Archive for matrix multiplication

Le Monde puzzle [#1073]

Posted in Books, Kids, R with tags , , , , , , on November 3, 2018 by xi'an

And here is Le Monde mathematical puzzle  last competition problem

Find the number of integers such that their 15 digits are all between 1,2,3,4, and the absolute difference between two consecutive digits is 1. Among these numbers how many have 1 as their three-before-last digit and how many have 2?

Combinatorics!!! While it seems like a Gordian knot because the number of choices depends on whether or not a digit is an endpoint (1 or 4), there is a nice recurrence relation between the numbers of such integers with n digits and leftmost digit i, namely that

n⁴=(n-1)³, n³=(n-1)²+(n-1)⁴, n²=(n-1)²+(n-1)¹, n¹=(n-1)²

with starting values 1¹=1²=1³=1⁴=1 (and hopefully obvious notations). Hence it is sufficient to iterate the corresponding transition matrix

M= \left(\begin{matrix}0 &1 &0 &0\\1 &0 &1 &0\\0 &1 &0 &1\\0 &0 &1 &0\\\end{matrix} \right)

on this starting vector 14 times (with R, which does not enjoy a built-in matrix power) to end up with

15¹=610, 15²= 987, 15³= 987, 15⁴= 610

which leads to 3194 different numbers as the solution to the first question. As pointed out later by Amic and Robin in Dauphine, this happens to be twice Fibonacci’s sequence.

For the second question, the same matrix applies, with a different initial vector. Out of the 3+5+5+3=16 different integers with 4 digits, 3 start with 1 and 5 with 2. Then multiplying (3,0,0,0) by M¹⁰ leads to 267+165=432 different values for the 15 digit integers and multiplying (0,5,0,0) by M¹⁰ to. 445+720=1165 integers. (With the reassuring property that 432+1165 is half of 3194!) This is yet another puzzle in the competition that is of no special difficulty and with no further challenge going from the first to the second question…

News about speeding R up

Posted in R, Running, Statistics with tags , , , , , on May 24, 2011 by xi'an

The most visited post ever on the ‘Og was In{s}a(ne), my report on Radford Neal’s experiments with speeding up R by using different brackets (the second most populat was Ross Ihaka’s comments, “simply start over and build something better”). I just spotted two new entries by Radford on his blog that are bound to rekindle the debate about the speed of R. The latest one shows that matrix multiplication can be made close to ten time faster by changing the way testing for the presence of NaN’s in a matrix is operated. This gain is not as shocking as producing a 25% improvement when replacing x=1/(1+x) with x=1/{1+x}, but a factor 10 is such a major gain…