. But that means that for a <= b it will also be a*a <= a*b == n.
So, for each b = n/2, n/2-1, ... the potential corresponding factor is known automatically as a = n / b, there's no need to test a for divisibility at all ... and perhaps you can figure out which of as don't have to be tested for primality as well.
Lastly, if p is the smallest prime factor of n, then the prime factors of n are p and all the prime factors of n / p. Right?
Now you can complete the task.
update: you can find more discussion and a pseudocode of sorts here. Also, search for "600851475143" here on Stack Overflow.
I'll address not so much the answer, but how YOU can pursue the answer.
The most elegant troubleshooting approach is to use a debugger to get insight as to what is actually happening: How do I debug Ruby scripts?
That said, I rarely use a debugger -- I just stick in puts here and there to see what's going on.
Start with adding puts "testing #{i}" as the first line inside the loop. While the screen I/O will be a million times slower than a silent calculation, it will at least give you confidence that it's doing what you think it's doing, and perhaps some insight into how long the whole problem will take. Or it may reveal an error, such as the counter not changing, incrementing in the wrong direction, overshooting the break conditional, etc. Basic sanity check stuff.
If that doesn't set off a lightbulb, go deeper and puts inside the if statement. No revelations yet? Next puts inside is_prime(), then inside is_prime()'s loop. You get the idea.
Also, there's no reason in the world to start with 600851475143 during development! 17, 51, 100 and 1024 will work just as well. (And don't forget edge cases like 0, 1, 2, -1 and such, just for fun.) These will all complete before your finger is off the enter key -- or demonstrate that your algorithm truly never returns and send you back to the drawing board.
Use these two approaches and I'm sure you'll find your answers in a minute or two. Good luck!
Do you know you can solve this with one line of code in Ruby?
Prime.prime_division(600851475143).flatten.max
=> 6857
I'm puzzling over how to map a set of sequences to consecutive integers.
All the sequences follow this rule:
A_0 = 1
A_n >= 1
A_n <= max(A_0 .. A_n-1) + 1
I'm looking for a solution that will be able to, given such a sequence, compute a integer for doing a lookup into a table and given an index into the table, generate the sequence.
Example: for length 3, there are 5 the valid sequences. A fast function for doing the following map (preferably in both direction) would be a good solution
1,1,1 0
1,1,2 1
1,2,1 2
1,2,2 3
1,2,3 4
The point of the exercise is to get a packed table with a 1-1 mapping between valid sequences and cells.
The size of the set in bounded only by the number of unique sequences possible.
I don't know now what the length of the sequence will be but it will be a small, <12, constant known in advance.
I'll get to this sooner or later, but though I'd throw it out for the community to have "fun" with in the meantime.
these are different valid sequences
1,1,2,3,2,1,4
1,1,2,3,1,2,4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,1,1,1,2,3,2
these are not
1,2,2,4
2,
1,1,2,3,5
Related to this
There is a natural sequence indexing, but no so easy to calculate.
Let look for A_n for n>0, since A_0 = 1.
Indexing is done in 2 steps.
Part 1:
Group sequences by places where A_n = max(A_0 .. A_n-1) + 1. Call these places steps.
On steps are consecutive numbers (2,3,4,5,...).
On non-step places we can put numbers from 1 to number of steps with index less than k.
Each group can be represent as binary string where 1 is step and 0 non-step. E.g. 001001010 means group with 112aa3b4c, a<=2, b<=3, c<=4. Because, groups are indexed with binary number there is natural indexing of groups. From 0 to 2^length - 1. Lets call value of group binary representation group order.
Part 2:
Index sequences inside a group. Since groups define step positions, only numbers on non-step positions are variable, and they are variable in defined ranges. With that it is easy to index sequence of given group inside that group, with lexicographical order of variable places.
It is easy to calculate number of sequences in one group. It is number of form 1^i_1 * 2^i_2 * 3^i_3 * ....
Combining:
This gives a 2 part key: <Steps, Group> this then needs to be mapped to the integers. To do that we have to find how many sequences are in groups that have order less than some value. For that, lets first find how many sequences are in groups of given length. That can be computed passing through all groups and summing number of sequences or similar with recurrence. Let T(l, n) be number of sequences of length l (A_0 is omitted ) where maximal value of first element can be n+1. Than holds:
T(l,n) = n*T(l-1,n) + T(l-1,n+1)
T(1,n) = n
Because l + n <= sequence length + 1 there are ~sequence_length^2/2 T(l,n) values, which can be easily calculated.
Next is to calculate number of sequences in groups of order less or equal than given value. That can be done with summing of T(l,n) values. E.g. number of sequences in groups with order <= 1001010 binary, is equal to
T(7,1) + # for 1000000
2^2 * T(4,2) + # for 001000
2^2 * 3 * T(2,3) # for 010
Optimizations:
This will give a mapping but the direct implementation for combining the key parts is >O(1) at best. On the other hand, the Steps portion of the key is small and by computing the range of Groups for each Steps value, a lookup table can reduce this to O(1).
I'm not 100% sure about upper formula, but it should be something like it.
With these remarks and recurrence it is possible to make functions sequence -> index and index -> sequence. But not so trivial :-)
I think hash with out sorting should be the thing.
As A0 always start with 0, may be I think we can think of the sequence as an number with base 12 and use its base 10 as the key for look up. ( Still not sure about this).
This is a python function which can do the job for you assuming you got these values stored in a file and you pass the lines to the function
def valid_lines(lines):
for line in lines:
line = line.split(",")
if line[0] == 1 and line[-1] and line[-1] <= max(line)+1:
yield line
lines = (line for line in open('/tmp/numbers.txt'))
for valid_line in valid_lines(lines):
print valid_line
Given the sequence, I would sort it, then use the hash of the sorted sequence as the index of the table.