Index
> Tutorials and Examples > [FASM G][Project Euler] Super Pandigital Numbers |
| Author |
|
|
bitRAKE 27 Oct 2016, 21:48
Please, read the problem at Project Euler to understand the goal.
Super Pandigital Numbers Problem 571 https://projecteuler.net/problem=571
The only real optimization is to realize all 12-digit numbers cannot be tested for super pandigital quality. Therefore, only 12-pandigital numbers are presented for further testing. I was concerned that 12 digits would not be enough, but I moved forward anyhow - to prove myself over cautious. Note the use of bit arrays within a register to ease multiple exit conditions. Also, array testing has known bound limits or blocking data in place. This prevents the need for some bounds checking (branching). Permutation algorithm is address based and easily adapted to other type arrays. I build the 64-bit console PE manually because I can (Yes, 64-bit Windows doesn't use much of the headers). Main code can easily be moved to standard FASM template, etc. I'll post more solved problems in time... Code: ;@REM use windows CMD processor to build https://www.nayuki.io/page/next-lexicographical-permutation-algorithm - my version differs in a number of ways (i.e. is superior), but this is a great write-up of the algorithm. _________________ ¯\(°_o)/¯ “languages are not safe - uses can be” Bjarne Stroustrup |
|||
27 Oct 2016, 21:48 |
|
|
revolution 28 Oct 2016, 13:52
bitRAKE wrote: References:  |
|||
|
28 Oct 2016, 13:52 |
|
|
bitRAKE 28 Oct 2016, 23:23
Tomasz Grysztar, Many of the Euler problems benefit from partitions:
Code: Partition_Next: mov edx,ecx .one: cmp byte [rax+rcx-1],1 loopz .one jnz .N ;clc; no more partitions retn .N: sub edx,ecx sub byte [rax+rcx],1 mov dh,[rax+rcx] .R: add ecx,1 sub dl,[rax+rcx-1] mov [rax+rcx],dh ja .R add [rax+rcx],dl add ecx,1 stc; partition valid retn revolution, Nayuki's algorithms use indices to access the array, and sort the array in the other direction. It the address is static then they both require the same number of registers, but for a dynamic array address my method is one less register. The ordering of the array simplifies the other code. Improvements are mostly problem specific. |
|||
|
28 Oct 2016, 23:23 |
|
|
revolution 29 Oct 2016, 07:24
Code: Base: 3 Found 11, Sum 11 Found 19, Sum 30 Found 21, Sum 51 Insufficient digits for 10, 3-Super-Pandigital numbers! Base: 4 Found 75, Sum 75 Found 99, Sum 174 Found 114, Sum 288 Found 135, Sum 423 Found 141, Sum 564 Found 147, Sum 711 Found 156, Sum 867 Found 177, Sum 1044 Found 198, Sum 1242 Found 201, Sum 1443 Base: 5 Found 978, Sum 978 Found 1070, Sum 2048 Found 1138, Sum 3186 Found 1142, Sum 4328 Found 1294, Sum 5622 Found 1334, Sum 6956 Found 1358, Sum 8314 Found 1394, Sum 9708 Found 1490, Sum 11198 Found 1730, Sum 12928 Base: 6 Found 8350, Sum 8350 Found 8630, Sum 16980 Found 8950, Sum 25930 Found 8990, Sum 34920 Found 10510, Sum 45430 Found 10535, Sum 55965 Found 11045, Sum 67010 Found 12130, Sum 79140 Found 12710, Sum 91850 Found 13415, Sum 105265 Base: 7 Found 160773, Sum 160773 Found 203373, Sum 364146 Found 207549, Sum 571695 Found 208695, Sum 780390 Found 209019, Sum 989409 Found 209127, Sum 1198536 Found 225825, Sum 1424361 Found 246711, Sum 1671072 Found 248415, Sum 1919487 Found 251235, Sum 2170722 Base: 8 Found 2217404, Sum 2217404 Found 2340261, Sum 4557665 Found 2787302, Sum 7344967 Found 2803640, Sum 10148607 Found 2810087, Sum 12958694 Found 2873220, Sum 15831914 Found 3082618, Sum 18914532 Found 3130694, Sum 22045226 Found 3214239, Sum 25259465 Found 3265976, Sum 28525441 Base: 9 Found 45623244, Sum 45623244 Found 45642476, Sum 91265720 Found 54953972, Sum 146219692 Found 56368428, Sum 202588120 Found 62399428, Sum 264987548 Found 73653388, Sum 338640936 Found 86978244, Sum 425619180 Found 87799108, Sum 513418288 Found 89633332, Sum 603051620 Found 90665140, Sum 693716760 Base: 10 Found 1093265784, Sum 1093265784 Found 1367508924, Sum 2460774708 Found 1432598706, Sum 3893373414 Found 1624573890, Sum 5517947304 Found 1802964753, Sum 7320912057 Found 2381059764, Sum 9701971821 Found 2409758631, Sum 12111730452 Found 2578693140, Sum 14690423592 Found 2814609357, Sum 17505032949 Found 2814759360, Sum 20319792309 Base: 11 Found 37206483195, Sum 37206483195 Found 40913867295, Sum 78120350490 Found 41367089205, Sum 119487439695 Found 43285601975, Sum 162773041670 Found 43609726185, Sum 206382767855 Found 59063147285, Sum 265445915140 Found 80276318495, Sum 345722233635 Found 87469019325, Sum 433191252960 Found 91044263875, Sum 524235516835 Found 91347062385, Sum 615582579220 Base: 12 Found 1587937206284, Sum 1587937206284 Found 1674839888205, Sum 3262777094489 Found 2638904175622, Sum 5901681270111 Found 2806980157234, Sum 8708661427345 Found 2816957039424, Sum 11525618466769 Found 3325871906940, Sum 14851490373709 Found 3863090145827, Sum 18714580519536 Found 3909765781284, Sum 22624346300820 Found 3925260871994, Sum 26549607172814 Found 3960783529164, Sum 30510390701978 Base: 13 Found 109746121381518, Sum 109746121381518 Found 125340958430766, Sum 235087079812284 Found 128249807645730, Sum 363336887458014 Found 128497348608546, Sum 491834236066560 Found 131405926979178, Sum 623240163045738 Found 132714092273658, Sum 755954255319396 Found 137194286579202, Sum 893148541898598 Found 140369758399362, Sum 1033518300297960 Found 140370815262798, Sum 1173889115560758 Found 142856969308770, Sum 1316746084869528 |
|||
|
29 Oct 2016, 07:24 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 29 Oct 2016, 17:25
bitRAKE wrote: Tomasz Grysztar, Many of the Euler problems benefit from partitions: When Ender casually introduced this problem (generating all partitions of a number) to me, we came up with completely different algorithms. Mine started with an idea analogous to the "next permutation" algorithm and looked like this (I implemented it now with the same interface as your sample, buffer is as RAX, RCX is the length of partition): Code: Partition_First: ; this algorithm begins with a partition consisting of all 1s xor edx,edx .initialize: mov byte [rax+rdx],1 inc rdx cmp rdx,rcx jb .initialize retn Partition_Next: sub rcx,2 jc .last mov dx,[rax+rcx] .collect: sub rcx,1 jc .increment cmp dl,[rax+rcx] jne .increment add dh,dl jmp .collect .increment: inc rcx inc byte [rax+rcx] .spread: dec dh jz .done inc rcx mov byte [rax+rcx],1 jmp .spread .done: inc rcx stc retn .last: clc retn Code: Partition_Next: sub rcx,2 jc .last mov dx,[rax+rcx] .collect: sub rcx,1 jc .increment cmp dl,[rax+rcx] jne .increment add dh,dl jmp .collect .increment: inc rcx inc byte [rax+rcx] cmp dl,1 je .reuse .spread: dec dh jz .done inc rcx mov byte [rax+rcx],1 jmp .spread .reuse: add cl,dh stc retn .done: inc rcx stc retn .last: clc retn |
|||
|
29 Oct 2016, 17:25 |
|
|
revolution 30 Oct 2016, 01:52
Code: Base: 14 Found 2697545063614180, Sum 2697545063614180 Found 3543987606226119, Sum 6241532669840299 Found 5208398137374861, Sum 11449930807215160 Found 5284604920711883, Sum 16734535727927043 Found 6318016520427391, Sum 23052552248354434 Found 6420868753099710, Sum 29473421001454144 Found 6953196730874420, Sum 36426617732328564 Found 9120013592816724, Sum 45546631325145288 Found 10192514371265148, Sum 55739145696410436 Found 10448271079357605, Sum 66187416775768041 |
|||
|
30 Oct 2016, 01:52 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 31 Oct 2016, 06:48
Turns out the Ender's algorithm had some flaw, so he's not going to write anything about it here (at least not until he finds a way to fix it).
Another interesting thing: I called the performance of my simple implementation "far from perfect", but it actually generates all the partitions faster that the one from your sample (but in the opposite direction - mine goes in lexicographic order, while your does reverse lexicographic). This is probably because of a fewer memory accesses it makes, since their complexity appears to be the same. The version with "reuse" optimization cycles through all the partitions in half the time of your variant on my machine. I have not exactly explained how is it related to permutations. If you are still interested, I may write a proof of correctness of this algorithm showing the parallels between it and the "next permutation" generation. |
|||
|
31 Oct 2016, 06:48 |
|
|
revolution 02 Nov 2016, 10:38
I am disappoint:
Code: Base: 15 Found 64810523515743579, Sum 64810523515743579 Found 231294725708209863, Sum 296105249223953442 Found 242888099925134167, Sum 538993349149087609 Found 318695032806437931, Sum 857688381955525540 Insufficient digits for 10, 15-Super-Pandigital numbers! Perhaps there are no base-set 16-SPNs? I'm not sure I have the patience for what might take a month or more to run it for 16-SPNs. |
|||
|
02 Nov 2016, 10:38 |
|
|
bitRAKE 06 Nov 2016, 01:43
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: I called the performance of my simple implementation "far from perfect", but it actually generates all the partitions faster that the one from your sample (but in the opposite direction - mine goes in lexicographic order, while your does reverse lexicographic). This is probably because of a fewer memory accesses it makes, since their complexity appears to be the same. The version with "reuse" optimization cycles through all the partitions in half the time of your variant on my machine. The permutations can be generated directly. This is interesting because a job can be partitioned across many cores. How to partition partitions across cores though?  _________________ ¯\(°_o)/¯ “languages are not safe - uses can be” Bjarne Stroustrup |
|||
|
06 Nov 2016, 01:43 |
|
|
bitRAKE 06 Nov 2016, 05:43
Code: First 10, 3-SuperPandigital numbers: 11,19,21,29,33,38,42,46,47,48 _________________ ¯\(°_o)/¯ “languages are not safe - uses can be” Bjarne Stroustrup |
|||
|
06 Nov 2016, 05:43 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 06 Nov 2016, 18:41
bitRAKE wrote: The permutations can be generated directly. This is interesting because a job can be partitioned across many cores. How to partition partitions across cores though? I'll let you know if I come up with anything. |
|||
|
06 Nov 2016, 18:41 |
|
|
revolution 07 Nov 2016, 04:35
I used a factorial counter to generate the permutations directly but it was much slower than the swap algorithm presented in the first post. It would be easy to start at any arbitrary point if you use the factorial counter to generate the initial permutation and then use the reverse/swap method to continue from there.
I also modified the original algorithm to compute (rather than search) for the reversal point and that gave a small improvement in speed. |
|||
|
07 Nov 2016, 04:35 |
|
|
bitRAKE 12 Nov 2016, 17:11
The number of base-N, N-digit, N-Super Pandigital numbers:
Code: {1,1,3,13,22,75,130,255,223,168,159,101,11,4,..} Initially, the series is very deceptive - graph just the first eight values, lol.
_________________ ¯\(°_o)/¯ “languages are not safe - uses can be” Bjarne Stroustrup |
|||||||||||
|
12 Nov 2016, 17:11 |
|
|
revolution 12 Nov 2016, 22:01
bitRAKE wrote: I was also able to gain a few percent by optimizing the tail code of digit extraction.  I thought I had posted it above. So let's fix that. It uses inverse multiply for the digit extraction, gives about 4x speed up over div. Code: START_BASE = 3 ;minimum valid value is 3 MAX_BASE = 16 ;maximum valid value is 16 SUM_OF = 10 ;any value you feel like > 0 UPDATE_INTERVAL = 4000000 ;smaller values update the progress faster DIRECTLY_GENERATE_PERMUTATIONS = 0 ;this appears to be slower than scanning, so disabled for now ;if values > 2^63 are expected then enable the extra work for bases 7 and 14 USE_65TH_MULTIPLIER_BIT = MAX_BASE shr 4 format pe64 console include 'win64ax.inc' fcall fix fastcall .data ticks db 'Ticks: %I64u',13,10,0 base db 'Base: %u',13,10,0 progress db '%016I64x (%u.%04u%%)',13,0 found db 'Found %I64u, Sum %I64u',13,10,0 insufficient db 'Insufficient digits for %u, %u-Super-Pandigital numbers!' crlf db 13,10,0 align 8 inverse_multiply: rq MAX_BASE .code Begin: ;initialise the inverse_multiply table mov ebx,MAX_BASE - 1 .loop_inverse_multiply: lea eax,[ebx-1] bsr ecx,eax xor edx,edx bts edx,ecx div rbx if USE_65TH_MULTIPLIER_BIT ;check for (base - remainder - 1) > (2^shift) not edx add edx,ebx jz .65th_bit_okay add cl,cl bsr edx,edx lea edx,[edx*2+1] cmp cl,dl rcr cl,1 ;set the 65th multiplier bit .65th_bit_okay: end if mov [inverse_multiply+rbx*8],rax mov [inverse_multiply+rbx],cl dec ebx cmp ebx,2 jae .loop_inverse_multiply invoke GetTickCount mov rsi,rax mov edi,START_BASE .loop_base: fcall SuperPanDigital,rdi,SUM_OF inc edi cmp edi,MAX_BASE jbe .loop_base invoke GetTickCount sub rax,rsi fcall printf,ticks,rax invoke ExitProcess,0 proc SuperPanDigital uses rbx rsi rdi r12 r13 r14 r15,the_base,sumOf locals digits rb MAX_BASE+1 endl mov esi,ecx ;rsi = base mov r13,rdx ;r13 = countdown for found numbers mov ebx,edx ;rbx = desired count of found numbers fcall printf,base,rsi ;initialise the digits mov word[digits+rsi-1],0 lea ecx,[esi-1] .init: mov [digits+rcx-1],cl dec ecx jnz .init mov rdi,0x0123456789abcdef mov rax,-16 lea ecx,[(esi-1)*4] rol rax,cl or rdi,rax ;rdi = suffix counter xor r12,r12 ;r12 = running sum xor r14,r14 ;r14 = progress update counter .next_permutation: if DIRECTLY_GENERATE_PERMUTATIONS ;increment the factorial counter inc rdi jz .fail bsf rcx,rdi mov rdx,0x0123456789abcdef xor rax,rax and ecx,not 3 bts rax,rcx dec rax and rax,rdx or rdi,rax ;get the next set of digits mov rax,rdi sub rax,rdx lea ecx,[esi*4] ror rax,cl mov r9,0xfedcba9876543210 mov r10,rsi .next_factorial_digit: dec r10 rol rax,4 lea ecx,[eax*4] and ecx,0xf*4 mov rdx,r9 shr rdx,cl mov r8,rdx and edx,0xf mov [digits+r10],dl and r8,-0x10 shl r8,cl shl rdx,cl xor r9,r8 xor r9,rdx shr r8,4 or r9,r8 test r10,r10 jnz .next_factorial_digit else ;find the next set of digits in lexicographical order ;get next suffix inc rdi jz .fail bsf rcx,rdi mov rdx,0x0123456789abcdef xor rax,rax and ecx,not 3 bts rax,rcx dec rax and rax,rdx or rdi,rax shr ecx,2 mov al,[digits+rcx] ;find the pivot or edx,-1 .pivot: inc edx cmp al,[digits+rdx] jnc .pivot ;swap pivot within suffix .swap: mov ah,[digits+rdx] mov [digits+rdx],al mov [digits+rcx],ah ;reverse suffix to create lexical minimum dec ecx xor edx,edx .reverse: mov ah,[digits+rcx] mov al,[digits+rdx] mov [digits+rdx],ah mov [digits+rcx],al inc edx dec ecx cmp edx,ecx jl .reverse end if inc r14 cmp r14,UPDATE_INTERVAL jb .update_done ;display the current state to assure the user the program is still running mov rax,rdi mov r8d,1 xor r11,r11 xor ecx,ecx not rax .compute_update_position: mov edx,eax and edx,0xf ;rdx = next digit from factorial counter sub edx,ecx neg edx ;convert rdx to up-counter inc ecx ;rcx = digit position mov r9,r8 ;r9 = the count of the skipped permutations at the start (used below after the loop has finished) imul rdx,r8 ;rdx = this digits contribution to the percentage imul r8,rcx ;r8 = next digit weighting add r11,rdx ;r11 = converted factorial counter into binary shr rax,4 cmp ecx,esi jb .compute_update_position sub r8,r9 ;r8 = total permutations to check sub r11,r9 ;r11 = number of permutation checked mov eax,1000000 ;convert to 6 digits of precision mul r11 dec r8 div r8 mov ecx,10000 ;convert to percentage xor edx,edx div ecx mov r9,rdx mov rdx,rdi not rdx fcall printf,progress,rdx,rax,r9 xor r14,r14 ;restart progress count .update_done: ;convert to binary xor r15,r15 ;r15 = the current number mov ecx,esi .to_binary: movzx edx,[digits+rcx-1] imul r15,rsi add r15,rdx dec ecx jnz .to_binary ;check if the number is pandigital for all bases less than rsi mov r8,rsi ;r8 = base countdown .check_pandigital: dec r8 mov rax,r15 movsx rcx,byte[inverse_multiply+r8] ;cl = shift count and 65th multiplier bit mov r9,[inverse_multiply+r8*8] ;r9 = inverse multiplier if USE_65TH_MULTIPLIER_BIT test rcx,r15 js .65_bit_multiply end if xor r10,r10 bts r10,r8 dec r10 ;r10 = bit set for each base digit .next_digit: mov r11,rax mul r9 shr rdx,cl mov rax,rdx imul dx,r8w sub r11,rdx ;r11b = output digit btr r10,r11 test rax,rax jnz .next_digit test r10,r10 jnz .next_permutation cmp r8,2 jnz .check_pandigital add r12,r15 ;update the sum ;show this number and the current sum so far in base 10 fcall printf,found,r15,r12 xor r14,r14 ;restart progress count dec r13 jnz .next_permutation .done: fcall printf,crlf ret .fail: fcall printf,insufficient,rbx,rsi jmp .done if used .65_bit_multiply .65_bit_multiply: mov r11,rax mul r9 mov r10,r11 shr r10,1 sub rax,r10 sbb rdx,0 shr rdx,cl mov rax,rdx imul dx,r8w xor r10,r10 bts r10,r8 dec r10 ;r10 = bit set for each base digit sub r11,rdx ;r11b = output digit btr r10,r11 jmp .next_digit end if endp proc printf string,arg1,arg2,arg3 locals buff rb 1028 endl mov [arg1],rdx mov [arg2],r8 mov [arg3],r9 mov rdx,rcx ;rdx = string invoke wvsprintf,addr buff,rdx,addr arg1 fcall write_stdoutput,addr buff,rax ret endp proc write_stdoutput source,bytes local bytes_written:QWORD mov [source],rcx mov [bytes],rdx invoke GetStdHandle,STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE invoke WriteFile,rax,[source],[bytes],addr bytes_written,0 test rax,rax jz .done mov rax,[bytes_written] .done: ret endp .end Begin |
|||
|
12 Nov 2016, 22:01 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|