I'm trying to implement this following formula in Python. It's basically a long concatenation os summations, where an additional summation is added each time a new 'element' is needed. To simply explain the formula's structure, here's how this formula goes in order from 2 to 5 elements:
2 elements
3 elements
4 elements
5 elements
By the way, here's the g function shown in the formulas:
g function
Now, I foolishly tried coding this formula with my extremely barebones python programming skills. The initial goal was to try this with 15 elements, but given that it contained a lot of nested for loops and factorials, I quickly noticed that I could not really obtain a result from that.
At the end I ended up with this monstrous code, that would finish just after the heat death of the universe:
from ast import Str
import math
pNuevos = [0,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,1]
pTotales = [0,10,10,7,8,7,7,7,7,7,10,7,8,7,8,8]
def PTirada (personajes):
tirada = 0.05/personajes
return tirada
def Ppers1 (personajes, intentos):
p1pers = ((math.factorial(intentos-1)) / ((math.factorial(4))*(math.factorial(intentos-5)))) * (PTirada(personajes)**5) * ((1-PTirada(personajes))**(intentos-5))
return p1pers
def Ppers2 (personajes, intentos):
p2pers = 0
for i in range(10,intentos+1):
p2pers = p2pers + ( (math.factorial(intentos-1)) / ((math.factorial(4))*(math.factorial(i-5))*(math.factorial(intentos-i))) ) * (PTirada(personajes)**i) * ((1 - 2*(PTirada(personajes))) **(intentos-i))
p2pers = 2*p2pers
return p2pers
def Activate (z) :
probability1 = 0
probability2 = 0
probability3 = 0
probability4 = 0
probability5 = 0
probability6 = 0
probability7 = 0
probability8 = 0
probability9 = 0
probability10 = 0
probability11 = 0
probability12 = 0
probability13 = 0
probability14 = 0
for i in range (5*pNuevos[1], z-5*pNuevos[2]+1):
for j in range (5*pNuevos[2], z-i-5*pNuevos[3]+1):
for k in range (5*pNuevos[3], z-j-i-5*pNuevos[4]+1):
for l in range (5*pNuevos[4], z-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[5]+1):
for m in range (5*pNuevos[5], z-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[6]+1):
for n in range (5*pNuevos[6], z-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[7]+1):
for o in range (5*pNuevos[7], z-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[8]+1):
for p in range (5*pNuevos[8], z-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[9]+1):
for q in range (5*pNuevos[9], z-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[10]+1):
for r in range (5*pNuevos[10], z-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[11]+1):
for s in range (5*pNuevos[11], z-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[12]+1):
for t in range (5*pNuevos[12], z-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[13]+1):
for u in range (5*pNuevos[13], z-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[14]+1):
for v in range (5*pNuevos[14], z-u-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i-5*pNuevos[15]+1):
probability14 = probability14 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[14])+"("+str(pTotales[14])+","+str(v)+")") * eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[15])+"("+str(pTotales[15])+","+str(z-v-u-t-s-r-q-p-o-n-m-l-k-j-i)+")")
probability13 = probability13 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[13])+"("+str(pTotales[13])+","+str(u)+")") * probability14
probability12 = probability12 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[12])+"("+str(pTotales[12])+","+str(t)+")") * probability13
probability11 = probability11 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[11])+"("+str(pTotales[11])+","+str(s)+")") * probability12
probability10 = probability10 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[10])+"("+str(pTotales[10])+","+str(r)+")") * probability11
probability9 = probability9 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[9])+"("+str(pTotales[9])+","+str(q)+")") * probability10
probability8 = probability8 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[8])+"("+str(pTotales[8])+","+str(p)+")") * probability9
probability7 = probability7 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[7])+"("+str(pTotales[7])+","+str(o)+")") * probability8
probability6 = probability6 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[6])+"("+str(pTotales[6])+","+str(n)+")") * probability7
probability5 = probability5 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[5])+"("+str(pTotales[5])+","+str(m)+")") * probability6
probability4 = probability4 + eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[4])+"("+str(pTotales[4])+","+str(l)+")") * probability5
probability3 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[3]) + "("+str(pTotales[3])+","+str(k)+")") * probability4
probability2 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[2]) + "("+str(pTotales[2])+","+str(j)+")") * probability3
probability1 += eval("Ppers"+str(pNuevos[1]) + "("+str(pTotales[1])+","+str(i)+")") * probability2
return probability1
print (str(Activate(700)))
Edit: Alright I think it would be helpful to explain a couple things:
-First of all, I was trying to find ways the code could run faster, as I'm aware the nested for loops are a performance hog. I was also hoping there would be a way to optimize so many factorial operations.
-Also, the P(A) function described in the g function represents the probability of an event happening, which is already in the code, in the first function from the top.
There's also the function f in the formula, which is just a simplification of the function g for specific cases.
The function f is the second function in the code, whereas g is the third function in the code.
I will try to find a way to simplify the multiple summations, and thanks for the tip of not using eval()!
I'm sorry again for not specifying the question more, and for that mess of code also.
I would expect to break it down with something like this:
def main():
A = 0.5
m = 10
result = g(A, m)
return
def sigma(k, m):
''' function to deal with the sum loop'''
for k in range(10, m+1):
# the bits in the formula
pass
return
def g(A, m):
''' function to deal with g '''
k=10
return 2 * sigma(k,m)
if __name__=='__main__':
''' This is executed when run from the command line '''
main()
Or alternatively to do similar with classes.
I expect you also need a function for p(A) and one for factorials.
I have two ordered lists of consecutive integers m=0, 1, ... M and n=0, 1, 2, ... N. Each value of m has a probability pm, and each value of n has a probability pn. I am trying to find the ordered list of unique values r=n/m and their probabilities pr. I am aware that r is infinite if n=0 and can even be undefined if m=n=0.
In practice, I would like to run for M and N each be of the order of 2E4, meaning up to 4E8 values of r - which would mean 3 GB of floats (assuming 8 Bytes/float).
For this calculation, I have written the python code below.
The idea is to iterate over m and n, and for each new m/n, insert it in the right place with its probability if it isn't there yet, otherwise add its probability to the existing number. My assumption is that it is easier to sort things on the way instead of waiting until the end.
The cases related to 0 are added at the end of the loop.
I am using the Fraction class since we are dealing with fractions.
The code also tracks the multiplicity of each unique value of m/n.
I have tested up to M=N=100, and things are quite slow. Are there better approaches to the question, or more efficient ways to tackle the code?
Timing:
M=N=30: 1 s
M=N=50: 6 s
M=N=80: 30 s
M=N=100: 82 s
import numpy as np
from fractions import Fraction
import time # For timiing
start_time = time.time() # Timing
M, N = 6, 4
mList, nList = np.arange(1, M+1), np.arange(1, N+1) # From 1 to M inclusive, deal with 0 later
mProbList, nProbList = [1/(M+1)]*(M), [1/(N+1)]*(N) # Probabilities, here assumed equal (not general case)
# Deal with mn=0 later
pmZero, pnZero = 1/(M+1), 1/(N+1) # P(m=0) and P(n=0)
pNaN = pmZero * pnZero # P(0/0) = P(m=0)P(n=0)
pZero = pmZero * (1 - pnZero) # P(0) = P(m=0)P(n!=0)
pInf = pnZero * (1 - pmZero) # P(inf) = P(m!=0)P(n=0)
# Main list of r=m/n, P(r) and mult(r)
# Start with first line, m=1
rList = [Fraction(mList[0], n) for n in nList[::-1]] # Smallest first
rProbList = [mProbList[0] * nP for nP in nProbList[::-1]] # Start with first line
rMultList = [1] * len(rList) # Multiplicity of each element
# Main loop
for m, mP in zip(mList[1:], mProbList[1:]):
for n, nP in zip(nList[::-1], nProbList[::-1]): # Pick an n value
r, rP, rMult = Fraction(m, n), mP*nP, 1
for i in range(len(rList)-1): # See where it fits in existing list
if r < rList[i]:
rList.insert(i, r)
rProbList.insert(i, rP)
rMultList.insert(i, 1)
break
elif r == rList[i]:
rProbList[i] += rP
rMultList[i] += 1
break
elif r < rList[i+1]:
rList.insert(i+1, r)
rProbList.insert(i+1, rP)
rMultList.insert(i+1, 1)
break
elif r == rList[i+1]:
rProbList[i+1] += rP
rMultList[i+1] += 1
break
if r > rList[-1]:
rList.append(r)
rProbList.append(rP)
rMultList.append(1)
break
# Deal with 0
rList.insert(0, Fraction(0, 1))
rProbList.insert(0, pZero)
rMultList.insert(0, N)
# Deal with infty
rList.append(np.Inf)
rProbList.append(pInf)
rMultList.append(M)
# Deal with undefined case
rList.append(np.NAN)
rProbList.append(pNaN)
rMultList.append(1)
print(".... done in %s seconds." % round(time.time() - start_time, 2))
print("************** Final list\nr", 'Prob', 'Mult')
for r, rP, rM in zip(rList, rProbList, rMultList): print(r, rP, rM)
print("************** Checks")
print("mList", mList, 'nList', nList)
print("Sum of proba = ", np.sum(rProbList))
print("Sum of multi = ", np.sum(rMultList), "\t(M+1)*(N+1) = ", (M+1)*(N+1))
Based on the suggestion of #Prune, and on this thread about merging lists of tuples, I have modified the code as below. It's a lot easier to read, and runs about an order of magnitude faster for N=M=80 (I have omitted dealing with 0 - would be done same way as in original post). I assume there may be ways to tweak the merge and conversion back to lists further yet.
# Do calculations
data = [(Fraction(m, n), mProb(m) * nProb(n)) for n in range(1, N+1) for m in range(1, M+1)]
data.sort()
# Merge duplicates using a dictionary
d = {}
for r, p in data:
if not (r in d): d[r] = [0, 0]
d[r][0] += p
d[r][1] += 1
# Convert back to lists
rList, rProbList, rMultList = [], [], []
for k in d:
rList.append(k)
rProbList.append(d[k][0])
rMultList.append(d[k][1])
I expect that "things are quite slow" because you've chosen a known inefficient sort. A single list insertion is O(K) (later list elements have to be bumped over, and there is added storage allocation on a regular basis). Thus a full-list insertion sort is O(K^2). For your notation, that is O((M*N)^2).
If you want any sort of reasonable performance, research and use the best-know methods. The most straightforward way to do this is to make your non-exception results as a simple list comprehension, and use the built-in sort for your penultimate list. Simply append your n=0 cases, and you're done in O(K log K) time.
I the expression below, I've assumed functions for m and n probabilities.
This is a notational convenience; you know how to directly compute them, and can substitute those expressions if you wish.
data = [ (mProb(m) * nProb(n), Fraction(m, n))
for n in range(1, N+1)
for m in range(0, M+1) ]
data.sort()
data.extend([ # generate your "zero" cases here ])
I am writing some quiz game and need computer to solve 1 game in the quiz if players fail to solve it.
Given data :
List of 6 numbers to use, for example 4, 8, 6, 2, 15, 50.
Targeted value, where 0 < value < 1000, for example 590.
Available operations are division, addition, multiplication and division.
Parentheses can be used.
Generate mathematical expression which evaluation is equal, or as close as possible, to the target value. For example for numbers given above, expression could be : (6 + 4) * 50 + 15 * (8 - 2) = 590
My algorithm is as follows :
Generate all permutations of all the subsets of the given numbers from (1) above
For each permutation generate all parenthesis and operator combinations
Track the closest value as algorithm runs
I can not think of any smart optimization to the brute-force algorithm above, which will speed it up by the order of magnitude. Also I must optimize for the worst case, because many quiz games will be run simultaneously on the server.
Code written today to solve this problem is (relevant stuff extracted from the project) :
from operator import add, sub, mul, div
import itertools
ops = ['+', '-', '/', '*']
op_map = {'+': add, '-': sub, '/': div, '*': mul}
# iterate over 1 permutation and generates parentheses and operator combinations
def iter_combinations(seq):
if len(seq) == 1:
yield seq[0], str(seq[0])
else:
for i in range(len(seq)):
left, right = seq[:i], seq[i:] # split input list at i`th place
# generate cartesian product
for l, l_str in iter_combinations(left):
for r, r_str in iter_combinations(right):
for op in ops:
if op_map[op] is div and r == 0: # cant divide by zero
continue
else:
yield op_map[op](float(l), r), \
('(' + l_str + op + r_str + ')')
numbers = [4, 8, 6, 2, 15, 50]
target = best_value = 590
best_item = None
for i in range(len(numbers)):
for current in itertools.permutations(numbers, i+1): # generate perms
for value, item in iter_combinations(list(current)):
if value < 0:
continue
if abs(target - value) < best_value:
best_value = abs(target - value)
best_item = item
print best_item
It prints : ((((4*6)+50)*8)-2). Tested it a little with different values and it seems to work correctly. Also I have a function to remove unnecessary parenthesis but it is not relevant to the question so it is not posted.
Problem is that this runs very slowly because of all this permutations, combinations and evaluations. On my mac book air it runs for a few minutes for 1 example. I would like to make it run in a few seconds tops on the same machine, because many quiz game instances will be run at the same time on the server. So the questions are :
Can I speed up current algorithm somehow (by orders of magnitude)?
Am I missing on some other algorithm for this problem which would run much faster?
You can build all the possible expression trees with the given numbers and evalate them. You don't need to keep them all in memory, just print them when the target number is found:
First we need a class to hold the expression. It is better to design it to be immutable, so its value can be precomputed. Something like this:
class Expr:
'''An Expr can be built with two different calls:
-Expr(number) to build a literal expression
-Expr(a, op, b) to build a complex expression.
There a and b will be of type Expr,
and op will be one of ('+','-', '*', '/').
'''
def __init__(self, *args):
if len(args) == 1:
self.left = self.right = self.op = None
self.value = args[0]
else:
self.left = args[0]
self.right = args[2]
self.op = args[1]
if self.op == '+':
self.value = self.left.value + self.right.value
elif self.op == '-':
self.value = self.left.value - self.right.value
elif self.op == '*':
self.value = self.left.value * self.right.value
elif self.op == '/':
self.value = self.left.value // self.right.value
def __str__(self):
'''It can be done smarter not to print redundant parentheses,
but that is out of the scope of this problem.
'''
if self.op:
return "({0}{1}{2})".format(self.left, self.op, self.right)
else:
return "{0}".format(self.value)
Now we can write a recursive function that builds all the possible expression trees with a given set of expressions, and prints the ones that equals our target value. We will use the itertools module, that's always fun.
We can use itertools.combinations() or itertools.permutations(), the difference is in the order. Some of our operations are commutative and some are not, so we can use permutations() and assume we will get many very simmilar solutions. Or we can use combinations() and manually reorder the values when the operation is not commutative.
import itertools
OPS = ('+', '-', '*', '/')
def SearchTrees(current, target):
''' current is the current set of expressions.
target is the target number.
'''
for a,b in itertools.combinations(current, 2):
current.remove(a)
current.remove(b)
for o in OPS:
# This checks whether this operation is commutative
if o == '-' or o == '/':
conmut = ((a,b), (b,a))
else:
conmut = ((a,b),)
for aa, bb in conmut:
# You do not specify what to do with the division.
# I'm assuming that only integer divisions are allowed.
if o == '/' and (bb.value == 0 or aa.value % bb.value != 0):
continue
e = Expr(aa, o, bb)
# If a solution is found, print it
if e.value == target:
print(e.value, '=', e)
current.add(e)
# Recursive call!
SearchTrees(current, target)
# Do not forget to leave the set as it were before
current.remove(e)
# Ditto
current.add(b)
current.add(a)
And then the main call:
NUMBERS = [4, 8, 6, 2, 15, 50]
TARGET = 590
initial = set(map(Expr, NUMBERS))
SearchTrees(initial, TARGET)
And done! With these data I'm getting 719 different solutions in just over 21 seconds! Of course many of them are trivial variations of the same expression.
24 game is 4 numbers to target 24, your game is 6 numbers to target x (0 < x < 1000).
That's much similar.
Here is the quick solution, get all results and print just one in my rMBP in about 1-3s, I think one solution print is ok in this game :), I will explain it later:
def mrange(mask):
#twice faster from Evgeny Kluev
x = 0
while x != mask:
x = (x - mask) & mask
yield x
def f( i ) :
global s
if s[i] :
#get cached group
return s[i]
for x in mrange(i & (i - 1)) :
#when x & i == x
#x is a child group in group i
#i-x is also a child group in group i
fk = fork( f(x), f(i-x) )
s[i] = merge( s[i], fk )
return s[i]
def merge( s1, s2 ) :
if not s1 :
return s2
if not s2 :
return s1
for i in s2 :
#print just one way quickly
s1[i] = s2[i]
#combine all ways, slowly
# if i in s1 :
# s1[i].update(s2[i])
# else :
# s1[i] = s2[i]
return s1
def fork( s1, s2 ) :
d = {}
#fork s1 s2
for i in s1 :
for j in s2 :
if not i + j in d :
d[i + j] = getExp( s1[i], s2[j], "+" )
if not i - j in d :
d[i - j] = getExp( s1[i], s2[j], "-" )
if not j - i in d :
d[j - i] = getExp( s2[j], s1[i], "-" )
if not i * j in d :
d[i * j] = getExp( s1[i], s2[j], "*" )
if j != 0 and not i / j in d :
d[i / j] = getExp( s1[i], s2[j], "/" )
if i != 0 and not j / i in d :
d[j / i] = getExp( s2[j], s1[i], "/" )
return d
def getExp( s1, s2, op ) :
exp = {}
for i in s1 :
for j in s2 :
exp['('+i+op+j+')'] = 1
#just print one way
break
#just print one way
break
return exp
def check( s ) :
num = 0
for i in xrange(target,0,-1):
if i in s :
if i == target :
print numbers, target, "\nFind ", len(s[i]), 'ways'
for exp in s[i]:
print exp, ' = ', i
else :
print numbers, target, "\nFind nearest ", i, 'in', len(s[i]), 'ways'
for exp in s[i]:
print exp, ' = ', i
break
print '\n'
def game( numbers, target ) :
global s
s = [None]*(2**len(numbers))
for i in xrange(0,len(numbers)) :
numbers[i] = float(numbers[i])
n = len(numbers)
for i in xrange(0,n) :
s[2**i] = { numbers[i]: {str(numbers[i]):1} }
for i in xrange(1,2**n) :
#we will get the f(numbers) in s[2**n-1]
s[i] = f(i)
check(s[2**n-1])
numbers = [4, 8, 6, 2, 2, 5]
s = [None]*(2**len(numbers))
target = 590
game( numbers, target )
numbers = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
target = 590
game( numbers, target )
Assume A is your 6 numbers list.
We define f(A) is all result that can calculate by all A numbers, if we search f(A), we will find if target is in it and get answer or the closest answer.
We can split A to two real child groups: A1 and A-A1 (A1 is not empty and not equal A) , which cut the problem from f(A) to f(A1) and f(A-A1). Because we know f(A) = Union( a+b, a-b, b-a, a*b, a/b(b!=0), b/a(a!=0) ), which a in A, b in A-A1.
We use fork f(A) = Union( fork(A1,A-A1) ) stands for such process. We can remove all duplicate value in fork(), so we can cut the range and make program faster.
So, if A = [1,2,3,4,5,6], then f(A) = fork( f([1]),f([2,3,4,5,6]) ) U ... U fork( f([1,2,3]), f([4,5,6]) ) U ... U stands for Union.
We will see f([2,3,4,5,6]) = fork( f([2,3]), f([4,5,6]) ) U ... , f([3,4,5,6]) = fork( f([3]), f([4,5,6]) ) U ..., the f([4,5,6]) used in both.
So if we can cache every f([...]) the program can be faster.
We can get 2^len(A) - 2 (A1,A-A1) in A. We can use binary to stands for that.
For example: A = [1,2,3,4,5,6], A1 = [1,2,3], then binary 000111(7) stands for A1. A2 = [1,3,5], binary 010101(21) stands for A2. A3 = [1], then binary 000001(1) stands for A3...
So we get a way stands for all groups in A, we can cache them and make all process faster!
All combinations for six number, four operations and parenthesis are up to 5 * 9! at least. So I think you should use some AI algorithm. Using genetic programming or optimization seems to be the path to follow.
In the book Programming Collective Intelligence in the chapter 11 Evolving Intelligence you will find exactly what you want and much more. That chapter explains how to find a mathematical function combining operations and numbers (as you want) to match a result. You will be surprised how easy is such task.
PD: The examples are written using Python.
I would try using an AST at least it will
make your expression generation part easier
(no need to mess with brackets).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree
1) Generate some tree with N nodes
(N = the count of numbers you have).
I've read before how many of those you
have, their size is serious as N grows.
By serious I mean more than polynomial to say the least.
2) Now just start changing the operations
in the non-leaf nodes and keep evaluating
the result.
But this is again backtracking and too much degree of freedom.
This is a computationally complex task you're posing. I believe if you
ask the question as you did: "let's generate a number K on the output
such that |K-V| is minimal" (here V is the pre-defined desired result,
i.e. 590 in your example) , then I guess this problem is even NP-complete.
Somebody please correct me if my intuition is lying to me.
So I think even the generation of all possible ASTs (assuming only 1 operation
is allowed) is NP complete as their count is not polynomial. Not to talk that more
than 1 operation is allowed here and not to talk of the minimal difference requirement (between result and desired result).
1. Fast entirely online algorithm
The idea is to search not for a single expression for target value,
but for an equation where target value is included in one part of the equation and
both parts have almost equal number of operations (2 and 3).
Since each part of the equation is relatively small, it does not take much time to
generate all possible expressions for given input values.
After both parts of equation are generated it is possible to scan a pair of sorted arrays
containing values of these expressions and find a pair of equal (or at least best matching)
values in them. After two matching values are found we could get corresponding expressions and
join them into a single expression (in other words, solve the equation).
To join two expression trees together we could descend from the root of one tree
to "target" leaf, for each node on this path invert corresponding operation
('*' to '/', '/' to '*' or '/', '+' to '-', '-' to '+' or '-'), and move "inverted"
root node to other tree (also as root node).
This algorithm is faster and easier to implement when all operations are invertible.
So it is best to use with floating point division (as in my implementation) or with
rational division. Truncating integer division is most difficult case because it produces same result for different inputs (42/25=1 and 25/25 is also 1). With zero-remainder integer division this algorithm gives result almost instantly when exact result is available, but needs some modifications to work correctly when approximate result is needed.
See implementation on Ideone.
2. Even faster approach with off-line pre-processing
As noticed by #WolframH, there are not so many possible input number combinations.
Only 3*3*(49+4-1) = 4455 if repetitions are possible.
Or 3*3*(49) = 1134 without duplicates. Which allows us to pre-process
all possible inputs off-line, store results in compact form, and when some particular result
is needed quickly unpack one of pre-processed values.
Pre-processing program should take array of 6 numbers and generate values for all possible
expressions. Then it should drop out-of-range values and find nearest result for all cases
where there is no exact match. All this could be performed by algorithm proposed by #Tim.
His code needs minimal modifications to do it. Also it is the fastest alternative (yet).
Since pre-processing is offline, we could use something better than interpreted Python.
One alternative is PyPy, other one is to use some fast interpreted language. Pre-processing
all possible inputs should not take more than several minutes.
Speaking about memory needed to store all pre-processed values, the only problem are the
resulting expressions. If stored in string form they will take up to 4455*999*30 bytes or 120Mb.
But each expression could be compressed. It may be represented in postfix notation like this:
arg1 arg2 + arg3 arg4 + *. To store this we need 10 bits to store all arguments' permutations,
10 bits to store 5 operations, and 8 bits to specify how arguments and operations are
interleaved (6 arguments + 5 operations - 3 pre-defined positions: first two are always
arguments, last one is always operation). 28 bits per tree or 4 bytes, which means it is only
20Mb for entire data set with duplicates or 5Mb without them.
3. Slow entirely online algorithm
There are some ways to speed up algorithm in OP:
Greatest speed improvement may be achieved if we avoid trying each commutative operation twice and make recursion tree less branchy.
Some optimization is possible by removing all branches where the result of division operation is zero.
Memorization (dynamic programming) cannot give significant speed boost here, still it may be useful.
After enhancing OP's approach with these ideas, approximately 30x speedup is achieved:
from itertools import combinations
numbers = [4, 8, 6, 2, 15, 50]
target = best_value = 590
best_item = None
subsets = {}
def get_best(value, item):
global best_value, target, best_item
if value >= 0 and abs(target - value) < best_value:
best_value = abs(target - value)
best_item = item
return value, item
def compare_one(value, op, left, right):
item = ('(' + left + op + right + ')')
return get_best(value, item)
def apply_one(left, right):
yield compare_one(left[0] + right[0], '+', left[1], right[1])
yield compare_one(left[0] * right[0], '*', left[1], right[1])
yield compare_one(left[0] - right[0], '-', left[1], right[1])
yield compare_one(right[0] - left[0], '-', right[1], left[1])
if right[0] != 0 and left[0] >= right[0]:
yield compare_one(left[0] / right[0], '/', left[1], right[1])
if left[0] != 0 and right[0] >= left[0]:
yield compare_one(right[0] / left[0], '/', right[1], left[1])
def memorize(seq):
fs = frozenset(seq)
if fs in subsets:
for x in subsets[fs].items():
yield x
else:
subsets[fs] = {}
for value, item in try_all(seq):
subsets[fs][value] = item
yield value, item
def apply_all(left, right):
for l in memorize(left):
for r in memorize(right):
for x in apply_one(l, r):
yield x;
def try_all(seq):
if len(seq) == 1:
yield get_best(numbers[seq[0]], str(numbers[seq[0]]))
for length in range(1, len(seq)):
for x in combinations(seq[1:], length):
for value, item in apply_all(list(x), list(set(seq) - set(x))):
yield value, item
for x, y in try_all([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]): pass
print best_item
More speed improvements are possible if you add some constraints to the problem:
If integer division is only possible when the remainder is zero.
If all intermediate results are to be non-negative and/or below 1000.
Well I don't will give up. Following the line of all the answers to your question I come up with another algorithm. This algorithm gives the solution with a time average of 3 milliseconds.
#! -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import copy
numbers = [4, 8, 6, 2, 15, 50]
target = 590
operations = {
'+': lambda x, y: x + y,
'-': lambda x, y: x - y,
'*': lambda x, y: x * y,
'/': lambda x, y: y == 0 and 1e30 or x / y # Handle zero division
}
def chain_op(target, numbers, result=None, expression=""):
if len(numbers) == 0:
return (expression, result)
else:
for choosen_number in numbers:
remaining_numbers = copy.copy(numbers)
remaining_numbers.remove(choosen_number)
if result is None:
return chain_op(target, remaining_numbers, choosen_number, str(choosen_number))
else:
incomming_results = []
for key, op in operations.items():
new_result = op(result, choosen_number)
new_expression = "%s%s%d" % (expression, key, choosen_number)
incomming_results.append(chain_op(target, remaining_numbers, new_result, new_expression))
diff = 1e30
selected = None
for exp_result in incomming_results:
exp, res = exp_result
if abs(res - target) < diff:
diff = abs(res - target)
selected = exp_result
if diff == 0:
break
return selected
if __name__ == '__main__':
print chain_op(target, numbers)
Erratum: This algorithm do not include the solutions containing parenthesis. It always hits the target or the closest result, my bad. Still is pretty fast. It can be adapted to support parenthesis without much work.
Actually there are two things that you can do to speed up the time to milliseconds.
You are trying to find a solution for given quiz, by generating the numbers and the target number. Instead you can generate the solution and just remove the operations. You can build some thing smart that will generate several quizzes and choose the most interesting one, how ever in this case you loose the as close as possible option.
Another way to go, is pre-calculation. Solve 100 quizes, use them as build-in in your application, and generate new one on the fly, try to keep your quiz stack at 100, also try to give the user only the new quizes. I had the same problem in my bible games, and I used this method to speed thing up. Instead of 10 sec for question it takes me milliseconds as I am generating new question in background and always keeping my stack to 100.
What about Dynamic programming, because you need same results to calculate other options?