Check if numbers summed in array match input parameter - ruby

I'm following Ruby practice problem from a website and I'm completely stuck on figuring out a solution to this problem. Basically, given a function has_sum?(val, arr), return true if any combination of numbers in the array (second parameter) can be added together to equal the first parameter, otherwise return false. So:
has_sum?(5, [1, 2, 3, 4]) # true
has_sum?(5, [1, 2, 6]) # false
I'm completely stuck and not quite sure how to accomplish this... Here's what I have so far.
def has_sum?(val, arr)
arr.each_with_index do |idx, v|
# ??? no idea what to do here except add the current num to the next in the list
end
end
Any help would be greatly appreciated - thanks!

An array can produce a sum when there is a subset of any length that adds up to that sum:
def has_sum?(val, arr)
(arr.size + 1).times
.flat_map { |i| arr.combination(i).to_a }
.any? { |s| s.inject(:+) == val }
end
has_sum?(5, [5])
# => true
has_sum?(5, [1, 2, 3])
# => true
has_sum?(5, [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1])
# => true
has_sum?(5, [1, 2, 7])
# => false
This is not very efficient as it generates all the possibilities before testing. This should terminate sooner:
def has_sum?(val, arr)
(arr.size + 1).times.any? { |i|
arr.combination(i).any? { |s| s.inject(:+) == val }
}
end
Even more efficiently, a recursive implementation, with the idea that a sum of an empty array is zero (and has_sum(nonzero, []) should return false); for a larger array, we pop off its head, and see if the sum of the rest of the array is okay if we count, or don't count, the head element. Here, we don't do the useless summing of the whole array over and over again:
def has_sum?(val, arr)
if arr.empty?
val.zero?
else
first, *rest = arr
has_sum?(val, rest) || has_sum?(val - first, rest)
end
end

This solution employs dynamic programming. I assume that zeroes have been removed from the array. If all numbers in the array are positive, we can also remove elements that are larger than the target sum.
Code
def sum_to_target(arr, target)
h = arr.each_index.with_object({}) do |i,h|
v = arr[i]
h.keys.each do |n|
unless h.key?(n+v) # || (n+v > target)
h[n+v] = v
return reconstruct(h, target) if n+v == target
end
end
h[v] = v unless h.key?(v)
return reconstruct(h, target) if v == target
end
nil
end
def reconstruct(h, target)
a = []
loop do
i = h[target]
a.unshift i
target -= i
return a if target == 0
end
a
end
Additional efficiency improvements are possible if arr contains only postive values.1
Examples
#1
sum_to_target [2,4,7,2], 8
#=> [2, 4, 2]
#2
arr = [64, 18, 64, 6, 39, 51, 87, 62, 78, 62, 49, 86, 35, 57, 40, 15, 74, 10, 8, 7]
a = sum_to_target(arr, 461)
#=> [64, 18, 39, 51, 87, 62, 78, 62]
Let's check that.
a.reduce(:+)
#=> 461
#3
a = sum_to_target([-64, 18, 64, -6, 39, 51, -87, 62, -78, 62, 49, 86, 35, 57,
40, 15, -74, 10, -8, -7], 190)
#=> [18, 64, -6, 39, 51, -87, 62, 49]
a.reduce(:+)
#=> 190
#4
arr = 1_000.times.map { rand 1..5_000 }
#=> [3471, 1891, 4257, 2265, 832, 1060, 3961, 875, 614, 2308, 2240, 3286,
# ...
# 521, 1316, 1986, 4099, 1398, 3803, 4498, 4607, 2262, 3941, 4367]
arr is an array of 1,000 elements, each a random number between 1 and 5,000.
answer = arr.sample(500)
#=> [3469, 2957, 1542, 950, 4765, 3126, 3602, 755, 4132, 4281, 2374,
# ...
# 427, 4238, 4397, 2717, 912, 1690, 3626, 169, 3607, 4084, 3161]
answer is an array of 500 elements from arr, sampled without replacement.
target = answer.reduce(:+)
#=> 1_226_020
target is the sum of the elements of answer. We will now search arr for a collection of elements that sum to 1,226,020 (answer being one such collection).
require 'time'
t = Time.now
#=> 2016-12-12 23:00:51 -0800
a = sum_to_target(arr, target)
#=> [3471, 1891, 4257, 2265, 832, 1060, 3961, 875, 614, 2308, 2240, 3286,
# ...
# 3616, 4150, 3222, 3896, 631, 2806, 1932, 3244, 2430, 1443, 1452]
Notice that a != answer (which is not surprising).
a.reduce(:+)
#=> 1226020
(Time.now-t).to_i
#=> 60 seconds
For this last example, methods that use Array#combination would have to wade though as many as
(1..arr.size).reduce(0) { |t,i| t + arr.combination(i).size }.to_f
#~> 1.07+301
combinations.
Explanation
Let
arr = [2,4,7,2]
target = 8
Suppose we temporarily redefine reconstruct to return the hash passed to it.
def reconstruct(h, target)
h
end
We then obtain the following:
h = sum_to_target(arr, target)
#=> {2=>2, 6=>4, 4=>4, 9=>7, 13=>7, 11=>7, 7=>7, 8=>2}
h is defined as follows.
Given an array of non-zero integers arr and a number n, if n is a key of h there exists an array a containing elements from arr, in the same order, such that the elements of a sum to n and the last element of a equals h[n].
which, admittedly, is a mouthful.
We now use the reconstruct (as defined in the "Code" section) to construct an array answer that will contain elements from arr (without repeating elements) that sum to target.
reconstruct(h, target) #=> [2, 4, 2]
Initially, reconstruct initializes the array answer, which it will build and return:
answer = []
h will always contain a key equal to target (8). As h[8] #=> 2 we conclude that the last element of answer equals 2, so we execute
answer.unshift(2) #=> [2]
The problem is now to find an array of elements from arr that sum to 8 - 2 #=> 6. As h[6] #=> 4, we conclude that the element in answer that precedes the 2 we just added is 4:
answer.unshift(4) #=> [4, 2]
We now need 8-2-4 #=> 2 more to total target. As h[2] #=> 2 we execute
answer.unshift(2) #=> [2, 4, 2]
Since 8-2-4-2 #=> 0 we are finished and therefore return answer.
Notice that 4 precedes the last 2 in arr and the first 2 precedes the 4 in arr. The way h is constructed ensures the elements of answer will always be ordered in this way.
Now consider how h is constructed. First,
h = {}
As arr[0] #=> 2, we conclude that, using only the first element of arr, all we can conclude is:
h[2] = 2
h #=> {2=>2}
h has no key equal to target (8), so we continue. Now consider arr[1] #=> 4. Using only the first two elements of arr we can conclude the following:
h[2+4] = 4
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>4}
and since h has no key 4,
h[4] = 4
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>4, 4=>4}
h still has no key equal to target (8), so we press on and examine arr[2] #=> 7. Using only the first three elements of arr we conclude the following:
h[2+7] = 7
h[6+7] = 7
h[4+7] = 7
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>4, 4=>4, 9=>7, 13=>7, 11=>7}
and since h has no key 7:
h[7] = 7
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>4, 4=>4, 9=>7, 13=>7, 11=>7, 7=>7}
We added four elements to h, but since arr contains only positive numbers, those with keys 9, 13 and 11 are of no interest.
Since h still does not have a key equal to target (8), we examine the next element in arr: arr[3] #=> 2. Using only the first four elements of arr we conclude the following:
h[4+2] = 2
h[6+2] = 2
Here we stop, since 6+2 == target #=> true.
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>2, 4=>4, 9=>7, 13=>7, 11=>7, 7=>7, 8=>2}
Notice that we did not compute h[2+2] = 2 since h already has a key 4. Further, had arr contained additional elements we still would have terminated the construction of the hash at this point.
Had we modified the code to take advantage of the fact that arr contains only positive values, the final hash would have been:
h #=> {2=>2, 6=>2, 4=>4, 7=>7, 8=>2}
If this is still not clear, it might be helpful to run the code for this example with included puts statements (e.g., puts "i=#{i}, h=#{h}, v=#{v}" after the line v = arr[i] in sum_to_target, and so on).
1 The line unless h.key?(n+v) can be changed to unless h.key?(n+v) || (n+v > target) if it is known that the array contains no negative elements. (Doing so reduced the solution time for example #4 by 4 seconds.) One could also compute #all_positive = arr.all?(&:positive?) and then make that line conditional on #all_positive.

I would do nested loops.
for x = 0 to length of array
for y = x + 1 to length of array
if number at x + number at y = sum return true
return false
Basically it will check the sum of each number with each of the numbers after it.
EDIT: this will only sum 2 numbers at a time. If you want to be able to sum any amount of numbers this wont work.

Related

How to improve algorithm efficiency for nested loop

Given a list of integers and a single sum value, return the first two values (from the left) that add up to form the sum.
For example, given:
sum_pairs([10, 5, 2, 3, 7, 5], 10)
[5, 5] (at indices [1, 5] of [10, 5, 2, 3, 7, 5]) add up to 10, and [3, 7] (at indices [3, 4]) add up to 10. Among them, the entire pair [3, 7] is earlier, and therefore is the correct answer.
Here is my code:
def sum_pairs(ints, s)
result = []
i = 0
while i < ints.length - 1
j = i+1
while j < ints.length
result << [ints[i],ints[j]] if ints[i] + ints[j] == s
j += 1
end
i += 1
end
puts result.to_s
result.min
end
It works, but is too inefficient, taking 12000 ms to run. The nested loop is the problem of inefficiency. How could I improve the algorithm?
Have a Set of numbers you have seen, starting empty
Look at each number in the input list
Calculate which number you would need to add to it to make up the sum
See if that number is in the set
If it is, return it, and the current element
If not, add the current element to the set, and continue the loop
When the loop ends, you are certain there is no such pair; the task does not specify, but returning nil is likely the best option
Should go superfast, as there is only a single loop. It also terminates as soon as it finds the first matching pair, so normally you wouldn't even go through every element before you get your answer.
As a style thing, using while in this way is very unRubyish. In implementing the above, I suggest you use ints.each do |int| ... end rather than while.
EDIT: As Cary Swoveland commented, for a weird reason I thought you needed indices, not the values.
require 'set'
def sum_pairs(arr, target)
s = Set.new
arr.each do |v|
return [target-v, v] if s.include?(target-v)
s << v
end
nil
end
sum_pairs [10, 5, 2, 3, 7, 5], 10
#=> [3, 7]
sum_pairs [10, 5, 2, 3, 7, 5], 99
#=> nil
I've used Set methods to speed include? lookups (and, less important, to save only unique values).
Try below, as it is much more readable.
def sum_pairs(ints, s)
ints.each_with_index.map do |ele, i|
if ele < s
rem_arr = ints.from(i + 1)
rem = s - ele
[ele, rem] if rem_arr.include?(rem)
end
end.compact.last
end
One liner (the fastest?)
ary = [10, 0, 8, 5, 2, 7, 3, 5, 5]
sum = 10
def sum_pairs(ary, sum)
ary.map.with_index { |e, i| [e, i] }.combination(2).to_a.keep_if { |a| a.first.first + a.last.first == sum }.map { |e| [e, e.max { |a, b| a.last <=> b.last }.last] }.min { |a, b| a.last <=> b.last }.first.map{ |e| e.first }
end
Yes, it's not really readable, but if you add methods step by step starting from ary.map.with_index { |e, i| [e, i] } it's easy to understand how it works.

Given an array, replace each prime number with the next prime number

So
#[11,13,17,23] => [13,17,19,29]
if the number isn't prime, then the function is just returning the number
#[11,8,2,24] => [13,8,3,24]
I'm having so much trouble with the very last number (29), for some reason, it's going into an infinite loop. I feel like there is such a simple solution, but it's just escaping me..
def next_prime(arr)
new_arr = []
arr.each do |num|
#puts num
if prime?(num)
p = false
i = num + 2
while !p
p = prime?(i)
i += 2
end
new_arr << i
else
new_arr << num
end
end
new_arr
end
EDIT: here is the prime function
def prime?(num)
if num ==1
return false
elsif num < 3
return true
elsif num % 2 == 0 || num % 3 == 0
return false
end
i = 5
while i*i <= num
if num % i == 0 || num % (i + 2) == 0
return false
end
i += 6
end
return true
end
The first array works decently for me, even the 29, except for the fact that everything is 2 higher than it should be, because you add 2 after you check if you have a prime which can be fixed by a slight alteration to the code:
if prime?(num)
p = false
i = num
while !p
i += 2
p = prime?(i)
end
new_arr << i
The only infinite loop I encounter is when you hit 2 in the second array, because to check for primes, you just keep incrementing by 2, and so you end up checking every multiple of 2 to see if it's prime. Naturally you never find a prime multiple of 2. To fix this, instead of incrementing by 2 before checking for the next prime, if you increment by 1 would work, you just need to check twice as many numbers:
if prime?(num)
p = false
i = num
while !p
i += 1
p = prime?(i)
end
new_arr << i
your last problem is that your prime? function returns false for 3, which can be fixed by changing:
elsif num <= 3
return true
and now your 2 samples yield:
[11, 13, 17, 23] => [13, 17, 19, 29]
[11, 8, 2, 24] => [13, 8, 3, 24]
Similar to #Cary Swoveland answer, but more idiomatic Ruby IMHO.
require 'prime'
def next_primes(ary)
ary.map { |candidate| candidate.prime? ? next_prime(candidate) : candidate }
end
def next_prime(previous_prime)
all_primes = Prime.each
all_primes.find { |prime| prime > previous_prime }
end
next_primes([11,8,2,24]) # => [13, 8, 3, 24]
next_primes([11,13,17,23]) # => [13, 17, 19, 29]
I've assumed the array arr is sorted. If it isn't, save the original indices of the sorted values, which are then used to reorder the elements of the array of values containing prime and non-prime numbers. For example, if
arr = [57, 13, 28, 6]
then
indices = arr.each_with_index.sort.map(&:last)
#=> [3, 1, 2 0]
The steps of the the main method are as follows.
Step 1: create an empty array a that will be returned by the method.
Step 2: create an enumerator, enum, that generates an infinite sequence of prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7,..). Generate the first prime m = enum.next #=> 2.
Step 3: create an enumerator, earr, that generate the elements of the given array arr.
Step 4: consider the next element of the array, x = earr.next, which is initially the first element of the array. When there are no more elements of the array, break from the loop and return the array a.
Step 5: if x is not prime save it to an array a (a << x) and repeat step 4; else go to Step 6.
Step 6: (x is prime) if x < m, save m to the array a and go to
Step 4; else (i.e., m <= x), obtain the next prime (m = enum.next) and repeat this step.
require 'prime"
def next_primes(arr)
enum = Prime.each
m = enum.next
earr = arr.to_enum
x = earr.next
a = []
loop do
if x.prime?
if x < m
a << m
x = earr.next
else
m = enum.next
end
else
a << x
x = earr.next
end
end
a
end
next_primes([2, 6, 7, 23, 100])
#=> [3, 6, 11, 29, 100]
next_primes([2, 6, 7, 7, 100])
#=> [3, 6, 11, 11, 100]
Solution to find the next prime number if it is a prime number if not return the same number:
def is_prime(num)
if num<2
return false
end
(2...num).each do |i|
if num%i == 0
return false
end
end
return true
end
def next_prime(arr)
new_arr = []
arr.each do |num|
if is_prime(num)
p = false
i = num
while !p
i += 1
p = is_prime(i)
end
new_arr<<i
else
new_arr<<num
end
end
return new_arr
end
print next_prime([2,3,4,5])
puts
print next_prime([2, 6, 7, 23, 100]) #[3, 6, 11, 29, 100]

ruby enumerators: immediately skip multiple iterations (or start iterating from n)

I'm iterating over permutations of a list (18 items) like this:
List = [item0..item18] # (unpredictable)
Permutation_size = 7
Start_at = 200_000_000
for item, i in List.repeated_permutation(Permutation_size).each_with_index
next if i < Start_at
# do stuff
end
Start_at is used to resume from a previously saved state so it's always different but it takes almost 200s to reach 200 million so I'm wondering if there is a faster way to skip multiple iterations or start at iteration n (converting the enumerator to an array takes even longer). If not, a way to create a custom repeated_permutation(n).each_with_index (that yields results in the same order) would also be appreciated.
Feel free to redirect me to an existing answer (I haven't found any)
PS. (what I had come up with)
class Array
def rep_per_with_index len, start_at = 0
b = size
raise 'btl' if b > 36
counter = [0]*len
# counter = (start_at.to_s b).split('').map {|i| '0123456789'.include?(i) ? i.to_i : (i.ord - 87)} #this is weird, your way is way faster
start_at.to_s(b).chars.map {|i| i.to_i b}
counter.unshift *[0]*(len - counter.length)
counter.reverse!
i = start_at
Enumerator.new do |y|
loop do
y << [counter.reverse.map {|i| self[i]}, i]
i += 1
counter[0] += 1
counter.each_with_index do |v, i|
if v >= b
if i == len - 1
raise StopIteration
else
counter[i] = 0
counter[i + 1] += 1
end
else
break
end
end
end
end
end
end
I first construct a helper method, change_base, with three arguments:
off, the base-10 offset into the sequence of repeated permutations of the given array arr,
m, a number system base; and
p, the permutation size.
The method performs three steps to construct an array off_m:
converts off to base m (radix m);
separates the digits of the base m value into an array; and
if necessary, pads the array with leading 0s to make it of size p.
By setting m = arr.size, each digit of off_m is an offset into arr, so off_m maps the base-10 offset to a unique permutation of size p.
def change_base(m, p, off)
arr = off.to_s(m).chars.map { |c| c.to_i(m) }
arr.unshift(*[0]*(p-arr.size))
end
Some examples:
change_base(16, 2, 32)
#=> [2, 0]
change_base(16, 3, 255)
#=> [0, 15, 15]
change_base(36, 4, 859243)
#=> [18, 14, 35, 31]
18*36**3 + 14*36**2 + 35*36**1 + 31
#=> 859243
This implementation of change_base requires that m <= 36. I assume that will be sufficient, but algorithms are available to convert base-10 numbers to numbers with arbitrarily-large bases.
We now construct a method which accepts the given array, arr, the size of each permutation, p and a given base-10 offset into the sequence of permutations. The method returns a permutation, namely, an array of size p whose elements are elements of arr.
def offset_to_perm(arr, p, off)
arr.values_at(*change_base(arr.size, p, off))
end
We can now try this with an example.
arr = (0..3).to_a
p = 2
(arr.size**p).times do |off|
print "perm for off = "
print " " if off < 10
print "#{off}: "
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, off)
end
perm for off = 0: [0, 0]
perm for off = 1: [0, 1]
perm for off = 2: [0, 2]
perm for off = 3: [0, 3]
perm for off = 4: [0, 1]
perm for off = 5: [1, 1]
perm for off = 6: [2, 1]
perm for off = 7: [3, 1]
perm for off = 8: [0, 2]
perm for off = 9: [1, 2]
perm for off = 10: [2, 2]
perm for off = 11: [3, 2]
perm for off = 12: [0, 3]
perm for off = 13: [1, 3]
perm for off = 14: [2, 3]
perm for off = 15: [3, 3]
If we wish to begin at, say, offset 5, we can write:
i = 5
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, i)
[1, 1]
i = i.next #=> 6
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, i)
[2, 1]
...

Ruby Convert integer to binary to integer array of set bits

Lets say I have an integer 98.
The binary representation of this string would be:
(98).to_s(2) # 1100010
Now I want to convert this binary string to an integer array of all the bits that are set. This would give me:
[64,32,2]
How would I go about this?
Update: The conversion of int to int array does not necessarily need to involve String, it is just what I knew. I assume non String operations would also be faster.
Ruby is amazing seeing all these different ways to handle this!
This would work:
i = 98
(0...i.bit_length).map { |n| i[n] << n }.reject(&:zero?)
#=> [2, 32, 64]
Fixnum#bit_length returns the position of the highest "1" bit
Fixnum#[n] returns the integer's nth bit, i.e. 0 or 1
Fixnum#<< shifts the bit to the left. 1 << n is equivalent to 2n
Step by step:
(0...i.bit_length).map { |n| i[n] }
#=> [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1]
(0...i.bit_length).map { |n| i[n] << n }
#=> [0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 32, 64]
(0...i.bit_length).map { |n| i[n] << n }.reject(&:zero?)
#=> [2, 32, 64]
You might want to reverse the result.
In newer versions of Ruby (2.7+) you could also utilize filter_map and nonzero? to remove all 0 values:
(0...i.bit_length).filter_map { |n| (i[n] << n).nonzero? }
#=> [2, 32, 64]
Reverse the string, map it to binary code values of each digit, reject zeros. Optionally reverse it again.
s.reverse.chars.map.with_index{ |c, i| c.to_i * 2**i }.reject{ |b| b == 0 }.reverse
Or you could push the values to array with each_with_index
a = []
s.reverse.each_with_index do |c, i|
a.unshift c.to_i * 2**i
end
what is probably faster and more readable, but less idiomatic.
(98).to_s(2).reverse.chars.each_with_index.
map {|x,i| x=="1" ? 2**i : nil }.compact.reverse
Phew! Let's break that down:
First get the binary String as your example (98).to_s(2)
We will need to start 0-index from right hand side, hence .reverse
.chars.each_with_index gives us pairs such as [ '1', 4 ] for character at bit position
The .map converts "1" characters to their value 2 ** i (i.e. 2 to the power of current bit position) and "0" to nil so it can be removed
.compact to discard the nil values that you don't want
.reverse to have descending powers of 2 as your example
Here are a couple of ways:
#1
s = (98).to_s(2)
sz = s.size-1
s.each_char.with_index.with_object([]) { |(c,i),a| a << 2**(sz-i) if c == '1' }
# => [64, 32, 2]
#2
n = 2**(98.to_s(2).size-1)
arr = []
while n > 0
arr << n if 90[n]==1
n /= 2
end
arr
#=> [64, 32, 2]

Finding all elements(which are integer) in an array whose sum is equals to the element exists within the array

I need to locate all integer elements in an array, whose sum is equal to one of the integer elements within the array.
For example, let's assume I have an array like this as input:
[1, 2, 4, 10, 90, 302, 312, 500]
Then output should have all integer elements including the integer element which is sum of other elements. It will be like: [10, 302, 312] i.e. 10+302 = 312
This is what I tried in ruby:
numbers = [1, 2, 4, 10, 90, 302, 312, 500]
numbers.each_with_index do |number, index|
target = []
return [] if numbers.size < 3
target << number
puts "target in numbers.each: #{target.inspect}"
0.upto(numbers.size).each do |i|
puts "target in (index+1).upto: #{target.inspect}"
target << numbers[i] unless index == i
next if target.size < 2
break if target.inject(&:+) > numbers.max
puts "== array starts =="
puts [target, target.inject(&:+)].flatten.inspect if numbers.include? target.inject(&:+)
puts "== array ends =="
end
end
But it's not making expected output. I'll update if I get any luck on this. Till then can anyone point out that what I am doing wrong here? Thanks.
An algorithm will be good for me as well.
An implementation:
arr = [1, 2, 4, 10, 90, 302, 312, 500]
(2..arr.count).each do |len|
arr.combination(len).each do |comb|
sum = comb.inject(:+)
if arr.include? sum
puts (comb << sum).inspect
end
end
end
zwippie's answer with small changes..
arr = [1, 2, 4, 10, 90, 302, 312, 500]
result = []
(2..arr.count-1).to_a.each do |len|
arr.combination(len).to_a.each do |comb|
sum = comb.inject(:+)
if arr.include? sum
result << (comb << sum)
end
end
end
result

Resources