We Keep Coding

converting decimal to binary without the bin() function in python

I've looked into other solutions online and my own and all of them gave the exact same output, and thats my terminal being spammed with 1's.
this is my code, (I'm very new to coding so please forgive any clear cut mistakes :I)
def decimaltobinary(numb):
bit = []
x = numb // 2
while numb > 1:
y = x // 2
bit.append(y)
this is the code I found online which gave the exact same output
def trans(x):
if x == 0: return [0]
bit = []
while x:
bit.append(x % 2)
x >>= 1
return bit[::-1]

Given 3 non-negative integers, n, m, and a, what is the fastest way to find the smallest x such that (x*a) % n = m % n? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Solving modular linear congruences for large numbers
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Preferably, Id like a solution with time complexity O(1), O(log(n)), or O(sqrt(n)), since all the numbers are going to be pretty big.
Thanks in advance!
Note:
a < n
m < n

I'd use:
(m * pow(a,-1,n) ) % n
We want x, such that x = m/a, which is the same as m * 1/a. Python can do modular inverses automatically if you have the most recent version. :-)
Per the comment below, here's my modular Inverse function:
def findModularInverse(m,n) -> int:
"""Find m' such that m*m' === 1 (mod n)"""
if "HCF" not in globals(): HCF = __import__("math").gcd
assert HCF(m,n) == 1, "Not coprime."
s,sx,sy,t,tx,ty = m,1,0,n,0,1
while True:
q,r = s//t, s % t
u,ux,uy = r, sx-q*tx, sy-q*ty
#print("{} = {}x + {}y".format(u,ux,uy))
if r == 0: a,b = tx,ty; break
else: s,sx,sy,t,tx,ty = t,tx,ty,u,ux,uy; del q,r,u,ux,uy
return a%n
The poor thing has been deprecated and sent to the code retirement home.

How to added up a variable with multiple values together in Python Recursion Function?

So I was studying recursion function online. And the one question asks me to write a function to add up a number's digits together. For example (1023) -> 1 + 0 + 2 + 3 = 6. I used % and // get get rid of a digit each time. However, I don't know how to add them up together. The closest I can get is to print out each digit. Can anyone help me solve it or give me a hint please?
def digitalSum(n):
if n < 10:
sum_total = n
print(sum_total)
else:
sum_total = n % 10
digitalSum((n - (n % 10))//10)
print(sum_total)
digitalSum(1213)

Your function should return the current digit plus the sum of the rest of the digits:
def digitalSum(n):
if n < 10: return n
return n % 10 + digitalSum(n // 10)
print digitalSum(1213)
For completeness, you can also handle negative numbers:
def digitalSum(n):
if n < 0: sign = -1
else: sign = 1
n = abs(n)
if n < 10: return n
return sign * (n % 10 + digitalSum(n // 10))
print digitalSum(1213)

A correct version of your function is as follows:
from math import log10
def sum_digits(n, i=None):
if i is None:
i = int(log10(abs(n)))
e = float(10**i)
a, b = (n / e), (abs(n) % e)
if i == 0:
return int(a)
else:
return int(a) + sum_digits(b, (i - 1))
print sum_digits(1234)
print sum_digits(-1234)
Example:
$ python -i foo.py
10
8
>>>
Updated: Updated to properly (IHMO) cope with negative numbers. e.g: -1234 == -1 + 2 + 3 + 4 == 8
NB: Whilst this answer has been accepted (Thank you) I really think that perreal's answer should have been accepted for simplicity and clarity.
Also note: that whilst my solution handles negative numbers and summing their respective digits, perreal clearly points out in our comments that there are ate least three different ways to interpret the summing of digits of a negative number.

How to convert floating point number to base 3 in python

How does one convert a base-10 floating point number in Python to a base-N floating point number?
Specifically in my case, I would like to convert numbers to base 3 (obtain the representation of floating point numbers in base 3), for calculations with the Cantor set.

After a bit of fiddling, here's what I came up with. I present it to you humbly, keeping in mind Ignacio's warning. Please let me know if you find any flaws. Among other things, I have no reason to believe that the precision argument provides anything more than a vague assurance that the first precision digits are pretty close to correct.
def base3int(x):
x = int(x)
exponents = range(int(math.log(x, 3)), -1, -1)
for e in exponents:
d = int(x // (3 ** e))
x -= d * (3 ** e)
yield d
def base3fraction(x, precision=1000):
x = x - int(x)
exponents = range(-1, (-precision - 1) * 2, -1)
for e in exponents:
d = int(x // (3 ** e))
x -= d * (3 ** e)
yield d
if x == 0: break
These are iterators returning ints. Let me know if you need string conversion; but I imagine you can handle that.
EDIT: Actually looking at this some more, it seems like a if x == 0: break line after the yield in base3fraction gives you pretty much arbitrary precision. I went ahead and added that. Still, I'm leaving in the precision argument; it makes sense to be able to limit that quantity.
Also, if you want to convert back to decimal fractions, this is what I used to test the above.
sum(d * (3 ** (-i - 1)) for i, d in enumerate(base3fraction(x)))
Update
For some reason I've felt inspired by this problem. Here's a much more generalized solution. This returns two generators that generate sequences of integers representing the integral and fractional part of a given number in an arbitrary base. Note that this only returns two generators to distinguish between the parts of the number; the algorithm for generating digits is the same in both cases.
def convert_base(x, base=3, precision=None):
length_of_int = int(math.log(x, base))
iexps = range(length_of_int, -1, -1)
if precision == None: fexps = itertools.count(-1, -1)
else: fexps = range(-1, -int(precision + 1), -1)
def cbgen(x, base, exponents):
for e in exponents:
d = int(x // (base ** e))
x -= d * (base ** e)
yield d
if x == 0 and e < 0: break
return cbgen(int(x), base, iexps), cbgen(x - int(x), base, fexps)

Although 8 years have passed, I think it is worthwhile to mention a more compact solution.
def baseConversion( x=1, base=3, decimals=2 ):
import math
n_digits = math.floor(-math.log(x, base))#-no. of digits in front of decimal point
x_newBase = 0#initialize
for i in range( n_digits, decimals+1 ):
x_newBase = x_newBase + int(x*base**i) % base * 10**(-i)
return x_newBase
For example calling the function to convert the number 5+1/9+1/27
def baseConversion( x=5+1/9+1/27, base=3, decimals=2 )
12.01
def baseConversion( x=5+1/9+1/27, base=3, decimals=3 )
12.011

You may try this solution to convert a float string to a given base.
def eval_strint(s, base=2):
assert type(s) is str
assert 2 <= base <= 36
###
### YOUR CODE HERE
###
return int(s,base)
def is_valid_strfrac(s, base=2):
return all([is_valid_strdigit(c, base) for c in s if c != '.']) \
and (len([c for c in s if c == '.']) <= 1)
def eval_strfrac(s, base=2):
assert is_valid_strfrac(s, base), "'{}' contains invalid digits for a base-{} number.".format(s, base)
stg = s.split(".")
float_point=0.0
if len(stg) > 1:
float_point = (eval_strint(stg[1],base) * (base**(-len(stg[1]))))
stg_float = eval_strint(stg[0],base) + float_point
return stg_float

Generating digits of square root of 2

I want to generate the digits of the square root of two to 3 million digits.
I am aware of Newton-Raphson but I don't have much clue how to implement it in C or C++ due to lack of biginteger support. Can somebody point me in the right direction?
Also, if anybody knows how to do it in python (I'm a beginner), I would also appreciate it.

You could try using the mapping:
a/b -> (a+2b)/(a+b) starting with a= 1, b= 1. This converges to sqrt(2) (in fact gives the continued fraction representations of it).
Now the key point: This can be represented as a matrix multiplication (similar to fibonacci)
If a_n and b_n are the nth numbers in the steps then
[1 2] [a_n b_n]T = [a_(n+1) b_(n+1)]T
[1 1]
which now gives us
[1 2]n [a_1 b_1]T = [a_(n+1) b_(n+1)]T
[1 1]
Thus if the 2x2 matrix is A, we need to compute An which can be done by repeated squaring and only uses integer arithmetic (so you don't have to worry about precision issues).
Also note that the a/b you get will always be in reduced form (as gcd(a,b) = gcd(a+2b, a+b)), so if you are thinking of using a fraction class to represent the intermediate results, don't!
Since the nth denominators is like (1+sqrt(2))^n, to get 3 million digits you would likely need to compute till the 3671656th term.
Note, even though you are looking for the ~3.6 millionth term, repeated squaring will allow you to compute the nth term in O(Log n) multiplications and additions.
Also, this can easily be made parallel, unlike the iterative ones like Newton-Raphson etc.

EDIT: I like this version better than the previous. It's a general solution that accepts both integers and decimal fractions; with n = 2 and precision = 100000, it takes about two minutes. Thanks to Paul McGuire for his suggestions & other suggestions welcome!
def sqrt_list(n, precision):
ndigits = [] # break n into list of digits
n_int = int(n)
n_fraction = n - n_int
while n_int: # generate list of digits of integral part
ndigits.append(n_int % 10)
n_int /= 10
if len(ndigits) % 2: ndigits.append(0) # ndigits will be processed in groups of 2
decimal_point_index = len(ndigits) / 2 # remember decimal point position
while n_fraction: # insert digits from fractional part
n_fraction *= 10
ndigits.insert(0, int(n_fraction))
n_fraction -= int(n_fraction)
if len(ndigits) % 2: ndigits.insert(0, 0) # ndigits will be processed in groups of 2
rootlist = []
root = carry = 0 # the algorithm
while root == 0 or (len(rootlist) < precision and (ndigits or carry != 0)):
carry = carry * 100
if ndigits: carry += ndigits.pop() * 10 + ndigits.pop()
x = 9
while (20 * root + x) * x > carry:
x -= 1
carry -= (20 * root + x) * x
root = root * 10 + x
rootlist.append(x)
return rootlist, decimal_point_index

As for arbitrary big numbers you could have a look at The GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library (for C/C++).

For work? Use a library!
For fun? Good for you :)
Write a program to imitate what you would do with pencil and paper. Start with 1 digit, then 2 digits, then 3, ..., ...
Don't worry about Newton or anybody else. Just do it your way.

Here is a short version for calculating the square root of an integer a to digits of precision. It works by finding the integer square root of a after multiplying by 10 raised to the 2 x digits.
def sqroot(a, digits):
a = a * (10**(2*digits))
x_prev = 0
x_next = 1 * (10**digits)
while x_prev != x_next:
x_prev = x_next
x_next = (x_prev + (a // x_prev)) >> 1
return x_next
Just a few caveats.
You'll need to convert the result to a string and add the decimal point at the correct location (if you want the decimal point printed).
Converting a very large integer to a string isn't very fast.
Dividing very large integers isn't very fast (in Python) either.
Depending on the performance of your system, it may take an hour or longer to calculate the square root of 2 to 3 million decimal places.
I haven't proven the loop will always terminate. It may oscillate between two values differing in the last digit. Or it may not.

The nicest way is probably using the continued fraction expansion [1; 2, 2, ...] the square root of two.
def root_two_cf_expansion():
yield 1
while True:
yield 2
def z(a,b,c,d, contfrac):
for x in contfrac:
while a > 0 and b > 0 and c > 0 and d > 0:
t = a // c
t2 = b // d
if not t == t2:
break
yield t
a = (10 * (a - c*t))
b = (10 * (b - d*t))
# continue with same fraction, don't pull new x
a, b = x*a+b, a
c, d = x*c+d, c
for digit in rdigits(a, c):
yield digit
def rdigits(p, q):
while p > 0:
if p > q:
d = p // q
p = p - q * d
else:
d = (10 * p) // q
p = 10 * p - q * d
yield d
def decimal(contfrac):
return z(1,0,0,1,contfrac)
decimal((root_two_cf_expansion()) returns an iterator of all the decimal digits. t1 and t2 in the algorithm are minimum and maximum values of the next digit. When they are equal, we output that digit.
Note that this does not handle certain exceptional cases such as negative numbers in the continued fraction.
(This code is an adaptation of Haskell code for handling continued fractions that has been floating around.)

Well, the following is the code that I wrote. It generated a million digits after the decimal for the square root of 2 in about 60800 seconds for me, but my laptop was sleeping when it was running the program, it should be faster that. You can try to generate 3 million digits, but it might take a couple days to get it.
def sqrt(number,digits_after_decimal=20):
import time
start=time.time()
original_number=number
number=str(number)
list=[]
for a in range(len(number)):
if number[a]=='.':
decimal_point_locaiton=a
break
if a==len(number)-1:
number+='.'
decimal_point_locaiton=a+1
if decimal_point_locaiton/2!=round(decimal_point_locaiton/2):
number='0'+number
decimal_point_locaiton+=1
if len(number)/2!=round(len(number)/2):
number+='0'
number=number[:decimal_point_locaiton]+number[decimal_point_locaiton+1:]
decimal_point_ans=int((decimal_point_locaiton-2)/2)+1
for a in range(0,len(number),2):
if number[a]!='0':
list.append(eval(number[a:a+2]))
else:
try:
list.append(eval(number[a+1]))
except IndexError:
pass
p=0
c=list[0]
x=0
ans=''
for a in range(len(list)):
while c>=(20*p+x)*(x):
x+=1
y=(20*p+x-1)*(x-1)
p=p*10+x-1
ans+=str(x-1)
c-=y
try:
c=c*100+list[a+1]
except IndexError:
c=c*100
while c!=0:
x=0
while c>=(20*p+x)*(x):
x+=1
y=(20*p+x-1)*(x-1)
p=p*10+x-1
ans+=str(x-1)
c-=y
c=c*100
if len(ans)-decimal_point_ans>=digits_after_decimal:
break
ans=ans[:decimal_point_ans]+'.'+ans[decimal_point_ans:]
total=time.time()-start
return ans,total

Python already supports big integers out of the box, and if that's the only thing holding you back in C/C++ you can always write a quick container class yourself.
The only problem you've mentioned is a lack of big integers. If you don't want to use a library for that, then are you looking for help writing such a class?

Here's a more efficient integer square root function (in Python 3.x) that should terminate in all cases. It starts with a number much closer to the square root, so it takes fewer steps. Note that int.bit_length requires Python 3.1+. Error checking left out for brevity.
def isqrt(n):
x = (n >> n.bit_length() // 2) + 1
result = (x + n // x) // 2
while abs(result - x) > 1:
x = result
result = (x + n // x) // 2
while result * result > n:
result -= 1
return result