I want to make a program that will give me 4 random numbers in the range 1 - 20 without any of them being the same. It does give me 4 different random numbers but every couple of tries 2 numbers are the same. I don't want that.
Here's my code:
int main(){
int g;
srand(time(0));
start:;
scanf("%d",&g);
switch(g){
case 1:RNG_4_10();
break;
default:exit(0);
break;
}
goto start;
}
int RNG_4_10(){
int a,n,i,c;
for(c=0;c<10;c++){
printf("\n");
for(i=0;i<4;i++){
a = (rand() % 20 + 1); //give a random value to a;
n = a; //assign n the value of a;
while(a == n){
a = rand() % 20 + 1;
}
printf("%d\t",a);
}
}
}
Also, I know that RNG's have a probability of repeating numbers and in theory they could generate the same number for infinity, but what I don't get is how can I have 2 similar numbers on the same run. I added that while to avoid that. Is this code wrong or my understanding is awful?
Most random number generators will have a probability of repeating values. If they didn't their behaviour would be less random by various measures.
If you want four random values in the range 1-20, then create an array of 20 elements with all those values, and shuffle it with the help of your random number generator. Then pick the first four values.
A common technique to shuffle is (in pseudocode)
/* shuffle an array of n elements */
for (i = n-1; i > 0; --i)
{
swap(array[i], array[gen(n)]); /* zero-based array indexing */
}
where gen(n) returns a suitably random value with values between 0 and n-1, possibly with repetition.
Related
Chef has N axis-parallel rectangles in a 2D Cartesian coordinate system. These rectangles may intersect, but it is guaranteed that all their 4N vertices are pairwise distinct.
Unfortunately, Chef lost one vertex, and up until now, none of his fixes have worked (although putting an image of a point on a milk carton might not have been the greatest idea after all…). Therefore, he gave you the task of finding it! You are given the remaining 4N−1 points and you should find the missing one.
Input
The first line of the input contains a single integer T denoting the number of test cases. The description of T test cases follows.
The first line of each test case contains a single integer N.
Then, 4N−1 lines follow. Each of these lines contains two space-separated integers x and y denoting a vertex (x,y) of some rectangle.
Output
For each test case, print a single line containing two space-separated integers X and Y ― the coordinates of the missing point. It can be proved that the missing point can be determined uniquely.
Constraints
T≤100
1≤N≤2⋅105
|x|,|y|≤109
the sum of N over all test cases does not exceed 2⋅105
Example Input
1
2
1 1
1 2
4 6
2 1
9 6
9 3
4 3
Example Output
2 2
Problem link: https://www.codechef.com/problems/PTMSSNG
my approach: I have created a frequency array for x and y coordinates and then calculated the point which is coming odd no. of times.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
// your code goes here
int t;
cin>>t;
while(t--)
{
long int n;
cin>>n;
long long int a[4*n-1][2];
long long int xm,ym,x,y;
for(int i=0;i<4*n-1;i++)
{
cin>>a[i][0]>>a[i][1];
if(i==0)
{
xm=abs(a[i][0]);
ym=abs(a[i][1]);
}
if(i>0)
{
if(abs(a[i][0])>xm)
{
xm=abs(a[i][0]);
}
if(abs(a[i][1])>ym)
{
ym=abs(a[i][1]);
}
}
}
long long int frqx[xm+1],frqy[ym+1];
for(long long int i=0;i<xm+1;i++)
{
frqx[i]=0;
}
for(long long int j=0;j<ym+1;j++)
{
frqy[j]=0;
}
for(long long int i=0;i<4*n-1;i++)
{
frqx[a[i][0]]+=1;
frqy[a[i][1]]+=1;
}
for(long long int i=0;i<xm+1;i++)
{
if(frqx[i]>0 && frqx[i]%2>0)
{
x=i;
break;
}
}
for(long long int j=0;j<ym+1;j++)
{
if(frqy[j]>0 && frqy[j]%2>0)
{
y=j;
break;
}
}
cout<<x<<" "<<y<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
My code is showing TLE for inputs <10^6
First of all, your solution is not handling negative x/y correctly. long long int frqx[xm+1],frqy[ym+1] allocated barely enough memory to hold positive values, but not enough to hold negative ones.
It doesn't even matter though, as with the guarantee that abs(x) <= 109, you can just statically allocate a vector of 219 elements, and map both positive and negative coordinates in there.
Second, you are not supposed to buffer the input in a. Not only is this going to overflow the stack, is also entirely unnecessary. Write to the frequency buckets right away, don't buffer.
Same goes for most of these challenges. Don't buffer, always try to process the input directly.
About your buckets, you don't need a long long int. A bool per bucket is enough. You do not care even the least how many coordinates were sorted into the bucket, only whether the number so far was even or not. What you implemented as a separate loop can be substituted by simply toggling a flag while processing the input.
I find the answer of #Ext3h with respect to the errors adequate.
The solution, giving that you came on the odd/even quality of the problem,
can be done more straight-forward.
You need to find the x and y that appear an odd number of times.
In java
int[] missingPoint(int[][] a) {
//int n = (a.length + 1) / 4;
int[] pt = new int[2]; // In C initialize with 0.
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < 2; ++j) {
pt[j] ^= a[i][j];
}
}
return pt;
}
This uses exclusive-or ^ which is associative and reflexive 0^x=x, x^x=0. (5^7^4^7^5=4.)
For these "search the odd one" one can use this xor-ing.
In effect you do not need to keep the input in an array.
Suppose you're given a int randBit() function which returns, uniformly distributed, 0 or 1.
Write a randNumber(int max) function.
This is my implementation, but I can't prove/disprove that it's right.
// max number of bits
int i = (int)Math.floor(Math.log(max) / Math.log(2)) + 1;
int ret = randBit();
while (i-- > 0) {
ret = ret << 1 | randBit();
}
return ret;
The basic idea I had is that
find the number of bits present in the number
then generate the number by continuously concatenating the LSB until the bitlength is met
The approach to fill an int with random bits is the right way in my opinion. However, since your algorithm only works when max is power of 2 and is off by one in the loop, I'd suggest this modification:
// max number of bits
int i = (int)Math.floor(Math.log(max) / Math.log(2)) + 1;
int rnd = 0;
int mask = 1;
while (i-- > 0) {
rnd = rnd << 1 | randBit();
mask <<= 1; // or: mask *= 2
}
double q = (double)rnd / mask; // range is [0, 1)
return (int)((max + 1) * q);
Let's take a look at this:
i will always be equal to the number of bits that max occupies. When the loop is finished, rnd will contain that number of bits filled randomly with 0 or 1, and mask-1 will contain that number of bits filled with 1s. So it's safe to assume that the quotient of rnd and mask-1 is uniformly distributed between 0 and 1. This multiplied with max would wield results in the range between 0 and max, also uniformly distributed, in terms of floating/real values.
Now this result has to be mapped to integers, and of course you'd want them also to be uniformly distributed. The only catch here is the 1. If the quotient of rnd and mask-1 is exactly 1, there'd be an edge case that would cause trouble when scaling to the desired result range: There would be 0 .. max-1 values uniformly distributed, but max would be a rare exception.
To take care of this condition the quotient has to be built such that it ranges from 0 to 1, but with 1 exclusive. This is achieved by rnd / mask. This range can be easily mapped to uniformly-spreaded integers 0 .. max by multiplying with max+1 and casting to int.
Looking for an efficient algorithm to match sets among a group of sets, ordered by the most overlapping members. 2 identical sets for example are the best match, while no overlapping members are the worst.
So, the algorithm takes input a list of sets and returns matching set pairs ordered by the sets with the most overlapping members.
Would be interested in ideas to do this efficiently. Brute force approach is to try all combinations and sort which obviously is not very performant when the number of sets is very large.
Edit: Use case - Assume a large number of sets already exist. When a new set arrives, the algorithm is run and the output includes matching sets (with at least one element overlap) sorted by the most matching to least (doesn't matter how many items are in the new/incoming set). Hope that clarifies my question.
If you can afford an approximation algorithm with a chance of error, then you should probably consider MinHash.
This algorithm allows estimating the similarity between 2 sets in constant time. For any constructed set, a fixed size signature is computed, and then only the signatures are compared when estimating the similarities. The similarity measure being used is Jaccard distance, which ranges from 0 (disjoint sets) to 1 (identical sets). It is defined as the intersection to union ratio of two given sets.
With this approach, any new set has to be compared against all existing ones (in linear time), and then the results can be merged into the top list (you can use a bounded search tree/heap for this purpose).
Since the number of possible different values is not very large, you get a fairly efficient hashing if you simply set the nth bit in a "large integer" when the nth number is present in your set. You can then look for overlap between sets with a simple bitwise AND followed by a "count set bits" operation. On 64 bit architecture, that means that you can look for the similarity between two numbers (out of 1000 possible values) in about 16 cycles, regardless of the number of values in each cluster. As the cluster gets more sparse, this becomes a less efficient algorithm.
Still - I implemented some of the basic functions you might need in some code that I attach here - not documented but reasonably understandable, I think. In this example I made the numbers small so I can check the result by hand - you might want to change some of the #defines to get larger ranges of values, and obviously you will want some dynamic lists etc to keep up with the growing catalog.
#include <stdio.h>
// biggest number you will come across: want this to be much bigger
#define MAXINT 25
// use the biggest type you have - not int
#define BITSPER (8*sizeof(int))
#define NWORDS (MAXINT/BITSPER + 1)
// max number in a cluster
#define CSIZE 5
typedef struct{
unsigned int num[NWORDS]; // want to use longest type but not for demo
int newmatch;
int rank;
} hmap;
// convert number to binary sequence:
void hashIt(int* t, int n, hmap* h) {
int ii;
for(ii=0;ii<n;ii++) {
int a, b;
a = t[ii]%BITSPER;
b = t[ii]/BITSPER;
h->num[b]|=1<<a;
}
}
// print binary number:
void printBinary(int n) {
unsigned int jj;
jj = 1<<31;
while(jj!=0) {
printf("%c",((n&jj)!=0)?'1':'0');
jj>>=1;
}
printf(" ");
}
// print the array of binary numbers:
void printHash(hmap* h) {
unsigned int ii, jj;
for(ii=0; ii<NWORDS; ii++) {
jj = 1<<31;
printf("0x%08x: ", h->num[ii]);
printBinary(h->num[ii]);
}
//printf("\n");
}
// find the maximum overlap for set m of n
int maxOverlap(hmap* h, int m, int n) {
int ii, jj;
int overlap, maxOverlap = -1;
for(ii = 0; ii<n; ii++) {
if(ii == m) continue; // don't compare with yourself
else {
overlap = 0;
for(jj = 0; jj< NWORDS; jj++) {
// just to see what's going on: take these print statements out
printBinary(h->num[ii]);
printBinary(h->num[m]);
int bc = countBits(h->num[ii] & h->num[m]);
printBinary(h->num[ii] & h->num[m]);
printf("%d bits overlap\n", bc);
overlap += bc;
}
if(overlap > maxOverlap) maxOverlap = overlap;
}
}
return maxOverlap;
}
int countBits (unsigned int b) {
int count;
for (count = 0; b != 0; count++) {
b &= b - 1; // this clears the LSB-most set bit
}
return count;
}
int main(void) {
int cluster[20][CSIZE];
int temp[CSIZE];
int ii,jj;
static hmap H[20]; // make them all 0 initially
for(jj=0; jj<20; jj++){
for(ii=0; ii<CSIZE; ii++) {
temp[ii] = rand()%MAXINT;
}
hashIt(temp, CSIZE, &H[jj]);
}
for(ii=0;ii<20;ii++) {
printHash(&H[ii]);
printf("max overlap: %d\n", maxOverlap(H, ii, 20));
}
}
See if this helps at all...
There is an array (greater than 1000 elements space) with 1000 large numbers (can be 64 bit numbers as well). The numbers in the array may not be necessarily sorted.
We have to generate a unique number at 1001th position that is different from the previous 1000.
Justify the approach used is the best.
My answer (don't know to what extent this was correct):
Sort the numbers, and start from the 0 position. The number that is at 1000th position + 1 is the required number.
Better suggestions for this?
Create an auxiliary array of 1001 elements. Set all these to 1 (or true or Y or whatever you choose). Run through the main array, if you find a number in the range 1..1000 then 0 out (or falsify some other how) the corresponding element in the auxiliary array. At the end the first element in the auxiliary array which is not 0 (or false) corresponds to a number which is not in the main array.
This is simple, and, I think, O(n) in time complexity, where n is the number of elements in the main array.
unsigned ii,slot;
unsigned array [ NNN ];
/* allocate a histogram */
#define XXX (NNN+1);
unsigned histogram [XXX];
memset(histogram, 0, sizeof histogram);
for (ii=0; ii < NNN; ii++) {
slot = array [ii ] % XXX;
histogram[slot] += 1;
}
for (slot=0; slot < NNN; slot++) {
if ( !histogram[slot]) break;
}
/* Now, slot + k * XXX will be a
** number that does not occur in the original array */
Note: this is similar to High performance Mark, but at least I typed in the code ...
If you sort your array, you have three possibilities for a unique number:
array[999]+1, if array[999] is not equal to INT_MAX
array[0]-1, if array[0] is not equal to INT_MIN
a number between array[i] and array[i+1], if array[i+1]-array[i]>1 (0<=i<=998). Notice that if the two previous tries have failed, then it is guaranteed that there is a number between two elements in your array.
Notice that this solution will also work for the 1002th, 1003th, and so on.
An attempt at a clumsy c# implementation
public class Test
{
public List<int> Sequence { get; set; }
public void GenerateFirstSequence()
{
Sequence = new List<int>();
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
var x = new Random().Next(0, int.MaxValue);
while (Sequence.Contains(x))
{
x = new Random().Next(0, int.MaxValue);
}
Sequence.Add(x);
}
}
public int GetNumberNotInSequence()
{
var number = Sequence.OrderBy(x => x).Max();
var mustRedefine = number == int.MaxValue && Sequence.Contains(number);
if (mustRedefine)
{
while (Sequence.Contains(number))
{
number = number - 1;
if (!Sequence.Contains(number))
return number;
}
}
return number + 1;
}
}
I have some thoughts on this problem:
You could create a hash table H, which contain 1000 elements. Suppose your array named A, and for each element, we have the reminder by 1000: m[i] = A[i] % 1000.
If there is a conflict between A[i] and A[j], that A[i] % 1000 = A[j] % 1000. That is to say, there must exist an index k, that no element's reminder by 1000 equals to k, then k is the number you are going to get.
If there is no conflict at all, just pick H[1] + 1000 as your result.
The complexity of this algorithm is O(l), in which l indicates the original list size, in the example, l = 1000
I need help solving problem N from this earlier competition:
Problem N: Digit Sums
Given 3 positive integers A, B and C,
find how many positive integers less
than or equal to A, when expressed in
base B, have digits which sum to C.
Input will consist of a series of
lines, each containing three integers,
A, B and C, 2 ≤ B ≤ 100, 1 ≤ A, C ≤
1,000,000,000. The numbers A, B and C
are given in base 10 and are separated
by one or more blanks. The input is
terminated by a line containing three
zeros.
Output will be the number of numbers,
for each input line (it must be given
in base 10).
Sample input
100 10 9
100 10 1
750000 2 2
1000000000 10 40
100000000 100 200
0 0 0
Sample output
10
3
189
45433800
666303
The relevant rules:
Read all input from the keyboard, i.e. use stdin, System.in, cin or equivalent. Input will be redirected from a file to form the input to your submission.
Write all output to the screen, i.e. use stdout, System.out, cout or equivalent. Do not write to stderr. Do NOT use, or even include, any module that allows direct manipulation of the screen, such as conio, Crt or anything similar. Output from your program is redirected to a file for later checking. Use of direct I/O means that such output is not redirected and hence cannot be checked. This could mean that a correct program is rejected!
Unless otherwise stated, all integers in the input will fit into a standard 32-bit computer word. Adjacent integers on a line will be separated by one or more spaces.
Of course, it's fair to say that I should learn more before trying to solve this, but i'd really appreciate it if someone here told me how it's done.
Thanks in advance, John.
Other people pointed out trivial solution: iterate over all numbers from 1 to A. But this problem, actually, can be solved in nearly constant time: O(length of A), which is O(log(A)).
Code provided is for base 10. Adapting it for arbitrary base is trivial.
To reach above estimate for time, you need to add memorization to recursion. Let me know if you have questions about that part.
Now, recursive function itself. Written in Java, but everything should work in C#/C++ without any changes. It's big, but mostly because of comments where I try to clarify algorithm.
// returns amount of numbers strictly less than 'num' with sum of digits 'sum'
// pay attention to word 'strictly'
int count(int num, int sum) {
// no numbers with negative sum of digits
if (sum < 0) {
return 0;
}
int result = 0;
// imagine, 'num' == 1234
// let's check numbers 1233, 1232, 1231, 1230 manually
while (num % 10 > 0) {
--num;
// check if current number is good
if (sumOfDigits(num) == sum) {
// one more result
++result;
}
}
if (num == 0) {
// zero reached, no more numbers to check
return result;
}
num /= 10;
// Using example above (1234), now we're left with numbers
// strictly less than 1230 to check (1..1229)
// It means, any number less than 123 with arbitrary digit appended to the right
// E.g., if this digit in the right (last digit) is 3,
// then sum of the other digits must be "sum - 3"
// and we need to add to result 'count(123, sum - 3)'
// let's iterate over all possible values of last digit
for (int digit = 0; digit < 10; ++digit) {
result += count(num, sum - digit);
}
return result;
}
Helper function
// returns sum of digits, plain and simple
int sumOfDigits(int x) {
int result = 0;
while (x > 0) {
result += x % 10;
x /= 10;
}
return result;
}
Now, let's write a little tester
int A = 12345;
int C = 13;
// recursive solution
System.out.println(count(A + 1, C));
// brute-force solution
int total = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= A; ++i) {
if (sumOfDigits(i) == C) {
++total;
}
}
System.out.println(total);
You can write more comprehensive tester checking all values of A, but overall solution seems to be correct. (I tried several random A's and C's.)
Don't forget, you can't test solution for A == 1000000000 without memorization: it'll run too long. But with memorization, you can test it even for A == 10^1000.
edit
Just to prove a concept, poor man's memorization. (in Java, in other languages hashtables are declared differently) But if you want to learn something, it might be better to try to do it yourself.
// hold values here
private Map<String, Integer> mem;
int count(int num, int sum) {
// no numbers with negative sum of digits
if (sum < 0) {
return 0;
}
String key = num + " " + sum;
if (mem.containsKey(key)) {
return mem.get(key);
}
// ...
// continue as above...
// ...
mem.put(key, result);
return result;
}
Here's the same memoized recursive solution that Rybak posted, but with a simpler implementation, in my humble opinion:
HashMap<String, Integer> cache = new HashMap<String, Integer>();
int count(int bound, int base, int sum) {
// No negative digit sums.
if (sum < 0)
return 0;
// Handle one digit case.
if (bound < base)
return (sum <= bound) ? 1 : 0;
String key = bound + " " + sum;
if (cache.containsKey(key))
return cache.get(key);
int count = 0;
for (int digit = 0; digit < base; digit++)
count += count((bound - digit) / base, base, sum - digit);
cache.put(key, count);
return count;
}
This is not the complete solution (no input parsing). To get the number in base B, repeatedly take the modulo B, and then divide by B until the result is 0. This effectively computes the base-B digit from the right, and then shifts the number right.
int A,B,C; // from input
for (int x=1; x<A; x++)
{
int sumDigits = 0;
int v = x;
while (v!=0) {
sumDigits += (v % B);
v /= B;
}
if (sumDigits==C)
cout << x;
}
This is a brute force approach. It may be possible to compute this quicker by determining which sets of base B digits add up to C, arranging these in all permutations that are less than A, and then working backwards from that to create the original number.
Yum.
Try this:
int number, digitSum, resultCounter = 0;
for(int i=1; i<=A, i++)
{
number = i; //to avoid screwing up our counter
digitSum = 0;
while(number > 1)
{
//this is the next "digit" of the number as it would be in base B;
//works with any base including 10.
digitSum += (number % B);
//remove this digit from the number, square the base, rinse, repeat
number /= B;
}
digitSum += number;
//Does the sum match?
if(digitSum == C)
resultCounter++;
}
That's your basic algorithm for one line. Now you wrap this in another For loop for each input line you received, preceded by the input collection phase itself. This process can be simplified, but I don't feel like coding your entire answer to see if my algorithm works, and this looks right whereas the simpler tricks are harder to pass by inspection.
The way this works is by modulo dividing by powers of the base. Simple example, 1234 in base 10:
1234 % 10 = 4
1234 / 10 = 123 //integer division truncates any fraction
123 % 10 = 3 //sum is 7
123 / 10 = 12
12 % 10 = 2 //sum is 9
12 / 10 = 1 //end condition, add this and the sum is 10
A harder example to figure out by inspection would be the same number in base 12:
1234 % 12 = 10 //you can call it "A" like in hex, but we need a sum anyway
1234 / 12 = 102
102 % 12 = 6 // sum 16
102/12 = 8
8 % 12 = 8 //sum 24
8 / 12 = 0 //end condition, sum still 24.
So 1234 in base 12 would be written 86A. Check the math:
8*12^2 + 6*12 + 10 = 1152 + 72 + 10 = 1234
Have fun wrapping the rest of the code around this.