Recursive function is not following all paths - vb.net

I've been involved to a challenge.
Here is the question given:
This question involves a game with teddy bears. The game starts when I
give you some bears. You can then give back some bears, but you must
follow these rules (where n is the number of bears that you have):
If n is even, then you may give back exactly n/2 bears. If n is
divisible by 3 or 4, then you may multiply the last two digits of n
and give back this many bears. (By the way, the last digit of n is
n%10, and the next-to-last digit is ((n%100)/10). If n is divisible by
5, then you may give back exactly 42 bears. The goal of the game is to
end up with EXACTLY 42 bears.
For example, suppose that you start with
250 bears. Then you could make these moves:
--Start with 250 bears.
--Since 250 is divisible by 5, you may return 42 of the bears, leaving you with 208 bears.
--Since 208 is even, you may return half of the bears, leaving you with 104 bears.
--Since 104 is even, you may return half of the bears, leaving you with 52 bears.
--Since 52 is divisible by 4, you may multiply the last two digits (resulting in 10) and return these 10 bears. This leaves you with 42
bears.
--You have reached the goal!
Write a recursive function to meet this specification:
bool bears(int n)
// Postcondition: A true return value means that it is possible to win
// the bear game by starting with n bears. A false return value means that
// it is not possible to win the bear game by starting with n bears.
// Examples:
// bear(250) is true (as shown above)
// bear(42) is true
// bear(84) is true
// bear(53) is false
// bear(41) is false
Hint: To test whether n is even, use the expression ((n % 2) == 0).
Here is my solution but unfortinately it always returns false. I guess it is not following the whole alternative paths but have no idea why. Btw, i'm very new with the VB. Thanks in advance.
Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
MsgBox(bear(Int(TextBox1.Text)))
End Sub
Public Function bear(bc As Integer) As Boolean
Dim way1, way2, way3 As Integer
If bc = 42 Then
Return True
ElseIf bc < 42 Then
Return False
ElseIf (bc Mod 2 = 0) Or (bc Mod 3 = 0) Or (bc Mod 4 = 0) Or (bc Mod 5 = 0) Then
If (bc Mod 2 = 0) Then
way1 = bear(bc / 2)
End If
If (bc Mod 3 = 0) Or (bc Mod 4 = 0) Then
way2 = bear((bc Mod 10) * ((bc Mod 100) / 10))
End If
If (bc Mod 5 = 0) Then
way3 = bear(bc - 42)
End If
If (way1 Or way2 Or way3) Then
Return True
Else
Return False
End If
Else
Return False
End If
End Function

(upon further reflection, I can now see that the only problem is the line referenced below..)
.. hang on, it looks like you can do this by just changing one line. In the MOD 3 or 4 case, change this line:
way2 = bear((bc Mod 10) * ((bc Mod 100) / 10))
to these:
dim gb as Integer
gb = (bc Mod 10) * ((bc Mod 100) / 10)
If gb <= 0 then Return False
way2 = bear(bc - gb)

The most obvious thing is that you're checking bears(bearsToTake) instead of bears(bearsLeft-bearsToTake). I think you might be returning false prematurely as well, but I haven't checked, so don't quote me on that.
A solution in Python, for posterity. You don't necessarily need an extra "counter" value like the other answers suggest, but it is often good practice to use one. (I know you're not using Python, but it almost looks like psuedocode, and is thus I've found it easier to grok.)
This solution is almost identical to yours -- it just fixes the parameter from the taken bears to the total bears! bears bears bears.
>>> def checkBears(n):
... if n == 42:
... return True
... elif n < 42:
... return False
... else:
... if not n % 2 and checkBears(n/2):
... return True
... if (not n % 3 or not n % 4) and checkBears(n - n % 10 * (n%100)/10):
... return True
... if not n % 5 and checkBears(n - 42):
... return True
... return False
...
>>> checkBears(250)
True
>>> checkBears(53)
False
>>> checkBears(42)
True
>>> checkBears(84)
True

Related

Is there an algorithm, to find values ​of a polynomial with big integers, quickly without loops?

For example, if I want to find
1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162 = a^9+b^9+c^9+d
the code needs to brings
a=3456
b=78525
c=217423
d=215478
I do not need specific values, only that they comply with the fact that a, b and c have 6 digits at most and d is as small as possible.
Is there a quick way to find it?
I appreciate any help you can give me.
I have tried with nested loops but it is extremely slow and the code gets stuck.
Any help in VB or other code would be appreciated. I think the structure is more important than the language in this case
Imports System.Numerics
Public Class Form1
Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim Value As BigInteger = BigInteger.Parse("1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162")
Dim powResult As BigInteger
Dim dResult As BigInteger
Dim a As Integer
Dim b As Integer
Dim c As Integer
Dim d As Integer
For i = 1 To 999999
For j = 1 To 999999
For k = 1 To 999999
powResult = BigInteger.Add(BigInteger.Add(BigInteger.Pow(i, 9), BigInteger.Pow(j, 9)), BigInteger.Pow(k, 9))
dResult = BigInteger.Subtract(Value, powResult)
If Len(dResult.ToString) <= 6 Then
a = i
b = j
c = k
d = dResult
RichTextBox1.Text = a & " , " & b & " , " & c & " , " & d
Exit For
Exit For
Exit For
End If
Next
Next
Next
End Sub
End Class
UPDATE
I wrote the code in vb. But with this code, a is correct, b is correct but c is incorrect, and the result is incorrect.
a^9 + b^9 + c^9 + d is a number bigger than the initial value.
The code should brings
a= 217423
b= 78525
c= 3456
d= 215478
Total Value is ok= 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162
but code brings
a= 217423
b= 78525
c= 65957
d= 70333722607339201875244531009974
Total Value is bigger and not equal=1085935936469985777155428248430866412402362281319
Whats i need to change in the code to make c= 3456 and d= 215478?
the code is
Imports System.Numerics
Public Class Form1
Private Function pow9(x As BigInteger) As BigInteger
Dim y As BigInteger
y = x * x ' x^2
y *= y ' x^4
y *= y ' x^8
y *= x ' x^9
Return y
End Function
Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim a, b, c, d, D2, n As BigInteger
Dim aa, bb, cc, dd, ae As BigInteger
D2 = BigInteger.Parse("1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162")
'first solution so a is maximal
d = D2
'a = BigIntegerSqrt(D2)
'RichTextBox1.Text = a.ToString
For a = 1 << ((Convert.ToInt32(Math.Ceiling(BigInteger.Log(d, 2))) + 8) / 9) To a > 0 Step -1
If (pow9(a) <= d) Then
d -= pow9(a)
Exit For
End If
Next
For b = 1 << ((Convert.ToInt32(Math.Ceiling(BigInteger.Log(d, 2))) + 8) / 9) To b > 0 Step -1
If (pow9(b) <= d) Then
d -= pow9(b)
Exit For
End If
Next
For c = 1 << ((Convert.ToInt32(Math.Ceiling(BigInteger.Log(d, 2))) + 8) / 9) To c > 0 Step -1
If (pow9(c) <= d) Then
d -= pow9(c)
Exit For
End If
Next
' minimize d
aa = a
bb = b
cc = c
dd = d
If (aa < 10) Then
ae = 0
Else
ae = aa - 10
End If
For a = aa - 1 To a > ae Step -1 'a goes down few iterations
d = D2 - pow9(a)
For n = 1 << ((Convert.ToInt32(Math.Ceiling(BigInteger.Log(d, 2))) + 8) / 9) To b < n 'b goes up
If (pow9(b) >= d) Then
b = b - 1
d -= pow9(b)
Exit For
End If
Next
For c = 1 << ((Convert.ToInt32(Math.Ceiling(BigInteger.Log(d, 2))) + 8) / 9) To c > 0 Step -1 'c must be search fully
If pow9(c) <= d Then
d -= pow9(c)
Exit For
End If
Next
If d < dd Then 'remember better solution
aa = a
bb = b
cc = c
dd = d
End If
If a < ae Then
Exit For
End If
Next
a = aa
b = bb
c = cc
d = dd
' a,b,c,d is the result
RichTextBox1.Text = D2.ToString
Dim Sum As BigInteger
Dim a9 As BigInteger
Dim b9 As BigInteger
Dim c9 As BigInteger
a9 = BigInteger.Pow(a, 9)
b9 = BigInteger.Pow(b, 9)
c9 = BigInteger.Pow(c, 9)
Sum = BigInteger.Add(BigInteger.Add(BigInteger.Add(a9, b9), c9), d)
RichTextBox2.Text = Sum.ToString
Dim Subst As BigInteger
Subst = BigInteger.Subtract(Sum, D2)
RichTextBox3.Text = Subst.ToString
End Sub
End Class
[Update]
The below code is an attempt to solve a problem like OP's, yet I erred in reading it.
The below is for 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162 = a^9+b^9+c^9+d^9+e and to minimize e.
Just became too excite about OP's interesting conundrum and read too quick.
I review this more later.
OP's approach is O(N*N*N*N) - slow
Below is a O(N*N*log(N)) one.
Algorithm
Let N = 1,000,000. (Looks like 250,000 is good enough for OP's sum of 1.0859e48.)
Define 160+ wide integer math routines.
Define type: pow9
int x,y,
int160least_t z
Form array pow9 a[N*N] populated with x, y, x^9 + y^9, for every x,y in the [1...N] range.
Sort array on z.
Cost so far O(N*N*log(N).
For array elements indexed [0... N*N/2] do a binary search for another array element such that the sum is 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162
Sum closest is the answer.
Time: O(N*N*log(N))
Space: O(N*N)
Easy to start with FP math and then later get a better answer with crafter extended integer math.
Try with smaller N and total sum targets to iron out implementation issues.
In case a,b,c,d might be zero I got an Idea for fast and simple solution:
First something better than brute force search of a^9 + d = x so that a is maximal (that ensures minimal d)...
let d = 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162
find max value a such that a^9 <= d
this is simple as we know 9th power will multiply the bitwidth of operand 9 times so the max value can be at most a <= 2^(log2(d)/9) Now just search all numbers from this number down to zero (decrementing) until its 9th power is less or equal to x. This value will be our a.
Its still brute force search however from much better starting point so much less iterations are required.
We also need to update d so let
d = d - a^9
Now just find b,c in the same way (using smaller and smaller remainder d)... these searches are not nested so they are fast ...
b^9 <= d; d-=b^9;
c^9 <= d; c-=b^9;
To improve speed even more you can hardcode the 9th power using power by squaring ...
This will be our initial solution (on mine setup it took ~200ms with 32*8 bits uints) with these results:
x = 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162
1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162 (reference)
a = 217425
b = 65957
c = 22886
d = 39113777348346762582909125401671564
Now we want to minimize d so simply decrement a and search b upwards until still a^9 + b^9 <= d is lower. Then search c as before and remember better solution. The a should be search downwards to meet b in the middle but as both a and bhave the same powers only few iterations might suffice (I used 50) from the first solution (but I have no proof of this its just my feeling). But still even if full range is used this has less complexity than yours as I have just 2 nested fors instead of yours 3 and they all are with lower ranges...
Here small working C++ example (sorry do not code in BASIC for decades):
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
typedef uint<8> bigint;
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigint pow9(bigint &x)
{
bigint y;
y=x*x; // x^2
y*=y; // x^4
y*=y; // x^8
y*=x; // x^9
return y;
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void compute()
{
bigint a,b,c,d,D,n;
bigint aa,bb,cc,dd,ae;
D="1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162";
// first solution so a is maximal
d=D;
for (a=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9);a>0;a--) if (pow9(a)<=d) break; d-=pow9(a);
for (b=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9);b>0;b--) if (pow9(b)<=d) break; d-=pow9(b);
for (c=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9);c>0;c--) if (pow9(c)<=d) break; d-=pow9(c);
// minimize d
aa=a; bb=b; cc=c; dd=d;
if (aa<50) ae=0; else ae=aa-50;
for (a=aa-1;a>ae;a--) // a goes down few iterations
{
d=D-pow9(a);
for (n=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9),b++;b<n;b++) if (pow9(b)>=d) break; b--; d-=pow9(b); // b goes up
for (c=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9);c>0;c--) if (pow9(c)<=d) break; d-=pow9(c); // c must be search fully
if (d<dd) // remember better solution
{
aa=a; bb=b; cc=c; dd=d;
}
}
a=aa; b=bb; c=cc; d=dd; // a,b,c,d is the result
}
//-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The function bits() just returns number of occupied bits (similar to log2 but much faster). Here final results:
x = 1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162
1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162 (reference)
a = 217423
b = 78525
c = 3456
d = 215478
It took 1689.651 ms ... As you can see this is much faster than yours however I am not sure with the number of search iterations while fine tuning ais OK or it should be scaled by a/b or even full range down to (a+b)/2 which will be much slower than this...
One last thing I did not bound a,b,c to 999999 so if you want it you just add if (a>999999) a=999999; statement after any a=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9)...
[Edit1] adding binary search
Ok now all the full searches for 9th root (except of the fine tunnig of a) can be done with binary search which will improve speed a lot more while ignoring bigint multiplication complexity leads to O(n.log(n)) against your O(n^3)... Here updated code (will full iteration of a while fitting so its safe):
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
typedef uint<8> bigint;
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigint pow9(bigint &x)
{
bigint y;
y=x*x; // x^2
y*=y; // x^4
y*=y; // x^8
y*=x; // x^9
return y;
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigint binsearch_max_pow9(bigint &d) // return biggest x, where x^9 <= d, and lower d by x^9
{ // x = floor(d^(1/9)) , d = remainder
bigint m,x;
for (m=bigint(1)<<((d.bits()+8)/9),x=0;m.isnonzero();m>>=1)
{ x|=m; if (pow9(x)>d) x^=m; }
d-=pow9(x);
return x;
}
//---------------------------------------------------------------------------
void compute()
{
bigint a,b,c,d,D,n;
bigint aa,bb,cc,dd;
D="1085912312763120759250776993188102125849391224162";
// first solution so a is maximal
d=D;
a=binsearch_max_pow9(d);
b=binsearch_max_pow9(d);
c=binsearch_max_pow9(d);
// minimize d
aa=a; bb=b; cc=c; dd=d;
for (a=aa-1;a>=b;a--) // a goes down few iterations
{
d=D-pow9(a);
for (n=1<<((d.bits()+8)/9),b++;b<n;b++) if (pow9(b)>=d) break; b--; d-=pow9(b); // b goes up
c=binsearch_max_pow9(d);
if (d<dd) // remember better solution
{
aa=a; bb=b; cc=c; dd=d;
}
}
a=aa; b=bb; c=cc; d=dd; // a,b,c,d is the result
}
//-------------------------------------------------------------------------
function m.isnonzero() is the same as m!=0 just faster... The results are the same as above code but the time duration is only 821 ms for full iteration of a which would be several thousands seconds with previous code.
I think except using some polynomial discrete math trick I do not know of there is only one more thing to improve and that is to compute consequent pow9 without multiplication which will boost the speed a lot (as bigint multiplication is slowest operation by far) like I did in here:
How to get a square root for 32 bit input in one clock cycle only?
but I am too lazy to derive it...

Quickest way to determine if a number is a prime number or not VB

I have been working on this for quite a bit now, I have a task of creating a program which calculates if a number entered by a user is prime number or not, the program calculates the time taken and displays this to the user, however I have found two method, one takes more time than the other but it produce accurate numbers, the other one calculates very quickly however it is wrong, I am hoping if someone can help me and tell me the quickest way of calculating this, here are my two codes
Code1:
Dim ch As String
ch = "y"
While ch = "y"
If (num Mod 2 = 0) Then
Console.WriteLine("Is not a prime number!")
Else
Console.WriteLine("Is a prime number!")
End If
Code2:
check = 1 'initilizing a check point to use it in the program to determine prime number
Dim Value As Long
Console.Write(vbLf & "Enter a number To check Whater it is Prime or Not :")
Value = Long.Parse(Console.ReadLine())
start_time = Now
Dim ch As ULong
ch = 0
Dim i As ULong
i = 2
While (i <= Value / 2)
If (Value Mod i = 0) Then
ch = 1
Exit While
End If
i = i + 1
End While
If (ch = 0) Then
Console.WriteLine("Prime Number")
Else
Console.WriteLine("Not Prime Number")
End If
There are a great many prime testers out there, many of them on this site. For checking a single number I use a faster variant of your Code2 with a little extra checking. Here is the pseudocode:
boolean function isPrime(num)
//1, 0 and negatives cannot be prime.
if (num < 2) then
return false
endif
// 2 is the only even prime.
if (num MOD 2 = 0) then
return (num = 2)
endif
// Check for odd factors.
limit <- sqrt(num)
for (factor <- 3; factor <= limit; factor <- factor + 2) do
if (num MOD factor = 0) then
return false
endif
endfor
// If we reach this point then the number is prime.
return true
endfunction
As #user448810 said, you should use the square root of your target number as the limit of your testing loop. You can basically halve the number of tests you do by treating even numbers separately. Once you have taken out the even numbers, then you only have to test odd factors: 3, 5, 7, ...

VBA Run Loop until have X examples in MsgBox

Today I am trying to run basic loop using "for". I would like to run a loop till I get 20 random numbers between 26 - 28 in MsgBox.
Sub C7()
Dim b As Integer
Dim f As Single
Dim ret As String
For b = 1 To 20
f = Rnd() * 28
If f >= 26 And f <= 28 Then
ret = ret & Str(f)
End If
Next b
MsgBox ret
End Sub
Following code runs the loop 20-times and gives me all values between 26 - 28 (usually not more than 3). What I need is a code which will run the loop X-times until it gives me 20 numbers between 26 - 27.
Every advice is welcome! Thanks
Change the randomize to give a number less than 3, then add 26.
Rnd() returns a number between [0, 1), multiplying that by 28 will never result in 28. And frequently will result in a number below 28, which gets avoided in the output because of your if block.
f = (Rnd() * 3) will give a random number between [0, 3).
f = ((Rnd() * 3) + 26) will give a random number between [26, 29).
What you are looking for is a Do-Loop Until or Do While-Loop loop. This kind of loop runs until a condition is met. In your case, that condition would be "20 messages are printed".
The Do While-Loop loop checks the condition at the start, so if the condition is False at first, the loop wont run.
The Do-Loop Until loop checks the condition at the end, so the loop will run at least once.
An example code following your previous For loop:
Sub C7()
Dim b As Integer
Dim f As Single
Dim ret As String
dim count as Integer: count = 0
Do
f = Rnd() * 28
If f >= 26 And f <= 28 Then
ret = ret & Str(f)
count = count + 1
End If
Loop until count = 20
MsgBox ret
End Sub

VBA: Testing for perfect cubes

I'm trying to write a simple function in VBA that will test a real value and output a string result if it's a perfect cube. Here's my code:
Function PerfectCubeTest(x as Double)
If (x) ^ (1 / 3) = Int(x) Then
PerfectCubeTest = "Perfect"
Else
PerfectCubeTest = "Flawed"
End If
End Function
As you can see, I'm using a simple if statement to test if the cube root of a value is equal to its integer portion (i.e. no remainder). I tried testing the function with some perfect cubes (1, 8, 27, 64, 125), but it only works for the number 1. Any other value spits out the "Flawed" case. Any idea what's wrong here?
You are testing whether the cube is equal to the double supplied.
So for 8 you would be testing whether 2 = 8.
EDIT: Also found a floating point issue. To resolve we will round the decimals a little to try and overcome the issue.
Change to the following:
Function PerfectCubeTest(x As Double)
If Round((x) ^ (1 / 3), 10) = Round((x) ^ (1 / 3), 0) Then
PerfectCubeTest = "Perfect"
Else
PerfectCubeTest = "Flawed"
End If
End Function
Or (Thanks to Ron)
Function PerfectCubeTest(x As Double)
If CDec(x ^ (1 / 3)) = Int(CDec(x ^ (1 / 3))) Then
PerfectCubeTest = "Perfect"
Else
PerfectCubeTest = "Flawed"
End If
End Function
#ScottCraner correctly explains why you were getting incorrect results, but there are a couple other things to point out here. First, I'm assuming that you are taking a Double as input because the range of acceptable numbers is higher. However, by your implied definition of a perfect cube only numbers with an integer cube root (i.e. it would exclude 3.375) need to be evaluated. I'd just test for this up front to allow an early exit.
The next issue you run into is that 1 / 3 can't be represented exactly by a Double. Since you're raising to the inverse power to get your cube root you're also compounding the floating point error. There's a really easy way to avoid this - take the cube root, cube it, and see if it matches the input. You get around the rest of the floating point errors by going back to your definition of a perfect cube as an integer value - just round the cube root to both the next higher and next lower integer before you re-cube it:
Public Function IsPerfectCube(test As Double) As Boolean
'By your definition, no non-integer can be a perfect cube.
Dim rounded As Double
rounded = Fix(test)
If rounded <> test Then Exit Function
Dim cubeRoot As Double
cubeRoot = rounded ^ (1 / 3)
'Round both ways, then test the cube for equity.
If Fix(cubeRoot) ^ 3 = rounded Then
IsPerfectCube = True
ElseIf (Fix(cubeRoot) + 1) ^ 3 = rounded Then
IsPerfectCube = True
End If
End Function
This returned the correct result up to 1E+27 (1 billion cubed) when I tested it. I stopped going higher at that point because the test was taking so long to run and by that point you're probably outside of the range that you would reasonably need it to be accurate.
For fun, here is an implementation of a number-theory based method described here . It defines a Boolean-valued (rather than string-valued) function called PerfectCube() that tests if an integer input (represented as a Long) is a perfect cube. It first runs a quick test which throws away many numbers. If the quick test fails to classify it, it invokes a factoring-based method. Factor the number and check if the multiplicity of each prime factor is a multiple of 3. I could probably optimize this stage by not bothering to find the complete factorization when a bad factor is found, but I had a VBA factoring algorithm already lying around:
Function DigitalRoot(n As Long) As Long
'assumes that n >= 0
Dim sum As Long, digits As String, i As Long
If n < 10 Then
DigitalRoot = n
Exit Function
Else
digits = Trim(Str(n))
For i = 1 To Len(digits)
sum = sum + Mid(digits, i, 1)
Next i
DigitalRoot = DigitalRoot(sum)
End If
End Function
Sub HelperFactor(ByVal n As Long, ByVal p As Long, factors As Collection)
'Takes a passed collection and adds to it an array of the form
'(q,k) where q >= p is the smallest prime divisor of n
'p is assumed to be odd
'The function is called in such a way that
'the first divisor found is automatically prime
Dim q As Long, k As Long
q = p
Do While q <= Sqr(n)
If n Mod q = 0 Then
k = 1
Do While n Mod q ^ k = 0
k = k + 1
Loop
k = k - 1 'went 1 step too far
factors.Add Array(q, k)
n = n / q ^ k
If n > 1 Then HelperFactor n, q + 2, factors
Exit Sub
End If
q = q + 2
Loop
'if we get here then n is prime - add it as a factor
factors.Add Array(n, 1)
End Sub
Function factor(ByVal n As Long) As Collection
Dim factors As New Collection
Dim k As Long
Do While n Mod 2 ^ k = 0
k = k + 1
Loop
k = k - 1
If k > 0 Then
n = n / 2 ^ k
factors.Add Array(2, k)
End If
If n > 1 Then HelperFactor n, 3, factors
Set factor = factors
End Function
Function PerfectCubeByFactors(n As Long) As Boolean
Dim factors As Collection
Dim f As Variant
Set factors = factor(n)
For Each f In factors
If f(1) Mod 3 > 0 Then
PerfectCubeByFactors = False
Exit Function
End If
Next f
'if we get here:
PerfectCubeByFactors = True
End Function
Function PerfectCube(n As Long) As Boolean
Dim d As Long
d = DigitalRoot(n)
If d = 0 Or d = 1 Or d = 8 Or d = 9 Then
PerfectCube = PerfectCubeByFactors(n)
Else
PerfectCube = False
End If
End Function
Fixed the integer division error thanks to #Comintern. Seems to be correct up to 208064 ^ 3 - 2
Function isPerfectCube(n As Double) As Boolean
n = Abs(n)
isPerfectCube = n = Int(n ^ (1 / 3) - (n > 27)) ^ 3
End Function

Verify Gamefield VB.NET

So I'm developing a minesweeper game and im assigning the mines, but I've got to check where are the mines now, in order to generate the numbers. The problem is that when I'm verifying the columns and lines I need the program not to get out of the game field.
Here's how my code looks like now:
Public Sub avisinhos(ByVal line, ByVal column)
If mat(line, column) = 0 Then
mat(line, column) = -1
numbandeiras = numbandeiras + 1
End If
For auxlinha = -1 To 1
For auxcolumn = -1 To 1
Next
Next
End Sub
How do I create a IF function to verify that I don't get out of the game field?
Best regards, joao.
pseudo code
int linestart = -1;
int lineend = 1;
int colstart = -1;
int colend = 1;
Assuming a 10 x 10 grid (zero based)
if line < 2 linestart = 0
if line > 8 lineend = 0
if column < 2 colstart = 0
if column > 8 colend = 0
For auxlinha = linestart To lineend
For auxcolumn = colstart To colend
// check
Next
Next
Personally though I wouldn't bother with the loops, they add very little to nothing
HasMineAbove = (line > 1) and (gamefield[line -1,column] = MinePresentValue
would be my approach, do it all in one.
Not to mention the huge potential confusion when auxlinha and auxcolumn are both zero...
I'm not sure exactly what your code is saying. It's a bit cryptic since you're using abbreviations and all lowercase names. You might want to try camelCasing and spelling out the words more completely, intellisense is your friend. =)
But coding style aside, if you are trying to loop through a limited range of values, you can keep your values bounded by using the modulus operator (%). For example, if you need to keep you values between 0-7 and you end up with a value of 12, just take the modulus of 8 to loop back to within range with a value of 4:
12 % 8 = 4
9 % 8 = 1
15 % 8 = 7
24 % 8 = 0
I realize this doesn't answer your specific question, but it's a handy technique might find useful.