Python program to implement pow(x, n)Finding powers of multiple array pairsPython graph challengeCount...
Why does a perfectly-identical repetition of a drawing command given within an earlier loop 𝘯𝘰𝘵 produce exactly the same line?
Why does the 6502 have the BIT instruction?
What is quasi-aromaticity?
A steel cutting sword?
Why are C64 games inconsistent with which joystick port they use?
What are these arcade games in Ghostbusters 1984?
Why does this if-statement combining assignment and an equality check return true?
Compactness of finite sets
Statue View: 2, 3, 5, 7
Is CD audio quality good enough?
Is it unethical to use a published code in my PhD thesis work?
What is the largest (size) solid object ever dropped from an airplane to impact the ground in freefall?
Use backslash or single-quotes for field separation
How should I introduce map drawing to my players?
Are these reasonable traits for someone with autism?
Why does Mjolnir fall down in Age of Ultron but not in Endgame?
Installed Electric Tankless Water Heater - Internet loss when active
Construct a word ladder
Why colon to denote that a value belongs to a type?
Why did David Cameron offer a referendum on the European Union?
Why is this Simple Puzzle impossible to solve?
Text at the right of icon
What was the idiom for something that we take without a doubt?
Is "cool" appropriate or offensive to use in IMs?
Python program to implement pow(x, n)
Finding powers of multiple array pairsPython graph challengeCount numbers with atleast one common factor, excluding one (updated)Efficient integer input / output (with a use case)Implement OO interfaces in PythonCalculate co-occurrences of some words in documents datasetImplement LinkedList class in pythonCompare every combination of variables within the powersetImplement BinarySearchTree class in pythonPython program for a simple calculator
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
This is a Leetcode problem:
Implement
pow(x, n)
, which calculatesx
raised to the powern
($x^n$).
Note -
-100.0 <
x
< 100.0
n
is a 32-bit signed integer, within the range [$-2^{31}$, $2^{31}$ − 1]
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 0 and n < 0:
return
result = 1
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
pre_result = result
result *= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n -= 1
return result
else:
while n < 0:
pre_result = result
result /= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n += 1
return result
NOTE - My solution is $O(n)$.
Here are some example inputs/outputs:
#print(pow(2.00000, 10))
>>> 1024.0
#print(pow(2.10000, 3))
>>> 9.261
#print(pow(2.00000, -2))
>>> 0.25
#print(pow(-1.00000, -2147483648))
>>> 1.0
Here are the times taken for each output:
#%timeit pow(2.00000, 10)
>>> 1.88 µs ± 14 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.10000, 3)
>>> 805 ns ± 17.2 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.00000, -2)
>>> 643 ns ± 9.55 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(-1.00000, -2147483648)
>>> 594 ns ± 20 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
So, I would like to know whether I could make this program shorter and more efficient.
Any help would be highly appreciated.
python performance python-3.x time-limit-exceeded
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a Leetcode problem:
Implement
pow(x, n)
, which calculatesx
raised to the powern
($x^n$).
Note -
-100.0 <
x
< 100.0
n
is a 32-bit signed integer, within the range [$-2^{31}$, $2^{31}$ − 1]
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 0 and n < 0:
return
result = 1
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
pre_result = result
result *= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n -= 1
return result
else:
while n < 0:
pre_result = result
result /= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n += 1
return result
NOTE - My solution is $O(n)$.
Here are some example inputs/outputs:
#print(pow(2.00000, 10))
>>> 1024.0
#print(pow(2.10000, 3))
>>> 9.261
#print(pow(2.00000, -2))
>>> 0.25
#print(pow(-1.00000, -2147483648))
>>> 1.0
Here are the times taken for each output:
#%timeit pow(2.00000, 10)
>>> 1.88 µs ± 14 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.10000, 3)
>>> 805 ns ± 17.2 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.00000, -2)
>>> 643 ns ± 9.55 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(-1.00000, -2147483648)
>>> 594 ns ± 20 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
So, I would like to know whether I could make this program shorter and more efficient.
Any help would be highly appreciated.
python performance python-3.x time-limit-exceeded
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's ownpow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python'spow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,pow(10.0, 1000000)
returnsinf
.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a Leetcode problem:
Implement
pow(x, n)
, which calculatesx
raised to the powern
($x^n$).
Note -
-100.0 <
x
< 100.0
n
is a 32-bit signed integer, within the range [$-2^{31}$, $2^{31}$ − 1]
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 0 and n < 0:
return
result = 1
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
pre_result = result
result *= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n -= 1
return result
else:
while n < 0:
pre_result = result
result /= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n += 1
return result
NOTE - My solution is $O(n)$.
Here are some example inputs/outputs:
#print(pow(2.00000, 10))
>>> 1024.0
#print(pow(2.10000, 3))
>>> 9.261
#print(pow(2.00000, -2))
>>> 0.25
#print(pow(-1.00000, -2147483648))
>>> 1.0
Here are the times taken for each output:
#%timeit pow(2.00000, 10)
>>> 1.88 µs ± 14 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.10000, 3)
>>> 805 ns ± 17.2 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.00000, -2)
>>> 643 ns ± 9.55 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(-1.00000, -2147483648)
>>> 594 ns ± 20 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
So, I would like to know whether I could make this program shorter and more efficient.
Any help would be highly appreciated.
python performance python-3.x time-limit-exceeded
$endgroup$
This is a Leetcode problem:
Implement
pow(x, n)
, which calculatesx
raised to the powern
($x^n$).
Note -
-100.0 <
x
< 100.0
n
is a 32-bit signed integer, within the range [$-2^{31}$, $2^{31}$ − 1]
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 0 and n < 0:
return
result = 1
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
pre_result = result
result *= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n -= 1
return result
else:
while n < 0:
pre_result = result
result /= x
if pre_result == result or pre_result == -result:
if result >= 0:
return result
if n % 2 == 0:
return -result
else:
return result
n += 1
return result
NOTE - My solution is $O(n)$.
Here are some example inputs/outputs:
#print(pow(2.00000, 10))
>>> 1024.0
#print(pow(2.10000, 3))
>>> 9.261
#print(pow(2.00000, -2))
>>> 0.25
#print(pow(-1.00000, -2147483648))
>>> 1.0
Here are the times taken for each output:
#%timeit pow(2.00000, 10)
>>> 1.88 µs ± 14 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.10000, 3)
>>> 805 ns ± 17.2 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(2.00000, -2)
>>> 643 ns ± 9.55 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
#%timeit pow(-1.00000, -2147483648)
>>> 594 ns ± 20 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)
So, I would like to know whether I could make this program shorter and more efficient.
Any help would be highly appreciated.
python performance python-3.x time-limit-exceeded
python performance python-3.x time-limit-exceeded
asked 9 hours ago
JustinJustin
551222
551222
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's ownpow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python'spow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,pow(10.0, 1000000)
returnsinf
.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's ownpow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python'spow()
function.
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,pow(10.0, 1000000)
returnsinf
.
$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's own
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's own
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python's
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python's
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,
pow(10.0, 1000000)
returns inf
.$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,
pow(10.0, 1000000)
returns inf
.$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Do less writing
You can half the code by using the fact $x^{-n} = frac{1}{x^n}$
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
...
else:
while n < 0:
...
would become
if n < 0:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
return 1 / old_code(x, -n)
return old_code(x, n)
(with old code being the code you have from the while loop down)
Likewise $(-x)^n = x^n$ if n is even, otherwise $-(x^n)$. This extra check can be done at the start rather than in the middle of a loop. Combining the two you get
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = old_code(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
This probably could bit a little nicer, but hopefully it is very clear what is happening. From this you can write your code assuming both the base and power are positive.
Better algorithm
We can improve the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n), where n is the power, using the idea from russian peasant exponentiation. Alternatively you could implement exponentiation by squaring for the same runtime complexity. We can derive the idea by the following observation
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n}$$
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
$$x^n = y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
We need to make a slight adjustment if n is odd, as n/2 wont be an integer
$$x^n = x times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
$$x^n = x times y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
We can then work out $x^{n/2}$ recursively until some easy to compute base case.
Note: To turn this into a loop we can do the same thing, but starting at lower powers and working up. See the pdf for how to continue.
All in all my suggested code would look something like this
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 1:
# New easy check
return 1
if x == 0:
if n < 0:
# builtin pow throws an exception rather than returning None
raise ZeroDivisionError("...")
return 0
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = _pow(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
def _pow(base, power):
"""Return base**power
Assume base > 0, power > 0"""
if power == 1:
return base
y = _pow(base, power // 2)
result = y * y
if power % 2:
result *= base
return result
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One obvious thing to do is to take advantage of some math. If you want to calculate 2¹⁶, you don't need to calculate it with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2. You could instead calculate it as (2⁸)²=(2⁴)²=((2²)²)². With your approach, you will calculate the value of 2⁸ twice.
Here is a simplified version that shows the idea. You might want to change it to a non-recursive version for performance.
def pow(x, n):
if(n==1):
return x
p = pow(x, n//2)
p = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
p = p*x
return p
And here is code that passes the test and is quicker than 92.14%
class Solution:
def myPow(self, x: float, n: int) -> float:
if(n==1):
return x
if(x==0 and n<=0):
return
if(n==0):
return 1
if(n<0):
return 1/self.myPow(x,-n)
p = self.myPow(x, n//2)
ret = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
return ret*x
return ret
The time complexity here is $O(log (n))$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isfloor
supposed tofloat
?
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
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
});
}
});
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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f220996%2fpython-program-to-implement-powx-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Do less writing
You can half the code by using the fact $x^{-n} = frac{1}{x^n}$
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
...
else:
while n < 0:
...
would become
if n < 0:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
return 1 / old_code(x, -n)
return old_code(x, n)
(with old code being the code you have from the while loop down)
Likewise $(-x)^n = x^n$ if n is even, otherwise $-(x^n)$. This extra check can be done at the start rather than in the middle of a loop. Combining the two you get
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = old_code(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
This probably could bit a little nicer, but hopefully it is very clear what is happening. From this you can write your code assuming both the base and power are positive.
Better algorithm
We can improve the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n), where n is the power, using the idea from russian peasant exponentiation. Alternatively you could implement exponentiation by squaring for the same runtime complexity. We can derive the idea by the following observation
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n}$$
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
$$x^n = y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
We need to make a slight adjustment if n is odd, as n/2 wont be an integer
$$x^n = x times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
$$x^n = x times y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
We can then work out $x^{n/2}$ recursively until some easy to compute base case.
Note: To turn this into a loop we can do the same thing, but starting at lower powers and working up. See the pdf for how to continue.
All in all my suggested code would look something like this
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 1:
# New easy check
return 1
if x == 0:
if n < 0:
# builtin pow throws an exception rather than returning None
raise ZeroDivisionError("...")
return 0
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = _pow(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
def _pow(base, power):
"""Return base**power
Assume base > 0, power > 0"""
if power == 1:
return base
y = _pow(base, power // 2)
result = y * y
if power % 2:
result *= base
return result
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do less writing
You can half the code by using the fact $x^{-n} = frac{1}{x^n}$
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
...
else:
while n < 0:
...
would become
if n < 0:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
return 1 / old_code(x, -n)
return old_code(x, n)
(with old code being the code you have from the while loop down)
Likewise $(-x)^n = x^n$ if n is even, otherwise $-(x^n)$. This extra check can be done at the start rather than in the middle of a loop. Combining the two you get
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = old_code(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
This probably could bit a little nicer, but hopefully it is very clear what is happening. From this you can write your code assuming both the base and power are positive.
Better algorithm
We can improve the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n), where n is the power, using the idea from russian peasant exponentiation. Alternatively you could implement exponentiation by squaring for the same runtime complexity. We can derive the idea by the following observation
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n}$$
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
$$x^n = y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
We need to make a slight adjustment if n is odd, as n/2 wont be an integer
$$x^n = x times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
$$x^n = x times y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
We can then work out $x^{n/2}$ recursively until some easy to compute base case.
Note: To turn this into a loop we can do the same thing, but starting at lower powers and working up. See the pdf for how to continue.
All in all my suggested code would look something like this
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 1:
# New easy check
return 1
if x == 0:
if n < 0:
# builtin pow throws an exception rather than returning None
raise ZeroDivisionError("...")
return 0
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = _pow(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
def _pow(base, power):
"""Return base**power
Assume base > 0, power > 0"""
if power == 1:
return base
y = _pow(base, power // 2)
result = y * y
if power % 2:
result *= base
return result
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Do less writing
You can half the code by using the fact $x^{-n} = frac{1}{x^n}$
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
...
else:
while n < 0:
...
would become
if n < 0:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
return 1 / old_code(x, -n)
return old_code(x, n)
(with old code being the code you have from the while loop down)
Likewise $(-x)^n = x^n$ if n is even, otherwise $-(x^n)$. This extra check can be done at the start rather than in the middle of a loop. Combining the two you get
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = old_code(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
This probably could bit a little nicer, but hopefully it is very clear what is happening. From this you can write your code assuming both the base and power are positive.
Better algorithm
We can improve the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n), where n is the power, using the idea from russian peasant exponentiation. Alternatively you could implement exponentiation by squaring for the same runtime complexity. We can derive the idea by the following observation
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n}$$
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
$$x^n = y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
We need to make a slight adjustment if n is odd, as n/2 wont be an integer
$$x^n = x times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
$$x^n = x times y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
We can then work out $x^{n/2}$ recursively until some easy to compute base case.
Note: To turn this into a loop we can do the same thing, but starting at lower powers and working up. See the pdf for how to continue.
All in all my suggested code would look something like this
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 1:
# New easy check
return 1
if x == 0:
if n < 0:
# builtin pow throws an exception rather than returning None
raise ZeroDivisionError("...")
return 0
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = _pow(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
def _pow(base, power):
"""Return base**power
Assume base > 0, power > 0"""
if power == 1:
return base
y = _pow(base, power // 2)
result = y * y
if power % 2:
result *= base
return result
$endgroup$
Do less writing
You can half the code by using the fact $x^{-n} = frac{1}{x^n}$
if n > 0:
while n > 0:
...
else:
while n < 0:
...
would become
if n < 0:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
return 1 / old_code(x, -n)
return old_code(x, n)
(with old code being the code you have from the while loop down)
Likewise $(-x)^n = x^n$ if n is even, otherwise $-(x^n)$. This extra check can be done at the start rather than in the middle of a loop. Combining the two you get
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = old_code(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
This probably could bit a little nicer, but hopefully it is very clear what is happening. From this you can write your code assuming both the base and power are positive.
Better algorithm
We can improve the algorithm from O(n) to O(log n), where n is the power, using the idea from russian peasant exponentiation. Alternatively you could implement exponentiation by squaring for the same runtime complexity. We can derive the idea by the following observation
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n}$$
$$x^n = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
$$x^n = y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{n/2}$$
We need to make a slight adjustment if n is odd, as n/2 wont be an integer
$$x^n = x times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor} times overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
$$x^n = x times y times y, y = overbrace{x times x times x times cdots times x}^{lfloor n/2 rfloor}$$
We can then work out $x^{n/2}$ recursively until some easy to compute base case.
Note: To turn this into a loop we can do the same thing, but starting at lower powers and working up. See the pdf for how to continue.
All in all my suggested code would look something like this
def pow(x, n):
if n == 0:
return 1
if x == 1:
# New easy check
return 1
if x == 0:
if n < 0:
# builtin pow throws an exception rather than returning None
raise ZeroDivisionError("...")
return 0
if n < 0:
power = -n
else:
power = n
if x < 0:
base = -x
else:
base = x
result = _pow(base, power)
if base != x and power % 2:
# (-x)**n == -(x**n) if n is odd, otherwise x**n
result = -result
if power != n:
# x**(-n) == 1 / x**n
result = 1 / result
return result
def _pow(base, power):
"""Return base**power
Assume base > 0, power > 0"""
if power == 1:
return base
y = _pow(base, power // 2)
result = y * y
if power % 2:
result *= base
return result
answered 8 hours ago
spyr03spyr03
1,401520
1,401520
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Amazing answer! Some really good stuff in there. Your answer has really helped me a lot. Thank you.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One obvious thing to do is to take advantage of some math. If you want to calculate 2¹⁶, you don't need to calculate it with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2. You could instead calculate it as (2⁸)²=(2⁴)²=((2²)²)². With your approach, you will calculate the value of 2⁸ twice.
Here is a simplified version that shows the idea. You might want to change it to a non-recursive version for performance.
def pow(x, n):
if(n==1):
return x
p = pow(x, n//2)
p = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
p = p*x
return p
And here is code that passes the test and is quicker than 92.14%
class Solution:
def myPow(self, x: float, n: int) -> float:
if(n==1):
return x
if(x==0 and n<=0):
return
if(n==0):
return 1
if(n<0):
return 1/self.myPow(x,-n)
p = self.myPow(x, n//2)
ret = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
return ret*x
return ret
The time complexity here is $O(log (n))$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isfloor
supposed tofloat
?
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One obvious thing to do is to take advantage of some math. If you want to calculate 2¹⁶, you don't need to calculate it with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2. You could instead calculate it as (2⁸)²=(2⁴)²=((2²)²)². With your approach, you will calculate the value of 2⁸ twice.
Here is a simplified version that shows the idea. You might want to change it to a non-recursive version for performance.
def pow(x, n):
if(n==1):
return x
p = pow(x, n//2)
p = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
p = p*x
return p
And here is code that passes the test and is quicker than 92.14%
class Solution:
def myPow(self, x: float, n: int) -> float:
if(n==1):
return x
if(x==0 and n<=0):
return
if(n==0):
return 1
if(n<0):
return 1/self.myPow(x,-n)
p = self.myPow(x, n//2)
ret = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
return ret*x
return ret
The time complexity here is $O(log (n))$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Isfloor
supposed tofloat
?
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One obvious thing to do is to take advantage of some math. If you want to calculate 2¹⁶, you don't need to calculate it with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2. You could instead calculate it as (2⁸)²=(2⁴)²=((2²)²)². With your approach, you will calculate the value of 2⁸ twice.
Here is a simplified version that shows the idea. You might want to change it to a non-recursive version for performance.
def pow(x, n):
if(n==1):
return x
p = pow(x, n//2)
p = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
p = p*x
return p
And here is code that passes the test and is quicker than 92.14%
class Solution:
def myPow(self, x: float, n: int) -> float:
if(n==1):
return x
if(x==0 and n<=0):
return
if(n==0):
return 1
if(n<0):
return 1/self.myPow(x,-n)
p = self.myPow(x, n//2)
ret = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
return ret*x
return ret
The time complexity here is $O(log (n))$
$endgroup$
One obvious thing to do is to take advantage of some math. If you want to calculate 2¹⁶, you don't need to calculate it with 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2. You could instead calculate it as (2⁸)²=(2⁴)²=((2²)²)². With your approach, you will calculate the value of 2⁸ twice.
Here is a simplified version that shows the idea. You might want to change it to a non-recursive version for performance.
def pow(x, n):
if(n==1):
return x
p = pow(x, n//2)
p = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
p = p*x
return p
And here is code that passes the test and is quicker than 92.14%
class Solution:
def myPow(self, x: float, n: int) -> float:
if(n==1):
return x
if(x==0 and n<=0):
return
if(n==0):
return 1
if(n<0):
return 1/self.myPow(x,-n)
p = self.myPow(x, n//2)
ret = p*p
if(n%2 == 1):
return ret*x
return ret
The time complexity here is $O(log (n))$
edited 8 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
BromanBroman
519211
519211
1
$begingroup$
Isfloor
supposed tofloat
?
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Isfloor
supposed tofloat
?
$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Is
floor
supposed to float
?$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is
floor
supposed to float
?$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Justin Don't know. As I said, that was only to show the idea. But I have completed it with working code now.
$endgroup$
– Broman
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review 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.
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%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f220996%2fpython-program-to-implement-powx-n%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
$begingroup$
I'm assuming you're trying to reinvent the wheel here and importing a function from a library is out?
$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Python does has it's own
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Mast
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Mast - Yes, according to Leetcode, I am trying to reinvent Python's
pow()
function.$endgroup$
– Justin
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is your code supposed to work for all -100.0 < x < 100.0 and 32-bit integers n? As an example,
pow(10.0, 1000000)
returnsinf
.$endgroup$
– Martin R
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MartinR - I should think so. If not, is there any way to do that? I'm concerned mainly about efficiency.
$endgroup$
– Justin
8 hours ago