Related
How could I check if a number is a perfect square?
Speed is of no concern, for now, just working.
See also: Integer square root in python.
The problem with relying on any floating point computation (math.sqrt(x), or x**0.5) is that you can't really be sure it's exact (for sufficiently large integers x, it won't be, and might even overflow). Fortunately (if one's in no hurry;-) there are many pure integer approaches, such as the following...:
def is_square(apositiveint):
x = apositiveint // 2
seen = set([x])
while x * x != apositiveint:
x = (x + (apositiveint // x)) // 2
if x in seen: return False
seen.add(x)
return True
for i in range(110, 130):
print i, is_square(i)
Hint: it's based on the "Babylonian algorithm" for square root, see wikipedia. It does work for any positive number for which you have enough memory for the computation to proceed to completion;-).
Edit: let's see an example...
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print i, is_square(i)
this prints, as desired (and in a reasonable amount of time, too;-):
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489 True
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490 False
Please, before you propose solutions based on floating point intermediate results, make sure they work correctly on this simple example -- it's not that hard (you just need a few extra checks in case the sqrt computed is a little off), just takes a bit of care.
And then try with x**7 and find clever way to work around the problem you'll get,
OverflowError: long int too large to convert to float
you'll have to get more and more clever as the numbers keep growing, of course.
If I was in a hurry, of course, I'd use gmpy -- but then, I'm clearly biased;-).
>>> import gmpy
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7)
1
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7 + 1)
0
Yeah, I know, that's just so easy it feels like cheating (a bit the way I feel towards Python in general;-) -- no cleverness at all, just perfect directness and simplicity (and, in the case of gmpy, sheer speed;-)...
Use Newton's method to quickly zero in on the nearest integer square root, then square it and see if it's your number. See isqrt.
Python ≥ 3.8 has math.isqrt. If using an older version of Python, look for the "def isqrt(n)" implementation here.
import math
def is_square(i: int) -> bool:
return i == math.isqrt(i) ** 2
Since you can never depend on exact comparisons when dealing with floating point computations (such as these ways of calculating the square root), a less error-prone implementation would be
import math
def is_square(integer):
root = math.sqrt(integer)
return integer == int(root + 0.5) ** 2
Imagine integer is 9. math.sqrt(9) could be 3.0, but it could also be something like 2.99999 or 3.00001, so squaring the result right off isn't reliable. Knowing that int takes the floor value, increasing the float value by 0.5 first means we'll get the value we're looking for if we're in a range where float still has a fine enough resolution to represent numbers near the one for which we are looking.
If youre interested, I have a pure-math response to a similar question at math stackexchange, "Detecting perfect squares faster than by extracting square root".
My own implementation of isSquare(n) may not be the best, but I like it. Took me several months of study in math theory, digital computation and python programming, comparing myself to other contributors, etc., to really click with this method. I like its simplicity and efficiency though. I havent seen better. Tell me what you think.
def isSquare(n):
## Trivial checks
if type(n) != int: ## integer
return False
if n < 0: ## positivity
return False
if n == 0: ## 0 pass
return True
## Reduction by powers of 4 with bit-logic
while n&3 == 0:
n=n>>2
## Simple bit-logic test. All perfect squares, in binary,
## end in 001, when powers of 4 are factored out.
if n&7 != 1:
return False
if n==1:
return True ## is power of 4, or even power of 2
## Simple modulo equivalency test
c = n%10
if c in {3, 7}:
return False ## Not 1,4,5,6,9 in mod 10
if n % 7 in {3, 5, 6}:
return False ## Not 1,2,4 mod 7
if n % 9 in {2,3,5,6,8}:
return False
if n % 13 in {2,5,6,7,8,11}:
return False
## Other patterns
if c == 5: ## if it ends in a 5
if (n//10)%10 != 2:
return False ## then it must end in 25
if (n//100)%10 not in {0,2,6}:
return False ## and in 025, 225, or 625
if (n//100)%10 == 6:
if (n//1000)%10 not in {0,5}:
return False ## that is, 0625 or 5625
else:
if (n//10)%4 != 0:
return False ## (4k)*10 + (1,9)
## Babylonian Algorithm. Finding the integer square root.
## Root extraction.
s = (len(str(n))-1) // 2
x = (10**s) * 4
A = {x, n}
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) >> 1
if x in A:
return False
A.add(x)
return True
Pretty straight forward. First it checks that we have an integer, and a positive one at that. Otherwise there is no point. It lets 0 slip through as True (necessary or else next block is infinite loop).
The next block of code systematically removes powers of 4 in a very fast sub-algorithm using bit shift and bit logic operations. We ultimately are not finding the isSquare of our original n but of a k<n that has been scaled down by powers of 4, if possible. This reduces the size of the number we are working with and really speeds up the Babylonian method, but also makes other checks faster too.
The third block of code performs a simple Boolean bit-logic test. The least significant three digits, in binary, of any perfect square are 001. Always. Save for leading zeros resulting from powers of 4, anyway, which has already been accounted for. If it fails the test, you immediately know it isnt a square. If it passes, you cant be sure.
Also, if we end up with a 1 for a test value then the test number was originally a power of 4, including perhaps 1 itself.
Like the third block, the fourth tests the ones-place value in decimal using simple modulus operator, and tends to catch values that slip through the previous test. Also a mod 7, mod 8, mod 9, and mod 13 test.
The fifth block of code checks for some of the well-known perfect square patterns. Numbers ending in 1 or 9 are preceded by a multiple of four. And numbers ending in 5 must end in 5625, 0625, 225, or 025. I had included others but realized they were redundant or never actually used.
Lastly, the sixth block of code resembles very much what the top answerer - Alex Martelli - answer is. Basically finds the square root using the ancient Babylonian algorithm, but restricting it to integer values while ignoring floating point. Done both for speed and extending the magnitudes of values that are testable. I used sets instead of lists because it takes far less time, I used bit shifts instead of division by two, and I smartly chose an initial start value much more efficiently.
By the way, I did test Alex Martelli's recommended test number, as well as a few numbers many orders magnitude larger, such as:
x=1000199838770766116385386300483414671297203029840113913153824086810909168246772838680374612768821282446322068401699727842499994541063844393713189701844134801239504543830737724442006577672181059194558045164589783791764790043104263404683317158624270845302200548606715007310112016456397357027095564872551184907513312382763025454118825703090010401842892088063527451562032322039937924274426211671442740679624285180817682659081248396873230975882215128049713559849427311798959652681930663843994067353808298002406164092996533923220683447265882968239141724624870704231013642255563984374257471112743917655991279898690480703935007493906644744151022265929975993911186879561257100479593516979735117799410600147341193819147290056586421994333004992422258618475766549646258761885662783430625 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print(i, isSquare(i))
printed the following results:
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890625 True
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890626 False
And it did this in 0.33 seconds.
In my opinion, my algorithm works the same as Alex Martelli's, with all the benefits thereof, but has the added benefit highly efficient simple-test rejections that save a lot of time, not to mention the reduction in size of test numbers by powers of 4, which improves speed, efficiency, accuracy and the size of numbers that are testable. Probably especially true in non-Python implementations.
Roughly 99% of all integers are rejected as non-Square before Babylonian root extraction is even implemented, and in 2/3 the time it would take the Babylonian to reject the integer. And though these tests dont speed up the process that significantly, the reduction in all test numbers to an odd by dividing out all powers of 4 really accelerates the Babylonian test.
I did a time comparison test. I tested all integers from 1 to 10 Million in succession. Using just the Babylonian method by itself (with my specially tailored initial guess) it took my Surface 3 an average of 165 seconds (with 100% accuracy). Using just the logical tests in my algorithm (excluding the Babylonian), it took 127 seconds, it rejected 99% of all integers as non-Square without mistakenly rejecting any perfect squares. Of those integers that passed, only 3% were perfect Squares (a much higher density). Using the full algorithm above that employs both the logical tests and the Babylonian root extraction, we have 100% accuracy, and test completion in only 14 seconds. The first 100 Million integers takes roughly 2 minutes 45 seconds to test.
EDIT: I have been able to bring down the time further. I can now test the integers 0 to 100 Million in 1 minute 40 seconds. A lot of time is wasted checking the data type and the positivity. Eliminate the very first two checks and I cut the experiment down by a minute. One must assume the user is smart enough to know that negatives and floats are not perfect squares.
import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return (sqrt - int(sqrt)) == 0
A perfect square is a number that can be expressed as the product of two equal integers. math.sqrt(number) return a float. int(math.sqrt(number)) casts the outcome to int.
If the square root is an integer, like 3, for example, then math.sqrt(number) - int(math.sqrt(number)) will be 0, and the if statement will be False. If the square root was a real number like 3.2, then it will be True and print "it's not a perfect square".
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
My answer is:
def is_square(x):
return x**.5 % 1 == 0
It basically does a square root, then modulo by 1 to strip the integer part and if the result is 0 return True otherwise return False. In this case x can be any large number, just not as large as the max float number that python can handle: 1.7976931348623157e+308
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
This can be solved using the decimal module to get arbitrary precision square roots and easy checks for "exactness":
import math
from decimal import localcontext, Context, Inexact
def is_perfect_square(x):
# If you want to allow negative squares, then set x = abs(x) instead
if x < 0:
return False
# Create localized, default context so flags and traps unset
with localcontext(Context()) as ctx:
# Set a precision sufficient to represent x exactly; `x or 1` avoids
# math domain error for log10 when x is 0
ctx.prec = math.ceil(math.log10(x or 1)) + 1 # Wrap ceil call in int() on Py2
# Compute integer square root; don't even store result, just setting flags
ctx.sqrt(x).to_integral_exact()
# If previous line couldn't represent square root as exact int, sets Inexact flag
return not ctx.flags[Inexact]
For demonstration with truly huge values:
# I just kept mashing the numpad for awhile :-)
>>> base = 100009991439393999999393939398348438492389402490289028439083249803434098349083490340934903498034098390834980349083490384903843908309390282930823940230932490340983098349032098324908324098339779438974879480379380439748093874970843479280329708324970832497804329783429874329873429870234987234978034297804329782349783249873249870234987034298703249780349783497832497823497823497803429780324
>>> sqr = base ** 2
>>> sqr ** 0.5 # Too large to use floating point math
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
OverflowError: int too large to convert to float
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr)
True
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr-1)
False
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr+1)
False
If you increase the size of the value being tested, this eventually gets rather slow (takes close to a second for a 200,000 bit square), but for more moderate numbers (say, 20,000 bits), it's still faster than a human would notice for individual values (~33 ms on my machine). But since speed wasn't your primary concern, this is a good way to do it with Python's standard libraries.
Of course, it would be much faster to use gmpy2 and just test gmpy2.mpz(x).is_square(), but if third party packages aren't your thing, the above works quite well.
I just posted a slight variation on some of the examples above on another thread (Finding perfect squares) and thought I'd include a slight variation of what I posted there here (using nsqrt as a temporary variable), in case it's of interest / use:
import math
def is_square(n):
if not (isinstance(n, int) and (n >= 0)):
return False
else:
nsqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return nsqrt == math.trunc(nsqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
A variant of #Alex Martelli's solution without set
When x in seen is True:
In most cases, it is the last one added, e.g. 1022 produces the x's sequence 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 31;
In some cases (i.e., for the predecessors of perfect squares), it is the second-to-last one added, e.g. 1023 produces 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 32.
Hence, it suffices to stop as soon as the current x is greater than or equal to the previous one:
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
previous = n
x = n // 2
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) // 2
if x >= previous:
return False
previous = x
return True
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
assert not is_square(x-1)
assert is_square(x)
assert not is_square(x+1)
Equivalence with the original algorithm tested for 1 < n < 10**7. On the same interval, this slightly simpler variant is about 1.4 times faster.
This is my method:
def is_square(n) -> bool:
return int(n**0.5)**2 == int(n)
Take square root of number. Convert to integer. Take the square. If the numbers are equal, then it is a perfect square otherwise not.
It is incorrect for a large square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489.
If the modulus (remainder) leftover from dividing by the square root is 0, then it is a perfect square.
def is_square(num: int) -> bool:
return num % math.sqrt(num) == 0
I checked this against a list of perfect squares going up to 1000.
It is possible to improve the Babylonian method by observing that the successive terms form a decreasing sequence if one starts above the square root of n.
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
a = n
b = (a + n // a) // 2
while b < a:
a = b
b = (a + n // a) // 2
return a * a == n
If it's a perfect square, its square root will be an integer, the fractional part will be 0, we can use modulus operator to check fractional part, and check if it's 0, it does fail for some numbers, so, for safety, we will also check if it's square of the square root even if the fractional part is 0.
import math
def isSquare(n):
root = math.sqrt(n)
if root % 1 == 0:
if int(root) * int(root) == n:
return True
return False
isSquare(4761)
You could binary-search for the rounded square root. Square the result to see if it matches the original value.
You're probably better off with FogleBirds answer - though beware, as floating point arithmetic is approximate, which can throw this approach off. You could in principle get a false positive from a large integer which is one more than a perfect square, for instance, due to lost precision.
A simple way to do it (faster than the second one) :
def is_square(n):
return str(n**(1/2)).split(".")[1] == '0'
Another way:
def is_square(n):
if n == 0:
return True
else:
if n % 2 == 0 :
for i in range(2,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
else :
for i in range(1,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
return False
This response doesn't pertain to your stated question, but to an implicit question I see in the code you posted, ie, "how to check if something is an integer?"
The first answer you'll generally get to that question is "Don't!" And it's true that in Python, typechecking is usually not the right thing to do.
For those rare exceptions, though, instead of looking for a decimal point in the string representation of the number, the thing to do is use the isinstance function:
>>> isinstance(5,int)
True
>>> isinstance(5.0,int)
False
Of course this applies to the variable rather than a value. If I wanted to determine whether the value was an integer, I'd do this:
>>> x=5.0
>>> round(x) == x
True
But as everyone else has covered in detail, there are floating-point issues to be considered in most non-toy examples of this kind of thing.
If you want to loop over a range and do something for every number that is NOT a perfect square, you could do something like this:
def non_squares(upper):
next_square = 0
diff = 1
for i in range(0, upper):
if i == next_square:
next_square += diff
diff += 2
continue
yield i
If you want to do something for every number that IS a perfect square, the generator is even easier:
(n * n for n in range(upper))
I think that this works and is very simple:
import math
def is_square(num):
sqrt = math.sqrt(num)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
a=int(input('enter any number'))
flag=0
for i in range(1,a):
if a==i*i:
print(a,'is perfect square number')
flag=1
break
if flag==1:
pass
else:
print(a,'is not perfect square number')
In kotlin :
It's quite easy and it passed all test cases as well.
really thanks to >> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-quickest-way-to-determine-if-a-number-is-a-perfect-square
fun isPerfectSquare(num: Int): Boolean {
var result = false
var sum=0L
var oddNumber=1L
while(sum<num){
sum = sum + oddNumber
oddNumber = oddNumber+2
}
result = sum == num.toLong()
return result
}
def isPerfectSquare(self, num: int) -> bool:
left, right = 0, num
while left <= right:
mid = (left + right) // 2
if mid**2 < num:
left = mid + 1
elif mid**2 > num:
right = mid - 1
else:
return True
return False
Decide how long the number will be.
take a delta 0.000000000000.......000001
see if the (sqrt(x))^2 - x is greater / equal /smaller than delta and decide based on the delta error.
import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
The idea is to run a loop from i = 1 to floor(sqrt(n)) then check if squaring it makes n.
bool isPerfectSquare(int n)
{
for (int i = 1; i * i <= n; i++) {
// If (i * i = n)
if ((n % i == 0) && (n / i == i)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
I am working on a new project, it is like a math site. I am trying to create a program that will solve equations.
It is working normally with simple equations for example x + 10 = 12, however when I try to do equations with exponents like x**2 + 3 = 5 it doesn't give me anything. I believe that this python code doesn't work with decimals.
Code in below
import math
def solve():
x = -1000
while x < 1001:
if x**2 + 1 == 4:
print("x = " + str(x))
x += 1
solve()
I expect the output to be 1.73205080757 and -1.73205080757.
However I get nothing (Because it couldn't find an answer).
You're expecting an answer that's between 1 & 2. You're starting at -1000 and incrementing by 1. So you'll go from -1000 to 0 to 1 to 2 to 3....skipping over your expected answer altogether.
You should be using something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
(With floats i.e x=1.0)
Looking at your code, your minimal step is 1 (x was increased by x += 1), hence x can be only integer. There is no such integer can full-fill your condition x**2 + 1 == 4
this will only check integer values from x = - 1000 to x = 1000, ie it will ask is -1000 the answer? No, is -999 the answer? No etc, and never try 1.7 or 1.73 or 1.73...! The answer is a float not an integer, so the method as written can't possibly get it. You would need somehow to iterate closer and closer answers. This is a question of mathematical algorithm design I think, you can first look up math formulae how to approximate quadratic solutions (probably some 17th century mathematician did the formula!), then try convert this formula into Python. If you don't know about float, int, "duck typing" in Python difference, try googling this also may help you.
The code doesn't give nor will give the solution you expect because of two reasons:
The while loop increments x by 1 at each step, so there is no way x can be a float number. It will always be an integer.
The solution you expect for this case has infinite decimals, so even if x were a float, it could never be the desired value in order to solve the equation.
As a remark/suggestion, if you are trying to solve an equation in python, why don't you just create a function that give the result to an equation of the form: x^2 +a = b. The following code should be an example:
import numpy as np
def solve_prueba(a,b):
"""
The function solves a function of the form x^2 + a = b
"""
x = np.sqrt((b-a))
return x
This way is much more time effective rather than create a while loop has to pass over all the numbers with their infinite decimals to give the solution to a given equation.
Good luck!
It is not necessary to start at -1000 and go up to 1000 since you are looking for a value from 1 to 2. In your code, you increment with 1, which means that x will never be a decimal value. You could however increment with a very small number (e.g.) x += 0.0000000000001.
If you use this small increment, you should probably use math.isclose() instead of ==, because small float values tend to have some precision error. Like in your expected answer where you expect the outcome to be 1.73205080757 altough 1.73205080757**2 + 1 == 4.000000000003889 and not 4.
Using math.isclose((x**2 + 3), 4, rel_tol=1e-9) like this, it checks if the calculation from x**2 + 3 is somewhere close to 4 with a tolerance of 1e-9, which would output the values that you expect from this equation.
So for your code:
import math
def solve():
x = -1000
while x < 1001:
if math.isclose((x**2 + 1), 4, rel_rol=1e-9):
print("x = " + str(x))
x += 0.0000000000001
solve()
ls = []
total = 0
for i in range(0,2000000):
ls.append(i)
for i in range(2,2000000):
for x in range(2,int(float(2000000/i)+0.5)):
ls[int(float(i*x))] = 0
ls[1] = 0
for j in range(0,2000000):
total += ls[j]
print total
This code is giving me the wrong answer. It includes large numbers that are not prime. It includes 25 more numbers than there are prime numbers.
Your algorithm is giving the wrong result, couldn't figure out what approach do you use, it would be better if you could give more details.
There is an algorithm called Sieve of Eratosthenes algorithm to generate prime number effectively. You find that algorithm explained in this thread, with details to write the algorithm.
import math
def primeNumbers(n):
A = range(2, n + 1)
B, C= [],A
while C[0]< math.sqrt(n):
firstElement= C[0]
B+= [firstElement]
C= [x for x in C if x%firstElement!=0]
return B+C
t= sum(primeNumbers(2000000)) #you summ the prime numbers numbers
print t
The problem is with this line:
for x in range(2,int(float(2000000/i)+0.5)):
float(2000000/i) doesn't do much in this context, did you mean float(2000000)/i? You're still doing integer division and then converting the result to float. So, when i is 947, this returns 2111.0 instead of 2111.93. As a result, adding 0.5 to that and calling int() effectively does nothing and you still end up with 2111.
This then ends up running the loop till 2110, so you fail to mark 947 * 2111, which gives you a false positive.
You can rewrite the loop slightly to fix this:
for i in range(2,2000000):
for x in range(2 * i, 2000000, i):
ls[x] = 0
This way, instead of dividing and then multiplying, you're simply going through and marking all the multiples of i until 2000000.
Obviously, there are other (better) ways to solve the problem, but I just wanted to point out how you can improve your current solution.
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
How could I check if a number is a perfect square?
Speed is of no concern, for now, just working.
See also: Integer square root in python.
The problem with relying on any floating point computation (math.sqrt(x), or x**0.5) is that you can't really be sure it's exact (for sufficiently large integers x, it won't be, and might even overflow). Fortunately (if one's in no hurry;-) there are many pure integer approaches, such as the following...:
def is_square(apositiveint):
x = apositiveint // 2
seen = set([x])
while x * x != apositiveint:
x = (x + (apositiveint // x)) // 2
if x in seen: return False
seen.add(x)
return True
for i in range(110, 130):
print i, is_square(i)
Hint: it's based on the "Babylonian algorithm" for square root, see wikipedia. It does work for any positive number for which you have enough memory for the computation to proceed to completion;-).
Edit: let's see an example...
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print i, is_square(i)
this prints, as desired (and in a reasonable amount of time, too;-):
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489 True
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490 False
Please, before you propose solutions based on floating point intermediate results, make sure they work correctly on this simple example -- it's not that hard (you just need a few extra checks in case the sqrt computed is a little off), just takes a bit of care.
And then try with x**7 and find clever way to work around the problem you'll get,
OverflowError: long int too large to convert to float
you'll have to get more and more clever as the numbers keep growing, of course.
If I was in a hurry, of course, I'd use gmpy -- but then, I'm clearly biased;-).
>>> import gmpy
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7)
1
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7 + 1)
0
Yeah, I know, that's just so easy it feels like cheating (a bit the way I feel towards Python in general;-) -- no cleverness at all, just perfect directness and simplicity (and, in the case of gmpy, sheer speed;-)...
Use Newton's method to quickly zero in on the nearest integer square root, then square it and see if it's your number. See isqrt.
Python ≥ 3.8 has math.isqrt. If using an older version of Python, look for the "def isqrt(n)" implementation here.
import math
def is_square(i: int) -> bool:
return i == math.isqrt(i) ** 2
Since you can never depend on exact comparisons when dealing with floating point computations (such as these ways of calculating the square root), a less error-prone implementation would be
import math
def is_square(integer):
root = math.sqrt(integer)
return integer == int(root + 0.5) ** 2
Imagine integer is 9. math.sqrt(9) could be 3.0, but it could also be something like 2.99999 or 3.00001, so squaring the result right off isn't reliable. Knowing that int takes the floor value, increasing the float value by 0.5 first means we'll get the value we're looking for if we're in a range where float still has a fine enough resolution to represent numbers near the one for which we are looking.
If youre interested, I have a pure-math response to a similar question at math stackexchange, "Detecting perfect squares faster than by extracting square root".
My own implementation of isSquare(n) may not be the best, but I like it. Took me several months of study in math theory, digital computation and python programming, comparing myself to other contributors, etc., to really click with this method. I like its simplicity and efficiency though. I havent seen better. Tell me what you think.
def isSquare(n):
## Trivial checks
if type(n) != int: ## integer
return False
if n < 0: ## positivity
return False
if n == 0: ## 0 pass
return True
## Reduction by powers of 4 with bit-logic
while n&3 == 0:
n=n>>2
## Simple bit-logic test. All perfect squares, in binary,
## end in 001, when powers of 4 are factored out.
if n&7 != 1:
return False
if n==1:
return True ## is power of 4, or even power of 2
## Simple modulo equivalency test
c = n%10
if c in {3, 7}:
return False ## Not 1,4,5,6,9 in mod 10
if n % 7 in {3, 5, 6}:
return False ## Not 1,2,4 mod 7
if n % 9 in {2,3,5,6,8}:
return False
if n % 13 in {2,5,6,7,8,11}:
return False
## Other patterns
if c == 5: ## if it ends in a 5
if (n//10)%10 != 2:
return False ## then it must end in 25
if (n//100)%10 not in {0,2,6}:
return False ## and in 025, 225, or 625
if (n//100)%10 == 6:
if (n//1000)%10 not in {0,5}:
return False ## that is, 0625 or 5625
else:
if (n//10)%4 != 0:
return False ## (4k)*10 + (1,9)
## Babylonian Algorithm. Finding the integer square root.
## Root extraction.
s = (len(str(n))-1) // 2
x = (10**s) * 4
A = {x, n}
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) >> 1
if x in A:
return False
A.add(x)
return True
Pretty straight forward. First it checks that we have an integer, and a positive one at that. Otherwise there is no point. It lets 0 slip through as True (necessary or else next block is infinite loop).
The next block of code systematically removes powers of 4 in a very fast sub-algorithm using bit shift and bit logic operations. We ultimately are not finding the isSquare of our original n but of a k<n that has been scaled down by powers of 4, if possible. This reduces the size of the number we are working with and really speeds up the Babylonian method, but also makes other checks faster too.
The third block of code performs a simple Boolean bit-logic test. The least significant three digits, in binary, of any perfect square are 001. Always. Save for leading zeros resulting from powers of 4, anyway, which has already been accounted for. If it fails the test, you immediately know it isnt a square. If it passes, you cant be sure.
Also, if we end up with a 1 for a test value then the test number was originally a power of 4, including perhaps 1 itself.
Like the third block, the fourth tests the ones-place value in decimal using simple modulus operator, and tends to catch values that slip through the previous test. Also a mod 7, mod 8, mod 9, and mod 13 test.
The fifth block of code checks for some of the well-known perfect square patterns. Numbers ending in 1 or 9 are preceded by a multiple of four. And numbers ending in 5 must end in 5625, 0625, 225, or 025. I had included others but realized they were redundant or never actually used.
Lastly, the sixth block of code resembles very much what the top answerer - Alex Martelli - answer is. Basically finds the square root using the ancient Babylonian algorithm, but restricting it to integer values while ignoring floating point. Done both for speed and extending the magnitudes of values that are testable. I used sets instead of lists because it takes far less time, I used bit shifts instead of division by two, and I smartly chose an initial start value much more efficiently.
By the way, I did test Alex Martelli's recommended test number, as well as a few numbers many orders magnitude larger, such as:
x=1000199838770766116385386300483414671297203029840113913153824086810909168246772838680374612768821282446322068401699727842499994541063844393713189701844134801239504543830737724442006577672181059194558045164589783791764790043104263404683317158624270845302200548606715007310112016456397357027095564872551184907513312382763025454118825703090010401842892088063527451562032322039937924274426211671442740679624285180817682659081248396873230975882215128049713559849427311798959652681930663843994067353808298002406164092996533923220683447265882968239141724624870704231013642255563984374257471112743917655991279898690480703935007493906644744151022265929975993911186879561257100479593516979735117799410600147341193819147290056586421994333004992422258618475766549646258761885662783430625 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print(i, isSquare(i))
printed the following results:
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890625 True
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890626 False
And it did this in 0.33 seconds.
In my opinion, my algorithm works the same as Alex Martelli's, with all the benefits thereof, but has the added benefit highly efficient simple-test rejections that save a lot of time, not to mention the reduction in size of test numbers by powers of 4, which improves speed, efficiency, accuracy and the size of numbers that are testable. Probably especially true in non-Python implementations.
Roughly 99% of all integers are rejected as non-Square before Babylonian root extraction is even implemented, and in 2/3 the time it would take the Babylonian to reject the integer. And though these tests dont speed up the process that significantly, the reduction in all test numbers to an odd by dividing out all powers of 4 really accelerates the Babylonian test.
I did a time comparison test. I tested all integers from 1 to 10 Million in succession. Using just the Babylonian method by itself (with my specially tailored initial guess) it took my Surface 3 an average of 165 seconds (with 100% accuracy). Using just the logical tests in my algorithm (excluding the Babylonian), it took 127 seconds, it rejected 99% of all integers as non-Square without mistakenly rejecting any perfect squares. Of those integers that passed, only 3% were perfect Squares (a much higher density). Using the full algorithm above that employs both the logical tests and the Babylonian root extraction, we have 100% accuracy, and test completion in only 14 seconds. The first 100 Million integers takes roughly 2 minutes 45 seconds to test.
EDIT: I have been able to bring down the time further. I can now test the integers 0 to 100 Million in 1 minute 40 seconds. A lot of time is wasted checking the data type and the positivity. Eliminate the very first two checks and I cut the experiment down by a minute. One must assume the user is smart enough to know that negatives and floats are not perfect squares.
import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return (sqrt - int(sqrt)) == 0
A perfect square is a number that can be expressed as the product of two equal integers. math.sqrt(number) return a float. int(math.sqrt(number)) casts the outcome to int.
If the square root is an integer, like 3, for example, then math.sqrt(number) - int(math.sqrt(number)) will be 0, and the if statement will be False. If the square root was a real number like 3.2, then it will be True and print "it's not a perfect square".
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
My answer is:
def is_square(x):
return x**.5 % 1 == 0
It basically does a square root, then modulo by 1 to strip the integer part and if the result is 0 return True otherwise return False. In this case x can be any large number, just not as large as the max float number that python can handle: 1.7976931348623157e+308
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
This can be solved using the decimal module to get arbitrary precision square roots and easy checks for "exactness":
import math
from decimal import localcontext, Context, Inexact
def is_perfect_square(x):
# If you want to allow negative squares, then set x = abs(x) instead
if x < 0:
return False
# Create localized, default context so flags and traps unset
with localcontext(Context()) as ctx:
# Set a precision sufficient to represent x exactly; `x or 1` avoids
# math domain error for log10 when x is 0
ctx.prec = math.ceil(math.log10(x or 1)) + 1 # Wrap ceil call in int() on Py2
# Compute integer square root; don't even store result, just setting flags
ctx.sqrt(x).to_integral_exact()
# If previous line couldn't represent square root as exact int, sets Inexact flag
return not ctx.flags[Inexact]
For demonstration with truly huge values:
# I just kept mashing the numpad for awhile :-)
>>> base = 100009991439393999999393939398348438492389402490289028439083249803434098349083490340934903498034098390834980349083490384903843908309390282930823940230932490340983098349032098324908324098339779438974879480379380439748093874970843479280329708324970832497804329783429874329873429870234987234978034297804329782349783249873249870234987034298703249780349783497832497823497823497803429780324
>>> sqr = base ** 2
>>> sqr ** 0.5 # Too large to use floating point math
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
OverflowError: int too large to convert to float
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr)
True
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr-1)
False
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr+1)
False
If you increase the size of the value being tested, this eventually gets rather slow (takes close to a second for a 200,000 bit square), but for more moderate numbers (say, 20,000 bits), it's still faster than a human would notice for individual values (~33 ms on my machine). But since speed wasn't your primary concern, this is a good way to do it with Python's standard libraries.
Of course, it would be much faster to use gmpy2 and just test gmpy2.mpz(x).is_square(), but if third party packages aren't your thing, the above works quite well.
I just posted a slight variation on some of the examples above on another thread (Finding perfect squares) and thought I'd include a slight variation of what I posted there here (using nsqrt as a temporary variable), in case it's of interest / use:
import math
def is_square(n):
if not (isinstance(n, int) and (n >= 0)):
return False
else:
nsqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return nsqrt == math.trunc(nsqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
A variant of #Alex Martelli's solution without set
When x in seen is True:
In most cases, it is the last one added, e.g. 1022 produces the x's sequence 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 31;
In some cases (i.e., for the predecessors of perfect squares), it is the second-to-last one added, e.g. 1023 produces 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 32.
Hence, it suffices to stop as soon as the current x is greater than or equal to the previous one:
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
previous = n
x = n // 2
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) // 2
if x >= previous:
return False
previous = x
return True
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
assert not is_square(x-1)
assert is_square(x)
assert not is_square(x+1)
Equivalence with the original algorithm tested for 1 < n < 10**7. On the same interval, this slightly simpler variant is about 1.4 times faster.
This is my method:
def is_square(n) -> bool:
return int(n**0.5)**2 == int(n)
Take square root of number. Convert to integer. Take the square. If the numbers are equal, then it is a perfect square otherwise not.
It is incorrect for a large square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489.
If the modulus (remainder) leftover from dividing by the square root is 0, then it is a perfect square.
def is_square(num: int) -> bool:
return num % math.sqrt(num) == 0
I checked this against a list of perfect squares going up to 1000.
It is possible to improve the Babylonian method by observing that the successive terms form a decreasing sequence if one starts above the square root of n.
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
a = n
b = (a + n // a) // 2
while b < a:
a = b
b = (a + n // a) // 2
return a * a == n
If it's a perfect square, its square root will be an integer, the fractional part will be 0, we can use modulus operator to check fractional part, and check if it's 0, it does fail for some numbers, so, for safety, we will also check if it's square of the square root even if the fractional part is 0.
import math
def isSquare(n):
root = math.sqrt(n)
if root % 1 == 0:
if int(root) * int(root) == n:
return True
return False
isSquare(4761)
You could binary-search for the rounded square root. Square the result to see if it matches the original value.
You're probably better off with FogleBirds answer - though beware, as floating point arithmetic is approximate, which can throw this approach off. You could in principle get a false positive from a large integer which is one more than a perfect square, for instance, due to lost precision.
A simple way to do it (faster than the second one) :
def is_square(n):
return str(n**(1/2)).split(".")[1] == '0'
Another way:
def is_square(n):
if n == 0:
return True
else:
if n % 2 == 0 :
for i in range(2,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
else :
for i in range(1,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
return False
This response doesn't pertain to your stated question, but to an implicit question I see in the code you posted, ie, "how to check if something is an integer?"
The first answer you'll generally get to that question is "Don't!" And it's true that in Python, typechecking is usually not the right thing to do.
For those rare exceptions, though, instead of looking for a decimal point in the string representation of the number, the thing to do is use the isinstance function:
>>> isinstance(5,int)
True
>>> isinstance(5.0,int)
False
Of course this applies to the variable rather than a value. If I wanted to determine whether the value was an integer, I'd do this:
>>> x=5.0
>>> round(x) == x
True
But as everyone else has covered in detail, there are floating-point issues to be considered in most non-toy examples of this kind of thing.
If you want to loop over a range and do something for every number that is NOT a perfect square, you could do something like this:
def non_squares(upper):
next_square = 0
diff = 1
for i in range(0, upper):
if i == next_square:
next_square += diff
diff += 2
continue
yield i
If you want to do something for every number that IS a perfect square, the generator is even easier:
(n * n for n in range(upper))
I think that this works and is very simple:
import math
def is_square(num):
sqrt = math.sqrt(num)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
a=int(input('enter any number'))
flag=0
for i in range(1,a):
if a==i*i:
print(a,'is perfect square number')
flag=1
break
if flag==1:
pass
else:
print(a,'is not perfect square number')
In kotlin :
It's quite easy and it passed all test cases as well.
really thanks to >> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-quickest-way-to-determine-if-a-number-is-a-perfect-square
fun isPerfectSquare(num: Int): Boolean {
var result = false
var sum=0L
var oddNumber=1L
while(sum<num){
sum = sum + oddNumber
oddNumber = oddNumber+2
}
result = sum == num.toLong()
return result
}
def isPerfectSquare(self, num: int) -> bool:
left, right = 0, num
while left <= right:
mid = (left + right) // 2
if mid**2 < num:
left = mid + 1
elif mid**2 > num:
right = mid - 1
else:
return True
return False
This is an elegant, simple, fast and arbitrary solution that works for Python version >= 3.8:
from math import isqrt
def is_square(number):
if number >= 0:
return isqrt(number) ** 2 == number
return False
Decide how long the number will be.
take a delta 0.000000000000.......000001
see if the (sqrt(x))^2 - x is greater / equal /smaller than delta and decide based on the delta error.
import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.
The idea is to run a loop from i = 1 to floor(sqrt(n)) then check if squaring it makes n.
bool isPerfectSquare(int n)
{
for (int i = 1; i * i <= n; i++) {
// If (i * i = n)
if ((n % i == 0) && (n / i == i)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}