Im trying to create a program to find the length of a given number. I thought i would do this by taking the number and dividing by 10 and then checking to see if the number was <= 0. I dident want to edit the global number so i created a instance version of the number and used that as the condition in the for loop.
So obviously this dident work so naturally i ended up looking in the debugger to figure out what was going on. It looks as if the program is completely skipping over the for loop any help would be appreciated.
public static void sumFirstAndLastDigit(int number) {
int numberLength = 0;
int instanceNumber = number;
for(int i = 0; instanceNumber <= 0; i++) {
instanceNumber /= 10;
numberLength = i;
}
System.out.println("Number length = " + numberLength);
// to find length of number loop division by 10
}
}
The program should use the for loop to keep dividing by 10 until the number is = to or less than than zero and for how many times the loop ran should be stored in the number length integer. In this case with the number 12321 the answer should be 6 but it prints 0.
You're telling it to loop while instanceNumber <= 0. The "test" in a for loop is a "keep going" test, not a termination test. The loop continues as long as the test is true.
From your description, you want instanceNumber > 0.
Also note Avinash Gupta's point that with your current code, you'll undercount by one. I'd address that by using a completely different loop:
int numberLength = 0;
int instanceNumber = number;
while (instanceNumber > 0) {
++numberLength;
instanceNumber /= 10;
}
That's nice and unambiguous: If instanceNumber > 0, it increments numberLength, then divides by 10 and tries again.
This will print the correct output
public static void sumFirstAndLastDigit(int number) {
int numberLength = 0;
int instanceNumber = number;
for(int i = 0; instanceNumber > 0; i++) {
instanceNumber /= 10;
numberLength = i;
}
System.out.println("Number length = " + (numberLength + 1));
}
Your code will be much more comprehensive if you use while loop for your algorithm.
public static void sumFirstAndLastDigit(int number) {
int numberLength = 0;
int instanceNumber = number;
while(instanceNumber != 0) {
instanceNumber /= 10;
numberLength += 1;
}
System.out.println("Number length = " + numberLength);
// to find length of number loop division by 10
}
Consider even more sophisticated solution:
public static void sumFirstAndLastDigit(int number) {
int numberLength = (int) (Math.log10(number) + 1);
System.out.println("Number length = " + numberLength);
}
Taken from Baeldung
Related
My question is why isn't the code generating the amount of numbers that the users enters? Right now the code is only generating one number. Here is the original question given to me:
"In your main method, prompt the user for a number n. Write a method
called assessRandomness that generates a random number between 1 and
100 'n' times and return the percentage of times the number was less than
or equal to 50. Call your assessRandomness method from main and display
the result to the user from main. Do not interact with the user from
within the assessRandomness method."
output:
How many random numbers should I generate? 10
<assume the random numbers generated were 11 7 50 61 52 3 92 100 81 66>
40% of the numbers were 50 or less
my code:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("how many random numbers should I generate?: ");
int number = in.nextInt();
assessRandomness(number);
}
public static double assessRandomness(int n){
int random = (int)(Math.random()*100);
int randomNumbersLessthan50 = 0;
if (random <= 50)
{
double getPercentage = random/randomNumbersLessthan50;
}
else
{
System.out.println(random);
}
return random;
}
I don't see any kind of loop within assessRandomness.
Try
for(int x = 1; x <= n; x++){ ... }
as first line in assessRandomness, it should finally look like
public static double assessRandomness(int n){
int counterLessThan50 = 0;
for ( int x = 1; x <= n; x++)
if( (int)(Math.random()*100) <= 50 ) counterLessThan50++;
return (double) counterLessThan50 / n;
}
There's no repetition in your code to do something n times.
Here's one way to do it in one line using a stream:
public static double assessRandomness(int n) {
return Stream.generate(Math::random).limit(n).map(r -> r * 100 + 1).filter(r -> r <= 50).count() / (double)n;
}
Note that converting Math.random() to a number in the range 1-100 is pointless; this will give the same result:
public static double assessRandomness(int n) {
return Stream.generate(Math::random).limit(n).filter(n -> n < .5).count() / (double)n;
}
And is easier to read.
At the moment, your assessRandomness method never uses the variable n.
At first you should initialize a variable which counts the number of created randoms that are bigger than 50 (this will be your retutn value). You should then do a loop from 0 until n. For each loop run you should create a random value between 0 and 100. Then you should check wether the value is bigger than 50. If so, count up your previously created variable. When the loop has finished, return the count variable and print it in the main method.
This should help you understand better how to do something like this.
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("how many random numbers should I generate?: ");
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
int number = in.nextInt();
int[] arrayPlaceHolderInMainMethod = new int[number];
arrayPlaceHolderInMainMethod = generateRandomNumberArray(number);
assessRandomness(arrayPlaceHolderInMainMethod);
}
public static void assessRandomness(int[] inputArray) {
int randomNumbersLessthan50 = 0;
int randomNumbersGreaterthan50 = 0;
int random = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < inputArray.length; i++) {
random = inputArray[i];
}
if (random <= 50) {
randomNumbersLessthan50 += 1;
} else {
randomNumbersGreaterthan50 += 1;
}
System.out.println(">50: " + randomNumbersGreaterthan50 + " Less: " + randomNumbersLessthan50);
}
public static int[] generateRandomNumberArray(int numberPickedByUser) {
int[] arrayOfRandomNumbers = new int[numberPickedByUser];
for (int i = 0; i < numberPickedByUser; i++) {
arrayOfRandomNumbers[i] = (int) (Math.random() * 100 + 1);
}
return arrayOfRandomNumbers;
}
I am trying to figure out how to count all numbers between two ints(a and b), where all of the digits are divisible with another int(k) and 0 counts as divisible.Here is what I've made so far, but it is looping forever.
for (int i = a; i<=b; i++){
while (i < 10) {
digit = i % 10;
if(digit % k == 0 || digit == 0){
count ++;
}
i = i / 10;
}
}
Also I was thinking about comparing if all of the digits were divisible by counting them and comparing with number of digits int length = (int)Math.Log10(Math.Abs(number)) + 1;
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!
Once you get in to your while block you're never going to get out of it. The while condition is when i less than 10. You're dividing i by 10 at the end of the whole block. i will never have a chance of getting above 10.
Try this one
public class Calculator {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a = 2;
int b = 150;
int k = 3;
int count = 0;
for (int i = a; i <= b; i++) {
boolean isDivisible = true;
int num = i;
while (num != 0) {
int digit = num % 10;
if (digit % k != 0) {
isDivisible = false;
break;
}
num /= 10;
}
if (isDivisible) {
count++;
System.out.println(i+" is one such number.");
}
}
System.out.println("Total " + count + " numbers are divisible by " + k);
}
}
Ok, so there are quite a few things going on here, so we'll take this a piece at a time.
for (int i = a; i <= b; i++){
// This line is part of the biggest problem. This will cause the
// loop to skip entirely when you start with a >= 10. I'm assuming
// this is not the case, as you are seeing an infinite loop - which
// will happen when a < 10, for reasons I'll show below.
while (i < 10) {
digit = i % 10;
if(digit % k == 0 || digit == 0){
count ++;
// A missing line here will cause you to get incorrect
// results. You don't terminate the loop, so what you are
// actually counting is every digit that is divisible by k
// in every number between a and b.
}
// This is the other part of the biggest problem. This line
// causes the infinite loop because you are modifying the
// variable you are using as the loop counter. Mutable state is
// tricky like that.
i = i / 10;
}
}
It's possible to re-write this with minimal changes, but there are some improvements you can make that will provide a more readable result. This code is untested, but does compile, and should get you most of the way there.
// Extracting this out into a function is often a good idea.
private int countOfNumbersWithAllDigitsDivisibleByN(final int modBy, final int start, final int end) {
int count = 0;
// I prefer += to ++, as each statement should do only one thing,
// it's easier to reason about
for (int i = start; i <= end; i += 1) {
// Pulling this into a separate function prevents leaking
// state, which was the bulk of the issue in the original.
// Ternary if adds 1 or 0, depending on the result of the
// method call. When the methods are named sensibly, I find
// this can be more readable than a regular if construct.
count += ifAllDigitsDivisibleByN(modBy, i) ? 1 : 0;
}
return count;
}
private boolean ifAllDigitsDivisibleByN(final int modBy, final int i) {
// For smaller numbers, this won't make much of a difference, but
// in principle, there's no real reason to check every instance of
// a particular digit.
for(Integer digit : uniqueDigitsInN(i)) {
if ( !isDigitDivisibleBy(modBy, digit) ) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
// The switch to Integer is to avoid Java's auto-boxing, which
// can get expensive inside of a tight loop.
private boolean isDigitDivisibleBy(final Integer modBy, final Integer digit) {
// Always include parens to group sub-expressions, forgetting the
// precedence rules between && and || is a good way to introduce
// bugs.
return digit == 0 || (digit % modBy == 0);
}
private Set<Integer> uniqueDigitsInN(final int number) {
// Sets are an easy and efficient way to cull duplicates.
Set<Integer> digitsInN = new HashSet<>();
for (int n = number; n != 0; n /= 10) {
digitsInN.add(n % 10);
}
return digitsInN;
}
I'm trying to solve this coding question:
Given an integer n, return the number of trailing zeroes in n!
Below is my code (codec this up using the wiki link)
public int trailingZeroes(int n) {
int count = 0, i = 5;
while(i<=n){
count+= n/i;
i*=5;
}
return count;
}
This runs for all test cases except when n = Integer.MAX_VALUE upon which I get a TLE. How can I fix this code to make it cover that test case. I have read about five articles on the net and everything seems to agree with my approach.
Much thanks.
So, I followed the long/BigInteger approach (thanks y'all):
public int trailingZeroes(int n) {
long count = 0;
for(long i= 5; n/i >= 1; i= i*5){
count+= n/i;
}
return (int)count;
}
As Iaune observed, your loop will never terminate when n is Integer.MAX_VALUE, because there is no int greater than that number (by definition). You should be able to restructure your loop to avoid that problem. For instance, this is the same basic approach, but flipped upside-down:
public int trailingZeroes(int n) {
int count = 0;
while (n > 0) {
n /= 5;
count += n;
}
return count;
}
You cannot write a for or while loop where the loop counter is an int and the upper limit is <= Integer.MAX_VALUE.
What happens with a simple increment (counter++) is that the loop counter is set to that value, the body executes and then the counter is incremented which results in a negative number, Integer.MIN_VALUE. And then everything happens all over again.
Other weird things may happen when the loop counter is incremented in quantities > 1 or (as here) is multiplied: the int loop counter just can't hold a value > Integer.MAX_VALUE
Consider another approach for iterating over these numbers. Or handle MAX_VALUE separately.
Your problem is that once i gets large enough (more than Integer.MAX_INT / 5) then the line i*=5; causes i to overflow to the "wrong" value. The value in question is 5 to the 14th power, which is 6103515625, but which overflows to 1808548329.
The result of this is that the loop just keeps executing forever. i will never become a value that's not <= Integer.MAX_INT, because there's just no such int.
To avoid this, you need i to be a larger data type than an int. If you change i and count in your original code to long, this will work fine. Of course, BigInteger would also work.
public class FactorialNumberTrailingZeros {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(trailingZeroes(1000020));
}
private static int trailingZeroes(int n) {
int count = 0;
while (n > 0 && (n % 10 == 0)) {
n /= 10;
count ++;
}
return count;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int result = findFactorialTrailingZero(100);
System.out.println("no of trailing zeros are " + result);
}
public static int findFactorialTrailingZero(int no) {
int zeros = no / 5;
int zeroIncrementNo = 25;
int zerosIncrementFactor = 1;
int nextZeroIncrenent = 5;
for (int i = 1;no >= zeroIncrementNo; i++) {
zeros=zeros+zerosIncrementFactor;
zeroIncrementNo=25*(i+1);
if(i+1==nextZeroIncrenent){
zerosIncrementFactor++;
nextZeroIncrenent=nextZeroIncrenent*5;
}
}
return zeros;
/*
[n/5]+[n/25]+[n/125]+....
if n<25 then [n/5]
if n<125 then [n/5]+[n/25]
if n<625 then [n/5]+[n/25]+[n/125]
*/
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int countTrailingZeroes(int n)
{
int res=0;
for(int i=5;i<=n;i=i*5){
res=res+n/i;
}
return res;
}
int main(){
ios::sync_with_stdio(0); cin.tie(0); cout.tie(0);
int n;
cin>>n;
cout<<countTrailingZeroes(n);
return 0;
}
Output
25
6
Explanation:
25!=1.551121e+25 i.e contains 6 trailing zeroes
Here is my python code that could solve your problem:
def check(n):
j,ans=5,0
while j<=n:
ans=ans+n//j
j=j*5
return ans
So I'm trying to further my knowledge of loops and I'm attempting to satisfy a loop program, ran by a driver.
The final loop to be satisfied should generate a random number between two given bounds, given from the driver, and is to run until the random number is equal to the lower bound. Currently, I'm stuck in an infinite loop.
public void loop4()
{
System.out.println("Loop 4 Output, lowerBound = " + lowerBound +
" upperBound = " + upperBound);
for(int i = 0;i < 10; i++){ //First loop should take 5 trys
int num = (int) (Math.random()* (upperBound - lowerBound));
if(num == lowerBound){
System.out.println(i);
break;
}
else{}
}
System.out.println("-------------");
}
And from the driver:
loopTest.setBounds(9, 9);
loopTest.loop4();
loopTest.setBounds(100, 200);
loopTest.loop4();
loopTest.loop4();
loopTest.loop4();
loopTest.setBounds(100, 50);
loopTest.loop4();
So, of course, I'm simply trying to print the counter, i, once num == lowerBound. However, as stated above, I either get stuck in an infinite loop (when I take the limit away from i, in this case it's at ten, just for the sake of testing), or it simply ignore the loop altogether, and I'm having trouble identifying the problem.
Thanks
I recommend you to use Random library:
import java.util.Random;
public static void loop4()
{
Random rand = new Random();
int lowerBound = 100;
int upperBound = 102;
System.out.println("Loop 4 Output, lowerBound = " + lowerBound +
" upperBound = " + upperBound);
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
// Next line was modified so you get values between lowerBound and upperBound
int num = lowerBound + rand.nextInt(upperBound - lowerBound + 1);
System.out.println(num);
if(num == lowerBound){
System.out.println(i);
break;
}
}
System.out.println("-------------");
}
This isn't really the correct way to approach this problem. Since you are trying to loop an undetermined number of times, calling a method to loop 10 times a piece isn't the best way to solve it.
In this case the "while" loop would be more beneficial, something like:
public void loop4
{
int num;
int i = 0;
while (num != lowerbound)
{
num = (int) (Math.random()* (upperBound - ++lowerBound));
i++;
}
System.out.println(i);
}
This way, you only have to call the loop once
upperBound - lowerBound = 50 - 100 for the latest test.
So you'll get a value between -50 to 0 (excluded) and you try to compare it with 100.
It actually is problem to find lucky number - those numbers whose sum of digits and sum of square of digits are prime. I have implemented Sieve of Eratosthenes. Now to optimize it further I commented my getDigitSum method, that I suppose was heavy and replaced with two hard-coded value , but it is still taking minutes to solve one test case. Here is a reference to actual problem asked
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.TreeSet;
public class Solution {
private static int[] getDigitSum(long num) {
long sum = 0;
long squareSum = 0;
for (long tempNum = num; tempNum > 0; tempNum = tempNum / 10) {
if (tempNum < 0) {
sum = sum + tempNum;
squareSum = squareSum + (tempNum * tempNum);
} else {
long temp = tempNum % 10;
sum = sum + temp;
squareSum = squareSum + (temp * temp);
}
}
int[] twosums = new int[2];
twosums[0] = Integer.parseInt(sum+"");
twosums[1] = Integer.parseInt(squareSum+"");
// System.out.println("sum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[0]);
// System.out.println("squareSum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[1]);
return twosums;
}
public static Set<Integer> getPrimeSet(int maxValue) {
boolean[] primeArray = new boolean[maxValue + 1];
for (int i = 2; i < primeArray.length; i++) {
primeArray[i] = true;
}
Set<Integer> primeSet = new TreeSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 2; i < maxValue; i++) {
if (primeArray[i]) {
primeSet.add(i);
markMutiplesAsComposite(primeArray, i);
}
}
return primeSet;
}
public static void markMutiplesAsComposite(boolean[] primeArray, int value) {
for (int i = 2; i*value < primeArray.length; i++) {
primeArray[i * value] = false;
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) throws NumberFormatException,
IOException {
// getDigitSum(80001001000l);
//System.out.println(getPrimeSet(1600));
Set set = getPrimeSet(1600);
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
int totalCases = Integer.parseInt(br.readLine());
for (int cases = 0; cases < totalCases; cases++) {
String[] str = br.readLine().split(" ");
long startRange = Long.parseLong(str[0]);
long endRange = Long.parseLong(str[1]);
int luckyCount = 0;
for (long num = startRange; num <= endRange; num++) {
int[] longArray = getDigitSum(num); \\this method was commented for testing purpose and was replaced with any two hardcoded values
if(set.contains(longArray[0]) && set.contains(longArray[1])){
luckyCount++;
}
}
System.out.println(luckyCount);
}
}
}
what I should use to cache the result so that it takes lesser amount of time to search, currently it takes huge no. of minutes to complete 10000 test cases with range 1 99999999999999(18 times 9 -the worst case) , even thought the search values have been hard-coded for testing purpose( 1600, 1501 ).
You need a different algorithm. Caching is not your problem.
If the range is large - and you can bet some will be - even a loop doing almost nothing would take a very long time. The end of the range is constrained to be no more than 1018, if I understand correctly. Suppose the start of the range is half that. Then you'd iterate over 5*1017 numbers. Say you have a 2.5 GHz CPU, so you have 2.5*109 clock cycles per second. If each iteration took one cycle, that'd be 2*108 CPU-seconds. A year has about 3.1*107 seconds, so the loop would take roughly six and a half years.
Attack the problem from the other side. The sum of the squares of the digits can be at most 18*92, that's 1458, a rather small number. The sum of the digits itself can be at most 18*9 = 162.
For the primes less than 162, find out all possible decompositions as the sum of at most 18 digits (ignoring 0). Discard those decompositions for which the sum of the squares is not prime. Not too many combinations are left. Then find out how many numbers within the specified range you can construct using each of the possible decompositions (filling with zeros if required).
There are few places in this implementation that can be improved. In order to to start attacking the issues i made few changes first to get an idea of the main problems:
made the total start cases be the value 1 and set the range to be a billion (1,000,000,000) to have a large amount of iterations. also I use the method "getDigitSum" but commented out the code that actually makes the sum of digits to see how the rest runs: following are the methods that were modified for an initial test run:
private static int[] getDigitSum(long num) {
long sum = 0;
long squareSum = 0;
// for (long tempNum = num; tempNum > 0; tempNum = tempNum / 10) {
// if (tempNum < 0) {
// sum = sum + tempNum;
// squareSum = squareSum + (tempNum * tempNum);
// } else {
// long temp = tempNum % 10;
// sum = sum + temp;
// squareSum = squareSum + (temp * temp);
//
// }
// }
int[] twosums = new int[2];
twosums[0] = Integer.parseInt(sum+"");
twosums[1] = Integer.parseInt(squareSum+"");
// System.out.println("sum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[0]);
// System.out.println("squareSum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[1]);
return twosums;
}
and
public static void main(String args[]) throws NumberFormatException,
IOException {
// getDigitSum(80001001000l);
//System.out.println(getPrimeSet(1600));
Set set = getPrimeSet(1600);
//BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
int totalCases = 1;
for (int cases = 0; cases < totalCases; cases++) {
//String[] str = br.readLine().split(" ");
long startRange = Long.parseLong("1");
long endRange = Long.parseLong("1000000000");
int luckyCount = 0;
for (long num = startRange; num <= endRange; num++) {
int[] longArray = getDigitSum(num); //this method was commented for testing purpose and was replaced with any two hardcoded values
if(set.contains(longArray[0]) && set.contains(longArray[1])){
luckyCount++;
}
}
System.out.println(luckyCount);
}
}
Running the code takes 5 minutes 8 seconds.
now we can start optimizing it step by step. I will now mention the various points in the implementation that can be optimized.
1- in the method getDigitSum(long num)
int[] twosums = new int[2];
twosums[0] = Integer.parseInt(sum+"");
twosums[1] = Integer.parseInt(squareSum+"");
the above is not good. on every call to this method, two String objects are created , e.g. (sum+"") , before they are parsed into an int. considering the method is called billion times in my test, that produces two billion String object creation operations. since you know that the value is an int (according to the math in there and based on the links you provided), it would be enough to use casting:
twosums[0] = (int)sum;
twosums[1] = (int)squareSum;
2- In the "Main" method, you have the following
for (long num = startRange; num <= endRange; num++) {
int[] longArray = getDigitSum(num); \\this method was commented for testing purpose and was replaced with any two hardcoded values
if(set.contains(longArray[0]) && set.contains(longArray[1])){
luckyCount++;
}
}
here there are few issues:
a- set.contains(longArray[0]) will create an Integer object (with autoboxing) because contains method requires an object. this is a big waste and is not necessary. in our example, billion Integer objects will be created. Also, usage of set, whether it is a treeset or hash set is not the best for our case.
what you are trying to do is to get a set that contains the prime numbers in the range 1 .. 1600. this way, to check if a number in the range is prime, you check if it is contained in the set. This is not good as there are billions of calls to the set contains method. instead, your boolean array that you made when filling the set can be used: to find if the number 1500 is prime, simply access the index 1500 in the array. this is much faster solution. since its only 1600 elements (1600 is greater than max sum of sqaures of digits of your worst case), the wasted memory for the false locations is not an issue compared to the gain in speed.
b- int[] longArray = getDigitSum(num);
an int array is being allocated and returned. that will happen billion times. in our case, we can define it once outside the loop and send it to the method where it gets filled. on billion iterations, this saved 7 seconds, not a big change by itslef. but if the test cases are repeated 1000 times as you plan, that is 7000 second.
therefore, after modifying the code to implement all of the above, here is what you will have:
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.TreeSet;
public class Solution {
private static void getDigitSum(long num,int[] arr) {
long sum = 0;
long squareSum = 0;
// for (long tempNum = num; tempNum > 0; tempNum = tempNum / 10) {
// if (tempNum < 0) {
// sum = sum + tempNum;
// squareSum = squareSum + (tempNum * tempNum);
// } else {
// long temp = tempNum % 10;
// sum = sum + temp;
// squareSum = squareSum + (temp * temp);
//
// }
// }
arr[0] = (int)sum;
arr[1] = (int)squareSum;
// System.out.println("sum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[0]);
// System.out.println("squareSum Of digits: " + twoDoubles[1]);
}
public static boolean[] getPrimeSet(int maxValue) {
boolean[] primeArray = new boolean[maxValue + 1];
for (int i = 2; i < primeArray.length; i++) {
primeArray[i] = true;
}
for (int i = 2; i < maxValue; i++) {
if (primeArray[i]) {
markMutiplesAsComposite(primeArray, i);
}
}
return primeArray;
}
public static void markMutiplesAsComposite(boolean[] primeArray, int value) {
for (int i = 2; i*value < primeArray.length; i++) {
primeArray[i * value] = false;
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) throws NumberFormatException,
IOException {
// getDigitSum(80001001000l);
//System.out.println(getPrimeSet(1600));
boolean[] primeArray = getPrimeSet(1600);
//BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
int totalCases = 1;
for (int cases = 0; cases < totalCases; cases++) {
//String[] str = br.readLine().split(" ");
long startRange = Long.parseLong("1");
long endRange = Long.parseLong("1000000000");
int luckyCount = 0;
int[] longArray=new int[2];
for (long num = startRange; num <= endRange; num++) {
getDigitSum(num,longArray); //this method was commented for testing purpose and was replaced with any two hardcoded values
if(primeArray[longArray[0]] && primeArray[longArray[1]]){
luckyCount++;
}
}
System.out.println(luckyCount);
}
}
}
Running the code takes 4 seconds.
the billion iterations cost 4 seconds instead of 5 minutes 8 seconds, that is an improvement. the only issue left is the actual calculation of the sum of digits and sum of squares of digits. that code i commented out (as you can see in the code i posted). if you uncomment it, the runtime will take 6-7 minutes. and here, there is nothing to improve except if you find some mathematical way to have incremental calculation based on previous results.