We Keep Coding

Down to Zero II

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;
}
}

Maximum height of the staircase

Given an integer A representing the square blocks. The height of each square block is 1. The task is to create a staircase of max height using these blocks. The first stair would require only one block, the second stair would require two blocks and so on. Find and return the maximum height of the staircase.
Your submission failed for the following input: A : 92761
Your function returned the following : 65536
The expected returned value : 430
Approach:
We are interested in the number of steps and we know that each step Si uses exactly Bi number of bricks. We can represent this problem as an equation:
n * (n + 1) / 2 = T (For Natural number series starting from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …)
n * (n + 1) = 2 * T
n-1 will represent our final solution because our series in problem starts from 2, 3, 4, 5…
Now, we just have to solve this equation and for that we can exploit binary search to find the solution to this equation. Lower and Higher bounds of binary search are 1 and T.
CODE
public int solve(int A) {
int l=1,h=A,T=2*A;
while(l<=h)
{
int mid=l+(h-l)/2;
if((mid*(mid+1))==T)
return mid;
if((mid*(mid+1))>T && (mid!=0 && (mid*(mid-1))<=T) )
return mid-1;
if((mid*(mid+1))>T)
h=mid-1;
else
l=mid+1;
}
return 0;
}

To expand on the comment by Matt Timmermans:
You know that for n steps, you need (n * (n + 1))/2 blocks. You want know, if given B blocks, how many steps you can create.
So you have:
(n * (n + 1))/2 = B
(n^2 + n)/2 = B
n^2 + n = 2B
n^2 + n - 2B = 0
That looks suspiciously like something for which you'd use the quadratic formula.
In this case, a=1, b=1, and c=(-2B). Plugging the numbers into the formula:
n = ((-b) + sqrt(b^2 - 4*a*c))/(2*a)
= (-1 + sqrt(1 - 4*1*(-2B)))/(2*a)
= (-1 + sqrt(1 + 8B))/2
= (sqrt(1 + 8B) - 1)/2
So if you have 5050 blocks, you get:
n = (sqrt(1 + 40400) - 1)/2
= (sqrt(40401) - 1)/2
= (201 - 1)/2
= 100
Try it with the quadratic formula calculator. Use 1 for the value of a and b, and replace c with negative two times the number of blocks you're given. So in the example above, c would be -10100.
In your program, since you can't have a partial step, you'd want to truncate the result.

Why are you using all these formulas? A simple while() loop should do the trick, eventually, it's just a simple Gaussian Sum ..
public static int calculateStairs(int blocks) {
int lastHeight = 0;
int sum = 0;
int currentHeight = 0; //number of bricks / level
while (sum <= blocks) {
lastHeight = currentHeight;
currentHeight++;
sum += currentHeight;
}
return lastHeight;
}

So this should do the job as it also returns the expected value. Correct me if im wrong.
public int solve(int blocks) {
int current; //Create Variables
for (int x = 0; x < Integer.MAX_VALUE; x++) { //Increment until return
current = 0; //Set current to 0
//Implementation of the Gauss sum
for (int i = 1; i <= x; i++) { //Sum up [1,*current height*]
current += i;
} //Now we have the amount of blocks required for the current height
//Now we check if the amount of blocks is bigger than
// the wanted amount, and if so we return the last one
if (current > blocks) {
return x - 1;
}
}
return current;
}

Is there any better algorithm to do this? (Unit fractions creation)

I have been given a problem where fractions between 1/2 - 1/1000 have to be added to create the longest sequence of all unique unit fractions.
The rules on constructing these fractions:
Let create a set: D , D is only to hold unique unit fractions , sub-fractions can add up to the same fraction for example:
1/10
/ \
1/110 + 1/11 1/35 + 1/14
All sub-fractions can be held within the set as long as they themselves are not the same fractions once we are adding them together it is ok for them to total up to the same root.
The goal:
The fractions have to be added in a way to sum up to exactly 1. Any sub-fractions are not allowed to be over 1000 it is explicitly between 2 and 1000 hence the fractions which make up 1/1000 would not be applicable ( 1/1004 + 1/251000 ).
What currently I found to be the most effective:
Find the two lowest multiples which make-up the current fraction that I am looking at so for e.g 1/6 = A = 3 , B = 2. And now we complete the following equation: C = (A+B)*A , D = (A+B)*B. Now C & D are the sub-fractions which add up to my initial fraction
1/6
/ \
1/15 1/10
In code:
public static int[] provideFactorsSmallest(int n) {
int k[] = new int[2];
for(int i = 2; i <= n - 1; i++) {
if(n % i == 0) {
k[0] = i;
break;
}
}
for(int i = k[0] + 1; i <= n - 1 && k[0] != 0; i++) {
//System.out.println("I HAVE BEEN ENTERED");
if(k[0] * i == n) {
k[1] = i;
int firstTerm = k[0];
int secondTerm = k[1];
k[0] = (firstTerm + secondTerm) * firstTerm;
k[1] = (firstTerm + secondTerm) * secondTerm;
return k;
}
}
return null;
}
My question:
What would be the most effective way to pair and group the numbers to achieve possible longest fraction sequence?
Thank you in advance!

complex recursion formula for finding partitions

I am trying to calculate partitions of a natural number using the formula below. The formula generates two positive numbers, then two negative and so on. You stop when P(n) < 0 An example is
p(3) = p(2) + p(1) = 3
p(4) = p(3) + p(2) = 3 + 2 = 5
p(5) = p(4) + p(3) - p(0) = 5 + 3 - 1 = 7
p(6) = p(5) + p(4) - p(1) = 7 + 5 - 1 = 11
*P(0) = 1 by convention
In other words in order to calculate say P(5) you would have to calculate P(4) which equals P(3) + P(2) and and P(3) which equals P(2) + P(1) and finally - P(0) which equals 1. You would have to traverse down for each to find what they equal and then sum them. So to find a partition of a number you would have to find the partitions of all other numbers each. I have tried something as you can see the code below but it does not work. k = counter in my code.
Code:
public static long SerialFib( long n )
{
long exponent = 0;
double ex;
long counter = 1;
ex = Math.pow(-1, counter - 1);
exponent = (long) ex;
if (n < 0)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
return SerialFib((exponent * (n - ( (counter * ( (3 * counter) - 1)) /
2)))) + SerialFib((exponent * (n - ( (counter * ( (3 * counter) +1))/2))));
}
}

Counter is going to always be 1 because you aren't passing it back into SerialFib. Also, you need a base case for when n is equal to 0 it will return 1.
first base case:
if(n==0)
return 1;
SerialFib should have another parameter for counter:
SerialFib(long n, int counter)
When you call SerialFib it should look like:
SerialFib( [your formula], ++counter);

Newton's method with specified digits of precision

I'm trying to write a function in Java that calculates the n-th root of a number. I'm using Newton's method for this. However, the user should be able to specify how many digits of precision they want. This is the part with which I'm having trouble, as my answer is often not entirely correct. The relevant code is here: http://pastebin.com/d3rdpLW8. How could I fix this code so that it always gives the answer to at least p digits of precision? (without doing more work than is necessary)
import java.util.Random;
public final class Compute {
private Compute() {
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Random rand = new Random(1230);
for (int i = 0; i < 500000; i++) {
double k = rand.nextDouble()/100;
int n = (int)(rand.nextDouble() * 20) + 1;
int p = (int)(rand.nextDouble() * 10) + 1;
double math = n == 0 ? 1d : Math.pow(k, 1d / n);
double compute = Compute.root(n, k, p);
if(!String.format("%."+p+"f", math).equals(String.format("%."+p+"f", compute))) {
System.out.println(String.format("%."+p+"f", math));
System.out.println(String.format("%."+p+"f", compute));
System.out.println(math + " " + compute + " " + p);
}
}
}
/**
* Returns the n-th root of a positive double k, accurate to p decimal
* digits.
*
* #param n
* the degree of the root.
* #param k
* the number to be rooted.
* #param p
* the decimal digit precision.
* #return the n-th root of k
*/
public static double root(int n, double k, int p) {
double epsilon = pow(0.1, p+2);
double approx = estimate_root(n, k);
double approx_prev;
do {
approx_prev = approx;
// f(x) / f'(x) = (x^n - k) / (n * x^(n-1)) = (x - k/x^(n-1)) / n
approx -= (approx - k / pow(approx, n-1)) / n;
} while (abs(approx - approx_prev) > epsilon);
return approx;
}
private static double pow(double x, int y) {
if (y == 0)
return 1d;
if (y == 1)
return x;
double k = pow(x * x, y >> 1);
return (y & 1) == 0 ? k : k * x;
}
private static double abs(double x) {
return Double.longBitsToDouble((Double.doubleToLongBits(x) << 1) >>> 1);
}
private static double estimate_root(int n, double k) {
// Extract the exponent from k.
long exp = (Double.doubleToLongBits(k) & 0x7ff0000000000000L);
// Format the exponent properly.
int D = (int) ((exp >> 52) - 1023);
// Calculate and return 2^(D/n).
return Double.longBitsToDouble((D / n + 1023L) << 52);
}
}

Just iterate until the update is less than say, 0.0001, if you want a precision of 4 decimals.
That is, set your epsilon to Math.pow(10, -n) if you want n digits of precision.

Let's recall what the error analysis of Newton's method says. Basically, it gives us an error for the nth iteration as a function of the error of the n-1 th iteration.
So, how can we tell if the error is less than k? We can't, unless we know the error at e(0). And if we knew the error at e(0), we would just use that to find the correct answer.
What you can do is say "e(0) <= m". You can then find n such that e(n) <= k for your desired k. However, this requires knowing the maximal value of f'' in your radius, which is (in general) just as hard a problem as finding the x intercept.
What you're checking is if the error changes by less than k, which is a perfectly acceptable way to do it. But it's not checking if the error is less than k. As Axel and others have noted, there are many other root-approximation algorithms, some of which will yield easier error analysis, and if you really want this, you should use one of those.

You have a bug in your code. Your pow() method's last line should read
return (y & 1) == 1 ? k : k * x;
rather than
return (y & 1) == 0 ? k : k * x;