We Keep Coding

Algorithm to get which values make sum of a given number from array

I don't know to search or google it so I ask it here.
I have an array of integers with fixed size and exactly with this logic.
sample [1,2,4,8,16,32]
Now I am given a number for example 26. And I shall find the numbers whose sum will make this number, in this case is [2,8,16]
for a number of 20 it will be [4,16]
for 40 it is [8,32]
and for 63 it is all of these numbers [1,2,4,8,16,32]
What is the proper algorithm for that?
I know strictly that there is always this continuation that the number is double of the previous value.
as well as only the numbers from the given array will sum up to the given number and each number will be used only for once or none
If it will be in C# method that takes array of ints and an int value and returns the array of ints that contains the ints that sum up this number from the given array will be preferred.
Thank you

As you can see, the number are base-2, which means you can easily use shift.
You could try this:
private IEnumerable<int> FindBits(int value)
{
// check for bits.
for (int i = 0; i < 32; i++)
{
// shift 1 by i
var bitVal = 1 << i; // you could use (int)Math.Pow(2, i); instead
// check if the value contains that bit.
if ((value & bitVal) == bitVal)
// yep, it did.
yield return bitVal;
}
}
This method will check what bits are set and return them as an ienumerable. (which can be converted to an array of list)
Usage:
// find the bits.
var res = FindBits(40).ToArray();
// format it using the string.join
var str = $"[{string.Join(",", res)}]";
// present the results
Console.WriteLine(str);
Results in [8,32]
Extra info:
counter
00000001 = 1 = 1 << 0
00000010 = 2 = 1 << 1
00000100 = 4 = 1 << 2
00001000 = 8 = 1 << 3
00010000 = 16 = 1 << 4
00100000 = 32 = 1 << 5
01000000 = 64 = 1 << 6
10000000 = 128 = 1 << 7
Instead of writing all combinations you make a for loop which does the counter.
Some extra non-sense:
If you like lambda's, you could replace the FindBits with this:
private Func<int, IEnumerable<int>> FindBits = (int value) => Enumerable
.Range(0, 31)
.Select(i => 2 << i).Where(i => (value & i) == i);
But it's better to keep it simpel/readable.

First you should notice that
( 1 2 4 8 16 ... ) = (2^0 2^1 2^2 2^3 2^4 ... )
And that this is the same as finding a binary encoding for a decimal number. What you are looking for is an algorithm to transform a decimal or base 10 number to a binary or base 2 number.
The algorithm is pretty simple:
public List<int> dec_to_bin(int num)
{
List<int> return_list = new List<int>();
int index = 0;
int remainder = num;
int bit = 0;
while (remainder > 0)
{
bit = remainder % 2;
if (bit == 1 )
{
return_list.Add((int)Math.Pow(2, index));
}
remainder = remainder / 2;
index = index + 1;
}
return return_list;
}
There is a better way however that just uses the underlying encoding of the number which is already binary.
public List<int> dec_to_bin(int num)
{
List<int> return_list = new List<int>();
int value = 1;
while( value < num )
{
if( (value & num) == value )
{
return_list.Add(value);
}
value = value * 2;
}
return return_list;
}

Another way to state your requirement is "What are the unique powers of 2 that sum to a given integer?" Since computers work with powers of 2 natively, there are built-in goodies in most languages to do this very succinctly.
As a bonus, you can use existing .Net types and methods to eliminate the need to write your own loops.
Here's one approach:
IEnumerable<int> GetCompositePowersOf2(int input) =>
//convert to enumerable of bools, one for each bit in the
//input value (true=1, false=0)
new BitArray(new[] { input }).Cast<bool>()
// get power of 2 corresponding to the position in the enumerable
// for each true value, gets 0 for false values.
.Select((isOne, pos) => isOne ? (1 << pos) : 0)
//filter out the 0 values
.Where(pow => pow > 0);

I don't quite get the " takes array of ints " part, since this creation of sums only works with numbers that are the power of 2.
private int[] count (int num)
{
int factor = 0;
List<int> facts = new List<int>();
while (num > 0)
{
int counter = 0;
int div = num;
int remainder = 0;
while (remainder == 0)
{
remainder = div % 2;
div = div / 2;
counter++;
}
factor = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < counter; i++)
factor *= 2;
num = num - factor;
facts.Add(factor);
}
return (facts.ToArray());
}

How to distribute items evenly, without random numbers

I have a situation where I need to evenly distribute N items across M slots. Each item has its own distribution %. For discussion purposes say there are three items (a,b,c) with respective percentages of (50,25,25) to be distributed evenly across 20 slots. Hence 10 X a,5 X b & 5 X c need to be distributed. The outcome would be as follows:
1. a
2. a
3. c
4. b
5. a
6. a
7. c
8. b
9. a
10. a
11. c
12. b
13. a
14. a
15. c
16. b
17. a
18. a
19. c
20. b
The part that I am struggling with is that the number of slots, number of items and percentages can all vary, of course the percentage would always total up to 100%. The code that I wrote resulted in following output, which is always back weighted in favour of item with highest percentage. Any ideas would be great.
1. a
2. b
3. c
4. a
5. b
6. c
7. a
8. b
9. c
10. a
11. c
12. b
13. a
14. b
15. c
16. a
17. a
18. a
19. a
20. a
Edit
This is what my code currently looks like. Results in back weighted distribution as I mentioned earlier. For a little context, I am trying to evenly assign commercials across programs. Hence every run with same inputs has to result in exactly the same output. This is what rules out the use of random numbers.
foreach (ListRecord spl in lstRecords){
string key = spl.AdvertiserName + spl.ContractNumber + spl.AgencyAssignmentCode;
if (!dictCodesheets.ContainsKey(key)){
int maxAssignmentForCurrentContract = weeklyList.Count(c => (c.AdvertiserName == spl.AdvertiserName) && (c.AgencyAssignmentCode == spl.AgencyAssignmentCode)
&& (c.ContractNumber == spl.ContractNumber) && (c.WeekOf == spl.WeekOf));
int tmpAssignmentCount = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < tmpLstGridData.Count; i++)
{
GridData gData = tmpLstGridData[i];
RotationCalculation commIDRotationCalc = new RotationCalculation();
commIDRotationCalc.commercialID = gData.commercialID;
commIDRotationCalc.maxAllowed = (int)Math.Round(((double)(maxAssignmentForCurrentContract * gData.rotationPercentage) / 100), MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero);
tmpAssignmentCount += commIDRotationCalc.maxAllowed;
if (tmpAssignmentCount > maxAssignmentForCurrentContract)
{
commIDRotationCalc.maxAllowed -= 1;
}
if (i == 0)
{
commIDRotationCalc.maxAllowed -= 1;
gridData = gData;
}
commIDRotationCalc.frequency = (int)Math.Round((double)(100/gData.rotationPercentage));
if (i == 1)
{
commIDRotationCalc.isNextToBeAssigned = true;
}
lstCommIDRotCalc.Add(commIDRotationCalc);
}
dictCodesheets.Add(key, lstCommIDRotCalc);
}else{
List<RotationCalculation> lstRotCalc = dictCodesheets[key];
for (int i = 0; i < lstRotCalc.Count; i++)
{
if (lstRotCalc[i].isNextToBeAssigned)
{
gridData = tmpLstGridData.Where(c => c.commercialID == lstRotCalc[i].commercialID).FirstOrDefault();
lstRotCalc[i].maxAllowed -= 1;
if (lstRotCalc.Count != 1)
{
if (i == lstRotCalc.Count - 1 && lstRotCalc[0].maxAllowed > 0)
{
//Debug.Print("In IF");
lstRotCalc[0].isNextToBeAssigned = true;
lstRotCalc[i].isNextToBeAssigned = false;
if (lstRotCalc[i].maxAllowed == 0)
{
lstRotCalc.RemoveAt(i);
}
break;
}
else
{
if (lstRotCalc[i + 1].maxAllowed > 0)
{
//Debug.Print("In ELSE");
lstRotCalc[i + 1].isNextToBeAssigned = true;
lstRotCalc[i].isNextToBeAssigned = false;
if (lstRotCalc[i].maxAllowed == 0)
{
lstRotCalc.RemoveAt(i);
}
break;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Edit 2
Trying to clear up my requirement here. Currently, because item 'a' is to be assigned 10 times which is the highest among all three items, towards the end of distribution, items 16 - 20 all have been assigned only 'a'. As has been asked in comments, I am trying to achieve a distribution that "looks" more even.

One way to look at this problem is as a multi-dimensional line drawing problem. So I used Bresenham's line algorithm to create the distribution:
public static IEnumerable<T> GetDistribution<T>( IEnumerable<Tuple<T, int>> itemCounts )
{
var groupCounts = itemCounts.GroupBy( pair => pair.Item1 )
.Select( g => new { Item = g.Key, Count = g.Sum( pair => pair.Item2 ) } )
.OrderByDescending( g => g.Count )
.ToList();
int maxCount = groupCounts[0].Count;
var errorValues = new int[groupCounts.Count];
for( int i = 1; i < errorValues.Length; ++i )
{
var item = groupCounts[i];
errorValues[i] = 2 * groupCounts[i].Count - maxCount;
}
for( int i = 0; i < maxCount; ++i )
{
yield return groupCounts[0].Item;
for( int j = 1; j < errorValues.Length; ++j )
{
if( errorValues[j] > 0 )
{
yield return groupCounts[j].Item;
errorValues[j] -= 2 * maxCount;
}
errorValues[j] += 2 * groupCounts[j].Count;
}
}
}
The input is the actual number of each item you want. This has a couple advantages. First it can use integer arithmetic, which avoids any rounding issues. Also it gets rid of any ambiguity if you ask for 10 items and want 3 items evenly distributed (which is basically just the rounding issue again).

Here's one with no random number that gives the required output.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
// name, percentage
Dictionary<string, double> distribution = new Dictionary<string,double>();
// name, amount if one more were to be distributed
Dictionary<string, int> dishedOut = new Dictionary<string, int>();
//Initialize
int numToGive = 20;
distribution.Add("a", 0.50);
distribution.Add("b", 0.25);
distribution.Add("c", 0.25);
foreach (string name in distribution.Keys)
dishedOut.Add(name, 1);
for (int i = 0; i < numToGive; i++)
{
//find the type with the lowest weighted distribution
string nextUp = null;
double lowestRatio = double.MaxValue;
foreach (string name in distribution.Keys)
if (dishedOut[name] / distribution[name] < lowestRatio)
{
lowestRatio = dishedOut[name] / distribution[name];
nextUp = name;
}
//distribute it
dishedOut[nextUp] += 1;
Console.WriteLine(nextUp);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

Instead of a truly random number generator, use a fixed seed, so that the program has the same output every time you run it (for the same input). In the code below, the '0' is the seed, which means the 'random' numbers generated will always be the same each time the program is run.
Random r = new Random(0);

//AABC AABC…
int totalA = 10
int totalB = 5
int totalC = 5
int totalItems = 20 //A+B+C
double frequencyA = totalA / totalItems; //0.5
double frequencyB = totalB / totalItems; //0.25
double frequencyC = totalC / totalItems; //0.25
double filledA = frequencyA;
double filledB = frequencyB;
double filledC = frequencyC;
string output = String.Empty;
while(output.Length < totalItems)
{
filledA += frequencyA;
filledB += frequencyB;
filledC += frequencyC;
if(filledA >= 1)
{
filledA -= 1;
output += "A";
if(output.Length == totalItems){break;}
}
if(filledB >= 1)
{
filledB -= 1
output += "B";
if(output.Length == totalItems){break;}
}
if(filledC >= 1)
{
filledC -= 1
output += "C";
if(output.Length == totalItems){break;}
}
}

This answer was mostly stolen and lightly adapted for your use from here
My idea is that you distribute your items in the simplest way possible without care of order, then shuffle the list.
public static void ShuffleTheSameWay<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
Random rng = new Random(0);
int n = list.Count;
while (n > 1) {
n--;
int k = rng.Next(n + 1);
T value = list[k];
list[k] = list[n];
list[n] = value;
}
}
Fiddle here

Convert binary number 5 into list of intergers (4,1)

I have a configuration value expressed as a binary number to allow several options within the same value.
E.g. the value of 5 would be "101" or both 4 and 1.
Does anyone know of the best/fastest way to "input" the value '5' and get a list of {1,4} back?

If you want to get powers of 2 which the value consists of:
int value = 5;
var addendums = Enumerable.Range(0, sizeof(int) * 8 - 1)
.Select(i => (1 << i) & value)
.Where(x => x != 0)
.ToList();
Result:
[ 1, 4 ]
Note that if you want to have addendums in descending order, you can apply Reverse() after filtering sequence.
TL;DR The first step generates integer values which correspond to bit positions in integer value 0, 1, 2, ..., 31. Max index is a number of bits in Int32 value - 1 (because we need the index of the bit).
Next step selects a result of bitwise AND operation of the 1 shifted to the corresponding index (same as the power of 2) with the value itself (only first 4 bits shown here):
i 1<<i value (1<<i) & value
Binary Binary Binary Decimal
0 0001 0101 0001 1
1 0010 0101 0000 0
2 0100 0101 0100 4
3 1000 0101 0000 0
...
All you have to do after this step - filter out zeroes.

Some bit shifting and & later...
int n = 5+32;
var lst = new List<int>();
int i = 1;
while (n > 0)
{
if ((n & i) == i)
{
lst.Add(i);
n &= ~i;
}
i <<= 1; // equivalent to i *= 2
}
A little more esoteric, with the use of xor (^):
if (n != 0)
{
while (true)
{
if ((n & i) != 0)
{
lst.Add(i);
n ^= i;
if (n == 0)
{
break;
}
}
i <<= 1; // equivalent to i *= 2
}
}

I have made this little sample. Here you obtain from an integer its value as a sum of its powers of two. Thosw powers should be your input options
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var input = 5;
var options = new List<uint>();
for (uint currentPow = 1; currentPow != 0; currentPow <<= 1)
if ((currentPow & input) != 0)
options.Add(currentPow);
foreach (var option in options)
Console.WriteLine(option);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
And the output is: 1 4
EDIT>>> In fact this does the same as #Sergey Berezovskiy answer but without LINQ
Hope it helps

The naive approach:
int originalInput = 42;
int input = originalInput;
// Generate binary numbers
var binaryNumbers = Enumerable.Range(0, 31).Select(n => (int)Math.Pow(2, n)).ToArray();
// Largest first
Array.Reverse(binaryNumbers);
var result = new List<int>();
foreach (var bin in binaryNumbers)
{
if (input >= bin)
{
result.Add(bin);
input -= bin;
}
}
Console.WriteLine($"{originalInput} decomposed: " + string.Join(" ", result));
Generate a range of power-of-two numbers, ranging from 2^31 (1073741824) to 2^0 (1), then check whether the input is equal to or larger than those numbers, and if so, add that number to the result list and subtract it from the input.
Now that that's all written out, see how Sergey's answer greatly reduces the code required by some Linq and bitshifting magic.
A hybrid solution, inspired by combining both answers:
var input = 42;
var output = Enumerable.Range(0, 31)
.Select(n => (int)Math.Pow(2, n))
.Where(p => (p & input) > 0);
Console.WriteLine($"{input} decomposed: " + string.Join(" ", output));

A maybe more traditional and easy to understand solution. You convert the number into a string binary representation, and then analyze each character to extract the corresponding decimal representations of each bit at 1.
int number = 5;
string binaryRep = Convert.ToString(number, 2);
List<int> myList = new List<int>();
int pow = 0;
for(int i = binaryRep.Count() - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if(binaryRep[i] == '1')
{
myList.Add((int)Math.Pow(2, pow));
}
pow++;
}

Short and fast:
int input = 5;
var list = new List<int>();
for (int i = 1, j = input; i <= j; i *= 2, input >>= 1){
if ((input & 1) == 1)
list.Add(i);
}

To show binary representation use
int value = 7;
var binary = Convert.ToString(value, 2);
To see binary numbers:
private int[] ToBinaryNumbers(int value)
{
var binary = Convert.ToString(value, 2).Reverse();
int ix = 0;
return binary.Select(x => { var res = x == '1' ? (int?)Math.Pow(2, ix) : (int?)null; ix++; return res; }).Where(x => x.HasValue).Select(x => x.Value).ToArray();
}
This will give you 1,2,4 for 7 or 1,8 for 9

Decompose a number into 2 prime co-factors

One of the requirements for Telegram Authentication is decomposing a given number into 2 prime co-factors. In particular P*Q = N, where N < 2^63
How can we find the smaller prime co-factor, such that P < square_root(N)
My Suggestions:
1) pre-compute primes from 3 to 2^31.5, then test if N mod P = 0
2) Find an algorithm to test for primes (but we still have to test N mod P =0)
Is there an algorithm for primes that is well suited to this case?

Pollard's Rho Algorithm [VB.Net]
Finds P very fast, where P*Q = N, for N < 2^63
Dim rnd As New System.Random
Function PollardRho(n As BigInteger) As BigInteger
If n Mod 2 = 0 Then Return 2
Dim x As BigInteger = rnd.Next(1, 1000)
Dim c As BigInteger = rnd.Next(1, 1000)
Dim g As BigInteger = 1
Dim y = x
While g = 1
x = ((x * x) Mod n + c) Mod n
y = ((y * y) Mod n + c) Mod n
y = ((y * y) Mod n + c) Mod n
g = gcd(BigInteger.Abs(x - y), n)
End While
Return g
End Function
Function gcd(a As BigInteger, b As BigInteger) As BigInteger
Dim r As BigInteger
While b <> 0
r = a Mod b
a = b
b = r
End While
Return a
End Function
Richard Brent's Algorithm [VB.Net] This is even faster.
Function Brent(n As BigInteger) As BigInteger
If n Mod 2 = 0 Then Return 2
Dim y As BigInteger = rnd.Next(1, 1000)
Dim c As BigInteger = rnd.Next(1, 1000)
Dim m As BigInteger = rnd.Next(1, 1000)
Dim g As BigInteger = 1
Dim r As BigInteger = 1
Dim q As BigInteger = 1
Dim x As BigInteger = 0
Dim ys As BigInteger = 0
While g = 1
x = y
For i = 1 To r
y = ((y * y) Mod n + c) Mod n
Next
Dim k = New BigInteger(0)
While (k < r And g = 1)
ys = y
For i = 1 To BigInteger.Min(m, r - k)
y = ((y * y) Mod n + c) Mod n
q = q * (BigInteger.Abs(x - y)) Mod n
Next
g = gcd(q, n)
k = k + m
End While
r = r * 2
End While
If g = n Then
While True
ys = ((ys * ys) Mod n + c) Mod n
g = gcd(BigInteger.Abs(x - ys), n)
If g > 1 Then
Exit While
End If
End While
End If
Return g
End Function

Ugh! I just put this program in and then realized you had tagged your question C#. This is C++, a version of Pollard Rho I wrote a couple years ago and posted here on SO to help someone else understand it. It is many times faster at factoring semiprimes than trial division is. As I said, I regret that it is C++ and not C#, but you should be able to understand the concept and even port it pretty easily. As a bonus, the .NET library has a namespace for handling arbitrarily large integers where my C++ implementation required me to go find a third party library for them. Anyway, even in C#, the below program will break a 2^63 order semiprime into 2 primes in less than 1 second. There are faster algorithms even than this, but they are much more complex.
#include <string>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#include "BigIntegerLibrary.hh"
typedef BigInteger BI;
typedef BigUnsigned BU;
using std::string;
using std::cin;
using std::cout;
BU pollard(BU &numberToFactor);
BU gcda(BU differenceBetweenCongruentFunctions, BU numberToFactor);
BU f(BU &x, BU &numberToFactor, int &increment);
void initializeArrays();
BU getNumberToFactor ();
void factorComposites();
bool testForComposite (BU &num);
BU primeFactors[1000];
BU compositeFactors[1000];
BU tempFactors [1000];
int primeIndex;
int compositeIndex;
int tempIndex;
int numberOfCompositeFactors;
bool allJTestsShowComposite;
int main ()
{
while(1)
{
primeIndex=0;
compositeIndex=0;
tempIndex=0;
initializeArrays();
compositeFactors[0] = getNumberToFactor();
cout<<"\n\n";
if (compositeFactors[0] == 0) return 0;
numberOfCompositeFactors = 1;
factorComposites();
}
}
void initializeArrays()
{
for (int i = 0; i<1000;i++)
{
primeFactors[i] = 0;
compositeFactors[i]=0;
tempFactors[i]=0;
}
}
BU getNumberToFactor ()
{
std::string s;
std::cout<<"Enter the number for which you want a prime factor, or 0 to quit: ";
std::cin>>s;
return stringToBigUnsigned(s);
}
void factorComposites()
{
while (numberOfCompositeFactors!=0)
{
compositeIndex = 0;
tempIndex = 0;
// This while loop finds non-zero values in compositeFactors.
// If they are composite, it factors them and puts one factor in tempFactors,
// then divides the element in compositeFactors by the same amount.
// If the element is prime, it moves it into tempFactors (zeros the element in compositeFactors)
while (compositeIndex < 1000)
{
if(compositeFactors[compositeIndex] == 0)
{
compositeIndex++;
continue;
}
if(testForComposite(compositeFactors[compositeIndex]) == false)
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = compositeFactors[compositeIndex];
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = 0;
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
else
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = pollard (compositeFactors[compositeIndex]);
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] /= tempFactors[tempIndex];
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
}
compositeIndex = 0;
// This while loop moves all remaining non-zero values from compositeFactors into tempFactors
// When it is done, compositeFactors should be all 0 value elements
while (compositeIndex < 1000)
{
if (compositeFactors[compositeIndex] != 0)
{
tempFactors[tempIndex] = compositeFactors[compositeIndex];
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = 0;
tempIndex++;
compositeIndex++;
}
else compositeIndex++;
}
compositeIndex = 0;
tempIndex = 0;
// This while loop checks all non-zero elements in tempIndex.
// Those that are prime are shown on screen and moved to primeFactors
// Those that are composite are moved to compositeFactors
// When this is done, all elements in tempFactors should be 0
while (tempIndex<1000)
{
if(tempFactors[tempIndex] == 0)
{
tempIndex++;
continue;
}
if(testForComposite(tempFactors[tempIndex]) == false)
{
primeFactors[primeIndex] = tempFactors[tempIndex];
cout<<primeFactors[primeIndex]<<"\n";
tempFactors[tempIndex]=0;
primeIndex++;
tempIndex++;
}
else
{
compositeFactors[compositeIndex] = tempFactors[tempIndex];
tempFactors[tempIndex]=0;
compositeIndex++;
tempIndex++;
}
}
compositeIndex=0;
numberOfCompositeFactors=0;
// This while loop just checks to be sure there are still one or more composite factors.
// As long as there are, the outer while loop will repeat
while(compositeIndex<1000)
{
if(compositeFactors[compositeIndex]!=0) numberOfCompositeFactors++;
compositeIndex ++;
}
}
return;
}
// The following method uses the Miller-Rabin primality test to prove with 100% confidence a given number is composite,
// or to establish with a high level of confidence -- but not 100% -- that it is prime
bool testForComposite (BU &num)
{
BU confidenceFactor = 101;
if (confidenceFactor >= num) confidenceFactor = num-1;
BU a,d,s, nMinusOne;
nMinusOne=num-1;
d=nMinusOne;
s=0;
while(modexp(d,1,2)==0)
{
d /= 2;
s++;
}
allJTestsShowComposite = true; // assume composite here until we can prove otherwise
for (BI i = 2 ; i<=confidenceFactor;i++)
{
if (modexp(i,d,num) == 1)
continue; // if this modulus is 1, then we cannot prove that num is composite with this value of i, so continue
if (modexp(i,d,num) == nMinusOne)
{
allJTestsShowComposite = false;
continue;
}
BU exponent(1);
for (BU j(0); j.toInt()<=s.toInt()-1;j++)
{
exponent *= 2;
if (modexp(i,exponent*d,num) == nMinusOne)
{
// if the modulus is not right for even a single j, then break and increment i.
allJTestsShowComposite = false;
continue;
}
}
if (allJTestsShowComposite == true) return true; // proven composite with 100% certainty, no need to continue testing
}
return false;
/* not proven composite in any test, so assume prime with a possibility of error =
(1/4)^(number of different values of i tested). This will be equal to the value of the
confidenceFactor variable, and the "witnesses" to the primality of the number being tested will be all integers from
2 through the value of confidenceFactor.
Note that this makes this primality test cryptographically less secure than it could be. It is theoretically possible,
if difficult, for a malicious party to pass a known composite number for which all of the lowest n integers fail to
detect that it is composite. A safer way is to generate random integers in the outer "for" loop and use those in place of
the variable i. Better still if those random numbers are checked to ensure no duplicates are generated.
*/
}
BU pollard(BU &n)
{
if (n == 4) return 2;
BU x = 2;
BU y = 2;
BU d = 1;
int increment = 1;
while(d==1||d==n||d==0)
{
x = f(x,n, increment);
y = f(y,n, increment);
y = f(y,n, increment);
if (y>x)
{
d = gcda(y-x, n);
}
else
{
d = gcda(x-y, n);
}
if (d==0)
{
x = 2;
y = 2;
d = 1;
increment++; // This changes the pseudorandom function we use to increment x and y
}
}
return d;
}
BU gcda(BU a, BU b)
{
if (a==b||a==0)
return 0; // If x==y or if the absolute value of (x-y) == the number to be factored, then we have failed to find
// a factor. I think this is not proof of primality, so the process could be repeated with a new function.
// For example, by replacing x*x+1 with x*x+2, and so on. If many such functions fail, primality is likely.
BU currentGCD = 1;
while (currentGCD!=0) // This while loop is based on Euclid's algorithm
{
currentGCD = b % a;
b=a;
a=currentGCD;
}
return b;
}
BU f(BU &x, BU &n, int &increment)
{
return (x * x + increment) % n;
}

How can i find the number of 9s in an integer

I have the following method which should found the total number of 9 in an integer, the method is used to retrieve the employees' contract type based on the number of 9. i tried the below class:-
public class EmployeeCreditCards
{
public uint CardNumber(uint i)
{
byte[] toByte = BitConverter.GetBytes(i);
uint number = 0;
for (int n = 0; n < toByte.Length; n++)
{
if (toByte[i] == 9)
{
number = number + 1;
}
}
return number;
}
}
In which i am trying to find how many 9 are in the passed integer, but the above method will always return zero. Any idea what is going wrong?

You can do this simple with a little linq:
public int GetAmountOfNine(int i)
{
return i.ToString().Count(c => c.Equals('9'));
}
But do add using System.Linq; to the cs file.
Your answer isn't working because you are converting to bytes, converting the number to bytes does not generate a byte for each digit (via #Servy). Therefor if you would write every byte in your array to console/debug you wouldn't see your number back.
Example:
int number = 1337;
byte[] bytes = BitConverter.GetBytes(number);
foreach (var b in bytes)
{
Console.Write(b);
}
Console:
57500
You can however convert the int to a string and then check for every character in the string if it is a nine;
public int GetAmountOfNineWithOutLinq(int i)
{
var iStr = i.ToString();
var numberOfNines = 0;
foreach(var c in iStr)
{
if(c == '9') numberOfNines++;
}
return numberOfNines;
}

A classic solution is as follows: (Probably this is the fastest algorithm to find solution, it takes only O(log n) time.)
private int count9(int n)
{
int ret = 0;
if (n < 0)
n = -n;
while (n > 0)
{
if (n % 10 == 9) ++ret;
n /= 10; // divide the number by 10 (delete the most right digit)
}
return ret;
}
How does that work?
Consider an example, n = 9943
now ret = 0.
n % 10 = 3, which != 9
n = n / 10 = 994
n % 10 = 4 != 9
n = 99
n % 10 = 9, so ret = 1
n = 9
n % 10 = 9, so ret = 2
n = 0

Try
int numberOfNines = number.ToString().Where(c => c == '9').Count();
Since a string implements IEnumerable<char>, you can apply LINQ directly to the string without converting it to an enumeration of chars first.
UPDATE
Converting the uint to a byte array won't work the expected way, since the uint does not store the decimal digits of your number directly. The number is stored as a binary number that streches over four bytes. A unit has always four bytes, even if your number has 9 decimal digits.
You can convert the number to a string in order to get its decimal representation.