I have no idea of how to proceed, I've been learning ruby for just one week. I thought I'd create an array filled by an external source, such as a database and forbid these elements inside to be picked up by the script. Is it possible? I just want to have a general idea of how creating such script.
Do you mean some thing like this?
forbidden_numbers = [ 5 , 6 , 3 , 4]
new_number = loop do
tmp_number = rand 1_000_000
break tmp_number unless forbidden_numbers.include?(tmp_number)
end
puts new_number
In general, you have two choices:
Remove the ineligible elements, then choose one at random:
arr.reject {...}.sample
Choose an element at random. If it is disallowed, repeat, continuing until a valid element is found:
until (n=arr.sample) && ok?(n) end
n
Without additional information we cannot say which approach is best in this case.
Related
I currently have a very large array of permutations, which is currently using a significant amount of RAM. This is the current code I have which SHOULD:
Count all but the occurrences where more than one '1' exists or three '2's exist in a row.
arr = [*1..3].repeated_permutation(30).to_a;
count = 0
arr.each do |x|
if not x.join('').include? '222' and x.count(1) < 2
count += 1
end
end
print count
So basically this results in a 24,360 element array, each of which have 30 elements.
I've tried to run it through Terminal but it literally ate through 14GB of RAM, and didn't move for 15 minutes, so I'm not sure whether the process froze while attempting to access more RAM or if it was still computing.
My question being: is there a faster way of doing this?
Thanks!
I am not sure what problem you try to solve. If your code is just an example for a more complex problem and you really need to check programatically every single permumation, then you might want to experiment with lazy:
[*1..3].repeated_permutation(30).lazy.each do ||
# your condition
end
Or you might want to make the nested iteratior very explicit:
[1,2,3].each do |x1|
[1,2,3].each do |x2|
[1,2,3].each do |x3|
# ...
[1,2,3].each do |x30|
permutation = [x1,x2,x3, ... , x30]
# your condition
end
end
end
end
end
But it feels wrong to me to solve this kind of problem with Ruby enumerables at all. Let's have a look at your strings:
111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111111111112
111111111111111111111111111113
111111111111111111111111111121
111111111111111111111111111122
111111111111111111111111111123
111111111111111111111111111131
...
333333333333333333333333333323
333333333333333333333333333331
333333333333333333333333333332
333333333333333333333333333333
I suggest to just use enumerative combinatorics. Just look at the patterns and analyse (or count) how often your condition can be true. For example there are 28 indexes in your string at which a 222 substring could be place, only 27 for the 2222 substring... If you place a substring how likely is it that there is no 1 in the other parts of the string?
I think your problem is a mathematics problem, not a programming problem.
NB This is an incomplete answer, but I think the idea might give a push to the proper solution.
I can think of a following approach: let’s represent each permutation as a value in ternary number base, padded by zeroes:
1 = 000..00001
2 = 000..00002
3 = 000..00010
4 = 000..00011
5 = 000..00012
...
Now consider we restated the original task, treating zeroes as ones, ones as twos and twos as threes. So far so good.
The whole list of permutations would be represented by:
(1..3**30-1).map { |e| x = e.to_s(3).rjust(30, '0') }
Now we are to apply your conditions:
def do_calc permutation_count
(1..3**permutation_count-1).inject do |memo, e|
x = e.to_s(3).rjust(permutation_count, '0')
!x.include?('111') && x.count('0') < 2 ? memo + 1 : memo
end
Unfortunately, even for permutation_count == 20 it takes more than 5 minutes to calculate, so probably some additional steps are required. I will be thinking of further optimization. Currently I hope this will give you a hint to find the good approach yourself.
This might be a dumb question.
I know sample returns random number of elements from an array.
For example,
[1,2,3].sample.times do
Is there a way to return a fixed number of elements in a certain order always?
I dont know how to do this in ruby.
EDIT:
Lets say I always want to return penalty_name, severity and name only from the second and last array here always.:
offenses = PERSON_SUMMARY[:offenses].map do |offense|
offense[:penalties].map do |penalty|
penalty.merge(name: offense[:offense_name])
end
end.flatten
=> [{:penalty_name=>"Prison", :severity=>"Medium", :name=>"Speeding"}, {:penalty_name=>"Ticket", :severity=>"Low", :name=>"Speeding"}, {:penalty_name=>"Prison", :severity=>"Medium", :name=>"Shoplifting"}, {:penalty_name=>"Fine", :severity=>"Low", :name=>"Shoplifting"}]
right now I am doing:
offenses.each do |hash|
hash.sample
I think you want something like:
[1,2,3,4,5].sample(4).sort
It will take 4 random number from the array and order it...
edit - after your comment:
[5,4,3,2,1].values_at(1,-1).sort #second element(1) and last one(-1)
=>[1, 4]
You can specify which ones you want with values_at (negative numbers count from the back.)
ar=[{:penalty_name=>"Prison", :severity=>"Medium", :name=>"Speeding"}, {:penalty_name=>"Ticket", :severity=>"Low", :name=>"Speeding"}, {:penalty_name=>"Prison", :severity=>"Medium", :name=>"Shoplifting"}, {:penalty_name=>"Fine", :severity=>"Low", :name=>"Shoplifting"}]
p ar.values_at(1,-1).map{|h|h.values}
#=> [["Ticket", "Low", "Speeding"], ["Fine", "Low", "Shoplifting"]]
I'm attempting to solve http://projecteuler.net/problem=1.
I want to create a method which takes in an integer and then creates an array of all the integers preceding it and the integer itself as values within the array.
Below is what I have so far. Code doesn't work.
def make_array(num)
numbers = Array.new num
count = 1
numbers.each do |number|
numbers << number = count
count = count + 1
end
return numbers
end
make_array(10)
(1..num).to_a is all you need to do in Ruby.
1..num will create a Range object with start at 1 and end at whatever value num is. Range objects have to_a method to blow them up into real Arrays by enumerating each element within the range.
For most purposes, you won't actually need the Array - Range will work fine. That includes iteration (which is what I assume you want, given the problem you're working on).
That said, knowing how to create such an Array "by hand" is valuable learning experience, so you might want to keep working on it a bit. Hint: you want to start with an empty array ([]) instead with Array.new num, then iterate something num.times, and add numbers into the Array. If you already start with an Array of size num, and then push num elements into it, you'll end up with twice num elements. If, as is your case, you're adding elements while you're iterating the array, the loop never exits, because for each element you process, you add another one. It's like chasing a metal ball with the repulsing side of a magnet.
To answer the Euler Question:
(1 ... 1000).to_a.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}.reduce(:+) # => 233168
Sometimes a one-liner is more readable than more detailed code i think.
Assuming you are learning Ruby by examples on ProjectEuler, i'll explain what the line does:
(1 ... 1000).to_a
will create an array with the numbers one to 999. Euler-Question wants numbers below 1000. Using three dots in a Range will create it without the boundary-value itself.
.select{|x| x%3==0 || x%5==0}
chooses only elements which are divideable by 3 or 5, and therefore multiples of 3 or 5. The other values are discarded. The result of this operation is a new Array with only multiples of 3 or 5.
.reduce(:+)
Finally this operation will sum up all the numbers in the array (or reduce it to) a single number: The sum you need for the solution.
What i want to illustrate: many methods you would write by hand everyday are already integrated in ruby, since it is a language from programmers for programmers. be pragmatic ;)
I'm trying to use the two following methods to recursively traverse arrays of arrays until the bottom and then come back up with the match results.
You know how in a tennis tournament they start with 32 matches and pair by pair the winner moves ahead, and at the end there's only one winner? That's what I want to replicate in Ruby.
I created a match_winner that always returns the first array for the sake of simplicity. Then, I send the whole tournament array into winner that calls itself recursively until it finds a simple array corresponding to a single match.
def match_winner(array_of_arrays)
return array_of_arrays[0]
end
def winner(tournament)
if tournament[0][0].is_a?(String)
return match_winner(tournament)
else
tournament.each{|e|
winner(e)
}
end
end
tournament = [
[["one", "two"],["three", "four"]],
[["five", "six"],["seven", "eight"]]
]
puts winner(tournament).inspect
Which outputs:
[[["one", "two"], ["three", "four"]], [["five", "six"], ["seven", "eight"]]]
I tried different permutations and variations on this algorithm but I couldn't make it work correctly and return only the final winner.
Does anyone see anything obviously wrong here?
Now I'm calling winner.
I know that the question looks like it's answered, but I just did the same problem and I have to say that simply changing each to map didn't work for me, because, as the code posted, the result is an array of the first-round winners. What worked for me is:
def winner(tournament)
if tournament[0][0].is_a?(String)
return match_winner(tournament)
else
tournament.map!{|e| #use map!, because we need to apply winner() to new values
e=winner(e) #assign new value somewhere, so recursion can climb back
}
end
end
Maybe more experienced developers can explain why that is. Without these two tips it won't work.
And yes, I know "bang" is a bad coding style, danger danger high voltage, but it's my second day with Ruby and I wanted to get this to work.
And, to understand recursion, you have to understand recursion.
Looks like you want map, not each, and, as a commenter above notes, you didn't call winner in the above code.
When you call:
tournament.each {...}
that method actually returns the tournament, which is thus what winner returns.
What you want is to replace it with
tournament.map {...}
which returns a new array consisting of calling "winner" on each element of tournament.
Assuming you have 2^n number of games always and match_winner works ok:
def winner(game)
if game[0][0][0] == game[0][0][0][0]
match_winner( [ game[0], game[1] ] )
else
match_winner( [winner(game[0]), winner(game[1])] )
end
end
I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this and I want to make sure I understand this to the "n'th level" :-)
a = { "a" => "Hello", "b" => "World" }
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
a = [ 10, 20 ]
a.count # 2
a.size # 2
a.length # 2
So which to use? If I want to know if a has more than one element then it doesn't seem to matter but I want to make sure I understand the real difference. This applies to arrays too. I get the same results.
Also, I realize that count/size/length have different meanings with ActiveRecord. I'm mostly interested in pure Ruby (1.92) right now but if anyone wants to chime in on the difference AR makes that would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
For arrays and hashes size is an alias for length. They are synonyms and do exactly the same thing.
count is more versatile - it can take an element or predicate and count only those items that match.
> [1,2,3].count{|x| x > 2 }
=> 1
In the case where you don't provide a parameter to count it has basically the same effect as calling length. There can be a performance difference though.
We can see from the source code for Array that they do almost exactly the same thing. Here is the C code for the implementation of array.length:
static VALUE
rb_ary_length(VALUE ary)
{
long len = RARRAY_LEN(ary);
return LONG2NUM(len);
}
And here is the relevant part from the implementation of array.count:
static VALUE
rb_ary_count(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE ary)
{
long n = 0;
if (argc == 0) {
VALUE *p, *pend;
if (!rb_block_given_p())
return LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary));
// etc..
}
}
The code for array.count does a few extra checks but in the end calls the exact same code: LONG2NUM(RARRAY_LEN(ary)).
Hashes (source code) on the other hand don't seem to implement their own optimized version of count so the implementation from Enumerable (source code) is used, which iterates over all the elements and counts them one-by-one.
In general I'd advise using length (or its alias size) rather than count if you want to know how many elements there are altogether.
Regarding ActiveRecord, on the other hand, there are important differences. check out this post:
Counting ActiveRecord associations: count, size or length?
There is a crucial difference for applications which make use of database connections.
When you are using many ORMs (ActiveRecord, DataMapper, etc.) the general understanding is that .size will generate a query that requests all of the items from the database ('select * from mytable') and then give you the number of items resulting, whereas .count will generate a single query ('select count(*) from mytable') which is considerably faster.
Because these ORMs are so prevalent I following the principle of least astonishment. In general if I have something in memory already, then I use .size, and if my code will generate a request to a database (or external service via an API) I use .count.
In most cases (e.g. Array or String) size is an alias for length.
count normally comes from Enumerable and can take an optional predicate block. Thus enumerable.count {cond} is [roughly] (enumerable.select {cond}).length -- it can of course bypass the intermediate structure as it just needs the count of matching predicates.
Note: I am not sure if count forces an evaluation of the enumeration if the block is not specified or if it short-circuits to the length if possible.
Edit (and thanks to Mark's answer!): count without a block (at least for Arrays) does not force an evaluation. I suppose without formal behavior it's "open" for other implementations, if forcing an evaluation without a predicate ever even really makes sense anyway.
I found a good answare at http://blog.hasmanythrough.com/2008/2/27/count-length-size
In ActiveRecord, there are several ways to find out how many records
are in an association, and there are some subtle differences in how
they work.
post.comments.count - Determine the number of elements with an SQL
COUNT query. You can also specify conditions to count only a subset of
the associated elements (e.g. :conditions => {:author_name =>
"josh"}). If you set up a counter cache on the association, #count
will return that cached value instead of executing a new query.
post.comments.length - This always loads the contents of the
association into memory, then returns the number of elements loaded.
Note that this won't force an update if the association had been
previously loaded and then new comments were created through another
way (e.g. Comment.create(...) instead of post.comments.create(...)).
post.comments.size - This works as a combination of the two previous
options. If the collection has already been loaded, it will return its
length just like calling #length. If it hasn't been loaded yet, it's
like calling #count.
Also I have a personal experience:
<%= h(params.size.to_s) %> # works_like_that !
<%= h(params.count.to_s) %> # does_not_work_like_that !
We have a several ways to find out how many elements in an array like .length, .count and .size. However, It's better to use array.size rather than array.count. Because .size is better in performance.
Adding more to Mark Byers answer. In Ruby the method array.size is an alias to Array#length method. There is no technical difference in using any of these two methods. Possibly you won't see any difference in performance as well. However, the array.count also does the same job but with some extra functionalities Array#count
It can be used to get total no of elements based on some condition. Count can be called in three ways:
Array#count # Returns number of elements in Array
Array#count n # Returns number of elements having value n in Array
Array#count{|i| i.even?} Returns count based on condition invoked on each element array
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,4,3,2,4,5,6,7,1,2,4]
array.size # => 17
array.length # => 17
array.count # => 17
Here all three methods do the same job. However here is where the count gets interesting.
Let us say, I want to find how many array elements does the array contains with value 2
array.count 2 # => 3
The array has a total of three elements with value as 2.
Now, I want to find all the array elements greater than 4
array.count{|i| i > 4} # =>6
The array has total 6 elements which are > than 4.
I hope it gives some info about count method.