I am working on a program that takes an integer and finds the number of combinations of consecutive sums that the integer has:
The number 13 can be expressed as a sum of consecutive positive
integers 6 + 7. Fourteen can be expressed as 2 + 3 + 4 + 5, also a sum
of consecutive positive integers. Some numbers can be expressed as a
sum of consecutive positive integers in more than one way. For
example, 25 is 12 + 13 and is also 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7.
I researched and read that it's the number of odd factors minus one. So I wrote a program that finds the number of odd factors and my answer is still wrong in certain cases. Any insight?
Code seems to work fine but there is a crash due to Timeout which is probably due to optimization error.
The constraints for possible input size is
1 to 10^(12)
The code below is copied from alfasin's answer below:
import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.text.*;
import java.math.*;
import java.util.regex.*;
static long consecutive(long num) {
while (num % 2 == 0) num /= 2;
return consecutiveHelper(num);
}
public static long consecutiveHelper(long num) {
return LongStream.rangeClosed(3, (num / 2)).parallel().filter(x -> x % 2 != 0).map(fn -> (num % fn == 0) ? 1 : 0).sum();
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
final String fileName = System.getenv("OUTPUT_PATH");
BufferedWriter bw = null;
if (fileName != null) {
bw = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(fileName));
}
else {
bw = new BufferedWriter(new OutputStreamWriter(System.out));
}
int res;
long num;
num = Long.parseLong(in.nextLine().trim());
res = consecutive(num);
bw.write(String.valueOf(res));
bw.newLine();
bw.close();
}
}
This is what i currently have
As the post i answered to was duplicate, I copied my answer here as well.Let's try to find a pseudo-optimized method to resolve your problem :
What you need to do is to decompose your number in prime factors.
For example, if you take 1200 :
1200 = 2*2*2*2*3*5*5 = 1 * 2^4 * 3^1 * 5^2
You can then analyze how you could get odd factors with those prime factors. A quick analyze will tell you that :
odd * odd = odd
odd * even = even
even * even = even
With that in mind, let's find all the factors we get with odd * odd :
1 * 1 = 1
3 * 1 = 3
5 * 1 = 5
5 * 3 = 15
5 * 5 = 25
5 * 5 * 3 = 75
A quick way to find these combinations without writing them all is the "plus 1 method" : add 1 to the number of occurences of each prime odd factor, and multiply them together :
We found that 1200 = 1 * 2^4 * 3^1 * 5^2, so we can do :
("number of 3" + 1) ("number of 5" + 1) = (1 + 1) ( 2 + 1) = 6
There are 6 odd factors for the number 1200, and as you stated, remove 1 from that number to get the number of combinations of consecutive sums that 1200 has :
6 - 1 = 5 <-- woohoo ! finally got the result !
Now, let's look at the code. What we want to have is a Map, the keys being the prime factors and the values being the number of their occurences :
/*
If number is odd,
find the number in the keys and add 1 to its value.
If the number is not in the keys, add it with value = 1.
*/
public static void addValue(Map<Integer, Integer> factors, int i) {
if(i % 2 != 0) {
int count = factors.containsKey(i) ? factors.get(i) : 0;
factors.put(i, ++count);
}
}
/*
Classic algorithm to find prime numbers
*/
public static Map<Integer, Integer> oddPrimeFactors(int number) {
int n = number;
Map<Integer, Integer> factors = new HashMap<>();
for (int i = 2; i <= n / i; i++) {
while (n % i == 0) {
addValue(factors, i);
n /= i;
}
}
if(n > 1) addValue(factors, n);
return factors;
}
With that, let's try to print what the map contains for number 1200 :
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 1200;
System.out.println(oddPrimeFactors(n));
}
$n : {3=1, 5=2}
Good ! Now let's finish the program with the method we developed before :
public static int combinations = 1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 1200;
oddPrimeFactors(n).forEach((key, value) -> combinations *= (value + 1));
combinations--;
System.out.println(combinations);
}
$combinations = 5
Finished ! feel free to ask if you did not understand something !
Note : I tried my program with the max value Integer can handle and it took less than one second for my program to proceed, which seems pretty fast to me. It could probably be faster though, it's up to you to find the most optimized version of this code !
Here are the optimizations that we discussed in the comments section, see comments as markers:
static int consecutive(long num) {
while (num % 2 == 0) num /= 2; // 1st opt.
return consecutiveHelper(num)-1;
}
public static int consecutiveHelper(long num) {
long factorNumber = 1;
int count = 0;
while(factorNumber <= num / 2) { // 2nd opt.
if(num % factorNumber == 0) {
count++;
}
factorNumber += 2; // 3rd opt.
}
if (num % 2 != 0) {
count++;
}
return count;
}
UPDATE
I managed to reduce ~50% runtime for big-numbers (10^12) by using Java 8 Stream interface and running in parallel:
static long consecutive(long num) {
while (num % 2 == 0) num /= 2;
return consecutiveHelper(num);
}
public static long consecutiveHelper(long num) {
return LongStream
.rangeClosed(3, (num / 2))
.parallel()
.filter(x -> x % 2 != 0)
.map(fn -> (num % fn == 0) ? 1 : 0)
.sum();
}
That said, parallel will be more expensive when you're dealing with smaller numbers. If you want your answer to be optimal you should use both methods: for smaller numbers use the first and for large numbers use the latter.
Related
I recently came across an interview question which although had an immediately obvious solution, I struggled to find a more efficient one.
The actual question involved counting numbers from a to b (up to 2^64) which satisfied having either the digit 6 or 8, but not both. They called it a 'lucky number'. So for example:
126 - lucky
88 - lucky
856 - not lucky
The obvious thought was to brute force it by testing each number between a and b as a string, to check for the relevant characters. However, this was prohibitively slow as expected.
A much better solution that I tried, involved first computing all the 'lucky numbers' which had the number of digits between the number of digits that a and b have (by counting possible combinations):
long n = 0;
for (int occurrences = 1; occurrences <= maxDigits; occurrences++) {
n += (long) Math.pow(8, digits - occurrences) * choose(digits, occurrences);
}
return 2 * n;
and then using the brute force method to compute the number of extra lucky numbers that I had counted. So for example, if a = 3 and b = 21, I could count the number of 1 and 2 digit lucky numbers, then subtract the count of those in [1, 3) and (21, 99].
However, although this was a massive improvement, the brute force element still slowed it down way too much for most cases.
I feel like there must be something I am missing, as the rest of the interview questions were relatively simple. Does anyone have any idea of a better solution?
Although I have tagged this question in Java, help in any other languages or pseudocode would be equally appreciated.
I would say you are at the right track. The gut feeling is that dealing with the a and b separately is easier. Making a function count_lucky_numbers_below(n) allows
return count_lucky_numbers_below(b) - count_lucky_numbers_below(a);
The combinatorial approach is definitely a way to go (just keep in mind that the sum is actually equal to 9**n - 8**n, and there is no need to compute the binomial coefficients).
The final trick is to recurse down by a numbeer of digits.
Lets say n is an N-digit number, and the most significant digit is 5. Each set of N-digit numbers starting with a smaller digit contributes S = 9**(N-1) - 8**(N-1) to the total; you immediately have 5*S of lucky numbers. To deal with the remainder, you need to compute the lucky numbers for the N-1-digit tail.
Of course, care must be taken if the most significant digit is above 5. You need to special case it being 6 or 8, but it doesn't seem to be too complicated.
In the end the answer from #user58697 pushed me in the right direction towards finding a solution. With my (albeit extremely primitive) benchmark, it handles 1 to 2^63 - 1 in less than 2 nanoseconds, so it is definitely fast enough. However it is still more verbose than I would have liked, especially given that I was originally expected to write it in half an hour, so I feel like there is still an easier solution that gives comparable performance.
long countLuckyNumbersBetween(long a, long b) {
return countLuckyNumbersBelow(b) - countLuckyNumbersBelow(a - 1);
}
long countLuckyNumbersBelow(long n) {
return countNumbers(n, 6, 8) + countNumbers(n, 8, 6);
}
/**
* Counts the natural numbers in [0, {to}] that have {including} as a digit, but not {excluding}.
* {excluding} should be in (0, 9] or -1 to exclude no digit.
*/
long countNumbers(long to, int including, int excluding) {
if (including == -1) return 0;
if (to < 10) {
if (to >= including) {
return 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
int nSignificand = significand(to);
int nDigits = countDigits(to);
long nTail = to % (long) Math.pow(10, nDigits - 1);
// The count of numbers in [0, 10^(nDigits-1)) that include and exclude the relevant digits
long bodyCount;
if (excluding == -1) {
bodyCount = (long) (Math.pow(10, nDigits - 1) - Math.pow(9, nDigits - 1));
} else {
bodyCount = (long) (Math.pow(9, nDigits - 1) - Math.pow(8, nDigits - 1));
}
long count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < nSignificand; i++) {
if (i == including) {
if (excluding == -1) {
count += Math.pow(10, nDigits - 1);
} else {
count += Math.pow(9, nDigits - 1);
}
} else if (i != excluding) {
count += bodyCount;
}
}
if (nSignificand == including) {
count += 1 + nTail - countNumbers(nTail, excluding, -1);
} else if (nSignificand != excluding) {
count += countNumbers(nTail, including, excluding);
}
return count;
}
int significand(long n) {
while (n > 9) n /= 10;
return (int) n;
}
int countDigits(long n) {
if (n <= 1) {
return 1;
} else {
return (int) (Math.log10(n) + 1);
}
}
Here is another approach:
264 = 18446744073709551616
We can represent the number as a sum of components (one component per every digit position):
18446744073709551616 associated range of numbers
———————————————————— ———————————————————————————————————————————
0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx => [00000000000000000000;09999999999999999999]
17xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx => [10000000000000000000;17999999999999999999]
183xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx => [18000000000000000000;18399999999999999999]
1843xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx => [18400000000000000000;18439999999999999999]
18445xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx => [18440000000000000000;18445999999999999999]
...
1844674407370955160x => [18446744073709551600;18446744073709551609]
18446744073709551616 => [18446744073709551610;18446744073709551616]
If we could compute the amount of lucky numbers for every component, then the sum of the amounts for every component will be the total amount for 264.
Note that every component consists of a prefix followed by xs.
Imagine that we know how many lucky numbers there are in an n-digit xx..x (i.e. numbers [0..0 - 9..9]), let's call it N(n).
Now let's look at a component 18445x..x. where 18445 is a prefix and an n-digit xx..x.
In this component we look at all numbers from 18440xx..x to 18445xx..x.
For every item 1844dxx..x we look at the prefix 1844d:
if prefix contains no 6 or 8, then it's the same as x..x without prefix => N(n) special numbers
if prefix contains 6 and no 8, then x..x cannot contain 8 => 9ⁿ special numbers
if prefix contains 8 and no 6, then x..x cannot contain 6 => 9ⁿ special numbers
if prefix contains 6 and 8 => 0 special numbers
Now let's compute N(n) — the amount of lucky numbers in an n-digit xx..x (i.e. in [0..0 - 9..9]).
We can do it iteratively:
n=1: there are only 2 possible numbers: 8 and 6 => N(1)=2.
n=2: there are 2 groups:
8 present: 8x and x8 where x is any digit except 6
6 present: 6x and x6 where x is any digit except 8
=> N(2)=4*9=34.
n=3: let's fix the 1st digit:
0xx — 5xx, 7xx, 9xx => 8 * N(2)
6xx: xx are any 2 digits except 8 => 9²
8xx: xx are any 2 digits except 6 => 9²
=> N(3) = 8*N(2) + 2*9².
n=k+1 => N(k+1) = 7*N(k) + 2*9ᵏ
Here is an implementation (not 100% tested):
public final class Numbers {
public long countLuckyNumbersBelow(BigInteger num) {
if (num.compareTo(BigInteger.ZERO) < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("num < 0: " + num);
}
var numberText = num.toString();
var result = 0L;
for (var digitPosition = 0; digitPosition < numberText.length(); digitPosition++) {
result += countLuckyNumbersForComponent(numberText, digitPosition);
}
return result;
}
private long countLuckyNumbersForComponent(String numberText, int digitPosition) {
var prefixEndIdx = numberText.length() - 1 - digitPosition;
var prefixHas6s = containsChar(numberText, '6', prefixEndIdx);
var prefixHas8s = containsChar(numberText, '8', prefixEndIdx);
if (prefixHas6s && prefixHas8s) {
return 0;
}
var result = 0L;
for (var c = numberText.charAt(prefixEndIdx) - 1; c >= '0'; c--) {
var compNo6s = (!prefixHas6s) && (c != '6');
var compNo8s = (!prefixHas8s) && (c != '8');
if (compNo6s && compNo8s) {
result += countLuckyNumbers(digitPosition);
} else if (compNo6s || compNo8s) {
result += power9(digitPosition);
}
}
return result;
}
private static boolean containsChar(String text, char c, int endIdx) {
var idx = text.indexOf(c);
return (idx > 0) && (idx < endIdx);
}
private long[] countLuckyNumbersCache = {0L, 0L};
/**
* Computes how many lucky numbers are in an n-digit `xx..x`
*/
private long countLuckyNumbers(int numDigits) {
if (countLuckyNumbersCache[0] == numDigits) {
return countLuckyNumbersCache[1];
}
long N;
if (numDigits <= 1) {
N = (numDigits == 1) ? 2 : 0;
} else {
var prevN = countLuckyNumbers(numDigits - 1);
N = (8 * prevN) + (2 * power9(numDigits-1));
}
countLuckyNumbersCache[0] = numDigits;
countLuckyNumbersCache[1] = N;
return N;
}
private long[] power9Cache = {0L, 1L};
/**
* Computes 9<sup>power</sup>
*/
private long power9(int power) {
if (power9Cache[0] == power) {
return power9Cache[1];
}
long res = 1;
var p = power;
if (power > power9Cache[0]) {
p -= power9Cache[0];
res = power9Cache[1];
}
for (; p > 0; p--) {
res *= 9;
}
power9Cache[0] = power;
power9Cache[1] = res;
return res;
}
}
BTW it took me half a day, and I have no idea how is that possible to complete it in 30 minutes.
I guess your interviewers expected from you to demonstrate them your thought process.
Here is the result of my attempt.
First, let me explain a little bit what logic I used.
I used formula S = 9N — 8N (mentioned in the user58697's answer) to compute how many of N-digit numbers are lucky.
How to get this formula:
for N-digit numbers there are 10N numbers in total: N digits, each can take one of 10 values: [0-9].
if we only count numbers without 6, then each digit can only take one of 9 values [0-5,7-9] — it's 9N numbers in total
now we also want only numbers with 8.
We can easily compute how many numbers don't have both 6 and 8: digits in these numbers can only take one of 8 values [0-5,7,9] — it's 8N numbers in total.
As a result, there are S = 9N — 8N numbers which have 8 and no 6.
For numbers with 6 and without 8 the formula is the same.
Also numbers without 6 do not intersect with numbers without 8 — so we can just sum them.
And finally, since we know how to count lucky numbers for intervals [0;10N], we need to split the interval [0; our arbitrary number] into suitable sub-intervals.
For instance, we can split number 9845637 this way:
Sub-interval
Prefix
Digit
N-digit interval
0000000 - 8999999
0 - 8
000000 - 999999
9000000 - 9799999
9
0 - 7
00000 - 99999
9800000 - 9839999
98
0 - 3
0000 - 9999
9840000 - 9844999
984
0 - 4
000 - 999
9845000 - 9845599
9845
0 - 5
00 - 99
9845600 - 9845629
98456
0 - 2
0 - 9
9845630 - 9845637
Now we can compute the number for every sub-interval (just keep attention to digits in prefix — they might contains 8 or 6) and then just sum those numbers to get the final result.
Here is the code:
// Special value for 'requiredDigit': no required digit
private static char NIL = Character.MAX_VALUE;
public static long countLuckyNumbersUpTo(BigInteger number) {
if (number.compareTo(BigInteger.ZERO) < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("number < 0: " + number);
}
var numberAsDigits = number.toString();
return countNumbersUpTo(numberAsDigits, '6', '8') + countNumbersUpTo(numberAsDigits, '8', '6');
}
// count all numbers in [0;'numberAsDigits'] which have 'requiredDigit' and no 'excludeDigit'
private static long countNumbersUpTo(String numberAsDigits, char requiredDigit, char excludeDigit) {
var highDigit = numberAsDigits.charAt(0);
if (numberAsDigits.length() == 1) {
return (requiredDigit != NIL)
? ((highDigit >= requiredDigit) ? 1 : 0)
: numDigitsInInterval('0', highDigit, excludeDigit);
}
var tailDigits = numberAsDigits.substring(1);
var result = 0L;
// numbers where the highest digit is in [0;`highDigit`)
var numGoodDigits = numDigitsInInterval('0', (char) (highDigit - 1), excludeDigit);
var containsRequiredDigit = (requiredDigit != NIL) && (highDigit > requiredDigit);
if (containsRequiredDigit) {
result += totalNumbers(tailDigits.length(), NIL);
numGoodDigits--;
}
if (numGoodDigits > 0) {
result += numGoodDigits * totalNumbers(tailDigits.length(), requiredDigit);
}
// remaining numbers where the highest digit is `highDigit`
if (highDigit != excludeDigit) {
var newRequiredDigit = (highDigit == requiredDigit) ? NIL : requiredDigit;
result += countNumbersUpTo(tailDigits, newRequiredDigit, excludeDigit);
}
return result;
}
private static int numDigitsInInterval(char firstDigit, char lastDigit, char excludeDigit) {
var totalDigits = lastDigit - firstDigit + 1;
return (excludeDigit <= lastDigit) ? (totalDigits - 1) : totalDigits;
}
// total numbers with given requiredDigit in [0;10^numDigits)
private static long totalNumbers(int numDigits, char requiredDigit) {
return (requiredDigit == NIL) ? pow(9, numDigits) : (pow(9, numDigits) - pow(8, numDigits));
}
private static long pow(int base, int exponent) {
return BigInteger.valueOf(base).pow(exponent).longValueExact();
}
This is the question:
You are given Q queries. Each query consists of a single number N . You can perform any of the operations on in each move:
If we take 2 integers a and b where N=a*b (a ,b cannot be equal to 1), then we can change N=max(a,b)
Decrease the value of N by 1 .
Determine the minimum number of moves required to reduce the value of to .
Input Format
The first line contains the integer Q.
The next Q lines each contain an integer,N .
Output Format
Output Q lines. Each line containing the minimum number of moves required > to reduce the value of N to 0.
I have written the following code. This code is giving some wrong answers and also giving time limit exceed error . Can you tell what are the the mistakes present in my code ? where or what I am doing wrong here?
My code:
public static int downToZero(int n) {
// Write your code here
int count1=0;
int prev_i=0;
int prev_j=0;
int next1=0;
int next2=Integer.MAX_VALUE;
if (n==0){
return 0;
}
while(n!=0){
if(n==1){
count1++;
break;
}
next1=n-1;
outerloop:
for (int i=1;i<=n;i++){
for (int j=1;j<=n;j++){
if (i*j==n){
if (prev_i ==j && prev_j==i){
break outerloop;
}
if (i !=j){
prev_i=i;
prev_j=j;
}
int max=Math.max(i,j);
if (max<next2){
next2=max;
}
}
}
}
n=Math.min(next1,next2);
count1++;
}
return count1;
}
This is part is coded for us:
public class Solution {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader bufferedReader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
BufferedWriter bufferedWriter = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(System.getenv("OUTPUT_PATH")));
int q = Integer.parseInt(bufferedReader.readLine().trim());
for (int qItr = 0; qItr < q; qItr++) {
int n = Integer.parseInt(bufferedReader.readLine().trim());
int result = Result.downToZero(n);
bufferedWriter.write(String.valueOf(result));
bufferedWriter.newLine();
}
bufferedReader.close();
bufferedWriter.close();
}
}
Ex: it is not working for number 7176 ....
To explore all solution tree and find globally optimal solution, we must choose the best result both from all possible divisor pairs and from solution(n-1)
My weird translation to Java (ideone) uses bottom-up dynamic programming to make execution faster.
We calculate solutions for values i from 1 to n, they are written into table[i].
At first we set result into 1 + best result for previous value (table[i-1]).
Then we factor N into all pairs of divisors and check whether using already calculated result for larger divisor table[d] gives better result.
Finally we write result into the table.
Note that we can calculate table once and use it for all Q queries.
class Ideone
{
public static int makezeroDP(int n){
int[] table = new int[n+1];
table[1] = 1; table[2] = 2; table[3] = 3;
int res;
for (int i = 4; i <= n; i++) {
res = 1 + table[i-1];
int a = 2;
while (a * a <= i) {
if (i % a == 0)
res = Math.min(res, 1 + table[i / a]);
a += 1;
}
table[i] = res;
}
return table[n];
}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception
{
int n = 145;//999999;
System.out.println(makezeroDP(n));
}
}
Old part
Simple implementation (sorry, in Python) gives answer 7 for 7176
def makezero(n):
if n <= 3:
return n
result = 1 + makezero(n - 1)
t = 2
while t * t <= n:
if n % t == 0:
result = min(result, 1 + makezero(n // t))
t += 1
return result
In Python it's needed to set recursion limit or change algorithm. Now use memoization, as I wrote in comments).
t = [-i for i in range(1000001)]
def makezeroMemo(n):
if t[n] > 0:
return t[n]
if t[n-1] < 0:
res = 1 + makezeroMemo(n-1)
else:
res = 1 + t[n-1]
a = 2
while a * a <= n:
if n % a == 0:
res = min(res, 1 + makezeroMemo(n // a))
a += 1
t[n] = res
return res
Bottom-up table dynamic programming. No recursion.
def makezeroDP(n):
table = [0,1,2,3] + [0]*(n-3)
for i in range(4, n+1):
res = 1 + table[i-1]
a = 2
while a * a <= i:
if i % a == 0:
res = min(res, 1 + table[i // a])
a += 1
table[i] = res
return table[n]
We can construct the directed acyclic graph quickly with a sieve and
then compute shortest paths. No trial division needed.
Time and space usage is Θ(N log N).
n_max = 1000000
successors = [[n - 1] for n in range(n_max + 1)]
for a in range(2, n_max + 1):
for b in range(a, n_max // a + 1):
successors[a * b].append(b)
table = [0]
for n in range(1, n_max + 1):
table.append(min(table[s] for s in successors[n]) + 1)
print(table[7176])
Results:
7
EDIT:
The algorithm uses Greedy approach and doesn't return optimal results, it just simplifies OP's approach. For 7176 given as example, below algorithm returns 10, I can see a shorter chain of 7176 -> 104 -> 52 -> 13 -> 12 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 with 8 steps, and expected answer is 7.
Let's review your problem in simple terms.
If we take 2 integers a and b where N=a*b (a ,b cannot be equal to 1), then we can change N=max(a,b)
and
Determine the minimum number of moves required to reduce the value of to .
You're looking for 2 factors of N, a and b and, if you want the minimum number of moves, this means that your maximum at each step should be minimum. We know for a fact that this minimum is reached when factors are closest to N. Let me give you an example:
36 = 1 * 36 = 2 * 18 = 3 * 12 = 4 * 9 = 6 * 6
We know that sqrt(36) = 6 and you can see that the minimum of 2 factors you can get at this step is max(6, 6) = 6. Sure, 36 is 6 squared, let me take a number without special properties, 96, with its square root rounded down to nearest integer 9.
96 = 2 * 48 = 3 * 32 = 4 * 24 = 6 * 16 = 8 * 12
You can see that your minimum value for max(a, b) is max(8, 12) = 12, which is, again, attained when factors are closest to square root.
Now let's look at the code:
for (int i=1;i<=n;i++){
for (int j=1;j<=n;j++){
if (i*j==n){
You can do this in one loop, knowing that n / i returns an integer, therefore you need to check if i * (n / i) == n. With the previous observation, we need to start at the square root, and go down, until we get to 1. If we got i and n / i as factors, we know that this pair is also the minimum you can get at this step. If no factors are found and you reach 1, which obviously is a factor of n, you have a prime number and you need to use the second instruction:
Decrease the value of N by 1 .
Note that if you go from sqrt(n) down to 1, looking for factors, if you find one, max(i, n / i) will be n / i.
Additionally, if n = 1, you take 1 step. If n = 2, you take 2 steps (2 -> 1). If n = 3, you take 3 steps (3 -> 2 -> 1). Therefore if n is 1, 2 or 3, you take n steps to go to 0. OK, less talking, more coding:
static int downToZero(int n) {
if (n == 1 || n == 2 || n == 3) return n;
int sqrt = (int) Math.sqrt(n);
for (int i = sqrt; i > 1; i--) {
if (n / i * i == n) {
return 1 + downToZero(n / i);
}
}
return 1 + downToZero(n - 1);
}
Notice that I'm stopping when i equals 2, I know that if I reach 1, it's a prime number and I need to go a step forward and look at n - 1.
However, I have tried to see the steps your algorithm and mine takes, so I've added a print statement each time n changes, and we both have the same succession: 7176, 92, 23, 22, 11, 10, 5, 4, 2, 1, which returns 10. Isn't that correct?
So, I found a solution which is working for all the test cases -
static final int LIMIT = 1_000_000;
static int[] solutions = buildSolutions();
public static int downToZero(int n) {
// Write your code here
return solutions[n];
}
static int[] buildSolutions() {
int[] solutions = new int[LIMIT + 1];
for (int i = 1; i < solutions.length; i++) {
solutions[i] = solutions[i - 1] + 1;
for (int j = 2; j * j <= i; j++) {
if (i % j == 0) {
solutions[i] = Math.min(solutions[i], solutions[i / j] + 1);
}
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
I cannot print the 1 when wanting to program the Collatz contejure. Please help thanks.
Here is the problem: Given natural number n. Generate a sequence of integers, described in the Collatz conjecture:
Here is my code (Not snippet as it isn't clear (sample Input and Output at bottom):
import java.util.Scanner;
class test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
int n = scanner.nextInt();
while (n > 1) {
System.out.println(n);
if (n % 2 == 0) {
n = n / 2;
} else {
n = (3 * n) + 1;
}
}
}
}
SAMPLE INPUT: 17
OUTPUT: 17 52 26 13 40 20 10 5 16 8 4 2
Need to print 1 as well
Just print 1 at the end of the loop.
while (n > 1) {
System.out.println(n);
if (n % 2 == 0) {
n = n / 2;
} else {
n = (3 * n) + 1;
}
}
System.out.println(1);
When demonstrating the Collatz Conjecture, you normally print after the computation, so move the print statement to the end of the loop. If you want to show what entered value was used to start the process, print it first, outside the loop.
System.out.println("Starting with " + n);
while (n > 1) {
if (n % 2 == 0) {
n = n / 2;
} else {
n = (3 * n) + 1;
}
System.out.println(n);
}
Problem statement: Three digit sum - Find all the numbers between 1 and 999 where the sum of the 1st digit and the 2nd digit is equal to the 3rd digit.
Examples:
123 : 1+2 = 3
246 : 2+4 = 6
Java:
public class AssignmentFive {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i=1;
int valuetwo;
int n=1;
int sum = 0;
int valuethree;
int valueone = 0;
String Numbers = "";
for (i = 1; i <= 999; i++) {
n = i;
while (n > 1) {
valueone = n % 10;/*To get the ones place digit*/
n = n / 10;
valuetwo = n % 10;/*To get the tens place digit*/
n = n / 10;
valuethree = n;/*To get the hundreds place digit*/
sum = valuethree + valuetwo;/*adding the hundreds place and
tens place*/
}
/*Checking if the ones place digit is equal to the sum and then print
the values in a string format*/
if (sum == valueone) {
Numbers = Numbers + n + " ";
System.out.println(Numbers);
}
}
}
}
I got my result :
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
100000000
1000000000
10000000001
100000000011
1000000000111
10000000001111
100000000011111
1000000000111111
10000000001111111
100000000011111111
1000000000111111111
Process finished with exit code 0
The result is not showing the actual result like it should be which should show values like: 123, 246 (Please refer to the problem statement above.)
Please let me know what seems to be the issue with the code and how to tweak it.
Don't know what you're trying to do with that while loop, or why you are building up a space-separated string of numbers.
Your code should be something like:
for (int n = 1; n <= 999; n++) {
int digit1 = // for you to write code here
int digit2 = // for you to write code here
int digit3 = // for you to write code here
if (digit1 + digit2 == digit3) {
// print n here
}
}
So basically your question is how to calculate the numbers, right?
My first hint for you would be how to get the first, second and third value from a 2 or 3 digit number.
For example for 3 digits you can do int hundretDigit = (n - (n % 100)) % 100. Of course this is really inefficient. But just get code working before optimizing it ;)
Just think about a way to get the "ten-digit" (2nd number). Then you add them and if they equal the third one you write System.out.println(<number>);
EDIT:
For 2 digit numbers I will give you the code:
if(i >= 10 && i <= 99) {
int leftDigit = (i - (i % 10)) / 10;
if(leftDigit == (i % 10)) {
//Left digit equals right digit (for example 33 => 3 = 3
System.out.println(i);
}
}
Try again and edit your source code. If you have more questions I will edit my (this) answer to give you a little bit more help if you need!
I have a given number. How can I find the factors of that number (for example, 5 and 3 for the number 15)? Here is the code I tried:
int factor1 = 2;
while ((a % factor1 != 0) && (a >= factor1)) {
d++;
}
if (factor1 == a){
d = 1;
}
But this gives me only the smallest factor (i.e a=3 all the time). I would like to get a random set of factors.
Loop through each number from 1 to N inclusively using the modulus operator (%). If n%currentNumber==0, they are a factor. Below, I did this using a for loop, outputting each factor as it is found.
int number=15;
for(int i = 1; i <= number; i++){
if(number%i==0){
System.out.println("Found factor: " + i);
}
}
As Theo said in a comment on this post, you can also use number/2, and arbitrarily include 1 and number.
int number=2229348;
System.out.println("Found factor: " + 1);
for(int i = 2; i <= number/2; i++){
if(number%i==0){
System.out.println("Found factor: " + i);
}
}
System.out.println("Found factor: " + number);
You can iterate through the numbers from 2 to a/2 and check if the given number divides a, which is done using the % operator:
int a = 15;
System.out.print("Divisors of " + a + ": ");
for(int i = 2; i <= a/2; ++i) {
if(a % i == 0) {
System.out.print(i + " ");
}
}
System.out.println();
This code prints all of the divisors of a. Not that you most probably want to ignore 1, since it divides all integers. Moreover, you don't need to check the numbers until a, because no number bigger than a / 2 can actually divide a apart from a itself.
The while loop with default values of a=15 and multiple=2 is already in an infinite loop. You need to correct that and check for subsequent increments of multiple whenever a%multiple ! = 0
public class Factors {
public static void main(String[] args){
/**
int multiple1=2,d=0,a=15; //multiple to be rephrased as factor
while((a%multiple1 != 0)&&(a>=multiple1)){
multiple1++; //this will increment the factor and check till the number itself
//System.out.println(multiple1+" is not a factor of a");
}
if(multiple1==a){
d=1;
}
*commented the original code
*/
int factor=1,d=0,a=20; //multiple rephrased as factor
while(a/2>=factor){ //re-arranged your while condition
factor++;
if((a%factor==0))
d++; //increment factor count whenever a factor is found
}
System.out.println("Total number of factors of a : "+(d+2)); // 1 and 'a' are by default factors of number 'a'
}
}
To find all factors inlcuding 1 and the number itself you can do something like below:
//Iterate from 2 until n/2 (inclusive) and divide n by each number.
//Return numbers that are factors (i.e. remainder = 0). Add the number itself in the end.
int[] findAllFactors(int number) {
int[] factors = IntStream.range(1, 1 + number / 2).filter(factor -> number % factor == 0).toArray();
int[] allFactors = new int[factors.length+1];
System.arraycopy(factors,0,allFactors,0,factors.length);
allFactors[factors.length] = number;
return allFactors;
}
To find only prime factors you can do something like this:
//Iterate from 2 until n/2 (inclusive) and divide n by each number.
// Return numbers that are factors (i.e. remainder = 0) and are prime
int[] findPrimeFactors(int number) {
return IntStream.range(2, 1 + number/ 2).filter(factor -> number % factor == 0 && isPrime(factor)).toArray();
}
Helper method for primality check:
//Iterate from 2 until n/2 (inclusive) and divide n by each number. Return false if at least one divisor is found
boolean isPrime(int n) {
if (n <= 1) throw new RuntimeException("Invalid input");
return !IntStream.range(2, 1+n/2).filter(x -> ((n % x == 0) && (x != n))).findFirst().isPresent();
}
If you are not on Java 8 and/or not using Lambda expressions, a simple iterative loop can be as below:
//Find all factors of a number
public Set<Integer> findFactors(int number) {
Set<Integer> factors = new TreeSet<>();
int i = 1;
factors.add(i);
while (i++ < 1 + number / 2) {
if ((number % i) == 0) {
factors.add(i);
}
}
factors.add(number);
return factors;
}
public class Abc{
public static void main(String...args){
if(args.length<2){
System.out.println("Usage : java Abc 22 3");
System.exit(1);
}
int no1=Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
int no=Integer.parseInt(args[1]),temp=0,i;
for(i=no;i<=no1;i+=no){
temp++;
}
System.out.println("Multiple of "+no+" to get "+no1+" is :--> "+temp);
//System.out.println(i+"--"+no1+"---"+no);
System.out.println("Reminder is "+(no1-i+no));
}
}