I am trying to check for counterexamples to the conjecture stated in this MSE question, using the Pari-GP interpreter of Sage Cell Server.
I reproduce the statement of the conjecture here: If N > 8 is an even deficient-perfect number and Q = N/(2N - sigma(N)), then Q is prime.
Here, sigma(N) is the classical sum of divisors of N.
I am using the following code:
for(x=9, 1000, if(((Mod(x,(2*x - sigma(x))) == 0)) && ((fromdigits(Vecrev(digits(x / (2*x - sigma(x)))))) == (x / (2*x - sigma(x)))) && !(isprime((x / (2*x - sigma(x))))), print(x,factor(x))))
However, the Pari-GP interpreter of Sage Cell Server would not accept it, and instead gives the following error message:
*** at top-level: for(x=9,1000,if(((Mod(x,(2*x-sigma(x)))==0))&&
*** ^----------------------------
*** Mod: impossible inverse in %: 0.
What am I doing wrong?
Here's a better implementation of your algorithm
{
forfactored(X = 9, 10^7,
my (s = sigma(X), t = 2*X[1] - s);
if (t <= 0, next);
my ([q, r] = divrem(X[1], t));
if (r == 0 && fromdigits(Vecrev(digits(q))) == q && !ispseudoprime(q),
print(X)))
}
It's a bit more readable but most importantly it avoids factoring the same x over and over again: each time you write sigma(x), we need to factor x (the interpreter is not clever enough to compute subexpressions once). In fact, it doesn't perform a single factorization, through the use of forfactored which performs a sieve instead (and the variable X contains [x, factor(x)]). This is about 3 times faster than the original implementation in this range.
I let it run to 10^9 (about 10 minutes), there was no further counterexample.
I got it to work myself.
Here is the code that I used:
for(x=9, 10000000, if((2*x > sigma(x)) && ((Mod(x,(2*x - sigma(x))) == 0)) && ((fromdigits(Vecrev(digits(x / (2*x - sigma(x)))))) == (x / (2*x - sigma(x)))) && !(isprime((x / (2*x - sigma(x))))), print(x,factor(x))))
The search returns the odd counterexample N = 9018009, which is expected.
It did not return any even counterexamples, in the specified range.
Related
So I'm setting out to recreating some math functions from the math library from python.
One of those functions is the math.gamma-function. Since I know my way around JavaScript I thought I might try to translate the JavaScript implementation of the Lanczos approximation on Rosetta code into Applescript code:
on gamma(x)
set p to {1.0, 676.520368121885, -1259.139216722403, 771.323428777653, -176.615029162141, 12.507343278687, -0.138571095266, 9.98436957801957E-6, 1.50563273514931E-7}
set E to 2.718281828459045
set g to 7
if x < 0.5 then
return pi / (sin(pi * x) * (gamma(1 - x)))
end if
set x to x - 1
set a to item 1 of p
set t to x + g + 0.5
repeat with i from 2 to count of p
set a to a + ((item i of p) / (x + i))
end repeat
return ((2 * pi) ^ 0.5) * (t ^ x + 0.5) * (E ^ -t) * a
end gamma
The required function for this to run is:
on sin(x)
return (do shell script "python3 -c 'import math; print(math.sin(" & x & "))'") as number
end sin
All the other functions of the Javascript implementation have been removed to not have too many required functions, but the inline operations I introduced produce the same result.
This Javascript-code works great when trying to run it in the browser-console, but my Applescript implementation doesn't produce answers anywhere near the actual result. Is it because...
...I implemented something wrong?
...Applescript doesn't have enough precision?
...something else?
You made two mistakes in your code:
First of all, the i in your repeat statement starts at 2 rather than 1, which is fine for (item i of p), but it needs to be subtracted by 1 in the (x + i).
Secondly, in the code (t ^ x + 0.5) in the return statement, the t and x are being calculated first since they are exponents and then added to 0.5, but according to the JavaScript implementation the x and 0.5 need to be added together first instead.
The objective function is f(x,y)=sqrt(x^2+2*y^2-xy), subject to 10 > x > 0, 10 > y > 0, x > y. I am going to find the x and y which maximize objective function. I am required to use Nonlinear models in MathProgBase.jl packages. The tutorial from https://mathprogbasejl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/nlp.html is difficult for me to follow since I am a beginner. I really appreciate your help!
It seems that JuMP doesn't support strictly greater/lower constraints (as result that most solver engines doesn't either).
A modellisation in Julia of your problem would be:
using JuMP, Ipopt
m = Model(with_optimizer(Ipopt.Optimizer, print_level=0))
#variable(m, 0 <= x <= 10, start=1)
#variable(m, 0 <= y <= 10, start=1)
#constraint(m, c1, y <= x )
#NLobjective(m, Max, sqrt(x^2+2*y^2-x*y))
optimize!(m)
status = termination_status(m)
if (status == MOI.OPTIMAL || status == MOI.LOCALLY_SOLVED || status == MOI.TIME_LIMIT) && has_values(m)
if (status == MOI.OPTIMAL)
println("** Problem solved correctly **")
else
println("** Problem returned a (possibly suboptimal) solution **")
end
println("- Objective value : ", objective_value(m))
println("- Optimal solutions:")
println("x: $(value.(x))")
println("y: $(value.(y))")
else
println("The model was not solved correctly.")
println(status)
end
(see https://lobianco.org/antonello/personal/blog/2017/0203_jump_for_gams_users for an explanation of the various steps)
That results of the script is:
** Problem returned a (possibly suboptimal) solution **
- Objective value : 14.14213575988668
- Optimal solutions:
x: 10.0
y: 10.0
So I've encountered a case where I have 2 recursive calls - rather than one. I do know how to solve for one recursive call, but in this case I'm not sure whether I'm right or wrong.
I have the following problem:
T(n) = T(2n/5) + T(3n/5) + n
And I need to find the worst-case complexity for this.
(FYI - It's some kind of augmented merge sort)
My feeling was to use the first equation from the Theorem, but I feel something is wrong with my idea. Any explanation on how to solve problems like this will be appreciated :)
The recursion tree for the given recursion will look like this:
Size Cost
n n
/ \
2n/5 3n/5 n
/ \ / \
4n/25 6n/25 6n/25 9n/25 n
and so on till size of input becomes 1
The longes simple path from root to a leaf would be n-> 3/5n -> (3/5) ^2 n .. till 1
Therefore let us assume the height of tree = k
((3/5) ^ k )*n = 1 meaning k = log to the base 5/3 of n
In worst case we expect that every level gives a cost of n and hence
Total Cost = n * (log to the base 5/3 of n)
However we must keep one thing in mind that ,our tree is not complete and therefore
some levels near the bottom would be partially complete.
But in asymptotic analysis we ignore such intricate details.
Hence in worst Case Cost = n * (log to the base 5/3 of n)
which is O( n * log n )
Now, let us verify this using substitution method:
T(n) = O( n * log n) iff T(n) < = dnlog(n) for some d>0
Assuming this to be true:
T(n) = T(2n/5) + T(3n/5) + n
<= d(2n/5)log(2n/5) + d(3n/5)log(3n/5) + n
= d*2n/5(log n - log 5/2 ) + d*3n/5(log n - log 5/3) + n
= dnlog n - d(2n/5)log 5/2 - d(3n/5)log 5/3 + n
= dnlog n - dn( 2/5(log 5/2) - 3/5(log 5/3)) + n
<= dnlog n
as long as d >= 1/( 2/5(log 5/2) - 3/5(log 5/3) )
I tried to implement bessel function using that formula, this is the code:
function result=Bessel(num);
if num==0
result=bessel(0,1);
elseif num==1
result=bessel(1,1);
else
result=2*(num-1)*Bessel(num-1)-Bessel(num-2);
end;
But if I use MATLAB's bessel function to compare it with this one, I get too high different values.
For example if I type Bessel(20) it gives me 3.1689e+005 as result, if instead I type bessel(20,1) it gives me 3.8735e-025 , a totally different result.
such recurrence relations are nice in mathematics but numerically unstable when implementing algorithms using limited precision representations of floating-point numbers.
Consider the following comparison:
x = 0:20;
y1 = arrayfun(#(n)besselj(n,1), x); %# builtin function
y2 = arrayfun(#Bessel, x); %# your function
semilogy(x,y1, x,y2), grid on
legend('besselj','Bessel')
title('J_\nu(z)'), xlabel('\nu'), ylabel('log scale')
So you can see how the computed values start to differ significantly after 9.
According to MATLAB:
BESSELJ uses a MEX interface to a Fortran library by D. E. Amos.
and gives the following as references for their implementation:
D. E. Amos, "A subroutine package for Bessel functions of a complex
argument and nonnegative order", Sandia National Laboratory Report,
SAND85-1018, May, 1985.
D. E. Amos, "A portable package for Bessel functions of a complex
argument and nonnegative order", Trans. Math. Software, 1986.
The forward recurrence relation you are using is not stable. To see why, consider that the values of BesselJ(n,x) become smaller and smaller by about a factor 1/2n. You can see this by looking at the first term of the Taylor series for J.
So, what you're doing is subtracting a large number from a multiple of a somewhat smaller number to get an even smaller number. Numerically, that's not going to work well.
Look at it this way. We know the result is of the order of 10^-25. You start out with numbers that are of the order of 1. So in order to get even one accurate digit out of this, we have to know the first two numbers with at least 25 digits precision. We clearly don't, and the recurrence actually diverges.
Using the same recurrence relation to go backwards, from high orders to low orders, is stable. When you start with correct values for J(20,1) and J(19,1), you can calculate all orders down to 0 with full accuracy as well. Why does this work? Because now the numbers are getting larger in each step. You're subtracting a very small number from an exact multiple of a larger number to get an even larger number.
You can just modify the code below which is for the Spherical bessel function. It is well tested and works for all arguments and order range. I am sorry it is in C#
public static Complex bessel(int n, Complex z)
{
if (n == 0) return sin(z) / z;
if (n == 1) return sin(z) / (z * z) - cos(z) / z;
if (n <= System.Math.Abs(z.real))
{
Complex h0 = bessel(0, z);
Complex h1 = bessel(1, z);
Complex ret = 0;
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++)
{
ret = (2 * i - 1) / z * h1 - h0;
h0 = h1;
h1 = ret;
if (double.IsInfinity(ret.real) || double.IsInfinity(ret.imag)) return double.PositiveInfinity;
}
return ret;
}
else
{
double u = 2.0 * abs(z.real) / (2 * n + 1);
double a = 0.1;
double b = 0.175;
int v = n - (int)System.Math.Ceiling((System.Math.Log(0.5e-16 * (a + b * u * (2 - System.Math.Pow(u, 2)) / (1 - System.Math.Pow(u, 2))), 2)));
Complex ret = 0;
while (v > n - 1)
{
ret = z / (2 * v + 1.0 - z * ret);
v = v - 1;
}
Complex jnM1 = ret;
while (v > 0)
{
ret = z / (2 * v + 1.0 - z * ret);
jnM1 = jnM1 * ret;
v = v - 1;
}
return jnM1 * sin(z) / z;
}
}
I'm trying to figure out an equivalent expressions of the following equations using bitwise, addition, and/or subtraction operators. I know there's suppose to be an answer (which furthermore generalizes to work for any modulus 2^a-1, where a is a power of 2), but for some reason I can't seem to figure out what the relation is.
Initial expressions:
x = n % (2^32-1);
c = (int)n / (2^32-1); // ints are 32-bit, but x, c, and n may have a greater number of bits
My procedure for the first expression was to take the modulo of 2^32, then try to make up the difference between the two modulo's. I'm having trouble on this second part.
x = n & 0xFFFFFFFF + difference // how do I calculate difference?
I know that the difference n%(2^32)-n%(2^32-1) is periodic (with a period of 2^32*(2^32-1)), and there's a "spike up' starting at multiples of 2^32-1 and ending at 2^32. After each 2^32 multiple, the difference plot decreases by 1 (hopefully my descriptions make sense)
Similarly, the second expression could be calculated in a similar fashion:
c = n >> 32 + makeup // how do I calculate makeup?
I think makeup steadily increases by 1 at multiples of 2^32-1 (and decreases by 1 at multiples of 2^32), though I'm having troubles expressing this idea in terms of the available operators.
You can use these identities:
n mod (x - 1) = (((n div x) mod (x - 1)) + ((n mod x) mod (x - 1))) mod (x - 1)
n div (x - 1) = (n div x) + (((n div x) + (n mod x)) div (x - 1))
First comes from (ab+c) mod d = ((a mod d) (b mod d) + (c mod d)) mod d.
Second comes from expanding n = ax + b = a(x-1) + a + b, while dividing by x-1.
I think I've figured out the answer to my question:
Compute c first, then use the results to compute x. Assumes that the comparison returns 1 for true, 0 for false. Also, the shifts are all logical shifts.
c = (n>>32) + ((t & 0xFFFFFFFF) >= (0xFFFFFFFF - (n>>32)))
x = (0xFFFFFFFE - (n & 0xFFFFFFFF) - ((c - (n>>32))<<32)-c) & 0xFFFFFFFF
edit: changed x (only need to keep lower 32 bits, rest is "junk")