Recently i got a competetive programming task which i couldn't manage to complete. Just curious to know the best solution for the problem
"A" is a zero-indexed array of N integers.
Elements of A are integers within the range [−99,999,999 to 99,999,999]
The 'curry' is a string consisting of N characters such that each character is either 'P', 'Q' or 'R' and the
corresponding index of the array is the weight of each ingredient.
The curry is perfect if the sum of the total weights of 'P', 'Q' and 'R' is equal.
write a function
makeCurry(Array)
such that, given a zero-indexed array Array consisting of N integers, returns the perfect curry of this array.
The function should return the string "noLuck" if no perfect curry exists for that Array.
For example, given array Array such that
A[0] = 3 A[1] = 7 A[2] = 2 A[3] = 5 A[4] = 4
the function may return "PQRRP", as explained above. Given array A such that
A[0] = 3 A[1] = 6 A[2] = 9
the function should return "noLuck".
The approach i tried was this
import collections
class GetPerfectCurry(object):
def __init__(self):
self.curry = ''
self.curry_stats = collections.Counter({'P': 0, 'Q': 0, 'R': 0})
pass
def get_perfect_curry(self, A):
if len(A) == 0:
return "noLuck"
A.sort(reverse=True)
for i, ele in enumerate(A):
self.check_which_key_to_add_new_element_and_add_element(ele)
if self.curry_stats['P'] == self.curry_stats['Q'] == self.curry_stats['R']:
return self.curry
else:
return "noLuck"
def check_which_key_to_add_new_element_and_add_element(self, val):
# get the maximum current value
# check if addition of new value with any of the other two key equals the max value
# if yes then add that value and append the key in the curry string
current_max_key = max(self.curry_stats, key=self.curry_stats.get)
check_for_equality = False
key_to_append = None
for key, ele in enumerate(self.curry_stats):
if ele != current_max_key:
if self.curry_stats[ele] + val == self.curry_stats[current_max_key]:
check_for_equality = True
key_to_append = ele
if check_for_equality:
self.curry_stats.update(str(key_to_append) * val)
self.curry += str(key_to_append)
pass
else:
# if no value addition equals the current max
# then find the current lowest value and add it to that key
current_lowest_key = min(self.curry_stats, key=self.curry_stats.get)
self.curry_stats.update(str(current_lowest_key)*val)
self.curry += str(current_lowest_key)
if __name__ == '__main__':
perfect_curry = GetPerfectCurry()
A = [3, 7, 2, 5, 4]
# A = [3, 6, 9]
# A = [2, 9, 6, 3, 7]
res = perfect_curry.get_perfect_curry(A)
print(res)
But it was incorrect. Scratching my head for the past four hours for the best solution for this problem
A possible algorithm is as follows:
Sum the weights. If it's not a multiple of 3, no luck. If it is, divide by 3 to get the target.
Find subsets of A that add up to target. For such subsets, remove it and you get B. Find a subset of B that adds up to target.
Here's a Java implementation (I'm not a Python guy, sorry):
import java.util.Arrays;
public class Main
{
// Test if selected elements add up to target
static boolean check(int[] a, int selection, int target)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int i=0;i<a.length;i++)
{
if(((selection>>i) & 1) == 1)
sum += a[i];
}
return sum==target;
}
// Remove the selected elements
static int[] exclude(int[] a, int selection)
{
int[] res = new int[a.length];
int j = 0;
for(int i=0;i<a.length;i++)
{
if(((selection>>i) & 1) == 0)
res[j++] = a[i];
}
return Arrays.copyOf(res, j);
}
static String getCurry(int[] a)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int x : a)
sum += x;
if(sum%3 > 0)
return "noLuck";
int target = sum/3;
int max1 = 1<<a.length; // 2^length
for(int i=0;i<max1;i++)
{
if(check(a, i, target))
{
int[] b = exclude(a, i);
int max2 = 1<<b.length; // 2^length
for(int j=0;j<max2;j++)
{
if(check(b, j, target))
return formatSolution(i, j, a.length);
}
}
}
return "noLuck";
}
static String formatSolution(int p, int q, int len)
{
char[] res = new char[len];
Arrays.fill(res, 'R');
int j = 0;
for(int i=0;i<len;i++)
{
if(((p>>i) & 1) == 1)
res[i] = 'P';
else
{
if(((q>>j) & 1) == 1)
res[i] = 'Q';
j++;
}
}
return new String(res);
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// int[] a = new int[]{3, 7, 2, 5, 4};
// int[] a = new int[]{1, 1, 2, -1};
int[] a = new int[]{5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3};
System.out.println(getCurry(a));
}
}
You can test it here.
Hereafter so many years I'm writing code for js for needed people. (TBH I took the ref of the accepted answer)
As he mentioned, A possible algorithm is as follows:
Sum the weights. If it's not a multiple of 3, no luck. If it is, divide by 3 to get the target.
Find subsets of A that add up to target. For such subsets, remove it and you get B. Find a subset of B that adds up to target.
// Test if selected elements add up to target
function check(a, selection, target)
{
let sum = 0;
for(let i=0;i<a.length;i++)
{
if(((selection>>i) & 1) == 1)
sum += a[i];
}
return sum==target;
}
// Remove the selected elements
function exclude(a, selection)
{
let res = [a.length];
let j = 0;
for(let i=0;i<a.length;i++)
{
if(((selection>>i) & 1) == 0)
res[j++] = a[i];
}
return res
}
function getCurry(a)
{
let sum = a.reduce((accumulator, currentValue) => accumulator + currentValue);
if(sum%3 > 0)
return "noLuck";
let target = sum/3;
let max1 = 1<<a.length; // 2^length
for(let i=0;i<max1;i++)
{
if(check(a, i, target))
{
let b = exclude(a, i);
let max2 = 1<<b.length; // 2^length
for(let j=0;j<max2;j++)
{
if(check(b, j, target))
return formatSolution(i, j, a.length);
}
}
}
return "noLuck";
}
function formatSolution(p, q, len)
{
let res = new Array(len)
res.fill('R')
let j = 0;
for(let i=0;i<len;i++)
{
if(((p>>i) & 1) == 1)
res[i] = 'P';
else
{
if(((q>>j) & 1) == 1)
res[i] = 'Q';
j++;
}
}
return new String(res);
}
// let a = [3, 7, 2, 5, 4]
// let a = [1, 1, 2, -1]
let a = [5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3]
getCurry(a)
I need a clarification of the answer of this question but I can not comment (not enough rep) so I ask a new question. Hope it is ok.
The problem is this:
Given an array, you have to find the max possible two equal sum, you
can exclude elements.
i.e 1,2,3,4,6 is given array we can have max two equal sum as 6+2 =
4+3+1
i.e 4,10,18, 22, we can get two equal sum as 18+4 = 22
what would be your approach to solve this problem apart from brute
force to find all computation and checking two possible equal sum?
edit 1: max no of array elements are N <= 50 and each element can be
up to 1<= K <=1000
edit 2: Total elements sum cannot be greater than 1000.
The approved answer says:
I suggest solving this using DP where instead of tracking A,B (the
size of the two sets), you instead track A+B,A-B (the sum and
difference of the two sets).
Then for each element in the array, try adding it to A, or B, or
neither.
The advantage of tracking the sum/difference is that you only need to
keep track of a single value for each difference, namely the largest
value of the sum you have seen for this difference.
What I do not undertand is:
If this was the subset sum problem I could solve it with DP, having a memoization matrix of (N x P), where N is the size of the set and P is the target sum...
But I can not figure it out how I should keep track A+B,A-B (as said for the author of the approved answer). Which should be the dimensions of the memoization matrix ? and how that helps to solve the problem ?
The author of the answer was kind enough to provide a code example but it is hard to me to undertand since I do not know python (I know java).
I think thinking how this solution relates to the single subset problem might be misleading for you. Here we are concerned with a maximum achievable sum, and what's more, we need to distinguish between two disjoint sets of numbers as we traverse. Clearly tracking specific combinations would be too expensive.
Looking at the difference between sets A and B, we can say:
A - B = d
A = d + B
Clearly, we want the highest sum when d = 0. How do we know that sum? It's (A + B) / 2!
For the transition in the dynamic program, we'd like to know if it's better to place the current element in A, B or neither. This is achieved like this:
e <- current element
d <- difference between A and B
(1) add e to A -> d + e
why?
A = d + B
(A + e) = d + e + B
(2) add e to B -> d - e
why?
A = d + B
A = d - e + (B + e)
(3) don't use e -> that's simply
what we already have stored for d
Let's look at Peter de Rivas' code for the transition:
# update a copy of our map, so
# we can reference previous values,
# while assigning new values
D2=D.copy()
# d is A - B
# s is A + B
for d,s in D.items():
# a new sum that includes element a
# we haven't decided if a
# will be in A or B
s2 = s + a
# d2 will take on each value here
# in turn, once d - a (adding a to B),
# and once d + a (adding a to A)
for d2 in [d-a, d+a]:
# The main transition:
# the two new differences,
# (d-a) and (d+a) as keys in
# our map get the highest sum
# seen so far, either (1) the
# new sum, s2, or (2) what we
# already stored (meaning `a`
# will be excluded here)
# so all three possibilities
# are covered.
D2[abs(d2)] = max(D2[abs(d2)], s2)
In the end we have stored the highest A + B seen for d = 0, where the elements in A and B form disjoint sets. Return (A + B) / 2.
Try this dp approch : it works fine.
/*
*
i/p ::
1
5
1 2 3 4 6
o/p : 8
1
4
4 10 18 22
o/p : 22
1
4
4 118 22 3
o/p : 0
*/
import java.util.Scanner;
public class TwoPipesOfMaxEqualLength {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner sc = new Scanner(System.in);
int t = sc.nextInt();
while (t-- > 0) {
int n = sc.nextInt();
int[] arr = new int[n + 1];
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
arr[i] = sc.nextInt();
}
MaxLength(arr, n);
}
}
private static void MaxLength(int[] arr, int n) {
int dp[][] = new int[1005][1005];
int dp1[][] = new int[1005][1005];
// initialize dp with values as 0.
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <= 1000; j++)
dp[i][j] = 0;
}
// make (0,0) as 1.
dp[0][0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <= 1000; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k <= 1000; k++) {
if (j >= arr[i]) {
if (dp[j - arr[i]][k] == 1) {
dp1[j][k] = 1;## Heading ##
}
}
if (k >= arr[i]) {
if (dp[j][k - arr[i]] == 1) {
dp1[j][k] = 1;
}
}
if (dp[j][k] == 1) {
dp1[j][k] = 1;
}
}
}
for (int j = 0; j <= 1000; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k <= 1000; k++) {
dp[j][k] = dp1[j][k];
dp1[j][k] = 0;
}
}
}
int ans = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) {
if (dp[i][i] == 1) {
ans = i;
}
}
System.out.println(ans);
}
}
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
/*
Brute force recursive solve.
*/
void solve(vector<int>&arr, int &ans, int p1, int p2, int idx, int mx_p){
// if p1 == p2, we have a potential answer
if(p1 == p2){
ans = max(ans, p1);
}
//base case 1:
if((p1>mx_p) || (p2>mx_p) || (idx >= arr.size())){
return;
}
// leave the current element
solve(arr, ans, p1, p2, idx+1, mx_p);
// add the current element to p1
solve(arr, ans, p1+arr[idx], p2, idx+1, mx_p);
// add the current element to p2
solve(arr, ans, p1, p2+arr[idx], idx+1, mx_p);
}
/*
Recursive solve with memoization.
*/
int solve(vector<vector<vector<int>>>&memo, vector<int>&arr,
int p1, int p2, int idx, int mx_p){
//base case 1:
if((p1>mx_p) || (p2>mx_p) || (idx>arr.size())){
return -1;
}
// memo'ed answer
if(memo[p1][p2][idx]>-1){
return memo[p1][p2][idx];
}
// if p1 == p2, we have a potential answer
if(p1 == p2){
memo[p1][p2][idx] = max(memo[p1][p2][idx], p1);
}
// leave the current element
memo[p1][p2][idx] = max(memo[p1][p2][idx], solve(memo, arr, p1, p2,
idx+1, mx_p));
// add the current element to p1
memo[p1][p2][idx] = max(memo[p1][p2][idx],
solve(memo, arr, p1+arr[idx], p2, idx+1, mx_p));
// add the current element to p2
memo[p1][p2][idx] = max(memo[p1][p2][idx],
solve(memo, arr, p1, p2+arr[idx], idx+1, mx_p));
return memo[p1][p2][idx];
}
int main(){
vector<int>arr = {1, 2, 3, 4, 7};
int ans = 0;
int mx_p = 0;
for(auto i:arr){
mx_p += i;
}
mx_p /= 2;
vector<vector<vector<int>>>memo(mx_p+1, vector<vector<int>>(mx_p+1,
vector<int>(arr.size()+1,-1)));
ans = solve(memo, arr, 0, 0, 0, mx_p);
ans = (ans>=0)?ans:0;
// solve(arr, ans, 0, 0, 0, mx_p);
cout << ans << endl;
return 0;
}
The following is an interview question which I am unable to answer in a complexity less than an exponential complexity. Though it seems to be an DP problem, I am unable to form the base cases and analyze it properly. Any help is appreciated.
You are given 2 arrays of size 'n' each. You need to stable-merge
these arrays such that in the new array sum of product of consecutive
elements is maximized.
For example
A= { 2, 1, 5}
B= { 3, 7, 9}
Stable merging A = {a1, a2, a3} and B = {b1, b2, b3} will create an array C with 2*n elements. For example, say C = { b1, a1, a2, a3, b2, b3 } by merging (stable) A and B. Then the sum = b1*a1 + a2*a3 + b2*b3 should be a maximum.
Lets define c[i,j] as solution of same problem but array start from i to end for left. And j to end for right.
So c[0,0] will give solution to original problem.
c[i,j] consists of.
MaxValue = the max value.
NeedsPairing = true or false = depending on left most element is unpaired.
Child = [p,q] or NULL = defining child key which ends up optimal sum till this level.
Now defining the optimal substructure for this DP
c[i,j] = if(NeedsPairing) { left[i]*right[j] } + Max { c[i+1, j], c[i, j+1] }
It's captured more in detail in this code.
if (lstart == lend)
{
if (rstart == rend)
{
nodeResult = new NodeData() { Max = 0, Child = null, NeedsPairing = false };
}
else
{
nodeResult = new NodeData()
{
Max = ComputeMax(right, rstart),
NeedsPairing = (rend - rstart) % 2 != 0,
Child = null
};
}
}
else
{
if (rstart == rend)
{
nodeResult = new NodeData()
{
Max = ComputeMax(left, lstart),
NeedsPairing = (lend - lstart) % 2 != 0,
Child = null
};
}
else
{
var downLef = Solve(left, lstart + 1, right, rstart);
var lefResNode = new NodeData()
{
Child = Tuple.Create(lstart + 1, rstart),
};
if (downLef.NeedsPairing)
{
lefResNode.Max = downLef.Max + left[lstart] * right[rstart];
lefResNode.NeedsPairing = false;
}
else
{
lefResNode.Max = downLef.Max;
lefResNode.NeedsPairing = true;
}
var downRt = Solve(left, lstart, right, rstart + 1);
var rtResNode = new NodeData()
{
Child = Tuple.Create(lstart, rstart + 1),
};
if (downRt.NeedsPairing)
{
rtResNode.Max = downRt.Max + right[rstart] * left[lstart];
rtResNode.NeedsPairing = false;
}
else
{
rtResNode.Max = downRt.Max;
rtResNode.NeedsPairing = true;
}
if (lefResNode.Max > rtResNode.Max)
{
nodeResult = lefResNode;
}
else
{
nodeResult = rtResNode;
}
}
}
And we use memoization to prevent solving sub problem again.
Dictionary<Tuple<int, int>, NodeData> memoization = new Dictionary<Tuple<int, int>, NodeData>();
And in end we use NodeData.Child to trace back the path.
For A = {a1,a2,...,an}, B = {b1,b2,...,bn},
Define DP[i,j] as the maximum stable-merging sum between {ai,...,an} and {bj,...,bn}.
(1 <= i <= n+1, 1 <= j <= n+1)
DP[n+1,n+1] = 0, DP[n+1,k] = bk*bk+1 +...+ bn-1*bn, DP[k,n+1] = ak*ak+1 +...+ an-1*an.
DP[n,k] = max{an*bk + bk+1*bk+2 +..+ bn-1*bn, DP[n,k+2] + bk*bk+1}
DP[k,n] = max{ak*bn + ak+1*ak+2 +..+ an-1*an, DP[k+2,n] + ak*ak+1}
DP[i,j] = max{DP[i+2,j] + ai*ai+1, DP[i,j+2] + bi*bi+1, DP[i+1,j+1] + ai*bi}.
And you return DP[1,1].
Explanation:
In each step you have to consider 3 options: take first 2 elements from remaining A, take first 2 element from remaining B, or take both from A and B (Since you can't change the order of A and B, you will have to take the first from A and first from B).
My solution is rather simple. I just explore all the possible stable merges. Following the working C++ program:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
void find_max_sum(int *arr1, int len1, int *arr2, int len2, int sum, int& max_sum){
if(len1 >= 2)
find_max_sum(arr1+2, len1-2, arr2, len2, sum+(arr1[0]*arr1[1]), max_sum);
if(len1 >= 1 && len2 >= 1)
find_max_sum(arr1+1, len1-1, arr2+1, len2-1, sum+(arr1[0]*arr2[0]), max_sum);
if(len2 >= 2)
find_max_sum(arr1, len1, arr2+2, len2-2, sum+(arr2[0]*arr2[1]), max_sum);
if(len1 == 0 && len2 == 0 && sum > max_sum)
max_sum = sum;
}
int main(){
int arr1[3] = {2,1,3};
int arr2[3] = {3,7,9};
int max_sum=0;
find_max_sum(arr1, 3, arr2, 3, 0, max_sum);
cout<<max_sum<<endl;
return 0;
}
Define F(i, j) as the maximal pairwise sum that can be achieved by stable merging Ai...An and Bj...Bn.
At each step in the merge, we can choose one of three options:
Take the first two remaining elements of A.
Take the first remaining element of A and the first remaining element of B.
Take the first two remaining elements of B.
Thus, F(i, j) can be defined recursively as:
F(n, n) = 0
F(i, j) = max
(
AiAi+1 + F(i+2, j), //Option 1
AiBj + F(i+1, j+1), //Option 2
BjBj+1 + F(i, j+2) //Option 3
)
To find the optimal merging of the two lists, we need to find F(0, 0), naively, this would involve computing intermediate values many times, but by caching each F(i, j) as it is found, the complexity is reduced to O(n^2).
Here is some quick and dirty c++ that does this:
#include <iostream>
#define INVALID -1
int max(int p, int q, int r)
{
return p >= q && p >= r ? p : q >= r ? q : r;
}
int F(int i, int j, int * a, int * b, int len, int * cache)
{
if (cache[i * (len + 1) + j] != INVALID)
return cache[i * (len + 1) + j];
int p = 0, q = 0, r = 0;
if (i < len && j < len)
p = a[i] * b[j] + F(i + 1, j + 1, a, b, len, cache);
if (i + 1 < len)
q = a[i] * a[i + 1] + F(i + 2, j, a, b, len, cache);
if (j + 1 < len)
r = b[j] * b[j + 1] + F(i, j + 2, a, b, len, cache);
return cache[i * (len + 1) + j] = max(p, q, r);
}
int main(int argc, char ** argv)
{
int a[] = {2, 1, 3};
int b[] = {3, 7, 9};
int len = 3;
int cache[(len + 1) * (len + 1)];
for (int i = 0; i < (len + 1) * (len + 1); i++)
cache[i] = INVALID;
cache[(len + 1) * (len + 1) - 1] = 0;
std::cout << F(0, 0, a, b, len, cache) << std::endl;
}
If you need the actual merged sequence rather than just the sum, you will also have to cache which of p, q, r was selected and backtrack.
One way to solve it by dynamic programming is to always store:
S[ i ][ j ][ l ] = "Best way to merge A[1,...,i] and B[1,...,j] such that, if l == 0, the last element is A[i], and if l == 1, the last element is B[j]".
Then, the DP would be (pseudo-code, insert any number at A[0] and B[0], and let the actual input be in A[1]...A[n], B[1]...B[n]):
S[0][0][0] = S[0][0][1] = S[1][0][0] = S[0][1][1] = 0; // If there is only 0 or 1 element at the merged vector, the answer is 0
S[1][0][1] = S[0][1][1] = -infinity; // These two cases are impossible
for i = 1...n:
for j = 1...n:
// Note that the cases involving A[0] or B[0] are correctly handled by "-infinity"
// First consider the case when the last element is A[i]
S[i][j][0] = max(S[i-1][j][0] + A[i-1]*A[i], // The second to last is A[i-1].
S[i-1][j][1] + B[j]*A[i]); // The second to last is B[j]
// Similarly consider when the last element is B[j]
S[i][j][1] = max(S[i][j-1][0] + A[i]*B[j], // The second to last is A[i]
S[i][j-1][1] + B[j-1]*B[j]); // The second to last is B[j-1]
// The answer is the best way to merge all elements of A and B, leaving either A[n] or B[n] at the end.
return max(S[n][n][0], S[n][n][1]);
Merge it and sort it. May be merge sort. Sorted array give max value.(Merge is just append the arrays). complexity is nlogn.
Here's a solution in Clojure, if you're interested in something a little more off the beaten path. It's O(n3), as it just generates all n2 stable merges and spends n time summing the products. There's a lot less messing with offsets and arithmetic than the array-based imperative solutions I've seen, which hopefully makes the algorithm stand out more. And it's pretty flexible, too: if you want to, for example, include c2*c3 as well as c1*c2 and c3*c4, you can simply replace (partition 2 coll) with (partition 2 1 coll).
;; return a list of all possible ways to stably merge the two input collections
(defn stable-merges [xs ys]
(lazy-seq
(cond (empty? xs) [ys]
(empty? ys) [xs]
:else (concat (let [[x & xs] xs]
(for [merge (stable-merges xs ys)]
(cons x merge)))
(let [[y & ys] ys]
(for [merge (stable-merges xs ys)]
(cons y merge)))))))
;; split up into chunks of two, multiply, and add the results
(defn sum-of-products [coll]
(apply + (for [[a b] (partition 2 coll)]
(* a b))))
;; try all the merges, find the one with the biggest sum
(defn best-merge [xs ys]
(apply max-key sum-of-products (stable-merges xs ys)))
user> (best-merge [2 1 5] [3 7 9])
(2 1 3 5 7 9)
I think it would be better if you provide few more test cases. But I think the normal merging of two arrays similar to merging done in merge sort will solve the problem.
The pseudocode for merging arrays is given on Wiki.
Basically it is the normal merging algorithm used in Merge Sort. In
Merge sort the, arrays are sorted but here we are applying same merging
algorithm for unsorted arrays.
Step 0: Let i be the index for first array(A) and j be the index for second array(B). i=0 , j=0
Step 1: Compare A[i]=2 & B[j]=3. Since 2<3 it will be the first element of the new merged array(C). i=1, j=0 (Add that number to the new array which is lesser)
Step 2: Again Compare A[i]=1 and B[j]=3. 1<3 therefore insert 1 in C. i++, j=0;
Step 3: Again Compare A[i]=3 and B[j]=3. Any number can go in C(both are same). i++, j=0; (Basically we are increasing the index of that array from which number is inserted)
Step 4: Since the array A is complete just directly insert the elements of Array B in C. Otherwise repeat previous steps.
Array C = { 2, 1, 3, 3, 7,9}
I haven't done much research on it. So if there is any test case which could fail, please provide one.
I want to write a function that takes an array of letters as an argument and a number of those letters to select.
Say you provide an array of 8 letters and want to select 3 letters from that. Then you should get:
8! / ((8 - 3)! * 3!) = 56
Arrays (or words) in return consisting of 3 letters each.
Art of Computer Programming Volume 4: Fascicle 3 has a ton of these that might fit your particular situation better than how I describe.
Gray Codes
An issue that you will come across is of course memory and pretty quickly, you'll have problems by 20 elements in your set -- 20C3 = 1140. And if you want to iterate over the set it's best to use a modified gray code algorithm so you aren't holding all of them in memory. These generate the next combination from the previous and avoid repetitions. There are many of these for different uses. Do we want to maximize the differences between successive combinations? minimize? et cetera.
Some of the original papers describing gray codes:
Some Hamilton Paths and a Minimal Change Algorithm
Adjacent Interchange Combination Generation Algorithm
Here are some other papers covering the topic:
An Efficient Implementation of the Eades, Hickey, Read Adjacent Interchange Combination Generation Algorithm (PDF, with code in Pascal)
Combination Generators
Survey of Combinatorial Gray Codes (PostScript)
An Algorithm for Gray Codes
Chase's Twiddle (algorithm)
Phillip J Chase, `Algorithm 382: Combinations of M out of N Objects' (1970)
The algorithm in C...
Index of Combinations in Lexicographical Order (Buckles Algorithm 515)
You can also reference a combination by its index (in lexicographical order). Realizing that the index should be some amount of change from right to left based on the index we can construct something that should recover a combination.
So, we have a set {1,2,3,4,5,6}... and we want three elements. Let's say {1,2,3} we can say that the difference between the elements is one and in order and minimal. {1,2,4} has one change and is lexicographically number 2. So the number of 'changes' in the last place accounts for one change in the lexicographical ordering. The second place, with one change {1,3,4} has one change but accounts for more change since it's in the second place (proportional to the number of elements in the original set).
The method I've described is a deconstruction, as it seems, from set to the index, we need to do the reverse – which is much trickier. This is how Buckles solves the problem. I wrote some C to compute them, with minor changes – I used the index of the sets rather than a number range to represent the set, so we are always working from 0...n.
Note:
Since combinations are unordered, {1,3,2} = {1,2,3} --we order them to be lexicographical.
This method has an implicit 0 to start the set for the first difference.
Index of Combinations in Lexicographical Order (McCaffrey)
There is another way:, its concept is easier to grasp and program but it's without the optimizations of Buckles. Fortunately, it also does not produce duplicate combinations:
The set that maximizes , where .
For an example: 27 = C(6,4) + C(5,3) + C(2,2) + C(1,1). So, the 27th lexicographical combination of four things is: {1,2,5,6}, those are the indexes of whatever set you want to look at. Example below (OCaml), requires choose function, left to reader:
(* this will find the [x] combination of a [set] list when taking [k] elements *)
let combination_maccaffery set k x =
(* maximize function -- maximize a that is aCb *)
(* return largest c where c < i and choose(c,i) <= z *)
let rec maximize a b x =
if (choose a b ) <= x then a else maximize (a-1) b x
in
let rec iterate n x i = match i with
| 0 -> []
| i ->
let max = maximize n i x in
max :: iterate n (x - (choose max i)) (i-1)
in
if x < 0 then failwith "errors" else
let idxs = iterate (List.length set) x k in
List.map (List.nth set) (List.sort (-) idxs)
A small and simple combinations iterator
The following two algorithms are provided for didactic purposes. They implement an iterator and (a more general) folder overall combinations.
They are as fast as possible, having the complexity O(nCk). The memory consumption is bound by k.
We will start with the iterator, which will call a user provided function for each combination
let iter_combs n k f =
let rec iter v s j =
if j = k then f v
else for i = s to n - 1 do iter (i::v) (i+1) (j+1) done in
iter [] 0 0
A more general version will call the user provided function along with the state variable, starting from the initial state. Since we need to pass the state between different states we won't use the for-loop, but instead, use recursion,
let fold_combs n k f x =
let rec loop i s c x =
if i < n then
loop (i+1) s c ##
let c = i::c and s = s + 1 and i = i + 1 in
if s < k then loop i s c x else f c x
else x in
loop 0 0 [] x
In C#:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Combinations<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, int k)
{
return k == 0 ? new[] { new T[0] } :
elements.SelectMany((e, i) =>
elements.Skip(i + 1).Combinations(k - 1).Select(c => (new[] {e}).Concat(c)));
}
Usage:
var result = Combinations(new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }, 3);
Result:
123
124
125
134
135
145
234
235
245
345
Short java solution:
import java.util.Arrays;
public class Combination {
public static void main(String[] args){
String[] arr = {"A","B","C","D","E","F"};
combinations2(arr, 3, 0, new String[3]);
}
static void combinations2(String[] arr, int len, int startPosition, String[] result){
if (len == 0){
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(result));
return;
}
for (int i = startPosition; i <= arr.length-len; i++){
result[result.length - len] = arr[i];
combinations2(arr, len-1, i+1, result);
}
}
}
Result will be
[A, B, C]
[A, B, D]
[A, B, E]
[A, B, F]
[A, C, D]
[A, C, E]
[A, C, F]
[A, D, E]
[A, D, F]
[A, E, F]
[B, C, D]
[B, C, E]
[B, C, F]
[B, D, E]
[B, D, F]
[B, E, F]
[C, D, E]
[C, D, F]
[C, E, F]
[D, E, F]
May I present my recursive Python solution to this problem?
def choose_iter(elements, length):
for i in xrange(len(elements)):
if length == 1:
yield (elements[i],)
else:
for next in choose_iter(elements[i+1:], length-1):
yield (elements[i],) + next
def choose(l, k):
return list(choose_iter(l, k))
Example usage:
>>> len(list(choose_iter("abcdefgh",3)))
56
I like it for its simplicity.
Lets say your array of letters looks like this: "ABCDEFGH". You have three indices (i, j, k) indicating which letters you are going to use for the current word, You start with:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
First you vary k, so the next step looks like that:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
If you reached the end you go on and vary j and then k again.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
Once you j reached G you start also to vary i.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
...
Written in code this look something like that
void print_combinations(const char *string)
{
int i, j, k;
int len = strlen(string);
for (i = 0; i < len - 2; i++)
{
for (j = i + 1; j < len - 1; j++)
{
for (k = j + 1; k < len; k++)
printf("%c%c%c\n", string[i], string[j], string[k]);
}
}
}
The following recursive algorithm picks all of the k-element combinations from an ordered set:
choose the first element i of your combination
combine i with each of the combinations of k-1 elements chosen recursively from the set of elements larger than i.
Iterate the above for each i in the set.
It is essential that you pick the rest of the elements as larger than i, to avoid repetition. This way [3,5] will be picked only once, as [3] combined with [5], instead of twice (the condition eliminates [5] + [3]). Without this condition you get variations instead of combinations.
Short example in Python:
def comb(sofar, rest, n):
if n == 0:
print sofar
else:
for i in range(len(rest)):
comb(sofar + rest[i], rest[i+1:], n-1)
>>> comb("", "abcde", 3)
abc
abd
abe
acd
ace
ade
bcd
bce
bde
cde
For explanation, the recursive method is described with the following example:
Example: A B C D E
All combinations of 3 would be:
A with all combinations of 2 from the rest (B C D E)
B with all combinations of 2 from the rest (C D E)
C with all combinations of 2 from the rest (D E)
I found this thread useful and thought I would add a Javascript solution that you can pop into Firebug. Depending on your JS engine, it could take a little time if the starting string is large.
function string_recurse(active, rest) {
if (rest.length == 0) {
console.log(active);
} else {
string_recurse(active + rest.charAt(0), rest.substring(1, rest.length));
string_recurse(active, rest.substring(1, rest.length));
}
}
string_recurse("", "abc");
The output should be as follows:
abc
ab
ac
a
bc
b
c
In C++ the following routine will produce all combinations of length distance(first,k) between the range [first,last):
#include <algorithm>
template <typename Iterator>
bool next_combination(const Iterator first, Iterator k, const Iterator last)
{
/* Credits: Mark Nelson http://marknelson.us */
if ((first == last) || (first == k) || (last == k))
return false;
Iterator i1 = first;
Iterator i2 = last;
++i1;
if (last == i1)
return false;
i1 = last;
--i1;
i1 = k;
--i2;
while (first != i1)
{
if (*--i1 < *i2)
{
Iterator j = k;
while (!(*i1 < *j)) ++j;
std::iter_swap(i1,j);
++i1;
++j;
i2 = k;
std::rotate(i1,j,last);
while (last != j)
{
++j;
++i2;
}
std::rotate(k,i2,last);
return true;
}
}
std::rotate(first,k,last);
return false;
}
It can be used like this:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::string s = "12345";
std::size_t comb_size = 3;
do
{
std::cout << std::string(s.begin(), s.begin() + comb_size) << std::endl;
} while (next_combination(s.begin(), s.begin() + comb_size, s.end()));
return 0;
}
This will print the following:
123
124
125
134
135
145
234
235
245
345
static IEnumerable<string> Combinations(List<string> characters, int length)
{
for (int i = 0; i < characters.Count; i++)
{
// only want 1 character, just return this one
if (length == 1)
yield return characters[i];
// want more than one character, return this one plus all combinations one shorter
// only use characters after the current one for the rest of the combinations
else
foreach (string next in Combinations(characters.GetRange(i + 1, characters.Count - (i + 1)), length - 1))
yield return characters[i] + next;
}
}
Simple recursive algorithm in Haskell
import Data.List
combinations 0 lst = [[]]
combinations n lst = do
(x:xs) <- tails lst
rest <- combinations (n-1) xs
return $ x : rest
We first define the special case, i.e. selecting zero elements. It produces a single result, which is an empty list (i.e. a list that contains an empty list).
For n > 0, x goes through every element of the list and xs is every element after x.
rest picks n - 1 elements from xs using a recursive call to combinations. The final result of the function is a list where each element is x : rest (i.e. a list which has x as head and rest as tail) for every different value of x and rest.
> combinations 3 "abcde"
["abc","abd","abe","acd","ace","ade","bcd","bce","bde","cde"]
And of course, since Haskell is lazy, the list is gradually generated as needed, so you can partially evaluate exponentially large combinations.
> let c = combinations 8 "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
> take 10 c
["abcdefgh","abcdefgi","abcdefgj","abcdefgk","abcdefgl","abcdefgm","abcdefgn",
"abcdefgo","abcdefgp","abcdefgq"]
And here comes granddaddy COBOL, the much maligned language.
Let's assume an array of 34 elements of 8 bytes each (purely arbitrary selection.) The idea is to enumerate all possible 4-element combinations and load them into an array.
We use 4 indices, one each for each position in the group of 4
The array is processed like this:
idx1 = 1
idx2 = 2
idx3 = 3
idx4 = 4
We vary idx4 from 4 to the end. For each idx4 we get a unique combination
of groups of four. When idx4 comes to the end of the array, we increment idx3 by 1 and set idx4 to idx3+1. Then we run idx4 to the end again. We proceed in this manner, augmenting idx3,idx2, and idx1 respectively until the position of idx1 is less than 4 from the end of the array. That finishes the algorithm.
1 --- pos.1
2 --- pos 2
3 --- pos 3
4 --- pos 4
5
6
7
etc.
First iterations:
1234
1235
1236
1237
1245
1246
1247
1256
1257
1267
etc.
A COBOL example:
01 DATA_ARAY.
05 FILLER PIC X(8) VALUE "VALUE_01".
05 FILLER PIC X(8) VALUE "VALUE_02".
etc.
01 ARAY_DATA OCCURS 34.
05 ARAY_ITEM PIC X(8).
01 OUTPUT_ARAY OCCURS 50000 PIC X(32).
01 MAX_NUM PIC 99 COMP VALUE 34.
01 INDEXXES COMP.
05 IDX1 PIC 99.
05 IDX2 PIC 99.
05 IDX3 PIC 99.
05 IDX4 PIC 99.
05 OUT_IDX PIC 9(9).
01 WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH PIC 99 COMP.
* Stop the search when IDX1 is on the third last array element:
COMPUTE WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH = MAX_VALUE - 3
MOVE 1 TO IDX1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX1 > WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH
COMPUTE IDX2 = IDX1 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX2 > MAX_NUM
COMPUTE IDX3 = IDX2 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX3 > MAX_NUM
COMPUTE IDX4 = IDX3 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX4 > MAX_NUM
ADD 1 TO OUT_IDX
STRING ARAY_ITEM(IDX1)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX2)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX3)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX4)
INTO OUTPUT_ARAY(OUT_IDX)
ADD 1 TO IDX4
END-PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX3
END-PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX2
END_PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX1
END-PERFORM.
Another C# version with lazy generation of the combination indices. This version maintains a single array of indices to define a mapping between the list of all values and the values for the current combination, i.e. constantly uses O(k) additional space during the entire runtime. The code generates individual combinations, including the first one, in O(k) time.
public static IEnumerable<T[]> Combinations<T>(this T[] values, int k)
{
if (k < 0 || values.Length < k)
yield break; // invalid parameters, no combinations possible
// generate the initial combination indices
var combIndices = new int[k];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
combIndices[i] = i;
}
while (true)
{
// return next combination
var combination = new T[k];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
combination[i] = values[combIndices[i]];
}
yield return combination;
// find first index to update
var indexToUpdate = k - 1;
while (indexToUpdate >= 0 && combIndices[indexToUpdate] >= values.Length - k + indexToUpdate)
{
indexToUpdate--;
}
if (indexToUpdate < 0)
yield break; // done
// update combination indices
for (var combIndex = combIndices[indexToUpdate] + 1; indexToUpdate < k; indexToUpdate++, combIndex++)
{
combIndices[indexToUpdate] = combIndex;
}
}
}
Test code:
foreach (var combination in new[] {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'}.Combinations(3))
{
System.Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", combination));
}
Output:
a b c
a b d
a b e
a c d
a c e
a d e
b c d
b c e
b d e
c d e
Here is an elegant, generic implementation in Scala, as described on 99 Scala Problems.
object P26 {
def flatMapSublists[A,B](ls: List[A])(f: (List[A]) => List[B]): List[B] =
ls match {
case Nil => Nil
case sublist#(_ :: tail) => f(sublist) ::: flatMapSublists(tail)(f)
}
def combinations[A](n: Int, ls: List[A]): List[List[A]] =
if (n == 0) List(Nil)
else flatMapSublists(ls) { sl =>
combinations(n - 1, sl.tail) map {sl.head :: _}
}
}
If you can use SQL syntax - say, if you're using LINQ to access fields of an structure or array, or directly accessing a database that has a table called "Alphabet" with just one char field "Letter", you can adapt following code:
SELECT A.Letter, B.Letter, C.Letter
FROM Alphabet AS A, Alphabet AS B, Alphabet AS C
WHERE A.Letter<>B.Letter AND A.Letter<>C.Letter AND B.Letter<>C.Letter
AND A.Letter<B.Letter AND B.Letter<C.Letter
This will return all combinations of 3 letters, notwithstanding how many letters you have in table "Alphabet" (it can be 3, 8, 10, 27, etc.).
If what you want is all permutations, rather than combinations (i.e. you want "ACB" and "ABC" to count as different, rather than appear just once) just delete the last line (the AND one) and it's done.
Post-Edit: After re-reading the question, I realise what's needed is the general algorithm, not just a specific one for the case of selecting 3 items. Adam Hughes' answer is the complete one, unfortunately I cannot vote it up (yet). This answer's simple but works only for when you want exactly 3 items.
I had a permutation algorithm I used for project euler, in python:
def missing(miss,src):
"Returns the list of items in src not present in miss"
return [i for i in src if i not in miss]
def permutation_gen(n,l):
"Generates all the permutations of n items of the l list"
for i in l:
if n<=1: yield [i]
r = [i]
for j in permutation_gen(n-1,missing([i],l)): yield r+j
If
n<len(l)
you should have all combination you need without repetition, do you need it?
It is a generator, so you use it in something like this:
for comb in permutation_gen(3,list("ABCDEFGH")):
print comb
https://gist.github.com/3118596
There is an implementation for JavaScript. It has functions to get k-combinations and all combinations of an array of any objects. Examples:
k_combinations([1,2,3], 2)
-> [[1,2], [1,3], [2,3]]
combinations([1,2,3])
-> [[1],[2],[3],[1,2],[1,3],[2,3],[1,2,3]]
Lets say your array of letters looks like this: "ABCDEFGH". You have three indices (i, j, k) indicating which letters you are going to use for the current word, You start with:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
First you vary k, so the next step looks like that:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
If you reached the end you go on and vary j and then k again.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
Once you j reached G you start also to vary i.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
...
function initializePointers($cnt) {
$pointers = [];
for($i=0; $i<$cnt; $i++) {
$pointers[] = $i;
}
return $pointers;
}
function incrementPointers(&$pointers, &$arrLength) {
for($i=0; $i<count($pointers); $i++) {
$currentPointerIndex = count($pointers) - $i - 1;
$currentPointer = $pointers[$currentPointerIndex];
if($currentPointer < $arrLength - $i - 1) {
++$pointers[$currentPointerIndex];
for($j=1; ($currentPointerIndex+$j)<count($pointers); $j++) {
$pointers[$currentPointerIndex+$j] = $pointers[$currentPointerIndex]+$j;
}
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function getDataByPointers(&$arr, &$pointers) {
$data = [];
for($i=0; $i<count($pointers); $i++) {
$data[] = $arr[$pointers[$i]];
}
return $data;
}
function getCombinations($arr, $cnt)
{
$len = count($arr);
$result = [];
$pointers = initializePointers($cnt);
do {
$result[] = getDataByPointers($arr, $pointers);
} while(incrementPointers($pointers, count($arr)));
return $result;
}
$result = getCombinations([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 3);
print_r($result);
Based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/127898/2628125, but more abstract, for any size of pointers.
Here you have a lazy evaluated version of that algorithm coded in C#:
static bool nextCombination(int[] num, int n, int k)
{
bool finished, changed;
changed = finished = false;
if (k > 0)
{
for (int i = k - 1; !finished && !changed; i--)
{
if (num[i] < (n - 1) - (k - 1) + i)
{
num[i]++;
if (i < k - 1)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < k; j++)
{
num[j] = num[j - 1] + 1;
}
}
changed = true;
}
finished = (i == 0);
}
}
return changed;
}
static IEnumerable Combinations<T>(IEnumerable<T> elements, int k)
{
T[] elem = elements.ToArray();
int size = elem.Length;
if (k <= size)
{
int[] numbers = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
numbers[i] = i;
}
do
{
yield return numbers.Select(n => elem[n]);
}
while (nextCombination(numbers, size, k));
}
}
And test part:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int k = 3;
var t = new[] { "dog", "cat", "mouse", "zebra"};
foreach (IEnumerable<string> i in Combinations(t, k))
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(",", i));
}
}
Hope this help you!
Another version, that forces all the first k to appear firstly, then all the first k+1 combinations, then all the first k+2 etc.. It means that if you have sorted array, the most important on the top, it would take them and expand gradually to the next ones - only when it is must do so.
private static bool NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(int[] num, int n, int k)
{
if (k > 1 && NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(num, num[k - 1], k - 1))
return true;
if (num[k - 1] + 1 == n)
return false;
++num[k - 1];
for (int i = 0; i < k - 1; ++i)
num[i] = i;
return true;
}
For instance, if you run the first method ("nextCombination") on k=3, n=5 you'll get:
0 1 2
0 1 3
0 1 4
0 2 3
0 2 4
0 3 4
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 3 4
2 3 4
But if you'll run
int[] nums = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; ++i)
nums[i] = i;
do
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", nums));
}
while (NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(nums, n, k));
You'll get this (I added empty lines for clarity):
0 1 2
0 1 3
0 2 3
1 2 3
0 1 4
0 2 4
1 2 4
0 3 4
1 3 4
2 3 4
It's adding "4" only when must to, and also after "4" was added it adds "3" again only when it must to (after doing 01, 02, 12).
Array.prototype.combs = function(num) {
var str = this,
length = str.length,
of = Math.pow(2, length) - 1,
out, combinations = [];
while(of) {
out = [];
for(var i = 0, y; i < length; i++) {
y = (1 << i);
if(y & of && (y !== of))
out.push(str[i]);
}
if (out.length >= num) {
combinations.push(out);
}
of--;
}
return combinations;
}
Clojure version:
(defn comb [k l]
(if (= 1 k) (map vector l)
(apply concat
(map-indexed
#(map (fn [x] (conj x %2))
(comb (dec k) (drop (inc %1) l)))
l))))
Algorithm:
Count from 1 to 2^n.
Convert each digit to its binary representation.
Translate each 'on' bit to elements of your set, based on position.
In C#:
void Main()
{
var set = new [] {"A", "B", "C", "D" }; //, "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J" };
var kElement = 2;
for(var i = 1; i < Math.Pow(2, set.Length); i++) {
var result = Convert.ToString(i, 2).PadLeft(set.Length, '0');
var cnt = Regex.Matches(Regex.Escape(result), "1").Count;
if (cnt == kElement) {
for(int j = 0; j < set.Length; j++)
if ( Char.GetNumericValue(result[j]) == 1)
Console.Write(set[j]);
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
Why does it work?
There is a bijection between the subsets of an n-element set and n-bit sequences.
That means we can figure out how many subsets there are by counting sequences.
e.g., the four element set below can be represented by {0,1} X {0, 1} X {0, 1} X {0, 1} (or 2^4) different sequences.
So - all we have to do is count from 1 to 2^n to find all the combinations. (We ignore the empty set.) Next, translate the digits to their binary representation. Then substitute elements of your set for 'on' bits.
If you want only k element results, only print when k bits are 'on'.
(If you want all subsets instead of k length subsets, remove the cnt/kElement part.)
(For proof, see MIT free courseware Mathematics for Computer Science, Lehman et al, section 11.2.2. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/readings/ )
short python code, yielding index positions
def yield_combos(n,k):
# n is set size, k is combo size
i = 0
a = [0]*k
while i > -1:
for j in range(i+1, k):
a[j] = a[j-1]+1
i=j
yield a
while a[i] == i + n - k:
i -= 1
a[i] += 1
All said and and done here comes the O'caml code for that.
Algorithm is evident from the code..
let combi n lst =
let rec comb l c =
if( List.length c = n) then [c] else
match l with
[] -> []
| (h::t) -> (combi t (h::c))#(combi t c)
in
combi lst []
;;
Here is a method which gives you all combinations of specified size from a random length string. Similar to quinmars' solution, but works for varied input and k.
The code can be changed to wrap around, ie 'dab' from input 'abcd' w k=3.
public void run(String data, int howMany){
choose(data, howMany, new StringBuffer(), 0);
}
//n choose k
private void choose(String data, int k, StringBuffer result, int startIndex){
if (result.length()==k){
System.out.println(result.toString());
return;
}
for (int i=startIndex; i<data.length(); i++){
result.append(data.charAt(i));
choose(data,k,result, i+1);
result.setLength(result.length()-1);
}
}
Output for "abcde":
abc abd abe acd ace ade bcd bce bde cde
Short javascript version (ES 5)
let combine = (list, n) =>
n == 0 ?
[[]] :
list.flatMap((e, i) =>
combine(
list.slice(i + 1),
n - 1
).map(c => [e].concat(c))
);
let res = combine([1,2,3,4], 3);
res.forEach(e => console.log(e.join()));
Another python recusive solution.
def combination_indicies(n, k, j = 0, stack = []):
if len(stack) == k:
yield list(stack)
return
for i in range(j, n):
stack.append(i)
for x in combination_indicies(n, k, i + 1, stack):
yield x
stack.pop()
list(combination_indicies(5, 3))
Output:
[[0, 1, 2],
[0, 1, 3],
[0, 1, 4],
[0, 2, 3],
[0, 2, 4],
[0, 3, 4],
[1, 2, 3],
[1, 2, 4],
[1, 3, 4],
[2, 3, 4]]
I created a solution in SQL Server 2005 for this, and posted it on my website: http://www.jessemclain.com/downloads/code/sql/fn_GetMChooseNCombos.sql.htm
Here is an example to show usage:
SELECT * FROM dbo.fn_GetMChooseNCombos('ABCD', 2, '')
results:
Word
----
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD
(6 row(s) affected)
Here is my proposition in C++
I tried to impose as little restriction on the iterator type as i could so this solution assumes just forward iterator, and it can be a const_iterator. This should work with any standard container. In cases where arguments don't make sense it throws std::invalid_argumnent
#include <vector>
#include <stdexcept>
template <typename Fci> // Fci - forward const iterator
std::vector<std::vector<Fci> >
enumerate_combinations(Fci begin, Fci end, unsigned int combination_size)
{
if(begin == end && combination_size > 0u)
throw std::invalid_argument("empty set and positive combination size!");
std::vector<std::vector<Fci> > result; // empty set of combinations
if(combination_size == 0u) return result; // there is exactly one combination of
// size 0 - emty set
std::vector<Fci> current_combination;
current_combination.reserve(combination_size + 1u); // I reserve one aditional slot
// in my vector to store
// the end sentinel there.
// The code is cleaner thanks to that
for(unsigned int i = 0u; i < combination_size && begin != end; ++i, ++begin)
{
current_combination.push_back(begin); // Construction of the first combination
}
// Since I assume the itarators support only incrementing, I have to iterate over
// the set to get its size, which is expensive. Here I had to itrate anyway to
// produce the first cobination, so I use the loop to also check the size.
if(current_combination.size() < combination_size)
throw std::invalid_argument("combination size > set size!");
result.push_back(current_combination); // Store the first combination in the results set
current_combination.push_back(end); // Here I add mentioned earlier sentinel to
// simplyfy rest of the code. If I did it
// earlier, previous statement would get ugly.
while(true)
{
unsigned int i = combination_size;
Fci tmp; // Thanks to the sentinel I can find first
do // iterator to change, simply by scaning
{ // from right to left and looking for the
tmp = current_combination[--i]; // first "bubble". The fact, that it's
++tmp; // a forward iterator makes it ugly but I
} // can't help it.
while(i > 0u && tmp == current_combination[i + 1u]);
// Here is probably my most obfuscated expression.
// Loop above looks for a "bubble". If there is no "bubble", that means, that
// current_combination is the last combination, Expression in the if statement
// below evaluates to true and the function exits returning result.
// If the "bubble" is found however, the ststement below has a sideeffect of
// incrementing the first iterator to the left of the "bubble".
if(++current_combination[i] == current_combination[i + 1u])
return result;
// Rest of the code sets posiotons of the rest of the iterstors
// (if there are any), that are to the right of the incremented one,
// to form next combination
while(++i < combination_size)
{
current_combination[i] = current_combination[i - 1u];
++current_combination[i];
}
// Below is the ugly side of using the sentinel. Well it had to haave some
// disadvantage. Try without it.
result.push_back(std::vector<Fci>(current_combination.begin(),
current_combination.end() - 1));
}
}
Here is a code I recently wrote in Java, which calculates and returns all the combination of "num" elements from "outOf" elements.
// author: Sourabh Bhat (heySourabh#gmail.com)
public class Testing
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// Test case num = 5, outOf = 8.
int num = 5;
int outOf = 8;
int[][] combinations = getCombinations(num, outOf);
for (int i = 0; i < combinations.length; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < combinations[i].length; j++)
{
System.out.print(combinations[i][j] + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
private static int[][] getCombinations(int num, int outOf)
{
int possibilities = get_nCr(outOf, num);
int[][] combinations = new int[possibilities][num];
int arrayPointer = 0;
int[] counter = new int[num];
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
counter[i] = i;
}
breakLoop: while (true)
{
// Initializing part
for (int i = 1; i < num; i++)
{
if (counter[i] >= outOf - (num - 1 - i))
counter[i] = counter[i - 1] + 1;
}
// Testing part
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
if (counter[i] < outOf)
{
continue;
} else
{
break breakLoop;
}
}
// Innermost part
combinations[arrayPointer] = counter.clone();
arrayPointer++;
// Incrementing part
counter[num - 1]++;
for (int i = num - 1; i >= 1; i--)
{
if (counter[i] >= outOf - (num - 1 - i))
counter[i - 1]++;
}
}
return combinations;
}
private static int get_nCr(int n, int r)
{
if(r > n)
{
throw new ArithmeticException("r is greater then n");
}
long numerator = 1;
long denominator = 1;
for (int i = n; i >= r + 1; i--)
{
numerator *= i;
}
for (int i = 2; i <= n - r; i++)
{
denominator *= i;
}
return (int) (numerator / denominator);
}
}