Related
After asking this question on math.stackexchange.com I figured this might be a better place after all...
I have a small list of positive numbers rounded to (say) two decimals:
1.15 (can be 1.145 - 1.154999...)
1.92 (can be 1.915 - 1.924999...)
2.36 (can be 2.355 - 2.364999...)
2.63 (can be 2.625 - 2.634999...)
2.78 (can be 2.775 - 2.784999...)
3.14 (can be 3.135 - 3.144999...)
24.04 (can be 24.035 - 24.044999...)
I suspect that these numbers are fractions of integers and that all numerators or all denominators are equal. Choosing 100 as a common denominator would work in this case, that would leave the last value as 2404/100. But there could be a 'simpler' solution with much smaller integers.
How do I efficiently find the smallest common numerator and/or denominator? Or (if that is different) the one that would result in the smallest maximum denominator resp. numerator?
Of course I could brute force for small lists/numbers and few decimals. That would find 83/72, 138/72, 170/72, 189/72, 200/72, 226/72 and 1731/72 for this example.
Assuming the numbers don't have too many significant digits and aren't too big you can try increasing the denominator until you find a valid solution. It is not just brute-forcing. Additionally the following script is staying at the number violating the constraints as long as there is nothing found, in the hope of getting the denominator higher faster, without having to calculate for the non-problematic numbers.
It works based on the following formula:
x / y < a / b if x * b < a * y
This means a denominator d is valid if:
ceil(loNum * d / loDen) * hiDen < hiNum * d
The ceil(...) part calculates the smallest possible numerator satisfying the constraint of the low boundary and the rest is checking if it also satysfies the high boundary.
Better would be to work with real integer calculations, e.g. just longs in Java, then the ceil part becomes:
(loNum * d + loDen - 1) / loDen
function findRatios(arr) {
let lo = [], hi = [], consecutive = 0, d = 1
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
let x = '' + arr[i], len = x.length, dot = x.indexOf('.'),
num = parseInt(x.substr(0, dot) + x.substr(dot + 1)) * 10,
den = Math.pow(10, len - dot),
loGcd = gcd(num - 5, den), hiGcd = gcd(num + 5, den)
lo[i] = {num: (num - 5) / loGcd, den: den / loGcd}
hi[i] = {num: (num + 5) / hiGcd, den: den / hiGcd}
}
for (let index = 0; consecutive < arr.length; index = (index + 1) % arr.length) {
if (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index])) {
consecutive = 1
d++
while (!valid(d, lo[index], hi[index]))
d++
} else {
consecutive++
}
}
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++)
console.log(Math.ceil(lo[i].num * d / lo[i].den) + ' / ' + d)
}
function gcd(x, y) {
while(y) {
let t = y
y = x % y
x = t
}
return x
}
function valid(d, lo, hi) {
let n = Math.ceil(lo.num * d / lo.den)
return n * hi.den < hi.num * d
}
findRatios([1.15, 1.92, 2.36, 2.63, 2.78, 3.14, 24.04])
I want to generate a sequence of strings with the following properties:
Lexically ordered
Theoretically infinite
Compact over a realistic range
Generated by a simple process of incrementation
Matches the regexp /\w+/
The obvious way to generate a lexically-ordered sequence is to choose a string length and pad the strings with a base value like this: 000000, 000001, etc. This approach poses a trade-off between the number of permutations and compactness: a string long enough to yield many permutations will be filled many zeros along the way. Plus, the length I choose sets an upper bound on the total number of permutations unless I have some mechanism for expanding the string when it maxes out.
So I came up with a sequence that works like this:
Each string consists of a "head", which is a base-36 number, followed by an underscore, and then the "tail", which is also a base-36 number padded by an increasing number of zeros
The first cycle goes from 0_0 to 0_z
The second cycle goes from 1_00 to 1_zz
The third cycle goes from 2_000 to 2_zzz, and so on
Once the head has reached z and the tail consists of 36 zs, the first "supercycle" has ended. Now the whole sequence starts over, except the z remains at the beginning, so the new cycle starts with z0_0, then continues to z1_00, and so on
The second supercycle goes zz0_0, zz1_00, and so on
Although the string of zs in the head could become unwieldy over the long run, a single supercycle contains over 10^56 permutations, which is far more than I ever expect to use. The sequence is theoretically infinite but very compact within a realistic range. For instance, the trillionth permutation is a succinct 7_bqd55h8s.
I can generate the sequence relatively simply with this javascript function:
function genStr (n) {
n = BigInt(n);
let prefix = "",
cycle = 0n,
max = 36n ** (cycle + 1n);
while (n >= max) {
n -= max;
if (cycle === 35n) {
prefix += "z";
cycle = 0n;
} else {
cycle++;
}
max = 36n ** (cycle + 1n);
}
return prefix
+ cycle.toString(36)
+ "_"
+ n.toString(36).padStart(Number(cycle) + 1, 0);
}
The n parameter is a number that I increment and pass to the function to get the next member of the sequence. All I need to keep track of is a simple integer, making the sequence very easy to use.
So obviously I spent a lot of time on this and I think it's pretty good, but I'm wondering if there is a better way. Is there a good algorithm for generating a sequence along the lines of the one I'm looking for?
A close idea to yours. (more rafined than my first edit...).
Let our alphabet be A = {0,1,2,3}.
Let |2| mean we iterate from 0 to 2 and |2|^2 mean we generate the cartesian product in a lexically sorted manner (00,01,10,11).
We start with
0 |3|
So we have a string of length 2. We "unshift" the digit 1 which "factorizes" since any 0|3|... is less than 1|3|^2.
1 |3|^2
Same idea: unshift 2, and make words of length 4.
2 |3|^3
Now we can continue and generate
3 |2| |3|^3
Notice |2| and not |3|. Now our maximum number becomes 32333. And as you did, we can now add the carry and start a new supercycle:
33 0|3|
This is a slight improvement, since _ can now be part of our alphabet: we don't need to reserve it as a token separator.
In our case we can represent in a supercycle:
n + n^2 + ... + n^(n-1) + (n-1) * n^(n-1)
\-----------------------/\--------------/
geometric special
In your case, the special part would be n^n (with the nuance that you have theorically one char less so replace n with n-1 everywhere)
The proposed supercycle is of length :
P = (n \sum_{k = 0}^{n-2} n^k) + (n-1) * n^(n-1)
P = (n \sum_{k = 0}^{n-3} n^k) + n^n
P = n(n^{n-2} - 1)/(n-1) + n^n
Here is an example diff with alphabet A={0,1,2}
my genStr(grandinero)
,00 0_0
,01 0_1
,02 0_2
,100 1_00
,101 1_01
,102 1_02
,110 1_10
,111 1_11
,112 1_12
,120 1_20
,121 1_21
,122 1_22
,2000 2_000
,2001 2_001
,2002 2_002
,2010 2_010
,2011 2_011
,2012 2_012
,2020 2_020
,2021 2_021
,2022 2_022
,2100 2_100
,2101 2_101
,2102 2_102
,2110 2_110
,2111 2_111
,2112 2_112
,2120 2_120
,2121 2_121
,2122 2_122
22,00 2_200 <-- end of my supercycle if no '_' allowed
22,01 2_201
22,02 2_202
22,100 2_210
22,101 2_211
22,102 2_212
22,110 2_220
22,111 2_221
22,112 2_222 <-- end of yours
22,120 z0_0
That said, for a given number x, we can can count how many supercycles (E(x / P)) there are, each supercycle making two leading e (e being the last char of A).
e.g: A = {0,1,2} and x = 43
e = 2
P = n(n^{n-2} - 1)/(n-1) + n^n = 3(3^1 -1)/2 + 27 = 30
// our supercycle is of length 30
E(43/30) = 1 // 43 makes one supercycle and a few more "strings"
r = x % P = 13 // this is also x - (E(43/30) * 30) (the rest of the euclidean division by P)
Then for the left over (r = x % P) two cases to consider:
either we fall in the geometric sequence
either we fall in the (n-1) * n^(n-1) part.
1. Adressing the geometric sequence with cumulative sums (x < S_w)
Let S_i be the cumsum of n, n^2,..
S_i = n\sum_{k = 0}^{i-1} n^k
S_i = n/(n-1)*(n^i - 1)
which gives S_0 = 0, S_1 = n, S_2 = n + n^2...
So basically, if x < S_1, we get 0(x), elif x < S_2, we get 1(x-S_1)
Let S_w = S_{n-1} the count of all the numbers we can represent.
If x <= S_w then we want the i such that
S_i < x <= S_{i+1} <=> n^i < (n-1)/n * x + 1 <= n^{i+1}
We can then apply some log flooring (base(n)) to get that i.
We can then associate the string: A[i] + base_n(x - S_i).
Illustration:
This time with A = {0,1,2,3}.
Let x be 17.
Our consecutive S_i are:
S_0 = 0
S_1 = 4
S_2 = S_1 + 4^2 = 20
S_3 = S_2 + 4^3 = 84
S_w = S_{4-1} = S_3 = 84
x=17 is indeed less than 84, we will be able to affect it to one of the S_i ranges.
In particular S_1==4 < x==17 <= S_2==20.
We remove the strings encoded by the leading 0(there are a number S_1 of those strings).
The position to encode with the leading 1 is
x - 4 = 13.
And we conclude the thirteen's string generated with a leading 1 is base_4(13) = '31' (idem string -> '131')
Should we have had x = 21, we would have removed the count of S_2 so 21-20 = 1, which in turn gives with a leading 2 the string '2001'.
2. Adressing x in the special part (x >= S_w)
Let's consider study case below:
with A = {0,1,2}
The special part is
2 |1| |2|^2
that is:
2 0 00
2 0 01
2 0 02
2 0 10
2 0 11
2 0 12
2 0 20
2 0 21
2 0 22
2 1 20
2 1 21
2 1 22
2 1 10
2 1 11
2 1 12
2 1 20
2 1 21
2 1 22
Each incremented number of the second column (here 0 to 1 (specified from |1|)) gives 3^2 combination.
This is similar to the geometric series except that here each range is constant. We want to find the range which means we know which string to prefix.
We can represent it as the matrix
20 (00,01,02,10,11,12,20,21,22)
21 (00,01,02,10,11,12,20,21,22)
The portion in parenthesis is our matrix.
Every item in a row is simply its position base_3 (left-padded with 0).
e.g: n=7 has base_3 value '21'. (7=2*3+1).
'21' does occur in position 7 in the row.
Assuming we get some x (relative to that special part).
E(x / 3^2) gives us the row number (here E(7/9) = 0 so prefix is '20')
x % 3^2 give us the position in the row (here base_3(7%9)='21' giving us the final string '2021')
If we want to observe it remember that we substracted S_w=12 before to get x = 7, so we would call myGen(7+12)
Some code
Notice the same output as long as we stand in the "geometric" range, without supercycle.
Obviously, when carry starts to appear, it depends on whether I can use '_' or not. If yes, my words get shorter otherwise longer.
// https://www.cs.sfu.ca/~ggbaker/zju/math/int-alg.html
// \w insensitive could give base64
// but also éè and other accents...
function base_n(x, n, A) {
const a = []
while (x !== 0n) {
a.push(A[Number(x % n)])
x = x / n // auto floor with bigInt
}
return a.reverse().join('')
}
function mygen (A) {
const n = A.length
const bn = BigInt(n)
const A_last = A[A.length-1]
const S = Array(n).fill(0).map((x, i) => bn * (bn ** BigInt(i) - 1n) / (bn - 1n))
const S_w = S[n-1]
const w = S_w + (bn - 1n) * bn ** (bn - 1n)
const w2 = bn ** (bn - 1n)
const flog_bn = x => {
// https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1627914/smart-way-to-calculate-floorlogx
let L = 0
while (x >= bn) {
L++
x /= bn
}
return L
}
return function (x) {
x = BigInt(x)
let r = x % w
const q = (x - r) / w
let s
if (r < S_w) {
const i = flog_bn(r * (bn - 1n) / bn + 1n)
const r2 = r - S[i]
s = A[i] + base_n(r2, bn, A).padStart(i+1, '0')
} else {
const n2 = r - S_w
const r2 = n2 % w2
const q2 = (n2 - r2 ) / w2
s = A_last + A[q2] + base_n(r2, bn, A).padStart(n-1, '0')
}
// comma below __not__ necessary, just to ease seeing cycles
return A_last.repeat(2*Number(q)) +','+ s
}
}
function genStr (A) {
A = A.filter(x => x !== '_')
const bn_noUnderscore = BigInt(A.length)
return function (x) {
x = BigInt(x);
let prefix = "",
cycle = 0n,
max = bn_noUnderscore ** (cycle + 1n);
while (x >= max) {
x -= max;
if (cycle === bn_noUnderscore - 1n) {
prefix += "z";
cycle = 0n;
} else {
cycle++;
}
max = bn_noUnderscore ** (cycle + 1n);
}
return prefix
+ base_n(cycle, bn_noUnderscore, A)
+ "_"
+ base_n(x, bn_noUnderscore, A).padStart(Number(cycle) + 1, 0);
}
}
function test(a, b, x){
console.log(a(x), b(x))
}
{
console.log('---my supercycle is shorter if underscore not used. Plenty of room for grandinero')
const A = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'.split('').sort((a,b)=>a.localeCompare(b))
let my = mygen(A)
const grandinero = genStr(A)
test(my, grandinero, 1e4)
test(my, grandinero, 1e12)
test(my, grandinero, 106471793335560744271846581685593263893929893610517909620n) // cycle ended for me (w variable value)
}
{
console.log('---\n my supercycle is greater if underscore is used in my alphabet (not grandinero since "forbidden')
// underscore used
const A = '0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz_'.split('').sort((a,b)=>a.localeCompare(b))
let my = mygen(A)
const grandinero = genStr(A)
test(my, grandinero, 1e12)
test(my, grandinero, 106471793335560744271846581685593263893929893610517909620n) // cycle ended for me (w variable value)
test(my, grandinero, 1e57) // still got some place in the supercycle
}
After considering the advice provided by #kaya3 and #grodzi and reviewing my original code, I have made some improvements. I realized a few things:
There was a bug in my original code. If one cycle ends at z_z (actually 36 z's after the underscore, but you get the idea) and the next one begins at z0_0, then lexical ordering is broken because _ comes after 0. The separator (or "neck") needs to be lower in lexical order than the lowest possible value of the head.
Though I was initially resistant to the idea of rolling a custom baseN generator so that more characters can be included, I have now come around to the idea.
I can squeeze more permutations out of a given string length by also incrementing the neck. For example, I can go from A00...A0z to A10...A1z, and so on, thus increasing the number of unique strings I can generate with A as the head before I move on to B.
With that in mind, I have revised my code:
// this is the alphabet used in standard baseN conversions:
let baseAlpha = "0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
// this is a factory for creating a new string generator:
function sequenceGenerator (config) {
let
// alphabets for the head, neck and body:
headAlpha = config.headAlpha,
neckAlpha = config.neckAlpha,
bodyAlpha = config.bodyAlpha,
// length of the body alphabet corresponds to the
// base of the numbering system:
base = BigInt(bodyAlpha.length),
// if bodyAlpha is identical to an alphabet that
// would be used for a standard baseN conversion,
// then use the built-in method, which should be
// much faster:
convertBody = baseAlpha.startsWith(bodyAlpha)
? (n) => n.toString(bodyAlpha.length)
// otherwise, roll a custom baseN generator:
: function (n) {
let s = "";
while (n > 0n) {
let i = n % base;
s = bodyAlpha[i] + s;
n = n / base;
}
return s;
},
// n is used to cache the last iteration and is
// incremented each time you call `getNext`
// it can optionally be initialized to a value other
// than 0:
n = BigInt(config.start || 0),
// see below:
headCycles = [0n],
cycleLength = 0n;
// the length of the body increases by 1 each time the
// head increments, meaning that the total number of
// permutations increases geometrically for each
// character in headAlpha
// here we cache the maximum number of permutations for
// each length of the body
// since we know these values ahead of time, calculating
// them in advance saves time when we generate a new
// string
// more importantly, it saves us from having to do a
// reverse calculation involving Math.log, which requires
// converting BigInts to Numbers, which breaks the
// program on larger numbers:
for (let i = 0; i < headAlpha.length; i++) {
// the maximum number of permutations depends on both
// the string length (i + 1) and the number of
// characters in neckAlpha, since the string length
// remains the same while the neck increments
cycleLength += BigInt(neckAlpha.length) * base ** BigInt(i + 1);
headCycles.push(cycleLength);
}
// given a number n, this function searches through
// headCycles to find where the total number of
// permutations exceeds n
// this is how we avoid the reverse calculation with
// Math.log to determine which head cycle we are on for
// a given permutation:
function getHeadCycle (n) {
for (let i = 0; i < headCycles.length; i++) {
if (headCycles[i] > n) return i;
}
}
return {
cycleLength: cycleLength,
getString: function (n) {
let cyclesDone = Number(n / cycleLength),
headLast = headAlpha[headAlpha.length - 1],
prefix = headLast.repeat(cyclesDone),
nn = n % cycleLength,
headCycle = getHeadCycle(nn),
head = headAlpha[headCycle - 1],
nnn = nn - headCycles[headCycle - 1],
neckCycleLength = BigInt(bodyAlpha.length) ** BigInt(headCycle),
neckCycle = nnn / neckCycleLength,
neck = neckAlpha[Number(neckCycle)],
body = convertBody(nnn % neckCycleLength);
body = body.padStart(headCycle , bodyAlpha[0]);
return prefix + head + neck + body;
},
getNext: function () { return this.getString(n++); }
};
}
let bodyAlpha = "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ_abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz",
getStr = sequenceGenerator({
// achieve more permutations within a supercycle
// with a larger headAlpha:
headAlpha: "123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz",
// the highest value of neckAlpha must be lower than
// the lowest value of headAlpha:
neckAlpha: "0",
bodyAlpha: bodyAlpha
});
console.log("---supercycle length:");
console.log(Number(getStr.cycleLength));
console.log("---first two values:")
console.log(getStr.getNext());
console.log(getStr.getNext());
console.log("---arbitrary large value (1e57):");
console.log(getStr.getString(BigInt(1e57)));
console.log("");
// here we use a shorter headAlpha and longer neckAlpha
// to shorten the maximum length of the body, but this also
// decreases the number of permutations in the supercycle:
getStr = sequenceGenerator({
headAlpha: "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz",
neckAlpha: "0123456789",
bodyAlpha: bodyAlpha
});
console.log("---supercycle length:");
console.log(Number(getStr.cycleLength));
console.log("---first two values:");
console.log(getStr.getNext());
console.log(getStr.getNext());
console.log("---arbitrary large value (1e57):");
console.log(getStr.getString(BigInt(1e57)));
EDIT
After further discussion with #grodzi, I have made some more improvements:
I realized that the "neck" or separator wasn't providing much value, so I have gotten rid of it. Later edit: actually, the separator is necessary. I am not sure why I thought it wasn't. Without the separator, the beginning of each new supercycle will lexically precede the end of the previous supercycle. I haven't changed my code below, but anyone using this code should include a separator. I have also realized that I was wrong to use an underscore as the separator. The separator must be a character, such as the hyphen, which lexically precedes the lowest digit used in the sequence (0).
I have taken #grodzi's suggestion to allow the length of the tail to continue growing indefinitely.
Here is the new code:
let baseAlpha = "0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
function sequenceGenerator (config) {
let headAlpha = config.headAlpha,
tailAlpha = config.tailAlpha,
base = BigInt(tailAlpha.length),
convertTail = baseAlpha.startsWith(tailAlpha)
? (n) => n.toString(tailAlpha.length)
: function (n) {
if (n === 0n) return "0";
let s = "";
while (n > 0n) {
let i = n % base;
s = tailAlpha[i] + s;
n = n / base;
}
return s;
},
n = BigInt(config.start || 0);
return {
getString: function (n) {
let cyclesDone = 0n,
headCycle = 0n,
initLength = 0n,
accum = 0n;
for (;; headCycle++) {
let _accum = accum + base ** (headCycle + 1n + initLength);
if (_accum > n) {
n -= accum;
break;
} else if (Number(headCycle) === headAlpha.length - 1) {
cyclesDone++;
initLength += BigInt(headAlpha.length);
headCycle = -1n;
}
accum = _accum;
}
let headLast = headAlpha[headAlpha.length - 1],
prefix = headLast.repeat(Number(cyclesDone)),
head = headAlpha[Number(headCycle)],
tail = convertTail(n),
tailLength = Number(headCycle + initLength);
tail = tail.padStart(tailLength, tailAlpha[0]);
return prefix + head + tail;
},
getNext: function () { return this.getString(n++); }
};
}
let alpha = "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ_abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz",
genStr = sequenceGenerator({headAlpha: alpha, tailAlpha: alpha});
console.log("--- first string:");
console.log(genStr.getString(0n));
console.log("--- 1e+57");
console.log(genStr.getString(BigInt(1e+57)));
console.log("--- end of first supercycle:");
console.log(genStr.getString(63n*(1n-(63n**63n))/(1n-63n)-1n));
console.log("--- start of second supercycle:");
console.log(genStr.getString(63n*(1n-(63n**63n))/(1n-63n)));
Problem: We have x checkboxes and we want to check y of them evenly.
Example 1: select 50 checkboxes of 100 total.
[-]
[x]
[-]
[x]
...
Example 2: select 33 checkboxes of 100 total.
[-]
[-]
[x]
[-]
[-]
[x]
...
Example 3: select 66 checkboxes of 100 total:
[-]
[x]
[x]
[-]
[x]
[x]
...
But we're having trouble to come up with a formula to check them in code, especially once you go 11/111 or something similar. Anyone has an idea?
Let's first assume y is divisible by x. Then we denote p = y/x and the solution is simple. Go through the list, every p elements, mark 1 of them.
Now, let's say r = y%x is non zero. Still p = y/x where / is integer devision. So, you need to:
In the first p-r elements, mark 1 elements
In the last r elements, mark 2 elements
Note: This depends on how you define evenly distributed. You might want to spread the r sections withx+1 elements in between p-r sections with x elements, which indeed is again the same problem and could be solved recursively.
Alright so it wasn't actually correct. I think this would do though:
Regardless of divisibility:
if y > 2*x, then mark 1 element every p = y/x elements, x times.
if y < 2*x, then mark all, and do the previous step unmarking y-x out of y checkboxes (so like in the previous case, but x is replaced by y-x)
Note: This depends on how you define evenly distributed. You might want to change between p and p+1 elements for example to distribute them better.
Here's a straightforward solution using integer arithmetic:
void check(char boxes[], int total_count, int check_count)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < total_count; i++)
boxes[i] = '-';
for (i = 0; i < check_count; i++)
boxes[i * total_count / check_count] = 'x';
}
total_count is the total number of boxes, and check_count is the number of boxes to check.
First, it sets every box to unchecked. Then, it checks check_count boxes, scaling the counter to the number of boxes.
Caveat: this is left-biased rather than right-biased like in your examples. That is, it prints x--x-- rather than --x--x. You can turn it around by replacing
boxes[i * total_count / check_count] = 'x';
with:
boxes[total_count - (i * total_count / check_count) - 1] = 'x';
Correctness
Assuming 0 <= check_count <= total_count, and that boxes has space for at least total_count items, we can prove that:
No check marks will overlap. i * total_count / check_count increments by at least one on every iteration, because total_count >= check_count.
This will not overflow the buffer. The subscript i * total_count / check_count
Will be >= 0. i, total_count, and check_count will all be >= 0.
Will be < total_count. When n > 0 and d > 0:
(n * d - 1) / d < n
In other words, if we take n * d / d, and nudge the numerator down, the quotient will go down, too.
Therefore, (check_count - 1) * total_count / check_count will be less than total_count, with the assumptions made above. A division by zero won't happen because if check_count is 0, the loop in question will have zero iterations.
Say number of checkboxes is C and the number of Xes is N.
You example states that having C=111 and N=11 is your most troublesome case.
Try this: divide C/N. Call it D. Have index in the array as double number I. Have another variable as counter, M.
double D = (double)C / (double)N;
double I = 0.0;
int M = N;
while (M > 0) {
if (checkboxes[Round(I)].Checked) { // if we selected it, skip to next
I += 1.0;
continue;
}
checkboxes[Round(I)].Checked = true;
M --;
I += D;
if (Round(I) >= C) { // wrap around the end
I -= C;
}
}
Please note that Round(x) should return nearest integer value for x.
This one could work for you.
I think the key is to keep count of how many boxes you expect to have per check.
Say you want 33 checks in 100 boxes. 100 / 33 = 3.030303..., so you expect to have one check every 3.030303... boxes. That means every 3.030303... boxes, you need to add a check. 66 checks in 100 boxes would mean one check every 1.51515... boxes, 11 checks in 111 boxes would mean one check every 10.090909... boxes, and so on.
double count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < boxes; i++) {
count += 1;
if (count >= boxes/checks) {
checkboxes[i] = true;
count -= count.truncate(); // so 1.6 becomes 0.6 - resetting the count but keeping the decimal part to keep track of "partial boxes" so far
}
}
You might rather use decimal as opposed to double for count, or there's a slight chance the last box will get skipped due to rounding errors.
Bresenham-like algorithm is suitable to distribute checkboxes evenly. Output of 'x' corresponds to Y-coordinate change. It is possible to choose initial err as random value in range [0..places) to avoid biasing.
def Distribute(places, stars):
err = places // 2
res = ''
for i in range(0, places):
err = err - stars
if err < 0 :
res = res + 'x'
err = err + places
else:
res = res + '-'
print(res)
Distribute(24,17)
Distribute(24,12)
Distribute(24,5)
output:
x-xxx-xx-xx-xxx-xx-xxx-x
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
--x----x----x---x----x--
Quick html/javascript solution:
<html>
<body>
<div id='container'></div>
<script>
var cbCount = 111;
var cbCheckCount = 11;
var cbRatio = cbCount / cbCheckCount;
var buildCheckCount = 0;
var c = document.getElementById('container');
for (var i=1; i <= cbCount; i++) {
// make a checkbox
var cb = document.createElement('input');
cb.type = 'checkbox';
test = i / cbRatio - buildCheckCount;
if (test >= 1) {
// check the checkbox we just made
cb.checked = 'checked';
buildCheckCount++;
}
c.appendChild(cb);
c.appendChild(document.createElement('br'));
}
</script>
</body></html>
Adapt code from one question's answer or another answer from earlier this month. Set N = x = number of checkboxes and M = y = number to be checked and apply formula (N*i+N)/M - (N*i)/M for section sizes. (Also see Joey Adams' answer.)
In python, the adapted code is:
N=100; M=33; p=0;
for i in range(M):
k = (N+N*i)/M
for j in range(p,k-1): print "-",
print "x",
p=k
which produces
- - x - - x - - x - - x - - [...] x - - x - - - x where [...] represents 25 --x repetitions.
With M=66 the code gives
x - x x - x x - x x - x x - [...] x x - x x - x - x where [...] represents mostly xx- repetitions, with one x- in the middle.
Note, in C or java: Substitute for (i=0; i<M; ++i) in place of for i in range(M):. Substitute for (j=p; j<k-1; ++j) in place of for j in range(p,k-1):.
Correctness: Note that M = x boxes get checked because print "x", is executed M times.
What about using Fisher–Yates shuffle ?
Make array, shuffle and pick first n elements. You do not need to shuffle all of them, just first n of array. Shuffling can be find in most language libraries.
I need to make a chart with an optimized y axis maximum value.
The current method I have of making charts simply uses the maximum value of all the graphs, then divides it by ten, and uses that as grid lines. I didn't write it.
Update Note: These graphs have been changed. As soon as I fixed the code, my dynamic graphs started working, making this question nonsensical (because the examples no longer had any errors in them). I've updated these with static images, but some of the answers refrence different values. Keep that in mind.
There were between 12003 and 14003 inbound calls so far in February. Informative, but ugly.
I'd like to avoid charts that look like a monkey came up with the y-axis numbers.
Using the Google charts API helps a little bit, but it's still not quite what I want.
The numbers are clean, but the top of the y value is always the same as the maximum value on the chart. This chart scales from 0 to 1357. I need to have calculated the proper value of 1400, problematically.
I'm throwing in rbobby's defanition of a 'nice' number here because it explains it so well.
A "nice" number is one that has 3 or fewer non-zero digits (eg. 1230000)
A "nice" number has the same or few non-zero digits than zero digits (eg 1230 is not nice, 1200 is nice)
The nicest numbers are ones with multiples of 3 zeros (eg. "1,000", "1,000,000")
The second nicest numbers are onces with multples of 3 zeros plus 2 zeros (eg. "1,500,000", "1,200")
Solution
I found the way to get the results that I want using a modified version of Mark Ransom's idea.
Fist, Mark Ransom's code determines the optimum spacing between ticks, when given the number of ticks. Sometimes this number ends up being more than twice what the highest value on the chart is, depending on how many grid lines you want.
What I'm doing is I'm running Mark's code with 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 grid lines (ticks) to find which of those is the lowest. With a value of 23, the height of the chart goes to 25, with a grid line at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25. With a value of 26, the chart's height is 30, with grid lines at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. It has the same spacing between grid lines, but there are more of them.
So here's the steps to just-about copy what Excel does to make charts all fancy.
Temporarily bump up the chart's highest value by about 5% (so that there is always some space between the chart's highest point and the top of the chart area. We want 99.9 to round up to 120)
Find the optimum grid line placement
for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 grid
lines.
Pick out the lowest of those numbers. Remember the number of grid lines it took to get that value.
Now you have the optimum chart height. The lines/bar will never butt up against the top of the chart and you have the optimum number of ticks.
PHP:
function roundUp($maxValue){
$optiMax = $maxValue * 2;
for ($i = 5; $i <= 10; $i++){
$tmpMaxValue = bestTick($maxValue,$i);
if (($optiMax > $tmpMaxValue) and ($tmpMaxValue > ($maxValue + $maxValue * 0.05))){
$optiMax = $tmpMaxValue;
$optiTicks = $i;
}
}
return $optiMax;
}
function bestTick($maxValue, $mostTicks){
$minimum = $maxValue / $mostTicks;
$magnitude = pow(10,floor(log($minimum) / log(10)));
$residual = $minimum / $magnitude;
if ($residual > 5){
$tick = 10 * $magnitude;
} elseif ($residual > 2) {
$tick = 5 * $magnitude;
} elseif ($residual > 1){
$tick = 2 * $magnitude;
} else {
$tick = $magnitude;
}
return ($tick * $mostTicks);
}
Python:
import math
def BestTick(largest, mostticks):
minimum = largest / mostticks
magnitude = 10 ** math.floor(math.log(minimum) / math.log(10))
residual = minimum / magnitude
if residual > 5:
tick = 10 * magnitude
elif residual > 2:
tick = 5 * magnitude
elif residual > 1:
tick = 2 * magnitude
else:
tick = magnitude
return tick
value = int(input(""))
optMax = value * 2
for i in range(5,11):
maxValue = BestTick(value,i) * i
print maxValue
if (optMax > maxValue) and (maxValue > value + (value*.05)):
optMax = maxValue
optTicks = i
print "\nTest Value: " + str(value + (value * .05)) + "\n\nChart Height: " + str(optMax) + " Ticks: " + str(optTicks)
This is from a previous similar question:
Algorithm for "nice" grid line intervals on a graph
I've done this with kind of a brute
force method. First, figure out the
maximum number of tick marks you can
fit into the space. Divide the total
range of values by the number of
ticks; this is the minimum
spacing of the tick. Now calculate
the floor of the logarithm base 10 to
get the magnitude of the tick, and
divide by this value. You should end
up with something in the range of 1 to
10. Simply choose the round number greater than or equal to the value and
multiply it by the logarithm
calculated earlier. This is your
final tick spacing.
Example in Python:
import math
def BestTick(largest, mostticks):
minimum = largest / mostticks
magnitude = 10 ** math.floor(math.log(minimum) / math.log(10))
residual = minimum / magnitude
if residual > 5:
tick = 10 * magnitude
elif residual > 2:
tick = 5 * magnitude
elif residual > 1:
tick = 2 * magnitude
else:
tick = magnitude
return tick
You could round up to two significant figures. The following pseudocode should work:
// maxValue is the largest value in your chart
magnitude = floor(log10(maxValue))
base = 10^(magnitude - 1)
chartHeight = ceiling(maxValue / base) * base
For example, if maxValue is 1357, then magnitude is 3 and base is 100. Dividing by 100, rounding up, and multiplying by 100 has the result of rounding up to the next multiple of 100, i.e. rounding up to two significant figures. In this case, the result if 1400 (1357 ⇒ 13.57 ⇒ 14 ⇒ 1400).
In the past I've done this in a brute force-ish sort of way. Here's a chunk of C++ code that works well... but for a hardcoded lower and upper limits (0 and 5000):
int PickYUnits()
{
int MinSize[8] = {20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20};
int ItemsPerUnit[8] = {5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500};
int ItemLimits[8] = {20, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000};
int MaxNumUnits = 8;
double PixelsPerY;
int PixelsPerAxis;
int Units;
//
// Figure out the max from the dataset
// - Min is always 0 for a bar chart
//
m_MinY = 0;
m_MaxY = -9999999;
m_TotalY = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < m_DataPoints.GetSize(); j++) {
if (m_DataPoints[j].m_y > m_MaxY) {
m_MaxY = m_DataPoints[j].m_y;
}
m_TotalY += m_DataPoints[j].m_y;
}
//
// Give some space at the top
//
m_MaxY = m_MaxY + 1;
//
// Figure out the size of the range
//
double yRange = (m_MaxY - m_MinY);
//
// Pick the initial size
//
Units = MaxNumUnits;
for (int k = 0; k < MaxNumUnits; k++)
{
if (yRange < ItemLimits[k])
{
Units = k;
break;
}
}
//
// Adjust it upwards based on the space available
//
PixelsPerY = m_rcGraph.Height() / yRange;
PixelsPerAxis = (int)(PixelsPerY * ItemsPerUnit[Units]);
while (PixelsPerAxis < MinSize[Units]){
Units += 1;
PixelsPerAxis = (int)(PixelsPerY * ItemsPerUnit[Units]);
if (Units == 5)
break;
}
return ItemsPerUnit[Units];
}
However something in what you've said tweaked me. To pick nice axis numbers a definition of "nice number" would help:
A "nice" number is one that has 3 or fewer non-zero digits (eg. 1230000)
A "nice" number has the same or few non-zero digits than zero digits (eg 1230 is not nice, 1200 is nice)
The nicest numbers are ones with multiples of 3 zeros (eg. "1,000", "1,000,000")
The second nicest numbers are onces with multples of 3 zeros plus 2 zeros (eg. "1,500,000", "1,200")
Not sure if the above definition is "right" or actually helpful (but with the definition in hand it then becomes a simpler task to devise an algorithm).
A slight refinement and tested... (works for fractions of units and not just integers)
public void testNumbers() {
double test = 0.20000;
double multiple = 1;
int scale = 0;
String[] prefix = new String[]{"", "m", "u", "n"};
while (Math.log10(test) < 0) {
multiple = multiple * 1000;
test = test * 1000;
scale++;
}
double tick;
double minimum = test / 10;
double magnitude = 100000000;
while (minimum <= magnitude){
magnitude = magnitude / 10;
}
double residual = test / (magnitude * 10);
if (residual > 5) {
tick = 10 * magnitude;
} else if (residual > 2) {
tick = 5 * magnitude;
} else if (residual > 1) {
tick = 2 * magnitude;
} else {
tick = magnitude;
}
double curAmt = 0;
int ticks = (int) Math.ceil(test / tick);
for (int ix = 0; ix < ticks; ix++) {
curAmt += tick;
BigDecimal bigDecimal = new BigDecimal(curAmt);
bigDecimal.setScale(2, BigDecimal.ROUND_HALF_UP);
System.out.println(bigDecimal.stripTrailingZeros().toPlainString() + prefix[scale] + "s");
}
System.out.println("Value = " + test + prefix[scale] + "s");
System.out.println("Tick = " + tick + prefix[scale] + "s");
System.out.println("Ticks = " + ticks);
System.out.println("Scale = " + multiple + " : " + scale);
}
If you want 1400 at the top, how about adjusting the last two parameters to 1400 instead of 1357:
You could use div and mod. For example.
Let's say you want your chart to round up by increments of 20 (just to make it more a more arbitrary number than your typical "10" value).
So I would assume that 1, 11, 18 would all round up to 20. But 21, 33, 38 would round to 40.
To come up with the right value do the following:
Where divisor = your rounding increment.
divisor = 20
multiple = maxValue / divisor; // Do an integer divide here.
if (maxValue modulus divisor > 0)
multiple++;
graphMax = multiple * maxValue;
So now let's plugin real numbers:
divisor = 20;
multiple = 33 / 20; (integer divide)
so multiple = 1
if (33 modulus 20 > 0) (it is.. it equals 13)
multiple++;
so multiple = 2;
graphMax = multiple (2) * maxValue (20);
graphMax = 40;
I'm looking for an algorithm that places tick marks on an axis, given a range to display, a width to display it in, and a function to measure a string width for a tick mark.
For example, given that I need to display between 1e-6 and 5e-6 and a width to display in pixels, the algorithm would determine that I should put tickmarks (for example) at 1e-6, 2e-6, 3e-6, 4e-6, and 5e-6. Given a smaller width, it might decide that the optimal placement is only at the even positions, i.e. 2e-6 and 4e-6 (since putting more tickmarks would cause them to overlap).
A smart algorithm would give preference to tickmarks at multiples of 10, 5, and 2. Also, a smart algorithm would be symmetric around zero.
As I didn't like any of the solutions I've found so far, I implemented my own. It's in C# but it can be easily translated into any other language.
It basically chooses from a list of possible steps the smallest one that displays all values, without leaving any value exactly in the edge, lets you easily select which possible steps you want to use (without having to edit ugly if-else if blocks), and supports any range of values. I used a C# Tuple to return three values just for a quick and simple demonstration.
private static Tuple<decimal, decimal, decimal> GetScaleDetails(decimal min, decimal max)
{
// Minimal increment to avoid round extreme values to be on the edge of the chart
decimal epsilon = (max - min) / 1e6m;
max += epsilon;
min -= epsilon;
decimal range = max - min;
// Target number of values to be displayed on the Y axis (it may be less)
int stepCount = 20;
// First approximation
decimal roughStep = range / (stepCount - 1);
// Set best step for the range
decimal[] goodNormalizedSteps = { 1, 1.5m, 2, 2.5m, 5, 7.5m, 10 }; // keep the 10 at the end
// Or use these if you prefer: { 1, 2, 5, 10 };
// Normalize rough step to find the normalized one that fits best
decimal stepPower = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, -Math.Floor(Math.Log10((double)Math.Abs(roughStep))));
var normalizedStep = roughStep * stepPower;
var goodNormalizedStep = goodNormalizedSteps.First(n => n >= normalizedStep);
decimal step = goodNormalizedStep / stepPower;
// Determine the scale limits based on the chosen step.
decimal scaleMax = Math.Ceiling(max / step) * step;
decimal scaleMin = Math.Floor(min / step) * step;
return new Tuple<decimal, decimal, decimal>(scaleMin, scaleMax, step);
}
static void Main()
{
// Dummy code to show a usage example.
var minimumValue = data.Min();
var maximumValue = data.Max();
var results = GetScaleDetails(minimumValue, maximumValue);
chart.YAxis.MinValue = results.Item1;
chart.YAxis.MaxValue = results.Item2;
chart.YAxis.Step = results.Item3;
}
Take the longest of the segments about zero (or the whole graph, if zero is not in the range) - for example, if you have something on the range [-5, 1], take [-5,0].
Figure out approximately how long this segment will be, in ticks. This is just dividing the length by the width of a tick. So suppose the method says that we can put 11 ticks in from -5 to 0. This is our upper bound. For the shorter side, we'll just mirror the result on the longer side.
Now try to put in as many (up to 11) ticks in, such that the marker for each tick in the form i*10*10^n, i*5*10^n, i*2*10^n, where n is an integer, and i is the index of the tick. Now it's an optimization problem - we want to maximize the number of ticks we can put in, while at the same time minimizing the distance between the last tick and the end of the result. So assign a score for getting as many ticks as we can, less than our upper bound, and assign a score to getting the last tick close to n - you'll have to experiment here.
In the above example, try n = 1. We get 1 tick (at i=0). n = 2 gives us 1 tick, and we're further from the lower bound, so we know that we have to go the other way. n = 0 gives us 6 ticks, at each integer point point. n = -1 gives us 12 ticks (0, -0.5, ..., -5.0). n = -2 gives us 24 ticks, and so on. The scoring algorithm will give them each a score - higher means a better method.
Do this again for the i * 5 * 10^n, and i*2*10^n, and take the one with the best score.
(as an example scoring algorithm, say that the score is the distance to the last tick times the maximum number of ticks minus the number needed. This will likely be bad, but it'll serve as a decent starting point).
Funnily enough, just over a week ago I came here looking for an answer to the same question, but went away again and decided to come up with my own algorithm. I am here to share, in case it is of any use.
I wrote the code in Python to try and bust out a solution as quickly as possible, but it can easily be ported to any other language.
The function below calculates the appropriate interval (which I have allowed to be either 10**n, 2*10**n, 4*10**n or 5*10**n) for a given range of data, and then calculates the locations at which to place the ticks (based on which numbers within the range are divisble by the interval). I have not used the modulo % operator, since it does not work properly with floating-point numbers due to floating-point arithmetic rounding errors.
Code:
import math
def get_tick_positions(data: list):
if len(data) == 0:
return []
retpoints = []
data_range = max(data) - min(data)
lower_bound = min(data) - data_range/10
upper_bound = max(data) + data_range/10
view_range = upper_bound - lower_bound
num = lower_bound
n = math.floor(math.log10(view_range) - 1)
interval = 10**n
num_ticks = 1
while num <= upper_bound:
num += interval
num_ticks += 1
if num_ticks > 10:
if interval == 10 ** n:
interval = 2 * 10 ** n
elif interval == 2 * 10 ** n:
interval = 4 * 10 ** n
elif interval == 4 * 10 ** n:
interval = 5 * 10 ** n
else:
n += 1
interval = 10 ** n
num = lower_bound
num_ticks = 1
if view_range >= 10:
copy_interval = interval
else:
if interval == 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 1
elif interval == 2 * 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 2
elif interval == 4 * 10 ** n:
copy_interval = 4
else:
copy_interval = 5
first_val = 0
prev_val = 0
times = 0
temp_log = math.log10(interval)
if math.isclose(lower_bound, 0):
first_val = 0
elif lower_bound < 0:
if upper_bound < -2*interval:
if n < 0:
copy_ub = round(upper_bound*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1))
times = copy_ub // round(interval*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1)) + 2
else:
times = upper_bound // round(interval) + 2
while first_val >= lower_bound:
prev_val = first_val
first_val = times * copy_interval
if n < 0:
first_val *= (10**n)
times -= 1
first_val = prev_val
times += 3
else:
if lower_bound > 2*interval:
if n < 0:
copy_ub = round(lower_bound*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1))
times = copy_ub // round(interval*10**(abs(temp_log) + 1)) - 2
else:
times = lower_bound // round(interval) - 2
while first_val < lower_bound:
first_val = times*copy_interval
if n < 0:
first_val *= (10**n)
times += 1
if n < 0:
retpoints.append(first_val)
else:
retpoints.append(round(first_val))
val = first_val
times = 1
while val <= upper_bound:
val = first_val + times * interval
if n < 0:
retpoints.append(val)
else:
retpoints.append(round(val))
times += 1
retpoints.pop()
return retpoints
When passing in the following three data-points to the function
points = [-0.00493, -0.0003892, -0.00003292]
... the output I get (as a list) is as follows:
[-0.005, -0.004, -0.003, -0.002, -0.001, 0.0]
When passing this:
points = [1.399, 38.23823, 8309.33, 112990.12]
... I get:
[0, 20000, 40000, 60000, 80000, 100000, 120000]
When passing this:
points = [-54, -32, -19, -17, -13, -11, -8, -4, 12, 15, 68]
... I get:
[-60, -40, -20, 0, 20, 40, 60, 80]
... which all seem to be a decent choice of positions for placing ticks.
The function is written to allow 5-10 ticks, but that could easily be changed if you so please.
Whether the list of data supplied contains ordered or unordered data it does not matter, since it is only the minimum and maximum data points within the list that matter.
This simple algorithm yields an interval that is multiple of 1, 2, or 5 times a power of 10. And the axis range gets divided in at least 5 intervals. The code sample is in java language:
protected double calculateInterval(double range) {
double x = Math.pow(10.0, Math.floor(Math.log10(range)));
if (range / x >= 5)
return x;
else if (range / (x / 2.0) >= 5)
return x / 2.0;
else
return x / 5.0;
}
This is an alternative, for minimum 10 intervals:
protected double calculateInterval(double range) {
double x = Math.pow(10.0, Math.floor(Math.log10(range)));
if (range / (x / 2.0) >= 10)
return x / 2.0;
else if (range / (x / 5.0) >= 10)
return x / 5.0;
else
return x / 10.0;
}
I've been using the jQuery flot graph library. It's open source and does axis/tick generation quite well. I'd suggest looking at it's code and pinching some ideas from there.