Have the function PermutationStep (num) take the num parameter being passed and return the next number greater than num using the same digits. For example: if num is 123 return 132, if it's 12453 return 12534. If a number has no greater permutations, return -1 (ie. 999)
Here's my code. I'd like to sort an array of large integers in numerical order. Using the regular sort method doesn't give the right order for some numbers. Is there a sort_by structure that I can replace 'sort' with in my code below?
def PermutationStep(num)
num = num.to_s.split('').map {|i| i.to_i}
permutations = num.permutation.to_a.sort #<= I want to sort by numerical value here
permutations.each_with_index do |n, idx|
if n == num
if n == permutations[-1]
return -1
else
return permutations[idx+1].join.to_i
end
end
end
end
For example, 11121. When I run the code it gives me 11121.I want the next highest permutation, which should be 12111.
Also, when I try { |a,b| b <=> a }, I also get errors.
You can pass a block to sort.
num.permutation.to_a.sort { |x, y| x.to_i <=> y.to_i }
This SO thread may be of some assistance: How does Array#sort work when a block is passed?
num.permutation.to_a is an array of arrays, not an array of integers, which causes the result not what you expected.
Actually you don't need to sort since you only need the minimum integer that is bigger than the input.
def PermutationStep(num)
nums = num.to_s.split('')
permutations = nums.permutation.map{|a| a.join.to_i}
permutations.keep_if{|n| n > num}.min || -1
end
puts PermutationStep(11121) # 11211
puts PermutationStep(999) # -1
Call to_i before your sort the permutations. Once that is done, sort the array an pick the first element greater than your number:
def PermutationStep(num)
numbers = num.to_s.split('')
permutations = numbers.permutation.map { |p| p.join.to_i }.sort
permutations.detect { |p| p > num } || -1
end
You don't need to consider permutations of digits to obtain the next higher number.
Consider the number 126531.
Going from right to left, we look for the first decrease in the digits. That would be 2 < 6. Clearly we cannot obtain a higher number by permuting only the digits after the 2, but we can obtain a higher number merely by swapping 2 and 6. This will not be the next higher number, however.
We therefore look for the smallest digit to the right of 2 that is greater than 2, which would be 3. Clearly, the next higher number will begin 13 and will have the remaining digits ordered smallest to largest. Therefore, the next higher number will be 131256.
You can easily see that the next higher number for 123 is 132, and for 12453 is 12534.
The proof that procedure is correct is easily established by induction, first showing that it is correct for numbers with two digits, then assuming it is correct for numbers with n>=2 digits, showing it is correct for numbers with n+1 digits.
It can be easily implemented in code:
def next_highest(n)
a = n.to_s.reverse.split('').map(&:to_i)
last = -Float::INFINITY
x,ndx = a.each_with_index.find { |d,i| res = d<last; last=d; res }
return nil unless x
swap_val = a[ndx]
swap_ndx = (0...ndx).select { |i| a[i] > swap_val }.min_by{ |i| a[i] }
a[ndx], a[swap_ndx] = a[swap_ndx], swap_val
a[0...ndx] = a[0...ndx].sort.reverse
a.join.reverse
end
next_highest(126531) #=> "131256"
next_highest(109876543210) #=> "110023456789"
Related
Given a positive integer n I wish to find the largest integer m comprised of the digits contained in n that is less than n.
The code is to return m unless one of the following results obtain, in which case -1 it should be returned.
there is no possible variation;
if the number of digits isn't equal to the input;
if the first digit of the output == 0;
My code works, but it takes too long when "n" is a huge number! I believe it's because of the method #Permutation but I'm not sure. Can anyone shed a light on this?
Here's my code
def next_smaller (n)
new = n.to_s.split("").permutation.to_a.map { |n| n.join.to_i }
res = new.sort.reverse.select { |x| x < n }.first
res_arr = res.to_s.split("")
res.nil? || res_arr.count != n.to_s.split("").count || res_arr[0] == 0 ? -1 : res
end
Thank you
UPD: The code below works incorrectly with some input.
It is better to skip the generation of all permutations. Array#permutation can take a block of code:
def fast_next_smaller(number)
number.digits.reverse.permutation do |array|
next if array.first == 0
target_number = array.join.to_i
next if target_number == number
return target_number if target_number < number
end
-1
end
fast_next_smaller(907) #=> 790
fast_next_smaller(513) #=> 153
fast_next_smaller(153) #=> 135
fast_next_smaller(135) #=> -1
Here is the benchmark:
require 'benchmark'
n = 1000
Benchmark.bm do |x|
x.report('next_smaller') { n.times { next_smaller(rand(1_000_000..9_000_000)) } }
x.report('fast_next_smaller') { n.times { fast_next_smaller(rand(1_000_000..9_000_000)) } }
end
user system total real
next_smaller 4.433144 0.000000 4.433144 ( 4.433113)
fast_next_smaller 0.041333 0.000003 0.041336 ( 0.041313)
# With a very big number
puts Benchmark.measure { fast_next_smaller(5312495046546651005896) }
0.000000 0.000184 0.000184 ( 0.000176)
This should generally be pretty quick.
Code
def largest(n)
arr = n.to_s.chars.map(&:to_i)
nbr_chars = arr.size
case nbr_chars
when 1
-1
when 2
m = arr.reverse.join.to_i
m < 10 || m >= n ? -1 : m
else
(2..nbr_chars).each do |m|
fix_digits = arr[0,nbr_chars-m]
var_digits = arr[-m..-1]
if var_digits == var_digits.sort
return -1 if m == nbr_chars
else
a = solve_for_last_m_digits(var_digits)
if a.nil?
next if m < nbr_chars
return -1
else
x = (fix_digits + a).join.to_i
return x >= 10**(nbr_chars-1) ? x : -1
end
end
end
-1
end
end
def solve_for_last_m_digits(a)
nbr_chars = a.size
a_as_int = a.join.to_i
x = a.permutation(nbr_chars).max_by do |b|
m = b.join.to_i
m < a_as_int ? m : 0
end
x.join.to_i < a_as_int ? x : nil
end
Examples
largest 907 #=> 790
largest 531 #=> 513
largest 2638 #=> 2386
largest 78436 #=> 78364
largest 1783435893 #=> 1783435839
largest 385395038954829678 #=> 385395038954828976
largest 135 #=> -1
largest 106 #=> -1
All of the calculations were effectively instantaneous.
Explanation
See Array#permutation and Enumerable#max_by.
It's easiest to explain the algorithm with an example. Suppose the given integer were:
n = 385395038954829678
Had the last two digits been 87, rather than 78, we could simply reverse them and we'd be finished. As it is 78, however, we conclude that there is no integer less n that can be obtained by permuting the last two digits of n.
Next we consider the last three digits, 678. After examine the six permutations of these 3 digits we find that none are smaller than 678, so we conclude that there is no integer less n that can be obtained by permuting the last three digits.
Actually I don't examine the 6 permutations of the digits of 678. Rather I infer that the digits of that number cannot be permuted to produce a number smaller than 678 because they are non-decreasing (6 <= 7 <= 8). That is the purpose of the fragment
if var_digits == var_digits.sort
return -1 if m == nbr_chars
If the digits of the entire string are non-decreasing (m == nbr_chars is true), we return -1; else m is incremented by one.
We therefore move on to examining the last 4 digits of the number, 9678. As the digits comprising 9678 are not non-decreasing we know that they can be permuted to produce a number smaller than 9678 (simply swap two consecutive digits that are decreasing). After examining the 24 permutations of those four digits we find the largest number less than 9678 is 8976. Clearly, there is no permutation of digits that would produce a number less than n but larger than n with the last 4 digits replaced by 8976. The integer of interest is therefore obtained by replacing the last four digits of 385395038954829678 with 8976, which is 385395038954828976.
As soon as the last n-digits of m are not non-decreasing we know they can be rearranged to produce one more more numbers smaller than m, the largest of which will be the replacement for the last n digits of m.
The last step is to execute:
return x >= 10**(nbr_chars-1) ? x : -1
Suppose the number were 106. The largest number less than 106 that can be obtained by permuting its digits is x = 61 (061). As 61 has one or more (here one) leading zeroes, we return -1. We know there is at least one leading zéro because nbr_chars #=> 3, 10**(nbr_chars -1) #=> 100and61 < 100`.
I'm trying to implement a recursive solution to the largest palindrome product problem
What I'm trying to do is start both numbers at 999 and iterate down to 100 for num1 and then restart num1 at 999 and iterate num2 down by 1.
The goal is basically to mimic a nested for-loop.
def largest_palindrome_prod(num1 = 999, num2 = 999, largest_so_far = 0)
prod = num1 * num2
largest_so_far = prod if prod > largest_so_far && check_pal(prod)
if num2 == 100
return largest_so_far
elsif num1 == 100
largest_palindrome_prod(num1 = 999, num2 -= 1, largest_so_far)
else
largest_palindrome_prod(num1 -= 1, num2, largest_so_far)
end
end
#I know this function works, just here for reference
def check_pal(num)
num = num.to_s if num.is_a? Integer
if num.length < 2
true
else
num[0] == num[-1] ? check_pal(num[1..-2]) : false
end
end
rb:10:inlargest_palindrome_prod': stack level too deep`
I'm getting this error which is referring to the else statement in the largest_palindrome_prod function, but I can't figure out wast could be causing the stack error.
You don't have an infinite recursion bug. The stack is just running out of space because of the size of your input. To prove this, you can run your same function with the range of 2-digit numbers, instead of the 3-digit ones. It returns fine, which shows that there is no flaw with your logic.
How to get around this? Two options.
Option 1: You could simply not use recursion here (just use a regular nested loop instead)
Option 2: Keep your same code and enable tail call optimization:
# run_code.rb
RubyVM::InstructionSequence.compile_option = {
tailcall_optimization: true,
trace_instruction: false
}
require './palindrome_functions.rb'
puts largest_palindrome_prod
# => 906609
Note, for a reason I don't fully understand, the tail call optimization must be enabled in a different file than the code being run. So if you simply moved the compile_option line to the palindrome_functions.rb file, it wouldn't work.
I cant really give you a full explanation of tail call optimization (look it up on Wikipedia) but from my understanding, its a heavy optimization for recursive functions that only works when the recursive call is at the end of the function body. Your function meets this criteria.
#maxpleaner has answered your question and has shown how you can use recursion that avoids the stack level error. He also mentioned the option (which I expect he favours) of simply looping, rather than employing recursion. Below is one looping solution. The following method is used in the search1.
def check_ranges(range1, range2 = range1)
range1.flat_map do |n|
[n].product((range2.first..[n, range2.last].min).to_a)
end.map { |x,y| x*y }.
sort.
reverse_each.
find do |z|
arr = z.digits
arr == arr.reverse
end
end
Let's first find the largest palindrome of the product of two numbers between 960 and 999 (if there are any):
check_ranges(960..999)
#=> nil
There are none. Note that this calculation was very cheap, requiring the examination of only 40*40/2 #=> 800 products. Next, find the largest palindrome that is equal to the product of two numbers between 920 and 999.
check_ranges(920..999)
#=> 888888
Success! Note that this method re-checks the 800 products we checked earlier. It makes more sense to examine only the cases represented by the following two calls to brute_force:
check_ranges(960..999, 920..959)
#=> 888888
check_ranges(920..959)
#=> 861168
The first call computes 40*40 #=> 1600 products; the second, 800 products.
Of course, we have not yet necessarily found the largest product that is a palindrome. We do, however, have a lower bound on the largest product, which we can use to advantage. Since
888888/999
#=> 889
we infer that if the product of two numbers is larger than 888888, both of those numbers must be at least 889. We therefore need only check:
check_ranges(889..999, 889..919)
#=> 906609
check_ranges(889..919)
#=> 824428
We are finished. This tells us that 906609 is the largest product of two 3-digit numbers that is a palindrome.
The question does not ask what are the two numbers whose product is the largest palindrome, but we can easily find them:
(889..999).to_a.product((889..919).to_a).find { |x,y| x*y == 906609 }
#=> [993, 913]
993*913
#=> 906609
Moreover, let:
a = (889..999).to_a.product((889..919).to_a).map { |x,y| x*y }.
sort.
reverse
Then:
a.index { |n| n == 906609 }
#=> 84
tells us that only the largest 84 elements of this sorted group of 111*31 #=> 3441 products had to be examined before a palindrome (906609) was found.
All of this needs to be organized into a method. Though challenging for a newbie, it should be a good learning experience.
1. It would be useful to test which is faster, arr = z.digits; arr == arr.reverse or s = z.to_s; s == s.reverse.
#maxpleaner already answered, #Cary Swoveland already showed one brute force way using ranges and product. I'd like to show another brute force using a nested loop, easier to follow (IMO):
n = 9999
res = [0]
bottom = 10**(n.digits.size - 1)
n.downto(bottom) do |k|
k.downto(bottom) do |j|
# puts "#{k}, #{j}"
res = [k, j, k * j] if check_pal(k * j) && k * j > res.last
end
end
res
#=> [9999, 9901, 99000099]
I guess it can be optimized further, for example, using
n.downto(n*99/100) do |k|
k.downto(k*99/100) do |j|
Returned [99979, 99681, 9966006699] in 0.7 seconds.
Not required, but this increases the speed:
def check_pal(num)
word = num.to_s
word.reverse == word
end
Implement a ruby method to find the next largest number with the same digits of the input number. Ex: 38276 would return 38627.
It wouldn't be the fastest one, but does the job!
number = 38276
options = number.to_s.chars.permutation.map{|s| s.join.to_i}.uniq.sort
options[options.index(number) + 1] #=> 38627
Another way to get the next number with same digits :
def next_number_with_same_digits(number)
number.to_s.chars.permutation.map { |e| e.join.to_i }.select { |n| n > number }.min
end
If you want to get the last number with same digits :
def last_number_with_same_digits(number)
number.to_s.chars.permutation.map { |e| e.join.to_i }.select { |n| n < number }.max
end
In Ruby, I would like to take an array of numbers, select 2 different numbers, add those 2 numbers together and see weather there equal to a variable x.y'd a variable x. Here is the code I used
def arrayIsEqual? (numArray, x)
return true if numArray.sample + numArray.sample == x
return false if numArray.empty? || numArray.count == 1
end
for example
numArray = [4,2,7,5]
x = 11
arrayIsEqual (numArray, n) should return true, since 4 + 7 = n(11)
How do I get this to work?
I don't want it to be 2 random numbers, just any 2 different numbers that add up to n
It looks like you're trying to see if there are any two numbers in the array that add up to the specified value x. However, your code just picks two numbers at random and checks if those numbers add up.
Ruby has the Array#combination method, which generates all combinations of a given length:
def contains_pair_for_sum?(arr, n)
!!arr.uniq.combination(2).detect { |a, b| a + b == n }
end
A few things to note:
First, we named it according to Ruby conventions: each word is separated_by_underscores. The ? on the end means that the method is a predicate method and returns a true or false value.
Inside the method, a few things happen. Let's look at that line, piece by piece.
arr: We take the array that was passed in.
<...>.uniq: We only look at the unique elements (because the OP wants to pick two different numbers).
<...>.combination(2): We ask for all combinations from the array of length 2. If the array was [4, 5, 6], we'd get [[4, 5], [4, 6], [5, 6]].
<...>.detect { |a, b| a + b == n }: We look for the first combination that adds up to n. If we found one, that's the result of that method. Otherwise, we get nil.
!!<...>: Finally, we take the result we got from detect and negate it twice. The first negation produces a Boolean value (true if the value we got was nil, or false if it's anything else); the second negation produces a Boolean value that's identical to the truth value of the first negation. This is a Ruby idiom to coerce a result into being either true or false.
Let's see it in action:
array = [4, 5, 9, 7, 8]
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 11)
# => true (because [4, 7] sums to 11)
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 17)
# => true (because [9, 8] sums to 17)
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 100)
# => false (no pair matched)
I understand that your question is "is there any pair of numbers in my array equals x", in which case this will do what you need:
def has_pair_equal?(num_array, x)
(0..num_array.length-1).any? do |i|
num_array[i+1..-1].any? { |n| n + num_array[i] == x }
end
end
This checks all sums of pairs of numbers in the array, and checks if their sum is x. sample randomly picks an item from the array, which means that what your code does is "return true sometimes if there is a pair of numbers in my array equals x"
def array_is_equal? (num_array, x)
equality = 0
num_array.each do |a|
equality += 1 if a == x
return true if equality == 2
end
return false
end
Use lowercase and underscores for variables in Ruby. The convention is different here than in some other languages.
One liner
x=[4,2,7,5]; x.each_with_index.any? {|y,i| x.each_with_index.any? {|z,j| unless i==j; z+y==11; end } }
And as a function
def pair_sum_match?(arr, x)
arr.each_with_index.any? do |y,i|
arr.each_with_index.any? do |z,j|
unless i==j
z+y==x
end
end
end
end
Updated: Added each_with_index to avoid self inclusion on checks. It's a lot longer now :-/
Just iterate over it once and use the target number to see if it matches. 100 times faster then most of the answers here
numbers = ( -10..10 ).to_a
numbers.unshift( numbers.first + -1 ) # if you do -20 or 20
numbers.push( numbers.last + 1 )
target = 5
searched = { }
matches = { }
numbers.each do |number|
if searched[ target - number + 1 ] == true
matches[ "#{ number }_plus_#{ target - number }" ] = target
end
searched[ number + 1 ] = true
end
ap matches
I am learning Ruby and doing some math stuff. One of the things I want to do is generate prime numbers.
I want to generate the first ten prime numbers and the first ten only. I have no problem testing a number to see if it is a prime number or not, but was wondering what the best way is to do generate these numbers?
I am using the following method to determine if the number is prime:
class Integer < Numeric
def is_prime?
return false if self <= 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(self).to_i) do |x|
return false if self%x == 0
end
true
end
end
In Ruby 1.9 there is a Prime class you can use to generate prime numbers, or to test if a number is prime:
require 'prime'
Prime.take(10) #=> [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
Prime.take_while {|p| p < 10 } #=> [2, 3, 5, 7]
Prime.prime?(19) #=> true
Prime implements the each method and includes the Enumerable module, so you can do all sorts of fun stuff like filtering, mapping, and so on.
If you'd like to do it yourself, then something like this could work:
class Integer < Numeric
def is_prime?
return false if self <= 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(self).to_i) do |x|
return false if self%x == 0
end
true
end
def next_prime
n = self+1
n = n + 1 until n.is_prime?
n
end
end
Now to get the first 10 primes:
e = Enumerator.new do |y|
n = 2
loop do
y << n
n = n.next_prime
end
end
primes = e.take 10
require 'prime'
Prime.first(10) # => [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
Check out Sieve of Eratosthenes. This is not Ruby specific but it is an algorithm to generate prime numbers. The idea behind this algorithm is that you have a list/array of numbers say
2..1000
You grab the first number, 2. Go through the list and eliminate everything that is divisible by 2. You will be left with everything that is not divisible by 2 other than 2 itself (e.g. [2,3,5,7,9,11...999]
Go to the next number, 3. And again, eliminate everything that you can divide by 3. Keep going until you reach the last number and you will get an array of prime numbers. Hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
People already mentioned the Prime class, which definitely would be the way to go. Someone also showed you how to use an Enumerator and I wanted to contribute a version using a Fiber (it uses your Integer#is_prime? method):
primes = Fiber.new do
Fiber.yield 2
value = 3
loop do
Fiber.yield value if value.is_prime?
value += 2
end
end
10.times { p primes.resume }
# First 10 Prime Numbers
number = 2
count = 1
while count < 10
j = 2
while j <= number
break if number%j == 0
j += 1
end
if j == number
puts number
count += 1
end
number += 1
end
Implemented the Sieve of Eratosthene (more or less)
def primes(size)
arr=(0..size).to_a
arr[0]=nil
arr[1]=nil
max=size
(size/2+1).times do |n|
if(arr[n]!=nil) then
cnt=2*n
while cnt <= max do
arr[cnt]=nil
cnt+=n
end
end
end
arr.compact!
end
Moreover here is a one-liner I like a lot
def primes_c a
p=[];(2..a).each{|n| p.any?{|l|n%l==0}?nil:p.push(n)};p
end
Of course those will find the primes in the first n numbers, not the first n primes, but I think an adaptation won't require much effort.
Here is a way to generate the prime numbers up to a "max" argument from scratch, without using Prime or Math. Let me know what you think.
def prime_test max
primes = []
(1..max).each {|num|
if
(2..num-1).all? {|denom| num%denom >0}
then
primes.push(num)
end
}
puts primes
end
prime_test #enter max
I think this may be an expensive solution for very large max numbers but seems to work well otherwise:
def multiples array
target = array.shift
array.map{|item| item if target % item == 0}.compact
end
def prime? number
reversed_range_array = *(2..number).reverse_each
multiples_of_number = multiples(reversed_range_array)
multiples_of_number.size == 0 ? true : false
end
def primes_in_range max_number
range_array = *(2..max_number)
range_array.map{|number| number if prime?(number)}.compact
end
class Numeric
def prime?
return self == 2 if self % 2 == 0
(3..Math.sqrt(self)).step(2) do |x|
return false if self % x == 0
end
true
end
end
With this, now 3.prime? returns true, and 6.prime? returns false.
Without going to the efforts to implement the sieve algorithm, time can still be saved quickly by only verifying divisibility until the square root, and skipping the odd numbers. Then, iterate through the numbers, checking for primeness.
Remember: human time > machine time.
I did this for a coding kata and used the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
puts "Up to which number should I look for prime numbers?"
number = $stdin.gets.chomp
n = number.to_i
array = (1..n).to_a
i = 0
while array[i]**2 < n
i = i + 1
array = array.select do |element|
element % array[i] != 0 || element / array[i] == 1
end
end
puts array.drop(1)
Ruby: Print N prime Numbers
http://mishra-vishal.blogspot.in/2013/07/include-math-def-printnprimenumbernoofp.html
include Math
def print_n_prime_number(no_of_primes=nil)
no_of_primes = 100 if no_of_primes.nil?
puts "1 \n2"
count = 1
number = 3
while count < no_of_primes
sq_rt_of_num = Math.sqrt(number)
number_divisible_by = 2
while number_divisible_by <= sq_rt_of_num
break if(number % number_divisible_by == 0)
number_divisible_by = number_divisible_by + 1
end
if number_divisible_by > sq_rt_of_num
puts number
count = count+1
end
number = number + 2
end
end
print_n_prime_number
Not related at all with the question itself, but FYI:
if someone doesn't want to keep generating prime numbers again and again (a.k.a. greedy resource saver)
or maybe you already know that you must to work with subsequent prime numbers in some way
other unknown and wonderful cases
Try with this snippet:
require 'prime'
for p in Prime::Generator23.new
# `p` brings subsequent prime numbers until the end of the days (or until your computer explodes)
# so here put your fabulous code
break if #.. I don't know, I suppose in some moment it should stop the loop
end
fp
If you need it, you also could use another more complex generators as Prime::TrialDivisionGenerator or Prime::EratosthenesGenerator. More info
Here's a super compact method that generates an array of primes with a single line of code.
def get_prime(up_to)
(2..up_to).select { |num| (2...num).all? { |div| (num % div).positive? } }
end
def get_prime(number)
(2..number).each do |no|
if (2..no-1).all? {|num| no % num > 0}
puts no
end
end
end
get_prime(100)