20141026, 23:58  #1 
Oct 2007
Manchester, UK
2^{2}·5·67 Posts 
Project Euler 486
So I've been doing these problems again lately and figured I'd take a look at the newest, number 486.
However, I think I must be missing something about the setup of it:  Let F_{5}(n) be the number of strings s such that: s consists only '0's and '1's, s has length at most n, and s contains a palindromic substring of length at least 5. For example, F_{5}(4) = 0, F_{5}(5) = 8, F_{5}(6) = 42 and F_{5}(11) = 3844.  Clearly F(4) = 0, because there are no substrings with length 5. I'm also fairly happy with F(5) = 8. My issue is with F(6) = 42. I can't figure how this is the case. For strings of length exactly 6, I count 28 with a required palindromic substring. Since the problem states that F(n) is defined as strings AT MOST length n, then we can include all of the length 5 strings too. So this would bring the answer for F(6) to 36. Even if it were as simple as adding 1 extra bit to either the beginning or end of a palindromic string of 5, there would only be 4*8 = 32 solutions of length 6 (of course, some are doubleups that must be accounted for). But even in this case, F(6) = 40, still shy of 42. I know that this is a new problem, so it could be a mistake. However 44 people have solved this one, so I'm unsure. 
20141027, 00:53  #2 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
22157_{8} Posts 

20141027, 02:57  #3 
Oct 2007
Manchester, UK
2^{2}×5×67 Posts 
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, I see. That makes it so much harder too.

20150201, 07:36  #4 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
246F_{16} Posts 
PE 501
It is always interesting when one's answer to a problem is wrong not because the solution is wrong, but because of a bug in Pari.
A certain (rather straightforward) solution for PE 501 gives the wrong answer with Pari 2.7.1, but after an offchancegrabbingatstraws upgrade to 2.7.2 ...the answer becomes right! Ugh. Something was amiss with prime()/primepi(), and now apparently fixed. 
20150201, 20:06  #5  
Aug 2006
2^{2}×1,493 Posts 
Quote:


20150201, 20:14  #6 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9327_{10} Posts 
I will PM you. I don't want to "post the solution". (And I have no doubt that you can solve it anyway, and even more elegantly!)
Maybe I'll be able to make the debug case smaller. Anyway  the bug was in 2.7.1, seems to be fixed in 2.7.2. Not the other way around. EDIT: I removed the code that gives away half of the PE 501 solution, because see below... Last fiddled with by Batalov on 20150207 at 18:09 
20150204, 03:37  #7 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
9327_{10} Posts 
I simplified the bug now to a single call (found in 2.6.0  2.7.1, both linux and windows):
Code:
# ./gp p500000000 ? primepi(450450450) %1 = 23875519 (in 2.7.2, or <=2.5.5) %1 = 23875520 (in 2.7.1, 2.7.0, 2.6.x with precomputed primes) # but if you don't precompute primes, the answer is correct, in both cases! # the calculation of my script without precomputed primes is too slow, so they have to be precomputed 
20150204, 14:01  #8  
Jan 2008
France
1000011111_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
commit 758f760868e38edb7b4e88f3e1759282623366e6 Author: Karim Belabas <Karim.Belabas@math.ubordeaux1.fr> Date: Sat Mar 8 08:41:14 2014 +0100 29 primepi(N >= 2^32 or 2^64) off by 1 + remove useless HACK Code:
index f622ba2..931abf7 100644  a/src/basemath/prime.c +++ b/src/basemath/prime.c @@ 1031,22 +1031,24 @@ uprimepi(ulong a) { byteptr d; prime_table_next_p(a, &d, &p, &n); + return p == a? n: n1; } else { long i = prime_table_closest_p(a); forprime_t S; p = prime_table[i].p;  if (p > maxp) + if (p > a) { i; p = prime_table[i].p; } + /* p = largest prime in table <= a */ n = prime_table[i].n; (void)u_forprime_init(&S, p+1, a); for (; p; n++) p = u_forprime_next(&S); + return n1; }  return p == a? n: n1; } GEN @@ 1061,7 +1063,6 @@ primepi(GEN x) if (signe(N) <= 0) return gen_0; avma = av; l = lgefint(N); if (l == 3) return utoi(uprimepi(N[2]));  new_chunk(l); /*HACK*/ i = prime_table_len1; p = prime_table[i].p; n = prime_table[i].n; @@ 1069,7 +1070,7 @@ primepi(GEN x) nn = setloop(utoipos(n)); pp = gen_0; for (; pp; incloop(nn)) pp = forprime_next(&S);  avma = av; return icopy(nn); + return gerepileuptoint(av, subiu(nn,1)); } /* pi(x) < x/log x * (1 + 1/log x + 2.51/log^2 x)), x>=355991 [ Dusart ] Last fiddled with by ldesnogu on 20150204 at 14:24 

20150204, 14:28  #9 
Jan 2008
France
1037_{8} Posts 
Next try
Code:
[ldesnogu@localhost pari]$ git show c2c67fa04290844d8dbd719cdf1d473c4463636c commit c2c67fa04290844d8dbd719cdf1d473c4463636c Author: Karim Belabas <Karim.Belabas@math.ubordeaux1.fr> Date: Mon May 26 11:56:00 2014 +0200 25 (gp p N) or (primelimit=N in gprc_ for N >= 436273290 resulted in an incorrect primetable. N.B. Such commands are now useless: needed primes are produced dynamically anyway. diff git a/CHANGES b/CHANGES index 551036b..d13ec2f 100644  a/CHANGES +++ b/CHANGES @@ 7,6 +7,9 @@ Done for version 2.7.2 (released ??/??/2014): Fixed 1 gaffsg(0, t_PADIC): wrong valuation [F21] 2 (t_INTMOD with wordsized modulus)^(huge negative power) [#1584] [F24] + 3 (gp p N) or (primelimit=N in gprc_ for N >= 436273290 resulted in an + incorrect primetable. N.B. Such commands are now useless: needed primes + are produced dynamically anyway. [F25] Done for version 2.7.1 (released 16/05/2014): [last column crossreferences current development release 2.8.0] diff git a/src/basemath/arith2.c b/src/basemath/arith2.c index bc650ff..5a671c7 100644  a/src/basemath/arith2.c +++ b/src/basemath/arith2.c @@ 358,7 +358,7 @@ sieve_chunk(byteptr known_primes, ulong s, byteptr data, ulo } } /* assume maxnum <= 436273290 < 2^29 */ +/* assume maxnum <= 436273289 < 2^29 */ static void initprimes0(ulong maxnum, long *lenp, ulong *lastp, byteptr p1) { @@ 435,16 +435,18 @@ maxprime(void) { return diffptr ? _maxprime : 0; } void maxprime_check(ulong c) { if (_maxprime < c) pari_err_MAXPRIME(c); } /* We ensure 65302 <= maxnum <= 436273290: the LHS ensures modular function  * have enough fast primes to work, the RHS ensures that p_{n+1}  p_n < 255 */ +/* We ensure 65302 <= maxnum <= 436273289: the LHS ensures modular function + * have enough fast primes to work, the RHS ensures that p_{n+1}  p_n < 255 + * (N.B. RHS would be incorrect since initprimes0 would make it odd, thereby + * increasing it by 1) */ byteptr initprimes(ulong maxnum, long *lenp, ulong *lastp) { byteptr t; if (maxnum < 65537) maxnum = 65537;  else if (maxnum > 436273290)  maxnum = 436273290; + else if (maxnum > 436273289) + maxnum = 436273289; t = (byteptr)pari_malloc((size_t) (1.09 * maxnum/log((double)maxnum)) + 146); initprimes0(maxnum, lenp, lastp, t); return (byteptr)pari_realloc(t, *lenp); 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Project Euler  jhs  Puzzles  32  20210119 04:05 
Project Euler #372  lavalamp  Puzzles  165  20120524 16:40 
Euler (6,2,5) details.  Death  Math  10  20110803 13:49 
Project Euler  MiniGeek  Lounge  2  20091023 17:19 
Bernoulli and Euler numbers (Sam Wagstaff project)  fivemack  Factoring  4  20080224 00:39 