The statement:
Given three integers $$$n, k, p$$$, $$$(1 \leq k \leq n < p)$$$.
Count the number of array $$$a[]$$$ of size $$$k$$$ that satisfied
- $$$1 \leq a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_k \leq n$$$
- $$$a_i \times a_j$$$ is perfect square $$$\forall 1 \leq i < j \leq n$$$
Since the number can be big, output it under modulo $$$p$$$.
For convenient, you can assume $$$p$$$ is a large constant prime $$$10^9 + 7$$$
Yet you can submit the problem for $$$k = 3$$$ here.
Solution for k = 1
The answer just simply be $$$n$$$
Solution for k = 2
Algorithm
We need to count the number of pair $$$(a, b)$$$ that $$$1 \leq a < b \leq n$$$ and $$$a \times b$$$ is perfect square.
Every positive integer $$$x$$$ can be represent uniquely as $$$x = u \times p^2$$$ for some positive integer $$$u, p$$$ and $$$u$$$ as small as possible ($$$u$$$ is squarefree number).
Let represent $$$x = u \times p^2$$$ and $$$y = v \times q^2$$$ (still, minimum $$$u$$$, $$$v$$$ ofcourse).
We can easily proove that $$$x \times y$$$ is a perfect square if and if only $$$u = v$$$.
So for a fixed squarefree number $$$u$$$. You just need to count the number of ways to choose $$$p^2$$$.
The answer will be the sum of such ways for each fixed $$$u$$$.
Implementation
Complexity
So about the complexity....
For the implementation using factorization, it is $$$O(n \log n)$$$.
For the 2 implementations below, the complexity is linear.
For the last implementation, the complexity is Linear
Solution for general k
Using the same logic above, we can easily solve the problem.
Now you face up with familliar binomial coefficient problem
This implementation here is using the assumption of $$$p$$$ prime and $$$p > max(n, k)$$$
You can still solve the problem for squarefree $$$p$$$ using lucas and CRT
Yet just let things simple as we only focus on the counting problem, we will assume $$$p$$$ is a large constant prime.
A better solution for k = 2
Idea
In the above approach, we fix $$$u$$$ as a squarefree and count $$$p^2$$$.
But what if I fix $$$p^2$$$ to count $$$u$$$ instead ?
Yet you can see that the first loop now is $$$O(\sqrt{n})$$$, but it will still $$$O(n)$$$ total because of the second loop
Approach
Let $$$f(n)$$$ is the number of pair $$$(a, b)$$$ that $$$1 \leq a < b \leq n$$$ and $$$(a, b, n)$$$ is a three-term geometric progression.
Let $$$g(n)$$$ is the number of pair $$$(a, b)$$$ that $$$1 \leq a \leq b \leq n$$$ and $$$(a, b, n)$$$ is a three-term geometric progression.
Let $$$F(n) = \overset{n}{\underset{p=1}{\Large \Sigma}} f(p)$$$.
So it is no hard to prove that $$$g(n) = f(n) + 1$$$.
This interesting sequence $$$g(n)$$$ is A000188, having many properties, such as
- Number of solutions to $$$x^2 \equiv 0 \pmod n$$$.
- Square root of largest square dividing $$$n$$$.
- Max $$$gcd \left(d, \frac{n}{d}\right)$$$ for all divisor $$$d$$$.
Well, to make the problem whole easier, I gonna skip all the proofs to use this property (still, you can use the link in the sequence for references).
$$$g(n) = \underset{d^2 | n}{\Large \Sigma} \phi(d)$$$.
From this property, we can solve the problem in $$$O(\sqrt{n})$$$.
Yet this paper also takes you to something similar.
Implementation
A better solution for general k (extra task A, B)
Algorithm
Let $$$f_k(n)$$$ is the number of set $$$(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k, n)$$$ that $$$1 \leq a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_k \leq n$$$ and $$$(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k, n)$$$ is a $$$(k+1)$$$-term geometric progression.
Let $$$g_k(n)$$$ is the number of set $$$(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k, n)$$$ that $$$1 \leq a_1 \leq a_2 \leq \dots \leq a_k \leq n$$$ and $$$(a_1, a_2, \dots, a_k, n)$$$ is a $$$(k+1)$$$-term geometric progression.
Let $$$F_k(n) = \overset{n}{\underset{p=1}{\Large \Sigma}} f_k(p)$$$.
Let $$$s_k(n)$$$ is the number of way to choose $$$p^2$$$ among those $$$k$$$ numbers when you fix squarefree $$$u$$$ (though we are doing in reverse).
Implementation
Complexity
The complexity of the first implementation is $$$O(\sqrt{n} \log \sqrt{n})$$$
The complexity of the second implementation is $$$O(\sqrt{n} \log \log \sqrt{n})$$$
Solution for duplicates elements in array (extra task C)
Idea
It is no hard to proove that we can use the same algorithm as described in task A, B or in original task.
Using the same algorithm, the core of calculating is to find out the number of non-decreasing integer sequence of size $$$k$$$ where numbers are in $$$[1, n]$$$.
Can you proove it ?
Now it is done, just that it
The idea is the same as what clyring described here but represented in the other way
Implementation
Complexity
Well, if you are here then ofcourse there is no need for proofs right lol.
Extra Tasks
Solved A: Can we also use phi function or something similar to solve for $$$k = 3$$$ in $$$O(\sqrt{n})$$$ ?
Solved B: Can we also use phi function or something similar to solve for general $$$k$$$ in $$$O(\sqrt{n})$$$ ?
C: Can we also solve the problem where there can be duplicate: $$$a_i \leq a_j\ (\forall\ i < j)$$$ and no longer $$$a_i < a_j (\forall\ i < j)$$$ ?
D: Can we solve the problem where there is no restriction between $$$k, n, p$$$ ?
E: Can we solve for negative integers, whereas $$$-n \leq a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_k \leq n$$$
F: Can we solve for a specific range, whereas $$$L \leq a_1 < a_2 < \dots < a_k \leq R$$$
G: Can we solve for cube product $$$a_i \times a_j \times a_k$$$ effectively ?
H: Can we solve if it is given $$$n$$$ and queries for $$$k$$$ ?
I: Can we solve if it is given $$$k$$$ and queries for $$$n$$$ ?
J: Can we also solve the problem where there are no order: Just simply $$$1 \leq a_i \leq n$$$ ?
K: Can we solve for $$$q$$$-product $$$a_{i_1} \times a_{i_2} \times \dots \times a_{i_q} = x^q$$$ (for given constant $$$q$$$)
M: Given $$$0 \leq \delta \leq n$$$, can we also solve the problem when $$$1 \leq a_1 \leq a_1 + \delta + \leq a_2 \leq a_2 + \delta \leq \dots \leq a_k \leq n$$$
*Marked as solved only if tested with atleast $$$10^6$$$ queries