Related
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.
I can create a recursive formula from recurrences where it only passes down one argument (something like $T(n/2)$). However, for a case like this where the value of $u$ and $v$ are different, how do I put them together? This is the problem:
The call to recursive function RecursiveFunction(n, n) for some n > 2
RecursiveFunction(a, b)
if a >= 2 and b >= 2
u=a/2
v=b-1
RecursiveFunction(u, v)
The end goal is to find the tight asymptotic bounds for the worst-case running time, but I just need a formula to start first.
There are in fact two different answers to this, depending on the relative sizes of a and b.
The function can be written as follows:
Where C is some constant work done per call (if statement, pushing u, v onto the call stack etc.). Since the two variables evolve independently, we can analyse their evolution separately.
a - consider the following function:
Expanding the iterative case by m times:
The stopping condition a < 2 is such that:
b - as before:
The complexity of T(a, b) thus depends on which variable reaches its stopping condition first, i.e. the smallest between m and n:
I have a recursive function, as follows, where b >= 0
def multiply(a,b):
if b == 0:
return 0
elif b % 2 == 0:
return multiply(2*a, b/2)
else:
return a + multiply(a, b-1)
I would like to know how many times the function will run in terms of a and b.
Thanks.
If binary representation of b (call it B) ends with 1, like xxxx1 than next call to multiply has B = xxxx0.
If B ends with 0, like xxxx0 than next value of B is xxxx.
With that, digit of binary representation of b adds one call if it is 0, and two calls if it is 1. Summing that total number of calls equals to length of initial B + number of ones in initial B.
I might be wrong here, but I think your function does not work the way you intend it. In recursion the most important thing as a propper ending criteria, since it will run forever elseways.
Now your ending criteria is a==0, but with each recursive call you do not decrease a. Just make a pen & paper simulation with a=5 and check if it would stop at any point.
Closed. This question needs debugging details. It is not currently accepting answers.
Edit the question to include desired behavior, a specific problem or error, and the shortest code necessary to reproduce the problem. This will help others answer the question.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
my question is simple... every reference I find in books and on the internet for learning R programming is presented in a very linear way with no context. When I try and learn things like functions, I see the code and my brain just freezes because it's looking for something to relate these R terms to and I have no frame of reference. I have a PhD and did a lot of statistics for my dissertation but that was years ago when we were using different programming languages and when it comes to R, I don't know why I can't get this into my head. Is there someone who can explain in plain english an example of this simple code? So for example:
above <- function(x, n){
use <- x > n
x[use]
}
x <- 1:20
above(x, 12)
## [1] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
I'm trying to understand what's going on in this code but simply don't. As a result, I could never just write this code on my own because I don't have the language in my head that explains what is happening with this. I get stuck at the first line:
above <- function(x, n) {
Can someone just explain this code sample in plain English so I have some kind of context for understanding what I'm looking at and why I'm doing what I'm doing in this code? And what I mean by plain English is, walking through the code, step by step and not just repeating the official terms from R like vector and function and array and all these other things, but telling me, in a common sense way, what this means.
Since your background ( phd in statsitics) the best way to understand this
is in mathematics words.
Mathematically speaking , you are defining a parametric function named above that extracts all element from a vector x above a certain value n. You are just filtering the set or the vector x.
In sets notation you can write something like :
above:{x,n} --> {y in x ; y>n}
Now, Going through the code and paraphrasing it (in the left the Math side , in the right its equivalent in R):
Math R
---------------- ---------------------
above: (x,n) <---> above <- function(x, n)
{y in x ; y>n} <---> x[x > n]
So to wrap all the statments together within a function you should respect a syntax :
function_name <- function(arg1,arg2) { statements}
Applying the above to this example (we have one statement here) :
above <- function(x,n) { x[x>n]}
Finally calling this function is exactly the same thing as calling a mathematical function.
above(x,2)
ok I will try, if this is too detailed let me know, but I tried to go really slowly:
above <- function(x, n)
this defines a function, which is just some procedure which produces some output given some input, the <- means assign what is on the right hand side to what is on the left hand side, or in other words put everything on the right into the object on the left, so for example container <- 1 puts 1 into the container, in this case we put a function inside the object above,
function(x, n) everything in the paranthesis specifys what inputs the function takes, so this one takes two variables x and n,
now we come to the body of the function which defines what it does with the inputs x and n, the body of the function is everything inside the curley braces:
{
use <- x > n
x[use]
}
so let's explain that piece by piece:
use <- x > n
this part again puts whats on the right side into the object on the left, and what is happening on the right hand side? a comparison returning TRUE if x is bigger than n and FALSE if x is equal to or smaller then n, so if x is 5 and n is 3 the result will be TRUE, and this value will get stored inside use, so use contains TRUE now, now if we have more than one value inside x than every value inside x will get compared to n, so for example if x = [1, 2, 3] and n = 2
than we have
1 > 2 FALSE
2 > 2 FALSE
3 > 2 TRUE
, so use will contain FALSE, FALSE, TRUE
x[use]
now we are taking a part of x, the square brackets specify which parts of x we want, so in my example case x has 3 elements and use has 3 elements if we combine them we have:
x use
1 FALSE
2 FALSE
3 TRUE
so now we say I dont want 1,2 but i want 3 and the result is 3
so now we have defined the function, now we call it, or in normal words we use it:
x <- 1:20
above(x, 12)
first we assign the numbers 1 through 20 to x, and then we tell the function above to execute (do everything inside its curley braces with the inputs x = 1:20 and n = 12, so in other words we do the following:
above(x, 12)
execute the function above with the inputs x = 1:20 and n = 12
use <- 1:20 > 12
compare 12 to every number from 1:20 and return for each comparison TRUE if the number is in fact bigger than 12 and FALSE if otherwise, than store all the results inside use
x[use]
now give me the corresponding elements of x for which the vector use contains TRUE
so:
x use
1 FALSE
2 FALSE
3 FALSE
4 FALSE
5 FALSE
6 FALSE
7 FALSE
8 FALSE
9 FALSE
10 FALSE
11 FALSE
12 FALSE
13 TRUE
14 TRUE
15 TRUE
16 TRUE
17 TRUE
18 TRUE
19 TRUE
20 TRUE
so we get the numbers 13:20 back as a result
I'll give it a crack too. A few basic points that should get you going in the right direction.
1) The idea of a function. Basically, a function is reusable code. Say I know that in my analysis for some bizarre reason I will often want to add two numbers, multiply them by a third, and divide them by a fourth. (Just suspend disbelief here.) So one way I could do that would just be to write the operation over and over, as follows:
(75 + 93)*4/18
(847 + 3)*3.1415/2.7182
(999 + 380302)*-6901834529/2.5
But that's tedious and error-prone. (What happens if I forget a parenthesis?) Alternatively, I can just define a function that takes whatever numbers I feed into it and carries out the operation. In R:
stupidMath <- function(a, b, c, d){
result <- (a + b)*c/d
}
That code says "I'd like to store this series of commands and attach them to the name "stupidMath." That's called defining a function, and when you define a function, the series of commands is just stored in memory---it doesn't actually do anything until you "call" it. "Calling" it is just ordering it to run, and when you do so, you give it "arguments" ---the stuff in the parentheses in the first line are the arguments it expects, i.e., in my example, it wants four distinct pieces of data, which will be called 'a', 'b', 'c', and 'd'.
Then it'll do the things it's supposed to do with whatever you give it. "The things it's supposed to do" is the stuff in the curly brackets {} --- that's the "body" of the function, which describes what to do with the arguments you give it. So now, whenever you want to carry that mathematical operation you can just "call" the function. To do the first computation, for example, you'd just write stupidMath(75, 93, 4, 18) Then the function gets executed, treating 75 as 'a', 83 as 'b', and so forth.
In your example, the function is named "above" and it takes two arguments, denoted 'x' and 'n'.
2) The "assignment operator": R is unique among major programming languages in using <- -- that's equivalent to = in most other languages, i.e., it says "the name on the left has the value on the right." Conceptually, it's just like how a variable in algebra works.
3) so the "body" of the function (the stuff in the curly brackets) first assigns the name "use" to the expression x > n. What's going on there. Well, an expression is something that the computer evaluates to get data. So remember that when you call the function, you give it values for x and n. The first thing this function does is figures out whether x is greater than n or less than n. If it's greater than n, it evaluates the expression x > n as TRUE. Otherwise, FALSE.
So if you were to define the function in your example and then call it with above(10, 5), then the first line of the body would set the local variable (don't worry right now about what a 'local' variable is) 'use' to be 'TRUE'. This is a boolean value.
Then the next line of the function is a "filter." Filtering is a long topic in R, but basically, R things of everything as a "vector," that is, a bunch of pieces of data in a row. A vector in R can be like a vector in linear algebra, i.e., (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 99) is a vector, but it can also be of stuff other than numbers. For now let's just focus on numbers.
The wacky thing about R (one of the many wacky things about R) is that it treats a single number (a "scalar" in linear algebra terms) just as a vector with only one item in it.
Ok, so why did I just go into that? Because in lots of places in R, a vector and a scalar are interchangable.
So in your example code, instead of giving a scalar for the first argument, when we call the function we've given 'above' a vector for its first argument. R likes vectors. R really likes vectors. (Just talk to R people for a while. They're all obsessed with doing every goddmamn thing in terms of a vector.) So it's no problem to pass a vector for the first argument. But what that means is that the variable 'use' is going to be a vector too. Specifically, 'use' is going to be a vector of booleans, i.e., of TRUE or FALSE for each individual value of X.
To take a simpler version: suppose you said:
mynums <- c(5, 10)
myresult <- above(mynums, 7)
when the code runs, the first thing it's going to do is define that 'use' variable. But x is a vector now, not a scalar (the c(5,10) code said "make a vector with two elements, and fill them with the numbers '5' and '10'), so R's going to go ahead and carry out the comparison for each element of x. Since 5 is less than 7 and 10 is greater than 7, use becomes the two item-vector of boolean values (FALSE, TRUE)
Ok, now we can talk about filtering. So a vector of boolean values is called a 'logical vector.' And the code x[use] says "filter x by the stuff in the variable use." When you tell R to filter something by a logical vector, it spits back out the elements of the thing being filtered which correspond to the values of 'TRUE'
So in the example just given:
mynums <- c(5, 10)
myresult <- above(mynums, 7)
the value of myresult will just be 10. Why? Because the function filtered 'x' by the logical vector 'use,' 'x' was (5, 10), and 'use' was (FALSE, TRUE); since the second element of the logical was the only true, you only got the second element of x.
And that gets assigned to the variable myresult because myresult <- above(mynums, 7) means "assign the name myresult to the value of above(mynums, 7)"
voila.
I can have any number row which consists from 2 to 10 numbers. And from this row, I have to get geometrical progression.
For example:
Given number row: 125 5 625 I have to get answer 5. Row: 128 8 512 I have to get answer 4.
Can you give me a hand? I don't ask for a program, just a hint, I want to understand it by myself and write a code by myself, but damn, I have been thinking the whole day and couldn't figure this out.
Thank you.
DON'T WRITE THE WHOLE PROGRAM!
Guys, you don't get it, I can't just simple make a division. I actually have to get geometrical progression + show all numbers. In 128 8 512 row all numbers would be: 8 32 128 512
Seth's answer is the right one. I'm leaving this answer here to help elaborate on why the answer to 128 8 512 is 4 because people seem to be having trouble with that.
A geometric progression's elements can be written in the form c*b^n where b is the number you're looking for (b is also necessarily greater than 1), c is a constant and n is some arbritrary number.
So the best bet is to start with the smallest number, factorize it and look at all possible solutions to writing it in the c*b^n form, then using that b on the remaining numbers. Return the largest result that works.
So for your examples:
125 5 625
Start with 5. 5 is prime, so it can be written in only one way: 5 = 1*5^1. So your b is 5. You can stop now, assuming you know the row is in fact geometric. If you need to determine whether it's geometric then test that b on the remaining numbers.
128 8 512
8 can be written in more than one way: 8 = 1*8^1, 8 = 2*2^2, 8 = 2*4^1, 8 = 4*2^1. So you have three possible values for b, with a few different options for c. Try the biggest first. 8 doesn't work. Try 4. It works! 128 = 2*4^3 and 512 = 2*4^4. So b is 4 and c is 2.
3 15 375
This one is a bit mean because the first number is prime but isn't b, it's c. So you'll need to make sure that if your first b-candidate doesn't work on the remaining numbers you have to look at the next smallest number and decompose it. So here you'd decompose 15: 15 = 15*?^0 (degenerate case), 15 = 3*5^1, 15 = 5*3^1, 15 = 1*15^1. The answer is 5, and 3 = 3*5^0, so it works out.
Edit: I think this should be correct now.
This algorithm does not rely on factoring, only on the Euclidean Algorithm, and a close variant thereof. This makes it slightly more mathematically sophisticated then a solution that uses factoring, but it will be MUCH faster. If you understand the Euclidean Algorithm and logarithms, the math should not be a problem.
(1) Sort the set of numbers. You have numbers of the form ab^{n1} < .. < ab^{nk}.
Example: (3 * 2, 3*2^5, 3*2^7, 3*2^13)
(2) Form a new list whose nth element of the (n+1)st element of the sorted list divided by the (n)th. You now have b^{n2 - n1}, b^{n3 - n2}, ..., b^{nk - n(k-1)}.
(Continued) Example: (2^4, 2^2, 2^6)
Define d_i = n_(i+1) - n_i (do not program this -- you couldn't even if you wanted to, since the n_i are unknown -- this is just to explain how the program works).
(Continued) Example: d_1 = 4, d_2 = 2, d_3 = 6
Note that in our example problem, we're free to take either (a = 3, b = 2) or (a = 3/2, b = 4). The bottom line is any power of the "real" b that divides all entries in the list from step (2) is a correct answer. It follows that we can raise b to any power that divides all the d_i (in this case any power that divides 4, 2, and 6). The problem is we know neither b nor the d_i. But if we let m = gcd(d_1, ... d_(k-1)), then we CAN find b^m, which is sufficient.
NOTE: Given b^i and b^j, we can find b^gcd(i, j) using:
log(b^i) / log(b^j) = (i log b) / (j log b) = i/j
This permits us to use a modified version of the Euclidean Algorithm to find b^gcd(i, j). The "action" is all in the exponents: addition has been replaced by multiplication, multiplication with exponentiation, and (consequently) quotients with logarithms:
import math
def power_remainder(a, b):
q = int(math.log(a) / math.log(b))
return a / (b ** q)
def power_gcd(a, b):
while b != 1:
a, b = b, power_remainder(a, b)
return a
(3) Since all the elements of the original set differ by powers of r = b^gcd(d_1, ..., d_(k-1)), they are all of the form cr^n, as desired. However, c may not be an integer. Let me know if this is a problem.
The simplest approach would be to factorize the numbers and find the greatest number they have in common. But be careful, factorization has an exponential complexity so it might stop working if you get big numbers in the row.
What you want is to know the Greatest Common Divisor of all numbers in a row.
One method is to check if they all can be divided by the smaller number in the row.
If not, try half the smaller number in the row.
Then keep going down until you find a number that divides them all or your divisor equals 1.
Seth Answer is not correct, applyin that solution does not solves 128 8 2048 row for example (2*4^x), you get:
8 128 2048 =>
16 16 =>
GCD = 16
It is true that the solution is a factor of this result but you will need to factor it and check one by one what is the correct answer, in this case you will need to check the solutions factors in reverse order 16, 8, 4, 2 until you see 4 matches all the conditions.