We Keep Coding

Function to solve fractions does not work with negative numbers or zeros

def fraction(a=None, b=None):
if a is None:
a = int(input("Enter the value of a "))
if b is None:
b = int(input("Enter the value of b "))
for i in range(1, min(a, b) + 1):
if a % i == 0 and b % i == 0:
gcf = i
print(a//gcf, "/", b//gcf)
fraction()
I would like for this to add a negative number to the front of the fraction when 1 input is negative and have no change when both are negative. For 0's, if the denominator is 0 produce an output of "invalid" and if the numerator is 0 have an output of 0.
However, my i in range is stopping this from happening. How could I try solving this issue?

First make sure that b is not negative. If it is, flip both signs. And then use abs(a) in the range.
Your code should also initialise gcf to 1, as there is a possibility the loop will not make iterations (i.e. when a is 0). And as then gcf is already 1, you might as well start the loop at 2.
Also, don't do I/O in such a function; always separate I/O from algorithmic logic. Perform I/O tasks outside of the function.
Here is how it could work:
def fraction(a, b):
if b < 0:
a = -a
b = -b
gcf = 1
for i in range(2, min(abs(a), b) + 1):
if a % i == 0 and b % i == 0:
gcf = i
return a//gcf, b//gcf
a = int(input("Enter the value of a "))
b = int(input("Enter the value of b "))
a, b = fraction(a, b)
print(a, "/", b)
Note that there are more efficient algorithms for getting the greatest common divisor.

Define a function to choose 2 bigger number out of 3 numbers then sum the square of the 2 numbers

Define a function that takes three numbers as arguments and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger numbers.
For example, given 6,7,8, the function that I defined should return 113
When I gave my code, it solves most of the problems but apparently there is some possibility that I haven't tried?? I think my code is flawed but not sure what other possibilities are there. Would really appreciate some help thank you so much!
def bigger_sum(a,b,c):
if(a+b>b+c):
return(a*a+b*b)
if(a+c>b+c):
return(a*a+c*c)
if(b+c>a+c):
return(b*b+c*c)

You can use min for this problem:
def big2_sqrsum(a,b,c):
x = min(a,b,c)
return (a*a + b*b + c*c) - (x*x)
print(big2_sqrsum(6,7,8))
Output:
113
Alternate solution with if-else
def big2_sqrsum2(a,b,c):
if a < b and a <c:
return b*b + c*c
elif b < a and b < c:
return a*a + c*c
elif c < a and c < b:
return a*a + b*b

Just check for the smallest number. That known, assign the values to two new variables that will hold the largest and second largest value and sum their squares.
Something like this :
big1 = 0
big2 = 0
if ([a is smallest]):
big1 = b
big2 = c
elif ([b is smallest]):
big1 = a
big2 = c
elif ([c is smallest]):
big1 = a
big2 = b
allows you to have only one place to calculate your formula :
return big1 * big1 + big2 * big2

Let's take a look at why your code is flawed. Given a comparison like if a + b > b + c:, the implication that both a and b are both greater than c is false. b can be the smallest number. All you know is that a > c, since you can subtract b from both sides of the inequality.
You need to find and discard the smallest number. The simplest way is to compute the minimum with min and subtract it off, as #Sociopath's answer suggests.
If you want to keep your if-elsestructure, you have to compare numbers individually:
if a > b:
n1= a
n2 = b if b > c else c
elif a > c:
n1, n2 = a, b
else:
n1, n2 = b, c

You can Simply Define Function With Using min()
def two_bigger_sum(num1,num2,num3):
min_num = min(num1,num2,num3) # it returns minimum number
return ((num1**2 + num2**2 + num3**2)-(min_num**2)) # num**2 = square of num
print(two_bigger_sum(6,7,8))
Output = 113

Sociopath's answer works, but is inefficient since it requires two extra floating point multiplies. If you're doing this for a large number of items, it will take twice as long! Instead, you can find the two largest numbers directly. Basically, we're sorting the list and taking the two largest, this can be directly as follows:
def sumsquare(a,b,c):
# Strategy: swap, and make sure c is the smallest by the end
if c > b:
b, c = c, b
if c > a:
a, c = c, a
return a**2 + b**2
# Test:
print(sumsquare(3,1,2))
print(sumsquare(3,2,1))
print(sumsquare(1,2,3))
print(sumsquare(1,3,2))
print(sumsquare(2,1,3))
print(sumsquare(2,3,2))

I have tried to use list comprehension & list slicing with sorting method.
def b2(l):
return sum([x**2 for x in sorted(l)[1:]])
print(b2([1,2,3]))
OP:-
13

LCM using recursive?

Here is my code:
def lcm(a, b):
if b == 0:
return a
return a * b / lcm(a, b)
print lcm(5,3)
This is what I could manage so far, any idea on how to find the LCM (least common multiple) of two numbers using recursive and one function?

We have lcm(a, b) * gcd(a, b) = a * b. So we can write the following equation:
lcm(a, b) = a; if a % b == 0
lcm(a, b) ; if a % b != 0
= a * b / gcd(a, b)
= a * b / gcd(b, a % b)
= a * b / (b * (a % b) / lcm(b, a % b))
= a / (a % b) * lcm(b, a % b)
And translate to Python, we have:
def lcm(a, b):
t = a % b
if t == 0: return a
return a * lcm(b, t) / t

Edit: I didn't read the recursive / one function bit in your question cause I'm dumb. Incorporated now.
The lcm isn't a * b / lcm(a, b), it's a * b / gcd(a, b) (greatest common divisor).
So the cleanest way to do this is:
def gcd(x, y):
while y:
x, y = y, x % y
return x
def lcm(x, y):
return x * y / gcd(x, y)
If you are limited to recursion only (e.g. for an exam) then this doesn't have to be efficient, so you might as well just recursively count up until you find the lowest number that both x and y divide into:
def lcm(x, y, counter=1):
if (counter%x == 0 and counter%y == 0):
return counter
return lcm(x, y, counter+1)
That just increases counter until counter%x == 0 and counter%y == 0 is true, which is the LCM. Don't try it on large numbers though, you'll just get a stack overflow.

As stated in the other answers here lcm = a*b / gcd(a, b)but then you will need to define another function gcd(a, b) for it.
Since you needed only 1 function with recursion, maybe this piece of code will do.
N.B. : This function has one extra parameter c which should be always passed as 1 while calling it outside the function only :
def lcm(a, b, c):
d = c
m = min(a, b)
while m > 1 :
if a%m == 0 and b%m == 0 :
d*=m
return lcm(int(a/m), int(b/m), d)
else:
m-= 1
d*= a*b
return d

Using the mathematical relationship that the product of two numbers is equal to the product of the Greatest Common Divisor and the Least Common Multiplier of those two numbers: A * B = GCD(A,B) * LCM(A,B)
def gcd(a,b):
if a % b == 0: return b
return gcd(b, a % b)
def lcm(a, b):
return ((a*b) // gcd(a,b))
The first function is recursive and it's used to find the Greatest Common Divisor, it has cost O(log(n)).

This should do:
# Python Program to find the L.C.M. of two input number
# define a function
def lcm(x, y):
"""This function takes two
integers and returns the L.C.M."""
# choose the greater number
if x > y:
greater = x
else:
greater = y
while True:
if((greater % x == 0) and (greater % y == 0)):
lcm = greater
break
greater += 1
return lcm
# take input from the user
num1 = int(input("Enter first number: "))
num2 = int(input("Enter second number: "))
print("The L.C.M. of", num1,"and", num2,"is", lcm(num1, num2))

I created my own easy programme.
def lcm(greater,a,b):
# while(True):
if (greater % a == 0 and greater % b == 0):
lcm1 = greater
return lcm1
else:
lcm1=lcm(greater + 1,a,b)
return lcm1
a=int(input(" Enter 1st number :"))
b=int(input(" Enter 2nd number :"))
if(a>b):
greater=a
else:
greater=b
print(lcm(greater,a,b))

How to check if the number can be represented prime power (nth root is prime or not)

I am trying this problem for a while but getting wrong answer again and again.
number can be very large <=2^2014.
22086. Prime Power Test
Explanation about my algorithm:
For a Given number I am checking if the number can be represented as form of prime power or not.
So the the maximum limit to check for prime power is log n base 2.
Finally problem reduced to finding nth root of a number and if it is prime we have our answer else check for all i till log (n base 2) and exit.
I have used all sort of optimizations and have tested enormous test-cases and for all my algorithm gives correct answer
but Judge says wrong answer.
Spoj have another similar problem with small constraints n<=10^18 for which I already got accepted with Python and C++(Best solver in c++)
Here is My python code Please suggest me if I am doing something wrong I am not very proficient in python so my algorithm is a bit lengthy. Thanks in advance.
My Algorithm:
import math
import sys
import fractions
import random
import decimal
write = sys.stdout.write
def sieve(n):
sqrtn = int(n**0.5)
sieve = [True] * (n+1)
sieve[0] = False
sieve[1] = False
for i in range(2, sqrtn+1):
if sieve[i]:
m = n//i - i
sieve[i*i:n+1:i] = [False] * (m+1)
return sieve
def gcd(a, b):
while b:
a, b = b, a%b
return a
def mr_pass(a, s, d, n):
a_to_power = pow(a, d, n)
if a_to_power == 1:
return True
for i in range(s-1):
if a_to_power == n - 1:
return True
a_to_power = (a_to_power * a_to_power) % n
return a_to_power == n - 1
isprime=sieve(1000000)
sprime= [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,89,97,101,103,107,109,113,127,131,137,139,149,151,157,163,167,173,179,181,191,193,197,199,211,223,227,229,233,239,241,251,257,263,269,271,277,281,283,293,307,311,313,317,331,337,347,349,353,359,367,373,379,383,389,397,401,409,419,421,431,433,439,443,449,457,461,463,467,479,487,491,499,503,509,521,523,541,547,557,563,569,571,577,587,593,599,601,607,613,617,619,631,641,643,647,653,659,661,673,677,683,691,701,709,719,727,733,739,743,751,757,761,769,773,787,797,809,811,821,823,827,829,839,853,857,859,863,877,881,883,887,907,911,919,929,937,941,947,953,967,971,977,983,991,997]
def smooth_num(n):
c=0
for a in sprime:
if(n%a==0):
c+=1
if(c>=2):
return True;
return False
def is_prime(n):
if(n<1000000):
return isprime[n]
if any((n % p) == 0 for p in sprime):
return False
if n==2:
return True
d = n - 1
s = 0
while d % 2 == 0:
d >>= 1
s += 1
for repeat in range(10):
a=random.randint(1,n-1)
if not mr_pass(a, s, d, n):
return False
return True
def iroot(n,k):
hi = 1
while pow(hi, k) < n:
hi *= 2
lo = hi // 2
while hi - lo > 1:
mid = (lo + hi) // 2
midToK = (mid**k)
if midToK < n:
lo = mid
elif n < midToK:
hi = mid
else:
return mid
if (hi**k) == n:
return hi
else:
return lo
def isqrt(x):
n = int(x)
if n == 0:
return 0
a, b = divmod(n.bit_length(), 2)
x = pow(2,(a+b))
while True:
y = (x + n//x)>>1
if y >= x:
return x
x = y
maxx=2**1024;minn=2**64
def nth_rootp(n,k):
return int(round(math.exp(math.log(n)/k),0))
def main():
for cs in range(int(input())):
n=int(sys.stdin.readline().strip())
if(smooth_num(n)):
write("Invalid order\n")
continue;
order = 0;m=0
power =int(math.log(n,2))
for i in range(1,power+1):
if(n<=maxx):
if i==1:m=n
elif(i==2):m=isqrt(n)
elif(i==4):m=isqrt(isqrt(n))
elif(i==8):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))
elif(i==16):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))
elif(i==32):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))))
elif(i==64):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))))
elif(i==128):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))))))
elif(i==256):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))))))
else:m=int(nth_rootp(n,i))
else:
if i==1:m=n
elif i==2:m=isqrt(n)
elif(i==4):m=isqrt(isqrt(n))
elif(i==8):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))
elif(i==16):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))
elif(i==32):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))))
elif(i==64):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))))
elif(i==128):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n)))))))
elif(i==256):m=isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(isqrt(n))))))))
else:m=iroot(n,i)
if m<2:
order=0
break
if(is_prime(m) and n==(m**i)):
write("%d %d\n"%(m,i))
order = 1
break
if(order==0):
write("Invalid order\n")
main()

I'm not going to read all that code, though I suspect the problem is floating-point inaccuracy. Here is my program to determine if a number n is a prime power; it returns the prime p and the power k:
# prime power predicate
from random import randint
from fractions import gcd
def findWitness(n, k=5): # miller-rabin
s, d = 0, n-1
while d % 2 == 0:
s, d = s+1, d/2
for i in range(k):
a = randint(2, n-1)
x = pow(a, d, n)
if x == 1 or x == n-1: continue
for r in range(1, s):
x = (x * x) % n
if x == 1: return a
if x == n-1: break
else: return a
return 0
# returns p,k such that n=p**k, or 0,0
# assumes n is an integer greater than 1
def primePower(n):
def checkP(n, p):
k = 0
while n > 1 and n % p == 0:
n, k = n / p, k + 1
if n == 1: return p, k
else: return 0, 0
if n % 2 == 0: return checkP(n, 2)
q = n
while True:
a = findWitness(q)
if a == 0: return checkP(n, q)
d = gcd(pow(a,q,n)-a, q)
if d == 1 or d == q: return 0, 0
q = d
The program uses Fermat's Little Theorem and exploits the witness a to the compositeness of n that is found by the Miller-Rabin algorithm. It is given as Algorithm 1.7.5 in Henri Cohen's book A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory. You can see the program in action at http://ideone.com/cNzQYr.

this is not really an answer, but I don't have enough space to write it as a comment.
So, if the problem still not solved, you may try the following function for nth_rootp, though it is a bit ugly (it is just a binary search to find the precise value of the function):
def nth_rootp(n,k):
r = int(round(math.log(n,2)/k))
left = 2**(r-1)
right = 2**(r+1)
if left**k == n:
return left
if right**k == n:
return right
while left**k < n and right**k > n:
tmp = (left + right)/2
if tmp**k == n:
return tmp
if tmp == left or tmp == right:
return tmp
if tmp**k < n:
left = tmp
else:
if tmp**k > n:
right = tmp

your code look like a little overcomplicated for this task, I will not bother to check it, but the thing you need are the following
is_prime, naturally
a prime generator, optional
calculate the nth root of a number in a precise way
for the first one I recommend the deterministic form of the Miller-Rabin test with a appropriate set of witness to guaranty a exact result until 1543267864443420616877677640751301 (1.543 x 1033) for even bigger numbers you can use the probabilistic one or use a bigger list of witness chosen at your criteria
with all that a template for the solution is as follow
import math
def is_prime(n):
...
def sieve(n):
"list of all primes p such that p<n"
...
def inthroot(x,n):
"calculate floor(x**(1/n))"
...
def is_a_power(n):
"return (a,b) if n=a**b otherwise throw ValueError"
for b in sieve( math.log2(n) +1 ):
a = inthroot(n,b)
if a**b == n:
return a,b
raise ValueError("is not a power")
def smooth_factorization(n):
"return (p,e) where p is prime and n = p**e if such value exists, otherwise throw ValueError"
e=1
p=n
while True:
try:
p,n = is_a_power(p)
e = e*n
except ValueError:
break
if is_prime(p):
return p,e
raise ValueError
def main():
for test in range( int(input()) ):
try:
p,e = smooth_factorization( int(input()) )
print(p,e)
except ValueError:
print("Invalid order")
main()
And the code above should be self explanatory
Filling the blacks
As you are familiar with Miller-Rabin test, I will only mention that if you are interested you can find a implementation of the determinist version here just update the list of witness and you are ready to go.
For the sieve, just change the one you are using to return a list with primes number like this for instance [ p for p,is_p in enumerate(sieve) if is_p ]
With those out of the way, the only thing left is calculate the nth root of the number and to do that in a precise way we need to get rip of that pesky floating point arithmetic that only produce headaches, and the answer is implement the Nth root algorithm using only integer arithmetic, which is pretty similar to the one of isqrt that you already use, I guide myself with the one made by Mark Dickinson for cube root and generalize it and I get this
def inthroot(A, n) :
"calculate floor( A**(1/n) )"
#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_root_algorithm
#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_root#nth_root_algorithm
#https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35254566/wrong-answer-in-spoj-cubert/35276426#35276426
#https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39560902/imprecise-results-of-logarithm-and-power-functions-in-python/39561633#39561633
if A<0:
if n%2 == 0:
raise ValueError
return - inthroot(-A,n)
if A==0:
return 0
n1 = n-1
if A.bit_length() < 1024: # float(n) safe from overflow
xk = int( round( pow(A,1.0/n) ) )
xk = ( n1*xk + A//pow(xk,n1) )//n # Ensure xk >= floor(nthroot(A)).
else:
xk = 1 << -(-A.bit_length()//n) # 1 << sum(divmod(A.bit_length(),n))
# power of 2 closer but greater than the nth root of A
while True:
sig = A // pow(xk,n1)
if xk <= sig:
return xk
xk = ( n1*xk + sig )//n
and with all the above you can solve the problem without inconvenient

from sympy.ntheory import factorint
q=int(input("Give me the number q="))
fact=factorint(q) #We factor the number q=p_1^{n_1}*p_2^{n_2}*...
p_1=list(fact.keys()) #We create a list from keys to be the the numbers p_1,p_2,...
n_1=list(fact.values()) #We create a list from values to be the the numbers n_1,n_2,...
p=int(p_1[0])
n=int(n_1[0])
if q!=p**n: #Check if the number q=p_{1}[0]**n_{1}[0]=p**n.
print("The number "+str(q)+" is not a prime power")
else:
print("The number "+str(q)+" is a prime power")
print("The prime number p="+str(p))
print("The natural number n="+str(n))

True/False right angle function in python

I can't seem to get my function to work. When I type in 3 for a, 2 for b, and 3.61 for c. That works. However, when I try those values in a different order (Ex: 3.61 for a, 3 for b and 2 for c) It returns as false. I can't figure out what the problem is. Thanks in advance!
a = input("Enter a ")
b = input("Enter b ")
c = input("Enter c ")
def isright_angled():
if abs((a**2+b**2)-(c**2)) < 0.1 or abs((c**2-a**2)-(b**2)) < 0.1 or abs((c**2-b**2)-(a**2)) < 0.1:
return True
else:
return False
print isright_angled()

The hypotenuse, if the triangle is right-angled, will be the largest of a, b and c. You can use that to avoid duplicating the test 3 times (this is the "don't repeat yourself" principle). A second thing to avoid is that if something: return True else: return False. It's usually better expressed as simply return something. Thirdly, functions can take arguments rather than relying on global variables: this makes things easier to understand and there's then less chance of functions interfering with each other. I find a * a easier to understand than a ** 2 but that's personal taste. Putting all that together:
def is_approximately_right_angled(a, b, c):
a, b, c = sorted([a, b, c])
return abs(a * a + b * b - c * c) < 0.1
a = input('enter a ')
b = input('enter b ')
c = input('enter c ')
print is_approximately_right_angled(a, b, c)
If it's not working, you can speed up your development by adding some checks. If you were writing a big program you can write unit tests, but here just some asserts in the module will avoid you having to type a, b, c in each time to test.
I'd add something like this (before the a = input... line):
assert is_approximately_right_angled(3, 4, 5)
assert is_approximately_right_angled(3, 5, 4)
assert is_approximately_right_angled(3, 2, 3.61)
assert not is_approximately_right_angled(3, 5, 5)
With these lines in place, you can have some confidence in the code before you get to type numbers in. When you find cases where the code doesn't work you can add them as additional checks.

a = int(input("Enter the side length" ))
b = int(input("Enter the side length" ))
c = int(input("Enter the side length" ))
def is_right_triangle(a,b,c):
'''
is_right_triangle(a,b,c) -> bool
returns True if a,b,c is a right triangle with hypotenuse c
'''
a, b, c = sorted([a, b, c])
return a*a + b*b == c*c
print(is_right_triangle(a,b,c))

for more accuracy you can use
return abs(a * a + b * b - c * c) < 0.001