Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<python-python-list@m.gmane.org>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.005
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 0.99; 'S': 0.00; 'memory.': 0.07; 'nicely': 0.07; 'lookup': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'subject:number': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'def': 0.12; 'random': 0.14; 'digits)': 0.16; 'iteration': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:dip0.t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'received:t-ipconnect.de': 0.16; 'subject:happy': 0.16; 'worst': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'trying': 0.19; 'examples': 0.20; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'case.': 0.24; 'second': 0.26; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'am,': 0.29; "doesn't": 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'url:wiki': 0.31; "d'aprano": 0.31; 'steven': 0.31; 'subject:skip:i 10': 0.31; 'url:wikipedia': 0.31; 'cases': 0.33; 'computer.': 0.33; 'fri,': 0.33; 'table': 0.34; 'but': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'sequence': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'example,': 0.37; 'needed': 0.38; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'rather': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'how': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'ian': 0.60; 'most': 0.60; 'tell': 0.60; 'took': 0.61; 'simple': 0.61; 'maximum': 0.63; 'skip:n 10': 0.64; '500': 0.70; 'square': 0.74; '2015': 0.84; 'reasoning': 0.91
X-Injected-Via-Gmane	http://gmane.org/
To	python-list@python.org
From	Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de>
Subject	Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK
Date	Fri, 01 May 2015 20:13:20 +0200
Organization	None
References	<87oam5vc8k.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <mailman.140.1430420006.3680.python-list@python.org> <slrnmk5esv.apd.jon+usenet@frosty.unequivocal.co.uk> <mailman.155.1430437953.3680.python-list@python.org> <slrnmk6agn.apd.jon+usenet@frosty.unequivocal.co.uk> <554338dd$0$13004$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CALwzid=iNnSRspO9F1KAt=9=x3U=oOB0n=agQqs=yOVHA6wmmw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7Bit
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host	p57bd85d4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
User-Agent	KNode/4.13.3
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.20+
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.0.1430504017.20872.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	41
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1430504017 news.xs4all.nl 2950 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:50260
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:89744

Show key headers only | View raw

Ian Kelly wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Rather than 10**7, how about trying (10**500 + 2). Is it happy?
>>
>> Using the Python code from Wikipedia:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_number
>>
>> SQUARE = dict([(c, int(c)**2) for c in "0123456789"])
>> def is_happy(n):
>>   while (n > 1) and (n != 4):
>>     n = sum(SQUARE[d] for d in str(n))
>>   return n == 1
>>
>>
>> I can calculate whether n=10**500 + 2 is happy in less than a millisecond
>> on my computer.
> 
> Not really the most exciting example, since the following number in
> the sequence would be 5. But a random sequence of 500 non-zero digits
> doesn't seem to take substantially longer.

I may be missing something, but isn't the '+ 2' in '10**500 + 2' just a 
distraction? 10**500 would bring across nicely what the approach Steven took 
from Wikipeda can do in one iteration where Jon's cannot even find enough 
memory.

Also, with 500 digits and 0 <= d <= 9 

sum(d*d for d in digits) <= 81 * 500

should hold, i. e. on the second iteration the maximum number of digits is 
already down to five in the worst case. By repeating this simple reasoning 
you can tell that all interesting examples must be below 1000 as 
num_digits(3*81) == 3. 

A computer that cannot calculate a lookup table with all 3-digit cases 
should be almost as hard to find as the one needed by Jon ;)

Thread

Is my implementation of happy number OK Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 17:59 +0200
  Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-04-30 17:04 +0000
  Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 11:37 -0600
    Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 21:05 +0200
  Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-04-30 14:53 -0400
    Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:35 +0200
      Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-04-30 17:31 -0400
    Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-04-30 23:31 +0000
      Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-04-30 19:52 -0400
        Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 06:36 +0200
        Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-05-01 07:23 +0000
          Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 18:27 +1000
            Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 09:03 -0600
            Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-05-01 20:13 +0200
              Re: Is my implementation of happy number OK Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 21:23 +0000

csiph-web