I'm new to the study of programming, in my opinion in this code everything is correct, but it does not work properly.
Could you show me the reason.
Thank you very much!!!
Task condition:
In one array the number of goals scored by the football team in each of the 20 games is recorded, in the other - the number of goals conceded in the same game. For each game, determine the verbal outcome of the game (win, lose or draw).
scoredGoals = Array.new(20) { rand(0...10) } #20 matches. scoredGoals
concededGoals = Array.new(20) { rand(-10...0) } #20 matches. concedeGoals
i = 0
while (i < 20)
if scoredGoals[i] == concededGoals[i]
puts "Friendship won";
elsif scoredGoals[i] < concededGoals[i]
puts "Defeat";
elsif scoredGoals[i] > concededGoals[i]
puts "Victory";
end
i = i + 1;
end
puts "==========================="
puts scoredGoals
puts "==========================="
puts concededGoals
The output shows "Victory" every time.
It's not really a Ruby or a programming issue.
It happens because you have positive numbers in scoredGoals but negative numbers in concededGoals, e.g.
scoredGoals = [2, 4]
concededGoals = [-3, -1]
When comparing these, the value from scoredGoals will always be larger: (unless both are 0 which won't happen with your ranges1)
2 > -3 #=> true
4 > -1 #=> true
You most likely want both arrays to contain positive numbers, e.g.
scoredGoals = [2, 4]
concededGoals = [3, 1]
Which gives:
2 > 3 #=> false
4 > 1 #=> true
Here's a more idiomatic version of your code using zip to combine both arrays in a pair-wise manner:
scored_goals = Array.new(20) { rand(0...10) }
conceded_goals = Array.new(20) { rand(0...10) }
scored_goals.zip(conceded_goals) do |a, b|
if a == b
puts "Friendship won"
elsif a < b
puts "Defeat"
elsif a > b
puts "Victory"
end
end
1 an exclusive range (three dots) excludes the last value:
rand(0...10) will return a random number between 0 and 9 (excluding 10)
rand(-10...0) will return a random number between -10 and -1 (excluding 0)
In particular, the latter will never return 0.
Related
I had to use something like
arr = [10, 20, 50, 80, 110]
(arr.bsearch_index{|a| a >= 50} || arr.length) - 1 # => 1
(arr.bsearch_index{|a| a >= 2000} || arr.length) - 1 # => 4
with the return value -1 meaning there is no such index. What if the numbers could be float, so you cannot look for 49 instead when n is 50. The code right now is a little bit messy. Is there a more elegant way to do it?
(Maybe it is just how bsearch_index() does it: to return nil when not found... so we just have to use bsearch(){ } || arr.length to convert it back to strictly numbers -- so that's just the way it is. bsearch_index has to either return only numbers or it can return nil as a design decision and it chose to return nil. But I am not sure if we just have to use the code above. Maybe the find-any mode of bsearch_index or some kind of way can do it and is more elegant.)
P.S. it might be interesting to use a reverse() operation or negating every element or something, but since those are O(n), it defeats the purpose of using a O(lg n) solution using binary search and we can just do a linear search.
In order to express "less than" directly (i.e. via <), you have to reverse the array:
rindex = arr.reverse.bsearch_index { |a| a < 50 }
#=> 4
To un-reverse the index:
arr.size - rindex - 1
#=> 1
In one line:
arr.reverse.bsearch_index { |a| a < 50 }.yield_self { |i| arr.size - i - 1 if i }
The the modifier-if handles i being nil, e.g. a < 10
Or simply use a descending array in the first place:
arr = [110, 80, 50, 20, 10]
arr.bsearch_index { |a| a < 50 } #=> 3
arr.bsearch_index { |a| a < 2000 } #=> 0
Not completely clear, but for a sorted Array I guess:
arr.bsearch_index{ |a| a >= n }.then { |i| i ? i - 1 : -1}
Or, since nil.to_i #=> 0
arr.bsearch_index{ |a| a >= n }.to_i - 1
# n = 49 #=> 1
# n = 50 #=> 1
# n = 51 #=> 2
# n = 111 #=> -1
I have this code to return true if num is a power of 2.
def is_power_of_two?(num)
result = num.inject(0) {|n1, n2| n2 ** n1}
if result == num
true
else
false
end
end
p is_power_of_two?(16)
I keep getting an error though. How could I fix and simplify this code?
Clearly, n is a non-negative integer.
Code
def po2?(n)
n.to_s(2).count('1') == 1
end
Examples
po2? 0 #=> false
po2? 1 #=> true
po2? 32 #=> true
po2? 33 #=> false
Explanation
Fixnum#to_s provides the string representation of an integer (the receiver) for a given base. The method's argument, which defaults to 10, is the base. For example:
16.to_s #=> "16"
16.to_s(8) #=> "20"
16.to_s(16) #=> "10"
15.to_s(16) #=> "f"
It's base 2 we're interested in. For powers of 2:
1.to_s(2) #=> "1"
2.to_s(2) #=> "10"
4.to_s(2) #=> "100"
8.to_s(2) #=> "1000"
16.to_s(2) #=> "10000"
For a few natural numbers that are are not powers of 2:
3.to_s(2) #=> "11"
5.to_s(2) #=> "101"
11.to_s(2) #=> "1011"
We therefore wish to match binary strings that contain one 1.
Another Way
R = /
\A # match beginning of string ("anchor")
10* # match 1 followed by zero or more zeroes
\z # match end of string ("anchor")
/x # free-spacing regex definition mode
def po2?(n)
(n.to_s(2) =~ R) ? true : false
end
po2?(4) #=> true
po2?(5) #=> false
And one for the road
This uses Fixnum#bit_length and Fixnum#[]:
def po2?(n)
m = n.bit_length-1
n[m] == 1 and m.times.all? { |i| n[i].zero? }
end
po2? 0 #=> false
po2? 1 #=> true
po2? 32 #=> true
po2? 33 #=> false
Try:
def is_power_of_two?(num)
num != 0 && (num & (num - 1)) == 0
end
It is well explained here (for C#, but #GregHewgill's explanation applies here as well)
I would do something like this, using Ruby's Math module.
def power_of_two?(n)
Math.log2(n) % 1 == 0
end
Or, if you wanted to be really cool:
def power_of_two?(n)
(Math.log2(n) % 1).zero?
end
Some IRB output:
2.1.0 :004 > power_of_two?(2)
=> true
2.1.0 :005 > power_of_two?(32768)
=> true
2.1.0 :006 > power_of_two?(65536)
=> true
This method assumes that the input is a positive integer.
Source
Another way to solve this is to go the other way around than most of the answers here - we can use the number 1 to start and find out if the number is the power of two. Like this:
def power_of_two?(num)
product = 1
while product < num
product *= 2
end
product == num
end
We start with 1. Then we multiply the 1 by 2, and keep multiplying by 2 until the product is larger than num (product < num). Once we hit that condition, we stop, exit the loop, and check if it's equal to num (product == num). If it is, the num is the power of 2.
As was pointed out in the comments above, you were getting errors because you're trying to use the inject method on a non-iterable (an int). Here's a solution using the suggested log2
def is_power_of_two?(num)
result = Math.log2(num)
result == Integer(result)
end
Note: will fail with very big numbers close to binaries (like 2 ^ 64 - 1). A foolproof version (but slower) would be:
def is_power_of_two?(num)
while (num % 2 == 0 and num != 0)
num /= 2
end
num == 1
end
Please comment any improvements that any of you may find.
Here is another solution that uses recursion:
def power_of_2?(number)
return true if number == 1
return false if number == 0 || number % 2 != 0
power_of_2?(number / 2)
end
In my opinion, the easiest -- but maybe a little long -- way of doing what you need to do is just writing this recursive method like so:
def power_of_two?(number)
continue = true
if number == 1
return true
end
if number % 2 != 0
return false
else
while continue == true do
if number.to_f / 2.0 == 2.0
continue = false
return true
else
if number % 2 != 0
continue = false
return false
else
number /= 2
continue = true
end
end
end
end
end
One is a power of two (2^0), so it first checks if the number given is 1. If not, it checks if it is odd, because 1 is the only odd number that is a power of two.
If it is odd it returns false and moves on to the else statement. It will check if the number divided by 2 is two, because then it would obviously be a power of 2. It does this as a float, because 5/2 in Ruby would return 2.
If that is false, it then again checks if the number is odd -- unnecessary on the first round, necessary after that. If the number is not odd, it will divide the number by two and then do the loop another time.
This will continue until the program resolves itself by getting 2 or any odd number, and returns true or false, respectively.
I ran into this one in a bootcamp application prep. I'm not a math person and don't understand a few of these methods, so I wanted to submit a common sense approach for people like me. this requires little knowledge of math, except to know a number to the second power will be the result of some number multiplied by itself.
def is_power_of_two?(num)
num.times {|n| return true if (n+1) * (n+1) == num}
false
end
this method counts up to the num variable starting at 1 and returns true if (any of those numbers in the sequence multiplied by itself) is equal to num & if num is not 0 (more on that below).
example:
num = 9
1 * 1 == 9 #=> false
2 * 2 == 9 #=> false
3 * 3 == 9 #=> true
true is returned and method is finished running.
the #times method requires an integer > 0, so this edge case is "handled" by virtue of the fact that #times does nothing with "0" as the variable and returns false when outside of the #times iteration.
def power_of_two?(num)
num.to_s(2).scan(/1/).length == 1
end
Could someone help me figure this out how to do this in Ruby?
I have an array of integers. For each of those integers, I need to find a divisor that is two digits long (whole numbers as well). Right now, the code is looping to infinity. The answer I'm trying to get is:
int_a = 2, int_b = 11, and x = 22
Here is the code:
[22, 33].each do |x|
x.to_f
int_a = 1
int_b = x.quo(int_a)
until int_a > 15 || int_b%2==0 && sprintf("%g", int_b).to_s.length == 2
puts "#{x}"
puts "#{int_a}"
puts "#{int_b}"
end
int_a += 1
end
I can't understand your code, but by your definition:
For each of those integers, I need to find a divisor that is two digits long(whole numbers as well)
Give this a try:
numbers = [22,33]
numbers.map do |n|
raise "invalid number" if n < 10
div = 10.0
div += 1 while (n%div) != 0
div
end
#result: [11,22]
As #fotanus, I can't understand your code, but answering your question, I used this code a while ago for finding divisors:
require 'prime'
def divisors_for(n)
n.prime_division.map do |n,mp|
(0..mp).map { |i| n**i }
end.inject([1]) do |a, factor_group|
a.product(factor_group)
end.map do |factors|
factors.flatten.reduce(:*)
end - [n]
end
[22, 23].map do |n|
divisors_for(n).select { |d| d.to_s.size == 2 }
end
I am learning Ruby and doing some math stuff. One of the things I want to do is generate prime numbers.
I want to generate the first ten prime numbers and the first ten only. I have no problem testing a number to see if it is a prime number or not, but was wondering what the best way is to do generate these numbers?
I am using the following method to determine if the number is prime:
class Integer < Numeric
def is_prime?
return false if self <= 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(self).to_i) do |x|
return false if self%x == 0
end
true
end
end
In Ruby 1.9 there is a Prime class you can use to generate prime numbers, or to test if a number is prime:
require 'prime'
Prime.take(10) #=> [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
Prime.take_while {|p| p < 10 } #=> [2, 3, 5, 7]
Prime.prime?(19) #=> true
Prime implements the each method and includes the Enumerable module, so you can do all sorts of fun stuff like filtering, mapping, and so on.
If you'd like to do it yourself, then something like this could work:
class Integer < Numeric
def is_prime?
return false if self <= 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(self).to_i) do |x|
return false if self%x == 0
end
true
end
def next_prime
n = self+1
n = n + 1 until n.is_prime?
n
end
end
Now to get the first 10 primes:
e = Enumerator.new do |y|
n = 2
loop do
y << n
n = n.next_prime
end
end
primes = e.take 10
require 'prime'
Prime.first(10) # => [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
Check out Sieve of Eratosthenes. This is not Ruby specific but it is an algorithm to generate prime numbers. The idea behind this algorithm is that you have a list/array of numbers say
2..1000
You grab the first number, 2. Go through the list and eliminate everything that is divisible by 2. You will be left with everything that is not divisible by 2 other than 2 itself (e.g. [2,3,5,7,9,11...999]
Go to the next number, 3. And again, eliminate everything that you can divide by 3. Keep going until you reach the last number and you will get an array of prime numbers. Hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
People already mentioned the Prime class, which definitely would be the way to go. Someone also showed you how to use an Enumerator and I wanted to contribute a version using a Fiber (it uses your Integer#is_prime? method):
primes = Fiber.new do
Fiber.yield 2
value = 3
loop do
Fiber.yield value if value.is_prime?
value += 2
end
end
10.times { p primes.resume }
# First 10 Prime Numbers
number = 2
count = 1
while count < 10
j = 2
while j <= number
break if number%j == 0
j += 1
end
if j == number
puts number
count += 1
end
number += 1
end
Implemented the Sieve of Eratosthene (more or less)
def primes(size)
arr=(0..size).to_a
arr[0]=nil
arr[1]=nil
max=size
(size/2+1).times do |n|
if(arr[n]!=nil) then
cnt=2*n
while cnt <= max do
arr[cnt]=nil
cnt+=n
end
end
end
arr.compact!
end
Moreover here is a one-liner I like a lot
def primes_c a
p=[];(2..a).each{|n| p.any?{|l|n%l==0}?nil:p.push(n)};p
end
Of course those will find the primes in the first n numbers, not the first n primes, but I think an adaptation won't require much effort.
Here is a way to generate the prime numbers up to a "max" argument from scratch, without using Prime or Math. Let me know what you think.
def prime_test max
primes = []
(1..max).each {|num|
if
(2..num-1).all? {|denom| num%denom >0}
then
primes.push(num)
end
}
puts primes
end
prime_test #enter max
I think this may be an expensive solution for very large max numbers but seems to work well otherwise:
def multiples array
target = array.shift
array.map{|item| item if target % item == 0}.compact
end
def prime? number
reversed_range_array = *(2..number).reverse_each
multiples_of_number = multiples(reversed_range_array)
multiples_of_number.size == 0 ? true : false
end
def primes_in_range max_number
range_array = *(2..max_number)
range_array.map{|number| number if prime?(number)}.compact
end
class Numeric
def prime?
return self == 2 if self % 2 == 0
(3..Math.sqrt(self)).step(2) do |x|
return false if self % x == 0
end
true
end
end
With this, now 3.prime? returns true, and 6.prime? returns false.
Without going to the efforts to implement the sieve algorithm, time can still be saved quickly by only verifying divisibility until the square root, and skipping the odd numbers. Then, iterate through the numbers, checking for primeness.
Remember: human time > machine time.
I did this for a coding kata and used the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
puts "Up to which number should I look for prime numbers?"
number = $stdin.gets.chomp
n = number.to_i
array = (1..n).to_a
i = 0
while array[i]**2 < n
i = i + 1
array = array.select do |element|
element % array[i] != 0 || element / array[i] == 1
end
end
puts array.drop(1)
Ruby: Print N prime Numbers
http://mishra-vishal.blogspot.in/2013/07/include-math-def-printnprimenumbernoofp.html
include Math
def print_n_prime_number(no_of_primes=nil)
no_of_primes = 100 if no_of_primes.nil?
puts "1 \n2"
count = 1
number = 3
while count < no_of_primes
sq_rt_of_num = Math.sqrt(number)
number_divisible_by = 2
while number_divisible_by <= sq_rt_of_num
break if(number % number_divisible_by == 0)
number_divisible_by = number_divisible_by + 1
end
if number_divisible_by > sq_rt_of_num
puts number
count = count+1
end
number = number + 2
end
end
print_n_prime_number
Not related at all with the question itself, but FYI:
if someone doesn't want to keep generating prime numbers again and again (a.k.a. greedy resource saver)
or maybe you already know that you must to work with subsequent prime numbers in some way
other unknown and wonderful cases
Try with this snippet:
require 'prime'
for p in Prime::Generator23.new
# `p` brings subsequent prime numbers until the end of the days (or until your computer explodes)
# so here put your fabulous code
break if #.. I don't know, I suppose in some moment it should stop the loop
end
fp
If you need it, you also could use another more complex generators as Prime::TrialDivisionGenerator or Prime::EratosthenesGenerator. More info
Here's a super compact method that generates an array of primes with a single line of code.
def get_prime(up_to)
(2..up_to).select { |num| (2...num).all? { |div| (num % div).positive? } }
end
def get_prime(number)
(2..number).each do |no|
if (2..no-1).all? {|num| no % num > 0}
puts no
end
end
end
get_prime(100)
I am trying to solve Project Euler problem #12:
The sequence of triangle numbers is generated by adding the natural
numbers. So the 7th triangle number
would be 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 =
28. The first ten terms would be:
1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45, 55, ...
Let us list the factors of the first seven triangle numbers:
1: 1
3: 1,3
6: 1,2,3,6
10: 1,2,5,10
15: 1,3,5,15
21: 1,3,7,21
28: 1,2,4,7,14,28
We can see that 28 is the first triangle number to have over five
divisors.
What is the value of the first triangle number to have over five
hundred divisors?
Here's the solution that I came up with using Ruby:
triangle_number = 1
(2..9_999_999_999_999_999).each do |i|
triangle_number += i
num_divisors = 2 # 1 and the number divide the number always so we don't iterate over the entire sequence
(2..( i/2 + 1 )).each do |j|
num_divisors += 1 if i % j == 0
end
if num_divisors == 500 then
puts i
break
end
end
I shouldn't be using an arbitrary huge number like 9_999_999_999_999_999. It would be better if we had a Math.INFINITY sequence like some functional languages. How can I generate a lazy infinite sequence in Ruby?
Several answers are close but I don't actually see anyone using infinite ranges. Ruby supports them just fine.
Inf = Float::INFINITY # Ruby 1.9
Inf = 1.0/0 # Ruby before 1.9
(1..Inf).include?(2305843009213693951)
# => true
(1..Inf).step(7).take(3).inject(&:+)
# => 24.0
In your case
(2..Inf).find {|i| ((2..( i/2 + 1 )).select{|j| i % j == 0}.count+2)==42 }
=> 2880
Your brute force method is crude and can, potentially, take a very long time to finish.
In Ruby >= 1.9, you can create an Enumerator object that yields whatever sequence you like. Here's one that yields an infinite sequence of integers:
#!/usr/bin/ruby1.9
sequence = Enumerator.new do |yielder|
number = 0
loop do
number += 1
yielder.yield number
end
end
5.times do
puts sequence.next
end
# => 1
# => 2
# => 3
# => 4
# => 5
Or:
sequence.each do |i|
puts i
break if i >= 5
end
Or:
sequence.take(5).each { |i| puts i }
Programming Ruby 1.9 (aka "The Pickaxe Book"), 3rd. ed., p. 83, has an example of an Enumerator for triangular numbers. It should be easy to modify the Enumerator above to generate triangular numbers. I'd do it here, but that would reproduce the example verbatim, probably more than "fair use" allows.
Infinity is defined on Float (Ruby 1.9)
a = Float::INFINITY
puts a #=> Infinity
b = -a
puts a*b #=> -Infinity, just toying
1.upto(a) {|x| break if x >10; puts x}
Currrent versions of Ruby support generators heavily:
sequence = 1.step
In Ruby 2.6 this becomes much easier:
(1..).each {|n| ... }
Source: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12912
This would be best as a simple loop.
triangle_number = 1
i = 1
while num_divisors < 500
i += 1
triangle_number += i
# ...
end
puts i
As Amadan mentioned you can use closures:
triangle = lambda { t = 0; n = 1; lambda{ t += n; n += 1; t } }[]
10.times { puts triangle[] }
Don't really think it is much slower than a loop. You can save state in class object too, but you will need more typing:
class Tri
def initialize
#t = 0
#n = 1
end
def next
#t += n
#n += 1
#t
end
end
t = Tri.new
10.times{ puts t.next }
Added:
For those who like longjmps:
require "generator"
tri =
Generator.new do |g|
t, n = 0, 1
loop do
t += n
n += 1
g.yield t
end
end
puts (0..19).map{ tri.next }.inspect
Building on Wayne's excellent answer and in the Ruby spirit of doing things with the least number of characters here is a slightly updated version:
sequence = Enumerator.new { |yielder| 1.step { |num| yielder.yield num } }
Obviously, doesn't solve the original Euler problem but is good for generating an infinite sequence of integers. Definitely works for Ruby > 2.0. Enjoy!
On Christmas Day 2018, Ruby introduced the endless range, providing a simple new approach to this problem.
This is implemented by ommitting the final character from the range, for example:
(1..)
(1...)
(10..)
(Time.now..)
Or to update using Jonas Elfström's solution:
(2..).find { |i| ((2..( i / 2 + 1 )).select { |j| i % j == 0 }.count + 2) == 42 }
Hope this proves useful to someone!
I believe that fibers (added in Ruby 1.9 I believe) may be close to what you want. See here for some information or just search for Ruby Fibers