Related
Consider the statement: The last digit of n^5 is equal to the last digit of n. This is equivalent to saying n^ 5 mod 10 = n mod 1 . The proof for this is rather simple, the steps are
Proof 1
The last digit of n^5 can only be affected by the last digit n, as the first digit of any power n is only affected by the one digit of n. In this case, it becomes a matter of 'Prood by cases' where you only have to prove it for 0-9
0^5 = 0 , 1^5 = 1, 2^5 = 32 etc..
Alternatively,
Proof 2
This is also equvalent to saying, n^5−n is divisible by 10 . By induction:
if n=0, this is obviously true.
3.1) Assume correct for n
3.2)
(n+1)^5-(n+1) = n^5 + 5n^4 + 10n^3 + 10n^2 + 5n + 1 - (n+1) =n^5 - n + 10(n^3+n^2) +5n(n^3+1) is divisible by 10
This then has 3 subgoals.
3.3.1) Prove n^5 - n is divisble by 10, by induction
3.3.2) 10(n^3+n^2) is oobviously divisible by 10
3.3.3) prove that 5n(n^3+1) is divisible by 10. which is the same as showing n(n^3+1) is divisible by 2.
confusion
I have been attempting to complete this proof in Isabelle for weeks now. I have gone through the documentation and consulted colleagues, however, one way or another, no matter which way I frame the proof in Isabelle, I am unable to prove it.
For example, consider
theorem "(n::nat) ^ 5 mod 10 = n mod 10"
proof (induct n)
case 0
show "(0::nat)^5 mod 10 = 0 mod 10" by simp
next
case (Suc n)
hence"n^5 mod 10 = n mod 10" by assumption
have "Suc n = n+1" by simp
have "(n+1)^5-(n+1) = n^5+5*n^4+10*n^3+10*n^2+5*n+1-(n+1)"
also have "... = n^5+5*n^4+10*n^3+10*n^2+5*n+1-(n+1)"
also have "(Suc n)^5 mod 10 = (n+1)^5 mod 10"
thus "(Suc n)^5 mod 10 = (Suc n) mod 10" sorry
qed
This question is part of an assessed coursework exercise that is currently active at Imperial College London. I'd really appreciate it if folks could hold off answering this question until February or so, to give the students taking the course the opportunity to complete it themselves.
That said, if you have a question that is more specific than "I'm unable to prove it" (e.g. "What does this particular error message mean?"), I'd be delighted to help.
I came across this question in a coding competition. Given a number n, concatenate the binary representation of first n positive integers and return the decimal value of the resultant number formed. Since the answer can be large return answer modulo 10^9+7.
N can be as large as 10^9.
Eg:- n=4. Number formed=11011100(1=1,10=2,11=3,100=4). Decimal value of 11011100=220.
I found a stack overflow answer to this question but the problem is that it only contains a O(n) solution.
Link:- concatenate binary of first N integers and return decimal value
Since n can be up to 10^9 we need to come up with solution that is better than O(n).
Here's some Python code that provides a fast solution; it uses the same ideas as in Abhinav Mathur's post. It requires Python >= 3.8, but it doesn't use anything particularly fancy from Python, and could easily be translated into another language. You'd need to write algorithms for modular exponentiation and modular inverse if they're not already available in the target language.
First, for testing purposes, let's define the slow and obvious version:
# Modulus that results are reduced by,
M = 10 ** 9 + 7
def slow_binary_concat(n):
"""
Concatenate binary representations of 1 through n (inclusive).
Reinterpret the resulting binary string as an integer.
"""
concatenation = "".join(format(k, "b") for k in range(n + 1))
return int(concatenation, 2) % M
Checking that we get the expected result:
>>> slow_binary_concat(4)
220
>>> slow_binary_concat(10)
462911642
Now we'll write a faster version. First, we split the range [1, n) into subintervals such that within each subinterval, all numbers have the same length in binary. For example, the range [1, 10) would be split into four subintervals: [1, 2), [2, 4), [4, 8) and [8, 10). Here's a function to do that splitting:
def split_by_bit_length(n):
"""
Split the numbers in [1, n) by bit-length.
Produces triples (a, b, 2**k). Each triple represents a subinterval
[a, b) of [1, n), with a < b, all of whose elements has bit-length k.
"""
a = 1
while n > a:
b = 2 * a
yield (a, min(n, b), b)
a = b
Example output:
>>> list(split_by_bit_length(10))
[(1, 2, 2), (2, 4, 4), (4, 8, 8), (8, 10, 16)]
Now for each subinterval, the value of the concatenation of all numbers in that subinterval is represented by a fairly simple mathematical sum, which can be computed in exact form. Here's a function to compute that sum modulo M:
def subinterval_concat(a, b, l):
"""
Concatenation of values in [a, b), all of which have the same bit-length k.
l is 2**k.
Equivalently, sum(i * l**(b - 1 - i)) for i in range(a, b)) modulo M.
"""
n = b - a
inv = pow(l - 1, -1, M)
q = (pow(l, n, M) - 1) * inv
return (a * q + (q - n) * inv) % M
I won't go into the evaluation of the sum here: it's a bit off-topic for this site, and it's hard to express without a good way to render formulas. If you want the details, that's a topic for https://math.stackexchange.com, or a page of fairly simple algebra.
Finally, we want to put all the intervals together. Here's a function to do that.
def fast_binary_concat(n):
"""
Fast version of slow_binary_concat.
"""
acc = 0
for a, b, l in split_by_bit_length(n + 1):
acc = (acc * pow(l, b - a, M) + subinterval_concat(a, b, l)) % M
return acc
A comparison with the slow version shows that we get the same results:
>>> fast_binary_concat(4)
220
>>> fast_binary_concat(10)
462911642
But the fast version can easily be evaluated for much larger inputs, where using the slow version would be infeasible:
>>> fast_binary_concat(10**9)
827129560
>>> fast_binary_concat(10**18)
945204784
You just have to note a simple pattern. Taking up your example for n=4, let's gradually build the solution starting from n=1.
1 -> 1 #1
2 -> 2^2(1) + 2 #6
3 -> 2^2[2^2(1)+2] + 3 #27
4 -> 2^3{2^2[2^2(1)+2]+3} + 4 #220
If you expand the coefficients of each term for n=4, you'll get the coefficients as:
1 -> (2^3)*(2^2)*(2^2)
2 -> (2^3)*(2^2)
3 -> (2^3)
4 -> (2^0)
Let the N be total number of bits in the string representation of our required number, and D(x) be the number of bits in x. The coefficients can then be written as
1 -> 2^(N-D(1))
2 -> 2^(N-D(1)-D(2))
3 -> 2^(N-D(1)-D(2)-D(3))
... and so on
Since the value of D(x) will be the same for all x between range (2^t, 2^(t+1)-1) for some given t, you can break the problem into such ranges and solve for each range using mathematics (not iteration). Since the number of such ranges will be log2(Given N), this should work in the given time limit.
As an example, the various ranges become:
1. 1 (D(x) = 1)
2. 2-3 (D(x) = 2)
3. 4-7 (D(x) = 3)
4. 8-15 (D(x) = 4)
For instance, given a word size of 4 bits:
0b1001 * 0b0111 = 0b1111 // -7 * 7 = -1
0b0111 * 0b0111 = 0b0001 // 7 * 7 = 1
0b0111 * 0b0110 = 0b1010 // 7 * 6 = -6
0b1001 * 0b0110 = 0b0110 // -7 * 6 = 6
There's undoubtedly some modular arithmetic going on here, but the way you take mod seems to be quite inconsistent. Is there a neat mathematical formulation of two's complement multiplication?
The nice thing about twos complement is that addition, subtraction, and multiplication of signed operands are exactly the same operations, bit-for-bit, as the ones for unsigned operands, so the computer doesn't need to care whether you think of them as signed or not.
In terms of modular arithmetic as well, the operations mean exactly the same thing. With 4 bit words, when you say:
r = a * b;
You get r = a * b mod 16.
The only difference between signed and unsigned is the value we assign in our heads to the residues mod 16. If we think of the words as unsigned then we have values 0-15. But 15 = -1 mod 16, 14 = -2 mod 16, etc, and if we think of the words as signed, then we just think of the values -8 to 7 instead of 0 to 15.
The reminder operator % that you get in C, java, etc, is annoying in the way it handles negative numbers. If you wanted to express your 4-bit multiply using that operator in larger words, then you could say:
a * b = ( (a * b % 16) + 24 ) % 16 - 8
If the remainder operator worked "properly" so that -1 % 16 == 15, then you could write a * b = (a * b + 8) % 16 - 8
I've got stuck on this problem :
Given a, b and c three
natural numbers (such that 1<= a, b, c <= 10^9), you are supposed to find the last digit of the number a^b^c."
What I've firstly thought was the O(log n) algorithm for raising a at power n.
int acc=1; //accumulator
while(n>0) {
if(n%2==1)
acc*=a;
a=a*a;
n/=2;
}
Obviously, some basic math might help, like the "last digit" stuff :
Last_digit(2^n) = Last_digit(2^(n%4))
Where n%4 is the remainder of the division n/4
In a nutshell, I've tried to combine these, but I couldn't get on the good way.
Some help would really be apreciated.
The problem is that b^c may be very large. So you want to reduce it before using the standard modular exponentiation.
You can remark that a^(b^c) MOD 10 can have a maximum of 10 different values.
Because of the pigeonhole principle, there will be a number p such that for some r:
a^r MOD 10 = a^(p+r) MOD 10
p <= 10
r <= 10
This implies that for any q:
a^r MOD 10 = a^r*a^p MOD 10
= (a^r*a^p)*a^p MOD 10
= ...
= a^(r+q*p) MOD 10
For any n = s+r+q*p, with s < p you have:
a^n MOD 10 = a^s*a^(r+q*p) MOD 10
= a^s*a^r MOD 10
= a^((n-r) MOD p)*a^r MOD 10
You can just replace n= (b^c) in the previous equation.
You will only compute (b^c-r) MOD p where p <= 10 which is easily done and then compute a^((b^c-r) MOD p)*a^r MOD 10.
Like I mentioned in my comments, this really doesn't have much to do with smart algorithms. The problem can be reduced completely using some elementary number theory. This will yield an O(1) algorithm.
The Chinese remainder theorem says that if we know some number x modulo 2 and modulo 5, we know it modulo 10. So finding a^b^c modulo 10 can be reduced to finding a^b^c modulo 2 and a^b^c modulo 5. Fermat's little theorem says that for any prime p, if p does not divide a, then a^(p-1) = 1 (mod p), so a^n = a^(n mod (p-1)) (mod p). If p does divide a, then obviously a^n = 0 (mod p) for any n > 0. Note that x^n = x (mod 2) for any n>0, so a^b^c = a (mod 2).
What remains is to find a^b^c mod 5, which reduces to finding b^c mod 4. Unfortunately, we can use neither the Chinese remainder theorem, nor Fermat's little theorem here. However, mod 4 there are only 4 possibilities for b, so we can check them separately. If we start with b = 0 (mod 4) or b = 1 (mod 4), then of course b^c = b (mod 4). If we have b = 2 (mod 4) then it is easily seen that b^c = 2 (mod 4) if c = 1, and b^c = 0 (mod 4) if c > 1. If b = 3 (mod 4) then b^c = 3 if c is even, and b^c = 1 if c is odd. This gives us b^c (mod 4) for any b and c, which then gives us a^b^c (mod 5), all in constant time.
Finally with a^b^c = a (mod 2) we can use the Chinese remainder theorem to find a^b^c (mod 10). This requires a mapping between (x (mod 2), y (mod 5)) and z (mod 10). The Chinese remainder theorem only tells us that this mapping is bijective, it doesn't tell us how to find it. However, there are only 10 options, so this is easily done on a piece of paper or using a little program. Once we find this mapping we simply store it in an array, and we can do the entire calculation in O(1).
By the way, this would be the implementation of my algorithm in python:
# this table only needs to be calculated once
# can also be hard-coded
mod2mod5_to_mod10 = [[0 for i in range(5)] for j in range(2)]
for i in range(10):
mod2mod5_to_mod10[i % 2][i % 5] = i
[a,b,c] = [int(input()) for i in range(3)]
if a % 5 == 0:
abcmod5 = 0
else:
bmod4 = b % 4
if bmod4 == 0 or bmod4 == 1:
bcmod4 = bmod4
elif bmod4 == 2:
if c == 1:
bcmod4 = 2
else:
bcmod4 = 0
else:
if c % 2 == 0:
bcmod4 = 1
else:
bcmod4 = 3
abcmod5 = ((a % 5)**bcmod4) % 5
abcmod2 = a % 2
abcmod10 = mod2mod5_to_mod10[abcmod2][abcmod5]
print(abcmod10)
Exercise 1.11:
A function f is defined by the rule that f(n) = n if n < 3 and f(n) = f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3) if n > 3. Write a procedure that computes f by means of a recursive process. Write a procedure that computes f by means of an iterative process.
Implementing it recursively is simple enough. But I couldn't figure out how to do it iteratively. I tried comparing with the Fibonacci example given, but I didn't know how to use it as an analogy. So I gave up (shame on me) and Googled for an explanation, and I found this:
(define (f n)
(if (< n 3)
n
(f-iter 2 1 0 n)))
(define (f-iter a b c count)
(if (< count 3)
a
(f-iter (+ a (* 2 b) (* 3 c))
a
b
(- count 1))))
After reading it, I understand the code and how it works. But what I don't understand is the process needed to get from the recursive definition of the function to this. I don't get how the code could have formed in someone's head.
Could you explain the thought process needed to arrive at the solution?
You need to capture the state in some accumulators and update the state at each iteration.
If you have experience in an imperative language, imagine writing a while loop and tracking information in variables during each iteration of the loop. What variables would you need? How would you update them? That's exactly what you have to do to make an iterative (tail-recursive) set of calls in Scheme.
In other words, it might help to start thinking of this as a while loop instead of a recursive definition. Eventually you'll be fluent enough with recursive -> iterative transformations that you won't need to extra help to get started.
For this particular example, you have to look closely at the three function calls, because it's not immediately clear how to represent them. However, here's the likely thought process: (in Python pseudo-code to emphasise the imperativeness)
Each recursive step keeps track of three things:
f(n) = f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3)
So I need three pieces of state to track the current, the last and the penultimate values of f. (that is, f(n-1), f(n-2) and f(n-3).) Call them a, b, c. I have to update these pieces inside each loop:
for _ in 2..n:
a = NEWVALUE
b = a
c = b
return a
So what's NEWVALUE? Well, now that we have representations of f(n-1), f(n-2) and f(n-3), it's just the recursive equation:
for _ in 2..n:
a = a + 2 * b + 3 * c
b = a
c = b
return a
Now all that's left is to figure out the initial values of a, b and c. But that's easy, since we know that f(n) = n if n < 3.
if n < 3: return n
a = 2 # f(n-1) where n = 3
b = 1 # f(n-2)
c = 0 # f(n-3)
# now start off counting at 3
for _ in 3..n:
a = a + 2 * b + 3 * c
b = a
c = b
return a
That's still a little different from the Scheme iterative version, but I hope you can see the thought process now.
I think you are asking how one might discover the algorithm naturally, outside of a 'design pattern'.
It was helpful for me to look at the expansion of the f(n) at each n value:
f(0) = 0 |
f(1) = 1 | all known values
f(2) = 2 |
f(3) = f(2) + 2f(1) + 3f(0)
f(4) = f(3) + 2f(2) + 3f(1)
f(5) = f(4) + 2f(3) + 3f(2)
f(6) = f(5) + 2f(4) + 3f(3)
Looking closer at f(3), we see that we can calculate it immediately from the known values.
What do we need to calculate f(4)?
We need to at least calculate f(3) + [the rest]. But as we calculate f(3), we calculate f(2) and f(1) as well, which we happen to need for calculating [the rest] of f(4).
f(3) = f(2) + 2f(1) + 3f(0)
↘ ↘
f(4) = f(3) + 2f(2) + 3f(1)
So, for any number n, I can start by calculating f(3), and reuse the values I use to calculate f(3) to calculate f(4)...and the pattern continues...
f(3) = f(2) + 2f(1) + 3f(0)
↘ ↘
f(4) = f(3) + 2f(2) + 3f(1)
↘ ↘
f(5) = f(4) + 2f(3) + 3f(2)
Since we will reuse them, lets give them a name a, b, c. subscripted with the step we are on, and walk through a calculation of f(5):
Step 1: f(3) = f(2) + 2f(1) + 3f(0) or f(3) = a1 + 2b1 +3c1
where
a1 = f(2) = 2,
b1 = f(1) = 1,
c1 = 0
since f(n) = n for n < 3.
Thus:
f(3) = a1 + 2b1 + 3c1 = 4
Step 2: f(4) = f(3) + 2a1 + 3b1
So:
a2 = f(3) = 4 (calculated above in step 1),
b2 = a1 = f(2) = 2,
c2 = b1 = f(1) = 1
Thus:
f(4) = 4 + 2*2 + 3*1 = 11
Step 3: f(5) = f(4) + 2a2 + 3b2
So:
a3 = f(4) = 11 (calculated above in step 2),
b3 = a2 = f(3) = 4,
c3 = b2 = f(2) = 2
Thus:
f(5) = 11 + 2*4 + 3*2 = 25
Throughout the above calculation we capture state in the previous calculation and pass it to the next step,
particularily:
astep = result of step - 1
bstep = astep - 1
cstep = bstep -1
Once I saw this, then coming up with the iterative version was straightforward.
Since the post you linked to describes a lot about the solution, I'll try to only give complementary information.
You're trying to define a tail-recursive function in Scheme here, given a (non-tail) recursive definition.
The base case of the recursion (f(n) = n if n < 3) is handled by both functions. I'm not really sure why the author does this; the first function could simply be:
(define (f n)
(f-iter 2 1 0 n))
The general form would be:
(define (f-iter ... n)
(if (base-case? n)
base-result
(f-iter ...)))
Note I didn't fill in parameters for f-iter yet, because you first need to understand what state needs to be passed from one iteration to another.
Now, let's look at the dependencies of the recursive form of f(n). It references f(n - 1), f(n - 2), and f(n - 3), so we need to keep around these values. And of course we need the value of n itself, so we can stop iterating over it.
So that's how you come up with the tail-recursive call: we compute f(n) to use as f(n - 1), rotate f(n - 1) to f(n - 2) and f(n - 2) to f(n - 3), and decrement count.
If this still doesn't help, please try to ask a more specific question — it's really hard to answer when you write "I don't understand" given a relatively thorough explanation already.
I'm going to come at this in a slightly different approach to the other answers here, focused on how coding style can make the thought process behind an algorithm like this easier to comprehend.
The trouble with Bill's approach, quoted in your question, is that it's not immediately clear what meaning is conveyed by the state variables, a, b, and c. Their names convey no information, and Bill's post does not describe any invariant or other rule that they obey. I find it easier both to formulate and to understand iterative algorithms if the state variables obey some documented rules describing their relationships to each other.
With this in mind, consider this alternative formulation of the exact same algorithm, which differs from Bill's only in having more meaningful variable names for a, b and c and an incrementing counter variable instead of a decrementing one:
(define (f n)
(if (< n 3)
n
(f-iter n 2 0 1 2)))
(define (f-iter n
i
f-of-i-minus-2
f-of-i-minus-1
f-of-i)
(if (= i n)
f-of-i
(f-iter n
(+ i 1)
f-of-i-minus-1
f-of-i
(+ f-of-i
(* 2 f-of-i-minus-1)
(* 3 f-of-i-minus-2)))))
Suddenly the correctness of the algorithm - and the thought process behind its creation - is simple to see and describe. To calculate f(n):
We have a counter variable i that starts at 2 and climbs to n, incrementing by 1 on each call to f-iter.
At each step along the way, we keep track of f(i), f(i-1) and f(i-2), which is sufficient to allow us to calculate f(i+1).
Once i=n, we are done.
What did help me was running the process manually using a pencil and using hint author gave for the fibonacci example
a <- a + b
b <- a
Translating this to new problem is how you push state forward in the process
a <- a + (b * 2) + (c * 3)
b <- a
c <- b
So you need a function with an interface to accept 3 variables: a, b, c. And it needs to call itself using process above.
(define (f-iter a b c)
(f-iter (+ a (* b 2) (* c 3)) a b))
If you run and print each variable for each iteration starting with (f-iter 1 0 0), you'll get something like this (it will run forever of course):
a b c
=========
1 0 0
1 1 0
3 1 1
8 3 1
17 8 3
42 17 8
100 42 17
235 100 42
...
Can you see the answer? You get it by summing columns b and c for each iteration. I must admit I found it by doing some trail and error. Only thing left is having a counter to know when to stop, here is the whole thing:
(define (f n)
(f-iter 1 0 0 n))
(define (f-iter a b c count)
(if (= count 0)
(+ b c)
(f-iter (+ a (* b 2) (* c 3)) a b (- count 1))))
A function f is defined by the rule that f(n) = n, if n<3 and f(n) = f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3), if n > 3. Write a procedure that computes f by means of a recursive process.
It is already written:
f(n) = n, (* if *) n < 3
= f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3), (* if *) n > 3
Believe it or not, there was once such a language. To write this down in another language is just a matter of syntax. And by the way, the definition as you (mis)quote it has a bug, which is now very apparent and clear.
Write a procedure that computes f by means of an iterative process.
Iteration means going forward (there's your explanation!) as opposed to the recursion's going backwards at first, to the very lowest level, and then going forward calculating the result on the way back up:
f(0) = 0
f(1) = 1
f(2) = 2
f(n) = f(n - 1) + 2f(n - 2) + 3f(n - 3)
= a + 2b + 3c
f(n+1) = f(n ) + 2f(n - 1) + 3f(n - 2)
= a' + 2b' + 3c' where
a' = f(n) = a+2b+3c,
b' = f(n-1) = a,
c' = f(n-2) = b
......
This thus describes the problem's state transitions as
(n, a, b, c) -> (n+1, a+2*b+3*c, a, b)
We could code it as
g (n, a, b, c) = g (n+1, a+2*b+3*c, a, b)
but of course it wouldn't ever stop. So we must instead have
f n = g (2, 2, 1, 0)
where
g (k, a, b, c) = g (k+1, a+2*b+3*c, a, b), (* if *) k < n
g (k, a, b, c) = a, otherwise
and this is already exactly like the code you asked about, up to syntax.
Counting up to n is more natural here, following our paradigm of "going forward", but counting down to 0 as the code you quote does is of course entirely equivalent.
The corner cases and possible off-by-one errors are left out as exercise non-interesting technicalities.