I am using cp_model to solve a problem very similar to the multiple-knapsack problem (https://developers.google.com/optimization/bin/multiple_knapsack). Just like in the example code, I use some boolean variables to encode membership:
# Variables
# x[i, j] = 1 if item i is packed in bin j.
x = {}
for i in data['items']:
for j in data['bins']:
x[(i, j)] = solver.IntVar(0, 1, 'x_%i_%i' % (i, j))
What is specific to my problem is that there are a large number of fungible items. There may be 5 items of type 1 and 10 items of type 2. Any item is exchangeable with items of the same type. Using the boolean variables to encode the problem implicitly assumes that the order of the assignment for the same type of items matter. But in fact, the order does not matter and only takes up unnecessary computation time.
I am wondering if there is any way to design the model so that it accurately expresses that we are allocating from fungible pools of items to save computation.
Instead of creating 5 Boolean variables for 5 items of type 'i' in bin 'b', just create an integer variable 'count' from 0 to 5 of items 'i' in bin 'b'. Then sum over b (count[i][b]) == #item b
I have a set, S = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }.
If I wanted to sum this in standard logic it's just ∑S (no MathJax on SO so I can't format this nicely).
What's the VDM equivalent? I don't see anything in the numerics/sets section of the language reference.
There isn't a standard library function to do this (though perhaps there should be). You would sum a set with a simple recursive function:
sum: set of nat +> nat
sum(s) ==
if s = {}
then 0
else let e in set s in
e + sum(s \ {e})
measure card s;
The "let" selects an arbitrary element from the set, and then add that to the sum of the remainder. The measure says that the recursion always deals with smaller sets.
This should work:
sum(S)
But you could find this very easily.
I searched internet for a function to find exact square root of BigInt using scala programming language. I didn't get one, But saw one Java Program and I converted that function into Scala version. It is working but I am not sure, whether it can handle very large BigInt. But it returns BigInt only. Not BigDecimal as Square Root. It shows there is some bit manipulation done in the code with some hard coding of numbers like shiftRight(5), BigInt("8") and shiftRight(1). I can understand the logic clearly, But not the hard coding of these bitshift numbers and the number 8. May be these bitshift functions are not available in scala, and thats why it is needed to convert to java BigInteger at few places. These hard coded numbers may impact the precision of the result.I just changed the java code into scala code just copying the exact algorithm. And here is the code I have written in scala:
def sqt(n:BigInt):BigInt = {
var a = BigInt(1)
var b = (n>>5)+BigInt(8)
while((b-a) >= 0) {
var mid:BigInt = (a+b)>>1
if(mid*mid-n> 0) b = mid-1
else a = mid+1
}
a-1
}
My Points are:
Can't we return a BigDecimal instead of BigInt? How can we do that?
How these hardcoded numbers shiftRight(5), shiftRight(1) and 8 are related
to precision of the result.
I tested for one number in scala REPL: The function sqt is giving exact square root of the squared number. but not for the actual number as below:
scala> sqt(BigInt("19928937494873929279191794189"))
res9: BigInt = 141169888768369
scala> res9*res9
res10: scala.math.BigInt = 19928937494873675935734920161
scala> sqt(res10)
res11: BigInt = 141169888768369
scala>
I understand shiftRight(5) means divide by 2^5 ie.by 32 in decimal and so on..but why 8 is added here after shift operation? why exactly 5 shifts? as a first guess?
Your question 1 and question 3 are actually the same question.
How [do] these bitshifts impact [the] precision of the result?
They don't.
How [are] these hardcoded numbers ... related to precision of the result?
They aren't.
There are many different methods/algorithms for estimating/calculating the square root of a number (as can be seen here). The algorithm you've posted appears to be a pretty straight forward binary search.
Pick a number a guaranteed to be smaller than the target (square root of n).
Pick a number b guaranteed to be larger than the target (square root of n).
Calculate mid, the whole number mid-point between a and b.
If mid is larger than (or equal to) the target then move b to mid (-1 because we know it's too large).
If mid is smaller than the target then move a to mid (+1 because we know it's too small).
Repeat 3,4,5 until a is no longer less than b.
Return a-1 as the square root of n rounded down to a whole number.
The bitshifts and hardcoded numbers are used in selecting the initial value of b. But b only has be greater than the target. We could have just done var b = n. Why all the bother?
It's all about efficiency. The closer b is to the target, the fewer iterations are needed to find the result. Why add 8 after the shift? Because 31>>5 is zero, which is not greater than the target. The author chose (n>>5)+8 but he/she might have chosen (n>>7)+12. There are trade-offs.
Can't we return a BigDecimal instead of BigInt? How can we do that?
Here's one way to do that.
def sqt(n:BigInt) :BigDecimal = {
val d = BigDecimal(n)
var a = BigDecimal(1.0)
var b = d
while(b-a >= 0) {
val mid = (a+b)/2
if (mid*mid-d > 0) b = mid-0.0001 //adjust down
else a = mid+0.0001 //adjust up
}
b
}
There are better algorithms for calculating floating-point square root values. In this case you get better precision by using smaller adjustment values but the efficiency gets much worse.
Can't we return a BigDecimal instead of BigInt? How can we do that?
This makes no sense if you want exact roots: if a BigInt's square root can be represented exactly by a BigDecimal, it can be represented by a BigInt. If you don't want exact roots, you'll need to specify precision and modify the algorithm (and for most cases, Double will be good enough and much much much faster than BigDecimal).
I understand shiftRight(5) means divide by 2^5 ie.by 32 in decimal and so on..but why 8 is added here after shift operation? why exactly 5 shifts? as a first guess?
These aren't the only options. The point is that for every positive n, n/32 + 8 >= sqrt(n) (where sqrt is the mathematical square root). This is easiest to show by a bit of calculus (or just by building a graph of the difference). So at the start we know a <= sqrt(n) <= b (unless n == 0 which can be checked separately), and you can verify this remains true on each step.
As simple as in title. I have nx1 sized vector p. I'm interested in the maximum value of r = p/foo - floor(p/foo), with foo being a scalar, so I just call:
max_value = max(p/foo-floor(p/foo))
How can I get which value of p gave out max_value?
I thought about calling:
[max_value, max_index] = max(p/foo-floor(p/foo))
but soon I realised that max_index is pretty useless. I'm sorry asking this, real beginner here.
Having dropped the issue to pieces, I realized there's no unique corrispondence between values p and values in my related vector p/foo-floor(p/foo), so there's a logical issue rather than a language one.
However, given my input data, I know that the solution is unique. How can I fix this?
I ended up doing:
result = p(p/foo-floor(p/foo) == max(p/foo-floor(p/foo)))
Looks terrible, so if you know any other way...
Once you have the index, use it:
result = p(max_index)
You can create a new vector with your lets say "transformed" values:
p2 = (p/foo-floor(p/foo))
and then just use find to find the max values on p2:
max_index = find(p2 == max(p2))
that will return the index or indices of p2 with the max value of that operation, and finally just lookup the original value in p
p(max_index)
in 1 line, this is:
p(find((p/foo-floor(p/foo) == max((p/foo-floor(p/foo))))))
which is basically the same thing you did in the end :)
The problem in general:
I have a big 2d point space, sparsely populated with dots.
Think of it as a big white canvas sprinkled with black dots.
I have to iterate over and search through these dots a lot.
The Canvas (point space) can be huge, bordering on the limits
of int and its size is unknown before setting points in there.
That brought me to the idea of hashing:
Ideal:
I need a hash function taking a 2D point, returning a unique uint32.
So that no collisions can occur. You can assume that the number of
dots on the Canvas is easily countable by uint32.
IMPORTANT: It is impossible to know the size of the canvas beforehand
(it may even change),
so things like
canvaswidth * y + x
are sadly out of the question.
I also tried a very naive
abs(x) + abs(y)
but that produces too many collisions.
Compromise:
A hash function that provides keys with a very low probability of collision.
Cantor's enumeration of pairs
n = ((x + y)*(x + y + 1)/2) + y
might be interesting, as it's closest to your original canvaswidth * y + x but will work for any x or y. But for a real world int32 hash, rather than a mapping of pairs of integers to integers, you're probably better off with a bit manipulation such as Bob Jenkin's mix and calling that with x,y and a salt.
a hash function that is GUARANTEED collision-free is not a hash function :)
Instead of using a hash function, you could consider using binary space partition trees (BSPs) or XY-trees (closely related).
If you want to hash two uint32's into one uint32, do not use things like Y & 0xFFFF because that discards half of the bits. Do something like
(x * 0x1f1f1f1f) ^ y
(you need to transform one of the variables first to make sure the hash function is not commutative)
Like Emil, but handles 16-bit overflows in x in a way that produces fewer collisions, and takes fewer instructions to compute:
hash = ( y << 16 ) ^ x;
You can recursively divide your XY plane into cells, then divide these cells into sub-cells, etc.
Gustavo Niemeyer invented in 2008 his Geohash geocoding system.
Amazon's open source Geo Library computes the hash for any longitude-latitude coordinate. The resulting Geohash value is a 63 bit number. The probability of collision depends of the hash's resolution: if two objects are closer than the intrinsic resolution, the calculated hash will be identical.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geohash
https://aws.amazon.com/fr/blogs/mobile/geo-library-for-amazon-dynamodb-part-1-table-structure/
https://github.com/awslabs/dynamodb-geo
Your "ideal" is impossible.
You want a mapping (x, y) -> i where x, y, and i are all 32-bit quantities, which is guaranteed not to generate duplicate values of i.
Here's why: suppose there is a function hash() so that hash(x, y) gives different integer values. There are 2^32 (about 4 billion) values for x, and 2^32 values of y. So hash(x, y) has 2^64 (about 16 million trillion) possible results. But there are only 2^32 possible values in a 32-bit int, so the result of hash() won't fit in a 32-bit int.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_argument
Generally, you should always design your data structures to deal with collisions. (Unless your hashes are very long (at least 128 bit), very good (use cryptographic hash functions), and you're feeling lucky).
Perhaps?
hash = ((y & 0xFFFF) << 16) | (x & 0xFFFF);
Works as long as x and y can be stored as 16 bit integers. No idea about how many collisions this causes for larger integers, though. One idea might be to still use this scheme but combine it with a compression scheme, such as taking the modulus of 2^16.
If you can do a = ((y & 0xffff) << 16) | (x & 0xffff) then you could afterward apply a reversible 32-bit mix to a, such as Thomas Wang's
uint32_t hash( uint32_t a)
a = (a ^ 61) ^ (a >> 16);
a = a + (a << 3);
a = a ^ (a >> 4);
a = a * 0x27d4eb2d;
a = a ^ (a >> 15);
return a;
}
That way you get a random-looking result rather than high bits from one dimension and low bits from the other.
You can do
a >= b ? a * a + a + b : a + b * b
taken from here.
That works for points in positive plane. If your coordinates can be in negative axis too, then you will have to do:
A = a >= 0 ? 2 * a : -2 * a - 1;
B = b >= 0 ? 2 * b : -2 * b - 1;
A >= B ? A * A + A + B : A + B * B;
But to restrict the output to uint you will have to keep an upper bound for your inputs. and if so, then it turns out that you know the bounds. In other words in programming its impractical to write a function without having an idea on the integer type your inputs and output can be and if so there definitely will be a lower bound and upper bound for every integer type.
public uint GetHashCode(whatever a, whatever b)
{
if (a > ushort.MaxValue || b > ushort.MaxValue ||
a < ushort.MinValue || b < ushort.MinValue)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
return (uint)(a * short.MaxValue + b); //very good space/speed efficiency
//or whatever your function is.
}
If you want output to be strictly uint for unknown range of inputs, then there will be reasonable amount of collisions depending upon that range. What I would suggest is to have a function that can overflow but unchecked. Emil's solution is great, in C#:
return unchecked((uint)((a & 0xffff) << 16 | (b & 0xffff)));
See Mapping two integers to one, in a unique and deterministic way for a plethora of options..
According to your use case, it might be possible to use a Quadtree and replace points with the string of branch names. It is actually a sparse representation for points and will need a custom Quadtree structure that extends the canvas by adding branches when you add points off the canvas but it avoids collisions and you'll have benefits like quick nearest neighbor searches.
If you're already using languages or platforms that all objects (even primitive ones like integers) has built-in hash functions implemented (Java platform Languages like Java, .NET platform languages like C#. And others like Python, Ruby, etc ).
You may use built-in hashing values as a building block and add your "hashing flavor" in to the mix. Like:
// C# code snippet
public class SomeVerySimplePoint {
public int X;
public int Y;
public override int GetHashCode() {
return ( Y.GetHashCode() << 16 ) ^ X.GetHashCode();
}
}
And also having test cases like "predefined million point set" running against each possible hash generating algorithm comparison for different aspects like, computation time, memory required, key collision count, and edge cases (too big or too small values) may be handy.
the Fibonacci hash works very well for integer pairs
multiplier 0x9E3779B9
other word sizes 1/phi = (sqrt(5)-1)/2 * 2^w round to odd
a1 + a2*multiplier
this will give very different values for close together pairs
I do not know about the result with all pairs