All numbers that divide evenly into x.
I put in 4 it returns: 4, 2, 1
edit: I know it sounds homeworky. I'm writing a little app to populate some product tables with semi random test data. Two of the properties are ItemMaximum and Item Multiplier. I need to make sure that the multiplier does not create an illogical situation where buying 1 more item would put the order over the maximum allowed. Thus the factors will give a list of valid values for my test data.
edit++:
This is what I went with after all the help from everyone. Thanks again!
edit#: I wrote 3 different versions to see which I liked better and tested them against factoring small numbers and very large numbers. I'll paste the results.
static IEnumerable<int> GetFactors2(int n)
{
return from a in Enumerable.Range(1, n)
where n % a == 0
select a;
}
private IEnumerable<int> GetFactors3(int x)
{
for (int factor = 1; factor * factor <= x; factor++)
{
if (x % factor == 0)
{
yield return factor;
if (factor * factor != x)
yield return x / factor;
}
}
}
private IEnumerable<int> GetFactors1(int x)
{
int max = (int)Math.Ceiling(Math.Sqrt(x));
for (int factor = 1; factor < max; factor++)
{
if(x % factor == 0)
{
yield return factor;
if(factor != max)
yield return x / factor;
}
}
}
In ticks.
When factoring the number 20, 5 times each:
GetFactors1-5,445,881
GetFactors2-4,308,234
GetFactors3-2,913,659
When factoring the number 20000, 5 times each:
GetFactors1-5,644,457
GetFactors2-12,117,938
GetFactors3-3,108,182
pseudocode:
Loop from 1 to the square root of the number, call the index "i".
if number mod i is 0, add i and number / i to the list of factors.
realocode:
public List<int> Factor(int number)
{
var factors = new List<int>();
int max = (int)Math.Sqrt(number); // Round down
for (int factor = 1; factor <= max; ++factor) // Test from 1 to the square root, or the int below it, inclusive.
{
if (number % factor == 0)
{
factors.Add(factor);
if (factor != number/factor) // Don't add the square root twice! Thanks Jon
factors.Add(number/factor);
}
}
return factors;
}
As Jon Skeet mentioned, you could implement this as an IEnumerable<int> as well - use yield instead of adding to a list. The advantage with List<int> is that it could be sorted before return if required. Then again, you could get a sorted enumerator with a hybrid approach, yielding the first factor and storing the second one in each iteration of the loop, then yielding each value that was stored in reverse order.
You will also want to do something to handle the case where a negative number passed into the function.
The % (remainder) operator is the one to use here. If x % y == 0 then x is divisible by y. (Assuming 0 < y <= x)
I'd personally implement this as a method returning an IEnumerable<int> using an iterator block.
Very late but the accepted answer (a while back) didn't not give the correct results.
Thanks to Merlyn, I got now got the reason for the square as a 'max' below the corrected sample. althought the answer from Echostorm seems more complete.
public static IEnumerable<uint> GetFactors(uint x)
{
for (uint i = 1; i * i <= x; i++)
{
if (x % i == 0)
{
yield return i;
if (i != x / i)
yield return x / i;
}
}
}
As extension methods:
public static bool Divides(this int potentialFactor, int i)
{
return i % potentialFactor == 0;
}
public static IEnumerable<int> Factors(this int i)
{
return from potentialFactor in Enumerable.Range(1, i)
where potentialFactor.Divides(i)
select potentialFactor;
}
Here's an example of usage:
foreach (int i in 4.Factors())
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
Note that I have optimized for clarity, not for performance. For large values of i this algorithm can take a long time.
Another LINQ style and tying to keep the O(sqrt(n)) complexity
static IEnumerable<int> GetFactors(int n)
{
Debug.Assert(n >= 1);
var pairList = from i in Enumerable.Range(1, (int)(Math.Round(Math.Sqrt(n) + 1)))
where n % i == 0
select new { A = i, B = n / i };
foreach(var pair in pairList)
{
yield return pair.A;
yield return pair.B;
}
}
Here it is again, only counting to the square root, as others mentioned. I suppose that people are attracted to that idea if you're hoping to improve performance. I'd rather write elegant code first, and optimize for performance later, after testing my software.
Still, for reference, here it is:
public static bool Divides(this int potentialFactor, int i)
{
return i % potentialFactor == 0;
}
public static IEnumerable<int> Factors(this int i)
{
foreach (int result in from potentialFactor in Enumerable.Range(1, (int)Math.Sqrt(i))
where potentialFactor.Divides(i)
select potentialFactor)
{
yield return result;
if (i / result != result)
{
yield return i / result;
}
}
}
Not only is the result considerably less readable, but the factors come out of order this way, too.
I did it the lazy way. I don't know much, but I've been told that simplicity can sometimes imply elegance. This is one possible way to do it:
public static IEnumerable<int> GetDivisors(int number)
{
var searched = Enumerable.Range(1, number)
.Where((x) => number % x == 0)
.Select(x => number / x);
foreach (var s in searched)
yield return s;
}
EDIT: As Kraang Prime pointed out, this function cannot exceed the limit of an integer and is (admittedly) not the most efficient way to handle this problem.
Wouldn't it also make sense to start at 2 and head towards an upper limit value that's continuously being recalculated based on the number you've just checked? See N/i (where N is the Number you're trying to find the factor of and i is the current number to check...) Ideally, instead of mod, you would use a divide function that returns N/i as well as any remainder it might have. That way you're performing one divide operation to recreate your upper bound as well as the remainder you'll check for even division.
Math.DivRem
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wwc1t3y1.aspx
If you use doubles, the following works: use a for loop iterating from 1 up to the number you want to factor. In each iteration, divide the number to be factored by i. If (number / i) % 1 == 0, then i is a factor, as is the quotient of number / i. Put one or both of these in a list, and you have all of the factors.
And one more solution. Not sure if it has any advantages other than being readable..:
List<int> GetFactors(int n)
{
var f = new List<int>() { 1 }; // adding trivial factor, optional
int m = n;
int i = 2;
while (m > 1)
{
if (m % i == 0)
{
f.Add(i);
m /= i;
}
else i++;
}
// f.Add(n); // adding trivial factor, optional
return f;
}
I came here just looking for a solution to this problem for myself. After examining the previous replies I figured it would be fair to toss out an answer of my own even if I might be a bit late to the party.
The maximum number of factors of a number will be no more than one half of that number.There is no need to deal with floating point values or transcendent operations like a square root. Additionally finding one factor of a number automatically finds another. Just find one and you can return both by just dividing the original number by the found one.
I doubt I'll need to use checks for my own implementation but I'm including them just for completeness (at least partially).
public static IEnumerable<int>Factors(int Num)
{
int ToFactor = Num;
if(ToFactor == 0)
{ // Zero has only itself and one as factors but this can't be discovered through division
// obviously.
yield return 0;
return 1;
}
if(ToFactor < 0)
{// Negative numbers are simply being treated here as just adding -1 to the list of possible
// factors. In practice it can be argued that the factors of a number can be both positive
// and negative, i.e. 4 factors into the following pairings of factors:
// (-4, -1), (-2, -2), (1, 4), (2, 2) but normally when you factor numbers you are only
// asking for the positive factors. By adding a -1 to the list it allows flagging the
// series as originating with a negative value and the implementer can use that
// information as needed.
ToFactor = -ToFactor;
yield return -1;
}
int FactorLimit = ToFactor / 2; // A good compiler may do this optimization already.
// It's here just in case;
for(int PossibleFactor = 1; PossibleFactor <= FactorLimit; PossibleFactor++)
{
if(ToFactor % PossibleFactor == 0)
{
yield return PossibleFactor;
yield return ToFactor / PossibleFactor;
}
}
}
Program to get prime factors of whole numbers in javascript code.
function getFactors(num1){
var factors = [];
var divider = 2;
while(num1 != 1){
if(num1 % divider == 0){
num1 = num1 / divider;
factors.push(divider);
}
else{
divider++;
}
}
console.log(factors);
return factors;
}
getFactors(20);
In fact we don't have to check for factors not to be square root in each iteration from the accepted answer proposed by chris fixed by Jon, which could slow down the method when the integer is large by adding an unnecessary Boolean check and a division. Just keep the max as double (don't cast it to an int) and change to loop to be exclusive not inclusive.
private static List<int> Factor(int number)
{
var factors = new List<int>();
var max = Math.Sqrt(number); // (store in double not an int) - Round down
if (max % 1 == 0)
factors.Add((int)max);
for (int factor = 1; factor < max; ++factor) // (Exclusice) - Test from 1 to the square root, or the int below it, inclusive.
{
if (number % factor == 0)
{
factors.Add(factor);
//if (factor != number / factor) // (Don't need check anymore) - Don't add the square root twice! Thanks Jon
factors.Add(number / factor);
}
}
return factors;
}
Usage
Factor(16)
// 4 1 16 2 8
Factor(20)
//1 20 2 10 4 5
And this is the extension version of the method for int type:
public static class IntExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<int> Factors(this int value)
{
// Return 2 obvious factors
yield return 1;
yield return value;
// Return square root if number is prefect square
var max = Math.Sqrt(value);
if (max % 1 == 0)
yield return (int)max;
// Return rest of the factors
for (int i = 2; i < max; i++)
{
if (value % i == 0)
{
yield return i;
yield return value / i;
}
}
}
}
Usage
16.Factors()
// 4 1 16 2 8
20.Factors()
//1 20 2 10 4 5
Linq solution:
IEnumerable<int> GetFactors(int n)
{
Debug.Assert(n >= 1);
return from i in Enumerable.Range(1, n)
where n % i == 0
select i;
}
Related
My goal is to implement a (simple) check digit alglorithm as described Here
My implemantion is the following but I am not sure if it is optimal:
private int CheckDigit(string SevenDecimal)
{
///Get UPC check digit of a 7-digit URI
///Add odd and multiply by 3 =Odds
///Add even =Evens
///Add Odds+Evens=sum
///Check digit is the number that makes Sum divisble by 10
int Odds = 0;
int Evens = 0;
int sum = 0;
int index = 0;
foreach (char digit in SevenDecimal)
{
index++;
int Digit = int.Parse(digit.ToString());
if (index % 2 == 0)
{
Evens +=Digit;
}
else
{
Odds +=Digit;
}
}
Odds = Odds * 3;
sum = Odds + Evens;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) ///Brute force way check for better implementation
{
int Localsum;
Localsum = sum + i;
if (Localsum % 10 == 0)
{
return i;
}
}
return -1;//error;
}
My main concern is in the final for loop which as I describe is totallly brute.
Is there a better way to obtaining the check digit?
More precisely which is the best way to solve programmatically, the equation:
(sum+x)%10=0 //solve for x
To find "how much i you have to add to make the last digit of a number a 0", you can subtract from 10:
int checkDigit = (10 - (sum % 10)) % 10;
The second modulo is used for the special case when sum % 10 == 0, because 10 - 0 = 10
You are asking the wrong question. The expression is not one of equivalence thus x is not a value. The solution is that x is an infinite number of values each of which correctly solve the equation. As such you don't really want to solve for x but just check if x is in this solution space. You can check this simply with:
remainder = base - (sum % base)
You can then test if x sums up to the remainder with:
if (x % base === base - (sum % base))
{
// (sum + x) % base = 0 is true
}
Replace base with 10and you'll have it.
I ran across this problem here on stackoverflow:
"I'm having some trouble with this problem in Project Euler.
Here's what the question asks:
Each new term in the Fibonacci sequence is generated by adding the previous two terms. By starting with 1 and 2, the first 10 terms will be: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, ... Find the sum of all the even-valued terms in the sequence which do not exceed four million."
The top answer was this(which does not compile for me in VS2010...why?):
IEnumerable<int> Fibonacci()
{
int n1 = 0;
int n2 = 1;
yield return 1;
while (true)
{
int n = n1 + n2;
n1 = n2;
n2 = n;
yield return n;
}
}
long result=0;
foreach (int i in Fibonacci().TakeWhile(i => i<4000000).Where(i % 2 == 0))
{
result+=i;
}
Console.WriteLine(result);
I decided to try it for myself before looking for an answer and came up with this(please tell me why or why not this is a good or bad way of solving this problem):
I wrote it in a class because I could add much more to the class in the future than just solving a single Fibonacci problem.
class Fibonacci
{
private int prevNum1 = 1;
private int prevNum2 = 2;
private int sum = 0;
public int GetSum(int min, int max)
{
prevNum1 = min;
prevNum2 = prevNum1 + prevNum1;
if (prevNum1 % 2 == 0)
{
sum += prevNum1;
}
if (prevNum2 % 2 == 0)
{
sum += prevNum2;
}
int fNum = 0;
while (prevNum2 <= max)
{
fNum = prevNum1 + prevNum2;
if (fNum % 2 == 0)
{
//is an even number...add to total
sum += fNum;
}
prevNum1 = prevNum2;
prevNum2 = fNum;
}
return sum;
}
}
Fibonacci Fib = new Fibonacci();
int sum = Fib.GetSum(1, 4000000);
Console.WriteLine("Sum of all even Fibonacci numbers 1-4,000,000 = {0}", sum);
Again, I'm looking for an answer as to why this is a good or bad way to solve this problem. Also why the first solution does not compile. I'm a beginning programmer and trying to learn. Thanks!
With this it must compile:
foreach (int i in Fibonacci().TakeWhile(i => i < 4000000).Where(i => i % 2 == 0))
{
result += i;
}
The problem why the code didn't compile was bad lambda expression, it was:
.Where(i % 2 == 0)
but must be
.Where(i => i % 2 == 0)
The code doesn't compile because of this line:
foreach (int i in Fibonacci().TakeWhile(i => i<4000000).Where(i % 2 == 0))
First of all, .Where() is an extension method (google it) that can be called over a collection (like an IEnumerable of integers in this example). It returns another collection containing any elements that satisfy some condition.
Notice the argument to .Where() is an expression producing a boolean value, true or false..
i % 2 == 0
.Where() does not take a bool as an argument, in this case the appropriate argument is of the type
Func<int,bool>
Which basically means a function that has an int as argument and returns bool. You can define these quite simply
// defines a function taking an int, returning true if that int is even
Func<int,bool> foo = i => i % 2 == 0
So the correct way to use .Where() in this case would be
foreach (int i in Fibonacci().TakeWhile(i => i<4000000).Where(i => i % 2 == 0))
So you can see that .Where() takes the function we supply it and applies it to each number, returning a collection of numbers that are even.
There's some other magic happening with the yield keyword, feel free to google this, but it's more of an advanced topic.
I have the following problem (from ProjectEuler.net - Problem 14)
The following iterative sequence is defined for the set of positive integers:
n -> n/2 (n is even)
n -> 3n + 1 (n is odd)
Using the rule above and starting with 13, we generate the following sequence:
13 → 40 → 20 → 10 → 5 → 16 → 8 → 4 → 2 → 1
It can be seen that this sequence (starting at 13 and finishing at 1) contains 10 terms. Although it has not been proved yet (Collatz Problem), it is thought that all starting numbers finish at 1.
Which starting number, under one million, produces the longest chain?
NOTE: Once the chain starts the terms are allowed to go above one million.
I used:
static int road (int n)
{
int road = 0;
while (n != 1)
{
if (n % 2 == 0)
n = n / 2;
else
n = 3 * n + 1;
road++;
}
return road;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int max = 0, num = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < 1000000; i++)
{
if (road(i) > max)
{
max = road(i);
num = i;
}
}
Console.WriteLine(num);
}
But no output is printed.
(I'm not going to give you a complete solution since Project Euler is intended to make you think, not us who already solved the problems.)
Try figuring out how large the values in your chain are going to be and keep in mind the limits for integral types.
function problem14(){
function r(p,n){
return cl(p)>cl(n)?p:n;
}
function c(n){
return n%2===0?n/2:3*n+1;
}
function cl(n){
var _a = 1;
var _n = n;
while(_n !== 1){
_a++;
_n = c(_n);
}
return _a;
}
var b = [];
var m = 20;
var i = 500000;
while(i < 1000000){
var _n = cl(i);
if(_n>m){
b.push(i);
m = _n;
}
i++;
}
return b.reduce(r);
}
Here is my js code.
It is not that "nothing is output", it is just running very long. If you change the upper bound of the for-loop to 100000, you will see that pretty quickly you get output. The reason it runs very long is that you use unchecked integers and you don't get an overflowexception where you should want one. Break after a few seconds an you'll see a negative n.
Try the following , i.e. with the checked keyword, it will illustrate what I mean:
// will now throw OverflowException with large n
checked
{
int road = 0;
while (n != 1)
{
if (n%2 == 0)
n = n/2;
else
n = 3*n + 1;
road++;
}
return road;
}
First, note that you are calling the road() function twice per iteration, which is a waste of processing time (and for a 'function with side effects', could have unwanted consequences).
Secondly, due to integer overflow, you can't get an answer - the value 113383, for example, ends up cycling around the same 20 or so numbers
-122, -61, -182, -91, -272, -136, -68, -34, -17, -50, -25, -74, -37, -110, -55, ,-164, -82, -41, -122
Oops!
I'm trying to generate prime numbers based on user input. This is what I have so far but I just can't seem to figure it out:
Console.Write("Please enter the number of prime numbers you would like to see:");
int numberOfPrimes = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
for (int x = 0; x < numberOfPrimes; x++)
{
for (int a = 2; a <= x ; ++a)
{
bool prime = true;
for (int b = 2; b < a; ++b)
{
if (a % b == 0)
{
prime = false;
}//end if
}//end double nested for
if (prime == true)
{
Console.WriteLine(a);
}//end if
}//end nested for
}//end for
You should be able to see why your results are wrong quite easily if you look at your loop structures. Step through them by hand (it won't take long).
The reason that you are getting your current results is that not every iteration of the outer loop (x < numberOfPrimes) produces a result - it will skip quite a few iterations due to the way the inner loop is structured.
What you really need to do is restructure the inner loops. Your innermost loop works fine, and should detect any prime numbers. Your second loop, however, should only test numbers that haven't yet been tested. Also, it should stop looping once you find a prime number.
You should structure your code better, it's really messy the way you do it now. Have a method IsPrime(int x) which returns true if x is prime and false otherwise.
Then, to generate numberOfPrimes primes, you can do something like this:
for ( int primeCount = 0, currentPrime = 2; primeCount < numberOfPrimes; ++currentPrime )
if ( IsPrime(currentPrime) )
{
// do whatever you want with currentPrime, like print it
++primeCount;
}
Or use the Sieve of Eratosthenes, which is a much faster method.
To figure out if a number x is prime or not, try all of its factors between 2 and Sqrt(x). Why only Sqrt(x)? Because if a*b = x, then x / b = a and x / a = b, So you would check everything twice, and also check things you shouldn't if you went up to x / 2 or even x.
So something like this if you want to use the IsPrime(x) function:
// i <= Sqrt(x) <=> i * i <= x
for ( int i = 2; i * i <= x; ++i )
if ( x % i == 0 )
return false;
return true;
But I suggest you use the sieve of Eratosthenes, as it's much faster. You can also optimize things so you don't check even numbers, since an even number is never prime, except for 2 (both in the sieve and the naive method). Treat x = 2 as an edge case and then start checking every other number (3, 5, 7, 9, 11 etc.)
What you are looking for is called "Sieve of Eratosthenes." As I'm not into doing people's homework, this is the only clue I'm going to give you. The algorithm is easily found on the internet.
The next prime number (x) - is the number which cant be devided by all primes s, that s<=sqrt(x).
So you can use function like
public bool CheckAndAddPrime(int number,List<int> primes)
{
var sqrt = Math.Sqrt(number);
foreach(var prime in primes)
{
if(prime>sqrt) break;
if(number % prime == 0) return false;
}
primes.Add(number);
return true;
}
And than you can get primes like
var primes = new List<int>();
Enumerable.Range(2,int.MaxValue).Where(x => x.CheckAndAddPrime(x,primes)).Take(YouCountOfPrimes);
var primes = Enumerable.Range(1, numberOfPrimes )
.Where(x => x != 1 &&
!Enumerable.Range2, (int)Math.Sqrt(x)).Any(y => x != y && x % y == 0));
copied from codethinked.com
static void Main(string[] args)
{
foreach (int no in get_first_k_primes(10))
{
Console.Write(" "+no.ToString() );
}
}
public static List<int> get_first_k_primes(int k)
{
var primes = new List<int>();
primes.Add(2);
int i = 3;
while(primes.Count < k)
{
if(is_prime(i))
primes.Add(i);
i += 2;
}
return primes;
}
public static bool is_prime(int n)
{
if (n % 2 == 0 && n != 2) return false;
int m = (int)Math.Ceiling(Math.Sqrt(n));
for (int i = 3; i < m; i += 2)
{
if (n % i == 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
1. Rename your variables.
Firstly, if this is homework you will get bad marks (if your teacher is worth his salt) because you have meaningless variable names (yes, even numberOfPrimes is wrong and should be named requiredNumberOfPrimes. When I see this variable I am asking myself 'Is this how many he wants, or how many he has found?').
Secondly, it will help you understand where you are going wrong. Variables should be logically named according to what they represent. If you can't explain what your variables represent (e.g. a & b) then you probably can't explain what you are doing with them.
2. Look at your loops.
for (int x = 0; x < numberOfPrimes; x++)
The structure of a for loop is (initialise; 'should I continue?'; 'each loop do this'). Therefore in your loop
You are continuing until x is equal to or great than numberOfPrimes*.
Each time you go through the loop you are adding 1 to x.
Are you sure this is what you want to do? x appears to represent the number of primes you have found. So why not increment it when you find a prime, rather than when you start a loop?
for (int a = 2; a <= x ; ++a)
for (int b = 2; b < a; ++b)
You are looking at each integer between 2 and x, inclusive. And for each of those integers a, you are looking at every integer between a and 2 inclusive. What are you going to do with these integers?
Every time you loop through your top-level loop (the x loop), you are going to start your a loop from scratch, and every time you loop through your a loop you will start your b loop from scratch.
So if x is 10, you run through a once (a=2), then you run through a again (a=2, a=3), then you run through a again (a=2, a=3, a=4), then...
3. Collect your results rather than writing them to Console.
var primes = new List<int>();
It's so easy. When you find a prime, primes.Add(a);. Then you know how many primes you have found (primes.Count), you can use the list of primes to efficiently determine the next prime, and you can use the list later on if required.
Once you do get ithe loops sorted out, you only have to check for b < sqrt(a), any higher and you would have found the other factor first.
I am trying to write a method to calculate the sum of the odd numbers in all the numbers less than the given number. so eg. CalcOdd(7) would return 5 + 3 + 1 = 9. CalcOdd (10) would return 9 + 7 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 25 etc
The method needs to take in a number, subtract 1, then recursively work backwards adding all odd numbers until it reaches 0. This is what I have so far.
private static int CalcOdd(int n)
{
if (n <= 1)
return 1;
else
if (n % 2 == 0)
n--;
return n + CalcOdd(n - 2);
}
It doesn't work so well, it includes the number passed in in the addition which is not what I want. Can anyone suggest a better way of doing this ? I would also loke to be able to port the answer to work for even numbers and add the option to include the original passed in number in the answer.
Many thanks
Why would you use recursion here? Just loop; or better, figure out the math to do it in a simple equation...
The fact is that C# doesn't make for excellent deep recursion for things like maths; the tail-call isn't really there at the moment.
Loop approach:
private static int CalcOdd(int n)
{
int sum = 0, i = 1;
while (i < n)
{
sum += i;
i += 2;
}
return sum;
}
You could do this with recursion as you say, but if you wish to do it quicker, then I can tell you that the sum of the n first odd numbers is equal to n*n.
private static int CalcOdd(int n) {
if (n<=1)
return 0;
if (n%2 == 1)
n--;
int k = n/2;
return k*k;
}
The reason this works is:
Every even number is of the form 2k, and the odd number before it is 2k-1.
Because 2*1-1 = 1, there are k odd numbers below 2k.
If n is odd, we don't want to include it, so we simply go down to the even number below it and we automatically have what we want.
Edited to fix broken code.
the sum of odd numbers less than a given number is a perfect square.
get the whole part of (n/2) to get the number of odd number less than itself.
square that and voila!
private static int CalcSumOdd(int n)
{
int i;
int.tryParse(n / 2, out i);
return i*i;
}
for even numbers its:
int i = n/2;
return i*(i+1);
correction. The above "even number sum" includes the original number "n". ie fn(12) = 42 = 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 + 10 + 12
if you want to exclude it, you should either unilaterally exclude it, or remove it with logic based on a passed in parameter.
Here is a correction,
int CalcOdd(int n)
{
n--; // <----
if (n <= 1)
return 0; // <----
else
if (n % 2 == 0)
n--;
return n + CalcOdd(n); // <----
}
i'm new here but this seems like a silly recursion exercise, given it can be done with a simple equation:
int sum(n,isEven,notFirst) {
int c=1; //skip the else
if (isEven) c=2;
if (notFirst) n-=2;
return ((n+c)*((n+c)/2))/2; }
classic discrete math sum series..
sum from 1 to 100 (odds and evens) is ((100+1)*(100/2))=5050
edit: in my code here, if you're calculating the sum of odds with n being even, or vice versa, it doesn't work, but i'm not going to put the work into that (and slop the code) right now. i'll assume your code will take care of that by the time it hits the function.. for example 7/2 isn't an int (obviously)
Why use recursion?
private Int32 CalcOdd(Int32 value)
{
Int32 r = 0;
{
while (value >= 1)
{
value--;
if (value % 2 != 0)
{
r += value;
}
}
}
return r;
}
Use a helper function. CalcOdd consists of testing n to see if it is even or odd; if it is even, return helper(n); if it is odd, return helper(n-2).
The helper function must handle three cases:
1) n is less than 1; in this case return 0.
2) n is even, in this case return helper(n-1).
3) n is odd, in this case return n+helper(n-1).
public static int CalcOdd(int n) {
// Find the highest even number. (Either n, or n-1.)
// Divide that by 2, and the answer should be the square of that number.
n = (n & 0x3FFFFFFE) >> 1;
return (int)Math.Pow(n, 2);
}
private static int CalcOdd(int n) {
n -= 1;
if ((n & 1) == 0) n--;
if (n <= 1) return 1;
return n + CalcOdd(n - 1);
}
But I would say doing loops is better and cleaner.
private static int CalcOdd(int n) {
int i, r = 1;
for (i = 3; i < n; i+=2)
r += i;
return r;
}
Since you want the option of including or excluding the first answer (and, keeping your "recursion" constraint in mind):
int calcOdd(int n, bool includeN)
{
if( !includeN )
return calcOdd(n-1, true);
if(n<=1)
return 1;
else
if(n%2 == 0)
n--;
return n+calcOdd(n-1, true);
}
The includeFirst, if passed as true, will include n in the calculations. Otherwise, the next layer down will start "including N".
Granted, as others have said, this is a horribly inefficient use of recursion, but... If you like recursion, try Haskell. It's a language built almost entirely on the concept.
int CalcOdd(int n)
{
n -= 1;
if (n <= 0)
return 0;
if (n % 2 == 0)
n--;
return n + CalcOdd(n);
}
This function is also recursive, and it has parameters which makes you able to decide wether to do even or odd number and wether you want to include the first number or not. If you are confused as to how it works, remember that bools also can be seen as 1 (true) and 0 (false)
int Calc(int n, bool even = false, bool includeFirst = false)
{
n -= !includeFirst;
if (n <= 0)
return 0;
if (n % 2 == even)
n--;
return n + Calc(n - includeFirst, even);
}
Håkon, I have ported your code to c# in VS 2008 as follows
static int Calc(int n, bool bEven, bool bIncludeFirst)
{
int iEven = Bool2Int(bEven);
int iIncludeFirst = Bool2Int(bIncludeFirst);
n -= 1 - iIncludeFirst;
if (n <= 0)
return 0;
if (n % 2 == iEven)
n--;
return n + Calc(n - iIncludeFirst, bEven, bIncludeFirst);
}
private static int Bool2Int(bool b)
{
return b ? 1 : 0;
}
It seems to be working. Now is there anything I can do to optomise ? i.e. I dont want to have to parse those bools to ints every time etc ?
I'd isolate the 'make it odd' part from the 'sum every other descending number' part: (forgive the Python)
def sumEveryTwoRecursive(n):
if n <= 0:
return 0
return n + sumEveryTwoRecursive(n - 2)
def calcOdd(n):
return sumEveryTwoRecursive(n - (2 if n % 2 else 1))
Just because there isn't one here yet, I've decided to use the LINQ hammer on this nail...
(borrowed from Nick D and Jason's pair programmed answer here)
void Main()
{
GetIterator(7, true, false).Sum().Dump();
// Returns 9
GetIterator(10, true, false).Sum().Dump();
// Returns 25
}
public IEnumerable<int> GetIterator(int n, bool isOdd, bool includeOriginal)
{
if (includeOriginal)
n++;
if (isOdd)
return GetIterator(n, 1);
else
return GetIterator(n, 0);
}
public IEnumerable<int> GetIterator(int n, int odd)
{
n--;
if (n < 0)
yield break;
if (n % 2 == odd)
yield return n;
foreach (int i in GetIterator(n, odd))
yield return i;
}
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int sumofodd(int num);
int main()
{
int number,res;
cin>>number;
res=sumofodd(number);
cout<<res;
return 0;
}
int sumofodd(int num)
{ if(num<1) return 0;
if (num%2==0) num--;
return num+sumofodd(num-1);
}