I'm new to programming. While trying to solve this problem, I'm getting the wrong answer. I checked my code a number of times but was not able to figure out the mistake. Please, help me on this simple problem. The problem is as follows:
Given a positive integer N, calculate the sum of all prime numbers between 1 and N (inclusive). The first line of input contains an integer T denoting the number of test cases. T testcases follow. Each testcase contains one line of input containing N. For each testcase, in a new line, print the sum of all prime numbers between 1 and N.
And my code is:
from math import sqrt
sum = 0
test = int(input())
for i in range(test):
max = int(input())
if max==1:
sum = 0
elif max==2:
sum += 2
else:
sum = sum + 2
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
print(sum)
For input 5 and 10, my code is giving output 6 and 48 respectively, while the correct answer is 10 and 17 respectively. Please, figure out the mistake in my code.
Here, I implemented simple program to find the sum of all prime numbers between 1 to n.
Consider primeAddition() as a function and ip as an input parameter. It may help you to solve your problem.Try it.
Code snippet:
def primeAddition(ip):
# list to store prime numbers...
prime = [True] * (ip + 1)
p = 2
while p * p <= ip:
# If prime[p] is not changed, then it is a prime...
if prime[p] == True:
# Update all multiples of p...
i = p * 2
while i <= ip:
prime[i] = False
i += p
p += 1
# Return sum of prime numbers...
sum = 0
for i in range (2, ip + 1):
if(prime[i]):
sum += i
return sum
#The program is ready... Now, time to call the primeAddition() function with any argument... Here I pass 5 as an argument...
#Function call...
print primeAddition(5)
This is the most broken part of your code, it's doing the opposite of what you want:
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
You only increment sum if you get through the entire loop without breaking. (And don't use sum as you're redefining a Python built-in.) This can be checked using the special case of else on a for loop, aka "no break". I've made that change below as well as corrected some inefficiencies:
from math import sqrt
T = int(input())
for _ in range(T):
N = int(input())
sum_of_primes = 0
if N < 2:
pass
elif N == 2:
sum_of_primes = 2
else:
sum_of_primes = 2
for number in range(3, N + 1, 2):
for odd in range(3, int(sqrt(number)) + 1, 2):
if (number % odd) == 0:
break
else: # no break
sum_of_primes += number
print(sum_of_primes)
OUTPUT
> python3 test.py
3
5
10
10
17
23
100
>
A slight modification to what you have:
from math import sqrt
sum = 0
test = int(input())
max = int(input())
for x in range(test,max+1):
if x == 1:
pass
else:
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
break
else:
sum = sum + x
print(sum)
Your biggest error was that you were doing the sum = sum + x before the break rather than outside in an else statement.
PS: (although you can) I'd recommend not using variable names like max and sum in your code. These are special functions that are now overridden.
Because your logic is not correct.
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
here you check for the factors and if there is a factor then adds to sum which is opposite of the Primes. So check for the numbers where there is no factors(except 1).
from math import sqrt
test = int(input())
for i in range(test):
sum = 0
max = int(input())
if max==1:
sum = 0
elif max==2:
sum += 2
else:
sum = sum + 2
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
if all(x%y!=0 for y in range(2,half)):
sum = sum + x
print(sum)
First of all, declare sum to be zero at the beginning of the for i loop.
The problem lies in the if statement at almost the very end of the code, as you add x to the sum, if the res is equal to zero, meaning that the number is indeed not a prime number. You can see that this is the case, because you get an output of 6 when entering 5, as the only non-prime number in the range 1 to and including 5 is 4 and you add 2 to the sum at the beginning already.
Last but not least, you should change the
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
line to
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
Try to work with my information provided and fix the code yourself. You learn the most by not copying other people's code.
Happy coding!
I believe the mistake in your code might be coming from the following lines of code:
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
Since you are looping using x, you should change int(sqrt(max)) to int(sqrt(x)) like this:
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
Your code is trying to see if max is prime N times, where you should be seeing if every number from 1-N is prime instead.
This is my first time answering a question so if you need more help just let me know.
I've recently been working on Project Euler problems in Python. I am fairly new to Python, and still somewhat new as a programmer.
In any case, I've ran into a speed-related issue coding a solution for problem #5. The problem is,
"2520 is the smallest number that can be divided by each of the numbers from 1 to 10 without any remainder. What is the smallest positive number that is evenly divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20?"
I've checked around some, and I haven't been able to find anything on this problem pertaining to Python specifically. There were some completed scripts, but I want to avoid looking at other's code in full, if possible, instead wanting to improve my own.
The code I have written runs successfully for the example of 2520 and the range 1 to 10, and should be directly modifiable to work with the question. However, upon running it, I do not get an answer. Presumably, it is a very high number, and the code is not fast enough. Printing the current number being checked seems to support this, reaching several million without getting an answer.
The code, in it's current implementation is as follows:
rangemax = 20
def div_check(n):
for i in xrange(11,rangemax+1):
if n % i == 0:
continue
else:
return False
return True
if __name__ == '__main__':
num = 2
while not div_check(num):
print num
num += 2
print num
I have already made a couple changes which I think should help the speed. For one, for a number to be divisible by all numbers 1 to 20, it must be even, as only even numbers are divisible by 2. Hence, I can increment by 2 instead of 1. Also, although I didn't think of it myself, I found someone point out that a number divisible by 11 to 20 is divisible by 1 to 10. (Haven't checked that one, but it seems reasonable)
The code still, however is not fast enough. What optimisations, either programmatic, or mathematics, can I make to make this code run faster?
Thanks in advance to any who can help.
Taking the advice of Michael Mior and poke, I wrote a solution. I tried to use a few tricks to make it fast.
Since we need a relatively short list of numbers tested, then we can pre-build the list of numbers rather than repeatedly calling xrange() or range().
Also, while it would work to just put the numbers [1, 2, 3, ..., 20] in the list, we can think a little bit, and pull numbers out:
Just take the 1 out. Every integer is evenly divisible by 1.
If we leave the 20 in, there is no need to leave the 2 in. Any integer evenly divisible by 20 is evenly divisible by 2 (but the reverse might not be true). So we leave the 20 and take out the 2, the 4, and the 5. Leave the 19, as it's prime. Leave the 18, but now we can take out the 3 and the 6. If you repeat this process, you wind up with a much shorter list of numbers to try.
We start at 20 and step numbers by 20, as Michael Mior suggested. We use a generator expression inside of all(), as poke suggested.
Instead of a while loop, I used a for loop with xrange(); I think this is slightly faster.
The result:
check_list = [11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]
def find_solution(step):
for num in xrange(step, 999999999, step):
if all(num % n == 0 for n in check_list):
return num
return None
if __name__ == '__main__':
solution = find_solution(20)
if solution is None:
print "No answer found"
else:
print "found an answer:", solution
On my computer, this finds an answer in under nine seconds.
EDIT:
And, if we take advice from David Zaslavsky, we realize we can start the loop at 2520, and step by 2520. If I do that, then on my computer I get the correct answer in about a tenth of a second.
I made find_solution() take an argument. Try calling find_solution(2520).
My first answer sped up the original calculation from the question.
Here's another answer that solves it a different way: just find all the prime factors of each number, then multiply them together to go straight to the answer. In other words, this automates the process recommended by poke in a comment.
It finishes in a fraction of a second. I don't think there is a faster way to do this.
I did a Google search on "find prime factors Python" and found this:
http://www.stealthcopter.com/blog/2009/11/python-factors-of-a-number/
From that I found a link to factor.py (written by Mike Hansen) with some useful functions:
https://gist.github.com/weakish/986782#file-factor-py
His functions didn't do quite what I wanted, so I wrote a new one but used his pull_prime_factors() to do the hard work. The result was find_prime_factors() which returns a list of tuples: a prime number, and a count. For example, find_prime_factors(400) returns [(2,4), (5,2)] because the prime factors of 400 are: (2*2*2*2)*(5*5)
Then I use a simple defaultdict() to keep track of how many we have seen so far of each prime factor.
Finally, a loop multiplies everything together.
from collections import defaultdict
from factor import pull_off_factors
pf = defaultdict(int)
_primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29]
def find_prime_factors(n):
lst = []
for p in _primes:
n = pull_off_factors(n, p, lst)
return lst
def find_solution(low, high):
for num in xrange(low, high+1):
lst = find_prime_factors(num)
for n, count in lst:
pf[n] = max(pf[n], count)
print "prime factors:", pf
solution = 1
for n, count in pf.items():
solution *= n**count
return solution
if __name__ == '__main__':
solution = find_solution(1, 20)
print "answer:", solution
EDIT: Oh wow, I just took a look at #J.F. Sebastian's answer to a related question. His answer does essentially the same thing as the above code, only far more simply and elegantly. And it is in fact faster than the above code.
Least common multiple for 3 or more numbers
I'll leave the above up, because I think the functions might have other uses in Project Euler. But here's the J.F. Sebastian solution:
def gcd(a, b):
"""Return greatest common divisor using Euclid's Algorithm."""
while b:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
def lcm(a, b):
"""Return lowest common multiple."""
return a * b // gcd(a, b)
def lcmm(*args):
"""Return lcm of args."""
return reduce(lcm, args)
def lcm_seq(seq):
"""Return lcm of sequence."""
return reduce(lcm, seq)
solution = lcm_seq(xrange(1,21))
print "lcm_seq():", solution
I added lcm_seq() but you could also call:
lcmm(*range(1, 21))
Since your answer must be divisible by 20, you can start at 20 and increment by 20 instead of by two. In general, you can start at rangemax and increment by rangemax. This reduces the number of times div_check is called by an order of magnitude.
Break down the number as a prime factorization.
All primes less than 20 are:
2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19
So the bare minimum number that can be divided by these numbers is:
2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19
Composites:
4,6,8,9,10,12,14,15,16,18,20 = 2^2, 2*3, 2^3, 3^2, 2*5, 2^2*3, 2*7, 3*5, 2*3^2, 2^2*5
Starting from the left to see which factors needed:
2^3 to build 4, 8, and 16
3 to build 9
Prime factorization: 2^4 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 19 = 232,792,560
I got the solution in 0.066 milliseconds (only 74 spins through a loop) using the following procedure:
Start with smallest multiple for 1, which = 1. Then find the smallest multiple for the next_number_up. Do this by adding the previous smallest multiple to itself (smallest_multiple = smallest_multiple + prev_prod) until next_number_up % smallest_multiple == 0. At this point smallest_multiple is the correct smallest multiple for next_number_up. Then increment next_number_up and repeat until you reach the desired smallest_multiple (in this case 20 times). I believe this finds the solution in roughly n*log(n) time (though, given the way numbers seem to work, it seems to complete much faster than that usually).
For example:
1 is the smallest multiple for 1
Find smallest multiple for 2
Check if previous smallest multiple works 1/2 = .5, so no
previous smallest multiple + previous smallest multiple == 2.
Check if 2 is divisible by 2 - yes, so 2 is the smallest multiple for 2
Find smallest multiple for 3
Check if previous smallest multiple works 2/3 = .667, so no
previous smallest multiple + previous smallest multiple == 4
Check if 4 is divisible by 3 - no
4 + previous smallest multiple == 6
Check if 6 is divisible by 3 - yes, so 6 is the smallest multiple for 3
Find smallest multiple for 4
Check if previous smallest multiple works 6/4 = 1.5, so no
previous smallest multiple + previous smallest multiple == 12
Check if 12 is divisble by 4 - yes, so 12 is the smallest multiple for 4
repeat until 20..
Below is code in ruby implementing this approach:
def smallestMultiple(top)
prod = 1
counter = 0
top.times do
counter += 1
prevprod = prod
while prod % counter != 0
prod = prod + prevprod
end
end
return prod
end
List comprehensions are faster than for loops.
Do something like this to check a number:
def get_divs(n):
divs = [x for x in range(1,20) if n % x == 0]
return divs
You can then check the length of the divs array to see if all the numbers are present.
Two different types of solutions have been posted here. One type uses gcd calculations; the other uses prime factorization. I'll propose a third type, which is based on the prime factorization approach, but is likely to be much faster than prime factorization itself. It relies on a few simple observations about prime powers -- prime numbers raised to some integral exponent. In short, it turns out that the least common multiple of all numbers below some number n is equal to the product of all maximal prime powers below n.
To prove this, we begin by thinking about the properties that x, the least common multiple of all numbers below n, must have, and expressing them in terms of prime powers.
x must be a multiple of all prime powers below n. This is obvious; say n = 20. 2, 2 * 2, 2 * 2 * 2, and 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 are all below 20, so they all must divide x. Likewise, 3 and 3 * 3 are both below n and so both must divide x.
If some number a is a multiple of the prime power p ** e, and p ** e is the maximal power of p below n, then a is also a multiple of all smaller prime powers of p. This is also quite obvious; if a == p * p * p, then a == (p * p) * p.
By the unique factorization theorem, any number m can be expressed as a multiple of prime powers less than m. If m is less than n, then m can be expressed as a multiple of prime powers less than n.
Taken together, the second two observations show that any number x that is a multiple of all maximal prime powers below n must be a common multiple of all numbers below n. By (2), if x is a multiple of all maximal prime powers below n, it is also a multiple of all prime powers below n. So by (3), it is also a multiple of all other numbers below n, since they can all be expressed as multiples of prime powers below n.
Finally, given (1), we can prove that x is also the least common multiple of all numbers below n, because any number less than x could not be a multiple of all maximal prime powers below n, and so could not satisfy (1).
The upshot of all this is that we don't need to factorize anything. We can just generate primes less than n!
Given a nicely optimized sieve of eratosthenes, one can do that very quickly for n below one million. Then all you have to do is find the maximal prime power below n for each prime, and multiply them together.
prime_powers = [get_max_prime_power(p, n) for p in sieve(n)]
result = reduce(operator.mul, prime_powers)
I'll leave writing get_max_prime_power as an exercise. A fast version, combined with the above, can generate the lcm of all numbers below 200000 in 3 seconds on my machine.
The result is a 86871-digit number!
This solution ran pretty quickly for me (imports numpy).
t0 = time.time()
import numpy
ints = numpy.array(range(1,21))
primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19] # under 20
facts = []
for p in primes:
counter = 0
nums = ints
while any(nums % p == 0):
nums = nums / float(p)
counter += 1
facts.append(counter)
facts = numpy.array(facts)
mults = primes**facts
ans = 1
for m in mults:
ans = m * ans
t1 =time.time()
perf = t1 - t0
print "Problem 5\nAnswer:",ans, "runtime:", perf, "seconds"
"""Problem 5
Answer: 232792560 runtime: 0.00505399703979 seconds"""
Here i have also done using prime factorization way.
#!/usr/bin/env python
import math
def is_prime(num):
if num > 1:
if num == 2:
return True
if num%2 == 0:
return False
for i in range(3, int(math.sqrt(num))+1, 2):
if num%i == 0:
return False
return True
return False
def lcm(number):
prime = []
lcm_value = 1
for i in range(2,number+1):
if is_prime(i):
prime.append(i)
final_value = []
for i in prime:
x = 1
while i**x < number:
x = x + 1
final_value.append(i**(x-1))
for j in final_value:
lcm_value = j * lcm_value
return lcm_value
if __name__ == '__main__':
print lcm(20)
After checking how much time it has taken, it was not bad at all.
root#l-g6z6152:~/learn/project_euler# time python lcm.py
232792560
real 0m0.019s
user 0m0.008s
sys 0m0.004s
I wrote a solution to euler5 that:
Is orders of magnitude faster than most of the solutions here when n=20 (though not all respondents report their time) because it uses no imports (other than to measure time for this answer) and only basic data structures in python.
Scales much better than most other solutions. It will give the answer for n=20 in 6e-05 seconds, or for n=100 in 1 millisec, faster than most of the responses for n=20 listed here.
import time
a=time.clock() # set timer
j=1
factorlist=[]
mydict={}
# change second number to desired number +1 if the question were changed.
for i in range(2,21,1):
numberfactors=[]
num=i
j=2
# build a list of the prime factors
for j in range(j,num+1,1):
counter=0
if i%j==0:
while i%j==0:
counter+=1
numberfactors.append(j)
i=i/j
# add a list of factors to a dictionary, with each prime factor as a key
if j not in mydict:
mydict[j] = counter
# now, if a factor is already present n times, including n times the factor
# won't increase the LCM. So replace the dictionary key with the max number of
# unique factors if and only if the number of times it appears is greater than
# the number of times it has already appeared.
# for example, the prime factors of 8 are 2,2, and 2. This would be replaced
# in the dictionary once 16 were found (prime factors 2,2,2, and 2).
elif mydict[j] < counter:
mydict[j]=counter
total=1
for key, value in mydict.iteritems():
key=int(key)
value=int(value)
total=total*(key**value)
b=time.clock()
elapsed_time=b-a
print total, "calculated in", elapsed_time, "seconds"
returns:
232792560 calculated in 6e-05 seconds
# does not rely on heuristics unknown to all users, for instance the idea that
# we only need to include numbers above 10, etc.
# For all numbers evenly divisible by 1 through 100:
69720375229712477164533808935312303556800 calculated in 0.001335 seconds
Here is program in C language. Cheers
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
//2520 is the smallest number that can be divided by each of the numbers from 1 to 10 without any remainder.
//What is the smallest positive number that is evenly divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20?
bez_ost(int q)
{
register br=0;
for( register i=1;i<=20;i++)
if(q%i==0)
br++;
if(br==20)
return 1;
return 0;
}
int main()
{
register j=20;
register ind=0;
while(ind!=1)
{
j++;
if(bez_ost(j))
break;
}
fprintf(stdout,"\nSmallest positive number that is evenlu divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20 is: %d\n\a",j);
system("Pause");
}
I've had the same problem. The algorithm seems to be quite slow, but it does work nonetheless.
result = list()
xyz = [x for x in range(11, 21)]
number = [2520]
count = 0
while len(result) == 0:
for n in number:
print n
for x in xyz:
if n % x == 0:
count += 1
elif n % x != 0:
count = 0
break
if count == 10:
result.append(number[0])
elif count != 10:
number[0] += 1
print result
This was the algorithm I made.
How about this? The required number is, after all, the LCM of the given numbers.
def lcm(a,b):
lcm1 = 0
if a == b:
lcm1 = a
else:
if a > b:
greater = a
else:
greater = b
while True:
if greater % a == 0 and greater % b == 0:
lcm1 = greater
break
greater += 1
return lcm1
import time
start_time = time.time()
list_numbers = list(range(2,21))
lcm1 = lcm(list_numbers[0],list_numbers[1])
for i in range(2,len(list_numbers)):
lcm1 = lcm(lcm1,list_numbers[i])
print(lcm1)
print('%0.5f'%(time.time()-start_time))
This code took a full 45 s to get the answer to the actual question! Hope it helps.
import time
primes = [11,13,17,19]
composites = [12,14,15,16,18,20]
def evenlyDivisible(target):
evenly = True
for n in composites:
if target % n > 0:
evenly = False
break
return evenly
step = 1
for p in primes:
step *= p
end = False
number = 0
t1 = time.time()
while not end:
number += step
if evenlyDivisible(number):
end = True
print("Smallest positive evenly divisible number is",number)
t2 = time.time()
print("Time taken =",t2-t1)
Executed in 0.06 seconds
Here is my Python solution, it has 12 iteration so compiled quite fast:
smallest_num = 1
for i in range (1,21):
if smallest_num % i > 0: # If the number is not divisible by i
for k in range (1,21):
if (smallest_num * k) % i == 0: # Find the smallest number divisible by i
smallest_num = smallest_num * k
break
print (smallest_num)
Here's an observation on this problem. Ultimately, it takes 48 iterations to find the solution.
Any number that is divisible by all of the numbers from 1..20 must be divisible by the product of the primes in that range, namely 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19. It cannot be smaller than the product of these primes, so let's use that number, 232,792,560, as the increment, rather than 20, or 2,520, or some other number.
As it turns out, 48 * 232,792,560 is divisible by all numbers 1..20. By the way, the product of all of the non-primes between 1..20 is 66. I haven't quite figured out the relationship between 48 and 66 in this context.
up = int(input('Upper limit: '))
number = list(range(1, up + 1))
n = 1
for i in range(1, up):
n = n * number[i]
for j in range(i):
if number[i] % number[j] == 0:
n = n / number[j]
number[i] = number[i] / number[j]
print(n)
How I can reduce the complexity of this
num = 1
found = False
while not found:
count =0
for i in range(1, 21):
if num %i == 0:
count+=1
if count ==10:
print(num)
found = True
num+=1
Here is the code in C++ to find the solution for this question.
What we have to do is to run a loop from 1 until we got that number so just iterate through the loop and once the number get evenly divisble(remainder 0) flag value dont get change and flag remains 1 and we got that number and break through outer loop and print the answer
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(NULL);
int i,j,flag=1;
for(i=1;;i++) //iterate until we got the number
{
flag=1;
for(j=2;j<=20;j++) //check form 1 to 20 for that number
{
if(i%j!=0) //if the number is not evenly divisible we break loop and
{
flag=0;break; // initilize flag as 0 i.e. that number is not what we want
}
}
if(flag==1) //if any number we got that is evenly divisible i.e. flag value doesnt change we got that number we break through the loop and print the answer
break;
} // after ending of the loop as we jump to next number make flag also 1 again so that again inner loop conditions apply on it
cout<<i;
return 0;
}
A typescript variant that seems to be relatively quick, leveraging recursion and known facts.
describe(`2520 is the smallest number that can be divided by each of the numbers from 1 to 10 without any remainder.
What is the smallest positive number that is evenly divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20?`,
() => {
it("prooves the example: 10", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(10).should.be.equal(2520));
it("prooves 1", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(1).should.be.equal(1));
it("prooves 2", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(2).should.be.equal(2));
it("prooves 3", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(3).should.be.equal(6));
it("prooves 4", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(4).should.be.equal(12));
it("prooves 5", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(5).should.be.equal(60));
it("prooves 6", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(6).should.be.equal(60));
it("prooves 7", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(7).should.be.equal(420));
it("prooves 8", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(8).should.be.equal(840));
it("prooves 9", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(9).should.be.equal(2520));
it("prooves 12", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(12).should.be.equal(27720));
it("prooves 20", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(20).should.be.equal(232792560));
it("prooves 30", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(30).should.be.equal(2329089562800));
it("prooves 40", () => smallestWithoutRemainder(40).should.be.equal(5342931457063200));
});
let smallestWithoutRemainder = (end: number, interval?: number) => {
// What do we know?
// - at 10, the answer is 2520
// - can't be smaller than the lower multiple of 10
// - must be an interval of the lower multiple of 10
// so:
// - the interval and the start should at least be divisable by 'end'
// - we can recurse and build on the results before it.
if (!interval) interval = end;
let count = Math.floor(end / 10);
if (count == 1) interval = 2520;
else if (count > 1) interval = smallestWithoutRemainder((count - 1) * 10, interval);
for (let i = interval; true; i += interval) {
let failed = false;
for (let j = end; j > 1; j--) {
if (i % j != 0) {
failed = true;
break;
}
}
if (!failed) return i;
}
}
I think this the answer:
primes = [11, 13, 17, 19]
result = 2520
for i in primes:
result *= i
print (result * 2)