TL;DR

Brute forcing an old puzzle: The monkey and the coconuts.

A (lot) while ago I read about puzzle The monkey and the coconuts in one of Martin Gardner’s books, and I was fascinated by the answer. A big part of the fascination was coming from the fact that the book observed that it was practically too boring to try and brute force the puzzle all by human trial and error.

I’m pretty much sure that I came across the puzzle again during the years, and surely after I started doing some programming with C64 and later with a PC. To be honest, it never occurred to me to try and brute force it with a computer at the time.

Until now, where I thought… how hard can it be?!?. So I was set to do some Raku programming to get some exercise.

Before going to the implementation, it’s good to point out that there are (at least) two versions of the puzzle:

• basic, were the monkey gets one more coconut:

Five men and a monkey were shipwrecked on an island. They spent the first day gathering coconuts. During the night, one man woke up and decided to take his share of the coconuts. He divided them into five piles. One coconut was left over so he gave it to the monkey, then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to sleep.

Soon a second man woke up and did the same thing. After dividing the coconuts into five piles, one coconut was left over which he gave to the monkey. He then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to bed. The third, fourth, and fifth man followed exactly the same procedure. The next morning, after they all woke up, they divided the remaining coconuts into five equal shares. Again, one coconut remains after the division, and it is given to the monkey.

• Williams, where the monkey does not get a coconut the day after:

Five men and a monkey were shipwrecked on an island. They spent the first day gathering coconuts. During the night, one man woke up and decided to take his share of the coconuts. He divided them into five piles. One coconut was left over so he gave it to the monkey, then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to sleep.

Soon a second man woke up and did the same thing. After dividing the coconuts into five piles, one coconut was left over which he gave to the monkey. He then hid his share, put the rest back together, and went back to bed. The third, fourth, and fifth man followed exactly the same procedure. The next morning, after they all woke up, they divided the remaining coconuts into five equal shares. This time no coconuts were left over.

They differ only in the last detail, which is easy to refactor so one single implementation with slightly different inputs does the trick:

#!/usr/bin/env raku
use v6;

subset PosInt of Int where * > 0;

sub any-version (PosInt $sailors, @monkey-gains is copy) { my$last-gain = @monkey-gains.pop;
ATTEMPT:
for 1 .. Inf -> $last-quota { my$x = $last-quota; for @monkey-gains ->$to-monkey {
$x =$x * $sailors +$to-monkey;
next ATTEMPT unless $x %% ($sailors - 1);
$x /=$sailors - 1;
}
return ($x *$sailors + $last-gain,$last-quota);
}
return $sailors; } sub basic-version (PosInt$sailors) {
return any-version($sailors, [1 xx ($sailors + 1)]);
}

sub williams-version (PosInt $sailors) { return any-version($sailors, [0, |(1 xx $sailors)]); } my$sailors = @*ARGS ?? @*ARGS[0].Int !! 5;
say 'basic version: ', basic-version($sailors); say 'Williams version: ', williams-version($sailors);


Each solution is composed of two integers, the first representing the total number of coconuts that were collected in the first place, the second representing the number of coconuts that each sailor gets in the last division the morning after the collection.

# The algorithm

Doing brute force in this case basically means trying out candidate inputs until one matches all requirements.

My first idea was to use the total number of initial coconuts, but then I thought… *why?!? I mean, a valid solution MUST end up with an integer value for what is given to each sailor the day after, and this MUST be a lower number, right?

This is why the outer ATTEMPT: loop feeds variable $last-quota, which represents… what we said. Inside the loop, we have to test that this candidate value is indeed valid, going backwards in time. In other terms, we go through the division process backwards, from the last iteration back to when the first sailor decides to do a preliminar division of the coconuts. Hence, at each stage we: • calculate the total number of coconuts before the division, by multiplying the current value $x times the number of sailors, then adding the coconuts that are given to the monkey (which we keep in @monkey-gains);

• check that this number is divisible by the number of sailors, minus one. Why? Well, this is what is expected to remain after one of the sailors did their division, where it took one part and left four parts, so this number MUST be divisible by 4.

This goes on until we arrive to the very first sailor. In this case, though, we can lift off the constraints that the number is divisible by 4, because we are on the initial, total number of coconuts and we have no such constraint on it. Hence, we just use $last-gain without doing any check. The inner loop tries to go through the whole @monkey-gains (except the $last-gain, of course) and if it succeeds we have a solution. If any intermediate step fails, then the next ATTEMPT just sets us to try the next candidate.

The two variants of the puzzle can be addressed by feeding different values for the coconuts gained by the monkey. In the basic case, we provide an array that contains 1 coconut for each division step we want to go through; in the other case, we provide 0 coconuts for the morning step and 1 coconut for each division performed by the sailors on their own.

# A couple of Raku considerations

All in all, I think I’m keeping my strong Perl accent while coding in Raku, and I like it very much. Who does not like a slight foreign accent in people?

One cool thing is to iterate through a lazy list that’s potentially infinite:

for 1 .. Inf -> $last-quota { ...  The equivalent in Perl would probably be something like this: my$last_quota = 0;
while ('necessary') {
$last_quota++; ...  but it’s not as readable as the other. Another thing that I discovered is that x becomes xx when we want to “multiply” lists: return any-version($sailors, [1 xx ($sailors + 1)]);  I was initially puzzled by this, although I have to admit that having separate operators to express separate operations is probably saner. Getting the input number of sailors from the command line is somehow worse though: my$sailors = @*ARGS ?? @*ARGS[0].Int !! 5;


I like Perl better in this case:

my $sailors = shift || 5;  (Of course I hope someone will point out how to express this in Raku 😋) # Last: human brute-forcing The consideration about what to use as an iteration candidate for solving the problem got me thinking… was this really so difficult to solve by human brute forcing? Let’s do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. As correctly pointed out in Martin Gardner’s column, as well as everywhere this puzzle is analyzed, there are infinite solutions for the total number of coconuts, which are spaced by multiples of$5^6 = 15625$. Hence, a minimal positive solution must be comprised between 1 and 15625 (otherwise we can simply subtract 15625 until we get a number lower or equal to it). This seems daunting indeed: if we took on average 2 minutes to check each candidate, we would need 31250 minutes, which is about 521 hours. If we dedicate 1 hour per day to this task, it would take about one year and a half to go through all the candidates, so on average we would solve it in about 9 months. Not very encouraging. On the other hand, let’s consider focusing on the remaining coconuts first, and working backwards. This has the advantage that multiplications are easier (multiplying by 5 is multiplying by 10 and dividing by 2, both very easy to accomplish) and divisions too (we have to divide by 4, which is twice a division by 2, again very easy to check and to do). Additionally, the worst case for the total number of coconuts is of course 15625 itself, i.e. the biggest value. What does this mean for the last quota? Assuming that there is no coconut given to the monkey, the last quota would be: $L = \frac{5^6}{5} \left(\frac{4}{5}\right)^5 = 4^5 = 1024$ Hence, our last quota will have to be lower than this value (because we have to take into account that something goes to the monkey). Again, if we take 2 minutes to test one candidate, it means at most 2048 minutes, i.e. about 34 hours and some. Even if we go in order, it would take us 34 days with one hour of work per day… which is not too bad! But, of course, there’s more. Any last value$L$will have to be such that: $5L + 1 \equiv 0 \pmod 4 \\ 5L \equiv -1 \pmod 4 \\ L \equiv -1 \pmod 4$ i.e.$L = 4k - 1$with$0 \leq k \leq 256$. The last passage is allowed because: $(5L)_4 = 5_4 L_4 = L_4$ where$X_4 \doteq X \pmod 4$. In other terms, it only makes sense to consider one-fourth of the candidates we were discussing about before. This also means that our overall time to a solution drops to about 9 hours… i.e. slightly more than one week. This is definitely in reach! A similar consideration might be done for Williams’s puzzle, although in this case we would have to consider that the monkey does not get a coconut in the last division, i.e.$L$is such that: $5L \equiv 0 \pmod 4 \\ L \equiv 0 \pmod 4$ i.e.$L = 4k$, again with with$1 \leq k \leq 256\$.

It’s worth noting that if we proceed in order, the basic puzzle would require us to go through all 256 values, because the solution is 1023, i.e. exactly the last one. In the case of Williams’s puzzle, though, the solution is 204, so we would reach it at the 51th attempt, i.e. in the second hour of trial-and-error!

I hope you enjoyed it, stay safe folks!