#651 - Patterned Cylinders
An infinitely long cylinder has its curved surface fully covered with different coloured but otherwise identical rectangular stickers, without overlapping. The stickers are aligned with the cylinder, so two of their edges are parallel with the cylinder's axis, with four stickers meeting at each corner.
Let \(a>0\) and suppose that the colouring is periodic along the cylinder, with the pattern repeating every \(a\) stickers. (The period is allowed to be any divisor of \(a\).) Let \(b\) be the number of stickers that fit round the circumference of the cylinder.
Let \(f(m, a, b)\) be the number of different such periodic patterns that use exactly \(m\) distinct colours of stickers. Translations along the axis, reflections in any plane, rotations in any axis, (or combinations of such operations) applied to a pattern are to be counted as the same as the original pattern.
You are given that \(f(2, 2, 3) = 11\), \(f(3, 2, 3) = 56\), and \(f(2, 3, 4) = 156\). Furthermore, \(f(8, 13, 21) \equiv 49718354 \pmod{1\,000\,000\,007}\), and \(f(13, 144, 233) \equiv 907081451 \pmod{1\,000\,000\,007}\).
Find \(\sum_{i=4}^{40} f(i, F_{i-1}, F_i) \bmod 1\,000\,000\,007\), where \(F_i\) are the Fibonacci numbers starting at \(F_0=0\), \(F_1=1\).
Problem text © Project Euler, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Original: projecteuler.net/problem=651. Published Saturday, 12th January 2019, 07:00 pm. Solved by 211 members at time of mirroring.
Why this is useful
Numerical Computing. Matrix methods and linear-recurrence acceleration are the machinery behind covariance work, PCA, and lattice/transition models (Phases 4, 5, 8).
We classify relevance honestly - not every Euler problem is a trading application.
Prerequisites
Lessons that prepare you:
1.3 Proof Techniques: Direct, Contrapositive, and Contradiction · 17.1 Python for Quants: NumPy, pandas, and Vectorization · 19.5 Combinatorics: Counting, Binomials, and Inclusion–Exclusion · 19.14 Computational Complexity, Feasibility Estimation, and Proving Algorithms Correct · 19.1 Divisibility, GCD, and the Euclidean Algorithm · 19.9 Graph Algorithms: BFS, DFS, Dijkstra, and Minimum Spanning Trees · 19.13 Matrix Exponentiation and Linear Recurrence Acceleration · 19.3 Modular Arithmetic, Inverses, and Fast Exponentiation · 19.11 Integer Partitions and Counting Structures · 19.2 Primes, Sieves, and Integer Factorization · 7.1 Probability Spaces, Random Variables, and Distributions
Recommended stepping-stone problems: #896 · #241 · #282
Concepts: combinatorics graph-theory number-theory brute-force-reduction
Likely techniques: factorization hashing matrix-exponentiation
Learning mode
Pick how much scaffolding you want. Your choice is remembered per problem.
Understand the problem
- What exactly is the input to problem 651? Is it a bound (4^40), a supplied dataset, or a definition you must generate from?
- What is the required output - restate it precisely: a single residue (the answer is reduced modulo a given number, so keep everything in modular arithmetic from the start).
- Which objects exactly are in scope, and which are excluded by the wording (strict vs non-strict inequality, 'distinct', 'proper', 'below' vs 'up to')?
- What do the arguments of f(m,a,b), f(2,2,3) mean, and what is the value's type (count, sum, probability)?
- What are the edge cases: the smallest legal object, zero/one, ties, and the boundary at exactly 4^40?
- Why is brute force hard HERE specifically? Estimate the number of candidates implied by 4^40 and the cost of testing one.
- Which number-theory fact would, if true, collapse the search - and can you state it as a testable claim before you look for a proof?
Predict & plan (before you code)
- Predict the strategy: in one sentence, what will your solution do? (The classification says number-theory / matrix-exponentiation - do you agree, and why?)
- Predict the complexity of your intended method in terms of N = 4^40, and the wall-clock time you expect. Write both down now.
- Predict the key data structure: what is stored, keyed by what, and how large will it get at full scale?
- Predict the failure mode: what is most likely to break - an off-by-one on the bound, a definition misread, precision, or memory?
- Predict the output of the small case from rung 3 BEFORE running it (the statement says: "You are given that f(2, 2, 3) = 11, f(3, 2, 3) = 56, and f(2, 3, 4) = 156.") - then run it. A surprise here is worth more than an hour of debugging later.
Scratchpad
Mathematical notes, formulas, pseudocode, hypotheses, complexity notes. Saved automatically with your progress.
Python workbench
Real Python (Pyodide) in a sandboxed Web Worker - no network, no filesystem, no DOM access. Ctrl/Cmd+Enter runs. Escape leaves the editor. Stop terminates the worker.
Check your answer
Answers are checked against a salted hash held in a separate file - not printed in this page. This prevents accidental spoilers; it is not cryptographic protection (see the build notes).
Progressive hints
Optimization
You have a correct answer. That is the start of the learning, not the end.
- Reduce the time complexity. What is the bottleneck, and what mathematical fact removes it?
- Reduce memory. Can you stream, or keep only the last k states?
- Replace brute force with a closed form, a sieve, a recurrence, or a symmetry argument.
- Prove the optimized version computes the same thing.
- Compare two implementations and time them.
Explain it
Which step of your solution were you least confident about, and what evidence would settle it?
What did you try first, and what specifically made you abandon it - a proof, a timing, or a wrong small-case answer?
Where did the number-theory structure do the real work? Name the single observation that collapsed the search space.
Could you have reached the matrix-exponentiation idea faster? Which words in the statement were pointing at it, and did you notice them?
What was the bug that cost you the most time, and what CLASS of bug was it (off-by-one, definition misread, precision, state under-specified)?
How would your solution change if the bound 4^40 were multiplied by 1000? Does it survive, or does it need a different idea?
What is the honest complexity of what you wrote (not what you intended), and where is the remaining slack?
Which problem you have already solved is this most similar to, and what is the shared skeleton - is it really 'matrix-exponentiation' underneath?
State the transferable technique in one sentence, without mentioning this problem's story at all.
Self-assess (mastery is not a correct number)
You reach Mastered only when you have solved it, rated yourself at least Solid across the dimensions, and written a real explanation.
Confidence
Low confidence schedules this problem for spaced review, even if you solved it.
Mastery check
- Variation: change the bound (or a rule) in the statement. Does your method still work? What breaks first?
- Constraints: if the limit were 10× larger, which step fails, and what would you replace it with?
- Related problem: #896 · #241 · #282
- Transfer: where else does this technique appear? Name a lesson and a real computational setting.
- Spaced re-attempt: come back after the review interval and re-solve it with no hints.