Related
It is not a homework problem. I am just curious about this problem. And my approach is simple brute-force :-)
My brute-force C++ code:
int main()
{
ll l,r;
cin>>l>>r;
ll f=0;
ll i=l;
while(i<=r)
{
ll j=0;
string s;
ll c=0;
s=to_string(i);
// cout<<s<<" ";
ll x=s.length();
if(x==1)
{
c=0;
}
else
{
j=0;
//whil
while(j<=x-2)
{
string b,g;
b="1";
g="1";
b=s[j];
g=s[j+1];
ll k1,k2;
k1=stoi(b);
k2=stoi(g);
if(__gcd(k1,k2)==1)
{
c=1;
break;
}
j++;
}
}
ll d=0;
j=0;
while(j<=x-1)
{
if( s[j]=='2' || s[j]=='3' || s[j]=='5' || s[j]=='7')
{
string b;
b="1";
b=s[j];
ll k1=stoi(b);
if(i%k1==0)
{
//d=0;
}
else
{
d=1;
break;
}
}
j++;
}
if(c==1 || d==1)
{
// cout<<"NO";
}
else
{
f++;
// cout<<"PR";
}
// cout<<"\n";
i++;
}
cout<<f;
return 0;
}
You are given 2 integers 'L' and 'R' . You are required to find the count of all the PR numbers in the range 'L' to 'R' inclusively. PR number are the numbers which satisfy following properties:
No pair of adjacent digits are co-prime i.e. adjacent digits in a PR number will not be co-prime to each other.
PR number is divisible by all the single digit prime numbers which occur as a digit in the PR number.
Note: Two numbers 'a' and 'b' are co-prime, if gcd(a,b)=1.
Also, gcd(0,a)=a;
Example:
Input: [2,5].
Output: '4'.
(Note: '1' is not a prime-number, though its very common)
(All the integers: '2','3','4','5') satisfy the condition of PR numbers :-)
Constraints on 'L','R': 1 <= L, R <= 10^18
What can be the the most efficient algorithm to solve this ?
Note: This will solve only part 1 which is No pair of adjacent digits are co-prime i.e. adjacent digits in a PR number will not be co-prime to each other.
Here is a constructive approach in python: instead of going throught all numbers in range and filtering by conditions, we will just construct all numbers that satisfy the condition. Note that if we have a valid sequence of digits, for it to continue being valid only the rightmost digit matters in order to decide what the next digit will be.
def ways(max_number, prev_digit, current_number):
if current_number > max_number:
return 0
count = 1
if prev_digit == 0:
if current_number != 0:
count += ways(max_number, 0, current_number * 10)
for i in range(2, 10):
count += ways(max_number, i, current_number * 10 + i)
if prev_digit == 2 or prev_digit == 4 or prev_digit == 8:
for i in [0, 2, 4, 6, 8]:
count += ways(max_number, i, current_number * 10 + i)
if prev_digit == 3 or prev_digit == 9:
for i in [0, 3, 6, 9]:
count += ways(max_number, i, current_number * 10 + i)
if prev_digit == 5 or prev_digit == 7:
count += ways(max_number, 0, current_number * 10)
count += ways(max_number, prev_digit, current_number * 10 + prev_digit)
if prev_digit == 6:
for i in [0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9]:
count += ways(max_number, i, current_number * 10 + i)
return count
As we are generating all valid numbers up to max_number without any repeats, the complexity of this function is O(amount of numbers between 0 and max_number that satisfy condition 1). To calculate the range a to b, we just need to do ways(b) - ways(a - 1).
Takes less than 1 second to caculate these numbers from 0 to 1 million, as there are only 42935 numbers that satisfy the result. As there are few numbers that satisfy the condition, we can then check if they are multiple of its prime digits to satisfy also condition 2. I leave this part up to the reader as there are multiple ways to do it.
TL;DR: This is more commonly called "digit dynamic programming with bitmask"
In more competitive-programming-familiar terms, you'd compute dp[n_digit][mod_2357][is_less_than_r][digit_appeared][last_digit] = number of numbers with n_digit digits (including leading zeroes), less than the number formed by first n_digit digits of R and with the other properties match. Do it twice with R and L-1 then take the difference. The number of operations required would be about 19 (number of digits) * 210 (mod) * 2 * 24 (it's only necessary to check for appearance of single-digit primes) * 10 * 10, which is obviously manageable by today computers.
Think about how you'd check whether a number is valid.
Not the normal way. Using a finite state automaton that take the input from left to right, digit by digit.
For simplicity, assume the input has a fixed number of digits (so that comparison with L/R is easier. This is possible because the number has at most as many digits as R).
It's necessary for each state to keep track of:
which digit appeared in the number (use a bit mask, there are 4 1-digit primes)
is the number in range [L..R] (either this is guaranteed to be true/false by the prefix, otherwise the prefix matches with that of L/R)
what is the value of the prefix mod each single digit prime
the most recent digit (to check whether all pairs of consecutive digits are coprime)
After the finite state automaton is constructed, the rest is simple. Just use dynamic programming to count the number of path to any accepted state from the starting state.
Remark: This method can be used to count the number of any type of object that can be verified using a finite state automaton (roughly speaking, you can check whether the property is satisfied using a program with constant memory usage, and takes the object piece-by-piece in some order)
We need a table where we can look up the count of suffixes that would match a prefix to construct valid numbers. Given a prefix's
right digit
prime combination
mod combination
and a suffix length, we'd like the count of suffixes that have searchable:
left digit
length
prime combination
mod combination
I started coding in Python, then switched to JavaScript to be able to offer a snippet. Comments in the code describe each lookup table. There are a few of them to allow for faster enumeration. There are samples of prefix-suffix calculations to illustrate how one can build an arbitrary upper-bound using the table, although at least some, maybe all of the prefix construction and aggregation could be made during the tabulation.
function gcd(a,b){
if (!b)
return a
else
return gcd(b, a % b)
}
// (Started writing in Python,
// then switched to JavaScript...
// 'xrange(4)' -> [0, 1, 2, 3]
// 'xrange(2, 4)' -> [2, 3]
function xrange(){
let l = 0
let r = arguments[1] || arguments[0]
if (arguments.length > 1)
l = arguments[0]
return new Array(r - l).fill(0).map((_, i) => i + l)
}
// A lookup table and its reverse,
// mapping each of the 210 mod combinations,
// [n % 2, n % 3, n % 5, n % 7], to a key
// from 0 to 209.
// 'mod_combs[0]' -> [0, 0, 0, 0]
// 'mod_combs[209]' -> [1, 2, 4, 6]
// 'mod_keys[[0,0,0,0]]' -> 0
// 'mod_keys[[1,2,4,6]]' -> 209
let mod_combs = {}
let mod_keys = {}
let mod_key_count = 0
for (let m2 of xrange(2)){
for (let m3 of xrange(3)){
for (let m5 of xrange(5)){
for (let m7 of xrange(7)){
mod_keys[[m2, m3, m5, m7]] = mod_key_count
mod_combs[mod_key_count] = [m2, m3, m5, m7]
mod_key_count += 1
}
}
}
}
// The main lookup table built using the
// dynamic program
// [mod_key 210][l_digit 10][suffix length 20][prime_comb 16]
let table = new Array(210)
for (let mk of xrange(210)){
table[mk] = new Array(10)
for (let l_digit of xrange(10)){
table[mk][l_digit] = new Array(20)
for (let sl of xrange(20)){
table[mk][l_digit][sl] = new Array(16).fill(0)
}
}
}
// We build prime combinations from 0 (no primes) to
// 15 (all four primes), using a bitmask of up to four bits.
let prime_set = [0, 0, 1<<0, 1<<1, 0, 1<<2, 0, 1<<3, 0, 0]
// The possible digits that could
// follow a digit
function get_valid_digits(digit){
if (digit == 0)
return [0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
else if ([2, 4, 8].includes(digit))
return [0, 2, 4, 6, 8]
else if ([3, 9].includes(digit))
return [0, 3, 6, 9]
else if (digit == 6)
return [0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9]
else if (digit == 5)
return [0, 5]
else if (digit == 7)
return [0, 7]
}
// Build the table bottom-up
// Single digits
for (let i of xrange(10)){
let mod_key = mod_keys[[i % 2, i % 3, i % 5, i % 7]]
let length = 1
let l_digit = i
let prime_comb = prime_set[i]
table[mod_key][l_digit][length][prime_comb] = 1
}
// Everything else
// For demonstration, we just table up to 6 digits
// since either JavaScript, this program, or both seem
// to be too slow for a full demo.
for (let length of xrange(2, 6)){
// We're appending a new left digit
for (let new_l_digit of xrange(0, 10)){
// The digit 1 is never valid
if (new_l_digit == 1)
continue
// The possible digits that could
// be to the right of our new left digit
let ds = get_valid_digits(new_l_digit)
// For each possible digit to the right
// of our new left digit, iterate over all
// the combinations of primes and remainder combinations.
// The ones that are populated are valid paths, the
// sum of which can be aggregated for each resulting
// new combination of primes and remainders.
for (let l_digit of ds){
for (let p_comb of xrange(16)){
for (let m_key of xrange(210)){
new_prime_comb = prime_set[new_l_digit] | p_comb
// suffix's remainder combination
let [m2, m3, m5, m7] = mod_combs[m_key]
// new remainder combination
let m = Math.pow(10, length - 1) * new_l_digit
let new_mod_key = mod_keys[[(m + m2) % 2, (m + m3) % 3, (m + m5) % 5, (m + m7) % 7]]
// Aggregate any populated entries into the new
// table entry
table[new_mod_key][new_l_digit][length][new_prime_comb] += table[m_key][l_digit][length - 1][p_comb]
}
}
}
}
}
// If we need only a subset of the mods set to
// zero, we need to check all instances where
// this subset is zero. For example,
// for the prime combination, [2, 3], we need to
// check all mod combinations where the first two
// are zero since we don't care about the remainders
// for 5 and 7: [0,0,0,0], [0,0,0,1],... [0,0,4,6]
// Return all needed combinations given some
// predetermined, indexed remainders.
function prime_comb_to_mod_keys(remainders){
let mod_map = [2, 3, 5, 7]
let mods = []
for (let i of xrange(4))
mods.push(!remainders.hasOwnProperty(i) ? mod_map[i] - 1 : 0)
function f(ms, i){
if (i == ms.length){
for (let idx in remainders)
ms[idx] = remainders[idx]
return [mod_keys[ms]]
}
let result = []
for (let m=ms[i] - 1; m>=0; m--){
let _ms = ms.slice()
_ms[i] = m
result = result.concat(f(_ms, i + 1))
}
return result.concat(f(ms, i + 1))
}
return f(mods, 0)
}
function get_matching_mods(prefix, len_suffix, prime_comb){
let ps = [2, 3, 5, 7]
let actual_prefix = Math.pow(10, len_suffix) * prefix
let remainders = {}
for (let i in xrange(4)){
if (prime_comb & (1 << i))
remainders[i] = (ps[i] - (actual_prefix % ps[i])) % ps[i]
}
return prime_comb_to_mod_keys(remainders)
}
// A brute-force function to check the
// table is working. Returns a list of
// valid numbers of 'length' digits
// given a prefix.
function confirm(prefix, length){
let result = [0, []]
let ps = [0, 0, 2, 3, 0, 5, 0, 7, 0, 0]
let p_len = String(prefix).length
function check(suffix){
let num = Math.pow(10, length - p_len) * prefix + suffix
let temp = num
prev = 0
while (temp){
let d = temp % 10
if (d == 1 || gcd(prev, d) == 1 || (ps[d] && num % d))
return [0, []]
prev = d
temp = ~~(temp / 10)
}
return [1, [num]]
}
for (suffix of xrange(Math.pow(10, length - p_len))){
let [a, b] = check(suffix)
result[0] += a
result[1] = result[1].concat(b)
}
return result
}
function get_prime_comb(prefix){
let prime_comb = 0
while (prefix){
let d = prefix % 10
prime_comb |= prime_set[d]
prefix = ~~(prefix / 10)
}
return prime_comb
}
// A function to test the table
// against the brute-force method.
// To match a prefix with the number
// of valid suffixes of a chosen length
// in the table, we want to aggregate all
// prime combinations for all valid digits,
// where the remainders for each combined
// prime combination (prefix with suffix)
// sum to zero (with the appropriate mod).
function test(prefix, length, show=false){
let r_digit = prefix % 10
let len_suffix = length - String(prefix).length
let prefix_prime_comb = get_prime_comb(prefix)
let ds = get_valid_digits(r_digit)
let count = 0
for (let l_digit of ds){
for (let prime_comb of xrange(16)){
for (let i of get_matching_mods(prefix, len_suffix, prefix_prime_comb | prime_comb)){
let v = table[i][l_digit][len_suffix][prime_comb]
count += v
}
}
}
let c = confirm(prefix, length)
return `${ count }, ${ c[0] }${ show ? ': ' + c[1] : '' }`
}
// Arbitrary prefixes
for (let length of [3, 4]){
for (let prefix of [2, 30]){
console.log(`prefix, length: ${ prefix }, ${ length }`)
console.log(`tabled, brute-force: ${ test(prefix, length, true) }\n\n`)
}
}
let length = 6
for (let l_digit=2; l_digit<10; l_digit++){
console.log(`prefix, length: ${ l_digit }, ${ length }`)
console.log(`tabled, brute-force: ${ test(l_digit, length) }\n\n`)
}
I am trying to understand the algorithm that solves this problem in O(log(n+m)) where n and m are the lengths of the arrays. I have taken the liberty to post the link to the explanation of this algorithm:
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/median-of-two-sorted-arrays-of-different-sizes/
It's so hard for me to digest completely the idea behind this algorithm. I can see that the idea is to reduce the length of one of the arrays to either 1 or 2 and then apply the base cases. The base cases make sense, but I wonder if one can omit the base case for n = 2 and just work on n = 1. I also don't understand the remaining cases part. It looks so weird to me that we have to cut the array B[] from the start to idx. It's weird because idx can be equal to the length of B[], so we would be ignoring the whole array.
TL;DR:
The main idea is that you may delete N elements that are surely smaller than (or equal to) the median from your number set, as long as you delete the same amount that are surely greater or equal.
Let's explain it with an example:
A=[1 2 3 9 10], B=[3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
The middle elements marked:
A=[1 2 3 9 10], B=[3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
The overall median will be between 3 and 6, inclusive. So, if we delete two elements smaller than 3, and two elements greater than 6, we'll still have the same median. The smaller elements we delete from A, and the greater ones from B:
A=[3 9 10], B=[3 4 5 6 7]
Now we delete one element greater than 9 (from A) and one smaller than 5 (from B):
A=[3 9], B=[4 5 6 7]
We reached Case 4 (smaller array has 2 elements): the algorithm calls for the median of
B[M/2], B[M/2 – 1], max(A[0], B[M/2 – 2]), min(A[1], B[M/2 + 1])
being B[2], B[1], max(A[0], B[0]), min(A[1], B[3])
being 6, 5, max(3,4), min(9,7)
being [6 5 4 7]
The median of that array is 5.5. And that's the correct result.
def findmedian(A,B):
if len(A) > len(B):
return findmedian(B,A)# always ensuring that we do the binsearch on the shorter arr
x = len(A)
y = len(B)
start = 0# start and end of shorter arr
end = x
while (start <= end):
partition_x = (start + end)//2# the mid of smaller arr, partition_x is an index
partition_y = (x+y+1)//2 - partition_x# the suitable partition of larger arr to divide the arrs into equal halves
if partition_x == 0:# if there is nothing on the left
left_x = None
if partition_x == x:# if there is nothing on the right
right_x = sys.maxint# +inf
if partition_y == 0:
left_y = None# this is -inf similar to the case for smaller arr
if partition_y == y:
right_y = sys.maxint
if (left_x <= right_y) and (left_y <= right_x):# all the elems on left are smaller than all the elems on right is ensured by
#checking on the extremes only since arrs sorted. Also, the partition always makes equal halves, so found the right spot.
if (x+y) % 2 == 0:
return (max(left_x,left_y) + min(right_x,right_y))/2.0
else:
return max(left_x,left_y)# if the num of elems is odd
elif left_x > right_y:# if we have come more towards right of smaller arr, then move left on smaller arr
end = partition_x -1
else:# if we have come more to the left
start = partition_x + 1
class Solution(object):
def findMedianSortedArrays(self, nums1, nums2):
merged_array = (nums1 + nums2)
merged_array.sort()
l_m_a = len(merged_array)
count = int(l_m_a / 2)
if l_m_a % 2 == 1:
median = merged_array[count]
return median
else:
median_in_even = (merged_array[count] + merged_array[count - 1]) / 2
return median_in_even
class Solution:
def findMedianSortedArrays(self, nums1, nums2):
nums1.extend(nums2)
newArray = sorted(nums1)
if len(newArray)%2==0:
index = len(newArray)//2
median = (newArray[index] + newArray[index-1])/2
return float(median)
else:
index = len(newArray)//2
median = newArray[index]
return float(median)
if __name__ == '__main__':
obj = Solution()
print(obj.findMedianSortedArrays([1,3],[2]))
Median of two sorted Arrays | Same length | Different length
1st we need to merge both arrays in sorted order. And then we can find
the median. The Median will be the central element of the sorted array.
var findMedianSortedArrays = function(nums1, nums2) {
let array = [], leftIndex = 0, rightIndex = 0;
while (leftIndex < nums1.length && rightIndex < nums2.length) {
if (nums1[leftIndex] < nums2[rightIndex]) {
array.push(nums1[leftIndex]);
leftIndex++;
} else {
array.push(nums2[rightIndex]);
rightIndex++;
}
}
// add uninitiated remaining element from either array if any remains.
array = array.concat(nums1.slice(leftIndex)).concat(nums2.slice(rightIndex));
if (array.length % 2 == 0) {
return (array[(array.length / 2) - 1] + array[array.length / 2]) / 2;
} else {
return array[Math.floor(array.length / 2)]
}
};
findMedianSortedArrays([1 2 3 9 10], [3 4 5 6 7 8 9]);
/**
* #param {number[]} nums1
* #param {number[]} nums2
* #return {number}
*/
var findMedianSortedArrays = function (nums1, nums2) {
let newArray = [];
let median;
if (nums1.length > 0 && nums2.length > 0) {
newArray = [...nums1, ...nums2]
newArray.sort(function (a, b) {
return a - b;
})
} else if (nums1.length === 0) {
newArray = nums2
newArray.sort(function (a, b) {
return a - b;
})
} else if (nums2.length === 0) {
newArray = nums1
newArray.sort(function (a, b) {
return a - b;
})
}
if (newArray.length === 1) {
return newArray[0]
}
if (newArray.length === 3) {
return newArray[1]
}
if (newArray.length % 2 === 0) {
const findIndex = Math.floor(newArray.length / 2)
console.log("findIndexeven", findIndex)
const addValue = Math.max((newArray[findIndex - 1] +
newArray[findIndex]), 0)
median = addValue / 2
} else {
const findIndex = Math.floor(newArray.length / 2) + 1
console.log("findIndexodd", findIndex)
median = newArray[findIndex - 1]
}
console.log("medianValue",median)
return median
};
findMedianSortedArrays([1, 2], [3, 4])
For me, it's just several minutes of several lines of python codes and it passed the leetcode check with a runtime beating 62% of Python3 online submissions. My code is here:
class Solution:
def findMedianSortedArrays(self, nums1: List[int], nums2: List[int]) -> float:
n = len(nums1) + len(nums2)
nums1.extend(nums2) # merge two lists
nums1.sort() # sort it
if n % 2 == 0:
return (nums1[n//2-1] + nums1[n//2])/2 # return the median for even n
else:
return nums1[n//2] # return the median for odd n
I have one value like 24, and I have four textboxes. How can I dynamically generate four values that add up to 24?
All the values must be integers and can't be negative, and the result cannot be 6, 6, 6, 6; they must be different like: 8, 2, 10, 4. (But 5, 6, 6, 7 would be okay.)
For your stated problem, it is possible to generate an array of all possible solutions and then pick one randomly. There are in fact 1,770 possible solutions.
var solutions = [[Int]]()
for i in 1...21 {
for j in 1...21 {
for k in 1...21 {
let l = 24 - (i + j + k)
if l > 0 && !(i == 6 && j == 6 && k == 6) {
solutions.append([i, j, k, l])
}
}
}
}
// Now generate 20 solutions
for _ in 1...20 {
let rval = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(solutions.count)))
println(solutions[rval])
}
This avoids any bias at the cost of initial setup time and storage.
This could be improved by:
Reducing storage space by only storing the first 3 numbers. The 4th one is always 24 - (sum of first 3)
Reducing storage space by storing each solution as a single integer: (i * 10000 + j * 100 + k)
Speeding up the generation of solutions by realizing that each loop doesn't need to go to 21.
Here is the solution that stores each solution as a single integer and optimizes the loops:
var solutions = [Int]()
for i in 1...21 {
for j in 1...22-i {
for k in 1...23-i-j {
if !(i == 6 && j == 6 && k == 6) {
solutions.append(i * 10000 + j * 100 + k)
}
}
}
}
// Now generate 20 solutions
for _ in 1...20 {
let rval = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(solutions.count)))
let solution = solutions[rval]
// unpack the values
let i = solution / 10000
let j = (solution % 10000) / 100
let k = solution % 100
let l = 24 - (i + j + k)
// print the solution
println("\([i, j, k, l])")
}
Here is a Swift implementation of the algorithm given in https://stackoverflow.com/a/8064754/1187415, with a slight
modification because all numbers are required to be positive.
The method to producing N positive random integers with sum M is
Build an array containing the number 0, followed by N-1 different
random numbers in the range 1 .. M-1, and finally the number M.
Compute the differences of subsequent array elements.
In the first step, we need a random subset of N-1 elements out of
the set { 1, ..., M-1 }. This can be achieved by iterating over this
set and choosing each element with probability n/m, where
m is the remaining number of elements we can choose from and
n is the remaining number of elements to choose.
Instead of storing the chosen random numbers in an array, the
difference to the previously chosen number is computed immediately
and stored.
This gives the following function:
func randomNumbers(#count : Int, withSum sum : Int) -> [Int] {
precondition(sum >= count, "`sum` must not be less than `count`")
var diffs : [Int] = []
var last = 0 // last number chosen
var m = UInt32(sum - 1) // remaining # of elements to choose from
var n = UInt32(count - 1) // remaining # of elements to choose
for i in 1 ..< sum {
// Choose this number `i` with probability n/m:
if arc4random_uniform(m) < n {
diffs.append(i - last)
last = i
n--
}
m--
}
diffs.append(sum - last)
return diffs
}
println(randomNumbers(count: 4, withSum: 24))
If a solution with all elements equal (e.g 6+6+6+6=24) is not
allowed, you can repeat the method until a valid solution is found:
func differentRandomNumbers(#count : Int, withSum sum : Int) -> [Int] {
precondition(count >= 2, "`count` must be at least 2")
var v : [Int]
do {
v = randomNumbers(count: count, withSum: sum)
} while (!contains(v, { $0 != v[0]} ))
return v
}
Here is a simple test. It computes 1,000,000 random representations
of 7 as the sum of 3 positive integers, and counts the distribution
of the results.
let set = NSCountedSet()
for i in 1 ... 1_000_000 {
let v = randomNumbers(count: 3, withSum: 7)
set.addObject(v)
}
for (_, v) in enumerate(set) {
let count = set.countForObject(v)
println("\(v as! [Int]) \(count)")
}
Result:
[1, 4, 2] 66786
[1, 5, 1] 67082
[3, 1, 3] 66273
[2, 2, 3] 66808
[2, 3, 2] 66966
[5, 1, 1] 66545
[2, 1, 4] 66381
[1, 3, 3] 67153
[3, 3, 1] 67034
[4, 1, 2] 66423
[3, 2, 2] 66674
[2, 4, 1] 66418
[4, 2, 1] 66292
[1, 1, 5] 66414
[1, 2, 4] 66751
Update for Swift 3:
func randomNumbers(count : Int, withSum sum : Int) -> [Int] {
precondition(sum >= count, "`sum` must not be less than `count`")
var diffs : [Int] = []
var last = 0 // last number chosen
var m = UInt32(sum - 1) // remaining # of elements to choose from
var n = UInt32(count - 1) // remaining # of elements to choose
for i in 1 ..< sum {
// Choose this number `i` with probability n/m:
if arc4random_uniform(m) < n {
diffs.append(i - last)
last = i
n -= 1
}
m -= 1
}
diffs.append(sum - last)
return diffs
}
print(randomNumbers(count: 4, withSum: 24))
Update for Swift 4.2 (and later), using the unified random API:
func randomNumbers(count : Int, withSum sum : Int) -> [Int] {
precondition(sum >= count, "`sum` must not be less than `count`")
var diffs : [Int] = []
var last = 0 // last number chosen
var m = sum - 1 // remaining # of elements to choose from
var n = count - 1 // remaining # of elements to choose
for i in 1 ..< sum {
// Choose this number `i` with probability n/m:
if Int.random(in: 0..<m) < n {
diffs.append(i - last)
last = i
n -= 1
}
m -= 1
}
diffs.append(sum - last)
return diffs
}
func getRandomValues(amountOfValues:Int, totalAmount:Int) -> [Int]?{
if amountOfValues < 1{
return nil
}
if totalAmount < 1{
return nil
}
if totalAmount < amountOfValues{
return nil
}
var values:[Int] = []
var valueLeft = totalAmount
for i in 0..<amountOfValues{
if i == amountOfValues - 1{
values.append(valueLeft)
break
}
var value = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(valueLeft - (amountOfValues - i))) + 1)
valueLeft -= value
values.append(value)
}
var shuffledArray:[Int] = []
for i in 0..<values.count {
var rnd = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(values.count)))
shuffledArray.append(values[rnd])
values.removeAtIndex(rnd)
}
return shuffledArray
}
getRandomValues(4, 24)
This is not a final answer, but it should be a (good) starting point.
How it works: It takes 2 parameters. The amount of random values (4 in your case) and the total amount (24 in your case).
It takes a random value between the total Amount and 0, stores this in an array and it subtracts this from a variable which stores the amount that is left and stores the new value.
Than it takes a new random value between the amount that is left and 0, stores this in an array and it again subtracts this from the amount that is left and stores the new value.
When it is the last number needed, it sees what amount is left and adds that to the array
EDIT:
Adding a +1 to the random value removes the problem of having 0 in your array.
EDIT 2:
Shuffling the array does remove the increased chance of having a high value as the first value.
One solution that is unfortunatly non-deterministic but completely random is as follows:
For a total of 24 in 4 numbers:
pick four random numbers between 1 and 21
repeat until the total of the numbers equals 24 and they are not all 6.
This will, on average, loop about 100 times before finding a solution.
Here's a solution which should have significantly* less bias than some of the other methods. It works by generating the requested number of random floating point numbers, multiplying or dividing all of them until they add up to the target total, and then rounding them into integers. The rounding process changes the total, so we need to correct for that by adding or subtracting from random terms until they add up to the right amount.
func getRandomDoubles(#count: Int, #total: Double) -> [Double] {
var nonNormalized = [Double]()
nonNormalized.reserveCapacity(count)
for i in 0..<count {
nonNormalized.append(Double(arc4random()) / 0xFFFFFFFF)
}
let nonNormalizedSum = reduce(nonNormalized, 0) { $0 + $1 }
let normalized = nonNormalized.map { $0 * total / nonNormalizedSum }
return normalized
}
func getRandomInts(#count: Int, #total: Int) -> [Int] {
let doubles = getRandomDoubles(count: count, total: Double(total))
var ints = [Int]()
ints.reserveCapacity(count)
for double in doubles {
if double < 1 || double % 1 >= 0.5 {
// round up
ints.append(Int(ceil(double)))
} else {
// round down
ints.append(Int(floor(double)))
}
}
let roundingErrors = total - (reduce(ints, 0) { $0 + $1 })
let directionToAdjust: Int = roundingErrors > 0 ? 1 : -1
var corrections = abs(roundingErrors)
while corrections > 0 {
let index = Int(arc4random_uniform(UInt32(count)))
if directionToAdjust == -1 && ints[index] <= 1 { continue }
ints[index] += directionToAdjust
corrections--
}
return ints
}
*EDIT: Martin R has correctly pointed out that this is not nearly as uniform as one might expect, and is in fact highly biased towards numbers in the middle of the 1-24 range. I would not recommend using this solution, but I'm leaving it up so that others can know not to make the same mistake.
As a recursive function the algorithm is very nice:
func getRandomValues(amount: Int, total: Int) -> [Int] {
if amount == 1 { return [total] }
if amount == total { return Array(count: amount, repeatedValue: 1) }
let number = Int(arc4random()) % (total - amount + 1) + 1
return [number] + getRandomValues(amount - 1, total - number)
}
And with safety check:
func getRandomValues(amount: Int, total: Int) -> [Int]? {
if !(1...total ~= amount) { return nil }
if amount == 1 { return [total] }
if amount == total { return Array(count: amount, repeatedValue: 1) }
let number = Int(arc4random()) % (total - amount + 1) + 1
return [number] + getRandomValues(amount - 1, total - number)!
}
As #MartinR pointed out the code above is extremely biased. So in order to have a uniform distribution of the output values you should use this piece of code:
func getRandomValues(amount: Int, total: Int) -> [Int] {
var numberSet = Set<Int>()
// add splitting points to numberSet
for _ in 1...amount - 1 {
var number = Int(arc4random()) % (total - 1) + 1
while numberSet.contains(number) {
number = Int(arc4random()) % (total - 1) + 1
}
numberSet.insert(number)
}
// sort numberSet and return the differences between the splitting points
let sortedArray = (Array(numberSet) + [0, total]).sort()
return sortedArray.enumerate().flatMap{
indexElement in
if indexElement.index == amount { return nil }
return sortedArray[indexElement.index + 1] - indexElement.element
}
}
A javascript implementation for those who may be looking for such case:
const numbersSumTo = (length, value) => {
const fourRandomNumbers = Array.from({ length: length }, () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 6) + 1);
const res = fourRandomNumbers.map(num => (num / fourRandomNumbers.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0)) * value).map(num => Math.trunc(num));
res[0] += Math.abs(res.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) - value);
return res;
}
// Gets an array with 4 items which sum to 100
const res = numbersSumTo(4, 100);
const resSum = res.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0);
console.log({
res,
resSum
});
Also plenty of different methods of approach can be found here on this question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1276206/method-of-generating-random-numbers-that-sum-to-100-is-this-truly-random
I came across another codechef problem which I am attempting to solve in Scala. The problem statement is as follows:
Stepford Street was a dead end street. The houses on Stepford Street
were bought by wealthy millionaires. They had them extensively altered
so that as one progressed along the street, the height of the
buildings increased rapidly. However, not all millionaires were
created equal. Some refused to follow this trend and kept their houses
at their original heights. The resulting progression of heights was
thus disturbed. A contest to locate the most ordered street was
announced by the Beverly Hills Municipal Corporation. The criteria for
the most ordered street was set as follows: If there exists a house
with a lower height later in the street than the house under
consideration, then the pair (current house, later house) counts as 1
point towards the disorderliness index of the street. It is not
necessary that the later house be adjacent to the current house. Note:
No two houses on a street will be of the same height For example, for
the input: 1 2 4 5 3 6 The pairs (4,3), (5,3) form disordered pairs.
Thus the disorderliness index of this array is 2. As the criteria for
determining the disorderliness is complex, the BHMC has requested your
help to automate the process. You need to write an efficient program
that calculates the disorderliness index of a street.
A sample input output provided is as follows:
Input: 1 2 4 5 3 6
Output: 2
The output is 2 because of two pairs (4,3) and (5,3)
To solve this problem I thought I should use a variant of MergeSort,incrementing by 1 when the left element is greater than the right element.
My scala code is as follows:
def dysfunctionCalc(input:List[Int]):Int = {
val leftHalf = input.size/2
println("HalfSize:"+leftHalf)
val isOdd = input.size%2
println("Is odd:"+isOdd)
val leftList = input.take(leftHalf+isOdd)
println("LeftList:"+leftList)
val rightList = input.drop(leftHalf+isOdd)
println("RightList:"+rightList)
if ((leftList.size <= 1) && (rightList.size <= 1)){
println("Entering input where both lists are <= 1")
if(leftList.size == 0 || rightList.size == 0){
println("One of the lists is less than 0")
0
}
else if(leftList.head > rightList.head)1 else 0
}
else{
println("Both lists are greater than 1")
dysfunctionCalc(leftList) + dysfunctionCalc(rightList)
}
}
First off, my logic is wrong,it doesn't have a merge stage and I am not sure what would be the best way to percolate the result of the base-case up the stack and compare it with the other values. Also, using recursion to solve this problem may not be the most optimal way to go since for large lists, I maybe blowing up the stack. Also, there might be stylistic issues with my code as well.
I would be great if somebody could point out other flaws and the right way to solve this problem.
Thanks
Suppose you split your list into three pieces: the item you are considering, those on the left, and those on the right. Suppose further that those on the left are in a sorted set. Now you just need to walk through the list, moving items from "right" to "considered" and from "considered" to "left"; at each point, you look at the size of the subset of the sorted set that is greater than your item. In general, the size lookup can be done in O(log(N)) as can the add-element (with a Red-Black or AVL tree, for instance). So you have O(N log N) performance.
Now the question is how to implement this in Scala efficiently. It turns out that Scala has a Red-Black tree used for its TreeSet sorted set, and the implementation is actually quite simple (here in tail-recursive form):
import collection.immutable.TreeSet
final def calcDisorder(xs: List[Int], left: TreeSet[Int] = TreeSet.empty, n: Int = 0): Int = xs match {
case Nil => n
case x :: rest => calcDisorder(rest, left + x, n + left.from(x).size)
}
Unfortunately, left.from(x).size takes O(N) time (I believe), which yields a quadratic execution time. That's no good--what you need is an IndexedTreeSet which can do indexOf(x) in O(log(n)) (and then iterate with n + left.size - left.indexOf(x) - 1). You can build your own implementation or find one on the web. For instance, I found one here (API here) for Java that does exactly the right thing.
Incidentally, the problem with doing a mergesort is that you cannot easily work cumulatively. With merging a pair, you can keep track of how out-of-order it is. But when you merge in a third list, you must see how out of order it is with respect to both other lists, which spoils your divide-and-conquer strategy. (I am not sure whether there is some invariant one could find that would allow you to calculate directly if you kept track of it.)
Here is my try, I don't use MergeSort but it seems to solve the problem:
def calcDisorderness(myList:List[Int]):Int = myList match{
case Nil => 0
case t::q => q.count(_<t) + calcDisorderness(q)
}
scala> val input = List(1,2,4,5,3,6)
input: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6)
scala> calcDisorderness(input)
res1: Int = 2
The question is, is there a way to have a lower complexity?
Edit: tail recursive version of the same function and cool usage of default values in function arguments.
def calcDisorderness(myList:List[Int], disorder:Int=0):Int = myList match{
case Nil => disorder
case t::q => calcDisorderness(q, disorder + q.count(_<t))
}
A solution based on Merge Sort. Not super fast, potential slowdown could be in "xs.length".
def countSwaps(a: Array[Int]): Long = {
var disorder: Long = 0
def msort(xs: List[Int]): List[Int] = {
import Stream._
def merge(left: List[Int], right: List[Int], inc: Int): Stream[Int] = {
(left, right) match {
case (x :: xs, y :: ys) if x > y =>
cons(y, merge(left, ys, inc + 1))
case (x :: xs, _) => {
disorder += inc
cons(x, merge(xs, right, inc))
}
case _ => right.toStream
}
}
val n = xs.length / 2
if (n == 0)
xs
else {
val (ys, zs) = xs splitAt n
merge(msort(ys), msort(zs), 0).toList
}
}
msort(a.toList)
disorder
}
Another solution based on Merge Sort. Very fast: no FP or for-loop.
def countSwaps(a: Array[Int]): Count = {
var swaps: Count = 0
def mergeRun(begin: Int, run_len: Int, src: Array[Int], dst: Array[Int]) = {
var li = begin
val lend = math.min(begin + run_len, src.length)
var ri = begin + run_len
val rend = math.min(begin + run_len * 2, src.length)
var ti = begin
while (ti < rend) {
if (ri >= rend) {
dst(ti) = src(li); li += 1
swaps += ri - begin - run_len
} else if (li >= lend) {
dst(ti) = src(ri); ri += 1
} else if (a(li) <= a(ri)) {
dst(ti) = src(li); li += 1
swaps += ri - begin - run_len
} else {
dst(ti) = src(ri); ri += 1
}
ti += 1
}
}
val b = new Array[Int](a.length)
var run = 0
var run_len = 1
while (run_len < a.length) {
var begin = 0
while (begin < a.length) {
val (src, dst) = if (run % 2 == 0) (a, b) else (b, a)
mergeRun(begin, run_len, src, dst)
begin += run_len * 2
}
run += 1
run_len *= 2
}
swaps
}
Convert the above code to Functional style: no mutable variable, no loop.
All recursions are tail calls, thus the performance is good.
def countSwaps(a: Array[Int]): Count = {
def mergeRun(li: Int, lend: Int, rb: Int, ri: Int, rend: Int, di: Int, src: Array[Int], dst: Array[Int], swaps: Count): Count = {
if (ri >= rend && li >= lend) {
swaps
} else if (ri >= rend) {
dst(di) = src(li)
mergeRun(li + 1, lend, rb, ri, rend, di + 1, src, dst, ri - rb + swaps)
} else if (li >= lend) {
dst(di) = src(ri)
mergeRun(li, lend, rb, ri + 1, rend, di + 1, src, dst, swaps)
} else if (src(li) <= src(ri)) {
dst(di) = src(li)
mergeRun(li + 1, lend, rb, ri, rend, di + 1, src, dst, ri - rb + swaps)
} else {
dst(di) = src(ri)
mergeRun(li, lend, rb, ri + 1, rend, di + 1, src, dst, swaps)
}
}
val b = new Array[Int](a.length)
def merge(run: Int, run_len: Int, lb: Int, swaps: Count): Count = {
if (run_len >= a.length) {
swaps
} else if (lb >= a.length) {
merge(run + 1, run_len * 2, 0, swaps)
} else {
val lend = math.min(lb + run_len, a.length)
val rb = lb + run_len
val rend = math.min(rb + run_len, a.length)
val (src, dst) = if (run % 2 == 0) (a, b) else (b, a)
val inc_swaps = mergeRun(lb, lend, rb, rb, rend, lb, src, dst, 0)
merge(run, run_len, lb + run_len * 2, inc_swaps + swaps)
}
}
merge(0, 1, 0, 0)
}
It seems to me that the key is to break the list into a series of ascending sequences. For example, your example would be broken into (1 2 4 5)(3 6). None of the items in the first list can end a pair. Now you do a kind of merge of these two lists, working backwards:
6 > 5, so 6 can't be in any pairs
3 < 5, so its a pair
3 < 4, so its a pair
3 > 2, so we're done
I'm not clear from the definition on how to handle more than 2 such sequences.
I have created solution for PE P12 in Scala but is very very slow. Can somebody can tell me why? How to optimize this? calculateDevisors() - naive approach and calculateNumberOfDivisors() - divisor function has the same speed :/
import annotation.tailrec
def isPrime(number: Int): Boolean = {
if (number < 2 || (number != 2 && number % 2 == 0) || (number != 3 && number % 3 == 0))
false
else {
val sqrtOfNumber = math.sqrt(number) toInt
#tailrec def isPrimeInternal(divisor: Int, increment: Int): Boolean = {
if (divisor > sqrtOfNumber)
true
else if (number % divisor == 0)
false
else
isPrimeInternal(divisor + increment, 6 - increment)
}
isPrimeInternal(5, 2)
}
}
def generatePrimeNumbers(count: Int): List[Int] = {
#tailrec def generatePrimeNumbersInternal(number: Int = 3, index: Int = 0,
primeNumbers: List[Int] = List(2)): List[Int] = {
if (index == count)
primeNumbers
else if (isPrime(number))
generatePrimeNumbersInternal(number + 2, index + 1, primeNumbers :+ number)
else
generatePrimeNumbersInternal(number + 2, index, primeNumbers)
}
generatePrimeNumbersInternal();
}
val primes = Stream.cons(2, Stream.from(3, 2) filter {isPrime(_)})
def calculateDivisors(number: Int) = {
for {
divisor <- 1 to number
if (number % divisor == 0)
} yield divisor
}
#inline def decomposeToPrimeNumbers(number: Int) = {
val sqrtOfNumber = math.sqrt(number).toInt
#tailrec def decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number: Int, primeNumberIndex: Int = 0,
factors: List[Int] = List.empty[Int]): List[Int] = {
val primeNumber = primes(primeNumberIndex)
if (primeNumberIndex > sqrtOfNumber)
factors
else if (number % primeNumber == 0)
decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number / primeNumber, primeNumberIndex, factors :+ primeNumber)
else
decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number, primeNumberIndex + 1, factors)
}
decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number) groupBy {n => n} map {case (n: Int, l: List[Int]) => (n, l size)}
}
#inline def calculateNumberOfDivisors(number: Int) = {
decomposeToPrimeNumbers(number) map {case (primeNumber, exponent) => exponent + 1} product
}
#tailrec def calculate(number: Int = 12300): Int = {
val triangleNumber = ((number * number) + number) / 2
val startTime = System.currentTimeMillis()
val numberOfDivisors = calculateNumberOfDivisors(triangleNumber)
val elapsedTime = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime
printf("%d: V: %d D: %d T: %dms\n", number, triangleNumber, numberOfDivisors, elapsedTime)
if (numberOfDivisors > 500)
triangleNumber
else
calculate(number + 1)
}
println(calculate())
You could first check what is slow. Your prime calculation, for instance, is very, very slow. For each number n, you try to divide n by each each number from 5 to sqrt(n), skipping multiples of 2 and 3. Not only you do not skip numbers you already know are not primes, but even if you fix this, the complexity of this algorithm is much worse than the traditional Sieve of Eratosthenes. See one Scala implementation for the Sieve here.
That is not to say that the rest of your code isn't suboptimal as well, but I'll leave that for others.
EDIT
Indeed, indexed access to Stream is terrible. Here's a rewrite that works with Stream, instead of converting everything to Array. Also, note the remark before the first if for a possible bug in your code.
#tailrec def decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number: Int, primes: Stream[Int],
factors: List[Int] = List.empty[Int]): List[Int] = {
val primeNumber = primes.head
// Comparing primeNumberIndex with sqrtOfNumber didn't make any sense
if (primeNumber > sqrtOfNumber)
factors
else if (number % primeNumber == 0)
decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number / primeNumber, primes, factors :+ primeNumber)
else
decomposeToPrimeNumbersInternal(number, primes.tail, factors)
}
Slow compared to....? How do you know it's an issue with Scala, and not with your algorithm?
An admittedly quick read of the code suggests you might be recalculating primes and other values over and over. isPrimeInternal jumps out as a possible case where this might be a problem.
Your code is not compilable, some parts are missing, so I'm guessing here. Some thing that frequently hurts performance is boxing/unboxing taking place in collections. Another thing that I noted is that you cunstruct your primes as a Stream - which is a good thing - but don't take advantage of this in your isPrime function, which uses a primitive 2,3-wheel (1 and 5 mod 6) instead. I might be wrong, but try to replace it by
def isPrime(number: Int): Boolean = {
val sq = math.sqrt(number + 0.5).toInt
! primes.takeWhile(_ <= sq).exists(p => number % p == 0)
}
My scala algorithm that calculates divisors of a given number. It worked fine in the solution of
Project Euler Problem 12.
def countDivisors(numberToFindDivisor: BigInt): Int = {
def countWithAcc(numberToFindDivisor: BigInt, currentCandidate: Int, currentCountOfDivisors: Int,limit: BigInt): Int = {
if (currentCandidate >= limit) currentCountOfDivisors
else {
if (numberToFindDivisor % currentCandidate == 0)
countWithAcc(numberToFindDivisor, currentCandidate + 1, currentCountOfDivisors + 2, numberToFindDivisor / currentCandidate)
else
countWithAcc(numberToFindDivisor, currentCandidate + 1, currentCountOfDivisors, limit)
}
}
countWithAcc(numberToFindDivisor, 1, 0, numberToFindDivisor + 1)
}
calculateDivisors can be greatly improved by only checking for divisors up to the square root of the number. Each time you find a divisor below the sqrt, you also find one above.
def calculateDivisors(n: Int) = {
var res = 1
val intSqrt = Math.sqrt(n).toInt
for (i <- 2 until intSqrt) {
if (n % i == 0) {
res += 2
}
}
if (n == intSqrt * intSqrt) {
res += 1
}
res
}