Develop Reference

How to check whether or not an integer is a perfect square? [duplicate]

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;
}

Python - Check if a number is a square [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Check if a number is a perfect square
(25 answers)
Closed 9 days ago.
I wrote a function that returns whether a number input is a square or not
def is_square(n):
if n<1:
return False
else:
for i in range(int(n/2)+1):
if (i*i)==n:
return True
else:
return False
I am confident that this code works. But when I did the test cases, example:test.expect( is_square( 4)), it says that the value is not what was expected.

Your function doesn't actually work, as it will immediatley return False on the first non-square-root found. Instead you will want to modify your code to be:
def is_square(n):
if n<1:
return False
else:
for i in range(int(n/2)+1):
if (i*i)==n:
return True
return False
such that it only returns false once all possible square roots have been checked. You may also want to look into math.sqrt() and float.is_integer(). Using these methods your function would become this:
from math import sqrt
def is_square(n):
return sqrt(n).is_integer()
Keep in mind that this method will not work with very large numbers, but your method will be very slow with them, so you will have to choose which to use.

To stick to integer-based algorithms, you might look at implementation of binary search for finding square root:
def is_square(n):
if n < 0:
return False
if n == 0:
return True
x, y = 1, n
while x + 1 < y:
mid = (x+y)//2
if mid**2 < n:
x = mid
else:
y = mid
return n == x**2 or n == (x+1)**2

The main idea of Python philosophy is to write simple code. To check if a number is an perfect square:
def is_square(n):
return n**0.5 == int(n**0.5)
When power to a float you can find the root of a number.

In Python 3.8+, use this:
def is_square(n):
root = math.isqrt(n)
return n == root * root

You can simply use simpy module
import it as,
from sympy.ntheory.primetest import is_square
and you can check for a number like this:
is_square(number)
It will return a boolean value

I think the best take, using only "built-in" integer arithmetic, is:
def issquare(n): return math.isqrt(n)**2==n
(Squares x**2 are a priori more efficiently computed than products x*x...)
According to my timings, this is (at least up to ~ 10^8) faster than sympy.numtheory.primetest.is_square.
(I use a different name to make it easier to compare the two.)
The latter is first using some modular checks that should speed it up considerably, but it has so much conversion and testing overhead (int, as_int, squares become n-th powers with n=2, integers are converted from "small" to multiprecision integers and back, ...) that all the advantage is lost. After a lot of tests, it roughly does the above, using ntheory.nthroot, which is again an overkill: designed for any n-th root, the square root is just one special case, and noting is optimized for this case. Some subroutines there even do very weird floating point arithmetics including multiplication with 1.0000000001 and similar horrors... I once got the following horrible error message: (The original output has the full path "C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Packages\PythonSoftwareFoundation.Python.3.9_qbz5n2kfra8p0\LocalCache\local-packages\Python39\site-packages\" instead of each "..." below...)
File "...\sympy\ntheory\primetest.py", line 112, in is_square
return integer_nthroot(n, 2)[1]
File "...\sympy\core\power.py", line 86, in integer_nthroot
return _integer_nthroot_python(y, n)
File "...\sympy\core\power.py", line 94, in _integer_nthroot_python
x, rem = mpmath_sqrtrem(y)
File "...\mpmath\libmp\libintmath.py", line 284, in sqrtrem_python
y = isqrt_small_python(x)
File "...\mpmath\libmp\libintmath.py", line 217, in isqrt_small_python
r = int(x**0.5 * 1.00000000000001) + 1
KeyboardInterrupt
This gives a good idea of the abyss into which sympy's is_square hopelessly drowns...
Documentation: see is_square in Sympy's Ntheory Class Reference
P.S.: FWIW, regarding other answers suggesting to use round() etc, let me just mention here that ceil(sqrt(n))**2 < n (!!), for example when n is the 26th and 27th primorial -- not extremely large numbers! So, clearly, use of math.sqrt is not adequate.

def myfunct(num):
for i in range(0,num):
if i*i==num:
return 'square'
else:
return 'not square'

Easiest working solution, but not for large numbers.
def squaretest(num):
sqlist=[]
i=1
while i**2 <= num:
sqlist.append(i**2)
i+=1
return num in sqlist

Assuming that n >= 0:
def is_square(n):
tmp = int(n ** 0.5)
return n == tmp * tmp
print(is_square(81), is_square(67108864 ** 2 + 1)) # True False

Another approach:
def SQRT(x):
import math
if math.sqrt(x) == int(math.sqrt(x)):
return True
else:
return False

def is_square(n):
if n < 0:
return False
return round(n ** 0.5) ** 2 == n

To check if a number is a square, you could use code like this:
import math
number = 16
if math.sqrt(number).is_interger:
print "Square"
else:
print "Not square"
import math imports the math module.
if math.sqrt(number).is_interger: checks to see if the square root of number is a whole number. If so, it will print Square. Otherwise, it will print Not square.

Since math.sqrt() returns a float, we can cast that to a string, split it from "." and check if the part on the right(the decimal) is 0.
import math
def is_square(n):
x= str(math.sqrt(n)).split(".")[1] #getting the floating part as a string.
return True if(x=="0") else False

Using recursion to calculate powers of large digit numbers

The goal is to calculate large digit numbers raised to other large digit numbers, e.g., 100 digit number raised to another 100 digit number, using recursion.
My plan was to recursively calculate exp/2, where exp is the exponent, and making an additional calculation depending on if exp is even or odd.
My current code is:
def power(y, x, n):
#Base Case
if x == 0:
return 1
#If d is even
if (x%2==0):
m = power(y, x//2, n)
#Print statment only used as check
print(x, m)
return m*m
#If d is odd
else:
m = y*power(y, x//2, n)
#Print statement only used as check
print(x, m)
return m*m
The problem I run into is that it makes one too many calculations, and I'm struggling to figure out how to fix it. For example, 2^3 returns 64, 2^4 returns 256, 2^5 returns 1024 and so on. It's calculating the m*m one too many times.
Note: this is part of solving modulus of large numbers. I'm strictly testing the exponent component of my code.

First of all there is a weird thing with your implementation: you use a parameter n that you never use, but simply keep passing and you never modify.
Secondly the second recursive call is incorrect:
else:
m = y*power(y, x//2, n)
#Print statement only used as check
print(x, m)
return m*m
If you do the math, you will see that you return: (y yx//2)2=y2*(x//2+1) (mind the // instead of /) which is thus one y too much. In order to do this correctly, you should thus rewrite it as:
else:
m = power(y, x//2, n)
#Print statement only used as check
print(x, m)
return y*m*m
(so removing the y* from the m part and add it to the return statement, such that it is not squared).
Doing this will make your implementation at least semantically sound. But it will not solve the performance/memory aspect.
Your comment makes it clear that you want to do a modulo on the result, so this is probably Project Euler?
The strategy is to make use of the fact that modulo is closed under multiplication. In other words the following holds:
(a b) mod c = ((a mod c) * (b mod c)) mod c
You can use this in your program to prevent generating huge numbers and thus work with small numbers that require little computational effort to run.
Another optimization is that you can simply use the square in your argument. So a faster implementation is something like:
def power(y, x, n):
if x == 0: #base case
return 1
elif (x%2==0): #x even
return power((y*y)%n,x//2,n)%n
else: #x odd
return (y*power((y*y)%n,x//2,n))%n
If we do a small test with this function, we see that the two results are identical for small numbers (where the pow() can be processed in reasonable time/memory): (12347**2742)%1009 returns 787L and power(12347,2742,1009) 787, so they generate the same result (of course this is no proof), that both are equivalent, it's just a short test that filters out obvious mistakes.

here is my approach accornding to the c version of this problem it works with both positives and negatives exposents:
def power(a,b):
"""this function will raise a to the power b but recursivelly"""
#first of all we need to verify the input
if isinstance(a,(int,float)) and isinstance(b,int):
if a==0:
#to gain time
return 0
if b==0:
return 1
if b >0:
if (b%2==0):
#this will reduce time by 2 when number are even and it just calculate the power of one part and then multiply
if b==2:
return a*a
else:
return power(power(a,b/2),2)
else:
#the main case when the number is odd
return a * power(a, b- 1)
elif not b >0:
#this is for negatives exposents
return 1./float(power(a,-b))
else:
raise TypeError('Argument must be interfer or float')

Generating evenly distributed bits, using approximation

I'm trying to generate 0 or 1 with 50/50 chance of any using random.uniform instead of random.getrandbits.
Here's what I have
0 if random.uniform(0, 1e-323) == 0.0 else 1
But if I run this long enough, the average is ~70% to generate 1. As seem here:
sum(0 if random.uniform(0, 1e-323) == 0.0
else 1
for _ in xrange(1000)) / 1000.0 # --> 0.737
If I change it to 1e-324 it will always be 0. And if I change it to 1e-322, the average will be ~%90.
I made a dirty program that will try to find the sweet spot between 1e-322 and 1e-324, by dividing and multiplying it several times:
v = 1e-323
n_runs = 100000
target = n_runs/2
result = 0
while True:
result = sum(0 if random.uniform(0, v) == 0.0 else 1 for _ in xrange(n_runs))
if result > target:
v /= 1.5
elif result < target:
v *= 1.5 / 1.4
else:
break
print v
This end ups with 4.94065645841e-324
But it still will be wrong if I ran it enough times.
Is there I way to find this number without the dirty script I wrote? I know that Python has a intern min float value, show in sys.float_info.min, which in my PC is 2.22507385851e-308. But I don't see how to use it to solve this problem.
Sorry if this feels more like a puzzle than a proper question, but I'm not able to answer it myself.

I know that Python has a intern min float value, show in sys.float_info.min, which in my PC is 2.22507385851e-308. But I don't see how to use it to solve this problem.
2.22507385851e-308 is not the smallest positive float value, it is the smallest positive normalized float value. The smallest positive float value is 2-52 times that, that is, near 5e-324.
2-52 is called the “machine epsilon” and it is usual to call the “min” of a floating-point type a value that is nether that which is least of all comparable values (that is -inf), nor the least of finite values (that is -max), nor the least of positive values.
Then, the next problem you face is that random.uniform is not uniform to that level. It probably works ok when you pass it a normalized number, but if you pass it the smallest positive representable float number, the computation it does with it internally may be very approximative and lead it to behave differently than the documentation says. Although it appears to work surprisingly ok according to the results of your “dirty script”.

Here's the random.uniform implementation, according to the source:
from os import urandom as _urandom
BPF = 53 # Number of bits in a float
RECIP_BPF = 2**-BPF
def uniform(self, a, b):
"Get a random number in the range [a, b) or [a, b] depending on rounding."
return a + (b-a) * self.random()
def random(self):
"""Get the next random number in the range [0.0, 1.0)."""
return (int.from_bytes(_urandom(7), 'big') >> 3) * RECIP_BPF
So, your problem boils down to finding a number b that will give 0 when multiplied by a number less than 0.5 and another result when multiplied by a number larger than 0.5. I've found out that, on my machine, that number is 5e-324.
To test it, I've made the following script:
from random import uniform
def test():
runs = 1000000
results = [0, 0]
for i in range(runs):
if uniform(0, 5e-324) == 0:
results[0] += 1
else:
results[1] += 1
print(results)
Which returned results consistent with a 50% probability:
>>> test()
[499982, 500018]
>>> test()
[499528, 500472]
>>> test()
[500307, 499693]

Checking if float is equivalent to an integer value in python

In Python 3, I am checking whether a given value is triangular, that is, it can be represented as n * (n + 1) / 2 for some positive integer n.
Can I just write:
import math
def is_triangular1(x):
num = (1 / 2) * (math.sqrt(8 * x + 1) - 1)
return int(num) == num
Or do I need to do check within a tolerance instead?
epsilon = 0.000000000001
def is_triangular2(x):
num = (1 / 2) * (math.sqrt(8 * x + 1) - 1)
return abs(int(num) - num) < epsilon
I checked that both of the functions return same results for x up to 1,000,000. But I am not sure if generally speaking int(x) == x will always correctly determine whether a number is integer, because of the cases when for example 5 is represented as 4.99999999999997 etc.
As far as I know, the second way is the correct one if I do it in C, but I am not sure about Python 3.

There is is_integer function in python float type:
>>> float(1.0).is_integer()
True
>>> float(1.001).is_integer()
False
>>>

Both your implementations have problems. It actually can happen that you end up with something like 4.999999999999997, so using int() is not an option.
I'd go for a completely different approach: First assume that your number is triangular, and compute what n would be in that case. In that first step, you can round generously, since it's only necessary to get the result right if the number actually is triangular. Next, compute n * (n + 1) / 2 for this n, and compare the result to x. Now, you are comparing two integers, so there are no inaccuracies left.
The computation of n can be simplified by expanding
(1/2) * (math.sqrt(8*x+1)-1) = math.sqrt(2 * x + 0.25) - 0.5
and utilizing that
round(y - 0.5) = int(y)
for positive y.
def is_triangular(x):
n = int(math.sqrt(2 * x))
return x == n * (n + 1) / 2

You'll want to do the latter. In Programming in Python 3 the following example is given as the most accurate way to compare
def equal_float(a, b):
#return abs(a - b) <= sys.float_info.epsilon
return abs(a - b) <= chosen_value #see edit below for more info
Also, since epsilon is the "smallest difference the machine can distinguish between two floating-point numbers", you'll want to use <= in your function.
Edit: After reading the comments below I have looked back at the book and it specifically says "Here is a simple function for comparing floats for equality to the limit of the machines accuracy". I believe this was just an example for comparing floats to extreme precision but the fact that error is introduced with many float calculations this should rarely if ever be used. I characterized it as the "most accurate" way to compare in my answer, which in some sense is true, but rarely what is intended when comparing floats or integers to floats. Choosing a value (ex: 0.00000000001) based on the "problem domain" of the function instead of using sys.float_info.epsilon is the correct approach.
Thanks to S.Lott and Sven Marnach for their corrections, and I apologize if I led anyone down the wrong path.

Python does have a Decimal class (in the decimal module), which you could use to avoid the imprecision of floats.

floats can exactly represent all integers in their range - floating-point equality is only tricky if you care about the bit after the point. So, as long as all of the calculations in your formula return whole numbers for the cases you're interested in, int(num) == num is perfectly safe.
So, we need to prove that for any triangular number, every piece of maths you do can be done with integer arithmetic (and anything coming out as a non-integer must imply that x is not triangular):
To start with, we can assume that x must be an integer - this is required in the definition of 'triangular number'.
This being the case, 8*x + 1 will also be an integer, since the integers are closed under + and * .
math.sqrt() returns float; but if x is triangular, then the square root will be a whole number - ie, again exactly represented.
So, for all x that should return true in your functions, int(num) == num will be true, and so your istriangular1 will always work. The only sticking point, as mentioned in the comments to the question, is that Python 2 by default does integer division in the same way as C - int/int => int, truncating if the result can't be represented exactly as an int. So, 1/2 == 0. This is fixed in Python 3, or by having the line
from __future__ import division
near the top of your code.

I think the module decimal is what you need

You can round your number to e.g. 14 decimal places or less:
>>> round(4.999999999999997, 14)
5.0
PS: double precision is about 15 decimal places

It is hard to argue with standards.
In C99 and POSIX, the standard for rounding a float to an int is defined by nearbyint() The important concept is the direction of rounding and the locale specific rounding convention.
Assuming the convention is common rounding, this is the same as the C99 convention in Python:
#!/usr/bin/python
import math
infinity = math.ldexp(1.0, 1023) * 2
def nearbyint(x):
"""returns the nearest int as the C99 standard would"""
# handle NaN
if x!=x:
return x
if x >= infinity:
return infinity
if x <= -infinity:
return -infinity
if x==0.0:
return x
return math.floor(x + 0.5)
If you want more control over rounding, consider using the Decimal module and choose the rounding convention you wish to employ. You may want to use Banker's Rounding for example.
Once you have decided on the convention, round to an int and compare to the other int.

Consider using NumPy, they take care of everything under the hood.
import numpy as np
result_bool = np.isclose(float1, float2)

Python has unlimited integer precision, but only 53 bits of float precision. When you square a number, you double the number of bits it requires. This means that the ULP of the original number is (approximately) twice the ULP of the square root.
You start running into issues with numbers around 50 bits or so, because the difference between the fractional representation of an irrational root and the nearest integer can be smaller than the ULP. Even in this case, checking if you are within tolerance will do more harm than good (by increasing the number of false positives).
For example:
>>> x = (1 << 26) - 1
>>> (math.sqrt(x**2)).is_integer()
True
>>> (math.sqrt(x**2 + 1)).is_integer()
False
>>> (math.sqrt(x**2 - 1)).is_integer()
False
>>> y = (1 << 27) - 1
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2)).is_integer()
True
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2 + 1)).is_integer()
True
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2 - 1)).is_integer()
True
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2 + 2)).is_integer()
False
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2 - 2)).is_integer()
True
>>> (math.sqrt(y**2 - 3)).is_integer()
False
You can therefore rework the formulation of your problem slightly. If an integer x is a triangular number, there exists an integer n such that x = n * (n + 1) // 2. The resulting quadratic is n**2 + n - 2 * x = 0. All you need to know is if the discriminant 1 + 8 * x is a perfect square. You can compute the integer square root of an integer using math.isqrt starting with python 3.8. Prior to that, you could use one of the algorithms from Wikipedia, implemented on SO here.
You can therefore stay entirely in python's infinite-precision integer domain with the following one-liner:
def is_triangular(x):
return math.isqrt(k := 8 * x + 1)**2 == k
Now you can do something like this:
>>> x = 58686775177009424410876674976531835606028390913650409380075
>>> math.isqrt(k := 8 * x + 1)**2 == k
True
>>> math.isqrt(k := 8 * (x + 1) + 1)**2 == k
False
>>> math.sqrt(k := 8 * x + 1)**2 == k
False
The first result is correct: x in this example is a triangular number computed with n = 342598234604352345342958762349.

Python still uses the same floating point representation and operations C does, so the second one is the correct way.

Under the hood, Python's float type is a C double.
The most robust way would be to get the nearest integer to num, then test if that integers satisfies the property you're after:
import math
def is_triangular1(x):
num = (1/2) * (math.sqrt(8*x+1)-1 )
inum = int(round(num))
return inum*(inum+1) == 2*x # This line uses only integer arithmetic