I tried to play with php,however I got stuck at one place, where I tested value of $n=1024, then it takes more than 60sec,so timeout error of php arises,I don't know how to overcome this problem,if my only requirement is to present any input number in the 20 + ---+ 2n Form.
trying below code with n=121,I got this,but I wish to represent 57 also in 2n
Form,So I tried recursion,which didn't worked.
see how a given no. be represented in powers of '2': 20 + 21 + 22 +
2 + 24+ 25 + 26+ 57
CODE:
<?php
echo("see how a given no. be represented in powers of '2' :<br/>\n");
$n=121;
$two_pow=array(
pow(2,0),pow(2,1),pow(2,2),pow(2,3),pow(2,4),pow(2,5),
pow(2,6),pow(2,7),pow(2,8),pow(2,9),pow(2,10)
);
//print_r($two_pow);
$i=0;
while($n>=$two_pow[$i])
$i++;
/* displaying 2^3*/
if($i>0)
$ij=$i-1;
/* diplaying difference of give N and 2^i*/
$diff=$n-$two_pow[$ij];
if($n>0)
{
for($i=0;$i<=$ij;$i++)
{
echo("2<sup> $i </sup>"."+ \n");
if($i==$ij && $diff>0)
{
echo("\n". $diff);
}
}
}
else
echo("<br/>not possible for values less then zero");
?>
No need for recursion or anything like that, just convert to binary and loop through the characters:
$bits = array_reverse(str_split(decbin($n)));
$output = array();
foreach($bits as $key => $bit) {
if($bit == 1) {
$output[] = '2<sup>'.($key).'</sup>';
}
}
echo implode(' + ', $output);
Working example:
http://codepad.org/plzvw2RL
Cant you use - base_convert() to convert the string to binary, then format your output based on the position of bits?
It is a joke right?
Oh it isn't?
Well ok
take look at decbin function. Isn't it easier?
You can overcome the timeout restriction by disabling the timeout:
set_time_limit(0);
Related
How does one generate a random float between 0 and 1 in PHP?
I'm looking for the PHP's equivalent to Java's Math.random().
You may use the standard function: lcg_value().
Here's another function given on the rand() docs:
// auxiliary function
// returns random number with flat distribution from 0 to 1
function random_0_1()
{
return (float)rand() / (float)getrandmax();
}
Example from documentation :
function random_float ($min,$max) {
return ($min+lcg_value()*(abs($max-$min)));
}
rand(0,1000)/1000 returns:
0.348 0.716 0.251 0.459 0.893 0.867 0.058 0.955 0.644 0.246 0.292
or use a bigger number if you want more digits after decimal point
class SomeHelper
{
/**
* Generate random float number.
*
* #param float|int $min
* #param float|int $max
* #return float
*/
public static function rand($min = 0, $max = 1)
{
return ($min + ($max - $min) * (mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax()));
}
}
update:
forget this answer it doesnt work wit php -v > 5.3
What about
floatVal('0.'.rand(1, 9));
?
this works perfect for me, and it´s not only for 0 - 1 for example between 1.0 - 15.0
floatVal(rand(1, 15).'.'.rand(1, 9));
function mt_rand_float($min, $max, $countZero = '0') {
$countZero = +('1'.$countZero);
$min = floor($min*$countZero);
$max = floor($max*$countZero);
$rand = mt_rand($min, $max) / $countZero;
return $rand;
}
example:
echo mt_rand_float(0, 1);
result: 0.2
echo mt_rand_float(3.2, 3.23, '000');
result: 3.219
echo mt_rand_float(1, 5, '00');
result: 4.52
echo mt_rand_float(0.56789, 1, '00');
result: 0.69
$random_number = rand(1,10).".".rand(1,9);
function frand($min, $max, $decimals = 0) {
$scale = pow(10, $decimals);
return mt_rand($min * $scale, $max * $scale) / $scale;
}
echo "frand(0, 10, 2) = " . frand(0, 10, 2) . "\n";
This question asks for a value from 0 to 1. For most mathematical purposes this is usually invalid albeit to the smallest possible degree. The standard distribution by convention is 0 >= N < 1. You should consider if you really want something inclusive of 1.
Many things that do this absent minded have a one in a couple billion result of an anomalous result. This becomes obvious if you think about performing the operation backwards.
(int)(random_float() * 10) would return a value from 0 to 9 with an equal chance of each value. If in one in a billion times it can return 1 then very rarely it will return 10 instead.
Some people would fix this after the fact (to decide that 10 should be 9). Multiplying it by 2 should give around a ~50% chance of 0 or 1 but will also have a ~0.000000000465% chance of returning a 2 like in Bender's dream.
Saying 0 to 1 as a float might be a bit like mistakenly saying 0 to 10 instead of 0 to 9 as ints when you want ten values starting at zero. In this case because of the broad range of possible float values then it's more like accidentally saying 0 to 1000000000 instead of 0 to 999999999.
With 64bit it's exceedingly rare to overflow but in this case some random functions are 32bit internally so it's not no implausible for that one in two and a half billion chance to occur.
The standard solutions would instead want to be like this:
mt_rand() / (getrandmax() + 1)
There can also be small usually insignificant differences in distribution, for example between 0 to 9 then you might find 0 is slightly more likely than 9 due to precision but this will typically be in the billionth or so and is not as severe as the above issue because the above issue can produce an invalid unexpected out of bounds figure for a calculation that would otherwise be flawless.
Java's Math.random will also never produce a value of 1. Some of this comes from that it is a mouthful to explain specifically what it does. It returns a value from 0 to less than one. It's Zeno's arrow, it never reaches 1. This isn't something someone would conventionally say. Instead people tend to say between 0 and 1 or from 0 to 1 but those are false.
This is somewhat a source of amusement in bug reports. For example, any PHP code using lcg_value without consideration for this may glitch approximately one in a couple billion times if it holds true to its documentation but that makes it painfully difficult to faithfully reproduce.
This kind of off by one error is one of the common sources of "Just turn it off and on again." issues typically encountered in embedded devices.
Solution for PHP 7. Generates random number in [0,1). i.e. includes 0 and excludes 1.
function random_float() {
return random_int(0, 2**53-1) / (2**53);
}
Thanks to Nommyde in the comments for pointing out my bug.
>>> number_format((2**53-1)/2**53,100)
=> "0.9999999999999998889776975374843459576368331909179687500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
>>> number_format((2**53)/(2**53+1),100)
=> "1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
Most answers are using mt_rand. However, mt_getrandmax() usually returns only 2147483647. That means you only have 31 bits of information, while a double has a mantissa with 52 bits, which means there is a density of at least 2^53 for the numbers between 0 and 1.
This more complicated approach will get you a finer distribution:
function rand_754_01() {
// Generate 64 random bits (8 bytes)
$entropy = openssl_random_pseudo_bytes(8);
// Create a string of 12 '0' bits and 52 '1' bits.
$x = 0x000FFFFFFFFFFFFF;
$first12 = pack("Q", $x);
// Set the first 12 bits to 0 in the random string.
$y = $entropy & $first12;
// Now set the first 12 bits to be 0[exponent], where exponent is randomly chosen between 1 and 1022.
// Here $e has a probability of 0.5 to be 1022, 0.25 to be 1021, etc.
$e = 1022;
while($e > 1) {
if(mt_rand(0,1) == 0) {
break;
} else {
--$e;
}
}
// Pack the exponent properly (add four '0' bits behind it and 49 more in front)
$z = "\0\0\0\0\0\0" . pack("S", $e << 4);
// Now convert to a double.
return unpack("d", $y | $z)[1];
}
Please note that the above code only works on 64-bit machines with a Litte-Endian byte order and Intel-style IEEE754 representation. (x64-compatible computers will have this). Unfortunately PHP does not allow bit-shifting past int32-sized boundaries, so you have to write a separate function for Big-Endian.
You should replace this line:
$z = "\0\0\0\0\0\0" . pack("S", $e << 4);
with its big-endian counterpart:
$z = pack("S", $e << 4) . "\0\0\0\0\0\0";
The difference is only notable when the function is called a large amount of times: 10^9 or more.
Testing if this works
It should be obvious that the mantissa follows a nice uniform distribution approximation, but it's less obvious that a sum of a large amount of such distributions (each with cumulatively halved chance and amplitude) is uniform.
Running:
function randomNumbers() {
$f = 0.0;
for($i = 0; $i < 1000000; ++$i) {
$f += \math::rand_754_01();
}
echo $f / 1000000;
}
Produces an output of 0.49999928273099 (or a similar number close to 0.5).
I found the answer on PHP.net
<?php
function randomFloat($min = 0, $max = 1) {
return $min + mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax() * ($max - $min);
}
var_dump(randomFloat());
var_dump(randomFloat(2, 20));
?>
float(0.91601131712832)
float(16.511210331931)
So you could do
randomFloat(0,1);
or simple
mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax() * 1;
what about:
echo (float)('0.' . rand(0,99999));
would probably work fine... hope it helps you.
this might be a stupid question but I have searched again and again without finding any results.
So, what I want is to show all the decimal places of a number without knowing how many decimal places it will have. Take a look at this small code:
$arrayTest = array(0.123456789, 0.0123456789);
foreach($arrayTest as $output){
$newNumber = $output/1000;
echo $newNumber;
echo "<br>";
}
It gives this output:
0.000123456789
1.23456789E-5
Now, I tried using 'number_format', but I don't think that is a good solution. It determines an exact amount of decimal places, and I do not know the amount of decimal places for every number. Take a look at the below code:
$arrayTest = array(0.123456789, 0.0123456789);
foreach($arrayTest as $output){
$newNumber = $output/1000;
echo number_format($newNumber,13);
echo "<br>";
}
It gives this output:
0.0001234567890
0.0000123456789
Now, as you can see there is an excess 0 in the first number, because number_format forces it to have 13 decimal places.
I would really love some guidance on how to get around this problem. Is there a setting in PHP.ini which determines the amount of decimals?
Thank you very much in advance!
(and feel free to ask if you have any further questions)
It is "impossible" to answer this question properly - because a binary float representation of a decimal number is approximate: "What every computer scientist should know about floating point"
The closest you can come is write yourself a routine that looks at a decimal representation of a number, and compares it to the "exact" value; once the difference becomes "small enough for your purpose", you stop adding more digits.
This routine could then return the "correct number of digits" as a string.
Example:
<?php
$a = 1.234567890;
$b = 0.123456789;
echo returnString($a)."\n";
echo returnString($b)."\n";
function returnString($a) {
// return the value $a as a string
// with enough digits to be "accurate" - that is, the value returned
// matches the value given to 1E-10
// there is a limit of 10 digits to cope with unexpected inputs
// and prevent an infinite loop
$conv_a = 0;
$digits=0;
while(abs($a - $conv_a) > 1e-10) {
$digits = $digits + 1;
$conv_a = 0 + number_format($a, $digits);
if($digits > 10) $conv_a = $a;
}
return $conv_a;
}
?>
Which produces
1.23456789
0.123456789
In the above code I arbitrarily assumed that being right to within 1E-10 was good enough. Obviously you can change this condition to whatever is appropriate for the numbers you encounter - and you could even make it an optional argument of your function.
Play with it - ask questions if this is not clear.
How does one generate a random float between 0 and 1 in PHP?
I'm looking for the PHP's equivalent to Java's Math.random().
You may use the standard function: lcg_value().
Here's another function given on the rand() docs:
// auxiliary function
// returns random number with flat distribution from 0 to 1
function random_0_1()
{
return (float)rand() / (float)getrandmax();
}
Example from documentation :
function random_float ($min,$max) {
return ($min+lcg_value()*(abs($max-$min)));
}
rand(0,1000)/1000 returns:
0.348 0.716 0.251 0.459 0.893 0.867 0.058 0.955 0.644 0.246 0.292
or use a bigger number if you want more digits after decimal point
class SomeHelper
{
/**
* Generate random float number.
*
* #param float|int $min
* #param float|int $max
* #return float
*/
public static function rand($min = 0, $max = 1)
{
return ($min + ($max - $min) * (mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax()));
}
}
update:
forget this answer it doesnt work wit php -v > 5.3
What about
floatVal('0.'.rand(1, 9));
?
this works perfect for me, and it´s not only for 0 - 1 for example between 1.0 - 15.0
floatVal(rand(1, 15).'.'.rand(1, 9));
function mt_rand_float($min, $max, $countZero = '0') {
$countZero = +('1'.$countZero);
$min = floor($min*$countZero);
$max = floor($max*$countZero);
$rand = mt_rand($min, $max) / $countZero;
return $rand;
}
example:
echo mt_rand_float(0, 1);
result: 0.2
echo mt_rand_float(3.2, 3.23, '000');
result: 3.219
echo mt_rand_float(1, 5, '00');
result: 4.52
echo mt_rand_float(0.56789, 1, '00');
result: 0.69
$random_number = rand(1,10).".".rand(1,9);
function frand($min, $max, $decimals = 0) {
$scale = pow(10, $decimals);
return mt_rand($min * $scale, $max * $scale) / $scale;
}
echo "frand(0, 10, 2) = " . frand(0, 10, 2) . "\n";
This question asks for a value from 0 to 1. For most mathematical purposes this is usually invalid albeit to the smallest possible degree. The standard distribution by convention is 0 >= N < 1. You should consider if you really want something inclusive of 1.
Many things that do this absent minded have a one in a couple billion result of an anomalous result. This becomes obvious if you think about performing the operation backwards.
(int)(random_float() * 10) would return a value from 0 to 9 with an equal chance of each value. If in one in a billion times it can return 1 then very rarely it will return 10 instead.
Some people would fix this after the fact (to decide that 10 should be 9). Multiplying it by 2 should give around a ~50% chance of 0 or 1 but will also have a ~0.000000000465% chance of returning a 2 like in Bender's dream.
Saying 0 to 1 as a float might be a bit like mistakenly saying 0 to 10 instead of 0 to 9 as ints when you want ten values starting at zero. In this case because of the broad range of possible float values then it's more like accidentally saying 0 to 1000000000 instead of 0 to 999999999.
With 64bit it's exceedingly rare to overflow but in this case some random functions are 32bit internally so it's not no implausible for that one in two and a half billion chance to occur.
The standard solutions would instead want to be like this:
mt_rand() / (getrandmax() + 1)
There can also be small usually insignificant differences in distribution, for example between 0 to 9 then you might find 0 is slightly more likely than 9 due to precision but this will typically be in the billionth or so and is not as severe as the above issue because the above issue can produce an invalid unexpected out of bounds figure for a calculation that would otherwise be flawless.
Java's Math.random will also never produce a value of 1. Some of this comes from that it is a mouthful to explain specifically what it does. It returns a value from 0 to less than one. It's Zeno's arrow, it never reaches 1. This isn't something someone would conventionally say. Instead people tend to say between 0 and 1 or from 0 to 1 but those are false.
This is somewhat a source of amusement in bug reports. For example, any PHP code using lcg_value without consideration for this may glitch approximately one in a couple billion times if it holds true to its documentation but that makes it painfully difficult to faithfully reproduce.
This kind of off by one error is one of the common sources of "Just turn it off and on again." issues typically encountered in embedded devices.
Solution for PHP 7. Generates random number in [0,1). i.e. includes 0 and excludes 1.
function random_float() {
return random_int(0, 2**53-1) / (2**53);
}
Thanks to Nommyde in the comments for pointing out my bug.
>>> number_format((2**53-1)/2**53,100)
=> "0.9999999999999998889776975374843459576368331909179687500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
>>> number_format((2**53)/(2**53+1),100)
=> "1.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"
Most answers are using mt_rand. However, mt_getrandmax() usually returns only 2147483647. That means you only have 31 bits of information, while a double has a mantissa with 52 bits, which means there is a density of at least 2^53 for the numbers between 0 and 1.
This more complicated approach will get you a finer distribution:
function rand_754_01() {
// Generate 64 random bits (8 bytes)
$entropy = openssl_random_pseudo_bytes(8);
// Create a string of 12 '0' bits and 52 '1' bits.
$x = 0x000FFFFFFFFFFFFF;
$first12 = pack("Q", $x);
// Set the first 12 bits to 0 in the random string.
$y = $entropy & $first12;
// Now set the first 12 bits to be 0[exponent], where exponent is randomly chosen between 1 and 1022.
// Here $e has a probability of 0.5 to be 1022, 0.25 to be 1021, etc.
$e = 1022;
while($e > 1) {
if(mt_rand(0,1) == 0) {
break;
} else {
--$e;
}
}
// Pack the exponent properly (add four '0' bits behind it and 49 more in front)
$z = "\0\0\0\0\0\0" . pack("S", $e << 4);
// Now convert to a double.
return unpack("d", $y | $z)[1];
}
Please note that the above code only works on 64-bit machines with a Litte-Endian byte order and Intel-style IEEE754 representation. (x64-compatible computers will have this). Unfortunately PHP does not allow bit-shifting past int32-sized boundaries, so you have to write a separate function for Big-Endian.
You should replace this line:
$z = "\0\0\0\0\0\0" . pack("S", $e << 4);
with its big-endian counterpart:
$z = pack("S", $e << 4) . "\0\0\0\0\0\0";
The difference is only notable when the function is called a large amount of times: 10^9 or more.
Testing if this works
It should be obvious that the mantissa follows a nice uniform distribution approximation, but it's less obvious that a sum of a large amount of such distributions (each with cumulatively halved chance and amplitude) is uniform.
Running:
function randomNumbers() {
$f = 0.0;
for($i = 0; $i < 1000000; ++$i) {
$f += \math::rand_754_01();
}
echo $f / 1000000;
}
Produces an output of 0.49999928273099 (or a similar number close to 0.5).
I found the answer on PHP.net
<?php
function randomFloat($min = 0, $max = 1) {
return $min + mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax() * ($max - $min);
}
var_dump(randomFloat());
var_dump(randomFloat(2, 20));
?>
float(0.91601131712832)
float(16.511210331931)
So you could do
randomFloat(0,1);
or simple
mt_rand() / mt_getrandmax() * 1;
what about:
echo (float)('0.' . rand(0,99999));
would probably work fine... hope it helps you.
I'm displaying how large a list of files are in a table using PHP. I'd like to display how big they are in megabytes instead of the default bytes. The problem I'm having is that I get extremely long decimals, which is impractical for this purpose.
Here's what I have so far:
print((filesize("../uploads/" . $dirArray[$index])) * .000000953674316 . " MB");
Which correctly converts the value, but changes, for example, 71 B to 6.7710876436E-5 MB.
I think the E-5 thing is like x10^-5 which would probably add up correctly, but is there a way I can cut off how many numbers it goes down to? If it displays as "00.00 MB" that's fine by me, most file are going to be much bigger than this test one.
You can format numbers with the number_format() function.
Edit: the manual page contains a user comment you may like: http://es.php.net/manual/en/function.number-format.php#72969
With good old printf :
printf("%.2f MB",filesize("../uploads/" . $dirArray[$index]) * .000000953674316);
Maybe, because it's a bit clearer what the intention is:
printf("%.2f MB",filesize("../uploads/" . $dirArray[$index]) / (1024 * 1024));
number_format() is good, and don't forget that round() can round the number to any precision you want.
Here is simple nice function: Quick PHP
If you need other units, too, you might use this function I wrote years ago:
<?php
function human_filesize($size, $precision = 2)
{
$a_size = array('B', 'KiB', 'MiB', 'GiB', 'TiB', 'PiB');
$count = count($a_size) - 1;
$i = 0;
while ($size / 1024 >= 1 && $count >= $i) {
$size = $size / 1024;
$i++;
}
return round($size, $precision) . ' ' . $a_size[$i];
}
// =========
// USAGE
// =========
// Output: 34.35 MiB
echo human_filesize(filesize('file.zip'));
// Output: 34 MiB
echo human_filesize(filesize('file.zip'), 0);
// Output: 34.35465 MiB
echo human_filesize(filesize('file.zip'), 5);
?>
I am trying to create a little php script that can make my life a bit easier.
Basically, I am going to have 21 text fields on a page where I am going to input 20 different numbers. In the last field I will enter a number let's call it the TOTAL AMOUNT. All I want the script to do is to point out which numbers from the 20 fields added up will come up to TOTAL AMOUNT.
Example:
field1 = 25.23
field2 = 34.45
field3 = 56.67
field4 = 63.54
field5 = 87.54
....
field20 = 4.2
Total Amount = 81.90
Output: field1 + fields3 = 81.90
Some of the fields might have 0 as value because sometimes I only need to enter 5-15 fields and the maximum will be 20.
If someone can help me out with the php code for this, will be greatly appreciated.
If you look at oezis algorithm one drawback is immediately clear: It spends very much time summing up numbers which are already known not to work. (For example if 1 + 2 is already too big, it doesn't make any sense to try 1 + 2 + 3, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5, ..., too.)
Thus I have written an improved version. It does not use bit magic, it makes everything manual. A drawback is, that it requires the input values to be sorted (use rsort). But that shouldn't be a big problem ;)
function array_sum_parts($vals, $sum){
$solutions = array();
$pos = array(0 => count($vals) - 1);
$lastPosIndex = 0;
$currentPos = $pos[0];
$currentSum = 0;
while (true) {
$currentSum += $vals[$currentPos];
if ($currentSum < $sum && $currentPos != 0) {
$pos[++$lastPosIndex] = --$currentPos;
} else {
if ($currentSum == $sum) {
$solutions[] = array_slice($pos, 0, $lastPosIndex + 1);
}
if ($lastPosIndex == 0) {
break;
}
$currentSum -= $vals[$currentPos] + $vals[1 + $currentPos = --$pos[--$lastPosIndex]];
}
}
return $solutions;
}
A modified version of oezis testing program (see end) outputs:
possibilities: 540
took: 3.0897309780121
So it took only 3.1 seconds to execute, whereas oezis code executed 65 seconds on my machine (yes, my machine is very slow). That's more than 20 times faster!
Furthermore you may notice, that my code found 540 instead of 338 possibilities. This is because I adjusted the testing program to use integers instead of floats. Direct floating point comparison is rarely the right thing to do, this is a great example why: You sometimes get 59.959999999999 instead of 59.96 and thus the match will not be counted. So, if I run oezis code with integers it finds 540 possibilities, too ;)
Testing program:
// Inputs
$n = array();
$n[0] = 6.56;
$n[1] = 8.99;
$n[2] = 1.45;
$n[3] = 4.83;
$n[4] = 8.16;
$n[5] = 2.53;
$n[6] = 0.28;
$n[7] = 9.37;
$n[8] = 0.34;
$n[9] = 5.82;
$n[10] = 8.24;
$n[11] = 4.35;
$n[12] = 9.67;
$n[13] = 1.69;
$n[14] = 5.64;
$n[15] = 0.27;
$n[16] = 2.73;
$n[17] = 1.63;
$n[18] = 4.07;
$n[19] = 9.04;
$n[20] = 6.32;
// Convert to Integers
foreach ($n as &$num) {
$num *= 100;
}
$sum = 57.96 * 100;
// Sort from High to Low
rsort($n);
// Measure time
$start = microtime(true);
echo 'possibilities: ', count($result = array_sum_parts($n, $sum)), '<br />';
echo 'took: ', microtime(true) - $start;
// Check that the result is correct
foreach ($result as $element) {
$s = 0;
foreach ($element as $i) {
$s += $n[$i];
}
if ($s != $sum) echo '<br />FAIL!';
}
var_dump($result);
sorry for adding a new answer, but this is a complete new solution to solve all problems of life, universe and everything...:
function array_sum_parts($n,$t,$all=false){
$count_n = count($n); // how much fields are in that array?
$count = pow(2,$count_n); // we need to do 2^fields calculations to test all possibilities
# now i want to look at every number from 1 to $count, where the number is representing
# the array and add up all array-elements which are at positions where my actual number
# has a 1-bit
# EXAMPLE:
# $i = 1 in binary mode 1 = 01 i'll use ony the first array-element
# $i = 10 in binary mode 10 = 1010 ill use the secont and the fourth array-element
# and so on... the number of 1-bits is the amount of numbers used in that try
for($i=1;$i<=$count;$i++){ // start calculating all possibilities
$total=0; // sum of this try
$anzahl=0; // counter for 1-bits in this try
$k = $i; // store $i to another variable which can be changed during the loop
for($j=0;$j<$count_n;$j++){ // loop trough array-elemnts
$total+=($k%2)*$n[$j]; // add up if the corresponding bit of $i is 1
$anzahl+=($k%2); // add up the number of 1-bits
$k=$k>>1; //bit-shift to the left for looking at the next bit in the next loop
}
if($total==$t){
$loesung[$i] = $anzahl; // if sum of this try is the sum we are looking for, save this to an array (whith the number of 1-bits for sorting)
if(!$all){
break; // if we're not looking for all solutions, make a break because the first one was found
}
}
}
asort($loesung); // sort all solutions by the amount of numbers used
// formating the solutions to getting back the original array-keys (which shoud be the return-value)
foreach($loesung as $val=>$anzahl){
$bit = strrev(decbin($val));
$total=0;
$ret_this = array();
for($j=0;$j<=strlen($bit);$j++){
if($bit[$j]=='1'){
$ret_this[] = $j;
}
}
$ret[]=$ret_this;
}
return $ret;
}
// Inputs
$n[0]=6.56;
$n[1]=8.99;
$n[2]=1.45;
$n[3]=4.83;
$n[4]=8.16;
$n[5]=2.53;
$n[6]=0.28;
$n[7]=9.37;
$n[8]=0.34;
$n[9]=5.82;
$n[10]=8.24;
$n[11]=4.35;
$n[12]=9.67;
$n[13]=1.69;
$n[14]=5.64;
$n[15]=0.27;
$n[16]=2.73;
$n[17]=1.63;
$n[18]=4.07;
$n[19]=9.04;
$n[20]=6.32;
// Output
$t=57.96;
var_dump(array_sum_parts($n,$t)); //returns one possible solution (fuc*** fast)
var_dump(array_sum_parts($n,$t,true)); // returns all possible solution (relatively fast when you think of all the needet calculations)
if you don't use the third parameter, it returns the best (whith the least amount numbers used) solution as array (whith keys of the input-array) - if you set the third parameter to true, ALL solutions are returned (for testing, i used the same numbers as zaf in his post - there are 338 solutions in this case, found in ~10sec on my machine).
EDIT:
if you get all, you get the results ordered by which is "best" - whithout this, you only get the first found solution (which isn't necessarily the best).
EDIT2:
to forfil the desire of some explanation, i commented the essential parts of the code . if anyone needs more explanation, please ask
1. Check and eliminate fields values more than 21st field
2. Check highest of the remaining, Add smallest,
3. if its greater than 21st eliminate highest (iterate this process)
4. If lower: Highest + second Lowest, if equal show result.
5. if higher go to step 7
6. if lower go to step 4
7. if its lower than add second lowest, go to step 3.
8. if its equal show result
This is efficient and will take less execution time.
Following method will give you an answer... almost all of the time. Increase the iterations variable to your taste.
<?php
// Inputs
$n[1]=8.99;
$n[2]=1.45;
$n[3]=4.83;
$n[4]=8.16;
$n[5]=2.53;
$n[6]=0.28;
$n[7]=9.37;
$n[8]=0.34;
$n[9]=5.82;
$n[10]=8.24;
$n[11]=4.35;
$n[12]=9.67;
$n[13]=1.69;
$n[14]=5.64;
$n[15]=0.27;
$n[16]=2.73;
$n[17]=1.63;
$n[18]=4.07;
$n[19]=9.04;
$n[20]=6.32;
// Output
$t=57.96;
// Let's try to do this a million times randomly
// Relax, thats less than a blink
$iterations=1000000;
while($iterations-->0){
$z=array_rand($n, mt_rand(2,20));
$total=0;
foreach($z as $x) $total+=$n[$x];
if($total==$t)break;
}
// If we did less than a million times we have an answer
if($iterations>0){
$total=0;
foreach($z as $x){
$total+=$n[$x];
print("[$x] + ". $n[$x] . " = $total<br/>");
}
}
?>
One solution:
[1] + 8.99 = 8.99
[4] + 8.16 = 17.15
[5] + 2.53 = 19.68
[6] + 0.28 = 19.96
[8] + 0.34 = 20.3
[10] + 8.24 = 28.54
[11] + 4.35 = 32.89
[13] + 1.69 = 34.58
[14] + 5.64 = 40.22
[15] + 0.27 = 40.49
[16] + 2.73 = 43.22
[17] + 1.63 = 44.85
[18] + 4.07 = 48.92
[19] + 9.04 = 57.96
A probably inefficient but simple solution with backtracking
function subset_sums($a, $val, $i = 0) {
$r = array();
while($i < count($a)) {
$v = $a[$i];
if($v == $val)
$r[] = $v;
if($v < $val)
foreach(subset_sums($a, $val - $v, $i + 1) as $s)
$r[] = "$v $s";
$i++;
}
return $r;
}
example
$ns = array(1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 5, 8, 9, 3);
print_r(subset_sums($ns, 11));
result
Array
(
[0] => 1 2 5 3
[1] => 1 2 8
[2] => 1 7 3
[3] => 2 6 3
[4] => 2 9
[5] => 6 5
[6] => 11
[7] => 8 3
)
i don't think the answer isn't as easy as nik mentioned. let's ay you have the following numbers:
1 2 3 6 8
looking for an amount of 10
niks solution would do this (if i understand it right):
1*8 = 9 = too low
adding next lowest (2) = 11 = too high
now he would delete the high number and start again taking the new highest
1*6 = 7 = too low
adding next lowest (2) = 9 = too low
adding next lowest (3) = 12 = too high
... and so on, where the perfect answer would simply
be 8+2 = 10... i think the only solution is trying every possible combination of
numbers and stop if the amaunt you are looking for is found (or realy calculate all, if there are different solutions and save which one has used least numbers).
EDIT: realy calculating all possible combiations of 21 numbers will end up in realy, realy, realy much calculations - so there must be any "intelligent" solution for adding numbers in a special order (lik that one in niks post - with some improvements, maybe that will bring us to a reliable solution)
Without knowing if this is a homework assignment or not, I can give you some pseudo code as a hint for a possible solution, note the solution is not very efficient, more of a demonstration.
Hint:
Compare each field value to all field value and at each iteration check if their sum is equal to TOTAL_AMOUNT.
Pseudo code:
for i through field 1-20
for j through field 1-20
if value of i + value of j == total_amount
return i and j
Update:
What you seem to be having is the Subset sum problem, given within the Wiki link is pseudo code for the algorithm which might help point you in the right direction.