Given two positive floating point numbers x and y, how would you compute x/y to within a specified tolerance e if the division operator
cannot be used?
You cannot use any library functions, such as log and exp; addition
and multiplication are acceptable.
May I know how can I solve it? I know the approach to solving division is to use bitwise operator, but in that approach, when x is less than y, the loop stops.
def divide(x, y):
# break down x/y into (x-by)/y + b , where b is the integer answer
# b can be computed using addition of numbers of power of 2
result = 0
power = 32
y_power = y << power
while x >= y:
while y_power > x:
y_power = y_power>> 1
power -= 1
x = x - y_power
result += 1 << power
return result
An option is to use the Newton-Raphson iterations, known to converge quadratically (so that the number of exact bits will grow like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64).
First compute the inverse of y with the iterates
z(n+1) = z(n) (2 - z(n) y(n)),
and after convergence form the product
x.z(N) ~ x/y
But the challenge is to find a good starting approximation z(0), which should be within a factor 2 of 1/y.
If the context allows it, you can play directly with the exponent of the floating-point representation and replace Y.2^e by 1.2^-e or √2.2^-e.
If this is forbidden, you can setup a table of all the possible powers of 2 in advance and perform a dichotomic search to locate y in the table. Then the inverse power is easily found in the table.
For double precision floats, there are 11 exponent bits so that the table of powers should hold 2047 values, which can be considered a lot. You can trade storage for computation by storing only the exponents 2^0, 2^±1, 2^±2, 2^±3... Then during the dichotomic search, you will recreate the intermediate exponents on demand by means of products (i.e. 2^5 = 2^4.2^1), and at the same time, form the product of inverses. This can be done efficiently, using lg(p) multiplies only, where p=|lg(y)| is the desired power.
Example: lookup of the power for 1000; the exponents are denoted in binary.
1000 > 2^1b = 2
1000 > 2^10b = 4
1000 > 2^100b = 16
1000 > 2^1000b = 256
1000 < 2^10000b = 65536
Then
1000 < 2^1100b = 16.256 = 4096
1000 < 2^1010b = 4.256 = 1024
1000 > 2^1001b = 2.256 = 512
so that
2^9 < 1000 < 2^10.
Now the Newton-Raphson iterations yield
z0 = 0.001381067932
z1 = 0.001381067932 x (2 - 1000 x 0.001381067932) = 0.000854787231197
z2 = 0.000978913251777
z3 = 0.000999555349049
z4 = 0.000999999802286
z5 = 0.001
Likely most straightforward solution is to probably to use Newton's method for division to compute the reciprocal, which may then be multiplied by the numerator to yield the final result.
This is an iterative process gradually refining an initial guess and doubling the precision on every iteration, and involves only multiplication and addition.
One complication is generating a suitable initial guess, since an improper selection may fail to converge or take a larger number of iterations to reach the desired precision. For floating-point numbers the easiest solution is to normalize for the power-of-two exponent and use 1 as the initial guess, then invert and reapply the exponent separately for the final result. This yields roughly 2^iteration bits of precision, and so 6 iterations should be sufficient for a typical IEEE-754 double with a 53-bit mantissa.
Computing the result to within an absolute error tolerance e is difficult however given the limited precision of the intermediate computations. If specified too tightly it may not be representable and, worse, a minimal half-ULP bound requires exact arithmetic. If so you will be forced to manually implement the equivalent of an exact IEEE-754 division function by hand while taking great care with rounding and special cases.
Below is one possible implementation in C:
double divide(double numer, double denom, unsigned int precision) {
int exp;
denom = frexp(denom, &exp);
double guess = 1.4142135623731;
if(denom < 0)
guess = -guess;
while(precision--)
guess *= 2 - denom * guess;
return ldexp(numer * guess, -exp);
}
Handling and analysis of special-cases such as zero, other denormals, infinity or NaNs is left as an exercise for the reader.
The frexp and ldexp library functions are easily substituted for manual bit-extraction of the exponent and mantissa. However this is messy and non-portable, and no specific floating-point representation was specified in the question.
First, you should separate signs and exponents from the both numbers. After that, we'll divide pure positive mantissas and adapt the result using former exponents and signs.
As for dividing mantissas, it is simple, if you'll remember that division is not only inverted multiplication, but also the many-times done substraction. The number of times is the result.
A:B->C, precision e
C=0
allowance= e*B
multiplicator = 1
delta = B
while (delta< allowance && A>0)
if A<delta {
multiplicator*=0.1 // 1/10
delta*=0.1 // 1/10
} else {
A-=delta;
C+=multiplicator
}
}
Really, we can use any number>1 instead of 10. It would be interesting, which will give the most effectivity. Of course, if we use 2, we can use shift instead of multiplication inside the cycle.
I've been writing some code to list the Gaussian integer divisors of rational integers in Python. (Relating to Project Euler problem 153)
I seem to have reached some trouble with certain numbers and I believe it's to do with Python approximating the division of complex numbers.
Here is my code for the function:
def IsGaussian(z):
#returns True if the complex number is a Gaussian integer
return complex(int(z.real), int(z.imag)) == z
def Divisors(n):
divisors = []
#Firstly, append the rational integer divisors
for x in range(1, int(n / 2 + 1)):
if n % x == 0:
divisors.append(x)
#Secondly, two for loops are used to append the complex Guassian integer divisors
for x in range(1, int(n / 2 + 1)):
for y in range(1, int(n / 2 + 1)):
if IsGaussian(n / complex(x, y)) == n:
divisors.append(complex(x, y))
divisors.append(complex(x, -y))
divisors.append(n)
return divisors
When I run Divisors(29) I get [1, 29], but this is missing out four other divisors, one of which being (5 + 2j), which can clearly be seen to divide into 29.
On running 29 / complex(5, 2), Python gives (5 - 2.0000000000000004j)
This result is incorrect, as it should be (5 - 2j). Is there any way to somehow bypass Python's approximation? And why is it that this problem has not risen for many other rational integers under 100?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Internally, CPython uses a pair of double-precision floats for complex numbers. The behavior of numerical solutions in general is too complicated to summarize here, but some error is unavoidable in numerical calculations.
EG:
>>>print(.3/3)
0.09999999999999999
As such, it is often correct to use approximate equality rather than actual equality when testing solutions of this kind.
The isclose function in the cmath module is available for this exact reason.
>>>print(.3/3 == .1)
False
>>>print(isclose(.3/3, .1))
True
This kind of question is the domain of Numerical Analysis; this may be a useful tag for further questions on this subject.
Note that it is considered 'pythonic' for function identifiers to be in snake_case.
from cmath import isclose
def is_gaussian(z):
#returns True if the complex number is a Gaussian integer
rounded = complex(round(z.real), round(z.imag))
return isclose(rounded, z)
You could define an epsilon, by using round to round to the desired number of decimal places/precision (e.g. 10):
def IsGaussian(z, prec=10):
# returns True if the complex number is a Gaussian integer
# rounds the input number to the `prec` number of digits
z = complex(round(z.real,prec), round(z.imag,prec))
return complex(int(z.real), int(z.imag)) == z
Your code has another issue though:
if IsGaussian(n / complex(x, y)) == n:
This will only give results for n = 0 or n = 1. You probably want to remove the check for equality.
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;
}
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