Related
I want to create a "bubble sort" method, which means that I take two consecutive elements in an array, compare them and if the left element is greater than the right element, they should switch the position. I want to repeat it until my array is sorted in ascending order.
My code only works partially. If my array is too big nothing will happen (I have to quit ruby with CTRL + C). With arrays smaller than 5 elements my code works fine:
def bubbles(array)
while array.each_cons(2).any? { |a, b| (a <=> b) >= 0 }
# "true" if there are two consecutives elements where the first one
# is greater than the second one. I know the error must be here somehow.
array.each_with_index.map do | number, index |
if array[index + 1].nil?
number
break
elsif number > array[index + 1]
array[index], array[index + 1] = array[index + 1], array[index] # Swap position!
else
number
end
end
end
p array
end
If I call my method with an array with 4 elements, it works fine:
bubbles([1, 5, 8, 3]) # => [1, 3, 5, 8]
If I call it with a bigger array, it doesn't work:
bubbles([5, 12, 2, 512, 999, 1, 2, 323, 2, 12]) # => Nothing happens. I have to quit ruby with ctrl + c.
Have I somehow created an infinite loop with my while statement?
The problem is in your stop condition. You won't stop until you have an array where each element is lesser than the next. But in your long array you have duplicated elements, so the sorted elements will have adjacent elements that are equal to each other.
Not being too fancy with your code will make your life easier :)
while array.each_cons(2).any? { |a, b| a > b }
I suggest you determine if the array is ordered in a separate method (and don't print the array from within the method:
def bubbles(array)
until ordered?(array)
...
end
array
end
Here's one way (among many) to define ordered?:
def ordered?(array)
enum = array.to_enum
loop do
return false if enum.next > enum.peek
end
true
end
ordered? [1,2,3,4,5] #=> true
ordered? [1,2,4,3,4] #=> false
Also, your code mutates the argument it receives (array), which is probably undesirable. You can avoid that by working on a copy, array.dup.
I have been working through Chris Pine's tutorial for Ruby and am currently working on a way to sort an array of names without using sort.
My code is below. It works perfectly but is a step further than I thought I had got!
puts "Please enter some names:"
name = gets.chomp
names = []
while name != ''
names.push name
name = gets.chomp
end
names.each_index do |first|
names.each_index do |second|
if names[first] < names[second]
names[first], names[second] = names[second], names[first]
end
end
end
puts "The names you have entered in alphabetical order are: " + names.join(', ')
It is the sorting that I am having trouble getting my head around.
My understanding of it is that each_index would look at the position of each item in the array. Then the if statement takes each item and if the number is larger than the next it swaps it in the array, continuing to do this until the biggest number is at the start. I would have thought that this would just have reversed my array, however it does sort it alphabetically.
Would someone be able to talk me through how this algorithm is working alphabetically and at what point it is looking at what the starting letters are?
Thanks in advance for your help. I'm sure it is something very straightforward but after much searching I can't quite figure it out!
I think the quick sort algorithm is one of the easier ones to understand:
def qsort arr
return [] if arr.length == 0
pivot = arr.shift
less, more = arr.partition {|e| e < pivot }
qsort(less) + [pivot] + qsort(more)
end
puts qsort(["George","Adam","Michael","Susan","Abigail"])
The idea is that you pick an element (often called the pivot), and then partition the array into elements less than the pivot and those that are greater or equal to the pivot. Then recursively sort each group and combine with the pivot.
I can see why you're puzzled -- I was too. Look at what the algorithm does at each swap. I'm using numbers instead of names to make the order clearer, but it works the same way for strings:
names = [1, 2, 3, 4]
names.each_index do |first|
names.each_index do |second|
if names[first] < names[second]
names[first], names[second] = names[second], names[first]
puts "[#{names.join(', ')}]"
end
end
end
=>
[2, 1, 3, 4]
[3, 1, 2, 4]
[4, 1, 2, 3]
[1, 4, 2, 3]
[1, 2, 4, 3]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
In this case, it started with a sorted list, then made a bunch of swaps, then put things back in order. If you only look at the first couple of swaps, you might be fooled into thinking that it was going to do a descending sort. And the comparison (swap if names[first] < names[second]) certainly seems to imply a descending sort.
The trick is that the relationship between first and second is not ordered; sometimes first is to the left, sometimes it's to the right. Which makes the whole algorithm hard to reason about.
This algorithm is, I guess, a strange implementation of a Bubble Sort, which I normally see implemented like this:
names.each_index do |first|
(first + 1...names.length).each do |second|
if names[first] > names[second]
names[first], names[second] = names[second], names[first]
puts "[#{names.join(', ')}]"
end
end
end
If you run this code on the same array of sorted numbers, it does nothing: the array is already sorted so it swaps nothing. In this version, it takes care to keep second always to the right of first and does a swap only if the value at first is greater than the value at second. So in the first pass (where first is 0), the smallest number winds up in position 0, in the next pass the next smallest number winds up in the next position, etc.
And if you run it on array that reverse sorted, you can see what it's doing:
[3, 4, 2, 1]
[2, 4, 3, 1]
[1, 4, 3, 2]
[1, 3, 4, 2]
[1, 2, 4, 3]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
Finally, here's a way to visualize what's happening in the two algorithms. First the modified version:
0 1 2 3
0 X X X
1 X X
2 X
3
The numbers along the vertical axis represent values for first. The numbers along the horizontal represent values for second. The X indicates a spot at which the algorithm compares and potentially swaps. Note that it's just the portion above the diagonal.
Here's the same visualization for the algorithm that you provided in your question:
0 1 2 3
0 X X X X
1 X X X X
2 X X X X
3 X X X X
This algorithm compares all the possible positions (pointlessly including the values along the diagonal, where first and second are equal). The important bit to notice, though, is that the swaps that happen below and to the left of the diagonal represent cases where second is to the left of first -- the backwards case. And also note that these cases happen after the forward cases.
So essentially, what this algorithm does is reverse sort the array (as you had suspected) and then afterwards forward sort it. Probably not really what was intended, but the code sure is simple.
Your understanding is just a bit off.
You said:
Then the if statement takes each item and if the number is larger than the next it swaps it in the array
But this is not what the if statement is doing.
First, the two blocks enclosing it are simply setting up iterators first and second, which each count from the first to the last element of the array each time through the block. (This is inefficient but we'll leave discussion of efficient sorting for later. Or just see Brian Adkins' answer.)
When you reach the if statement, it is not comparing the indices themselves, but the names which are at those indices.
You can see what's going on by inserting this line just before the if. Though this will make your program quite verbose:
puts "Comparing names[#{first}] which is #{names[first]} to names[#{second}] which is #{names[second]}..."
Alternatively, you can create a new array and use a while loop to append the names in alphabetical order. Delete the elements that have been appended in the loop until there are no elements left in the old array.
sorted_names = []
while names.length!=0
sorted_names << names.min
names.delete(names.min)
end
puts sorted_names
This is the recursive solution for this case
def my_sort(list, new_array = nil)
return new_array if list.size <= 0
if new_array == nil
new_array = []
end
min = list.min
new_array << min
list.delete(min)
my_sort(list, new_array)
end
puts my_sort(["George","Adam","Michael","Susan","Abigail"])
Here is my code to sort items in an array without using the sort or min method, taking into account various forms of each item (e.g. strings, integers, nil):
def sort(objects)
index = 0
sorted_objects = []
while index < objects.length
sorted_item = objects.reduce do |min, item|
min.to_s > item.to_s ? item : min
end
sorted_objects << sorted_item
objects.delete_at(objects.find_index(sorted_item))
end
index += 1
sorted_objects
end
words_2 = %w{all i can say is that my life is pretty plain}
p sort(words_2)
=> ["all", "can", "i", "is", "is", "life", "my", "plain", "pretty", "say", "that"]
mixed_array_1 = ["2", 1, "5", 4, "3"]
p sort(mixed_array_1)
=> [1, "2", "3", 4, "5"]
mixed_array_2 = ["George","Adam","Michael","Susan","Abigail", "", nil, 4, "5", 100]
p sort(mixed_array_2)
=> ["", nil, 100, 4, "5", "Abigail", "Adam", "George", "Michael", "Susan"]
I have the following code that adds zero to values of a specific row in a multidimensional array:
def self.zero_row(matrix, row_index)
matrix[row_index].each_with_index do |item, index|
matrix[row_index][index] = 0
end
return matrix
end
I am wondering how I would go in order to make zeros all the values given a specific column_index.
def self.zero_column(matrix, col_index)
#..
end
To follow the same pattern as your other method you could do something like this:
def self.zero_column(matrix, col_index)
matrix.each_with_index do |item, row_index|
matrix[row_index][col_index] = 0
end
end
Would this fit the bill?
def self.zero_column(matrix, col_index)
matrix = matrix.transpose
matrix[col_index].map!{0}
matrix.transpose
end
Similarly, you could simplify your zero_row method
def self.zero_row(matrix, row_index)
matrix[row_index].map!{0}
matrix
end
If you need to deal with columns frequently, then I would say it is a design flaw to use a nested array. Nesting array has almost no benefit, and just makes things complicated. You should better have a flat array. It is much easier to manipulate columns equally as rows with flat arrays.
If you want a 3 by 2 matrix, then you can initialize it simply as an array with the length 3 * 2 like:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Then, you can refer to the second column (index 1) or row as respectively:
a.select.with_index{|_, i| i % 2 == 1} # => [2, 4, 6]
a.select.with_index{|_, i| i / 2 == 1} # => [3, 4]
Rewriting all values of that column or row to 0 would be respectively:
a.each_index{|i| a[i] = 0 if i % 2 == 1} # => a: [1, 0, 3, 0, 5, 0]
or
a.each_index{|i| a[i] = 0 if i / 2 == 1} # => a: [1, 2, 0, 0, 5, 6]
Switching between an operation on a column and another on a row would be a matter of switching between % and /; you can see symmetry/consistency. If you need to keep the information regarding column length 2 within the array, then just assign it as an instance variable of that array.
How do you create a for loop like
for (int x=0; x<data.length; x+=2)
in ruby? I want to iterate through an array but have my counter increment by two instead of one.
If what you really want is to consume 2 items from an array at a time, check out each_slice.
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].each_slice(2) do |a, b|
puts "#{a}, #{b}"
end
# result
1, 2
3, 4
5, 6
7, 8
9,
Ruby's step is your friend:
0.step(data.length, 2).to_a
=> [0, 2, 4, 6]
I'm using to_a to show what values this would return. In real life step is an enumerator, so we'd use it like:
data = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
0.step(data.length, 2).each do |i|
puts data[i]
end
Which outputs:
0
2
4
<== a nil
Notice that data contains six elements, so data.length returns 6, but an array is a zero-offset, so the last element would be element #5. We only get three values, plus a nil which would display as an empty line when printed, which would be element #6:
data[6]
=> nil
That's why we don't usually walk arrays and container using outside iterators in Ruby; It's too easy to fall off the end. Instead, use each and similar constructs, which always do the right thing.
To continue to use step and deal with the zero-offset for arrays and containers, you could use:
0.step(data.length - 1, 2)
but I'd still try working with each and other array iterators as a first choice, which #SergioTulentsev was giving as an example.
(0..data.length).step(2) do |x|
puts x
end
This seems like the closest substitute.
Using Range#step:
a = (1..50).to_a
(1..a.size).step(2).map{|i| a[i-1]} # [1, 3, 5, 7, 9 ...
This is the basic problem: I have an array of integers with possibly duplicate elements. I need to know the indices of each element, but when I sort the array, whenever I select an element from the new array, I want to be able to reference the same element from the original array.
I am looking for a solution to the problem, or maybe a solution to the approach I am taking.
Here is an array
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 5, 2]
There are two 2's and two 3's, but if I'm working with the first 2 (from the left), I want to work with index 1, and if I'm working with the second 2, I want to be working with index 6. So I use a helper array to allow me to do this:
helper = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Which I will iterate over and use to access each element from a.
I could have accomplished this with each_with_index, but the problem begins when I sort the array.
Now I have a sort order
sort_order = [2, 4, 1, 5, 3]
I use sort_by to sort a according to sort_order, to produce
sorted_a = [2, 2, 4, 1, 5, 3, 3]
You may assume all elements in the input exist in sort_order to avoid sort_by exceptions.
Now the problem is that my helper array should be updated to match the new positions. Each element should be sorted the same way as a was sorted, because it is unclear whether the first 2 in the new array was at index 1 or at index 6 of the original array.
So my new helper array might look like
new_helper = [1, 6, 3, 0, 5, 2, 4]
So if I were to go with this approach, how would I produce the new_helper array, given the original array and the sort order?
Maybe there is a better way to do this?
I would suggest first zip the original array with the helper array, sort the zipped array according the component coming from the original array, then unzip them (this method does not exist unfortunately, but you can do transpose). Or you can implement your own sorting logic as pointed out by Hunter.
Make a list of pairs of the original data and that data's index. Like this:
a = [(1, 0), (2, 1), (3, 2), (4, 3), (3, 4), (5, 5), (2,6)]
Sort that list (lexicographically, or just ignore the second part of the pair except to carry it along). The second item in every pair tells you where the element was in the original array.
You need to swap the values in the helper array when you swap then in your main array.
loop do
swapped = false
0.upto(list.size-2) do |i|
if list[i] > list[i+1]
list[i], list[i+1] = list[i+1], list[i] # swap values
helper[i], helper[i+1] = helper[i+1], helper[i]; #swap helper values
swapped = true
end
end
break unless swapped
end
Example
irb(main):001:0> def parallel_sort(list, helper)
irb(main):002:1> loop do
irb(main):003:2* swapped = false
irb(main):004:2> 0.upto(list.size-2) do |i|
irb(main):005:3* if list[i] > list[i+1]
irb(main):006:4> list[i], list[i+1] = list[i+1], list[i] # swap values
irb(main):007:4> helper[i], helper[i+1] = helper[i+1], helper[i]; #swap helper values
irb(main):008:4* swapped = true
irb(main):009:4> end
irb(main):010:3> end
irb(main):011:2> break unless swapped
irb(main):012:2> end
irb(main):013:1> return [list, helper]
irb(main):014:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):015:0> a = [3,2,1]
=> [3, 2, 1]
irb(main):016:0> b = ["three","two","one"]
=> ["three", "two", "one"]
irb(main):017:0> parallel_sort(a,b)
=> [[1, 2, 3], ["one", "two", "three"]]
irb(main):018:0>
Sorting inside a loop is rarely a good idea.... If you are doing so, you might be better off with a treap (fast on average but infrequently an operation will take a while) or red-black tree (relatively slow, but gives pretty consistent operation times). These are rather like hash tables, except they're not as fast, and they keep elements stored in order using trees.
Either way, why not use a class that saves both the value to sort by, and the helper value? Then they're always together, and you don't need a custom sorting algorithm.
Since you have sort_order, your array is already kind of sorted, so we should use this fact as an advantage. I came up with this simple solution:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 5, 2]
sort_order = [2, 4, 1, 5, 3]
# Save indices
indices = Hash.new { |hash, key| hash[key] = [] }
a.each_with_index { |elem, index| indices[elem] << index }
# Sort the array by placing elements into "right" positions
sorted = []
helper = []
sort_order.each do |elem|
indices[elem].each do |index|
sorted << elem
helper << index
end
end
p sorted
p helper
The algorithm is based on idea of Counting sort, I slightly modified it to save indices.