So I am working on a problem which need me to get factors of a certain number. So as always I am using the module % in order to see if a number is divisible by a certain number and is equal to zero. But when ever I am trying to do this I keep getting an error saying ZeroDivisionError . I tried adding a block of code like this so python does not start counting from zero instead it starts to count from one for potenial in range(number + 1): But this does not seem to work. Below is the rest of my code any help will be appreciated.
def Factors(number):
factors = []
for potenial in range(number + 1):
if number % potenial == 0:
factors.append(potenial)
return factors
In your for loop you are iterating from 0 (range() assumes starting number to be 0 if only 1 argument is given) up to "number". There is a ZeroDivisionError since you are trying to calculate number modulo 0 (number % 0) at the start of the for loop. When calculating the modulo, Python tries to divide number by 0 causing the ZeroDivisionError. Here is the corrected code (fixed the indentation):
def get_factors(number):
factors = []
for potential in range(1, number + 1):
if number % potential == 0:
factors.append(potential)
return factors
However, there are betters ways of calculating factors. For example, you can iterate only up to sqrt(n) where n is the number and then calculate "factor pairs" e.g. if 3 is a factor of 15 then 15/3 which is 5 is also a factor of 15.
I encourage you to try an implement a more efficient algorithm.
Stylistic note: According to PEP 8, function names should be lowercase with words separated by underscores. Uppercase names generally indicate class definitions.
Related
I made a program to find primes below a given number.
number = int(input("Enter number: "))
prime_numbers = [2] # First prime is needed.
for number_to_be_checked in range(3, number + 1):
square_root = number_to_be_checked ** 0.5
for checker in prime_numbers: # Checker will become
# every prime number below the 'number_to_be_checked'
# variable because we are adding all the prime numbers
# in the 'prime_numbers' list.
if checker > square_root:
prime_numbers.append(number_to_be_checked)
break
elif number_to_be_checked % checker == 0:
break
print(prime_numbers)
This program checks every number below the number given as the input. But primes are of the form 6k ± 1 only. Therefore, instead of checking all the numbers, I defined a generator that generates all the numbers of form 6k ± 1 below the number given as the input. (I added 3 also in the prime_numbers list while initializing it as 2,3 cannot be of the form 6k ± 1)
def potential_primes(number: int) -> int:
"""Generate the numbers potential to be prime"""
# Prime numbers are always of the form 6k ± 1.
number_for_function = number // 6
for k in range(1, number_for_function + 1):
yield 6*k - 1
yield 6*k + 1
Obviously, the program should have been much faster because I am checking comparatively many less numbers. But, counterintuitively the program is slower than before. What could be the reason behind this?
In every six numbers, three are even and one is a multiple of 3. The other two are 6-coprime, so are potentially prime:
6k+0 6k+1 6k+2 6k+3 6k+4 6k+5
even even even
3x 3x
For the three evens your primality check uses only one division (by 2) and for the 4th number, two divisions. In all, five divisions that you seek to avoid.
But each call to a generator has its cost too. If you just replace the call to range with the call to create your generator, but leave the other code as is(*), you are not realizing the full savings potential.
Why? Because (*)if that's the case, while you indeed test only 1/3 of the numbers now, you still test each of them by 2 and 3. Needlessly. And apparently the cost of generator use is too high.
The point to this technique known as wheel factorization is to not test the 6-coprime (in this case) numbers by the primes which are already known to not be their divisors, by construction.
Thus, you must start with e.g. prime_numbers = [5,7] and use it in your divisibility testing loop, not all primes, which start with 2 and 3, which you do not need.
Using nested for loop along with square root will be heavy on computation, rather look at Prime Sieve Algorithm which is much faster but does take some memory.
One way to use the 6n±1 idea is to alternate step sizes in the main loop by stepping 2 then 4. My Python is not good, so this is pseudocode:
function listPrimes(n)
// Deal with low numbers.
if (n < 2) return []
if (n = 2) return [2]
if (n = 3) return [2, 3]
// Main loop
primeList ← [2, 3]
limit ← 1 + sqrt(n) // Calculate square root once.
index ← 5 // We have checked 2 and 3 already.
step ← 2 // Starting step value: 5 + 2 = 7.
while (index <= limit) {
if (isPrime(index)) {
primeList.add(index)
}
index ← index + step
step ← 6 - step // Alternate steps of 2 and 4
}
return primeList
end function
I'm trying to find the number of palindromes in a certain range using the Python code below:
def test(n,m):
return len([i for i in range(n,m+1) if str(i) == str(i)[::-1]])
Can anyone discover any other ways to make this code simpler in order to reduce its time complexity, as well as any potential missing conditions that my function may not have addressed?
Some recommendations to enhance the temporal complexity and mark on conditions that I haven't handled.
So here's an idea to build off of: For an n-digit number, there will be O(2^n) numbers less than n. For now, forget the lower bound. Checking each in turn will therefor take at least that long.
However, every palindrome is the repeat of a number of half that length - there can only be 2^(n/2) palindromes of length n. This is a much smaller number. Consider searching that way instead?
So for a number of the form abcd, there are two palindromes based off of it - abcddcba and abcdcba. You can therefor find all panidromes up to length 8 by instead starting from all numbers up to length 4 and finding their generated palindromes.
you can eliminate for loop and you can use recursion for eliminating time complexity
below is the code which has O(log10n) time complexity
def getFirstDigit(x) :
while (x >= 10) :
x //= 10
return x
def getCountWithSameStartAndEndFrom1(x) :
if (x < 10):
return x
tens = x // 10
res = tens + 9
firstDigit = getFirstDigit(x)
lastDigit = x % 10
if (lastDigit < firstDigit) :
res = res - 1
return res
def getCountWithSameStartAndEnd(start, end) :
return (getCountWithSameStartAndEndFrom1(end) -
getCountWithSameStartAndEndFrom1(start - 1))
I have this python program which computes the "Square Free Numbers" of a given number. I'm facing problem regarding the time complexity that is I'm getting the error as "Time Limit Exceeded" in an online compiler.
number = int(input())
factors = []
perfectSquares = []
count = 0
total_len = 0
# Find All the Factors of the given number
for i in range(1, number):
if number%i == 0:
factors.append(i)
# Find total number of factors
total_len = len(factors)
for items in factors:
for i in range(1,total_len):
# Eleminate perfect square numbers
if items == i * i:
if items == 1:
factors.remove(items)
count += 1
else:
perfectSquares.append(items)
factors.remove(items)
count += 1
# Eleminate factors that are divisible by the perfect squares
for i in factors:
for j in perfectSquares:
if i%j == 0:
count +=1
# Print Total Square Free numbers
total_len -= count
print(total_len)
How can I reduce the time complexity of this program? That is how can I reduce the for loops so the program gets executed with a smaller time complexity?
Algorithmic Techniques for Reducing Time Complexity(TC) of a python code.
In order to reduce time complexity of a code, it's very much necessary to reduce the usage of loops whenever and wherever possible.
I'll divide your code's logic part into 5 sections and suggest optimization in each one of them.
Section 1 - Declaration of Variables and taking input
number = int(input())
factors = []
perfectSquares = []
count = 0
total_len = 0
You can easily omit declaration of perfect squares, count and total_length, as they aren't needed, as explained further. This will reduce both Time and Space complexities of your code.
Also, you can use Fast IO, in order to speed up INPUTS and OUTPUTS
This is done by using 'stdin.readline', and 'stdout.write'.
Section 2 - Finding All factors
for i in range(1, number):
if number%i == 0:
factors.append(i)
Here, you can use List comprehension technique to create the factor list, due to the fact that List comprehension is faster than looping statements.
Also, you can just iterate till square root of the Number, instead of looping till number itself, thereby reducing time complexity exponentially.
Above code section guns down to...
After applying '1' hack
factors = [for i in range(1, number) if number%i == 0]
After applying '2' hack - Use from_iterable to store more than 1 value in each iteration in list comprehension
factors = list( chain.from_iterable(
(i, int(number/i)) for i in range(2, int(number**0.5)+1)
if number%i == 0
))
Section 3 - Eliminating Perfect Squares
# Find total number of factors
total_len = len(factors)
for items in factors:
for i in range(1,total_len):
# Eleminate perfect square numbers
if items == i * i:
if items == 1:
factors.remove(items)
count += 1
else:
perfectSquares.append(items)
factors.remove(items)
count += 1
Actually you can completely omit this part, and just add additional condition to the Section 2, namely ... type(i**0.5) != int, to eliminate those numbers which have integer square roots, hence being perfect squares themselves.
Implement as follows....
factors = list( chain.from_iterable(
(i, int(number/i)) for i in range(2, int(number**0.5)+1)
if number%i == 0 and type(i**0.5) != int
))
Section 4 - I think this Section isn't needed because Square Free Numbers doesn't have such Restriction
Section 5 - Finalizing Count, Printing Count
There's absolutely no need of counter, you can just compute length of factors list, and use it as Count.
OPTIMISED CODES
Way 1 - Little Faster
number = int(input())
# Find Factors of the given number
factors = []
for i in range(2, int(number**0.5)+1):
if number%i == 0 and type(i**0.5) != int:
factors.extend([i, int(number/i)])
print([1] + factors)
Way 2 - Optimal Programming - Very Fast
from itertools import chain
from sys import stdin, stdout
number = int(stdin.readline())
factors = list( chain.from_iterable(
(i, int(number/i)) for i in range(2, int(number**0.5)+1)
if number%i == 0 and type(i**0.5) != int
))
stdout.write(', '.join(map(str, [1] + factors)))
First of all, you only need to check for i in range(1, number/2):, since number/2 + 1 and greater cannot be factors.
Second, you can compute the number of perfect squares that could be factors in sublinear time:
squares = []
for i in range(1, math.floor(math.sqrt(number/2))):
squares.append(i**2)
Third, you can search for factors and when you find one, check that it is not divisible by a square, and only then add it to the list of factors.
This approach will save you all the time of your for items in factors nested loop block, as well as the next block. I'm not sure if it will definitely be faster, but it is less wasteful.
I used the code provided in the answer above but it didn't give me the correct answer. This actually computes the square free list of factors of a number.
number = int(input())
factors = [
i for i in range(2, int(number/2)+1)
if number%i == 0 and int(int(math.sqrt(i))**2)!=i
]
print([1] + factors)
### 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.
Remember back in primary school where you learn to carry numbers?
Example:
123
+ 127
-------
250
You carry the 1 from 3+7 over to the next column, and change the first column to 0?
Anyway, what I am getting at is that I want to make a program that calculates how many carries that the 2 numbers make (addition).
The way I am doing it, is that I am converting both numbers to strings, splitting them into individuals, and turning them back into integers. After that, I am going to run through adding 1 at a time, and when a number is 2 digits long, I will take 10 off it and move to the next column, calculating as I go.
The problem is, I barely know how to do that, and it also sounds pretty slow.
Here is my code so far.
numberOne = input('Number: ')
numberTwo = input('Number: ')
listOne = [int(i) for i in str(numberOne)]
listTwo = [int(i) for i in str(numberTwo)]
And then... I am at a loss for what to do. Could anyone please help?
EDIT:
Some clarification.
This should work with floats as well.
This only counts the amount of times it has carried, not the amount of carries. 9+9+9 will be 1, and 9+9 will also be 1.
The numbers are not the same length.
>>> def countCarries(n1, n2):
... n1, n2 = str(n1), str(n2) # turn the numbers into strings
... carry, answer = 0, 0 # we have no carry terms so far, and we haven't carried anything yet
... for one,two in itertools.zip_longest(n1[::-1], n2[::-1], fillvalue='0'): # consider the corresponding digits in reverse order
... carry = int(((int(one)+int(two)+carry)//10)>0) # calculate whether we will carry again
... answer += ((int(one)+int(two)+carry)//10)>0 # increment the number of carry terms, if we will carry again
... carry += ((int(one)+int(two)+carry)//10)>0 # compute the new carry term
... return answer
...
>>> countCarries(127, 123)
1
>>> countCarries(127, 173)
2