Exponential sum using recursion in Python - python-3.x
I found here: exponential sum using recursion.python
Exactly the same problem with the same conditions to implement.
A brief description: We have started studying recursion and got some questions to solve using only recursion without any loop.
So we are asked to write a function calculating the exponential sum.
So here are my tries:
def exp_n_x(n, x):
if n <= 0:
return 1
return (x/n)*exp_n_x(n-1, x)
It actually only calculates the n'th one, without summing up the others to i=0.
I tried to make the function sum every exponential element so:
def exp_n_x(n, x):
if n <= 0:
return 1
sum = (x/n)*exp_n_x(n-1, x)
n = n - 1
return sum + (x/n)*exp_n_x(n-1, x)
But it doesn't help me...
Thanks.
You are pretty close to a solution in the first function, but you are missing two critical things: you need to raise x to the power of n and divide it by n! (n-factorial). The factorial function is the product of all integers from 1 to n, with a special case that 0! is 1. Also, you are creating a product when you need a sum. Putting these together you have:
def factorial(n):
if n < 2:
return 1
return n * factorial(n - 1)
def exp_n_x(n, x):
if n < 1:
return 1
return x ** n / factorial(n) + exp_n_x(n - 1, x)
I think your problem is that the sum you're computing has terms that can be computed from the previous terms, but not (as far as I can see) from the previous sums. So you may need to have two separate recursive parts to your code. One computes the values of the next term based on the previous term, and one that adds the new term to the previous sum.
def term(n, x):
if n <= 0:
return 1
return x / n * term(n-1, x)
def exp_sum(n, x):
if n <= 0:
return 1
return exp_sum(n-1, x) + term(n, x)
This is hideously inefficient, since the terms for the smaller n values get computed over and over. But that's probably OK for learning about recursion (I expect you'll learn about ways to avoid this issue with memoziation or dynamic programming eventually).
Note that you can combine the two functions into one, as long as you don't mind changing the function signature and returning two values at once (in a tuple) from the recursion. You could add a non-recursive helper function to make the user-facing function work as expected:
def exp_sum_recursive(n, x): # this function returns term, sum tuples
if n <= 0:
return 1, 1
term, sum = exp_sum_recursive(n-1, x)
term *= x / n # each new term is based off of the previous term
return term, sum + term # the new sum adds the new term to the old sum
def exp_sum(n, x): # this is a non-recursive helper function
return exp_sum_recursive(n, x)[1] # it only returns the sum from the recursive version
Since you've achieved recursion with exp_n_x() why throw an inefficient recursive factorial() in the mix when Python already provides us with one:
from math import factorial
def exp_n_x(n, x):
return 1 if n < 1 else x ** n / factorial(n) + exp_n_x(n - 1, x)
Related
How to print the Pascal's extended triangle for negative numbers?
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/v9sj1.png) Hi all, I am currently trying to calculate and print out the pascals extended triangle for negative numbers (-1, -2, ..., -10) I am aware of the math library but I want to try without the usage of libraries, recursion, lists, string and the other related operations. the ideal output should be something like this: (https://i.stack.imgur.com/fnmpL.png) So I have went ahead and coded up my own factorial function, and a attempt at coding the nCk function: def factorial(n): result = 1 for i in range(1, n+1): result = i return result def n_choose_k(n, k): return factorial(n) / (factorial(k) * factorial(n-k)) when I tried to validate if it works or not, I picked out a value from the sample output from above, where k equals to 6 and n equals to -7 def factorial(n): result = 1 for i in range(1, n+1): result = i return result def n_choose_k(n, k): return factorial(n) / (factorial(k) * factorial(n-k)) print(n_choose_k(-7, 6)) ^^ what I ran in my program. the result should be 924 but instead I got 0.166. Am I calling the functions wrong? Is there an error in my code? I am a super noob in terms of programming, much feedback is appreciated. *sidenote im not sure why my images arent showing, also a noob for this website!
Number of Different Subsequences GCDs
Number of Different Subsequences GCDs You are given an array nums that consists of positive integers. The GCD of a sequence of numbers is defined as the greatest integer that divides all the numbers in the sequence evenly. For example, the GCD of the sequence [4,6,16] is 2. A subsequence of an array is a sequence that can be formed by removing some elements (possibly none) of the array. For example, [2,5,10] is a subsequence of [1,2,1,2,4,1,5,10]. Return the number of different GCDs among all non-empty subsequences of nums. Example 1: Input: nums = [6,10,3] Output: 5 Explanation: The figure shows all the non-empty subsequences and their GCDs. The different GCDs are 6, 10, 3, 2, and 1. from itertools import permutations import math class Solution: def countDifferentSubsequenceGCDs(self, nums: List[int]) -> int: s = set() g =0 for i in range(1,len(nums)+1): comb = combinations(nums,i) for i in comb: if len(i)==1: u = i[0] s.add(u) else: g = math.gcd(i[0],i[1]) s.add(g) if len(i)>2: for j in range(2,len(i)): g = math.gcd(g,i[j]) s.add(g) g = 0 y = len(s) return y I am getting TLE for this input. Can someone pls help? [5852,6671,170275,141929,2414,99931,179958,56781,110656,190278,7613,138315,58116,114790,129975,144929,61102,90624,60521,177432,57353,199478,120483,75965,5634,109100,145872,168374,26215,48735,164982,189698,77697,31691,194812,87215,189133,186435,131282,110653,133096,175717,49768,79527,74491,154031,130905,132458,103116,154404,9051,125889,63633,194965,105982,108610,174259,45353,96240,143865,184298,176813,193519,98227,22667,115072,174001,133281,28294,42913,136561,103090,97131,128371,192091,7753,123030,11400,80880,184388,161169,155500,151566,103180,169649,44657,44196,131659,59491,3225,52303,141458,143744,60864,106026,134683,90132,151466,92609,120359,70590,172810,143654,159632,191208,1497,100582,194119,134349,33882,135969,147157,53867,111698,14713,126118,95614,149422,145333,52387,132310,108371,127121,93531,108639,90723,416,141159,141587,163445,160551,86806,120101,157249,7334,60190,166559,46455,144378,153213,47392,24013,144449,66924,8509,176453,18469,21820,4376,118751,3817,197695,198073,73715,65421,70423,28702,163789,48395,90289,76097,18224,43902,41845,66904,138250,44079,172139,71543,169923,186540,77200,119198,184190,84411,130153,124197,29935,6196,81791,101334,90006,110342,49294,67744,28512,66443,191406,133724,54812,158768,113156,5458,59081,4684,104154,38395,9261,188439,42003,116830,184709,132726,177780,111848,142791,57829,165354,182204,135424,118187,58510,137337,170003,8048,103521,176922,150955,84213,172969,165400,111752,15411,193319,78278,32948,55610,12437,80318,18541,20040,81360,78088,194994,41474,109098,148096,66155,34182,2224,146989,9940,154819,57041,149496,120810,44963,184556,163306,133399,9811,99083,52536,90946,25959,53940,150309,176726,113496,155035,50888,129067,27375,174577,102253,77614,132149,131020,4509,85288,160466,105468,73755,4743,41148,52653,85916,147677,35427,88892,112523,55845,69871,176805,25273,99414,143558,90139,180122,140072,127009,139598,61510,17124,190177,10591,22199,34870,44485,43661,141089,55829,70258,198998,87094,157342,132616,66924,96498,88828,89204,29862,76341,61654,158331,187462,128135,35481,152033,144487,27336,84077,10260,106588,19188,99676,38622,32773,89365,30066,161268,153986,99101,20094,149627,144252,58646,148365,21429,69921,95655,77478,147967,140063,29968,120002,72662,28241,11994,77526,3246,160872,175745,3814,24035,108406,30174,10492,49263,62819,153825,110367,42473,30293,118203,43879,178492,63287,41667,195037,26958,114060,99164,142325,77077,144235,66430,186545,125046,82434,26249,54425,170932,83209,10387,7147,2755,77477,190444,156388,83952,117925,102569,82125,104479,16506,16828,83192,157666,119501,29193,65553,56412,161955,142322,180405,122925,173496,93278,67918,48031,141978,54484,80563,52224,64588,94494,21331,73607,23440,197470,117415,23722,170921,150565,168681,88837,59619,102362,80422,10762,85785,48972,83031,151784,79380,64448,87644,26463,142666,160273,151778,156229,24129,64251,57713,5341,63901,105323,18961,70272,144496,18591,191148,19695,5640,166562,2600,76238,196800,94160,129306,122903,40418,26460,131447,86008,20214,133503,174391,45415,47073,39208,37104,83830,80118,28018,185946,134836,157783,76937,33109,54196,37141,142998,189433,8326,82856,163455,176213,144953,195608,180774,53854,46703,78362,113414,140901,41392,12730,187387,175055,64828,66215,16886,178803,117099,112767,143988,65594,141919,115186,141050,118833,2849]
I'm going to add "an answer" here because most "not horribly slow" programs I've seen for this are way too elaborate. Call the input xs. The fastest way I know of asks, for each integer j in 1 through max(xs), can j be the gcd of some non-empty subset of xs? Of course if max(xs) can be huge, that can be slow. But in the context you apparently took this from (LeetCode), it cannot be huge. So, given j, how do we know whether some subset's gcd is j? Actually easy! We look at all and only the multiples of j in xs. The gcd of all of those is at least j. If, at any point along the way, their gcd so far is j, we found a subset whose gcd is j. Else the running gcd exceeds j after processing all of j's multiples, so no subset's gcd is j. def numgcds(xs): from math import gcd limit = max(xs) + 1 result = 0 xsset = set(xs) for j in range(1, limit): g = 0 for x in range(j, limit, j): if x in xsset: g = gcd(x, g) if g == j: result += 1 break return result Where L is max(xs), worst-case runtime is O(L * log(L)). Across outer loop iterations, the inner loop goes around (at worst) L times at first, then L/2 times, then L/3, and so on. That sums to L*(1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/L). The second factor (the sum of reciprocals) is the L'th "harmonic number", and is approximately the natural logarithm of L. More Gonzo I don't really like having the runtime depend on the largest integer in the input. For example, numgcds([20000000]) takes 20 million iterations of the outer loop to determine that there's only one gcd, and can take appreciable time (about 30 seconds on my box just now). Instead, with more code, we can build some dicts that eliminate all searching. For each divisor d of an integer in xs, d2xs[d] is the list of multiples of d in xs. The keys of d2xs are the only possible gcds we need to check, and a key's associated values are exactly (no searching needed) the multiples of the key in xs. The collection of all possible divisors of all integers in xs can be found by factoring each integer in xs, and generating all possible combinations of its factors' prime powers. This is harder to code, but can run very much faster. numgcds([20000000]) is essentially instant. And it runs about 10 times faster for the largish example you gave. def gendivisors(x): from collections import Counter from itertools import product from math import prod c = Counter(factor(x)) pows = [] for p, k in c.items(): pows.append([p**i for i in range(k+1)]) for t in product(*pows): yield prod(t) def numgcds(xs): from math import gcd from collections import defaultdict d2xs = defaultdict(list) for x in xs: for d in gendivisors(x): d2xs[d].append(x) result = 0 for j, mults in d2xs.items(): g = 0 for x in mults: g = gcd(x, g) if g == j: result += 1 break return result I'm not including code for factor(n) - pick your favorite. The code requires it return an iterable (list, generator iterator, tuple, doesn't matter) of all n's prime factors. Order doesn't matter. As special cases, list(factor(i)) should return [i] for i equal to 0 or 1. For ordinary cases, list(factor(p)) == [p] for a prime p, and, e.g., sorted(factor(20)) == [2, 2, 5]. Worst-case timing is much harder to nail, but the key bit is that a reasonable implementation of factor(n) will have worst-case time O(sqrt(n)).
How can I solve finding consecutive factors problem in an optimal way?
I need to develop a function which finds consecutive factors of the given number and then the function will return the smallest of these consecutive numbers. I tried to solve a Codility question. (I submitted my solution) I need to develop the solution function. def solution(N): # write your code in Python 3.6 pass An example: If N is 6, the function will return 2 (because of 6 = 2 * 3) If N is 20, the function will return 4 (because of 20 = 4 * 5) If N is 29, the function will return 0 I developed the solution function (by checking all the numbers from 1 up to N, brute force search) and it works. However, when the argument of the solution function is too big, the execution of the function takes too much time. Codility Python engine is running the function for a while and then it is throwing TIMEOUT ERROR. What may be an optimal solution for this problem? Thank you I developed the function but it is not optimized. def solution(N): for i in range(1,N+1): if i * (i+1) == N: return i return 0 When N is too big like 12,567,543, the function execution takes too much time.
After my comment, I thought a little bit about the question. If you have an integer, N, and two consecutive factors, m and m+1, then it MUST be true that m < sqrt(N) and m + 1 > sqrt(N) Therefore, all you have to do is check if the floor of the square root times the ceiling of the square root is equal to your original number.. import math def solution(N): n1 = math.floor(math.sqrt(N)) n2 = n1 + 1 # or n2 = math.ceil(math.sqrt(N)) if n1*n2 == N: return n1 return 0
This has a run time of O(1). import math import math def mysol(n): s = math.sqrt(n) if math.floor(s) * math.ceil(s) == n: return math.floor(s) else: return 0
Python infinite recursion with formula
### Run the code below and understand the error messages ### Fix the code to sum integers from 1 up to k ### def f(k): return f(k-1) + k print(f(10)) I am confused on how to fix this code while using recursion, I keep getting the error messages [Previous line repeated 995 more times] RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded Is there a simple way to fix this without using any while loops or creating more than 1 variable?
A recursion should have a termination condition, i.e. the base case. When your variable attains that value there are no more recursive function calls. e.g. in your code, def f(k): if(k == 1): return k return f(k-1) + k print(f(10)) we define the base case 1, if you want to take the sum of values from n to 1. You can put any other number, positive or negative there, if you want the sum to extend upto that number. e.g. maybe you want to take sum from n to -3, then base case would be k == -3.
Python doesn't have optimized tail recursion. You f function call k time. If k is very big number then Python trow RecursionError. You can see what is limit of recursion via sys.getrecursionlimit and change via sys.setrecursionlimit. But changing limit is not good idea. Instead of changing you can change your code logic or pattern.
Your recursion never terminates. You could try: def f(k): return k if k < 2 else f(k-1) + k print(f(10))
You are working out the sum of all of all numbers from 1 to 10 which in essence returns the 10th triangular number. Eg. the number of black circles in each triangle Using the formula on OEIS gives you this as your code. def f(k): return int(k*(k+1)/2) print(f(10)) How do we know int() doesn't break this? k and k + 1 are adjacent numbers and one of them must have a factor of two so this formula will always return an integer if given an integer.
find primes in a certain range efficiently
This is code an algorithm I found for Sieve of Eratosthenes for python3. What I want to do is edit it so the I can input a range of bottom and top and then input a list of primes up to the bottom one and it will output a list of primes within that range. However, I am not quite sure how to do that. If you can help that would be greatly appreciated. from math import sqrt def sieve(end): if end < 2: return [] #The array doesn't need to include even numbers lng = ((end//2)-1+end%2) # Create array and assume all numbers in array are prime sieve = [True]*(lng+1) # In the following code, you're going to see some funky # bit shifting and stuff, this is just transforming i and j # so that they represent the proper elements in the array. # The transforming is not optimal, and the number of # operations involved can be reduced. # Only go up to square root of the end for i in range(int(sqrt(end)) >> 1): # Skip numbers that aren’t marked as prime if not sieve[i]: continue # Unmark all multiples of i, starting at i**2 for j in range( (i*(i + 3) << 1) + 3, lng, (i << 1) + 3): sieve[j] = False # Don't forget 2! primes = [2] # Gather all the primes into a list, leaving out the composite numbers primes.extend([(i << 1) + 3 for i in range(lng) if sieve[i]]) return primes
I think the following is working: def extend_erathostene(A, B, prime_up_to_A): sieve = [ True ]* (B-A) for p in prime_up_to_A: # first multiple of p greater than A m0 = ((A+p-1)/p)*p for m in range( m0, B, p): sieve[m-A] = False limit = int(ceil(sqrt(B))) for p in range(A,limit+1): if sieve[p-A]: for m in range(p*2, B, p): sieve[m-A] = False return prime_up_to_A + [ A+c for (c, isprime) in enumerate(sieve) if isprime]
This problem is known as the "segmented sieve of Eratosthenes." Google gives several useful references.
You already have the primes from 2 to end, so you just need to filter the list that is returned.
One way is to run the sieve code with end = top and modify the last line to give you only numbers bigger than bottom: If the range is small compared with it's magnitude (i.e. top-bottom is small compared with bottom), then you better use a different algorithm: Start from bottom and iterate over the odd numbers checking whether they are prime. You need an isprime(n) function which just checks whether n is divisible by all the odd numbers from 1 to sqrt(n): def isprime(n): i=2 while (i*i<=n): if n%i==0: return False i+=1 return True