Can this be solved even faster?
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
Note thatN
has built-in meanings.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
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
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
equation-solving performance-tuning
edited Dec 9 at 13:00
Henrik Schumacher
47.6k466134
47.6k466134
asked Dec 9 at 11:40
Hubble07
2,940719
2,940719
Note thatN
has built-in meanings.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13
add a comment |
Note thatN
has built-in meanings.
– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13
Note that
N
has built-in meanings.– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
Note that
N
has built-in meanings.– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
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:
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 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 at 9:29
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
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}
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
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.
add a comment |
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',
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
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:
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 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 at 9:29
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
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:
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 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 at 9:29
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
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:
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:
edited Dec 10 at 10:19
answered Dec 10 at 8:11
ciao
17.2k137108
17.2k137108
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 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 at 9:29
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
add a comment |
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 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 at 9:29
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 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 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 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 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 at 9:29
2
2
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
Chapeaux for recognizing the patterns! =D
– Henrik Schumacher
Dec 10 at 10:14
3
3
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
@ciao - You Sir are a genius. Thank you.
– Hubble07
Dec 10 at 14:02
1
1
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
Answers from ciao are generally great reads, +1.
– Marius Ladegård Meyer
Dec 11 at 14:19
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
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}
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
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}
add a comment |
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
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}
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}
edited Dec 10 at 8:45
answered Dec 9 at 13:20
Henrik Schumacher
47.6k466134
47.6k466134
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
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.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
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.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
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.
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.
edited Dec 9 at 23:42
community wiki
2 revs
James Hollis
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Note that
N
has built-in meanings.– Αλέξανδρος Ζεγγ
Dec 9 at 12:34
OK I have changed it.
– Hubble07
Dec 9 at 12:46
Nice problem. No need to generate candidates... see my reply.
– ciao
Dec 10 at 8:13