Note: Updated on 06/17/2015. Of course this is possible. See the solution below.
Even if anyone copies and pastes this code, you still have a lot of cleanup to do. Also note that you will have problems inside the critical strip from Re(s) = 0 to Re(s) = 1 :). But this is a good start.
import java.util.Scanner;
public class NewTest{
public static void main(String[] args) {
RiemannZetaMain func = new RiemannZetaMain();
double s = 0;
double start, stop, totalTime;
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Enter the value of s inside the Riemann Zeta Function: ");
try {
s = scan.nextDouble();
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("You must enter a positive integer greater than 1.");
}
start = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (s <= 0)
System.out.println("Value for the Zeta Function = " + riemannFuncForm(s));
else if (s == 1)
System.out.println("The zeta funxtion is undefined for Re(s) = 1.");
else if(s >= 2)
System.out.println("Value for the Zeta Function = " + getStandardSum(s));
else
System.out.println("Value for the Zeta Function = " + getNewSum(s));
stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
totalTime = (double) (stop-start) / 1000.0;
System.out.println("Total time taken is " + totalTime + " seconds.");
}
// Standard form the the Zeta function.
public static double standardZeta(double s) {
int n = 1;
double currentSum = 0;
double relativeError = 1;
double error = 0.000001;
double remainder;
while (relativeError > error) {
currentSum = Math.pow(n, -s) + currentSum;
remainder = 1 / ((s-1)* Math.pow(n, (s-1)));
relativeError = remainder / currentSum;
n++;
}
System.out.println("The number of terms summed was " + n + ".");
return currentSum;
}
public static double getStandardSum(double s){
return standardZeta(s);
}
//New Form
// zeta(s) = 2^(-1+2 s)/((-2+2^s) Gamma(1+s)) integral_0^infinity t^s sech^2(t) dt for Re(s)>-1
public static double Integrate(double start, double end) {
double currentIntegralValue = 0;
double dx = 0.0001d; // The size of delta x in the approximation
double x = start; // A = starting point of integration, B = ending point of integration.
// Ending conditions for the while loop
// Condition #1: The value of b - x(i) is less than delta(x).
// This would throw an out of bounds exception.
// Condition #2: The value of b - x(i) is greater than 0 (Since you start at A and split the integral
// up into "infinitesimally small" chunks up until you reach delta(x)*n.
while (Math.abs(end - x) >= dx && (end - x) > 0) {
currentIntegralValue += function(x) * dx; // Use the (Riemann) rectangle sums at xi to compute width * height
x += dx; // Add these sums together
}
return currentIntegralValue;
}
private static double function(double s) {
double sech = 1 / Math.cosh(s); // Hyperbolic cosecant
double squared = Math.pow(sech, 2);
return ((Math.pow(s, 0.5)) * squared);
}
public static double getNewSum(double s){
double constant = Math.pow(2, (2*s)-1) / (((Math.pow(2, s)) -2)*(gamma(1+s)));
return constant*Integrate(0, 1000);
}
// Gamma Function - Lanczos approximation
public static double gamma(double s){
double[] p = {0.99999999999980993, 676.5203681218851, -1259.1392167224028,
771.32342877765313, -176.61502916214059, 12.507343278686905,
-0.13857109526572012, 9.9843695780195716e-6, 1.5056327351493116e-7};
int g = 7;
if(s < 0.5) return Math.PI / (Math.sin(Math.PI * s)*gamma(1-s));
s -= 1;
double a = p[0];
double t = s+g+0.5;
for(int i = 1; i < p.length; i++){
a += p[i]/(s+i);
}
return Math.sqrt(2*Math.PI)*Math.pow(t, s+0.5)*Math.exp(-t)*a;
}
//Binomial Co-efficient - NOT CURRENTLY USING
/*
public static double binomial(int n, int k)
{
if (k>n-k)
k=n-k;
long b=1;
for (int i=1, m=n; i<=k; i++, m--)
b=b*m/i;
return b;
} */
// Riemann's Functional Equation
// Tried this initially and utterly failed.
public static double riemannFuncForm(double s) {
double term = Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s);
double nextTerm = Math.pow(2, (1-s))*Math.pow(Math.PI, (1-s)-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*(1-s))/2))*gamma(1-(1-s));
double error = Math.abs(term - nextTerm);
if(s == 1.0)
return 0;
else
return Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s)*standardZeta(1-s);
}
}
Ok well we've figured out that for this particular function, since this form of it isn't actually a infinite series, we cannot approximate using recursion. However the infinite sum of the Riemann Zeta series (1\(n^s) where n = 1 to infinity) could be solved through this method.
Additionally this method could be used to find any infinite series' sum, product, or limit.
If you execute the code your currently have, you'll get infinite recursion as 1-(1-s) = s (e.g. 1-s = t, 1-t = s so you'll just switch back and forth between two values of s infinitely).
Below I talk about the sum of series. It appears you are calculating the product of the series instead. The concepts below should work for either.
Besides this, the Riemann Zeta Function is an infinite series. This means that it only has a limit, and will never reach a true sum (in finite time) and so you cannot get an exact answer through recursion.
However, if you introduce a "threshold" factor, you can get an approximation that is as good as you like. The sum will increase/decrease as each term is added. Once the sum stabilizes, you can quit out of recursion and return your approximate sum. "Stabilized" is defined using your threshold factor. Once the sum varies by an amount less than this threshold factor (which you have defined), your sum has stabilized.
A smaller threshold leads to a better approximation, but also longer computation time.
(Note: this method only works if your series converges, if it has a chance of not converging, you might also want to build in a maxSteps variable to cease execution if the series hasn't converged to your satisfaction after maxSteps steps of recursion.)
Here's an example implementation, note that you'll have to play with threshold and maxSteps to determine appropriate values:
/* Riemann's Functional Equation
* threshold - if two terms differ by less than this absolute amount, return
* currSteps/maxSteps - if currSteps becomes maxSteps, give up on convergence and return
* currVal - the current product, used to determine threshold case (start at 1)
*/
public static double riemannFuncForm(double s, double threshold, int currSteps, int maxSteps, double currVal) {
double nextVal = currVal*(Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s)); //currVal*term
if( s == 1.0)
return 0;
else if ( s == 0.0)
return -0.5;
else if (Math.abs(currVal-nextVal) < threshold) //When a term will change the current answer by less than threshold
return nextVal; //Could also do currVal here (shouldn't matter much as they differ by < threshold)
else if (currSteps == maxSteps)//When you've taken the max allowed steps
return nextVal; //You might want to print something here so you know you didn't converge
else //Otherwise just keep recursing
return riemannFuncForm(1-s, threshold, ++currSteps, maxSteps, nextVal);
}
}
This is not possible.
The functional form of the Riemann Zeta Function is --
zeta(s) = 2^s pi^(-1+s) Gamma(1-s) sin((pi s)/2) zeta(1-s)
This is different from the standard equation in which an infinite sum is measured from 1/k^s for all k = 1 to k = infinity. It is possible to write this as something similar to --
// Standard form the the Zeta function.
public static double standardZeta(double s) {
int n = 1;
double currentSum = 0;
double relativeError = 1;
double error = 0.000001;
double remainder;
while (relativeError > error) {
currentSum = Math.pow(n, -s) + currentSum;
remainder = 1 / ((s-1)* Math.pow(n, (s-1)));
relativeError = remainder / currentSum;
n++;
}
System.out.println("The number of terms summed was " + n + ".");
return currentSum;
}
The same logic doesn't apply to the functional equation (it isn't a direct sum, it is a mathematical relationship). This would require a rather clever way of designing a program to calculate negative values of Zeta(s)!
The literal interpretation of this Java code is ---
// Riemann's Functional Equation
public static double riemannFuncForm(double s) {
double currentVal = (Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s));
if( s == 1.0)
return 0;
else if ( s == 0.0)
return -0.5;
else
System.out.println("Value of next value is " + nextVal(1-s));
return currentVal;//*nextVal(1-s);
}
public static double nextVal(double s)
{
return (Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s));
}
public static double getRiemannSum(double s) {
return riemannFuncForm(s);
}
Testing on three or four values shows that this doesn't work. If you write something similar to --
// Riemann's Functional Equation
public static double riemannFuncForm(double s) {
double currentVal = Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s); //currVal*term
if( s == 1.0)
return 0;
else if ( s == 0.0)
return -0.5;
else //Otherwise just keep recursing
return currentVal * nextVal(1-s);
}
public static double nextVal(double s)
{
return (Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s));
}
I was misinterpretation how to do this through mathematics. I will have to use a different approximation of the zeta function for values less than 2.
I think I need to use a different form of the zeta function. When I run the entire program ---
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Test4{
public static void main(String[] args) {
RiemannZetaMain func = new RiemannZetaMain();
double s = 0;
double start, stop, totalTime;
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Enter the value of s inside the Riemann Zeta Function: ");
try {
s = scan.nextDouble();
}
catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("You must enter a positive integer greater than 1.");
}
start = System.currentTimeMillis();
if(s >= 2)
System.out.println("Value for the Zeta Function = " + getStandardSum(s));
else
System.out.println("Value for the Zeta Function = " + getRiemannSum(s));
stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
totalTime = (double) (stop-start) / 1000.0;
System.out.println("Total time taken is " + totalTime + " seconds.");
}
// Standard form the the Zeta function.
public static double standardZeta(double s) {
int n = 1;
double currentSum = 0;
double relativeError = 1;
double error = 0.000001;
double remainder;
while (relativeError > error) {
currentSum = Math.pow(n, -s) + currentSum;
remainder = 1 / ((s-1)* Math.pow(n, (s-1)));
relativeError = remainder / currentSum;
n++;
}
System.out.println("The number of terms summed was " + n + ".");
return currentSum;
}
public static double getStandardSum(double s){
return standardZeta(s);
}
// Riemann's Functional Equation
public static double riemannFuncForm(double s, double threshold, double currSteps, int maxSteps) {
double term = Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s);
//double nextTerm = Math.pow(2, (1-s))*Math.pow(Math.PI, (1-s)-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*(1-s))/2))*gamma(1-(1-s));
//double error = Math.abs(term - nextTerm);
if(s == 1.0)
return 0;
else if (s == 0.0)
return -0.5;
else if (term < threshold) {//The recursion will stop once the term is less than the threshold
System.out.println("The number of steps is " + currSteps);
return term;
}
else if (currSteps == maxSteps) {//The recursion will stop if you meet the max steps
System.out.println("The series did not converge.");
return term;
}
else //Otherwise just keep recursing
return term*riemannFuncForm(1-s, threshold, ++currSteps, maxSteps);
}
public static double getRiemannSum(double s) {
double threshold = 0.00001;
double currSteps = 1;
int maxSteps = 1000;
return riemannFuncForm(s, threshold, currSteps, maxSteps);
}
// Gamma Function - Lanczos approximation
public static double gamma(double s){
double[] p = {0.99999999999980993, 676.5203681218851, -1259.1392167224028,
771.32342877765313, -176.61502916214059, 12.507343278686905,
-0.13857109526572012, 9.9843695780195716e-6, 1.5056327351493116e-7};
int g = 7;
if(s < 0.5) return Math.PI / (Math.sin(Math.PI * s)*gamma(1-s));
s -= 1;
double a = p[0];
double t = s+g+0.5;
for(int i = 1; i < p.length; i++){
a += p[i]/(s+i);
}
return Math.sqrt(2*Math.PI)*Math.pow(t, s+0.5)*Math.exp(-t)*a;
}
//Binomial Co-efficient
public static double binomial(int n, int k)
{
if (k>n-k)
k=n-k;
long b=1;
for (int i=1, m=n; i<=k; i++, m--)
b=b*m/i;
return b;
}
}
I notice that plugging in zeta(-1) returns -
Enter the value of s inside the Riemann Zeta Function: -1
The number of steps is 1.0
Value for the Zeta Function = -0.0506605918211689
Total time taken is 0.0 seconds.
I knew that this value was -1/12. I checked some other values with wolfram alpha and observed that --
double term = Math.pow(2, s)*Math.pow(Math.PI, s-1)*(Math.sin((Math.PI*s)/2))*gamma(1-s);
Returns the correct value. It is just that I am multiplying this value every time by zeta(1-s). In the case of Zeta(1/2), this will always multiply the result by 0.99999999.
Enter the value of s inside the Riemann Zeta Function: 0.5
The series did not converge.
Value for the Zeta Function = 0.999999999999889
Total time taken is 0.006 seconds.
I am going to see if I can replace the part for --
else if (term < threshold) {//The recursion will stop once the term is less than the threshold
System.out.println("The number of steps is " + currSteps);
return term;
}
This difference is the error between two terms in the summation. I may not be thinking about this correctly, it is 1:16am right now. Let me see if I can think better tomorrow ....
Task : Unfair die(6 sides) is being rolled n times. Probability of 1 is p1, probability of 2 is p2 and so on. Write a computer program, that for given n (n<100), the probability of set (p1,p2,p3,p4,p5,p6) and $x \in [n,600n]$ would find the probability of sum of dice values is less than x. Program cannot work more than 5 minutes. This is an extra question that will give me extra points, but so far nobody has done it. I quess beginner computer scientist like me can learn from this code also, since i found 0 help with bias dice in the web and came up with roulette like solution. I kind of wanted to show the world my way also.
I have 2 solutions - using geometrical and statistical probability.
My question is: 1) Is it correct when i do it like this or am i going wrong somewhere ?
2) Which one you think gives me better answer geometric or statistical probability ?
My intuition says it is geometric, because it is more reliable.
i think it is correct answer that my code is giving me - more than 0.99..... usually.
I wanted somebody to check my work since i'm not sure at all and i wanted to share this code with others.
I prefer Java more since it is much faster than R with loops, but i gave R code also for statistical , they are very similar i hope it is not a problam.
Java code :
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Statistical_prob_lisayl2_geometrical {
public static double mean(ArrayList<Double> a) {
double sum=0;
int len = a.size();
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
sum = sum + a.get(i);
}
return (sum/len);
}
public static double geom_prob(double p1,double p2,double p3,double p4,double p5,double p6){
ArrayList<Double> prob_values = new ArrayList<Double>();
int repeatcount = 1000000;
int[] options = {1,2,3,4,5,6};
int n = 50;
double[] probabilities = {p1,p2,p3,p4,p5,p6};
for (int i = 0 ; i < repeatcount ; i++ ) { // a lot of repeats for better statistical probability
int sum = 0; //for each repeat, the sum is being computed
for (int j = 0; j < n ; j++ ) { // for each repeat there is n cast of dies and we compute them here
double probability_value=0; // the value we start looking from with probability
double instant_probability = Math.random(); // we generate random probability for dice value
for (int k = 0; k < 6; k++ ) { // because we have 6 sides, we start looking at each probability like a roulette table
probability_value = probability_value + probabilities[k]; // we sum the probabilities for checking in which section the probability belongs to
if (probability_value>instant_probability) {
sum = sum + options[k]; // if probability belongs to certain area , lets say p3 to p4, then p3 is added to sum
break; // we break the loop , because it would give us false values otherwise
}
}
}
double length1 = (600*n)-n-(sum-n); //length of possible x values minus length of sum
double length2 = 600*n-n;
prob_values.add( (length1/length2) ); // geometric probability l1/l2
}
return mean(prob_values); // we give the mean value of a arraylist, with 1000000 numbers in it
}
public static double stat_prob(double p1,double p2,double p3,double p4,double p5,double p6){
ArrayList<Double> prob_values = new ArrayList<Double>();
int repeatcount = 1000000;
int[] options = {1,2,3,4,5,6};
int n = 50;
double[] probabilities = {p1,p2,p3,p4,p5,p6};
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0 ; i < repeatcount ; i++ ) {
int sum = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < n ; j++ ) {
double probability_value=0;
double instant_probability = Math.random();
for (int k = 0; k < 6; k++ ) {
probability_value = probability_value + probabilities[k];
if (probability_value>instant_probability) {
sum = sum + options[k];
break;
}
}
}
int x = (int)Math.round(Math.random()*(600*n-n)+n);
if( x>sum ) {
count = count + 1;
}
}
double probability = (double)count/(double)repeatcount;
return probability;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(stat_prob(0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.3,0.3));
System.out.println(geom_prob(0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.3,0.3));
}
}
R code:
repeatcount = 100000
options = c(1,2,3,4,5,6)
n = 50
probabilities = c(1/10,1/10,1/10,1/10,3/10,3/10)
count = 0
for (i in 1:repeatcount) {
sum = 0
for (i in 1:n) {
probability_value=0
instant_probability = runif(1,0,1)
for (k in 1:6){
probability_value = probability_value + probabilities[k]
if (probability_value>instant_probability) {
sum = sum + options[k]
break
}
}
}
x = runif(1,n,600*n)
x
sum
if ( x> sum ) {
count = count + 1
}
}
count
probability = count/repeatcount
probability
Is this what you are trying to do??
n <- 50 # number of rolls in a trial
k <- 100000 # number if trials in the simulation
x <- 220 # cutoff for calculating P(X<x)
p <- c(1/10,1/10,1/10,1/10,3/10,3/10) # distribution of p-side
X <- sapply(1:k,function(i)sum(sample(1:6,n,replace=T,prob=p)))
P <- sum(X<x)/length(X) # probability that X < x
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
hist(X)
plot(quantile(X,probs=seq(0,1,.01)),seq(0,1,.01),type="l",xlab="x",ylab="P(X < x)")
lines(c(x,x,0),c(0,P,P),col="red",lty=2)
This makes sense because the expected side
E(s) = 1*0.1 + 2*0.1 + 3*0.1 + 4*0.1 + 5*0.3 + 6*0.3 = 4.3
Since you are simulating 50 rolls, the expected value of the total should be 50*4.3, or about 215, which is almost exactly what it is.
The slow step, below, runs in about 3.5s on my system. Obviously the actual time will depend on the number of trials in the simulation, and the speed of your computer, but 5 min is absurd...
system.time(X <- sapply(1:k,function(i)sum(sample(1:6,n,replace=T,prob=p))))
# user system elapsed
# 3.20 0.00 3.24
package testing.project;
public class PalindromeThreeDigits {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int value = 0;
for(int i = 100;i <=999;i++)
{
for(int j = i;j <=999;j++)
{
int value1 = i * j;
StringBuilder sb1 = new StringBuilder(""+value1);
String sb2 = ""+value1;
sb1.reverse();
if(sb2.equals(sb1.toString()) && value<value1) {
value = value1;
}
}
}
System.out.println(value);
}
}
This is the code that I wrote in Java... Is there any efficient way other than this.. And can we optimize this code more??
We suppose the largest such palindrome will have six digits rather than five, because 143*777 = 111111 is a palindrome.
As noted elsewhere, a 6-digit base-10 palindrome abccba is a multiple of 11. This is true because a*100001 + b*010010 + c*001100 is equal to 11*a*9091 + 11*b*910 + 11*c*100. So, in our inner loop we can decrease n by steps of 11 if m is not a multiple of 11.
We are trying to find the largest palindrome under a million that is a product of two 3-digit numbers. To find a large result, we try large divisors first:
We step m downwards from 999, by 1's;
Run n down from 999 by 1's (if 11 divides m, or 9% of the time) or from 990 by 11's (if 11 doesn't divide m, or 91% of the time).
We keep track of the largest palindrome found so far in variable q. Suppose q = r·s with r <= s. We usually have m < r <= s. We require m·n > q or n >= q/m. As larger palindromes are found, the range of n gets more restricted, for two reasons: q gets larger, m gets smaller.
The inner loop of attached program executes only 506 times, vs the ~ 810000 times the naive program used.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
enum { A=100000, B=10000, C=1000, c=100, b=10, a=1, T=10 };
int m, n, p, q=111111, r=143, s=777;
int nDel, nLo, nHi, inner=0, n11=(999/11)*11;
for (m=999; m>99; --m) {
nHi = n11; nDel = 11;
if (m%11==0) {
nHi = 999; nDel = 1;
}
nLo = q/m-1;
if (nLo < m) nLo = m-1;
for (n=nHi; n>nLo; n -= nDel) {
++inner;
// Check if p = product is a palindrome
p = m * n;
if (p%T==p/A && (p/B)%T==(p/b)%T && (p/C)%T==(p/c)%T) {
q=p; r=m; s=n;
printf ("%d at %d * %d\n", q, r, s);
break; // We're done with this value of m
}
}
}
printf ("Final result: %d at %d * %d inner=%d\n", q, r, s, inner);
return 0;
}
Note, the program is in C but same techniques will work in Java.
What I would do:
Start at 999, working my way backwards to 998, 997, etc
Create the palindrome for my current number.
Determine the prime factorization of this number (not all that expensive if you have a pre-generated list of primes.
Work through this prime factorization list to determine if I can use a combination of the factors to make 2 3 digit numbers.
Some code:
int[] primes = new int[] {2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,
73,79,83,89,97,101,103,107,109,113,,127,131,137,139,149,151,157,163,167,173,
179,181,191,193,197,199,211,223,227,229,233,239,241,251,257,263,269,271,277,281,
283,293,307,311,313,317,331,337,347,349,353,359,367,373,379,383,389,397,401,409,
419,421,431,433,439,443,449,457,461,463,467,479,487,491,499,503,509,521,523,541,
547,557,563,569,571,577,587,593,599,601,607,613,617,619,631,641,643,647,653,659,
661,673,677,683,691,701,709,719,727,733,739,743,751,757,761,769,773,787,797,809,
811,821,823,827,829,839,853,857,859,863,877,881,883,887,907,911,919,929,937,941,
947,953,967,971,977,983,991,997};
for(int i = 999; i >= 100; i--) {
String palstr = String.valueOf(i) + (new StringBuilder().append(i).reverse());
int pal = Integer.parseInt(pal);
int[] factors = new int[20]; // cannot have more than 20 factors
int remainder = pal;
int facpos = 0;
primeloop:
for(int p = 0; p < primes.length; i++) {
while(remainder % p == 0) {
factors[facpos++] = p;
remainder /= p;
if(remainder < p) break primeloop;
}
}
// now to do the combinations here
}
We can translate the task into the language of mathematics.
For a short start, we use characters as digits:
abc * xyz = n
abc is a 3-digit number, and we deconstruct it as 100*a+10*b+c
xyz is a 3-digit number, and we deconstruct it as 100*x+10*y+z
Now we have two mathematical expressions, and can define a,b,c,x,y,z as € of {0..9}.
It is more precise to define a and x as of element from {1..9}, not {0..9}, because 097 isn't really a 3-digit number, is it?
Ok.
If we want to produce a big number, we should try to reach a 9......-Number, and since it shall be palindromic, it has to be of the pattern 9....9. If the last digit is a 9, then from
(100*a + 10*b + c) * (100*x + 10*y + z)
follows that z*c has to lead to a number, ending in digit 9 - all other calculations don't infect the last digit.
So c and z have to be from (1,3,7,9) because (1*9=9, 9*1=9, 3*3=9, 7*7=49).
Now some code (Scala):
val n = (0 to 9)
val m = n.tail // 1 to 9
val niners = Seq (1, 3, 7, 9)
val highs = for (a <- m;
b <- n;
c <- niners;
x <- m;
y <- n;
z <- niners) yield ((100*a + 10*b + c) * (100*x + 10*y + z))
Then I would sort them by size, and starting with the biggest one, test them for being palindromic. So I would omit to test small numbers for being palindromic, because that might not be so cheap.
For aesthetic reasons, I wouldn't take a (toString.reverse == toString) approach, but a recursive divide and modulo solution, but on todays machines, it doesn't make much difference, does it?
// Make a list of digits from a number:
def digitize (z: Int, nums : List[Int] = Nil) : List[Int] =
if (z == 0) nums else digitize (z/10, z%10 :: nums)
/* for 342243, test 3...==...3 and then 4224.
Fails early for 123329 */
def palindromic (nums : List[Int]) : Boolean = nums match {
case Nil => true
case x :: Nil => true
case x :: y :: Nil => x == y
case x :: xs => x == xs.last && palindromic (xs.init) }
def palindrom (z: Int) = palindromic (digitize (z))
For serious performance considerations, I would test it against a toString/reverse/equals approach. Maybe it is worse. It shall fail early, but division and modulo aren't known to be the fastest operations, and I use them to make a List from the Int. It would work for BigInt or Long with few redeclarations, and works nice with Java; could be implemented in Java but look different there.
Okay, putting the things together:
highs.filter (_ > 900000) .sortWith (_ > _) find (palindrom)
res45: Option[Int] = Some(906609)
There where 835 numbers left > 900000, and it returns pretty fast, but I guess even more brute forcing isn't much slower.
Maybe there is a much more clever way to construct the highest palindrom, instead of searching for it.
One problem is: I didn't knew before, that there is a solution > 900000.
A very different approach would be, to produce big palindromes, and deconstruct their factors.
public class Pin
{
public static boolean isPalin(int num)
{
char[] val = (""+num).toCharArray();
for(int i=0;i<val.length;i++)
{
if(val[i] != val[val.length - i - 1])
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
for(int i=999;i>100;i--)
for(int j=999;j>100;j--)
{
int mul = j*i;
if(isPalin(mul))
{
System.out.printf("%d * %d = %d",i,j,mul);
return;
}
}
}
}
package ex;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i = 0, j = 0, k = 0, l = 0, m = 0, n = 0, flag = 0;
for (i = 999; i >= 100; i--) {
for (j = i; j >= 100; j--) {
k = i * j;
// System.out.println(k);
m = 0;
n = k;
while (n > 0) {
l = n % 10;
m = m * 10 + l;
n = n / 10;
}
if (m == k) {
System.out.println("pal " + k + " of " + i + " and" + j);
flag = 1;
break;
}
}
if (flag == 1) {
// System.out.println(k);
break;
}
}
}
}
A slightly different approach that can easily calculate the largest palindromic number made from the product of up to two 6-digit numbers.
The first part is to create a generator of palindrome numbers. So there is no need to check if a number is palindromic, the second part is a simple loop.
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;
template <int N>
class PalindromeGenerator {
unique_ptr <int []> m_data;
bool m_hasnext;
public :
PalindromeGenerator():m_data(new int[N])
{
for(auto i=0;i<N;i++)
m_data[i]=9;
m_hasnext=true;
}
bool hasNext() const {return m_hasnext;}
long long int getnext()
{
long long int v=0;
long long int b=1;
for(int i=0;i<N;i++){
v+=m_data[i]*b;
b*=10;
}
for(int i=N-1;i>=0;i--){
v+=m_data[i]*b;
b*=10;
}
auto i=N-1;
while (i>=0)
{
if(m_data[i]>=1) {
m_data[i]--;
return v;
}
else
{
m_data[i]=9;
i--;
}
}
m_hasnext=false;
return v;
}
};
template<int N>
void findmaxPalindrome()
{
PalindromeGenerator<N> gen;
decltype(gen.getnext()) minv=static_cast<decltype(gen.getnext())> (pow(10,N-1));
decltype(gen.getnext()) maxv=static_cast<decltype(gen.getnext())> (pow(10,N)-1);
decltype(gen.getnext()) start=11*(maxv/11);
while(gen.hasNext())
{
auto v=gen.getnext();
for (decltype(gen.getnext()) i=start;i>minv;i-=11)
{
if (v%i==0)
{
auto r=v/i;
if (r>minv && r<maxv ){
cout<<"done:"<<v<<" "<<i<< "," <<r <<endl;
return ;
}
}
}
}
return ;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
findmaxPalindrome<6>();
return 0;
}
You can use the fact that 11 is a multiple of the palindrome to cut down on the search space. We can get this since we can assume the palindrome will be 6 digits and >= 111111.
e.g. ( from projecteuler ;) )
P= xyzzyx = 100000x + 10000y + 1000z + 100z + 10y +x
P=100001x+10010y+1100z
P=11(9091x+910y+100z)
Check if i mod 11 != 0, then the j loop can be subtracted by 11 (starting at 990) since at least one of the two must be divisible by 11.
You can try the following which prints
999 * 979 * 989 = 967262769
largest palindrome= 967262769 took 0.015
public static void main(String... args) throws IOException, ParseException {
long start = System.nanoTime();
int largestPalindrome = 0;
for (int i = 999; i > 100; i--) {
LOOP:
for (int j = i; j > 100; j--) {
for (int k = j; k > 100; k++) {
int n = i * j * k;
if (n < largestPalindrome) continue LOOP;
if (isPalindrome(n)) {
System.out.println(i + " * " + j + " * " + k + " = " + n);
largestPalindrome = n;
}
}
}
}
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("largest palindrome= %d took %.3f seconds%n", largestPalindrome, time / 1e9);
}
private static boolean isPalindrome(int n) {
if (n >= 100 * 1000 * 1000) {
// 9 digits
return n % 10 == n / (100 * 1000 * 1000)
&& (n / 10 % 10) == (n / (10 * 1000 * 1000) % 10)
&& (n / 100 % 10) == (n / (1000 * 1000) % 10)
&& (n / 1000 % 10) == (n / (100 * 1000) % 10);
} else if (n >= 10 * 1000 * 1000) {
// 8 digits
return n % 10 == n / (10 * 1000 * 1000)
&& (n / 10 % 10) == (n / (1000 * 1000) % 10)
&& (n / 100 % 10) == (n / (100 * 1000) % 10)
&& (n / 1000 % 10) == (n / (10 * 1000) % 10);
} else if (n >= 1000 * 1000) {
// 7 digits
return n % 10 == n / (1000 * 1000)
&& (n / 10 % 10) == (n / (100 * 1000) % 10)
&& (n / 100 % 10) == (n / (10 * 1000) % 10);
} else throw new AssertionError();
}
i did this my way , but m not sure if this is the most efficient way of doing this .
package problems;
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
public class P_4 {
/**
* #param args
* #throws IOException
*/
static int[] arry = new int[6];
static int[] arry2 = new int[6];
public static boolean chk()
{
for(int a=0;a<arry.length;a++)
if(arry[a]!=arry2[a])
return false;
return true;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
InputStreamReader ir = new InputStreamReader(System.in);
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(ir);
int temp,z,i;
for(int x=999;x>100;x--)
for(int y=999;y>100;y--)
{
i=0;
z=x*y;
while(z>0)
{
temp=z%10;
z=z/10;
arry[i]=temp;
i++;
}
for(int k = arry.length;k>0;k--)
arry2[arry.length- k]=arry[k-1];
if(chk())
{
System.out.print("pelindrome = ");
for(int l=0;l<arry2.length;l++)
System.out.print(arry2[l]);
System.out.println(x);
System.out.println(y);
}
}
}
}
This is code in C, a little bit long, but gets the job done.:)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/*
A palindromic number reads the same both ways. The largest palindrome made from the product of two
2-digit numbers is 9009 = 91 99.
Find the largest palindrome made from the product of two 3-digit numbers.*/
int palndr(int b)
{
int *x,*y,i=0,j=0,br=0;
int n;
n=b;
while(b!=0)
{
br++;
b/=10;
}
x=(int *)malloc(br*sizeof(int));
y=(int *)malloc(br*sizeof(int));
int br1=br;
while(n!=0)
{
x[i++]=y[--br]=n%10;
n/=10;
}
int ind = 1;
for(i=0;i<br1;i++)
if(x[i]!=y[i])
ind=0;
free(x);
free(y);
return ind;
}
int main()
{
int i,cek,cekmax=1;
int j;
for(i=100;i<=999;i++)
{
for(j=i;j<=999;j++)
{
cek=i*j;
if(palndr(cek))
{
if(pp>cekmax)
cekmax=cek;
}
}
}
printf("The largest palindrome is: %d\n\a",cekmax);
}
You can actually do it with Python, it's easy just take a look:
actualProduct = 0
highestPalindrome = 0
# Setting the numbers. In case it's two digit 10 and 99, in case is three digit 100 and 999, etc.
num1 = 100
num2 = 999
def isPalindrome(number):
number = str(number)
reversed = number[::-1]
if number==reversed:
return True
else:
return False
a = 0
b = 0
for i in range(num1,num2+1):
for j in range(num1,num2+1):
actualProduct = i * j
if (isPalindrome(actualProduct) and (highestPalindrome < actualProduct)):
highestPalindrome = actualProduct
a = i
b = j
print "Largest palindrome made from the product of two %d-digit numbers is [ %d ] made of %d * %d" % (len(str(num1)), highestPalindrome, a, b)
Since we are not cycling down both iterators (num1 and num2) at the same time, the first palindrome number we find will be the largest. We don’t need to test to see if the palindrome we found is the largest. This significantly reduces the time it takes to calculate.
package testing.project;
public class PalindromeThreeDigits {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int limit = 99;
int max = 999;
int num1 = max, num2, prod;
while(num1 > limit)
{
num2 = num1;
while(num2 > limit)
{
total = num1 * num2;
StringBuilder sb1 = new StringBuilder(""+prod);
String sb2 = ""+prod;
sb1.reverse();
if( sb2.equals(sb1.toString()) ) { //optimized here
//print and exit
}
num2--;
}
num1--;
}
}//end of main
}//end of class PalindromeThreeDigits
I tried the solution by Tobin joy and vickyhacks and both of them produce the result 580085 which is wrong here is my solution, though very clumsy:
import java.util.*;
class ProjEu4
{
public static void main(String [] args) throws Exception
{
int n=997;
ArrayList<Integer> al=new ArrayList<Integer>();
outerloop:
while(n>100){
int k=reverse(n);
int fin=n*1000+k;
al=findfactors(fin);
if(al.size()>=2)
{
for(int i=0;i<al.size();i++)
{
if(al.contains(fin/al.get(i))){
System.out.println(fin+" factors are:"+al.get(i)+","+fin/al.get(i));
break outerloop;}
}
}
n--;
}
}
private static ArrayList<Integer> findfactors(int fin)
{
ArrayList<Integer> al=new ArrayList<Integer>();
for(int i=100;i<=999;i++)
{
if(fin%i==0)
al.add(i);
}
return al;
}
private static int reverse(int number)
{
int reverse = 0;
while(number != 0){
reverse = (reverse*10)+(number%10);
number = number/10;
}
return reverse;
}
}
Most probably it is replication of one of the other solution but it looks simple owing to pythonified code ,even it is a bit brute-force.
def largest_palindrome():
largest_palindrome = 0;
for i in reversed(range(1,1000,1)):
for j in reversed(range(1, i+1, 1)):
num = i*j
if check_palindrome(str(num)) and num > largest_palindrome :
largest_palindrome = num
print "largest palindrome ", largest_palindrome
def check_palindrome(term):
rev_term = term[::-1]
return rev_term == term
What about : in python
>>> for i in range((999*999),(100*100), -1):
... if str(i) == str(i)[::-1]:
... print i
... break
...
997799
>>>
I believe there is a simpler approach: Examine palindromes descending from the largest product of two three digit numbers, selecting the first palindrome with two three digit factors.
Here is the Ruby code:
require './palindrome_range'
require './prime'
def get_3_digit_factors(n)
prime_factors = Prime.factors(n)
rf = [prime_factors.pop]
rf << prime_factors.shift while rf.inject(:*) < 100 || prime_factors.inject(:*) > 999
lf = prime_factors.inject(:*)
rf = rf.inject(:*)
lf < 100 || lf > 999 || rf < 100 || rf > 999 ? [] : [lf, rf]
end
def has_3_digit_factors(n)
return !get_3_digit_factors(n).empty?
end
pr = PalindromeRange.new(0, 999 * 999)
n = pr.downto.find {|n| has_3_digit_factors(n)}
puts "Found #{n} - Factors #{get_3_digit_factors(n).inspect}, #{Prime.factors(n).inspect}"
prime.rb:
class Prime
class<<self
# Collect all prime factors
# -- Primes greater than 3 follow the form of (6n +/- 1)
# Being of the form 6n +/- 1 does not mean it is prime, but all primes have that form
# See http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/six.html
# -- The algorithm works because, while it will attempt non-prime values (e.g., (6 *4) + 1 == 25),
# they will fail since the earlier repeated division (e.g., by 5) means the non-prime will fail.
# Put another way, after repeatedly dividing by a known prime, the remainder is itself a prime
# factor or a multiple of a prime factor not yet tried (e.g., greater than 5).
def factors(n)
square_root = Math.sqrt(n).ceil
factors = []
while n % 2 == 0
factors << 2
n /= 2
end
while n % 3 == 0
factors << 3
n /= 3
end
i = 6
while i < square_root
[(i - 1), (i + 1)].each do |f|
while n % f == 0
factors << f
n /= f
end
end
i += 6
end
factors << n unless n == 1
factors
end
end
end
palindrome_range.rb:
class PalindromeRange
FIXNUM_MAX = (2**(0.size * 8 -2) -1)
def initialize(min = 0, max = FIXNUM_MAX)
#min = min
#max = max
end
def downto
return enum_for(:downto) unless block_given?
n = #max
while n >= #min
yield n if is_palindrome(n)
n -= 1
end
nil
end
def each
return upto
end
def upto
return enum_for(:downto) unless block_given?
n = #min
while n <= #max
yield n if is_palindrome(n)
n += 1
end
nil
end
private
def is_palindrome(n)
s = n.to_s
i = 0
j = s.length - 1
while i <= j
break if s[i] != s[j]
i += 1
j -= 1
end
i > j
end
end
public class ProjectEuler4 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int x = 999; // largest 3-digit number
int largestProduct = 0;
for(int y=x; y>99; y--){
int product = x*y;
if(isPalindormic(x*y)){
if(product>largestProduct){
largestProduct = product;
System.out.println("3-digit numbers product palindormic number : " + x + " * " + y + " : " + product);
}
}
if(y==100 || product < largestProduct){y=x;x--;}
}
}
public static boolean isPalindormic(int n){
int palindormic = n;
int reverse = 0;
while(n>9){
reverse = (reverse*10) + n%10;
n=n/10;
}
reverse = (reverse*10) + n;
return (reverse == palindormic);
}
}