Creating evenly spaced numbers on a log scale (a geometric progression) can easily be done for a given base and number of elements if the starting and final values of the sequence are known, e.g., with numpy.logspace and numpy.geomspace. Now assume I want to define the geometric progression the other way around, i.e., based on the properties of the resulting geometric series. If I know the sum of the series as well as the first and last element of the progression, can I compute the quotient and number of elements?
For instance, assume the first and last elements of the progression are and and the sum of the series should be equal to . I know from trial and error that it works out for n=9 and r≈1.404, but how could these values be computed?
You have enough information to solve it:
Sum of series = a + a*r + a*(r^2) ... + a*(r^(n-1))
= a*((r^n)-1)/(r-1)
= a*((last element * r) - 1)/(r-1)
Given the sum of series, a, and the last element, you can use the above equation to find the value of r.
Plugging in values for the given example:
50 = 1 * ((15*r)-1) / (r-1)
50r - 50 = 15r - 1
35r = 49
r = 1.4
Then, using sum of series = a*((r^n)-1)/(r-1):
50 = 1*((1.4^n)-1)(1.4-1)
21 = 1.4^n
n = log(21)/log(1.4) = 9.04
You can approximate n and recalculate r if n isn't an integer.
We have to reconstruct geometric progesssion, i.e. obtain a, q, m (here ^ means raise into power):
a, a * q, a * q^2, ..., a * q^(m - 1)
if we know first, last, total:
first = a # first item
last = a * q^(m - 1) # last item
total = a * (q^m - 1) / (q - 1) # sum
Solving these equation we can find
a = first
q = (total - first) / (total - last)
m = log(last / a) / log(q)
if you want to get number of items n, note that n == m + 1
Code:
import math
...
def Solve(first, last, total):
a = first
q = (total - first) / (total - last)
n = math.log(last / a) / math.log(q) + 1
return (a, q, n);
Fiddle
If you put your data (1, 15, 50) you'll get the solution
a = 1
q = 1.4
n = 9.04836151801382 # not integer
since n is not an integer you, probably want to adjust; let last == 15 be exact, when total can vary. In this case q = (last / first) ^ (1 / (n - 1)) and total = first * (q ^ n - 1) / (q - 1)
a = 1
q = 1.402850552006674
n = 9
total = 49.752 # now n is integer, but total <> 50
You have to solve the following two equations for r and n:
a:= An / Ao = r^(n - 1)
and
s:= Sn / Ao = (r^n - 1) / (r - 1)
You can eliminate n by
s = (r a - 1) / (r - 1)
and solve for r. Then n follows by log(a) / log(r) + 1.
In your case, from s = 50 and a = 15, we obtain r = 7/5 = 1.4 and n = 9.048...
It makes sense to round n to 9, but then r^8 = 15 (r ~ 1.40285) and r = 1.4 are not quite compatible.
Let's assume I have the number 100 which I need to divide into N parts each of which shouldn't exceed 30 initially. So the initial grouping would be (30,30,30). The remainder (which is 10) is to be distributed among these three groups by adding 2 to each group in succession, thus ensuring that each group is a multiple of 2. The desired output should therefore look like (34,34,32).
Note: The original number is always even.
I tried solving this in Python and this is what I came up with. Clearly it's not working in the way I thought it would. It distributes the remainder by adding 1 (and not 2, as desired) iteratively to each group.
num = 100
parts = num//30 #Number of parts into which 'num' is to be divided
def split(a, b):
result = ([a//b + 1] * (a%b) + [a//b] * (b - a%b))
return(result)
print(split(num, parts))
Output:
[34, 33, 33]
Desired output:
[34, 34, 32]
Simplified problem: forget about multiples of 2
First, let's simplify your problem for a second. Forget about the multiples of 2. Imagine you want to split a non-necessarily-even number n into k non-necessarily-even parts.
Obviously the most balanced solution is to have some parts be n // k, and some parts be n // k + 1.
How many of which? Let's call r the number of parts with n // k + 1. Then there are k - r parts with n // k, and all the parts sum up to:
(n // k) * (k - r) + (n // k + 1) * r
== (n // k) * (k - r) + (n // k) * r + r
== (n // k) * (k - r + r) + r
== (n // k) * k + r
But the parts should sum up to n, so we need to find r such that:
n == (n // k) * k + r
Happily, you might recognise Euclidean division here, with n // k being the quotient and r being the remainder.
This gives us our split function:
def split(n, k):
d,r = divmod(n, k)
return [d+1]*r + [d]*(k-r)
Testing:
print( split(50, 3) )
# [17, 17, 16]
Splitting into multiples of 2
Now back to your split_even problem. Now that we have the generic function split, a simple way to solve split_even is to use split:
def split_even(n, k):
return [2 * x for x in split(n // 2, k)]
Testing:
print( split_even(100, 3) )
# [34, 34, 32]
Generalisation: multiples of m
It's trivial to do the same thing with multiples of a number m other than 2:
def split_multiples(n, k, m=2):
return [m * x for x in split(n // m, k)]
Testing:
print( split_multiples(102, 4, 3) )
# [27, 27, 24, 24]
This solution is not very clear and easy to follow but it does not need any loops.
Full code:
def split(a,b):
lower = (a//b//2) * 2
num = a % (b*2) // 2
return [lower + 2] * num + [lower] * (b - num)
Explanation:
First get the value of all parts: We round the result of the division (value // parts) down to the next even value ((x // 2) * 2)
To get the number of higher values: We use the remainder of the division of a in double as many parts and divide it by two to compensate the multiplication
last: higher numbers are just lower + 2 times the computed number of higher values and lower numbers are filling the other spaces
My approach here is to create three arrays and sum them, the first two are simple, but the last is a little more complex to follow - it's just repping 2 (by) as many times as is can given the remainder, then repping 0s.
# Part 1
np.repeat(first, x//first)
# Part 2
np.repeat(by, x//first)
# Part 3
np.repeat([by, 0], [(x//first) - ((x - (x//first*first)) // by % by), (x - (x//first*first)) // by % by])
Wrapped into a function:
def split(x, first, by):
return(np.repeat(first, x//first) + np.repeat(by, x//first) + np.repeat([by, 0], [(x//first) - ((x - (x//first*first)) // by % by), (x - (x//first*first)) // by % by]))
split(100, 30, 2)
Note: I am not that experienced in Python, therefore my code may not be as good as it could/should be.
I am attempting to create a tool to facilitate calculating the algebraic factors of a certain form of number (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurifeuillean_factorization). This is mostly as a test/learning experience, however I have run into a problem when attempting to calculate the parameter "c", which is defined as 2^(2k+1)+1. The addition step does not work for me. I am simply getting the returned value as 2^129, instead of 2^129+1 as I am looking to get. Is this an issue with Python itself, or am I making some sort of mistake in this.
Code:
import math
def make_aurifeuille_factors(base, exponent):
if base == 2 and exponent % 4 == 2:
k = (exponent - 2) / 4
c = int(1 + 2 ** (2*k + 1))
d = int(2 ** (k + 1))
L = c + d
M = c - d
return int(k), int(c), int(d), int(L), int(M)
def gcd(a, b):
return int(math.gcd(a, b))
print(make_aurifeuille_factors(2, 258))
k = (exponent - 2) / 4 makes k a float, which means you potentially introduce numerical error in computations down the line. Use integer division to stay in int world from the start:
def make_aurifeuille_factors(base, exponent):
if base == 2 and exponent % 4 == 2:
k = (exponent - 2) // 4
c = 1 + 2 ** (2*k + 1)
d = 2 ** (k + 1)
L = c + d
M = c - d
return k, c, d, L, M
I want to solve an equation which I am supposed to solve it recursively, I uploaded the picture of formula (Sorry! I did not know how to write mathematical formulas here!)
I wrote the code in Python as below:
import math
alambda = 1.0
rho = 0.8
c = 1.0
b = rho * c / alambda
P0 = (1 - (alambda*b))
P1 = (1-(alambda*b))*(math.exp(alambda*b) - 1)
def a(n):
a_n = math.exp(-alambda*b) * ((alambda*b)**n) / math.factorial(n)
return a_n
def P(n):
P(n) = (P0+P1)*a(n) + sigma(n)
def sigma(n):
j = 2
result = 0
while j <= n+1:
result = result + P(j)*a(n+1-j)
j += 1
return result
It is obvious that I could not finish P function. So please help me with this.
when n=1 I should extract P2, when n=2 I should extract P3.
By the way, P0 and P1 are as written in line 6 and 7.
When I call P(5) I want to see P(0), P(1), P(2), P(3), P(4), P(5), P(6) at the output.
You need to reorganize the formula so that you don't have to calculate P(3) to calculate P(2). This is pretty easy to do, by bringing the last term of the summation, P(n+1)a(0), to the left side of the equation and dividing through by a(0). Then you have a formula for P(n+1) in terms of P(m) where m <= n, which is solvable by recursion.
As Bruce mentions, it's best to cache your intermediate results for P(n) by keeping them in a dict so that a) you don't have to recalculate P(2) etc everytime you need it, and b) after you get the value of P(n), you can just print the dict to see all the values of P(m) where m <= n.
import math
a_lambda = 1.0
rho = 0.8
c = 1.0
b = rho * c / a_lambda
p0 = (1 - (a_lambda*b))
p1 = (1-(a_lambda*b))*(math.exp(a_lambda*b) - 1)
p_dict = {0: p0, 1: p1}
def a(n):
return math.exp(-a_lambda*b) * ((a_lambda*b)**n) / math.factorial(n)
def get_nth_p(n, p_dict):
# return pre-calculated value if p(n) is already known
if n in p_dict:
return p_dict[n]
# Calculate p(n) using modified formula
p_n = ((get_nth_p(n-1, p_dict)
- (get_nth_p(0, p_dict) + get_nth_p(1, p_dict)) * a(n - 1)
- sum(get_nth_p(j, p_dict) * a(n + 1 - j) for j in xrange(2, n)))
/ a(0))
# Save computed value into the dict
p_dict[n] = p_n
return p_n
get_nth_p(6, p_dict)
print p_dict
Edit 2
Some cosmetic updates to the code - shortening the name and making p_dict a mutable default argument (something I try to use only sparingly) really makes the code much more readable:
import math
# Customary to distinguish variables that are unchanging by making them ALLCAP
A_LAMBDA = 1.0
RHO = 0.8
C = 1.0
B = RHO * C / A_LAMBDA
P0 = (1 - (A_LAMBDA*B))
P1 = (1-(A_LAMBDA*B))*(math.exp(A_LAMBDA*B) - 1)
p_value_cache = {0: P0, 1: P1}
def a(n):
return math.exp(-A_LAMBDA*B) * ((A_LAMBDA*B)**n) / math.factorial(n)
def p(n, p_dict=p_value_cache):
# return pre-calculated value if p(n) is already known
if n in p_dict:
return p_dict[n]
# Calculate p(n) using modified formula
p_n = ((p(n-1)
- (p(0) + p(1)) * a(n - 1)
- sum(p(j) * a(n + 1 - j) for j in xrange(2, n)))
/ a(0))
# Save computed value into the dict
p_dict[n] = p_n
return p_n
p(6)
print p_value_cache
You could fix if that way:
import math
alambda = 1.0
rho = 0.8
c = 1.0
b = rho * c / alambda
def a(n):
# you might want to cache a as well
a_n = math.exp(-alambda*b) * ((alambda*b)**n) / math.factorial(n)
return a_n
PCache={0:(1 - (alambda*b)),1:(1-(alambda*b))*(math.exp(alambda*b) - 1)}
def P(n):
if n in PCache:
return PCache[n]
ret= (P(0)+P(1))*a(n) + sigma(n)
PCache[n]=ret
return ret
def sigma(n):
# caching this seems smart as well
j = 2
result = 0
while j <= n+1:
result = result + P(j)*a(n+1-j)
j += 1
return result
void displayP(n):
P(n) # fill cache :-)
for x in range(n):
print ("%u -> %d\n" % (x,PCache[x]))
Instead of managing the cache manually, you might want to use a memoize decorator (see http://www.python-course.eu/python3_memoization.php )
Notes:
not tested, but you should get the idea behind it
your recurrence won't work P(n) depends on P(n+1) on your equation... This will never end
It looks like I misunderstood P0 and P1 as being Both constants (big numbers) and results (small numbers, indices)... Notation is not the best choice I guess...
I got one puzzle and I want to solve it using Python.
Puzzle:
A merchant has a 40 kg weight which he used in his shop. Once, it fell
from his hands and was broken into 4 pieces. But surprisingly, now he
can weigh any weight between 1 kg to 40 kg with the combination of
these 4 pieces.
So question is, what are weights of those 4 pieces?
Now I wanted to solve this in Python.
The only constraint i got from the puzzle is that sum of 4 pieces is 40. With that I could filter all the set of 4 values whose sum is 40.
import itertools as it
weight = 40
full = range(1,41)
comb = [x for x in it.combinations(full,4) if sum(x)==40]
length of comb = 297
Now I need to check each set of values in comb and try all the combination of operations.
Eg if (a,b,c,d) is the first set of values in comb, I need to check a,b,c,d,a+b,a-b, .................a+b+c-d,a-b+c+d........ and so on.
I tried a lot, but i am stuck at this stage, ie how to check all these combination of calculations to each set of 4 values.
Question :
1) I think i need to get a list all possible combination of [a,b,c,d] and [+,-].
2) does anyone have a better idea and tell me how to go forward from here?
Also, I want to do it completely without help of any external libraries, need to use only standard libraries of python.
EDIT : Sorry for the late info. Its answer is (1,3,9,27), which I found a few years back. I have checked and verified the answer.
EDIT : At present, fraxel's answer works perfect with time = 0.16 ms. A better and faster approach is always welcome.
Regards
ARK
Earlier walk-through anwswer:
We know a*A + b*B + c*C + d*D = x for all x between 0 and 40, and a, b, c, d are confined to -1, 0, 1. Clearly A + B + C + D = 40. The next case is x = 39, so clearly the smallest move is to remove an element (it is the only possible move that could result in successfully balancing against 39):
A + B + C = 39, so D = 1, by neccessity.
next:
A + B + C - D = 38
next:
A + B + D = 37, so C = 3
then:
A + B = 36
then:
A + B - D = 35
A + B - C + D = 34
A + B - C = 33
A + B - C - D = 32
A + C + D = 31, so A = 9
Therefore B = 27
So the weights are 1, 3, 9, 27
Really this can be deduced immediately from the fact that they must all be multiples of 3.
Interesting Update:
So here is some python code to find a minimum set of weights for any dropped weight that will span the space:
def find_weights(W):
weights = []
i = 0
while sum(weights) < W:
weights.append(3 ** i)
i += 1
weights.pop()
weights.append(W - sum(weights))
return weights
print find_weights(40)
#output:
[1, 3, 9, 27]
To further illustrate this explaination, one can consider the problem as the minimum number of weights to span the number space [0, 40]. It is evident that the number of things you can do with each weight is trinary /ternary (add weight, remove weight, put weight on other side). So if we write our (unknown) weights (A, B, C, D) in descending order, our moves can be summarised as:
ABCD: Ternary:
40: ++++ 0000
39: +++0 0001
38: +++- 0002
37: ++0+ 0010
36: ++00 0011
35: ++0- 0012
34: ++-+ 0020
33: ++-0 0021
32: ++-- 0022
31: +0++ 0100
etc.
I have put ternary counting from 0 to 9 alongside, to illustrate that we are effectively in a trinary number system (base 3). Our solution can always be written as:
3**0 + 3**1 +3**2 +...+ 3**N >= Weight
For the minimum N that this holds true. The minimum solution will ALWAYS be of this form.
Furthermore, we can easily solve the problem for large weights and find the minimum number of pieces to span the space:
A man drops a known weight W, it breaks into pieces. His new weights allow him to weigh any weight up to W. How many weights are there, and what are they?
#what if the dropped weight was a million Kg:
print find_weights(1000000)
#output:
[1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729, 2187, 6561, 19683, 59049, 177147, 531441, 202839]
Try using permutations for a large weight and unknown number of pieces!!
Here is a brute-force itertools solution:
import itertools as it
def merchant_puzzle(weight, pieces):
full = range(1, weight+1)
all_nums = set(full)
comb = [x for x in it.combinations(full, pieces) if sum(x)==weight]
funcs = (lambda x: 0, lambda x: x, lambda x: -x)
for c in comb:
sums = set()
for fmap in it.product(funcs, repeat=pieces):
s = sum(f(x) for x, f in zip(c, fmap))
if s > 0:
sums.add(s)
if sums == all_nums:
return c
>>> merchant_puzzle(40, 4)
(1, 3, 9, 27)
For an explanation of how it works, check out the answer Avaris gave, this is an implementation of the same algorithm.
You are close, very close :).
Since this is a puzzle you want to solve, I'll just give pointers. For this part:
Eg if (a,b,c,d) is the first set of values in comb, i need to check
a,b,c,d,a+b,a-b, .................a+b+c-d,a-b+c+d........ and so on.
Consider this: Each weight can be put to one scale, the other or neither. So for the case of a, this can be represented as [a, -a, 0]. Same with the other three. Now you need all possible pairings with these 3 possibilities for each weight (hint: itertools.product). Then, a possible measuring of a pairing (lets say: (a, -b, c, 0)) is merely the sum of these (a-b+c+0).
All that is left is just checking if you could 'measure' all the required weights. set might come handy here.
PS: As it was stated in the comments, for the general case, it might not be necessary that these divided weights should be distinct (for this problem it is). You might reconsider itertools.combinations.
I brute forced the hell out of the second part.
Do not click this if you don't want to see the answer. Obviously, if I was better at permutations, this would have required a lot less cut/paste search/replace:
http://pastebin.com/4y2bHCVr
I don't know Python syntax, but maybe you can decode this Scala code; start with the 2nd for-loop:
def setTo40 (a: Int, b: Int, c: Int, d: Int) = {
val vec = for (
fa <- List (0, 1, -1);
fb <- List (0, 1, -1);
fc <- List (0, 1, -1);
fd <- List (0, 1, -1);
prod = fa * a + fb * b + fc * c + fd * d;
if (prod > 0)
) yield (prod)
vec.toSet
}
for (a <- (1 to 9);
b <- (a to 14);
c <- (b to 20);
d = 40-(a+b+c)
if (d > 0)) {
if (setTo40 (a, b, c, d).size > 39)
println (a + " " + b + " " + c + " " + d)
}
With weights [2, 5, 15, 18] you can also measure all objects between 1 and 40kg, although some of them will need to be measured indirectly. For example, to measure an object weighting 39kg, you would first compare it with 40kg and the balance would pend to the 40kg side (because 39 < 40), but then if you remove the 2kg weight it would pend to the other side (because 39 > 38) and thus you can conclude the object weights 39kg.
More interestingly, with weights [2, 5, 15, 45] you can measure all objects up to 67kg.
If anyone doesn't want to import a library to import combos/perms, this will generate all possible 4-move strategies...
# generates permutations of repeated values
def permutationsWithRepeats(n, v):
perms = []
value = [0] * n
N = n - 1
i = n - 1
while i > -1:
perms.append(list(value))
if value[N] < v:
value[N] += 1
else:
while (i > -1) and (value[i] == v):
value[i] = 0
i -= 1
if i > -1:
value[i] += 1
i = N
return perms
# generates the all possible permutations of 4 ternary moves
def strategy():
move = ['-', '0', '+']
perms = permutationsWithRepeats(4, 2)
for i in range(len(perms)):
s = ''
for j in range(4):
s += move[perms[i][j]]
print s
# execute
strategy()
My solution as follows:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
weight = 40
parts = 4
part=[0] * parts
def test_solution(p, weight,show_result=False):
cv=[0,0,0,0]
for check_weight in range(1,weight+1):
sum_ok = False
for parts_used in range(2 ** parts):
for options in range(2 ** parts):
for pos in range(parts):
pos_neg = int('{0:0{1}b}'.format(options,parts)[pos]) * 2 - 1
use = int('{0:0{1}b}'.format(parts_used,parts)[pos])
cv[pos] = p[pos] * pos_neg * use
if sum(cv) == check_weight:
if show_result:
print("{} = sum of:{}".format(check_weight, cv))
sum_ok = True
break
if sum_ok:
continue
else:
return False
return True
for part[0] in range(1,weight-parts):
for part[1] in range(part[0]+1, weight - part[0]):
for part[2] in range( part[1] + 1 , weight - sum(part[0:2])):
part[3] = weight - sum(part[0:3])
if test_solution(part,weight):
print(part)
test_solution(part,weight,True)
exit()
It gives you all the solutions for the given weights
More dynamic than my previous answer, so it also works with other numbers. But breaking up into 5 peaces takes some time:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
weight = 121
nr_of_parts = 5
# weight = 40
# nr_of_parts = 4
weight = 13
nr_of_parts = 3
part=[0] * nr_of_parts
def test_solution(p, weight,show_result=False):
cv=[0] * nr_of_parts
for check_weight in range(1,weight+1):
sum_ok = False
for nr_of_parts_used in range(2 ** nr_of_parts):
for options in range(2 ** nr_of_parts):
for pos in range(nr_of_parts):
pos_neg = int('{0:0{1}b}'.format(options,nr_of_parts)[pos]) * 2 - 1
use = int('{0:0{1}b}'.format(nr_of_parts_used,nr_of_parts)[pos])
cv[pos] = p[pos] * pos_neg * use
if sum(cv) == check_weight:
if show_result:
print("{} = sum of:{}".format(check_weight, cv))
sum_ok = True
break
if sum_ok:
continue
else:
return False
return True
def set_parts(part,position, nr_of_parts, weight):
if position == 0:
part[position] = 1
part, valid = set_parts(part,position+1,nr_of_parts,weight)
return part, valid
if position == nr_of_parts - 1:
part[position] = weight - sum(part)
if part[position -1] >= part[position]:
return part, False
return part, True
part[position]=max(part[position-1]+1,part[position])
part, valid = set_parts(part, position + 1, nr_of_parts, weight)
if not valid:
part[position]=max(part[position-1]+1,part[position]+1)
part=part[0:position+1] + [0] * (nr_of_parts - position - 1)
part, valid = set_parts(part, position + 1, nr_of_parts, weight)
return part, valid
while True:
part, valid = set_parts(part, 0, nr_of_parts, weight)
if not valid:
print(part)
print ('No solution posible')
exit()
if test_solution(part,weight):
print(part,' ')
test_solution(part,weight,True)
exit()
else:
print(part,' ', end='\r')