## Iterating the logistic map: limsup of nonperiodic orbits

Last time we found that when a sequence with ${x_1\in (0,1)}$ and ${x_{n+1} = 4x_n(1-x_n)}$ does not become periodic, its upper limit ${\limsup x_n}$ must be at least ${\approx 0.925}$. This time we’ll see that ${\limsup x_n}$ can be as low as ${(2+\sqrt{3})/4\approx 0.933}$ and determine for which ${x_1}$ it is equal to 1.

The quadratic polynomial ${f(x)=4x(1-x)}$ maps the interval ${[0,1]}$ onto itself. Since the linear function ${g(x) = 1-2x}$ maps ${[0,1]}$ onto ${[-1,1]}$, it follows that the composition ${h=g\circ f\circ g^{-1}}$ maps ${[-1,1]}$ onto ${[-1,1]}$. This composition is easy to compute: ${h(x) = 2x^2-1 }$.

We want to know whether the iteration of ${f}$, starting from ${x_1}$, produces numbers arbitrarily close to ${1}$. Since ${f\circ f \circ \cdots \circ f = g^{-1}\circ h \circ h \circ \cdots \circ h\circ g}$ the goal is equivalent to finding whether the iteration of ${h}$, starting from ${g(x_1)}$, produces numbers arbitrarily close to ${g(1) = -1}$. To shorten formulas, let’s write ${h_n}$ for the ${n}$th iterate of ${h}$, for example, ${h_3 = h\circ h\circ h}$.

So far we traded one quadratic polynomial ${f}$ for another, ${h}$. But ${h}$ satisfies a nice identity: ${h(\cos t)=2\cos^2 t-1 = \cos(2t)}$, hence ${h_n(\cos t) = \cos (2^n t)}$ for all ${n\in\mathbb N}$. It’s convenient to introduce ${\alpha = \frac{1}{\pi}\cos^{-1}(1-2x_1)}$, so that ${ h_n(g(x_1)) = h_n(\cos 2\pi \alpha ) = \cos(2^n\cdot 2\pi \alpha) }$.

The problem becomes to determine whether the numbers ${2^n\cdot 2\pi \alpha}$ come arbitrarily close to ${\pi}$, modulo an integer multiple of ${2\pi}$. Dividing by ${2\pi}$ rephrases this as: does the fractional part of ${2^n \alpha}$ come arbitrarily close to ${1/2}$?

A number that is close to ${1/2}$ has the binary expansion beginning either with ${0.01111111\dots}$ or with ${0.10000000\dots}$. Since the binary expansion of ${2^n\alpha}$ is just the binary expansion of ${\alpha}$ shifted ${n}$ digits to the left, the property ${\limsup x_n=1}$ is equivalent to the following: for every ${k\in\mathbb N}$ the binary expansion of ${\alpha}$ has infinitely many groups of the form “1 followed by k zeros” or “0 followed by k ones”.

A periodic expansion cannot have the above property; this, ${\alpha}$ must be irrational. The property described above can then be simplified to “irrational and has arbitrarily long runs of the same digit”, since a long run of ${0}$s will be preceded by a ${1}$, and vice versa.

For example, combining the pairs 01 and 10 in some non-periodic way, we get an irrational number ${\alpha}$ such that the fractional part of ${2^n\alpha}$ does not get any closer to 1/2 than ${0.01\overline{10}_2 = 5/12}$ or ${0.10\overline{01}_2 = 7/12}$. Hence, ${\cos 2^n 2\pi \alpha \ge -\sqrt{3}/2}$, which leads to the upper bound ${x_n\le (2+\sqrt{3})/4\approx 0.933}$ for the sequence with the starting value ${x_1=(1-\cos\pi\alpha)/2}$.

Let us summarize the above observations about ${\limsup x_n}$.

Theorem: ${\limsup x_n=1}$ if and only if (A) the number ${\alpha = \frac{1}{\pi}\cos^{-1}(1-2x_1)}$ is irrational, and (B) the binary expansion of ${\alpha}$ has arbitrarily long runs of the same digit.

Intuitively, one expects that a number that satisfies (A) will also satisfy (B) unless it was constructed specifically to fail (B). But to verify that (B) holds for a given number is not an easy task.

As a bonus, let’s prove that for every rational number ${y\in (-1,1)}$, except 0, 1/2 and -1/2, the number ${\alpha = \frac{1}{\pi}\cos^{-1}y}$ is irrational. This will imply, in particular, that ${x_1=1/3}$ yields a non-periodic sequence. The proof follows a post by Robert Israel and requires a lemma (which could be replaced with an appeal to Chebyshev polynomials, but the lemma keeps things self-contained).

Lemma. For every ${n\in \mathbb N}$ there exists a monic polynomial ${P_n}$ with integer coefficients such that ${P_n(2 \cos t) = 2\cos nt }$ for all ${t}$.

Proof. Induction, the base case ${n=1}$ being ${P_1(x)=x}$. Assuming the result for integers ${\le n}$, we have ${2 \cos (n+1)t = e^{i(n+1)t} + e^{-i(n+1)t} }$ ${ = (e^{int} + e^{-int})(e^{it} + e^{-it}) - (e^{i(n-1)t} + e^{-i(n-1)t}) }$ ${ = P_n(2 \cos t) (2\cos t) - P_{n-1}(2\cos t) }$
which is a monic polynomial of ${2\cos t}$. ${\Box}$

Suppose that there exists ${n}$ such that ${n\alpha \in\mathbb Z}$. Then ${2\cos(\pi n\alpha)=\pm 2}$. By the lemma, this implies ${P_n(2\cos(\pi \alpha)) =\pm 2}$, that is ${P_n(2y)=\pm 2}$. Since ${2y}$ is a rational root of a monic polynomial with integer coefficients, the Rational Root Theorem implies that it is an integer. ${\Box}$

## A limsup exercise: iterating the logistic map

Define the sequence ${\{x_n\}}$ as follows: ${x_1=1/3}$ and ${x_{n+1} = 4x_n(1-x_n)}$ for ${n=1,2,\dots}$. What can we say about its behavior as ${n\rightarrow\infty}$?

The logistic map ${f(x)=4x(1-x)}$ leaves the interval [0,1] invariant (as a set), so ${0\le x_n\le 1}$ for all ${n}$. There are two fixed points: 0 and 3/4.

Can ${x_n}$ ever be 0? If ${n}$ is the first index this happens, then ${x_{n-1}}$ must be ${1}$. Working backwards, we find ${x_{n-2}=1/2}$, and ${x_{n-3}\in \{1/2 \pm \sqrt{2}/4\}}$. But this is impossible since all elements of the sequence are rational. Similarly, if ${n}$ is the first index when ${x_n = 3/4}$, then ${x_{n-1}=1/4}$ and ${x_{n-2}\in \{1/2\pm \sqrt{3}/4\}}$, a contradiction again. Thus, the sequence never stabilizes.

If ${x_n}$ had a limit, it would have to be one of the two fixed points. But both are repelling: ${f'(x) = 4 - 8x}$, so ${|f'(0)|=4>1 }$ and ${|f'(3/4)| = 2 > 1}$. This means that a small nonzero distance to a fixed point will increase under iteration. The only way to converge to a repelling fixed point is to hit it directly, but we already know this does not happen. So the sequence ${\{x_n\}}$ does not converge.

But we can still consider its upper and lower limits. Let’s try to estimate ${S = \limsup x_n}$ from below. Since ${f(x)\ge x}$ for ${x\in [0,3/4]}$, the sequence ${\{x_n\}}$ increases as long as ${x_n\le 3/4}$. Since we know it doesn’t have a limit, it must eventually break this pattern, and therefore exceed 3/4. Thus, ${S\ge 3/4}$.

This can be improved. The second iterate ${f_2(x)=f(f(x))}$ satisfies ${f_2(x)\ge x}$ for ${x}$ between ${3/4}$ and ${a = (5+\sqrt{5})/8 \approx 0.9}$. So, once ${x_n>3/4}$ (which, by above, happens infinitely often), the subsequence ${x_n, x_{n+2}, x_{n+4},\dots}$ increases until it reaches ${a}$. Hence ${S\ge a}$.

The bound ${\limsup x_n\ge a}$ is best possible if the only information about ${x_1}$ is that the sequence ${x_n}$ does not converge. Indeed, ${a}$ is a periodic point of ${f}$, with the corresponding iteration sequence ${\{(5+ (-1)^n\sqrt{5})/8\}}$.

Further improvement is possible if we recall that our sequence is rational and hence cannot hit ${a}$ exactly. By doubling the number of iterations (so that the iterate also fixes ${a}$ but also has positive derivative there) we arrive at the fourth iterate ${f_4}$. Then ${f_4(x)\ge x}$ for ${a\le x\le b}$, where ${b }$ is the next root of ${f_4(x)-x}$ after ${a}$, approximately ${0.925}$. Hence ${S\ge b}$.

This is a colorful illustration of the estimation process (made with Sage): we are covering the line ${y=x}$ with the iterates of ${f}$, so that each subsequent one rises above the line the moment the previous one falls. This improves the lower bound on ${S}$ from 0.75 to 0.9 to 0.92.

Although this process can be continued, the gains diminish so rapidly that it seems unlikely one can get to 1 in this way. In fact, one cannot because we are not using any properties of ${x_1}$ other than “the sequence ${x_n}$ is not periodic.” And it’s not true that ${\limsup x_n = 1}$ for every non-periodic orbit of ${f}$. Let’s return to this later.

## 35 categories of Stack Overflow comments

Google’s BigQuery dataset now includes Stack Overflow data dump, including the text of over 50 million comments posted on the site. What do these comments say? I picked the most frequent ones and grouped them by topic. The counts are an underestimate: there is only so much time I was willing to spend organizing synonymous comments.

1. Thank you” comments (128960 in total) are the most common by far. Typical forms: Thank you very/so much!, Thanks a lot :), Perfect, thanks! The popularity of the emoticon in the second version is attributable to the minimal length requirement for comments: they must contain at least 15 characters. The laziest way to pad the text is probably Thank you……
2. You are welcome” (50090), presumably posted in response to group 1 comments. You’re welcome. You’re welcome! You’re welcome 🙂 Users need that punctuation or emoticon to reach 15 characters. Although those not contracting “you are” don’t have this problem.
4.  “What is your question?” (20830) is the most common type of critical comments toward questions.
6. What error are you getting?” (13439) is a request for debugging information.
7. What have you tried?” (12640) often comes with the link whathaveyoutried.com and is a sufficiently notorious kind of comments that Stack Overflow software deletes them if anyone “flags” the comment. And it’s easy to cast flags automatically, so I substantially reduced the number of such comments since this data dump was uploaded. Further context: Should Stack Overflow (and Stack Exchange in general) be awarding “A”s for Effort?
8. Post your code” (11486) can sometimes be a form of “what have you tried”; in other times it’s a logical response to someone posting an error message without the code producing it. Can you post your code? Post your code. Please post your code. Show your code. Where is your code? And so on.
9. It does not work” (9674) — either the question author, or someone else with the same issue did not benefit from the solution. Maybe it’s wrong, maybe they used it wrong.
10. This is a link-only answer” (9501) usually comes from reviewers in the standard form While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes.
11. I updated the question” (8060), presumably in response to critical comments.
12. Why the downvote(s)?” (6005) is asking whoever voted down the post to explain their position. Usually fruitless; if the voter wanted to say something, they would already.
13. This is a duplicate question” (3859) is inserted automatically when someone moves for a question to be marked as a duplicate. Such comments are normally deleted automatically when the required number of close-votes is reached; but some remain. The most common by far is possible duplicate of What is a Null Pointer Exception, and how do I fix it?
14. I edited your title” (3795) is directed at users who title their questions like “Java: How to read a CSV file?”, using a part of the title as a tag. Standard form: I have edited your title. Please see, “Should questions include “tags” in their titles?“, where the consensus is “no, they should not”.
15. Post a MCVE” (3775) – the line on which the error is thrown is probably not enough to diagnose the problem; on the other hand, a wall of code with an entire program is too much. One of standard forms: Questions seeking debugging help (“why isn’t this code working?”) must include the desired behavior, a specific problem or error and the shortest code necessary to reproduce it in the question itself. Questions without a clear problem statement are not useful to other readers. See: How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example.
16. That is correct” (3158)  usually refers to a statement made in another comment.
17. It works” (3109) is the counterpart of group 9 above. Often used with “like a charm” but do charms actually work?
18. What do you mean?” (2998) – for when an exchange in comments leads to more confusion.
19. What tool are you using?” (2649) indicates that the question author forgot to specify either the language, OS, or the DBMS they are using.
20. Good answer” (2607) – various forms of praise, This should be the accepted answer. This is the correct answer. Excellent answer! The first form additionally indicates that the question author did not pick the best answer as “accepted”.
21. This question is off-topic” (2377) is a template for close votes with a custom explanation. For some years Stack Overflow used This question appears to be off-topic because… but then switched to the more assertive I’m voting to close this question as off-topic because…
22. This is a low quality answer” (2003) is a response to answers that contain nothing but code, perhaps preceded by “try this”. Example: While this code snippet may solve the question, including an explanation really helps to improve the quality of your post. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, and those people might not know the reasons for your code suggestion.
23. Is this homework?” (1995) is not a particularly fruitful type of comments.
24. Does this work?” (1916) is meant to obtain some response from question asker who has not yet acknowledged the answer.
26. http://stackoverflow.com/help/ . . .” (1117) and nothing but the link. Directs to one of Help Center articles such as “How to ask”. Maybe there should also be “How to Comment”
27. Thanks are discouraged” (1046) … so all those group 1 comments aren’t meant to be. But this is mostly about posts rather than comments. Unlike forum sites, we don’t use “Thanks”, or “Any help appreciated”, or signatures on Stack Overflow. See “Should ‘Hi’, ‘thanks,’ taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?.
28. Format your code” (967) – yes, please. Select the code block and press Ctrl-K. Thanks in advance. Oops, forgot about the previous group.
29. What doesn’t work?” (926) is a response to vague comments of group 9.
30. Don’t use mysql_* functions” (693) or Russian hackers will pwn your site. Comes with a link-rich explanation: Please, don’t use mysql_* functions in new code. They are no longer maintained and are officially deprecated. See the red box? Learn about prepared statements instead, and use PDO or MySQLithis article will help you decide which. If you choose PDO, here is a good tutorial.
31. Add tags” (625) often comes up in the context of database questions. Which RDBMS is this for? Please add a tag to specify whether you’re using mysql, postgresql, sql-server, oracle or db2 – or something else entirely.
32. Improve title” (585) is like group 14, but invites the user to edit the title instead of doing it for them.
33. Use modern JOIN syntax” (301) bemoans obsolete ways of dealing with databases. Bad habits to kick : using old-style JOINs – that old-style *comma-separated list of tables* style was replaced with the *proper* ANSI JOIN syntax in the ANSI-92 SQL Standard (more than 20 years ago) and its use is discouraged.
34. More SQL woes” (272) is another template: Side note: you should not use the sp_ prefix for your stored procedures. Microsoft has reserved that prefix for its own use (see *Naming Stored Procedures*, and you do run the risk of a name clash sometime in the future. It’s also bad for your stored procedure performance. It’s best to just simply avoid sp_ and use something else as a prefix – or no prefix at all!
35. I have the same problem” (241) is a kind of comments that really should not exist.

## Vectorization of integration

A frequently asked question about numerical integration is: how to speed up the process of computing ${\int_a^b f(x,p)\,dx}$ for many values of parameter ${p}$? Running an explicit for over the values of ${p}$ seems slow… is there a way to vectorize this, performing integration on an array of functions at once (which in reality means, pushing the loop to a lower level language)?

Usually, the answer is some combination of “no” and “you are worrying about the wrong thing”. Integration routines are typically adaptive, meaning they pick evaluation points based on the function being integrated. Different values of the parameter will require different evaluation points to achieve the desired precision, so vectorization is out of question. This applies, for example, to quad method of SciPy integration module.

Let’s suppose we insist on vectorization and are willing to accept a non-adaptive method. What are our options, considering SciPy/NumPy? I will compare

The test case is ${\int_0^1 (p+1)x^p\,dx}$ with ${p=0,0.01,\dots,99.99}$. Theoretically all these are equal to ${1}$. But most of these functions are not analytic at ${0}$, and some aren’t even differentiable there, so their integration is not a piece of cake.

Keeping in mind that Romberg’s integration requires ${2^k}$ subintervals, let’s use ${1024}$ equal subintervals, hence ${1025}$ equally spaced sample points. Here is the vectorized evaluation of all our functions at these points, resulting in a 2D array “values”:

import numpy as np
import scipy.integrate as si
x = np.linspace(0, 1, 1025).reshape(1, -1)
dx = x[0,1] - x[0,0]
p = np.arange(0, 100, 0.01).reshape(-1, 1)
values = (p+1)*x**p


This computation took 0.799 seconds on my AWS instance (t2.nano). Putting the results of evaluation together takes less time:

• Trapezoidal rule np.trapz(values, dx=dx) took 0.144 seconds and returned values ranging from 0.99955 to 1.00080.
• Simpson’s rule si.simps(values, dx=dx) took 0.113 seconds and returned values ranging from 0.99970 to 1.0000005.
• Romberg quadrature si.romb(values, dx=dx) was fastest at 0.0414 seconds, and also most accurate, with output between 0.99973 and 1.000000005.

Conclusions so far:

• SciPy’s implementation of Romberg quadrature is surprisingly fast, considering that this algorithm is the result of repeated Richardson extrapolation of the trapezoidal rule (and Simpson’s rule is just the result of the first extrapolation step). It’d be nice to backport whatever makes Romberg so effective back to Simpson’s rule.
• The underestimation errors 0.999… are greatest when ${p}$ is near zero, so the integrand is very nonsmooth at ${0}$. The lack of smoothness renders Richardson extrapolation ineffective, hence all three rules have about the same error here.
• The overestimation errors are greatest when ${p}$ is large. The function is pretty smooth then, so upgrading from trapezoidal to Simpson to Romberg brings substantial improvements.

All of this is nice, but the fact remains that non-vectorized adaptive integration is both faster and much more accurate. The following loop with quad, which uses adaptive Clenshaw-Curtis quadrature, runs in 0.616 seconds (less than it took to evaluate our functions on a grid) and returns values between 0.99999999995 and 1.00000000007. Better to use exponential notation here: ${1-5\cdot 10^{-11} }$ and ${1+7\cdot 10^{-11}}$.

funcs = [lambda x, p=p_: (p+1)*x**p for p_ in np.arange(0, 100, 0.01)]
result = [si.quad(fun, 0, 1)[0] for fun in funcs]


An adaptive algorithm shines when ${p}$ is small, by placing more evaluation points near zero. It controls both over- and under- estimates equally well, continuing to add points until the required precision is reached.

The last hope of non-adaptive methods is Gaussian quadrature, which is implemented in SciPy as fixed_quad (“fixed” referring to the number of evaluation points used). With 300 evaluation points, the integration takes 0.263 seconds (excluding the computation of nodes and weights, which can be cached) and the results are between ${1-2\cdot 10^{-12}}$ and ${1+2\cdot 10^{-7}}$. This is twice as fast as a loop with quad, and more accurate for large ${p}$ — but sadly, not so accurate for small ${p}$. As said before, ${x^p}$ with ${p}$ near zero is really a showcase for adaptive methods.

## Kolakoski turtle curve

Let’s take another look at the Kolakoski sequence (part 1, part 2) which, by definition, is the sequence of 1s and 2s in which the nth term is equal to the length of the nth run of consecutive equal numbers in the same sequence. When a sequence has only two distinct entries, it can be visualized with the help of a turtle that turns left (when the entry is 1) or right (when the entry is 2). This visualization method seems particularly appropriate for the  Kolakoski sequence since there are no runs of 3 equal entries, meaning the turtle will never move around a square of sidelength equal to its step. In particular, this leaves open the possibility of getting a simple curve… Here are the first 300 terms; the turtle makes its first move down and then goes left-right-right-left-left-right-left-… according to the terms 1,2,2,1,1,2,1,…

No self-intersections yet… alas, at the 366th term it finally happens.

Self-intersections keep occurring after that:

again and again…

Okay, the curve obviously doesn’t mind intersecting self. But it can’t be periodic since the Kolakoski sequence isn’t. This leaves two questions unresolved:

• Does the turtle ever get above its initial position? Probably… I haven’t tried more than 5000 terms
• Is the curve bounded? Unlikely, but I’ve no idea how one would dis/prove that. For example, there cannot be a long diagonal run (left-right-left-right-left) because having 1,2,1,2,1 in the sequence implies that elsewhere, there are three consecutive 1s, and that doesn’t happen.

Here’s the Python code used for the above. I represented the sequence as a Boolean array with 1 = False, 2 = True.

import numpy as np
import turtle
n = 500                   # number of terms to compute
a = np.zeros(n, dtype=np.bool_)
j = 0                     # the index to look back at
same = False   # will next term be same as current one?
for i in range(1, n):
if same:
a[i] = a[i-1]     # current run continues
same = False
else:
a[i] = not a[i-1] # the run is over
j += 1            # another run begins
same = a[j]       # a[j] determines its length

turtle.hideturtle()
turtle.right(90)
for i in range(n):
turtle.forward(10)    # used steps of 10 or 5 pixels
if a[i]:
turtle.right(90)
else:
turtle.left(90)


## Wild power pie

Many people are aware of ${\pi}$ being a number between 3 and 4, and some also know that ${e}$ is between 2 and 3. Although the difference ${\pi-e}$ is less than 1/2, it’s enough to place the two constants in separate buckets on the number line, separated by an integer.

When dealing with powers of ${e}$, using ${e>2}$ is frequently wasteful, so it helps to know that ${e^2>7}$. Similarly, ${\pi^2<10}$ is way more precise than ${\pi<4}$. To summarize: ${e^2}$ is between 7 and 8, while ${\pi^2}$ is between 9 and 10.

Do any two powers of ${\pi}$ and ${e}$ have the same integer part? That is, does the equation ${\lfloor \pi^n \rfloor = \lfloor e^m \rfloor}$ have a solution in positive integers ${m,n}$?

Probably not. Chances are that the only pairs ${(m,n)}$ for which ${|\pi^n - e^m|<10}$ are ${m,n\in \{1,2\}}$, the smallest difference attained by ${m=n=1}$.

Indeed, having ${|\pi^n - e^m|<1}$ implies that ${|n\log \pi - m|, or put differently, ${\left|\log \pi - \dfrac{m}{n}\right| < \dfrac{1}{n \,\pi^n}}$. This would be an extraordinary rational approximation… for example, with ${n=100}$ it would mean that ${\log \pi = 1.14\ldots}$ with the following ${50}$ digits all being ${0}$. This isn’t happening.

Looking at the continued fraction expansion of ${\log \pi}$ shows the denominators of modest size ${[1; 6, 1, 10, 24, \dots]}$, indicating the lack of extraordinarily nice rational approximations. Of course, can use them to get good approximations, ${\left|\log \pi - \dfrac{m}{n}\right| < \dfrac{1}{n^2}}$, which leads to ${\pi^n\approx e^m}$ with small relative error. For example, dropping ${24}$ and subsequent terms yields the convergent ${87/76}$, and one can check that ${\pi^{76} = 6.0728... \cdot 10^{37}}$ while ${e^{87} = 6.0760...\cdot 10^{37}}$.

Trying a few not-too-obscure constants with the help of mpmath library, the best coincidence of integer parts that I found is the following: the 13th power of the golden ratio ${\varphi = (\sqrt{5}+1)/2}$ and the 34th power of Apèry’s constant ${\zeta(3) = 1^{-3}+2^{-3}+3^{-3}+4^{-4}+\dots}$ both have integer part 521.

## A necklace of tears

The problem is: given a set of objects drawn from several groups, put all of them in a row in a “uniform” way. Whatever that means.

For example, suppose we have 21 gemstones: 9 red, 5 blue, 3 green, 2 cyan, 1 magenta and 1 yellow. How to place them on a string to make a reasonably looking necklace? The criterion is subjective, but we can probably agree that

looks better than

(referring to the uniformity of distributions, not the aesthetics of color.)

The approach I took was to repeatedly add the “most underrepresented” gem, defined by maximal difference between projected frequency of appearance (e.g., 5/21 for blue) and the frequency of appearance so far in the string. (Taking the convention 0/0=0 here.) Here is this algorithm in Python — not in Ruby, which would be more topical.

count = {'r': 9, 'b': 5, 'g': 3, 'c': 2, 'm': 1, 'y': 1}
length = sum(count.values())
str = ''
while len(str) < length:
deficit = {}
for char in count:
deficit[char] = count[char]/length - (str.count(char)/len(str) if str else 0)
str += max(deficit, key=deficit.get)
print(str)


The output, “rbgcryrbrmgrbrcbrgrbr”, is what the first image in this post represents. The second image is the result of an ill-fated attempt to replace difference by ratio when determining the under-representation.

I initially thought that two unique gems (yellow and magenta) would end up together, but this hasn’t happened: after one is added, the frequency of more common gems drops, allowing them to come back into play for a while. Still, the left half of the string is noticeably more diverse than the right half. It’d be better if two unique gems were in roughly symmetrical position, and generally there would be no preference between left-right and right-left directions.

Perhaps the new character should be added to the string either on the right or on the left, in alternating fashion. That should make things nice and symmetric, right?

Wrong.

The search continues…

Update: Rahul suggested in a comment to adjust the deficit computation to

deficit[char] = count[char]/length - str.count(char)/(len(str) + 1)

This has some advantages but on the other hand, two unique gems (magenta and yellow) are placed next to each other, which is something I wanted to avoid.