Splitting an array into two subarrays with minimal absolute difference - ruby

For example, consider array A:
[3, 1, 2, 4, 3]
I can split this array in four places:
P = 1, difference = |3 − 10| = 7
P = 2, difference = |4 − 9| = 5
P = 3, difference = |6 − 7| = 1
P = 4, difference = |10 − 3| = 7
The minimal difference is 1.
Each element of array is an integer within the range [−1,000..1,000].
Below is the code I wrote. My code is correct for this exercise, and is correct for the given input but incorrect in some other cases. I do not understand why.
def minimaldifference(a)
sumArr = []
sumArr = sumfromstarting(a)
sum = sumArr.last
sumRev = sumFromReverse(a, sum)
size = sumArr.size-2
min = 0
v = 0
for i in 0..size
if(i==0)
min = (sumArr[i] - sumRev[i]).abs
else
v = (sumArr[i] - sumRev[i]).abs
if( v < min)
min = v
end
end
end
min
end
def sumfromstarting(a)
sumArr = []
sum = 0
a.each do |i|
sum += i
sumArr.push(sum)
end
sumArr
end
def sumFromReverse(a, sum)
sumArr = []
rsum = 0
a.each do |i|
rsum += i
sumArr.push(sum - i)
end
sumArr
end
a = [3, 1, 2, 4, 3]
puts minimaldifference(a)

This solution requires that all elements of the array be non-negative, which I understand is the case.
Consider
a = [4,1,3,1,2,4,3,1,5]
The possible partitions of this array are as follows:
Partition Totals Diff Abs Diff
[4], [1,3,1,2,4,3,1,5] [4, 20]
[4,1], [3,1,2,4,3,1,5] [4+1, 20-1] =>[5, 19] -14 14
[4,1,3], [1,2,4,3,1,5] [5+3, 19-3] =>[8, 16] -8 8
[4,1,3,1], [2,4,3,1,5] [8+1, 16-1] =>[9, 15] -6 6
[4,1,3,1,2], [4,3,1,5] [9+2, 15-2] =>[11, 13] -2 2
[4,1,3,1,2,4], [3,1,5] [11+4, 13-4]=>[15, 9] 6 6
[4,1,3,1,2,4,3], [1,5] [15+3, 9-3] =>[18, 6] 12 12
[4,1,3,1,2,4,3,1], [5] [18+1, 6-1] =>[19, 5] 14 14
In each row of this table "Diff" equals the difference between the totals for the two sets. Because all elements of a are non-negative, these values are monotonically non-decreasing. The absolute differences are therefore non-increasing then non-decreasing. It follows that to obtain the minimum absolute difference of totals we simply step through this array, stopping when the absolute difference would increase if the next element were moved from the "right" array to the "left" array.
We can implement this in code as follows.
def minimize_difference(arr)
raise ArgumentError, "array must contain at least two elements" if arr.size < 2
left, *right = arr
last = left - right.reduce(:+)
left = [left]
while right.any?
test = last + 2*right.first
break if test.abs > last.abs
last = test
left << right.shift
end
[left, right, last.abs]
end
minimize_difference [3, 1, 2, 4, 3]
#=> [[3, 1, 2], [4, 3], 1]

Related

Min, Max, Average, and Median of All Possible Sums (Ruby)

I've been using a piece of Ruby code that I found here.
Here's the code:
a = [1, 4, 7, 13]
def add(ary, idx, sum)
(idx...ary.length).each do |i|
add(ary, i+1, sum + ary[i])
end
puts sum
end
add(a, 0, 0)
Thing is, I don't need it to spit out the results of adding all the sums. I need the min, max, median, and average of the sums.
How do I modify this code in order to get them? I'm a total beginner at Ruby. I've been using this code, and then transferring the results to Excel to get the values I want. But it feels like my methods could be more efficient.
Thank you for your help.
EDIT: Expected results - Currently the code spits this out on my screen:
25
12
18
5
21
8
14
1
24
11
17
4
20
7
13
0
I want it to spit out the min, average, median, and max instead:
0
12.5
12.5
25
a = [1, 4, 7, 13]
def all_sums(array)
combination_lengths = (0..array.length)
all_combinations = combination_lengths.flat_map do |c|
array.combination(c).to_a
end
all_combinations.map(&:sum)
end
def print_min_max_avg_med(array)
puts array.min
puts array.max
puts array.sum.to_f / array.length
sorted_arr = array.sort
puts sorted_arr[(array.length - 1) / 2] + sorted_arr[array.length / 2] / 2.0
end
print_min_max_avg_med(all_sums(a))
Ok, instead of outputting the values we can store them in an arrary and use that array for the values you need.
(edited after chewing out by Stefan Pochmann)
a = [1, 4, 7, 13]
def add(ary, idx, sum, results = nil)
unless results
results = []
first_run = true
end
(idx...ary.length).each do |i|
add(ary, i+1, sum + ary[i], results)
end
results << sum
if first_run
puts results.min
puts results.inject(&:+).to_f / results.size
puts (results.sort[((results.size - 1) / 2)] + results.sort[(results.size / 2)]) / 2.0
puts results.max
end
end
add(a, 0, 0)
Alright, after seeing the examples from Pochmann and Bronca, I put this together after googling for a better way to get the median.
a = [1, 4, 7, 13]
def all_sums(array)
combination_lengths = (0..array.length)
all_combinations = combination_lengths.flat_map do |c|
array.combination(c).to_a
end
all_combinations.map(&:sum)
end
def median(array)
sorted = array.sort
len = sorted.length
(sorted[(len - 1) / 2] + sorted[len / 2]) / 2.0
end
def print_min_max_avg_med(array)
puts array.min
puts array.empty? ? 0 : array.sum.to_f / array.length
puts median(array)
puts array.max
end
print_min_max_avg_med(all_sums(a))
I've run a few tests, and it seems to work for both odd and even arrays. Hope this is useful to the future somebody else stuck in my present position.
Thank you everyone who helped.
Min and Max
The min and max are easy.
def min_and_max_of_sums a
return [nil, nil] if a.empty?
negs, nonnegs = a.partition { |n| n < 0 }
[negs.any? ? negs.sum : nonnegs.min, nonnegs.any? ? nonnegs.sum : negs.max]
end
min_and_max_of_sums [1, 4, -5, 7, -8, 13]
#=> [-13, 25]
min_and_max_of_sums [1, 2, 3]
#=> [1, 6]
min_and_max_of_sums [-1, -2, -3]
#=> [-6, -1]
min_and_max_of_sums []
#=> [nil, nil]
Mean
Now consider the calculation of the mean.
If n is the size of the array a, there are 2n combinations of elements of a that contain between 0 and n elements.1 Moreover, there is a 1-1 mapping between each of those combinations and an n-vector of zeros and ones, where the ith element of the n-vector equals 1 if and only if the element ai is included in the combination. Note that there are 2n such n-vectors, one-half containing a 1 in the ith position. This means that one-half of the combinations contain the element ai. As i is arbitrary, it follows that each element of a appears in one-half of the combinations.
The mean of the sums of all elements of all combinations equals T/2n, where T is the sum of the sums of the elements of each combination. Each element ai appears in 2n/2 combinations, so its contribution to T equals (in Ruby terms)
a[i] * 2**(n)/2
As this hold for every element of a, the mean equals
a.sum * (2**(n)/2)/2**(n)
=> a.sum/2
Here's an example. For the array
a = [1, 4, 8]
the mean of the sums would be
a.sum/2
#=> 13/2 => 6.5
If we were to calculate the mean by its definition we would perform the following calculation (and of course get the same return value).
(0 + (1) + (4) + (8) + (1+4) + (1+8) + (4+8) + (1=4+8))/2**3
#=> (4*1 + 4*4 + 4*8)/8
#=> (1 + 4 + 8)/2
#=> 6.5
I will leave the calculating of the median to others.
1 Search for "Sums of the binomial coefficients" here.

ruby enumerators: immediately skip multiple iterations (or start iterating from n)

I'm iterating over permutations of a list (18 items) like this:
List = [item0..item18] # (unpredictable)
Permutation_size = 7
Start_at = 200_000_000
for item, i in List.repeated_permutation(Permutation_size).each_with_index
next if i < Start_at
# do stuff
end
Start_at is used to resume from a previously saved state so it's always different but it takes almost 200s to reach 200 million so I'm wondering if there is a faster way to skip multiple iterations or start at iteration n (converting the enumerator to an array takes even longer). If not, a way to create a custom repeated_permutation(n).each_with_index (that yields results in the same order) would also be appreciated.
Feel free to redirect me to an existing answer (I haven't found any)
PS. (what I had come up with)
class Array
def rep_per_with_index len, start_at = 0
b = size
raise 'btl' if b > 36
counter = [0]*len
# counter = (start_at.to_s b).split('').map {|i| '0123456789'.include?(i) ? i.to_i : (i.ord - 87)} #this is weird, your way is way faster
start_at.to_s(b).chars.map {|i| i.to_i b}
counter.unshift *[0]*(len - counter.length)
counter.reverse!
i = start_at
Enumerator.new do |y|
loop do
y << [counter.reverse.map {|i| self[i]}, i]
i += 1
counter[0] += 1
counter.each_with_index do |v, i|
if v >= b
if i == len - 1
raise StopIteration
else
counter[i] = 0
counter[i + 1] += 1
end
else
break
end
end
end
end
end
end
I first construct a helper method, change_base, with three arguments:
off, the base-10 offset into the sequence of repeated permutations of the given array arr,
m, a number system base; and
p, the permutation size.
The method performs three steps to construct an array off_m:
converts off to base m (radix m);
separates the digits of the base m value into an array; and
if necessary, pads the array with leading 0s to make it of size p.
By setting m = arr.size, each digit of off_m is an offset into arr, so off_m maps the base-10 offset to a unique permutation of size p.
def change_base(m, p, off)
arr = off.to_s(m).chars.map { |c| c.to_i(m) }
arr.unshift(*[0]*(p-arr.size))
end
Some examples:
change_base(16, 2, 32)
#=> [2, 0]
change_base(16, 3, 255)
#=> [0, 15, 15]
change_base(36, 4, 859243)
#=> [18, 14, 35, 31]
18*36**3 + 14*36**2 + 35*36**1 + 31
#=> 859243
This implementation of change_base requires that m <= 36. I assume that will be sufficient, but algorithms are available to convert base-10 numbers to numbers with arbitrarily-large bases.
We now construct a method which accepts the given array, arr, the size of each permutation, p and a given base-10 offset into the sequence of permutations. The method returns a permutation, namely, an array of size p whose elements are elements of arr.
def offset_to_perm(arr, p, off)
arr.values_at(*change_base(arr.size, p, off))
end
We can now try this with an example.
arr = (0..3).to_a
p = 2
(arr.size**p).times do |off|
print "perm for off = "
print " " if off < 10
print "#{off}: "
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, off)
end
perm for off = 0: [0, 0]
perm for off = 1: [0, 1]
perm for off = 2: [0, 2]
perm for off = 3: [0, 3]
perm for off = 4: [0, 1]
perm for off = 5: [1, 1]
perm for off = 6: [2, 1]
perm for off = 7: [3, 1]
perm for off = 8: [0, 2]
perm for off = 9: [1, 2]
perm for off = 10: [2, 2]
perm for off = 11: [3, 2]
perm for off = 12: [0, 3]
perm for off = 13: [1, 3]
perm for off = 14: [2, 3]
perm for off = 15: [3, 3]
If we wish to begin at, say, offset 5, we can write:
i = 5
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, i)
[1, 1]
i = i.next #=> 6
p offset_to_perm(arr, p, i)
[2, 1]
...

Number of possible equations of K numbers whose sum is N in ruby

I have to create a program in ruby on rails so that it will take less time to solve the particular condition. Now i am to getting the less response time for k=4 but response time is more in case of k>5
Problem:
Problem is response time.
When value of k is more than 5 (k>5) response time is too late for given below equation.
Input: K, N (where 0 < N < ∞, 0 < K < ∞, and K <= N)
Output: Number of possible equations of K numbers whose sum is N.
Example Input:
N=10 K=3
Example Output:
Total unique equations = 8
1 + 1 + 8 = 10
1 + 2 + 7 = 10
1 + 3 + 6 = 10
1 + 4 + 5 = 10
2 + 2 + 6 = 10
2 + 3 + 5 = 10
2 + 4 + 4 = 10
3 + 3 + 4 = 10
For reference, N=100, K=3 should have a result of 833 unique sets
Here is my ruby code
module Combination
module Pairs
class Equation
def initialize(params)
#arr=[]
#n = params[:n]
#k = params[:k]
end
#To create possible equations
def create_equations
return "Please Enter value of n and k" if #k.blank? && #n.blank?
begin
Integer(#k)
rescue
return "Error: Please enter any +ve integer value of k"
end
begin
Integer(#n)
rescue
return "Error: Please enter any +ve integer value of n"
end
return "Please enter k < n" if #n < #k
create_equations_sum
end
def create_equations_sum
aar = []
#arr = []
#list_elements=(1..#n).to_a
(1..#k-1).each do |i|
aar << [*0..#n-1]
end
traverse([], aar, 0)
return #arr.uniq #return result
end
#To check sum
def generate_sum(*args)
new_elements = []
total= 0
args.flatten.each do |arg|
total += #list_elements[arg]
new_elements << #list_elements[arg]
end
if total < #n
new_elements << #n - total
#arr << new_elements.sort
else
return
end
end
def innerloop(arrayOfCurrentValues)
generate_sum(arrayOfCurrentValues)
end
#Recursive method to create dynamic nested loops.
def traverse(accumulated,params, index)
if (index==params.size)
return innerloop(accumulated)
end
currentParam = params[index]
currentParam.each do |currentElementOfCurrentParam|
traverse(accumulated+[currentElementOfCurrentParam],params, index+1)
end
end
end
end
end
run the code using
params = {:n =>100, :k =>4}
c = Combination::Pairs::Equation.new(params)
c.create_equations
Here are two ways to compute your answer. The first is simple but not very efficient; the second, which relies on an optimization technique, is much faster, but requires considerably more code.
Compact but Inefficient
This is a compact way to do the calculation, making use of the method Array#repeated_combination:
Code
def combos(n,k)
[*(1..n-k+1)].repeated_combination(3).select { |a| a.reduce(:+) == n }
end
Examples
combos(10,3)
#=> [[1, 1, 8], [1, 2, 7], [1, 3, 6], [1, 4, 5],
# [2, 2, 6], [2, 3, 5], [2, 4, 4], [3, 3, 4]]
combos(100,4).size
#=> 832
combos(1000,3).size
#=> 83333
Comment
The first two calculations take well under one second, but the third took a couple of minutes.
More efficient, but increased complexity
Code
def combos(n,k)
return nil if k.zero?
return [n] if k==1
return [1]*k if k==n
h = (1..k-1).each_with_object({}) { |i,h| h[i]=[[1]*i] }
(2..n-k+1).each do |i|
g = (1..[n/i,k].min).each_with_object(Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]}) do |m,f|
im = [i]*m
mxi = m*i
if m==k
f[mxi].concat(im) if mxi==n
else
f[mxi] << im if mxi + (k-m)*(i+1) <= n
(1..[(i-1)*(k-m), n-mxi].min).each do |j|
h[j].each do |a|
f[mxi+j].concat([a+im]) if
((a.size==k-m && mxi+j==n) ||
(a.size<k-m && (mxi+j+(k-m-a.size)*(i+1))<=n))
end
end
end
end
g.update({ n=>[[i]*k] }) if i*k == n
h.update(g) { |k,ov,nv| ov+nv }
end
h[n]
end
Examples
p combos(10,3)
#=> [[3, 3, 4], [2, 4, 4], [2, 3, 5], [1, 4, 5],
# [2, 2, 6], [1, 3, 6], [1, 2, 7], [1, 1, 8]]
p combos(10,4)
#=> [[2, 2, 3, 3], [1, 3, 3, 3], [2, 2, 2, 4], [1, 2, 3, 4], [1, 1, 4, 4],
# [1, 2, 2, 5], [1, 1, 3, 5], [1, 1, 2, 6], [1, 1, 1, 7]]
puts "size=#{combos(100 ,3).size}" #=> 833
puts "size=#{combos(100 ,5).size}" #=> 38224
puts "size=#{combos(1000,3).size}" #=> 83333
Comment
The calculation combos(1000,3).size took about five seconds, the others were all well under one second.
Explanation
This method employs dynamic programming to compute a solution. The state variable is the largest positive integer used to compute arrays with sizes no more than k whose elements sum to no more than n. Begin with the largest integer equal to one. The next step is compute all combinations of k or fewer elements that include the numbers 1 and 2, then 1, 2 and 3, and so on, until we have all combinations of k or fewer elements that include the numbers 1 through n. We then select all combinations of k elements that sum to n from the last calculation.
Suppose
k => 3
n => 7
then
h = (1..k-1).each_with_object({}) { |i,h| h[i]=[[1]*i] }
#=> (1..2).each_with_object({}) { |i,h| h[i]=[[1]*i] }
#=> { 1=>[[1]], 2=>[[1,1]] }
This reads, using the only the number 1, [[1]] is the array of all arrays that sum to 1 and [[1,1]] is the array of all arrays that sum to 2.
Notice that this does not include the element 3=>[[1,1,1]]. That's because, already having k=3 elments, if cannot be combined with any other elements, and sums to 3 < 7.
We next execute:
enum = (2..n-k+1).each #=> #<Enumerator: 2..5:each>
We can convert this enumerator to an array to see what values it will pass into its block:
enum.to_a #=> [2, 3, 4, 5]
As n => 7 you may be wondering why this array ends at 5. That's because there are no arrays containing three positive integers, of which at least one is a 6 or a 7, whose elements sum to 7.
The first value enum passes into the block, which is represented by the block variable i, is 2. We will now compute a hash g that includes all arrays that sum to n => 7 or less, have at most k => 3 elements, include one or more 2's and zero or more 1's. (That's a bit of a mouthful, but it's still not precise, as I will explain.)
enum2 = (1..[n/i,k].min).each_with_object(Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]})
#=> (1..[7/2,3].min).each_with_object(Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]})
#=> (1..3).each_with_object(Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]})
Enumerable#each_with_object creates an initially-empty hash that is represented by the block variable f. The default value of this hash is such that:
f[k] << o
is equivalent to
(f[k] |= []) << o
meaning that if f does not have a key k,
f[k] = []
is executed before
f[k] << o
is performed.
enum2 will pass the following elements into its block:
enum2.to_a #=> => [[1, {}], [2, {}], [3, {}]]
(though the hash may not be empty when elements after the first are passed into the block). The first element passed to the block is [1, {}], represented by the block variables:
m => 1
f => Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]}
m => 1 means we will intially construct arrays that contain one (i=) 2.
im = [i]*m #=> [2]*1 => [2]
mxi = m*i #=> 2*1 => 2
As (m == k) #=> (1 == 3) => false, we next execute
f[mxi] << im if mxi + (k-m)*(i+1) <= n
#=> f[2] << [2] if 2 + (3-1)*(1+1) <= 7
#=> f[2] << [2] if 8 <= 7
This considers whether [2] should be added to f[2] without adding any integers j < i = 2. (We have yet to consider the combining of one 2 with integers less than 2 [i.e., 1].) As 8 <= 7, we do not add [2] to f[2]. The reason is that, for this to be part of an array of length k=3, it would be of the form [2,x,y], where x > 2 and y > 2, so 2+x+y >= 2+3+3 = 8 > n = 7. Clear as mud?
Next,
enum3 = (1..[(i-1)*(k-m), n-mxi].min).each
#=> = (1..[2,5].min).each
#=> = (1..2).each
#=> #<Enumerator: 1..2:each>
which passes the values
enum3.to_a #=> [1, 2]
into its block, represented by the block variable j, which is the key of the hash h. What we will be doing here is combine one 2 (m=1) with arrays of elements containing integers up to 1 (i.e., just 1) that sum to j, so the elements of the resulting array will sum to m * i + j => 1 * 2 + j => 2 + j.
The reason enum3 does not pass values of j greater than 2 into its block is that h[l] is empty for l > 2 (but its a little more complicated when i > 2).
For j => 1,
h[j] #=> [[1]]
enum4 = h[j].each #=> #<Enumerator: [[1]]:each>
enum4.to_a #=> [[1]]
a #=> [1]
so
f[mxi+j].concat([a+im]) if
((a.size==k-m && mxi+j==n) || (a.size<k-m && (mxi+j+(k-m-a.size)*(i+1))<=n))
#=> f[2+1].concat([[1]+[2]) if ((1==2 && 2+1==7) || (1<=3-1 && (2+1+(1)*(3)<=7))
#=> f[3].concat([1,2]) if ((false && false) || (1<=2 && (6<=7))
#=> f[3] = [] << [[1,2]] if (false || (true && true)
#=> f[3] = [[1,2]] if true
So the expression on the left is evaluated. Again, the conditional expressions are a little complex. Consider first:
a.size==k-m && mxi+j==n
which is equivalent to:
([2] + f[j]).size == k && ([2] + f[j]).reduce(:+) == n
That is, include the array [2] + f[j] if it has k elements that sum to n.
The second condition considers whether the array the arrays [2] + f[j] with fewer than k elements can be "completed" with integers l > i = 2 and have a sum of n or less.
Now, f #=> {3=>[[1, 2]]}.
We now increment j to 2 and consider arrays [2] + h[2], whose elements will total 4.
For j => 2,
h[j] #=> [[1, 1]]
enum4 = h[j].each #=> #<Enumerator: [[1, 1]]:each>
enum4.to_a #=> [[1, 1]]
a #=> [1, 1]
f[mxi+j].concat([a+im]) if
((a.size==k-m && mxi+j==n) || (a.size<k-m && (mxi+j+(k-m-a.size)*(i+1)<=n))
#=> f[4].concat([1, 1, 2]) if ((2==(3-1) && 2+2 == 7) || (2+2+(3-1-2)*(3)<=7))
#=> f[4].concat([1, 1, 2]) if (true && false) || (false && true))
#=> f[4].concat([1, 1, 2]) if false
so this operation is not performed (since [1,1,2].size => 3 = k and [1,1,2].reduce(:+) => 4 < 7 = n.
We now increment m to 2, meaning that we will construct arrays having two (i=) 2's. After doing so, we see that:
f={3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]}
and no other arrays are added when m => 3, so we have:
g #=> {3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]}
The statement
g.update({ n=>[i]*k }) if i*k == n
#=> g.update({ 7=>[2,2,2] }) if 6 == 7
adds the element 7=>[2,2,2] to the hash g if the sum of its elements equals n, which it does not.
We now fold g into h, using Hash#update (aka Hash#merge!):
h.update(g) { |k,ov,nv| ov+nv }
#=> {}.update({3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]} { |k,ov,nv| ov+nv }
#=> {1=>[[1]], 2=>[[1, 1]], 3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]}
Now h contains all the arrays (values) whose keys are the array totals, comprised of the integers 1 and 2, which have at most 3 elements and sum to at most 7, excluding those arrays with fewer than 3 elements which cannot sum to 7 when integers greater than two are added.
The operations performed are as follows:
i m j f
h #=> { 1=>[[1]], 2=>[[1,1]] }
2 1 1 {3=>[[1, 2]]}
2 1 2 {3=>[[1, 2]]}
2 2 1 {3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]}
{3=>[[1, 2]], 4=>[[2, 2]]}
3 1 1 {}
3 1 2 {}
3 1 3 {}
3 1 4 {7=>[[2, 2, 3]]}
3 2 1 {7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3]]}
g before g.update: {7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3]]}
g after g.update: {7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3]]}
h after h.update(g): {1=>[[1]],
2=>[[1, 1]],
3=>[[1, 2]],
4=>[[2, 2]],
7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3]]}
4 1 1 {}
4 1 2 {}
4 1 3 {7=>[[1, 2, 4]]}
g before g.update: {7=>[[1, 2, 4]]}
g after g.update: {7=>[[1, 2, 4]]}
h after h.update(g): {1=>[[1]],
2=>[[1, 1]],
3=>[[1, 2]],
4=>[[2, 2]],
7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3], [1, 2, 4]]}
5 1 1 {}
5 1 2 {7=>[[1, 1, 5]]}
g before g.update: {7=>[[1, 1, 5]]}
g after g.update: {7=>[[1, 1, 5]]}
h after h.update(g): {1=>[[1]],
2=>[[1, 1]],
3=>[[1, 2]],
4=>[[2, 2]],
7=>[[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3], [1, 2, 4], [1, 1, 5]]}
And lastly,
h[n].select { |a| a.size == k }
#=> h[7].select { |a| a.size == 3 }
#=> [[2, 2, 3], [1, 3, 3], [1, 2, 4], [1, 1, 5]]
#Cary's answer is very in-depth and impressive, but it appears to me that there is a much more naive solution, which proved to be much more efficient as well - good old recursion:
def combos(n,k)
if k == 1
return [n]
end
(1..n-1).flat_map do |i|
combos(n-i,k-1).map { |r| [i, *r].sort }
end.uniq
end
This solution simply reduces the problem each level by taking decreasing the target sum by each number between 1 and the previous target sum, while reducing k by one. Now make sure you don't have duplicates (by sort and uniq) - and you have your answer...
This is great for k < 5, and is much faster than Cary's solution, but as k gets larger, I found that it makes much too many iterations, sort and uniq took a very big toll on the calculation.
So I made sure that won't be needed, by making sure I get only sorted answers - each recursion should check only numbers larger than those already used:
def combos(n,k,min = 1)
if n < k || n < min
return []
end
if k == 1
return [n]
end
(min..n-1).flat_map do |i|
combos(n-i,k-1, i).map { |r| [i, *r] }
end
end
This solution is on par with Cary's on combos(100, 7):
user system total real
My Solution 2.570000 0.010000 2.580000 ( 2.695615)
Cary's 2.590000 0.000000 2.590000 ( 2.609374)
But we can do better: caching! This recursion does many calculations again and again, so caching stuff we already did will save us a lot of work when dealing with long sums:
def combos(n,k,min = 1, cache = {})
if n < k || n < min
return []
end
cache[[n,k,min]] ||= begin
if k == 1
return [n]
end
(min..n-1).flat_map do |i|
combos(n-i,k-1, i, cache).map { |r| [i, *r] }
end
end
end
This solution is mighty fast and passes Cary's solution for large n by light-years:
Benchmark.bm do |bm|
bm.report('Uri') { combos(1000, 3) }
bm.report('Cary') { combos_cary(1000, 3) }
end
user system total real
Uri 0.200000 0.000000 0.200000 ( 0.214080)
Cary 7.210000 0.000000 7.210000 ( 7.220085)
And is on par with k as high as 9, and I believe it is still less complicated than his solution.
You want the number of integer partitions of n into exactly k summands. There is a (computationally) somewhat ugly recurrence for that number.
The idea is this: let P(n,k) be the number of ways to partition n into k nonzero summands; then P(n,k) = P(n-1,k-1) + P(n-k,k). Proof: every partition either contains a 1 or it doesn't contain a 1 as one of the summands. The first case P(n-1,k-1) calculates the number of cases where there is a 1 in the sum; take that 1 away from the sum and partition the remaining n-1 into the now available k-1 summands. The second case P(n-k,k) considers the case where every summand is strictly greater than 1; to do that, reduce all of the k summands by 1 and recurse from there. Obviously, P(n,1) = 1 for all n > 0.
Here's a link that mentions that probably, no closed form is known for general k.

should destructive functions extend their classes?

I'm implementing some stuff from CLRS, and the partition() algorithm is causing me a little concern. It's implied (from the consistently vague pseudocode therein, but not stated explicitly) that partition should modify the array it's passed, and return a related scalar value:
PARTITION(A, p, r)
1 x = A[r]
2 i = p -1
3 for j = p to r - 1
4 if A[j] <= x
5 i = i + 1
6 swap A[i], A[j]
7 swap A[i+1], A[r]
8 return i + 1
This is easy to throw together in Ruby, but my question is, since it changes the array it's passed without returning it, should it be a class method like array.do_stuff!()?
irb(main):007:0> ary
=> [0, 3, 0, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2]
irb(main):008:0> partition(ary,2,4)
=> 3
irb(main):009:0> ary
=> [0, 3, 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2]
For reference, here is my code:
def partition(my_list, part_start, part_end, pivot = my_list[part_end])
# From CLRS p. 171
# In-place rearrangement of subarrays.
sort_separator = part_start - 1
for loop_ind in (part_start..part_end-1)
if my_list[loop_ind] <= my_list[part_end]
sort_separator += 1
my_list[sort_separator],my_list[loop_ind] =
my_list[loop_ind],my_list[sort_separator]
end
end
my_list[sort_separator+1],my_list[part_end] =
my_list[part_end],my_list[sort_separator+1]
return(sort_separator+1)
end

ruby get next value on each loop

Can I get the next value in an each loop?
(1..5).each do |i|
#store = i + (next value of i)
end
where the answer would be..
1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 5 = 29
And also can I get the next of the next value?
From as early as Ruby 1.8.7, the Enumerable module has had a method each_cons that does almost exactly what you want:
each_cons(n) { ... } → nil
each_cons(n) → an_enumerator
Iterates the given block for each array of consecutive <n> elements. If no block is given, returns an enumerator.
e.g.:
(1..10).each_cons(3) { |a| p a }
# outputs below
[1, 2, 3]
[2, 3, 4]
[3, 4, 5]
[4, 5, 6]
[5, 6, 7]
[6, 7, 8]
[7, 8, 9]
[8, 9, 10]
The only problem is that it doesn't repeat the last element. But that's trivial to fix. Specifically, you want
store = 0
range = 1..5
range.each_cons(2) do |i, next_value_of_i|
store += i + next_value_of_i
end
store += range.end
p store # => 29
But you could also do this:
range = 1..5
result = range.each_cons(2).reduce(:+).reduce(:+) + range.end
p result # => 29
Alternatively, you may find the following to be more readable:
result = range.end + range.each_cons(2)
.reduce(:+)
.reduce(:+)
Like this:
range = 1..5
store = 0
range.each_with_index do |value, i|
next_value = range.to_a[i+1].nil? ? 0 : range.to_a[i+1]
store += value + next_value
end
p store # => 29
There may be better ways, but this works.
You can get the next of the next value like this:
range.to_a[i+2]
One approach that wouldn't use indexes is Enumerable#zip:
range = 11..15
store = 0 # This is horrible imperative programming
range.zip(range.to_a[1..-1], range.to_a[2..-1]) do |x, y, z|
# nil.to_i equals 0
store += [x, y, z].map(&:to_i).inject(:+)
end
store

Resources