I'm working on the following algorithm from Leetcode:
Numbers can be regarded as product of its factors. For example,
8 = 2 x 2 x 2;
= 2 x 4.
Write a function that takes an integer n and return all possible combinations of its factors.
Note:
You may assume that n is always positive.
Factors should be greater than 1 and less than n.
Examples:
input: 1
output:
[]
input: 37
output:
[]
input: 12
output:
[
[2, 6],
[2, 2, 3],
[3, 4]
]
input: 32
output:
[
[2, 16],
[2, 2, 8],
[2, 2, 2, 4],
[2, 2, 2, 2, 2],
[2, 4, 4],
[4, 8]
]
Here's the code that I have thus far:
def get_factors(n)
factors = []
(2...n).each do |candidate|
if n % candidate == 0
factors << [candidate, (n/candidate)]
get_factors(n/candidate).each do |factor_set|
factors << [candidate] + factor_set
end
end
end
factors
end
This code works really well, but doesn't handle duplicates (e.g [3, 2, 2] will be inserted along with [2, 2, 3]). I tried using a Set with the following code,
def get_factors(n)
seen = Set.new
factors = []
(2...n).each do |candidate|
if n % candidate == 0 && !seen.include?(candidate)
factors << [candidate, (n/candidate)]
get_factors(n/candidate).each do |factor_set|
factors << [candidate] + factor_set
end
end
seen << (n/candidate)
end
factors
end
but that only works to solve some test cases and not others. I'm not sure how to go about ensuring no duplicates in an efficient way? The really inefficient way is to generate some sort of hash value for each array depending on it's elements (and not dependent on order), and while this would work, there definitely should be a better way. Any ideas?
I think always going forward is a good policy (i.e when checking, say, with 5, do not check with 2, 3, 4 etc). That way, searching for duplicates can be eliminated.
Since the algorithm already uses a lot of time, I don't see a problem sorting each answer and removing duplicates. This requires no proof to ensure it works, which the answer provided by mac does.
Code
require 'prime'
def get_factors(n)
primes, nbr = Prime.prime_division(n).transpose
powers = nbr.map { |m| (0..m).to_a }
powers.shift.
product(*powers).
map { |pows| primes.zip(pows).reduce(1) { |t,(pr,po)| t * (pr**po) } }.
sort
end
The array returned includes 1 and n (which are factors of n). If those values should be excluded, replace .sort with .sort - [1, n].
Examples
get_factors(24)
#=> [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24]
get_factors(64)
#=> [1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64]
get_factors(90)
#=> [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90]
Explanation
Consider
n = 60
The steps are as follows.
a = Prime.prime_division(30)
#=> [[2, 2], [3, 1], [5, 1]]
Ergo, the primes of 30 are 2, 3 and 5, and
60 = 2**2 * 3**1 * 5**1
See Prime::prime_division. Continuing,
primes, nbr = a.transpose
#=> [[2, 3, 5], [2, 1, 1]]
primes
#=> [2, 3, 5]
nbr
#=> [2, 1, 1]
powers = nbr.map { |m| (0..m).to_a }
#=> [[0, 1, 2], [0, 1], [0, 1]]
This means that each factor will be the product of 0, 1 or 2 2's, 0 or 1 3's and 0 or 1 5's.
b = powers.shift
#=> [0, 1, 2]
powers
#=> [[0, 1], [0, 1]]
c = b.product(*powers)
#=> [[0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1], [0, 1, 0], [0, 1, 1], [1, 0, 0], [1, 0, 1],
# [1, 1, 0], [1, 1, 1], [2, 0, 0], [2, 0, 1], [2, 1, 0], [2, 1, 1]]
d = c.map { |pows| primes.zip(pows).reduce(1) { |t,(pr,po)| t * (pr**po) } }
#=> [1, 5, 3, 15, 2, 10, 6, 30, 4, 20, 12, 60]
d.sort
#=> [1, 5, 3, 15, 2, 10, 6, 30, 4, 20, 12, 60]
Consider now the calculation of d. The 10th element of c that is passed to the block is [2, 0, 1]. The block calculation for that element is as follows.
pows = [2, 0, 1]
e = primes.zip(pows)
#=> [[2, 2], [3, 0], [5, 1]]
e.reduce(1) { |t,(pr,po)| t * (pr**po) }
#=> 20
The reduce calculation is equivalent to
2**2 * 3**0 * 5**1
#=> 4 * 1 * 5 => 20
The calculations for the other values of c passed to the block are similar.
A simple way is to replace the last line of your method with
factors.map(&:sort).uniq
which sorts all the subarrays and then eliminates duplicates.
Related
Im trying to decipher why the div method is faster than the div2 method, and I cant find the reason.
def div2(num)
[*1..num].select do |n|
n if num % n == 0
end
end
p div2(58463982)
def div(num)
result = []
(1..num).each do |n|
break if result.include?(num / n)
result.concat([n, num / n]).uniq! if num % n == 0
end
result.sort!
end
p div(58463982)
I will let others explain why div is faster than div2. I want to show how to compute the factors of the given natural number in a way that is considerably faster.
Every integer can be expressed as the product of a collection of prime numbers, each taken to a power of one or more. We can use the method Prime::prime_division to obtain those prime numbers and powers. For example,
require 'prime'
arr = Prime.prime_division(58463982)
#=> [[2, 1], [3, 2], [53, 1], [61283, 1]]
This means that:
(2**1) * (3**2) * (53**1) * (61283**1)
#=> 58463982
One divisor of 58463982 equals, for example:
(2**1) * (3**2) * (53**0) * (61283**1)
#=> 2 * 9 * 1 * 61283
#=> 1103094
To confirm:
58463982 % 1103094
#=> 0
Another would be
(2**0) * (3**1) * (53**1) * (61283**0)
#=> 1 * 3 * 53 * 1
#=> 159
We find that all factors of a given number can be computed (combinatorially) as follows, using the methods Array#product and Enumerable#reduce (a.k.a. inject).
def all_factors(n)
primes, exponents = Prime.prime_division(n).transpose
first_exp_range, *rest_exp_range = exponents.map { |e| [*0..e] }
first_exp_range.product(*rest_exp_range).map do |exps|
primes.zip(exps).reduce(1) { |t,(p,e)| t*(p**e) }
end.sort
end
Depending on requirements, .sort at the end may not be required.
We may test:
require 'time'
t = Time.now
p all_factors(58463982)
p Time.now - t
#=> [1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 53, 106, 159, 318, 477, 954, 61283, 122566,
# 183849, 367698, 551547, 1103094, 3247999, 6495998, 9743997,
# 19487994, 29231991, 58463982]
#
#=> 0.001405 (seconds)
By constrast, computing the factors of 58463982 with div2 and div required 4.467112 and 0.021103 seconds, respectively.
This is clearly much faster than those methods.
We may step through the example to view the calculations being performed.
n = 58463982
then
primes, exponents = Prime.prime_division(n).transpose
#=> [[2, 3, 53, 61283], [1, 2, 1, 1]]
so
primes
#=> [2, 3, 53, 61283]
exponents
#=> [1, 2, 1, 1]
Then,
first_exp_range, *rest_exp_range = exponents.map { |e| [*0..e] }
#=> [[0, 1], [0, 1, 2], [0, 1], [0, 1]]
so
first_exp_range
#=> [0, 1]
rest_exp_range
#=> [0, 1, 2], [0, 1], [0, 1]
Then
a = first_exp_range.product(*res_exp_range)
#=> [[0, 0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0, 1], [0, 0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1, 1],
# [0, 1, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 1], [0, 1, 1, 0], [0, 1, 1, 1],
# [0, 2, 0, 0], [0, 2, 0, 1], [0, 2, 1, 0], [0, 2, 1, 1],
# [1, 0, 0, 0], [1, 0, 0, 1], [1, 0, 1, 0], [1, 0, 1, 1],
# [1, 1, 0, 0], [1, 1, 0, 1], [1, 1, 1, 0], [1, 1, 1, 1],
# [1, 2, 0, 0], [1, 2, 0, 1], [1, 2, 1, 0], [1, 2, 1, 1]]
Then,
b = a.map { |exps| primes.zip(exps).reduce(1) { |t,(p,e)| t*(p**e) } }
#=> [1, 61283, 53, 3247999, 3, 183849, 159, 9743997, 9, 551547,
# 477, 29231991, 2, 122566, 106, 6495998, 6, 367698, 318,
# 19487994, 18, 1103094, 954, 58463982]
To view the result sorted,
b.sort
#=> [1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 53, 106, 159, 318, 477, 954, 61283, 122566,
# 183849, 367698, 551547, 1103094, 3247999, 6495998, 9743997,
# 19487994, 29231991, 58463982]
The div2 method create a list from 1 to num then iterates over all of the elements in it.
The div method can break early, and so does not have to iterate as many times.
I have a find_num method that returns the index of a specified number in an ordered array, e.g.
find_num(6, [1, 4, 6, 9, 13]) #=> 2
however my spec also requires that if the number is not available it finds the position of the next highest number so ...
find_num(8, [1, 4, 6, 9, 13]) #=> 3
as 9 is the next available number.
Having trouble implementing this... I have thought of iterating through the whole array but I am told to take into account the array could be large...
You can pass a block to index and it ...
[...] returns the index of the first object for which the block returns true. Returns nil if no match is found.
Examples:
[1, 4, 6, 9, 13].index { |n| n >= 6 } #=> 2
[1, 4, 6, 9, 13].index { |n| n >= 8 } #=> 3
[1, 4, 6, 9, 13].index { |n| n >= 15 } #=> nil
Because this requires the array to be ordered, you can also use bsearch_index which performs a binary search.
you can also find a index of any element in array like this.
2.1.8 :040 > [1, 4, 6, 9, 13].index(6)
=> 2
2.1.8 :041 > [1, 4, 6, 9, 13].index(15)
=> nil
def find_num(n,a)
a.each_with_index.to_a.sort_by(&:first).find { |nbr,_| nbr >= n }.last
end
find_num(6, [1, 4, 6, 9, 13])
#=> 2
find_num(8, [1, 4, 6, 9, 13]) #=> 3
#=> 3
The steps for
n = 8
a = [1, 4, 6, 9, 13]
are as follows.
b = a.each_with_index.to_a
#=> [[1, 0], [4, 1], [6, 2], [9, 3], [13, 4]]
c = b.sort_by(&:first)
#=> [[1, 0], [4, 1], [6, 2], [9, 3], [13, 4]]
d = c.find { |nbr,_| nbr >= n }
#=> [9, 3]
d.last
#=> 3
I have a range of numbers R = (1..n). I also have another character 'a'. I want to generate strings of length L (L > n + 2) that have all the numbers in the same order, but go through every repeated permutation of 'a' to fill the length L. For example, if n = 3, and L = 7, then some valid strings would be :
"123aaaa",
"1a23aaa",
"1aa2a3a",
"aaaa123"
while the following strings would be invalid:
"213aaaa", # invalid, because 1,2,3 are not in order
"123a", #invalid, because length < L
"1123aaa", # invalid because a number is repeated
I am currently doing this, which is way too inefficient:
n = 3
L = 7
all_terms = (1..n).to_a + Array.new(L - n, 'a')
all_terms.permutation.each do |permut|
if(valid_permut? permut) # checks if numbers are in their natural order
puts permut.join
end
end
How do I directly generate valid strings more efficiently?
The problem is equivalent to: select n elements from index 0 to L - 1, fill these with 1 to n accordingly, and fill the rest with some constant character.
In your example, it's taking 3 elements from 0..6:
(0..6).to_a.combination(3).to_a
=> [[0, 1, 2], [0, 1, 3], [0, 1, 4], [0, 1, 5], [0, 1, 6], [0, 2, 3], [0, 2, 4],
[0, 2, 5], [0, 2, 6], [0, 3, 4], [0, 3, 5], [0, 3, 6], [0, 4, 5], [0, 4, 6], [0, 5, 6],
[1, 2, 3], [1, 2, 4], [1, 2, 5], [1, 2, 6], [1, 3, 4], [1, 3, 5], [1, 3, 6], [1, 4, 5],
[1, 4, 6], [1, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4], [2, 3, 5], [2, 3, 6], [2, 4, 5], [2, 4, 6], [2, 5, 6],
[3, 4, 5], [3, 4, 6], [3, 5, 6], [4, 5, 6]]
Every subarray here represents a possible result. For example, [0, 2, 3] corresponds to '0a12aaa', [3, 5, 6] corresponds to 'aaa0a12', etc. The code for this conversion is straight-forward.
You can model this as all possible interleavings of two strings, where relative order of the input elements is preserved. Here's a recursive solution. It works by choosing an element from one list, and prepending it to all possible subproblems, then doing it again where an element is chosen from the second list instead, and combining the two solution sets at the end.
# Returns an array of all possible interleaving of two strings
# Maintains relative order of each character of the input strings
def interleave_strings_all(a1, a2)
# Handle base case where at least one input string is empty
return [a1 + a2] if a1.empty? || a2.empty?
# Place element of first string, and prepend to all subproblems
set1 = interleave_strings_all(a1[1..-1], a2).map{|x| a1[0] + x}
# Place element of second string and prepend to all subproblems
set2 = interleave_strings_all(a1, a2[1..-1]).map{|x| a2[0] + x}
# Combine solutions of subproblems into overall problem
return set1.concat(set2)
end
if __FILE__ == $0 then
l = 5
n = 3
a1 = (1..n).to_a.map{|x| x.to_s}.join()
a2 = 'a' * (l - n)
puts interleave_strings_all(a1, a2)
end
The output is:
123aa
12a3a
12aa3
1a23a
1a2a3
1aa23
a123a
a12a3
a1a23
aa123
So what Im trying to accomplish is write a (shorter) condition that makes sure each element is different from the other array. This is confusing but I hope this example clears it up.
array = [1, 2, 3]
new_array = array.shuffle
until array[0] != new_array[0] &&
array[1] != new_array[1] &&
array[2] != new_array[2]
new_array = array.shuffle
end
So what Im doing is making sure that every single element/index pair does not match in the other array.
# [1, 2, 3] => [3, 1, 2] yayyyy
# [1, 2, 3] => [3, 2, 1] not what I want because the 2 didnt move
Is there a better way to do what I want to do? Ive looked up the .any? and .none? but I cant seem to figure out how to implement them. Thanks!
I would do this:
array.zip(new_array).all? { |left, right| left != right }
Here are two approaches that do not involve repeated sampling until a valid sample is obtained:
Sample from the population of valid permutations
Construct the population from which you are sampling:
array = [1, 2, 3, 4]
population = array.permutation(array.size).reject do |a|
a.zip(array).any? { |e,f| e==f }
end
#=> [[2, 1, 4, 3], [2, 3, 4, 1], [2, 4, 1, 3], [3, 1, 4, 2], [3, 4, 1, 2],
# [3, 4, 2, 1], [4, 1, 2, 3], [4, 3, 1, 2], [4, 3, 2, 1]]
Then just choose one at random:
10.times { p population.sample }
# [4, 3, 1, 2]
# [3, 4, 1, 2]
# [3, 4, 1, 2]
# [4, 3, 1, 2]
# [2, 1, 4, 3]
# [2, 1, 4, 3]
# [4, 1, 2, 3]
# [2, 1, 4, 3]
# [4, 3, 1, 2]
# [3, 4, 1, 2]
Sequentially sample for each position in the array
def sample_no_match(array)
a = array.each_index.to_a.shuffle
last_ndx = a[-1]
a.dup.map do |i|
if a.size == 2 && a[-1] == last_ndx
select = a[-1]
else
select = (a-[i]).sample
end
a.delete(select)
array[select]
end
end
10.times.each { p sample_no_match(array) }
# [2, 4, 3, 1]
# [4, 3, 1, 2]
# [2, 1, 3, 4]
# [1, 3, 4, 2]
# [1, 3, 2, 4]
# [1, 3, 2, 4]
# [1, 4, 3, 2]
# [3, 4, 2, 1]
# [1, 3, 4, 2]
# [1, 3, 4, 2]
I have been unable to prove or disprove that the second method produces a random sample. We can, however, determine relative frequencies of outcomes:
n = 500_000
h = n.times.with_object(Hash.new(0)) { |_,h| h[sample_no_match(array)] += 1 }
h.keys.each { |k| h[k] = (h[k]/(n.to_f)).round(4) }
h #=> {[1, 2, 3, 4]=>0.0418, [2, 1, 3, 4]=>0.0414, [1, 4, 2, 3]=>0.0418,
# [3, 4, 2, 1]=>0.0417, [4, 3, 2, 1]=>0.0415, [3, 1, 4, 2]=>0.0419,
# [2, 3, 1, 4]=>0.0420, [4, 2, 3, 1]=>0.0417, [3, 2, 1, 4]=>0.0413,
# [4, 2, 1, 3]=>0.0417, [2, 1, 4, 3]=>0.0419, [1, 3, 2, 4]=>0.0415,
# [1, 2, 4, 3]=>0.0418, [1, 3, 4, 2]=>0.0417, [2, 4, 1, 3]=>0.0414,
# [3, 4, 1, 2]=>0.0412, [1, 4, 3, 2]=>0.0423, [4, 1, 3, 2]=>0.0411,
# [3, 2, 4, 1]=>0.0411, [2, 4, 3, 1]=>0.0418, [3, 1, 2, 4]=>0.0419,
# [4, 3, 1, 2]=>0.0412, [4, 1, 2, 3]=>0.0421, [2, 3, 4, 1]=>0.0421}
avg = (h.values.reduce(:+)/h.size.to_f).round(4)
#=> 0.0417
mn, mx = h.values.minmax
#=> [0.0411, 0.0423]
([avg-mn,mx-avg].max/avg).round(6)
#=> 0.014388
which means that the maximum deviation from the average was only 1.4% percent of the average.
This suggests that the second method is a reasonable way of producing pseudo-random samples.
Initially, the first line of this method was:
a = array.each_index.to_a
By looking at the frequency distribution for outcomes, however, it was clear that that method did not produce a pseudo-random sample; hence, the need to shuffle a.
Here's one possibility:
until array.zip(new_array).reject{ |x, y| x == y }.size == array.size
new_array = array.shuffle
end
Note, though, that it will break for arrays like [1] or [1, 1, 1, 2, 3], where the number of instances of 1 exceeds half the size of the array. Recommend Array#uniq or similar, along with checking for arrays of sizes 0 or 1, depending on how trustworthy your input is!
I'd like to get [[2, 1, 3], [1, 3, 2]] from [1, 2, 3] in Ruby.
For [1, 2, 3, 4], I'd like to get [[2, 1, 3, 4], [1, 3, 2, 4], [1, 2, 4, 3]]
Rule: Within two numbers, if left one is smaller then it swap the position.
I have the following codes so far but it returns [[2, 3, 1], [2, 3, 1]]
What am I doing wrong here? I appreciate any inputs.
In amidakuji.rb
class Amidakuji
def initialize(column, rung)
#column = column
#rung = rung
#myarr = []
#per_arr = []
#build_arr = []
end
def build_initial
#arr = (1..#column).to_a
end
def swap_element
i = 0
arr = build_initial
while i < #column - 1 do
#build_arr << swap(arr, i)
i += 1
end
#build_arr
end
def swap(arr, a)
if arr[a] < arr[a + 1]
arr[a], arr[a + 1] = arr[a + 1], arr[a]
end
arr
end
end
In amidakuji_spec.rb
it 'should create an array with swapped elements' do
expect(#kuji1.swap_element).to eq ([[2, 1, 3], [1, 3, 2]])
end
Results
Failures:
expected: [[2, 1, 3], [1, 3, 2]]
got: [[2, 3, 1], [2, 3, 1]]
You can do this quite compactly by using the methods Enumerable#each_cons and Enumerable#map.
Code
def doit(arr)
(0...arr.size).each_cons(2).map do |i,j|
a = arr.dup
a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]
a
end
end
Examples
doit([1,2,3]) #=> [[2, 1, 3], [1, 3, 2]]
doit([1,2,3,4]) #=> [[2, 1, 3, 4], [1, 3, 2, 4], [1, 2, 4, 3]]
doit([1,2,3,4,5]) #=> [[2, 1, 3, 4, 5], [1, 3, 2, 4, 5],
#=> [1, 2, 4, 3, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5, 4]]
Explanation
arr = [1,2,3,4]
b = (0...arr.size).each_cons(2)
#=> #<Enumerator: 0...4:each_cons(2)>
To view the contents of this enumerator:
b.to_a
#=> [[0, 1], [1, 2], [2, 3]]
Lastly
b.map do |i,j|
a = arr.dup
a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]
a
end
#=> [[2, 1, 3, 4], [1, 3, 2, 4], [1, 2, 4, 3]]
In the last step, consider the first element of b that is passed to map, which assigns the following values to the block variables:
i => 0
j => 1
We then make a copy of arr, swap the elements offsets 0 and 1, making
a => [2, 1, 3, 4]
and then enter a at the end of the block, causing map to replace [0, 1] with that array.
Given what you're trying to accomplish and the output you're getting, it looks like you're reusing the same array when you want distinct arrays instead. Specifically this line:
#build_arr << swap(arr, i)
is always passing the same 'arr' to swap.
So first time, it swaps the 1 and the 2 to give you [2, 1, 3]
Second time, it swaps the 1 and the 3 give you [2, 3, 1]
You push the same array onto #build_arr twice, which is why it repeats.