The "guess the number" game for arbitrary rational numbers?

Question

I once got the following as an interview question:

I'm thinking of a positive integer n. Come up with an algorithm that can guess it in O(lg n) queries. Each query is a number of your choosing, and I will answer either "lower," "higher," or "correct."

This problem can be solved by a modified binary search, in which you listing powers of two until you find one that exceeds n, then run a standard binary search over that range. What I think is so cool about this is that you can search an infinite space for a particular number faster than just brute-force.

The question I have, though, is a slight modification of this problem. Instead of picking a positive integer, suppose that I pick an arbitrary rational number between zero and one. My question is: what algorithm can you use to most efficiently determine which rational number I've picked?

Right now, the best solution I have can find p/q in at most O(q) time by implicitly walking the Stern-Brocot tree, a binary search tree over all the rationals. However, I was hoping to get a runtime closer to the runtime that we got for the integer case, maybe something like O(lg (p + q)) or O(lg pq). Does anyone know of a way to get this sort of runtime?

I initially considered using a standard binary search of the interval [0, 1], but this will only find rational numbers with a non-repeating binary representation, which misses almost all of the rationals. I also thought about using some other way of enumerating the rationals, but I can't seem to find a way to search this space given just greater/equal/less comparisons.

Answer 1

Okay, here's my answer using continued fractions alone.

First let's get some terminology here.

Let X = p/q be the unknown fraction.

Let Q(X,p/q) = sign(X - p/q) be the query function: if it is 0, we've guessed the number, and if it's +/- 1 that tells us the sign of our error.

The conventional notation for continued fractions is A = [a₀; a₁, a₂, a₃, ... a_k]

= a₀ + 1/(a₁ + 1/(a₂ + 1/(a₃ + 1/( ... + 1/a_k) ... )))

---

We'll follow the following algorithm for 0 < p/q < 1.

1. Initialize Y = 0 = [ 0 ], Z = 1 = [ 1 ], k = 0.

2. Outer loop: The preconditions are that:

   • Y and Z are continued fractions of k+1 terms which are identical except in the last element, where they differ by 1, so that Y = [y₀; y₁, y₂, y₃, ... y_k] and Z = [y₀; y₁, y₂, y₃, ... y_k + 1]

   • (-1)^k(Y-X) < 0 < (-1)^k(Z-X), or in simpler terms, for k even, Y < X < Z and for k odd, Z < X < Y.

3. Extend the degree of the continued fraction by 1 step without changing the values of the numbers. In general, if the last terms are y_k and y_k + 1, we change that to [... y_k, y_k+1=∞] and [... y_k, z_k+1=1]. Now increase k by 1.

4. Inner loops: This is essentially the same as @templatetypedef's interview question about the integers. We do a two-phase binary search to get closer:

5. Inner loop 1: y_k = ∞, z_k = a, and X is between Y and Z.

6. Double Z's last term: Compute M = Z but with m_k = 2*a = 2*z_k.

7. Query the unknown number: q = Q(X,M).

8. If q = 0, we have our answer and go to step 17 .

9. If q and Q(X,Y) have opposite signs, it means X is between Y and M, so set Z = M and go to step 5.

10. Otherwise set Y = M and go to the next step:

11. Inner loop 2. y_k = b, z_k = a, and X is between Y and Z.

12. If a and b differ by 1, swap Y and Z, go to step 2.

13. Perform a binary search: compute M where m_k = floor((a+b)/2, and query q = Q(X,M).

14. If q = 0, we're done and go to step 17.

15. If q and Q(X,Y) have opposite signs, it means X is between Y and M, so set Z = M and go to step 11.

16. Otherwise, q and Q(X,Z) have opposite signs, it means X is between Z and M, so set Y = M and go to step 11.

17. Done: X = M.

A concrete example for X = 16/113 = 0.14159292

Y = 0 = [0], Z = 1 = [1], k = 0

k = 1:
Y = 0 = [0; &#8734;] < X, Z = 1 = [0; 1] > X, M = [0; 2] = 1/2 > X.
Y = 0 = [0; &#8734;], Z = 1/2 = [0; 2], M = [0; 4] = 1/4 > X.
Y = 0 = [0; &#8734;], Z = 1/4 = [0; 4], M = [0; 8] = 1/8 < X.
Y = 1/8 = [0; 8], Z = 1/4 = [0; 4], M = [0; 6] = 1/6 > X.
Y = 1/8 = [0; 8], Z = 1/6 = [0; 6], M = [0; 7] = 1/7 > X.
Y = 1/8 = [0; 8], Z = 1/7 = [0; 7] 
  --> the two last terms differ by one, so swap and repeat outer loop.

k = 2:
Y = 1/7 = [0; 7, &#8734;] > X, Z = 1/8 = [0; 7, 1] < X,
    M = [0; 7, 2] = 2/15 < X
Y = 1/7 = [0; 7, &#8734;], Z = 2/15 = [0; 7, 2],
    M = [0; 7, 4] = 4/29 < X
Y = 1/7 = [0; 7, &#8734;], Z = 4/29 = [0; 7, 4], 
    M = [0; 7, 8] = 8/57 < X
Y = 1/7 = [0; 7, &#8734;], Z = 8/57 = [0; 7, 8],
    M = [0; 7, 16] = 16/113 = X 
    --> done!

At each step of computing M, the range of the interval reduces. It is probably fairly easy to prove (though I won't do this) that the interval reduces by a factor of at least 1/sqrt(5) at each step, which would show that this algorithm is O(log q) steps.

Note that this can be combined with templatetypedef's original interview question and apply towards any rational number p/q, not just between 0 and 1, by first computing Q(X,0), then for either positive/negative integers, bounding between two consecutive integers, and then using the above algorithm for the fractional part.

When I have a chance next, I will post a python program that implements this algorithm.

edit: also, note that you don't have to compute the continued fraction each step (which would be O(k), there are partial approximants to continued fractions that can compute the next step from the previous step in O(1).)

edit 2: Recursive definition of partial approximants:

If A_k = [a₀; a₁, a₂, a₃, ... a_k] = p_k/q_k, then p_k = a_kp_k-1 + p_k-2, and q_k = a_kq_k-1 + q_k-2. (Source: Niven & Zuckerman, 4th ed, Theorems 7.3-7.5. See also Wikipedia)

Example: [0] = 0/1 = p₀/q₀, [0; 7] = 1/7 = p₁/q₁; so [0; 7, 16] = (16*1+0)/(16*7+1) = 16/113 = p₂/q₂.

This means that if two continued fractions Y and Z have the same terms except the last one, and the continued fraction excluding the last term is p_k-1/q_k-1, then we can write Y = (y_kp_k-1 + p_k-2) / (y_kq_k-1 + q_k-2) and Z = (z_kp_k-1 + p_k-2) / (z_kq_k-1 + q_k-2). It should be possible to show from this that |Y-Z| decreases by at least a factor of 1/sqrt(5) at each smaller interval produced by this algorithm, but the algebra seems to be beyond me at the moment. :-(

Here's my Python program:

import math

# Return a function that returns Q(p0/q0,p/q) 
#   = sign(p0/q0-p/q) = sign(p0q-q0p)*sign(q0*q)
# If p/q < p0/q0, then Q() = 1; if p/q < p0/q0, then Q() = -1; otherwise Q()=0.
def makeQ(p0,q0):
  def Q(p,q):
    return cmp(q0*p,p0*q)*cmp(q0*q,0)
  return Q

def strsign(s):
  return '<' if s<0 else '>' if s>0 else '=='

def cfnext(p1,q1,p2,q2,a):
  return [a*p1+p2,a*q1+q2]

def ratguess(Q, doprint, kmax):
# p2/q2 = p[k-2]/q[k-2]
  p2 = 1
  q2 = 0
# p1/q1 = p[k-1]/q[k-1]
  p1 = 0
  q1 = 1
  k = 0
  cf = [0]
  done = False
  while not done and (not kmax or k < kmax):
    if doprint:
      print 'p/q='+str(cf)+'='+str(p1)+'/'+str(q1)
# extend continued fraction
    k = k + 1
    [py,qy] = [p1,q1]
    [pz,qz] = cfnext(p1,q1,p2,q2,1)
    ay = None
    az = 1
    sy = Q(py,qy)
    sz = Q(pz,qz)
    while not done:
      if doprint:
        out = str(py)+'/'+str(qy)+' '+strsign(sy)+' X '
        out += strsign(-sz)+' '+str(pz)+'/'+str(qz)
        out += ', interval='+str(abs(1.0*py/qy-1.0*pz/qz))
      if ay:
        if (ay - az == 1):
          [p0,q0,a0] = [pz,qz,az]
          break
        am = (ay+az)/2
      else:
        am = az * 2
      [pm,qm] = cfnext(p1,q1,p2,q2,am)
      sm = Q(pm,qm)
      if doprint:
        out = str(ay)+':'+str(am)+':'+str(az) + '   ' + out + ';  M='+str(pm)+'/'+str(qm)+' '+strsign(sm)+' X '
        print out
      if (sm == 0):
        [p0,q0,a0] = [pm,qm,am]
        done = True
        break
      elif (sm == sy):
        [py,qy,ay,sy] = [pm,qm,am,sm]
      else:
        [pz,qz,az,sz] = [pm,qm,am,sm]     

    [p2,q2] = [p1,q1]
    [p1,q1] = [p0,q0]    
    cf += [a0]

  print 'p/q='+str(cf)+'='+str(p1)+'/'+str(q1)
  return [p1,q1]

and a sample output for ratguess(makeQ(33102,113017), True, 20):

p/q=[0]=0/1
None:2:1   0/1 < X < 1/1, interval=1.0;  M=1/2 > X 
None:4:2   0/1 < X < 1/2, interval=0.5;  M=1/4 < X 
4:3:2   1/4 < X < 1/2, interval=0.25;  M=1/3 > X 
p/q=[0, 3]=1/3
None:2:1   1/3 > X > 1/4, interval=0.0833333333333;  M=2/7 < X 
None:4:2   1/3 > X > 2/7, interval=0.047619047619;  M=4/13 > X 
4:3:2   4/13 > X > 2/7, interval=0.021978021978;  M=3/10 > X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2]=2/7
None:2:1   2/7 < X < 3/10, interval=0.0142857142857;  M=5/17 > X 
None:4:2   2/7 < X < 5/17, interval=0.00840336134454;  M=9/31 < X 
4:3:2   9/31 < X < 5/17, interval=0.00379506641366;  M=7/24 < X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2]=5/17
None:2:1   5/17 > X > 7/24, interval=0.00245098039216;  M=12/41 < X 
None:4:2   5/17 > X > 12/41, interval=0.00143472022956;  M=22/75 > X 
4:3:2   22/75 > X > 12/41, interval=0.000650406504065;  M=17/58 > X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2]=12/41
None:2:1   12/41 < X < 17/58, interval=0.000420521446594;  M=29/99 > X 
None:4:2   12/41 < X < 29/99, interval=0.000246366100025;  M=53/181 < X 
4:3:2   53/181 < X < 29/99, interval=0.000111613371282;  M=41/140 < X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2]=29/99
None:2:1   29/99 > X > 41/140, interval=7.21500721501e-05;  M=70/239 < X 
None:4:2   29/99 > X > 70/239, interval=4.226364059e-05;  M=128/437 > X 
4:3:2   128/437 > X > 70/239, interval=1.91492009996e-05;  M=99/338 > X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]=70/239
None:2:1   70/239 < X < 99/338, interval=1.23789953207e-05;  M=169/577 > X 
None:4:2   70/239 < X < 169/577, interval=7.2514738621e-06;  M=309/1055 < X 
4:3:2   309/1055 < X < 169/577, interval=3.28550190148e-06;  M=239/816 < X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]=169/577
None:2:1   169/577 > X > 239/816, interval=2.12389981991e-06;  M=408/1393 < X 
None:4:2   169/577 > X > 408/1393, interval=1.24415093544e-06;  M=746/2547 < X 
None:8:4   169/577 > X > 746/2547, interval=6.80448470014e-07;  M=1422/4855 < X 
None:16:8   169/577 > X > 1422/4855, interval=3.56972657711e-07;  M=2774/9471 > X 
16:12:8   2774/9471 > X > 1422/4855, interval=1.73982239227e-07;  M=2098/7163 > X 
12:10:8   2098/7163 > X > 1422/4855, interval=1.15020646951e-07;  M=1760/6009 > X 
10:9:8   1760/6009 > X > 1422/4855, interval=6.85549088053e-08;  M=1591/5432 < X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9]=1591/5432
None:2:1   1591/5432 < X < 1760/6009, interval=3.06364213998e-08;  M=3351/11441 < X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 1]=1760/6009
None:2:1   1760/6009 > X > 3351/11441, interval=1.45456726663e-08;  M=5111/17450 < X 
None:4:2   1760/6009 > X > 5111/17450, interval=9.53679318849e-09;  M=8631/29468 < X 
None:8:4   1760/6009 > X > 8631/29468, interval=5.6473816179e-09;  M=15671/53504 < X 
None:16:8   1760/6009 > X > 15671/53504, interval=3.11036635336e-09;  M=29751/101576 > X 
16:12:8   29751/101576 > X > 15671/53504, interval=1.47201634215e-09;  M=22711/77540 > X 
12:10:8   22711/77540 > X > 15671/53504, interval=9.64157420569e-10;  M=19191/65522 > X 
10:9:8   19191/65522 > X > 15671/53504, interval=5.70501257346e-10;  M=17431/59513 > X 
p/q=[0, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 9, 1, 8]=15671/53504
None:2:1   15671/53504 < X < 17431/59513, interval=3.14052228667e-10;  M=33102/113017 == X

Since Python handles biginteger math from the start, and this program uses only integer math (except for the interval calculations), it should work for arbitrary rationals.

---

edit 3: Outline of proof that this is O(log q), not O(log^2 q):

First note that until the rational number is found, the # of steps n_k for each new continued fraction term is exactly 2b(a_k)-1 where b(a_k) is the # of bits needed to represent a_k = ceil(log2(a_k)): it's b(a_k) steps to widen the "net" of the binary search, and b(a_k)-1 steps to narrow it). See the example above, you'll note that the # of steps is always 1, 3, 7, 15, etc.

Now we can use the recurrence relation q_k = a_kq_k-1 + q_k-2 and induction to prove the desired result.

Let's state it in this way: that the value of q after the N_k = sum(n_k) steps required for reaching the kth term has a minimum: q >= A*2^cN for some fixed constants A,c. (so to invert, we'd get that the # of steps N is <= (1/c) * log₂ (q/A) = O(log q).)

Base cases:

• k=0: q = 1, N = 0, so q >= 2^N
• k=1: for N = 2b-1 steps, q = a₁ >= 2^b-1 = 2^(N-1)/2 = 2^N/2/sqrt(2).

This implies A = 1, c = 1/2 could provide desired bounds. In reality, q may not double each term (counterexample: [0; 1, 1, 1, 1, 1] has a growth factor of phi = (1+sqrt(5))/2) so let's use c = 1/4.

Induction:

• for term k, q_k = a_kq_k-1 + q_k-2. Again, for the n_k = 2b-1 steps needed for this term, a_k >= 2^b-1 = 2^(n_k-1)/2.

  So a_kq_k-1 >= 2^(N_k-1)/2 * q_k-1 >= 2^(n_k-1)/2 * A*2^N_k-1/4 = A*2^N_k/4/sqrt(2)*2^n_k/4.

Argh -- the tough part here is that if a_k = 1, q may not increase much for that one term, and we need to use q_k-2 but that may be much smaller than q_k-1.

Answer 2

Let's take the rational numbers, in reduced form, and write them out in order first of denominator, then numerator.

1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 1/6, 5/6, ...

Our first guess is going to be 1/2. Then we'll go along the list until we have 3 in our range. Then we will take 2 guesses to search that list. Then we'll go along the list until we have 7 in our remaining range. Then we will take 3 guesses to search that list. And so on.

In n steps we'll cover the first 2O(n) possibilities, which is in the order of magnitude of efficiency that you were looking for.

Update: People didn't get the reasoning behind this. The reasoning is simple. We know how to walk a binary tree efficiently. There are O(n2) fractions with maximum denominator n. We could therefore search up to any particular denominator size in O(2*log(n)) = O(log(n)) steps. The problem is that we have an infinite number of possible rationals to search. So we can't just line them all up, order them, and start searching.

Therefore my idea was to line up a few, search, line up more, search, and so on. Each time we line up more we line up about double what we did last time. So we need one more guess than we did last time. Therefore our first pass uses 1 guess to traverse 1 possible rational. Our second uses 2 guesses to traverse 3 possible rationals. Our third uses 3 guesses to traverse 7 possible rationals. And our k'th uses k guesses to traverse 2k-1 possible rationals. For any particular rational m/n, eventually it will wind up putting that rational on a fairly big list that it knows how to do a binary search on efficiently.

If we did binary searches, then ignored everything we'd learned when we grab more rationals, then we'd put all of the rationals up to and including m/n in O(log(n)) passes. (That's because by that point we'll get to a pass with enough rationals to include every rational up to and including m/n.) But each pass takes more guesses, so that would be O(log(n)2) guesses.

However we actually do a lot better than that. With our first guess, we eliminate half the rationals on our list as being too big or small. Our next two guesses don't quite cut the space into quarters, but they don't come too far from it. Our next 3 guesses again don't quite cut the space into eighths, but they don't come too far from it. And so on. When you put it together, I'm convinced that the result is that you find m/n in O(log(n)) steps. Though I don't actually have a proof.

Try it out: Here is code to generate the guesses so that you can play and see how efficient it is.

#! /usr/bin/python

from fractions import Fraction
import heapq
import readline
import sys

def generate_next_guesses (low, high, limit):
    upcoming = [(low.denominator + high.denominator,
                 low.numerator + high.numerator,
                 low.denominator, low.numerator,
                 high.denominator, high.numerator)]
    guesses = []
    while len(guesses) < limit:
        (mid_d, mid_n, low_d, low_n, high_d, high_n) = upcoming[0]
        guesses.append(Fraction(mid_n, mid_d))
        heapq.heappushpop(upcoming, (low_d + mid_d, low_n + mid_n,
                                     low_d, low_n, mid_d, mid_n))
        heapq.heappush(upcoming, (mid_d + high_d, mid_n + high_n,
                                  mid_d, mid_n, high_d, high_n))
    guesses.sort()
    return guesses

def ask (num):
    while True:
        print "Next guess: {0} ({1})".format(num, float(num))
        if 1 < len(sys.argv):
            wanted = Fraction(sys.argv[1])
            if wanted < num:
                print "too high"
                return 1
            elif num < wanted:
                print "too low"
                return -1
            else:
                print "correct"
                return 0

        answer = raw_input("Is this (h)igh, (l)ow, or (c)orrect? ")
        if answer == "h":
            return 1
        elif answer == "l":
            return -1
        elif answer == "c":
            return 0
        else:
            print "Not understood.  Please say one of (l, c, h)"

guess_size_bound = 2
low = Fraction(0)
high = Fraction(1)
guesses = [Fraction(1,2)]
required_guesses = 0
answer = -1
while 0 != answer:
    if 0 == len(guesses):
        guess_size_bound *= 2
        guesses = generate_next_guesses(low, high, guess_size_bound - 1)
    #print (low, high, guesses)
    guess = guesses[len(guesses)/2]
    answer = ask(guess)
    required_guesses += 1
    if 0 == answer:
        print "Thanks for playing!"
        print "I needed %d guesses" % required_guesses
    elif 1 == answer:
        high = guess
        guesses[len(guesses)/2:] = []
    else:
        low = guess
        guesses[0:len(guesses)/2 + 1] = []

As an example to try it out I tried 101/1024 (0.0986328125) and found that it took 20 guesses to find the answer. I tried 0.98765 and it took 45 guesses. I tried 0.0123456789 and it needed 66 guesses and about a second to generate them. (Note, if you call the program with a rational number as an argument, it will fill in all of the guesses for you. This is a very helpful convenience.)