My code is not working? Code Glitch? [closed] - java

Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
The code is supposed to cycle through all the numbers until it finds two numbers that can fulfill the conditions:
The factor of the number must consist of half of the original numbers digits
And the factor numbers must not be a multiple of 100. PS. the factor numbers are T and H.
However the code is not working
import java.util.Scanner;
public class VampierSlayer {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner S = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Input A Even Digit Integer");
int i = S.nextInt();
String iS = Integer.toString(i);
int t = 0;
int h = 0;
for (h = 0; h < 1000000000; h++) {
if (h * t == i && iS.length() / 2 == Integer.toString(h).length()
&& iS.length() / 2 == Integer.toString(t).length() && h % 100 == 1 && t % 100 == 1) {
System.err.println("Finish");
break;
} else {
t++;
h = h - 1;
}
if (t > 1000) {
t = 0;
h = h + 1;
}
System.out.println(t + " " + h);
}
System.out.println(Integer.toString(h) + "," + t);
}
}

First, you're iterating through all numbers in a bit inconsistent way, you won't get all possible t-h combinations that way. Much better way would be to use 2 nested for-loops:
for (int h = 0; h < ...; h++) {
for (int t = 0; t < ...; t++) {
...
}
}
Next, you should do some research about how modulo works, you should have
h % 100 == 0 && t % 100 == 0
to properly check that numbers t and h are multiples of 100.

"And the factor numbers must not be a multiple of 100." Doesn't this mean:
if (h * t == i && iS.length() / 2 == Integer.toString(h).length()
&& iS.length() / 2 == Integer.toString(t).length()
&& h % 100 != 0 && t % 100 != 0)

Related

Want to print last sentence

You must deliver exactly N kilograms of sugar to a candy store. The sugar made in the sugar factory is contained in a bag. The bag has 3 kg bag and 5 kg bag.
I try to carry as little bags as possible. For example, when you need to deliver 18 kilograms of sugar, you can take 6 bags of 3 kilograms, but if you deliver 3 kilograms and 3 kilograms, you can deliver a smaller number of bags.
Write a program to find out the number of bags you should take when you have to deliver exactly N kilograms of sugar.
(3<=N<=5000 AND If you can not make exactly N kilograms, print -1.)
In case of only 4 or 7 , it is not divided so I made it to print -1.
And to get the minimum bag, I used the code below.
But when I run this, the case if it is not divided by 5 or 3, the bottom sentence should be printed out but it is not working.
I want to know how does it works. Thank you.
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int N = input.nextInt();
if (N % 5 == 0) {
System.out.println(N / 5);
} else if (N == 4 || N == 7) {
System.out.println(-1);
} else
for (int i = 1; (N - 3 * i) % 5 != 0; i++) {
if ((N - 3 * i) % 5 == 0)
System.out.println(i + (N - 3 * i) / 5);
break;
}
}
}
Looks there is a logic issue with your solution. Try the following :
boolean isPossible = true;
if (N % 5 == 0) {
System.out.println("You need : " + (N / 5) + " bags");
} else {
int diff = 0;
for (int i = N; i > 0 && N >= 0; i--) {
if (N % 5 != 0) {
diff = N % 5;
N = N - diff;
} else {
if (diff % 3 == 0) {
System.out.println("You need : " + (N / 5 + diff / 3) + " bags");
isPossible = true;
break;
} else {
N = N - 5;
diff = diff + 5;
}
}
}
}
if (N <= 0 || !isPossible)
System.out.println(-1);
Logic is explained below :
Basically here we find the modulus of N with 5 and check if the
remainder (in the example diff) is a multiple of 3.
If the remainder (diff) is not a multiple of 3 then we reduce N by
5 and increase diff by 5. This continues until we have found a match (isPossible) or else if not found -1 is printed out.
So as far as I understand, you're trying to use the smallest amount of 3kg bags in the last for loop and you want to break out as soon as the remainder is divisible by 5kgs.
(int i = 1; (N - 3 * i) % 5 != 0; i++)
Could you not have the middle part as i < 5?
(int i = 1; i < 5; i++)
Also, you could get rid of the if condition
if (N % 5 == 0) {
part by starting i at 0, so you account for the case N is divisible by 5:
(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int N = input.nextInt();
int sum = 0;
boolean isFound = false;
for (int i = 0; i < N / 2; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < N / 2; j++) {
if ((5 * i) + (3 * j) == N) {
sum = i + j;
isFound = true;
}
}
}
if (isFound ) {
System.out.println("You require " + sum + " bags");
} else {
System.out.println(-1);
}
Explanation:
The above code aims to find the possible combinations of the sum of the factors of 3 and 5 that give the number, i.e N:
For example:
N = 32
For each iteration, the following condition is checked.
if((5 * i) + (3 * j) == N)
The check continues until the smallest numbers that satisfy the condition are found.
5*0 + 3*0 = 0 which is not equal to 32
5*0 + 3*1 = 3 which is not equal to 32
5*0 + 3*2 = 6 which is not equal to 32
.
.
5*1 + 3*0 = 5 which is not equal to 32
5*1 + 3*1 = 8 which is not equal to 32
5*1 + 3*2 = 11 which is not equal to 32
5*1 + 3*4 = 17 which is not equal to 32
.
.
5*4 + 3*0 = 20 which is not equal to 32
5*4 + 3*1 = 23 which is not equal to 32
5*4 + 3*2 = 26 which is not equal to 32
5*4 + 3*3 = 29 which is not equal to 32
5*4 + 3*4 = 32
In this case, i=4 and j=4, i.e sum of bags required (i+j) = 8
isFound is set to true to indicate that the combination is found.
If no combination is found, isFound remains to be false, and -1 is printed.

Do two numbers contain same digits [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Ok, so I was wondering how can one check whether two numbers have the same digits, e.g. 21 and 12 are ok, also 1233 and 2313, but 123 and 1233 are not, meaning that the digits are permutation of another number's digits.
I know how to do it with arrays or strings or maps, but the problem is, that I don't want to do it with either of those, if there exists another solution.
The solution with arrays / maps:
Map<int, int> counter = new HashMap<int, int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
counter.put(i, 0);
int x = 2421, y = 4223; // testcase
while (x > 0 || y > 0) {
if (x == 0 || y == 0) // if they are not the same length, one will be 0 and thus they are not permutations
return false;
counter.put(x%10, counter.get(x%10) + 1);
counter.put(y%10, counter.get(y%10) - 1);
x /= 10;
y /= 10;
}
// For each digit we added 1 to the counter if it was found in `x`
// and subtract 1 if it was found in `y`.
return counter.values() == [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0];
Now, the array approach is completely the same, since using a map for digits 0-9 is the same as using the key for map as the index in array. The solution without any data structure looks far from ideal to me:
private static boolean haveSameDigits(int x, int y) {
// Because we are not allowed to use maps, declare 10 vars...
int c0 = 0;
int c1 = 0;
int c2 = 0;
int c3 = 0;
int c4 = 0;
int c5 = 0;
int c6 = 0;
int c7 = 0;
int c8 = 0;
int c9 = 0;
while (x > 0 || y > 0) {
if (x == 0 || y == 0)
return false;
if ((x % 10) == 0)
c0++;
else if ((x % 10) == 1)
c1++;
else if ((x % 10) == 2)
c2++;
else if ((x % 10) == 3)
c3++;
else if ((x % 10) == 4)
c4++;
else if ((x % 10) == 5)
c5++;
else if ((x % 10) == 6)
c6++;
else if ((x % 10) == 7)
c7++;
else if ((x % 10) == 8)
c8++;
else if ((x % 10) == 9)
c9++;
if ((y % 10) == 0)
c0--;
else if ((y % 10) == 1)
c1--;
else if ((y % 10) == 2)
c2--;
else if ((y % 10) == 3)
c3--;
else if ((y % 10) == 4)
c4--;
else if ((y % 10) == 5)
c5--;
else if ((y % 10) == 6)
c6--;
else if ((y % 10) == 7)
c7--;
else if ((y % 10) == 8)
c8--;
else if ((y % 10) == 9)
c9--;
x /= 10;
y /= 10;
}
return c0 == 0 && c1 == 0 && c2 == 0 && c3 == 0 && c4 == 0 && c5 == 0 && c6 == 0 && c7 == 0 && c8 == 0 && c9 == 0
}
I have googled about it but no matter what I typed I ended up with a solution using strings or arrays.
I am not looking for a solution, I actually don't want it, I just need a hint to the approach.
Adding some more information: There is nothing prohibiting me from using any data structure I want, this is my program and nobody will be checking over what I do. I am just that kind of person that likes to learn new stuff, so I was wondering if there is a quick solution to it.
As stated in the comments, one can iterate over both numbers and check for each number in range (0,9) inclusive, how many times they appear in string but that obviously yields time complexity of O(n*n) which is not optimal.
You do not want to convert to string, or to use any helper data structures. How about this then: Create a hash from the numbers, in the form xor(2^d for every digit d in n)?
For example, hash(3112) will be (in binary) 1100.
Since you do not want a solution, here's some pseudocode (aka Python):
def hash(n):
r = 0
while n > 0:
d = n % 10 # last digit
n = n // 10 # remaining digits
r = r ^ 2**d # xor with 2^d
return r
def perm(n, m):
return hash(n) == hash(m)
Update: Turns out that the above does not work properly, as XOR can only keep track of whether a digit appears an even or odd number of times. Instead, you could create a hash using multiples of prime numbers. This way, hash(3112) becomes 7 * 3 * 3 * 5. While this uses a list to keep the first ten prime numbers, it does not create any new lists, arrays or maps while checking individual pairs of numbers. Also, keep in mind that the resulting hash might get very large -- larger than Java's int or long types. (You can probably take the modulo of another large prime number, but I'm not sure about that part.)
primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
def hash(n):
r = 1
while n > 0:
d = n % 10 # last digit
n = n // 10 # remaining digits
r = r * primes[d]
return r
You can parse int's to strings and check with .contains
final List<Integer> intsForCheck = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 1; i < 180; i++)
intsForCheck.add(i);
final int num = 17;
intsForCheck.forEach(integer -> check(integer,num));
public static void check(int integer,int num)
{
final String _int = String.valueOf(integer);
final String _num = String.valueOf(num);
System.out.println(_int + (_int.contains(_num) ? " contains" : " not contains") + _num);
}

The implements of Integer numberOfTrailingZeros [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I found the The implements of Integer numberOfTrailingZeros method in java as follows
public static int numberOfTrailingZeros(int i) {
// HD, Figure 5-14
int y;
if (i == 0) return 32;
int n = 31;
y = i <<16; if (y != 0) { n = n -16; i = y; }
y = i << 8; if (y != 0) { n = n - 8; i = y; }
y = i << 4; if (y != 0) { n = n - 4; i = y; }
y = i << 2; if (y != 0) { n = n - 2; i = y; }
return n - ((i << 1) >>> 31);
}
It's take me a while to understand, here is my solution :
public static int numberOfTrailingZeros(int i) {
if (i == 0) return 32;
int num = 0;
while ((i & 1) == 0) {
i >>= 1;
num ++;
}
return num;
}
My question is what's the better solution? How can I come up with those implements such as in JDK Integer bitCount,highestOneBit,rotateLeft etc methods?
as I know the JDK's numberOfTrailingZeros use less + opeartor, and will be having higher performance when dealing with '0x70000000','0x60000000', and anything else?
What the java JDK is doing is sort of a binary search in the number to find the number of trailing zeros. It tries to shift the number left by powers of 2 to see if the shifted number becomes 0. If it doesn't, there are some set bits that are too far to the right, so the method keeps that shifted number, decrements the final count, and tries again with the next smallest power of 2.

Incorrect modulo results in Java

I'm trying to run some elliptic curve results in java, but the modulo operator doesn't seem to output the right results.
int a = 17;
double previousx = 4;
double previousy = 14;
double xnew;
double ynew;
double sigma;
double convert;
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++) {
convert = 0;
for (int j = 0; i<60; j++) {
if (((2 * previousy * j) % 59) == 1) {
convert = j;
break;
}
}
sigma = ((3 * Math.pow(previousx, 2) + a) * convert) % 59;
xnew = ((sigma * sigma) - (2 * previousx)) % 59;
ynew = (sigma * (previousx - xnew) - previousy) % 59;
System.out.println((Math.pow(2, i)) + "x P: " + xnew + "," + ynew + " Sigma:" + sigma);
previousx = xnew;
previousy = ynew;
}
output of the first iteration:
2.0x P: 8.0,-57.0 Sigma:55.0
8 and 55 are correct, but -57 mod 59 = 2 and not -57. How do I fix this?
8 and 55 are correct, but -57 mod 59 = 2 and not -57. How do I fix this?
The % operator in Java isn't modulus - it's the remainder operator. It's behaving entirely correctly according to the language specification. When you suspect that Java is misbehaving, it's always worth checking the specification to see whether it's actually your expectations which are incorrect.
If you want a modulus operator, you just need to check whether the result is negative, and if so add the divisor again:
int remainder = (2 * previousy * j) % 59;
int modulus = remainder < 0 ? remainder + 59 : remainder;
if (modulus == 1) {
...
}
Alternatively, in your case:
int remainder = (2 * previousy * j) % 59;
if (remainder == 1 || remainder == -58) {
...
}
... and adjust the rest of your uses of % as appropriate too, of course.
Additionally, as Stijn de Witt mentioned, it looks like you've got a typo in your inner loop condition.
It looks to me like you have a typo in the inner loop:
for (int j = 0 ; i<60 ; j++)
It says i<60 in a loop that is iterating over j...
I'd try fixing that.
As to the original question... Can you reduce your test case? If you maintain that modulo is not working correctly for some numbers then why not make a single statement that does a modulo on those numbers and prints the results?

Find the largest palindrome made from the product of two 3-digit numbers

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);
}
}

Categories