Related
Recently in my Interview i was asked an algorithmic question:
Given heights of n rows of grass H[n]. A farmer does the following operation k times->
Selects start index (s), end index (e) and a height (h). Fixes his grass trimming instrument at height h and trims the grass from row-s to row-e. Meaning, for each H[i] for i between s and e, H[i]=min(H[i],h).
Print all heights after k operations.
Attention -> If H[i] was 6 and h was 4, then after trimming H[i] becomes 4 (does not reduce by 4)
Use of segment/Fenwick tree was prohibited and the interview wanted something better than O(nk). How to solve this?
The question can also be found at
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/directi-interview-set-12-on-campus/
(Round 4 question)
The idea is to remove redundant operations to then just pass through the array once doing min(H[i],h), leaving all the heights set, this will be O(n). Removing the redundant operations requires you to sort them and some fors, so the complexity will be O(n + klog(k) + k) = O(n + klog(k)).
To remove the redundant operations you will first sort them based on the initial position only.
Then:
for(int x=0;x<oper.length;x++){
int curr = x+1;
while(oper[curr].start<oper[x].end){
if(oper[curr].height > oper[x].height)
oper[curr].start = oper[x].end;// When you for through the operations you will go from the start to the end of it, if the start is after the end you will not trim
else { // oper[curr].height<=oper[x].height
if(oper[x].end<oper[curr].end){
oper[x].end = oper[curr].start;
}
else {
/**
* Make another operation that starts at the end of oper[curr]
* and ends at the end of oper[x], and insert it accordingly
* in oper. Then make oper[x] end at oper[curr].start
* */
}
}
curr++;
}
}
// Now no operation overlaps with one another.
// When operations where overlapping only the minimum was saved
// Now trim
for(int x = 0;x<oper.length;x++){
for(int s = oper[x].start;s<oper[x].end;s++){
h[s] = min(oper[x].height,h[s]);
}
}
Combine this with Dominique's approach to saving the heights and you have a very fast algorithm.
I would like to take random samples from very large lists while maintaining the order. I wrote the script below, but it requires .map(idx => ls(idx)) which is very wasteful. I can see a way of making this more efficient with a helper function and tail recursion, but I feel that there must be a simpler solution that I'm missing.
Is there a clean and more efficient way of doing this?
import scala.util.Random
def sampledList[T](ls: List[T], sampleSize: Int) = {
Random
.shuffle(ls.indices.toList)
.take(sampleSize)
.sorted
.map(idx => ls(idx))
}
val sampleList = List("t","h","e"," ","q","u","i","c","k"," ","b","r","o","w","n")
// imagine the list is much longer though
sampledList(sampleList, 5) // List(e, u, i, r, n)
EDIT:
It appears I was unclear: I am referring to maintaining the order of the values, not the original List collection.
If by
maintaining the order of the values
you understand to keeping the elements in the sample in the same order as in the ls list, then with a small modification to your original solution the performances can be greatly improved:
import scala.util.Random
def sampledList[T](ls: List[T], sampleSize: Int) = {
Random.shuffle(ls.zipWithIndex).take(sampleSize).sortBy(_._2).map(_._1)
}
This solution has a complexity of O(n + k*log(k)), where n is the list's size, and k is the sample size, while your solution is O(n + k * log(k) + n*k).
Here is an (more complex) alternative that has O(n) complexity. You can't get any better in terms of complexity (though you could get better performance by using another collection, in particular a collection that has a constant time size implementation). I did a quick benchmark which indicated that the speedup is very substantial.
import scala.util.Random
import scala.annotation.tailrec
def sampledList[T](ls: List[T], sampleSize: Int) = {
#tailrec
def rec(list: List[T], listSize: Int, sample: List[T], sampleSize: Int): List[T] = {
require(listSize >= sampleSize,
s"listSize must be >= sampleSize, but got listSize=$listSize and sampleSize=$sampleSize"
)
list match {
case hd :: tl =>
if (Random.nextInt(listSize) < sampleSize)
rec(tl, listSize-1, hd :: sample, sampleSize-1)
else rec(tl, listSize-1, sample, sampleSize)
case Nil =>
require(sampleSize == 0, // Should never happen
s"sampleSize must be zero at the end of processing, but got $sampleSize"
)
sample
}
}
rec(ls, ls.size, Nil, sampleSize).reverse
}
The above implementation simply iterates over the list and keeps (or not) the current element according to a probability which is designed to give the same chance to each element. My logic may have a flow, but at first blush it seems sound to me.
Here's another O(n) implementation that should have a uniform probability for each element:
implicit class SampleSeqOps[T](s: Seq[T]) {
def sample(n: Int, r: Random = Random): Seq[T] = {
assert(n >= 0 && n <= s.length)
val res = ListBuffer[T]()
val length = s.length
var samplesNeeded = n
for { (e, i) <- s.zipWithIndex } {
val p = samplesNeeded.toDouble / (length - i)
if (p >= r.nextDouble()) {
res += e
samplesNeeded -= 1
}
}
res.toSeq
}
}
I'm using it frequently with collections > 100'000 elements and the performance seems reasonable.
It's probably the same idea as in Régis Jean-Gilles's answer but I think the imperative solution is slightly more readable in this case.
Perhaps I don't quite understand, but since Lists are immutable you don't really need to worry about 'maintaining the order' since the original List is never touched. Wouldn't the following suffice?
def sampledList[T](ls: List[T], sampleSize: Int) =
Random.shuffle(ls).take(sampleSize)
While my previous answer has linear complexity, it does have the drawback of requiring two passes, the first one corresponding to the need to compute the length before doing anything else. Besides affecting the running time, we might want to sample a very large collection for which it is not practical nor efficient to load the whole collection in memory at once, in which case we'd like to be able to work with a simple iterator.
As it happens, we don't need to invent anything to fix this. There is simple and clever algorithm called reservoir sampling which does exactly this (building a sample as we iterate over a collection, all in one pass). With a minor modification we can also preserve the order, as required:
import scala.util.Random
def sampledList[T](ls: TraversableOnce[T], sampleSize: Int, preserveOrder: Boolean = false, rng: Random = new Random): Iterable[T] = {
val result = collection.mutable.Buffer.empty[(T, Int)]
for ((item, n) <- ls.toIterator.zipWithIndex) {
if (n < sampleSize) result += (item -> n)
else {
val s = rng.nextInt(n)
if (s < sampleSize) {
result(s) = (item -> n)
}
}
}
if (preserveOrder) {
result.sortBy(_._2).map(_._1)
}
else result.map(_._1)
}
Consider the following algorithm.
function Rand():
return a uniformly random real between 0.0 and 1.0
function Sieve(n):
assert(n >= 2)
for i = 2 to n
X[i] = true
for i = 2 to n
if (X[i])
for j = i+1 to n
if (Rand() < 1/i)
X[j] = false
return X[n]
What is the probability that Sieve(k) returns true as a function of k ?
Let's define a series of random variables recursively:
Let Xk,r denote the indicator variable, taking value 1 iff X[k] == true by the end of the iteration in which the variable i took value r.
In order to have fewer symbols and since it makes more intuitive sense with the code, we'll just write Xk,i which is valid although would have been confusing in the definition since i taking value i is confusing when the first refers to the variable in the loop and the latter to the value of the variable.
Now we note that:
P(Xk,i ~ 0) = P(Xk,i-1 ~ 0) + P(Xk,i-1 ~ 1) * P(Xk-1,i-1 ~ 1) * 1/i
(~ is used in place of = just to make it understandable, since = would otherwise take two separate meanings and looks confusing).
This equality holds by virtue of the fact that either X[k] was false at the end of the i iteration either because it was false at the end of the i-1, or it was true at that point, but in that last iteration X[k-1] was true and so we entered the loop and changed X[k] with probability of 1/i. The events are mutually exclusive, so there is no intersection.
The base of the recursion is simply the fact that P(Xk,1 ~ 1) = 1 and P(X2,i ~ 1) = 1.
Lastly, we note simply that P(X[k] == true) = P(Xk,k-1 ~ 1).
This can be programmed rather easily. Here's a javascript implementation that employs memoisation (you can benchmark if using nested indices is better than string concatenation for the dictionary index, you could also redesign the calculation to maintain the same runtime complexity but not run out of stack size by building bottom-up and not top-down). Naturally the implementation will have a runtime complexity of O(k^2) so it's not practical for arbitrarily large numbers:
function P(k) {
if (k<2 || k!==Math.round(k)) return -1;
var _ = {};
function _P(n,i) {
if(n===2) return 1;
if(i===1) return 1;
var $ = n+'_'+i;
if($ in _) return _[$];
return _[$] = 1-(1-_P(n,i-1) + _P(n,i-1)*_P(n-1,i-1)*1/i);
}
return _P(k,k-1);
}
P(1000); // 0.12274162882390949
More interesting would be how the 1/i probability changes things. I.e. whether or not the probability converges to 0 or to some other value, and if so, how changing the 1/i affects that.
Of course if you ask on mathSE you might get a better answer - this answer is pretty simplistic, I'm sure there is a way to manipulate it to acquire a direct formula.
Not a homework question, but a possible interview question...
Given an array of integers, write an algorithm that will check if the sum of any two is zero.
What is the Big O of this solution?
Looking for non brute force methods
Use a lookup table: Scan through the array, inserting all positive values into the table. If you encounter a negative value of the same magnitude (which you can easily lookup in the table); the sum of them will be zero. The lookup table can be a hashtable to conserve memory.
This solution should be O(N).
Pseudo code:
var table = new HashSet<int>();
var array = // your int array
foreach(int n in array)
{
if ( !table.Contains(n) )
table.Add(n);
if ( table.Contains(n*-1) )
// You found it.;
}
The hashtable solution others have mentioned is usually O(n), but it can also degenerate to O(n^2) in theory.
Here's a Theta(n log n) solution that never degenerates:
Sort the array (optimal quicksort, heap sort, merge sort are all Theta(n log n))
for i = 1, array.len - 1
binary search for -array[i] in i+1, array.len
If your binary search ever returns true, then you can stop the algorithm and you have a solution.
An O(n log n) solution (i.e., the sort) would be to sort all the data values then run a pointer from lowest to highest at the same time you run a pointer from highest to lowest:
def findmatch(array n):
lo = first_index_of(n)
hi = last_index_of(n)
while true:
if lo >= hi: # Catch where pointers have met.
return false
if n[lo] = -n[hi]: # Catch the match.
return true
if sign(n[lo]) = sign(n[hi]): # Catch where pointers are now same sign.
return false
if -n[lo] > n[hi]: # Move relevant pointer.
lo = lo + 1
else:
hi = hi - 1
An O(n) time complexity solution is to maintain an array of all values met:
def findmatch(array n):
maxval = maximum_value_in(n) # This is O(n).
array b = new array(0..maxval) # This is O(1).
zero_all(b) # This is O(n).
for i in index(n): # This is O(n).
if n[i] = 0:
if b[0] = 1:
return true
b[0] = 1
nextfor
if n[i] < 0:
if -n[i] <= maxval:
if b[-n[i]] = 1:
return true;
b[-n[i]] = -1
nextfor
if b[n[i]] = -1:
return true;
b[n[i]] = 1
This works by simply maintaining a sign for a given magnitude, every possible magnitude between 0 and the maximum value.
So, if at any point we find -12, we set b[12] to -1. Then later, if we find 12, we know we have a pair. Same for finding the positive first except we set the sign to 1. If we find two -12's in a row, that still sets b[12] to -1, waiting for a 12 to offset it.
The only special cases in this code are:
0 is treated specially since we need to detect it despite its somewhat strange properties in this algorithm (I treat it specially so as to not complicate the positive and negative cases).
low negative values whose magnitude is higher than the highest positive value can be safely ignored since no match is possible.
As with most tricky "minimise-time-complexity" algorithms, this one has a trade-off in that it may have a higher space complexity (such as when there's only one element in the array that happens to be positive two billion).
In that case, you would probably revert to the sorting O(n log n) solution but, if you know the limits up front (say if you're restricting the integers to the range [-100,100]), this can be a powerful optimisation.
In retrospect, perhaps a cleaner-looking solution may have been:
def findmatch(array num):
# Array empty means no match possible.
if num.size = 0:
return false
# Find biggest value, no match possible if empty.
max_positive = num[0]
for i = 1 to num.size - 1:
if num[i] > max_positive:
max_positive = num[i]
if max_positive < 0:
return false
# Create and init array of positives.
array found = new array[max_positive+1]
for i = 1 to found.size - 1:
found[i] = false
zero_found = false
# Check every value.
for i = 0 to num.size - 1:
# More than one zero means match is found.
if num[i] = 0:
if zero_found:
return true
zero_found = true
# Otherwise store fact that you found positive.
if num[i] > 0:
found[num[i]] = true
# Check every value again.
for i = 0 to num.size - 1:
# If negative and within positive range and positive was found, it's a match.
if num[i] < 0 and -num[i] <= max_positive:
if found[-num[i]]:
return true
# No matches found, return false.
return false
This makes one full pass and a partial pass (or full on no match) whereas the original made the partial pass only but I think it's easier to read and only needs one bit per number (positive found or not found) rather than two (none, positive or negative found). In any case, it's still very much O(n) time complexity.
I think IVlad's answer is probably what you're after, but here's a slightly more off the wall approach.
If the integers are likely to be small and memory is not a constraint, then you can use a BitArray collection. This is a .NET class in System.Collections, though Microsoft's C++ has a bitset equivalent.
The BitArray class allocates a lump of memory, and fills it with zeroes. You can then 'get' and 'set' bits at a designated index, so you could call myBitArray.Set(18, true), which would set the bit at index 18 in the memory block (which then reads something like 00000000, 00000000, 00100000). The operation to set a bit is an O(1) operation.
So, assuming a 32 bit integer scope, and 1Gb of spare memory, you could do the following approach:
BitArray myPositives = new BitArray(int.MaxValue);
BitArray myNegatives = new BitArray(int.MaxValue);
bool pairIsFound = false;
for each (int testValue in arrayOfIntegers)
{
if (testValue < 0)
{
// -ve number - have we seen the +ve yet?
if (myPositives.get(-testValue))
{
pairIsFound = true;
break;
}
// Not seen the +ve, so log that we've seen the -ve.
myNegatives.set(-testValue, true);
}
else
{
// +ve number (inc. zero). Have we seen the -ve yet?
if (myNegatives.get(testValue))
{
pairIsFound = true;
break;
}
// Not seen the -ve, so log that we've seen the +ve.
myPositives.set(testValue, true);
if (testValue == 0)
{
myNegatives.set(0, true);
}
}
}
// query setting of pairIsFound to see if a pair totals to zero.
Now I'm no statistician, but I think this is an O(n) algorithm. There is no sorting required, and the longest duration scenario is when no pairs exist and the whole integer array is iterated through.
Well - it's different, but I think it's the fastest solution posted so far.
Comments?
Maybe stick each number in a hash table, and if you see a negative one check for a collision? O(n). Are you sure the question isn't to find if ANY sum of elements in the array is equal to 0?
Given a sorted array you can find number pairs (-n and +n) by using two pointers:
the first pointer moves forward (over the negative numbers),
the second pointer moves backwards (over the positive numbers),
depending on the values the pointers point at you move one of the pointers (the one where the absolute value is larger)
you stop as soon as the pointers meet or one passed 0
same values (one negative, one possitive or both null) are a match.
Now, this is O(n), but sorting (if neccessary) is O(n*log(n)).
EDIT: example code (C#)
// sorted array
var numbers = new[]
{
-5, -3, -1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 , 12
};
var npointer = 0; // pointer to negative numbers
var ppointer = numbers.Length - 1; // pointer to positive numbers
while( npointer < ppointer )
{
var nnumber = numbers[npointer];
var pnumber = numbers[ppointer];
// each pointer scans only its number range (neg or pos)
if( nnumber > 0 || pnumber < 0 )
{
break;
}
// Do we have a match?
if( nnumber + pnumber == 0 )
{
Debug.WriteLine( nnumber + " + " + pnumber );
}
// Adjust one pointer
if( -nnumber > pnumber )
{
npointer++;
}
else
{
ppointer--;
}
}
Interesting: we have 0, 0, 0 in the array. The algorithm will output two pairs. But in fact there are three pairs ... we need more specification what exactly should be output.
Here's a nice mathematical way to do it: Keep in mind all prime numbers (i.e. construct an array prime[0 .. max(array)], where n is the length of the input array, so that prime[i] stands for the i-th prime.
counter = 1
for i in inputarray:
if (i >= 0):
counter = counter * prime[i]
for i in inputarray:
if (i <= 0):
if (counter % prime[-i] == 0):
return "found"
return "not found"
However, the problem when it comes to implementation is that storing/multiplying prime numbers is in a traditional model just O(1), but if the array (i.e. n) is large enough, this model is inapropriate.
However, it is a theoretic algorithm that does the job.
Here's a slight variation on IVlad's solution which I think is conceptually simpler, and also n log n but with fewer comparisons. The general idea is to start on both ends of the sorted array, and march the indices towards each other. At each step, only move the index whose array value is further from 0 -- in only Theta(n) comparisons, you'll know the answer.
sort the array (n log n)
loop, starting with i=0, j=n-1
if a[i] == -a[j], then stop:
if a[i] != 0 or i != j, report success, else failure
if i >= j, then stop: report failure
if abs(a[i]) > abs(a[j]) then i++ else j--
(Yeah, probably a bunch of corner cases in here I didn't think about. You can thank that pint of homebrew for that.)
e.g.,
[ -4, -3, -1, 0, 1, 2 ] notes:
^i ^j a[i]!=a[j], i<j, abs(a[i])>abs(a[j])
^i ^j a[i]!=a[j], i<j, abs(a[i])>abs(a[j])
^i ^j a[i]!=a[j], i<j, abs(a[i])<abs(a[j])
^i ^j a[i]==a[j] -> done
The sum of two integers can only be zero if one is the negative of the other, like 7 and -7, or 2 and -2.
I'm checking if two strings a and b are permutations of each other, and I'm wondering what the ideal way to do this is in Python. From the Zen of Python, "There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it," but I see there are at least two ways:
sorted(a) == sorted(b)
and
all(a.count(char) == b.count(char) for char in a)
but the first one is slower when (for example) the first char of a is nowhere in b, and the second is slower when they are actually permutations.
Is there any better (either in the sense of more Pythonic, or in the sense of faster on average) way to do it? Or should I just choose from these two depending on which situation I expect to be most common?
Here is a way which is O(n), asymptotically better than the two ways you suggest.
import collections
def same_permutation(a, b):
d = collections.defaultdict(int)
for x in a:
d[x] += 1
for x in b:
d[x] -= 1
return not any(d.itervalues())
## same_permutation([1,2,3],[2,3,1])
#. True
## same_permutation([1,2,3],[2,3,1,1])
#. False
"but the first one is slower when (for example) the first char of a is nowhere in b".
This kind of degenerate-case performance analysis is not a good idea. It's a rat-hole of lost time thinking up all kinds of obscure special cases.
Only do the O-style "overall" analysis.
Overall, the sorts are O( n log( n ) ).
The a.count(char) for char in a solution is O( n 2 ). Each count pass is a full examination of the string.
If some obscure special case happens to be faster -- or slower, that's possibly interesting. But it only matters when you know the frequency of your obscure special cases. When analyzing sort algorithms, it's important to note that a fair number of sorts involve data that's already in the proper order (either by luck or by a clever design), so sort performance on pre-sorted data matters.
In your obscure special case ("the first char of a is nowhere in b") is this frequent enough to matter? If it's just a special case you thought of, set it aside. If it's a fact about your data, then consider it.
heuristically you're probably better to split them off based on string size.
Pseudocode:
returnvalue = false
if len(a) == len(b)
if len(a) < threshold
returnvalue = (sorted(a) == sorted(b))
else
returnvalue = naminsmethod(a, b)
return returnvalue
If performance is critical, and string size can be large or small then this is what I'd do.
It's pretty common to split things like this based on input size or type. Algorithms have different strengths or weaknesses and it would be foolish to use one where another would be better... In this case Namin's method is O(n), but has a larger constant factor than the O(n log n) sorted method.
I think the first one is the "obvious" way. It is shorter, clearer, and likely to be faster in many cases because Python's built-in sort is highly optimized.
Your second example won't actually work:
all(a.count(char) == b.count(char) for char in a)
will only work if b does not contain extra characters not in a. It also does duplicate work if the characters in string a repeat.
If you want to know whether two strings are permutations of the same unique characters, just do:
set(a) == set(b)
To correct your second example:
all(str1.count(char) == str2.count(char) for char in set(a) | set(b))
set() objects overload the bitwise OR operator so that it will evaluate to the union of both sets. This will make sure that you will loop over all the characters of both strings once for each character only.
That said, the sorted() method is much simpler and more intuitive, and would be what I would use.
Here are some timed executions on very small strings, using two different methods:
1. sorting
2. counting (specifically the original method by #namin).
a, b, c = 'confused', 'unfocused', 'foncused'
sort_method = lambda x,y: sorted(x) == sorted(y)
def count_method(a, b):
d = {}
for x in a:
d[x] = d.get(x, 0) + 1
for x in b:
d[x] = d.get(x, 0) - 1
for v in d.itervalues():
if v != 0:
return False
return True
Average run times of the 2 methods over 100,000 loops are:
non-match (string a and b)
$ python -m timeit -s 'import temp' 'temp.sort_method(temp.a, temp.b)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 9.72 usec per loop
$ python -m timeit -s 'import temp' 'temp.count_method(temp.a, temp.b)'
10000 loops, best of 3: 28.1 usec per loop
match (string a and c)
$ python -m timeit -s 'import temp' 'temp.sort_method(temp.a, temp.c)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 9.47 usec per loop
$ python -m timeit -s 'import temp' 'temp.count_method(temp.a, temp.c)'
100000 loops, best of 3: 24.6 usec per loop
Keep in mind that the strings used are very small. The time complexity of the methods are different, so you'll see different results with very large strings. Choose according to your data, you may even use a combination of the two.
Sorry that my code is not in Python, I have never used it, but I am sure this can be easily translated into python. I believe this is faster than all the other examples already posted. It is also O(n), but stops as soon as possible:
public boolean isPermutation(String a, String b) {
if (a.length() != b.length()) {
return false;
}
int[] charCount = new int[256];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length(); ++i) {
++charCount[a.charAt(i)];
}
for (int i = 0; i < b.length(); ++i) {
if (--charCount[b.charAt(i)] < 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
First I don't use a dictionary but an array of size 256 for all the characters. Accessing the index should be much faster. Then when the second string is iterated, I immediately return false when the count gets below 0. When the second loop has finished, you can be sure that the strings are a permutation, because the strings have equal length and no character was used more often in b compared to a.
Here's martinus code in python. It only works for ascii strings:
def is_permutation(a, b):
if len(a) != len(b):
return False
char_count = [0] * 256
for c in a:
char_count[ord(c)] += 1
for c in b:
char_count[ord(c)] -= 1
if char_count[ord(c)] < 0:
return False
return True
I did a pretty thorough comparison in Java with all words in a book I had. The counting method beats the sorting method in every way. The results:
Testing against 9227 words.
Permutation testing by sorting ... done. 18.582 s
Permutation testing by counting ... done. 14.949 s
If anyone wants the algorithm and test data set, comment away.
First, for solving such problems, e.g. whether String 1 and String 2 are exactly the same or not, easily, you can use an "if" since it is O(1).
Second, it is important to consider that whether they are only numerical values or they can be also words in the string. If the latter one is true (words and numerical values are in the string at the same time), your first solution will not work. You can enhance it by using "ord()" function to make it ASCII numerical value. However, in the end, you are using sort; therefore, in the worst case your time complexity will be O(NlogN). This time complexity is not bad. But, you can do better. You can make it O(N).
My "suggestion" is using Array(list) and set at the same time. Note that finding a value in Array needs iteration so it's time complexity is O(N), but searching a value in set (which I guess it is implemented with HashTable in Python, I'm not sure) has O(1) time complexity:
def Permutation2(Str1, Str2):
ArrStr1 = list(Str1) #convert Str1 to array
SetStr2 = set(Str2) #convert Str2 to set
ArrExtra = []
if len(Str1) != len(Str2): #check their length
return False
elif Str1 == Str2: #check their values
return True
for x in xrange(len(ArrStr1)):
ArrExtra.append(ArrStr1[x])
for x in xrange(len(ArrExtra)): #of course len(ArrExtra) == len(ArrStr1) ==len(ArrStr2)
if ArrExtra[x] in SetStr2: #checking in set is O(1)
continue
else:
return False
return True
Go with the first one - it's much more straightforward and easier to understand. If you're actually dealing with incredibly large strings and performance is a real issue, then don't use Python, use something like C.
As far as the Zen of Python is concerned, that there should only be one obvious way to do things refers to small, simple things. Obviously for any sufficiently complicated task, there will always be zillions of small variations on ways to do it.
In Python 3.1/2.7 you can just use collections.Counter(a) == collections.Counter(b).
But sorted(a) == sorted(b) is still the most obvious IMHO. You are talking about permutations - changing order - so sorting is the obvious operation to erase that difference.
This is derived from #patros' answer.
from collections import Counter
def is_anagram(a, b, threshold=1000000):
"""Returns true if one sequence is a permutation of the other.
Ignores whitespace and character case.
Compares sorted sequences if the length is below the threshold,
otherwise compares dictionaries that contain the frequency of the
elements.
"""
a, b = a.strip().lower(), b.strip().lower()
length_a, length_b = len(a), len(b)
if length_a != length_b:
return False
if length_a < threshold:
return sorted(a) == sorted(b)
return Counter(a) == Counter(b) # Or use #namin's method if you don't want to create two dictionaries and don't mind the extra typing.
This is an O(n) solution in Python using hashing with dictionaries. Notice that I don't use default dictionaries because the code can stop this way if we determine the two strings are not permutations after checking the second letter for instance.
def if_two_words_are_permutations(s1, s2):
if len(s1) != len(s2):
return False
dic = {}
for ch in s1:
if ch in dic.keys():
dic[ch] += 1
else:
dic[ch] = 1
for ch in s2:
if not ch in dic.keys():
return False
elif dic[ch] == 0:
return False
else:
dic[ch] -= 1
return True
This is a PHP function I wrote about a week ago which checks if two words are anagrams. How would this compare (if implemented the same in python) to the other methods suggested? Comments?
public function is_anagram($word1, $word2) {
$letters1 = str_split($word1);
$letters2 = str_split($word2);
if (count($letters1) == count($letters2)) {
foreach ($letters1 as $letter) {
$index = array_search($letter, $letters2);
if ($index !== false) {
unset($letters2[$index]);
}
else { return false; }
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
Here's a literal translation to Python of the PHP version (by JFS):
def is_anagram(word1, word2):
letters2 = list(word2)
if len(word1) == len(word2):
for letter in word1:
try:
del letters2[letters2.index(letter)]
except ValueError:
return False
return True
return False
Comments:
1. The algorithm is O(N**2). Compare it to #namin's version (it is O(N)).
2. The multiple returns in the function look horrible.
This version is faster than any examples presented so far except it is 20% slower than sorted(x) == sorted(y) for short strings. It depends on use cases but generally 20% performance gain is insufficient to justify a complication of the code by using different version for short and long strings (as in #patros's answer).
It doesn't use len so it accepts any iterable therefore it works even for data that do not fit in memory e.g., given two big text files with many repeated lines it answers whether the files have the same lines (lines can be in any order).
def isanagram(iterable1, iterable2):
d = {}
get = d.get
for c in iterable1:
d[c] = get(c, 0) + 1
try:
for c in iterable2:
d[c] -= 1
return not any(d.itervalues())
except KeyError:
return False
It is unclear why this version is faster then defaultdict (#namin's) one for large iterable1 (tested on 25MB thesaurus).
If we replace get in the loop by try: ... except KeyError then it performs 2 times slower for short strings i.e. when there are few duplicates.
In Swift (or another languages implementation), you could look at the encoded values ( in this case Unicode) and see if they match.
Something like:
let string1EncodedValues = "Hello".unicodeScalars.map() {
//each encoded value
$0
//Now add the values
}.reduce(0){ total, value in
total + value.value
}
let string2EncodedValues = "oellH".unicodeScalars.map() {
$0
}.reduce(0) { total, value in
total + value.value
}
let equalStrings = string1EncodedValues == string2EncodedValues ? true : false
You will need to handle spaces and cases as needed.
def matchPermutation(s1, s2):
a = []
b = []
if len(s1) != len(s2):
print 'length should be the same'
return
for i in range(len(s1)):
a.append(s1[i])
for i in range(len(s2)):
b.append(s2[i])
if set(a) == set(b):
print 'Permutation of each other'
else:
print 'Not a permutation of each other'
return
#matchPermutaion('rav', 'var') #returns True
matchPermutaion('rav', 'abc') #returns False
Checking if two strings are permutations of each other in Python
# First method
def permutation(s1,s2):
if len(s1) != len(s2):return False;
return ' '.join(sorted(s1)) == ' '.join(sorted(s2))
# second method
def permutation1(s1,s2):
if len(s1) != len(s2):return False;
array = [0]*128;
for c in s1:
array[ord(c)] +=1
for c in s2:
array[ord(c)] -=1
if (array[ord(c)]) < 0:
return False
return True
How about something like this. Pretty straight-forward and readable. This is for strings since the as per the OP.
Given that the complexity of sorted() is O(n log n).
def checkPermutation(a,b):
# input: strings a and b
# return: boolean true if a is Permutation of b
if len(a) != len(b):
return False
else:
s_a = ''.join(sorted(a))
s_b = ''.join(sorted(b))
if s_a == s_b:
return True
else:
return False
# test inputs
a = 'sRF7w0qbGp4fdgEyNlscUFyouETaPHAiQ2WIxzohiafEGJLw03N8ALvqMw6reLN1kHRjDeDausQBEuIWkIBfqUtsaZcPGoqAIkLlugTxjxLhkRvq5d6i55l4oBH1QoaMXHIZC5nA0K5KPBD9uIwa789sP0ZKV4X6'
b = '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'
print(checkPermutation(a, b)) #optional
def permute(str1,str2):
if sorted(str1) == sorted(str2):
return True
else:
return False
str1="hello"
str2='olehl'
a=permute(str1,str2)
print(a
from collections import defaultdict
def permutation(s1,s2):
h = defaultdict(int)
for ch in s1:
h[ch]+=1
for ch in s2:
h[ch]-=1
for key in h.keys():
if h[key]!=0 or len(s1)!= len(s2):
return False
return True
print(permutation("tictac","tactic"))