Fastest way to determine if an integer's square root is an integer

前端 未结 30 1666
心在旅途
心在旅途 2020-11-22 02:17

I\'m looking for the fastest way to determine if a long value is a perfect square (i.e. its square root is another integer):

  1. I\'ve done it the ea
相关标签:
30条回答
  • 2020-11-22 02:42

    It ought to be possible to pack the 'cannot be a perfect square if the last X digits are N' much more efficiently than that! I'll use java 32 bit ints, and produce enough data to check the last 16 bits of the number - that's 2048 hexadecimal int values.

    ...

    Ok. Either I have run into some number theory that is a little beyond me, or there is a bug in my code. In any case, here is the code:

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        final int BITS = 16;
    
        BitSet foo = new BitSet();
    
        for(int i = 0; i< (1<<BITS); i++) {
            int sq = (i*i);
            sq = sq & ((1<<BITS)-1);
            foo.set(sq);
        }
    
        System.out.println("int[] mayBeASquare = {");
    
        for(int i = 0; i< 1<<(BITS-5); i++) {
            int kk = 0;
            for(int j = 0; j<32; j++) {
                if(foo.get((i << 5) | j)) {
                    kk |= 1<<j;
                }
            }
            System.out.print("0x" + Integer.toHexString(kk) + ", ");
            if(i%8 == 7) System.out.println();
        }
        System.out.println("};");
    }
    

    and here are the results:

    (ed: elided for poor performance in prettify.js; view revision history to see.)

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-22 02:43

    You should get rid of the 2-power part of N right from the start.

    2nd Edit The magical expression for m below should be

    m = N - (N & (N-1));
    

    and not as written

    End of 2nd edit

    m = N & (N-1); // the lawest bit of N
    N /= m;
    byte = N & 0x0F;
    if ((m % 2) || (byte !=1 && byte !=9))
      return false;
    

    1st Edit:

    Minor improvement:

    m = N & (N-1); // the lawest bit of N
    N /= m;
    if ((m % 2) || (N & 0x07 != 1))
      return false;
    

    End of 1st edit

    Now continue as usual. This way, by the time you get to the floating point part, you already got rid of all the numbers whose 2-power part is odd (about half), and then you only consider 1/8 of whats left. I.e. you run the floating point part on 6% of the numbers.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-22 02:43

    I checked all of the possible results when the last n bits of a square is observed. By successively examining more bits, up to 5/6th of inputs can be eliminated. I actually designed this to implement Fermat's Factorization algorithm, and it is very fast there.

    public static boolean isSquare(final long val) {
       if ((val & 2) == 2 || (val & 7) == 5) {
         return false;
       }
       if ((val & 11) == 8 || (val & 31) == 20) {
         return false;
       }
    
       if ((val & 47) == 32 || (val & 127) == 80) {
         return false;
       }
    
       if ((val & 191) == 128 || (val & 511) == 320) {
         return false;
       }
    
       // if((val & a == b) || (val & c == d){
       //   return false;
       // }
    
       if (!modSq[(int) (val % modSq.length)]) {
            return false;
       }
    
       final long root = (long) Math.sqrt(val);
       return root * root == val;
    }
    

    The last bit of pseudocode can be used to extend the tests to eliminate more values. The tests above are for k = 0, 1, 2, 3

  • a is of the form (3 << 2k) - 1
  • b is of the form (2 << 2k)
  • c is of the form (2 << 2k + 2) - 1
  • d is of the form (2 << 2k - 1) * 10

    It first tests whether it has a square residual with moduli of power of two, then it tests based on a final modulus, then it uses the Math.sqrt to do a final test. I came up with the idea from the top post, and attempted to extend upon it. I appreciate any comments or suggestions.

    Update: Using the test by a modulus, (modSq) and a modulus base of 44352, my test runs in 96% of the time of the one in the OP's update for numbers up to 1,000,000,000.

0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-22 02:43

    If speed is a concern, why not partition off the most commonly used set of inputs and their values to a lookup table and then do whatever optimized magic algorithm you have come up with for the exceptional cases?

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-22 02:44

    For performance, you very often have to do some compromsies. Others have expressed various methods, however, you noted Carmack's hack was faster up to certain values of N. Then, you should check the "n" and if it is less than that number N, use Carmack's hack, else use some other method described in the answers here.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 2020-11-22 02:45

    If you want speed, given that your integers are of finite size, I suspect that the quickest way would involve (a) partitioning the parameters by size (e.g. into categories by largest bit set), then checking the value against an array of perfect squares within that range.

    0 讨论(0)
  • 提交回复
    热议问题