[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Working with factors of triangular numbers.
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg80059] Re: [mg79864] Re: Working with factors of triangular numbers.
*From*: DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com>
*Date*: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <200707030923.FAA17995@smc.vnet.net> <24165820.1186478071750.JavaMail.root@m35> <op.twtzghhtqu6oor@monster.gateway.2wire.net> <f3a906a0708100741w2a6bb88bucd56de48bef52d37@mail.gmail.com> <10025410.1186769736558.JavaMail.root@m35>
*Reply-to*: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
Right you are!! That was a real blunder. I hadn't been keeping up with the
thread, so I probably missed the best test cases and all that, but leaving
out the factor 9 when there are no other powers of 3???
Terrible!
Anyway, here's a fix, and it's as fast as before... maybe faster.
Clear[factorCounts, nine]
nine[{a___, {3, j_}, b___}] := {a, {3, j + 2}, b}
nine[x_List] := Join[{{3, 2}}, x]
factorCounts[1] = factorCounts[2] = factorCounts[3] = {1};
factorCounts[4] = {2};
factorCounts[7] = {3};
factorCounts[k_Integer] :=
If[EvenQ@k, factorCounts[(k + 2)/2, k - 1],
factorCounts[(k - 1)/2, k + 2]]
factorCounts[j_Integer, k_Integer] :=
Switch[GCD[j, k],
1,
Join[FactorInteger@j, FactorInteger@k],
3, nine@Join[FactorInteger[j/3], FactorInteger[k/3]]][[All, -1]] //
Sort
Cases[Table[{chi, FactorInteger[chi*(chi + 1)/2 - 1],
FactorInteger[chi*(chi + 1)/2 - 1][[All, 2]] // Sort,
factorCounts[chi]}, {chi, 10^5}], {chi_, _, x_, y_} /; x =!= y]
{}
Clear[lldaux5, lld5, t5]
lldaux5[{}] := 0
lldaux5[x_List] /; MemberQ[x, 1] :=
Count[x, 1] + lldaux5@DeleteCases[x, 1]
lldaux5[Lpow_] :=
lldaux5[Lpow] =
With[{Mtup = Tuples[Range[0, #] & /@ Lpow]},
Total[Quiet@
LinearProgramming[ConstantArray[-1, Length[Mtup]],
Transpose@Mtup, Thread@{Lpow, 0},
Array[{0, 1} &, Length[Mtup]], Integers]] - 1]
lld5[n_Integer] := lldaux5@factorCounts@n
t5[n_] := # (# + 1)/2 &@NestWhile[# + 1 &, 2, lld5[#] < n &]
T2c /@ Range[10] // Timing
t5 /@ Range[10] // Timing
{1.219, {3, 15, 55, 253, 1081, 13861, 115921, 665281, 18280081,
75479041}}
{1.031, {3, 15, 55, 253, 1081, 13861, 115921, 665281, 18280081,
75479041}}
T2c[11] // Timing
t5[11] // Timing
{3.641, 2080995841}
{2.937, 2080995841}
T2c[12] // Timing
t5[12] // Timing
{27.094, 68302634401}
{16.922, 68302634401}
Timing[lldaux5[FactorInteger[2^84*5^18*7^6][[All, 2]]]]
{2.766, 26}
T2c[13] // Timing
t5[13] // Timing
{151.953, 924972048001}
{62.562, 924972048001}
48318396825601
t5[14] // Timing
{503.907, 48318396825601}
Bobby
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:32:15 -0500, Oleksandr Pavlyk <pavlyk at gmail.com>
wrote:
> By design factorCounts[n] should give the same as
>
> Sort[FactorInteger[ (n(n+1)/2) - 1][[All,2]]]
>
> Here are few cases where they disagree:
>
> In[134]:= Cases[
> Table[{chi, FactorInteger[chi*(chi + 1)/2 - 1][[All, 2]] // Sort,
> factorCounts[chi]}, {chi, 100}], {chi_, x_, y_} /; x =!= y]
>
> Out[134]= \
> {{13,{1,1,2},{1,1}},{22,{1,2,2},{1,2}},{31,{1,1,2},{1,1}},{40,{1,1,2},=
\
> {1,1}},{49,{1,2,3},{1,3}},{58,{1,1,1,2},{1,1,1}},{67,{1,1,2},{1,1}},{\=
> 76,{1,2,2},{1,2}},{85,{1,1,1,2},{1,1,1}},{94,{1,2,4},{1,4}}}
>
> Oleksandr
>
>
> On 8/10/07, Oleksandr Pavlyk <pavlyk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> First of all, very nice work.
>>
>> It threw me off initially that lld5 did not work for my example:
>>
>> In[70]:= lld5[chi = 2^84*5^18*7^6]
>>
>> Out[70]= 14
>>
>> In[71]:= lldaux5[FactorInteger[chi][[All, 2]] ]
>>
>> Out[71]= 26
>>
>> But then I realize that factorCounts is supposed to work only for
>> triangular numbers,
>> as is implied by the link given in the mail, and I would like to
>> explicitly state for the record:
>>
>> In[72]:= factorCounts[chi]
>>
>> Out[72]= {1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,5}
>>
>> In[73]:= FactorInteger[chi]
>>
>> Out[73]= {{2,84},{5,18},{7,6}}
>>
>> Oleksandr Pavlyk
>>
>> On 8/10/07, DrMajorBob <drmajorbob at bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> > Here's a significantly faster code (for n=12,13 anyway).
>> >
>> > Clear[lldaux5, lld5, t5, factorCounts]
>> > factorCounts[1] = factorCounts[2] = factorCounts[3] = {1};
>> > factorCounts[4] = {2};
>> > factorCounts[7] = {3};
>> > factorCounts[k_Integer] :=
>> > If[EvenQ@k, factorCounts[(k + 2)/2, k - 1],
>> > factorCounts[(k - 1)/2, k + 2]]
>> > factorCounts[j_Integer, k_Integer] :=
>> > Switch[GCD[j, k],
>> > 1,
>> > Join[FactorInteger@j, FactorInteger@k],
>> > 3, Replace[
>> > Join[FactorInteger[j/3],
>> > FactorInteger[k/3]], {3, s_} :> {3, s + 2}, {1}]][[All, -1]] //
>> > Sort
>> > lldaux5[{}] := 0
>> > lldaux5[x_List] /; MemberQ[x, 1] :=
>> > Count[x, 1] + lldaux5@DeleteCases[x, 1]
>> > lldaux5[Lpow_] :=
>> > lldaux5[Lpow] =
>> > With[{Mtup = Tuples[Range[0, #] & /@ Lpow]},
>> > Total[Quiet@
>> > LinearProgramming[ConstantArray[-1, Length[Mtup]],
>> > Transpose@Mtup, Thread@{Lpow, 0},
>> > Array[{0, 1} &, Length[Mtup]], Integers]] - 1]
>> > lld5[n_Integer] := lldaux5@factorCounts@n
>> > t5[n_] := # (# + 1)/2 &@NestWhile[# + 1 &, 2, lld5[#] < n &]
>> >
>> > T2c /@ Range[10] // Timing
>> > t5 /@ Range[10] // Timing
>> >
>> > {0.422, {3, 15, 55, 253, 1081, 13861, 115921, 665281, 18280081,
>> > 75479041}}
>> >
>> > {1.046, {3, 15, 55, 325, 1081, 18145, 226801, 665281, 18280081,
>> > 75479041}}
>> >
>> > T2c[11] // Timing
>> > t5[11] // Timing
>> >
>> > {1.625, 2080995841}
>> >
>> > {3.063, 2080995841}
>> >
>> > Timing differences aren't reliable either way for n<=11, but beyond
>> that
>> > it's a different story:
>> >
>> > T2c[12] // Timing
>> > t5[12] // Timing
>> >
>> > {27., 68302634401}
>> >
>> > {17.187, 68302634401}
>> >
>> > T2c[13] // Timing
>> > t5[13] // Timing
>> >
>> > {150.172, 924972048001}
>> >
>> > {64.032, 924972048001}
>> >
>> > t5[14] // Timing
>> >
>> > {516.546, 48318396825601}
>> >
>> > The trick (already used by someone else, I think)
>> >
>> > lldaux5[x_List] /; MemberQ[x, 1] :=
>> > Count[x, 1] + lldaux5@DeleteCases[x, 1]
>> >
>> > means that if the factor counts includes n ones, the LP problem used
>> by
>> > T2c has 2^n times as many variables as the one used by t5. Yet this
>> > yielded only a 10-15% improvement, by itself.
>> >
>> > A bigger gain was achieved in factorCounts, based on one of Carl
>> Woll's
>> > ideas in
>> >
>> > http://forums.wolfram.com/mathgroup/archive/2007/Jul/msg00411.html
>> >
>> > factorCounts[k_Integer] :=
>> > If[EvenQ@k, factorCounts[(k + 2)/2, k - 1],
>> > factorCounts[(k - 1)/2, k + 2]]
>> >
>> > Several fine adjustments were required to get any improvement at all.
>> > Defining factorCounts for 1,2,3,4, and 7 removed steps from the code
>> for
>> > other cases, and it was crucial to take full advantage of the fact
>> that
>> > the GCD of the two factors could only be 1 or 3.
>> >
>> > Bobby
>> >
>> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:31:22 -0500, sashap <pavlyk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Aug 5, 3:58 am, Carl Woll <ca... at wolfram.com> wrote:
>> > >> sashap wrote:
>> > >> >Carl's code is very good on numbers not involving
>> > >> >products of large powers of primes. Otherwise it
>> > >> >it is memory intensive and not as efficient:
>> > >>
>> > >> >In[109]:= Table[Timing[LargestPartition[{k, k}]], {k, 7, 15}]
>> > >>
>> > >> >Out[109]=
>> > >> >{{0.031,7},{0.141,7},{0.172,8},{0.187,9},{1.531,9},{1.875,10},
>> > >> >{12.016,10},{16.234,11},{141.391,11}}
>> > >>
>> > >> >One can use LinearProgramming to improve on the
>> > >> >situation.
>> > >>
>> > >> >Additional improvement comes from the following
>> > >> >observation. The longest factorization can be built
>> > >> >by taking the longest sequence of divisors of degree 1,
>> > >> >then of degree 2 and so on. The degree of the divisor
>> > >> >is defined as
>> > >>
>> > >> > deg[n_] := Total[ FactorInteger[n][[All,2]] ]
>> > >>
>> > >> >In other words, let n == p1^e1 *...* pn^en.
>> > >> >First take {p1, p2,.., pn}, then the longest
>> > >> >sequence of pairs with repetitions and so on.
>> > >>
>> > >> Nice work! However, I think there is a problem with your algorit=
hm.
>> > >> There are many possible ways to a longest sequence of (distinct)=
=
>> pairs
>> > >> with repetitions. It is possible that some of these sequences wi=
ll =
>> not
>> > >> produce the longest factorization. For instance, consider 2^10 *=
=
>> 3^3 *
>> > >> 5^2. After removing the degree 1 factors we are left with 2^9 * =
=
>> 3^2 * 5.
>> > >> Two possible length 3 sequences of pairs are:
>> > >>
>> > >> a) 2^2, 2*3, 2*5 leaving 2^5*3
>> > >>
>> > >> and
>> > >>
>> > >> b) 2^2, 2*3, 3*5 leaving 2^6
>> > >>
>> > >> Now, for case a) we can create two more unique factors, 2^3 and =
=
>> 2^2*3,
>> > >> while for case b) we can't create two more unique factors.
>> > >>
>> > >> So, I think one more thing is needed in your algorithm, a way of=
=
>> knowing
>> > >> which longest sequence of pairs to pick.
>> > >>
>> > >> Now, it turns out that the above example is handled correctly by=
=
>> your
>> > >> algorithm, that is, your algorithm by design or chance picks a =
>> longest
>> > >> sequence that leads to a longest factorization. I played around =
=
>> with a
>> > >> bunch of different examples, and came up with one example where =
=
>> your
>> > >> algorithm picks a longest sequence that doesn't lead to a longes=
t
>> > >> factorization. This wasn't easy because my algorithm is soo slow=
=
>> (but I
>> > >> think, correct).
>> > >>
>> > >> In[594]:= counterexample = {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,14,15,35};
>> > >>
>> > >> In[595]:= Times @@ counterexample
>> > >>
>> > >> Out[595]= 35562240000
>> > >>
>> > >> In[596]:= Length[counterexample]
>> > >>
>> > >> Out[596]= 12
>> > >>
>> > >> In[597]:= LengthOfLongestDecomposition[Times @@ counterexample=
]
>> > >>
>> > >> Out[597]= 11
>> > >>
>> > >> My guess is that a simple heuristic probably exists which will =
>> allow you
>> > >> to pick a good longest sequence instead of a bad longest sequenc=
e.
>> > >> Perhaps something like choosing the longest sequence that keeps =
as =
>> many
>> > >> different types of prime factors available for the next stage? I=
f =
>> so,
>> > >> then the biggest bottleneck will be just factoring the triangula=
r
>> > >> numbers.
>> > >>
>> > >> Carl
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Carl,
>> > >
>> > > good points ! Indeed:
>> > >
>> > > In[98]:= ffaux /@ Permutations[FactorInteger[chi][[All, 2]] ]
>> > >
>> > > Out[98]= {12,12,11,12,12,12,12,12,12,11,11,11}
>> > >
>> > > The heuristics you mention might be different sorting of exponent=
s,
>> > > even though we can not guarantee it, that is
>> > > changing LengthOfLongestDecomposition to the following:
>> > >
>> > > LengthOfLongestDecomposition[nn_Integer] :=
>> > > ffaux[Reverse@Sort@FactorInteger[nn][[All, 2]]]
>> > >
>> > > Another approach is to write n == d1^s1 * ... * dk^sk and jus=
t use
>> > > LinearProgramming once. Here
>> > > s1, ..., sk are either 0 or 1, and d1, ..., dk are all distinct
>> > > divisors of the given integer n.
>> > >
>> > > Clear[lldaux, lld];
>> > > lldaux[Lpow_] := (lldaux[Lpow] =
>> > > With[{Mtup = Tuples[ Range[0, #] & /@ Lpow]},
>> > > Total[
>> > > Quiet@LinearProgramming[ConstantArray[-1, Length[Mtup]],
>> > > Transpose@Mtup, Thread@{Lpow, 0},
>> > > Array[{0, 1} &, Length[Mtup]], Integers]] - 1])
>> > >
>> > > lld[n_Integer] := lldaux[FactorInteger[n][[All, 2]] // Sort]
>> > >
>> > > T2c[n_] := # (# + 1)/2 &@
>> > > NestWhile[# + 1 &, 2, lld[# (# + 1)/2 - 1] < n &]
>> > >
>> > > The performance of T2c is competitive to Carl's code for small =
>> values
>> > > of the argument
>> > > and has an edge over it for large ones:
>> > >
>> > > In[168]:= {Timing@T2[11], Timing@T2c[11]}
>> > >
>> > > Out[168]= {{3.829,2080995841},{3.921,2080995841}}
>> > >
>> > > In[169]:= {Timing@T2[12], Timing@T2c[12]}
>> > >
>> > > Out[169]= {{26.532,68302634401},{22.797,68302634401}}
>> > >
>> > > In[170]:= {Timing@T2[13], Timing@T2c[13]}
>> > >
>> > > Out[170]= {{144.406,924972048001},{123.875,924972048001}}
>> > >
>> > > Oleksandr Pavlyk and Maxim Rytin
>> > >
>> > >> >In order to choose the longest sequence of factors of a given =
>> degree,
>> > >> >we set this up as an integer linear programming problem. We =
>> illustrate
>> > >> >this for degree 2. Let p1*p1, p1*p2, and so on be candidate =
>> factors of
>> > >> >degree 2. Then
>> > >>
>> > >> > (p1*p1)^s1 (p1*p2)^s2 ...
>> > >>
>> > >> >must divide the original number. Additionally, each sk is eithe=
r =
>> 0 or
>> > >> >1.
>> > >> >This gives us the constraints for variables s1, s2, ... and
>> > >> >the objective function being maximized is s1+s2+....
>> > >>
>> > >> >The code implementing those ideas:
>> > >>
>> > >> >CombinationsWithRepetitions =
>> > >> > Compile[{{n, _Integer}, {k, _Integer}},
>> > >> > Module[{ans, i = 1, j = 1, l = 1},
>> > >> > ans = Array[0 &, {Binomial[n + k - 1, k], k}];
>> > >> > While[True, While[j <= k, ans[[i, j++]] = l];
>> > >> > If[i == Length@ans, Break[]];
>> > >> > While[ans[[i, --j]] == n,];
>> > >> > l = ans[[i++, j]] + 1;
>> > >> > ans[[i]] = ans[[i - 1]];];
>> > >> > ans]];
>> > >>
>> > >> >Clear[LengthOfLongestDecomposition, ffaux]
>> > >> >LengthOfLongestDecomposition[nn_] :=
>> > >> > ffaux[Sort@FactorInteger[nn][[All, 2]]]
>> > >> >ffaux[$Lpow_] :=
>> > >> > ffaux[$Lpow] =
>> > >> > Module[{Lpow = $Lpow, Ldiv, n, m, k = 1, Lind, ans = 0}=
,
>> > >> > n = Length@Lpow;
>> > >> > While[Total@Lpow >= k,
>> > >> > Ldiv = CombinationsWithRepetitions[n, k++];
>> > >> > m = Length@Ldiv;
>> > >> > Lind =
>> > >> > Quiet@LinearProgramming[ConstantArray[-1, m],
>> > >> > Total[1 - Unitize[Ldiv - #], {2}] & /@ Range@n,
>> > >> > Thread@{Lpow, -1}, Array[{0, 1} &, m], Integers];
>> > >> > ans += Total@Lind;
>> > >> > Lpow -= BinCounts[Flatten@Pick[Ldiv, Lind, 1], {Range[n =
>> + 1]}]];
>> > >> > ans]
>> > >>
>> > >> >Compare the timing given earlier with the following
>> > >>
>> > >> >In[132]:= Table[Timing[ffaux[{k, k}]], {k, 7, 15}]
>> > >>
>> > >> >Out[132]= \
>> > >> =
>> >{{0.016,7},{1.78746*10^-14,7},{1.78746*10^-14,8},{0.015,9},{3.15303*=
\
>> > >> >10^-14,9},{0.016,10},{0.,10},{0.015,11},{0.,11}}
>> > >>
>> > >> >Clearly, the use of heavy machinery of LinearProgramming comes =
at =
>> the
>> > >> >cost of
>> > >> >noticeable overhead which is why the performance of this =
>> algorithm is
>> > >> >comparable
>> > >> >to that of Carl's code when measured over a sequence of triangu=
lar
>> > >> >numbers because
>> > >> >problematic numbers are rare.
>> > >>
>> > >> >T2b[n_] := # (# + 1)/2 &@
>> > >> > NestWhile[# + 1 &, 1,
>> > >> > LengthOfLongestDecomposition[# (# + 1)/2 - 1] < n &]
>> > >>
>> > >> >In[66]:= {Timing[T2[11]], Timing[T2b[11]]}
>> > >>
>> > >> >Out[66]= {{3.172,2080995841},{2.328,2080995841}}
>> > >>
>> > >> >In[67]:= {Timing[T2[12]], Timing[T2b[12]]}
>> > >>
>> > >> >Out[67]= {{26.312,68302634401},{18.235,68302634401}}
>> > >>
>> > >> >In[68]:= {Timing[T2[13]], Timing[T2b[13]]}
>> > >>
>> > >> >Out[68]= {{142.765,924972048001},{111.422,924972048001}}
>> > >>
>> > >> >Oleksandr Pavlyk and Maxim Rytin
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Jul 10, 5:37 am, Carl Woll <ca... at wolfram.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Andrzej and Diana,
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Here is a faster algorithm. First, an outline:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>For a given number, the easy first step in writing it as a
>> > >> >>factorization of the most distinct factors is to use each prim=
e =
>> as a
>> > >> >>factor. Then, the hard part is to take the remaining factors a=
nd
>> > >> >>partition them in a way to get the most distinct factors. =
>> However,
>> > >> note
>> > >> >>that this step only depends on the counts of each prime factor=
, =
>> and
>> > >> not
>> > >> >>on the values of the primes themselves. Hence, we can memoize =
the
>> > >> number
>> > >> >>of distinct factors possible for a set of counts. I do this as=
>> > >> follows:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Let f be the list of remaining factors, of length l.
>> > >>
>> > >> >>1. Determine possible integer partitions of l, with the smalle=
st
>> > >> >>partition allowed being 2. We also need to order these =
>> partitions by
>> > >> >>length, from largest to smallest:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>partitions = IntegerPartitions[l, All, Range[2, l]];
>> > >> >>partitions = Reverse@partitions[[ Ordering[Length/@partition=
s] =
>> ]];
>> > >>
>> > >> >>2. Now, we need to test each partition to see if it's possible=
=
>> to fill
>> > >> >>in the partitions with the factors such that each partition is=
=
>> unique.
>> > >> >>Once we find such a partition, we are done, and we know how ma=
ny
>> > >> >>distinct factors that number can be written as. This step I do=
by
>> > >> >>recursion, i.e., take the first member of a partition and fill=
=
>> it in
>> > >> >>with one of the possible subsets of factors, and then repeat =
>> with the
>> > >> >>remaining members of a partition. I do this with the function
>> > >> Partition=
>> > > able.
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Here is the code:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>LargestPartition[list : {1 ..}] := Length[list]
>> > >> >>LargestPartition[list_List] := Length[list] +
>> > >> >>LargestTwoPartition[Reverse@Sort@list - 1 /. {a__, 0 ..} -> {a=
}]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Clear[LargestTwoPartition]
>> > >> >>LargestTwoPartition[list_] := LargestTwoPartition[list] ==
=
>> Module[{=
>> > > set,
>> > >> >>partitions, res},
>> > >> >> set = CountToSet[list];
>> > >> >> partitions = IntegerPartitions[Total[list], All, Range[2,=
=
>> Total[li=
>> > > st]]];
>> > >> >> partitions = Reverse@partitions[[Ordering[Length /@ =
>> partitions]]];
>> > >> >> res = Cases[partitions, x_ /; Partitionable[{}, set, x], =
1, =
>> 1];
>> > >> >> If[res === {},
>> > >> >> 0,
>> > >> >> Length@First@res
>> > >> >> ]
>> > >> >>]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Partitionable[used_, unused_, part_] := Module[{first, rest}=
,
>> > >> >> first = Complement[DistinctSubsets[unused, First@part], us=
ed];
>> > >> >> If[first === {}, Return[False]];
>> > >> >> rest = CountToSet /@ Transpose[
>> > >> >> SetToCount[unused, Max[unused]] -
>> > >> >> Transpose[SetToCount[#, Max[unused]] & /@ first]
>> > >> >> ];
>> > >> >> Block[{Partitionable},
>> > >> >> Or @@ MapThread[
>> > >> >> Partitionable[Join[used, {#1}], #2, Rest[part]] &,
>> > >> >> {first, rest}
>> > >> >> ]
>> > >> >> ]
>> > >> >>]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Partitionable[used_, rest_, {last_}] := ! MemberQ[used, rest=
]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>CountToSet[list_] := Flatten@MapIndexed[Table[#2, {#1}] &, l=
ist]
>> > >> >>SetToCount[list_, max_] := BinCounts[list, {1, max + 1}]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>DistinctSubsets[list_, len_] := Union[Subsets[list, {len}]]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>T2[n_] := Module[{k=1},
>> > >> >> While[k++; LargestPartition[FactorInteger[k*((k + 1)/2) - =
>> 1][[All,
>> > >> >>2]]] < n];
>> > >> >> k*((k + 1)/2)
>> > >> >>]
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Then:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[11]:= T2[6] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[11]= {0.047,13861}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[12]:= T2[7] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[12]= {0.031,115921}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[13]:= T2[8] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[13]= {0.11,665281}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[14]:= T2[9] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[14]= {0.625,18280081}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[15]:= T2[10] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[15]= {1.157,75479041}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[16]:= T2[11] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[16]= {5.875,2080995841}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[17]:= T2[12] // Timing
>> > >> >>Out[17]= {48.703,68302634401}
>> > >>
>> > >> >>For Diana, note that
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[20]:= 481 482/2 - 1 == 115921 - 1 == 2 3 4 5 6 7 =
23
>> > >> >>Out[20]= True
>> > >>
>> > >> >>so 115921-1 can indeed be written as a product of 7 distinct =
>> factors.
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Partitionable can be improved, but another bottleneck for larg=
er =
>> cases
>> > >> >>is evaluating FactorInteger. One possibility for improving
>> > >> FactorInteger
>> > >> >>speed is to note that
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[21]:= n (n + 1)/2 - 1 == (n + 2) (n - 1)/2 // Expand
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Out[21]= True
>> > >>
>> > >> >>So, rather than applying FactorInteger to n(n+1)/2-1 you can =
>> instead
>> > >> >>somehow combine FactorInteger[n+2] and FactorInteger[n-1].
>> > >>
>> > >> >>At any rate, it takes a bit longer, but with enough patience o=
ne =
>> can
>> > >> >>also find:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[53]:= 1360126 1360127/2 - 1 == 924972048001 - 1 ===
2 3 4 =
>> > > 5 6 7 10 11
>> > >> >>12 13 15 23 31
>> > >> >>Out[53]= True
>> > >>
>> > >> >>and
>> > >>
>> > >> >>In[56]:= 9830401 9830402/2 - 1 == 48318396825601 - 1 ==
= 2 3 =
>> > > 4 5 6 8 9
>> > >> >>10 11 12 17 22 32 59
>> > >> >>Out[56]= True
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Carl Woll
>> > >> >>Wolfram Research
>> > >>
>> > >> >>Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>>Well, I stayed up longer than I wanted and I think I have now=
=
>> fixed
>> > >> >>>it, I hope for the final time. Here is the new FF:
>> > >>
>> > >> >>>FFF[n_] := Module[{u = FactorInteger[n], s, k, partialQ, =
=
>> finalQ, s=
>> > > pace},
>> > >> >>> s = u[[All,2]]; k = Length[u]; partialQ[l_List] :=
>> > >> >>> And @@ Flatten[{Last[l] == Array[0 & , k] ||
>> > >> >>> !MemberQ[Most[l], Last[l]], Thread[Total[l] <= s =
- =
>> 1]}];
>> > >> >>> finalQ[l_List] := And @@ Flatten[{Last[l] == Array[=
0 & , k] =
>> =
>> > > ||
>> > >> >>> !MemberQ[Most[l], Last[l]], Total[l] == s - 1}]=
;
>> > >> >>> space =
>> > >>
>> > >> ...
>> > >>
>> > >> read more =BB
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com
>> >
>>
>
-- =
DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Working with factors of triangular numbers.**
Next by Date:
** Re: hardware for Mathematica 6.0**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Working with factors of triangular numbers.**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Working with factors of triangular numbers.**
| |