1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to solve https://projecteuler.net/problem=499 by constructing a transition matrix and finding its steady state. Here is my code:

pmatrix[s_, m_, size_, iteration_] := Module[{matrix, matrix2},
  matrixtransformer[n_] := 0; 
  Do[matrixtransformer[2^(i - 1) - m] = N[1/2^i,20], {i, 
  Floor[Log[2, size]]}];
  matrixtransformer2[n_] := 0; matrixtransformer2[0] = 1;
  matrix = Join[
  Map[matrixtransformer2, 
  Table[Table[i - j, {i, size}], {j, m - 1}], {2}], 
  Map[matrixtransformer, 
  Table[Table[i - j, {i, size}], {j, m, size}], {2}]];
  (*construct the initial matrix*)
  fastmul[n_, t_] := 
  Module[{matrix3}, matrix3 = n; 
  Do[matrix3 = Dot[matrix3, matrix3], {t}]; matrix3];
  matrix = fastmul[matrix, iteration];
  matrix2 = 
  Map[matrixtransformer2, Table[s - i, {i, 1, size}]].matrix;
  N[1 - Plus @@ matrix2[[1 ;; m - 1]], 20]]

It works just fine with small parameters like $pmatrix[2,2,100,500]=0.25220849$ However, it is impossible to do the problem with matrix size of $10^9$. What can be done to improve the code? (PS:I am new with Wolfram Language, any suggestions on optimising the code will be appreciated also)

Update: I wrote a new algorithm seems to have a much better time complexity. But the ten thousand case would take a long time also, I don't know where the problem is. Here is my code:

pmatrix2[s_, m_, acc1_, acc2_, iteration_] := 
  Module[{}, ptemp[n_] := 0; 
  ft[n_] := Sum[1/2^i ptemp[n + 2^(i - 1) - m], {i, acc2}]; 
  Do[ptemp[i] = 1, {i, m - 1}]; 
  Do[Do[ptemp[i] = ft[i], {i, m, acc1}], {iteration}]; 
  1 - ptemp[s] // N]
|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Mr.Wizard it is up to 501 now. $\endgroup$ – happy fish Feb 6 '15 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ Could someone please explain the sentence " The gambler is certain to win at least 1 pound, the starting value of the pot, at the cost of m pounds, the initial fee." to me? (I feel too dumb or too drunk, undecided yet) $\endgroup$ – Dr. belisarius Feb 6 '15 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ @belisarius That means, when you spend m pounds to play the game, the worst case is that you have tail at the first time, then you collect the initial value of the pot, 1 pounds. That is "win at least 1 pound at the cost of m pounds". If you have head instead, the value will double until you have tail, then you collect the value of that time. $\endgroup$ – happy fish Feb 6 '15 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, thanks. I find the writing quite obscure. $\endgroup$ – Dr. belisarius Feb 6 '15 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ How is p2(2) roughly .2522? I pay my full stake on the first game. Heads I get nothing, tails I get 1 and game over. Either way I'm done. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Lichtblau Feb 6 '15 at 19:06
2
$\begingroup$

Making some suggestions for you code... 

Do[matrixtransformer[2^(i - 1) - m] = N[1/2^i,20], {i, 
  Floor[Log[2, size]]}];

Note that I've used N[] for the values. Since we are not interested in the exact values using N[] reduces time.

And for the second part, you can use MatrixPower[] instead of iterating the multiplication. Its quiet fast. But the big problem is not there... That is with the size of the matrix.. Am also stuck here... But I think the trick is figuring out the Steady state matrix by using more math than programming... Anyways, the problem is enriching in so many ways.. so quiet happy to see a code here...

|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hi ! As it is currently written it is not a full-blown answer rather than a comment. If you, for example, make a side-by-side pre/after and post it with timings that would be great ! $\endgroup$ – Sektor Feb 6 '15 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ MatrixPower[] reduces AbsoluteTiming by a factor of six for pmatrix[2, 2, 100, 500]. $\endgroup$ – bbgodfrey Feb 7 '15 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, I have taken your advice and updated the code $\endgroup$ – happy fish Feb 7 '15 at 4:59
  • $\begingroup$ Run times for parameters 2, 2, 100, 500: - pmatrix as written in Question 1.65 sec - pmatrix with MatrixPower 0.27 sec - pmatrix with MatrixPower and N gave worse run times, even with precision less than $MachinePrecision What are the values of acc1 and acc2 for your test problem? $\endgroup$ – bbgodfrey Feb 7 '15 at 5:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.