Related
I am trying to loop the numbers 1 to 1000 in such a way that I have all possible pairs, e.g., 1 and 1, 1 and 2, 1 and 3, ..., but also 2 and 1, 2 and 2, 2 and 3, et cetera, and so on.
In this case I have a condition (amicable_pair) that returns true if two numbers are an amicable pair. I want to check all numbers from 1 to n against each other and add all amicable pairs to a total total. The first value will be added to the total if it is part of an amicable pair (not the second value of the pair, since we'll find that later in the loop). To do this I wrote the following "Java-like" code:
def add_amicable_pairs(n)
amicable_values = []
for i in 1..n
for j in 1..n
if (amicable_pair?(i,j))
amicable_values.push(i)
puts "added #{i} from amicable pair #{i}, #{j}"
end
end
end
return amicable_values.inject(:+)
end
Two issues with this: (1) it is really slow. (2) In Ruby you should not use for-loops.
This is why I am wondering how this can be accomplished in a faster and more Ruby-like way. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Your code has O(n^2) runtime, so if n gets moderately large then it will naturally be slow. Brute-force algorithms are always slow if the search space is large. To avoid this, is there some way you can directly find the "amicable pairs" rather than looping through all possible combinations and checking one by one?
As far as how to write the loops in a more elegant way, I would probably rewrite your code as:
(1..n).to_a.product((1..n).to_a).select { |a,b| amicable_pair?(a,b) }.reduce(0, &:+)
(1..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).select{|pair| amicable_pair?(*pair)}
.map(&:first).inject(:+)
Suppose you are given an unsorted list of positive integers, and you wish to order them in a manner such that the elements alternate as: (less than preceding element), (greater than preceding element), (less than preceding element), etc... The very first element in the output list may ignore the rule. So for example, suppose your list was: 1,4,9,2,7,5,3,8,6.
One correct output would be...
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,6,5
Another would be...
3,4,2,7,5,6,1,9,8
Assume that the list contains no duplicates, is arbitrarily large, and is not already sorted.
What is the most processing efficient algorithm to achieve this?
Now, the standard approach would be to simply sort the list in ascending order first, and then peel elements from the ends of the list in alternation. However, I'd like to know: Is there a more time-efficient way to do this without first sorting the list?
My reason for asking: (read this only if you care)
Apparently this is a question my sister's boyfriend poses to people at job interviews out in San Francisco. My sister asked me the question, and I immediately came up with the standard response. That's what everyone answers. However, apparently one girl came up with a completely different solution that does not require sorting the list, and it appears to work. My sister couldn't explain to me this solution, but the idea has been confounding me since last night. I'd appreciate any help! Thanks!
You can do this in O(n) by placing each element in turn at the end, or at the penultimate position based on a comparison with the current last element.
For example,
1,4,9,2,7,5,3,8,6
Place 1 at end, current list [1]
4>1 true so place 4 at end, current list [1,4]
9<4 false so place 9 at penultimate position [1,9,4]
2>4 false so place 2 at penultimate [1,9,2,4]
7<4 false so place 7 at penultimate [1,9,2,7,4]
5>4 true so place 5 at end [1,9,2,7,4,5]
3<5 true so place 3 at end [1,9,2,7,4,5,3]
8>3 true so place 8 at end [1,9,2,7,4,5,3,8]
6<8 true so place 6 at end [1,9,2,7,4,5,3,8,6]
Note that the equality tests alternate, and that we place at the end if the equality is true, or at the penultimate position if it is not true.
Example Python Code
A=[1,4,9,2,7,5,3,8,6]
B=[]
for i,a in enumerate(A):
if i==0 or (i&1 and a>B[-1]) or (i&1==0 and a<B[-1]):
B.insert(i,a)
else:
B.insert(i-1,a)
print B
One solution is this. Given in Pseudocode.
Assuming, nums has at least two elements and all elements in nums are distinct.
nums = [list of numbers]
if nums[0] < nums[1]: last_state = INCREASING else: last_state = DECREASING
for i = 2 to len(nums - 1):
if last_state = INCREASING:
if nums[i] > nums[i-1]:
swap (nums[i], nums[i-1])
last_state = DECREASING
else
if nums[i] < nums[i-1]:
swap (nums[i], nums[i-1])
last_state = INCREASING
Proof of correctness:
After each loop iteration, elements upto index i in nums remain alternating and last_state is represent the order of i th and i-1 th elements.
Note that a swapping happens only if last 3 items considered are in order. (Increasing or Decreasing) Therefore, if we swapped ith element with i-1 th element, the order of i-2 th element and i-1th element will not change.
Exercise 9 - 45 minutes
You have been given a list of sequential numbers from 1 to 10,000, but they are all out of order; furthermore, 1 number is missing from the list. The goal is to find which number is missing.Write out in plain English your strategy for solving this problem. Be as concise as possible.
Write Ruby code that takes this list of numbers as an argument, and returns the missing number.
My initial impression is some sort of sort function will help me put the array into order, but then I reread the problem and its not asking for a sorted sequence, it's asking for a missing number. The next step to consider is how do you determine a number that is the next sequence and I think of the 99 bottles challenge in Chris Pine's book and realize that that "n + 1"or "n - 1" will be a part of the solution as will a 'range statement' that begins with 1 and ends with 10,000 (1..10,000).
I next think about indexing and that I'll need to loop through the range using #upto or #each to determine the missing number as well as some sort of conditional statement that allows me to return the missing value. I'll be defining a method "missing_number" but what is the input?
Is it an array? Or is it a range? I am going to go with array since most of the time arrays are unsorted and when I test it I'll define the input as a range.
After doing a bit of research I came across a strategy that indicated the key step would be to sum all of the numbers in the array and subtract the
difference from the sum of the given range. This makes a lot of sense as a good approach because you are dealing with a constant value, so I selected this approach
to inform the code.
def missing_number(array)
grand_sum = (array.length + 1) * (array.length + 2) / 2
sum = 0
array.each {|n| sum += n}
grand_sum - sum
end
x=(1..10000).to_a
x.delete rand(10000)
puts missing_number(x)
This is a solution for calculating the median value in an array. I get the first three lines, duh ;), but the third line is where the magic is happening. Can someone explain how the 'sorted' variable is using and why it's next to brackets, and why the other variable 'len' is enclosed in those parentheses and then brackets? It's almost like sorted is all of a sudden being used as an array? Thanks!
def median(array)
sorted = array.sort
len = sorted.length
return ((sorted[(len - 1) / 2] + sorted[len / 2]) / 2.0).to_f
end
puts median([3,2,3,8,91])
puts median([2,8,3,11,-5])
puts median([4,3,8,11])
Consider this:
[1,2,2,3,4] and [1,2,3,4]. Both arrays are sorted, but have odd and even numbers of elements respectively. So, that piece of code is taking into account these 2 cases.
sorted is indeed an array. You sort [2,3,1,4] and you get back [1,2,3,4]. Then you calculate the middle index (len - 1) / 2 and len / 2 for even / odd number of elements, and find the average of them.
Yes, array.sort is returning an array and it is assigned to sorted. You can then access it via array indices.
If you have an odd number of elements, say 5 elements as in the example, the indices come out to be:
(len-1)/2=(5-1)/2=2
len/2=5/2=2 --- (remember this is integer division, so the decimal gets truncated)
So you take the value at index 2 and add them, and then divide by 2, which is the same as the value at index 2.
If you have an even number of elements, say 4,
(len-1)/2=(4-1)/2=1 --- (remember this is integer division, so the decimal gets truncated)
len/2=4/2=2
So in this case, you are effectively averaging the two middle elements 1 and 2, which is the definition of median for when you have an even number of elements.
It's almost like sorted is all of a sudden being used as an array?
Yes, it is. On line 2 it's being initialized as being an array with the same elements as the input, but in ascending order (default sort is ascending). On line 3 you have len which is initialized with the length of the sorted array, so yeah, sorted is being used as an array since then, because that's what it is.
I would like to randomly iterate through a range. Each value will be visited only once and all values will eventually be visited. For example:
class Array
def shuffle
ret = dup
j = length
i = 0
while j > 1
r = i + rand(j)
ret[i], ret[r] = ret[r], ret[i]
i += 1
j -= 1
end
ret
end
end
(0..9).to_a.shuffle.each{|x| f(x)}
where f(x) is some function that operates on each value. A Fisher-Yates shuffle is used to efficiently provide random ordering.
My problem is that shuffle needs to operate on an array, which is not cool because I am working with astronomically large numbers. Ruby will quickly consume a large amount of RAM trying to create a monstrous array. Imagine replacing (0..9) with (0..99**99). This is also why the following code will not work:
tried = {} # store previous attempts
bigint = 99**99
bigint.times {
x = rand(bigint)
redo if tried[x]
tried[x] = true
f(x) # some function
}
This code is very naive and quickly runs out of memory as tried obtains more entries.
What sort of algorithm can accomplish what I am trying to do?
[Edit1]: Why do I want to do this? I'm trying to exhaust the search space of a hash algorithm for a N-length input string looking for partial collisions. Each number I generate is equivalent to a unique input string, entropy and all. Basically, I'm "counting" using a custom alphabet.
[Edit2]: This means that f(x) in the above examples is a method that generates a hash and compares it to a constant, target hash for partial collisions. I do not need to store the value of x after I call f(x) so memory should remain constant over time.
[Edit3/4/5/6]: Further clarification/fixes.
[Solution]: The following code is based on #bta's solution. For the sake of conciseness, next_prime is not shown. It produces acceptable randomness and only visits each number once. See the actual post for more details.
N = size_of_range
Q = ( 2 * N / (1 + Math.sqrt(5)) ).to_i.next_prime
START = rand(N)
x = START
nil until f( x = (x + Q) % N ) == START # assuming f(x) returns x
I just remembered a similar problem from a class I took years ago; that is, iterating (relatively) randomly through a set (completely exhausting it) given extremely tight memory constraints. If I'm remembering this correctly, our solution algorithm was something like this:
Define the range to be from 0 to
some number N
Generate a random starting point x[0] inside N
Generate an iterator Q less than N
Generate successive points x[n] by adding Q to
the previous point and wrapping around if needed. That
is, x[n+1] = (x[n] + Q) % N
Repeat until you generate a new point equal to the starting point.
The trick is to find an iterator that will let you traverse the entire range without generating the same value twice. If I'm remembering correctly, any relatively prime N and Q will work (the closer the number to the bounds of the range the less 'random' the input). In that case, a prime number that is not a factor of N should work. You can also swap bytes/nibbles in the resulting number to change the pattern with which the generated points "jump around" in N.
This algorithm only requires the starting point (x[0]), the current point (x[n]), the iterator value (Q), and the range limit (N) to be stored.
Perhaps someone else remembers this algorithm and can verify if I'm remembering it correctly?
As #Turtle answered, you problem doesn't have a solution. #KandadaBoggu and #bta solution gives you random numbers is some ranges which are or are not random. You get clusters of numbers.
But I don't know why you care about double occurence of the same number. If (0..99**99) is your range, then if you could generate 10^10 random numbers per second (if you have a 3 GHz processor and about 4 cores on which you generate one random number per CPU cycle - which is imposible, and ruby will even slow it down a lot), then it would take about 10^180 years to exhaust all the numbers. You have also probability about 10^-180 that two identical numbers will be generated during a whole year. Our universe has probably about 10^9 years, so if your computer could start calculation when the time began, then you would have probability about 10^-170 that two identical numbers were generated. In the other words - practicaly it is imposible and you don't have to care about it.
Even if you would use Jaguar (top 1 from www.top500.org supercomputers) with only this one task, you still need 10^174 years to get all numbers.
If you don't belive me, try
tried = {} # store previous attempts
bigint = 99**99
bigint.times {
x = rand(bigint)
puts "Oh, no!" if tried[x]
tried[x] = true
}
I'll buy you a beer if you will even once see "Oh, no!" on your screen during your life time :)
I could be wrong, but I don't think this is doable without storing some state. At the very least, you're going to need some state.
Even if you only use one bit per value (has this value been tried yes or no) then you will need X/8 bytes of memory to store the result (where X is the largest number). Assuming that you have 2GB of free memory, this would leave you with more than 16 million numbers.
Break the range in to manageable batches as shown below:
def range_walker range, batch_size = 100
size = (range.end - range.begin) + 1
n = size/batch_size
n.times do |i|
x = i * batch_size + range.begin
y = x + batch_size
(x...y).sort_by{rand}.each{|z| p z}
end
d = (range.end - size%batch_size + 1)
(d..range.end).sort_by{rand}.each{|z| p z }
end
You can further randomize solution by randomly choosing the batch for processing.
PS: This is a good problem for map-reduce. Each batch can be worked by independent nodes.
Reference:
Map-reduce in Ruby
you can randomly iterate an array with shuffle method
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
a.shuffle!
=> [5, 2, 8, 7, 3, 1, 6, 4, 9]
You want what's called a "full cycle iterator"...
Here is psudocode for the simplest version which is perfect for most uses...
function fullCycleStep(sample_size, last_value, random_seed = 31337, prime_number = 32452843) {
if last_value = null then last_value = random_seed % sample_size
return (last_value + prime_number) % sample_size
}
If you call this like so:
sample = 10
For i = 1 to sample
last_value = fullCycleStep(sample, last_value)
print last_value
next
It would generate random numbers, looping through all 10, never repeating If you change random_seed, which can be anything, or prime_number, which must be greater than, and not be evenly divisible by sample_size, you will get a new random order, but you will still never get a duplicate.
Database systems and other large-scale systems do this by writing the intermediate results of recursive sorts to a temp database file. That way, they can sort massive numbers of records while only keeping limited numbers of records in memory at any one time. This tends to be complicated in practice.
How "random" does your order have to be? If you don't need a specific input distribution, you could try a recursive scheme like this to minimize memory usage:
def gen_random_indices
# Assume your input range is (0..(10**3))
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |a|
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |b|
(0..3).sort_by{rand}.each do |c|
yield "#{a}#{b}#{c}".to_i
end
end
end
end
gen_random_indices do |idx|
run_test_with_index(idx)
end
Essentially, you are constructing the index by randomly generating one digit at a time. In the worst-case scenario, this will require enough memory to store 10 * (number of digits). You will encounter every number in the range (0..(10**3)) exactly once, but the order is only pseudo-random. That is, if the first loop sets a=1, then you will encounter all three-digit numbers of the form 1xx before you see the hundreds digit change.
The other downside is the need to manually construct the function to a specified depth. In your (0..(99**99)) case, this would likely be a problem (although I suppose you could write a script to generate the code for you). I'm sure there's probably a way to re-write this in a state-ful, recursive manner, but I can't think of it off the top of my head (ideas, anyone?).
[Edit]: Taking into account #klew and #Turtle's answers, the best I can hope for is batches of random (or close to random) numbers.
This is a recursive implementation of something similar to KandadaBoggu's solution. Basically, the search space (as a range) is partitioned into an array containing N equal-sized ranges. Each range is fed back in a random order as a new search space. This continues until the size of the range hits a lower bound. At this point the range is small enough to be converted into an array, shuffled, and checked.
Even though it is recursive, I haven't blown the stack yet. Instead, it errors out when attempting to partition a search space larger than about 10^19 keys. I has to do with the numbers being too large to convert to a long. It can probably be fixed:
# partition a range into an array of N equal-sized ranges
def partition(range, n)
ranges = []
first = range.first
last = range.last
length = last - first + 1
step = length / n # integer division
((first + step - 1)..last).step(step) { |i|
ranges << (first..i)
first = i + 1
}
# append any extra onto the last element
ranges[-1] = (ranges[-1].first)..last if last > step * ranges.length
ranges
end
I hope the code comments help shed some light on my original question.
pastebin: full source
Note: PW_LEN under # options can be changed to a lower number in order to get quicker results.
For a prohibitively large space, like
space = -10..1000000000000000000000
You can add this method to Range.
class Range
M127 = 170_141_183_460_469_231_731_687_303_715_884_105_727
def each_random(seed = 0)
return to_enum(__method__) { size } unless block_given?
unless first.kind_of? Integer
raise TypeError, "can't randomly iterate from #{first.class}"
end
sample_size = self.end - first + 1
sample_size -= 1 if exclude_end?
j = coprime sample_size
v = seed % sample_size
each do
v = (v + j) % sample_size
yield first + v
end
end
protected
def gcd(a,b)
b == 0 ? a : gcd(b, a % b)
end
def coprime(a, z = M127)
gcd(a, z) == 1 ? z : coprime(a, z + 1)
end
end
You could then
space.each_random { |i| puts i }
729815750697818944176
459631501395637888351
189447252093456832526
919263002791275776712
649078753489094720887
378894504186913665062
108710254884732609237
838526005582551553423
568341756280370497598
298157506978189441773
27973257676008385948
757789008373827330134
487604759071646274309
217420509769465218484
947236260467284162670
677052011165103106845
406867761862922051020
136683512560740995195
866499263258559939381
596315013956378883556
326130764654197827731
55946515352016771906
785762266049835716092
515578016747654660267
...
With a good amount of randomness so long as your space is a few orders smaller than M127.
Credit to #nick-steele and #bta for the approach.
This isn't really a Ruby-specific answer but I hope it's permitted. Andrew Kensler gives a C++ "permute()" function that does exactly this in his "Correlated Multi-Jittered Sampling" report.
As I understand it, the exact function he provides really only works if your "array" is up to size 2^27, but the general idea could be used for arrays of any size.
I'll do my best to sort of explain it. The first part is you need a hash that is reversible "for any power-of-two sized domain". Consider x = i + 1. No matter what x is, even if your integer overflows, you can determine what i was. More specifically, you can always determine the bottom n-bits of i from the bottom n-bits of x. Addition is a reversible hash operation, as is multiplication by an odd number, as is doing a bitwise xor by a constant. If you know a specific power-of-two domain, you can scramble bits in that domain. E.g. x ^= (x & 0xFF) >> 5) is valid for the 16-bit domain. You can specify that domain with a mask, e.g. mask = 0xFF, and your hash function becomes x = hash(i, mask). Of course you can add a "seed" value into that hash function to get different randomizations. Kensler lays out more valid operations in the paper.
So you have a reversible function x = hash(i, mask, seed). The problem is that if you hash your index, you might end up with a value that is larger than your array size, i.e. your "domain". You can't just modulo this or you'll get collisions.
The reversible hash is the key to using a technique called "cycle walking", introduced in "Ciphers with Arbitrary Finite Domains". Because the hash is reversible (i.e. 1-to-1), you can just repeatedly apply the same hash until your hashed value is smaller than your array! Because you're applying the same hash, and the mapping is one-to-one, whatever value you end up on will map back to exactly one index, so you don't have collisions. So your function could look something like this for 32-bit integers (pseudocode):
fun permute(i, length, seed) {
i = hash(i, 0xFFFF, seed)
while(i >= length): i = hash(i, 0xFFFF, seed)
return i
}
It could take a lot of hashes to get to your domain, so Kensler does a simple trick: he keeps the hash within the domain of the next power of two, which makes it require very few iterations (~2 on average), by masking out the unnecessary bits. The final algorithm looks like this:
fun next_pow_2(length) {
# This implementation is for clarity.
# See Kensler's paper for one way to do it fast.
p = 1
while (p < length): p *= 2
return p
}
permute(i, length, seed) {
mask = next_pow_2(length)-1
i = hash(i, mask, seed) & mask
while(i >= length): i = hash(i, mask, seed) & mask
return i
}
And that's it! Obviously the important thing here is choosing a good hash function, which Kensler provides in the paper but I wanted to break down the explanation. If you want to have different random permutations each time, you can add a "seed" value to the permute function which then gets passed to the hash function.