Any number which can be expressed as the product of two whole equal numbers is classified as a perfect square. For example, 64 can be written as 8*8 hence 64 is a perfect square.
In this article, we will create a Python program to check whether the number is a perfect square or not.
Algorithm To Check If A Number Is A Perfect Square Or Not
[divider style="normal" top="15" bottom="15"]
Step 1: Take the input from the user
Step 2: Compute the square root of the given number using the math library
Step 3: Checking whether the int(root + 0.5) ** 2 == number, if this evaluates to True then the number is a perfect square
[divider style="normal" top="15" bottom="15"]
Python Program To Check If A Number Is A Perfect Square
import math # Taking the input from user number = int(input("Enter the Number")) root = math.sqrt(number) if int(root + 0.5) ** 2 == number: print(number, "is a perfect square") else: print(number, "is not a perfect square")Explanation
First, we are importing the math library in our program then we are taking the input from the user and converting it to integer just in case user inputs a float number.
Square root of the number is calculated with math.sqrt method and the result is stored in root variable. Next, we are checking whether the integer value of the square of root+0.5 is equal to the number itself if this evaluates to True, then the number is a perfect square else it is not.
Notice we are adding 0.5 to the root because in case of a large number the root may not be a perfectly whole number it might be some decimal less. However, as it is known the int() method takes the floor value adding 0.5 to the float number is a reliable solution to get the desired outputs even if the input is large.
Running the program for some test cases gave the following output,
Enter the Number 444 444 is not a perfect square Enter the Number 64 64 is a perfect square Enter the Number 81 81 is a perfect square Enter the Number 998001 998001 is a perfect squarePROGRAMS
If youre interested, I have a pure-math response to a similar question at math stackexchange, "Detecting perfect squares faster than by extracting square root".
My own implementation of isSquare(n) may not be the best, but I like it. Took me several months of study in math theory, digital computation and python programming, comparing myself to other contributors, etc., to really click with this method. I like its simplicity and efficiency though. I havent seen better. Tell me what you think.
def isSquare(n): ## Trivial checks if type(n) != int: ## integer return False if n < 0: ## positivity return False if n == 0: ## 0 pass return True ## Reduction by powers of 4 with bit-logic while n&3 == 0: n=n>>2 ## Simple bit-logic test. All perfect squares, in binary, ## end in 001, when powers of 4 are factored out. if n&7 != 1: return False if n==1: return True ## is power of 4, or even power of 2 ## Simple modulo equivalency test c = n%10 if c in {3, 7}: return False ## Not 1,4,5,6,9 in mod 10 if n % 7 in {3, 5, 6}: return False ## Not 1,2,4 mod 7 if n % 9 in {2,3,5,6,8}: return False if n % 13 in {2,5,6,7,8,11}: return False ## Other patterns if c == 5: ## if it ends in a 5 if (n//10)%10 != 2: return False ## then it must end in 25 if (n//100)%10 not in {0,2,6}: return False ## and in 025, 225, or 625 if (n//100)%10 == 6: if (n//1000)%10 not in {0,5}: return False ## that is, 0625 or 5625 else: if (n//10)%4 != 0: return False ## (4k)*10 + (1,9) ## Babylonian Algorithm. Finding the integer square root. ## Root extraction. s = (len(str(n))-1) // 2 x = (10**s) * 4 A = {x, n} while x * x != n: x = (x + (n // x)) >> 1 if x in A: return False A.add(x) return TruePretty straight forward. First it checks that we have an integer, and a positive one at that. Otherwise there is no point. It lets 0 slip through as True (necessary or else next block is infinite loop).
The next block of code systematically removes powers of 4 in a very fast sub-algorithm using bit shift and bit logic operations. We ultimately are not finding the isSquare of our original n but of a k<n that has been scaled down by powers of 4, if possible. This reduces the size of the number we are working with and really speeds up the Babylonian method, but also makes other checks faster too.
The third block of code performs a simple Boolean bit-logic test. The least significant three digits, in binary, of any perfect square are 001. Always. Save for leading zeros resulting from powers of 4, anyway, which has already been accounted for. If it fails the test, you immediately know it isnt a square. If it passes, you cant be sure.
Also, if we end up with a 1 for a test value then the test number was originally a power of 4, including perhaps 1 itself.
Like the third block, the fourth tests the ones-place value in decimal using simple modulus operator, and tends to catch values that slip through the previous test. Also a mod 7, mod 8, mod 9, and mod 13 test.
The fifth block of code checks for some of the well-known perfect square patterns. Numbers ending in 1 or 9 are preceded by a multiple of four. And numbers ending in 5 must end in 5625, 0625, 225, or 025. I had included others but realized they were redundant or never actually used.
Lastly, the sixth block of code resembles very much what the top answerer - Alex Martelli - answer is. Basically finds the square root using the ancient Babylonian algorithm, but restricting it to integer values while ignoring floating point. Done both for speed and extending the magnitudes of values that are testable. I used sets instead of lists because it takes far less time, I used bit shifts instead of division by two, and I smartly chose an initial start value much more efficiently.
By the way, I did test Alex Martelli's recommended test number, as well as a few numbers many orders magnitude larger, such as:
x=1000199838770766116385386300483414671297203029840113913153824086810909168246772838680374612768821282446322068401699727842499994541063844393713189701844134801239504543830737724442006577672181059194558045164589783791764790043104263404683317158624270845302200548606715007310112016456397357027095564872551184907513312382763025454118825703090010401842892088063527451562032322039937924274426211671442740679624285180817682659081248396873230975882215128049713559849427311798959652681930663843994067353808298002406164092996533923220683447265882968239141724624870704231013642255563984374257471112743917655991279898690480703935007493906644744151022265929975993911186879561257100479593516979735117799410600147341193819147290056586421994333004992422258618475766549646258761885662783430625 ** 2 for i in range(x, x+2): print(i, isSquare(i))printed the following results:
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890625 True 1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890626 FalseAnd it did this in 0.33 seconds.
In my opinion, my algorithm works the same as Alex Martelli's, with all the benefits thereof, but has the added benefit highly efficient simple-test rejections that save a lot of time, not to mention the reduction in size of test numbers by powers of 4, which improves speed, efficiency, accuracy and the size of numbers that are testable. Probably especially true in non-Python implementations.
Roughly 99% of all integers are rejected as non-Square before Babylonian root extraction is even implemented, and in 2/3 the time it would take the Babylonian to reject the integer. And though these tests dont speed up the process that significantly, the reduction in all test numbers to an odd by dividing out all powers of 4 really accelerates the Babylonian test.
I did a time comparison test. I tested all integers from 1 to 10 Million in succession. Using just the Babylonian method by itself (with my specially tailored initial guess) it took my Surface 3 an average of 165 seconds (with 100% accuracy). Using just the logical tests in my algorithm (excluding the Babylonian), it took 127 seconds, it rejected 99% of all integers as non-Square without mistakenly rejecting any perfect squares. Of those integers that passed, only 3% were perfect Squares (a much higher density). Using the full algorithm above that employs both the logical tests and the Babylonian root extraction, we have 100% accuracy, and test completion in only 14 seconds. The first 100 Million integers takes roughly 2 minutes 45 seconds to test.
EDIT: I have been able to bring down the time further. I can now test the integers 0 to 100 Million in 1 minute 40 seconds. A lot of time is wasted checking the data type and the positivity. Eliminate the very first two checks and I cut the experiment down by a minute. One must assume the user is smart enough to know that negatives and floats are not perfect squares.