Complete the following function to return a list of strings lesser than 999 which form prime numbers from a given string of numbers.
For example if the given string is “23167”. All the prime numbers less than or equal to 999 in the string are 2,3,23,31,7,167. So, your function must return [2,3,23,31,7,167]. Although 23167 is a prime number we can ignore it because it is greater than 999.
Output: should be list of integers
def primenumber_from_string(string1):
#your code goes here
return []
if _name=='main_':
#you can run any test cases here
print(primenumber_from_string("8487934"))
Approach the problem systematically. Start with all the possible one-digit numbers, and check if they are prime. Then try all the possible two-digit numbers and see if they are prime. Then try all the possible three-digit numbers and check them all. Lastly show your accumulated results in the expected format.
So it's a basic algorithmic problem.
I'll give you some pseudo - code.
At this point, I'll only give you Brut-force solution, but I'll think about "proper" approach.
So:
Take first digit -> check
Second -> check
Third -> check
{ ... }
compose two digit numbers -> check.
When this is completed, put them into your list.
For checking if number is prime fast ( O(sqrt(N)) ) you can use this function:
## Made by kam021m on: 12.12.2019 ##
## Resources used:
## * GeeksForGeeks article how to check primes fast
## *
def is_prime(n):
if n == 1:
return False
i = 2
while i*i <= n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
This basically checks if number is prime by % (i) when i is lower than sqrt from n.
If I'll find faster solution, I will post it here.
EDIT 1: also wanted to ask, is it your homework or sth? Do you have time limits on it?
Related
I'm having trouble finding the smallest number possible from the following question:
Matchsticks are ideal tools to represent numbers. A common way to represent the ten decimal digits with matchsticks is the following:
This is identical to how numbers are displayed on an ordinary alarm clock. With a given number of matchsticks you can generate a wide range of numbers. We are wondering what the smallest and largest numbers are that can be created by using all your matchsticks.
Input:
On the first line one positive number: the number of testcases, at most 100. After that per testcase:
One line with an integer n (2 <= n <= 100): the number of matchsticks you have.
Output:
Per testcase:
One line with the smallest and largest numbers you can create, separated by a single space. Both numbers should be positive and contain no leading zeroes.
I've tried multiple different ways to try to solve this problem, I'm currently trying to:
find the minimal number of digits needed for the smallest number
send digit to a function minimum() which should generate all the different combinations of numbers that are the length of digits. I want to store all these numbers in a list and then take min() to get the smallest one. I'm not getting this part to work, and would appreciate some inspiration.
Something to remember is that the number can't start with a 0.
if 2 <= n <= 100:
value = (n+6)//7
Unless I'm mistaken, this should work for part 2 (added a fix for 17, 24...):
numdict = {2:1,3:7,4:4,5:2,6:0,7:8,8:10,9:18,10:22,11:20,12:28,13:68}
def min_stick(n):
if 2 <= n <= 13:
return numdict[n]
digits = (n + 6) // 7
base = str(numdict[7+n%7])
if base == '22':
base = '200'
return int(base+"8"*(digits - len(base)))
And, though this one's a no-brainer:
def max_stick(n):
if n%2:
return int("7"+"1"*((n-3)//2))
return int("1"*(n//2))
Ok, so just for the sake of it, I coded what you asked: a recursive function that returns all possible combinations with n matchsticks.
stick = {0:6,1:2,2:5,3:5,4:4,5:5,6:6,7:3,8:7,9:6}
def decompose(n):
retlist = []
if n==0:
return [""]
for i in stick:
if (left := n-stick[i]) >1 or left == 0:
retlist += [str(i)+el for el in decompose(left)]
return retlist
def extr_stick(n):
purged_list = [int(i) for i in decompose(n) if not i.startswith('0')]
return min(purged_list), max(purged_list)
It becomes slow when n grows, but anyway...
extr_stick2(30)
Out[18]: (18888, 111111111111111)
I wrote a code to solve the following algorithm question:
Given a number of positive integers all larger than 1, find the maximum number of pairs whose sum is a prime number. The number of positive integers is always an even number.
For example, given 2 5 6 13 2 11, the answer is 3 since 2+5=7, 6+13=19, 2+11=13.
I wrote the following code to solve the problem. I know this is not the optimal algorithm, but I just cannot find the bug in it that results in my failure in test cases.
def _isPrime(num):
for i in range(2, int(num**0.5)+1):
if num % i==0:
return False
return True
def findPairs(odds, evens, pairDict):
if len(odds)==0 or len(evens)==0:
return 0
key=' '.join(list(map(str, odds+evens)))
if key in pairDict:
return pairDict[key]
n=0
for i in range(len(evens)):
newOdds=odds.copy()
newEvens=evens.copy()
del newOdds[0]
del newEvens[i]
if _isPrime(odds[0]+evens[i]):
n=max(n,findPairs(newOdds, newEvens, pairDict)+1)
else:
n=max(n,findPairs(newOdds, newEvens,pairDict))
pairDict[key]=n
return n
numbers=list(map(int,input().split()))
odds=[i for i in numbers if i%2==1]
evens=[j for j in numbers if j%2==0]
pairDict={}
print(findPairs(odds,evens,pairDict))
Can someone help me find where the problem is. Thanks a lot!
The problem is that the recursion always tries to match the first odd number with some even number. This can go wrong if there are fewer even numbers than odd numbers because it will use up an even number that could have been used for a later match.
For example, consider "13 2 3". This code will return 0, but 2+3 is a prime.
You could fix it by also allowing an extra recursion case where the first odd number is discarded without reducing the even list.
del newOdds[0]
n=max(n,findPairs(newOdds, newEvens, pairDict)) # added line
del newEvens[i]
I'm new to both Python and StackOverflow so I apologise if this question has been repeated too much or if it's not a good question. I'm doing a beginner's Python course and one of the tasks I have to do is to make a function that finds the next prime number after a given input. This is what I have so far:
def nextPrime(n):
num = n + 1
for i in range(1, 500):
for j in range(2, num):
if num%j == 0:
num = num + 1
return num
When I run it on the site's IDE, it's fine and everything works well but then when I submit the task, it says the runtime was too long and that I should optimise my code. But I'm not really sure how to do this, so would it be possible to get some feedback or any suggestions on how to make it run faster?
When your function finds the answer, it will continue checking the same number hundreds of times. This is why it is taking so long. Also, when you increase num, you should break out of the nested loop to that the new number is checked against the small factors first (which is more likely to eliminate it and would accelerate progress).
To make this simpler and more efficient, you should break down your problem in areas of concern. Checking if a number is prime or not should be implemented in its own separate function. This will make the code of your nextPrime() function much simpler:
def nextPrime(n):
n += 1
while not isPrime(n): n += 1
return n
Now you only need to implement an efficient isPrime() function:
def isPrime(x):
p,inc = 2,1
while p*p <= x:
if x % p == 0: return False
p,inc = p+inc,2
return x > 1
Looping from 1 to 500, especially because another loop runs through it, is not only inefficient, but also confines the range of the possible "next prime number" that you're trying to find. Therefore, you should make use of while loop and break which can be used to break out of the loop whenever you have found the prime number (of course, if it's stated that the number is less than 501 in the prompt, your approach totally makes sense).
Furthermore, you can make use of the fact that you only need check the integers less than or equal to the square root of the designated integer (which in python, is represented as num**0.5) to determine if that integer is prime, as the divisors of the integers always come in pair and the largest of the smaller divisor is always a square root, if it exists.
2 days ago i started practicing python 2.7 on Codewars.com and i came across a really interesting problem, the only thing is i think it's a bit too much for my level of python knowledge. I actually did solve it in the end but the site doesn't accept my solution because it takes too much time to complete when you call it with large numbers, so here is the code:
from itertools import permutations
def next_bigger(n):
digz =list(str(n))
nums =permutations(digz, len(digz))
nums2 = []
for i in nums:
z =''
for b in range(0,len(i)):
z += i[b]
nums2.append(int(z))
nums2 = list(set(nums2))
nums2.sort()
try:
return nums2[nums2.index(n)+1]
except:
return -1
"You have to create a function that takes a positive integer number and returns the next bigger number formed by the same digits" - These were the original instructions
Also, at one point i decided to forgo the whole permutations idea, and in the middle of this second attempt i realized that there's no way it would work:
def next_bigger(n):
for i in range (1,11):
c1 = n % (10**i) / (10**(i-1))
c2 = n % (10**(i+1)) / (10**i)
if c1 > c2:
return ((n /(10**(i+1)))*10**(i+1)) + c1 *(10**i) + c2*(10**(i-1)) + n % (10**(max((i-1),0)))
break
if anybody has any ideas, i'm all-ears and if you hate my code, please do tell, because i really want to get better at this.
stolen from http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/find-next-greater-number-set-digits/
Following are few observations about the next greater number.
1) If all digits sorted in descending order, then output is always “Not Possible”. For example, 4321.
2) If all digits are sorted in ascending
order, then we need to swap last two digits. For example, 1234.
3) For
other cases, we need to process the number from rightmost side (why?
because we need to find the smallest of all greater numbers)
You can now try developing an algorithm yourself.
Following is the algorithm for finding the next greater number.
I)
Traverse the given number from rightmost digit, keep traversing till
you find a digit which is smaller than the previously traversed digit.
For example, if the input number is “534976”, we stop at 4 because 4
is smaller than next digit 9. If we do not find such a digit, then
output is “Not Possible”.
II) Now search the right side of above found digit ‘d’ for the
smallest digit greater than ‘d’. For “534976″, the right side of 4
contains “976”. The smallest digit greater than 4 is 6.
III) Swap the above found two digits, we get 536974 in above example.
IV) Now sort all digits from position next to ‘d’ to the end of
number. The number that we get after sorting is the output. For above
example, we sort digits in bold 536974. We get “536479” which is the
next greater number for input 534976.
"formed by the same digits" - there's a clue that you have to break the number into digits: n = list(str(n))
"next bigger". The fact that they want the very next item means that you want to make the least change. Focus on changing the 1s digit. If that doesn't work, try the 10's digit, then the 100's, etc. The smallest change you can make is to exchange two furthest digits to the right that will increase the value of the integer. I.e. exchange the two right-most digits in which the more right-most is bigger.
def next_bigger(n):
n = list(str(n))
for i in range(len(n)-1, -1, -1):
for j in range(i-1, -1, -1):
if n[i] > n[j]:
n[i], n[j] = n[j], n[i]
return int("".join(n))
print next_bigger(123)
Oops. This fails for next_bigger(1675). I'll leave the buggy code here for a while, for whatever it is worth.
How about this? See in-line comments for explanations. Note that the way this is set up, you don't end up with any significant memory use (we're not storing any lists).
from itertools import permutations
#!/usr/bin/python3
def next_bigger(n):
# set next_bigger to an arbitrarily large value to start: see the for-loop
next_bigger = float('inf')
# this returns a generator for all the integers that are permutations of n
# we want a generator because when the potential number of permutations is
# large, we don't want to store all of them in memory.
perms = map(lambda x: int(''.join(x)), permutations(str(n)))
for p in perms:
if (p > n) and (p <= next_bigger):
# we can find the next-largest permutation by going through all the
# permutations, selecting the ones that are larger than n, and then
# selecting the smallest from them.
next_bigger = p
return next_bigger
Note that this is still a brute-force algorithm, even if implemented for speed. Here is an example result:
time python3 next_bigger.py 3838998888
3839888889
real 0m2.475s
user 0m2.476s
sys 0m0.000s
If your code needs to be faster yet, then you'll need a smarter, non-brute-force algorithm.
You don't need to look at all the permutations. Take a look at the two permutations of the last two digits. If you have an integer greater than your integer, that's it. If not, take a look at the permutations of the last three digits, etc.
from itertools import permutations
def next_bigger(number):
check = 2
found = False
digits = list(str(number))
if sorted(digits, reverse=True) == digits:
raise ValueError("No larger number")
while not found:
options = permutations(digits[-1*check:], check)
candidates = list()
for option in options:
new = digits.copy()[:-1*check]
new.extend(option)
candidate = int(''.join(new))
if candidate > number:
candidates.append(candidate)
if candidates:
result = sorted(candidates)[0]
found = True
return result
check += 1
I am writing a code to find the largest prime factor of a very large number.
Problem 3 of Project Euler :
What is the largest prime factor of the number 600851475143 ?
I coded it in C...but the data type long long int is not sufficient enough to hold the value .
Now, I have rewritten the code in Python. How can I reduce the time taken for execution (as it is taking a considerable amount of time)?
def isprime(b):
x=2
while x<=b/2:
if(b%x)==0:
return 0
x+=1
return 1
def lpf(a):
x=2
i=2
while i<=a/2:
if a%i==0:
if isprime(i)==1:
if i>x:
x=i
print(x)
i+=1
print("final answer"+x)
z=600851475143
lpf(z)
There are many possible algorithmic speed ups. Some basic ones might be:
First, if you are only interested in the largest prime factor, you should check for them from the largest possible ones, not smallest. So instead of looping from 2 to a/2 try to check from a downto 2.
You could load the database of primes instead of using isprime function (there are dozens of such files in the net)
Also, only odd numbers can be primes (except for 2) so you can "jump" 2 values in each iteration
Your isprime checker could also be speededup, you do not have to look for divisiors up to b/2, it is enough to check to sqrt(b), which reduces complexity from O(n) to O(sqrt(n)) (assuming that modulo operation is constant time).
You could use the 128 int provided by GCC: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fint128.html . This way, you can continue to use C and avoid having to optimize Python's speed. In addition, you can always add your own custom storage type to hold numbers bigger than long long in C.
I think you're checking too many numbers (incrementing by 1 and starting at 2 in each case). If you want to check is_prime by trial division, you need to divide by fewer numbers: only odd numbers to start (better yet, only primes). You can range over odd numbers in python the following way:
for x in range(3, some_limit, 2):
if some_number % x == 0:
etc.
In addition, once you have a list of primes, you should be able to run through that list backwards (because the question asks for highest prime factor) and test if any of those primes evenly divides into the number.
Lastly, people usually go up to the square-root of a number when checking trial division because anything past the square-root is not going to provide new information. Consider 100:
1 x 100
2 x 50
5 x 20
10 x 10
20 x 5
etc.
You can find all the important divisor information by just checking up to the square root of the number. This tip is useful both for testing primes and for testing where to start looking for a potential divisor for that huge number.
First off, your two while loops only need to go up to the sqrt(n) since you will have hit anything past that earlier (you then need to check a/i for primeness as well). In addition, if you find the lowest number that divides it, and the result of the division is prime, then you have found the largest.
First, correct your isprime function:
def isprime(b):
x=2
sqrtb = sqrt(b)
while x<=sqrtb:
if(b%x)==0:
return 0
x+=1
return 1
Then, your lpf:
def lpf(a):
x=2
i=2
sqrta = sqrt(a)
while i<=sqrt(a):
if a%i==0:
b = a//i # integer
if isprime(b):
return b
if isprime(i):
x=i
print(x)
i+=1
return x