I am trying to find the Greatest Common Divisor of 2 numbers using for loop, when I enter 2 numbers and one is divided by second without reminder it returns a correct answer, for example GCD(18,6) returns 18 but GCD(16,6) returns 0 instead of 2, can you help me understand why it does so?
Here is what I have done so far:
best = 0 # remembers the biggest numbers seen (for that purpose, IDK if it does)
a = 16 # first number
b = 6 # second number
for i in range(1, a + b):
if i % a == 0 and i % b == 0:
best = i
print(best)
Your modulo division is backwards, use a % i and b % i.
You can also do this using the Euclidean Algorithm where the smaller of the two numbers is used to divide the greater in the first step, and the divisor of the first step becomes the dividend of the next step while the remainder of the first step becomes the divisor of the next step. The process continues till a remainder of zero is gotten. The divisor that gives a remainder of zero is the GCD(https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~greenfie/gs2004/euclid.html).
def gcd(a, b):
if b == 0:
return a
else:
return gcd(b, a%b)
Related
I wrote this code and it's alright with positive numbers, but when I tried negative numbers it crashes. Can you give any hints on how to make it work with negative numbers as well? It needs to be recursive, not iterative, and to calculate the sum of the digits of an integer.
def sum_digits(n):
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
if __name__=='__main__':
print(sum_digits(123))
Input: 123
Output: 6
On the assumption that the 'sum' of the three digits of a negative number is the same as that of the absolute value of that number, this will work:
def sum_digits(n):
if n < 0:
return sum_digits(-n)
elif n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
That said, your actual problem here is that Python's handling of modulo for a negative number is different than you expect:
>>> -123 % 10
7
Why is that? It's because of the use of trunc() in the division. This page has a good explanation, but the short answer is that when you divide -123 by 10, in order to figure out the remainder, Python truncates in a different direction than you'd expect. (For good, if obscure, reasons.) Thus, in the above, instead of getting the expected 3 you get 7 (which is 10, your modulus, minus 3, the leftover).
Similarly, it's handling of integer division is different:
>>> -123 // 10
-13
>>> 123 // 10
12
This is un-intuitively correct because it is rounding 'down' rather than 'towards zero'. So a -12.3 rounds 'down' to -13.
These reasons are why the easiest solution to your particular problem is to simply take the absolute value prior to doing your actual calculation.
Separate your function into two functions: one, a recursive function that must always be called with a non-negative number, and two, a function that checks its argument can calls the recursive function with an appropriate argument.
def sum_digits(n):
return _recursive_sum_digits(abs(n))
def _recursive_sum_digits(n):
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
Since _recursive_sum_digits can assume its argument is non-negative, you can dispense with checking its sign on every recursive call, and guarantee that n // 10 will eventually produce 0.
If you want to just sum the digits that come after the negative sign, remove the sign by taking the absolute value of the number. If you're considering the first digit of the negative number to be a negative digit, then manually add that number in after performing this function on the rest of the digits.
Here is your hint. This is happening because the modulo operator always yields a result with the same sign as its second operand (or zero). Look at these examples:
>>> 13 % 10
3
>>> -13 % 10
7
In your specific case, a solution is to first get the absolute value of the number, and then you can go on with you approach:
def sum_digits(n):
n = abs(n)
if n != 0:
return (n % 10 + sum_digits(n // 10))
else:
return 0
The question: Assume the availability of a function is_prime. Assume a variable n has been associated with positive integer. Write the statements needed to find out how many prime numbers (starting with 2 and going in increasing order with successively higher primes [2,3,5,7,11,13,...]) can be added before exceeding n. Associate this number with the variable k.
The code:
def is_prime():
i = 2
k = 0
Again = True
while Again = True:
if total > n:
Again = False
for x in range(2,n):
if x % i == 0:
total = total
k = k
i += 1
else:
total += x
k += 1
return k
Your code is not correct for an issue involving prime number tracking and consecutive addition. Nor anything else. The obvious issue is that it doesn't run, so it can't be correct. One syntax bug is this:
while Again = True:
which should be:
while Again == True:
Another is that total is never initialized before it's value is used:
total += x
Once we fix those problems, your code still doesn't appear to work. But let's back up a bit. The stated problem says,
Assume the availability of a function is_prime.
But you didn't do that -- you wrote your solution with the name is_prime(). We should expect that there is a function named is_prime(n) and it tests if n is prime or not, returning True or False. You are either given this, need to find one, write one, or simply assume it exists but never actually test your code. But once you have this function, and it works, you shouldn't change it!
Here's my example is_prime(n) function:
def is_prime(n):
""" Assume the availability of a function is_prime. """
if n < 2:
return False
if n % 2 == 0:
return n == 2
for m in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if n % m == 0:
return False
return True
Now write your solution calling this function, but not changing this function. Here's one possible algorithm:
Write a function called primes_in_sum(n)
Set the variable prime to 2 and the variable k (our counter) to
0.
Subtract prime from n.
While n >= 0, increment k, and compute the next value of prime
by keep adding one to prime until is_prime(prime) returns true.
Then again subtract prime from n. Back to the top of this loop.
When the while condition fails, return k.
Test your code works by outputting some values:
for n in range(2, 100):
# Assume a variable n has been associated with a positive integer
print(n, primes_in_sum(n))
Check in your head that the results are reasonable.
For the following problem on SingPath:
Given an input of a list of numbers and a high number,
return the number of multiples of each of
those numbers that are less than the maximum number.
For this case the list will contain a maximum of 3 numbers
that are all relatively prime to each
other.
Here is my code:
def countMultiples(l, max_num):
counting_list = []
for i in l:
for j in range(1, max_num):
if (i * j < max_num) and (i * j) not in counting_list:
counting_list.append(i * j)
return len(counting_list)
Although my algorithm works okay, it gets stuck when the maximum number is way too big
>>> countMultiples([3],30)
9 #WORKS GOOD
>>> countMultiples([3,5],100)
46 #WORKS GOOD
>>> countMultiples([13,25],100250)
Line 5: TimeLimitError: Program exceeded run time limit.
How to optimize this code?
3 and 5 have some same multiples, like 15.
You should remove those multiples, and you will get the right answer
Also you should check the inclusion exclusion principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion-exclusion_principle#Counting_integers
EDIT:
The problem can be solved in constant time. As previously linked, the solution is in the inclusion - exclusion principle.
Let say you want to get the number of multiples of 3 less than 100, you can do this by dividing floor(100/3), the same applies for 5, floor(100/5).
Now to get the multiplies of 3 and 5 that are less than 100, you would have to add them, and subtract the ones that are multiples of both. In this case, subtracting multiplies of 15.
So the answer for multiples of 3 and 5, that are less than 100 is floor(100/3) + floor(100/5) - floor(100/15).
If you have more than 2 numbers, it gets a bit more complicated, but the same approach applies, for more check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion-exclusion_principle#Counting_integers
EDIT2:
Also the loop variant can be speed up.
Your current algorithm appends multiple in a list, which is very slow.
You should switch the inner and outer for loop. By doing that you would check if any of the divisors divide the number, and you get the the divisor.
So just adding a boolean variable which tells you if any of your divisors divide the number, and counting the times the variable is true.
So it would like this:
def countMultiples(l, max_num):
nums = 0
for j in range(1, max_num):
isMultiple = False
for i in l:
if (j % i == 0):
isMultiple = True
if (isMultiple == True):
nums += 1
return nums
print countMultiples([13,25],100250)
If the length of the list is all you need, you'd be better off with a tally instead of creating another list.
def countMultiples(l, max_num):
count = 0
counting_list = []
for i in l:
for j in range(1, max_num):
if (i * j < max_num) and (i * j) not in counting_list:
count += 1
return count
I had an overflow error with this program here!, I realized the mistake of that program. I cannot use range or xrange when it came to really long integers. I tried running the program in Python 3 and it works. My code works but then responds after several times. Hence in order to optimize my code, I started thinking of strategies for the optimizing the code.
My problem statement is A number is called lucky if the sum of its digits, as well as the sum of the squares of its digits is a prime number. How many numbers between A and B are lucky?.
I started with this:
squarelist=[0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81]
def isEven(self, n):
return
def isPrime(n):
return
def main():
t=long(raw_input().rstrip())
count = []
for i in xrange(t):
counts = 0
a,b = raw_input().rstrip().split()
if a=='1':
a='2'
tempa, tempb= map(int, a), map(int,b)
for i in range(len(b),a,-1):
tempsum[i]+=squarelist[tempb[i]]
What I am trying to achieve is since I know the series is ordered, only the last number changes. I can save the sum of squares of the earlier numbers in the list and just keep changing the last number. This does not calculate the sum everytime and check if the sum of squares is prime. I am unable to fix the sum to some value and then keep changing the last number.How to go forward from here?
My sample inputs are provided below.
87517 52088
72232 13553
19219 17901
39863 30628
94978 75750
79208 13282
77561 61794
I didn't get what you want to achieve with your code at all. This is my solution to the question as I understand it: For all natural numbers n in a range X so that a < X < b for some natural numbers a, b with a < b, how many numbers n have the property that the sum of its digits and the sum of the square of its digits in decimal writing are both prime?
def sum_digits(n):
s = 0
while n:
s += n % 10
n /= 10
return s
def sum_digits_squared(n):
s = 0
while n:
s += (n % 10) ** 2
n /= 10
return s
def is_prime(n):
return all(n % i for i in xrange(2, n))
def is_lucky(n):
return is_prime(sum_digits(n)) and is_prime(sum_digits_squared(n))
def all_lucky_numbers(a, b):
return [n for n in xrange(a, b) if is_lucky(n)]
if __name__ == "__main__":
sample_inputs = ((87517, 52088),
(72232, 13553),
(19219, 17901),
(39863, 30628),
(94978, 75750),
(79208, 13282),
(77561, 61794))
for b, a in sample_inputs:
lucky_number_count = len(all_lucky_numbers(a, b))
print("There are {} lucky numbers between {} and {}").format(lucky_number_count, a, b)
A few notes:
The is_prime is the most naive implementation possible. It's still totally fast enough for the sample input. There are many better implementations possible (and just one google away). The most obvious improvement would be skipping every even number except for 2. That alone would cut calculation time in half.
In Python 3 (and I really recommend using it), remember to use //= to force the result of the division to be an integer, and use range instead of xrange. Also, an easy way to speed up is_prime is Python 3's #functools.lru_cache.
If you want to save some lines, calculate the sum of digits by casting them to str and back to int like that:
def sum_digits(n):
return sum(int(d) for d in str(a))
It's not as mathy, though.
I'm working on solving the Project Euler problem 25:
What is the first term in the Fibonacci sequence to contain 1000
digits?
My piece of code works for smaller digits, but when I try a 1000 digits, i get the error:
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')
I'm thinking it may be on how I compute the fibonacci numbers, but i've tried several different methods, yet i get the same error.
Here's my code:
'''
What is the first term in the Fibonacci sequence to contain 1000 digits
'''
def fibonacci(n):
phi = (1 + pow(5, 0.5))/2 #Golden Ratio
return int((pow(phi, n) - pow(-phi, -n))/pow(5, 0.5)) #Formula: http://bit.ly/qDumIg
n = 0
while len(str(fibonacci(n))) < 1000:
n += 1
print n
Do you know what may the cause of this problem and how i could alter my code avoid this problem?
Thanks in advance.
The problem here is that only integers in Python have unlimited length, floating point values are still calculated using normal IEEE types which has a maximum precision.
As such, since you're using an approximation, using floating point calculations, you will get that problem eventually.
Instead, try calculating the Fibonacci sequence the normal way, one number (of the sequence) at a time, until you get to 1000 digits.
ie. calculate 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.
By "normal way" I mean this:
/ 1 , n < 3
Fib(n) = |
\ Fib(n-2) + Fib(n-1) , n >= 3
Note that the "obvious" approach given the above formulas is wrong for this particular problem, so I'll post the code for the wrong approach just to make sure you don't waste time on that:
def fib(n):
if n <= 3:
return 1
else:
return fib(n-2) + fib(n-1)
n = 1
while True:
f = fib(n)
if len(str(f)) >= 1000:
print("#%d: %d" % (n, f))
exit()
n += 1
On my machine, the above code starts going really slow at around the 30th fibonacci number, which is still only 6 digits long.
I modified the above recursive approach to output the number of calls to the fib function for each number, and here are some values:
#1: 1
#10: 67
#20: 8361
#30: 1028457
#40: 126491971
I can reveal that the first Fibonacci number with 1000 digits or more is the 4782th number in the sequence (unless I miscalculated), and so the number of calls to the fib function in a recursive approach will be this number:
1322674645678488041058897524122997677251644370815418243017081997189365809170617080397240798694660940801306561333081985620826547131665853835988797427277436460008943552826302292637818371178869541946923675172160637882073812751617637975578859252434733232523159781720738111111789465039097802080315208597093485915332193691618926042255999185137115272769380924184682248184802491822233335279409301171526953109189313629293841597087510083986945111011402314286581478579689377521790151499066261906574161869200410684653808796432685809284286820053164879192557959922333112075826828349513158137604336674826721837135875890203904247933489561158950800113876836884059588285713810502973052057892127879455668391150708346800909439629659013173202984026200937561704281672042219641720514989818775239313026728787980474579564685426847905299010548673623281580547481750413205269166454195584292461766536845931986460985315260676689935535552432994592033224633385680958613360375475217820675316245314150525244440638913595353267694721961
And that is just for the 4782th number. The actual value is the sum of all those values for all the fibonacci numbers from 1 up to 4782. There is no way this will ever complete.
In fact, if we would give the code 1 year of running time (simplified as 365 days), and assuming that the machine could make 10.000.000.000 calls every second, the algorithm would get as far as to the 83rd number, which is still only 18 digits long.
Actually, althought the advice given above to avoid floating-point numbers is generally good advice for Project Euler problems, in this case it is incorrect. Fibonacci numbers can be computed by the formula F_n = phi^n / sqrt(5), so that the first fibonacci number greater than a thousand digits can be computed as 10^999 < phi^n / sqrt(5). Taking the logarithm to base ten of both sides -- recall that sqrt(5) is the same as 5^(1/2) -- gives 999 < n log_10(phi) - 1/2 log_10(5), and solving for n gives (999 + 1/2 log_10(5)) / log_10(phi) < n. The left-hand side of that equation evaluates to 4781.85927, so the smallest n that gives a thousand digits is 4782.
You can use the sliding window trick to compute the terms of the Fibonacci sequence iteratively, rather than using the closed form (or doing it recursively as it's normally defined).
The Python version for finding fib(n) is as follows:
def fib(n):
a = 1
b = 1
for i in range(2, n):
b = a + b
a = b - a
return b
This works when F(1) is defined as 1, as it is in Project Euler 25.
I won't give the exact solution to the problem here, but the code above can be reworked so it keeps track of n until a sentry value (10**999) is reached.
An iterative solution such as this one has no trouble executing. I get the answer in less than a second.
def fibonacci():
current = 0
previous = 1
while True:
temp = current
current = current + previous
previous = temp
yield current
def main():
for index, element in enumerate(fibonacci()):
if len(str(element)) >= 1000:
answer = index + 1 #starts from 0
break
print(answer)
import math as m
import time
start = time.time()
fib0 = 0
fib1 = 1
n = 0
k = 0
count = 1
while k<1000 :
n = fib0 + fib1
k = int(m.log10(n))+1
fib0 = fib1
fib1 = n
count += 1
print n
print count
print time.time()-start
takes 0.005388 s on my pc. did nothing fancy just followed simple code.
Iteration will always be better. Recursion was taking to long for me as well.
Also used a math function for calculating the number of digits in a number instead of taking the number in a list and iterating through it. Saves a lot of time
Here is my very simple solution
list = [1,1,2]
for i in range(2,5000):
if len(str(list[i]+list[i-1])) == 1000:
print (i + 2)
break
else:
list.append(list[i]+list[i-1])
This is sort of a "rogue" way of doing it, but if you change the 1000 to any number except one, it gets it right.
You can use the datatype Decimal. This is a little bit slower but you will be able to have arbitrary precision.
So your code:
'''
What is the first term in the Fibonacci sequence to contain 1000 digits
'''
from Decimal import *
def fibonacci(n):
phi = (Decimal(1) + pow(Decimal(5), Decimal(0.5))) / 2 #Golden Ratio
return int((pow(phi, Decimal(n))) - pow(-phi, Decimal(-n)))/pow(Decimal(5), Decimal(0.5)))
n = 0
while len(str(fibonacci(n))) < 1000:
n += 1
print n