If you want to create NxM matrix in Lua you basically do the following:
function get_zero_matrix(rows, cols)
matrix = {}
for i=1, rows do
matrix[i] = {}
for j=1, cols do
matrix[i][j] = 0
end
end
return matrix
end
However, on the official Lua website I've seen the second variant:
function get_zero_matrix2(rows, cols)
mt = {}
for i=1, rows do
for j=1, cols do
mt[i*cols + j] = 0
end
end
return mt
end
First, I don't understand how it works. How [i*M + j] index is supposed to create rows and columns?
Second, I tried this variant, it works but what it returns is actually an array, not NxM matrix:
M = function get_zero_matrix2(10, 20)
print(#M, #M[1])
> attempt to get length of a nil value (field '?')
Can you please explain how the second variant works?
Maybe I am misinterpreting it.
I don't understand how it works.
For a 2D array of dimension N (rows) x M (cols), the total number of required elements = N * M. Now creating N * M elements in one shot as a single array, we will essentially have a 1D array (flattened 2D array) in memory. Since the formula assumes array index start as 0 and not 1 (the usual Lua's convention), we'll follow 0: the first M items with indices [0, M - 1] form row 0, next M items with indices [M, 2M - 1] form row 1, and so on.
Memory layout for a 5 x 2 array; index 4 in this 1D array is (2, 0) in the 2D array.
--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
... | 0,0 | 0,1 | 1,0 | 1,1 | 2,0 | 2,1 | 3,0 | 3,1 | 4,0 | 4,1 | ...
--+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
|-- row 0 --|-- row 1 --|-- row 2 --|-- row 3 --|-- row 4 --|
To access element (i, j), one would get past i - 1 rows and then access the jth item on the ith row. But the index is already one lesser, since the index starts at 0, so i can be used as-is. Thus i * rows + j gives the right index.
How [i*M + j] index is supposed to create rows and columns?
It doesn't. It's an abstraction over a 1D array of numbers, giving the interface of a matrix. In languages like C, declaring a 2D array, most implementations do something similar. int a[2][3] would create an array of 6 integers and do the indexing with the formula above, so this is not an uncommon pattern.
The variant available on Lua PiL is actually representation/mapping of a 2D array as a 1D array.
Basically, consider the following 2x3 array/matrix:
{
{11, 12, 13},
{21, 22, 23}
}
The variant, instead creates it as:
{
[4] = 11,
[5] = 12,
.
.
.
[9] = 23
}
Now, when you want to, let's say, get matrix[1][x], you'll instead fetch:
matrix[1 * rows + x]
It does not, in any way create rows and columns. It is just data stored in a single row of numbers. You will have to implement your own logic; which here, essentially; is i * M + j.
The i*M + j is usually seen in languages with 0-indexing array, like C, where the matrix would be:
{
[0] = 11,
[1] = 12,
[2] = 13,
.
.
.
[5] = 23
}
Related
Given the number of rows and columns of a 2d matrix
Initially all elements of matrix are 0
Given the number of 1's that should be present in each row
Given the number of 1's that should be present in each column
Determine if it is possible to form such matrix.
Example:
Input: r=3 c=2 (no. of rows and columns)
2 1 0 (number of 1's that should be present in each row respectively)
1 2 (number of 1's that should be present in each column respectively)
Output: Possible
Explanation:
1 1
0 1
0 0
I tried solving this problem for like 12 hours by checking if summation of Ri = summation of Ci
But I wondered if wouldn't be possible for cases like
3 3
1 3 0
0 2 2
r and c can be upto 10^5
Any ideas how should I move further?
Edit: Constraints added and output should only be "possible" or "impossible". The possible matrix need not be displayed.
Can anyone help me now?
Hint: one possible solution utilizes Maximum Flow Problem by creating a special graph and running the standard maximum flow algorithm on it.
If you're not familiar with the above problem, you may start reading about it e.g. here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_flow_problem
If you're interested in the full solution please comment and I'll update the answer. But it requires understading the above algorithm.
Solution as requested:
Create a graph of r+c+2 nodes.
Node 0 is the source, node r+c+1 is the sink. Nodes 1..r represent the rows, while r+1..r+c the columns.
Create following edges:
from source to nodes i=1..r of capacity r_i
from nodes i=r+1..r+c to sink of capacity c_i
between all the nodes i=1..r and j=r+1..r+c of capacity 1
Run maximum flow algorithm, the saturated edges between row nodes and column nodes define where you should put 1.
Or if it's not possible then the maximum flow value is less than number of expected ones in the matrix.
I will illustrate the algorithm with an example.
Assume we have m rows and n columns. Let rows[i] be the number of 1s in row i, for 0 <= i < m,
and cols[j] be the number of 1s in column j, for 0 <= j < n.
For example, for m = 3, and n = 4, we could have: rows = {4 2 3}, cols = {1 3 2 3}, and
the solution array would be:
1 3 2 3
+--------
4 | 1 1 1 1
2 | 0 1 0 1
3 | 0 1 1 1
Because we only want to know whether a solution exists, the values in rows and cols may be permuted in any order. The solution of each permutation is just a permutation of the rows and columns of the above solution.
So, given rows and cols, sort cols in decreasing order, and rows in increasing order. For our example, we have cols = {3 3 2 1} and rows = {2 3 4}, and the equivalent problem.
3 3 2 1
+--------
2 | 1 1 0 0
3 | 1 1 1 0
4 | 1 1 1 1
We transform cols into a form that is better suited for the algorithm. What cols tells us is that we have two series of 1s of length 3, one series of 1s of length 2, and one series of 1s of length 1, that are to be distributed among the rows of the array. We rewrite cols to capture just that, that is COLS = {2/3 1/2 1/1}, 2 series of length 3, 1 series of length 2, and 1 series of length 1.
Because we have 2 series of length 3, a solution exists only if we can put two 1s in the first row. This is possible because rows[0] = 2. We do not actually put any 1 in the first row, but record the fact that 1s have been placed there by decrementing the length of the series of length 3. So COLS becomes:
COLS = {2/2 1/2 1/1}
and we combine our two counts for series of length 2, yielding:
COLS = {3/2 1/1}
We now have the reduced problem:
3 | 1 1 1 0
4 | 1 1 1 1
Again we need to place 1s from our series of length 2 to have a solution. Fortunately, rows[1] = 3 and we can do this. We decrement the length of 3/2 and get:
COLS = {3/1 1/1} = {4/1}
We have the reduced problem:
4 | 1 1 1 1
Which is solved by 4 series of length 1, just what we have left. If at any step, the series in COLS cannot be used to satisfy a row count, then no solution is possible.
The general processing for each row may be stated as follows. For each row r, starting from the first element in COLS, decrement the lengths of as many elements count[k]/length[k] of COLS as needed, so that the sum of the count[k]'s equals rows[r]. Eliminate series of length 0 in COLS and combine series of same length.
Note that because elements of COLS are in decreasing order of lengths, the length of the last element decremented is always less than or equal to the next element in COLS (if there is a next element).
EXAMPLE 2 : Solution exists.
rows = {1 3 3}, cols = {2 2 2 1} => COLS = {3/2 1/1}
1 series of length 2 is decremented to satisfy rows[0] = 1, and the 2 other series of length 2 remains at length 2.
rows[0] = 1
COLS = {2/2 1/1 1/1} = {2/2 2/1}
The 2 series of length 2 are decremented, and 1 of the series of length 1.
The series whose length has become 0 is deleted, and the series of length 1 are combined.
rows[1] = 3
COLS = {2/1 1/0 1/1} = {2/1 1/1} = {3/1}
A solution exists for rows[2] can be satisfied.
rows[2] = 3
COLS = {3/0} = {}
EXAMPLE 3: Solution does not exists.
rows = {0 2 3}, cols = {3 2 0 0} => COLS = {1/3 1/2}
rows[0] = 0
COLS = {1/3 1/2}
rows[1] = 2
COLS = {1/2 1/1}
rows[2] = 3 => impossible to satisfy; no solution.
SPACE COMPLEXITY
It is easy to see that it is O(m + n).
TIME COMPLEXITY
We iterate over each row only once. For each row i, we need to iterate over at most
rows[i] <= n elements of COLS. Time complexity is O(m x n).
After finding this algorithm, I found the following theorem:
The Havel-Hakimi theorem (Havel 1955, Hakimi 1962) states that there exists a matrix Xn,m of 0’s and 1’s with row totals a0=(a1, a2,… , an) and column totals b0=(b1, b2,… , bm) such that bi ≥ bi+1 for every 0 < i < m if and only if another matrix Xn−1,m of 0’s and 1’s with row totals a1=(a2, a3,… , an) and column totals b1=(b1−1, b2−1,… ,ba1−1, ba1+1,… , bm) also exists.
from the post Finding if binary matrix exists given the row and column sums.
This is basically what my algorithm does, while trying to optimize the decrementing part, i.e., all the -1's in the above theorem. Now that I see the above theorem, I know my algorithm is correct. Nevertheless, I checked the correctness of my algorithm by comparing it with a brute-force algorithm for arrays of up to 50 cells.
Here is the C# implementation.
public class Pair
{
public int Count;
public int Length;
}
public class PairsList
{
public LinkedList<Pair> Pairs;
public int TotalCount;
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] rows = new int[] { 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2 };
int[] cols = new int[] { 2, 2, 0 };
bool success = Solve(cols, rows);
}
static bool Solve(int[] cols, int[] rows)
{
PairsList pairs = new PairsList() { Pairs = new LinkedList<Pair>(), TotalCount = 0 };
FillAllPairs(pairs, cols);
for (int r = 0; r < rows.Length; r++)
{
if (rows[r] > 0)
{
if (pairs.TotalCount < rows[r])
return false;
if (pairs.Pairs.First != null && pairs.Pairs.First.Value.Length > rows.Length - r)
return false;
DecrementPairs(pairs, rows[r]);
}
}
return pairs.Pairs.Count == 0 || pairs.Pairs.Count == 1 && pairs.Pairs.First.Value.Length == 0;
}
static void DecrementPairs(PairsList pairs, int count)
{
LinkedListNode<Pair> pair = pairs.Pairs.First;
while (count > 0 && pair != null)
{
LinkedListNode<Pair> next = pair.Next;
if (pair.Value.Count == count)
{
pair.Value.Length--;
if (pair.Value.Length == 0)
{
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair);
pairs.TotalCount -= count;
}
else if (pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += pair.Next.Value.Count;
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair.Next);
next = pair;
}
count = 0;
}
else if (pair.Value.Count < count)
{
count -= pair.Value.Count;
pair.Value.Length--;
if (pair.Value.Length == 0)
{
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair);
pairs.TotalCount -= pair.Value.Count;
}
else if(pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += pair.Next.Value.Count;
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair.Next);
next = pair;
}
}
else // pair.Value.Count > count
{
Pair p = new Pair() { Count = count, Length = pair.Value.Length - 1 };
pair.Value.Count -= count;
if (p.Length > 0)
{
if (pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == p.Length)
pair.Next.Value.Count += p.Count;
else
pairs.Pairs.AddAfter(pair, p);
}
else
pairs.TotalCount -= count;
count = 0;
}
pair = next;
}
}
static int FillAllPairs(PairsList pairs, int[] cols)
{
List<Pair> newPairs = new List<Pair>();
int c = 0;
while (c < cols.Length && cols[c] > 0)
{
int k = c++;
if (cols[k] > 0)
pairs.TotalCount++;
while (c < cols.Length && cols[c] == cols[k])
{
if (cols[k] > 0) pairs.TotalCount++;
c++;
}
newPairs.Add(new Pair() { Count = c - k, Length = cols[k] });
}
LinkedListNode<Pair> pair = pairs.Pairs.First;
foreach (Pair p in newPairs)
{
while (pair != null && p.Length < pair.Value.Length)
pair = pair.Next;
if (pair == null)
{
pairs.Pairs.AddLast(p);
}
else if (p.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += p.Count;
pair = pair.Next;
}
else // p.Length > pair.Value.Length
{
pairs.Pairs.AddBefore(pair, p);
}
}
return c;
}
}
(Note: to avoid confusion between when I'm talking about the actual numbers in the problem vs. when I'm talking about the zeros in the ones in the matrix, I'm going to instead fill the matrix with spaces and X's. This obviously doesn't change the problem.)
Some observations:
If you're filling in a row, and there's (for example) one column needing 10 more X's and another column needing 5 more X's, then you're sometimes better off putting the X in the "10" column and saving the "5" column for later (because you might later run into 5 rows that each need 2 X's), but you're never better off putting the X in the "5" column and saving the "10" column for later (because even if you later run into 10 rows that all need an X, they won't mind if they don't all go in the same column). So we can use a somewhat "greedy" algorithm: always put an X in the column still needing the most X's. (Of course, we'll need to make sure that we don't greedily put an X in the same column multiple times for the same row!)
Since you don't need to actually output a possible matrix, the rows are all interchangeable and the columns are all interchangeable; all that matter is how many rows still need 1 X, how many still need 2 X's, etc., and likewise for columns.
With that in mind, here's one fairly simple approach:
(Optimization.) Add up the counts for all the rows, add up the counts for all the columns, and return "impossible" if the sums don't match.
Create an array of length r+1 and populate it with how many columns need 1 X, how many need 2 X's, etc. (You can ignore any columns needing 0 X's.)
(Optimization.) To help access the array efficiently, build a stack/linked-list/etc. of the indices of nonzero array elements, in decreasing order (e.g., starting at index r if it's nonzero, then index r−1 if it's nonzero, etc.), so that you can easily find the elements representing columns to put X's in.
(Optimization.) To help determine when there'll be a row can't be satisfied, also make note of the total number of columns needing any X's, and make note of the largest number of X's needed by any row. If the former is less than the latter, return "impossible".
(Optimization.) Sort the rows by the number of X's they need.
Iterate over the rows, starting with the one needing the fewest X's and ending with the one needing the most X's, and for each one:
Update the array accordingly. For example, if a row needs 12 X's, and the array looks like [..., 3, 8, 5], then you'll update the array to look like [..., 3+7 = 10, 8+5−7 = 6, 5−5 = 0]. If it's not possible to update the array because you run out of columns to put X's in, return "impossible". (Note: this part should never actually return "impossible", because we're keeping count of the number of columns left and the max number of columns we'll need, so we should have already returned "impossible" if this was going to happen. I mention this check only for clarity.)
Update the stack/linked-list of indices of nonzero array elements.
Update the total number of columns needing any X's. If it's now less than the greatest number of X's needed by any row, return "impossible".
(Optimization.) If the first nonzero array element has an index greater than the number of rows left, return "impossible".
If we complete our iteration without having returned "impossible", return "possible".
(Note: the reason I say to start with the row needing the fewest X's, and work your way to the row with the most X's, is that a row needing more X's may involve examining updating more elements of the array and of the stack, so the rows needing fewer X's are cheaper. This isn't just a matter of postponing the work: the rows needing fewer X's can help "consolidate" the array, so that there will be fewer distinct column-counts, making the later rows cheaper than they would otherwise be. In a very-bad-case scenario, such as the case of a square matrix where every single row needs a distinct positive number of X's and every single column needs a distinct positive number of X's, the fewest-to-most order means you can handle each row in O(1) time, for linear time overall, whereas the most-to-fewest order would mean that each row would take time proportional to the number of X's it needs, for quadratic time overall.)
Overall, this takes no worse than O(r+c+n) time (where n is the number of X's); I think that the optimizations I've listed are enough to ensure that it's closer to O(r+c) time, but it's hard to be 100% sure. I recommend trying it to see if it's fast enough for your purposes.
You can use brute force (iterating through all 2^(r * c) possibilities) to solve it, but that will take a long time. If r * c is under 64, you can accelerate it to a certain extent using bit-wise operations on 64-bit integers; however, even then, iterating through all 64-bit possibilities would take, at 1 try per ms, over 500M years.
A wiser choice is to add bits one by one, and only continue placing bits if no constraints are broken. This will eliminate the vast majority of possibilities, greatly speeding up the process. Look up backtracking for the general idea. It is not unlike solving sudokus through guesswork: once it becomes obvious that your guess was wrong, you erase it and try guessing a different digit.
As with sudokus, there are certain strategies that can be written into code and will result in speedups when they apply. For example, if the sum of 1s in rows is different from the sum of 1s in columns, then there are no solutions.
If over 50% of the bits will be on, you can instead work on the complementary problem (transform all ones to zeroes and vice-versa, while updating row and column counts). Both problems are equivalent, because any answer for one is also valid for the complementary.
This problem can be solved in O(n log n) using Gale-Ryser Theorem. (where n is the maximum of lengths of the two degree sequences).
First, make both sequences of equal length by adding 0's to the smaller sequence, and let this length be n.
Let the sequences be A and B. Sort A in non-decreasing order, and sort B in non-increasing order. Create another prefix sum array P for B such that ith element of P is equal to sum of first i elements of B.
Now, iterate over k's from 1 to n, and check for
The second sum can be calculated in O(log n) using binary search for index of last number in B smaller than k, and then using precalculated P.
Inspiring from the solution given by RobertBaron I have tried to build a new algorithm.
rows = [int(x)for x in input().split()]
cols = [int (ss) for ss in input().split()]
rows.sort()
cols.sort(reverse=True)
for i in range(len(rows)):
for j in range(len(cols)):
if(rows[i]!= 0 and cols[j]!=0):
rows[i] = rows[i] - 1;
cols[j] =cols[j]-1;
print("rows: ",rows)
print("cols: ",cols)
#if there is any non zero value, print NO else print yes
flag = True
for i in range(len(rows)):
if(rows[i]!=0):
flag = False
break
for j in range(len(cols)):
if(cols[j]!=0):
flag = False
if(flag):
print("YES")
else:
print("NO")
here, i have sorted the rows in ascending order and cols in descending order. later decrementing particular row and column if 1 need to be placed!
it is working for all the test cases posted here! rest GOD knows
I need help optimizing this loop. matrix_1 is a (nx 2) int matrix and matrix_2 is a (m x 2), m & n very.
index_j = 1;
for index_k = 1:size(Matrix_1,1)
for index_l = 1:size(Matrix_2,1)
M2_Index_Dist(index_j,:) = [index_l, sqrt(bsxfun(#plus,sum(Matrix_1(index_k,:).^2,2),sum(Matrix_2(index_l,:).^2,2)')-2*(Matrix_1(index_k,:)*Matrix_2(index_l,:)'))];
index_j = index_j + 1;
end
end
I need M2_Index_Dist to provide a ((n*m) x 2) matrix with the index of matrix_2 in the first column and the distance in the second column.
Output example:
M2_Index_Dist = [ 1, 5.465
2, 56.52
3, 6.21
1, 35.3
2, 56.52
3, 0
1, 43.5
2, 9.3
3, 236.1
1, 8.2
2, 56.52
3, 5.582]
Here's how to apply bsxfun with your formula (||A-B|| = sqrt(||A||^2 + ||B||^2 - 2*A*B)):
d = real(sqrt(bsxfun(#plus, dot(Matrix_1,Matrix_1,2), ...
bsxfun(#minus, dot(Matrix_2,Matrix_2,2).', 2 * Matrix_1*Matrix_2.')))).';
You can avoid the final transpose if you change your interpretation of the matrix.
Note: There shouldn't be any complex values to handle with real but it's there in case of very small differences that may lead to tiny negative numbers.
Edit: It may be faster without dot:
d = sqrt(bsxfun(#plus, sum(Matrix_1.*Matrix_1,2), ...
bsxfun(#minus, sum(Matrix_2.*Matrix_2,2)', 2 * Matrix_1*Matrix_2.'))).';
Or with just one call to bsxfun:
d = sqrt(bsxfun(#plus, sum(Matrix_1.*Matrix_1,2), sum(Matrix_2.*Matrix_2,2)') ...
- 2 * Matrix_1*Matrix_2.').';
Note: This last order of operations gives identical results to you, rather than with an error ~1e-14.
Edit 2: To replicate M2_Index_Dist:
II = ndgrid(1:size(Matrix_2,1),1:size(Matrix_2,1));
M2_Index_Dist = [II(:) d(:)];
If I understand correctly, this does what you want:
ind = repmat((1:size(Matrix_2,1)).',size(Matrix_1,1),1); %'// first column: index
d = pdist2(Matrix_2,Matrix_1); %// compute distance between each pair of rows
d = d(:); %// second column: distance
result = [ind d]; %// build result from first column and second column
As you see, this code calls pdist2 to compute the distance between every pair of rows of your matrices. By default this function uses Euclidean distance.
If you don't have pdist2 (which is part of the the Statistics Toolbox), you can replace line 2 above with bsxfun:
d = squeeze(sqrt(sum(bsxfun(#minus,Matrix_2,permute(Matrix_1, [3 2 1])).^2,2)));
I'm attempting to find an algorithm (not a matlab command) to enumerate all possible NxM matrices with the constraints of having only positive integers in each cell (or 0) and fixed sums for each row and column (these are the parameters of the algorithm).
Exemple :
Enumerate all 2x3 matrices with row totals 2, 1 and column totals 0, 1, 2:
| 0 0 2 | = 2
| 0 1 0 | = 1
0 1 2
| 0 1 1 | = 2
| 0 0 1 | = 1
0 1 2
This is a rather simple example, but as N and M increase, as well as the sums, there can be a lot of possibilities.
Edit 1
I might have a valid arrangement to start the algorithm:
matrix = new Matrix(N, M) // NxM matrix filled with 0s
FOR i FROM 0 TO matrix.rows().count()
FOR j FROM 0 TO matrix.columns().count()
a = target_row_sum[i] - matrix.rows[i].sum()
b = target_column_sum[j] - matrix.columns[j].sum()
matrix[i, j] = min(a, b)
END FOR
END FOR
target_row_sum[i] being the expected sum on row i.
In the example above it gives the 2nd arrangement.
Edit 2:
(based on j_random_hacker's last statement)
Let M be any matrix verifying the given conditions (row and column sums fixed, positive or null cell values).
Let (a, b, c, d) be 4 cell values in M where (a, b) and (c, d) are on the same row, and (a, c) and (b, d) are on the same column.
Let Xa be the row number of the cell containing a and Ya be its column number.
Example:
| 1 a b |
| 1 2 3 |
| 1 c d |
-> Xa = 0, Ya = 1
-> Xb = 0, Yb = 2
-> Xc = 2, Yc = 1
-> Xd = 2, Yd = 2
Here is an algorithm to get all the combinations verifying the initial conditions and making only a, b, c and d varying:
// A matrix array containing a single element, M
// It will be filled with all possible combinations
matrices = [M]
I = min(a, d)
J = min(b, c)
FOR i FROM 1 TO I
tmp_matrix = M
tmp_matrix[Xa, Ya] = a - i
tmp_matrix[Xb, Yb] = b + i
tmp_matrix[Xc, Yc] = c - i
tmp_matrix[Xd, Yd] = d + i
matrices.add(tmp_matrix)
END FOR
FOR j FROM 1 TO J
tmp_matrix = M
tmp_matrix[Xa, Ya] = a + j
tmp_matrix[Xb, Yb] = b - j
tmp_matrix[Xc, Yc] = c + j
tmp_matrix[Xd, Yd] = d - j
matrices.add(tmp_matrix)
END FOR
It should then be possible to find every possible combination of matrix values:
Apply the algorithm on the first matrix for every possible group of 4 cells ;
Recursively apply the algorithm on each sub-matrix obtained by the previous iteration, for every possible group of 4 cells except any group already used in a parent execution ;
The recursive depth should be (N*(N-1)/2)*(M*(M-1)/2), each execution resulting in ((N*(N-1)/2)*(M*(M-1)/2) - depth)*(I+J+1) sub-matrices. But this creates a LOT of duplicate matrices, so this could probably be optimized.
Are you needing this to calculate Fisher's exact test? Because that requires what you're doing, and based on that page, it seems there will in general be a vast number of solutions, so you probably can't do better than a brute force recursive enumeration if you want every solution. OTOH it seems Monte Carlo approximations are successfully used by some software instead of full-blown enumerations.
I asked a similar question, which might be helpful. Although that question deals with preserving frequencies of letters in each row and column rather than sums, some results can be translated across. E.g. if you find any submatrix (pair of not-necessarily-adjacent rows and pair of not-necessarily-adjacent columns) with numbers
xy
yx
Then you can rearrange these to
yx
xy
without changing any row or column sums. However:
mhum's answer proves that there will in general be valid matrices that cannot be reached by any sequence of such 2x2 swaps. This can be seen by taking his 3x3 matrices and mapping A -> 1, B -> 2, C -> 4 and noticing that, because no element appears more than once in a row or column, frequency preservation in the original matrix is equivalent to sum preservation in the new matrix. However...
someone's answer links to a mathematical proof that it actually will work for matrices whose entries are just 0 or 1.
More generally, if you have any submatrix
ab
cd
where the (not necessarily unique) minimum is d, then you can replace this with any of the d+1 matrices
ef
gh
where h = d-i, g = c+i, f = b+i and e = a-i, for any integer 0 <= i <= d.
For a NXM matrix you have NXM unknowns and N+M equations. Put random numbers to the top-left (N-1)X(M-1) sub-matrix, except for the (N-1, M-1) element. Now, you can find the closed form for the rest of N+M elements trivially.
More details: There are total of T = N*M elements
There are R = (N-1)+(M-1)-1 randomly filled out elements.
Remaining number of unknowns: T-S = N*M - (N-1)*(M-1) +1 = N+M
Is it possible to transpose a (m,n) matrix in-place, giving that the matrix is represented as a single array of size m*n ?
The usual algorithm
transpose(Matrix mat,int rows, int cols ){
//construction step
Matrix tmat;
for(int i=0;i<rows;i++){
for(int j=0;j<cols;j++){
tmat[j][i] = mat[i][j];
}
}
}
doesn't apply to a single array unless the matrix is a square matrix.
If none, what is the minimum amount of additional memory needed??
EDIT:
I have already tried all flavors of
for(int i=0;i<n;++i) {
for(int j=0;j<i;++j) {
var swap = m[i][j];
m[i][j] = m[j][i];
m[j][i] = swap;
}
}
And it is not correct. In this specific example, m doesnt even exist. In a single line
matrix mat[i][j] = mat[i*m + j], where trans[j][i] = trans[i*n + j]
Inspired by the Wikipedia - Following the cycles algorithm description, I came up with following C++ implementation:
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <iterator> // std::ostream_iterator
#include <algorithm> // std::swap (until C++11)
#include <vector>
template<class RandomIterator>
void transpose(RandomIterator first, RandomIterator last, int m)
{
const int mn1 = (last - first - 1);
const int n = (last - first) / m;
std::vector<bool> visited(last - first);
RandomIterator cycle = first;
while (++cycle != last) {
if (visited[cycle - first])
continue;
int a = cycle - first;
do {
a = a == mn1 ? mn1 : (n * a) % mn1;
std::swap(*(first + a), *cycle);
visited[a] = true;
} while ((first + a) != cycle);
}
}
int main()
{
int a[] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 };
transpose(a, a + 8, 4);
std::copy(a, a + 8, std::ostream_iterator<int>(std::cout, " "));
}
The program makes the in-place matrix transposition of the 2 × 4 matrix
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
represented in row-major ordering {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} into the 4 × 2 matrix
0 4
1 5
2 6
3 7
represented by the row-major ordering {0, 4, 1, 5, 2, 6, 3, 7}.
The argument m of transpose represents the rowsize, the columnsize n is determined by the rowsize and the sequence size. The algorithm needs m × n bits of auxiliary storage to store the information, which elements have been swapped. The indexes of the sequence are mapped with the following scheme:
0 → 0
1 → 2
2 → 4
3 → 6
4 → 1
5 → 3
6 → 5
7 → 7
The mapping function in general is:
idx → (idx × n) mod (m × n - 1) if idx < (m × n), idx → idx otherwise
We can identify four cycles within this sequence: { 0 }, { 1, 2, 4 }, {3, 5, 6} and { 7 }. Each cycle can be transposed independent of the other cycles. The variable cycle initially points to the second element (the first does not need to be moved because 0 → 0). The bit-array visited holds the already transposed elements and indicates, that index 1 (the second element) needs to be moved. Index 1 gets swapped with index 2 (mapping function). Now index 1 holds the element of index 2 and this element gets swapped with the element of index 4. Now index 1 holds the element of index 4. The element of index 4 should go to index 1, it is in the right place, transposing of the cycle has finished, all touched indexes have been marked visited. The variable cycle gets incremented till the first not visited index, which is 3. The procedure continues with this cycle till all cycles have been transposed.
The problem is, that the task is set uncorrectly. If you would meant by "the same place" use of the same matrix, it is a correct task. But when you are talking about writing down to the same area in memory, " the matrix is represented as a single array of size m*n", you have to add how is it represented there. Otherwards it is enough to change nothing except the function that reads that matrix - simply swap indexes in it.
You want to transpose the matrix representation in memory so, that the reading/setting function for this matrix by indexes remains the same. Don't you?
Also, we can't write down the algorithm not knowing, is the matrix written in memory by rows or by columns. OK, let's say it is written by rows. Isn't it?
If we set these two lacking conditions, the task becomes correct and is not hard to be solved.
Simply we should take every element in the matrix by linear index, find its row/column pair, transpose it, find another resulting linear index and put the value into the new place. The problem is that the transformation is autosymmetric only in the case of square matrices, so it really could not be done in site. Or it could, if we find the whole index transformation map and later use it on matrix.
Starting matrix A:
m- number of rows
n- number of columns
nm - number of elements
li - linear index
i - column number
j - row number
resulting matrix B:
lir - resulting linear index
Transforming array trans
//preparation
for (li=0;li<nm;li++){
j=li / n;
i=li-j*n;
lir=i*m+j;
trans[li]=lir;
}
// transposition
for (li=0;li<nm;li++){
cur=li;
lir=trans[cur];
temp2=a[lir];
cur=lir;
while (cur!=li){
lir=trans[cur];
temp1=a[cur];
a[cur]=temp2;
temp2=temp1;
check[cur]=1;
cur=lir;
}
}
Such auto transposing has sense only if there are heavy elements in cells.
It is possible to realize trans[] array as a function.
Doing this efficiently in the general case requires some effort. The non-square and in- versus out-of-place algorithms differ. Save yourself much effort and just use FFTW. I previously prepared a more complete write up, including sample code, on the matter.
I have two arrays containing the same elements, but in different orders, and I want to know the extent to which their orders differ.
The method I tried, didn't work. it was as follows:
For each list I built a matrix which recorded for each pair of elements whether they were above or below each other in the list. I then calculated a pearson correlation coefficient of these two matrices. This worked extremely badly. Here's a trivial example:
list 1:
1
2
3
4
list 2:
1
3
2
4
The method I described above produced matrices like this (where 1 means the row number is higher than the column, and 0 vice-versa):
list 1:
1 2 3 4
1 1 1 1
2 1 1
3 1
4
list 2:
1 2 3 4
1 1 1 1
2 0 1
3 1
4
Since the only difference is the order of elements 2 and 3, these should be deemed to be very similar. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient for those two matrices is 0, suggesting they are not correlated at all. I guess the problem is that what I'm looking for is not really a correlation coefficient, but some other kind of similarity measure. Edit distance, perhaps?
Can anyone suggest anything better?
Mean square of differences of indices of each element.
List 1: A B C D E
List 2: A D C B E
Indices of each element of List 1 in List 2 (zero based)
A B C D E
0 3 2 1 4
Indices of each element of List 1 in List 1 (zero based)
A B C D E
0 1 2 3 4
Differences:
A B C D E
0 -2 0 2 0
Square of differences:
A B C D E
4 4
Average differentness = 8 / 5.
Just an idea, but is there any mileage in adapting a standard sort algorithm to count the number of swap operations needed to transform list1 into list2?
I think that defining the compare function may be difficult though (perhaps even just as difficult as the original problem!), and this may be inefficient.
edit: thinking about this a bit more, the compare function would essentially be defined by the target list itself. So for example if list 2 is:
1 4 6 5 3
...then the compare function should result in 1 < 4 < 6 < 5 < 3 (and return equality where entries are equal).
Then the swap function just needs to be extended to count the swap operations.
A bit late for the party here, but just for the record, I think Ben almost had it... if you'd looked further into correlation coefficients, I think you'd have found that Spearman's rank correlation coefficient might have been the way to go.
Interestingly, jamesh seems to have derived a similar measure, but not normalized.
See this recent SO answer.
You might consider how many changes it takes to transform one string into another (which I guess it was you were getting at when you mentioned edit distance).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance
Although I don't think l-distance takes into account rotation. If you allow rotation as an operation then:
1, 2, 3, 4
and
2, 3, 4, 1
Are pretty similar.
There is a branch-and-bound algorithm that should work for any set of operators you like. It may not be real fast. The pseudocode goes something like this:
bool bounded_recursive_compare_routine(int* a, int* b, int level, int bound){
if (level > bound) return false;
// if at end of a and b, return true
// apply rule 0, like no-change
if (*a == *b){
bounded_recursive_compare_routine(a+1, b+1, level+0, bound);
// if it returns true, return true;
}
// if can apply rule 1, like rotation, to b, try that and recur
bounded_recursive_compare_routine(a+1, b+1, level+cost_of_rotation, bound);
// if it returns true, return true;
...
return false;
}
int get_minimum_cost(int* a, int* b){
int bound;
for (bound=0; ; bound++){
if (bounded_recursive_compare_routine(a, b, 0, bound)) break;
}
return bound;
}
The time it takes is roughly exponential in the answer, because it is dominated by the last bound that works.
Added: This can be extended to find the nearest-matching string stored in a trie. I did that years ago in a spelling-correction algorithm.
I'm not sure exactly what formula it uses under the hood, but difflib.SequenceMatcher.ratio() does exactly this:
ratio(self) method of difflib.SequenceMatcher instance:
Return a measure of the sequences' similarity (float in [0,1]).
Code example:
from difflib import SequenceMatcher
sm = SequenceMatcher(None, '1234', '1324')
print sm.ratio()
>>> 0.75
Another approach that is based on a little bit of mathematics is to count the number of inversions to convert one of the arrays into the other one. An inversion is the exchange of two neighboring array elements. In ruby it is done like this:
# extend class array by new method
class Array
def dist(other)
raise 'can calculate distance only to array with same length' if length != other.length
# initialize count of inversions to 0
count = 0
# loop over all pairs of indices i, j with i<j
length.times do |i|
(i+1).upto(length) do |j|
# increase count if i-th and j-th element have different order
count += 1 if (self[i] <=> self[j]) != (other[i] <=> other[j])
end
end
return count
end
end
l1 = [1, 2, 3, 4]
l2 = [1, 3, 2, 4]
# try an example (prints 1)
puts l1.dist(l2)
The distance between two arrays of length n can be between 0 (they are the same) and n*(n+1)/2 (reversing the first array one gets the second). If you prefer to have distances always between 0 and 1 to be able to compare distances of pairs of arrays of different length, just divide by n*(n+1)/2.
A disadvantage of this algorithms is it running time of n^2. It also assumes that the arrays don't have double entries, but it could be adapted.
A remark about the code line "count += 1 if ...": the count is increased only if either the i-th element of the first list is smaller than its j-th element and the i-th element of the second list is bigger than its j-th element or vice versa (meaning that the i-th element of the first list is bigger than its j-th element and the i-th element of the second list is smaller than its j-th element). In short: (l1[i] < l1[j] and l2[i] > l2[j]) or (l1[i] > l1[j] and l2[i] < l2[j])
If one has two orders one should look at two important ranking correlation coefficients:
Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_rank_correlation_coefficient
This is almost the same as Jamesh answer but scaled in the range -1 to 1.
It is defined as:
1 - ( 6 * sum_of_squared_distances ) / ( n_samples * (n_samples**2 - 1 )
Kendalls tau: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendalls_tau
When using python one could use:
from scipy import stats
order1 = [ 1, 2, 3, 4]
order2 = [ 1, 3, 2, 4]
print stats.spearmanr(order1, order2)[0]
>> 0.8000
print stats.kendalltau(order1, order2)[0]
>> 0.6667
if anyone is using R language, I've implemented a function that computes the "spearman rank correlation coefficient" using the method described above by #bubake here:
get_spearman_coef <- function(objectA, objectB) {
#getting the spearman rho rank test
spearman_data <- data.frame(listA = objectA, listB = objectB)
spearman_data$rankA <- 1:nrow(spearman_data)
rankB <- c()
for (index_valueA in 1:nrow(spearman_data)) {
for (index_valueB in 1:nrow(spearman_data)) {
if (spearman_data$listA[index_valueA] == spearman_data$listB[index_valueB]) {
rankB <- append(rankB, index_valueB)
}
}
}
spearman_data$rankB <- rankB
spearman_data$distance <-(spearman_data$rankA - spearman_data$rankB)**2
spearman <- 1 - ( (6 * sum(spearman_data$distance)) / (nrow(spearman_data) * ( nrow(spearman_data)**2 -1) ) )
print(paste("spearman's rank correlation coefficient"))
return( spearman)
}
results :
get_spearman_coef(c("a","b","c","d","e"), c("a","b","c","d","e"))
spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 1
get_spearman_coef(c("a","b","c","d","e"), c("b","a","d","c","e"))
spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.9