So I am making an application that can solve problems with Empirical Formulae and I need some code that would do something like:
If numbers are 2.5, 1, 3 it should change them to 2.5*2 = 5, 1*2 = 2, 3*2 = 6 so that the number with the decimal is converted to a whole number and the other numbers are adjusted appropriately.
I thought of this logic:
for(n = 1; (Math.round(simplestRat[0]) * n) != (int)SimplestRat[0]; n++)
to increment a counter that would multiply an integer to do what I want it to but I am skeptical about this code even at this phase and do not think it will work.
It would be a lot of help if someone could suggest a code for this or improve upon this code or even give me a link to another post for this problem as I was unable to find anything regarding this type of problem.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks
Okay, so you have to have a few steps. First, get them all into whole numbers. The easiest way is to find an appropriate power of ten to multiply them all by that leaves them as integers. This is a useful check: How to test if a double is an integer.
Then cast them to integers, and start working through them looking for common prime factors. This'll be a process similar to Eratosthenes' Sieve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes) but with division at the end. For each prime, see if all 3 numbers divide by it exactly (modulo prime == 0). If they do, divide and reset the primes to 2. If they don't, next prime.
This should give you the lowest common ratio between the numbers. Any additional multiplier that came from the original stage is shaved off by the common primes method.
Related
I would like to generate the numbers 1-4 (whole integers) using Math.random. I have only succeeded in getting doubles or large doubles, and cannot figure out how to set a limit on the minimum and maximum.
Math.random(); = something between 0-1 as a double?
I have seen some people suggest something like this: num = Math.random() * 60 + 25; but have no idea what that does, or how it works.
I am not sure if this is a true question, and feel free to let me know if I should delete it.
Edit: Is there a way to not get the numbers to repeat, yet still be random every time the program is run?
int rand = (Math.random() * 4) + 1;
Math.Random is redundant here, use the Random class.
Random rand = new Random();
rand.nextInt(4)+1; //starts at 0, so add 1
Import this class by:
import java.util.*; or import java.util.Random;
the random number in math gives you a decimal number between zero and one.
you need to tell it to be within a certain range.
something like:
(4*Math.random())+1 should give you between 1-4 I think. correct me if I am wrong anyone.
Random rand = new Random();
System.out.println(rand.nextInt(4) + 1); // we add 1 because it starts with 0
If you really have to use Math.random you need to multiply (and add).
It's quite basic math, Math.random()
Returns a double value with a positive sign, greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than 1.0.
So multiplying it with X will give a number greater than or equal to 0.0 and less than X. Cast that to an int to get rid of decimals and if you only want even numbers you can do a few things, the easiest probably being int even = (notSureIfEven >> 1) << 1;. [I'm kind of assuming that with 'even' numbers you actually meant 'whole' numbers though, in which case you can ignore that.] Then if you don't want the range to be 0->X but Y->X you just add Y to your outcome (make sure to subtract Y from X before the multiplication or your range will be Y->X+Y).
To not generate the same number twice you can do different things. One way is to store all the numbers you generated so far in a List and then when you generate a new number, check if the list contains that number already, if so generate a new one until you got one that isn't in the list (and then when you do obviously add that to the list). Another way could be to preload all numbers it could generate into a list and then remove a random number out of that list.
Both ways probably won't scale very well to really large ranges of numbers though. The first one since it might get in a very long loop trying to find a number it hadn't generated yet, the second one because you'll have to create a really large list at the start.
I'm not sure if there's something you could do in the case of a really large range.
I’m working on a problem where its demanded to get the last 100 digits of 2^1001. The solution must be in java and without using BigInteger, only with int or Long. For the moment I think to create a class that handle 100 digits. So my question is, if there is another way the handle the overflow using int or long to get a number with 100 digits.
Thanks for all.
EDITED: I was off by a couple powers of 10 in my modulo operator (oops)
The last 100 digits of 2^1001 is the number 2^1001 (mod 10^100).
Note that 2^1001 (mod 10^100) = 2*(2^1000(mod 10^100)) (mod 10^100).
Look into properties of modulo: http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/lecnotes/node17.html
This is 99% math problem, 1% programming problem. :)
With this approach, though, you wouldn't be able to use just an integer, as 10^100 won't fit in an int or long.
However, you could use this to find, say, the last 10 digits of 2^1001, then use a separate routine to find the next 10 digits, etc, where each routine uses this feature...
The fastest way to do it (coding wise) is to create an array of 100 integers and then have a function which starts from the ones place and doubles every digit. Make sure to take the modulus of 10 and carry over 1s if needed. For the 100th digit, simply eliminate the carry over. Do it 1001 times and you're done.
I really don't understand then,] as I not too good with maths. I've searched around but I can't really find anything to help me.
what I need to know is which one of these floating point numbers is the smallest
a. 28.268E-5f
b. 0.0000002763E4f
c. 282479.9E-9f
d. 0.2764E-2f
I'm not asking for the answer, if you don't want to give it to me, but more of a way for me to figure it out myself. In simple terms.
This is basic maths, not specific to Java. The "E(some number)" bit is short for "10 to the power of (some number)".
So 1E-5 is 1 x 10^-5 which is 0.00001 (1 divided by 10 5 times).
2E-5 would be 0.00002 and so on. Hopefully that gives you enough to figure out how to expand the numbers you have and see which is smallest.
The answer is c) 282479.9E-9f
For your clarity E stands for exponent that is 10 power the digit following it. so 1.0E-2 = 0.01
28.268E-5f = 0.00028268
0.0000002763E4 = 0.002763
282479.9E-9 = 0.0002824799
0.2764E-2 = 0.0027464
probably the safest bet is to create a float[] containing your values, and use an array sorting algorithm to order them smallest to largest, from there-on-in, you can find the smallest, largest, medium values. Check this out. http://www.java-examples.com/java-sort-float-array-example
I am new to Java and one of my class assignments is to find a prime number at least 100 digits long that contains the numbers 273042282802155991.
I have this so far but when I compile it and run it it seems to be in a continuous loop.
I'm not sure if I've done something wrong.
public static void main(String[] args) {
BigInteger y = BigInteger.valueOf(304877713615599127L);
System.out.println(RandomPrime(y));
}
public static BigInteger RandomPrime(BigInteger x)
{
BigInteger i;
for (i = BigInteger.valueOf(2); i.compareTo(x)<0; i.add(i)) {
if ((x.remainder(i).equals(BigInteger.ZERO))) {
x.divide(i).equals(x);
i.subtract(i);
}
}
return i;
}
Since this is homework ...
There is a method on BigInteger that tests for primality. This is much much faster than attempting to factorize a number. (If you take an approach that involves attempting to factorize 100 digit numbers you will fail. Factorization is believed to be an NP-complete problem. Certainly, there is no known polynomial time solution.)
The question is asking for a prime number that contains a given sequence of digits when it is represented as a sequence of decimal digits.
The approach of generating "random" primes and then testing if they contain those digits is infeasible. (Some simple high-school maths tells you that the probability that a randomly generated 100 digit number contains a given 18 digit sequence is ... 82 / 1018. And you haven't tested for primality yet ...
But there's another way to do it ... think about it!
Only start writing code once you've figured out in your head how your algorithm will work, and done the mental estimates to confirm that it will give an answer in a reasonable length of time.
When I say infeasible, I mean infeasible for you. Given a large enough number of computers, enough time and some high-powered mathematics, it may be possible to do some of these things. Thus, technically they may be computationally feasible. But they are not feasible as a homework exercise. I'm sure that the point of this exercise is to get you to think about how to do this the smart way ...
One tip is that these statements do nothing:
x.divide(i).equals(x);
i.subtract(i);
Same with part of your for loop:
i.add(i)
They don't modify the instances themselves, but return new values - values that you're failing to check and do anything with. BigIntegers are "immutable". They can't be changed - but they can be operated upon and return new values.
If you actually wanted to do something like this, you would have to do:
i = i.add(i);
Also, why would you subtract i from i? Wouldn't you always expect this to be 0?
You need to implement/use miller-rabin algorithm
Handbook of Applied Cryptography
chapter 4.24
http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/about/chap4.pdf
I am trying to write a program to find the largest prime factor of a very large number, and have tried several methods with varying success. All of the ones I have found so far have been unbelievably slow. I had a thought, and am wondering if this is a valid approach:
long number = input;
while(notPrime(number))
{
number = number / getLowestDivisiblePrimeNumber();
}
return number;
This approach would take an input, and would do the following:
200 -> 100 -> 50 -> 25 -> 5 (return)
90 -> 45 -> 15 -> 5 (return)
It divides currentNum repeatedly by the smallest divisible number (most often 2, or 3) until currentNum itself is prime (there is no divisible prime number less than the squareroot of currentNum), and assumes this is the largest prime factor of the original input.
Will this always work? If not, can someone give me a counterexample?
-
EDIT: By very large, I mean about 2^40, or 10^11.
The method will work, but will be slow. "How big are your numbers?" determines the method to use:
Less than 2^16 or so: Lookup table.
Less than 2^70 or so: Sieve of Atkin. This is an optimized version of the more well known Sieve of Eratosthenes. Edit: Richard Brent's modification of Pollard's rho algorithm may be better in this case.
Less than 10^50: Lenstra elliptic curve factorization
Less than 10^100: Quadratic Sieve
More than 10^100: General Number Field Sieve
This will always work because of the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem.
Certainly it will work (see Mark Byers' answer), but for "very large" inputs it may take far too long. You should note that your call to getLowestDivisiblePrimeNumber() conceals another loop, so this runs at O(N^2), and that depending on what you mean by "very large" it may have to work on BigNums which will be slow.
You could speed it up a little, by noting that your algorithm need never check factors smaller than the last one found.
You are trying to find the prime factors of a number. What you are proposing will work, but will still be slow for large numbers.... you should be thankful for this, since most modern security is predicated on this being a difficult problem.
From a quick search I just did, the fastest known way to factor a number is by using the Elliptic Curve Method.
You could try throwing your number at this demo: http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM .
If that convinces you, you could try either stealing the code (that's no fun, they provide a link to it!) or reading up on the theory of it elsewhere. There's a Wikipedia article about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenstra_elliptic_curve_factorization but I'm too stupid to understand it. Thankfully, it's your problem, not mine! :)
The thing with Project Euler is that there is usually an obvious brute-force method to do the problem, which will take just about forever. As the questions become more difficult, you will need to implement clever solutions.
One way you can solve this problem is to use a loop that always finds the smallest (positive integer) factor of a number. When the smallest factor of a number is that number, then you've found the greatest prime factor!
Detailed Algorithm description:
You can do this by keeping three variables:
The number you are trying to factor (A)
A current divisor store (B)
A largest divisor store (C)
Initially, let (A) be the number you are interested in - in this case, it is 600851475143. Then let (B) be 2. Have a conditional that checks if (A) is divisible by (B). If it is divisible, divide (A) by (B), reset (B) to 2, and go back to checking if (A) is divisible by (B). Else, if (A) is not divisible by (B), increment (B) by +1 and then check if (A) is divisible by (B). Run the loop until (A) is 1. The (3) you return will be the largest prime divisor of 600851475143.
There are numerous ways you could make this more effective - instead of incrementing to the next integer, you could increment to the next necessarily prime integer, and instead of keeping a largest divisor store, you could just return the current number when its only divisor is itself. However, the algorithm I described above will run in seconds regardless.
The implementation in python is as follows:-
def lpf(x):
lpf = 2;
while (x > lpf):
if (x%lpf==0):
x = x/lpf
lpf = 2
else:
lpf+=1;
print("Largest Prime Factor: %d" % (lpf));
def main():
x = long(raw_input("Input long int:"))
lpf(x);
return 0;
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Example: Let's find the largest prime factor of 105 using the method described above.
Let (A) = 105. (B) = 2 (we always start with 2), and we don't have a value for (C) yet.
Is (A) divisible by (B)? No. Increment (B) by +1: (B) = 3. Is Is (A) divisible by (B)? Yes. (105/3 = 35). The largest divisor found so far is 3. Let (C) = 3. Update (A) = 35. Reset (B) = 2.
Now, is (A) divisible by (B)? No. Increment (B) by +1: (B) = 3. Is (A) divisible by (B)? No. Increment (B) by +1: (B) = 4. Is (A) divisible by (B)? No. Increment (B) by +1: (B) = 5. Is (A) divisible by (B)? Yes. (35/5 = 7). The largest divisor we found previously is stored in (C). (C) is currently 3. 5 is larger than 3, so we update (C) = 5. We update (A)=7. We reset (B)=2.
Then we repeat the process for (A), but we will just keep incrementing (B) until (B)=(A), because 7 is prime and has no divisors other than itself and 1. (We could already stop when (B)>((A)/2), as you cannot have integer divisors greater than half of a number - the smallest possible divisor (other than 1) of any number is 2!)
So at that point we return (A) = 7.
Try doing a few of these by hand, and you'll get the hang of the idea