What is the double percent (%%) used for in R?
From using it, it looks as if it divides the number in front by the number in back of it as many times as it can and returns the left over value. Is that correct?
Out of curiosity, when would this be useful?
The "Arithmetic operators" help page (which you can get to via ?"%%") says
‘%%’ indicates ‘x mod y’
which is only helpful if you've done enough programming to know that this is referring to the modulo operation, i.e. integer-divide x by y and return the remainder. This is useful in many, many, many applications. For example (from #GavinSimpson in comments), %% is useful if you are running a loop and want to print some kind of progress indicator to the screen every nth iteration (e.g. use if (i %% 10 == 0) { #do something} to do something every 10th iteration).
Since %% also works for floating-point numbers in R, I've just dug up an example where if (any(wts %% 1 != 0)) is used to test where any of the wts values are non-integer.
The result of the %% operator is the REMAINDER of a division,
Eg. 75%%4 = 3
I noticed if the dividend is lower than the divisor, then R returns the same dividend value.
Eg. 4%%75 = 4
Cheers
%% in R return remainder
for example:
s=c(1,8,10,4,6)
d=c(3,5,8,9,2)
x=s%%d
x
[1] 1 3 2 4 0
Related
What is the double percent (%%) used for in R?
From using it, it looks as if it divides the number in front by the number in back of it as many times as it can and returns the left over value. Is that correct?
Out of curiosity, when would this be useful?
The "Arithmetic operators" help page (which you can get to via ?"%%") says
‘%%’ indicates ‘x mod y’
which is only helpful if you've done enough programming to know that this is referring to the modulo operation, i.e. integer-divide x by y and return the remainder. This is useful in many, many, many applications. For example (from #GavinSimpson in comments), %% is useful if you are running a loop and want to print some kind of progress indicator to the screen every nth iteration (e.g. use if (i %% 10 == 0) { #do something} to do something every 10th iteration).
Since %% also works for floating-point numbers in R, I've just dug up an example where if (any(wts %% 1 != 0)) is used to test where any of the wts values are non-integer.
The result of the %% operator is the REMAINDER of a division,
Eg. 75%%4 = 3
I noticed if the dividend is lower than the divisor, then R returns the same dividend value.
Eg. 4%%75 = 4
Cheers
%% in R return remainder
for example:
s=c(1,8,10,4,6)
d=c(3,5,8,9,2)
x=s%%d
x
[1] 1 3 2 4 0
This problem gives you a positive integer number which is less than or equal to 100000 (10^5). You have to find out the following things for the number:
i. Is the number prime number? If it is a prime number, then print YES.
ii. If the number is not a prime number, then can we express the number as summation of unique prime numbers? If it is possible, then print YES. Here unique means, you can use any prime number only for one time.
If above two conditions fail for any integer number, then print NO. For more clarification please see the input, output section and their explanations.
Input
At first you are given an integer T (T<=100), which is the number of test cases. For each case you will be given a positive integer X which is less than or equal 100000.
Output
For every test case, print only YES or NO.
Sample
Input Output
3
7
6
10 YES
NO
YES
Case – 1 Explanation: 7 is a prime number.
Case – 2 Explanation: 6 is not a prime number. 6 can be expressed as 6 = 3 + 3 or 6 = 2 + 2 + 2. But you can’t use any prime number more than 1 time. Also there is no way to express 6 as two or three unique prime numbers summation.
Case – 3 Explanation: 10 is not prime number but 10 can be expressed as 10 = 3 + 7 or 10 = 2 + 3 + 5. In this two expressions, every prime number is used only for one time.
Without employing any mathematical tricks (not sure if any exist...you'd think as a mathematician I'd have more insight here), you will have to iterate over every possible summation. Hence, you'll definitely need to iterate over every possible prime, so I'd recommend the first step being to find all the primes at most 10^5. A basic (Sieve of Eratosthenes)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes] will probably be good enough, though faster sieves exist nowadays. I know your question is language agnostic, but you could consider the following as vectorized pseudocode for such a sieve.
import numpy as np
def sieve(n):
index = np.ones(n+1, dtype=bool)
index[:2] = False
for i in range(2, int(np.sqrt(n))):
if index[i]:
index[i**2::i] = False
return np.where(index)[0]
There are some other easy optimizations, but for simplicity this assumes that we have an array index where the indices correspond exactly to whether the number is prime or not. We start with every number being prime, mark 0 and 1 as not prime, and then for every prime we find we mark every multiple of it as not prime. The np.where() at the end just returns the indices where our index corresponds to True.
From there, we can consider a recursive algorithm for actually solving your problem. Note that you might feasibly have a huge number of distinct primes necessary. The number 26 is the sum of 4 distinct primes. It is also the sum of 3 and 23. Since the checks are more expensive for 4 primes than for 2, I think it's reasonable to start by checking the smallest number possible.
In this case, the way we're going to do that is to define an auxiliary function to find whether a number is the sum of precisely k primes and then sequentially test that auxiliary function for k from 1 to whatever the maximum possible number of addends is.
primes = sieve(10**5)
def sum_of_k_primes(x, k, excludes=()):
if k == 1:
if x not in excludes and x in primes:
return (x,)+excludes
else:
return ()
for p in (p for p in primes if p not in excludes):
if x-p < 2:
break
temp = sum_of_k_primes(x-p, k-1, (p,)+excludes)
if temp:
return temp
return ()
Running through this, first we check the case where k is 1 (this being the base case for our recursion). That's the same as asking if x is prime and isn't in one of the primes we've already found (the tuple excludes, since you need uniqueness). If k is at least 2, the rest of the code executes instead. We check all the primes we might care about, stopping early if we'd get an impossible result (no primes in our list are less than 2). We recursively call the same function for smaller k, and if we succeed we propagate that result up the call stack.
Note that we're actually returning the smallest possible tuple of unique prime addends. This is empty if you want your answer to be "NO" as specified, but otherwise it allows you to easily come up with an explanation for why you answered "YES".
partial = np.cumsum(primes)
def max_primes(x):
return np.argmax(partial > x)
def sum_of_primes(x):
for k in range(1, max_primes(x)+1):
temp = sum_of_k_primes(x, k)
if temp:
return temp
return ()
For the rest of the code, we store the partial sums of all the primes up to a given point (e.g. with primes 2, 3, 5 the partial sums would be 2, 5, 10). This gives us an easy way to check what the maximum possible number of addends is. The function just sequentially checks if x is prime, if it is a sum of 2 primes, 3 primes, etc....
As some example output, we have
>>> sum_of_primes(1001)
(991, 7, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(26)
(23, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(27)
(19, 5, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(6)
()
At a first glance, I thought caching some intermediate values might help, but I'm not convinced that the auxiliary function would ever be called with the same arguments twice. There might be a way to use dynamic programming to do roughly the same thing but in a table with a minimum number of computations to prevent any duplicated efforts with the recursion. I'd have to think more about it.
As far as the exact output your teacher is expecting and the language this needs to be coded in, that'll be up to you. Hopefully this helps on the algorithmic side of things a little.
What is the double percent (%%) used for in R?
From using it, it looks as if it divides the number in front by the number in back of it as many times as it can and returns the left over value. Is that correct?
Out of curiosity, when would this be useful?
The "Arithmetic operators" help page (which you can get to via ?"%%") says
‘%%’ indicates ‘x mod y’
which is only helpful if you've done enough programming to know that this is referring to the modulo operation, i.e. integer-divide x by y and return the remainder. This is useful in many, many, many applications. For example (from #GavinSimpson in comments), %% is useful if you are running a loop and want to print some kind of progress indicator to the screen every nth iteration (e.g. use if (i %% 10 == 0) { #do something} to do something every 10th iteration).
Since %% also works for floating-point numbers in R, I've just dug up an example where if (any(wts %% 1 != 0)) is used to test where any of the wts values are non-integer.
The result of the %% operator is the REMAINDER of a division,
Eg. 75%%4 = 3
I noticed if the dividend is lower than the divisor, then R returns the same dividend value.
Eg. 4%%75 = 4
Cheers
%% in R return remainder
for example:
s=c(1,8,10,4,6)
d=c(3,5,8,9,2)
x=s%%d
x
[1] 1 3 2 4 0
i want to know is it possible to validate that deviding two number has remaining zero in result or not?
for example dividing number 4 on number two has zero in remaining.
4/2=0 (this is true)
but 4/3=1 (this is not true)
is there any expression for validation such case?
Better Question :
Is There any validation expression to validate this sentence ?
Remainder is zero
thank you
You can use a Modulo operator. The modulo operation finds the remainder of division of one number by another
y mod x
5 mod 2 =1 (2x2=4, 5-4=1)
9 mod 3 = 0 (3*3=9)
You can think of it, how many times does x fit in y and then take the remainder.
In computing the modulo operator is integrated in most programming languages, along with division, substraction etc. Check modulo and then your language on google (probably its mod).
This is called the modulo function. It essentially gives the remainder of a division of two integer number. So you can test for the modulo funtion returning zero. For example, in Python you would write
if a % b == 0:
# a can be divided by b with zero remainder
This is quite literally the first problem in Project Euler. I created these two algorithms to solve it, but they each yield different answers. Basically, the job is to write a program that sums all the products of 3 and 5 that are under 1000.
Here is the correct one:
divisors<-0
for (i in 1:999){
if ((i %% 3 == 0) || (i %% 5 == 0)){
divisors <- divisors+i
}
}
The answer it yields is 233168
Here is the wrong one:
divisors<-0
for (i in 1:999){
if (i %% 3 == 0){
divisors <- divisors + i
}
if (i %% 5 == 0){
divisors <- divisors + i
}
}
This gives the answer 266333
Can anyone tell me why these two give different answers? The first is correct, and obviously the simpler solution. But I want to know why the second one isn't correct.
EDIT: fudged the second answer on accident.
Because multiples of 15 will add i once in the first code sample and twice in the second code sample. Multiples of 15 are multiples of both 3 and 5.
To make them functionally identical, the second would have to be something like:
divisors<-0
for (i in 1:999) {
if (i %% 3 == 0) {
divisors <- divisors + i
} else {
if (i %% 5 == 0) {
divisors <- divisors + i
}
}
}
But, to be honest, your first sample seems far more logical to me.
As an aside (and moot now that you've edited it), I'm also guessing that your second output value of 26633 is a typo. Unless R wraps integers around at some point, I'd expect it to be more than the first example (such as the value 266333 which I get from a similar C program, so I'm assuming you accidentally left of a 3).
I don't know R very well, but right off the bat, I see a potential problem.
In your first code block, the if statement is true if either of the conditions are true. Your second block runs the if statement twice if both conditions are met.
Consider the number 15. In your first code block, the if statement will trigger once, but in the second, both if statements will trigger, which is probably not what you want.
I can tell you exactly why that's incorrect, conceptually.
Take the summation of all integers to 333 and multiply is by 3, you'll get x
Take the summation of all integers to 200 and multiply it by 5, you'll get y
Take the summation of all integers to 66 and multiply it by 15, you'll get z
x + y = 266333
x + y - z = 233168
15 is divisible by both 3 and 5. You've counted all multiples of 15 twice.