Longest Substring with no Y Divide and Conquer - algorithm

Before I carry on to the problem, I should note that I know there are much easier ways to solve this problem without using divide and conquer; however, the point of solving this problem under this restriction is that I actually want to learn how to tackle problems with divide and conquer. I am good at recognizing correct solutions, but implementing my own D&C strategy is not a skill I currently have.
The problem is this: given a string, find the longest substring that does not contain the letter 'y'. For example, longestNoY("abydefyhi") should return "def".
My first approach to tackle this problem was to determine the base cases. If we had a string of length 2, we would want to return the non-y components (or empty string if both characters were 'y'). If we had a string of length 1, we would return it if it is not a 'y'.
So the first part should look like this:
def longestNoY(string, start, end):
#Conquer
if start == end:
if string == 'y': return ''
return string
if start + 1 == end:
if string == "yy": return ''
if string[0] == 'y': return string[1]
return string[0]
....
Next, I knew that I would need to recursively call the function for each half of the parent string. I also knew that I wanted the function to return the longer of the two children, except if the sum of the lengths of the two children was equal to the length of the parent, then the function should return the parent because there were no 'y's in the children.
#Divide and Partial Implementation of Rejoin
....
middle = (start + end) // 2
leftString = longestNoY(string, start, middle)
rightString = longestNoY(string, middle, end)
if len(leftString) + len(rightString) == len(string): return string
....
The part I am having trouble with now would best be explained with an example:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
a b y d e | f y h i
a b y | d e | f y | h i
a b | y | d e | f y | h i
The longest substring in the left side is either "ab" or "de", but we know that "de" is adjacent to an 'f' which would make "def" the longest. I don't know exactly how to carry on with this problem. Please do not give me a program to solve this problem.

This can be easily solved by just traversing through the string. But I know you want to learn Divide Conquer.
To me, this is not a good problem to solve using Divide Conquer.
What #WillemVanOnsem suggested by recursion has essentially the same effect as when you traverse linearly.
But if you do want to do it in Divide & Conquer fashion, you need to consider the substring that crosses the mid point i.e. start <= i <= mid < j <= end - but that would be overkill.

It is possible. But then you each time need to return four values: the longest subsequence that starts at the left end of the "slice" (this can be zero), the longest subsequence "in the middle", the longest subsequence that ends at the right end of the "slice" (this can be zero as well), and if the string is just a sequence of non-Y characters (a boolean). The fourth element can in fact just be derived by checking if one of the elements in the first three is equal to the length, but this is probably easier to implement.
Why is this important? Because a sequence of non-ys can pass "through" a divide. For example:
abcdeYfghi jklYmnopqr
here if we split it in the middle (or any other way that is not "constant" and "rest").
So here recursively we have several cases:
the empty string returns (0, 0, 0, True),
the non-empty string other than Y, we return (1, 1, 1, True);
for the singleton string Y we return (0, 0, 0, False);
the recursive case that divides the string in two, and applies "merge" logic afterwards on the results.
The "merge logic" is rather complex, especially since it is possible that both "subslices" only contain non-Y strings. After slicing we thus obtain two triples (a0, a1, a2, a3) and (b0, b1, b2, b3), and we produce a 3-tuple (c0, c1, c2, c3).
If a3 = True and b3 = True, then of course that means that the current slice contains no Y's as well. So we can derive that:
c3 = a3 and b3
given a3 holds, then it holds that c0 = a0 + b0 since then a0 has no Y's and thus the left "sequence" is the same as the entire length of the subsequence plus the left subsequence of the right part. If a3 does not hold, c0 is just a0.
Given b3 holds, then it holds that c2 = a2 + b2 for the same reasoning as the one above, if not, then a2 = b2.
Now the element in the middle is the maximum of three elements:
the element in the middle of the left slice a1;
the element in the middle of the right slice b1; and
the sum of a2 and b0 since there can be overlap and then this is the sum of the two.
We thus return the maximum of the tree.
So in Python, this looks like:
def longestNoY(string, start, end):
if start == end:
return (0, 0, 0, True)
elif start+1 == end:
if string[start] == 'y':
return (0, 0, 0, False)
else:
return (1, 1, 1, True)
else:
mid = (start + end)//2
a0, a1, a2, a3 = longestNoY(string, start, mid)
b0, b1, b2, b3 = longestNoY(string, mid, end)
c3 = a3 and b3
c0 = a0 + a3 * b0
c2 = b2 + b3 * a2
c1 = max(a1, b1, a2 + b0)
return (c0, c1, c2, c3)
The final result is the maximum of the first three items in the tuple.
For the given sample string, we thus obtain:
(1, 1, 1, True) a
(1, 1, 1, True) b
(2, 2, 2, True) ab
(0, 0, 0, False) y
(1, 1, 1, True) d
(0, 1, 1, False) yd
(2, 2, 1, False) abyd
(1, 1, 1, True) e
(1, 1, 1, True) f
(2, 2, 2, True) ef
(0, 0, 0, False) y
(1, 1, 1, True) h
(1, 1, 1, True) i
(2, 2, 2, True) hi
(0, 2, 2, False) yhi
(2, 2, 2, False) efyhi
(2, 3, 2, False) abydefyhi
(2, 3, 2, False)
but that being said, it looks to me as an unnecessary complicated procedure to construct something that, in terms of time complexity, is the same as traversal, but typically more expensive (function calls, constructing new objects, etc.). Especially since linear traversal is just:
def longestNoY(string):
mx = 0
cur = 0
for c in string:
if c == 'y':
mx = max(mx, cur)
cur = 0
else:
cur += 1
return mx
There is however an advantage here is that the above described algorithm can be used for parallelization. If for example the string is huge, the above can be used such that every core can count this. In that case it is however likely beneficial to use an iterative level on the "core" level, and only use the above to "distribute" work and "collect" results.

I think the best way to put the problem is to find the positions just before and just after y, not being y. This way you will find left and right ends of intervals. I do not give you the code, since you specifically asked as not to solve the problem for you, just point to the right direction, so:
In trivial cases (length of interval is 0) determine whether the item you have is a valid left end or right and of an interval
In non-trivial cases always halve the set to left and right (no problem if the number of items is odd, just put the middle somewhere) and issue the divide and conquer for them as well
In non-trivial cases always consider the best interval the left and right sub-problem gives you
In non-trivial cases make sure that if an interval happens to start in the left and end in the right, you take that into account
from such intervals, the one which has a greater length is better
These are the ideas you need to employ in order to implement the divide and conquer you desire. Happy coding!

Now that I actually had time to study, I decided to come back to this problem and came up with a very readable solution. Here it is:
def across(string, start, end, middle):
startL = middle
bestL = ''
while(startL >= start and string[startL] != 'y'):
bestL = string[startL] + bestL
startL -= 1
startR = middle + 1
bestR = ''
while(startR <= end and string[startR] != 'y'):
bestR = bestR + string[startR]
startR += 1
return bestL + bestR
def longestNoY(string, start, end):
if(start > end):
return ''
if(start == end):
if(string[start] == 'y'):
return ''
return string[start]
middle = (start + end) // 2
leftString = longestNoY(string, start, middle)
rightString = longestNoY(string, middle + 1, end)
acrossString = across(string, start, end, middle)
return max(leftString, rightString, acrossString, key=len)

Related

Counting the number of ways to make up a string

I have just started learning dynamic programming and was able to do some of the basic problems, such as fibbonaci, the knapsack and a few more problems. Coming across the problem
below, I got stuck and do not know how to proceed forward. What confuses me is what would be the base case in this case, and the overlapping problems. Not knowing
this prevents me from developing a relation. They are not as apparent in this example as they were in the previous ones I have solved thus far.
Suppose we are given some string origString, a string toMatch and some number maxNum greater than or equal to 0. How can we count in how many ways it is possible to take maxNum number of nonempty and nonoverlapping substrings of the string origString to make up the string toMatch?
Example:
If origString = "ppkpke", and toMatch = "ppke"
maxNum = 1: countWays("ppkpke", "ppke", 1) will give 0 because toMatch is not a substring of origString.
maxNum = 2: countWays("ppkpke", "ppke", 2) will give 4 because 4 different combinations of 2 substring made up of "ppkpke" can make "ppke".
Those strings are "ppk" & "e", "pp" & "ke" , "p" & "pke" (excluding "p") and "p" & "pke" (excluding "k")
As an initial word of caution, I’d say that although my solution happens to match the expected output for the tiny test set, it is very likely wrong. It’s up to you to double-check it on other examples you may have etc.
The algorithm walks the longer string and tries to spread the shorter string over it. The incremental state of the algorithm consists of tuples of 3 elements:
long string coordinate i (origString[i] == toMatch[j])
short string coordinate j (origString[i] == toMatch[j])
number of ways we made it into that^^^ state
Then we just walk along the strings over and over again, using stored, previously discovered state, and sum up the total number(s) of ways each state was achieved — in the typical dynamic programming fashion.
For a state to count as a solution, j must be at the end of the short string and the number of iterations of the dynamic algorithm must be equivalent to the number of substrings we wanted at that point (because each iteration added one substring).
It is not entirely clear to me from the assignment whether maxNum actually means something like “exactNum”, i.e. exactly that many substrings, or whether we should sum across all lower or equal numbers of substrings. So the function returns a dictionary like { #substrings : #decompositions }, so that the output can be adjusted as needed.
#!/usr/bin/env python
def countWays(origString, toMatch, maxNum):
origLen = len(origString)
matchLen = len(toMatch)
state = {}
for i in range(origLen):
for j in range(matchLen):
o = i + j
if origString[o] != toMatch[j]:
break
state[(o, j)] = 1
sums = {}
for n in range(1, maxNum):
if not state:
break
nextState = {}
for istart, jstart in state:
prev = state[(istart, jstart)]
for i in range(istart + 1, origLen):
for j in range(jstart + 1, matchLen):
o = i + j - jstart - 1
if origString[o] != toMatch[j]:
break
nextState[(o, j)] = prev + nextState.get((o, j), 0)
sums[n] = sum(state[(i, j)] for i, j in state if j == matchLen - 1)
state = nextState
sums[maxNum] = sum(state[(i, j)] for i, j in state if j == matchLen - 1)
return sums
result = countWays(origString='ppkpke', toMatch='ppke', maxNum=5)
print('for an exact number of substrings:', result)
print(' for up to a number of substrings:', {
n: s for n, s in ((m, sum(result[k] for k in range(1, m + 1)))
for m in range(1, 1 + max(result.keys())))})
This^^^ code is a quick and ugly hack and nothing more. There is a huge room for improvement, including (but not limited to) the use of generator functions (yield), the use of #memoize etc. Here’s some output:
for an exact number of substrings: {1: 0, 2: 4, 3: 8, 4: 4, 5: 0}
for up to a number of substrings: {1: 0, 2: 4, 3: 12, 4: 16, 5: 16}
It would be an interesting (and nicely challenging) exercise to store a bit more of the dynamic state (e.g. to keep it for each n) and then reconstruct and pretty-print (efficiently) the exact string (de)compositions that were counted.
Here is a recursive solution.
Compares the first character of source and target, and if they're equal, choose to either take it (advancing by 1 char in both strings) or not take it (advancing by 1 char in source but not in target). The value of k is decremented everytime a new substring is created; there is an additional variable continued which is True if we're in the middle of building a substring, and False otherwise.
def countWays(source, target, k, continued=False):
if len(target) == 0:
return (k == 0)
elif (k == 0 and not continued) or len(source) == 0:
return 0
elif source[0] == target[0]:
if continued:
return countWays(source[1:], target[1:], k, True) + countWays(source[1:], target[1:], k-1, True) + countWays(source[1:], target, k, False)
else:
return countWays(source[1:], target[1:], k-1, True) + countWays(source[1:], target, k, False)
else:
return countWays(source[1:], target, k, False)
print(countWays('ppkpke', 'ppke', 1))
# 0
print(countWays('ppkpke', 'ppke', 2))
# 4
print(countWays('ppkpke', 'ppke', 3))
# 8
print(countWays('ppkpke', 'ppke', 4))
# 4
print(countWays('ppkpke', 'ppke', 5))
# 0

Stack permutations sorted in lexicographical order

A stack permutation of number N is defined as the number of sequences which you can print by doing the following
Keep two stacks say A and B.
Push numbers from 1 to N in reverse order in B. (so the top of B is 1 and the last element in B is N)
Do the following operations
Choose the top element from A or B and print it and delete it (pop it). This can be done on a non-empty stack only.
Move the top element from B to A (if B is non-empty)
If both stacks are empty then stop
All possible sequences obtained by doing these operations in some order are called stack permutations.
eg: N = 2
stack permutations are (1, 2) and (2, 1)
eg: N = 3
stack permutations are (1, 2, 3), (1, 3, 2), (2, 1, 3), (2, 3, 1) and (3, 2, 1)
The number of stack permutations for N numbers is C(N), where C(N) is the Nth Catalan Number.
Suppose we generate all stack permutations for a given N and then print them in lexicographical order (dictionary order), how can we determine the kth permutation, without actually generating all the permutations and then sorting them?
I want some algorithmic approaches that are programmable.
You didn't say whether k should be 0 based or 1 based. I chose 0. Switching back is easy.
The approach is to first write a function to be able to count how many stack permutations there are from a given decision point. Use memoization to make it fast. And then proceed down the decision tree by skipping over decisions that lead to permutations which are lexicographically smaller. That will lead to the list of decisions that are the one you want.
def count_stack_permutations (on_b, on_a=0, can_take_from_a=True, cache={}):
key = (on_b, on_a, can_take_from_a)
if on_a < 0:
return 0 # can't go negative.
elif on_b == 0:
if can_take_from_a:
return 1 # Just drain a
else:
return 0 # Got nothing.
elif key not in cache:
# Drain b
answer = count_stack_permutations(on_b-1, on_a, True)
# Drain a?
if can_take_from_a:
answer = answer + count_stack_permutations(on_b, on_a-1, True)
# Move from b to a.
answer = answer + count_stack_permutations(on_b-1, on_a+1, False)
cache[key] = answer
return cache[key]
def find_kth_permutation (n, k):
# The end of the array is the top
a = []
b = list(range(n, 0, -1))
can_take_from_a = True # We obviously won't first. :-)
answer = []
while 0 < max(len(a), len(b)):
action = None
on_a = len(a)
on_b = len(b)
# If I can take from a, that is always smallest.
if can_take_from_a:
if count_stack_permutations(on_b, on_a - 1, True) <= k:
k = k - count_stack_permutations(on_b, on_a - 1, True)
else:
action = 'a'
# Taking from b is smaller than digging into b so I can take deeper.
if action is None:
if count_stack_permutations(on_b-1, on_a, True) <= k:
k = k - count_stack_permutations(on_b-1, on_a, True)
else:
action = 'b'
# Otherwise I will move.
if action is None:
if count_stack_permutations(on_b-1, on_a, False) < k:
return None # Should never happen
else:
action = 'm'
if action == 'a':
answer.append(a.pop())
can_take_from_a = True
elif action == 'b':
answer.append(b.pop())
can_take_from_a = True
else:
a.append(b.pop())
can_take_from_a = False
return answer
# And demonstrate it in action.
for k in range(0, 6):
print((k, find_kth_permutation(3, k)))
This is possible using factoradic(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial_number_system)
If you need quick solution in Java use JNumberTools
JNumberTools.permutationsOf("A","B","C")
.uniqueNth(4) //next 4th permutation
.forEach(System.out::println);
This API will generate the next nth permutation directly in lexicographic order. So you can even generate next billionth permutation of 100 items.
for generating next nth permutation of given size use:
JNumberTools.permutationsOf("A","B","C")
.kNth(2,4) //next 4th permutation of size 2
.forEach(System.out::println);
maven dependency for JNumberTools is:
<dependency>
<groupId>io.github.deepeshpatel</groupId>
<artifactId>jnumbertools</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>
</dependency>

Linear Programming: can I formulate an objective to maximize multiple variables at once?

Let's say I have some variables and constraints illustrated by the following system:
The gray lines can stretch and shrink an amount given by the range on top of them. The blue lines are just the endpoints and show how the gray lines interact.
My goal: I'd like to use linear programming to evenly maximize the size of the gray lines, like in the picture. You can imagine the gray lines with springs on them, all equally pushing outwards. A bad solution would be having all the blue lines pushed over as far to one side as possible. Note that there is a bit of leeway in this description, and multiple solutions are possible - all I need is for them to be reasonably even, and not have one value maxed out squishing everything else.
The objective function I tried simply maximizes the sum of line's size:
maximize: (B - A) + (C - B) + (C - A) + (D - C) + (E - B) + (E - D) + (F - E) + (F - D) + (F - A)
It's clear to me that this isn't a good solution, since the terms cancel out and an increase on one line just decreases it in another by the same amount, so the objective is never weighted towards evenly distributing the maximization among the variables.
I also tried to minimize each line's distance from their middle possible range. For line B - A, the middle value in it's range of (1,3) is 2. Here's the objective with the first term:
minimize: |(B - A) - 2| + ...
To implement the absolute value, I replaced the term with U and added additional constraints:
minimize: U + ...
with: U <= (B - A - 2)
U <= -(B - A - 2)
This has the same problem as the other objective: the difference is always proportional to the change in another line's difference. I think would work if I could square the difference, but I can't input that in linear solver.
Is there some objective function that would achieve what I am seeking, or is a linear solver just not the right tool for this?
I'm using Google OR-Tools, if that helps.
Here are the constraints written out:
1 <= B - A <= 3
0 <= C - B <= 1
1 <= C - A <= 4
9 <= E - B <= 11
7 <= D - C <= 11
0 <= E - D <= 1
3 <= F - E <= 5
3 <= F - D <= 6
15 <= F - A < = 15
Bear in mind that that your greatest problem is that you don't know what it is, exactly, that you want. So I've had to guess. Sometimes seeing a few guesses helps you refine what it is that you want, so this isn't too bad on your part, but it does make your question more difficult for the format of this site.
First, I'll assume that the springs can be modeled as a directed acyclic graph. That is, I can replace all the springs with arrows that point to the right. There will never be an arrow pointing from the right to the left (otherwise your springs would bend in a circle).
Once this is done, you can use set logic to figure out the identity of the leftmost blue bar. (I assume there is only one - it is left as an exercise to figure out how to generalize.) You can then anchor this bar at a suitable location. All the other bars will be positioned relative to it. This constraint looks like:
S[leftmost] = 0
Now, we need some constraints.
Each edge i has a source and end point (because the edges are directed). Call the position of the source point S and the position of the end point E. Further, the edge has a minimum length l and a maximum length L. Since we pin the location of the leftmost bluebar, the springs connected to it define the intervals in which their end points fall. Those end points are the source points for other springs, &c. Thus, each edge defines two constraints on the position of its end point.
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
As an aside, note that we can now formulate a simple linear program:
min 1
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
If this program can be solved, then there is a feasible solution to your problem. Which is to say, the bar lengths don't produce a mutually inconsistent description of where the bluebars should be.
Now, we want to "evenly maximize the size of the gray lines", whatever this means.
Minimizing Deviation from Average Length
Here's one idea. The length the program chooses for each bar is given by E[i]-S[i]. Let's specify that this length should be "close to" the average length of the bar (L[i]+l[i])/2. Thus, the target quantity we want to minimize for each bar is:
(E[i]-S[i])-(L[i]+l[i])/2
Problematically, this value can be positive or negative depending on whether or not (E[i]-S[i])>(L[i]+l[i])/2. This isn't good because we want to minimize the deviation from (L[i]+l[i])/2, a value which should always be positive.
To cope, let's square the value and then take a square root, this gives:
sqrt(((E[i]-S[i])-(L[i]+l[i])/2)^2)
This might seem unsolveable, but stay with me.
Note that the foregoing is the same as taking the L2 norm of a one-element vector, so we can rewrite it as:
|(E[i]-S[i])-(L[i]+l[i])/2|_2
We can now sum the deviations for each bar:
|(E[0]-S[0])-(L[0]+l[0])/2|_2 + |(E[1]-S[1])-(L[1]+l[1])/2|_2 + ...
This gives us the following optimization problem:
min |(E[0]-S[0])-(L[0]+l[0])/2|_2 + |(E[1]-S[1])-(L[1]+l[1])/2|_2 + ...
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
This problem is not easily solveable in the form stated above, but we can perform a simple manipulation by introducing a variable t
min t[0] + t[1] + ...
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
|(E[i]-S[i])-(L[i]+l[i])/2|_2<=t[i]
This problem is exactly the same as the previous problem. So what have we gained?
Optimization is a game of converting problems into standard forms. Once we have a problem in a standard form, we can then Stand On The Shoulders Of Giants and use powerful tools to solve our problems.
The foregoing manipulation has turned the problem into a second-order cone problem (SOCP). Once in this form, it can be solved pretty much directly.
The code for doing so looks like this:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import cvxpy as cp
import networkx as nx
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def FindTerminalPoints(springs):
starts = set([x[0] for x in springs.edges()])
ends = set([x[1] for x in springs.edges()])
return list(starts-ends), list(ends-starts)
springs = nx.DiGraph()
springs.add_edge('a', 'b', minlen= 1, maxlen= 3)
springs.add_edge('a', 'c', minlen= 1, maxlen= 4)
springs.add_edge('a', 'f', minlen=15, maxlen=15)
springs.add_edge('b', 'c', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('b', 'e', minlen= 9, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('c', 'd', minlen= 7, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('d', 'e', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('d', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 6)
springs.add_edge('e', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 5)
if not nx.is_directed_acyclic_graph(springs):
raise Exception("Springs must be a directed acyclic graph!")
starts, ends = FindTerminalPoints(springs)
if len(starts)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique start is needed!")
if len(ends)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique end is needed!")
start = starts[0]
end = ends[0]
#At this point we have what is essentially a directed acyclic graph beginning at
#`start` and ending at `end`
#Generate a variable for the position of each blue bar
bluevars = {n: cp.Variable(name=n) for n in springs.nodes()}
dvars = {e: cp.Variable() for e in springs.edges()}
#Anchor the leftmost blue bar to prevent pathological solutions
cons = [bluevars[start]==0]
for s,e in springs.edges():
print("Loading edge {0}-{1}".format(s,e))
sv = bluevars[s]
ev = bluevars[e]
edge = springs[s][e]
cons += [sv+edge['minlen']<=ev]
cons += [ev<=sv+edge['maxlen']]
cons += [cp.norm((ev-sv)-(edge['maxlen']-edge['minlen'])/2,2)<=dvars[(s,e)]]
obj = cp.Minimize(cp.sum(list(dvars.values())))
prob = cp.Problem(obj,cons)
val = prob.solve()
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
for var, val in bluevars.items():
print("{:10} = {:10}".format(var,val.value))
plt.plot([val.value,val.value],[0,3])
plt.show()
The results look like this:
If you want to "hand tune" the blue bars, you can modify the optimization problem we've built by adding weights w[i].
min w[0]*t[0] + w[1]*t[1] + ...
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
|(E[i]-S[i])-(L[i]+l[i])/2|_2<=t[i]
The larger w[i] is, the more important it will be that the spring in question is close to its average length.
Minimizing Squared Distance Between Ordered Blue Bars, Subject to Constraints
Using the same strategies as above, we can minimize the squared distance between the blue bars assume some sort of known order. This leads to:
min t[0] + t[1] + ...
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i]
E[i] <= S+L[i]
|(S[i]-S[i+1])/2|_2<=t[i]
In the code below I first find feasible positions of the blue bars and then assume these map to a desirable order. Replacing this heuristic with more accurate information would be a good idea.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import cvxpy as cp
import networkx as nx
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
def FindTerminalPoints(springs):
starts = set([x[0] for x in springs.edges()])
ends = set([x[1] for x in springs.edges()])
return list(starts-ends), list(ends-starts)
springs = nx.DiGraph()
springs.add_edge('a', 'b', minlen= 1, maxlen= 3)
springs.add_edge('a', 'c', minlen= 1, maxlen= 4)
springs.add_edge('a', 'f', minlen=15, maxlen=15)
springs.add_edge('b', 'c', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('b', 'e', minlen= 9, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('c', 'd', minlen= 7, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('d', 'e', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('d', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 6)
springs.add_edge('e', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 5)
if not nx.is_directed_acyclic_graph(springs):
raise Exception("Springs must be a directed acyclic graph!")
starts, ends = FindTerminalPoints(springs)
if len(starts)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique start is needed!")
if len(ends)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique end is needed!")
start = starts[0]
end = ends[0]
#At this point we have what is essentially a directed acyclic graph beginning at
#`start` and ending at `end`
#Generate a variable for the position of each blue bar
bluevars = {n: cp.Variable(name=n) for n in springs.nodes()}
#Anchor the leftmost blue bar to prevent pathological solutions
cons = [bluevars[start]==0]
#Constraint each blue bar to its range
for s,e in springs.edges():
print("Loading edge {0}-{1}".format(s,e))
sv = bluevars[s]
ev = bluevars[e]
edge = springs[s][e]
cons += [sv+edge['minlen']<=ev]
cons += [ev<=sv+edge['maxlen']]
#Find feasible locations for the blue bars. This is a heuristic for getting a
#sorted order for the bars
obj = cp.Minimize(1)
prob = cp.Problem(obj,cons)
prob.solve()
#Now that we have a sorted order, we modify the objective to minimize the
#squared distance between the ordered bars
bar_locs = list(bluevars.values())
bar_locs.sort(key=lambda x: x.value)
dvars = [cp.Variable() for n in range(len(springs.nodes())-1)]
for i in range(len(bar_locs)-1):
cons += [cp.norm(bar_locs[i]-bar_locs[i+1],2)<=dvars[i]]
obj = cp.Minimize(cp.sum(dvars))
prob = cp.Problem(obj,cons)
val = prob.solve()
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
for var, val in bluevars.items():
print("{:10} = {:10}".format(var,val.value))
plt.plot([val.value,val.value],[0,3])
plt.show()
That looks like this:
Minimizing Squared Distance Between All Blue Bars, Subject to Constraints
We could also try to minimize all of the pairwise squared distances between blue bars. To my eye this seems to give the best result.
min t[i,j] + ... for all i,j
s.t. S[leftmost] = 0
S[i]+l[i] <= E[i] for all i
E[i] <= S+L[i] for all i
|(S[i]-S[j])/2|_2 <= t[i,j] for all i,j
That would look like this:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import cvxpy as cp
import networkx as nx
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import itertools
def FindTerminalPoints(springs):
starts = set([x[0] for x in springs.edges()])
ends = set([x[1] for x in springs.edges()])
return list(starts-ends), list(ends-starts)
springs = nx.DiGraph()
springs.add_edge('a', 'b', minlen= 1, maxlen= 3)
springs.add_edge('a', 'c', minlen= 1, maxlen= 4)
springs.add_edge('a', 'f', minlen=15, maxlen=15)
springs.add_edge('b', 'c', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('b', 'e', minlen= 9, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('c', 'd', minlen= 7, maxlen=11)
springs.add_edge('d', 'e', minlen= 0, maxlen= 1)
springs.add_edge('d', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 6)
springs.add_edge('e', 'f', minlen= 3, maxlen= 5)
if not nx.is_directed_acyclic_graph(springs):
raise Exception("Springs must be a directed acyclic graph!")
starts, ends = FindTerminalPoints(springs)
if len(starts)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique start is needed!")
if len(ends)!=1:
raise Exception("One unique end is needed!")
start = starts[0]
end = ends[0]
#At this point we have what is essentially a directed acyclic graph beginning at
#`start` and ending at `end`
#Generate a variable for the position of each blue bar
bluevars = {n: cp.Variable(name=n) for n in springs.nodes()}
#Anchor the leftmost blue bar to prevent pathological solutions
cons = [bluevars[start]==0]
#Constraint each blue bar to its range
for s,e in springs.edges():
print("Loading edge {0}-{1}".format(s,e))
sv = bluevars[s]
ev = bluevars[e]
edge = springs[s][e]
cons += [sv+edge['minlen']<=ev]
cons += [ev<=sv+edge['maxlen']]
dist_combos = list(itertools.combinations(springs.nodes(), 2))
dvars = {(na,nb):cp.Variable() for na,nb in dist_combos}
distcons = []
for na,nb in dist_combos:
distcons += [cp.norm(bluevars[na]-bluevars[nb],2)<=dvars[(na,nb)]]
cons += distcons
#Find feasible locations for the blue bars. This is a heuristic for getting a
#sorted order for the bars
obj = cp.Minimize(cp.sum(list(dvars.values())))
prob = cp.Problem(obj,cons)
val = prob.solve()
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
for var, val in bluevars.items():
print("{:10} = {:10}".format(var,val.value))
plt.plot([val.value,val.value],[0,3])
plt.show()
That looks like this:

Number of unique sequences of 3 digits (-1,0,1) given a length that matches a sum

Say you have a vertical game board of length n (being the number of spaces). And you have a three-sided die that has the options: go forward one, stay and go back one. If you go below or above the number of board game spaces it is an invalid game. The only valid move once you reach the end of the board is "stay". Given an exact number of die rolls t, is it possible to algorithmically work out the number of unique dice rolls that result in a winning game?
So far I've tried producing a list of every possible combination of (-1,0,1) for the given number of die rolls and sorting through the list to see if any add up to the length of the board and also meet all the requirements for being a valid game. But this is impractical for dice rolls above 20.
For example:
t=1, n=2; Output=1
t=3, n=2; Output=3
You can use a dynamic programming approach. The sketch of a recurrence is:
M(0, 1) = 1
M(t, n) = T(t-1, n-1) + T(t-1, n) + T(t-1, n+1)
Of course you have to consider the border cases (like going off the board or not allowing to exit the end of the board, but it's easy to code that).
Here's some Python code:
def solve(N, T):
M, M2 = [0]*N, [0]*N
M[0] = 1
for i in xrange(T):
M, M2 = M2, M
for j in xrange(N):
M[j] = (j>0 and M2[j-1]) + M2[j] + (j+1<N-1 and M2[j+1])
return M[N-1]
print solve(3, 2) #1
print solve(2, 1) #1
print solve(2, 3) #3
print solve(5, 20) #19535230
Bonus: fancy "one-liner" with list compreehension and reduce
def solve(N, T):
return reduce(
lambda M, _: [(j>0 and M[j-1]) + M[j] + (j<N-2 and M[j+1]) for j in xrange(N)],
xrange(T), [1]+[0]*N)[-1]
Let M[i, j] be an N by N matrix with M[i, j] = 1 if |i-j| <= 1 and 0 otherwise (and the special case for the "stay" rule of M[N, N-1] = 0)
This matrix counts paths of length 1 from position i to position j.
To find paths of length t, simply raise M to the t'th power. This can be performed efficiently by linear algebra packages.
The solution can be read off: M^t[1, N].
For example, computing paths of length 20 on a board of size 5 in an interactive Python session:
>>> import numpy
>>> M = numpy.matrix('1 1 0 0 0;1 1 1 0 0; 0 1 1 1 0; 0 0 1 1 1; 0 0 0 0 1')
>>> M
matrix([[1, 1, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 1, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 1, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 1, 1],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 1]])
>>> M ** 20
matrix([[31628466, 51170460, 51163695, 31617520, 19535230],
[51170460, 82792161, 82787980, 51163695, 31617520],
[51163695, 82787980, 82792161, 51170460, 31628465],
[31617520, 51163695, 51170460, 31628466, 19552940],
[ 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]])
So there's M^20[1, 5], or 19535230 paths of length 20 from start to finish on a board of size 5.
Try a backtracking algorithm. Recursively "dive down" into depth t and only continue with dice values that could still result in a valid state. Propably by passing a "remaining budget" around.
For example, n=10, t=20, when you reached depth 10 of 20 and your budget is still 10 (= steps forward and backwards seemed to cancelled), the next recursion steps until depth t would discontinue the 0 and -1 possibilities, because they could not result in a valid state at the end.
A backtracking algorithms for this case is still very heavy (exponential), but better than first blowing up a bubble with all possibilities and then filtering.
Since zeros can be added anywhere, we'll multiply those possibilities by the different arrangements of (-1)'s:
X (space 1) X (space 2) X (space 3) X (space 4) X
(-1)'s can only appear in spaces 1,2 or 3, not in space 4. I got help with the mathematical recurrence that counts the number of ways to place minus ones without skipping backwards.
JavaScript code:
function C(n,k){if(k==0||n==k)return 1;var p=n;for(var i=2;i<=k;i++)p*=(n+1-i)/i;return p}
function sumCoefficients(arr,cs){
var s = 0, i = -1;
while (arr[++i]){
s += cs[i] * arr[i];
}
return s;
}
function f(n,t){
var numMinusOnes = (t - (n-1)) >> 1
result = C(t,n-1),
numPlaces = n - 2,
cs = [];
for (var i=1; numPlaces-i>=i-1; i++){
cs.push(-Math.pow(-1,i) * C(numPlaces + 1 - i,i));
}
var As = new Array(cs.length),
An;
As[0] = 1;
for (var m=1; m<=numMinusOnes; m++){
var zeros = t - (n-1) - 2*m;
An = sumCoefficients(As,cs);
As.unshift(An);
As.pop();
result += An * C(zeros + 2*m + n-1,zeros);
}
return result;
}
Output:
console.log(f(5,20))
19535230

Algorithm to sort pairs of numbers

I am stuck with a problem and I need some help from bright minds of SO.
I have N pairs of unsigned integerers. I need to sort them. The ending vector of pairs should be sorted nondecreasingly by the first number in each pair and nonincreasingly by the second in each pair. Each pair can have the first and second elements swapped with each other. Sometimes there is no solution, so I need to throw an exception then.
Example:
in pairs:
1 5
7 1
3 8
5 6
out pairs:
1 7 <-- swapped
1 5
6 5 <-- swapped
8 3 <-- swapped
^^ Without swapping pairs it is impossible to build the solution. So we swap pairs (7, 1), (3, 8) and (5, 6) and build the result.
or
in pairs:
1 5
6 9
out:
not possible
One more example that shows how 'sorting pairs' first isn't the solution.
in pairs:
1 4
2 5
out pairs:
1 4
5 2
Thanks
O( n log n ) solution
Let S(n) equals all the valid sort orderings, where n corresponds to pairs included [0,n].
S(n) = []
for each order in S(n-1)
for each combination of n-th pair
if pair can be inserted in order, add the order after insertion to S(n)
else don't include the order in S(n)
A pair can be inserted into an order in maximum of two ways(normal pair and reversed pair).
Maximum orderings = O(2^n)
I'm not very sure about this amortized orderings, but hear me out.
For an order and pair we have four ways of getting sorted orders after insertions
(two orders, one(normal),one(reversed), zero)
No of orderings (Amortized) = (1/4)*2 + (1/4)*1 + (1/4)*1 + (1/4)*0 = 1
Amortized orderings = O(1)
Similarly time complexity will be O(n^2), Again not sure.
Following program finds orderings using a variant of Insertion sort.
debug = False
(LEFT, RIGHT, ERROR) = range(3)
def position(first, second):
""" Returns the position of first pair when compared to second """
x,y = first
a,b = second
if x <= a and b <= y:
return LEFT
if x >= a and b >= y:
return RIGHT
else:
return ERROR
def insert(pair, order):
""" A pair can be inserted in normal order or reversed order
For each order of insertion we will get one solution or none"""
solutions = []
paircombinations = [pair]
if pair[0] != pair[1]: # reverse and normal order are distinct
paircombinations.append(pair[::-1])
for _pair in paircombinations:
insertat = 0
if debug: print "Inserting", _pair,
for i,p in enumerate(order):
pos = position(_pair, p)
if pos == LEFT:
break
elif pos == RIGHT:
insertat += 1
else:
if debug: print "into", order,"is not possible"
insertat = None
break
if insertat != None:
if debug: print "at",insertat,"in", order
solutions.append(order[0:insertat] + [_pair] + order[insertat:])
return solutions
def swapsort(pairs):
"""
Finds all the solutions of pairs such that ending vector
of pairs are be sorted non decreasingly by the first number in
each pair and non increasingly by the second in each pair.
"""
solutions = [ pairs[0:1] ] # Solution first pair
for pair in pairs[1:]:
# Pair that needs to be inserted into solutions
newsolutions = []
for solution in solutions:
sols = insert(pair, solution) # solutions after inserting pair
if sols:
newsolutions.extend(sols)
if newsolutions:
solutions = newsolutions
else:
return None
return solutions
if __name__ == "__main__":
groups = [ [(1,5), (7,1), (3,8), (5,6)],
[(1,5), (2,3), (3,3), (3,4), (2,4)],
[(3,5), (6,6), (7,4)],
[(1,4), (2,5)] ]
for pairs in groups:
print "Solutions for",pairs,":"
solutions = swapsort(pairs)
if solutions:
for sol in solutions:
print sol
else:
print "not possible"
Output:
Solutions for [(1, 5), (7, 1), (3, 8), (5, 6)] :
[(1, 7), (1, 5), (6, 5), (8, 3)]
Solutions for [(1, 5), (2, 3), (3, 3), (3, 4), (2, 4)] :
[(1, 5), (2, 4), (2, 3), (3, 3), (4, 3)]
[(1, 5), (2, 3), (3, 3), (4, 3), (4, 2)]
[(1, 5), (2, 4), (3, 4), (3, 3), (3, 2)]
[(1, 5), (3, 4), (3, 3), (3, 2), (4, 2)]
Solutions for [(3, 5), (6, 6), (7, 4)] :
not possible
Solutions for [(1, 4), (2, 5)] :
[(1, 4), (5, 2)]
This is a fun problem. I came up with Tom's solution independently, here's my Python code:
class UnableToAddPair:
pass
def rcmp(i,j):
c = cmp(i[0],j[0])
if c == 0:
return -cmp(i[1],j[1])
return c
def order(pairs):
pairs = [list(x) for x in pairs]
for x in pairs:
x.sort()
pairs.sort(rcmp)
top, bottom = [], []
for p in pairs:
if len(top) == 0 or p[1] <= top[-1][1]:
top += [p]
elif len(bottom) == 0 or p[1] <= bottom[-1][1]:
bottom += [p]
else:
raise UnableToAddPair
bottom = [[x[1],x[0]] for x in bottom]
bottom.reverse()
print top + bottom
One important point not mentioned in Tom's solution is that in the sorting stage, if the lesser values of any two pairs are the same, you have to sort by decreasing value of the greater element.
It took me a long time to figure out why a failure must indicate that there's no solution; my original code had backtracking.
Below is a simple recursive depth-first search algorithm in Python:
import sys
def try_sort(seq, minx, maxy, partial):
if len(seq) == 0: return partial
for i, (x, y) in enumerate(seq):
if x >= minx and y <= maxy:
ret = try_sort(seq[:i] + seq[i+1:], x, y, partial + [(x, y)])
if ret is not None: return ret
if y >= minx and x <= maxy:
ret = try_sort(seq[:i] + seq[i+1:], y, x, partial + [(y, x)])
if ret is not None: return ret
return None
def do_sort(seq):
ret = try_sort(seq, -sys.maxint-1, sys.maxint, [])
print ret if ret is not None else "not possible"
do_sort([(1,5), (7,1), (3,8), (5,6)])
do_sort([(1,5), (2,9)])
do_sort([(3,5), (6,6), (7,4)])
It maintains a sorted subsequence (partial) and tries to append every remaining pair to it both in the original and in the reversed order, without violating the conditions of the sort.
If desired, the algorithm can be easily changed to find all valid sort orders.
Edit: I suspect that the algorithm can be substantially improved by maintaining two partially-sorted sequences (a prefix and a suffix). I think that this would allow the next element can be chosen deterministically instead of trying all possible elements. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to think this through.
Update: this answer is no longer valid since question was changed
Split vector of pairs into buckets by first number. Do descending sort on each bucket. Merge buckets in ascending order of first numbers and keep track of second number of last pair. If it's greater than current one there is no solution. Otherwise you will get solution after merge is done.
If you have stable sorting algorithm you can do descending sort by second number and then ascending sort by first number. After that check if second numbers are still in descending order.
The swapping in your case is just a sort of a 2-element array.
so you can
tuple[] = (4,6),(1,5),(7,1),(8,6), ...
for each tuple -> sort internal list
=> (4,6),(1,5),(1,7),(6,8)
sort tuple by 1st asc
=> (1,5),(1,7),(4,6),(6,8)
sort tuple by 1nd desc
=> (1,7),(1,5),(4,6),(6,8)
The first thing I notice is that there is no solution if both values in one tuple are larger than both values in any other tuple.
The next thing I notice is that tuples with a small difference become sorted towards the middle, and tupples with large differences become sorted towards the ends.
With these two pieces of information you should be able to figure out a reasonable solution.
Phase 1: Sort each tuple moving the smaller value first.
Phase 2: Sort the list of tuples; first in descending order of the difference between the two values of each tuple, then sort each grouping of equal difference in ascending order of the first member of each tuple. (Eg. (1,6),(2,7),(3,8),(4,4),(5,5).)
Phase 3: Check for exceptions. 1: Look for a pair of tuples where both elements of one tuple are larger than both elements of the other tuple. (Eg. (4,4),(5,5).) 2: If there are four or more tuples, then look within each group of tuples with the same difference for three or more variations (Eg. (1,6),(2,7),(3,8).)
Phase 4: Rearrange tuples. Starting at the back end (tuples with smallest difference), the second variation within each grouping of tuples with equal difference must have their elements swapped and the tuples appended to the back of the list. (Eg. (1,6),(2,7),(5,5) => (2,7),(5,5),(6,1).)
I think this should cover it.
This is a very interesting question. Here is my solution to it in VB.NET.
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim input = {Tuple.Create(1, 5),
Tuple.Create(2, 3),
Tuple.Create(3, 3),
Tuple.Create(3, 4),
Tuple.Create(2, 4)}.ToList
Console.WriteLine(Solve(input))
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
Private Function Solve(ByVal input As List(Of Tuple(Of Integer, Integer))) As String
Dim splitItems As New List(Of Tuple(Of Integer, Integer))
Dim removedSplits As New List(Of Tuple(Of Integer, Integer))
Dim output As New List(Of Tuple(Of Integer, Integer))
Dim otherPair = Function(indexToFind As Integer, startPos As Integer) splitItems.FindIndex(startPos, Function(x) x.Item2 = indexToFind)
Dim otherPairBackwards = Function(indexToFind As Integer, endPos As Integer) splitItems.FindLastIndex(endPos, Function(x) x.Item2 = indexToFind)
'split the input while preserving their indices in the Item2 property
For i = 0 To input.Count - 1
splitItems.Add(Tuple.Create(input(i).Item1, i))
splitItems.Add(Tuple.Create(input(i).Item2, i))
Next
'then sort the split input ascending order
splitItems.Sort(Function(x, y) x.Item1.CompareTo(y.Item1))
'find the distinct values in the input (which is pre-sorted)
Dim distincts = splitItems.Select(Function(x) x.Item1).Distinct
Dim dIndex = 0
Dim lastX = -1, lastY = -1
'go through the distinct values one by one
Do While dIndex < distincts.Count
Dim d = distincts(dIndex)
'temporary list to store the output for the current distinct number
Dim temOutput As New List(Of Tuple(Of Integer, Integer))
'go through each of the split items and look for the current distinct number
Dim curIndex = 0, endIndex = splitItems.Count - 1
Do While curIndex <= endIndex
If splitItems(curIndex).Item1 = d Then
'find the pair of the item
Dim pairIndex = otherPair(splitItems(curIndex).Item2, curIndex + 1)
If pairIndex = -1 Then pairIndex = otherPairBackwards(splitItems(curIndex).Item2, curIndex - 1)
'create a pair and add it to the temporary output list
temOutput.Add(Tuple.Create(splitItems(curIndex).Item1, splitItems(pairIndex).Item1))
'push the items onto the temporary storage and remove it from the split list
removedSplits.Add(splitItems(curIndex))
removedSplits.Add(splitItems(pairIndex))
If curIndex > pairIndex Then
splitItems.RemoveAt(curIndex)
splitItems.RemoveAt(pairIndex)
Else
splitItems.RemoveAt(pairIndex)
splitItems.RemoveAt(curIndex)
End If
endIndex -= 2
Else
'increment the index or exit the iteration as appropriate
If splitItems(curIndex).Item1 <= d Then curIndex += 1 Else Exit Do
End If
Loop
'sort temporary output by the second item and add to the main output
output.AddRange(From r In temOutput Order By r.Item2 Descending)
'ensure that the entire list is properly ordered
'start at the first item that was added from the temporary output
For i = output.Count - temOutput.Count To output.Count - 1
Dim r = output(i)
If lastX = -1 Then
lastX = r.Item1
ElseIf lastX > r.Item1 Then
'!+ It appears this section of the if statement is unnecessary
'sorting on the first column is out of order so remove the temporary list
'and send the items in the temporary list back to the split items list
output.RemoveRange(output.Count - temOutput.Count, temOutput.Count)
splitItems.AddRange(removedSplits)
splitItems.Sort(Function(x, y) x.Item1.CompareTo(y.Item1))
dIndex += 1
Exit For
End If
If lastY = -1 Then
lastY = r.Item2
ElseIf lastY < r.Item2 Then
'sorting on the second column is out of order so remove the temporary list
'and send the items in the temporary list back to the split items list
output.RemoveRange(output.Count - temOutput.Count, temOutput.Count)
splitItems.AddRange(removedSplits)
splitItems.Sort(Function(x, y) x.Item1.CompareTo(y.Item1))
dIndex += 1
Exit For
End If
Next
removedSplits.Clear()
Loop
If splitItems.Count = 0 Then
Dim result As New Text.StringBuilder()
For Each r In output
result.AppendLine(r.Item1 & " " & r.Item2)
Next
Return result.ToString
Else
Return "Not Possible"
End If
End Function
<DebuggerStepThrough()> _
Public Class Tuple(Of T1, T2)
Implements IEqualityComparer(Of Tuple(Of T1, T2))
Public Property Item1() As T1
Get
Return _first
End Get
Private Set(ByVal value As T1)
_first = value
End Set
End Property
Private _first As T1
Public Property Item2() As T2
Get
Return _second
End Get
Private Set(ByVal value As T2)
_second = value
End Set
End Property
Private _second As T2
Public Sub New(ByVal item1 As T1, ByVal item2 As T2)
_first = item1
_second = item2
End Sub
Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal x As Tuple(Of T1, T2), ByVal y As Tuple(Of T1, T2)) As Boolean Implements IEqualityComparer(Of Tuple(Of T1, T2)).Equals
Return EqualityComparer(Of T1).[Default].Equals(x.Item1, y.Item1) AndAlso EqualityComparer(Of T2).[Default].Equals(x.Item2, y.Item2)
End Function
Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean
Return TypeOf obj Is Tuple(Of T1, T2) AndAlso Equals(Me, DirectCast(obj, Tuple(Of T1, T2)))
End Function
Public Overloads Function GetHashCode(ByVal obj As Tuple(Of T1, T2)) As Integer Implements IEqualityComparer(Of Tuple(Of T1, T2)).GetHashCode
Return EqualityComparer(Of T1).[Default].GetHashCode(Item1) Xor EqualityComparer(Of T2).[Default].GetHashCode(Item2)
End Function
End Class
Public MustInherit Class Tuple
<DebuggerStepThrough()> _
Public Shared Function Create(Of T1, T2)(ByVal first As T1, ByVal second As T2) As Tuple(Of T1, T2)
Return New Tuple(Of T1, T2)(first, second)
End Function
End Class
End Module
The input
1 5
2 3
3 3
3 4
2 4
Produces the output
1 5
2 4
2 3
3 4
3 3
And
3 5
6 6
7 4
Outputs
Not Nossible
Comments
I found this problem quite challenging. It took me some 15 minutes to come up with with a solution and an hour or so to write and debug it. The code is littered with comments so that anyone can follow it.

Resources