What is an efficient way to find the LCM (Least Common Multiple) of $26$ distinct numbers from $1$ to $52$...












0












$begingroup$


I want to be able (using a computer), to multiply $26$ integer numbers (from $1$ to $52$) but prevent the product from growing very large because it seems to maybe be causing some problems in the computer language I am using. So I want to know if there is a good way to limit the product so that all of the factors can still be divided into the resulting product without any remainder. Shrinking the example down to only $4$ numbers for simplicity (but remember the real world scenario will have $26$ numbers to multiply together), suppose we had $2, 3, 5$, and $50$. Simply multiplying them together would give $2*3*5*50=1500$. However, we don't need $1500$ because $150$ will suffice. So is there a way (ideally "on the fly") to get to $150$ as I see the numbers in order ($2,3,5,50$)? I would get $2*3=6$ then I would get $6*5=30$ but then how to get from $30$ to $150$? Maybe just keep a list of all factors (and quantities of them) seen so far so when I get to $2*3*5=30$, then I see $50$, since $50$ is $2*5*5$ and I have already seen $2*5$ once, just add in the 2nd $5$ to get $30*5=150$?



Also in reality, the partial products will be very large, not small like in this simplified example.



I will add an example shortly of $26$ numbers that need to be multiplied such that the product is minimal (or near minimal such as $2$x minimal).



The algorithm I am looking for can be multiple pass, meaning an initial scan of the numbers can be made and remove factors such as $13$ when there is also a factor of $26$ or $39$ already. The 2nd pass could me more along the lines of a LCM algorithm but since I am using an interpreted language, I would like it to be fast running.



A real example of $26$ numbers needing to be multiplied (but with LCM) is:



$3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15,18,20,21,22,24,26,28,30,33,35,36,39,40,42,45,52$



I wonder what the LCM of all these are. Notice terms like $24$ and $36$ would just drop out since we already have $12$. Also $22$ and $33$ would drop out since we have $11$ already. I am not sure but I think the LCM would be $3*4*5*7*11*3*13*14 = 2,522,520$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:38










  • $begingroup$
    I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:44












  • $begingroup$
    Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:57
















0












$begingroup$


I want to be able (using a computer), to multiply $26$ integer numbers (from $1$ to $52$) but prevent the product from growing very large because it seems to maybe be causing some problems in the computer language I am using. So I want to know if there is a good way to limit the product so that all of the factors can still be divided into the resulting product without any remainder. Shrinking the example down to only $4$ numbers for simplicity (but remember the real world scenario will have $26$ numbers to multiply together), suppose we had $2, 3, 5$, and $50$. Simply multiplying them together would give $2*3*5*50=1500$. However, we don't need $1500$ because $150$ will suffice. So is there a way (ideally "on the fly") to get to $150$ as I see the numbers in order ($2,3,5,50$)? I would get $2*3=6$ then I would get $6*5=30$ but then how to get from $30$ to $150$? Maybe just keep a list of all factors (and quantities of them) seen so far so when I get to $2*3*5=30$, then I see $50$, since $50$ is $2*5*5$ and I have already seen $2*5$ once, just add in the 2nd $5$ to get $30*5=150$?



Also in reality, the partial products will be very large, not small like in this simplified example.



I will add an example shortly of $26$ numbers that need to be multiplied such that the product is minimal (or near minimal such as $2$x minimal).



The algorithm I am looking for can be multiple pass, meaning an initial scan of the numbers can be made and remove factors such as $13$ when there is also a factor of $26$ or $39$ already. The 2nd pass could me more along the lines of a LCM algorithm but since I am using an interpreted language, I would like it to be fast running.



A real example of $26$ numbers needing to be multiplied (but with LCM) is:



$3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15,18,20,21,22,24,26,28,30,33,35,36,39,40,42,45,52$



I wonder what the LCM of all these are. Notice terms like $24$ and $36$ would just drop out since we already have $12$. Also $22$ and $33$ would drop out since we have $11$ already. I am not sure but I think the LCM would be $3*4*5*7*11*3*13*14 = 2,522,520$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:38










  • $begingroup$
    I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:44












  • $begingroup$
    Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:57














0












0








0





$begingroup$


I want to be able (using a computer), to multiply $26$ integer numbers (from $1$ to $52$) but prevent the product from growing very large because it seems to maybe be causing some problems in the computer language I am using. So I want to know if there is a good way to limit the product so that all of the factors can still be divided into the resulting product without any remainder. Shrinking the example down to only $4$ numbers for simplicity (but remember the real world scenario will have $26$ numbers to multiply together), suppose we had $2, 3, 5$, and $50$. Simply multiplying them together would give $2*3*5*50=1500$. However, we don't need $1500$ because $150$ will suffice. So is there a way (ideally "on the fly") to get to $150$ as I see the numbers in order ($2,3,5,50$)? I would get $2*3=6$ then I would get $6*5=30$ but then how to get from $30$ to $150$? Maybe just keep a list of all factors (and quantities of them) seen so far so when I get to $2*3*5=30$, then I see $50$, since $50$ is $2*5*5$ and I have already seen $2*5$ once, just add in the 2nd $5$ to get $30*5=150$?



Also in reality, the partial products will be very large, not small like in this simplified example.



I will add an example shortly of $26$ numbers that need to be multiplied such that the product is minimal (or near minimal such as $2$x minimal).



The algorithm I am looking for can be multiple pass, meaning an initial scan of the numbers can be made and remove factors such as $13$ when there is also a factor of $26$ or $39$ already. The 2nd pass could me more along the lines of a LCM algorithm but since I am using an interpreted language, I would like it to be fast running.



A real example of $26$ numbers needing to be multiplied (but with LCM) is:



$3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15,18,20,21,22,24,26,28,30,33,35,36,39,40,42,45,52$



I wonder what the LCM of all these are. Notice terms like $24$ and $36$ would just drop out since we already have $12$. Also $22$ and $33$ would drop out since we have $11$ already. I am not sure but I think the LCM would be $3*4*5*7*11*3*13*14 = 2,522,520$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I want to be able (using a computer), to multiply $26$ integer numbers (from $1$ to $52$) but prevent the product from growing very large because it seems to maybe be causing some problems in the computer language I am using. So I want to know if there is a good way to limit the product so that all of the factors can still be divided into the resulting product without any remainder. Shrinking the example down to only $4$ numbers for simplicity (but remember the real world scenario will have $26$ numbers to multiply together), suppose we had $2, 3, 5$, and $50$. Simply multiplying them together would give $2*3*5*50=1500$. However, we don't need $1500$ because $150$ will suffice. So is there a way (ideally "on the fly") to get to $150$ as I see the numbers in order ($2,3,5,50$)? I would get $2*3=6$ then I would get $6*5=30$ but then how to get from $30$ to $150$? Maybe just keep a list of all factors (and quantities of them) seen so far so when I get to $2*3*5=30$, then I see $50$, since $50$ is $2*5*5$ and I have already seen $2*5$ once, just add in the 2nd $5$ to get $30*5=150$?



Also in reality, the partial products will be very large, not small like in this simplified example.



I will add an example shortly of $26$ numbers that need to be multiplied such that the product is minimal (or near minimal such as $2$x minimal).



The algorithm I am looking for can be multiple pass, meaning an initial scan of the numbers can be made and remove factors such as $13$ when there is also a factor of $26$ or $39$ already. The 2nd pass could me more along the lines of a LCM algorithm but since I am using an interpreted language, I would like it to be fast running.



A real example of $26$ numbers needing to be multiplied (but with LCM) is:



$3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,14,15,18,20,21,22,24,26,28,30,33,35,36,39,40,42,45,52$



I wonder what the LCM of all these are. Notice terms like $24$ and $36$ would just drop out since we already have $12$. Also $22$ and $33$ would drop out since we have $11$ already. I am not sure but I think the LCM would be $3*4*5*7*11*3*13*14 = 2,522,520$







number-theory elementary-number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 26 '16 at 2:52







David

















asked Feb 26 '16 at 1:30









DavidDavid

33711033




33711033








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:38










  • $begingroup$
    I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:44












  • $begingroup$
    Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:57














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
    $endgroup$
    – fleablood
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:38










  • $begingroup$
    I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 1:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:44












  • $begingroup$
    Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
    $endgroup$
    – David
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:50






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Arthan
    Feb 26 '16 at 2:57








2




2




$begingroup$
Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Feb 26 '16 at 1:38




$begingroup$
Well lcm(a,b,c.....z) = lcm(a,lcm(b,lcm(c,..... lcm(x,lcm(y,z))))))))))))))))). So if you have a method for lcm just apply it 26 times.
$endgroup$
– fleablood
Feb 26 '16 at 1:38












$begingroup$
I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
$endgroup$
– David
Feb 26 '16 at 1:49




$begingroup$
I thought about that already but it might be too slow cuz I have to call it hundreds of thousands of times in my simulation program so I wanted a more efficient version, possibly using multiple passes over the input numbers and using multiple subalgorithms.
$endgroup$
– David
Feb 26 '16 at 1:49




1




1




$begingroup$
You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Feb 26 '16 at 2:44






$begingroup$
You need to think about feasibility before efficiency: your worst case is going to be the lcm of maximal prime powers less than 52: $2^5 times 3^3 times 5^2 times 7^2 times 11 times 13 times ldots$. Is that going to be too large for your programming language?
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Feb 26 '16 at 2:44














$begingroup$
Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
$endgroup$
– David
Feb 26 '16 at 2:50




$begingroup$
Actually I made a silly error and it is working now.
$endgroup$
– David
Feb 26 '16 at 2:50




3




3




$begingroup$
Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Feb 26 '16 at 2:57




$begingroup$
Good for you: it you want to do it really fast: precompute the prime factorisations of the numbers between 1 and 52 and compute the lcm of a sequence of such numbers by calculating the maximum exponent you need for each prime.
$endgroup$
– Rob Arthan
Feb 26 '16 at 2:57










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

Old question, but fun puzzle.



For each prime, it will be included in your results with a multiplicity equal to it's max for any given number in the list.
For example, if your list contains no multiple of 7's except 49, then 7 will have a power of 2.

This code counts primes in such a way. It's C# and not a math language, but I'm sure you can translate.



using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

namespace ConsoleApp5
{
public class Program
{
private const int Max = 1000;
private static readonly int Primes = PrimesLessThan(Max);

private static int PrimesLessThan(int max)
{
var composite = new BitArray(max);
var maxSqrRt = (int) Math.Sqrt(max);
for (var i = 2; i < maxSqrRt; i++)
{
if (composite[i])
{
continue;
}

for (var j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
{
composite[j] = true;
}
}

var values = new List<int> {2};
for (var i = 3; i < max; i += 2)
{
if (!composite[i])
{
values.Add(i);
}
}

return values.ToArray();
}

public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", Primes.Select(x => x.ToString())));
Console.Write(Lcm(3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52));
Console.ReadKey();
}

private static int Lcm(params int args)
{
var primesCount = Primes.Length;
var slots = new int[primesCount];
foreach (var i in args)
{
var number = i;
for (var j = 0; j < primesCount && number > 1; j++)
{
var prime = Primes[j];
var count = 0;
while (number % prime == 0)
{
number /= prime;
count++;
}

if (count > slots[j])
{
slots[j] = count;
}
}
}

var result = 1;
for (var i = 0; i < primesCount; i++)
{
result *= (int)Math.Pow(Primes[i], slots[i]);
}

return result;
}
}
}


The result is 360360, which you've gotten wrong by including 14 in your multiplication, you need to remove it and add 1 to the power for 2. For ease of use you'd want this: 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    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.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    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: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    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
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1672578%2fwhat-is-an-efficient-way-to-find-the-lcm-least-common-multiple-of-26-distinc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    Old question, but fun puzzle.



    For each prime, it will be included in your results with a multiplicity equal to it's max for any given number in the list.
    For example, if your list contains no multiple of 7's except 49, then 7 will have a power of 2.

    This code counts primes in such a way. It's C# and not a math language, but I'm sure you can translate.



    using System;
    using System.Collections;
    using System.Collections.Generic;
    using System.Linq;

    namespace ConsoleApp5
    {
    public class Program
    {
    private const int Max = 1000;
    private static readonly int Primes = PrimesLessThan(Max);

    private static int PrimesLessThan(int max)
    {
    var composite = new BitArray(max);
    var maxSqrRt = (int) Math.Sqrt(max);
    for (var i = 2; i < maxSqrRt; i++)
    {
    if (composite[i])
    {
    continue;
    }

    for (var j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
    {
    composite[j] = true;
    }
    }

    var values = new List<int> {2};
    for (var i = 3; i < max; i += 2)
    {
    if (!composite[i])
    {
    values.Add(i);
    }
    }

    return values.ToArray();
    }

    public static void Main()
    {
    Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", Primes.Select(x => x.ToString())));
    Console.Write(Lcm(3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52));
    Console.ReadKey();
    }

    private static int Lcm(params int args)
    {
    var primesCount = Primes.Length;
    var slots = new int[primesCount];
    foreach (var i in args)
    {
    var number = i;
    for (var j = 0; j < primesCount && number > 1; j++)
    {
    var prime = Primes[j];
    var count = 0;
    while (number % prime == 0)
    {
    number /= prime;
    count++;
    }

    if (count > slots[j])
    {
    slots[j] = count;
    }
    }
    }

    var result = 1;
    for (var i = 0; i < primesCount; i++)
    {
    result *= (int)Math.Pow(Primes[i], slots[i]);
    }

    return result;
    }
    }
    }


    The result is 360360, which you've gotten wrong by including 14 in your multiplication, you need to remove it and add 1 to the power for 2. For ease of use you'd want this: 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Old question, but fun puzzle.



      For each prime, it will be included in your results with a multiplicity equal to it's max for any given number in the list.
      For example, if your list contains no multiple of 7's except 49, then 7 will have a power of 2.

      This code counts primes in such a way. It's C# and not a math language, but I'm sure you can translate.



      using System;
      using System.Collections;
      using System.Collections.Generic;
      using System.Linq;

      namespace ConsoleApp5
      {
      public class Program
      {
      private const int Max = 1000;
      private static readonly int Primes = PrimesLessThan(Max);

      private static int PrimesLessThan(int max)
      {
      var composite = new BitArray(max);
      var maxSqrRt = (int) Math.Sqrt(max);
      for (var i = 2; i < maxSqrRt; i++)
      {
      if (composite[i])
      {
      continue;
      }

      for (var j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
      {
      composite[j] = true;
      }
      }

      var values = new List<int> {2};
      for (var i = 3; i < max; i += 2)
      {
      if (!composite[i])
      {
      values.Add(i);
      }
      }

      return values.ToArray();
      }

      public static void Main()
      {
      Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", Primes.Select(x => x.ToString())));
      Console.Write(Lcm(3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52));
      Console.ReadKey();
      }

      private static int Lcm(params int args)
      {
      var primesCount = Primes.Length;
      var slots = new int[primesCount];
      foreach (var i in args)
      {
      var number = i;
      for (var j = 0; j < primesCount && number > 1; j++)
      {
      var prime = Primes[j];
      var count = 0;
      while (number % prime == 0)
      {
      number /= prime;
      count++;
      }

      if (count > slots[j])
      {
      slots[j] = count;
      }
      }
      }

      var result = 1;
      for (var i = 0; i < primesCount; i++)
      {
      result *= (int)Math.Pow(Primes[i], slots[i]);
      }

      return result;
      }
      }
      }


      The result is 360360, which you've gotten wrong by including 14 in your multiplication, you need to remove it and add 1 to the power for 2. For ease of use you'd want this: 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Old question, but fun puzzle.



        For each prime, it will be included in your results with a multiplicity equal to it's max for any given number in the list.
        For example, if your list contains no multiple of 7's except 49, then 7 will have a power of 2.

        This code counts primes in such a way. It's C# and not a math language, but I'm sure you can translate.



        using System;
        using System.Collections;
        using System.Collections.Generic;
        using System.Linq;

        namespace ConsoleApp5
        {
        public class Program
        {
        private const int Max = 1000;
        private static readonly int Primes = PrimesLessThan(Max);

        private static int PrimesLessThan(int max)
        {
        var composite = new BitArray(max);
        var maxSqrRt = (int) Math.Sqrt(max);
        for (var i = 2; i < maxSqrRt; i++)
        {
        if (composite[i])
        {
        continue;
        }

        for (var j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
        {
        composite[j] = true;
        }
        }

        var values = new List<int> {2};
        for (var i = 3; i < max; i += 2)
        {
        if (!composite[i])
        {
        values.Add(i);
        }
        }

        return values.ToArray();
        }

        public static void Main()
        {
        Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", Primes.Select(x => x.ToString())));
        Console.Write(Lcm(3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52));
        Console.ReadKey();
        }

        private static int Lcm(params int args)
        {
        var primesCount = Primes.Length;
        var slots = new int[primesCount];
        foreach (var i in args)
        {
        var number = i;
        for (var j = 0; j < primesCount && number > 1; j++)
        {
        var prime = Primes[j];
        var count = 0;
        while (number % prime == 0)
        {
        number /= prime;
        count++;
        }

        if (count > slots[j])
        {
        slots[j] = count;
        }
        }
        }

        var result = 1;
        for (var i = 0; i < primesCount; i++)
        {
        result *= (int)Math.Pow(Primes[i], slots[i]);
        }

        return result;
        }
        }
        }


        The result is 360360, which you've gotten wrong by including 14 in your multiplication, you need to remove it and add 1 to the power for 2. For ease of use you'd want this: 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Old question, but fun puzzle.



        For each prime, it will be included in your results with a multiplicity equal to it's max for any given number in the list.
        For example, if your list contains no multiple of 7's except 49, then 7 will have a power of 2.

        This code counts primes in such a way. It's C# and not a math language, but I'm sure you can translate.



        using System;
        using System.Collections;
        using System.Collections.Generic;
        using System.Linq;

        namespace ConsoleApp5
        {
        public class Program
        {
        private const int Max = 1000;
        private static readonly int Primes = PrimesLessThan(Max);

        private static int PrimesLessThan(int max)
        {
        var composite = new BitArray(max);
        var maxSqrRt = (int) Math.Sqrt(max);
        for (var i = 2; i < maxSqrRt; i++)
        {
        if (composite[i])
        {
        continue;
        }

        for (var j = i * i; j < max; j += i)
        {
        composite[j] = true;
        }
        }

        var values = new List<int> {2};
        for (var i = 3; i < max; i += 2)
        {
        if (!composite[i])
        {
        values.Add(i);
        }
        }

        return values.ToArray();
        }

        public static void Main()
        {
        Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", Primes.Select(x => x.ToString())));
        Console.Write(Lcm(3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 52));
        Console.ReadKey();
        }

        private static int Lcm(params int args)
        {
        var primesCount = Primes.Length;
        var slots = new int[primesCount];
        foreach (var i in args)
        {
        var number = i;
        for (var j = 0; j < primesCount && number > 1; j++)
        {
        var prime = Primes[j];
        var count = 0;
        while (number % prime == 0)
        {
        number /= prime;
        count++;
        }

        if (count > slots[j])
        {
        slots[j] = count;
        }
        }
        }

        var result = 1;
        for (var i = 0; i < primesCount; i++)
        {
        result *= (int)Math.Pow(Primes[i], slots[i]);
        }

        return result;
        }
        }
        }


        The result is 360360, which you've gotten wrong by including 14 in your multiplication, you need to remove it and add 1 to the power for 2. For ease of use you'd want this: 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Jan 11 at 0:08









        Jean-Bernard PellerinJean-Bernard Pellerin

        1013




        1013






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics 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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1672578%2fwhat-is-an-efficient-way-to-find-the-lcm-least-common-multiple-of-26-distinc%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese