I'm working on an embedded project where I have to write a time-out value into two byte registers of some micro-chip.
The time-out is defined as:
timeout = REG_a * (REG_b +1)
I want to program these registers using an integer in the range of 256 to lets say 60000. I am looking for an algorithm which, given a timeout-value, calculates REG_a and REG_b.
If an exact solution is impossible, I'd like to get the next possible larger time-out value.
What have I done so far:
My current solution calculates:
temp = integer_square_root (timeout) +1;
REG_a = temp;
REG_b = temp-1;
This results in values that work well in practice. However I'd like to see if you guys could come up with a more optimal solution.
Oh, and I am memory constrained, so large tables are out of question. Also the running time is important, so I can't simply brute-force the solution.
You could use the code used in that answer Algorithm to find the factors of a given Number.. Shortest Method? to find a factor of timeout.
n = timeout
initial_n = n
num_factors = 1;
for (i = 2; i * i <= initial_n; ++i) // for each number i up until the square root of the given number
{
power = 0; // suppose the power i appears at is 0
while (n % i == 0) // while we can divide n by i
{
n = n / i // divide it, thus ensuring we'll only check prime factors
++power // increase the power i appears at
}
num_factors = num_factors * (power + 1) // apply the formula
}
if (n > 1) // will happen for example for 14 = 2 * 7
{
num_factors = num_factors * 2 // n is prime, and its power can only be 1, so multiply the number of factors by 2
}
REG_A = num_factor
The first factor will be your REG_A, so then you need to find another value that multiplied equals timeout.
for (i=2; i*num_factors != timeout;i++);
REG_B = i-1
Interesting problem, Nils!
Suppose you start by fixing one of the values, say Reg_a, then compute Reg_b by division with roundup: Reg_b = ((timeout + Reg_a-1) / Reg_a) -1.
Then you know you're close, but how close? Well the upper bound on the error would be Reg_a, right? Because the error is the remainder of the division.
If you make one of factors as small as possible, then compute the other factor, you'd be making that upper bound on the error as small as possible.
On the other hand, by making the two factors close to the square root, you're making the divisor as large as possible, and therefore making the error as large as possible!
So:
First, what is the minimum value for Reg_a? (timeout + 255) / 256;
Then compute Reg_b as above.
This won't be the absolute minimum combination in all cases, but it should be better than using the square root, and faster, too.
Related
int recursiveFunc(int n) {
if (n == 1) return 0;
for (int i = 2; i < n; i++)
if (n % i == 0) return i + recursiveFunc(n / i);
return n;
}
I know Complexity = length of tree from root node to leaf node * number of leaf nodes, but having hard time to come to an equation.
This one is tricky, because the runtime is highly dependent on what number you provide in as input in a way that most recursive functions are not.
For starters, notice that the way that this recursion works, it takes in a number and then either
returns without making any further calls if the number is prime, or
recursively calls itself on number divided by that proper factor.
This means that in one case, the function, called on a number n, will do Θ(n) work and make no calls (which happens if the number is prime), and in the other case will do Θ(d) work and then make a recursive call on the number n / d, which happens if n is composite and is the largest divisor of n.
One useful fact we'll use to analyze this function is that given a composite number n, the smallest factor d of n is never any greater than √n. If it were, then we would have that n = df for some other factor f, and since d is the smallest proper divisor, we'd have that f ≥ d, so df > √n √ n = n, which would be impossible.
With that in mind, we can argue that the worst-case runtime of this function is O(n), and in fact that happens when n is prime. Here's how to see this. Imagine the worst-case amount of time this function can take if it ends up making a recursive call. In that case, the function will do at most Θ(√n) work (let's assume our smallest divisor is as large as possible), then recursively makes a call on a number whose size is at most n / 2 (which is the absolute largest number we could get as part of the recursive call. In that case, we'd get this recurrence relation under the pessimistic assumption that we do the maximum work possible
T(n) = T(n / 2) + √n
This solves, by the Master Theorem, to Θ(√n), which is less work than what we'd do if we had a prime number as an input.
But what happens if, instead, we do the maximum amount of work possible for some number of iterations, and then end up with a prime number and stop? In that case, using the iteration method, we'd see that the work done would be
n1/2 + n1/4 + ... + n / 2k,
which would happen if we stopped after k iterations. In this case, notice that this expression is maximized when we pick k to be as small as possible - which would correspond to stopping as soon as possible, which happens if we pick a prime number for n.
So in this sense, the worst-case runtime of this function is Θ(n), which happens for n being a prime number, with composite numbers terminating much faster than this.
So how fast can this function be? Well, imagine, for example, that we have a number of the form pk, where p is some prime number. In that case, this function will do Θ(p) work to discover p as a prime factor, then recursively call itself on the number pk-1. If you think about what this will look like, this function will end up doing Θ(p) work Θ(k) times for a total runtime of Θ(pk). And since n = pk, we'd have k = logp n, so the runtime would be Θ(p logp n). That's minimized at either p = 2 or p = 3, and in either case gives us a runtime of Θ(log n) in this case.
I strongly suspect that's the best case here, though I'm not entirely sure. But what this does mean is that
the worst-case runtime is definitely Θ(n), occurring at prime numbers, and
the best-case runtime is O(log n), which I'm fairly certain is a tight bound but I'm not 100% sure how to prove.
Original problem:
Let N be a positive integer (actually, N <= 2000) and P - set of all possible partitions of the N, where with and . Let A be the number of partitions . Find the A.
Input: N. Output: A - the number of partitions .
What have I tried:
I think that this problem can be solved by dynamic-based algorithm. Let p(n,a,b) be the function, which returns the number of partitons of n using only numbers a. . .b. Then we can compute the A with the code like:
int Ans = 2; // the 1+1+...+1=N & N=N partitions
for(int a = 2; a <= N/2; a += 1){ //a - from 2 to N/2
int b = a*2-1;
Ans += p[N][a][b]; // add all partitions using a..b to Answer
if(a < (a-1)*2-1){ // if a < previous b [ (a-1)*2-1 ]
Ans -= p[N][a][(a-1)*2-1]; // then we counted number of partitions
} // using numbers a..prev_b twice.
}
Next I tried to find the dynamic algorithm computing p(n,a,b) for any integer a <= b <= n. This paper (.pdf) provides the folowing algorithm:
, were I(n<=b) = 1 if n<=b and =0 otherwise.
Question(s):
How should I realize the algorithm from the paper? I'm new at d-p problems and as I can see, this problem has 3 dimensions (n,a & b), which is quite tricky for me.
How actually that algorithm works? I know how work the algorithms for computing p(n,0,b) or p(n,a,n), but a little explanation for p(n,a,b) will be very helpful.
Does original problem have simpler solution? I'm quite sure that there's another clean solution, but I didn't found it.
I calculated all A(1)-A(600) in 23 seconds with memoization approach (top-down dynamic programming). 3D table requires 1.7 GB of memory.
For reference: A[50] = 278, A(200)=465202, A(600)=38860513616
N=2000 requires too large table for 32-bit environment, and map approach worked too slow.
I can make 2D table with reasonable size, but this approach requires table zeroing at every iteration of external loop - slow again.
A(1000) = 107292471486730 in 131 sec. And I think that long arithmetic might be needed for larger values to avoid Int64 overflow.
In a recent interview, I was asked this question. I gave the solution by running a loop and checking every one of the x bits by right-shifting 1 every time.
Then he asked if I can do this without running a loop. I tried various approaches but could not find a solution. Can here any bit-fiddling expert help me out?
Example - if num = 15 and x = 2 then result should be true because 1st 2 bits are set in 15(01111).
Thanks
I think following (Java implementation) should work:
/** Returns true if the least significant x bits in n are set */
public static boolean areLSBSet(int n, int x) {
// validate x, n
int y = (1<<x) - 1;
return (n & y) == y;
}
The idea is to quickly find out the number that is 2^x - 1 (this number has all the x least significant bits set) and then taking the bitwise-and with given number n which will give the same number only if exactly that many bits in n are set.
I am trying to write a program to check whether a number N can be expressed as the sum of two cubes i.e. N = a^3 + b^3
This is my code with complexity O(n):
#include <iostream>
#include<math.h>
#define ll unsigned long long
using namespace std;
int main()
{
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
bool flag=false;
ll t,N;
cin>>t;
while(t--)
{
cin>>N;
flag=false;
for(int i=1; i<=(ll)cbrtl(N/2); i++)
{
if(!(cbrtl(N-i*i*i)-(ll)cbrtl(N-i*i*i))) {flag=true; break;}
}
if(flag) cout<<"Yes\n"; else cout<<"No\n";
}
return 0;
}
As the time limit for code is 2s, This program is giving TLE? can anyone suggest a faster approch
I posted this also in StackExchange, so sorry if you consider duplicate, but I really don´t know if these are the same or different boards (Exchange and Overflow). My profile appears different here.
==========================
There is a faster algorithm to check if a given integer is a sum (or difference) of two cubes n=a^3+b^3
I don´t know if this algorithm is already known (probably yes, but I can´t find it on books or internet). I discovered and use it to compute integers until n < 10^18
This process uses a single trick
4(a^3+b^3)/(a+b) = (a+b)^2 + 3(a-b)^2)
We don´t know in advance what would be "a" and "b" and so what also would be "(a+b)", but we know that "(a+b)" should certainly divide (a^3+b^3) , so if you have a fast primes factorizing routine, you can quickly compute each one of divisors of (a^3+b^3) and then check if
(4(a^3+b^3)/divisor - divisor^2)/3 = square
When (and if) found a square, you have divisor=(a+b) and sqrt(square)=(a-b) , so you have a and b.
If not square found, the number is not sum of two cubes.
We know divisor < (4(a^3+b^3)^(1/3) and this limit improves the task, because when you are assembling divisors of (a^3+b^3) immediately discard those greater than limit.
Now some comparisons with other algorithms - for n = 10^18, by using brute force you should test all numbers below 10^6 to know the answer. On the other hand, to build all divisors of 10^18 you need primes until 10^9.
The max quantity of different primes you could fit into 10^9 is 10 (2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19*23*29 = 5*10^9) so we have 2^10-1 different combinations of primes (which assemble the divisors) to check in worst case, many of them discared because limit.
To compute prime factors I use a table with first 60.000.000 primes which works very well on this range.
Miguel Velilla
To find all the pairs of integers x and y that sum to n when cubed, set x to the largest integer less than the cube root of n, set y to 0, then repeatedly add 1 to y if the sum of the cubes is less than n, subtract 1 from x if the sum of the cubes is greater than n, and output the pair otherwise, stopping when x and y cross. If you only want to know whether or not such a pair exists, you can stop as soon as you find one.
Let us know if you have trouble coding this algorithm.
I'm writing something that reads bytes (just a List<int>) from a remote random number generation source that is extremely slow. For that and my personal requirements, I want to retrieve as few bytes from the source as possible.
Now I am trying to implement a method which signature looks like:
int getRandomInteger(int min, int max)
I have two theories how I can fetch bytes from my random source, and convert them to an integer.
Approach #1 is naivé . Fetch (max - min) / 256 number of bytes and add them up. It works, but it's going to fetch a lot of bytes from the slow random number generator source I have. For example, if I want to get a random integer between a million and a zero, it's going to fetch almost 4000 bytes... that's unacceptable.
Approach #2 sounds ideal to me, but I'm unable come up with the algorithm. it goes like this:
Lets take min: 0, max: 1000 as an example.
Calculate ceil(rangeSize / 256) which in this case is ceil(1000 / 256) = 4. Now fetch one (1) byte from the source.
Scale this one byte from the 0-255 range to 0-3 range (or 1-4) and let it determine which group we use. E.g. if the byte was 250, we would choose the 4th group (which represents the last 250 numbers, 750-1000 in our range).
Now fetch another byte and scale from 0-255 to 0-250 and let that determine the position within the group we have. So if this second byte is e.g. 120, then our final integer is 750 + 120 = 870.
In that scenario we only needed to fetch 2 bytes in total. However, it's much more complex as if our range is 0-1000000 we need several "groups".
How do I implement something like this? I'm okay with Java/C#/JavaScript code or pseudo code.
I'd also like to keep the result from not losing entropy/randomness. So, I'm slightly worried of scaling integers.
Unfortunately your Approach #1 is broken. For example if min is 0 and max 510, you'd add 2 bytes. There is only one way to get a 0 result: both bytes zero. The chance of this is (1/256)^2. However there are many ways to get other values, say 100 = 100+0, 99+1, 98+2... So the chance of a 100 is much larger: 101(1/256)^2.
The more-or-less standard way to do what you want is to:
Let R = max - min + 1 -- the number of possible random output values
Let N = 2^k >= mR, m>=1 -- a power of 2 at least as big as some multiple of R that you choose.
loop
b = a random integer in 0..N-1 formed from k random bits
while b >= mR -- reject b values that would bias the output
return min + floor(b/m)
This is called the method of rejection. It throws away randomly selected binary numbers that would bias the output. If min-max+1 happens to be a power of 2, then you'll have zero rejections.
If you have m=1 and min-max+1 is just one more than a biggish power of 2, then rejections will be near half. In this case you'd definitely want bigger m.
In general, bigger m values lead to fewer rejections, but of course they require slighly more bits per number. There is a probabilitistically optimal algorithm to pick m.
Some of the other solutions presented here have problems, but I'm sorry right now I don't have time to comment. Maybe in a couple of days if there is interest.
3 bytes (together) give you random integer in range 0..16777215. You can use 20 bits from this value to get range 0..1048575 and throw away values > 1000000
range 1 to r
256^a >= r
first find 'a'
get 'a' number of bytes into array A[]
num=0
for i=0 to len(A)-1
num+=(A[i]^(8*i))
next
random number = num mod range
Your random source gives you 8 random bits per call. For an integer in the range [min,max] you would need ceil(log2(max-min+1)) bits.
Assume that you can get random bytes from the source using some function:
bool RandomBuf(BYTE* pBuf , size_t nLen); // fill buffer with nLen random bytes
Now you can use the following function to generate a random value in a given range:
// --------------------------------------------------------------------------
// produce a uniformly-distributed integral value in range [nMin, nMax]
// T is char/BYTE/short/WORD/int/UINT/LONGLONG/ULONGLONG
template <class T> T RandU(T nMin, T nMax)
{
static_assert(std::numeric_limits<T>::is_integer, "RandU: integral type expected");
if (nMin>nMax)
std::swap(nMin, nMax);
if (0 == (T)(nMax-nMin+1)) // all range of type T
{
T nR;
return RandomBuf((BYTE*)&nR, sizeof(T)) ? *(T*)&nR : nMin;
}
ULONGLONG nRange = (ULONGLONG)nMax-(ULONGLONG)nMin+1 ; // number of discrete values
UINT nRangeBits= (UINT)ceil(log((double)nRange) / log(2.)); // bits for storing nRange discrete values
ULONGLONG nR ;
do
{
if (!RandomBuf((BYTE*)&nR, sizeof(nR)))
return nMin;
nR= nR>>((sizeof(nR)<<3) - nRangeBits); // keep nRangeBits random bits
}
while (nR >= nRange); // ensure value in range [0..nRange-1]
return nMin + (T)nR; // [nMin..nMax]
}
Since you are always getting a multiple of 8 bits, you can save extra bits between calls (for example you may need only 9 bits out of 16 bits). It requires some bit-manipulations, and it is up to you do decide if it is worth the effort.
You can save even more, if you'll use 'half bits': Let's assume that you want to generate numbers in the range [1..5]. You'll need log2(5)=2.32 bits for each random value. Using 32 random bits you can actually generate floor(32/2.32)= 13 random values in this range, though it requires some additional effort.