Related
For example, given input arr = [4,5,0,-2,-3,1], k = 5, there are 7 subarrays with a sum divisible by 5: [4, 5, 0, -2, -3, 1], [5], [5, 0], [5, 0, -2, -3], [0], [0, -2, -3], [-2, -3]. The shortest one is either [5] or [0], both are correct.
If there are no answers return an empty array.
This question is similar to leetcode no. 974 but I can't figure out how to apply the same algorithm to this (that one doesn't really account for the length of subarrays). Can someone help (preferably in python). Thank you!
Track the cumulative sums mod k in a map, with the cum_sums mod k as keys and the most recent index as values. Prior to updating the map for each index, first check if that key already exists. If it does, you have a contiguous subsequence divisible by k, and can calculate the length from the indices. Keep track of the min length.
Ruby code
def f(arr, k)
h = Hash.new
h[0] = -1 # to handle the case where the first r elts are divisible by k.
min_len = Float::INFINITY
cum_sum_mod_k = 0
arr.each_with_index do |val, i|
cum_sum_mod_k += val
cum_sum_mod_k %= k
if h.key?(cum_sum_mod_k)
cur_len = i - h[cum_sum_mod_k]
min_len = cur_len if cur_len < min_len
end
h[cum_sum_mod_k] = i
end
return min_len
end
I have a repeating sequence of say 0~9 (but may start and stop at any of these numbers). e.g.:
3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2
And it has outliers at random location, including 1st and last one, e.g.:
9,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,8,6,7,0,9,0,1,2,3,4,1,6,7,8,9,0,1,6
I need to find & correct the outliers, in the above example, I need correct the first "9" into "3", and "8" into "5", etc..
What I came up with is to construct a sequence with no outlier of desired length, but since I don't know which number the sequence starts with, I'd have to construct 10 sequences each starting from "0", "1", "2" ... "9". And then I can compare these 10 sequences with the given sequence and find the one sequence that match the given sequence the most. However this is very inefficient when the repeating pattern gets large (say if the repeating pattern is 0~99, I'd need to create 100 sequences to compare).
Assuming there won't be consecutive outliers, is there a way to find & correct these outliers efficiently?
edit: added some explanation and added the algorithm tag. Hopefully it is more appropriate now.
I'm going to propose a variation of #trincot's fine answer. Like that one, it doesn't care how many outliers there may be in a row, but unlike that one doesn't care either about how many in a row aren't outliers.
The base idea is just to let each sequence element "vote" on what the first sequence element "should be". Whichever gets the most votes wins. By construction, this maximizes the number of elements left unchanged: after the 1-liner loop ends, votes[i] is the number of elements left unchanged if i is picked as the starting point.
def correct(numbers, mod=None):
# this part copied from #trincot's program
if mod is None: # if argument is not provided:
# Make a guess what the range is of the values
mod = max(numbers) + 1
votes = [0] * mod
for i, x in enumerate(numbers):
# which initial number would make x correct?
votes[(x - i) % mod] += 1
winning_count = max(votes)
winning_numbers = [i for i, v in enumerate(votes)
if v == winning_count]
if len(winning_numbers) > 1:
raise ValueError("ambiguous!", winning_numbers)
winning_number = winning_numbers[0]
for i in range(len(numbers)):
numbers[i] = (winning_number + i) % mod
return numbers
Then, e.g.,
>>> correct([9,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,8,6,7,0,9,0,1,2,3,4,1,6,7,8,9,0,1,6])
[3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2]
but
>>> correct([1, 5, 3, 7, 5, 9])
...
ValueError: ('ambiguous!', [1, 4])
That is, it's impossible to guess whether you want [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] or [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. They both have 3 numbers "right", and despite that there are never two adjacent outliers in either case.
I would do a first scan of the list to find the longest sublist in the input that maintains the right order. We will then assume that those values are all correct, and calculate backwards what the first value would have to be to produce those values in that sublist.
Here is how that would look in Python:
def correct(numbers, mod=None):
if mod is None: # if argument is not provided:
# Make a guess what the range is of the values
mod = max(numbers) + 1
# Find the longest slice in the list that maintains order
start = 0
longeststart = 0
longest = 1
expected = -1
for last in range(len(numbers)):
if numbers[last] != expected:
start = last
elif last - start >= longest:
longest = last - start + 1
longeststart = start
expected = (numbers[last] + 1) % mod
# Get from that longest slice what the starting value should be
val = (numbers[longeststart] - longeststart) % mod
# Repopulate the list starting from that value
for i in range(len(numbers)):
numbers[i] = val
val = (val + 1) % mod
# demo use
numbers = [9,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,8,6,7,0,9,0,1,2,3,4,1,6,7,8,9,0,1,6]
correct(numbers, 10) # for 0..9 provide 10 as argument, ...etc
print(numbers)
The advantage of this method is that it would even give a good result if there were errors with two consecutive values, provided that there are enough correct values in the list of course.
Still this runs in linear time.
Here is another way using groupby and count from Python's itertools module:
from itertools import count, groupby
def correct(lst):
groupped = [list(v) for _, v in groupby(lst, lambda a, b=count(): a - next(b))]
# Check if all groups are singletons
if all(len(k) == 1 for k in groupped):
raise ValueError('All groups are singletons!')
for k, v in zip(groupped, groupped[1:]):
if len(k) < 2:
out = v[0] - 1
if out >= 0:
yield out
else:
yield from k
else:
yield from k
# check last element of the groupped list
if len(v) < 2:
yield k[-1] + 1
else:
yield from v
lst = "9,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,8,6,7,0,9,0,1,2,3,4,1,6,7,8,9,0,1,6"
lst = [int(k) for k in lst.split(',')]
out = list(correct(lst))
print(out)
Output:
[3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2]
Edit:
For the case of [1, 5, 3, 7, 5, 9] this solution will return something not accurate, because i can't see which value you want to modify. This is why the best solution is to check & raise a ValueError if all groups are singletons.
Like this?
numbers = [9,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,8,6,7,0,9,0,1,2,3,4,1,6,7,8,9,0,1,6]
i = 0
for n in numbers[:-1]:
i += 1
if n > numbers[i] and n > 0:
numbers[i-1] = numbers[i]-1
elif n > numbers[i] and n == 0:
numbers[i - 1] = 9
n = numbers[-1]
if n > numbers[0] and n > 0:
numbers[-1] = numbers[0] - 1
elif n > numbers[0] and n == 0:
numbers[-1] = 9
print(numbers)
for a given N how many permutations of [1, 2, 3, ..., N] satisfy the following property.
Let P1, P2, ..., PN denote the permutation. The property we want to satisfy is that there exists an i between 2 and n-1 (inclusive) such that
Pj > Pj + 1 ∀ i ≤ j ≤ N - 1.
Pj > Pj - 1 ∀ 2 ≤ j ≤ i.
like for N=3
Permutations [1, 3, 2] and [2, 3, 1] satisfy the property.
Is there any direct formula or algorithm to find these set in programming.
There are 2^(n-1) - 2 such permutations. If n is the largest element, then the permutation is uniquely determined by the nonempty, proper subset of {1, 2, ..., n-1} which lies to the left of n in the permutation. This answer is consistent with the excellent answer of #גלעדברקן in view of the well-known fact that the elements in each row of Pascal's triangle sum to a power of two (hence the part of the row between the two ones is two less than a power of two).
Here is a Python enumeration which generates all n! permutations and checks them for validity:
import itertools
def validPerm(p):
n = max(p)
i = p.index(n)
if i == 0 or i == n-1:
return False
else:
before = p[:i]
after = p[i+1:]
return before == sorted(before) and after == sorted(after, reverse = True)
def validPerms(n):
nums = list(range(1,n+1))
valids = []
for p in itertools.permutations(nums):
lp = list(p)
if validPerm(lp): valids.append(lp)
return valids
For example,
>>> validPerms(4)
[[1, 2, 4, 3], [1, 3, 4, 2], [1, 4, 3, 2], [2, 3, 4, 1], [2, 4, 3, 1], [3, 4, 2, 1]]
which gives the expected number of 6.
On further edit: The above code was to verify the formula for nondegenerate unimodal permutations (to coin a phrase since "unimodal permutations" is used in the literature for the 2^(n-1) permutations with exactly one peak, but the 2 which either begin or end with n are arguably in some sense degenerate). From an enumeration point of view you would want to do something more efficient. The following is a Python implementation of the idea behind the answer of #גלעדברקן :
def validPerms(n):
valids = []
nums = list(range(1,n)) #1,2,...,n-1
snums = set(nums)
for i in range(1,n-1):
for first in itertools.combinations(nums,i):
#first will be already sorted
rest = sorted(snums - set(first),reverse = True)
valids.append(list(first) + [n] + rest)
return valids
It is functionally equivalent to the above code, but substantially more efficient.
Let's look at an example:
{1,2,3,4,5,6}
Clearly, any positioning of 6 at i will mean the right side of it will be sorted descending and the left side of it ascending. For example, i = 3
{1,2,6,5,4,3}
{1,3,6,5,4,2}
{1,4,6,5,3,2}
...
So for each positioning of N between 2 and n-1, we have (n - 1) choose (position - 1) arrangements. This leads to the answer:
sum [(n - 1) choose (i - 1)], for i = 2...(n - 1)
there are ans perm. and ans is as follows
ans equal to 2^(n-1) and
ans -= 2
as it need to be in between 2 <=i <= n-1 && we know that nC1 ans nCn = 1
I need for given N create N*N matrix which does not have repetitions in rows, cells, minor and major diagonals and values are 1, 2 , 3, ...., N.
For N = 4 one of matrices is the following:
1 2 3 4
3 4 1 2
4 3 2 1
2 1 4 3
Problem overview
The math structure you described is Diagonal Latin Square. Constructing them is the more mathematical problem than the algorithmic or programmatic.
To correctly understand what it is and how to create you should read following articles:
Latin squares definition
Magic squares definition
Diagonal Latin square construction <-- p.2 is answer to your question with proof and with other interesting properties
Short answer
One of the possible ways to construct Diagonal Latin Square:
Let N is the power of required matrix L.
If there are exist numbers A and B from range [0; N-1] which satisfy properties:
A relativly prime to N
B relatively prime to N
(A + B) relatively prime to N
(A - B) relatively prime to N
Then you can create required matrix with the following rule:
L[i][j] = (A * i + B * j) mod N
It would be nice to do this mathematically, but I'll propose the simplest algorithm that I can think of - brute force.
At a high level
we can represent a matrix as an array of arrays
for a given N, construct S a set of arrays, which contains every combination of [1..N]. There will be N! of these.
using an recursive & iterative selection process (e.g. a search tree), search through all orders of these arrays until one of the 'uniqueness' rules is broken
For example, in your N = 4 problem, I'd construct
S = [
[1,2,3,4], [1,2,4,3]
[1,3,2,4], [1,3,4,2]
[1,4,2,3], [1,4,3,2]
[2,1,3,4], [2,1,4,3]
[2,3,1,4], [2,3,4,1]
[2,4,1,3], [2,4,3,1]
[3,1,2,4], [3,1,4,2]
// etc
]
R = new int[4][4]
Then the algorithm is something like
If R is 'full', you're done
Evaluate does the next row from S fit into R,
if yes, insert it into R, reset the iterator on S, and go to 1.
if no, increment the iterator on S
If there are more rows to check in S, go to 2.
Else you've iterated across S and none of the rows fit, so remove the most recent row added to R and go to 1. In other words, explore another branch.
To improve the efficiency of this algorithm, implement a better data structure. Rather than a flat array of all combinations, use a prefix tree / Trie of some sort to both reduce the storage size of the 'options' and reduce the search area within each iteration.
Here's a method which is fast for N <= 9 : (python)
import random
def generate(n):
a = [[0] * n for _ in range(n)]
def rec(i, j):
if i == n - 1 and j == n:
return True
if j == n:
return rec(i + 1, 0)
candidate = set(range(1, n + 1))
for k in range(i):
candidate.discard(a[k][j])
for k in range(j):
candidate.discard(a[i][k])
if i == j:
for k in range(i):
candidate.discard(a[k][k])
if i + j == n - 1:
for k in range(i):
candidate.discard(a[k][n - 1 - k])
candidate_list = list(candidate)
random.shuffle(candidate_list)
for e in candidate_list:
a[i][j] = e
if rec(i, j + 1):
return True
a[i][j] = 0
return False
rec(0, 0)
return a
for row in generate(9):
print(row)
Output:
[8, 5, 4, 7, 1, 6, 2, 9, 3]
[2, 7, 5, 8, 4, 1, 3, 6, 9]
[9, 1, 2, 3, 6, 4, 8, 7, 5]
[3, 9, 7, 6, 2, 5, 1, 4, 8]
[5, 8, 3, 1, 9, 7, 6, 2, 4]
[4, 6, 9, 2, 8, 3, 5, 1, 7]
[6, 3, 1, 5, 7, 9, 4, 8, 2]
[1, 4, 8, 9, 3, 2, 7, 5, 6]
[7, 2, 6, 4, 5, 8, 9, 3, 1]
I got this function:
def get_sum_slices(a, sum)
count = 0
a.length.times do |n|
a.length.times do |m|
next if n > m
count += 1 if a[n..m].inject(:+) == sum
end
end
count
end
Given this [-2, 0, 3, 2, -7, 4] array and 2 as sum it will return 2 because two sums of a slice equal 0 - [2] and [3, 2, -7, 4]. Anyone an idea on how to improve this to a O(N*log(N))?
I am not familiar with ruby, but it seems to me you are trying to find how many contiguous subarrays that sums to sum.
Your code is doing a brute force of finding ALL subarrays - O(N^2) of those, summing them - O(N) each, and checking if it matches.
This totals in O(N^3) code.
It can be done more efficiently1:
define a new array sums as follows:
sums[i] = arr[0] + arr[1] + ... + arr[i]
It is easy to calculate the above in O(N) time. Note that with the assumption of non negative numbers - this sums array is sorted.
Now, iterate the sums array, and do a binary search for each element sums[i], if there is some index j such that sums[j]-sums[i] == SUM. If the answer is true, add by one (more simple work is needed if array can contains zero, it does not affect complexity).
Since the search is binary search, and is done in O(logN) per iteration, and you do it for each element - you actually have O(NlogN) algorithm.
Similarly, but adding the elements in sums to a hash-set instead of placing them in a sorted array, you can reach O(N) average case performance, since seeking each element is now O(1) on average.
pseudo code:
input: arr , sum
output: numOccurances - number of contiguous subarrays that sums to sum
currSum = 0
S = new hash set (multiset actually)
for each element x in arr:
currSum += x
add x to S
numOccurances= 0
for each element x in S:
let k = number of occurances of sum-x in the hashset
numOccurances += k
return numOccurances
Note that the hash set variant does not need the restriction of non-negative numbers, and can handle it as well.
(1) Assuming your array contains only non negative numbers.
According to amit's algorithm :
def get_sum_slices3(a, sum)
s = a.inject([]) { |m, e| m << e + m.last.to_i }
s.sort!
s.count { |x| s.bsearch { |y| x - y == sum } }
end
Ruby uses quicksort which is nlogn in most cases
You should detail better what you're trying to achieve here. Anyway computing the number of subarray that have a specific sum could be done like this:
def get_sum_slices(a, sum)
count = 0
(2..a.length).each do |n|
a.combination(n).each do |combination|
if combination.inject(:+) == sum
count += 1
puts combination.inspect
end
end
end
count
end
btw your example should return 6
irb> get_sum_slices [-2, 0, 3, 2, -7, 4], 0
[-2, 2]
[-2, 0, 2]
[3, -7, 4]
[0, 3, -7, 4]
[-2, 3, 2, -7, 4]
[-2, 0, 3, 2, -7, 4]
=> 6