my math is not so good, but can you guys help me with this
problem statement
Suppose I have 4 books with weights and prices.
Book1, 0.5KG
Book2, 0.8KG
Book3, 1KG
Book4, 0.3KG
I have a base price (shipping cost) based on weight, which is 30 Rs Per 0.5KG.
Now when I select "book 1", the shipping cost will be 30 Rs, but how can I get the shipping cost for book 2,book 3 and book 4?
it's not related to any programming or algorithm , anyways
if
30Rs -> 0.5KG
x -> 0.8Kg
then simply for Book2
x = (30Rs*0.8KG)/0.5KG = 48Rs
similarly for book3 and book4:
book3 = (30Rs*1KG)/0.5KG = 60Rs
book4 = (30Rs*0.3KG)/0.5KG = 18Rs
another way to solve it is if every 30RS corresponds to 0.5KG then by dividing each side by 5 then 6RS corresponds to 0.1KG.
Book2 is 0.8KG which is 8 times the value 0.1KG then it must cost 8 times the value 6RS so 8 * 6 = 48RS similarly for **Book3 and Book4 where
Book3 = 10 * 6 = 60RS
Book4 = 3 * 6 = 18RS
If the pricing is in brackets, that is the cost for 0 - 0.5kg is 30RS, and 0.5 - 1kg is 60RS, then you have to do as follows:
First find how many brackets you have:
weight / bracketSize
For your books, this will be:
Book1: 0.5/0.5 // 1
Book2: 0.8/0.5 // 1.6
Book3: 1/0.5 // 2
Book4, 0.3/0.5 // 0.6
Then, you need to round that value up to the nearest whole number. How you do this will depend on what language you're using, but it's often called Ceiling or ceil:
Book1: Ceiling(1) // 1
Book2: Ceiling(1.6) // 2
Book3: Ceiling(2) // 2
Book4, Ceiling(0.6) // 1
Then multiply by price to get your answer.
Book1: 1 * 30 // 30
Book2: 2 * 30 // 60
Book3: 2 * 30 // 60
Book4, 1 * 30 // 30
In one line:
result = Ceiling(weight / bracketSize) * pricePerBracket
Related
I am searching through a large number of possible outcomes and, while I may not find the perfect outcome, I would like to score the various outcomes to see how close they come to ideal. (I think I'm talking about some kind of weighted scoring, but don't let that influence your answer in case I'm completely off base.)
For some context, I'm generating a variety of work schedules and would like to have each result scored such that I don't have to look at them individually (it's a brute force approach, and there are literally billions of solutions) to determine if one is better or worse than any other one.
Input-wise, for each generated schedule, I have a 3x14 array that holds the total number of people that are scheduled to work each shift on any given day (i.e. for each day in a two-week period, the number of people working days, swings, and mids on that day).
So far, I have tried:
A) summing the values in each row, then multiplying each sum (row) by a weight (e.g. row 0 sum * 1, row 1 sum * 2, row 2 sum * 3, etc.), and finally adding together the weighted sums
function calcScore(a)
dim iCol, iTotalD, iTotalM, iTotalS
for iCol = 0 to 13
iTotalD = iTotalD + a(0)(iCol)
iTotalS = iTotalS + a(1)(iCol)
iTotalM = iTotalM + a(2)(iCol)
next
calcScore = iTotalD + iTotalS * 2 + iTotalM * 3
end function
And
B) multiplying each value in each row by a weight (e.g. row 0(0) * 1, row 0(1) * 2, row 0(2) * 3, etc.), and then summing the weighted values of each row
function calcScore(a)
dim iCol, iTotalD, iTotalM, iTotalS
for iCol = 0 to 13
iTotalD = iTotalD + a(0)(iCol) * (iCol + 1)
iTotalS = iTotalS + a(1)(iCol) * (iCol + 1)
iTotalM = iTotalM + a(2)(iCol) * (iCol + 1)
next
calcScore = iTotalD + iTotalS + iTotalM
end function
Below are some sample inputs (schedules), both ideal and non-ideal. Note that in my ideal example, each row is the same all the way across (e.g. all 4's, or all 3's), but that will not necessarily be the case in real-world usage. My plan is to score my ideal schedule, and compare the score of other schedules to it.
Ideal:
Su Mo Tu We ...
Day: 4 4 4 4 ...
Swing: 3 3 3 3 ...
Mid: 2 2 2 2 ...
Not Ideal:
Su Mo Tu We ...
Day: 3 4 4 4 [D(0) is not 4]
Swing: 3 3 3 3
Mid: 2 2 2 2
Not Ideal:
Su Mo Tu We ...
Day: 4 4 4 4
Swing: 3 3 4 3 [S(2) is not 3]
Mid: 0 2 2 2 [M(0) is not 2]
Summarizing my comments into an answer.
So you have an optimal/ideal/perfect solution and want to compare other solutions to it. In this case you could for example compute the sum of (squared) errors. If you need a score you can invert the error.
Specifically, you would have to calculate the sum of (squared) differences between a solution and the optimal by looking at each entry of your matrix and calculating the difference. Sum these (squared) differences up and you get the error.
For the examples you gave the sum of errors are as follows:
E(Ideal, Not Ideal 1) = 1
E(Ideal, Not Ideal 2) = 3
The sum of squared errors would yield the following:
SQE(Ideal, Not Ideal 1) = 1
SQE(Ideal, Not Ideal 2) = 5
Usually, the sum of squared errors is used in order to penalize larger errors more than several small errors.
I have one problem statement for which i need write an algo. can somebody help me?
Problem is :
i have different length of iron rod let say {26, 103, 59}, i want to sell the same length of iron rod so that i can earn maximum profit. Also i have to cutting charge lets say 10 Rs/unit.
Case 1, if cutting charge is Rs 100 and sell length of 51 feet with cost 100 per unit.
then 103/ 51 = 2 length ((51 * 100 * 2) - ((1 * 100) + 200 ) = 9900
59 / 51 = 1 length ((51 * 100 * 1) - ((8 * 100) + 1* 100) = 4200
26/52 = 0 length((0 * 100)) - (26 * 100 ) = -2600
now total profit is = 11500
But if cutting charge is vary then this calculation like failed, can some one tell how can develop algo to find the maximum profit.
I determine the rankings of i.e. 1000 participants in multiple categories.
The results are something like that:
Participant/Category/Place (lower is better):
A|1|1.
A|2|1.
A|3|1.
A|4|7.
B|1|2.
B|2|2.
B|3|2.
B|4|4.
[...]
Now I want to summarize the rankings. The standard method would be to sum up all places and divide it by the number of categories:
Participant A: (1+1+1+7) / 4 = 2,5
Participant B: (2+2+2+4) / 4 = 2,5
But I want to prefer participant A, because he's won 3 of 4 categories.
I could define fixed points for all places, i.e:
Place|Points
1|1000
2|500
3|250
4|125
5|62.5
6|31.25
7|15.625
[...]
Participant A: 1000+1000+1000+15.625 = 3015.625
Participant B: 500+500+500+125 = 1625
The problem is now, that I want to give every place some points, so it's still possible to sort low places. And when I continue to divide the available points by 2, the maximum number of decimal places are insufficient (Available points /2^Number of places).
What can I do?
How about using harmonic mean?
4 / (1/1 + 1/1 + 1/1 + 1/7) = 1.272727
4 / (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/4) = 2.285714
I was looking to have members submit their top-10 list of something, or their top 10 rankings, then have some algorithm combine the results. Is there something out there like that?
Thanks!
Ahhhh, that's open-ended alright. Let's consider a simple case where only two people vote:
1 ALPHA
2 BRAVO
3 CHARLIE
1 ALPHA
2 DELTA
3 BRAVO
We can't go purely by count... ALPHA should obviously win, though it has the same votes as BRAVO. Yet, we must avoid a case where just a few first place votes dominate a massive amount of 10th place votes. To do this, I suggest the following:
$score = log($num_of_answers - $rank + 2)
First place would then be worth just a bit over one point, and tenth place would get .3 points. That logarithmic scaling prevents ridiculous dominance, yet still gives weight to rankings. From those example votes (and assuming they were the top 3 of a list of 10), you would get:
ALPHA: 2.08
BRAVO: 1.95
DELTA: .1
CHARLIE: .95
Why? Well, that's subjective. I feel out of a very long list that 4,000 10th place votes is worth more than 1,000 1st place votes. You may scale it differently by changing the base of your log (natural, 2, etc.), or choose a different system.
You could just add up the total for each item of the ranking given by a user and then sort them.
ie:
A = (a,b,c)
B = (a,c,b)
C = (b,a,c)
D = (c,b,a)
E = (a,c,b)
F = (c,a,b)
a = 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 2 = 10
b = 2 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 = 14
c = 3 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 12
Thus,
a
c
b
I think you could solve this problem by using a max flow algorithm, to create an aggregate ranking, assuming the following:
Each unique item from the list of items is a node in a graph. E.g. if there are 10 things to vote on, there are 10 nodes.
An edge goes from node *a* to node *b* if *a* is immediately before *b* in a _single user submitted_ ranking.
The last node created from a _single user submitted_ ranking will have an edge pointed at the *sink*
The first node created from a _single user submitted_ ranking will have an incoming edge from the *source*
This should get you an aggregated top-10 list.
For example, if it is the choice of chocolate, ice cream, donut, ..., for the order of their preference.
If user 1 choose
A B C D E F G H I J
and user 2 chooses
J A B C I G F E D H
what are some good ways to calculate a score from 0 to 100 to tell how close their choices are? It has to make sense, such as if most answers are the same but just 1 or 2 answers different, the score cannot be made to extremely low. Or, if most answers are just "shifted by 1 position", then we cannot count them as "all different" and give 0 score for those differences of only 1 position.
Assign each letter item an integer value starting at 1
A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6 (stopping at F for simplicity)
Then consider the order the items are placed, use this as a multiple
So if a number is the first item, its multiplier is 1, if its the 6th item the multipler is 6
Figure out the maximum score you could have (basically when everything is in consecutive order)
item a b c d e f
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
value 1 2 3 4 5 6
score 1 4 9 16 25 36 Sum = 91, Score = 100% (MAX)
item a b d c e f
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
value 1 2 4 3 5 6
score 1 4 12 12 25 36 Sum = 90 Score = 99%
=======================
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
item f d b c e a
value 6 4 2 3 5 1
score 6 8 6 12 25 6 Sum = 63 Score = 69%
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
item d f b c e a
value 4 6 2 3 5 1
score 4 12 6 12 25 6 Sum = 65 Score = 71%
obviously this is a very crude implementation that I just came up with. It may not work for everything. Examples 3 and 4 are swapped by one position yet the score is off by 2% (versus ex 1 and 2 which are off by 1%). It's just a thought. I'm no algorithm expert. You could probably use the final number and do something else to it for a better numerical comparison.
You could
Calculate the edit distance between the sequences;
Subtract the edit distance from the sequence length;
Divide that by the length of the sequence
Multiply it by hundred
Score = 100 * (SequenceLength - Levenshtein( Sequence1, Sequence2 ) ) / SequenceLength
Edit distance is basically the number of operations required to transform sequence one in sequence two. An algorithm therefore is the Levenshtein distance algorithm.
Examples:
Weights
insert: 1
delete: 1
substitute: 1
Seq 1: ABCDEFGHIJ
Seq 2: JABCIGFEDH
Score = 100 * (10-7) / 10 = 30
Seq 1: ABCDEFGHIJ
Seq 2: ABDCFGHIEJ
Score = 100 * (10-3) / 10 = 70
The most straightforward way to calculate it is the Levenshtein distance, which is the number of changes that must be done to transform one string to another.
Disadvantage of Levenshtein distance for your task is that it doesn't measure closeness between products themselves. I.e. you will not know how A and J are close to each other. For example, user 1 may like donuts, and user 2 may like buns, and you know that most people who like first also like the second. From this information you can infer that user 1 makes choices that are close to choices of user 2, through they don't have same elements.
If this is your case, you will have to use one of two: statistical methods to infer correlation between choices or recommendation engines.