I implemented the quadratic sieve in Haskell according to the basic algorithm specified on the Wikipedia page. It works great on most integers, however it fails to find a factorization on numbers N that are nth powers. For even powers (squares), the algorithm loops, and for odd powers I find several smooth numbers that are squares mod N (I have tested and confirmed this), yet every single derived congruence of squares (also tested and confirmed) leads only to a trivial factor.
I am reasonably sure that I implemented the Wikipedia algorithm to the letter. Is there a problem with that version of the algorithm that prevents it from handling nth powers, or is there a bug in my algorithm?
For some reason stackoverflow is having an issue formatting my code, so here you go: http://pastebin.com/miUxHKCh
The quadratic sieve, as I understand it, is not designed to definitely factor a number. Rather, it is designed to, in the typical case, usually factor a number.
The wikipedia entry, for example, at least as of today, describes what it presents as a "standard quadratic sieve without logarithm optimizations or prime powers". So it explicitly does not take prime powers into account.
Furthermore, as I understand it, factorization of numbers close to prime powers also doesn't work well in more efficient variations of the algorithm.
So the fault is not in your code, it is in the way the algorithm is usually presented (which glosses over issues such as whether it always works or just typically works, etc :-))
Related
I am reading about the KMP substring search algorithm and the examples I find online use an one-dimensional table to build the prefix information table.
I also read the Sedgewick explanation and he used a 2-D array to build the table and explicitly states that the space complexity of KMP is O(RM) where R is the alphabet size and M the pattern size while everywhere else it is stated that the space complexity is just O(M + N) i.e. the text to process and the pattern size itself.
So I am confused on the difference. Are there multiple KMP algorithmic approaches? And do they have different scope? Or what am I missing?
Why is the 2D needed if 1D can solve the substring problem too?
I guess Sedgewick wanted to demonstrate a variant of KMP that constructs a deterministic finite automaton in the standard sense of that term. It's a weird choice that (as you observe) bloats the running time, but maybe there was a compelling pedagogical reason that I don't appreciate (then again my PhD was on algorithms, so...). I'd find another description that follows the original more closely.
I wrote an application in Haskell that calls Z3 solver to solve constrains with some complex formulas. Thanks to Haskell I can quickly switch the data type I'm working with.
When using SBV's AlgReal type for computations, I get results in sensible time, however switching to Float or Double types makes Z3 consume ~2Gb of RAM and doesn't result even in 30 minutes.
Is this expected that producing floating point solutions require much more time, or it is some mistake on my side?
As with any question regarding solver performance, it is impossible to make generalizations. Christoph Wintersteiger (https://stackoverflow.com/users/869966/christoph-wintersteiger) would be the expert on this to opine, but I'm not sure how closely he follows this group. Chris: If you're reading this, I'd love to hear your thoughts!
There's also the risk of comparing apples-to-oranges here: Reals and floats are two completely different logics, with different decision procedures, heuristics, algorithms, etc. I'm sure you can find problems where one outperforms the other, with no clear "performance" winner.
Having said all that, here are some things that make floating-point (FP) tricky:
Rewriting is almost impossible with FP, since rules like associativity simply
don't hold for FP addition/multiplication. So, there are fewer opportunities for
simplification before bit-blasting.
Similarly a * 1/a == 1 doesn't hold for floats. Neither does x + 1 /= x or (x + a == x) -> (a == 0) and many other "obvious" simplifications that you'd love to be able to make. All of this complicates reasoning.
Existence of NaN values make equality non-reflexive: Nothing compares equal to NaN including itself. So, substitution of equals-for-equals is also problematic and requires side conditions.
Likewise, the existence of +0 and -0, which compare equal but behave differently due to rounding complicate matters. The typical example is x == 0 -> fma(a, b, x) == a * b doesn't hold (where fma is fused multiply-add), because depending on the sign of zero these two expressions can produce different values for different rounding modes.
Combination of floats with integers and reals introduce non-linearity, which is always a soft-spot for solvers. So, if you're using FP, it is advisable not to mix it with other theories as the combination itself creates extra complexity.
Operations like multiplication, division, and remainder (yes, there's a floating-point remainder operation!) are inherently very complex and lead to extremely large SAT formulas. In particular, multiplication is a known operation that challenges most SAT/BDD engines, due to lack of any good variable ordering and splitting heuristics. Solvers end-up bit-blasting fairly quickly, resulting in extremely large state-spaces. I have observed that solvers have a hard time dealing with FP division and remainder operations even when the input is completely concrete, imagine what happens when they are fully symbolic!
The logic of reals have a decision procedure with a double-exponential complexity. However, techniques like Fourier-Motzkin elimination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier%E2%80%93Motzkin_elimination), while remaining exponential, perform really well in practice.
FP solvers are relatively new, and it's a niche area with nascent research. So existing solvers tend to be quite conservative and quickly bit-blast and reduce the problem to bit-vector logic. I would expect them to improve over time, just like all the other theories did.
Again, I want to emphasize comparing solver performance on these two different logics is misguided as they are totally different beasts. But hopefully, the above points illustrate why floating-point is tricky in practice.
A great paper to read about the treatment of IEEE754 floats in SMT solvers is: http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/papers/BTRW14.pdf. You can see the myriad of operations it supports and get a sense of the complexity.
I'm searching for Trigonometric Functions in Pseudo Code.
I'm Not good at mathematics, so I can't do much with the formulas in the Wikipedia.
Mainly I'm searching for Sine, Cosine, Tangent and the inverse functions (sin⁻¹, cos⁻¹, tan⁻¹) of them.
There are also other Trigonometric Functions. But for me the above are the most important.
If it is possible, I would be happy if in the pseudo code only variables, for, if, and operators (+, -, *, /, %, sqrt()) are used, because I do not have a library with advanced mathematics functions.
Trigonometry functions are Transcendental.
You cannot find an exact expression of them in term of polynomial algebra.
You can approximate them though.
The usual approach is to use periodicity and symmetry to reduce an angle α into and equivalent angle α′ such that sin(α) = sin(α′) but α′ ≪ α.
Simply put you reduce any angle into and angle in the first quadrant or similar, this is easier than it looks.
Once you have a small angle, you can use Taylor Series Expansion to compute the function up to a fixed error magnitude.
Here is a tutorial page.
Another approach is to use a lookup table.
This is especially useful when you can keep track of the required precision of the process and is very fast.
However it takes more memory and may give rise to a step-looking function.
Here an introductory page.
Another approach is to use CORDIC Algorithm, this is specially suited for hardware that lacks multiplication support (like some MIPS and ARM chips).
From Wikipedia:
CORDIC is generally faster than other approaches when a hardware multiplier is not available (e.g., a microcontroller) [...]
On the other hand, when a hardware multiplier is available (e.g., in a DSP microprocessor), table-lookup methods and power series are generally faster than CORDIC.
Cirdec's answer to a largely unrelated question made me wonder how best to represent natural numbers with constant-time addition, subtraction by one, and testing for zero.
Why Peano arithmetic isn't good enough:
Suppose we use
data Nat = Z | S Nat
Then we can write
Z + n = n
S m + n = S(m+n)
We can calculate m+n in O(1) time by placing m-r debits (for some constant r), one on each S constructor added onto n. To get O(1) isZero, we need to be sure to have at most p debits per S constructor, for some constant p. This works great if we calculate a + (b + (c+...)), but it falls apart if we calculate ((...+b)+c)+d. The trouble is that the debits stack up on the front end.
One option
The easy way out is to just use catenable lists, such as the ones Okasaki describes, directly. There are two problems:
O(n) space is not really ideal.
It's not entirely clear (at least to me) that the complexity of bootstrapped queues is necessary when we don't care about order the way we would for lists.
As far as I know, Idris (a dependently-typed purely functional language which is very close to Haskell) deals with this in a quite straightforward way. Compiler is aware of Nats and Fins (upper-bounded Nats) and replaces them with machine integer types and operations whenever possible, so the resulting code is pretty effective. However, that's not true for custom types (even isomorphic ones) as well as for compilation stage (there were some code samples using Nats for type checking which resulted in exponential growth in compile-time, I can provide them if needed).
In case of Haskell, I think a similar compiler extension may be implemented. Another possibility is to make TH macros which would transform the code. Of course, both of options aren't easy.
My understanding is that in basic computer programming terminology the underlying problem is you want to concatenate lists in constant time. The lists don't have cheats like forward references, so you can't jump to the end in O(1) time, for example.
You can use rings instead, which you can merge in O(1) time, regardless if a+(b+(c+...)) or ((...+c)+b)+a logic is used. The nodes in the rings don't need to be doubly linked, just a link to the next node.
Subtraction is the removal of any node, O(1), and testing for zero (or one) is trivial. Testing for n > 1 is O(n), however.
If you want to reduce space, then at each operation you can merge the nodes at the insertion or deletion points and weight the remaining ones higher. The more operations you do, the more compact the representation becomes! I think the worst case will still be O(n), however.
We know that there are two "extremal" solutions for efficient addition of natural numbers:
Memory efficient, the standard binary representation of natural numbers that uses O(log n) memory and requires O(log n) time for addition. (See also Chapter "Binary Representations" in the Okasaki's book.)
CPU efficient which use just O(1) time. (See Chapter "Structural Abstraction" in the book.) However, the solution uses O(n) memory as we'd represent natural number n as a list of n copies of ().
I haven't done the actual calculations, but I believe for the O(1) numerical addition we won't need the full power of O(1) FIFO queues, it'd be enough to bootstrap standard list [] (LIFO) in the same way. If you're interested, I could try to elaborate on that.
The problem with the CPU efficient solution is that we need to add some redundancy to the memory representation so that we can spare enough CPU time. In some cases, adding such a redundancy can be accomplished without compromising the memory size (like for O(1) increment/decrement operation). And if we allow arbitrary tree shapes, like in the CPU efficient solution with bootstrapped lists, there are simply too many tree shapes to distinguish them in O(log n) memory.
So the question is: Can we find just the right amount of redundancy so that sub-linear amount of memory is enough and with which we could achieve O(1) addition? I believe the answer is no:
Let's have a representation+algorithm that has O(1) time addition. Let's then have a number of the magnitude of m-bits, which we compute as a sum of 2^k numbers, each of them of the magnitude of (m-k)-bit. To represent each of those summands we need (regardless of the representation) minimum of (m-k) bits of memory, so at the beginning, we start with (at least) (m-k) 2^k bits of memory. Now at each of those 2^k additions, we are allowed to preform a constant amount of operations, so we are able to process (and ideally remove) total of C 2^k bits. Therefore at the end, the lower bound for the number of bits we need to represent the outcome is (m-k-C) 2^k bits. Since k can be chosen arbitrarily, our adversary can set k=m-C-1, which means the total sum will be represented with at least 2^(m-C-1) = 2^m/2^(C+1) ∈ O(2^m) bits. So a natural number n will always need O(n) bits of memory!
This is a problem appeared in today's Pacific NW Region Programming Contest during which no one solved it. It is problem B and the complete problem set is here: http://www.acmicpc-pacnw.org/icpc-statements-2011.zip. There is a well-known O(n^2) algorithm for LCS of two strings using Dynamic Programming. But when these strings are extended to rings I have no idea...
P.S. note that it is subsequence rather than substring, so the elements do not need to be adjacent to each other
P.S. It might not be O(n^2) but O(n^2lgn) or something that can give the result in 5 seconds on a common computer.
Searching the web, this appears to be covered by section 4.3 of the paper "Incremental String Comparison", by Landau, Myers, and Schmidt at cost O(ne) < O(n^2), where I think e is the edit distance. This paper also references a previous paper by Maes giving cost O(mn log m) with more general edit costs - "On a cyclic string to string correcting problem". Expecting a contestant to reproduce either of these papers seems pretty demanding to me - but as far as I can see the question does ask for the longest common subsequence on cyclic strings.
You can double the first and second string and then use the ordinary method, and later wrap the positions around.
It is a good idea to "double" the strings and apply the standard dynamic programing algorithm. The problem with it is that to get the optimal cyclic LCS one then has to "start the algorithm from multiple initial conditions". Just one initial condition (e.g. setting all Lij variables to 0 at the boundaries) will not do in general. In practice it turns out that the number of initial states that are needed are O(N) in number (they span a diagonal), so one gets back to an O(N^3) algorithm.
However, the approach does has some virtue as it can be used to design efficient O(N^2) heuristics (not exact but near exact) for CLCS.
I do not know if a true O(N^2) exist, and would be very interested if someone knows one.
The CLCS problem has quite interesting properties of "periodicity": the length of a CLCS of
p-times reapeated strings is p times the CLCS of the strings. This can be proved by adopting a geometric view off the problem.
Also, there are some additional benefits of the problem: it can be shown that if Lc(N) denotes the averaged value of the CLCS length of two random strings of length N, then
|Lc(N)-CN| is O(\sqrt{N}) where C is Chvatal-Sankoff's constant. For the averaged length L(N) of the standard LCS, the only rate result of which I know says that |L(N)-CN| is O(sqrt(Nlog N)). There could be a nice way to compare Lc(N) with L(N) but I don't know it.
Another question: it is clear that the CLCS length is not superadditive contrary to the LCS length. By this I mean it is not true that CLCS(X1X2,Y1Y2) is always greater than CLCS(X1,Y1)+CLCS(X2,Y2) (it is very easy to find counter examples with a computer).
But it seems possible that the averaged length Lc(N) is superadditive (Lc(N1+N2) greater than Lc(N1)+Lc(N2)) - though if there is a proof I don't know it.
One modest interest in this question is that the values Lc(N)/N for the first few values of N would then provide good bounds to the Chvatal-Sankoff constant (much better than L(N)/N).
As a followup to mcdowella's answer, I'd like to point out that the O(n^2 lg n) solution presented in Maes' paper is the intended solution to the contest problem (check http://www.acmicpc-pacnw.org/ProblemSet/2011/solutions.zip). The O(ne) solution in Landau et al's paper does NOT apply to this problem, as that paper is targeted at edit distance, not LCS. In particular, the solution to cyclic edit distance only applies if the edit operations (add, delete, replace) all have unit (1, 1, 1) cost. LCS, on the other hand, is equivalent to edit distances with (add, delete, replace) costs (1, 1, 2). These are not equivalent to each other; for example, consider the input strings "ABC" and "CXY" (for the acyclic case; you can construct cyclic counterexamples similarly). The LCS of the two strings is "C", but the minimum unit-cost edit is to replace each character in turn.
At 110 lines but no complex data structures, Maes' solution falls towards the upper end of what is reasonable to implement in a contest setting. Even if Landau et al's solution could be adapted to handle cyclic LCS, the complexity of the data structure makes it infeasible in a contest setting.
Last but not least, I'd like to point out that an O(n^2) solution DOES exist for CLCS, described here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0396 At 60 lines, no complex data structures, and only 2 arrays, this solution is quite reasonable to implement in a contest setting. Arriving at the solution might be a different matter, though.