so i have this method that finds the number of factors of a given number. It works fine and everything but i am using a for loop and my teacher is wanting me to change it into a while loop to make it more efficient, ive tried to change it but i keep getting endless loop here is the code i have using a for loop what might be a good to change it to a while loop without using a break and only having one return statement in the whole method
public static int numberOfFactors(int num){
int i;
int total=0;
for(i=1;i<=num;i++){
if(num%i==0)
total++;
}
return (total);}
I fail to see how:
i = 1;
while(i <= num) {
// do things
i++;
}
Is any more efficient than:
for( i=1; i<=num; i++) {
// do things
}
As far as I can tell? It's not! I'd love to know why your teacher thinks it is.
That said, here's what you can do to make it more efficient:
Calculate the square root of num and put it in sqrtnum as an integer, rounded down.
Change your loop to for(i=1; i<sqrtnum; i++) (note <, not <=)
If num%i==0, increment total by 2, instead of 1.
After the loop, check if sqrtnum*sqrtnum == num - if so, increment total by 1.
In this way, you only have to loop through a fraction of the numbers ;)
Not any more efficient but....
public static int numberOfFactors(int num) {
int total = 0;
int i = 1;
while(i <= num) {
if(num%i == 0)
total++;
i++;
}
return total;
}
Related
I'm trying to find a solution to this coding problem:
Create a for loop that will begin with a value of 5 and end with a value of 25. In each iteration, add the incrementing value to mathTotal. (HINT: the last value used INSIDE the loop should be 25)
But the way I can think of doing it returns with a final number for mathTotal of 26. I'm not sure how to manipulate the code to stop at 25 without actually doing the math to figure out what number to make the condition for the program to stop running.
This is what I have:
int mathTotal;
for(int i = 5; mathTotal <=25; i++) {
mathTotal = mathTotal + i;
}
I know this is a simple problem, but I'm learning how to code and don't want to move on without fully understanding something.
Thank you!
There are two major issues:
mathTotal is not initialized. You have to set an initial value.
int mathTotal = 0;
The upper border (the second parameter of the for loop) is defined as mathTotal <= 25 – rather than i <= 25 – which will be reached when i is 8.
for (int i = 5; i <=25; i++) {
mathTotal = mathTotal + i;
}
The traditional for loop in Objective-C is inherited from standard C and takes the following form:
for (/* Instantiate local variables*/ ; /* Condition to keep looping. */ ; /* End of loop expressions */)
{
// Do something.
}
For example, to print the numbers from 1 to 10, you could use the for loop:
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
NSLog(#"%d", i); //do something
}
This is logically equivilant to the following traditional for loop:
for (int i = 0; i < [yourArray count]; i++)
{
NSLog([myArrayOfStrings objectAtIndex:i]);
}
Your Doubt
int mathTotal = 0;
for (i = 5 = 0; i <=25 ; i++)
{
mathTotal = mathTotal + i;
}
static int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
for (int j = i + 1; j < arr.length; j++) {
if (arr[i] > arr[j]) {
swap(arr, i, j);
count++;
}
}
}
Is this the correct implementation for selection sort? I am not getting O(n-1) complexity for swaps with this implementation.
Is this the correct implementation for selection sort?
It depends, logically what you are doing is correct. It sort using "find the max/min value in the array". But, in Selection Sort, usually you didn't need more than one swap in one iteration. You just save the max/min value in the array, then at the end you swap it with the i-th element
I am not getting O(n-1) complexity for swaps
did you mean n-1 times of swap? yes, it happen because you swap every times find a larger value not only on the largest value. You can try to rewrite your code like this:
static int count=0;
static int maximum=0;
for(int i=0;i<arr.length-1;i++){
maximum = i;
for(int j=i+1;j<arr.length;j++){
if(arr[j] > arr[maximum]){
maximum = j;
}
}
swap(arr[maximum],arr[i]);
count++;
}
Also, if you want to exact n-1 times swap, your iteration for i should changed too.
I wanted to check the performance time for different data in array (random, already sorted, sorted in descending order).
void Quicksort(int *T, int Lo, int Hi)
{
if (Lo<Hi){
int x=T[Lo];
int i=Lo, j=Hi;
do
{
while (T[i] < x) ++i;
while (T[j] > x) --j;
if (i<=j)
{
int tmp = T[i];
T[i] = T[j];
T[j] = tmp;
++i; --j;
}
} while(i < j);
if (Lo < j) Quicksort(T, Lo, j);
if (Hi > i) Quicksort(T, i, Hi);
}
}
Here are the functions used to generate and fill the testing array:
int* createArr(int length){
int* Arr= new int[length];
return Arr;
}
void Random(int *A, int length){
for (int i=0;i<length;i++){
A[i]=rand();
}
}
void Order(int *A, int length){
for (int i=0;i<length;i++){
A[i]=i;
}
}
void Backwards(int *A, int length){
for (int i=0;i<length;i++){
A[i]=length-i;
}
}
It works fine for random numbers, but when I try to fill it in ascending order and sort, it crashes with stack overflow. Can anyone give me a hint of why is it happening?
When you choose the [Lo] item as a partioning value (a pivot), and the array is already sorted, then you get a partitioning 1 to (length–1). This causes the next (recursive) call on a longer part of the array to handle just one item less then the previous level. So, as #AlexanderM noted, you will get as deep into the recursion as the length of your array. If the array is big, it will almost certainly cause the stack overflow.
Try using a tail reursion: check which part is shorter and sort it with a resursive call, then continue on the current level with the longer part. To do that replace the very first if with while and replace
if (Lo < j) Quicksort(T, Lo, j);
if (Hi > i) Quicksort(T, i, Hi);
with
if (j-Lo < Hi-i)
{
Quicksort(T, Lo, j);
Lo = i;
}
else
{
Quicksort(T, i, Hi);
Hi = j;
}
This won't make the program any faster – it will still need O(n^2) time on an already-sorted array, but will protect against linear stack memory usage, keeping it at worst O(log n).
For further directions concerning better performance see Wikipedia article Quicksort, part Choice of pivot.
Does anyone know what is wrong with this code?
int squareOf = 1500;
int squarer = 1;
for(int i = 0;i <= squareOf; i++){
for(;squarer <= i; squarer++){
if(i / squarer == 0){
NSLog(#"%i",i);
}
}
It doesn't give me any errors, just it doesn't output anything. Anyone know why? Sorry if it's painfully obvious, I'm quite new to programming.
This line:
if(i / squarer == 0)
It's never been called, put logs around the code and you'll understand:
for(int i = 0;i <= squareOf; i++){
for(;squarer <= i; squarer++){
NSLog(#"%d - %d", i, squarer)
if(i / squarer == 0){
NSLog(#"%i",i);
}
}
During the first iteration the inner loop doesn't start, because squarer is 1, and i is 0, so the for condition is never met.
During the second iteration the inner loop is executed once, because i is 1 and also squarer is 1. i/squarer is 1 so it doesn't print anything.
During the third loop squarer is already 2 (incremented in the previous loop), i is 2 so the loop gets executed once, and i/squarer is again 1.
You can easily imagine what does happen in all the other loops: i is always equal to squarer, i/squarer is always 1. It is totally useless to use two nested loops for this purpose, see this code:
int squareOf = 1500;
int squarer = 1;
for(int i=1; i<=squareOf; i++) {
if(i / squarer == 0)
NSLog(#"%i",i);
else
NSLog(#"i/squarer is not zero");
}
It is the equivalent, i/squarer will never be zero, I added a log statement for clarity. Now you understand why i/squarer is always 1? If your intention was to write a different code, please tell me what you are trying to achieve, and I can try to correct the code.
I brute-forced summing of all primes under 2000000. After that, just for fun I tried to parallel my for, but I was a little bit surprised when I saw that Parallel.For gives me an incorrect sum!
Here's my code : (C#)
static class Problem
{
public static long Solution()
{
long sum = 0;
//Correct result is 142913828922
//Parallel.For(2, 2000000, i =>
// {
// if (IsPrime(i)) sum += i;
// });
for (int i = 2; i < 2000000; i++)
{
if (IsPrime(i)) sum += i;
}
return sum;
}
private static bool IsPrime(int value)
{
for (int i = 2; i <= (int)Math.Sqrt(value); i++)
{
if (value % i == 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
}
I know that brute-force is pretty bad solution here but that is not a question about that. I think I've made some very stupid mistake, but I just can't locate it. So, for is calculating correctly, but Parallel.For is not.
You are accessing the variable sum from multiple threads without locking it, so it is possible that the read / write operations become overlapped.
Adding a lock will correct the result (but you will be effectively serializing the computation, losing the benefit you were aiming for).
You should instead calculate a subtotal on each thread and add the sub-totals at the end. See the article How to: Write a Parallel.For Loop That Has Thread-Local Variables on MSDN for more details.
long total = 0;
// Use type parameter to make subtotal a long, not an int
Parallel.For<long>(0, nums.Length, () => 0, (j, loop, subtotal) =>
{
subtotal += nums[j];
return subtotal;
},
(x) => Interlocked.Add(ref total, x)
);
Many thanks to all of you for your quick answers
i changed
sum += i;
to
Interlocked.Add(ref sum,i);
and now it works great.