Can this be solved even faster?












12














So I would like to solve the following set of equation for $m_i$ given a set of ${M_m,N_m}$.



$$
m_1 +m_2 +m_3 +m_4 =M_m \
|m_1| +|m_2| +|m_3| +|m_4| =N_m
$$



All variables are integers.
Also $N_m ge M_m$ and their maximum value can reach up-to 30.
I only need the total number of possible solution not the solutions themselves. So my first trivial attempt was to just use Solve



dimNM1[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Length[(Solve[m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 == Mm &&
Abs[m1] + Abs[m2] + Abs[m3] + Abs[m4] == Nm, {m1, m2, m3, m4}, Integers])]


My second slightly non-trivial attempt is the following:-



dimNM2[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Which[Nm === Mm,
Length[Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Nm, {4}, Range[0, Nm]]],
4]], True,
Module[{res},
res = Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Mm, {4}, Range[-Nm, Nm]]],
4];
Length[
Select[res, (Abs[#[[1]]] + Abs[#[[2]]] + Abs[#[[3]]] +
Abs[#[[4]]]) == Nm &]]]]


The second method is much faster than the first specially for $N_m=M_m$.
But I would like to increase the speed further for $N_mge M_m$ case if possible.



dimNM1[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.177768, 10}*)

dimNM2[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.0000899056, 10}*)


So is there any other way to solve these equation faster?










share|improve this question
























  • Note that N has built-in meanings.
    – Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:34










  • OK I have changed it.
    – Hubble07
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:46










  • Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
    – ciao
    Dec 10 '18 at 8:13
















12














So I would like to solve the following set of equation for $m_i$ given a set of ${M_m,N_m}$.



$$
m_1 +m_2 +m_3 +m_4 =M_m \
|m_1| +|m_2| +|m_3| +|m_4| =N_m
$$



All variables are integers.
Also $N_m ge M_m$ and their maximum value can reach up-to 30.
I only need the total number of possible solution not the solutions themselves. So my first trivial attempt was to just use Solve



dimNM1[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Length[(Solve[m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 == Mm &&
Abs[m1] + Abs[m2] + Abs[m3] + Abs[m4] == Nm, {m1, m2, m3, m4}, Integers])]


My second slightly non-trivial attempt is the following:-



dimNM2[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Which[Nm === Mm,
Length[Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Nm, {4}, Range[0, Nm]]],
4]], True,
Module[{res},
res = Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Mm, {4}, Range[-Nm, Nm]]],
4];
Length[
Select[res, (Abs[#[[1]]] + Abs[#[[2]]] + Abs[#[[3]]] +
Abs[#[[4]]]) == Nm &]]]]


The second method is much faster than the first specially for $N_m=M_m$.
But I would like to increase the speed further for $N_mge M_m$ case if possible.



dimNM1[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.177768, 10}*)

dimNM2[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.0000899056, 10}*)


So is there any other way to solve these equation faster?










share|improve this question
























  • Note that N has built-in meanings.
    – Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:34










  • OK I have changed it.
    – Hubble07
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:46










  • Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
    – ciao
    Dec 10 '18 at 8:13














12












12








12


2





So I would like to solve the following set of equation for $m_i$ given a set of ${M_m,N_m}$.



$$
m_1 +m_2 +m_3 +m_4 =M_m \
|m_1| +|m_2| +|m_3| +|m_4| =N_m
$$



All variables are integers.
Also $N_m ge M_m$ and their maximum value can reach up-to 30.
I only need the total number of possible solution not the solutions themselves. So my first trivial attempt was to just use Solve



dimNM1[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Length[(Solve[m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 == Mm &&
Abs[m1] + Abs[m2] + Abs[m3] + Abs[m4] == Nm, {m1, m2, m3, m4}, Integers])]


My second slightly non-trivial attempt is the following:-



dimNM2[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Which[Nm === Mm,
Length[Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Nm, {4}, Range[0, Nm]]],
4]], True,
Module[{res},
res = Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Mm, {4}, Range[-Nm, Nm]]],
4];
Length[
Select[res, (Abs[#[[1]]] + Abs[#[[2]]] + Abs[#[[3]]] +
Abs[#[[4]]]) == Nm &]]]]


The second method is much faster than the first specially for $N_m=M_m$.
But I would like to increase the speed further for $N_mge M_m$ case if possible.



dimNM1[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.177768, 10}*)

dimNM2[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.0000899056, 10}*)


So is there any other way to solve these equation faster?










share|improve this question















So I would like to solve the following set of equation for $m_i$ given a set of ${M_m,N_m}$.



$$
m_1 +m_2 +m_3 +m_4 =M_m \
|m_1| +|m_2| +|m_3| +|m_4| =N_m
$$



All variables are integers.
Also $N_m ge M_m$ and their maximum value can reach up-to 30.
I only need the total number of possible solution not the solutions themselves. So my first trivial attempt was to just use Solve



dimNM1[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Length[(Solve[m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 == Mm &&
Abs[m1] + Abs[m2] + Abs[m3] + Abs[m4] == Nm, {m1, m2, m3, m4}, Integers])]


My second slightly non-trivial attempt is the following:-



dimNM2[Nm_, Mm_] :=
Which[Nm === Mm,
Length[Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Nm, {4}, Range[0, Nm]]],
4]], True,
Module[{res},
res = Partition[
Flatten[Permutations /@ IntegerPartitions[Mm, {4}, Range[-Nm, Nm]]],
4];
Length[
Select[res, (Abs[#[[1]]] + Abs[#[[2]]] + Abs[#[[3]]] +
Abs[#[[4]]]) == Nm &]]]]


The second method is much faster than the first specially for $N_m=M_m$.
But I would like to increase the speed further for $N_mge M_m$ case if possible.



dimNM1[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.177768, 10}*)

dimNM2[2, 2] // AbsoluteTiming
(*{0.0000899056, 10}*)


So is there any other way to solve these equation faster?







equation-solving performance-tuning






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 9 '18 at 13:00









Henrik Schumacher

49.2k467139




49.2k467139










asked Dec 9 '18 at 11:40









Hubble07

2,902720




2,902720












  • Note that N has built-in meanings.
    – Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:34










  • OK I have changed it.
    – Hubble07
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:46










  • Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
    – ciao
    Dec 10 '18 at 8:13


















  • Note that N has built-in meanings.
    – Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:34










  • OK I have changed it.
    – Hubble07
    Dec 9 '18 at 12:46










  • Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
    – ciao
    Dec 10 '18 at 8:13
















Note that N has built-in meanings.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 '18 at 12:34




Note that N has built-in meanings.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 '18 at 12:34












OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 '18 at 12:46




OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 '18 at 12:46












Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 '18 at 8:13




Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 '18 at 8:13










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















13














ClearAll[num];

num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
num[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 3)/2 + 2 z - (2 z^2)];
num[n_, m_] /; EvenQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 4)/2 - (2 z^2)];


Testing vs fastest answer here at writing (Henrik Schumacher):



stop = 100;

res = Table[{n, m, dimNM3[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First
res2 = Table[{n, m, num[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First

res == res2



169.203



0.0219434



True




Large cases are a non-issue:



num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming



{0.0000247977, 30468069908023290}




Some quick timings:



enter image description here






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Dec 10 '18 at 8:49








  • 3




    @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
    – ciao
    Dec 10 '18 at 9:29






  • 2




    Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
    – Henrik Schumacher
    Dec 10 '18 at 10:14






  • 3




    @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
    – Hubble07
    Dec 10 '18 at 14:02






  • 1




    Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
    – Marius Ladegård Meyer
    Dec 11 '18 at 14:19



















13














It is more efficient to first pick the integer partitions whose absolute values sum up to n before generating the permutations.



dimNM3[n_, m_] := Total[
Map[
Length@*Permutations,
Pick[#, Abs[#].ConstantArray[1, 4], n] &[
IntegerPartitions[m, {4}, Range[-n, n]
]
]
]
];

m = 20;
n = 40;
dimNM1[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
dimNM2[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
dimNM3[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming



{0.116977, 3802}



{0.995365, 3802}



{0.005579, 3802}







share|improve this answer































    2














    Sorry for not knowing much Mathematica, but I have a Python solution you might be able to follow. I'm putting this on the community wiki for anyone who wants to translate it.



    def count_solutions(Nm, Mm):
    firsthalves = dict()
    for m1 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
    for m2 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
    m = m1+m2
    n = abs(m1)+abs(m2)
    key = (m,n)
    if key in firsthalves:
    firsthalves[key] += 1
    else:
    firsthalves[key] = 1

    solutions = 0
    for m3 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
    for m4 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
    m = m3+m4
    n = abs(m3)+abs(m4)
    key = (Mm-m, Nm-n)
    if key in firsthalves:
    solutions += firsthalves[key]
    return solutions


    This is a meet in the middle strategy. I enumerate all the possible $m1,m2$ combinations and record how many times each $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination occurs in a dictionary.



    Then I go through all the possible $m3,m4$ combinations and for each combination I calculate the necessary $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination to make $Mm,Nm$, and I refer to the dictionary to find out how many $m1,m2$ combinations can make that.



    The difference is that you go through the $m1,m2$ combination then the $m3,m4$ combinations, and the number of operations is roughly a square root of going through every $m1,m2,m3,m4$ combination. You should be able to solve for $Nm = 1000,Mn = 0$ in a few seconds.






    share|improve this answer































      2














      A different approach, tied to @Hubble7's other question, that has the same speed as @ciao's answer. The key is in noting the sum of the negative numbers and sum of the nonnegative numbers are each fixed values, and so it is just a counting problem when we have 1 negative and 3 nonnegative terms, then 2 and 2, then 3 and 1. We can then use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[ ] function.



      For values of Mn and Nn define



      pos = (Nn+Mn)/2
      neg = (Nn-Mn)/2


      where posis the sum of the positive numbers in {m1, m2, m3, m4} and neg is the sum of the absolute value of the negatives ( so it is a positive number).



      Now use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[n, k ] function which gives you the count of all of the ways to divide integer n into k terms, including 0 terms. If we want to find the number of compositions not including 0 terms we calculate NumberOfCompositions[n - k, k].



      Note that for k=1, we have NumberOfCompositions[n, 1] = 1



      If we have k negative terms, then we have Binomial[4,k] ways to arrange them. This is just {4, 6, 4} for k = {1, 2, 3}



      So for values of neg and pos



      perms = 4 * NumberOfCompositions[pos, 3] 
      + 6 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[pos, 2]
      + 4 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 3, 3]


      And finally converting it into a function that accepts Mn and Nm ( while stealing some code from @ciao)



      numNew[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
      numNew[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
      numNew[n_, m_] := 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 3]
      + 6*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 2]
      + 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 3, 3]


      Check the timing against @ciao's answer above



      num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




      {0.0000390021, 30468069908023290}




      my function



      numNew[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




      {0.0000369493, 30468069908023290}




      It is about as fast as @ciao's and also suggests (to me!) an approach to this question:
      Find position without iterating






      share|improve this answer























        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "387"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f187608%2fcan-this-be-solved-even-faster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        13














        ClearAll[num];

        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
        num[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 3)/2 + 2 z - (2 z^2)];
        num[n_, m_] /; EvenQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 4)/2 - (2 z^2)];


        Testing vs fastest answer here at writing (Henrik Schumacher):



        stop = 100;

        res = Table[{n, m, dimNM3[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First
        res2 = Table[{n, m, num[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First

        res == res2



        169.203



        0.0219434



        True




        Large cases are a non-issue:



        num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming



        {0.0000247977, 30468069908023290}




        Some quick timings:



        enter image description here






        share|improve this answer



















        • 3




          Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 8:49








        • 3




          @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
          – ciao
          Dec 10 '18 at 9:29






        • 2




          Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 10:14






        • 3




          @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
          – Hubble07
          Dec 10 '18 at 14:02






        • 1




          Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
          – Marius Ladegård Meyer
          Dec 11 '18 at 14:19
















        13














        ClearAll[num];

        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
        num[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 3)/2 + 2 z - (2 z^2)];
        num[n_, m_] /; EvenQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 4)/2 - (2 z^2)];


        Testing vs fastest answer here at writing (Henrik Schumacher):



        stop = 100;

        res = Table[{n, m, dimNM3[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First
        res2 = Table[{n, m, num[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First

        res == res2



        169.203



        0.0219434



        True




        Large cases are a non-issue:



        num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming



        {0.0000247977, 30468069908023290}




        Some quick timings:



        enter image description here






        share|improve this answer



















        • 3




          Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 8:49








        • 3




          @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
          – ciao
          Dec 10 '18 at 9:29






        • 2




          Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 10:14






        • 3




          @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
          – Hubble07
          Dec 10 '18 at 14:02






        • 1




          Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
          – Marius Ladegård Meyer
          Dec 11 '18 at 14:19














        13












        13








        13






        ClearAll[num];

        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
        num[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 3)/2 + 2 z - (2 z^2)];
        num[n_, m_] /; EvenQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 4)/2 - (2 z^2)];


        Testing vs fastest answer here at writing (Henrik Schumacher):



        stop = 100;

        res = Table[{n, m, dimNM3[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First
        res2 = Table[{n, m, num[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First

        res == res2



        169.203



        0.0219434



        True




        Large cases are a non-issue:



        num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming



        {0.0000247977, 30468069908023290}




        Some quick timings:



        enter image description here






        share|improve this answer














        ClearAll[num];

        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
        num[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
        num[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 3)/2 + 2 z - (2 z^2)];
        num[n_, m_] /; EvenQ[n] := With[{z = Ceiling[m/2]}, (5*n^2 + 4)/2 - (2 z^2)];


        Testing vs fastest answer here at writing (Henrik Schumacher):



        stop = 100;

        res = Table[{n, m, dimNM3[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First
        res2 = Table[{n, m, num[n, m]}, {n, 1, stop}, {m, 1, n}]; // AbsoluteTiming//First

        res == res2



        169.203



        0.0219434



        True




        Large cases are a non-issue:



        num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming



        {0.0000247977, 30468069908023290}




        Some quick timings:



        enter image description here







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Dec 10 '18 at 10:19

























        answered Dec 10 '18 at 8:11









        ciao

        17.3k138109




        17.3k138109








        • 3




          Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 8:49








        • 3




          @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
          – ciao
          Dec 10 '18 at 9:29






        • 2




          Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 10:14






        • 3




          @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
          – Hubble07
          Dec 10 '18 at 14:02






        • 1




          Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
          – Marius Ladegård Meyer
          Dec 11 '18 at 14:19














        • 3




          Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 8:49








        • 3




          @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
          – ciao
          Dec 10 '18 at 9:29






        • 2




          Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
          – Henrik Schumacher
          Dec 10 '18 at 10:14






        • 3




          @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
          – Hubble07
          Dec 10 '18 at 14:02






        • 1




          Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
          – Marius Ladegård Meyer
          Dec 11 '18 at 14:19








        3




        3




        Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
        – Henrik Schumacher
        Dec 10 '18 at 8:49






        Pretty impressive. Would you mind to elaborate where these formulas come from or at least to provide an (accessible) source?
        – Henrik Schumacher
        Dec 10 '18 at 8:49






        3




        3




        @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
        – ciao
        Dec 10 '18 at 9:29




        @HenrikSchumacher - I derived them, looking at a set of results: I recognized the pattern(s). Neat that the tetrahedral numbers and coordination sequences popped out. See e.g. Sloan, "Low-Dimensional Lattices VII: Coordination Sequences".
        – ciao
        Dec 10 '18 at 9:29




        2




        2




        Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
        – Henrik Schumacher
        Dec 10 '18 at 10:14




        Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
        – Henrik Schumacher
        Dec 10 '18 at 10:14




        3




        3




        @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
        – Hubble07
        Dec 10 '18 at 14:02




        @ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
        – Hubble07
        Dec 10 '18 at 14:02




        1




        1




        Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
        – Marius Ladegård Meyer
        Dec 11 '18 at 14:19




        Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
        – Marius Ladegård Meyer
        Dec 11 '18 at 14:19











        13














        It is more efficient to first pick the integer partitions whose absolute values sum up to n before generating the permutations.



        dimNM3[n_, m_] := Total[
        Map[
        Length@*Permutations,
        Pick[#, Abs[#].ConstantArray[1, 4], n] &[
        IntegerPartitions[m, {4}, Range[-n, n]
        ]
        ]
        ]
        ];

        m = 20;
        n = 40;
        dimNM1[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
        dimNM2[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
        dimNM3[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming



        {0.116977, 3802}



        {0.995365, 3802}



        {0.005579, 3802}







        share|improve this answer




























          13














          It is more efficient to first pick the integer partitions whose absolute values sum up to n before generating the permutations.



          dimNM3[n_, m_] := Total[
          Map[
          Length@*Permutations,
          Pick[#, Abs[#].ConstantArray[1, 4], n] &[
          IntegerPartitions[m, {4}, Range[-n, n]
          ]
          ]
          ]
          ];

          m = 20;
          n = 40;
          dimNM1[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
          dimNM2[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
          dimNM3[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming



          {0.116977, 3802}



          {0.995365, 3802}



          {0.005579, 3802}







          share|improve this answer


























            13












            13








            13






            It is more efficient to first pick the integer partitions whose absolute values sum up to n before generating the permutations.



            dimNM3[n_, m_] := Total[
            Map[
            Length@*Permutations,
            Pick[#, Abs[#].ConstantArray[1, 4], n] &[
            IntegerPartitions[m, {4}, Range[-n, n]
            ]
            ]
            ]
            ];

            m = 20;
            n = 40;
            dimNM1[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
            dimNM2[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
            dimNM3[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming



            {0.116977, 3802}



            {0.995365, 3802}



            {0.005579, 3802}







            share|improve this answer














            It is more efficient to first pick the integer partitions whose absolute values sum up to n before generating the permutations.



            dimNM3[n_, m_] := Total[
            Map[
            Length@*Permutations,
            Pick[#, Abs[#].ConstantArray[1, 4], n] &[
            IntegerPartitions[m, {4}, Range[-n, n]
            ]
            ]
            ]
            ];

            m = 20;
            n = 40;
            dimNM1[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
            dimNM2[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming
            dimNM3[n, m] // AbsoluteTiming



            {0.116977, 3802}



            {0.995365, 3802}



            {0.005579, 3802}








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Dec 10 '18 at 8:45

























            answered Dec 9 '18 at 13:20









            Henrik Schumacher

            49.2k467139




            49.2k467139























                2














                Sorry for not knowing much Mathematica, but I have a Python solution you might be able to follow. I'm putting this on the community wiki for anyone who wants to translate it.



                def count_solutions(Nm, Mm):
                firsthalves = dict()
                for m1 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                for m2 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                m = m1+m2
                n = abs(m1)+abs(m2)
                key = (m,n)
                if key in firsthalves:
                firsthalves[key] += 1
                else:
                firsthalves[key] = 1

                solutions = 0
                for m3 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                for m4 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                m = m3+m4
                n = abs(m3)+abs(m4)
                key = (Mm-m, Nm-n)
                if key in firsthalves:
                solutions += firsthalves[key]
                return solutions


                This is a meet in the middle strategy. I enumerate all the possible $m1,m2$ combinations and record how many times each $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination occurs in a dictionary.



                Then I go through all the possible $m3,m4$ combinations and for each combination I calculate the necessary $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination to make $Mm,Nm$, and I refer to the dictionary to find out how many $m1,m2$ combinations can make that.



                The difference is that you go through the $m1,m2$ combination then the $m3,m4$ combinations, and the number of operations is roughly a square root of going through every $m1,m2,m3,m4$ combination. You should be able to solve for $Nm = 1000,Mn = 0$ in a few seconds.






                share|improve this answer




























                  2














                  Sorry for not knowing much Mathematica, but I have a Python solution you might be able to follow. I'm putting this on the community wiki for anyone who wants to translate it.



                  def count_solutions(Nm, Mm):
                  firsthalves = dict()
                  for m1 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                  for m2 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                  m = m1+m2
                  n = abs(m1)+abs(m2)
                  key = (m,n)
                  if key in firsthalves:
                  firsthalves[key] += 1
                  else:
                  firsthalves[key] = 1

                  solutions = 0
                  for m3 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                  for m4 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                  m = m3+m4
                  n = abs(m3)+abs(m4)
                  key = (Mm-m, Nm-n)
                  if key in firsthalves:
                  solutions += firsthalves[key]
                  return solutions


                  This is a meet in the middle strategy. I enumerate all the possible $m1,m2$ combinations and record how many times each $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination occurs in a dictionary.



                  Then I go through all the possible $m3,m4$ combinations and for each combination I calculate the necessary $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination to make $Mm,Nm$, and I refer to the dictionary to find out how many $m1,m2$ combinations can make that.



                  The difference is that you go through the $m1,m2$ combination then the $m3,m4$ combinations, and the number of operations is roughly a square root of going through every $m1,m2,m3,m4$ combination. You should be able to solve for $Nm = 1000,Mn = 0$ in a few seconds.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    2












                    2








                    2






                    Sorry for not knowing much Mathematica, but I have a Python solution you might be able to follow. I'm putting this on the community wiki for anyone who wants to translate it.



                    def count_solutions(Nm, Mm):
                    firsthalves = dict()
                    for m1 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    for m2 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    m = m1+m2
                    n = abs(m1)+abs(m2)
                    key = (m,n)
                    if key in firsthalves:
                    firsthalves[key] += 1
                    else:
                    firsthalves[key] = 1

                    solutions = 0
                    for m3 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    for m4 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    m = m3+m4
                    n = abs(m3)+abs(m4)
                    key = (Mm-m, Nm-n)
                    if key in firsthalves:
                    solutions += firsthalves[key]
                    return solutions


                    This is a meet in the middle strategy. I enumerate all the possible $m1,m2$ combinations and record how many times each $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination occurs in a dictionary.



                    Then I go through all the possible $m3,m4$ combinations and for each combination I calculate the necessary $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination to make $Mm,Nm$, and I refer to the dictionary to find out how many $m1,m2$ combinations can make that.



                    The difference is that you go through the $m1,m2$ combination then the $m3,m4$ combinations, and the number of operations is roughly a square root of going through every $m1,m2,m3,m4$ combination. You should be able to solve for $Nm = 1000,Mn = 0$ in a few seconds.






                    share|improve this answer














                    Sorry for not knowing much Mathematica, but I have a Python solution you might be able to follow. I'm putting this on the community wiki for anyone who wants to translate it.



                    def count_solutions(Nm, Mm):
                    firsthalves = dict()
                    for m1 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    for m2 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    m = m1+m2
                    n = abs(m1)+abs(m2)
                    key = (m,n)
                    if key in firsthalves:
                    firsthalves[key] += 1
                    else:
                    firsthalves[key] = 1

                    solutions = 0
                    for m3 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    for m4 in range(-Nm,Nm+1):
                    m = m3+m4
                    n = abs(m3)+abs(m4)
                    key = (Mm-m, Nm-n)
                    if key in firsthalves:
                    solutions += firsthalves[key]
                    return solutions


                    This is a meet in the middle strategy. I enumerate all the possible $m1,m2$ combinations and record how many times each $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination occurs in a dictionary.



                    Then I go through all the possible $m3,m4$ combinations and for each combination I calculate the necessary $m1+m2,|m1|+|m2|$ combination to make $Mm,Nm$, and I refer to the dictionary to find out how many $m1,m2$ combinations can make that.



                    The difference is that you go through the $m1,m2$ combination then the $m3,m4$ combinations, and the number of operations is roughly a square root of going through every $m1,m2,m3,m4$ combination. You should be able to solve for $Nm = 1000,Mn = 0$ in a few seconds.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Dec 9 '18 at 23:42


























                    community wiki





                    2 revs
                    James Hollis
























                        2














                        A different approach, tied to @Hubble7's other question, that has the same speed as @ciao's answer. The key is in noting the sum of the negative numbers and sum of the nonnegative numbers are each fixed values, and so it is just a counting problem when we have 1 negative and 3 nonnegative terms, then 2 and 2, then 3 and 1. We can then use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[ ] function.



                        For values of Mn and Nn define



                        pos = (Nn+Mn)/2
                        neg = (Nn-Mn)/2


                        where posis the sum of the positive numbers in {m1, m2, m3, m4} and neg is the sum of the absolute value of the negatives ( so it is a positive number).



                        Now use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[n, k ] function which gives you the count of all of the ways to divide integer n into k terms, including 0 terms. If we want to find the number of compositions not including 0 terms we calculate NumberOfCompositions[n - k, k].



                        Note that for k=1, we have NumberOfCompositions[n, 1] = 1



                        If we have k negative terms, then we have Binomial[4,k] ways to arrange them. This is just {4, 6, 4} for k = {1, 2, 3}



                        So for values of neg and pos



                        perms = 4 * NumberOfCompositions[pos, 3] 
                        + 6 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[pos, 2]
                        + 4 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 3, 3]


                        And finally converting it into a function that accepts Mn and Nm ( while stealing some code from @ciao)



                        numNew[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
                        numNew[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
                        numNew[n_, m_] := 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 3]
                        + 6*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 2]
                        + 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 3, 3]


                        Check the timing against @ciao's answer above



                        num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                        {0.0000390021, 30468069908023290}




                        my function



                        numNew[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                        {0.0000369493, 30468069908023290}




                        It is about as fast as @ciao's and also suggests (to me!) an approach to this question:
                        Find position without iterating






                        share|improve this answer




























                          2














                          A different approach, tied to @Hubble7's other question, that has the same speed as @ciao's answer. The key is in noting the sum of the negative numbers and sum of the nonnegative numbers are each fixed values, and so it is just a counting problem when we have 1 negative and 3 nonnegative terms, then 2 and 2, then 3 and 1. We can then use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[ ] function.



                          For values of Mn and Nn define



                          pos = (Nn+Mn)/2
                          neg = (Nn-Mn)/2


                          where posis the sum of the positive numbers in {m1, m2, m3, m4} and neg is the sum of the absolute value of the negatives ( so it is a positive number).



                          Now use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[n, k ] function which gives you the count of all of the ways to divide integer n into k terms, including 0 terms. If we want to find the number of compositions not including 0 terms we calculate NumberOfCompositions[n - k, k].



                          Note that for k=1, we have NumberOfCompositions[n, 1] = 1



                          If we have k negative terms, then we have Binomial[4,k] ways to arrange them. This is just {4, 6, 4} for k = {1, 2, 3}



                          So for values of neg and pos



                          perms = 4 * NumberOfCompositions[pos, 3] 
                          + 6 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[pos, 2]
                          + 4 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 3, 3]


                          And finally converting it into a function that accepts Mn and Nm ( while stealing some code from @ciao)



                          numNew[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
                          numNew[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
                          numNew[n_, m_] := 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 3]
                          + 6*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 2]
                          + 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 3, 3]


                          Check the timing against @ciao's answer above



                          num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                          {0.0000390021, 30468069908023290}




                          my function



                          numNew[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                          {0.0000369493, 30468069908023290}




                          It is about as fast as @ciao's and also suggests (to me!) an approach to this question:
                          Find position without iterating






                          share|improve this answer


























                            2












                            2








                            2






                            A different approach, tied to @Hubble7's other question, that has the same speed as @ciao's answer. The key is in noting the sum of the negative numbers and sum of the nonnegative numbers are each fixed values, and so it is just a counting problem when we have 1 negative and 3 nonnegative terms, then 2 and 2, then 3 and 1. We can then use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[ ] function.



                            For values of Mn and Nn define



                            pos = (Nn+Mn)/2
                            neg = (Nn-Mn)/2


                            where posis the sum of the positive numbers in {m1, m2, m3, m4} and neg is the sum of the absolute value of the negatives ( so it is a positive number).



                            Now use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[n, k ] function which gives you the count of all of the ways to divide integer n into k terms, including 0 terms. If we want to find the number of compositions not including 0 terms we calculate NumberOfCompositions[n - k, k].



                            Note that for k=1, we have NumberOfCompositions[n, 1] = 1



                            If we have k negative terms, then we have Binomial[4,k] ways to arrange them. This is just {4, 6, 4} for k = {1, 2, 3}



                            So for values of neg and pos



                            perms = 4 * NumberOfCompositions[pos, 3] 
                            + 6 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[pos, 2]
                            + 4 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 3, 3]


                            And finally converting it into a function that accepts Mn and Nm ( while stealing some code from @ciao)



                            numNew[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
                            numNew[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
                            numNew[n_, m_] := 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 3]
                            + 6*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 2]
                            + 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 3, 3]


                            Check the timing against @ciao's answer above



                            num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                            {0.0000390021, 30468069908023290}




                            my function



                            numNew[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                            {0.0000369493, 30468069908023290}




                            It is about as fast as @ciao's and also suggests (to me!) an approach to this question:
                            Find position without iterating






                            share|improve this answer














                            A different approach, tied to @Hubble7's other question, that has the same speed as @ciao's answer. The key is in noting the sum of the negative numbers and sum of the nonnegative numbers are each fixed values, and so it is just a counting problem when we have 1 negative and 3 nonnegative terms, then 2 and 2, then 3 and 1. We can then use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[ ] function.



                            For values of Mn and Nn define



                            pos = (Nn+Mn)/2
                            neg = (Nn-Mn)/2


                            where posis the sum of the positive numbers in {m1, m2, m3, m4} and neg is the sum of the absolute value of the negatives ( so it is a positive number).



                            Now use Mathematica's NumberOfCompositions[n, k ] function which gives you the count of all of the ways to divide integer n into k terms, including 0 terms. If we want to find the number of compositions not including 0 terms we calculate NumberOfCompositions[n - k, k].



                            Note that for k=1, we have NumberOfCompositions[n, 1] = 1



                            If we have k negative terms, then we have Binomial[4,k] ways to arrange them. This is just {4, 6, 4} for k = {1, 2, 3}



                            So for values of neg and pos



                            perms = 4 * NumberOfCompositions[pos, 3] 
                            + 6 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[pos, 2]
                            + 4 NumberOfCompositions[neg - 3, 3]


                            And finally converting it into a function that accepts Mn and Nm ( while stealing some code from @ciao)



                            numNew[n_, m_] /; OddQ[n + m] = 0;
                            numNew[n_, n_] := Binomial[n + 3, 3];
                            numNew[n_, m_] := 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 3]
                            + 6*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 2, 2] NumberOfCompositions[(n + m)/2, 2]
                            + 4*NumberOfCompositions[(n - m)/2 - 3, 3]


                            Check the timing against @ciao's answer above



                            num[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                            {0.0000390021, 30468069908023290}




                            my function



                            numNew[123423456, 123412348] // AbsoluteTiming




                            {0.0000369493, 30468069908023290}




                            It is about as fast as @ciao's and also suggests (to me!) an approach to this question:
                            Find position without iterating







                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited 2 days ago

























                            answered 2 days ago









                            MikeY

                            2,097410




                            2,097410






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f187608%2fcan-this-be-solved-even-faster%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Список кардиналов, возведённых папой римским Каликстом III

                                Deduzione

                                Mysql.sock missing - “Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket”