Related
I'm currently working on an OpenVibe Session in which I must program a Lua Script. My problem is generating a random table with 2 values: 1s and 2s. If the value in table is 1, then send Stimulus through output 1. And if it's 2, then through output 2.
My question is how I can generate in Lua code a table of 52 1s and 2s (44 1s and 8 2s which correspond to 85% 1s and 15% 2s) in a way that you have at least 3 1s before the next 2s? Somehow like this: 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.
I´m not an expert in Lua. So any help would be most appreciated.
local get_table_52
do
local cached_C = {}
local function C(n, k)
local idx = n * 9 + k
local value = cached_C[idx]
if not value then
if k == 0 or k == n then
value = 1
else
value = C(n-1, k-1) + C(n-1, k)
end
cached_C[idx] = value
end
return value
end
function get_table_52()
local result = {}
for j = 1, 52 do
result[j] = 1
end
local r = math.random(C(28, 8))
local p = 29
for k = 8, 1, -1 do
local b = 0
repeat
r = r - b
p = p - 1
b = C(p - 1, k - 1)
until r <= b
result[p + k * 3] = 2
end
return result
end
end
Usage:
local t = get_table_52()
-- t contains 44 ones and 8 twos, there are at least 3 ones before next two
Here is the logic.
You have 8 2s. Before each 2 there is a string of 3 1s. That's 32 of your numbers.
Those 8 groups of 1112 separate 9 spots that the remaining 20 1s can go.
So your problem is to randomly distribute 20 1s to 9 random places. And then take that collection of numbers and write out your list. So in untested code from a non-Lua programmer:
-- Populate buckets
local buckets = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}
for k = 1, 20 do
local bucket = floor(rand(9))
buckets[bucket] = buckets[bucket] + 1
end
-- Turn that into an array
local result = {}
local i = 0
for bucket = 0, 8 do
-- Put buckets[bucket] 1s in result
if 0 < buckets[bucket] do
for j = 0, buckets[bucket] do
result[i] = 1
i = i + 1
end
end
-- Add our separating 1112?
if bucket < 8 do
result[i] = 1
result[i+1] = 1
result[i+2] = 1
result[i+3] = 2
i = i + 4
end
end
Given a sequence of N integers where 1 <= N <= 500 and the numbers are between 1 and 50. In a step any two adjacent equal numbers x x can be replaced with a single x + 1. What is the maximum number achievable by such steps.
For example if given 2 3 1 1 2 2 then the maximum possible is 4:
2 3 1 1 2 2 ---> 2 3 2 2 2 ---> 2 3 3 2 ---> 2 4 2.
It is evident that I should try to do better than the maximum number available in the sequence. But I can't figure out a good algorithm.
Each substring of the input can make at most one single number (invariant: the log base two of the sum of two to the power of each entry). For every x, we can find the set of substrings that can make x. For each x, this is (1) every occurrence of x (2) the union of two contiguous substrings that can make x - 1. The resulting algorithm is O(N^2)-time.
An algorithm could work like this:
Convert the input to an array where every element has a frequency attribute, collapsing repeated consecutive values in the input into one single node. For example, this input:
1 2 2 4 3 3 3 3
Would be represented like this:
{val: 1, freq: 1} {val: 2, freq: 2} {val: 4, freq: 1} {val: 3, freq: 4}
Then find local minima nodes, like the node (3 3 3 3) in 1 (2 2) 4 (3 3 3 3) 4, i.e. nodes whose neighbours both have higher values. For those local minima that have an even frequency, "lift" those by applying the step. Repeat this until no such local minima (with even frequency) exist any more.
Start of the recursive part of the algorithm:
At both ends of the array, work inwards to "lift" values as long as the more inner neighbour has a higher value. With this rule, the following:
1 2 2 3 5 4 3 3 3 1 1
will completely resolve. First from the left side inward:
1 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 1
Then from the right side:
1 4 6 3 2
Note that when there is an odd frequency (like for the 3s above), there will be a "remainder" that cannot be incremented. The remainder should in this rule always be left on the outward side, so to maximise the potential towards the inner part of the array.
At this point the remaining local minima have odd frequencies. Applying the step to such a node will always leave a "remainder" (like above) with the original value. This remaining node can appear anywhere, but it only makes sense to look at solutions where this remainder is on the left side or the right side of the lift (not in the middle). So for example:
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4
Can resolve to one of these:
4 2 2 1 2 3 4
Or:
4 1 2 2 2 3 4
The 1 in either second or fourth position, is the above mentioned "remainder". Obviously, the second way of resolving is more promising in this example. In general, the choice is obvious when on one side there is a value that is too high to merge with, like the left-most 4 is too high for five 1 values to get to. The 4 is like a wall.
When the frequency of the local minimum is one, there is nothing we can do with it. It actually separates the array in a left and right side that do not influence each other. The same is true for the remainder element discussed above: it separates the array into two parts that do not influence each other.
So the next step in the algorithm is to find such minima (where the choice is obvious), apply that kind of step and separate the problem into two distinct problems which should be solved recursively (from the top). So in the last example, the following two problems would be solved separately:
4
2 2 3 4
Then the best of both solutions will count as the overall solution. In this case that is 5.
The most challenging part of the algorithm is to deal with those local minima for which the choice of where to put the remainder is not obvious. For instance;
3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
This can go to either:
3 3 2 2 1 2 3
3 3 1 2 2 2 3
In this example the end result is the same for both options, but in bigger arrays it would be less and less obvious. So here both options have to be investigated. In general you can have many of them, like 2 in this example:
3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 3
Each of these two minima has two options. This seems like to explode into too many possibilities for larger arrays. But it is not that bad. The algorithm can take opposite choices in neighbouring minima, and go alternating like this through the whole array. This way alternating sections are favoured, and get the most possible value drawn into them, while the other sections are deprived of value. Now the algorithm turns the tables, and toggles all choices so that the sections that were previously favoured are now deprived, and vice versa. The solution of both these alternatives is derived by resolving each section recursively, and then comparing the two "grand" solutions to pick the best one.
Snippet
Here is a live JavaScript implementation of the above algorithm.
Comments are provided which hopefully should make it readable.
"use strict";
function Node(val, freq) {
// Immutable plain object
return Object.freeze({
val: val,
freq: freq || 1, // Default frequency is 1.
// Max attainable value when merged:
reduced: val + (freq || 1).toString(2).length - 1
});
}
function compress(a) {
// Put repeated elements in a single node
var result = [], i, j;
for (i = 0; i < a.length; i = j) {
for (j = i + 1; j < a.length && a[j] == a[i]; j++);
result.push(Node(a[i], j - i));
}
return result;
}
function decompress(a) {
// Expand nodes into separate, repeated elements
var result = [], i, j;
for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < a[i].freq; j++) {
result.push(a[i].val);
}
}
return result;
}
function str(a) {
return decompress(a).join(' ');
}
function unstr(s) {
s = s.replace(/\D+/g, ' ').trim();
return s.length ? compress(s.split(/\s+/).map(Number)) : [];
}
/*
The function merge modifies an array in-place, performing a "step" on
the indicated element.
The array will get an element with an incremented value
and decreased frequency, unless a join occurs with neighboring
elements with the same value: then the frequencies are accumulated
into one element. When the original frequency was odd there will
be a "remainder" element in the modified array as well.
*/
function merge(a, i, leftWards, stats) {
var val = a[i].val+1,
odd = a[i].freq % 2,
newFreq = a[i].freq >> 1,
last = i;
// Merge with neighbouring nodes of same value:
if ((!odd || !leftWards) && a[i+1] && a[i+1].val === val) {
newFreq += a[++last].freq;
}
if ((!odd || leftWards) && i && a[i-1].val === val) {
newFreq += a[--i].freq;
}
// Replace nodes
a.splice(i, last-i+1, Node(val, newFreq));
if (odd) a.splice(i+leftWards, 0, Node(val-1));
// Update statistics and trace: this is not essential to the algorithm
if (stats) {
stats.total_applied_merges++;
if (stats.trace) stats.trace.push(str(a));
}
return i;
}
/* Function Solve
Parameters:
a: The compressed array to be reduced via merges. It is changed in-place
and should not be relied on after the call.
stats: Optional plain object that will be populated with execution statistics.
Return value:
The array after the best merges were applied to achieve the highest
value, which is stored in the maxValue custom property of the array.
*/
function solve(a, stats) {
var maxValue, i, j, traceOrig, skipLeft, skipRight, sections, goLeft,
b, choice, alternate;
if (!a.length) return a;
if (stats && stats.trace) {
traceOrig = stats.trace;
traceOrig.push(stats.trace = [str(a)]);
}
// Look for valleys of even size, and "lift" them
for (i = 1; i < a.length - 1; i++) {
if (a[i-1].val > a[i].val && a[i].val < a[i+1].val && (a[i].freq % 2) < 1) {
// Found an even valley
i = merge(a, i, false, stats);
if (i) i--;
}
}
// Check left-side elements with always increasing values
for (i = 0; i < a.length-1 && a[i].val < a[i+1].val; i++) {
if (a[i].freq > 1) i = merge(a, i, false, stats) - 1;
};
// Check right-side elements with always increasing values, right-to-left
for (j = a.length-1; j > 0 && a[j-1].val > a[j].val; j--) {
if (a[j].freq > 1) j = merge(a, j, true, stats) + 1;
};
// All resolved?
if (i == j) {
while (a[i].freq > 1) merge(a, i, true, stats);
a.maxValue = a[i].val;
} else {
skipLeft = i;
skipRight = a.length - 1 - j;
// Look for other valleys (odd sized): they will lead to a split into sections
sections = [];
for (i = a.length - 2 - skipRight; i > skipLeft; i--) {
if (a[i-1].val > a[i].val && a[i].val < a[i+1].val) {
// Odd number of elements: if more than one, there
// are two ways to merge them, but maybe
// one of both possibilities can be excluded.
goLeft = a[i+1].val > a[i].reduced;
if (a[i-1].val > a[i].reduced || goLeft) {
if (a[i].freq > 1) i = merge(a, i, goLeft, stats) + goLeft;
// i is the index of the element which has become a 1-sized valley
// Split off the right part of the array, and store the solution
sections.push(solve(a.splice(i--), stats));
}
}
}
if (sections.length) {
// Solve last remaining section
sections.push(solve(a, stats));
sections.reverse();
// Combine the solutions of all sections into one
maxValue = sections[0].maxValue;
for (i = sections.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
maxValue = Math.max(sections[i].maxValue, maxValue);
}
} else {
// There is no more valley that can be resolved without branching into two
// directions. Look for the remaining valleys.
sections = [];
b = a.slice(0); // take copy
for (choice = 0; choice < 2; choice++) {
if (choice) a = b; // restore from copy on second iteration
alternate = choice;
for (i = a.length - 2 - skipRight; i > skipLeft; i--) {
if (a[i-1].val > a[i].val && a[i].val < a[i+1].val) {
// Odd number of elements
alternate = !alternate
i = merge(a, i, alternate, stats) + alternate;
sections.push(solve(a.splice(i--), stats));
}
}
// Solve last remaining section
sections.push(solve(a, stats));
}
sections.reverse(); // put in logical order
// Find best section:
maxValue = sections[0].maxValue;
for (i = sections.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
maxValue = Math.max(sections[i].maxValue, maxValue);
}
for (i = sections.length - 1; i >= 0 && sections[i].maxValue < maxValue; i--);
// Which choice led to the highest value (choice = 0 or 1)?
choice = (i >= sections.length / 2)
// Discard the not-chosen version
sections = sections.slice(choice * sections.length/2);
}
// Reconstruct the solution from the sections.
a = [].concat.apply([], sections);
a.maxValue = maxValue;
}
if (traceOrig) stats.trace = traceOrig;
return a;
}
function randomValues(len) {
var a = [];
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
// 50% chance for a 1, 25% for a 2, ... etc.
a.push(Math.min(/\.1*/.exec(Math.random().toString(2))[0].length,5));
}
return a;
}
// I/O
var inputEl = document.querySelector('#inp');
var randEl = document.querySelector('#rand');
var lenEl = document.querySelector('#len');
var goEl = document.querySelector('#go');
var outEl = document.querySelector('#out');
goEl.onclick = function() {
// Get the input and structure it
var a = unstr(inputEl.value),
stats = {
total_applied_merges: 0,
trace: a.length < 100 ? [] : undefined
};
// Apply algorithm
a = solve(a, stats);
// Output results
var output = {
value: a.maxValue,
compact: str(a),
total_applied_merges: stats.total_applied_merges,
trace: stats.trace || 'no trace produced (input too large)'
};
outEl.textContent = JSON.stringify(output, null, 4);
}
randEl.onclick = function() {
// Get input (count of numbers to generate):
len = lenEl.value;
// Generate
var a = randomValues(len);
// Output
inputEl.value = a.join(' ');
// Simulate click to find the solution immediately.
goEl.click();
}
// Tests
var tests = [
' ', '',
'1', '1',
'1 1', '2',
'2 2 1 2 2', '3 1 3',
'3 2 1 1 2 2 3', '5',
'3 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2', '6',
'3 1 1 1 3', '3 2 1 3',
'2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2', '3 1 2 1 4 1 2',
'3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3', '4 2 1 2 3',
'1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1', '1 5 1',
];
var res;
for (var i = 0; i < tests.length; i+=2) {
var res = str(solve(unstr(tests[i])));
if (res !== tests[i+1]) throw 'Test failed: ' + tests[i] + ' returned ' + res + ' instead of ' + tests[i+1];
}
Enter series (space separated):<br>
<input id="inp" size="60" value="2 3 1 1 2 2"><button id="go">Solve</button>
<br>
<input id="len" size="4" value="30"><button id="rand">Produce random series of this size and solve</button>
<pre id="out"></pre>
As you can see the program produces a reduced array with the maximum value included. In general there can be many derived arrays that have this maximum; only one is given.
An O(n*m) time and space algorithm is possible, where, according to your stated limits, n <= 500 and m <= 58 (consider that even for a billion elements, m need only be about 60, representing the largest element ± log2(n)). m is representing the possible numbers 50 + floor(log2(500)):
Consider the condensed sequence, s = {[x, number of x's]}.
If M[i][j] = [num_j,start_idx] where num_j represents the maximum number of contiguous js ending at index i of the condensed sequence; start_idx, the index where the sequence starts or -1 if it cannot join earlier sequences; then we have the following relationship:
M[i][j] = [s[i][1] + M[i-1][j][0], M[i-1][j][1]]
when j equals s[i][0]
j's greater than s[i][0] but smaller than or equal to s[i][0] + floor(log2(s[i][1])), represent converting pairs and merging with an earlier sequence if applicable, with a special case after the new count is odd:
When M[i][j][0] is odd, we do two things: first calculate the best so far by looking back in the matrix to a sequence that could merge with M[i][j] or its paired descendants, and then set a lower bound in the next applicable cells in the row (meaning a merge with an earlier sequence cannot happen via this cell). The reason this works is that:
if s[i + 1][0] > s[i][0], then s[i + 1] could only possibly pair with the new split section of s[i]; and
if s[i + 1][0] < s[i][0], then s[i + 1] might generate a lower j that would combine with the odd j from M[i], potentially making a longer sequence.
At the end, return the largest entry in the matrix, max(j + floor(log2(num_j))), for all j.
JavaScript code (counterexamples would be welcome; the limit on the answer is set at 7 for convenient visualization of the matrix):
function f(str){
var arr = str.split(/\s+/).map(Number);
var s = [,[arr[0],0]];
for (var i=0; i<arr.length; i++){
if (s[s.length - 1][0] == arr[i]){
s[s.length - 1][1]++;
} else {
s.push([arr[i],1]);
}
}
var M = [new Array(8).fill([0,0])],
best = 0;
for (var i=1; i<s.length; i++){
M[i] = new Array(8).fill([0,i]);
var temp = s[i][1],
temp_odd,
temp_start,
odd = false;
for (var j=s[i][0]; temp>0; j++){
var start_idx = odd ? temp_start : M[i][j-1][1];
if (start_idx != -1 && M[start_idx - 1][j][0]){
temp += M[start_idx - 1][j][0];
start_idx = M[start_idx - 1][j][1];
}
if (!odd){
M[i][j] = [temp,start_idx];
temp_odd = temp;
} else {
M[i][j] = [temp_odd,-1];
temp_start = start_idx;
}
if (!odd && temp & 1 && temp > 1){
odd = true;
temp_start = start_idx;
}
best = Math.max(best,j + Math.floor(Math.log2(temp)));
temp >>= 1;
temp_odd >>= 1;
}
}
return [arr, s, best, M];
}
// I/O
var button = document.querySelector('button');
var input = document.querySelector('input');
var pre = document.querySelector('pre');
button.onclick = function() {
var val = input.value;
var result = f(val);
var text = '';
for (var i=0; i<3; i++){
text += JSON.stringify(result[i]) + '\n\n';
}
for (var i in result[3]){
text += JSON.stringify(result[3][i]) + '\n';
}
pre.textContent = text;
}
<input value ="2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 5">
<button>Solve</button>
<pre></pre>
Here's a brute force solution:
function findMax(array A, int currentMax)
for each pair (i, i+1) of indices for which A[i]==A[i+1] do
currentMax = max(A[i]+1, currentMax)
replace A[i],A[i+1] by a single number A[i]+1
currentMax = max(currentMax, findMax(A, currentMax))
end for
return currentMax
Given the array A, let currentMax=max(A[0], ..., A[n])
print findMax(A, currentMax)
The algorithm terminates because in each recursive call the array shrinks by 1.
It's also clear that it is correct: we try out all possible replacement sequences.
The code is extremely slow when the array is large and there's lots of options regarding replacements, but actually works reasonbly fast on arrays with small number of replaceable pairs. (I'll try to quantify the running time in terms of the number of replaceable pairs.)
A naive working code in Python:
def findMax(L, currMax):
for i in range(len(L)-1):
if L[i] == L[i+1]:
L[i] += 1
del L[i+1]
currMax = max(currMax, L[i])
currMax = max(currMax, findMax(L, currMax))
L[i] -= 1
L.insert(i+1, L[i])
return currMax
# entry point
if __name__ == '__main__':
L1 = [2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2]
L2 = [2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2]
print findMax(L1, max(L1))
print findMax(L2, max(L2))
The result of the first call is 4, as expected.
The result of the second call is 5 as expected; the sequence that gives the result: 2,3,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2, -> 2,3,1,1,3,2,2,2,2,2,2 -> 2,3,1,1,3,3,2,2,2,2, -> 2,3,1,1,3,3,3,2,2 -> 2,3,1,1,3,3,3,3 -> 2,3,1,1,4,3, -> 2,3,1,1,4,4 -> 2,3,1,1,5
Add all the values between 100 and 4000000 inclusively that are divisable by 3 or 5 but not both 3 and 5
Can't figure out how to implement second part of that stipulation. Here's what I have so far:
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 100; i < 4000001; i++) {
if (i % 3 || i % 5 === 0) {
sum = sum + i;
}
}
You can compute the sum without any loop, using the formula for the sum of an arithmetic progression: We have
3 + 5 + 6 + 9 + 10 + 12 + 18 + 20 + ...
= 3 + 6 + 9 + 12 + 15 + 18 + ...
+ 5 + 10 + 15 + 20 + ...
- 2*(15 + 30 + 45 + ...)
Note that we add all the multiples of 3 and 5 but then subtract the multiples of 15 twice, because they were counted twice as multiples of both 3 and 5.
Let g(n) be the sum of integers from 1 to n. We have g(n) = n*(n+1)/2.
Let f(n) be the sum of integers between 1 and n that are divisible by 3 or 5, but not both. Then we have
f(n) = 3*g(floor(n / 3)) + 5*g(floor(n/5)) - 30*g(floor(n/15))
And the sum of integers between m and n that are divisible by 3 or 5, but not both is then just f(n) - f(m - 1). This can be computed in O(1).
You simply need to escape only those part which involves division by 15, and other higher numbers(multiple of 15) will be avoided further automatically.
Note that checking divisibility by 15 should be at the top, which on being true will continue further iteration without executing the below codes of divisibility by 3 and 5. If false, then a number can only be divisible by 3 or 5 or none, but not both.
for (var i = 100; i < 4000001; i++) {
if(i % 15 == 0 )
continue;
if (i % 3 == 0) {
sum = sum + i;
}
if (i % 5 == 0) {
sum = sum + i;
}
}
Also, note that you have used === operator which I don't think is a valid operator, probably you want ==. BTW, I am not sure whether any language supports ===, I think Javascript supports that. So, be careful at that step.
You can use != instead of || since this is exactly what you want. Only divisible by 3 or 5 but not by both.
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 100; i < 4000001; i++) {
if ((i % 3 == 0) != (i % 5 == 0)) {
sum = sum + i;
}
}
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 100; i < 4000001; i++) {
if (i % 3 === 0 ^ i % 5 === 0) {
sum = sum + i;
}
}
use the exclusive OR , XOR ^ returns true only when one of the conditions not both is true.
I don't know how to go about this programming problem.
Given two integers n and m, how many numbers exist such that all numbers have all digits from 0 to n-1 and the difference between two adjacent digits is exactly 1 and the number of digits in the number is atmost 'm'.
What is the best way to solve this problem? Is there a direct mathematical formula?
Edit: The number cannot start with 0.
Example:
for n = 3 and m = 6 there are 18 such numbers (210, 2101, 21012, 210121 ... etc)
Update (some people have encountered an ambiguity):
All digits from 0 to n-1 must be present.
This Python code computes the answer in O(nm) by keeping track of the numbers ending with a particular digit.
Different arrays (A,B,C,D) are used to track numbers that have hit the maximum or minimum of the range.
n=3
m=6
A=[1]*n # Number of ways of being at digit i and never being to min or max
B=[0]*n # number of ways with minimum being observed
C=[0]*n # number of ways with maximum being observed
D=[0]*n # number of ways with both being observed
A[0]=0 # Cannot start with 0
A[n-1]=0 # Have seen max so this 1 moves from A to C
C[n-1]=1 # Have seen max if start with highest digit
t=0
for k in range(m-1):
A2=[0]*n
B2=[0]*n
C2=[0]*n
D2=[0]*n
for i in range(1,n-1):
A2[i]=A[i+1]+A[i-1]
B2[i]=B[i+1]+B[i-1]
C2[i]=C[i+1]+C[i-1]
D2[i]=D[i+1]+D[i-1]
B2[0]=A[1]+B[1]
C2[n-1]=A[n-2]+C[n-2]
D2[0]=C[1]+D[1]
D2[n-1]=B[n-2]+D[n-2]
A=A2
B=B2
C=C2
D=D2
x=sum(d for d in D2)
t+=x
print t
After doing some more research, I think there may actually be a mathematical approach after all, although the math is advanced for me. Douglas S. Stones pointed me in the direction of Joseph Myers' (2008) article, BMO 2008–2009 Round 1 Problem 1—Generalisation, which derives formulas for calculating the number of zig-zag paths across a rectangular board.
As I understand it, in Anirudh's example, our board would have 6 rows of length 3 (I believe this would mean n=3 and r=6 in the article's terms). We can visualize our board so:
0 1 2 example zig-zag path: 0
0 1 2 1
0 1 2 0
0 1 2 1
0 1 2 2
0 1 2 1
Since Myers' formula m(n,r) would generate the number for all the zig-zag paths, that is, the number of all 6-digit numbers where all adjacent digits are consecutive and digits are chosen from (0,1,2), we would still need to determine and subtract those that begin with zero and those that do not include all digits.
If I understand correctly, we may do this in the following way for our example, although generalizing the concept to arbitrary m and n may prove more complicated:
Let m(3,6) equal the number of 6-digit numbers where all adjacent digits
are consecutive and digits are chosen from (0,1,2). According to Myers,
m(3,r) is given by formula and also equals OEIS sequence A029744 at
index r+2, so we have
m(3,6) = 16
How many of these numbers start with zero? Myers describes c(n,r) as the
number of zig-zag paths whose colour is that of the square in the top
right corner of the board. In our case, c(3,6) would include the total
for starting-digit 0 as well as starting-digit 2. He gives c(3,2r) as 2^r,
so we have
c(3,6) = 8. For starting-digit 0 only, we divide by two to get 4.
Now we need to obtain only those numbers that include all the digits in
the range, but how? We can do this be subtracting m(n-1,r) from m(n,r).
In our case, we have all the m(2,6) that would include only 0's and 1's,
and all the m(2,6) that would include 1's and 2's. Myers gives
m(2,anything) as 2, so we have
2*m(2,6) = 2*2 = 4
But we must remember that one of the zero-starting numbers is included
in our total for 2*m(2,6), namely 010101. So all together we have
m(3,6) - c(3,6)/2 - 4 + 1
= 16 - 4 - 4 + 1
= 9
To complete our example, we must follow a similar process for m(3,5),
m(3,4) and m(3,3). Since it's late here, I might follow up tomorrow...
One approach could be to program it recursively, calling the function to add as well as subtract from the last digit.
Haskell code:
import Data.List (sort,nub)
f n m = concatMap (combs n) [n..m]
combs n m = concatMap (\x -> combs' 1 [x]) [1..n - 1] where
combs' count result
| count == m = if test then [concatMap show result] else []
| otherwise = combs' (count + 1) (result ++ [r + 1])
++ combs' (count + 1) (result ++ [r - 1])
where r = last result
test = (nub . sort $ result) == [0..n - 1]
Output:
*Main> f 3 6
["210","1210","1012","2101","12101","10121","21210","21012"
,"21010","121210","121012","121010","101212","101210","101012"
,"212101","210121","210101"]
In response to Anirudh Rayabharam's comment, I hope the following code will be more 'pseudocode' like. When the total number of digits reaches m, the function g outputs 1 if the solution has hashed all [0..n-1], and 0 if not. The function f accumulates the results for g for starting digits [1..n-1] and total number of digits [n..m].
Haskell code:
import qualified Data.Set as S
g :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> (S.Set Int, Int) -> Int
g n m digitCount lastDigit (hash,hashCount)
| digitCount == m = if test then 1 else 0
| otherwise =
if lastDigit == 0
then g n m d' (lastDigit + 1) (hash'',hashCount')
else if lastDigit == n - 1
then g n m d' (lastDigit - 1) (hash'',hashCount')
else g n m d' (lastDigit + 1) (hash'',hashCount')
+ g n m d' (lastDigit - 1) (hash'',hashCount')
where test = hashCount' == n
d' = digitCount + 1
hash'' = if test then S.empty else hash'
(hash',hashCount')
| hashCount == n = (S.empty,hashCount)
| S.member lastDigit hash = (hash,hashCount)
| otherwise = (S.insert lastDigit hash,hashCount + 1)
f n m = foldr forEachNumDigits 0 [n..m] where
forEachNumDigits numDigits accumulator =
accumulator + foldr forEachStartingDigit 0 [1..n - 1] where
forEachStartingDigit startingDigit accumulator' =
accumulator' + g n numDigits 1 startingDigit (S.empty,0)
Output:
*Main> f 3 6
18
(0.01 secs, 571980 bytes)
*Main> f 4 20
62784
(1.23 secs, 97795656 bytes)
*Main> f 4 25
762465
(11.73 secs, 1068373268 bytes)
model your problem as 2 superimposed lattices in 2 dimensions, specifically as pairs (i,j) interconnected with oriented edges ((i0,j0),(i1,j1)) where i1 = i0 + 1, |j1 - j0| = 1, modified as follows:
dropping all pairs (i,j) with j > 9 and its incident edges
dropping all pairs (i,j) with i > m-1 and its incident edges
dropping edge ((0,0), (1,1))
this construction results in a structure like in this diagram:
:
the requested numbers map to paths in the lattice starting at one of the green elements ((0,j), j=1..min(n-1,9)) that contain at least one pink and one red element ((i,0), i=1..m-1, (i,n-1), i=0..m-1 ). to see this, identify the i-th digit j of a given number with point (i,j). including pink and red elements ('extremal digits') guarantee that all available diguts are represented in the number.
Analysis
for convenience, let q1, q2 denote the position-1.
let q1 be the position of a number's first digit being either 0 or min(n-1,9).
let q2 be the position of a number's first 0 if the digit at position q1 is min(n-1,9) and vv.
case 1: first extremal digit is 0
the number of valid prefixes containing no 0 can be expressed as sum_{k=1..min(n-1,9)} (paths_to_0(k,1,q1), the function paths_to_0 being recursively defined as
paths_to_0(0,q1-1,q1) = 0;
paths_to_0(1,q1-1,q1) = 1;
paths_to_0(digit,i,q1) = 0; if q1-i < digit;
paths_to_0(x,_,_) = 0; if x >= min(n-1,9)
// x=min(n-1,9) mustn't occur before position q2,
// x > min(n-1,9) not at all
paths_to_0(x,_,_) = 0; if x <= 0;
// x=0 mustn't occur before position q1,
// x < 0 not at all
and else paths_to_0(digit,i,q1) =
paths_to_0(digit+1,i+1,q1) + paths_to_0(digit-1,i+1,q1);
similarly we have
paths_to_max(min(n-1,9),q2-1,q2) = 0;
paths_to_max(min(n-2,8),q2-1,q2) = 1;
paths_to_max(digit,i,q2) = 0 if q2-i < n-1;
paths_to_max(x,_,_) = 0; if x >= min(n-1,9)
// x=min(n-1,9) mustn't occur before
// position q2,
// x > min(n-1,9) not at all
paths_to_max(x,_,_) = 0; if x < 0;
and else paths_to_max(digit,q1,q2) =
paths_max(digit+1,q1+1,q2) + paths_to_max(digit-1,q1+1,q2);
and finally
paths_suffix(digit,length-1,length) = 2; if digit > 0 and digit < min(n-1,9)
paths_suffix(digit,length-1,length) = 1; if digit = 0 or digit = min(n-1,9)
paths_suffix(digit,k,length) = 0; if length > m-1
or length < q2
or k > length
paths_suffix(digit,k,0) = 1; // the empty path
and else paths_suffix(digit,k,length) =
paths_suffix(digit+1,k+1,length) + paths_suffix(digit-1,k+1,length);
... for a grand total of
number_count_case_1(n, m) =
sum_{first=1..min(n-1,9), q1=1..m-1-(n-1), q2=q1..m-1, l_suffix=0..m-1-q2} (
paths_to_0(first,1,q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,q1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
case 2: first extremal digit is min(n-1,9)
case 2.1: initial digit is not min(n-1,9)
this is symmetrical to case 1 with all digits d replaced by min(n,10) - d. as the lattice structure is symmetrical, this means number_count_case_2_1 = number_count_case_1.
case 2.2: initial digit is min(n-1,9)
note that q1 is 1 and the second digit must be min(n-2,8).
thus
number_count_case_2_2 (n, m) =
sum_{q2=1..m-2, l_suffix=0..m-2-q2} (
paths_to_max(1,1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
so the grand grand total will be
number_count ( n, m ) = 2 * number_count_case_1 (n, m) + number_count_case_2_2 (n, m);
Code
i don't know whether a closed expression for number_count exists, but the following perl code will compute it (the code is but a proof of concept as it does not use memoization techniques to avoid recomputing results already obtained):
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($n, $m) = ( 5, 7 ); # for example
$n = ($n > 10) ? 10 : $n; # cutoff
sub min
sub paths_to_0 ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d == 0) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 0; }
if (($d == 1) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if ($until - $at < $d) { return 0; }
if (($d <= 0) || ($d >= $n))) { return 0; }
return paths_to_0($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_to_0($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_to_0
sub paths_to_max ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d == $n-1) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 0; }
if (($d == $n-2) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if ($until - $at < $n-1) { return 0; }
if (($d < 0) || ($d >= $n-1)) { return 0; }
return paths_to_max($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_to_max($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_to_max
sub paths_suffix ($$$) {
my (
$d
, $at
, $until
) = #_;
#
if (($d < $n-1) && ($d > 0) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 2; }
if ((($d == $n-1) && ($d == 0)) && ($at == $until - 1)) { return 1; }
if (($until > $m-1) || ($at > $until)) { return 0; }
if ($until == 0) { return 1; }
return paths_suffix($d+1, $at+1, $until) + paths_suffix($d-1, $at+1, $until);
} # paths_suffix
#
# main
#
number_count =
sum_{first=1..min(n-1,9), q1=1..m-1-(n-1), q2=q1..m-1, l_suffix=0..m-1-q2} (
paths_to_0(first,1,q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,q1,q2)
+ paths_suffix(min(n-1,9),q2,l_suffix+q2)
)
my ($number_count, $number_count_2_2) = (0, 0);
my ($first, $q1, i, $l_suffix);
for ($first = 1; $first <= $n-1; $first++) {
for ($q1 = 1; $q1 <= $m-1 - ($n-1); $q1++) {
for ($q2 = $q1; $q2 <= $m-1; $q2++) {
for ($l_suffix = 0; $l_suffix <= $m-1 - $q2; $l_suffix++) {
$number_count =
$number_count
+ paths_to_0($first,1,$q1)
+ paths_to_max(0,$q1,$q2)
+ paths_suffix($n-1,$q2,$l_suffix+$q2)
;
}
}
}
}
#
# case 2.2
#
for ($q2 = 1; $q2 <= $m-2; $q2++) {
for ($l_suffix = 0; $l_suffix <= $m-2 - $q2; $l_suffix++) {
$number_count_2_2 =
$number_count_2_2
+ paths_to_max(1,1,$q2)
+ paths_suffix($n-1,$q2,$l_suffix+$q2)
;
}
}
$number_count = 2 * $number_count + number_count_2_2;
I know that there is an algorithm that permits, given a combination of number (no repetitions, no order), calculates the index of the lexicographic order.
It would be very useful for my application to speedup things...
For example:
combination(10, 5)
1 - 1 2 3 4 5
2 - 1 2 3 4 6
3 - 1 2 3 4 7
....
251 - 5 7 8 9 10
252 - 6 7 8 9 10
I need that the algorithm returns the index of the given combination.
es: index( 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 ) --> index
EDIT: actually I'm using a java application that generates all combinations C(53, 5) and inserts them into a TreeMap.
My idea is to create an array that contains all combinations (and related data) that I can index with this algorithm.
Everything is to speedup combination searching.
However I tried some (not all) of your solutions and the algorithms that you proposed are slower that a get() from TreeMap.
If it helps: my needs are for a combination of 5 from 53 starting from 0 to 52.
Thank you again to all :-)
Here is a snippet that will do the work.
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
const int n = 10;
const int k = 5;
int combination[k] = {2, 5, 7, 8, 10};
int index = 0;
int j = 0;
for (int i = 0; i != k; ++i)
{
for (++j; j != combination[i]; ++j)
{
index += c(n - j, k - i - 1);
}
}
std::cout << index + 1 << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It assumes you have a function
int c(int n, int k);
that will return the number of combinations of choosing k elements out of n elements.
The loop calculates the number of combinations preceding the given combination.
By adding one at the end we get the actual index.
For the given combination there are
c(9, 4) = 126 combinations containing 1 and hence preceding it in lexicographic order.
Of the combinations containing 2 as the smallest number there are
c(7, 3) = 35 combinations having 3 as the second smallest number
c(6, 3) = 20 combinations having 4 as the second smallest number
All of these are preceding the given combination.
Of the combinations containing 2 and 5 as the two smallest numbers there are
c(4, 2) = 6 combinations having 6 as the third smallest number.
All of these are preceding the given combination.
Etc.
If you put a print statement in the inner loop you will get the numbers
126, 35, 20, 6, 1.
Hope that explains the code.
Convert your number selections to a factorial base number. This number will be the index you want. Technically this calculates the lexicographical index of all permutations, but if you only give it combinations, the indexes will still be well ordered, just with some large gaps for all the permutations that come in between each combination.
Edit: pseudocode removed, it was incorrect, but the method above should work. Too tired to come up with correct pseudocode at the moment.
Edit 2: Here's an example. Say we were choosing a combination of 5 elements from a set of 10 elements, like in your example above. If the combination was 2 3 4 6 8, you would get the related factorial base number like so:
Take the unselected elements and count how many you have to pass by to get to the one you are selecting.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 -> 1
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 -> 1
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 -> 1
1 5 6 7 8 9 10
6 -> 2
1 5 7 8 9 10
8 -> 3
So the index in factorial base is 1112300000
In decimal base, it's
1*9! + 1*8! + 1*7! + 2*6! + 3*5! = 410040
This is Algorithm 2.7 kSubsetLexRank on page 44 of Combinatorial Algorithms by Kreher and Stinson.
r = 0
t[0] = 0
for i from 1 to k
if t[i - 1] + 1 <= t[i] - 1
for j from t[i - 1] to t[i] - 1
r = r + choose(n - j, k - i)
return r
The array t holds your values, for example [5 7 8 9 10]. The function choose(n, k) calculates the number "n choose k". The result value r will be the index, 251 for the example. Other inputs are n and k, for the example they would be 10 and 5.
zero-base,
# v: array of length k consisting of numbers between 0 and n-1 (ascending)
def index_of_combination(n,k,v):
idx = 0
for p in range(k-1):
if p == 0: arrg = range(1,v[p]+1)
else: arrg = range(v[p-1]+2, v[p]+1)
for a in arrg:
idx += combi[n-a, k-1-p]
idx += v[k-1] - v[k-2] - 1
return idx
Null Set has the right approach. The index corresponds to the factorial-base number of the sequence. You build a factorial-base number just like any other base number, except that the base decreases for each digit.
Now, the value of each digit in the factorial-base number is the number of elements less than it that have not yet been used. So, for combination(10, 5):
(1 2 3 4 5) == 0*9!/5! + 0*8!/5! + 0*7!/5! + 0*6!/5! + 0*5!/5!
== 0*3024 + 0*336 + 0*42 + 0*6 + 0*1
== 0
(10 9 8 7 6) == 9*3024 + 8*336 + 7*42 + 6*6 + 5*1
== 30239
It should be pretty easy to calculate the index incrementally.
If you have a set of positive integers 0<=x_1 < x_2< ... < x_k , then you could use something called the squashed order:
I = sum(j=1..k) Choose(x_j,j)
The beauty of the squashed order is that it works independent of the largest value in the parent set.
The squashed order is not the order you are looking for, but it is related.
To use the squashed order to get the lexicographic order in the set of k-subsets of {1,...,n) is by taking
1 <= x1 < ... < x_k <=n
compute
0 <= n-x_k < n-x_(k-1) ... < n-x_1
Then compute the squashed order index of (n-x_k,...,n-k_1)
Then subtract the squashed order index from Choose(n,k) to get your result, which is the lexicographic index.
If you have relatively small values of n and k, you can cache all the values Choose(a,b) with a
See Anderson, Combinatorics on Finite Sets, pp 112-119
I needed also the same for a project of mine and the fastest solution I found was (Python):
import math
def nCr(n,r):
f = math.factorial
return f(n) / f(r) / f(n-r)
def index(comb,n,k):
r=nCr(n,k)
for i in range(k):
if n-comb[i]<k-i:continue
r=r-nCr(n-comb[i],k-i)
return r
My input "comb" contained elements in increasing order You can test the code with for example:
import itertools
k=3
t=[1,2,3,4,5]
for x in itertools.combinations(t, k):
print x,index(x,len(t),k)
It is not hard to prove that if comb=(a1,a2,a3...,ak) (in increasing order) then:
index=[nCk-(n-a1+1)Ck] + [(n-a1)C(k-1)-(n-a2+1)C(k-1)] + ... =
nCk -(n-a1)Ck -(n-a2)C(k-1) - .... -(n-ak)C1
There's another way to do all this. You could generate all possible combinations and write them into a binary file where each comb is represented by it's index starting from zero. Then, when you need to find an index, and the combination is given, you apply a binary search on the file. Here's the function. It's written in VB.NET 2010 for my lotto program, it works with Israel lottery system so there's a bonus (7th) number; just ignore it.
Public Function Comb2Index( _
ByVal gAr() As Byte) As UInt32
Dim mxPntr As UInt32 = WHL.AMT.WHL_SYS_00 '(16.273.488)
Dim mdPntr As UInt32 = mxPntr \ 2
Dim eqCntr As Byte
Dim rdAr() As Byte
modBinary.OpenFile(WHL.WHL_SYS_00, _
FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read)
Do
modBinary.ReadBlock(mdPntr, rdAr)
RP: If eqCntr = 7 Then GoTo EX
If gAr(eqCntr) = rdAr(eqCntr) Then
eqCntr += 1
GoTo RP
ElseIf gAr(eqCntr) < rdAr(eqCntr) Then
If eqCntr > 0 Then eqCntr = 0
mxPntr = mdPntr
mdPntr \= 2
ElseIf gAr(eqCntr) > rdAr(eqCntr) Then
If eqCntr > 0 Then eqCntr = 0
mdPntr += (mxPntr - mdPntr) \ 2
End If
Loop Until eqCntr = 7
EX: modBinary.CloseFile()
Return mdPntr
End Function
P.S. It takes 5 to 10 mins to generate 16 million combs on a Core 2 Duo. To find the index using binary search on file takes 397 milliseconds on a SATA drive.
Assuming the maximum setSize is not too large, you can simply generate a lookup table, where the inputs are encoded this way:
int index(a,b,c,...)
{
int key = 0;
key |= 1<<a;
key |= 1<<b;
key |= 1<<c;
//repeat for all arguments
return Lookup[key];
}
To generate the lookup table, look at this "banker's order" algorithm. Generate all the combinations, and also store the base index for each nItems. (For the example on p6, this would be [0,1,5,11,15]). Note that by you storing the answers in the opposite order from the example (LSBs set first) you will only need one table, sized for the largest possible set.
Populate the lookup table by walking through the combinations doing Lookup[combination[i]]=i-baseIdx[nItems]
EDIT: Never mind. This is completely wrong.
Let your combination be (a1, a2, ..., ak-1, ak) where a1 < a2 < ... < ak. Let choose(a,b) = a!/(b!*(a-b)!) if a >= b and 0 otherwise. Then, the index you are looking for is
choose(ak-1, k) + choose(ak-1-1, k-1) + choose(ak-2-1, k-2) + ... + choose (a2-1, 2) + choose (a1-1, 1) + 1
The first term counts the number of k-element combinations such that the largest element is less than ak. The second term counts the number of (k-1)-element combinations such that the largest element is less than ak-1. And, so on.
Notice that the size of the universe of elements to be chosen from (10 in your example) does not play a role in the computation of the index. Can you see why?
Sample solution:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// The input
var n = 5;
var t = new[] { 2, 4, 5 };
// Helping transformations
ComputeDistances(t);
CorrectDistances(t);
// The algorithm
var r = CalculateRank(t, n);
Console.WriteLine("n = 5");
Console.WriteLine("t = {2, 4, 5}");
Console.WriteLine("r = {0}", r);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void ComputeDistances(int[] t)
{
var k = t.Length;
while (--k >= 0)
t[k] -= (k + 1);
}
static void CorrectDistances(int[] t)
{
var k = t.Length;
while (--k > 0)
t[k] -= t[k - 1];
}
static int CalculateRank(int[] t, int n)
{
int k = t.Length - 1, r = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < t.Length; i++)
{
if (t[i] == 0)
{
n--;
k--;
continue;
}
for (var j = 0; j < t[i]; j++)
{
n--;
r += CalculateBinomialCoefficient(n, k);
}
n--;
k--;
}
return r;
}
static int CalculateBinomialCoefficient(int n, int k)
{
int i, l = 1, m, x, y;
if (n - k < k)
{
x = k;
y = n - k;
}
else
{
x = n - k;
y = k;
}
for (i = x + 1; i <= n; i++)
l *= i;
m = CalculateFactorial(y);
return l/m;
}
static int CalculateFactorial(int n)
{
int i, w = 1;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
w *= i;
return w;
}
}
The idea behind the scenes is to associate a k-subset with an operation of drawing k-elements from the n-size set. It is a combination, so the overall count of possible items will be (n k). It is a clue that we could seek the solution in Pascal Triangle. After a while of comparing manually written examples with the appropriate numbers from the Pascal Triangle, we will find the pattern and hence the algorithm.
I used user515430's answer and converted to python3. Also this supports non-continuous values so you could pass in [1,3,5,7,9] as your pool instead of range(1,11)
from itertools import combinations
from scipy.special import comb
from pandas import Index
debugcombinations = False
class IndexedCombination:
def __init__(self, _setsize, _poolvalues):
self.setsize = _setsize
self.poolvals = Index(_poolvalues)
self.poolsize = len(self.poolvals)
self.totalcombinations = 1
fast_k = min(self.setsize, self.poolsize - self.setsize)
for i in range(1, fast_k + 1):
self.totalcombinations = self.totalcombinations * (self.poolsize - fast_k + i) // i
#fill the nCr cache
self.choose_cache = {}
n = self.poolsize
k = self.setsize
for i in range(k + 1):
for j in range(n + 1):
if n - j >= k - i:
self.choose_cache[n - j,k - i] = comb(n - j,k - i, exact=True)
if debugcombinations:
print('testnth = ' + str(self.testnth()))
def get_nth_combination(self,index):
n = self.poolsize
r = self.setsize
c = self.totalcombinations
#if index < 0 or index >= c:
# raise IndexError
result = []
while r:
c, n, r = c*r//n, n-1, r-1
while index >= c:
index -= c
c, n = c*(n-r)//n, n-1
result.append(self.poolvals[-1 - n])
return tuple(result)
def get_n_from_combination(self,someset):
n = self.poolsize
k = self.setsize
index = 0
j = 0
for i in range(k):
setidx = self.poolvals.get_loc(someset[i])
for j in range(j + 1, setidx + 1):
index += self.choose_cache[n - j, k - i - 1]
j += 1
return index
#just used to test whether nth_combination from the internet actually works
def testnth(self):
n = 0
_setsize = self.setsize
mainset = self.poolvals
for someset in combinations(mainset, _setsize):
nthset = self.get_nth_combination(n)
n2 = self.get_n_from_combination(nthset)
if debugcombinations:
print(str(n) + ': ' + str(someset) + ' vs ' + str(n2) + ': ' + str(nthset))
if n != n2:
return False
for x in range(_setsize):
if someset[x] != nthset[x]:
return False
n += 1
return True
setcombination = IndexedCombination(5, list(range(1,10+1)))
print( str(setcombination.get_n_from_combination([2,5,7,8,10])))
returns 188