Related
I need to DRY this code but I don't know how.
I tried to dry the if condition but I don't know how to put the while in this.
def sum_with_while(min, max)
# CONSTRAINT: you should use a while..end structure
array = (min..max).to_a
sum = 0
count = 0
if min > max
return -1
else
while count < array.length
sum += array[count]
count += 1
end
end
return sum
end
Welcome to stack overflow!
Firstly, I should point out that "DRY" stands for "Don't Repeat Yourself". Since there's no repetition here, that's not really the problem with this code.
The biggest issue here is it's unrubyish. The ruby community has certain things it approves of, and certain things it avoids. That said, while loops are themselves considered bad ruby, so if you've been told to write it with a while loop, I'm guessing you're trying to get us to do your homework for you.
So I'm going to give you a couple of things to do a web search for that will help start you off:
ruby guard clauses - this will reduce your if-else-end into a simple if
ruby array pop - you can do while item = array.pop - since pop returns nil once the array is empty, you don't need a count. Again, bad ruby to do this... but maybe consider while array.any?
ruby implicit method return - generally we avoid commands we don't need
It's worth noting that using the techniques above, you can get the content of the method down to 7 reasonably readable lines. If you're allowed to use .inject or .sum instead of while, this whole method becomes 2 lines.
(as HP_hovercraft points out, the ternary operator reduces this down to 1 line. On production code, I'd be tempted to leave it as 2 lines for readability - but that's just personal preference)
You can put the whole thing in one line with a ternary:
def sum_with_while(min, max)
min > max ? -1 : [*(min..max)].inject(0){|sum,x| sum + x }
end
This is one option, cleaning up your code, see comments:
def sum_with_while(range) # pass a range
array = range.to_a
sum, count = 0, 0 # parallel assignment
while count < array.length
sum += array[count]
count += 1
end
sum # no need to return
end
sum_with_while(10..20)
#=> 165
More Rubyish:
(min..max).sum
Rule 1: Choose the right algorithm.
You wish to compute an arithmetic series.1
def sum_with_while(min, max)
max >= min ? (max-min+1)*(min+max)/2 : -1
end
sum_with_while(4, 4)
#=> 4
sum_with_while(4, 6)
#=> 15
sum_with_while(101, 9999999999999)
#=> 49999999999994999999994950
1. An arithmetic series is the sum of the elements of an arithmetic sequence. Each term of the latter is computed from the previous one by adding a fixed constant n (possibly negative). Heremax-min+1 is the number of terms in the sequence and (min+max)/2, if (min+max) is even, is the average of the values in the sequence. As (max-min+1)*(min+max) is even, this works when (min+max) is odd as well.
I am trying to multiply any number of unknown arguments together to make a total.
def multiply(*num)
num.each { |i| puts num * num}
end
multiply(2,3,4)
multiply(2,3,4,5,6,7)
Another attempt:
def multiply(num)
num.to_i
i = 0
while i < num.length
total = num * num
return total
end
end
multiply(2,3,4)
multiply(2,3,4,5,6,7)
I keep running into errors:
(eval):73: undefined local variable or method `num_' for main:Object (NameError)
from (eval):81
Some saying that Array needs to be Integer.
I've tried doing something I thought was suppose to be very simple program to write.
def multiply(*num) captures all arguments given to the method in an array. If you run multiply(1, 2, 3, 4) then num will equal [1, 2, 3, 4]. So in both your attempts you're trying to multiply a whole array with itself (num * num), which is not going to work.
Others have suggested solutions to how to write the multiply method correctly, but let me give you a correct version of your first attempt and explain it properly:
def multiply(*numbers)
result = 1
numbers.each { |n| result = result * n }
result
end
As in your attempt I capture all arguments in an array, I call mine numbers. Then I declare a variable that will hold the result of all the multiplications. Giving it the value of 1 is convenient because it will not affect the multiplications, but I could also have shifted off the first value off of the numbers array, and there are other solutions.
Then I iterate over all the numbers with each, and for each number I multiply it with the current result and store this as the new result (I could have written this shorter with result *= n).
Finally I return the result (the last value of a method is what will be returned by the method).
There are shorter ways of doing the same thing, others have suggested using numbers.reduce { |n, result| n * result }, or even numbers.reduce(:*), but even though they are shorter, they are pretty cryptic and I assume they don't really help you get things working.
What you want is the #inject method
def multiple(*nums)
nums.inject(:*)
end
Inject will combine all of the elements in nums, using the operation specified ( * in this case ).
You can try this:
num.reduce(1) {|x, y| x*y }
So I really like this syntax in Lisp:
(+ 1 1 2 3 5 8 13)
=> 33
I want to add a list of items in Ruby and would like to approximate this as best as possible.
Right now, my best solution involves an array and the collect/map method.
So:
sum = 0; [1,1,2,3,5,8,13].collect { |n| sum += n }
BUT...
I would like to add methods to this which could return nil.
sum = 0; [1, booking_fee, 8,13].collect { |n| n = 0 if n.nil?; sum += n }
And it would be really nice to do this, where all of the lines in the middle refer to methods that may return nil, but I can't exactly build an array in this manner. This is just an idea of what I want my syntax to look like.
def total
Array.new do
booking_fee
rental_charges
internationalization_charges
discounts
wild_nights
end.collect { |n| n = 0 if n.nil?; sum += n }
end
Any suggestions before I try to hack away and effectuate Greenspun's Rule? (Programming is indeed a compulsion.
I really don't understand your question. If you want a method that works like + does in Lisp, i.e. takes an arbitrary number of arguments and is in prefix position rather than infix, that's trivial:
def plus(*nums)
nums.inject(:+)
end
plus 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 # => 33
If you want to get really fancy, you could override the unary prefix + operator for Arrays:
class Array
def +#
inject(:+)
end
end
+[1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13] # => 33
Please don't do that!
I don't see how the rest of your question is related in any way to a Lisp-style addition operation.
If you want to remove nils from an Array, there's Array#compact for that.
There is already a method inject for doing what you want.
Changing nil to a number without affecting a number is easy: use to_i (or to_f if you are dealing with float).
.
[
booking_fee,
rental_charges,
internationalization_charges,
discounts,
wild_nights,
].inject(0){|sum, item| sum + item.to_i}
I am trying to create a program that will test whether a value is prime, but I don't know how. This is my code:
class DetermineIfPrime
def initialize (nth_value)
#nth_value = nth_value
primetest
end
def primetest
if Prime.prime?(#nth_value)
puts ("#{#nth_value} is prime")
else
puts ("This is not a prime number.")
end
rescue Exception
puts ("#{$!.class}")
puts ("#{$!}")
end
end
And every time I run that it returns this.
NameError
uninitialized constant DetermineIfPrime::Prime
I tried other ways to do the job, but I think this is the closest I can get.
I also tried this:
class DetermineIfPrime
def initialize (nth_value)
#nth_value = nth_value
primetest
end
def primetest
for test_value in [2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13] do
if (#nth_value % test_value) == 0
puts ("#{#nth_value} is not divisible by #{test_value}")
else
puts ("This is not a prime number since this is divisible by #{test_value}")
break
end
end
end
end
Or am I just doing something wrong?
Ruby has built in method to check if number is prime or not.
require 'prime'
Prime.prime?(2) #=> true
Prime.prime?(4) #=> false
def is_prime?(num)
return false if num <= 1
Math.sqrt(num).to_i.downto(2).each {|i| return false if num % i == 0}
true
end
First, we check for 0 and 1, as they're not prime. Then we basically just check every number less than num to see if it divides. However, as explained here, for every factor greater than the square root of num, there's one that's less, so we only look between 2 and the square root.
Update
def is_prime?(num)
return if num <= 1
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).none? { |i| (num % i).zero? }
end
The error you are getting is because you haven't required Primein your code, You need to do require Prime in your file.
One cool way I found here, to check whether a number is prime or not is following:
class Fixnum
def prime?
('1' * self) !~ /^1?$|^(11+?)\1+$/
end
end
10.prime?
From an algorithmic standpoint, checking if a number is prime can be done by checking all numbers up to and including (rounding down to previous integer) said number's square root.
For example, checking if 100 is prime involves checking everything up to 10.
Checking 99 means only going to 9.
** Another way to think about it **
Each factor has a pair (3 is a factor of 36, and 3's pair is 12).
The pair is on the other side of the square root (square root of 6 is 36, 3 < 6, 12 > 6).
So by checking everything until the square root (and not going over) ensures you check all possible factors.
You can make it quicker by having a list of prime numbers to compare, as you are doing. If you have a maximum limit that's reasonably small, you could just have a list of primes and do a direct lookup to see if that number is prime.
def is_prime?(num)
Math.sqrt(num).floor.downto(2).each {|i| return false if num % i == 0}
true
end
lol sorry for resurrecting a super old questions, but it's the first one that came up in google.
Basically, it loops through possible divisors, using the square root as the max number to check to save time on very large numbers.
In response to your question, while you can approach the problem by using Ruby's Prime I am going to write code to answer it on its own.
Consider that all you need to do is determine a factor that is smaller than the integer's square root. Any number larger than the integer's square root as a factor requires a second factor to render the number as the product. (e.g. square root of 15 is approx 3.8 so if you find 5 as a factor it is only a factor with the factor pair 3 and 5!!)
def isPrime?(num)
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).each { |i| return false if num % i == 0}
true
end
Hope that helps!!
(To first answer the question: yes, you are doing something wrong. As BLUEPIXY mentions, you need to put require 'prime' somewhere above the line that calls Prime.prime?. Typically on line 1.)
Now, a lot of answers have been given that don't use Prime.prime?, and I thought it might be interesting to benchmark some of them, along with a possible improvement of my own that I had in mind.
###TL;DR
I benchmarked several solutions, including a couple of my own; using a while loop and skipping even numbers performs best.
Methods tested
Here are the methods I used from the answers:
require 'prime'
def prime1?(num)
return if num <= 1
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).none? { |i| (num % i).zero? }
end
def prime2?(num)
return false if num <= 1
Math.sqrt(num).to_i.downto(2) {|i| return false if num % i == 0}
true
end
def prime3?(num)
Prime.prime?(num)
end
def prime4?(num)
('1' * num) !~ /^1?$|^(11+?)\1+$/
end
prime1? is AndreiMotinga's updated version. prime2? is his original version (with the superfluous each method removed). prime3? is Reboot's, using prime library. prime4? is Saurabh's regex version (minus the Fixnum monkey-patch).
A couple more methods to test
The improvement I had in mind was to leverage the fact that even numbers can't be prime, and leave them out of the iteration loop. So, this method uses the #step method to iterate over only odd numbers, starting with 3:
def prime5?(num)
return true if num == 2
return false if num <= 1 || num.even?
3.step(Math.sqrt(num).floor, 2) { |i| return false if (num % i).zero? }
true
end
I thought as well that it might be interesting to see how a "primitive" implementation of the same algorithm, using a while loop, might perform. So, here's one:
def prime6?(num)
return true if num == 2
return false if num <= 1 || num.even?
i = 3
top = Math.sqrt(num).floor
loop do
return false if (num % i).zero?
i += 2
break if i > top
end
true
end
Benchmarks
I did a simple benchmark on each of these, timing a call to each method with the prime number 67,280,421,310,721. For example:
start = Time.now
prime1? 67280421310721
puts "prime1? #{Time.now - start}"
start = Time.now
prime2? 67280421310721
puts "prime2? #{Time.now - start}"
# etc.
As I suspected I would have to do, I canceled prime4? after about 60 seconds. Presumably, it takes quite a bit longer than 60 seconds to assign north of 6.7 trillion '1''s to memory, and then apply a regex filter to the result — assuming it's possible on a given machine to allocate the necessary memory in the first place. (On mine, it would seem that there isn't: I went into irb, put in '1' * 67280421310721, made and ate dinner, came back to the computer, and found Killed: 9 as the response. That looks like a SignalException raised when the process got killed.)
The other results are:
prime1? 3.085434
prime2? 1.149405
prime3? 1.236517
prime5? 0.748564
prime6? 0.377235
Some (tentative) conclusions
I suppose that isn't really surprising that the primitive solution with the while loop is fastest, since it's probably closer than the others to what's going on under the hood. It is a bit surprising that it's three times faster than Prime.prime?, though. (After looking at the source code in the doc it is less so. There are lots of bells and whistles in the Prime object.)
AndreiMotinga's updated version is nearly three times as slow as his original, which suggests that the #none? method isn't much of a performer, at least in this context.
Finally, the regex version might be cool, but it certainly doesn't appear to have much practical value, and using it in a monkey-patch of a core class looks like something to avoid entirely.
If you are going to use any Prime functions you must include the Prime library. This problem can be solved without the use of the prime library however.
def isPrime?(num)
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).each { |i|
if num % i == 0 && i < num
return false
end
}
true
end
Something like this would work.
Try this
def prime?(num)
2.upto(Math.sqrt(num).ceil) do |i|
break if num%i==0
return true if i==Math.sqrt(num).ceil
end
return false
end
So most of the answers here are doing the same thing in slightly different ways which is one of the cool things about Ruby, but I'm a pretty new student (which is why I was looking this up in the first place) and so here's my version with comment explanations in the code:
def isprime n # starting with 2 because testing for a prime means you don't want to test division by 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(n)) do |x| # testing up to the square root of the number because going past there is excessive
if n % x == 0
# n is the number being called from the program
# x is the number we're dividing by, counting from 2 up to the square root of the number
return false # this means the number is not prime
else
return true # this means the number is prime
end
end
end
Given a non-negative integer n and an arbitrary set of inequalities that are user-defined (in say an external text file), I want to determine whether n satisfies any inequality, and if so, which one(s).
Here is a points list.
n = 0: 1
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
If you draw a number n that's equal to 5, you get 10 points.
If n less than 5, you get 5 points.
If n is 0, you get 1 point.
The stuff left of the colon is the "condition", while the stuff on the right is the "value".
All entries will be of the form:
n1 op n2: val
In this system, equality takes precedence over inequality, so the order that they appear in will not matter in the end. The inputs are non-negative integers, though intermediary and results may not be non-negative. The results may not even be numbers (eg: could be strings). I have designed it so that will only accept the most basic inequalities, to make it easier for writing a parser (and to see whether this idea is feasible)
My program has two components:
a parser that will read structured input and build a data structure to store the conditions and their associated results.
a function that will take an argument (a non-negative integer) and return the result (or, as in the example, the number of points I receive)
If the list was hardcoded, that is an easy task: just use a case-when or if-else block and I'm done. But the problem isn't as easy as that.
Recall the list at the top. It can contain an arbitrary number of (in)equalities. Perhaps there's only 3 like above. Maybe there are none, or maybe there are 10, 20, 50, or even 1000000. Essentially, you can have m inequalities, for m >= 0
Given a number n and a data structure containing an arbitrary number of conditions and results, I want to be able to determine whether it satisfies any of the conditions and return the associated value. So as with the example above, if I pass in 5, the function will return 10.
They condition/value pairs are not unique in their raw form. You may have multiple instances of the same (in)equality but with different values. eg:
n = 0: 10
n = 0: 1000
n > 0: n
Notice the last entry: if n is greater than 0, then it is just whatever you got.
If multiple inequalities are satisfied (eg: n > 5, n > 6, n > 7), all of them should be returned. If that is not possible to do efficiently, I can return just the first one that satisfied it and ignore the rest. But I would like to be able to retrieve the entire list.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm thinking I should use two hash tables: the first one will store the equalities, while the second will store the inequalities.
Equality is easy enough to handle: Just grab the condition as a key and have a list of values. Then I can quickly check whether n is in the hash and grab the appropriate value.
However, for inequality, I am not sure how it will work. Does anyone have any ideas how I can solve this problem in as little computational steps as possible? It's clear that I can easily accomplish this in O(n) time: just run it through each (in)equality one by one. But what happens if this checking is done in real-time? (eg: updated constantly)
For example, it is pretty clear that if I have 100 inequalities and 99 of them check for values > 100 while the other one checks for value <= 100, I shouldn't have to bother checking those 99 inequalities when I pass in 47.
You may use any data structure to store the data. The parser itself is not included in the calculation because that will be pre-processed and only needs to be done once, but if it may be problematic if it takes too long to parse the data.
Since I am using Ruby, I likely have more flexible options when it comes to "messing around" with the data and how it will be interpreted.
class RuleSet
Rule = Struct.new(:op1,:op,:op2,:result) do
def <=>(r2)
# Op of "=" sorts before others
[op=="=" ? 0 : 1, op2.to_i] <=> [r2.op=="=" ? 0 : 1, r2.op2.to_i]
end
def matches(n)
#op2i ||= op2.to_i
case op
when "=" then n == #op2i
when "<" then n < #op2i
when ">" then n > #op2i
end
end
end
def initialize(text)
#rules = text.each_line.map do |line|
Rule.new *line.split(/[\s:]+/)
end.sort
end
def value_for( n )
if rule = #rules.find{ |r| r.matches(n) }
rule.result=="n" ? n : rule.result.to_i
end
end
end
set = RuleSet.new( DATA.read )
-1.upto(8) do |n|
puts "%2i => %s" % [ n, set.value_for(n).inspect ]
end
#=> -1 => 5
#=> 0 => 1
#=> 1 => 5
#=> 2 => 5
#=> 3 => 5
#=> 4 => 5
#=> 5 => 10
#=> 6 => nil
#=> 7 => 7
#=> 8 => nil
__END__
n = 0: 1
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
n = 7: n
I would parse the input lines and separate them into predicate/result pairs and build a hash of callable procedures (using eval - oh noes!). The "check" function can iterate through each predicate and return the associated result when one is true:
class PointChecker
def initialize(input)
#predicates = Hash[input.split(/\r?\n/).map do |line|
parts = line.split(/\s*:\s*/)
[Proc.new {|n| eval(parts[0].sub(/=/,'=='))}, parts[1].to_i]
end]
end
def check(n)
#predicates.map { |p,r| [p.call(n) ? r : nil] }.compact
end
end
Here is sample usage:
p = PointChecker.new <<__HERE__
n = 0: 1
n = 1: 2
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
__HERE__
p.check(0) # => [1, 5]
p.check(1) # => [2, 5]
p.check(2) # => [5]
p.check(5) # => [10]
p.check(6) # => []
Of course, there are many issues with this implementation. I'm just offering a proof-of-concept. Depending on the scope of your application you might want to build a proper parser and runtime (instead of using eval), handle input more generally/gracefully, etc.
I'm not spending a lot of time on your problem, but here's my quick thought:
Since the points list is always in the format n1 op n2: val, I'd just model the points as an array of hashes.
So first step is to parse the input point list into the data structure, an array of hashes.
Each hash would have values n1, op, n2, value
Then, for each data input you run through all of the hashes (all of the points) and handle each (determining if it matches to the input data or not).
Some tricks of the trade
Spend time in your parser handling bad input. Eg
n < = 1000 # no colon
n < : 1000 # missing n2
x < 2 : 10 # n1, n2 and val are either number or "n"
n # too short, missing :, n2, val
n < 1 : 10x # val is not a number and is not "n"
etc
Also politely handle non-numeric input data
Added
Re: n1 doesn't matter. Be careful, this could be a trick. Why wouldn't
5 < n : 30
be a valid points list item?
Re: multiple arrays of hashes, one array per operator, one hash per point list item -- sure that's fine. Since each op is handled in a specific way, handling the operators one by one is fine. But....ordering then becomes an issue:
Since you want multiple results returned from multiple matching point list items, you need to maintain the overall order of them. Thus I think one array of all the point lists would be the easiest way to do this.