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.
Related
I have this program that I am working on that is supposed to find the sum of the first 1000 prime numbers. Currently all I am concerned with is making sure that the program is finding the first 1000 prime numbers, I will add the functionality for adding them later. Here is what I have:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
def prime(num)
is_prime = true
for i in 2..Math.sqrt(num)
if (num % i) == 0
is_prime = false
else
is_prime = true
end
end
return is_prime
end
i = 2
number_of_primes = 0
while number_of_primes < 1000
prime = prime(i)
if prime == true
number_of_primes++
end
i++
end
When i try to run the program I get the following feedback:
sumOfPrimes.rb:32: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
sumOfPrimes.rb:34: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
what gives? Any direction is appreciated.
Ruby doesn't have ++ operator, you need to do += 1
number_of_primes += 1
Unasked for, but a few pieces of advice if you're interested:
One of the cool things about Ruby is that question marks are legal in method names. As such you'll often find that 'predicate' methods (methods that test something and return true or false) end with a question mark, like this: odd?. Your prime method is a perfect candidate for this, so we can rename it prime?.
You use a local variable, is_prime, to hold whether you have found a factor of the number you're testing yet - this is the kind of thing you'd expect to do in an imperative language such as java or C - but Ruby has all sorts of cool features from functional programming that you will gain great power and expressiveness by learning. If you haven't come across them before, you may need to google what a block is and how the syntax works, but for this purpose you can just think of it as a way to get some code run on every item of a collection. It can be used with a variety of cool methods, and one of them is perfectly suited to your purpose: none?, which returns true if no items in the collection it is called on, when passed to the code block you give, return true. So your prime? method can be rewritten like this:
def prime? num
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).none? { |x| num % x == 0 }
end
Apart from being shorter, the advantage of not needing to use local variables like is_prime is that you give yourself fewer opportunities to introduce bugs - if for example you think the contents of is_prime is one thing but it's actually another. It's also, if you look carefully, a lot closer to the actual mathematical definition of a prime number. So by cutting out the unnecessary code you can get closer to exposing the 'meaning' of what you're writing.
As far as getting the first 1000 primes goes, infinite streams are a really cool way to do this but are probably a bit complex to explain here - definitely google if you're interested as they really are amazing! But just out of interest, here's a simple way you could do it using just recursion and no local variables (remember local variables are the devil!):
def first_n_primes(i = 2, primes = [], n)
if primes.count == n then primes
elsif prime? i then first_n_primes(i + 1, primes + [i], n)
else first_n_primes(i + 1, primes, n)
end
end
And as far as summing them up goes all I'll say is have a search for a ruby method called inject - also called reduce. It might be a bit brain-bending at first if you haven't come across the concept before but it's well worth learning! Very cool and very powerful.
Have fun!
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 ;)
UPDATE 2: For posterity, this is how I've settled on doing it (thanks to Jorg's input):
100.step(2, -2) do |x|
# my code
end
(Obviously there are plenty of ways to do this; but it sounds like this is the most "Ruby" way to do it; and that's exactly what I was after.)
UPDATE: OK, so what I was looking for was step:
(2..100).step(2) do |x|
# my code
end
But it turns out that I wasn't 100% forthcoming in my original question. I actually want to iterate over this range backwards. To my surprise, a negative step isn't legal.
(100..2).step(-2) do |x|
# ArgumentError: step can't be negative
end
So: how do I do this backwards?
I am completely new to Ruby, so be gentle.
Say I want to iterate over the range of even numbers from 2 to 100; how would I do that?
Obviously I could do:
(2..100).each do |x|
if x % 2 == 0
# my code
end
end
But, obviously (again), that would be pretty stupid.
I know I could do something like:
i = 2
while i <= 100
# my code
i += 2
end
I believe I could also write my own custom class that provides its own each method (?). I am almost sure that would be overkill, though.
I'm interested in two things:
Is it possible to do this with some variation of the standard Range syntax (i.e., (x..y).each)?
Either way, what would be the most idiomatic "Ruby way" of accomplishing this (using a Range or otherwise)? Like I said, I'm new to the language; so any guidance you can offer on how to do things in a more typical Ruby style would be much appreciated.
You can't declare a Range with a "step". Ranges don't have steps, they simply have a beginning and an end.
You can certainly iterate over a Range in steps, for example like this:
(2..100).step(2).reverse_each(&method(:p))
But if all you want is to iterate, then what do you need the Range for in the first place? Why not just iterate?
100.step(2, -2, &method(:p))
This has the added benefit that unlike reverse_each it does not need to generate an intermediate array.
This question answers yours: about ruby range?
(2..100).step(2) do |x|
# your code
end
I had similar issue here are the various ways I found to do the same SIMPLE thing I used step in the end because it allowed for NEGATIVE and FRACTIONAL increments and I had no conditions, other than the bounds to look for
case loop_type
when FOR
# doen't appear to have a negative or larger than 1 step size!
for kg in 50..120 do
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
end
when STEP
120.step(70,-0.5){ |kg|
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
}
when UPTO
50.upto(120) { |kg|
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
}
when DOWNTO
120.downto(50){ |kg|
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
}
when RANGE
(50..120).reverse_each{ |kg|
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
}
when WHILE
kg = 120
while kg >= 50
kg_to_stones_lbs(kg)
kg -= 0.5
end
end
O/P:
92.0kg - 14st 7lbs
91.5kg - 14st 6lbs
91.0kg - 14st 5lbs
90.5kg - 14st 4lbs
90.0kg - 14st 2lbs
89.5kg - 14st 1lbs
89.0kg - 14st 0lbs
88.5kg - 13st 13lbs
88.0kg - 13st 12lbs
I play around with arrays and hashes quite a lot in ruby and end up with some code that looks like this:
sum = two_dimensional_array.select{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j.to_i
}.sum > 5
}.collect{|i|
i.collect{|j|
j ** 2
}.average
}.sum
(Let's all pretend that the above code sample makes sense now...)
The problem is that even though TextMate (my editor of choice) picks up simple {...} or do...end blocks quite easily, it can't figure out (which is understandable since even I can't find a "correct" way to fold the above) where the above blocks start and end to fold them.
How would you fold the above code sample?
PS: considering that it could have 2 levels of folding, I only care about the outer consecutive ones (the blocks with the i)
To be honest, something that convoluted is probably confusing TextMate as much as anyone else who has to maintain it, and that includes you in the future.
Whenever you see something that rolls up into a single value, it's a good case for using Enumerable#inject.
sum = two_dimensional_array.inject(0) do |sum, row|
# Convert row to Fixnum equivalent
row_i = row.collect { |i| i.to_i }
if (row_i.sum > 5)
sum += row_i.collect { |i| i ** 2 }.average
end
sum # Carry through to next inject call
end
What's odd in your example is you're using select to return the full array, allegedly converted using to_i, but in fact Enumerable#select does no such thing, and instead rejects any for which the function returns nil. I'm presuming that's none of your values.
Also depending on how your .average method is implemented, you may want to seed the inject call with 0.0 instead of 0 to use a floating-point value.
I am using ruby to calculate the Gunning Fog Index of some content that I have, I can successfully implement the algorithm described here:
Gunning Fog Index
I am using the below method to count the number of syllables in each word:
Tokenizer = /([aeiouy]{1,3})/
def count_syllables(word)
len = 0
if word[-3..-1] == 'ing' then
len += 1
word = word[0...-3]
end
got = word.scan(Tokenizer)
len += got.size()
if got.size() > 1 and got[-1] == ['e'] and
word[-1].chr() == 'e' and
word[-2].chr() != 'l' then
len -= 1
end
return len
end
It sometimes picks up words with only 2 syllables as having 3 syllables. Can anyone give any advice or is aware of a better method?
text = "The word logorrhoea is often used pejoratively to describe prose that is highly abstract and contains little concrete language. Since abstract writing is hard to visualize, it often seems as though it makes no sense and all the words are excessive. Writers in academic fields that concern themselves mostly with the abstract, such as philosophy and especially postmodernism, often fail to include extensive concrete examples of their ideas, and so a superficial examination of their work might lead one to believe that it is all nonsense."
# used to get rid of any puncuation
text = text.gsub!(/\W+/, ' ')
word_array = text.split(' ')
word_array.each do |word|
puts word if count_syllables(word) > 2
end
"themselves" is being counted as 3 but it's only 2
The function I give you before is based upon these simple rules outlined here:
Each vowel (a, e, i, o, u, y) in a
word counts as one syllable subject to
the following sub-rules:
Ignore final -ES, -ED, -E (except
for -LE)
Words of three letters or
less count as one syllable
Consecutive vowels count as one
syllable.
Here's the code:
def new_count(word)
word.downcase!
return 1 if word.length <= 3
word.sub!(/(?:[^laeiouy]es|ed|[^laeiouy]e)$/, '')
word.sub!(/^y/, '')
word.scan(/[aeiouy]{1,2}/).size
end
Obviously, this isn't perfect either, but all you'll ever get with something like this is a heuristic.
EDIT:
I changed the code slightly to handle a leading 'y' and fixed the regex to handle 'les' endings better (such as in "candles").
Here's a comparison using the text in the question:
# used to get rid of any puncuation
text = text.gsub!(/\W+/, ' ')
words = text.split(' ')
words.each do |word|
old = count_syllables(word.dup)
new = new_count(word.dup)
puts "#{word}: \t#{old}\t#{new}" if old != new
end
The output is:
logorrhoea: 3 4
used: 2 1
makes: 2 1
themselves: 3 2
So it appears to be an improvement.
One thing you ought to do is teach your algorithm about diphthongs. If I'm reading your code correctly, it would incorrectly flag "aid" as having two syllables.
You can also add "es" and the like to your special-case endings (you already have "ing") and just not count it as a syllable, but that might still result in some miscounts.
Finally, for best accuracy, you should convert your input to a spelling scheme or alphabet that has a definite relationship to the word's pronunciation. With your "themselves" example, the algorithm has no reliable way to know that the "e" "ves" is dropped. However, if you respelled it as "themselvz", or taught the algorithm the IPA and fed it [ðəmsɛlvz], it becomes very clear that the word is only pronounced with two syllables. That, of course, assumes you have control over the input, and is probably more work than just counting the syllables yourself.
To begin with it seems you should decrement len for the suffixes that should be excluded.
len-=1 if /.*[ing,es,ed]$/.match(word)
You could also check out Lingua::EN::Readability.
It can also calculate several readability measures, such as a Fog Index and a Flesch-Kincaid level.
PS. I think I know where you got the function from. DS.
There is also a rubygem called Odyssey that calculates Gunning Fog, along with some of the other popular ones (Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, etc.)