Related
I'd like to print the number of combination and not the actual combination of bits. How can I code that? I'm looking forward for some solution. Thank you!
The Task:
Write a program that accepts a number. This number corresponds to the number of bits to be taken into account. The program should then display on the screen how many binary combinations there are that do not consist of two adjacent 1s. For example, given a 3-bit number, there are 5 out of 8 possible combinations.
import java.util.Scanner;
public class BinaryS {
public static String toString(char[] a) {
String string = new String(a);
return string;
}
static void generate(int k, char[] ch, int n) {
if (n == k) {
for (int i = 0; i < ch.length; i++) {}
System.out.print(toString(ch) + " ");
return;
}
// If the first Character is
//Zero then adding**
if (ch[n - 1] == '0') {
ch[n] = '0';
generate(k, ch, n + 1);
ch[n] = '1';
generate(k, ch, n + 1);
}
// If the Character is One
// then add Zero to next**
if (ch[n - 1] == '1') {
ch[n] = '0';
// Calling Recursively for the
// next value of Array
generate(k, ch, n + 1);
}
}
static void fun(int k) {
if (k <= 0) {
return;
}
char[] ch = new char[k];
// Initializing first character to Zero
ch[0] = '0';
// Generating Strings starting with Zero--
generate(k, ch, 1);
// Initialized first Character to one--
ch[0] = '1';
generate(k, ch, 1);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.print("Number: ");
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
int k = scanner.nextInt();
//Calling function fun with argument k
fun(k);
}
}
The program actually works fine , my only problem is I would like to print the number of combinations and not the actual combination. For example for the input 3 we get 000 001 010 100 101 which is 5.
Unfortunately, your code has some problems. For one you have an empty forloop in the generate method. However, I can help you get the count by doing it a different way and printing the results. Forgetting about the loop that goes from 2 to 20, here is what is going on. And this may not be most efficient way of finding the matches but for short runs it exposes the counts as a recognizable pattern (which could also be determined by mathematical analysis).
first, create an IntPredicate that checks for adjacent one bits by masking the lower order two bits.
Generate an IntStream from 0 to 2n where n is the number of bits.
then using aforementioned predicate with a filter count every value that does not contain two adjacent 1 bits.
IntPredicate NoAdjacentOneBits = (n)-> {
while (n > 0) {
if ((n & 3) == 3) {
return false;
}
n>>=1;
}
return true;
};
for (int n = 1; n <= 20; n++) {
long count = IntStream.range(0, (int) Math.pow(2, n))
.filter(NoAdjacentOneBits).count();
System.out.println("For n = " + n + " -> " + count);
}
prints (with annotated comments on first three lines)
For n = 1 -> 2 // not printed but would be 0 and 1
For n = 2 -> 3 // 00, 01, 10
For n = 3 -> 5 // 000, 001, 010, 100, 101
For n = 4 -> 8
For n = 5 -> 13
For n = 6 -> 21
For n = 7 -> 34
For n = 8 -> 55
For n = 9 -> 89
For n = 10 -> 144
For n = 11 -> 233
For n = 12 -> 377
For n = 13 -> 610
For n = 14 -> 987
For n = 15 -> 1597
For n = 16 -> 2584
For n = 17 -> 4181
For n = 18 -> 6765
For n = 19 -> 10946
For n = 20 -> 17711
The counts are directly related to the nth term of the Fibonacci Series that starts with 2 3 5 8 . . .
So you really don't even need to inspect the values for adjacent bits. Just compute the related term of the series.
I need an algorithm to produce valid iteration ranges for p^l with constants in multiple places.
I have it working but it is very inefficient. I believe there is math that can solve this but I am not sure what it is. Currently I have to find each valid set of iteration ranges for each constant I want. Then I must overlap all the ranges to find iterations where all constants are present.
This is the code for doing so:
public ArrayList<Range> findRangesForSingleSearch(int searchPos, int value) {
ArrayList<Range> iterationRanges = new ArrayList<Range>();
BigInteger p = new BigInteger(""+possibilities);
BigInteger interationMax = p.pow(length-1);
BigInteger pMinus1 = new BigInteger(""+(possibilities - 1));
BigInteger totalIterationsBeforeTarget = p.pow(searchPos);
BigInteger skipIterations =
totalIterationsBeforeTarget.multiply(pMinus1).add(BigInteger.ONE);
totalIterationsBeforeTarget = totalIterationsBeforeTarget.subtract(BigInteger.ONE);
int[] startData = new int[length];
for(int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if(i==searchPos) {
startData[i] = value;
}else {
startData[i]=0;
}
}
BigInteger startIteration = getPosition(startData);
BigInteger currentIteration = startIteration;
for(BigInteger i = new BigInteger(""+0); i.compareTo(interationMax.divide(totalIterationsBeforeTarget.add(BigInteger.ONE))) < 0;
i = i.add(BigInteger.ONE)) {
BigInteger lowerBound = currentIteration;
currentIteration = currentIteration.add(totalIterationsBeforeTarget);
BigInteger upperBound = currentIteration;
iterationRanges.add(new Range(lowerBound, upperBound));
currentIteration = currentIteration.add(skipIterations);
}
return iterationRanges;
}
This is the code for overlapping the ranges:
public ArrayList<Range> condenseRanges(ArrayList<Range> r1, ArrayList<Range> r2){
ArrayList<Range> newRanges = new ArrayList<Range>();
int ai = 0, bi = 0, alength = r1.size(), blength = r2.size();
BigInteger ax,ay,bx,by;
while(ai < alength && bi < blength) {
ax = r1.get(ai).getLowerBound();
ay = r1.get(ai).getUpperBound();
bx = r2.get(bi).getLowerBound();
by = r2.get(bi).getUpperBound();
if (ay.compareTo(bx) < 0) {
ai++;
} else if (by.compareTo(ax) < 0) {
bi++;
} else {
newRanges.add(condenseRange(r1.get(ai), r2.get(bi)));
if (ay.compareTo(by) < 0) {
ai++;
} else {
bi++;
}
}
}
return newRanges;
}
The meat of my question boils down to if there is a way to combine or tweak the following so that it generates the pre-combined ranges:
totalIterationsBeforeTarget
skipIterations
startIteration
Examples of ranges and iteration correlation + execution of code:
Possibilities:2
Length:8
Total Iterations Possible: 2^8 = 256
Search: position 1,2,3 must equal 1
Found Ranges:
14 -> 15
30 -> 31
46 -> 47
62 -> 63
78 -> 79
94 -> 95
110 -> 111
126 -> 127
142 -> 143
158 -> 159
174 -> 175
190 -> 191
206 -> 207
222 -> 223
238 -> 239
254 -> 255
Example Correlation:
Note the iteration/binary elements are indexed right to left
example: 3rd position, 2nd position, 1st position, zed position
The first range is 14 -> 15:
14 converted to binary is 1110 which matches the search of elements 1,2,3 having a
value of 1
15 converted to binary is 1111 which matches the search of elements 1,2,3 having a
value of 1
13 and 16 are omitted because their binary values are 1101,10000 which do not meet
the requirement of elements 1,2,3 having a value of 1
Then the algorithm jumps to the next valid range 30 -> 31:
30 converted to binary is 11110
31 converted to binary is 11111
If anything is unclear, ask and I can explain in further detail.
I was going through a simple program that takes a number and finds the number of occurrences of consecutive numbers that matches with given number.
For example:
if input is 15, then the consecutive numbers that sum upto 15 are:
1,2,3,4,5
4,5,6
7,8
So the answer is 3 as we have 3 possibilities here.
When I was looking for a solution I found out below answer:
static long process(long input) {
long count = 0;
for (long j = 2; j < input/ 2; j++) {
long temp = (j * (j + 1)) / 2;
if (temp > input) {
break;
}
if ((input- temp) % j == 0) {
count++;
}
}
return count;
}
I am not able to understand how this solves the requirement because this program is using some formula which I am not able to understand properly, below are my doubts:
The for loop starts from 2, what is the reason for this?
long temp = (j * (j + 1)) / 2; What does this logic indicates? How is this helpful to solving the problem?
if ((num - temp) % j == 0) Also what does this indicate?
Please help me in understanding this solution.
I will try to explain this as simple as possible.
If input is 15, then the consecutive numbers that sum upto 15 are:
{1,2,3,4,5} -> 5 numbers
{4,5,6} -> 3 numbers
{7,8} -> 2 numbers
At worst case, this must be less than the Sum of 1st n natural numbers = (n*(n+1) /2.
So for a number 15, there can never be a combination of 6 consecutive numbers summing up to 15 as the sum of 1st 6 numbers =21 which is greater than 15.
Calculate temp: This is (j*(j+1))/2.
Take an example. Let input = 15. Let j =2.
temp = 2*3/2 = 3; #Meaning 1+2 =3
For a 2-number pair, let the 2 terms be 'a+1' and 'a+2'.(Because we know that the numbers are consecutive.)
Now, according to the question, the sum must add up to the number.
This means 2a+3 =15;
And if (15-3) is divisible by 2, 'a' can be found. a=6 -> a+1=7 and a+2=8
Similarly, let a+1 ,a+2 and a+3
a + 1 + a + 2 + a + 3 = 15
3a + 6 = 15
(15-6) must be divisible by 3.
Finally, for 5 consecutive numbers a+1,a+2,a+3,a+4,a+5 , we have
5a + 15 = 15;
(15-15) must be divisible by 5.
So, the count will be changed for j =2,3 and 5 when the input is 15
If the loop were to start from 1, then we would be counting 1 number set too -> {15} which is not needed
To summarize:
1) The for loop starts from 2, what is the reason for this?
We are not worried about 1-number set here.
2) long temp = (j * (j + 1)) / 2; What does this logic indicates? How is this helpful to solving the problem?
This is because of the sum of 1st n natural numbers property as I have
explained the above by taking a+1 and a+2 as 2 consecutive
numbers.
3) if ((num - temp) % j == 0) Also what does this indicate?
This indicates the logic that the input subtracted from the sum of 1st
j natural numbers must be divisible by j.
We need to find all as and ns, that for given b the following is true:
a + (a + 1) + (a + 2) + ... (a + (n - 1)) = b
The left side is an arithmetic progression and can be written as:
(a + (n - 1) / 2) * n = b (*)
To find the limit value of n, we know, that a > 0, so:
(1 + (n - 1) / 2) * n = n(n + 1) / 2 <= b
n(n + 1) <= 2b
n^2 + n + 1/4 <= 2b + 1/4
(n + 1/2)^2 <= 2b + 1/4
n <= sqrt(2b + 1/4) - 1/2
Now we can rewrite (*) to get formula for a:
a = b / n - (n - 1) / 2
Example for b = 15 and n = 3:
15 / 3 - (3 - 1) / 2 = 4 => 4 + 5 + 6 = 15
And now the code:
double b = 15;
for (double n = 2; n <= Math.ceil(Math.sqrt(2 * b + .25) - .5); n++) {
double candidate = b / n - (n - 1) / 2;
if (candidate == (int) candidate) {
System.out.println("" + candidate + IntStream.range(1, (int) n).mapToObj(i -> " + " + (candidate + i)).reduce((s1, s2) -> s1 + s2).get() + " = " + b);
}
}
The result is:
7.0 + 8.0 = 15.0
4.0 + 5.0 + 6.0 = 15.0
1.0 + 2.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 5.0 = 15.0
We are looking for consecutive numbers that sum up to the given number.
It's quite obvious that there could be at most one series with a given length, so basically we are looking for those values witch could be the length of such a series.
variable 'j' is the tested length. It starts from 2 because the series must be at least 2 long.
variable 'temp' is the sum of a arithmetic progression from 1 to 'j'.
If there is a proper series then let X the first element. In this case 'input' = j*(X-1) + temp.
(So if temp> input then we finished)
At the last line it checks if there is an integer solution of the equation. If there is, then increase the counter, because there is a series with j element which is a solution.
Actually the solution is wrong, because it won't find solution if input = 3. (It will terminate immediately.) the cycle should be:
for(long j=2;;j++)
The other condition terminates the cycle faster anyway.
NB: loop is starting from 2 because=> (1*(1+1))/2 == 1, which doesn't make sense, i.e, it doesn't effect on the progress;
let, k = 21;
so loop will iterate upto (k/2) => 10 times;
temp = (j*(j+1))/2 => which is, 3 when j =2, 6 when j = 3, and so on (it calculates sum of N natural numbers)
temp > k => will break the loop because, we don't need to iterate the loop when we got 'sum' which is more than 'K'
((k-temp)%j) == 0 => it is basically true when the input subtracted from the sum of first j natural numbers are be divisible by j, if so then increment the count to get total numbers of such equation!
public static long process(long input) {
long count = 0, rest_of_sum;
for (long length = 2; length < input / 2; length++) {
long partial_sum = (length * (length + 1)) / 2;
if (partial_sum > input) {
break;
}
rest_of_sum = input - partial_sum
if (rest_of_sum % length == 0)
count++;
}
return count;
}
input - given input number here it is 15
length - consecutive numbers length this is at-least 2 at max input/2
partial_sum = sum of numbers from 1 to length (which is a*(a+1)/2 for 1 to a numbers) assume this is a partial sequence
rest_of_sum = indicates the balance left in input
if rest of sum is multiple of length meaning is that we can add (rest_of_sum/length) to our partial sequence
lets call (rest_of_sum/length) as k
this only means we can build a sequence here that sums up to our input number
starting with (k+1) , (k+2), ... (k+length)
this can validated now
(k+1) + (k+2) + ... (k+length)
we can reduce this as k+k+k+.. length times + (1+2+3..length)
can be reduced as => k* length + partial_sum
can be reduced as => input (since we verified this now)
So idea here is to increment count every-time we find a length which satisfies this case here
If you put this tweak in it may fix code. I have not extensively tested it. It's an odd one but it puts the code through an extra iteration to fix the early miscalculations. Even 1/20000 would work! Had this been done with floats that got rounded down and 1 added to them I think that would have worked too:
for (long j = 2; j < input+ (1/2); j++) {
In essence you need to only know one formula:
The sum of the numbers m..n (or m to n) (and where n>m in code)
This is ((n-m+1)*(n+m))/2
As I have commented already the code in the original question was bugged.
See here.
Trying feeding it 3. That has 1 occurrence of the consecutive numbers 1,2. It yields 0.
Or 5. That has 2,3 - should yield 1 too - gives 0.
Or 6. This has 1,2,3 - should yield 1 too - gives 0.
In your original code, temp or (j * (j + 1)) / 2 represented the sum of the numbers 1 to j.
1 2 3 4 5
5 4 3 2 1
=======
6 6 6 6 6 => (5 x 6) /2 => 30/2 => 15
As I have shown in the code below - use System.out.println(); to spew out debugging info.
If you want to perfect it make sure m and n's upper limits are half i, and i+1 respectively, rounding down if odd. e.g: (i=15 -> m=7 & n=8)
The code:
class Playground {
private static class CountRes {
String ranges;
long count;
CountRes(String ranges, long count) {
this.ranges = ranges;
this.count = count;
}
String getRanges() {
return this.ranges;
}
long getCount() {
return this.count;
}
}
static long sumMtoN(long m, long n) {
return ((n-m+1)* (n+m))/2;
}
static Playground.CountRes countConsecutiveSums(long i, boolean d) {
long count = 0;
StringBuilder res = new StringBuilder("[");
for (long m = 1; m< 10; m++) {
for (long n = m+1; n<=10; n++) {
long r = Playground.sumMtoN(m,n);
if (d) {
System.out.println(String.format("%d..%d %d",m,n, r));
}
if (i == r) {
count++;
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(String.format("[%d..%d], ",m,n));
res.append(s);
}
}
}
if (res.length() > 2) {
res = new StringBuilder(res.substring(0,res.length()-2));
}
res.append("]");
return new CountRes(res.toString(), count);
}
public static void main(String[ ] args) {
Playground.CountRes o = countConsecutiveSums(3, true);
for (long i=3; i<=15; i++) {
o = Playground.countConsecutiveSums(i,false);
System.out.println(String.format("i: %d Count: %d Instances: %s", i, o.getCount(), o.getRanges()));
}
}
}
You can try running it here
The output:
1..2 3
1..3 6
1..4 10
1..5 15
1..6 21
1..7 28
1..8 36
1..9 45
1..10 55
2..3 5
2..4 9
2..5 14
2..6 20
2..7 27
2..8 35
2..9 44
2..10 54
3..4 7
3..5 12
3..6 18
3..7 25
3..8 33
3..9 42
3..10 52
4..5 9
4..6 15
4..7 22
4..8 30
4..9 39
4..10 49
5..6 11
5..7 18
5..8 26
5..9 35
5..10 45
6..7 13
6..8 21
6..9 30
6..10 40
7..8 15
7..9 24
7..10 34
8..9 17
8..10 27
9..10 19
i: 3 Count: 1 Instances: [[1..2]]
i: 4 Count: 0 Instances: []
i: 5 Count: 1 Instances: [[2..3]]
i: 6 Count: 1 Instances: [[1..3]]
i: 7 Count: 1 Instances: [[3..4]]
i: 8 Count: 0 Instances: []
i: 9 Count: 2 Instances: [[2..4], [4..5]]
i: 10 Count: 1 Instances: [[1..4]]
i: 11 Count: 1 Instances: [[5..6]]
i: 12 Count: 1 Instances: [[3..5]]
i: 13 Count: 1 Instances: [[6..7]]
i: 14 Count: 1 Instances: [[2..5]]
i: 15 Count: 3 Instances: [[1..5], [4..6], [7..8]]
I need to find the number of heavy integers between two integers A and B, where A <= B at all times.
An integer is considered heavy whenever the average of it's digit is larger than 7.
For example: 9878 is considered heavy, because (9 + 8 + 7 + 8)/4 = 8
, while 1111 is not, since (1 + 1 + 1 + 1)/4 = 1.
I have the solution below, but it's absolutely terrible and it times out when run with large inputs. What can I do to make it more efficient?
int countHeavy(int A, int B) {
int countHeavy = 0;
while(A <= B){
if(averageOfDigits(A) > 7){
countHeavy++;
}
A++;
}
return countHeavy;
}
float averageOfDigits(int a) {
float result = 0;
int count = 0;
while (a > 0) {
result += (a % 10);
count++;
a = a / 10;
}
return result / count;
}
Counting the numbers with a look-up table
You can generate a table that stores how many integers with d digits have a sum of their digits that is greater than a number x. Then, you can quickly look up how many heavy numbers there are in any range of 10, 100, 1000 ... integers. These tables hold only 9×d values, so they take up very little space and can be quickly generated.
Then, to check a range A-B where B has d digits, you build the tables for 1 to d-1 digits, and then you split the range A-B into chunks of 10, 100, 1000 ... and look up the values in the tables, e.g. for the range A = 782, B = 4321:
RANGE DIGITS TARGET LOOKUP VALUE
782 - 789 78x > 6 table[1][ 6] 3 <- incomplete range: 2-9
790 - 799 79x > 5 table[1][ 5] 4
800 - 899 8xx >13 table[2][13] 15
900 - 999 9xx >12 table[2][12] 21
1000 - 1999 1xxx >27 table[3][27] 0
2000 - 2999 2xxx >26 table[3][26] 1
3000 - 3999 3xxx >25 table[3][25] 4
4000 - 4099 40xx >24 impossible 0
4100 - 4199 41xx >23 impossible 0
4200 - 4299 42xx >22 impossible 0
4300 - 4309 430x >21 impossible 0
4310 - 4319 431x >20 impossible 0
4320 - 4321 432x >19 impossible 0 <- incomplete range: 0-1
--
48
If the first and last range are incomplete (not *0 - *9), check the starting value or the end value against the target. (In the example, 2 is not greater than 6, so all 3 heavy numbers are included in the range.)
Generating the look-up table
For 1-digit decimal integers, the number of integers n that is greater than value x is:
x: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
n: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
As you can see, this is easily calculated by taking n = 9-x.
For 2-digit decimal integers, the number of integers n whose sum of digits is greater than value x is:
x: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
n: 99 97 94 90 85 79 72 64 55 45 36 28 21 15 10 6 3 1 0
For 3-digit decimal integers, the number of integers n whose sum of digits is greater than value x is:
x: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
n: 999 996 990 980 965 944 916 880 835 780 717 648 575 500 425 352 283 220 165 120 84 56 35 20 10 4 1 0
Each of these sequences can be generated from the previous one: start with value 10d and then subtract from this value the previous sequence in reverse (skipping the first zero). E.g. to generate the sequence for 3 digits from the sequence for 2 digits, start with 103 = 1000, and then:
0. 1000 - 1 = 999
1. 999 - 3 = 996
2. 996 - 6 = 990
3. 990 - 10 = 980
4. 980 - 15 = 965
5. 965 - 21 = 944
6. 944 - 28 = 916
7. 916 - 36 = 880
8. 880 - 45 = 835
9. 835 - 55 = 780
10. 780 - 64 + 1 = 717 <- after 10 steps, start adding the previous sequence again
11. 717 - 72 + 3 = 648
12. 648 - 79 + 6 = 575
13. 575 - 85 + 10 = 500
14. 500 - 90 + 15 = 425
15. 425 - 94 + 21 = 352
16. 352 - 97 + 28 = 283
17. 283 - 99 + 36 = 220
18. 220 - 100 + 45 = 165 <- at the end of the sequence, keep subtracting 10^(d-1)
19. 165 - 100 + 55 = 120
20. 120 - 100 + 64 = 84
21. 84 - 100 + 72 = 56
22. 56 - 100 + 79 = 35
23. 35 - 100 + 85 = 20
24. 20 - 100 + 90 = 10
25. 10 - 100 + 94 = 4
26. 4 - 100 + 97 = 1
27. 1 - 100 + 99 = 0
By the way, you can use the same tables if "heavy" numbers are defined with a value other than 7.
Code example
Below is a Javascript code snippet (I don't speak Java) that demonstrates the method. It is very much unoptimised, but it does the 0→100,000,000 example in less than 0.07ms. It also works for weights other than 7. Translated to Java, it should easily beat any algorithm that actually runs through the numbers and checks their weight.
function countHeavy(A, B, weight) {
var a = decimalDigits(A), b = decimalDigits(B); // create arrays
while (a.length < b.length) a.push(0); // add leading zeros
var digits = b.length, table = weightTable(); // create table
var count = 0, diff = B - A + 1, d = 0; // calculate range
for (var i = digits - 1; i >= 0; i--) if (a[i]) d = i; // lowest non-0 digit
while (diff) { // increment a until a=b
while (a[d] == 10) { // move to higher digit
a[d++] = 0;
++a[d]; // carry 1
}
var step = Math.pow(10, d); // value of digit d
if (step <= diff) {
diff -= step;
count += increment(d); // increment digit d
}
else --d; // move to lower digit
}
return count;
function weightTable() { // see above for details
var t = [[],[9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0]];
for (var i = 2; i < digits; i++) {
var total = Math.pow(10, i), final = total / 10;
t[i] = [];
for (var j = 9 * i; total > 0; --j) {
if (j > 9) total -= t[i - 1][j - 10]; else total -= final;
if (j < 9 * (i - 1)) total += t[i - 1][j];
t[i].push(total);
}
}
return t;
}
function increment(d) {
var sum = 0, size = digits;
for (var i = digits - 1; i >= d; i--) {
if (a[i] == 0 && i == size - 1) size = i; // count used digits
sum += a[i]; // sum of digits
}
++a[d];
var target = weight * size - sum;
if (d == 0) return (target < 0) ? 1 : 0; // if d is lowest digit
if (target < 0) return table[d][0] + 1; // whole range is heavy
return (target > 9 * d) ? 0 : table[d][target]; // use look-up table
}
function decimalDigits(n) {
var array = [];
do {array.push(n % 10);
n = Math.floor(n / 10);
} while (n);
return array;
}
}
document.write("0 → 100,000,000 = " + countHeavy(0, 100000000, 7) + "<br>");
document.write("782 → 4321 = " + countHeavy(782, 4321, 7) + "<br>");
document.write("782 → 4321 = " + countHeavy(782, 4321, 5) + " (weight: 5)");
I really liked the post of #m69 so I wrote implementation inspired by it. The table creation is not that elegant, but works. For n+1 digits long integer I sum (at most) 10 values from n digits long integer, one for every digit 0-9.
I use this simplification to avoid arbitrary range calculation:
countHeavy(A, B) = countHeavy(0, B) - countHeavy(0, A-1)
The result is calculated in two loops. One for numbers shorter than the given number and one for the rest. I was not able to merge them easily. getResultis just lookup into the tablewith range checking, the rest of the code should be quite obvious.
public class HeavyNumbers {
private static int maxDigits = String.valueOf(Long.MAX_VALUE).length();
private int[][] table = null;
public HeavyNumbers(){
table = new int[maxDigits + 1][];
table[0] = new int[]{1};
for (int s = 1; s < maxDigits + 1; ++s) {
table[s] = new int[s * 9 + 1];
for (int k = 0; k < table[s].length; ++k) {
for (int d = 0; d < 10; ++d) {
if (table[s - 1].length > k - d) {
table[s][k] += table[s - 1][Math.max(0, k - d)];
}
}
}
}
}
private int[] getNumberAsArray(long number) {
int[] tmp = new int[maxDigits];
int cnt = 0;
while (number != 0) {
int remainder = (int) (number % 10);
tmp[cnt++] = remainder;
number = number / 10;
}
int[] ret = new int[cnt];
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; ++i) {
ret[i] = tmp[i];
}
return ret;
}
private int getResult(int[] sum, int digits, int fixDigitSum, int heavyThreshold) {
int target = heavyThreshold * digits - fixDigitSum + 1;
if (target < sum.length) {
return sum[Math.max(0, target)];
}
return 0;
}
public int getHeavyNumbersCount(long toNumberIncl, int heavyThreshold) {
if (toNumberIncl <= 0) return 0;
int[] numberAsArray = getNumberAsArray(toNumberIncl);
int res = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < numberAsArray.length - 1; ++i) {
for (int d = 1; d < 10; ++d) {
res += getResult(table[i], i + 1, d, heavyThreshold);
}
}
int fixDigitSum = 0;
int fromDigit = 1;
for (int i = numberAsArray.length - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
int toDigit = numberAsArray[i];
if (i == 0) {
toDigit++;
}
for (int d = fromDigit; d < toDigit; ++d) {
res += getResult(table[i], numberAsArray.length, fixDigitSum + d, heavyThreshold);
}
fixDigitSum += numberAsArray[i];
fromDigit = 0;
}
return res;
}
public int getHeavyNumbersCount(long fromIncl, long toIncl, int heavyThreshold) {
return getHeavyNumbersCount(toIncl, heavyThreshold) -
getHeavyNumbersCount(fromIncl - 1, heavyThreshold);
}
}
It is used like this:
HeavyNumbers h = new HeavyNumbers();
System.out.println( h.getHeavyNumbersCount(100000000,7));
prints out 569484, the repeated calculation time without initialization of the table is under 1us
I looked at the problem differently than you did. My perception is that the problem is based on the base-10 representation of a number, so the first thing you should do is to put the number into a base-10 representation. There may be a nicer way of doing it, but Java Strings represent Integers in base-10, so I used those. It's actually pretty fast to turn a single character into an integer, so this doesn't really cost much time.
Most importantly, your calculations in this matter never need to use division or floats. The problem is, at its core, about integers only. Do all the digits (integers) in the number (integer) add up to a value greater than or equal to seven (integer) times the number of digits (integer)?
Caveat - I don't claim that this is the fastest possible way of doing it, but this is probably faster than your original approach.
Here is my code:
package heavyNum;
public class HeavyNum
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
HeavyNum hn = new HeavyNum();
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
hn.countHeavy(100000000, 1);
long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Time elapsed: "+(endTime- startTime));
}
private void countHeavy(int A, int B)
{
int heavyFound = 0;
for(int i = B+1; i < A; i++)
{
if(isHeavy(i))
heavyFound++;
}
System.out.println("Found "+heavyFound+" heavy numbers");
}
private boolean isHeavy(int i)
{
String asString = Integer.valueOf(i).toString();
int length = asString.length();
int dividingLine = length * 7, currTotal = 0, counter = 0;
while(counter < length)
{
currTotal += Character.getNumericValue(asString.charAt(counter++));
}
return currTotal > dividingLine;
}
}
Credit goes to this SO Question for how I get the number of digits in an integer and this SO Question for how to quickly convert characters to integers in java
Running on a powerful computer with no debugger for numbers between one and 100,000,000 resulted in this output:
Found 569484 heavy numbers
Time elapsed: 6985
EDIT: I initially was looking for numbers whose digits were greater than or equal to 7x the number of digits. I previously had results of 843,453 numbers in 7025 milliseconds.
Here's a pretty barebones recursion with memoization that enumerates the digit possibilities one by one for a fixed-digit number. You may be able to set A and B by controlling the range of i when calculating the corresponding number of digits.
Seems pretty fast (see the result for 20 digits).
JavaScript code:
var hash = {}
function f(k,soFar,count){
if (k == 0){
return 1;
}
var key = [k,soFar].join(",");
if (hash[key]){
return hash[key];
}
var res = 0;
for (var i=Math.max(count==0?1:0,7*(k+count)+1-soFar-9*(k-1)); i<=9; i++){
res += f(k-1,soFar+i,count+1);
}
return hash[key] = res;
}
// Output:
console.log(f(3,0,0)); // 56
hash = {};
console.log(f(6,0,0)); // 12313
hash = {};
console.log(f(20,0,0)); // 2224550892070475
You can indeed use strings to get the number of digits and then add the values of the individual digits to see if their sum > 7 * length, as Jeutnarg seems to do. I took his code and added my own, simple isHeavyRV(int):
private boolean isHeavyRV(int i)
{
int sum = 0, count = 0;
while (i > 0)
{
sum += i % 10;
count++;
i = i / 10;
}
return sum >= count * 7;
}
Now, instead of
if(isHeavy(i))
I tried
if(isHeavyRV(i))
I actually first tested his implementation of isHeavy(), using strings, and that ran in 12388 milliseconds on my machine (an older iMac), and it found 843453 heavy numbers.
Using my implementation, I found exactly the same number of heavy numbers, but in a time of a mere 5416 milliseconds.
Strings may be fast, but they can't beat a simple loop doing basically what Integer.toString(i, 10) does as well, but without the string detour.
When you add 1 to a number, you are incrementing one digit, and changing all the smaller digits to zero. If incrementing changes from a heavy to a non-heavy number, its because too many low-order digits were zeroed. In this case, it's pretty easy to find the next heavy number without checking all the numbers in between:
public class CountHeavy
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
int numHeavy = countHeavy(1, 100000000);
long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.printf("Found %d heavy numbers between 1 and 100000000\n", numHeavy);
System.out.println("Time elapsed: "+(endTime- startTime)+" ms");
}
static int countHeavy(int from, int to)
{
int numdigits=1;
int maxatdigits=9;
int numFound = 0;
if (from<1)
{
from=1;
}
for(int i = from; i < to;)
{
//keep track of number of digits in i
while (i > maxatdigits)
{
long newmax = 10L*maxatdigits+9;
maxatdigits = (int)Math.min(Integer.MAX_VALUE, newmax);
++numdigits;
}
//get sum of digits
int digitsum=0;
for(int digits=i;digits>0;digits/=10)
{
digitsum+=(digits%10);
}
//calculate a step size that increments the first non-zero digit
int step=1;
int stepzeros=0;
while(step <= (Integer.MAX_VALUE/10) && to-i >= step*10 && i%(step*10) == 0)
{
step*=10;
stepzeros+=1;
}
//step is a 1 followed stepzeros zeros
//how much is our sum too small by?
int need = numdigits*7+1 - digitsum;
if (need <= 0)
{
//already have enough. All the numbers between i and i+step are heavy
numFound+=step;
}
else if (need <= stepzeros*9)
{
//increment to the smallest possible heavy number. This puts all the
//needed sum in the lowest-order digits
step = need%9;
for(;need >= 9;need-=9)
{
step = step*10+9;
}
}
//else there are no heavy numbers between i and i+step
i+=step;
}
return numFound;
}
}
Found 569484 heavy numbers between 1 and 100000000
Time elapsed: 31 ms
Note that the answer is different from #JeutNarg's, because you asked for average > 7, not average >= 7.
I'm trying to write a code. There I'll get max 1000 (int)inputs from an user (it has to be array[1000]) and it'll print out the ints in the same order as they were written.
Reading can be stopped by ctrl+z if the user wants that. The program will not write out duplicate numbers.
Example;
Input: 45 77 -22 3 45 0 21 -1 3
Output: 45 77 -22 3 0 21 -1
So far I've coded(within 2 days):
static int i = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int[] array = new int[1000];
int[] arrayCopy = new int[1000];
int k=0,j=0;
System.out.println("enter your integer numbers");
while(input.hasNext())
{
array[i] = input.nextInt();
for(j =0 ; j< array.length; j++)
{
arrayCopy[j] = array[j];
}
for( k =1; k<arrayCopy.length; k++)
{
int aV = arrayCopy[k];
}
i++;
}
input.close();
}
}
Use a HashMap to keep track of numbers already seen. Only add to your output string if it is a new number. You can modify your code with the following:
int[] array = new int[1000];
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int index = 0;
while(input.hasNext()) {
array[index] = input.nextInt();
index++;
}
HashMap<Integer, Boolean> seenNumbers = new HashMap<Integer, Boolean>();
String result = "";
for (int i = 0; i < index; i++) {
int value = array[i];
if (!seenNumbers.containsKey(value)) {
result += " " + value;
seenNumbers.put(value, true);
}
}
System.out.println(result);
The simplest solution is for me to use LinkedHashSet - will not allow duplicates and preserves insertion order
Set <Integer> set = new LinkedHashSet<>(1000);
while (input.hasNext()) {
int next = input.nextInt();
set.add(next);
}
input.close();
for (Integer number : set) {
System.out.print(number+" ");}
Should work
Provided you can resolve a sort order, and use arrays:
Below pseudocode and data. It's written as arrays, but you can ofc always loop where required. I also write the data without commas, as that's what my language Dyalog APL outputs ;-), but the data below are simply 9-element 1-dimensional arrays. The result seems to hold 7 elements.
You have
A = 45 77 -22 3 45 0 21 -1 3
Resolve the ascending sort order for A:
order = 3 8 6 4 9 7 1 5 2 // A[3] is smallest, then A[8], A[6], etc.
Write:
B = A[order] // B now holds: -22 -1 0 3 3 21 45 45 77
Loop through all but first element of B, check if next element is same as current. Write the result to C, which is a same-length vector of zeroes, however first element of C must be 1:
C = 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s = 2
:While (s <= [length of C])
C[s] = (B[s-1] == B[s]) // C[s] is 0 or 1
s += 1
:End
Now C holds:
1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Create an empty variable D (or just copy from A or B - you will overwrite it):
D = A
Assign the elements of D as follows:
D[order] = C // D now holds: 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Take only D elements of A (you pick elements of A and append them to a Result, which is initially empty - ie. has zero length):
s = 1
:While (s <= [lenght of A])
:if D[s] // Means: If (D[s] == 1)
[append A[s] to Result]
s += 1
:End
:End
Result now contains
45 77 -22 3 0 21 -1
Use Set instead of array. Set wont add duplicates.