I have requirements in a project to generate sequential rows and columns which are alphanumeric values.
The end user will pass the start value of row and column he would like to start from, and how many rows and columns he wants to generate.
For letters the max value is Z
For numbers the max values is 9
If the end user passed these parameters:
StartRow = 0A
StartColumn = A9Z
rowsCount = 2
columnsCount = 5
I would like to get this result:
You might want to reconsider your approach. Rather than maintaining an alphanumeric value and trying to increment it, maintain the value as a class containing Row and Column values, and then use ToString to convert it to the alphanumeric representation. Like this:
class RowCol
{
private int _row;
private int _col;
public int Row
{
get { return _row; }
set
{
// Row is of the form <digit><letter
// giving you 260 possible values.
if (value < 0 || value > 259)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
_row = value;
}
}
public int Col
{
get { return _col; }
set
{
// Col is <letter><digit><letter>,
// giving you 6,760 possible values
if (value < 0 || value > 6759)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
_col = value;
}
}
public string RowString
{
get
{
// convert Row value to string
int r, c;
r = Math.DivMod(_row, 26, out c);
r += '0';
c += 'A';
return string.Concat((char)r, (char)c);
}
set
{
// convert string to number.
// String is of the form <letter><digit>
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value) || value.Length != 2
|| !Char.IsDigit(value[0] || !Char.IsUpper(value[1]))
throw new ArgumentException();
_row = 26*(value[0]-'0') + (value[1]-'A');
}
}
public string ColString
{
get
{
int left, middle, right remainder;
left = Math.DivRem(_col, 260, out remainder);
middle = Math.DivRem(remainder, 26, out right);
left += 'A';
middle += '0';
right += 'A';
return string.Concat((char)left, (char)middle, (char)right);
}
set
{
// Do standard checking here to make sure it's in the right form.
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(value) || value.Length != 3
|| !Char.IsUpper(value[0] || !Char.IsDigit(value[1]) || !Char.IsUpper(value[2]))
throw new ArgumentException();
_col = 260*(value[0] - 'A');
_col += 26*(value[1] - '0');
_col += value[2] - 'A';
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
return RowString + '-' + ColString;
}
public RowCol(int row, int col)
{
Row = _row;
Col = _col;
}
public RowCol(string row, string col)
{
RowString = row;
RowString = col;
}
}
(Code not yet tested, but that's the general idea.)
That's a bit more code than you have, it hides the complexity in the RowCol class rather than forcing you to deal with it in your main program logic. The point here is that you just want to increment the row or column; you don't want to have to think about how that's done. It makes your main program logic easier to understand. For example:
string startRow = "0A";
string startCol = "B0A";
RowCol rc = new RowCol("0A", "B0A");
for (int r = 0; r < rowsCount; r++)
{
rc.ColString = "B0A";
for (int c = 0; c < columnsCount; c++)
{
Console.WriteLine(rc);
rc.Row = rc.Row + 1;
}
rc.Col = rc.Col + 1;
}
By casting this as a simple conversion problem and encapsulating it in a class, I've made the code more robust and flexible, and easier to test, understand, and use.
I have come up with very simple solution to implement that and I would like to share this Console application :
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var row = "0A";
var column = "A9Z";
var rowsCount = 2;
var columnsCount = 5;
var rowCharArray =row.ToArray().Reverse().ToArray();
var columnCharArray = column.ToArray().Reverse().ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < rowsCount; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < columnsCount; j++)
{
columnCharArray = incrementChar(columnCharArray);
var currentColumn = string.Join("", columnCharArray.Reverse().ToArray());
var currentRow= string.Join("", rowCharArray.Reverse().ToArray());
Console.WriteLine(currentRow + "-" + currentColumn);
}
columnCharArray = column.ToArray().Reverse().ToArray();
rowCharArray= incrementChar(rowCharArray);
Console.WriteLine("-------------------------------");
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
static char[] incrementChar(char[] charArray,int currentIndex=0)
{
char temp = charArray[currentIndex];
if (charArray.Length -1 == currentIndex && (temp == '9' || temp == 'Z'))
throw new Exception();
temp++;
if(Regex.IsMatch(temp.ToString(),"[A-Z]"))
{
charArray[currentIndex] = temp;
}
else
{
if (Regex.IsMatch(temp.ToString(), "[0-9]"))
{
charArray[currentIndex] = temp;
}
else
{
currentIndex++;
incrementChar(charArray, currentIndex);
}
}
if (currentIndex != 0)
charArray = resetChar(charArray, currentIndex);
return charArray;
}
static char[] resetChar(char[] charArray,int currentIndex)
{
for (int i = 0; i < currentIndex; i++)
{
if (charArray[i] == 'Z')
charArray[i] = 'A';
else if (charArray[i] == '9')
charArray[i] = '0';
}
return charArray;
}
}
Closed. This question is not reproducible or was caused by typos. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
So I'm doing the 7th Project Euler problem, and I'm not sure why this code isn't working, it seems to be okay so small numbers, I've tested 1-10 and it's fine, but doesn't return the correct answer at 10001 - returns 104745.
And yes, I know it's inefficient.
private void eulerSeven(int num)
{
// Start the Prime count at 3, with 2 already counted.
int primecount = 1, counter = 3;
//While num of primes counted < the nth prime
while (primecount < num)
{
bool isPrime = true;
//check every number from 2 -> the current number we're checking
for (int i = 2; i < counter; i++)
{
if (counter%i == 0)
{
//if divisible, not a prime
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
if (isPrime) //If is a prime, increment counter
{ primecount++; }
// Go to next number (only checking odds)
counter += 2;
}
//output nth prime
Console.WriteLine(counter);
}
As stated by #lanorkin, the problem was:
should be counter - 2
but also, I would like to suggest a look at https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/124644/project-euler-7-10001st-prime, so this code should do the same, but very very fast (5ms on my machine):
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
Console.WriteLine(CalculateEulerSeven(10001)); // should be 104745
stopwatch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time to calculate in milliseconds : {0}", stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static int CalculateEulerSeven(int num)
{
int primecount = 1, counter = 3;
while (primecount < num)
{
bool isPrime = IsPrime(counter);
if (isPrime) primecount++;
counter += 2;
}
return counter;
}
static bool IsPrime(int value)
{
if (value < 2) { return false; }
if (value % 2 == 0) { return value == 2; }
if (value % 3 == 0) { return value == 3; }
if (value % 5 == 0) { return value == 5; }
if (value == 7) { return true; }
for (int divisor = 7; divisor * divisor <= value; divisor += 30)
{
if (value % divisor == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 4) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 6) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 10) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 12) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 16) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 22) == 0) { return false; }
if (value % (divisor + 24) == 0) { return false; }
}
return true;
}
I need to "Find the minimal positive integer not occurring in a given sequence. "
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 3
A[2] = 6
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 1
A[5] = 2, the function should return 5.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [−2,147,483,648..2,147,483,647].
I wrote the code in codility, but for many cases it did not worked and the performance test gives 0 %. Please help me out, where I am wrong.
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
if(A.Length ==0) return -1;
int value = A[0];
int min = A.Min();
int max = A.Max();
for (int j = min+1; j < max; j++)
{
if (!A.Contains(j))
{
value = j;
if(value > 0)
{
break;
}
}
}
if(value > 0)
{
return value;
}
else return 1;
}
}
The codility gives error with all except the example, positive and negative only values.
Edit: Added detail to answer your actual question more directly.
"Please help me out, where I am wrong."
In terms of correctness: Consider A = {7,2,5,6,3}. The correct output, given the contents of A, is 1, but our algorithm would fail to detect this since A.Min() would return 2 and we would start looping from 3 onward. In this case, we would return 4 instead; since it's the next missing value.
Same goes for something like A = {14,15,13}. The minimal missing positive integer here is again 1 and, since all the values from 13-15 are present, the value variable will retain its initial value of value=A[0] which would be 14.
In terms of performance: Consider what A.Min(), A.Max() and A.Contains() are doing behind the scenes; each one of these is looping through A in its entirety and in the case of Contains, we are calling it repeatedly for every value between the Min() and the lowest positive integer we can find. This will take us far beyond the specified O(N) performance that Codility is looking for.
By contrast, here's the simplest version I can think of that should score 100% on Codility. Notice that we only loop through A once and that we take advantage of a Dictionary which lets us use ContainsKey; a much faster method that does not require looping through the whole collection to find a value.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
// the minimum possible answer is 1
int result = 1;
// let's keep track of what we find
Dictionary<int,bool> found = new Dictionary<int,bool>();
// loop through the given array
for(int i=0;i<A.Length;i++) {
// if we have a positive integer that we haven't found before
if(A[i] > 0 && !found.ContainsKey(A[i])) {
// record the fact that we found it
found.Add(A[i], true);
}
}
// crawl through what we found starting at 1
while(found.ContainsKey(result)) {
// look for the next number
result++;
}
// return the smallest positive number that we couldn't find.
return result;
}
}
The simplest solution that scored perfect score was:
public int solution(int[] A)
{
int flag = 1;
A = A.OrderBy(x => x).ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if (A[i] <= 0)
continue;
else if (A[i] == flag)
{
flag++;
}
}
return flag;
}
Fastest C# solution so far for [-1,000,000...1,000,000].
public int solution(int[] array)
{
HashSet<int> found = new HashSet<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
if (array[i] > 0)
{
found.Add(array[i]);
}
}
int result = 1;
while (found.Contains(result))
{
result++;
}
return result;
}
A tiny version of another 100% with C#
using System.Linq;
class Solution
{
public int solution(int[] A)
{
// write your code in C# 6.0 with .NET 4.5 (Mono)
var i = 0;
return A.Where(a => a > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(a => a).Any(a => a != (i = i + 1)) ? i : i + 1;
}
}
A simple solution that scored 100% with C#
int Solution(int[] A)
{
var A2 = Enumerable.Range(1, A.Length + 1);
return A2.Except(A).First();
}
public class Solution {
public int solution( int[] A ) {
return Arrays.stream( A )
.filter( n -> n > 0 )
.sorted()
.reduce( 0, ( a, b ) -> ( ( b - a ) > 1 ) ? a : b ) + 1;
}
}
It seemed easiest to just filter out the negative numbers. Then sort the stream. And then reduce it to come to an answer. It's a bit of a functional approach, but it got a 100/100 test score.
Got an 100% score with this solution:
https://app.codility.com/demo/results/trainingUFKJSB-T8P/
public int MissingInteger(int[] A)
{
A = A.Where(a => a > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(c => c).ToArray();
if (A.Length== 0)
{
return 1;
}
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
//Console.WriteLine(i + "=>" + A[i]);
if (i + 1 != A[i])
{
return i + 1;
}
}
return A.Max() + 1;
}
JavaScript solution using Hash Table with O(n) time complexity.
function solution(A) {
let hashTable = {}
for (let item of A) {
hashTable[item] = true
}
let answer = 1
while(true) {
if(!hashTable[answer]) {
return answer
}
answer++
}
}
The Simplest solution for C# would be:
int value = 1;
int min = A.Min();
int max = A.Max();
if (A.Length == 0) return value = 1;
if (min < 0 && max < 0) return value = 1;
List<int> range = Enumerable.Range(1, max).ToList();
List<int> current = A.ToList();
List<int> valid = range.Except(current).ToList();
if (valid.Count() == 0)
{
max++;
return value = max;
}
else
{
return value = valid.Min();
}
Considering that the array should start from 1 or if it needs to start from the minimum value than the Enumerable.range should start from Min
MissingInteger solution in C
int solution(int A[], int N) {
int i=0,r[N];
memset(r,0,(sizeof(r)));
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
{
if(( A[i] > 0) && (A[i] <= N)) r[A[i]-1]=A[i];
}
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
{
if( r[i] != (i+1)) return (i+1);
}
return (N+1);
}
My solution for it:
public static int solution()
{
var A = new[] { -1000000, 1000000 }; // You can try with different integers
A = A.OrderBy(i => i).ToArray(); // We sort the array first
if (A.Length == 1) // if there is only one item in the array
{
if (A[0]<0 || A[0] > 1)
return 1;
if (A[0] == 1)
return 2;
}
else // if there are more than one item in the array
{
for (var i = 0; i < A.Length - 1; i++)
{
if (A[i] >= 1000000) continue; // if it's bigger than 1M
if (A[i] < 0 || (A[i] + 1) >= (A[i + 1])) continue; //if it's smaller than 0, if the next integer is bigger or equal to next integer in the sequence continue searching.
if (1 < A[0]) return 1;
return A[i] + 1;
}
}
if (1 < A[0] || A[A.Length - 1] + 1 == 0 || A[A.Length - 1] + 1 > 1000000)
return 1;
return A[A.Length-1] +1;
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int size=A.length;
int small,big,temp;
for (int i=0;i<size;i++){
for(int j=0;j<size;j++){
if(A[i]<A[j]){
temp=A[j];
A[j]=A[i];
A[i]=temp;
}
}
}
int z=1;
for(int i=0;i<size;i++){
if(z==A[i]){
z++;
}
//System.out.println(a[i]);
}
return z;
}
enter code here
}
In C# you can solve the problem by making use of built in library functions. How ever the performance is low for very large integers
public int solution(int[] A)
{
var numbers = Enumerable.Range(1, Math.Abs(A.Max())+1).ToArray();
return numbers.Except(A).ToArray()[0];
}
Let me know if you find a better solution performance wise
C# - MissingInteger
Find the smallest missing integer between 1 - 1000.000.
Assumptions of the OP take place
TaskScore/Correctness/Performance: 100%
using System;
using System.Linq;
namespace TestConsole
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var A = new int[] { -122, -5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 }; // 8
var B = new int[] { 1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2 }; // 5
var C = new int[] { -1, -3 }; // 1
var D = new int[] { -3 }; // 1
var E = new int[] { 1 }; // 2
var F = new int[] { 1000000 }; // 1
var x = new int[][] { A, B, C, D, E, F };
x.ToList().ForEach((arr) =>
{
var s = new Solution();
Console.WriteLine(s.solution(arr));
});
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
// ANSWER/SOLUTION
class Solution
{
public int solution(int[] A)
{
// clean up array for negatives and duplicates, do sort
A = A.Where(entry => entry > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(it => it).ToArray();
int lowest = 1, aLength = A.Length, highestIndex = aLength - 1;
for (int i = 0; i < aLength; i++)
{
var currInt = A[i];
if (currInt > lowest) return lowest;
if (i == highestIndex) return ++lowest;
lowest++;
}
return 1;
}
}
}
Got 100% - C# Efficient Solution
public int solution (int [] A){
int len = A.Length;
HashSet<int> realSet = new HashSet<int>();
HashSet<int> perfectSet = new HashSet<int>();
int i = 0;
while ( i < len)
{
realSet.Add(A[i]); //convert array to set to get rid of duplicates, order int's
perfectSet.Add(i + 1); //create perfect set so can find missing int
i++;
}
perfectSet.Add(i + 1);
if (realSet.All(item => item < 0))
return 1;
int notContains =
perfectSet.Except(realSet).Where(item=>item!=0).FirstOrDefault();
return notContains;
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] a) {
int smallestPositive = 1;
while(a.Contains(smallestPositive)) {
smallestPositive++;
}
return smallestPositive;
}
}
Well, this is a new winner now. At least on C# and my laptop. It's 1.5-2 times faster than the previous champion and 3-10 times faster, than most of the other solutions. The feature (or a bug?) of this solution is that it uses only basic data types. Also 100/100 on Codility.
public int Solution(int[] A)
{
bool[] B = new bool[(A.Length + 1)];
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if ((A[i] > 0) && (A[i] <= A.Length))
B[A[i]] = true;
}
for (int i = 1; i < B.Length; i++)
{
if (!B[i])
return i;
}
return A.Length + 1;
}
Simple C++ solution. No additional memory need, time execution order O(N*log(N)):
int solution(vector<int> &A) {
sort (A.begin(), A.end());
int prev = 0; // the biggest integer greater than 0 found until now
for( auto it = std::begin(A); it != std::end(A); it++ ) {
if( *it > prev+1 ) break;// gap found
if( *it > 0 ) prev = *it; // ignore integers smaller than 1
}
return prev+1;
}
int[] A = {1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2};
Set<Integer> integers = new TreeSet<>();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (A[i] > 0) {
integers.add(A[i]);
}
}
Integer[] arr = integers.toArray(new Integer[0]);
final int[] result = {Integer.MAX_VALUE};
final int[] prev = {0};
final int[] curr2 = {1};
integers.stream().forEach(integer -> {
if (prev[0] + curr2[0] == integer) {
prev[0] = integer;
} else {
result[0] = prev[0] + curr2[0];
}
});
if (Integer.MAX_VALUE == result[0]) result[0] = arr[arr.length-1] + 1;
System.out.println(result[0]);
I was surprised but this was a good lesson. LINQ IS SLOW. my answer below got me 11%
public int solution (int [] A){
if (Array.FindAll(A, x => x >= 0).Length == 0) {
return 1;
} else {
var lowestValue = A.Where(x => Array.IndexOf(A, (x+1)) == -1).Min();
return lowestValue + 1;
}
}
I think I kinda look at this a bit differently but gets a 100% evaluation. Also, I used no library:
public static int Solution(int[] A)
{
var arrPos = new int[1_000_001];
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if (A[i] >= 0)
arrPos[A[i]] = 1;
}
for (int i = 1; i < arrPos.Length; i++)
{
if (arrPos[i] == 0)
return i;
}
return 1;
}
public int solution(int[] A) {
// write your code in Java SE 8
Set<Integer> elements = new TreeSet<Integer>();
long lookFor = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
elements.add(A[i]);
}
for (Integer integer : elements) {
if (integer == lookFor)
lookFor += 1;
}
return (int) lookFor;
}
I tried to use recursion in C# instead of sorting, because I thought it would show more coding skill to do it that way, but on the scaling tests it didn't preform well on large performance tests. Suppose it's best to just do the easy way.
class Solution {
public int lowest=1;
public int solution(int[] A) {
// write your code in C# 6.0 with .NET 4.5 (Mono)
if (A.Length < 1)
return 1;
for (int i=0; i < A.Length; i++){
if (A[i]==lowest){
lowest++;
solution(A);
}
}
return lowest;
}
}
Here is my solution in javascript
function solution(A) {
// write your code in JavaScript (Node.js 8.9.4)
let result = 1;
let haveFound = {}
let len = A.length
for (let i=0;i<len;i++) {
haveFound[`${A[i]}`] = true
}
while(haveFound[`${result}`]) {
result++
}
return result
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
var sortedList = A.Where(x => x > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(x => x).ToArray();
var output = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < sortedList.Length; i++)
{
if (sortedList[i] != output)
{
return output;
}
output++;
}
return output;
}
}
You should just use a HashSet as its look up time is also constant instead of a dictionary. The code is less and cleaner.
public int solution (int [] A){
int answer = 1;
var set = new HashSet<int>(A);
while (set.Contains(answer)){
answer++;
}
return answer;
}
This snippet should work correctly.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
int result = 1;
List<int> lst = new List<int>();
lst.Add(1);
lst.Add(2);
lst.Add(3);
lst.Add(18);
lst.Add(4);
lst.Add(1000);
lst.Add(-1);
lst.Add(-1000);
lst.Sort();
foreach(int curVal in lst)
{
if(curVal <=0)
result=1;
else if(!lst.Contains(curVal+1))
{
result = curVal + 1 ;
}
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
}
I have a code here written in C# that finds the smallest multiple by all numbers from 1 to 20. However, I find it very inefficient since the execution took awhile before producing the correct answer. I would like to know what are the different ways that I can do to improve the code. Thank You.
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort[] array = new ushort[ARRAY_SIZE];
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 1; value < uint.MaxValue; value++)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
array[j] = j;
if (value % array[j] == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] nums = Enumerable.Range(1, 20).ToArray();
int lcm = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < nums.Length; i++)
{
lcm = LCM(lcm, nums[i]);
}
Console.WriteLine("LCM = {0}", lcm);
}
public static int LCM(int value1, int value2)
{
int a = Math.Abs(value1);
int b = Math.Abs(value2);
// perform division first to avoid potential overflow
a = checked((a / GCD(a, b)));
return checked((a * b));
}
public static int GCD(int value1, int value2)
{
int gcd = 1; // Greates Common Divisor
// throw exception if any value=0
if (value1 == 0 || value2 == 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
// assign absolute values to local vars
int a = Math.Abs(value1); // local var1
int b = Math.Abs(value2); // local var2
// if numbers are equal return the first
if (a == b) { return a; }
// if var "b" is GCD return "b"
if (a > b && a % b == 0) { return b; }
// if var "a" is GCD return "a"
if (b > a && b % a == 0) { return a; }
// Euclid algorithm to find GCD (a,b):
// estimated maximum iterations:
// 5* (number of dec digits in smallest number)
while (b != 0)
{
gcd = b;
b = a % b;
a = gcd;
}
return gcd;
}
}
Source : Fast Integer Algorithms: Greatest Common Divisor and Least Common Multiple, .NET solution
Since the result must also be divisible by 19 (which is the greatest prime number) up to 20, you might only cycle through multiples of 19.
This should get to to the result about 19 times faster.
Here's the code that does this:
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort[] array = new ushort[ARRAY_SIZE];
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 19; value < uint.MaxValue; value += 19)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
array[j] = j;
if (value % array[j] == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
return;
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}
On my machine, this finds the result 232792560 in a little over 2 seconds.
Update
Also, please note that the initial program did not stop when reaching a solution; I have added a return statement to make it stop.
You're just looking for the LCM of the numbers from 1 to 20:
Where the GCD can be efficiently calculated with the Euclidean algorithm.
I don't know C#, but this Python solution shouldn't be hard to translate:
def gcd(a, b):
while b != 0:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
def lcm(a, b):
return (a * b) / gcd(a, b)
numbers = range(1, 20 + 1)
print reduce(numbers, lcm)
It's pretty fast too:
>>> %timeit reduce(lcm, range(1, 20000))
1 loops, best of 3: 258 ms per loop
EDIT: v2.0 - Major speed improvement
Building on w0lf's solution. A faster solution:
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
// this is a bit quick and dirty
// (not too difficult to change to generate primeProduct dynamically for any range)
int primeProduct = 2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19;
for (int value = primeProduct; ; value += primeProduct)
{
bool success = true;
for (int j = 11; j < 21; j++)
{
if (value % j != 0)
{
success = false;
break;
}
}
if (success)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
break;
}
}
}
You needn't check 1-10 since if something is divisible by x (e.g. 12), it is divisible by x/n (e.g. 12/2 = 6). The smallest multiple will always be a multiple of a product of all the primes involved.
Didn't benchmark C# solution, but equivalent Java solution runs in about 0.0000006 seconds.
Well I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to accomplish here but your out side for loop will run approximately 4,294,967,295 time (uint.MaxValue). So that will take some time...
If you have a way to keep from going to uint.MaxValue - like breaking your loop when you have accomplished what you need to - that will speed it up.
Also, since you are setting array[j] equal to j and then apparently never using the array again why not just do:
value % j
instead of
value % array[j]
Using also code written by W0lf (sorry but i cannot comment on your post) I would improve it (only a little) deleting the array that I think is useless..
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 1; value < uint.MaxValue; value++)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
if (value % j == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}