Related
I have this function which calculates distance between two point, everything works fine but I get an extra zero at the end.
My input:
2 3, 12 30, 40 50, 5 1, 12 10, 3 4
float bruteForce(vector< pair <float,float> >::const_iterator brute, vector< pair <float,float> >::const_iterator end, float m)
{
float min = FLT_MAX;
for (int i = 0; i < m; i++)
{
for (int j = i+1; j < m; j++)
{
if ( dist(brute[i].first, brute[i].second, brute[j].first, brute[j].second ) < min)
{
min = dist(brute[i].first, brute[i].second, brute[j].first, brute[j].second);
cout << min << endl;
}
}
}
return min;
}
output:
1.41421,
11.4018,
34.4093,
0
A 0 indicates "no distance", so there must be two points on the same location.
When I look at your input, it appears the 3 is there twice.
So this is the shortest distance, after that, it's impossible to find anything else shorter.
Quentin was correct, it was because of the float data types I was using where I shouldn't be using them.
Let's say we have given an array of digits, A, and a positive number, B. The problem is to generate all the possible B-digit numbers combined of A's elements.
For example, if A = [0,1,2,3] and B = 2, then the output must be,
[10,11,12,13,20,21,22,23,30,31,32,33]
Generate all possible combinations of 2 digit numbers by multiplying and adding the elements of the array in nested for loops.
Check if the generated numbers are greater than 10 to be a valid two digit number.
`
#include<iostream>
#include<cmath>
int main () {
int A[4] = {0,1,2,3}; int B = 2; int k;
for(size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]); i++)
{
for(size_t j = 0; j < sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0]); j++)
{
k = (A[i] * pow(10, B-1) + j);
if(k / 10 > 0)
std::cout << k << '\n';
}
}
}
Question link: http://codeforces.com/contest/2/problem/B
There is a square matrix n × n, consisting of non-negative integer numbers. You should find such a way on it that
starts in the upper left cell of the matrix;
each following cell is to the right or down from the current cell;
the way ends in the bottom right cell.
Moreover, if we multiply together all the numbers along the way, the result should be the least "round". In other words, it should end in the least possible number of zeros.
Input
The first line contains an integer number n (2 ≤ n ≤ 1000), n is the size of the matrix. Then follow n lines containing the matrix elements (non-negative integer numbers not exceeding 10^9).
Output
In the first line print the least number of trailing zeros. In the second line print the correspondent way itself.
I thought of the following: In the end, whatever the answer will be, it should contain minimum powers of 2's and 5's. Therefore, what I did was, for each entry in the input matrix, I calculated the powers of 2's and 5's and stored them in separate matrices.
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
for ( j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
cin>>foo;
matrix[i][j] = foo;
int n1 = calctwo(foo); // calculates the number of 2's in factorisation of that number
int n2 = calcfive(foo); // calculates number of 5's
two[i][j] = n1;
five[i][j] = n2;
}
}
After that, I did this:
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
for ( j = 0; j < n; j++ )
{
dp[i][j] = min(two[i][j],five[i][j]); // Here, dp[i][j] will store minimum number of 2's and 5's.
}
}
But the above doesn't really a valid answer, I don't know why? Have I implemented the correct approach? Or, is this the correct way of solving this question?
Edit: Here are my functions of calculating the number of two's and number of five's in a number.
int calctwo (int foo)
{
int counter = 0;
while (foo%2 == 0)
{
if (foo%2 == 0)
{
counter++;
foo = foo/2;
}
else
break;
}
return counter;
}
int calcfive (int foo)
{
int counter = 0;
while (foo%5 == 0)
{
if (foo%5 == 0)
{
counter++;
foo = foo/5;
}
else
break;
}
return counter;
}
Edit2: I/O Example as given in the link:
Input:
3
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
Output:
0
DDRR
Since you are interested only in the number of trailing zeroes you need only to consider the powers of 2, 5 which you could keep in two separate nxn arrays. So for the array
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
you just keep the arrays
the powers of 2 the powers of 5
0 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 1 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
The insight for the problem is the following. Notice that if you find a path which minimizes the sum of the powers of 2 and a path which minimizes the number sum of the powers of 5 then the answer is the one with lower value of those two paths. So you reduce your problem to the two times application of the following classical dp problem: find a path, starting from the top-left corner and ending at the bottom-right, such that the sum of its elements is minimum. Again, following the example, we have:
minimal path for the
powers of 2 value
* * - 2
- * *
- - *
minimal path for the
powers of 5 value
* - - 0
* - -
* * *
so your answer is
* - -
* - -
* * *
with value 0
Note 1
It might seem that taking the minimum of the both optimal paths gives only an upper bound so a question that may rise is: is this bound actually achieved? The answer is yes. For convenience, let the number of 2's along the 2's optimal path is a and the number of 5's along the 5's optimal path is b. Without loss of generality assume that the minimum of the both optimal paths is the one for the power of 2's (that is a < b). Let the number of 5's along the minimal path is c. Now the question is: are there as much as 5's as there are 2's along this path (i.e. is c >= a?). Assume that the answer is no. That means that there are less 5's than 2's along the minimal path (that is c < a). Since the optimal value of 5's paths is b we have that every 5's path has at least b 5's in it. This should also be true for the minimal path. That means that c > b. We have that c < a so a > b but the initial assumption was that a < b. Contradiction.
Note 2
You might also want consider the case in which there is an element 0 in your matrix. I'd assume that number of trailing zeroes when the product is 1. In this case, if the algorithm has produced a result with a value more than 1 you should output 1 and print a path that goes through the element 0.
Here is the code. I've used pair<int,int> to store factor of 2 and 5 in the matrix.
#include<vector>
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
#define pii pair<int,int>
#define F first
#define S second
#define MP make_pair
int calc2(int a){
int c=0;
while(a%2==0){
c++;
a/=2;
}
return c;
}
int calc5(int a){
int c=0;
while(a%5==0){
c++;
a/=5;
}
return c;
}
int mini(int a,int b){
return a<b?a:b;
}
pii min(pii a, pii b){
if(mini(a.F,a.S) < mini(b.F,b.S))
return a;
return b;
}
int main(){
int n;
cin>>n;
vector<vector<pii > > v;
vector<vector<int> > path;
int i,j;
for(i=0;i<n;i++){
vector<pii > x;
vector<int> q(n,0);
for(j=0;j<n;j++){
int y;cin>>y;
x.push_back(MP(calc2(y),calc5(y))); //I store factors of 2,5 in the vector to calculate
}
x.push_back(MP(100000,100000)); //padding each row to n+1 elements (to handle overflow in code)
v.push_back(x);
path.push_back(q); //initialize path matrix to 0
}
vector<pii > x(n+1,MP(100000,100000));
v.push_back(x); //pad 1 more row to handle index overflow
for(i=n-1;i>=0;i--){
for(j=n-1;j>=0;j--){ //move from destination to source grid
if(i==n-1 && j==n-1)
continue;
//here, the LHS of condition in if block is the condition which determines minimum number of trailing 0's. This is the same condition that is used to manipulate "v" for getting the same result.
if(min(MP(v[i][j].F+v[i+1][j].F,v[i][j].S+v[i+1][j].S), MP(v[i][j].F+v[i][j+1].F,v[i][j].S+v[i][j+1].S)) == MP(v[i][j].F+v[i+1][j].F,v[i][j].S+v[i+1][j].S))
path[i][j] = 1; //go down
else
path[i][j] = 2; //go right
v[i][j] = min(MP(v[i][j].F+v[i+1][j].F,v[i][j].S+v[i+1][j].S), MP(v[i][j].F+v[i][j+1].F,v[i][j].S+v[i][j+1].S));
}
}
cout<<mini(v[0][0].F, v[0][0].S)<<endl; //print result
for(i=0,j=0;i<=n-1 && j<=n-1;){ //print path (I don't know o/p format)
cout<<"("<<i<<","<<j<<") -> ";
if(path[i][j]==1)
i++;
else
j++;
}
return 0;
}
This code gives fine results as far as the test cases I checked. If you have any doubts regarding this code, ask in comments.
EDIT:
The basic thought process.
To reach the destination, there are only 2 options. I started with destination to avoid the problem of path ahead calculation, because if 2 have same minimum values, then we chose any one of them. If the path to destination is already calculated, it does not matter which we take.
And minimum is to check which pair is more suitable. If a pair has minimum 2's or 5's than other, it will produce less 0's.
Here is a solution proposal using Javascript and functional programming.
It relies on several functions:
the core function is smallest_trailer that recursively goes through the grid. I have chosen to go in 4 possible direction, left "L", right "R", down "D" and "U". It is not possible to pass twice on the same cell. The direction that is chosen is the one with the smallest number of trailing zeros. The counting of trailing zeros is devoted to another function.
the function zero_trailer(p,n,nbz) assumes that you arrive on a cell with a value p while you already have an accumulator n and met nbz zeros on your way. The function returns an array with two elements, the new number of zeros and the new accumulator. The accumulator will be a power of 2 or 5. The function uses the auxiliary function pow_2_5(n) that returns the powers of 2 and 5 inside n.
Other functions are more anecdotical: deepCopy(arr) makes a standard deep copy of the array arr, out_bound(i,j,n) returns true if the cell (i,j) is out of bound of the grid of size n, myMinIndex(arr) returns the min index of an array of 2 dimensional arrays (each subarray contains the nb of trailing zeros and the path as a string). The min is only taken on the first element of subarrays.
MAX_SAFE_INTEGER is a (large) constant for the maximal number of trailing zeros when the path is wrong (goes out of bound for example).
Here is the code, which works on the example given in the comments above and in the orginal link.
var MAX_SAFE_INTEGER = 9007199254740991;
function pow_2_5(n) {
// returns the power of 2 and 5 inside n
function pow_not_2_5(k) {
if (k%2===0) {
return pow_not_2_5(k/2);
}
else if (k%5===0) {
return pow_not_2_5(k/5);
}
else {
return k;
}
}
return n/pow_not_2_5(n);
}
function zero_trailer(p,n,nbz) {
// takes an input two numbers p and n that should be multiplied and a given initial number of zeros (nbz = nb of zeros)
// n is the accumulator of previous multiplications (a power of 5 or 2)
// returns an array [kbz, k] where kbz is the total new number of zeros (nbz + the trailing zeros from the multiplication of p and n)
// and k is the new accumulator (typically a power of 5 or 2)
function zero_aux(k,kbz) {
if (k===0) {
return [1,0];
}
else if (k%10===0) {
return zero_aux(k/10,kbz+1);
}
else {
return [kbz,k];
}
}
return zero_aux(pow_2_5(p)*n,nbz);
}
function out_bound(i,j,n) {
return !((i>=0)&&(i<n)&&(j>=0)&&(j<n));
}
function deepCopy(arr){
var toR = new Array(arr.length);
for(var i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
var toRi = new Array(arr[i].length);
for(var j=0;j<arr[i].length;j++){
toRi[j] = arr[i][j];
}
toR[i] = toRi;
}
return toR;
}
function myMinIndex(arr) {
var min = arr[0][0];
var minIndex = 0;
for (var i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (arr[i][0] < min) {
minIndex = i;
min = arr[i][0];
}
}
return minIndex;
}
function smallest_trailer(grid) {
var n = grid.length;
function st_aux(i,j,grid_aux, acc_mult, nb_z, path) {
if ((i===n-1)&&(j===n-1)) {
var tmp_acc_nbz_f = zero_trailer(grid_aux[i][j],acc_mult,nb_z);
return [tmp_acc_nbz_f[0], path];
}
else if (out_bound(i,j,n)) {
return [MAX_SAFE_INTEGER,[]];
}
else if (grid_aux[i][j]<0) {
return [MAX_SAFE_INTEGER,[]];
}
else {
var tmp_acc_nbz = zero_trailer(grid_aux[i][j],acc_mult,nb_z) ;
grid_aux[i][j]=-1;
var res = [st_aux(i+1,j,deepCopy(grid_aux), tmp_acc_nbz[1], tmp_acc_nbz[0], path+"D"),
st_aux(i-1,j,deepCopy(grid_aux), tmp_acc_nbz[1], tmp_acc_nbz[0], path+"U"),
st_aux(i,j+1,deepCopy(grid_aux), tmp_acc_nbz[1], tmp_acc_nbz[0], path+"R"),
st_aux(i,j-1,deepCopy(grid_aux), tmp_acc_nbz[1], tmp_acc_nbz[0], path+"L")];
return res[myMinIndex(res)];
}
}
return st_aux(0,0,grid, 1, 0, "");
}
myGrid = [[1, 25, 100],[2, 1, 25],[100, 5, 1]];
console.log(smallest_trailer(myGrid)); //[0,"RDDR"]
myGrid = [[1, 2, 100],[25, 1, 5],[100, 25, 1]];
console.log(smallest_trailer(myGrid)); //[0,"DRDR"]
myGrid = [[1, 10, 1, 1, 1],[1, 1, 1, 10, 1],[10, 10, 10, 10, 1],[10, 10, 10, 10, 1],[10, 10, 10, 10, 1]];
console.log(smallest_trailer(myGrid)); //[0,"DRRURRDDDD"]
This is my Dynamic Programming solution.
https://app.codility.com/demo/results/trainingAXFQ5B-SZQ/
For better understanding we can simplify the task and assume that there are no zeros in the matrix (i.e. matrix contains only positive integers), then the Java solution will be the following:
class Solution {
public int solution(int[][] a) {
int minPws[][] = new int[a.length][a[0].length];
int minPws2 = getMinPws(a, minPws, 2);
int minPws5 = getMinPws(a, minPws, 5);
return min(minPws2, minPws5);
}
private int getMinPws(int[][] a, int[][] minPws, int p) {
minPws[0][0] = pws(a[0][0], p);
//Fullfill the first row
for (int j = 1; j < a[0].length; j++) {
minPws[0][j] = minPws[0][j-1] + pws(a[0][j], p);
}
//Fullfill the first column
for (int i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
minPws[i][0] = minPws[i-1][0] + pws(a[i][0], p);
}
//Fullfill the rest of matrix
for (int i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j < a[0].length; j++) {
minPws[i][j] = min(minPws[i-1][j], minPws[i][j-1]) + pws(a[i][j], p);
}
}
return minPws[a.length-1][a[0].length-1];
}
private int pws(int n, int p) {
//Only when n > 0
int pws = 0;
while (n % p == 0) {
pws++;
n /= p;
}
return pws;
}
private int min(int a, int b) {
return (a < b) ? a : b;
}
}
This question already has answers here:
Finding an element in an array that isn't repeated a multiple of three times?
(4 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have been asked this question in an interview.
Given that, there are 3n+1 numbers. n of those numbers occur in triplets, only 1 occurs single time. How do we find the unique number in linear time i.e., O(n) ? The numbers are not sorted.
Note that, if there were 2n+1 numbers, n of which occur in pairs, we could just XOR all the numbers to find the unique one. The interviewer told me that it can be done by bit manipulation.
Count the number of times that each bit occurs in the set of 3n+1 numbers.
Reduce each bit count modulo 3.
What is left is the bit pattern of the single number.
Oh, dreamzor (above) has beaten me to it.
You can invent a 3nary XOR (call it XOR3) operation which operates in base 3 instead of base 2 and simply takes each 3nary digit modulo 3 (when usual XOR takes 2nary digit modulo 2).
Then, if you XOR3 all the numbers (converting them to 3nary first) this way, you will be left with the unique number (in base 3 so you will need to convert it back).
The complexity is not exactly linear, though, because the conversions from/to base 3 require additional logarithmic time. However, if the range of numbers is constant then the conversion time is also constant.
Code on C++ (intentionally verbose):
vector<int> to_base3(int num) {
vector<int> base3;
for (; num > 0; num /= 3) {
base3.push_back(num % 3);
}
return base3;
}
int from_base3(const vector<int> &base3) {
int num = 0;
for (int i = 0, three = 1; i < base3.size(); ++i, three *= 3) {
num += base3[i] * three;
}
return num;
}
int find_unique(const vector<int> &a) {
vector<int> unique_base3(20, 0); // up to 3^20
for (int num : a) {
vector<int> num_base3 = to_base3(num);
for (int i = 0; i < num_base3.size(); ++i) {
unique_base3[i] = (unique_base3[i] + num_base3[i]) % 3;
}
}
int unique_num = from_base3(unique_base3);
return unique_num;
}
int main() {
vector<int> rands { 1287318, 172381, 5144, 566546, 7123 };
vector<int> a;
for (int r : rands) {
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
a.push_back(r);
}
}
a.push_back(13371337); // unique number
random_shuffle(a.begin(), a.end());
int unique_num = find_unique(a);
cout << unique_num << endl;
}
byte [] oneCount = new byte [32];
int [] test = {1,2,3,1,5,2,9,9,3,1,2,3,9};
for (int n: test) {
for (int bit = 0; bit < 32; bit++) {
if (((n >> bit) & 1) == 1) {
oneCount[bit]++;
oneCount[bit] = (byte)(oneCount[bit] % 3);
}
}
}
int result = 0;
int x = 1;
for (int bit = 0; bit < 32; bit++) {
result += oneCount[bit] * x;
x = x << 1;
}
System.out.print(result);
Looks like while I was coding, others gave the main idea
I am trying to solve this problem but I can't find a solution:
A board consisting of squares arranged into N rows and M columns is given. A tiling of this board is a pattern of tiles that covers it. A tiling is interesting if:
only tiles of size 1x1 and/or 2x2 are used;
each tile of size 1x1 covers exactly one whole square;
each tile of size 2x2 covers exactly four whole squares;
each square of the board is covered by exactly one tile.
For example, the following images show a few interesting tilings of a board of size 4 rows and 3 columns:
http://dabi.altervista.org/images/task.img.4x3_tilings_example.gif
Two interesting tilings of a board are different if there exists at least one square on the board that is covered with a tile of size 1x1 in one tiling and with a tile of size 2x2 in the other. For example, all tilings shown in the images above are different.
Write a function
int count_tilings(int N, int M);
that, given two integers N and M, returns the remainder modulo 10,000,007 of the number of different interesting tilings of a board of size N rows and M columns.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [1..1,000,000];
M is an integer within the range [1..7].
For example, given N = 4 and M = 3, the function should return 11, because there are 11 different interesting tilings of a board of size 4 rows and 3 columns:
http://dabi.altervista.org/images/task.img.4x3_tilings_all.gif
for (4,3) the result is 11, for (6,5) the result is 1213.
I tried the following but it doesn't work:
static public int count_tilings ( int N,int M ) {
int result=1;
if ((N==1)||(M==1)) return 1;
result=result+(N-1)*(M-1);
int max_tiling= (int) ((int)(Math.ceil(N/2))*(Math.ceil(M/2)));
System.out.println(max_tiling);
for (int i=2; i<=(max_tiling);i++){
if (N>=2*i){
int n=i+(N-i);
int k=i;
//System.out.println("M-1->"+(M-1) +"i->"+i);
System.out.println("(M-1)^i)->"+(Math.pow((M-1),i)));
System.out.println( "n="+n+ " k="+k);
System.out.println(combinations(n, k));
if (N-i*2>0){
result+= Math.pow((M-1),i)*combinations(n, k);
}else{
result+= Math.pow((M-1),i);
}
}
if (M>=2*i){
int n=i+(M-i);
int k=i;
System.out.println("(N-1)^i)->"+(Math.pow((N-1),i)));
System.out.println( "n="+n+ " k="+k);
System.out.println(combinations(n, k));
if (M-i*2>0){
result+= Math.pow((N-1),i)*combinations(n, k);
}else{
result+= Math.pow((N-1),i);
}
}
}
return result;
}
static long combinations(int n, int k) {
/*binomial coefficient*/
long coeff = 1;
for (int i = n - k + 1; i <= n; i++) {
coeff *= i;
}
for (int i = 1; i <= k; i++) {
coeff /= i;
}
return coeff;
}
Since this is homework I won't give a full solution, but I'll give you some hints.
First here's a recursive solution:
class Program
{
// Important note:
// The value of masks given here is hard-coded for m == 5.
// In a complete solution, you need to calculate the masks for the
// actual value of m given. See explanation in answer for more details.
int[] masks = { 0, 3, 6, 12, 15, 24, 27, 30 };
int CountTilings(int n, int m, int s = 0)
{
if (n == 1) { return 1; }
int result = 0;
foreach (int mask in masks)
{
if ((mask & s) == 0)
{
result += CountTilings(n - 1, m, mask);
}
}
return result;
}
public static void Main()
{
Program p = new Program();
int result = p.CountTilings(6, 5);
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
See it working online: ideone
Note that I've added an extra parameter s. This stores the contents of the first column. If the first column is empty, s = 0. If the first column contains some filled squares the corresponding bits in s are set. Initially s = 0, but when a 2 x 2 tile is placed, this fills up some squares in the next column, and that will mean that s will be non-zero in the recursive call.
The masks variable is hard-coded but in a complete solution it needs to be calculated based on the actual value of m. The values stored in masks make more sense if you look at their binary representations:
00000
00011
00110
01100
01111
11000
11011
11110
In other words, it's all the ways of setting pairs of bits in a binary number with m bits. You can write some code to generate all these possiblities. Or since there are only 7 possible values of m, you could also just hard-code all seven possibilities for masks.
There are however two serious problems with the recursive solution.
It will overflow the stack for large values of N.
It requires exponential time to calculate. It is incredibly slow even for small values of N
Both these problems can be solved by rewriting the algorithm to be iterative. Keep m constant and initalize the result for n = 1 for all possible values of s to be 1. This is because if you only have one column you must use only 1x1 tiles, and there is only one way to do this.
Now you can calculate n = 2 for all possible values of s by using the results from n = 1. This can be repeated until you reach n = N. This algorithm completes in linear time with respect to N, and requires constant space.
Here is a recursive solution:
// time used : 27 min
#include <set>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void placement(int n, set< vector <int> > & p){
for (int i = 0; i < n -1 ; i ++){
for (set<vector<int> > :: iterator j = p.begin(); j != p.end(); j ++){
vector <int> temp = *j;
if (temp[i] == 1 || temp[i+1] == 1) continue;
temp[i] = 1; temp[i+1] = 1;
p.insert(temp);
}
}
}
vector<vector<int> > placement( int n){
if (n > 7) throw "error";
set <vector <int> > p;
vector <int> temp (n,0);
p.insert (temp);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i ++) placement(n, p);
vector <vector <int> > s;
s.assign (p.begin(), p.end());
return s;
}
bool tryput(vector <vector <int> > &board, int current, vector<int> & comb){
for (int i = 0; i < comb.size(); i ++){
if ((board[current][i] == 1 || board[current+1][i]) && comb[i] == 1) return false;
}
return true;
}
void put(vector <vector <int> > &board, int current, vector<int> & comb){
for (int i = 0; i < comb.size(); i ++){
if (comb[i] == 1){
board[current][i] = 1;
board[current+1][i] = 1;
}
}
return;
}
void undo(vector <vector <int> > &board, int current, vector<int> & comb){
for (int i = 0; i < comb.size(); i ++){
if (comb[i] == 1){
board[current][i] = 0;
board[current+1][i] = 0;
}
}
return;
}
int place (vector <vector <int> > &board, int current, vector < vector <int> > & all_comb){
int m = board.size();
if (current >= m) throw "error";
if (current == m - 1) return 1;
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < all_comb.size(); i ++){
if (tryput(board, current, all_comb[i])){
put(board, current, all_comb[i]);
count += place(board, current+1, all_comb) % 10000007;
undo(board, current, all_comb[i]);
}
}
return count;
}
int place (int m, int n){
if (m == 0) return 0;
if (m == 1) return 1;
vector < vector <int> > all_comb = placement(n);
vector <vector <int> > board(m, vector<int>(n, 0));
return place (board, 0, all_comb);
}
int main(){
cout << place(3, 4) << endl;
return 0;
}
time complexity O(n^3 * exp(m))
to reduce the space usage try bit vector.
to reduce the time complexity to O(m*(n^3)), try dynamic programming.
to reduce the time complexity to O(log(m) * n^3) try divide and conquer + dynamic programming.
good luck