Find the next divisor without remainder [closed]

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I divide a value and if the remainder is not 0 I want the closest possible divisor without remainder.
Example:
I have:
$100 % 48 = 4$
Now I am looking for the next value which divide 100 wihtout remainder. Result: $50$
$100 % 50 = 0%$
Just another example:
$14 % 6 = 2$
Result $7$
$14 % 7 = 0$
Does anyone know how to calculate this?
elementary-number-theory divisibility
closed as off-topic by user21820, Xander Henderson, Adrian Keister, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio⦠Sep 1 at 14:34
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." â Xander Henderson, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I divide a value and if the remainder is not 0 I want the closest possible divisor without remainder.
Example:
I have:
$100 % 48 = 4$
Now I am looking for the next value which divide 100 wihtout remainder. Result: $50$
$100 % 50 = 0%$
Just another example:
$14 % 6 = 2$
Result $7$
$14 % 7 = 0$
Does anyone know how to calculate this?
elementary-number-theory divisibility
closed as off-topic by user21820, Xander Henderson, Adrian Keister, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio⦠Sep 1 at 14:34
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." â Xander Henderson, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
2
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I divide a value and if the remainder is not 0 I want the closest possible divisor without remainder.
Example:
I have:
$100 % 48 = 4$
Now I am looking for the next value which divide 100 wihtout remainder. Result: $50$
$100 % 50 = 0%$
Just another example:
$14 % 6 = 2$
Result $7$
$14 % 7 = 0$
Does anyone know how to calculate this?
elementary-number-theory divisibility
I divide a value and if the remainder is not 0 I want the closest possible divisor without remainder.
Example:
I have:
$100 % 48 = 4$
Now I am looking for the next value which divide 100 wihtout remainder. Result: $50$
$100 % 50 = 0%$
Just another example:
$14 % 6 = 2$
Result $7$
$14 % 7 = 0$
Does anyone know how to calculate this?
elementary-number-theory divisibility
elementary-number-theory divisibility
asked Mar 17 '14 at 15:14
Viatorus
12113
12113
closed as off-topic by user21820, Xander Henderson, Adrian Keister, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio⦠Sep 1 at 14:34
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." â Xander Henderson, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio
closed as off-topic by user21820, Xander Henderson, Adrian Keister, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio⦠Sep 1 at 14:34
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." â Xander Henderson, amWhy, Jack D'Aurizio
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
2
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday
add a comment |Â
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
2
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
2
2
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
- Calculate 100%48. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%49. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%50. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
etc.
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I had the same question when I found this, so here's some sample (python) code that would find the nearest divisor with no remainder.
Num = 636 # Numerator we are seeking to divide with no remainder
Den = 8 # Initial denominator
max_iters = 15 # caps the maximum loops
iters = 1 # initialize counter
Deni = Dend = Den # vars for searching increasing and decreasing denominators
while Num%Den != 0:
Deni +=1 # searching increased vals
if Dend > 0 : Dend -=1 # searching decreased vals, but check 0 condition
if Num%Dend ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Dend # assign found denominator
break
elif Num%Deni ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Deni # assign found denominator
break
elif iters >= max_iters: # check loop count
break
iters+=1
Not as clean as a built in function, but hopefully it helps the next person.
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
- Calculate 100%48. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%49. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%50. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
etc.
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
- Calculate 100%48. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%49. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%50. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
etc.
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
- Calculate 100%48. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%49. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%50. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
etc.
- Calculate 100%48. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%49. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
- Calculate 100%50. If the answer is zero, stop. Otherwise:
etc.
answered Mar 17 '14 at 15:23
vadim123
74.3k895185
74.3k895185
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
add a comment |Â
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
doing so you'll find an integer $ x text such that x equiv 0 text mod M$, but not the nearest...e.g maybe it was $47$
â sirfoga
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
1
1
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
Okay, well I hoped there is a better way to calculate this. But thank you anyway.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:26
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
If you want the nearest and allow those less than 48, then try: 48, 49, 47, 50, 46, 51, 45, etc.
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:29
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I had the same question when I found this, so here's some sample (python) code that would find the nearest divisor with no remainder.
Num = 636 # Numerator we are seeking to divide with no remainder
Den = 8 # Initial denominator
max_iters = 15 # caps the maximum loops
iters = 1 # initialize counter
Deni = Dend = Den # vars for searching increasing and decreasing denominators
while Num%Den != 0:
Deni +=1 # searching increased vals
if Dend > 0 : Dend -=1 # searching decreased vals, but check 0 condition
if Num%Dend ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Dend # assign found denominator
break
elif Num%Deni ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Deni # assign found denominator
break
elif iters >= max_iters: # check loop count
break
iters+=1
Not as clean as a built in function, but hopefully it helps the next person.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I had the same question when I found this, so here's some sample (python) code that would find the nearest divisor with no remainder.
Num = 636 # Numerator we are seeking to divide with no remainder
Den = 8 # Initial denominator
max_iters = 15 # caps the maximum loops
iters = 1 # initialize counter
Deni = Dend = Den # vars for searching increasing and decreasing denominators
while Num%Den != 0:
Deni +=1 # searching increased vals
if Dend > 0 : Dend -=1 # searching decreased vals, but check 0 condition
if Num%Dend ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Dend # assign found denominator
break
elif Num%Deni ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Deni # assign found denominator
break
elif iters >= max_iters: # check loop count
break
iters+=1
Not as clean as a built in function, but hopefully it helps the next person.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I had the same question when I found this, so here's some sample (python) code that would find the nearest divisor with no remainder.
Num = 636 # Numerator we are seeking to divide with no remainder
Den = 8 # Initial denominator
max_iters = 15 # caps the maximum loops
iters = 1 # initialize counter
Deni = Dend = Den # vars for searching increasing and decreasing denominators
while Num%Den != 0:
Deni +=1 # searching increased vals
if Dend > 0 : Dend -=1 # searching decreased vals, but check 0 condition
if Num%Dend ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Dend # assign found denominator
break
elif Num%Deni ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Deni # assign found denominator
break
elif iters >= max_iters: # check loop count
break
iters+=1
Not as clean as a built in function, but hopefully it helps the next person.
I had the same question when I found this, so here's some sample (python) code that would find the nearest divisor with no remainder.
Num = 636 # Numerator we are seeking to divide with no remainder
Den = 8 # Initial denominator
max_iters = 15 # caps the maximum loops
iters = 1 # initialize counter
Deni = Dend = Den # vars for searching increasing and decreasing denominators
while Num%Den != 0:
Deni +=1 # searching increased vals
if Dend > 0 : Dend -=1 # searching decreased vals, but check 0 condition
if Num%Dend ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Dend # assign found denominator
break
elif Num%Deni ==0: # found a 0 remainder denominator
Den = Deni # assign found denominator
break
elif iters >= max_iters: # check loop count
break
iters+=1
Not as clean as a built in function, but hopefully it helps the next person.
answered Oct 6 '16 at 16:23
Scout2013
212
212
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
It seems that you know how to calculate this. Are you looking for some other way to calculate it?
â vadim123
Mar 17 '14 at 15:20
No, I don´t know. My "results" are just guessed.
â Viatorus
Mar 17 '14 at 15:22
2
If there were an easy way of doing this in general we'd be able to factorise large numbers using the method. And no-one knows an easy way to do that.
â Mark Bennet
Mar 17 '14 at 16:12
Isn't there an easy way to do this? I'm confused.
â bozdoz
yesterday