I have this piece of code which checks whether a given number is prime:
If x Mod 2 = 0 Then
Return False
End If
For i = 3 To x / 2 + 1 Step 2
If x Mod i = 0 Then
Return False
End If
Next
Return True
I only use it for numbers 1E7 <= x <= 2E7. However, it is extremely slow - I can hardly check 300 numbers a second, so checking all x's would take more than 23 days...
Could someone give some improvements tips or say what I might be doing redundantly this way?
That is general algorithm for checking prime number.
If you want to check prime number in bulk use algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
Look up the term "Sieve of Eratosthenes". It's a two thousand years old algorithm which is way better than yours. It's often taught in school.
You should definitely change your algorithm! You can try Sieve of Eratosthenes or a more advanced Fermat primality test. Beware that your code will be more complicated, as you would need to implement modular arithmetics. Look here for the list of some even more mathematically advanced methods.
You can also look for AKS primality test.
This is a good algorithm for checking primality.
Since x/2 + 1 is a constant through out the looping operation, keep it in a separate variable before the For loop. Thus, saving a division & addition operation every time you loop. Though this might slightly increase the performance.
Use the Sieve of Eratosthenes to create a Set that contains all the prime numbers up to the largest number you need to check. It will take a while to set up the Set, but then checking if a number exists in it will be very fast.
Split range in some chunks, and do checks in two or more threads, if you have multicore cpu. Or use Parallel.For.
To check if the number is prime you have only check if it can't be divided by primes less then it.
Please check following snippet:
Sub Main()
Dim primes As New List(Of Integer)
primes.Add(1)
For x As Integer = 1 To 1000
If IsPrime(x, primes) Then
primes.Add(x)
Console.WriteLine(x)
End If
Next
End Sub
Private Function IsPrime(x As Integer, primes As IEnumerable(Of Integer)) As Boolean
For Each prime In primes
If prime <> 1 AndAlso prime <> x Then
If x Mod prime = 0 Then
Return False
End If
End If
Next
Return True
End Function
it slow because you use the x/2. I modified your code a little bit. (I don't know about syntax of VB, Maybe you have to change my syntax.)
If x < 2 Then
Return False
IF x == 2 Then
Return True
If x Mod 2 = 0 Then
Return False
End If
For i = 3 To (i*i)<=x Step 2
If x Mod i = 0 Then
Return False
End If
Next
Return True
Related
I am working with a legacy code base written in VB and have run into a conditional operator that I don't understand and cannot figure out what to search for to resolve it.
What I am dealing with is the following code and the variables that result as true. The specific parts that I do not understand are (1) the relationship between the first X and the first parens (-2 and (2) the role of X < 2
If X is a value below -2 it evaluates as false.
If X is a value above 2 it evaluates as true.
If Y is below 5 it evaluates to true as expected.
X = 3
Y = 10
If X > (-2 And X < 2) Or Y < 5 Then
'True
Else
'False
End If
I'm gonna leave off the Or Y < 5 part of the expression for this post as uninteresting, and limit myself to the X > (-2 And X < 2) side of the expression.
I haven't done much VB over the last several years, so I started out with some digging into Operator Precedence rules in VB, to be sure I have things right. I found definitive info on VBA and VB.Net, and some MSDN stuff that might have been VB6 but could also have been the 2013 version of VB.Net. All of them, though, gave the < and > comparison operators higher precedence over the And operator, regardless of whether you see And as logical or bitwise.
With that info, and also knowing that we must look inside parentheses first, I'm now confident the very first part of the expression to be evaluated is X < 2 (rather than -2 And X). Further, we know this will produce a Boolean result, and this Boolean result must be then converted to an Integer to do a bitwise (not logical) And with -2. That result (I'll call it n), which is still an Integer, can at last be compared to see if X > n, which will yield the final result of the expression as a Boolean.
I did some more digging and found this Stack Overflow answer about converting VB Booleans to Integers. While not definitive documentation, I was once privileged to meet the author (Hi #JaredPar) and know he worked on the VB compiler team at Microsoft, so he should know what he's talking about. It indicates that VB Boolean True has the surprising value of -1 as an integer! False becomes the more-normal 0.
At this point we need to talk about the binary representation of negative numbers. Using this reference as a guide (I do vaguely remember learning about this in college, but it's not the kind of thing I need every day), I'm going to provide a conversion table for integers from -3 to +3 in an imaginary integer size of only 4 bits (short version: invert the bit pattern and add one to get the negative representation):
-3 1101
-2 1110
-1 1111 --this helps explain **why** -1 was used for True
0 0000
1 0001
2 0010
3 0010
Stepping back, let's now consider the original -2 And X < 2 parenthetical and look at the results from the True (-1) and False (0) possible outcomes for X < 2 after a bitwise And with -2:
-2 (1110) And True (1111) = 1110 = -2
-2 (1110) And False (0000) = 0000 = 0
Really the whole point here from using the -1 bit pattern is anything And True produces that same thing you started with, whereas anything And False produces all zeros.
So if X < 2 you get True, which results in -2; otherwise you end up with 0. It's interesting to note here that if our language used positive one for True, you'd end up with the same 0000 value doing a bitwise And with -2 that you get from False (1110 And 0001).
Now we know enough to look at some values for X and determine the result of the entire original expression. Any positive integer is greater than both -2 and 0, so the expression should result in True. Zero and -1 are similar: they are less than two, and so will be compared again only as greater than -2 and thus always result in True. Negative two, though, and anything below, should be False.
Unfortunately, this means you could simplify the entire expression down to X > -2. Either I'm wrong about operator precedence, my reference for negative integer bit patterns is wrong, you're using a version of VB that converts True to something other than -1, or this code is just way over-complicated from the get-go.
I believe the sequence is as follows:
r = -2 and X 'outputs X with the least significant bit set to 0 (meaning the first lesser even number)
r = (r < 2) 'outputs -1 or 0
r = (X > r) 'outputs -1 or 0
r = r Or (Y < 5)
Use AndAlso and OrElse.
I am now seriously confused. I have a function creating a table with a random number of entries, and I tried two different methods to choose that number (which is somewhat wheighted):
Method 1, separated function
local function n()
local n = math.random()
if n < .7 then return 0
elseif n < .8 then return 1
end
return 2
end
local function final()
for i = 1, n() do
...
end
end
Method 2, direct calculation
local function final()
local n = math.random()
if n < .7 then n = 0
elseif n < .8 then n = 1
else n = 2
end
for i = 1, n do
...
end
end
The problem is: for some reason, the first method performs 30% faster than the second. Why is this?
No, call will never be faster than plainly inlining it. All the difference for the first method is adding extra work of setting up stack and dismantling it. The rest of code, both original and compiled is exactly the same, so it is only natural that "just calculation" will be faster than "just calculation + some extra work".
Your benchmark seem to be imprecise. For such a lightweight function a for loop and os.clock call themselves will take almost as many time as the function itself, so combined with os.clock inherent low resoulution and small amount of loops your data is not really statistically significant and you're mostly seeing results of random hiccups in your hardware. Use better timer and increase number of loops to at least 1000000.
I have been doing more research on the topic of DWT Steganography. I have came across the code below on the web. This is the first time I have came across subbands coefficients being specified. I have an idea what the code does but I would like someone to verify it!
steg_coeffs = [4, 4.75, 5.5, 6.25, 7];
for jj=1:size(message,2)+1
if jj > size(message,2)
charbits = [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0];
else
charbits = dec2bin(message(jj),8)';
charbits = charbits(:)'-'0';
end
for ii=1:8
bit_count = bit_count + 1;
if charbits(ii) == 1
if HH(bit_count) <= 0
HH(bit_count) = steg_coeffs(randi(numel(steg_coeffs)));
end
else
if HH(bit_count) >= 0
HH(bit_count) = -1 * steg_coeffs(randi(numel(steg_coeffs)));
end
end
end
I think the steg_coeffs are selected coeffiecnt of the HH subband, where bits will be embedded in these selected coefficients. I have googled randi and believe that it will randomise these specified coeffs on each iteration of the loop and embed in random selection coeffs. I am correct?? Thank you
Typing help randi, you find out that randi(IMAX) will return a scalar, which will be an integer uniformly distributed (based on a prng) in the range 1:IMAX. To put simply, it chooses a random integer between 1 and IMAX.
numel(matrix) returns the total number of elements in the matrix.
So, steg_coeffs(randi(numel(steg_coeffs))) chooses a random element from steg_coeffs, by choosing a random index between 1 and 5.
The embedding algorithm is implemented in the following block.
if charbits(ii) == 1
...
else
...
end
Basically, if you're embedding a 1, the HH coefficient has to be positive. If it isn't, substitute it with one from steg_coeffs. Similarly, if you're embedding a 0, the HH coefficient has to be negative. If it isn't, substitute it with the negative of one from steg_coeffs.
The idea is that when you extract the secret, all you have to check is whether the HH coefficient is positive or negative, to know whether the bit has to be 1 or 0.
I have a set of decimal numbers. I need to check if a specific bit is set in each of them. If the bit is set, I need to return 1, otherwise return 0.
I am looking for a simple and fast way to do that.
Say, for example, I am checking if the third bit is set. I can do (number AND (2^2)), it will return 4 if the bit is set, otherwise it will return 0. How do I make it to return 1 instead of 4?
Thank you!
if ((number AND (2^bitnumber) <> 0) then return 1 else return 0 end if
If you can change your return type to boolean then this is more elegant
return ((number AND (2^bitnumber)) <> 0)
While the division solution is a simple one, I would think a bit-shift operation would be more efficient. You'd have to test it to be sure, though. For instance, if you are using 1 based bit indexes, you could do this:
Dim oneOrZero As Integer = (k And 2 ^ (n - 1)) >> (n - 1)
(Where k is the number and n is the bit index). Of, if you are using 0 based bit indexes, you could just do this:
Dim oneOrZero As Integer = (k And 2 ^ n) >> n
Sorry, guys, I am too slow today.
To test a bit number "n" in a decimal number "k":
(k AND 2^(n-1))/(2^(n-1))
will return 1 if the bit is set, otherwise will return 0.
=====================================================
Hi again, guys!
I compared the performance of the three proposed solutions with zero-based indexes, and here are the results:
"bit-shift solution" - 8.31 seconds
"if...then solution" - 8.44 seconds
"division solution" - 9.41 seconds
The times are average of the four consecutive runs.
Surprisingly for me, the second solution outperformed the third one.
However, after I modified the "division solution" this way:
p = 2 ^ n : oneOrZero = (k And p) / p
it started to run in 7.48 seconds.
So, this is the fastest of the proposed solutions (despite of what Keith says :-).
Thanks everybody for the help!
I really don't know if it can help anyone more than the above, but, here we go.
When I need to fast check a bit in number I compare the decimal-value of this bit directly.
I mean, if I would need to see of the 6th bit is on (32), I check its decimal value, like this:
if x and 32 = 32 then "the bit is ON"
Try for instance check 38 with 32, 4 and 2... and the other bits.
You will see only the actual bits turned on.
I hope it can help.
Yes! Simply use a bit mask. I enumerate the bits, then AND the number with the bit value. Very little math on the PC side as it uses lookup tables instead. The AND basically shuts off all the other bits except the one you are interested in. Then you check it against itself to see if it's on/off.
Enum validate
bit1 = 1
bit2 = 2
bit3 = 4
bit4 = 8
bit5 = 16
bit6 = 32
bit7 = 64
bit8 = 128
End Enum
If num And validate.bit3 = validate.bit3 Then true
I'm sorry the title is so confusingly worded, but it's hard to condense this problem down to a few words.
I'm trying to find the minimum value of a specific equation. At first I'm looping through the equation, which for our purposes here can be something like y = .245x^3-.67x^2+5x+12. I want to design a loop where the "steps" through the loop get smaller and smaller.
For example, the first time it loops through, it uses a step of 1. I will get about 30 values. What I need help on is how do I Use the three smallest values I receive from this first loop?
Here's an example of the values I might get from the first loop: (I should note this isn't supposed to be actual code at all. It's just a brief description of what's happening)
loop from x = 1 to 8 with step 1
results:
x = 1 -> y = 30
x = 2 -> y = 28
x = 3 -> y = 25
x = 4 -> y = 21
x = 5 -> y = 18
x = 6 -> y = 22
x = 7 -> y = 27
x = 8 -> y = 33
I want something that can detect the lowest three values and create a loop. From theses results, the values of x that get the smallest three results for y are x = 4, 5, and 6.
So my "guess" at this point would be x = 5. To get a better "guess" I'd like a loop that now does:
loop from x = 4 to x = 6 with step .5
I could keep this pattern going until I get an absurdly accurate guess for the minimum value of x.
Does anybody know of a way I can do this? I know the values I'm going to get are going to be able to be modeled by a parabola opening up, so this format will definitely work. I was thinking that the values could be put into a column. It wouldn't be hard to make something that returns the smallest value for y in that column, and the corresponding x-value.
If I'm being too vague, just let me know, and I can answer any questions you might have.
nice question. Here's at least a start for what I think you should do for this:
Sub findMin()
Dim lowest As Integer
Dim middle As Integer
Dim highest As Integer
lowest = 999
middle = 999
hightest = 999
Dim i As Integer
i = 1
Do While i < 9
If (retVal(i) < retVal(lowest)) Then
highest = middle
middle = lowest
lowest = i
Else
If (retVal(i) < retVal(middle)) Then
highest = middle
middle = i
Else
If (retVal(i) < retVal(highest)) Then
highest = i
End If
End If
End If
i = i + 1
Loop
End Sub
Function retVal(num As Integer) As Double
retVal = 0.245 * Math.Sqr(num) * num - 0.67 * Math.Sqr(num) + 5 * num + 12
End Function
What I've done here is set three Integers as your three Min values: lowest, middle, and highest. You loop through the values you're plugging into the formula (here, the retVal function) and comparing the return value of retVal (hence the name) to the values of retVal(lowest), retVal(middle), and retVal(highest), replacing them as necessary. I'm just beginning with VBA so what I've done likely isn't very elegant, but it does at least identify the Integers that result in the lowest values of the function. You may have to play around with the values of lowest, middle, and highest a bit to make it work. I know this isn't EXACTLY what you're looking for, but it's something along the lines of what I think you should do.
There is no trivial way to approach this unless the problem domain is narrowed.
The example polynomial given in fact has no minimum, which is readily determined by observing y'>0 (hence, y is always increasing WRT x).
Given the wide interpretation of
[an] equation, which for our purposes here can be something like y =
.245x^3-.67x^2+5x+12
many conditions need to be checked, even assuming the domain is limited to polynomials.
The polynomial order is significant, and the order determines what conditions are necessary to check for how many solutions are possible, or whether any solution is possible at all.
Without taking this complexity into account, an iterative approach could yield an incorrect solution due to underflow error, or an unfortunate choice of iteration steps or bounds.
I'm not trying to be hard here, I think your idea is neat. In practice it is more complicated than you think.