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
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.
So in my text book there is this example of a recursive function using f#
let rec gcd = function
| (0,n) -> n
| (m,n) -> gcd(n % m,m);;
with this function my text book gives the example by executing:
gcd(36,116);;
and since the m = 36 and not 0 then it ofcourse goes for the second clause like this:
gcd(116 % 36,36)
gcd(8,36)
gcd(36 % 8,8)
gcd(4,8)
gcd(8 % 4,4)
gcd(0,4)
and now hits the first clause stating this entire thing is = 4.
What i don't get is this (%)percentage sign/operator or whatever it is called in this connection. for an instance i don't get how
116 % 36 = 8
I have turned this so many times in my head now and I can't figure how this can turn into 8?
I know this is probably a silly question for those of you who knows this but I would very much appreciate your help the same.
% is a questionable version of modulo, which is the remainder of an integer division.
In the positive, you can think of % as the remainder of the division. See for example Wikipedia on Euclidean Divison. Consider 9 % 4: 4 fits into 9 twice. But two times four is only eight. Thus, there is a remainder of one.
If there are negative operands, % effectively ignores the signs to calculate the remainder and then uses the sign of the dividend as the sign of the result. This corresponds to the remainder of an integer division that rounds to zero, i.e. -2 / 3 = 0.
This is a mathematically unusual definition of division and remainder that has some bad properties. Normally, when calculating modulo n, adding or subtracting n on the input has no effect. Not so for this operator: 2 % 3 is not equal to (2 - 3) % 3.
I usually have the following defined to get useful remainders when there are negative operands:
/// Euclidean remainder, the proper modulo operation
let inline (%!) a b = (a % b + b) % b
So far, this operator was valid for all cases I have encountered where a modulo was needed, while the raw % repeatedly wasn't. For example:
When filling rows and columns from a single index, you could calculate rowNumber = index / nCols and colNumber = index % nCols. But if index and colNumber can be negative, this mapping becomes invalid, while Euclidean division and remainder remain valid.
If you want to normalize an angle to (0, 2pi), angle %! (2. * System.Math.PI) does the job, while the "normal" % might give you a headache.
Because
116 / 36 = 3
116 - (3*36) = 8
Basically, the % operator, known as the modulo operator will divide a number by other and give the rest if it can't divide any longer. Usually, the first time you would use it to understand it would be if you want to see if a number is even or odd by doing something like this in f#
let firstUsageModulo = 55 %2 =0 // false because leaves 1 not 0
When it leaves 8 the first time means that it divided you 116 with 36 and the closest integer was 8 to give.
Just to help you in future with similar problems: in IDEs such as Xamarin Studio and Visual Studio, if you hover the mouse cursor over an operator such as % you should get a tooltip, thus:
Module operator tool tip
Even if you don't understand the tool tip directly, it'll give you something to google.
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 lack the math skills to make this function.
basically, i want to return 2 random prime numbers that when multiplied, yield a number of bits X given as argument.
for example:
if I say my X is 3 then a possible solution would be:
p = 2 and q = 3 becouse 2 * 3 = 6 (110 has 3 bits).
A problem with this statement is that it starts by asking for two "random" prime numbers. Without any explicit statement of the distribution of the required random primes, we are already stuck. (This is the beginning of a classic paradox, where we are asked to generate a "random" integer.)
But suppose that we change the statement to finding any two arbitrary primes, that yield the desired product with a given number of bits x. The answer is trivial.
The set of numbers that have exactly x bits in their binary representation is the half open set of integers [2^(x-1),2^x-1].
Choose an arbitrary prime number that is less than or equal to (2^x-1)/2. Call it p1.
Next, choose a second prime number that lies in the interval (2^(x-1)/p1,(2^x-1)/p1). Call it p2.
It must be true that p1*p2 will be in the desired interval.
For example, given x = 10, so the product must lie in the interval [512,1023], the set of integers with exactly 10 bits. (Note, there are apparently 147 such numbers in that interval, with exactly two prime factors.)
Step 1:
Choose p1 as any prime no larger than 1023/2 = 511.5. I'll pick p1 = 137. Then the second prime factor must be a prime that lies in the interval
[512 1023]/137
ans =
3.7372 7.4672
thus either 5 or 7.
dec2bin(137*[5 7])
ans =
1010101101
1110111111
If you know the number of bits, you can generate a number 2^(x-2) < x < 2^(x-1). Then take the square root and find the closest primes on either side of it. Multiplying them together will, in most cases, get you a number in the correct range. If it's too high, you can take the two primes directly on the lower side of it.
pseudocode:
x = bits
primelist[] = makeprimelist()
rand = randnum between 2^(x-2) and 2^(x-1)
n = findposition(primelist, rand)
do
result = primelist[n]*primelist[n+1]
n--
while result > 2^(x-1)
Note that numbers generated this way will allways have '1' as the highest significant bit, so would be possible to generate a number of x-1 bits and just tack the 1 onto the end.
This is actually for a programming contest, but I've tried really hard and haven't got even the faintest clue how to do this.
Find the first and last k digits of nm where n and m can be very large ~ 10^9.
For the last k digits I implemented modular exponentiation.
For the first k I thought of using the binomial theorem upto certain powers but that involves quite a lot of computation for factorials and I'm not sure how to find an optimal point at which n^m can be expanded as (x+y)m.
So is there any known method to find the first k digits without performing the entire calculation?
Update 1 <= k <= 9 and k will always be <= digits in nm
not sure, but the identity nm = exp10(m log10(n)) = exp(q (m log(n)/q)) where q = log(10) comes to mind, along with the fact that the first K digits of exp10(x) = the first K digits of exp10(frac(x)) where frac(x) = the fractional part of x = x - floor(x).
To be more explicit: the first K digits of nm are the first K digits of its mantissa = exp(frac(m log(n)/q) * q), where q = log(10).
Or you could even go further in this accounting exercise, and use exp((frac(m log(n)/q)-0.5) * q) * sqrt(10), which also has the same mantissa (+ hence same first K digits) so that the argument of the exp() function is centered around 0 (and between +/- 0.5 log 10 = 1.151) for speedy convergence.
(Some examples: suppose you wanted the first 5 digits of 2100. This equals the first 5 digits of exp((frac(100 log(2)/q)-0.5)*q)*sqrt(10) = 1.267650600228226. The actual value of 2100 is 1.267650600228229e+030 according to MATLAB, I don't have a bignum library handy. For the mantissa of 21,000,000,000 I get 4.612976044195602 but I don't really have a way of checking.... There's a page on Mersenne primes where someone's already done the hard work; 220996011-1 = 125,976,895,450... and my formula gives 1.259768950493908 calculated in MATLAB which fails after the 9th digit.)
I might use Taylor series (for exp and log, not for nm) along with their error bounds, and keep adding terms until the error bounds drop below the first K digits. (normally I don't use Taylor series for function approximation -- their error is optimized to be most accurate around a single point, rather than over a desired interval -- but they do have the advantage that they're mathematically simple, and you can increased accuracy to arbitrary precision simply by adding additional terms)
For logarithms I'd use whatever your favorite approximation is.
Well. We want to calculate and to get only n first digits.
Calculate by the following iterations:
You have .
Calcluate each not exactly.
The thing is that the relative error of is less
than n times relative error of a.
You want to get final relative error less than .
Thus relative error on each step may be .
Remove last digits at each step.
For example, a=2, b=16, n=1. Final relative error is 10^{-n} = 0,1.
Relative error on each step is 0,1/16 > 0,001.
Thus 3 digits is important on each step.
If n = 2, you must save 4 digits.
2 (1), 4 (2), 8 (3), 16 (4), 32 (5), 64 (6), 128 (7), 256 (8), 512 (9), 1024 (10) --> 102,
204 (11), 408 (12), 816 (13), 1632 (14) -> 163, 326 (15), 652 (16).
Answer: 6.
This algorithm has a compexity of O(b). But it is easy to change it to get
O(log b)
Suppose you truncate at each step? Not sure how accurate this would be, but, e.g., take
n=11
m=some large number
and you want the first 2 digits.
recursively:
11 x 11 -> 121, truncate -> 12 (1 truncation or rounding)
then take truncated value and raise again
12 x 11 -> 132 truncate -> 13
repeat,
(132 truncated ) x 11 -> 143.
...
and finally add #0's equivalent to the number of truncations you've done.
Have you taken a look at exponentiation by squaring? You might be able to modify one of the methods such that you only compute what's necessary.
In my last algorithms class we had to implement something similar to what you're doing and I vaguely remember that page being useful.