Finding the number of integers that are a square and a cube at the same timeQuadratic CalculatorFind the...
Finding the number of integers that are a square and a cube at the same time
Do commercial flights continue with an engine out?
How can I mix up weapons for large groups of similar monsters/characters?
Yeshiva University RIETS Semicha Yorei and Yadin
What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?
Can I become debt free or should I file for bankruptcy? How do I manage my debt and finances?
Criticizing long fiction. How is it different from short?
Sometimes a banana is just a banana
Can chords be played on the flute?
Find the number of ways to express 1050 as sum of consecutive integers
Why does the DC-9-80 have this cusp in its fuselage?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
Predict mars robot position
Which branches of mathematics can be done just in terms of morphisms and composition?
How to properly claim credit for peer review?
What can I substitute for soda pop in a sweet pork recipe?
Incompressible fluid definition
ip vs ifconfig commands pros and cons
LTSpice: When running a linear AC simulation, how to view the voltage ratio between two voltages?
What are these green text/line displays shown during the livestream of Crew Dragon's approach to dock with the ISS?
Has the Isbell–Freyd criterion ever been used to check that a category is concretisable?
Am I using the wrong word all along?
Do my Windows system binaries contain sensitive information?
What's a good word to describe a public place that looks like it wouldn't be rough?
Finding the number of integers that are a square and a cube at the same time
Quadratic CalculatorFind the smallest number of square numbers to create n2048 Game Algorithm in JavaBasic arithmetic operations for a programming languageJava class that parses Shoutcast stats XMLFinding the total time elapsed in the union of time intervalsImplementation of Dequeue data structureThis program reads in integers until a sentinel number is read. And prints the largest integer readGCD of several integersThreads with lambdas and runnable in Java
$begingroup$
I have written some code that takes two integers and returns the numbers of numbers that are both a square and a cube. I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to write this. I have only just started learning Java so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Scanner input=new Scanner(System.in);
double a=input.nextInt();
double b=input.nextInt();
int coolnumbers=0; //counter for the # of numbers that are a square and cube
for(double i=a; i<=b; i++){
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
if(i==Math.pow(j,6)){
coolnumbers++;
break;
}
}
}
System.out.println(coolnumbers);
java
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have written some code that takes two integers and returns the numbers of numbers that are both a square and a cube. I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to write this. I have only just started learning Java so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Scanner input=new Scanner(System.in);
double a=input.nextInt();
double b=input.nextInt();
int coolnumbers=0; //counter for the # of numbers that are a square and cube
for(double i=a; i<=b; i++){
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
if(i==Math.pow(j,6)){
coolnumbers++;
break;
}
}
}
System.out.println(coolnumbers);
java
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have written some code that takes two integers and returns the numbers of numbers that are both a square and a cube. I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to write this. I have only just started learning Java so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Scanner input=new Scanner(System.in);
double a=input.nextInt();
double b=input.nextInt();
int coolnumbers=0; //counter for the # of numbers that are a square and cube
for(double i=a; i<=b; i++){
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
if(i==Math.pow(j,6)){
coolnumbers++;
break;
}
}
}
System.out.println(coolnumbers);
java
New contributor
$endgroup$
I have written some code that takes two integers and returns the numbers of numbers that are both a square and a cube. I would like to know if there is a more efficient way to write this. I have only just started learning Java so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Scanner input=new Scanner(System.in);
double a=input.nextInt();
double b=input.nextInt();
int coolnumbers=0; //counter for the # of numbers that are a square and cube
for(double i=a; i<=b; i++){
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
if(i==Math.pow(j,6)){
coolnumbers++;
break;
}
}
}
System.out.println(coolnumbers);
java
java
New contributor
New contributor
edited 12 hours ago
Stephen Rauch
3,77061630
3,77061630
New contributor
asked 14 hours ago
JellybeanNewbieJellybeanNewbie
285
285
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's say a = 1, b = 1,000,000. Your code is a nested loop, each loop iterating a million times, for a total of one trillion tests. And I tell, out of my head, that the result is 10 and the numbers are 1, 2^6, 3^6, 4^6, 5^6, 6^6, 7^6, 8^6, 9^6 and 10^6.
The numbers that are both 2nd and 3rd powers are exactly the sixth powers of integers. So you can just iterate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., calculate j = i^6, then if j >= a and j <= b increase the counter, and if j > b then exit the loop. The time needed is proportional to the sixth root of b.
Even faster, if b was extremely large, calculate A = sixth root of a, round up to the nearest integer, and B = sixth root of b, rounded down to the nearest integer. The numbers from a to b that are sixth powers are exactly the sixth powers of the numbers from A to B, and there are B - A + 1 of them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@JellybeanNewbie, and welcome to code review.
You ask about efficiency, and there are a few changes that jump out to me as possibilities for speeding things up. I'll make a few comments about other aspects of your code first, and then walk through the efficiency things.
double b=input.nextInt();
There are actually three little concerns on this line.
First is that b
is not a very descriptive variable name. The code would be clearer if it were named something else, like upperBound
.
Second, it is always worth being careful about what types your variables have. It's a bit of a red flag when you are getting an int
and putting it into a double
variable. There are good reasons to use doubles sometimes, but they can cause subtle bugs often associated with rounding error. If you definitely want to work with an integer it's usually worth keeping things as int
. If not, perhaps you should be using something like nextDouble
.
Third is that this is information that is coming from the user. As a general rule, it's worth checking all information that comes from the user, just to make sure that it makes sense. For example, it may be worth making sure that b
is actually a number. It's also worth checking that b
is bigger than a
. Likewise if there's anything else that could make the code fall over, it is usually worth checking that they haven't used such an input as soon as possible.
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
This line is actually hiding a subtle bug. Suppose that your input for a
is 0 and b
is 2, which seems like a perfectly sensible pair of inputs. There are then two answers: both 0 and 1 are both squares and cubes. However your for
loop starts at 1, which means it will skip right over considering 0. Now this bug will actually disappear completely with some of my efficiency suggestions, but I wanted to draw attention to it because it highlights an important lesson in testing code. That is, always remember to think about and test the edge cases, which are the biggest or smallest things that a bit of code can work with.
Now, for the efficiency bit. There is a useful proverb for getting code to go faster: "The fastest code is the code that isn't run."
Look again at the for
loop with j
in it. That loop is counting upwards, from 1 to b
. For each number between 1 and b
, it checks whether j
to the power of 6 is exactly i
. Now, let's suppose that b
is a big sort of number, perhaps a million, so you're doing that check a million times. However, as soon a j
to the power of 6 is greater than i
, it's clear that none of the rest of those possible j
values can be the number you want. After all, j
keeps getting bigger, so j
to the power of 6 will get bigger, and it's already too big. Once you notice that, you'll see that instead of checking a million possible values of j
we only have to check ten.
That's a big improvement, but there is room do do better. Instead of checking possible values of j
and seeing whether j
to the power of 6 is i
, you can just check the sixth root of i
. (For example using Math.pow(i, 1.0/6.0)
or Math.sqrt(Math.cbrt(i))
). If that is an integer, then you've found a special number. And in the process, you can completely delete the second for
loop.
There's a couple of tricks that I've used here. Think about the sixth root rather than counting up the sixth powers. Think about what happens as you start to count up. I'll end on a challenge. Can you find a way to use the same sorts of tricks to make the that first for
loop shorter, and then disappear? I think you can solve this problem without any looping at all!
$endgroup$
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.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
});
}
});
JellybeanNewbie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f214649%2ffinding-the-number-of-integers-that-are-a-square-and-a-cube-at-the-same-time%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
$begingroup$
Let's say a = 1, b = 1,000,000. Your code is a nested loop, each loop iterating a million times, for a total of one trillion tests. And I tell, out of my head, that the result is 10 and the numbers are 1, 2^6, 3^6, 4^6, 5^6, 6^6, 7^6, 8^6, 9^6 and 10^6.
The numbers that are both 2nd and 3rd powers are exactly the sixth powers of integers. So you can just iterate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., calculate j = i^6, then if j >= a and j <= b increase the counter, and if j > b then exit the loop. The time needed is proportional to the sixth root of b.
Even faster, if b was extremely large, calculate A = sixth root of a, round up to the nearest integer, and B = sixth root of b, rounded down to the nearest integer. The numbers from a to b that are sixth powers are exactly the sixth powers of the numbers from A to B, and there are B - A + 1 of them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's say a = 1, b = 1,000,000. Your code is a nested loop, each loop iterating a million times, for a total of one trillion tests. And I tell, out of my head, that the result is 10 and the numbers are 1, 2^6, 3^6, 4^6, 5^6, 6^6, 7^6, 8^6, 9^6 and 10^6.
The numbers that are both 2nd and 3rd powers are exactly the sixth powers of integers. So you can just iterate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., calculate j = i^6, then if j >= a and j <= b increase the counter, and if j > b then exit the loop. The time needed is proportional to the sixth root of b.
Even faster, if b was extremely large, calculate A = sixth root of a, round up to the nearest integer, and B = sixth root of b, rounded down to the nearest integer. The numbers from a to b that are sixth powers are exactly the sixth powers of the numbers from A to B, and there are B - A + 1 of them.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's say a = 1, b = 1,000,000. Your code is a nested loop, each loop iterating a million times, for a total of one trillion tests. And I tell, out of my head, that the result is 10 and the numbers are 1, 2^6, 3^6, 4^6, 5^6, 6^6, 7^6, 8^6, 9^6 and 10^6.
The numbers that are both 2nd and 3rd powers are exactly the sixth powers of integers. So you can just iterate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., calculate j = i^6, then if j >= a and j <= b increase the counter, and if j > b then exit the loop. The time needed is proportional to the sixth root of b.
Even faster, if b was extremely large, calculate A = sixth root of a, round up to the nearest integer, and B = sixth root of b, rounded down to the nearest integer. The numbers from a to b that are sixth powers are exactly the sixth powers of the numbers from A to B, and there are B - A + 1 of them.
$endgroup$
Let's say a = 1, b = 1,000,000. Your code is a nested loop, each loop iterating a million times, for a total of one trillion tests. And I tell, out of my head, that the result is 10 and the numbers are 1, 2^6, 3^6, 4^6, 5^6, 6^6, 7^6, 8^6, 9^6 and 10^6.
The numbers that are both 2nd and 3rd powers are exactly the sixth powers of integers. So you can just iterate for i = 0, 1, 2, 3 etc., calculate j = i^6, then if j >= a and j <= b increase the counter, and if j > b then exit the loop. The time needed is proportional to the sixth root of b.
Even faster, if b was extremely large, calculate A = sixth root of a, round up to the nearest integer, and B = sixth root of b, rounded down to the nearest integer. The numbers from a to b that are sixth powers are exactly the sixth powers of the numbers from A to B, and there are B - A + 1 of them.
answered 10 hours ago
gnasher729gnasher729
1,982711
1,982711
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@JellybeanNewbie, and welcome to code review.
You ask about efficiency, and there are a few changes that jump out to me as possibilities for speeding things up. I'll make a few comments about other aspects of your code first, and then walk through the efficiency things.
double b=input.nextInt();
There are actually three little concerns on this line.
First is that b
is not a very descriptive variable name. The code would be clearer if it were named something else, like upperBound
.
Second, it is always worth being careful about what types your variables have. It's a bit of a red flag when you are getting an int
and putting it into a double
variable. There are good reasons to use doubles sometimes, but they can cause subtle bugs often associated with rounding error. If you definitely want to work with an integer it's usually worth keeping things as int
. If not, perhaps you should be using something like nextDouble
.
Third is that this is information that is coming from the user. As a general rule, it's worth checking all information that comes from the user, just to make sure that it makes sense. For example, it may be worth making sure that b
is actually a number. It's also worth checking that b
is bigger than a
. Likewise if there's anything else that could make the code fall over, it is usually worth checking that they haven't used such an input as soon as possible.
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
This line is actually hiding a subtle bug. Suppose that your input for a
is 0 and b
is 2, which seems like a perfectly sensible pair of inputs. There are then two answers: both 0 and 1 are both squares and cubes. However your for
loop starts at 1, which means it will skip right over considering 0. Now this bug will actually disappear completely with some of my efficiency suggestions, but I wanted to draw attention to it because it highlights an important lesson in testing code. That is, always remember to think about and test the edge cases, which are the biggest or smallest things that a bit of code can work with.
Now, for the efficiency bit. There is a useful proverb for getting code to go faster: "The fastest code is the code that isn't run."
Look again at the for
loop with j
in it. That loop is counting upwards, from 1 to b
. For each number between 1 and b
, it checks whether j
to the power of 6 is exactly i
. Now, let's suppose that b
is a big sort of number, perhaps a million, so you're doing that check a million times. However, as soon a j
to the power of 6 is greater than i
, it's clear that none of the rest of those possible j
values can be the number you want. After all, j
keeps getting bigger, so j
to the power of 6 will get bigger, and it's already too big. Once you notice that, you'll see that instead of checking a million possible values of j
we only have to check ten.
That's a big improvement, but there is room do do better. Instead of checking possible values of j
and seeing whether j
to the power of 6 is i
, you can just check the sixth root of i
. (For example using Math.pow(i, 1.0/6.0)
or Math.sqrt(Math.cbrt(i))
). If that is an integer, then you've found a special number. And in the process, you can completely delete the second for
loop.
There's a couple of tricks that I've used here. Think about the sixth root rather than counting up the sixth powers. Think about what happens as you start to count up. I'll end on a challenge. Can you find a way to use the same sorts of tricks to make the that first for
loop shorter, and then disappear? I think you can solve this problem without any looping at all!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@JellybeanNewbie, and welcome to code review.
You ask about efficiency, and there are a few changes that jump out to me as possibilities for speeding things up. I'll make a few comments about other aspects of your code first, and then walk through the efficiency things.
double b=input.nextInt();
There are actually three little concerns on this line.
First is that b
is not a very descriptive variable name. The code would be clearer if it were named something else, like upperBound
.
Second, it is always worth being careful about what types your variables have. It's a bit of a red flag when you are getting an int
and putting it into a double
variable. There are good reasons to use doubles sometimes, but they can cause subtle bugs often associated with rounding error. If you definitely want to work with an integer it's usually worth keeping things as int
. If not, perhaps you should be using something like nextDouble
.
Third is that this is information that is coming from the user. As a general rule, it's worth checking all information that comes from the user, just to make sure that it makes sense. For example, it may be worth making sure that b
is actually a number. It's also worth checking that b
is bigger than a
. Likewise if there's anything else that could make the code fall over, it is usually worth checking that they haven't used such an input as soon as possible.
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
This line is actually hiding a subtle bug. Suppose that your input for a
is 0 and b
is 2, which seems like a perfectly sensible pair of inputs. There are then two answers: both 0 and 1 are both squares and cubes. However your for
loop starts at 1, which means it will skip right over considering 0. Now this bug will actually disappear completely with some of my efficiency suggestions, but I wanted to draw attention to it because it highlights an important lesson in testing code. That is, always remember to think about and test the edge cases, which are the biggest or smallest things that a bit of code can work with.
Now, for the efficiency bit. There is a useful proverb for getting code to go faster: "The fastest code is the code that isn't run."
Look again at the for
loop with j
in it. That loop is counting upwards, from 1 to b
. For each number between 1 and b
, it checks whether j
to the power of 6 is exactly i
. Now, let's suppose that b
is a big sort of number, perhaps a million, so you're doing that check a million times. However, as soon a j
to the power of 6 is greater than i
, it's clear that none of the rest of those possible j
values can be the number you want. After all, j
keeps getting bigger, so j
to the power of 6 will get bigger, and it's already too big. Once you notice that, you'll see that instead of checking a million possible values of j
we only have to check ten.
That's a big improvement, but there is room do do better. Instead of checking possible values of j
and seeing whether j
to the power of 6 is i
, you can just check the sixth root of i
. (For example using Math.pow(i, 1.0/6.0)
or Math.sqrt(Math.cbrt(i))
). If that is an integer, then you've found a special number. And in the process, you can completely delete the second for
loop.
There's a couple of tricks that I've used here. Think about the sixth root rather than counting up the sixth powers. Think about what happens as you start to count up. I'll end on a challenge. Can you find a way to use the same sorts of tricks to make the that first for
loop shorter, and then disappear? I think you can solve this problem without any looping at all!
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@JellybeanNewbie, and welcome to code review.
You ask about efficiency, and there are a few changes that jump out to me as possibilities for speeding things up. I'll make a few comments about other aspects of your code first, and then walk through the efficiency things.
double b=input.nextInt();
There are actually three little concerns on this line.
First is that b
is not a very descriptive variable name. The code would be clearer if it were named something else, like upperBound
.
Second, it is always worth being careful about what types your variables have. It's a bit of a red flag when you are getting an int
and putting it into a double
variable. There are good reasons to use doubles sometimes, but they can cause subtle bugs often associated with rounding error. If you definitely want to work with an integer it's usually worth keeping things as int
. If not, perhaps you should be using something like nextDouble
.
Third is that this is information that is coming from the user. As a general rule, it's worth checking all information that comes from the user, just to make sure that it makes sense. For example, it may be worth making sure that b
is actually a number. It's also worth checking that b
is bigger than a
. Likewise if there's anything else that could make the code fall over, it is usually worth checking that they haven't used such an input as soon as possible.
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
This line is actually hiding a subtle bug. Suppose that your input for a
is 0 and b
is 2, which seems like a perfectly sensible pair of inputs. There are then two answers: both 0 and 1 are both squares and cubes. However your for
loop starts at 1, which means it will skip right over considering 0. Now this bug will actually disappear completely with some of my efficiency suggestions, but I wanted to draw attention to it because it highlights an important lesson in testing code. That is, always remember to think about and test the edge cases, which are the biggest or smallest things that a bit of code can work with.
Now, for the efficiency bit. There is a useful proverb for getting code to go faster: "The fastest code is the code that isn't run."
Look again at the for
loop with j
in it. That loop is counting upwards, from 1 to b
. For each number between 1 and b
, it checks whether j
to the power of 6 is exactly i
. Now, let's suppose that b
is a big sort of number, perhaps a million, so you're doing that check a million times. However, as soon a j
to the power of 6 is greater than i
, it's clear that none of the rest of those possible j
values can be the number you want. After all, j
keeps getting bigger, so j
to the power of 6 will get bigger, and it's already too big. Once you notice that, you'll see that instead of checking a million possible values of j
we only have to check ten.
That's a big improvement, but there is room do do better. Instead of checking possible values of j
and seeing whether j
to the power of 6 is i
, you can just check the sixth root of i
. (For example using Math.pow(i, 1.0/6.0)
or Math.sqrt(Math.cbrt(i))
). If that is an integer, then you've found a special number. And in the process, you can completely delete the second for
loop.
There's a couple of tricks that I've used here. Think about the sixth root rather than counting up the sixth powers. Think about what happens as you start to count up. I'll end on a challenge. Can you find a way to use the same sorts of tricks to make the that first for
loop shorter, and then disappear? I think you can solve this problem without any looping at all!
$endgroup$
@JellybeanNewbie, and welcome to code review.
You ask about efficiency, and there are a few changes that jump out to me as possibilities for speeding things up. I'll make a few comments about other aspects of your code first, and then walk through the efficiency things.
double b=input.nextInt();
There are actually three little concerns on this line.
First is that b
is not a very descriptive variable name. The code would be clearer if it were named something else, like upperBound
.
Second, it is always worth being careful about what types your variables have. It's a bit of a red flag when you are getting an int
and putting it into a double
variable. There are good reasons to use doubles sometimes, but they can cause subtle bugs often associated with rounding error. If you definitely want to work with an integer it's usually worth keeping things as int
. If not, perhaps you should be using something like nextDouble
.
Third is that this is information that is coming from the user. As a general rule, it's worth checking all information that comes from the user, just to make sure that it makes sense. For example, it may be worth making sure that b
is actually a number. It's also worth checking that b
is bigger than a
. Likewise if there's anything else that could make the code fall over, it is usually worth checking that they haven't used such an input as soon as possible.
for(double j=1; j<=b; j++){
This line is actually hiding a subtle bug. Suppose that your input for a
is 0 and b
is 2, which seems like a perfectly sensible pair of inputs. There are then two answers: both 0 and 1 are both squares and cubes. However your for
loop starts at 1, which means it will skip right over considering 0. Now this bug will actually disappear completely with some of my efficiency suggestions, but I wanted to draw attention to it because it highlights an important lesson in testing code. That is, always remember to think about and test the edge cases, which are the biggest or smallest things that a bit of code can work with.
Now, for the efficiency bit. There is a useful proverb for getting code to go faster: "The fastest code is the code that isn't run."
Look again at the for
loop with j
in it. That loop is counting upwards, from 1 to b
. For each number between 1 and b
, it checks whether j
to the power of 6 is exactly i
. Now, let's suppose that b
is a big sort of number, perhaps a million, so you're doing that check a million times. However, as soon a j
to the power of 6 is greater than i
, it's clear that none of the rest of those possible j
values can be the number you want. After all, j
keeps getting bigger, so j
to the power of 6 will get bigger, and it's already too big. Once you notice that, you'll see that instead of checking a million possible values of j
we only have to check ten.
That's a big improvement, but there is room do do better. Instead of checking possible values of j
and seeing whether j
to the power of 6 is i
, you can just check the sixth root of i
. (For example using Math.pow(i, 1.0/6.0)
or Math.sqrt(Math.cbrt(i))
). If that is an integer, then you've found a special number. And in the process, you can completely delete the second for
loop.
There's a couple of tricks that I've used here. Think about the sixth root rather than counting up the sixth powers. Think about what happens as you start to count up. I'll end on a challenge. Can you find a way to use the same sorts of tricks to make the that first for
loop shorter, and then disappear? I think you can solve this problem without any looping at all!
answered 13 hours ago
JosiahJosiah
3,662428
3,662428
add a comment |
add a comment |
JellybeanNewbie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JellybeanNewbie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JellybeanNewbie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
JellybeanNewbie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f214649%2ffinding-the-number-of-integers-that-are-a-square-and-a-cube-at-the-same-time%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