Discover how a 19th-century mathematical shortcut transformed the performance of a 21st-century gaming algorithm As developers, we constantly seek ways to optimize our code. Sometimes, the most powerful optimization comes from seemingly simple ideas. Today, I’ll share a fascinating story about Carl Friedrich Gauss, a 19th-century mathematician, and show how his arithmetic shortcut can dramatically improve performance in Swift — both in theoretical and real-world scenarios. Buckle up, because at the end of this article, you’ll understand the magic of Gauss’s formula. Imagine you need to calculate the sum of all integers from 1 to nnn. It’s a classic problem with several ways to solve it. For demonstration, I wrote three Swift functions: 1 — For-In Loop This is the most straightforward approach. We iterate through each number from 1 to n and add them up: func sumFromOneForIn(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    var result = 0
    for i in 1...n {
        result += i
    }
    return result
} func sumFromOneForIn(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    var result = 0
    for i in 1...n {
        result += i
    }
    return result
} 2 — Reduce Method Swift’s functional programming capabilities let us use the reduce method to sum the numbers in a range: func sumFromOneReduce(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    return (1...n).reduce(0, +)
} func sumFromOneReduce(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    return (1...n).reduce(0, +)
} 3 — Gauss’s Formula Now, let’s introduce the star of our show — Gauss’s formula. As a child, Gauss cleverly discovered that the sum of numbers from 1 to n could be calculated with this simple equation: Translated to Swift, it looks like this: func sumFromOneGaussFormula(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    return (n * (n + 1)) / 2
} func sumFromOneGaussFormula(upto n: Int) -> Int {
    return (n * (n + 1)) / 2
} Testing Performance: To measure how these methods perform, I used Swift’s DispatchTime API to calculate execution times in nanoseconds. Here’s how the results looked for n = 1,000,000: let n = 1_000_000
let timeForIn = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneForIn, upto: n)
let timeReduce = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneReduce, upto: n)
let timeGaussFormula = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneGausFormula, upto: n)

print("For-In: \(timeForIn) ns")
print("Reduce: \(timeReduce) ns")
print("Formula: \(timeGaussFormula) ns") let n = 1_000_000
let timeForIn = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneForIn, upto: n)
let timeReduce = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneReduce, upto: n)
let timeGaussFormula = SumCalculator.measureExecutionTime(of: SumCalculator.sumFromOneGausFormula, upto: n)

print("For-In: \(timeForIn) ns")
print("Reduce: \(timeReduce) ns")
print("Formula: \(timeGaussFormula) ns") Who’s the Fastest? Before we dive into the performance comparison, let’s briefly discuss Big-O notation — a fundamental concept in computer science that helps us evaluate an algorithm’s efficiency. Big-O notation Big-O notation describes how the execution time (or space usage) of an algorithm grows relative to the size of the input. It’s expressed in terms of n, where n represents the size of the input data. Big-O notation For example: O(1): Constant time. The algorithm’s performance does not depend on n. O(1) O(n): Linear time. The execution time grows proportionally with n. O(n) O(n²): Quadratic time. The execution time grows exponentially as n increases. O(n²) Understanding Big-O is crucial because it allows us to predict how an algorithm will perform as the input size scales, making it easier to choose the most efficient solution for a given problem. Now, back to our comparison. Here’s how the three methods stack up in terms of Big-O: For-In Loop: This approach processes each number individually, resulting in a time complexity of O(n). For large n, the execution time grows linearly. For-In Loop: O(n) Reduce Method: While it uses functional programming, it also iterates through the range internally, giving it the same O(n) complexity as the For-In loop. Reduce Method O(n) Gauss’s Formula: This is the clear winner. Thanks to its constant-time complexity O(1), it calculates the sum directly using a single arithmetic operation, regardless of n. Gauss’s Formula O(1) For n = 1,000,000, this difference is striking. The For-In loop and Reduce method take thousands of nanoseconds, while Gauss’s formula completes in just a fraction of that time. By leveraging a smarter algorithm, we achieve not just better performance but also scalability, making Gauss’s formula a go-to solution for summing sequences or similar problems. Execution time of ForIn: 172266625 nanoseconds
Execution time of Reduce: 195087334 nanoseconds
Execution time of GaussFormula: 209 nanoseconds

Average execution time of ForIn: 170162783 nanoseconds
Average execution time of Reduce: 173793275 nanoseconds
Average execution time of GaussFormula: 16 nanoseconds Execution time of ForIn: 172266625 nanoseconds
Execution time of Reduce: 195087334 nanoseconds
Execution time of GaussFormula: 209 nanoseconds

Average execution time of ForIn: 170162783 nanoseconds
Average execution time of Reduce: 173793275 nanoseconds
Average execution time of GaussFormula: 16 nanoseconds The average execution time: Gauss Formula: 16 nanoseconds (0.000000016 seconds)
Reduce or ForIn: 170.000.000 nanoseconds (0.17 seconds) Gauss Formula: 16 nanoseconds (0.000000016 seconds) 16 Reduce or ForIn: 170.000.000 nanoseconds (0.17 seconds) 170.000.000 With Gauss’s formula, the function ran 10,625,000 times faster. With Gauss’s formula, the function ran 10,625,000 times faster. Real-World Application: Leaderboard Scores Let’s move from theory to practice. I am building a gaming app where players accumulate scores as they progress through levels. To display a leaderboard, I need to calculate the total score up to a specific level n. Here’s how I can solve it using the same three approaches (deja vu): 1 — Using a Loop (Naive Approach) Iterates through the scores and sums them: func cumulativeScoreLoop(scores: [Int], upto level: Int) -> Int {
    var total = 0
    for i in 0..<min(level, scores.count) {
        total += scores[i]
    }
    return total
} func cumulativeScoreLoop(scores: [Int], upto level: Int) -> Int {
    var total = 0
    for i in 0..<min(level, scores.count) {
        total += scores[i]
    }
    return total
} 2 — Using Reduce (Functional Approach) Summing scores with Swift’s reduce: func cumulativeScoreReduce(scores: [Int], upto level: Int) -> Int {
    return scores.prefix(level).reduce(0, +)
} func cumulativeScoreReduce(scores: [Int], upto level: Int) -> Int {
    return scores.prefix(level).reduce(0, +)
} 3 — Using Gauss’s Formula (Optimized) If scores are predictable (like 1, 2, 3, …), we can compute the total directly: func cumulativeScoreGaussFormula(upto level: Int) -> Int {
    return (level * (level + 1)) / 2
} func cumulativeScoreGaussFormula(upto level: Int) -> Int {
    return (level * (level + 1)) / 2
} Performance Comparison With 1,000,000 levels, the Gauss formula significantly outperforms the loop and reduction methods. Bonus Application: Finding Missing Numbers Here’s another practical use case: detecting a missing number in a sequence. Suppose you have a sequence of numbers from 1 to n, but one number is missing. By calculating the expected sum using Gauss’s formula and subtracting the actual sum, you can find the missing number instantly. missing number in a sequence Gauss’s formula func findMissingNumber(_ nums: [Int], upto n: Int) -> Int {
    let expectedSum = (n * (n + 1)) / 2
    let actualSum = nums.reduce(0, +)
    return expectedSum - actualSum
} func findMissingNumber(_ nums: [Int], upto n: Int) -> Int {
    let expectedSum = (n * (n + 1)) / 2
    let actualSum = nums.reduce(0, +)
    return expectedSum - actualSum
} Let's test: let nums = [1, 2, 4, 5] // Missing 3
let missingNumber = findMissingNumber(nums, upto: 5)
print("Missing number: \(missingNumber)") // Output: 3 let nums = [1, 2, 4, 5] // Missing 3
let missingNumber = findMissingNumber(nums, upto: 5)
print("Missing number: \(missingNumber)") // Output: 3 The Beauty of Gauss’s Formula The Beauty of Gauss’s Formula This journey from theory to real-world applications reveals how a centuries-old mathematical insight can optimize modern code. Gauss’s formula reduces time complexity from O(n) to O(1), making it ideal for high-performance apps and large datasets. how a centuries-old mathematical insight can optimize modern code from O(n) to O(1) Chances are, a clever trick like this could save you both time and computational resources. Next time you face a computational challenge, ask your self: Is there a smarter way? Is there a smarter way?

This One Command Lets You Live-Edit UIKit Apps Like It's SwiftUI

A Guide on How to Boost Function Performance and Achieve Execution Over 10 Million Times Faster

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

How to fix the error DT_TOOLCHAIN_DIR

105 Stories To Learn About Ios App Development

10 Things You Didn't Know You Could Do With Google Keep

118 Stories To Learn About Mobile

The Noonification: Craig Wright Is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto (12/19/2023)

25 Common iOS 16 Issues

How to fix the error DT_TOOLCHAIN_DIR

105 Stories To Learn About Ios App Development

10 Things You Didn't Know You Could Do With Google Keep

118 Stories To Learn About Mobile

The Noonification: Craig Wright Is NOT Satoshi Nakamoto (12/19/2023)

25 Common iOS 16 Issues

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps