I'm a new at programming, I like solving this euler questions and I know there are solutions for this problem but it's not about the problem at all actually.
So, i managed to create a working function for finding example: 33. triangular number. It works but i couldn't manage to properly desing my while loop. I wanted to make it like, it starts from first triangular checks it's divisors make list of it's divisors, checks the length of the divisors, because problem wants "What is the value of the first triangle number to have over five hundred divisors?" . But i never managed to work the while loop. Thank you for reading.
nums = [1]
triangles = [1]
divisors = []
def triangularcreator(x):
if x == 1:
return 1
n = 1
sum = 0
while n!=0:
n += 1
nums.append(n)
for i in range(len(nums)):
sum += nums[i]
triangles.append(sum)
sum = 0
if x == len(triangles):
n = 0
return triangles[-1]
counter = 1
while True:
for i in range(1, triangularcreator(counter) + 1):
if triangularcreator(counter) % i == 0:
divisors.append(i)
if len(divisors) == 500:
print(triangularcreator(counter))
break
counter +=1
divisors.clear()
You should try to change a few things, starting with calculating just once the value of triangularcreator(counter) and assigning this value to a variable that you can use in different points of your code.
Second, you create a loop which will be calculate always triangularcreator(1). At the end of each iteration you increase the value of counter+=1, but then at the beginign of the new iteration you assignt it again value 1, so it will not progress as you expect. Try this few things:
counter = 1
while True:
triangle = triangularcreator(counter)
for i in range(1, triangle + 1):
if triangle % i == 0:
divisors.append(i)
if len(divisors) == 500:
print(triangle )
break
counter +=1
Also these two arrays nums = [1], triangles = [1] should be declared and initialized inside the def triangularcreator. Otherwise you would be appending elements in each iteration
Edit: I believe it is better to give you my own answer to the problem, since you are doing some expensive operations which will make code to run for a long time. Try this solution:
import numpy as np
factor_num = 0
n = 0
def factors(n):
cnt = 0
# You dont need to iterate through all the numbers from 1 to n
# Just to the sqrt, and multiply by two.
for i in range(1,int(np.sqrt(n)+1)):
if n % i == 0:
cnt += 1
# If n is perfect square, it will exist a middle number
if (np.sqrt(n)).is_integer():
return (cnt*2)-1
else:
return (cnt*2)-1
while factor_num < 500:
# Here you generate the triangle, by summing all elements from 1 to n
triangle = sum(list(range(n)))
# Here you calculate the number of factors of the triangle
factor_num = factors(triangle)
n += 1
print(triangle)
Turns out that both of your while loop are infinite either in triangularcreatorin the other while loop:
nums = [1]
triangles = [1]
divisors = []
def triangularcreator(x):
if x == 1:
return 1
n = 1
sum = 0
while n:
n += 1
nums.append(n)
for i in range(len(nums)):
sum += nums[i]
triangles.append(sum)
sum = 0
if len(triangles) >= x:
return triangles[-1]
return triangles[-1]
counter = 1
while True:
check = triangularcreator(counter)
for i in range(1, check + 1):
if check % i == 0:
divisors.append(i)
if len(divisors) >= 500:
tr = triangularcreator(counter)
print(tr)
break
counter +=1
Solution
Disclaimer: This is not my solution but is #TamoghnaChowdhury, as it seems the most clean one in the web. I wanted to solve it my self but really run out of time today!
import math
def count_factors(num):
# One and itself are included now
count = 2
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num)) + 1):
if num % i == 0:
count += 2
return count
def triangle_number(num):
return (num * (num + 1) // 2)
def divisors_of_triangle_number(num):
if num % 2 == 0:
return count_factors(num // 2) * count_factors(num + 1)
else:
return count_factors((num + 1) // 2) * count_factors(num)
def factors_greater_than_triangular_number(n):
x = n
while divisors_of_triangle_number(x) <= n:
x += 1
return triangle_number(x)
print('The answer is', factors_greater_than_triangular_number(500))
Related
I am trying to perform a Collatz algorithm on the following code. It works fine when I use a range of 1-10 etc... However, if the range is for example 1-500,000 it's too slow and won't ever show me the output of the longest sequence.
numberArray = []
s=int(1)
f=int(10)
def collatz(n):
global count
if n == 1:
count += 1
numberArray.append(count)
return True
elif (n % 2) == 0:
count += 1
collatz(n/2)
else:
count += 1
collatz(3*n+1)
for i in range (s, f+1):
count = 0
ourNumber = i
collatz(i)
print(max(numberArray))
Stef means something like this, which uses a dictionary to memorise the values that have already been counted:
s = 1
f = 10000000
def collatz(n):
if n in collatz.memory:
return collatz.memory[n]
if (n % 2) == 0:
count = collatz(n//2)+1
else:
count = collatz((3*n+1)//2)+2
collatz.memory[n] = count
return count
collatz.memory = {1:0}
highest = max(collatz(i) for i in range(s, f+1))
highest_n = max(collatz.memory, key=collatz.memory.get)
print(f"collatz({highest_n}) is {highest}")
Output:
collatz(8400511) is 685
Use lru_cache decorator. Its function to memorize (cache) the returned value of function called with specific argument.
Also read how to write clean code in python
The next code solves your problem
from functools import lru_cache
number_array = []
s = 1
f = 500000
#lru_cache
def collatz(n: int):
if n == 1:
return 1
elif n % 2 == 0:
return 1 + collatz(n // 2)
else:
return 1 + collatz(3 * n + 1)
for i in range(s, f + 1):
number_array.append(collatz(i))
print(number_array)
We have an input integer let's say 13. We can find consistent subarray of fibonacci numbers that sums to 10 - [2,3,5]. I need to find next number that is not a sum of consistent subarray. In this case this number will be 14. I have this code, but the catch is, it can be optimized to not iterate through all of the N's from starting Left Pointer = 1 and Right Pointer = 1 but somehow "import" from previous N and i have no clue how to do it so maybe someone smarter might help.
def fib(n):
if n == 1: return 1
if n == 2: return 1
return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
def fibosubarr(n):
L_pointer = 1
R_pointer = 2
sumfibs = 1
while sumfibs != n:
if sumfibs > n and L_pointer < R_pointer:
sumfibs -= fib(L_pointer)
L_pointer += 1
elif sumfibs < n and L_poiner < R_pointer:
sumfibs += fib(R_pointer)
R_pointer += 1
else: return False
return True
n = int(input())
while fibosubarr(n):
n += 1
print(n)
Here's a technique called "memoizing". The fib function here keeps track of the current list and only extends it as necessary. Once it has generated a number, it doesn't need to do it again.
_fib = [1,1]
def fib(n):
while len(_fib) <= n:
_fib.append( _fib[-2]+_fib[-1] )
return _fib[n]
With your scheme, 200000 caused a noticeable delay. With this scheme, even 2 billion runs instantaneously.
To get the next subarray sum, you only need one call of the function -- provided you keep track of the least sum value that was exceeding n.
I would also use a generator for the Fibonacci numbers:
def genfib():
a = 1
b = 1
while True:
yield b
a, b = b, a + b
def fibosubarr(n):
left = genfib()
right = genfib()
sumfibs = next(right)
closest = float("inf")
while sumfibs:
if sumfibs > n:
closest = min(sumfibs, closest)
sumfibs -= next(left)
elif sumfibs < n:
sumfibs += next(right)
else:
return n
return closest
Now you can do as you did -- produce the next valid sum that is at least the input value:
n = int(input())
print(fibosubarr(n))
You could also loop to go from one such sum to the next:
n = 0
for _ in range(10): # first 10 such sums
n = fibosubarr(n+1)
print(n)
I'm learning Python by doing Project Euler questions and am stuck on Problem #3.
I think I've found a solution that works, but when inserting the large number 600851475143 it just doesn't return anything. I believe that it just loads and loads cause even with 6008514 it takes 10 secs to return the answer.
# What is the largest prime factor of the number x?
import math
def isPrime(x):
try:
sqr = math.sqrt(x)
if x == 0 or x == 1:
return 0
for n in range (2 , int(sqr)+1):
if x % n == 0:
return 0
return 1
except:
return 'Give positive numbers.'
def largestPrimeFactor(x):
if isPrime(x) == 1:
return 'This number is prime.'
else:
largest = -1
mid = x/2
for n in range(2,int(mid)+1):
if isPrime(n):
if x % n == 0:
largest = n
if largest == -1:
return 'Enter numbers above 1.'
else:
return largest
print(largestPrimeFactor(600851475143))
This code should work:
import math
def isPrime(x):
try:
sqr = math.sqrt(x)
if x == 0 or x == 1:
return 0
n = 2
highest = x
while n < highest:
if x%n ==0:
return 0
highest = x/ n
n +=1
return 1
except:
return 'Give positive numbers.'
def largestPrimeFactor(x):
if isPrime(x) == 1:
return 'This number is prime.'
n = 2
highest = x
largest = 1
while n < highest:
if x%n == 0:
if isPrime(n):
largest = n
highest = x/n
n +=1
return largest
print(largestPrimeFactor(600851475143))
I made an optimization:
you check if every number is a factor of x while if for example 2 is not a factor of x for sure the maximum factor of x can be x/2. Hence if n is not a factor of x the maximum possible factor of x can just be x/n.
The code for large numbers just takes really long time, as pointed out by comments. I report other bugs.
Bug 1. Inappropriate use of try/except clause. It is recommended that try contains a single command and except catches the error. PEP8 also recommends specifying the type of error. Moreover, for your function, the error is never raised.
Bug 2. Redundancy. If x is not prime, you call isPrime for each value (let's call it i) from 2 to x/2. isPrime cycles for each number from 2 to sqrt(i). Therefore, isPrime(i) takes O(sqrt(i)) time, and we call it for i from 2 to x/2. Roughly, its running time is about O(x^(3/2)). Even if don't know a more optimal approach, this approach asks for memoization.
i have another way:
def Largest_Prime_Factor(n):
prime_factor = 1
i = 2
while i <= n / i:
if n % i == 0:
prime_factor = i
n /= i
else:
i += 1
if prime_factor < n:
prime_factor = n
return prime_factor
it faster than previous
try it:
import math
def maxPrimeFactors (n):
maxPrime = -1
while n % 2 == 0:
maxPrime = 2
n >>= 1
for i in range(3, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1, 2):
while n % i == 0:
maxPrime = i
n = n / i
if n > 2:
maxPrime = n
return int(maxPrime)
n = 600851475143
print(maxPrimeFactors(n))
Write a recursive algorithm which enumerates dominant primes. Your algorithm should print dominant primes as it finds them (rather than at the end).By default we limit the dominant primes we are looking for to a maximum value of 10^12, the expected run time should be around or less than a minute.
The following is my python code which doesn't work as expected:
import math
def test_prime(n):
k = 2
maxk = int(math.sqrt(n))
while k <= maxk:
if n % k == 0:
return False
if k == 2:
k += 1
else:
k += 2
return (n is not 1)
def dominant_prime_finder(maxprime=10**12,n=1):
l = 1 #length of the current number
while n // 10 > 0:
l += 1
n //= 10
if test_prime(n) == True:
is_dominant_prime = True
index_smaller = n
while l > 1 and index_smaller > 9:
index_smaller //= 10
if test_prime(index_smaller) == False:
is_dominant_prime = False
break
for i in range(1,10):
if test_prime(i*10**l + n) == True:
is_dominant_prime = False
break
if is_dominant_prime == True:
print(n)
while n <= maxprime:
dominant_prime_finder()
You can solve the problem without enumerating all the numbers under 10^12 which is inefficient by doing a recursion on the length of the number.
It works the following way:
The prime number of length 1 are: 2,3,5,7.
For all these numbers check the third condition, for any digit dn+1∈{1,…,9} , dn+1dn…d0 is not prime. For 2 it's okay. For 3 it fails (13 for instance). Store all the prime you find in a list L. Do this for all the prime of length 1.
In L you now have all the prime number of length 2 with a prime as first digit, thus you have all the candidates for dominant prime of length 2
Doing this recursively gets you all the dominant prime, in python:
def test_prime(n):
k = 2
maxk = int(math.sqrt(n))
while k <= maxk:
if n % k == 0:
return False
if k == 2:
k += 1
else:
k += 2
return (n is not 1)
def check_add_digit(number,length):
res = []
for i in range(1,10):
if test_prime( i*10**(length) + number ):
res.append(i*10**(length) + number)
return res
def one_step(list_prime,length):
## Under 10^12
if length > 12:
return None
for prime in list_prime:
res = check_add_digit(prime,length)
if len(res) == 0:
#We have a dominant prime stop
print(prime)
else:
#We do not have a dominant prime but a list of candidates for length +1
one_step(res,length+1)
one_step([2,3,5,7], length=1)
This works in under a minute on my machine.
Well, there are several issues with this code:
You modify the original n at the beginning (n //= 10). This basically causes n to always be one digit. Use another variable instead:
m = n
while m // 10 > 0:
l += 1
m //= 10
Your recursive call doesn't update n, so you enter an infinite loop:
while n <= maxprime:
dominant_prime_finder()
Replace with:
if n <= maxprime:
dominant_prime_finder(maxprime, n + 1)
Even after fixing these issues, you'll cause a stack overflow simply because the dominant prime numbers are very far apart (2, 5, 3733, 59399...). So instead of using a recursive approach, use, for example, a generator:
def dominant_prime_finder(n=1):
while True:
l = 1 #length of the current number
m = n
while m // 10 > 0:
l += 1
m //= 10
if test_prime(n):
is_dominant_prime = True
index_smaller = n
while l > 1 and index_smaller > 9:
index_smaller //= 10
if not test_prime(index_smaller):
is_dominant_prime = False
break
for i in range(1,10):
if test_prime(i*10**l + n):
is_dominant_prime = False
break
if is_dominant_prime:
yield n
n = n + 1
g = dominant_prime_finder()
for i in range(1, 10): # find first 10 dominant primes
print(g.next())
This problem is cool. Here's how we can elaborate the recurrence:
def dominant_prime_finder(maxprime=10**12):
def f(n):
if n > maxprime:
return
is_dominant = True
power = 10**(math.floor(math.log(n, 10)) + 1)
for d in xrange(1, 10):
candidate = d * power + n
if test_prime(candidate):
f(candidate)
is_dominant = False
if is_dominant:
print int(n)
for i in [2,3,5,7]:
f(i)
I am trying to list all the factors of a number called count. Whenever I run it, it returns 1. For example: if 6 = count, then what should be returned when calling findFactor(6) is 1 2 3 6. What is returned is 1
divisors = ""
def findFactor(count):
divisors = ""
valueD = 0
for i in range(1, count+1):
valueD = count/i
if isinstance(valueD,int) == True:
divisors = str(valueD)+" "
print divisors
This can be done on one line using list comprehension.
def factorize(num):
return [n for n in range(1, num + 1) if num % n == 0]
You can refer this code:
def find_factor(n):
factor_values = []
for i in range(1, n + 1):
if n % i == 0:
factor_values.append(i)
values = ""
for v in factor_values:
values += str(v) + " "
return values
The function will return 1 2 3 6
First of all, you have an indentation error. print divisors need to be tabbed to inside the for-loop.
divisors = ""
def findFactor(count):
divisors = ""
valueD = 0
for i in range(1, count+1):
valueD = count/i
if isinstance(valueD,int) == True:
divisors = str(valueD)+" "
print divisors
Furthermore like #juanpa.arrivillaga mentioned, your results will vary between Python 2 and Python 3.
However, if you want your divisors to print in the order you want, i.e. start with 1 you need to change your range to for i in range(count,0, -1). You will get multiple 1's , but that's something I'll leave for you to figure out. A little challenge, if you will. ;)
This is the total code I have come up with. Thank you for all the help.
def findFactor(n):
factorValues = []
for i in range(1, n + 1):
if n % i == 0:
factorValues.append(i)
values = ""
for v in factorValues:
values += str(v) + " "
print values.count(" ")
# prints the number of factors
print values
findFactor(21)
It will print the number of factors, and then the factors on the next line.
The answers given so far are all brute force methods.
For n=10000, they will have to iterate ten thousand times.
The following will iterate only 100 times:
def find_factors(n):
factors = []
i = 1
j = n
while True:
if i*j == n:
factors.append(i)
if i == j:
break
factors.append(j)
i += 1
j = n // i
if i > j:
break
return factors
If there were a list of prime numbers available, it could be made even faster.