Tag Archives: Code Jam

Google Code Jam (http://code.google.com/codejam/) is an anual coding competition organized by Google.

Code Jam 2008 Round 1A, Problem C: Numbers

Hello again! This one is one hell of a tricky problem. No wonder it’s called “Numbers”:

In this problem, you have to find the last three digits before the decimal point for the number (3 + √5)n.

For example, when n = 5, (3 + √5)5 = 3935.73982… The answer is 935.

For n = 2, (3 + √5)2 = 27.4164079… The answer is 027.

Wow, that can’t be hard, eh? Indeed! It’s really just an expression, isn’t it? Of course it is! But once you try, you get to see something beautiful happening:

$ python
>>> import math
>>> 3+math.sqrt(5)
5.23606797749979
>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 18
8751751364607.995
>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 19
45824765067264.016
>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 20
239941584945152.1

If I was clear enough, you can see where I’m going. If not, the answers for n = 18, 19 and 20 should be 607, 263 and 151. But, it gets worse as the exponent grows:

>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 30
3.7167066517539914e+21
>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 40
5.757196418599164e+28
>>> (3+math.sqrt(5)) ** 50
8.917924847980422e+35

And those results should be 647, 551 and 247, respectively. As you can now clearly see, python can’t naturally handle those big floats, what a bummer! Well, the first thing to handle is the √5 value, since 2.23606797749979 does not give enough sampling to work with the needed precision. Looking a bit, I’ve found that python has a nice Decimal module that can deal with big numbers. So, let’s use it:

>>> from decimal import *
>>> Decimal(5).sqrt()
Decimal('2.236067977499789696409173669')

Hmm… not as much as I was expecting. Digging a little deeper, there’s a way to increase the precision, so things might get better:

>>> from decimal import *
>>> getcontext().prec = 256
>>> Decimal(5).sqrt()
Decimal('2.236067977499789696409173668731276235440618359611525724270897245410520925637804899414414408378782274969508176150773783504253267724447073863586360121533452708866778173191879165811276645322639856580535761350417533785003423392414064442086432539097252592627229')

Much better indeed! Let’s test the previous cases that way!

>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(18)
Decimal('8751751364607.992147917157027451941369199107402191688475662016738729585793189576921000417819488022521008035769458236805623355117964654519012995149203145651482621970904733675616603829159073699152262190237686134096053140643178581342535160175294280596644277408')
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(19)
Decimal('45824765067263.99400154247292878012837438073861701581979206241047287979476762412992360313819778117994498296523948378426713929520188369997784294269662668000818303924272345525577601783001726960434941938734208353272624615875651599971618368131896320524727780674')
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(20)
Decimal('239941584945151.9954175862094628730047694880020933281648497263958823604254329864718576171579087349895858656483590697583803423507394435817910056755829474974431677475727217968321896916634673228294874675631017566599732643899663816729269614472126021090970897308')
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(30)
Decimal('3716706651753989275647.999689800241818180639346264792151927705378585007996556972979408800792479361060761238505878803342888805078901553987993893381697765526226152915257781651542284398399012963211473811148141385735168384084704178517042635758936907558116236798')
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(40)
Decimal('57571964185991590695825047551.99997900148385229515959986036977505867324065830938072692611318337057286921280055552228787014811837140299777965403896929514221392361243371590607709492852574169582705605198217499438837728596606637811005617061688138760057438182845')
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(50)
Decimal('891792484798041273405092327480885247.9999985785363502863489704179083057190576105613126358868072802757567654991706904766380400266097425885364586125135675324533868405035416842283484903727056986268545269819514444772213000354546446009165968589958054059389753136')

Whoa, now that’s improvement! Since the small input ranges from 2 to 30, we’re covered, yay! To the large input! The first case is 910062006… much bigger! But we have faith in our solution!

>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(910062006)
Decimal('8.919448541446674973277872746171245933275138630248130907008894180215290388336023868239234075453030387703632363584380715738200630546564329205017138690712399728915139680036686573669248915790961561461272596637583821147468503082573913305207639264660422490421272E+654339383')

Aaaaaand it fails miserably. You say increase the precision? Go!

>>> getcontext().prec = 1024
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(910062006)
Decimal('8.919448541446674973277872746171245933275138630248130907008894180215290388336023868239234075453030387703632363584380715738200630546564329205017138690712399728915139680036686573669248915790961561461272596637583821147468503082573913305207639264660422298653727910480913903028526252731111441440780088518055499910461897770689934875196042744680956819167861668586410285893670912335938531514972687567521690574174307478919726903450127130115796805326307689705722233029462717164687160362204672599178459426195515468743692514680427999432359495315725269307474956180961814633487158821252498531057196075527072557513060268997873150760403767129373225601570326857102899047033394123502152602095967110573983281744795256688834356089540911527223279951661861220253786982201657061127666645472375405207936633238083128248926879097462312848916323276895759197636621186062828933585137465868233553517455227951169710940268113754834340838971865855889844812381822071748466341030321954673834742153256457611174551211610695251648386140804719763671673855871318598E+654339383')
>>> getcontext().prec = 1000000000
>>> (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(910062006)

It is still computing that last command… maybe it’ll finish before Christmas! 😀 So… nothing we can do about it. Not in a natural way at least. It turns out that Code Jam organizers knew about this (that’s the whole point, indeed) and my approach, even if it’s able to solve the small input, is not the correct one. From the contest analysis:

The key in solving the problem is a mathematical concept called conjugation. In our problem, we simply note that (3 – √5) is a nice conjugate for (3 + √5). Let us define

(1)     α := 3 + √5,   β := 3 – √5,   and Xn := αn + βn.

We first note that Xn is an integer. This can be proved by using the binomial expansion. If you write everything down you’ll notice that the irrational terms of the sums cancel each other out.

(2)     

Another observation is that βn < 1, so Xn is actually the first integer greater than αn. Thus we may just focus on computing the last three digits of X.

Whoa, there’s a ton of math symbols there. What it is trying to explain is that there’s another way around, and we can write a simple algorithm to calculate only what we need. Taking that math apart, this suggested approach is quite interesting:

Solution C. [the periodicity of 3 digits]

For this problem, we have another approach based on the recurrence (7). Notice that we only need to focus on the last 3 digits of Xn, which only depends on the last 3 digits of the previous two terms. The numbers eventually become periodic as soon as we have (Xi, Xi+1) and (Xj, Xj+1) with the same last 3 digits, where i < j. It is clear that we will enter a cycle no later than 106 steps. In fact, for this problem, you can write some code and find out that the cycle has the size 100 and starts at the 3rd element in the sequence. So to solve the problem we can just brute force the results for the first 103 numbers and if n is bigger than 103 return the result computed for the number (n – 3) % 100 + 3.

Hmm… so that means that 103 restarts the cycle?

>>> getcontext().prec = 1024
>>> str((Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(3))
'143.5541752799932702850935573994008395340997875075688231766687118531366696204097567812612610681210327990242616368247610721361045671823063636347635238890704866837369015421401333059608526503244754105771443632133610811201095485572500621467658412511120829640713240415845568781018115768290851039517558845033513247514268365293660766111722141944646319577243016028721322545978616614879992775936489738916811506453866403999620857004610560179974673677933515377954018029702474909866234538867118832726784429359876544843489516123361404699859563411214642284786110581426213620665031024800019372553994881602971764760169511058165201173143835473121683945817118282695117541643928648522370457633421861064234721885791403592429823579671023036790457862064776462707851047085181514532031422824259553334558658255398529105918381922193776593783203964365329603283979620022727823878012615898529089431909156945831424556056508947493929464193144955007377329721849300605964711369201940159834308432696751549585124838734830577613026312919174891129200931587878779'
>>> str((Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(103))
'114167750723954075118506909152243184891636055812752354180398291472449798143.9999999999990991848908257663970808178511998207346190405521007125450976083864218743136022578058573724307353453054670910157005516822203809922099339999229730921853127935894210481666862007195197029531387123303773842565764868785959347563566969625431650825652899007545905552208934231424236695732218626707231897771500030743392334437529104775115629703470534218197873009424685334262220812905849999596760216536020750239094398005209138812883762761775627540601688798157222970582315547073108170909501918275307282209081948400177828835529550843580664303363677674984334542177398232468766365174239306558484619915875621147584977655598495728316487075831729616962367129848658475956289730636910101894486413362652617806007673400475350422005999251984236600004538944250397180445073308202368906957039259759659759171424708223454172257556499138474886346739987815229848744135302653447948550170944394443810710713254841099059181243617896686076589736820366175425243225873342031095'
>>> str((Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(4))
'751.6594202199646689967411763468544075540238844147363216775107372289675155071512231016216206076354221948773735933299956287145489777071084090825085004176200550896187330962356998562944764142034959055300079068701456758805751299255628262705206665683384355613744512183189236100345107783526967957467183936425944549449908917791719022086541245209393177780525834150786943366387737228119962073666571129313260408882798620998009499274205440944867036809150955734258594655937993276797731329052373871815618254139351860428319959647647374674262707908876871995127080552487621508491412880200101705908473128415601764990889933055367306159005136233888840715539870984149367093630625404742444902575464770587232289900404868860256573793272870943149903775840076429216217997197202951293164969827362655006432955840842277806071505091517327117361820812917980417240893005119321075359566233467277719517523073965614978919296671974343129687014011013788730981039708828181314734688310185839130119271657945635321905403357860532468388142825668178428304890836363588'
>>> str((Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt()) ** Decimal(104))
'597790103628874365020709731601266597564608080186061135989016966589686218751.9999999999993118384917497799741823573220669410860125985943311312283719331038685561426361821548229163694601416604360587022213664498323168042300721157774333881227779113388111518769679330555901306111571209984513448987672187738925735173356845673100783866660482880393505457702913561140292994651458434392515606071335149084501581993111115430324514143366418268949755088875955878162140123915031739484539675175716477662141640774955323553027076342238845088259277403081453735076960587935422087441774083950451065986208934485511159638170169172967026214058721899896878428807562496126156550849295831738165499903388396019937912975536800221981964584521002823218293972856046263138381804404409768650023404607326059948575617153491987096854714709481244777860640664620489694413768067522712403081007060606347733537888589375255218262079999570621589681646821848243321335219275048192774559691932753194312696801857829138795089010920052048921614192197989676705158844531382420174'

Yay! To the git-pushed solution!

from decimal import *                            # Improved math

getcontext().prec = 1024                         # Adjust the precision
base = (Decimal(3) + Decimal(5).sqrt())          # Calculate the base

for case in range(1,int(raw_input())+1):         # For all test cases
  exp = (int(raw_input()) - 3) % 100 + 3         # Get the recurrent exponent

  num = str(base ** Decimal(exp))                # Calculate
  ans = num[:num.find('.')]                      # Get only the integer part

  print "Case #%d: %03d" % (case, int(ans[-3:])) # Zero-lead the last 3 digits

One thing that’s really interesting about this is that I actually solved this (of course, not from scratch) while posting! I was already OK with the idea of only solving the small input, but reading the analysis brought some new light into this problem. Blogging FTW! See ya!

Floating point precision, bad numbers

Hello there! While still trying to find a good way to solve the 2008 Round-1A-C problem, Numbers, I came across something that I still have to adventure a bit on: Floating Point number precision. I mean, is there a way (even at expense of time, CPU and memory usage) to fully reproduce what calculations “by hand” can offer? It might sound silly, but beside Code Jam challenges, as a programmer it has never bothered me. But since we need precise results to solve those kind of problems, I’ve found myself in need of tools, because the ones I got are clearly not OK (or I don’t know how to use them correctly).

So, I’ll try to spend some time this week to try to make an expensive but precise way to multiply floating point numbers, so that I can solve the problems without the need to use some external calculator (I’ve done before, it’s at my Code Jam github repository). Wish me luck! 🙂

Code Jam 2008 Round 1A, Problem B: Milkshakes

Another day, another problem. Milkshakes it is! And it’s pretty straightforward:

You own a milkshake shop. There are N different flavors that you can prepare, and each flavor can be prepared “malted” or “unmalted. So, you can make 2N different types of milkshakes.

Each of your customers has a set of milkshake types that they like, and they will be satisfied if you have at least one of those types prepared. At most one of the types a customer likes will be a “malted” flavor.

You want to make N batches of milkshakes, so that:

  • There is exactly one batch for each flavor of milkshake, and it is either malted or unmalted.
  • For each customer, you make at least one milkshake type that they like.
  • The minimum possible number of batches are malted.

Find whether it is possible to satisfy all your customers given these constraints, and if it is, what milkshake types you should make.

If it is possible to satisfy all your customers, there will be only one answer which minimizes the number of malted batches.

It is a classic Satisfiability problem, when you have a finite set of resources, receive several requests such as “want one of these” and have to decide which resource to hand to each request, in a way that every request gets attended. The “malted” can symbolize a cost-increasing modification of a resource, that we want to keep at minimum. In a case that two or more requests share a same need for a resource, they agree on sharing it, but only if the resource in on the same wanted state.

Being an NP-complete problem, there are conflicts of interest that we won’t be able to solve, and those we can inform as being “IMPOSSIBLE”. Python code as usual:

for case in range(1,int(raw_input())+1): # For all test cases
  shakes = int(raw_input()) * [0] # Get shake size and create unmalted list
  customers = [] # Start empty customer list

  for i in range(int(raw_input())): # For all customers
    custList = map(int, raw_input().split(" ")) # Get the preferences
    customer = []
    for j in range(custList.pop(0)): # First value is number of shakes
      flavor = custList.pop(0)-1 # First pair element is flavor index
      malted = custList.pop(0) # Second element is malted preference
      customer.append(flavor, malted) # Add preference to customer

    customers.append(customer) # When done, add customer to list

  impossible = False
  solved = False
  while not impossible and not solved: # While not finished
    redo = False
    for customer in customers: # Examine all customers
      unsatisfied = []
      for flavor, malt in customer: # Examine all their preferences
        if shakes[flavor] == malt: # If satisfied, move to next customer
          unsatisfied = []
          break
        else: # If unsatisfied, take note of it
          unsatisfied.append([flavor, malt])

      for flavor, malt in unsatisfied: # Check unsatisfied flavors
        if malt == 1 and shakes[flavor] == 0: # Look for a possible malted preference
          shakes[flavor] = 1 # Attend the malted preference
          redo = True # Restart checking customers
          break

      if redo:
        break

      if len(unsatisfied) > 0: # If we've reached here, all insatisfactions are unmalted
        impossible = True # Then we can't solve it
        break

    if not redo: # If we don't need to look into customers again
      solved = True # Problem was solved (might still be impossible)

  result = "IMPOSSIBLE" if impossible else " ".join(map(str, shakes)) # Decide result
  print "Case #%d: %s" % (case, result) # Print the result

Validated, committed and pushed. 🙂 Another day, another problem. Cheers!

Code Jam 2008 Round 1A, Problem A: Minimum Scalar Product

Hey there, since things are getting a little more calm, I can focus once more to solve some nice Code Jam problems. And here we go, from the first official tournament round: Problem A: Minimum Scalar Product. It says:

You are given two vectors v1=(x1,x2,…,xn) and v2=(y1,y2,…,yn). The scalar product of these vectors is a single number, calculated as x1y1+x2y2+…+xnyn.

Suppose you are allowed to permute the coordinates of each vector as you wish. Choose two permutations such that the scalar product of your two new vectors is the smallest possible, and output that minimum scalar product.

There’s a catch on the text, that made me quite confused. In case you didn’t notice, it’s that damn TWO PERMUTATIONS part. Despite getting the sample results right, when the bigger test cases came, I wasn’t able to get the smallest results right! Because, guess why, I was only doing two value permutations, because to me, the text says so!

Anyway, took a look into the results and saw that participants were simply not considering this limitation and outputting the minimum possible value anyway and to hell with it. If Google thinks this would be the correct approach, who am I to judge! 😀 Just sort both arrays, invert one of them, iterate calculating the MSP and you’re done! Python code, as usual:

for case in range(1,int(raw_input())+1): # For all test cases
  size = int(raw_input())                # Since we're informed, save array size
  x = map(int, raw_input().split(" "))   # Get all X parameters
  y = map(int, raw_input().split(" "))   # Get all Y parameters

  x.sort()                               # Sort both vectors
  y.sort()                               # And sort-reverse Y
  y.reverse()                            # So we can match the bigger/smaller values

  msp = 0
  for i in range(size):                  # For all the array's len
    msp += x[i]*y[i]                     # Sum "forward" on X and "backwards" on Y

  print "Case #%d: %d" % (case, msp)     # Print the sum

And that’s it! Quick and easy, despite the text hiccup.  Githubbin’ it. See you!

CodeJam trouble, hard problems ahead!

Well, since we’re mostly finished with the company project, I can now put some of my attention here again. I’ts been a while! I’ve been trying to crack some hard (for me at least) CodeJam problems, from probabilities to geometry and I’ve not been able to move on much, must study a lot more. In the meantime, I’ve checked out some of the solutions looking for light and being completely outstanded by the work of some coders out there.

I know most of them are perhaps too familiar with the problems and/or can crack really hard math problems, but that’s SO above every coder I’ve ever known! It’s exciting! 😀

I’m committing some new problems at GitHub and will start talking about them tomorrow.

Difficult CodeJam problem and Free Software Documentary

Well, it’s been a tough weekend. Many new things were installed at home, lots of drilling and weightlifting (oh my arms…) but feels nicer after all. 🙂 More places for the kittens to hide.

That said, I’m evolving on Africa 2010 CodeJam D problem, but as soon as I get closer to solving, another challenge appears. This time, I’m having trouble finding an heuristic to determine the right choice to make, of all the results. Perhaps I’m still getting many results and not comparing correctly to the “solved group” list. I’ll for sure find out eventually.

Also, watched InProprietario, a brazilian documentary on free software (lots of Stallman) and, beside being very crude on effects, they used some nice movie references to cleverly show some software concepts. If you can understand portuguese and would like to know more about Free Software, I highly recommend it. 🙂

Code Jam 2010 Africa – Problem C

Whoa, that was a tough problem. Ironically it’s called Qualification Round:

You’ve just advanced from the Qualification Round of Google Code Jam Africa 2010, and you want to know how many of your fellow contestants advanced with you. To give yourself a challenge, you’ve decided only to look at how many people solved each problem.

The Qualification Round consisted of P problems; the ith problem was fully solved by Scontestants. Contestants had to solve C problems in order to advance to the next round. Your job is to figure out, using only that information, the maximum number of contestants who could have advanced.

Well, at first it seems pretty simple, but there is quite some math involved. The first case of the example input is easy to solve, but the second will most likely get you scratching your head thinking “where the #$%* that number came from” (at least I did). 🙂 Well the secret is that you should not look at the inputs as they are, but instead, find the maximum amount of solved problem combinations there are.

I studied a bit but still could not solve it, and surrendered by checking the contest analysis. It was quite complicated to understand, until they wrote about a clever solution from the winning candidate: it consisted in lowering the possible scores to max at the division of the scores by the amount of needed problems. Just do it (don’t ask why) until there are no scores over the result of that division. That same result will be the answer. Creepy! Python code time:

for case in range(1,int(raw_input())+1):          # For all test cases
    info = map(int, raw_input().split(" "))       # Get test case information
    problems = info[0]                            # Fetch number of problems
    needed = info[1]                              # Fetch number of needed problems to pass
    results = info[2:]                            # Fetch results for each problem

    qualified = 0                                 # Initialize our results

    if (problems == needed):                      # For this case, we can expect
        results.sort()                            # as many contestants as the
        qualified = results[len(results)-needed]  # least solved problem

    else:                                         # For this case, we use a solution
        out = False                               # similar to the winning one
        while not out:
            out = True
            qualified = sum(results)/needed       # Reduce the number of possible qualifiers
            for i in range(len(results)):         # And for all results
                if results[i] > qualified:        # Limit their values to the current qualifiers
                    results[i] = qualified
                    out = False                   # Until they all "match" the qualifiers number

    print "Case #%d: %s" % (case, str(qualified)) # Report results

Interestingly enough, this code is smaller than the last, and solves a more complicated problem (at least in my opinion). I don’t think I could have done a better job on this one. 🙂 That’s the beauty in learning!