Develop Reference

How to calculate the probability of getting the sum X using N six-sided dice

The Challenge:
For example, what is the probability of getting the sum of 15 when using 3 six-sided dice. This can be for example by getting 5-5-5 or 6-6-3 or 3-6-6 or many more options.
A brute force solution for 2 dice - with complexity of 6^2:
Assuming we had only 2 six-sided dice, we can write a very basic code like that:
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(whatAreTheOdds(7));
}
public static double whatAreTheOdds(int wantedSum){
if (wantedSum < 2 || wantedSum > 12){
return 0;
}
int wantedFound = 0;
int totalOptions = 36;
for (int i = 1; i <= 6; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= 6; j++) {
int sum = i+j;
if (sum == wantedSum){
System.out.println("match: " + i + " " + j );
wantedFound +=1;
}
}
}
System.out.println("combinations count:" + wantedFound);
return (double)wantedFound / totalOptions;
}
And the output for 7 will be:
match: 1 6
match: 2 5
match: 3 4
match: 4 3
match: 5 2
match: 6 1
combination count:6
0.16666666666666666
The question is how to generalize the algorithm to support N dice:
public static double whatAreTheOdds(int wantedSum, int numberOfDices)
Because we can't dynamically create nested for loops, we must come with a different approach.
I thought of something like that:
public static double whatAreTheOdds(int sum, int numberOfDices){
int sum;
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfDices; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= 6; j++) {
}
}
}
but failed to come up with the right algorithm.
Another challenge here is - is there a way to do it efficiently, and not in a complexity of 6^N?

Here is a recursive solution with memoization to count the combinations.
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.lang.Math;
class Dices {
public static final int DICE_FACES = 6;
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(whatAreTheOdds(40, 10));
}
public static double whatAreTheOdds(int sum, int dices) {
if (dices < 1 || sum < dices || sum > DICE_FACES * dices) return 0;
long[][] mem = new long[dices][sum];
for (long[] mi : mem) {
Arrays.fill(mi, 0L);
}
long n = whatAreTheOddsRec(sum, dices, mem);
return n / Math.pow(DICE_FACES, dices);
}
private static long whatAreTheOddsRec(int sum, int dices, long[][] mem) {
if (dices <= 1) {
return 1;
}
long n = 0;
int dicesRem = dices - 1;
int minFace = Math.max(sum - DICE_FACES * dicesRem, 1);
int maxFace = Math.min(sum - dicesRem, DICE_FACES);
for (int i = minFace; i <= maxFace; i++) {
int sumRem = sum - i;
long ni = mem[dicesRem][sumRem];
if (ni <= 0) {
ni = whatAreTheOddsRec(sumRem, dicesRem, mem);
mem[dicesRem][sumRem] = ni;
}
n += ni;
}
return n;
}
}
Output:
0.048464367913724195
EDIT: For the record, the complexity of this algorithm is still O(6^n), this answer just aims to give a possible implementation for the general case that is better than the simplest implementation, using memoization and search space prunning (exploring only feasible solutions).

As Alex's answer notes, there is a combinatorial formula for this:
In this formula, p is the sum of the numbers rolled (X in your question), n is the number of dice, and s is the number of sides each dice has (6 in your question). Whether the binomial coefficients are evaluated using loops, or precomputed using Pascal's triangle, either way the time complexity is O(n2) if we take s = 6 to be a constant and X - n to be O(n).
Here is an alternative algorithm, which computes all of the probabilities at once. The idea is to use discrete convolution to compute the distribution of the sum of two random variables given their distributions. By using a divide and conquer approach as in the exponentiation by squaring algorithm, we only have to do O(log n) convolutions.
The pseudocode is below; sum_distribution(v, n) returns an array where the value at index X - n is the number of combinations where the sum of n dice rolls is X.
// for exact results using integers, let v = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
// and divide the result through by 6^n afterwards
let v = [1/6.0, 1/6.0, 1/6.0, 1/6.0, 1/6.0, 1/6.0]
sum_distribution(distribution, n)
if n == 0
return [1]
else if n == 1
return v
else
let r = convolve(distribution, distribution)
// the division here rounds down
let d = sum_distribution(r, n / 2)
if n is even
return d
else
return convolve(d, v)
Convolution cannot be done in linear time, so the running time is dominated by the last convolution on two arrays of length 3n, since the other convolutions are on sufficiently shorter arrays.
This means if you use a simple convolution algorithm, it should take O(n2) time to compute all of the probabilities, and if you use a fast Fourier transform then it should take O(n log n) time.

You might want to take a look at Wolfram article for a completely different approach, which calculates the desired probability with a single loop.

The idea is to have an array storing the current "state" of each dice, starting will every dice at one, and count upwards. For example, with three dice you would generate the combinations:
111
112
...
116
121
122
...
126
...
665
666
Once you have a state, you can easily find if the sum is the one you are looking for.
I leave the details to you, as it seems a useful learning exercise :)

Multithreaded Segmented Sieve of Eratosthenes in Java

I am trying to create a fast prime generator in Java. It is (more or less) accepted that the fastest way for this is the segmented sieve of Eratosthenes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes. Lots of optimizations can be further implemented to make it faster. As of now, my implementation generates 50847534 primes below 10^9 in about 1.6 seconds, but I am looking to make it faster and at least break the 1 second barrier. To increase the chance of getting good replies, I will include a walkthrough of the algorithm as well as the code.
Still, as a TL;DR, I am looking to include multi-threading into the code
For the purposes of this question, I want to separate between the 'segmented' and the 'traditional' sieves of Eratosthenes. The traditional sieve requires O(n) space and therefore is very limited in range of the input (the limit of it). The segmented sieve however only requires O(n^0.5) space and can operate on much larger limits. (A main speed-up is using a cache-friendly segmentation, taking into account the L1 & L2 cache sizes of the specific computer). Finally, the main difference that concerns my question is that the traditional sieve is sequential, meaning it can only continue once the previous steps are completed. The segmented sieve however, is not. Each segment is independent, and is 'processed' individually against the sieving primes (the primes not larger than n^0.5). This means that theoretically, once I have the sieving primes, I can divide the work between multiple computers, each processing a different segment. The work of eachother is independent of the others. Assuming (wrongly) that each segment requires the same amount of time t to complete, and there are k segments, One computer would require total time of T = k * t, whereas k computers, each working on a different segment would require a total amount of time T = t to complete the entire process. (Practically, this is wrong, but for the sake of simplicity of the example).
This brought me to reading about multithreading - dividing the work to a few threads each processing a smaller amount of work for better usage of CPU. To my understanding, the traditional sieve cannot be multithreaded exactly because it is sequential. Each thread would depend on the previous, rendering the entire idea unfeasible. But a segmented sieve may indeed (I think) be multithreaded.
Instead of jumping straight into my question, I think it is important to introduce my code first, so I am hereby including my current fastest implementation of the segmented sieve. I have worked quite hard on it. It took quite some time, slowly tweaking and adding optimizations to it. The code is not simple. It is rather complex, I would say. I therefore assume the reader is familiar with the concepts I am introducing, such as wheel factorization, prime numbers, segmentation and more. I have included notes to make it easier to follow.
import java.math.BigInteger;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
public class primeGen {
public static long x = (long)Math.pow(10, 9); //limit
public static int sqrtx;
public static boolean [] sievingPrimes; //the sieving primes, <= sqrtx
public static int [] wheels = new int [] {2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19}; // base wheel primes
public static int [] gaps; //the gaps, according to the wheel. will enable skipping multiples of the wheel primes
public static int nextp; // the first prime > wheel primes
public static int l; // the amount of gaps in the wheel
public static void main(String[] args)
{
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
preCalc(); // creating the sieving primes and calculating the list of gaps
int segSize = Math.max(sqrtx, 32768*8); //size of each segment
long u = nextp; // 'u' is the running index of the program. will continue from one segment to the next
int wh = 0; // the will be the gap index, indicating by how much we increment 'u' each time, skipping the multiples of the wheel primes
long pi = pisqrtx(); // the primes count. initialize with the number of primes <= sqrtx
for (long low = 0 ; low < x ; low += segSize) //the heart of the code. enumerating the primes through segmentation. enumeration will begin at p > sqrtx
{
long high = Math.min(x, low + segSize);
boolean [] segment = new boolean [(int) (high - low + 1)];
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtx ; i += gaps[g])
{
if (sievingPrimes[(i + 1) / 2])
{
long firstMultiple = (long) (low / i * i);
if (firstMultiple < low)
firstMultiple += i;
if (firstMultiple % 2 == 0) //start with the first odd multiple of the current prime in the segment
firstMultiple += i;
for (long j = firstMultiple ; j < high ; j += i * 2)
segment[(int) (j - low)] = true;
}
g++;
//if (g == l) //due to segment size, the full list of gaps is never used **within just one segment** , and therefore this check is redundant.
//should be used with bigger segment sizes or smaller lists of gaps
//g = 0;
}
while (u <= high)
{
if (!segment[(int) (u - low)])
pi++;
u += gaps[wh];
wh++;
if (wh == l)
wh = 0;
}
}
System.out.println(pi);
long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Solution took "+(endTime - startTime) + " ms");
}
public static boolean [] simpleSieve (int l)
{
long sqrtl = (long)Math.sqrt(l);
boolean [] primes = new boolean [l/2+2];
Arrays.fill(primes, true);
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtl ; i += gaps[g])
{
if (primes[(i + 1) / 2])
for (int j = i * i ; j <= l ; j += i * 2)
primes[(j + 1) / 2]=false;
g++;
if (g == l)
g=0;
}
return primes;
}
public static long pisqrtx ()
{
int pi = wheels.length;
if (x < wheels[wheels.length-1])
{
if (x < 2)
return 0;
int k = 0;
while (wheels[k] <= x)
k++;
return k;
}
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtx ; i += gaps[g])
{
if(sievingPrimes[( i + 1 ) / 2])
pi++;
g++;
if (g == l)
g=0;
}
return pi;
}
public static void preCalc ()
{
sqrtx = (int) Math.sqrt(x);
int prod = 1;
for (long p : wheels)
prod *= p; // primorial
nextp = BigInteger.valueOf(wheels[wheels.length-1]).nextProbablePrime().intValue(); //the first prime that comes after the wheel
int lim = prod + nextp; // circumference of the wheel
boolean [] marks = new boolean [lim + 1];
Arrays.fill(marks, true);
for (int j = 2 * 2 ;j <= lim ; j += 2)
marks[j] = false;
for (int i = 1 ; i < wheels.length ; i++)
{
int p = wheels[i];
for (int j = p * p ; j <= lim ; j += 2 * p)
marks[j]=false; // removing all integers that are NOT comprime with the base wheel primes
}
ArrayList <Integer> gs = new ArrayList <Integer>(); //list of the gaps between the integers that are coprime with the base wheel primes
int d = nextp;
for (int p = d + 2 ; p < marks.length ; p += 2)
{
if (marks[p]) //d is prime. if p is also prime, then a gap is identified, and is noted.
{
gs.add(p - d);
d = p;
}
}
gaps = new int [gs.size()];
for (int i = 0 ; i < gs.size() ; i++)
gaps[i] = gs.get(i); // Arrays are faster than lists, so moving the list of gaps to an array
l = gaps.length;
sievingPrimes = simpleSieve(sqrtx); //initializing the sieving primes
}
}
Currently, it produces 50847534 primes below 10^9 in about 1.6 seconds. This is very impressive, at least by my standards, but I am looking to make it faster, possibly break the 1 second barrier. Even then, I believe it can be made much faster still.
The whole program is based on wheel factorization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_factorization. I have noticed I am getting the fastest results using a wheel of all primes up to 19.
public static int [] wheels = new int [] {2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19}; // base wheel primes
This means that the multiples of those primes are skipped, resulting in a much smaller searching range. The gaps between numbers which we need to take are then calculated in the preCalc method. If we make those jumps between the the numbers in the searching range we skip the multiples of the base primes.
public static void preCalc ()
{
sqrtx = (int) Math.sqrt(x);
int prod = 1;
for (long p : wheels)
prod *= p; // primorial
nextp = BigInteger.valueOf(wheels[wheels.length-1]).nextProbablePrime().intValue(); //the first prime that comes after the wheel
int lim = prod + nextp; // circumference of the wheel
boolean [] marks = new boolean [lim + 1];
Arrays.fill(marks, true);
for (int j = 2 * 2 ;j <= lim ; j += 2)
marks[j] = false;
for (int i = 1 ; i < wheels.length ; i++)
{
int p = wheels[i];
for (int j = p * p ; j <= lim ; j += 2 * p)
marks[j]=false; // removing all integers that are NOT comprime with the base wheel primes
}
ArrayList <Integer> gs = new ArrayList <Integer>(); //list of the gaps between the integers that are coprime with the base wheel primes
int d = nextp;
for (int p = d + 2 ; p < marks.length ; p += 2)
{
if (marks[p]) //d is prime. if p is also prime, then a gap is identified, and is noted.
{
gs.add(p - d);
d = p;
}
}
gaps = new int [gs.size()];
for (int i = 0 ; i < gs.size() ; i++)
gaps[i] = gs.get(i); // Arrays are faster than lists, so moving the list of gaps to an array
l = gaps.length;
sievingPrimes = simpleSieve(sqrtx); //initializing the sieving primes
}
At the end of the preCalc method, the simpleSieve method is called, efficiently sieving all the sieving primes mentioned before, the primes <= sqrtx. This is a simple Eratosthenes sieve, rather than segmented, but it is still based on wheel factorization, perviously computed.
public static boolean [] simpleSieve (int l)
{
long sqrtl = (long)Math.sqrt(l);
boolean [] primes = new boolean [l/2+2];
Arrays.fill(primes, true);
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtl ; i += gaps[g])
{
if (primes[(i + 1) / 2])
for (int j = i * i ; j <= l ; j += i * 2)
primes[(j + 1) / 2]=false;
g++;
if (g == l)
g=0;
}
return primes;
}
Finally, we reach the heart of the algorithm. We start by enumerating all primes <= sqrtx, with the following call:
long pi = pisqrtx();`
which used the following method:
public static long pisqrtx ()
{
int pi = wheels.length;
if (x < wheels[wheels.length-1])
{
if (x < 2)
return 0;
int k = 0;
while (wheels[k] <= x)
k++;
return k;
}
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtx ; i += gaps[g])
{
if(sievingPrimes[( i + 1 ) / 2])
pi++;
g++;
if (g == l)
g=0;
}
return pi;
}
Then, after initializing the pi variable which keeps track of the enumeration of primes, we perform the mentioned segmentation, starting the enumeration from the first prime > sqrtx:
int segSize = Math.max(sqrtx, 32768*8); //size of each segment
long u = nextp; // 'u' is the running index of the program. will continue from one segment to the next
int wh = 0; // the will be the gap index, indicating by how much we increment 'u' each time, skipping the multiples of the wheel primes
long pi = pisqrtx(); // the primes count. initialize with the number of primes <= sqrtx
for (long low = 0 ; low < x ; low += segSize) //the heart of the code. enumerating the primes through segmentation. enumeration will begin at p > sqrtx
{
long high = Math.min(x, low + segSize);
boolean [] segment = new boolean [(int) (high - low + 1)];
int g = -1;
for (int i = nextp ; i <= sqrtx ; i += gaps[g])
{
if (sievingPrimes[(i + 1) / 2])
{
long firstMultiple = (long) (low / i * i);
if (firstMultiple < low)
firstMultiple += i;
if (firstMultiple % 2 == 0) //start with the first odd multiple of the current prime in the segment
firstMultiple += i;
for (long j = firstMultiple ; j < high ; j += i * 2)
segment[(int) (j - low)] = true;
}
g++;
//if (g == l) //due to segment size, the full list of gaps is never used **within just one segment** , and therefore this check is redundant.
//should be used with bigger segment sizes or smaller lists of gaps
//g = 0;
}
while (u <= high)
{
if (!segment[(int) (u - low)])
pi++;
u += gaps[wh];
wh++;
if (wh == l)
wh = 0;
}
}
I have also included it as a note, but will explain as well. Because the segment size is relatively small, we will not go through the entire list of gaps within just one segment, and checking it - is redundant. (Assuming we use a 19-wheel). But in a broader scope overview of the program, we will make use of the entire array of gaps, so the variable u has to follow it and not accidentally surpass it:
while (u <= high)
{
if (!segment[(int) (u - low)])
pi++;
u += gaps[wh];
wh++;
if (wh == l)
wh = 0;
}
Using higher limits will eventually render a bigger segment, which might result in a neccessity of checking we don't surpass the gaps list even within the segment. This, or tweaking the wheel primes base might have this effect on the program. Switching to bit-sieving can largely improve the segment limit though.
As an important side-note, I am aware that efficient segmentation is
one that takes the L1 & L2 cache-sizes into account. I get the
fastest results using a segment size of 32,768 * 8 = 262,144 = 2^18. I am not sure what the cache-size of my computer is, but I do
not think it can be that big, as I see most cache sizes <= 32,768.
Still, this produces the fastest run time on my computer, so this is
why it's the chosen segment size.
As I mentioned, I am still looking to improve this by a lot. I
believe, according to my introduction, that multithreading can result
in a speed-up factor of 4, using 4 threads (corresponding to 4
cores). The idea is that each thread will still use the idea of the
segmented sieve, but work on different portions. Divide the n
into 4 equal portions - threads, each in turn performing the
segmentation on the n/4 elements it is responsible for, using the
above program. My question is how do I do that? Reading about
multithreading and examples, unfortunately, did not bring to me any
insight on how to implement it in the case above efficiently. It
seems to me, as opposed to the logic behind it, that the threads were
running sequentially, rather than simultaneously. This is why I
excluded it from the code to make it more readable. I will really
appreciate a code sample on how to do it in this specific code, but a
good explanation and reference will maybe do the trick too.
Additionally, I would like to hear about more ways of speeding-up
this program even more, any ideas you have, I would love to hear!
Really want to make it very fast and efficient. Thank you!

An example like this should help you get started.
An outline of a solution:
Define a data structure ("Task") that encompasses a specific segment; you can put all the immutable shared data into it for extra neatness, too. If you're careful enough, you can pass a common mutable array to all tasks, along with the segment limits, and only update the part of the array within these limits. This is more error-prone, but can simplify the step of joining the results (AFAICT; YMMV).
Define a data structure ("Result") that stores the result of a Task computation. Even if you just update a shared resulting structure, you may need to signal which part of that structure has been updated so far.
Create a Runnable that accepts a Task, runs a computation, and puts the results into a given result queue.
Create a blocking input queue for Tasks, and a queue for Results.
Create a ThreadPoolExecutor with the number of threads close to the number of machine cores.
Submit all your Tasks to the thread pool executor. They will be scheduled to run on the threads from the pool, and will put their results into the output queue, not necessarily in order.
Wait for all the tasks in the thread pool to finish.
Drain the output queue and join the partial results into the final result.
Extra speedup may (or may not) be achieved by joining the results in a separate task that reads the output queue, or even by updating a mutable shared output structure under synchronized, depending on how much work the joining step involves.
Hope this helps.

Are you familiar with the work of Tomas Oliveira e Silva? He has a very fast implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

How interested in speed are you? Would you consider using c++?
$ time ../c_code/segmented_bit_sieve 1000000000
50847534 primes found.
real 0m0.875s
user 0m0.813s
sys 0m0.016s
$ time ../c_code/segmented_bit_isprime 1000000000
50847534 primes found.
real 0m0.816s
user 0m0.797s
sys 0m0.000s
(on my newish laptop with an i5)
The first is from #Kim Walisch using a bit array of odd prime candidates.
https://github.com/kimwalisch/primesieve/wiki/Segmented-sieve-of-Eratosthenes
The second is my tweak to Kim's with IsPrime[] also implemented as bit array, which is slightly less clear to read, although a little faster for big N due to the reduced memory footprint.
I will read your post carefully as I am interested in primes and performance no matter what language is used. I hope this isn't too far off topic or premature. But I noticed I was already beyond your performance goal.

Given a number n, list all n-digit numbers such that each number does not have repeating digits

I'm trying to solve the following problem. Given an integer, n, list all n-digits numbers such that each number does not have repeating digits.
For example, if n is 4, then the output is as follows:
0123
0124
0125
...
9875
9876
Total number of 4-digit numbers is 5040
My present approach is by brute-force. I can generate all n-digit numbers, then, using a Set, list all numbers with no repeating digits. However, I'm pretty sure there is a faster, better and more elegant way of doing this.
I'm programming in Java, but I can read source code in C.
Thanks

Mathematically, you have 10 options for the first number, 9 for the second, 8 for the 3rd, and 7 for the 4th. So, 10 * 9 * 8 * 7 = 5040.
Programmatically, you can generate these with some combinations logic. Using a functional approach usually keeps code cleaner; meaning build up a new string recursively as opposed to trying to use a StringBuilder or array to keep modifying your existing string.
Example Code
The following code will generate the permutations, without reusing digits, without any extra set or map/etc.
public class LockerNumberNoRepeats {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Total combinations = " + permutations(4));
}
public static int permutations(int targetLength) {
return permutations("", "0123456789", targetLength);
}
private static int permutations(String c, String r, int targetLength) {
if (c.length() == targetLength) {
System.out.println(c);
return 1;
}
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < r.length(); ++i) {
sum += permutations(c + r.charAt(i), r.substring(0,i) + r.substring(i + 1), targetLength);
}
return sum;
}
}
Output:
...
9875
9876
Total combinations = 5040
Explanation
Pulling this from a comment by #Rick as it was very well said and helps to clarify the solution.
So to explain what is happening here - it's recursing a function which takes three parameters: a list of digits we've already used (the string we're building - c), a list of digits we haven't used yet (the string r) and the target depth or length. Then when a digit is used, it is added to c and removed from r for subsequent recursive calls, so you don't need to check if it is already used, because you only pass in those which haven't already been used.

it's easy to find a formula. i.e.
if n=1 there are 10 variants.
if n=2 there are 9*10 variants.
if n=3 there are 8*9*10 variants.
if n=4 there are 7*8*9*10 variants.

Note the symmetry here:
0123
0124
...
9875
9876
9876 = 9999 - 123
9875 = 9999 - 124
So for starters you can chop the work in half.
It's possible that you might be able to find a regex which covers scenarios such that if a digit occurs twice in the same string then it matches/fails.
Whether the regex will be faster or not, who knows?
Specifically for four digits you could have nested For loops:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
if (j != i) {
for (int k = 0; k < 10; k++) {
if ((k != j) && (k != i)) {
for (int m = 0; m < 10; m++) {
if ((m != k) && (m != j) && (m != i)) {
someStringCollection.add((((("" + i) + j) + k) + m));
(etc)
Alternatively, for a more generalised solution, this is a good example of the handy-dandy nature of recursion. E.g. you have a function which takes the list of previous digits, and required depth, and if the number of required digits is less than the depth just have a loop of ten iterations (through each value for the digit you're adding), if the digit doesn't exist in the list already then add it to the list and recurse. If you're at the correct depth just concatenate all the digits in the list and add it to the collection of valid strings you have.

Backtracking method is also a brute-force method.
private static int pickAndSet(byte[] used, int last) {
if (last >= 0) used[last] = 0;
int start = (last < 0) ? 0 : last + 1;
for (int i = start; i < used.length; i++) {
if (used[i] == 0) {
used[i] = 1;
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}
public static int get_series(int n) {
if (n < 1 || n > 10) return 0;
byte[] used = new byte[10];
int[] result = new int[n];
char[] output = new char[n];
int idx = 0;
boolean dirForward = true;
int count = 0;
while (true) {
result[idx] = pickAndSet(used, dirForward ? -1 : result[idx]);
if (result[idx] < 0) { //fail, should rewind.
if (idx == 0) break; //the zero index rewind failed， think all over.
dirForward = false;
idx --;
continue;
} else {//forward.
dirForward = true;
}
idx ++;
if (n == idx) {
for (int k = 0; k < result.length; k++) output[k] = (char)('0' + result[k]);
System.out.println(output);
count ++;
dirForward = false;
idx --;
}
}
return count;
}

How to optmize the method

I have been solving a problem in hackerrank. I am sure my solution is right but as the input matrix gets large the program terminates due to time out.
I have a method where i find a series given below. This method takes array index numbers and computes a number based on the method. Based on the number, i fill up my array with something. But the program terminates every time. It only works with for maximum n=2. I think this method should be optimized because it uses huge recursion for large n. Is there any suggestion what should i do ?
static int hacko(int n)
{
if(n==1)
return 1;
else if(n==2)
return 2;
else if(n==3)
return 3;
else
return hacko(n-1)+(2*hacko(n-2))+(3*hacko(n-3));
}

You could avoid unnecessary branches, which can be costly, like this:
static int hacko(int n) {
if(n < 4)
return n;
else
return hacko(n-1)+(2*hacko(n-2))+(3*hacko(n-3));
}
I assume n > 0, otherwise use if(n > 0 && n < 4). However, you stated:
It only works with for maximum n=2.
So the method you posted is most likely not the bottleneck, since n=3 does not add any significant complexity to the code compared to n=1 or n=2. Or what do you mean by this?
As recursion is not a requirement for you, you can do the following iterative approach:
static int hacko(int n) {
// Shortcut for n=1, n=2 and n=3
if (n < 4)
return n;
// Array to store the previous results
int[] temp = new int[n];
temp[0] = 1;
temp[1] = 2;
temp[2] = 3;
// Iterative approach, more scalable, counts up
for (int i = 3; i < n; i++) {
temp[i] = 3 * temp[i - 3] + 2 * temp[i - 2] + temp[i - 1];
}
return temp[n - 1];
}

The problem here is, for large values of n, it calculates hacko(n-1)+(2*hacko(n-2))+(3*hacko(n-3)) recursively. This can be time consuming and unnecessary.
You can optimize it by saving values of hackos(i) in an array and fetching the values of hacko(n-1)+(2*hacko(n-2))+(3*hacko(n-3)) from the array and not calculating it recursively everytime. U need to start the loop from i=1 to i=N
Ex:
int savedData[] = new int[N];
static int hacko(int n)
{
if(n==1)
return 1;
else if(n==2)
return 2;
else if(n==3)
return 3;
else
return savedData[n-1]+(2*savedData[n-2])+(3*savedData[n-3]);
}
for(int i=1;i<N;i++) {
savedData[i] = hacko(i);
}
Hope it Helps.

Making solution for Project Euler more efficient

Originally, I was having some issues getting this code to function, but after a little tweaking I got it debugged and ready to go.
I have gone through several revisions of this program. I started with integer values only to find that the number was too large to fit into an int. I then changed to BigIntegers, which proved to be a hassle, but workable. From there, I switched to longs (as should have done from the beginning) and cut the runtime of my code 8-fold (or more).
Here's the code as it is now:
long qNum = 600851475143L;
for (long i = qNum - 1L; i * i >= qNum; i -= 2L)
if (qNum % i == 0 && isPrime(i)) {
System.out.println("Solution:" + i); // for debugging
return i;
}
else
System.out.println(i);// for debugging
return 0L;
And
public static boolean isPrime(long num) {
// unnecessary if statement for this problem (b/c of for loop), but useful for others
if (num % 2 == 0)
return false;
for (long i = 3; i * i <= num; i += 2)
if (num % i == 0)
return false;
return true;
}
It's been running for multiple hours and it still hasn't found anything. I saw online that solving this puzzle the typical way is like parsing 560GB of data =/.
Any tips for speeding this up?
Many thanks,
Justian
EDIT:
Optimized code:
public static long greatestPrimeFactor(ArrayList<Long> factors, long num) {
for (long i = 2; i <= Math.sqrt(num); i++) {
if (num % i == 0) {
factors.add(i);
return greatestPrimeFactor(factors, num / i);
}
}
for (int i = factors.size()-1; i > 0; i--)
if (isPrime(factors.get(i)))
return num;
return 0;
}
AND
public static boolean isPrime(long num) {
if (num % 2 == 0)
return false;
for (long i = 3; i * i <= num; i += 2)
if (num % i == 0)
return false;
return true;
}
RUN WITH
greatestPrimeFactor(new ArrayList<Long>(), 600851475143L);

My solution hits in less than a hundredth of a second. Each time you find a divisor of the number, divide the number by that divisor and start again. The highest number you divide by is your target.

You are doing too many unnecessary things. Here's a simpler solution:
long greatestFactor(long n) {
long p = 0;
for (long k = 2; k * k <= n; k++)
while (n % k == 0) {
n /= k;
p = k;
}
if (n > 1)
p = n;
return p;
}

You don't need to test every number for whether or not it is prime. You see this, so you only test every ODD number (well, and 2). You can take this further! Construct a table of the first few million primes quickly, and only test against those. You'll go a LOT faster, with a very small overhead.
Edit: Here's what I was talking about. It's quite straightforward. Notice how I only compare the values to already computed primes. Once you've computed a fair number of them (say, the first 10000000 primes) start doing your search based on on the +2 method like you are. Keep in mind that most of them are going to get caught early because you're skipping unnecessary numbers. You don't need to test 15,25,35,45,55, etc, because you already tested 5. That in and of itself is going to cull about 20% of your tests, which easily accounts for the overhead of calculating the first few million numbers.
Sample output
C:\files\j\misc>java sandbox2
resized to 200
resized to 400
resized to 800
resized to 1600
resized to 3200
resized to 6400
resized to 12800
resized to 25600
resized to 51200
resized to 102400
resized to 204800
resized to 409600
resized to 819200
664579 primes in 18 seconds. Last prime was 9999991
C:\files\j\misc>
Sample code:
public class sandbox2 {
static int[] primes = new int[100]; // where the primes really are
static int count = 0;
static long mostRecentPrime;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
addPrime(2); // give it a couple to start
addPrime(3);
addPrime(5);
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(long i = 7; i < 10000000; i++) { // all primes less than 10M
if(isPrime(i)) addPrime(i);
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
long time = (end-start) / 1000;
System.out.println(count + " primes in " + time + " seconds. Last prime was " + mostRecentPrime);
}
public static boolean isPrime(long i) {
long max = (long)(Math.sqrt(i))+1;
for(int pos = 0; primes[pos] < max && pos < primes.length; pos++) {
long prime = (long)(primes[pos]);
if(i % prime == 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
public static void addPrime(long p) {
mostRecentPrime = p;
if(count == primes.length) { // resize if necessary
int size = primes.length * 2;
int[] newprimes = new int[size];
System.arraycopy(primes, 0, newprimes, 0, primes.length);
primes = newprimes;
System.out.println("resized to " + primes.length);
}
primes[(int)count] = (int)p;
count++;
}
}

In python, you can just calculate all the prime factors and then use the max function, like so:
def calc_prime_factors(n,i=2,result=[]):
while i<=n:
while n%i!=0:
i+=1
result.append(i)
if n!=1:
n,i=n/i,2
else:
break
return result
print max(calc_prime_factors(600851475143))