I have a power series with all terms non-negative which I want to evaluate to some arbitrarily set precision p (the length in binary digits of a MPFR floating-point mantissa). The result should be faithfully rounded. The issue is that I don't know when should I stop adding terms to the result variable, that is, how do I know when do I already have p + 32 accurate summed bits of the series? 32 is just an arbitrarily chosen small natural number meant to facilitate more accurate rounding to p binary digits.
This is my original series
0 <= h <= 1
series_orig(h) := sum(n = 0, +inf, a(n) * h^n)
But I actually need to calculate an arbitrary derivative of the above series (m is the order of the derivative):
series(h, m) := sum(n = m, +inf, a(n) * (n - m + 1) * ... * n * h^(n - m))
The rational number sequence a is defined like so:
a(n) := binomial(1/2, n)^2
= (((2*n)!/(n!)) / (n! * 4^n * (2*n - 1)))^2
So how do I know when to stop summing up terms of series?
Is the following maybe a good strategy?
compute in p * 4 (which is assumed to be greater than p + 32).
at each point be able to recall the current partial sum and the previous one.
stop looping when the previous and current partial sums are equal if rounded to precision p + 32.
round to precision p and return.
Clarification
I'm doing this with MPFI, an interval arithmetic addon to MPFR. Thus the [mpfi] tag.
Attempts to get relevant formulas and equations
Guided by Eric in the comments, I have managed to derive a formula for the required working precision and an equation for the required number of terms of the series in the sum.
A problem, however, is that a nice formula for the required number of terms is not possible.
Someone more mathematically capable might instead be able to achieve a formula for a useful upper bound, but that seems quite difficult to do for all possible requested result precisions and for all possible values of m (the order of the derivative). Note that the formulas need to be easily computable so they're ready before I start computing the series.
Another problem is that it seems necessary to assume the worst case for h (h = 1) for there to be any chance of a nice formula, but this is wasteful if h is far from the worst case, that is if h is close to zero.
I was going through some problems related to the single bit error detection based on the CRC generators and was trying to analyse which generator detect single-bit error and which don't.
Suppose, If I have a CRC generator polynomial as x4 + x2. Now I want to know whether it guarantees the detection of a single-bit error or not ?
According to references 1 and 2 , I am concluding some points :-
1) If k=1,2,3 for error polynomial xk, then remainders will be x,x2,x3 respectively in the case of polynomial division by generator polynomial x4 + x2 and according to the references, if generator has more than one term and coefficient of x0 is 1 then all the single bit errors can be caught. But It does not say that if coefficient of x0 is not 1 then single bit error can't be detected. It is saying that "In a cyclic code , those e(x) errors that are divisible by g(x) are not caught."
2) I have to check the remainder of E(x)/g(x) where E(x)(suppose, it is xk) where, k=1,2,3,... is error polynomial and g(x) is generator polynomial. If remainder is zero then I can't detect error and when it is non-zero then I can detect it.
So, According to me, generator polynomial x4 +x2 guarantees the detection of single-bit error based on the above 2 points.Please confirm whether I am right or not.
if coefficient of x0 is not 1 then single bit error can't be detected?
If the coefficient of x0 is not 1, it is the same as shifting the CRC polynomial left by 1 (or more) bits (multiplying by some power of x). Shifting a CRC polynomial left 1 or more bits won't affect it's ability to detect errors, it just appends 1 or more zero bits to the end of codewords.
generator polynomial x4 + x2 guarantees the detection of single-bit error
Correct. x4 + x2 is x2 + 1 shifted left two bits, x4 + x2 = (x2) (x2 + 1) = (x2) (x + 1) (x + 1) , and since x2 + 1 can detect any single bit error, then so can x4 + x2. Also with the (x + 1) term (two of these), it adds an even parity check and can detect any odd number of bit errors.
In general, all CRC polynomials can detect a single bit error regardless of message length. All CRC polynomials have a "cylic" period: if you use the CRC polynomial as the basis for a Linear Feedback Shift Register, and the initial value is 000...0001, then after some fixed number of cycles, it will cycle back to 000...0001. The simplest failure for a CRC is to have a 2 bit error, where the 2 bits are separated by a distance equal to the cyclic period. Say the period is 255 for an 8 bit CRC (9 bit polynomial), then a 2 bit error, one at bit[0] and one at bit[255] will result in a CRC = 0, and fail to be detected, This can't happen with a single bit error, it will just continue to go through the cycles, none of which include the value 0. If the period is n cycles, then no 2 bit error can fail if the number of bits in the message + CRC is <= n. All CRC polynomials that are a product of any polynomial times (x + 1) can detect any odd number of bit errors (since x + 1 is essentially adds an even parity check).
Shifting a CRC polynomial left by z bits means that every codeword will have z trailing zero bits. There are cases where this is done. Say you have a fast 32 bit CRC algorithm. To use that algorithm for a 16 bit CRC, the 17 bit CRC polynomial is shifted left 16 bits so that the least significant non-zero term is x16. After computing using the 32 bit CRC algorithm, the 32 bit CRC is shifted right 16 bits to produce the 16 bit CRC.
Can someone please explain what this part of CRC codes from Tannenbaum computer networks means!
If there has been a single-bit error, E(x) = x^i , where i determines which bit is
in error. If G(x) contains two or more terms, it will never divide into E(x), so all
single-bit errors will be detected.
And
If there have been two isolated single-bit errors, E(x) = x^i + x^j , where i > j.
Alternatively, this can be written as E(x) = x^j (x^(i − j) + 1). If we assume that G(x)
is not divisible by x, a sufficient condition for all double errors to be detected is
that G(x) does not divide x ^k + 1 for any k up to the maximum value of i − j (i.e.,
up to the maximum frame length). Simple, low-degree polynomials that give pro-
tection to long frames are known. For example, x ^15 + x ^14 + 1 will not divide
x ^k + 1 for any value of k below 32,768.
Please post in simple terms so I can understand it a bit more!. EXAMPLEs are appreciated. Thanks in advance!
A message is a sequence of bits. You can convert any sequence of bits into a polynomial by just making each bit the coefficient of 1, x, x2, etc. starting with the first bit. So 100101 becomes 1+x3+x5.
You can make these polynomials useful by considering their coefficients to be members of the simplest finite field, GF(2), which consists only of the elements 0 and 1. There addition is the exclusive-or operation and multiplication is the and operation.
Now you can do all the things you did with polynomials in high school, but where the coefficients are over GF(2). So 1+x added to x+x2 becomes 1+x2. 1+x times 1+x becomes 1+x2. (Work it out.)
Cyclic Redundancy Checks (CRCs) are derived from this approach to binary message arithmetic, where a message converted to a polynomial is divided by a special constant polynomial whose degree is the number of bits in the CRC. Then the coefficients of the remainder of that polynomial division is the CRC of that message.
Read Ross William's CRC tutorial for more. (Real CRCs are not just that remainder, but you'll see.)
I have to code to evaluate the value of following sequence :
( pow(1,k) + pow(2,k) + ... + pow(n,k) ) % MOD
for given value of n,k and MOD.
I have tried searching it on internet. I got an equation . It contains zeta functions and it seems difficult in implementation. I want any simple approach for implementing the same. Note that the value of n is large, so that we cannot simply use brute force to pass the time limit.
Newton's identities might be of help. Calculate the coefficients of the polynomial with 1..n as roots. That pretty trivial. Then use the identities.
It's just the first thing that comes to mind when I see sums of powers.
I think it is nicely compatible with modular arithmetics - there are only multiplications and additions.
I must admit, that Newton's identities are only the rearrangement of the terms, so not much speed gain here.
JUST USE PYTHON
k=input("Enter value for K: ")
n=input("Enter value for N: ")
mod=input("Enter value for MOD: ")
sum=0
for i in range(1,n+1):
sum+=pow(i,k)
result=sum % mod
print mod
May be this code is gonna help.
I agree that math.stackexchange.com is a better bet.
But here are random facts that, depending on parameters, may make the problem more manageable.
First, factor MOD, solve for each prime power factor, then use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to find the answer for MOD. Thus without loss of generality, you may assume that MOD is a prime power.
Next, note that 1^k + ... + MOD^k is always divisible by MOD. Therefore you can replace n by n mod MOD.
Next, if MOD = p^i and j is not divisible by p, then j^((p-1) * p^(i-1)) is 1 mod MOD, so we can reduce the size of k.
Of course if (k, n) < MOD and MOD is prime, this will not help you at all. (Which, depending on how this problem arises, may well be the case.)
(If k is small enough, there are explicit formulas that you can produce for the sum. But it seems that for you k can be large enough to make that approach intractable.)
This question on getting random values from a finite set got me thinking...
It's fairly common for people to want to retrieve X unique values from a set of Y values. For example, I may want to deal a hand from a deck of cards. I want 5 cards, and I want them to all be unique.
Now, I can do this naively, by picking a random card 5 times, and try again each time I get a duplicate, until I get 5 cards. This isn't so great, however, for large numbers of values from large sets. If I wanted 999,999 values from a set of 1,000,000, for instance, this method gets very bad.
The question is: how bad? I'm looking for someone to explain an O() value. Getting the xth number will take y attempts...but how many? I know how to figure this out for any given value, but is there a straightforward way to generalize this for the whole series and get an O() value?
(The question is not: "how can I improve this?" because it's relatively easy to fix, and I'm sure it's been covered many times elsewhere.)
Variables
n = the total amount of items in the set
m = the amount of unique values that are to be retrieved from the set of n items
d(i) = the expected amount of tries needed to achieve a value in step i
i = denotes one specific step. i ∈ [0, n-1]
T(m,n) = expected total amount of tries for selecting m unique items from a set of n items using the naive algorithm
Reasoning
The first step, i=0, is trivial. No matter which value we choose, we get a unique one at the first attempt. Hence:
d(0) = 1
In the second step, i=1, we at least need 1 try (the try where we pick a valid unique value). On top of this, there is a chance that we choose the wrong value. This chance is (amount of previously picked items)/(total amount of items). In this case 1/n. In the case where we picked the wrong item, there is a 1/n chance we may pick the wrong item again. Multiplying this by 1/n, since that is the combined probability that we pick wrong both times, gives (1/n)2. To understand this, it is helpful to draw a decision tree. Having picked a non-unique item twice, there is a probability that we will do it again. This results in the addition of (1/n)3 to the total expected amounts of tries in step i=1. Each time we pick the wrong number, there is a chance we might pick the wrong number again. This results in:
d(1) = 1 + 1/n + (1/n)2 + (1/n)3 + (1/n)4 + ...
Similarly, in the general i:th step, the chance to pick the wrong item in one choice is i/n, resulting in:
d(i) = 1 + i/n + (i/n)2 + (i/n)3 + (i/n)4 + ... = = sum( (i/n)k ), where k ∈ [0,∞]
This is a geometric sequence and hence it is easy to compute it's sum:
d(i) = (1 - i/n)-1
The overall complexity is then computed by summing the expected amount of tries in each step:
T(m,n) = sum ( d(i) ), where i ∈ [0,m-1] = = 1 + (1 - 1/n)-1 + (1 - 2/n)-1 + (1 - 3/n)-1 + ... + (1 - (m-1)/n)-1
Extending the fractions in the series above by n, we get:
T(m,n) = n/n + n/(n-1) + n/(n-2) + n/(n-3) + ... + n/(n-m+2) + n/(n-m+1)
We can use the fact that:
n/n ≤ n/(n-1) ≤ n/(n-2) ≤ n/(n-3) ≤ ... ≤ n/(n-m+2) ≤ n/(n-m+1)
Since the series has m terms, and each term satisfies the inequality above, we get:
T(m,n) ≤ n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) + ... + n/(n-m+1) + n/(n-m+1) = = m*n/(n-m+1)
It might be(and probably is) possible to establish a slightly stricter upper bound by using some technique to evaluate the series instead of bounding by the rough method of (amount of terms) * (biggest term)
Conclusion
This would mean that the Big-O order is O(m*n/(n-m+1)). I see no possible way to simplify this expression from the way it is.
Looking back at the result to check if it makes sense, we see that, if n is constant, and m gets closer and closer to n, the results will quickly increase, since the denominator gets very small. This is what we'd expect, if we for example consider the example given in the question about selecting "999,999 values from a set of 1,000,000". If we instead let m be constant and n grow really, really large, the complexity will converge towards O(m) in the limit n → ∞. This is also what we'd expect, since while chosing a constant number of items from a "close to" infinitely sized set the probability of choosing a previously chosen value is basically 0. I.e. We need m tries independently of n since there are no collisions.
If you already have chosen i values then the probability that you pick a new one from a set of y values is
(y-i)/y.
Hence the expected number of trials to get (i+1)-th element is
y/(y-i).
Thus the expected number of trials to choose x unique element is the sum
y/y + y/(y-1) + ... + y/(y-x+1)
This can be expressed using harmonic numbers as
y (Hy - Hy-x).
From the wikipedia page you get the approximation
Hx = ln(x) + gamma + O(1/x)
Hence the number of necessary trials to pick x unique elements from a set of y elements
is
y (ln(y) - ln(y-x)) + O(y/(y-x)).
If you need then you can get a more precise approximation by using a more precise approximation for Hx. In particular, when x is small it is possible to
improve the result a lot.
If you're willing to make the assumption that your random number generator will always find a unique value before cycling back to a previously seen value for a given draw, this algorithm is O(m^2), where m is the number of unique values you are drawing.
So, if you are drawing m values from a set of n values, the 1st value will require you to draw at most 1 to get a unique value. The 2nd requires at most 2 (you see the 1st value, then a unique value), the 3rd 3, ... the mth m. Hence in total you require 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + m = [m*(m+1)]/2 = (m^2 + m)/2 draws. This is O(m^2).
Without this assumption, I'm not sure how you can even guarantee the algorithm will complete. It's quite possible (especially with a pseudo-random number generator which may have a cycle), that you will keep seeing the same values over and over and never get to another unique value.
==EDIT==
For the average case:
On your first draw, you will make exactly 1 draw.
On your 2nd draw, you expect to make 1 (the successful draw) + 1/n (the "partial" draw which represents your chance of drawing a repeat)
On your 3rd draw, you expect to make 1 (the successful draw) + 2/n (the "partial" draw...)
...
On your mth draw, you expect to make 1 + (m-1)/n draws.
Thus, you will make 1 + (1 + 1/n) + (1 + 2/n) + ... + (1 + (m-1)/n) draws altogether in the average case.
This equals the sum from i=0 to (m-1) of [1 + i/n]. Let's denote that sum(1 + i/n, i, 0, m-1).
Then:
sum(1 + i/n, i, 0, m-1) = sum(1, i, 0, m-1) + sum(i/n, i, 0, m-1)
= m + sum(i/n, i, 0, m-1)
= m + (1/n) * sum(i, i, 0, m-1)
= m + (1/n)*[(m-1)*m]/2
= (m^2)/(2n) - (m)/(2n) + m
We drop the low order terms and the constants, and we get that this is O(m^2/n), where m is the number to be drawn and n is the size of the list.
There's a beautiful O(n) algorithm for this. It goes as follows. Say you have n items, from which you want to pick m items. I assume the function rand() yields a random real number between 0 and 1. Here's the algorithm:
items_left=n
items_left_to_pick=m
for j=1,...,n
if rand()<=(items_left_to_pick/items_left)
Pick item j
items_left_to_pick=items_left_to_pick-1
end
items_left=items_left-1
end
It can be proved that this algorithm does indeed pick each subset of m items with equal probability, though the proof is non-obvious. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference handy at the moment.
Edit The advantage of this algorithm is that it takes only O(m) memory (assuming the items are simply integers or can be generated on-the-fly) compared to doing a shuffle, which takes O(n) memory.
Your actual question is actually a lot more interesting than what I answered (and harder). I've never been any good at statistitcs (and it's been a while since I did any), but intuitively, I'd say that the run-time complexity of that algorithm would probably something like an exponential. As long as the number of elements picked is small enough compared to the size of the array the collision-rate will be so small that it will be close to linear time, but at some point the number of collisions will probably grow fast and the run-time will go down the drain.
If you want to prove this, I think you'd have to do something moderately clever with the expected number of collisions in function of the wanted number of elements. It might be possible do to by induction as well, but I think going by that route would require more cleverness than the first alternative.
EDIT: After giving it some thought, here's my attempt:
Given an array of m elements, and looking for n random and different elements. It is then easy to see that when we want to pick the ith element, the odds of picking an element we've already visited are (i-1)/m. This is then the expected number of collisions for that particular pick. For picking n elements, the expected number of collisions will be the sum of the number of expected collisions for each pick. We plug this into Wolfram Alpha (sum (i-1)/m, i=1 to n) and we get the answer (n**2 - n)/2m. The average number of picks for our naive algorithm is then n + (n**2 - n)/2m.
Unless my memory fails me completely (which entirely possible, actually), this gives an average-case run-time O(n**2).
The worst case for this algorithm is clearly when you're choosing the full set of N items. This is equivalent to asking: On average, how many times must I roll an N-sided die before each side has come up at least once?
Answer: N * HN, where HN is the Nth harmonic number,
a value famously approximated by log(N).
This means the algorithm in question is N log N.
As a fun example, if you roll an ordinary 6-sided die until you see one of each number, it will take on average 6 H6 = 14.7 rolls.
Before being able to answer this question in details, lets define the framework. Suppose you have a collection {a1, a2, ..., an} of n distinct objects, and want to pick m distinct objects from this set, such that the probability of a given object aj appearing in the result is equal for all objects.
If you have already picked k items, and radomly pick an item from the full set {a1, a2, ..., an}, the probability that the item has not been picked before is (n-k)/n. This means that the number of samples you have to take before you get a new object is (assuming independence of random sampling) geometric with parameter (n-k)/n. Thus the expected number of samples to obtain one extra item is n/(n-k), which is close to 1 if k is small compared to n.
Concluding, if you need m unique objects, randomly selected, this algorithm gives you
n/n + n/(n-1) + n/(n-2) + n/(n-3) + .... + n/(n-(m-1))
which, as Alderath showed, can be estimated by
m*n / (n-m+1).
You can see a little bit more from this formula:
* The expected number of samples to obtain a new unique element increases as the number of already chosen objects increases (which sounds logical).
* You can expect really long computation times when m is close to n, especially if n is large.
In order to obtain m unique members from the set, use a variant of David Knuth's algorithm for obtaining a random permutation. Here, I'll assume that the n objects are stored in an array.
for i = 1..m
k = randInt(i, n)
exchange(i, k)
end
here, randInt samples an integer from {i, i+1, ... n}, and exchange flips two members of the array. You only need to shuffle m times, so the computation time is O(m), whereas the memory is O(n) (although you can adapt it to only save the entries such that a[i] <> i, which would give you O(m) on both time and memory, but with higher constants).
Most people forget that looking up, if the number has already run, also takes a while.
The number of tries nessesary can, as descriped earlier, be evaluated from:
T(n,m) = n(H(n)-H(n-m)) ⪅ n(ln(n)-ln(n-m))
which goes to n*ln(n) for interesting values of m
However, for each of these 'tries' you will have to do a lookup. This might be a simple O(n) runthrough, or something like a binary tree. This will give you a total performance of n^2*ln(n) or n*ln(n)^2.
For smaller values of m (m < n/2), you can do a very good approximation for T(n,m) using the HA-inequation, yielding the formula:
2*m*n/(2*n-m+1)
As m goes to n, this gives a lower bound of O(n) tries and performance O(n^2) or O(n*ln(n)).
All the results are however far better, that I would ever have expected, which shows that the algorithm might actually be just fine in many non critical cases, where you can accept occasional longer running times (when you are unlucky).