Problem: Choose an element from the array to maximize the sum after XOR all elements in the array.
Input for problem statement:
N=3
A=[15,11,8]
Output:
11
Approach:
(15^15)+(15^11)+(15^8)=11
My Code for brute force approach:
def compute(N,A):
ans=0
for i in A:
xor_sum=0
for j in A:
xor_sum+=(i^j)
if xor_sum>ans:
ans=xor_sum
return ans
Above approach giving the correct answer but wanted to optimize the approach to solve it in O(n) time complexity. Please help me to get this.
If you have integers with a fixed (constant) number of c bites then it should be possible because O(c) = O(1). For simplicity reasons I assume unsigned integers and n to be odd. If n is even then we sometimes have to check both paths in the tree (see solution below). You can adapt the algorithm to cover even n and negative numbers.
find max in array with length n O(n)
if max == 0 return 0 (just 0s in array)
find the position p of the most significant bit of max O(c) = O(1)
p = -1
while (max != 0)
p++
max /= 2
so 1 << p gives a mask for the highest set bit
build a tree where the leaves are the numbers and every level stands for a position of a bit, if there is an edge to the left from the root then there is a number that has bit p set and if there is an edge to the right there is a number that has bit p not set, for the next level we have an edge to the left if there is a number with bit p - 1 set and an edge to the right if bit p - 1 is not set and so on, this can be done in O(cn) = O(n)
go through the array and count how many times a bit at position i (i from 0 to p) is set => sum array O(cn) = O(n)
assign the root of the tree to node x
now for each i from p to 0 do the following:
if x has only one edge => x becomes its only child node
else if sum[i] > n / 2 => x becomes its right child node
else x becomes its left child node
in this step we choose the best path through the tree that gives us the most ones when xoring O(cn) = O(n)
xor all the elements in the array with the value of x and sum them up to get the result, actually you could have built the result already in the step before by adding sum[i] * (1 << i) to the result if going left and (n - sum[i]) * (1 << i) if going right O(n)
All the sequential steps are O(n) and therefore overall the algorithm is also O(n).
I want to implement Karatsuba multiplication algorithm in python.But it is not working completely.
The code is not working for the values of x or y greater than 999.For inputs below 1000,the program is showing correct result.It is also showing correct results on base cases.
#Karatsuba method of multiplication.
f = int(input()) #Inputs
e = int(input())
def prod(x,y):
r = str(x)
t = str(y)
lx = len(r) #Calculation of Lengths
ly = len(t)
#Base Case
if(lx == 1 or ly == 1):
return x*y
#Other Case
else:
o = lx//2
p = ly//2
a = x//(10*o) #Calculation of a,b,c and d.
b = x-(a*10*o) #The Calculation is done by
c = y//(10*p) #calculating the length of x and y
d = y-(c*10*p) #and then dividing it by half.
#Then we just remove the half of the digits of the no.
return (10**o)*(10**p)*prod(a,c)+(10**o)*prod(a,d)+(10**p)*prod(b,c)+prod(b,d)
print(prod(f,e))
I think there are some bugs in the calculation of a,b,c and d.
a = x//(10**o)
b = x-(a*10**o)
c = y//(10**p)
d = y-(c*10**p)
You meant 10 to the power of, but wrote 10 multiplied with.
You should train to find those kinds of bugs yourself. There are multiple ways to do that:
Do the algorithm manually on paper for specific inputs, then step through your code and see if it matches
Reduce the code down to sub-portions and see if their expected value matches the produced value. In your case, check for every call of prod() what the expected output would be and what it produced, to find minimal input values that produce erroneous results.
Step through the code with the debugger. Before every line, think about what the result should be and then see if the line produces that result.
I solved this leetcode question https://leetcode.com/problems/divide-two-integers/ . The goal is to get the quotient of the division of dividend by divisor without using a multiplication or division operator. Here is my solution:
def divide(dividend, divisor):
"""
:type dividend: int
:type divisor: int
:rtype: int
"""
sign = [1,-1][(dividend < 0) != (divisor < 0)]
dividend, divisor = abs(dividend), abs(divisor)
res = 0
i = 0
Q = divisor
while dividend >= divisor:
dividend = dividend - Q
Q <<= 1
res += (1 << i)
i+=1
if dividend < Q:
Q = divisor
i = 0
if sign == -1:
res = -res
if res < -2**31 or res > 2**31 -1:
return 2**31 - 1
return res
So I am having trouble analyzing the time complexity of this solution. I know it should be O(log(something)). Usually for algorithms we say they are O(log(n)) when the input gets divided by 2 at each iteration but here I multiply the divisor by 2 Q<<= 1 at each iteration so at each step I take a bigger step towards the solution. Obviously if the dividend is the same for a bigger divisor my algorithm will be faster. Similarly the bigger the dividend for the same divisor we get a slower run time.
My guess is the equation governing the runtime of this algorithm is basically of the form O(dividend/divisor) (duh that's division) with some logs in there to account for me multiplying Q by 2 at each step Q <<= 1... I can't figure out what exactly.
EDIT:
When I first posted the question the algorithm I posted is the one below, Alain Merigot's answer is based on that algorithm. The difference between the version on top and that one is for the one above I never have my dividend go below 0 resulting in a faster run time.
def divide(dividend, divisor):
"""
:type dividend: int
:type divisor: int
:rtype: int
"""
sign = [1,-1][(dividend < 0) != (divisor < 0)]
dividend, divisor = abs(dividend), abs(divisor)
res = 0
i = 0
tmp_divisor = divisor
while dividend >= divisor:
old_dividend, old_res = dividend, res
dividend = dividend - tmp_divisor
tmp_divisor <<= 1
res += (1 << i)
i+=1
if dividend < 0:
dividend = old_dividend
res = old_res
tmp_divisor >>= 2
i -= 2
if sign == -1:
res = -res
if res < -2**31 or res > 2**31 -1:
return 2**31 - 1
return res
Your algorithm is O(m^2) in the worst-case, where m is the number of bits in the result. In terms of the inputs, it would be O(log(dividend/divisor) ^ 2).
To see why, consider what your loop does. Let a=dividend, b=divisor. The loop subtracts b, 2b, 4b, 8b, ... from a as long as it's big enough, then repeats this sequence again and again until a<b.
It can be equivalently written as two nested loops:
while dividend >= divisor:
Q = divisor
i = 0
while Q <= dividend:
dividend = dividend - Q
Q <<= 1
res += (1 << i)
i+=1
For each iteration of the outer loop, the inner loop will perform less iterations because dividend is smaller. In the worst case, the inner loop will do only one iteration less for each iteration of the outer loop. This happens when the result is 1+3+7+15+...+(2^n-1) for some n. In this case, it can be shown that n = O(log(result)), but the total number of inner loop iterations is O(n^2), i.e. quadratic in the size of the result.
To improve this to be linear in the size of the result, first calculate the largest needed values of Q and i. Then work backwards from that, subtracting 1 from i and shifting Q right each iteration. This guarantees no more than 2n iterations total.
Worst case complexity is easy to find.
Every iteration generates a bit of the result, and the number of iterations is equal to the number of bits in the quotient.
When divider=1, quotient=dividend and in that case the number of iterations is equal to the number of bits in dividend after the leading (most significant) 1. It is maximized when dividend=2^(n-1)+k, where n is the number of bits and k any number such as 1≤k<2^(n-1). This will obviously be the worst case.
After first iteration, dividend=dividend-diviser(=dividend-1) and diviser=2^1
After iteration m, diviser=2^m and dividend=dividend-(1+2^1+..+2^(m-1))=dividend-(2^m-1)
Iterations stop when dividend is <0. As dividend=2^(n-1)+k, with k>0, this happens for m=n.
Hence, the number of steps in the worst case is n and complexity is linear with number of bits of the dividend.
Someone told me that the Frobenius pseudoprime algorithm take three times longer to run than the Miller–Rabin primality test but has seven times the resolution. So then if one where to run the former ten times and the later thirty times, both would take the same time to run, but the former would provide about 233% more analyse power. In trying to find out how to perform the test, the following paper was discovered with the algorithm at the end:
A Simple Derivation for the Frobenius Pseudoprime Test
There is an attempt at implementing the algorithm below, but the program never prints out a number. Could someone who is more familiar with the math notation or algorithm verify what is going on please?
Edit 1: The code below has corrections added, but the implementation for compute_wm_wm1 is missing. Could someone explain the recursive definition from an algorithmic standpoint? It is not "clicking" for me.
Edit 2: The erroneous code has been removed, and an implementation of the compute_wm_wm1 function has been added below. It appears to work but may require further optimization to be practical.
from random import SystemRandom
from fractions import gcd
random = SystemRandom().randrange
def find_prime_number(bits, test):
number = random((1 << bits - 1) + 1, 1 << bits, 2)
while True:
for _ in range(test):
if not frobenius_pseudoprime(number):
break
else:
return number
number += 2
def frobenius_pseudoprime(integer):
assert integer & 1 and integer >= 3
a, b, d = choose_ab(integer)
w1 = (a ** 2 * extended_gcd(b, integer)[0] - 2) % integer
m = (integer - jacobi_symbol(d, integer)) >> 1
wm, wm1 = compute_wm_wm1(w1, m, integer)
if w1 * wm != 2 * wm1 % integer:
return False
b = pow(b, (integer - 1) >> 1, integer)
return b * wm % integer == 2
def choose_ab(integer):
a, b = random(1, integer), random(1, integer)
d = a ** 2 - 4 * b
while is_square(d) or gcd(2 * d * a * b, integer) != 1:
a, b = random(1, integer), random(1, integer)
d = a ** 2 - 4 * b
return a, b, d
def is_square(integer):
if integer < 0:
return False
if integer < 2:
return True
x = integer >> 1
seen = set([x])
while x * x != integer:
x = (x + integer // x) >> 1
if x in seen:
return False
seen.add(x)
return True
def extended_gcd(n, d):
x1, x2, y1, y2 = 0, 1, 1, 0
while d:
n, (q, d) = d, divmod(n, d)
x1, x2, y1, y2 = x2 - q * x1, x1, y2 - q * y1, y1
return x2, y2
def jacobi_symbol(n, d):
j = 1
while n:
while not n & 1:
n >>= 1
if d & 7 in {3, 5}:
j = -j
n, d = d, n
if n & 3 == 3 == d & 3:
j = -j
n %= d
return j if d == 1 else 0
def compute_wm_wm1(w1, m, n):
a, b = 2, w1
for shift in range(m.bit_length() - 1, -1, -1):
if m >> shift & 1:
a, b = (a * b - w1) % n, (b * b - 2) % n
else:
a, b = (a * a - 2) % n, (a * b - w1) % n
return a, b
print('Probably prime:\n', find_prime_number(300, 10))
You seem to have misunderstood the algorithm completely due to not being familiar with the notation.
def frobenius_pseudoprime(integer):
assert integer & 1 and integer >= 3
a, b, d = choose_ab(integer)
w1 = (a ** 2 // b - 2) % integer
That comes from the line
W0 ≡ 2 (mod n) and W1 ≡ a2b−1 − 2 (mod n)
But the b-1 doesn't mean 1/b here, but the modular inverse of b modulo n, i.e. an integer c with b·c ≡ 1 (mod n). You can most easily find such a c by continued fraction expansion of b/n or, equivalently, but with slightly more computation, by the extended Euclidean algorithm. Since you're probably not familiar with continued fractions, I recommend the latter.
m = (integer - d // integer) // 2
comes from
n − (∆/n) = 2m
and misunderstands the Jacobi symbol as a fraction/division (admittedly, I have displayed it here even more like a fraction, but since the site doesn't support LaTeX rendering, we'll have to make do).
The Jacobi symbol is a generalisation of the Legendre symbol - denoted identically - which indicates whether a number is a quadratic residue modulo an odd prime (if n is a quadratic residue modulo p, i.e. there is a k with k^2 ≡ n (mod p) and n is not a multiple of p, then (n/p) = 1, if n is a multiple of p, then (n/p) = 0, otherwise (n/p) = -1). The Jacobi symbol lifts the restriction that the 'denominator' be an odd prime and allows arbitrary odd numbers as 'denominators'. Its value is the product of the Legendre symbols with the same 'numerator' for all primes dividing n (according to multiplicity). More on that, and how to compute Jacobi symbols efficiently in the linked article.
The line should correctly read
m = (integer - jacobi_symbol(d,integer)) // 2
The following lines I completely fail to understand, logically, here should follow the calculation of
Wm and Wm+1 using the recursion
W2j ≡ Wj2 − 2 (mod n)
W2j+1 ≡ WjWj+1 − W1 (mod n)
An efficient method of using that recursion to compute the required values is given around formula (11) of the PDF.
w_m0 = w1 * 2 // m % integer
w_m1 = w1 * 2 // (m + 1) % integer
w_m2 = (w_m0 * w_m1 - w1) % integer
The remainder of the function is almost correct, except of course that it now gets the wrong data due to earlier misunderstandings.
if w1 * w_m0 != 2 * w_m2:
The (in)equality here should be modulo integer, namely if (w1*w_m0 - 2*w_m2) % integer != 0.
return False
b = pow(b, (integer - 1) // 2, integer)
return b * w_m0 % integer == 2
Note, however, that if n is a prime, then
b^((n-1)/2) ≡ (b/n) (mod n)
where (b/n) is the Legendre (or Jacobi) symbol (for prime 'denominators', the Jacobi symbol is the Legendre symbol), hence b^((n-1)/2) ≡ ±1 (mod n). So you could use that as an extra check, if Wm is not 2 or n-2, n can't be prime, nor can it be if b^((n-1)/2) (mod n) is not 1 or n-1.
Probably computing b^((n-1)/2) (mod n) first and checking whether that's 1 or n-1 is a good idea, since if that check fails (that is the Euler pseudoprime test, by the way) you don't need the other, no less expensive, computations anymore, and if it succeeds, it's very likely that you need to compute it anyway.
Regarding the corrections, they seem correct, except for one that made a glitch I previously overlooked possibly worse:
if w1 * wm != 2 * wm1 % integer:
That applies the modulus only to 2 * wm1.
Concerning the recursion for the Wj, I think it is best to explain with a working implementation, first in toto for easy copy and paste:
def compute_wm_wm1(w1,m,n):
a, b = 2, w1
bits = int(log(m,2)) - 2
if bits < 0:
bits = 0
mask = 1 << bits
while mask <= m:
mask <<= 1
mask >>= 1
while mask > 0:
if (mask & m) != 0:
a, b = (a*b-w1)%n, (b*b-2)%n
else:
a, b = (a*a-2)%n, (a*b-w1)%n
mask >>= 1
return a, b
Then with explanations in between:
def compute_wm_wm1(w1,m,n):
We need the value of W1, the index of the desired number, and the number by which to take the modulus as input. The value W0 is always 2, so we don't need that as a parameter.
Call it as
wm, wm1 = compute_wm_wm1(w1,m,integer)
in frobenius_pseudoprime (aside: not a good name, most of the numbers returning True are real primes).
a, b = 2, w1
We initialise a and b to W0 and W1 respectively. At each point, a holds the value of Wj and b the value of Wj+1, where j is the value of the bits of m so far consumed. For example, with m = 13, the values of j, a and b develop as follows:
consumed remaining j a b
1101 0 w_0 w_1
1 101 1 w_1 w_2
11 01 3 w_3 w_4
110 1 6 w_6 w_7
1101 13 w_13 w_14
The bits are consumed left-to-right, so we have to find the first set bit of m and place our 'pointer' right before it
bits = int(log(m,2)) - 2
if bits < 0:
bits = 0
mask = 1 << bits
I subtracted a bit from the computed logarithm just to be entirely sure that we don't get fooled by a floating point error (by the way, using log limits you to numbers of at most 1024 bits, about 308 decimal digits; if you want to treat larger numbers, you have to find the base-2 logarithm of m in a different way, using log was the simplest way, and it's just a proof of concept, so I used that here).
while mask <= m:
mask <<= 1
Shift the mask until it's greater than m,so the set bit points just before m's first set bit. Then shift one position back, so we point at the bit.
mask >>= 1
while mask > 0:
if (mask & m) != 0:
a, b = (a*b-w1)%n, (b*b-2)%n
If the next bit is set, the value of the initial portion of consumed bits of m goes from j to 2*j+1, so the next values of the W sequence we need are W2j+1 for a and W2j+2 for b. By the above recursion formula,
W_{2j+1} = W_j * W_{j+1} - W_1 (mod n)
W_{2j+2} = W_{j+1}^2 - 2 (mod n)
Since a was Wj and b was Wj+1, a becomes (a*b - W_1) % n and b becomes (b * b - 2) % n.
else:
a, b = (a*a-2)%n, (a*b-w1)%n
If the next bit is not set, the value of the initial portion of consumed bits of m goes from j to 2*j, so a becomes W2j = (Wj2 - 2) (mod n), and b becomes
W2j+1 = (Wj * Wj+1 - W1) (mod n).
mask >>= 1
Move the pointer to the next bit. When we have moved past the final bit, mask becomes 0 and the loop ends. The initial portion of consumed bits of m is now all of m's bits, so the value is of course m.
Then we can
return a, b
Some additional remarks:
def find_prime_number(bits, test):
while True:
number = random(3, 1 << bits, 2)
for _ in range(test):
if not frobenius_pseudoprime(number):
break
else:
return number
Primes are not too frequent among the larger numbers, so just picking random numbers is likely to take a lot of attempts to hit one. You will probably find a prime (or probable prime) faster if you pick one random number and check candidates in order.
Another point is that such a test as the Frobenius test is disproportionally expensive to find that e.g. a multiple of 3 is composite. Before using such a test (or a Miller-Rabin test, or a Lucas test, or an Euler test, ...), you should definitely do a bit of trial division to weed out most of the composites and do the work only where it has a fighting chance of being worth it.
Oh, and the is_square function isn't prepared to deal with arguments less than 2, divide-by-zero errors lurk there,
def is_square(integer):
if integer < 0:
return False
if integer < 2:
return True
x = integer // 2
should help.
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