I've been working on Project Euler questions as part of learning how to code in Lasso and am wondering if my solution can be improved upon. Here is what I've got below for question #1 in Lasso 8 code, and it returns the correct answer:
var ('total' = 0);
loop(1000-1);
loop_count % 3 == 0 || loop_count % 5 == 0 ? $total += loop_count;
/loop;
output($total);
My question: is there a better or faster way to code this? Thanks!
Actually Chris it looks like my L9 code answer was almost exactly the same. However what I had to do to time is was wrap it in a loop to time it 1000 times.
Lasso 9 can do Microseconds, whereas versions prior can only time in milliseconds.
Below are 3 ways - the first is yours, then my two versions.
define br => '<br>'
local(start_time = micros)
loop(1000)=>{
var ('total' = 0);
loop(1000-1);
loop_count % 3 == 0 || loop_count % 5 == 0 ? $total += loop_count;
/loop;
$total;
}
'Avg (L8 code in 9): '+(micros - #start_time)/1000+' micros'
br
br
local(start_time = micros)
loop(1000)=>{
local(sum = 0)
loop(999)=>{ loop_count % 3 == 0 || loop_count % 5 == 0 ? #sum += loop_count }
#sum
}
'Avg (incremental improvement): '+(micros - #start_time)/1000+' micros'
br
br
local(start_time = micros)
loop(1000)=>{
local(sum = 0)
loop(999)=>{ not (loop_count % 3) || not(loop_count % 5) ? #sum += loop_count }
#sum
}
'Avg using boolean not: '+(micros - #start_time)/1000+' micros'
The output is:
Avg (L8 code in 9): 637 micros
Avg (incremental improvement): 595 micros
Avg using boolean not: 596 micros
Note that I didn't use "output" as it's redundant in many situations in 8 and completely redundant 9 :)
There is a fun story about how Gauss once summed numbers, which involves a strategy which can help to avoid the loop.
local('p' = 3);
local('q' = 5);
local('n' = 1000);
local('x' = integer);
local('before');
local('after');
#before = micros
loop(1000) => {
/* In the tradition of Gauss */
local('n2' = #n - 1)
local('pq' = #p * #q)
local('p2' = #n2 / #p)
local('q2' = #n2 / #q)
local('pq2' = #n2 / #pq)
local('p3' = (#p2 + 1) * (#p2 / 2) + (#p2 % 2 ? #p2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
local('q3' = (#q2 + 1) * (#q2 / 2) + (#q2 % 2 ? #q2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
local('pq3' = (#pq2 + 1) * (#pq2 / 2) + (#pq2 % 2 ? #pq2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
#x = #p * #p3 + #q * #q3 - #pq * #pq3
}
#after = micros
'Answer: ' + #x + '<br/>\n'
'Average time: ' + ((#after - #before) / 1000) + '<br/>\n'
/* Different numbers */
#p = 7
#q = 11
#before = micros
loop(1000) => {
/* In the tradition of Gauss */
local('n2' = #n - 1)
local('pq' = #p * #q)
local('p2' = #n2 / #p)
local('q2' = #n2 / #q)
local('pq2' = #n2 / #pq)
local('p3' = (#p2 + 1) * (#p2 / 2) + (#p2 % 2 ? #p2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
local('q3' = (#q2 + 1) * (#q2 / 2) + (#q2 % 2 ? #q2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
local('pq3' = (#pq2 + 1) * (#pq2 / 2) + (#pq2 % 2 ? #pq2 / 2 + 1 | 0))
#x = #p * #p3 + #q * #q3 - #pq * #pq3
}
#after = micros
'Answer: ' + #x + '<br/>\n'
'Average time: ' + ((#after - #before) / 1000) + '<br/>\n'
The output is:
Answer: 233168<br/>
Average time: 3<br/>
Answer: 110110<br/>
Average time: 2<br/>
Although the first time I ran it, that first average time was 18 instead of 3. Maybe Lasso is doing something smart for subsequent runs, or maybe it was just bad luck.
n = input number
x = (n-1)/3 = count of 3 divisible numbers.*
sum3 = (3*x*(x+1)) / 2 = sum of those numbers.**
y = (n-1)/5 = count of 5 divisible numbers.
sum5 = (5*y*(y+1)) / 2 = sum of those numbers.
half_Ans = sum3 + sum5
but 15, 30, 45... count twice (in both sum3 & sum5).
so remove it one time, so only they count once.
z = (n-1)/15 = count of 15 divisible numbers.
sum15 = (15*z*(z+1)) / 2 = sum of those numbers.
Answer = half_Ans - sum15
* => (n-1)/3 gives count of 3 divisible numbers.
if n = 100 we need to count of (3, 6, 9, ..., 99)
3 is 1st, 6 is 2nd, .... so on 99 is 33rd
so total count of those number is gain by last number / 3
last number is near to our input n (specifically less than input n)
if n = 99 we must not count 99, because statement is "find the sum of all the multiples of 3 or 5 below n".
so w/o subtract 1 last unwanted number also count, if n is divisible by 3.
** => (3*x*(x+1)) / 2 gives sum of those numbers
if n = 100 sum id 3 + 6 + 9 + ... + 99
all component are multiple of 3.
so 3 + 6 + 9 + ... + 99 = 3*(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 33)
sum of 1 to m is (m*(m+1)) / 2
so 3 + 6 + 9 + ... + 99 = (3*33*(33+1)) / 2
here m for 1 to m is last number or total number of that sequence
or length of sequence that's why we find count of divisible numbers.
Related
How to loop through a dataframe series multiple times using a recursive function?
I am trying to get a simple case to work and use it in a more complicated function.
I am using a simple dataframe:
df = pd.DataFrame({'numbers': [1,2,3,4,5]
I want to iterate through the rows multiple time and sum the values. Each iteration, the index starting point increments by 1.
def recursive_sum(df, mysum=0, count=0):
df = df.iloc[count:]
if len(df.index) < 2:
return mysum
else:
for i in range(len(df.index)):
mysum += df.iloc[i, 0]
count += 1
return recursive_sum(df, mysum, count)
I think I should get:
#Iteration 1: count = 0, len(df.index) = 5 < 2, mysum = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15
#Iteration 2: count = 1, len(df.index) = 4 < 2, mysum = 15 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 29
#Iteration 3: count = 2, len(df.index) = 3 < 2, mysum = 29 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 41
#Iteration 4: count = 2, len(df.index) = 2 < 2, mysum = 41 + 4 + 5 = 50
#Iteration 5: count = 2, len(df.index) = 1 < 2, mysum = 50
But I am returning 38.
Just fixed it:
def recursive_sum(df, mysum=0, count=0):
if(len(df.index) - count) < 2:
return mysum
else:
for i in range(count, len(df.index)):
mysum += df.iloc[0]
count += 1
return recursive_sum(df, mysum, count)
def function(foo):
print(foo)
``````python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
``````python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
this is what i needed and i appreciate it guys
For problems like these, try to associate the output with its indices (or in this case, current_row). Also, it seems like it's better to start from 0 for this one.
0: 1
1: 2 * 3
2: 4 * * * 5
3: 6 * * * * * 7
4: 8 * * * * * * * 9
max_row is 5, current_row is from 0 to 4.
There are max_row - current_row - 1 spaces on each row.
There are 2 * current_row - 1 stars on each row.
The numbers on the left is just twice current_row, or 2 * current_row. This is true for all except 0. We could use an if statement for that special case.
The numbers on the right is just left + 1, or 2 * current_row + 1.
space = '\t'
star = '*'
size = int(input("Enter number to make triangle: "))
def printRow(current_row, max_row) :
star_count = 2 * current_row - 1
line = space * (max_row - current_row - 1)
if current_row == 0 :
line += "1"
else :
line += str(2 * current_row) + space
line += (star + space) * star_count
if current_row > 0 :
line += str(2 * current_row + 1)
print(line)
if size <= 0 :
print("The value you entered is too small to display a triangle")
for i in range(0, size) :
printRow(i, size)
First of all you have to learn how to print python pyramid you can learn it from
This link , Then try to understand it after you can understand below code
space = '\t'
star = '*'
size = int(input("Enter number to make triangle: \n"))
def printRow(current_row, max_row) :
rPri = 0
lefNum = 0
star_count = 2*current_row - 3
if current_row == 1:
lefNum = 1
if current_row > 1:
lefNum = (current_row-1)*2
rPri = 1
rigNum = lefNum + 1
line = space * (max_row - current_row) + str(lefNum) + (space + star) * star_count + (space + str(rigNum))*rPri
print(line)
if size<=0 :
print("The value you entered is too small to display a triangle")
for i in range(1, size+1) :
printRow(i, size)
Using CP-SAT of google or-tools I'm trying to write this constraint:
q >= (50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v) / (x + y + z + k + p + v)
Where q is a simple integer.
The thing is I need to round the right side of the equation (let's call it expression) as follows:
if(expression < 75) {
expression = 50;
} else if(expression < 125) {
expression = 100;
} else if(expression < 175) {
expression = 150;
} else if(expression < 225) {
expression = 200;
} else if(expression < 275) {
expression = 250;
} else {
expression = 300;
}
So I need to round the expression
(50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v) / (x + y + z + k + p + v)
So that it gets one of the following values:
{50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300}
Let's review 2 cases:
Case 1
q = 180 and expression = 176.
Although the condition 180 >= 176 is true, after rounding up 176 to 200 the tested condition should be 180 >= 200 which is false.
So for q = 180 and expression = 176 I would like the condition to return false.
Case 2
q = 210 and expression = 218.
Although the condition 210 >= 218 is false, after rounding down 218 to 200 the tested condition should be 210 >= 200 which is true.
So for q = 210 and expression = 218 I would like the condition to return true.
I got a great answer here for resolving this challenge over a linear expression but now I need to resolve it for a non-linear expression.
Any suggestions?
Let's rephrase
you have an integer variable e with a value between 0 and 300.
You want to round it to the nearest multiple of 50
if you do:
(e div 50) * 50
you will get the max multiple of 50 less or equal to e
(70 / 50) * 50 -> 50
(99 / 50) * 50 -> 50
(102 / 50) * 50 -> 100
To get a round to nearest, you need to add 25 to e before the division
((e + 25) div 50) * 50
Which will do the correct rounding
((70 + 25) / 50) * 50 -> 50
((99 + 25) / 50) * 50 -> 100
((102 + 25) / 50) * 50 -> 100
with the correct or-tools CP-SAT python code:
numerator = model.NewIntVar(...)
model.Add(numerator == 50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v)
denom = model.NewIntVar(...)
model.Add(denom == 50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v)
e = model.NewIntVar(0, 300, 'e')
model.AddDivisionEquality(e, numerator, denom)
shifted_e = model.NewIntVar(25, 325, 'shifted_e')
model.Add(shifted_e == e + 25)
multiple_of_fifty = model.NewIntVar(0, 6, 'multiple_of_fifty')
model.AddDivisionEquality(multiple_of_fifty, shifted_e, 50)
result = model.NewIntVar(0, 300, 'result')
model.Add(result = multiple_of_fifty * 50)
if a and b are positive then
a div b >= q
is equivalent to
a >= q * b
now, your example does not specify how to round (nearest or down)
if you want to round down
q * (x + y + z + k + p + v) <= (50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v)
If you want to round to nearest, you need to add q / 2 in the right place
q * (x + y + z + k + p + v) <= (50x + 100y + 150z + 200k + 250p + 300v + q / 2)
Now, if you want the other direction
a div b <= q
is equivalent to
a <= q * b + q - 1
The rest of the transformation is the same.
I am novice in analysing time complexity.some one can help me with the time complexity of below algorithm?
public void test(int n)
{
for(int i=1;i<=n;i=i+2)
{
for(int j=1;j<=i;j++)
{}
}
}
outer loop will run n/2 times.Inner loop will run (1+3+5+7+9...n) times.
what will be time complexity of inner loop and how can we calculate sum of such arithmitic progression?
Assume n is odd. Then n = 2k + 1 for some k. Now
1 + 3 + … + n
= 1 + 3 + … + 2k+1
= (1 + 3 + … + 2k + 1) + (1 + 1 + … + 1) - (1 + 1 + … + 1)
= (1 + 1) + (3 + 1) + … + (2k + 1 + 1) - (1 + 1 + … + 1)
= 2 + 4 + … + 2k+2 - (1 + 1 + … + 1)
= 2(1 + 2 + … + k+1) - (1 + 1 + … + 1)
= 2(k+1)(k+2)/2 - (k+1)
= k^2 + 3k + 2 - k - 1
= k^2 + 2k + 1
= (k+1)^2
= (n+1)^2/4
We can test a few terms...
n f(n) Series Sum
1 1 1 = 1
3 4 1 + 3 = 4
5 9 1 + 3 + 5 = 9
7 16 1 + 4 + 5 + 7 = 16
Looks like it checks out.
I want to sum over a range (Areas) except if j is not equal to k.
Can anybody help me?
I tried:
forall( k in Areas )
sum ( j in Areas: j!=k ) X[k][j] == 1;
Also tried:
forall( k in Areas )
sum ( j in Areas) (j!=k)*X[k][j] == 1;
int NbAreas = 5;
range Areas = 1..NbAreas;
float P[Areas] = [0, 0.3, 0.65, 0.2, 0.1];
float D[Areas] = [0, 7, 5, 3, 9];
float FROMTO[Areas][Areas] = [
[0, 2, 5, 1, 3],
[2, 0, 4, 3, 8],
[5, 4, 0, 6, 2],
[1, 3, 6, 0, 7],
[3, 8, 2, 7, 0]];
dvar int Y[Areas];
dvar int T[Areas];
dvar int X[Areas][Areas] in 0..1;
maximize sum( i in Areas ) P[i] * Y[i];
subject to {
forall( k in Areas )
sum ( j in Areas: j!=k) X[k][j] == 1;
forall( k in Areas)
sum ( i in Areas: i!=k) X[i][k] == 1;
forall( i in Areas) forall (j in Areas) T[i] + FROMTO[i][j] - T[j] - 100*(1-X[i][j]) <= 0;
T[1] == 0;
forall( i in Areas: i!=1) T[i] - D[i] - 1000*(1-Y[i]) <= 0;
}
I take it you meant
I want to sum over a range (Areas) except if j is equal (instead
of "not equal") to k.
I also assume that your issue is that the model you posted is infeasible. You should label your constraints so that the conflict refiner can run and then look at the results of the conflict refiner. If I label your constraints like so:
maximize sum( i in Areas ) P[i] * Y[i];
subject to {
forall( k in Areas )
sum1: sum ( j in Areas: j!=k) X[k][j] == 1;
forall( k in Areas)
sum2: sum ( i in Areas: i!=k) X[i][k] == 1;
forall( i in Areas) forall (j in Areas)
fromto: T[i] + FROMTO[i][j] - T[j] - 100*(1-X[i][j]) <= 0;
T[1] == 0;
forall( i in Areas: i!=1)
limit: T[i] - D[i] - 1000*(1-Y[i]) <= 0;
Then I get this conflict:
sum1(1): X(1)(2) + X(1)(3) + X(1)(4) + X(1)(5) = 1
sum1(2): X(2)(1) + X(2)(3) + X(2)(4) + X(2)(5) = 1
sum1(3): X(3)(1) + X(3)(2) + X(3)(4) + X(3)(5) = 1
sum1(4): X(4)(1) + X(4)(2) + X(4)(3) + X(4)(5) = 1
sum1(5): X(5)(1) + X(5)(2) + X(5)(3) + X(5)(4) = 1
fromto(1)(2): 100 X(1)(2) + T(1) - T(2) <= 98
fromto(1)(3): 100 X(1)(3) + T(1) - T(3) <= 95
fromto(1)(4): 100 X(1)(4) + T(1) - T(4) <= 99
fromto(1)(5): 100 X(1)(5) + T(1) - T(5) <= 97
fromto(2)(1): 100 X(2)(1) - T(1) + T(2) <= 98
fromto(2)(3): 100 X(2)(3) + T(2) - T(3) <= 96
fromto(2)(4): 100 X(2)(4) + T(2) - T(4) <= 97
fromto(2)(5): 100 X(2)(5) + T(2) - T(5) <= 92
fromto(3)(1): 100 X(3)(1) - T(1) + T(3) <= 95
fromto(3)(2): 100 X(3)(2) - T(2) + T(3) <= 96
fromto(3)(4): 100 X(3)(4) + T(3) - T(4) <= 94
fromto(3)(5): 100 X(3)(5) + T(3) - T(5) <= 98
fromto(4)(1): 100 X(4)(1) - T(1) + T(4) <= 99
fromto(4)(2): 100 X(4)(2) - T(2) + T(4) <= 97
fromto(4)(3): 100 X(4)(3) - T(3) + T(4) <= 94
fromto(4)(5): 100 X(4)(5) + T(4) - T(5) <= 93
fromto(5)(1): 100 X(5)(1) - T(1) + T(5) <= 97
fromto(5)(2): 100 X(5)(2) - T(2) + T(5) <= 92
fromto(5)(3): 100 X(5)(3) - T(3) + T(5) <= 98
fromto(5)(4): 100 X(5)(4) - T(4) + T(5) <= 93
So it seems your data in FROMTO and T does not allow a feasible solution.
You wrote "except if j is not equal to k".
So instead of
forall( k in Areas)
sum ( i in Areas: i!=k) X[i][k] == 1;
I would write
forall( k in Areas)
sum ( i in Areas: i==k) X[i][k] == 1;