Skip to content

Conversation

@tianyizheng02
Copy link
Contributor

@tianyizheng02 tianyizheng02 commented Jun 24, 2023

Describe your change:

Fixes #8061

  • Removed maths/3n_plus_1.py in favor of maths/collatz_sequence.py because the latter is the more well-known name for the problem
  • Added tests from maths/3n_plus_1.py to maths/collatz_sequence.py
  • Converted the collatz_sequence function to a generator to save memory
  • Expanded explanation of the Collatz conjecture
  • Add an algorithm?
  • Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
  • Documentation change?

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
  • I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
  • This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
  • All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
  • All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
  • All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
  • All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
  • All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
  • All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
  • If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

Copy link
Member

@cclauss cclauss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking cool! Do these changes effect performance?

@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot added the awaiting changes A maintainer has requested changes to this PR label Jun 26, 2023
@tianyizheng02
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looking cool! Do these changes effect performance?

@cclauss I don't think performance is really affected in most cases since the algorithm itself is basically unchanged. However, I think there'd be slightly better performance if one were to iterate over the algorithm's output:

for num in collatz_sequence(n): 
    # do something with num

since having a generator means not needing to create and store the entire sequence in memory. However, I haven't timed this generator implementation against the original list implementation, so I don't know how much of a difference it makes.

@cclauss cclauss enabled auto-merge (squash) June 26, 2023 09:14
Copy link
Member

@cclauss cclauss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nice!

@cclauss cclauss merged commit 69f2003 into TheAlgorithms:master Jun 26, 2023
@algorithms-keeper algorithms-keeper bot removed the awaiting changes A maintainer has requested changes to this PR label Jun 26, 2023
@tianyizheng02 tianyizheng02 deleted the remove-duplicate-collatz branch June 26, 2023 09:31
@isidroas isidroas mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2025
14 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove duplicate Collatz sequence implementation

2 participants