Related
I'm creating an array of permutated and unique letters in a string, only to sort them alphabetically and find the middle element in the set.
def middle_permutation(string)
length = string.length
permutation_set = string.split("").permutation(length).to_a.map{|item| item.join}.sort
permutation_set.length.even? ? permutation_set[(permutation_set.length)/2-1] : permutation_set[(permutation_set.length/2)+1]
end
For example:
middle_permutation("zxcvbnmasd") should equal "mzxvsndcba"
Even for small strings (N >=10), the calculations take pretty long to finish, and I can forget about anything double that; is there a quicker way?
I'm assuming the letters are unique, as in the OP's question.
Sort
Pluck the middle letter of the sorted string (rounded down). This is the first letter of the middle permutation.
If the original list had an even number of letters, the rest of the permutation is the reverse sort of the remaining letters.
If not, take the middle letter again. Now the rest of the result is the reverse sort of the remaining letters.
The method below returns the desired permutation directly, without iterating through permutations.
The asker has stated that the string contains no duplicated letters, which is a requirement for this method. I assume the characters of the string are sorted. If they are not, the creation of a sorted string would be the first step:
str = "ebadc".chars.sort.join
#=> "abcde"
Code
def mid_perm(str)
return mid_perm_even_length_strings(str) if str.size.even?
first_char_index = str.size/2
str[first_char_index] << mid_perm_even_length_strings(str[0,first_char_index] +
str[first_char_index+1..-1])
end
def mid_perm_even_length_strings(str)
first_char_index = str.size/2-1
str[first_char_index] + (str[0,first_char_index] + str[first_char_index+1..-1]).reverse
end
Examples
mid_perm 'abcd'
#=> "bdca"
mid_perm 'abcde'
#=> "cbeda"
mid_perm 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'
#=> "mzyxwvutsrqponlkjihgfedcba"
Explanation
Let's start by defining a method to produce permutations of the letters of a string.
def perms(str)
str.chars.permutation(str.size).map(&:join)
end
Strings containing an even number of characters
Consider
a = perms "abcd"
#=> ["abcd", "abdc", "acbd", "acdb", "adbc", "adcb",
# "bacd", "badc", "bcad", "bcda", "bdac", "bdca",
# "cabd", "cadb", "cbad", "cbda", "cdab", "cdba",
# "dabc", "dacb", "dbac", "dbca", "dcab", "dcba"]
a contains 4! #=> 4*3*2 => 24 elements, 4 being the length of the string.
Notice that since the characters in perms' argument are sorted, the array returned is also sorted1.
a == a.sort #=>true
As a.size #=> 24, the "middle" element is either a[11] #=> "bdca" or a[12] #=> "cabd" (where 11 = (24-1)/2 and 12 = 24/2), depending on how we want to round. The question stipulates that, for even-length strings, we are to round down, so that would be "bdca".
Now let's slice a into str.size equal arrays, each containing a.size/str.size #=> 24/4 => 6 elements:
b = a.each_slice(a.size/str.size).to_a
#=> [["abcd", "abdc", "acbd", "acdb", "adbc", "adcb"],
# ["bacd", "badc", "bcad", "bcda", "bdac", "bdca"],
# ["cabd", "cadb", "cbad", "cbda", "cdab", "cdba"],
# ["dabc", "dacb", "dbac", "dbca", "dcab", "dcba"]]
The desired element is therefore
b[(a.size/str.size-1)/2-1][-1]
#=> "bdca"
This value can be computed more directly as follows.
first_char_index = str.size/2-1
#=> 1
first_char = str[first_char_index]
#=> "b"
remaining_chars = (str[0,first_char_index] + str[first_char_index+1..-1]).reverse
#=> "dca"
first_char + remaining_chars
#=> "bdca"
The same logic applies to all strings having an even number of characters. We therefore can write the method mid_perm_even_length_strings shown in the Code section above.
For example (for a 12-character string)
mid_perm_even_length_strings 'abcdefghijkl'
#=> "flkjihgedcba"
Strings containing an odd number of characters
Now consider
str = "abcde"
a = perms str
#=> ["abcde", "abced", "abdce", "abdec", "abecd", "abedc",
# "acbde", "acbed", "acdbe", "acdeb", "acebd", "acedb",
# "adbce", "adbec", "adcbe", "adceb", "adebc", "adecb",
# "aebcd", "aebdc", "aecbd", "aecdb", "aedbc", "aedcb",
# "bacde", "baced", "badce", "badec", "baecd",..., "bedca",
# "cabde", "cabed", "cadbe", "cadeb", "caebd", "caedb",
# "cbade", "cbaed", "cbdae", "cbdea", "cbead", "cbeda",
# "cdabe", "cdaeb", "cdbae", "cdbea", "cdeab", "cdeba",
# "ceabd", "ceadb", "cebad", "cebda", "cedab", "cedba",
# "dabce", "dabec", "dacbe", "daceb", "daebc",..., "decba",
# "eabcd", "eabdc", "eacbd", "eacdb", "eadbc",..., "edcba"]
Here the permutation contains 5! #=> 100 elements, in 5 blocks of 20. (Again, a.each_cons(2).all? { |s1,s2| s1 < s2 } #=> true.)
The middle element of a is clearly the middle element of the block of elements that begin with
str[str.size/2] #=> "c"
That block would be the array
b = a.each_slice(a.size/str.size).to_a[str.size/2]
#=> ["cabde", "cabed", "cadbe", "cadeb", "caebd", "caedb",
# "cbade", "cbaed", "cbdae", "cbdea", "cbead", "cbeda",
# "cdabe", "cdaeb", "cdbae", "cdbea", "cdeab", "cdeba",
# "ceabd", "ceadb", "cebad", "cebda", "cedab", "cedba"]
which would be 'c' plus the middle element of the array
["abde", "abed", "adbe", "adeb", "aebd", "aedb",
"bade", "baed", "bdae", "bdea", "bead", "beda",
"dabe", "daeb", "dbae", "dbea", "deab", "deba",
"eabd", "eadb", "ebad", "ebda", "edab", "edba"]
That array is merely the permutations of the string "abde". Since that string contains an even number characters, its middle element is
mid_perm_even_length_strings 'abde'
#=> "beda"
It follows that the middle element of the permutations of the letters of "abcde" is therefore
'c' + 'abde'
#=> "cabde"
This clearly applies to all strings containing an odd number of characters.
1. The doc for Array#permutation states, "The implementation makes no guarantees about the order in which the permutations are yielded.". We therefore might need to tack .sort to the end of the operative line of perms, but with Ruby v2.4 (and I suspect, earlier versions) that is, in fact not necessary here.
I was able to compact it like this:
def middle_permutation(string)
list = string.chars.permutation.map(&:join).sort
list[list.length / 2 - (list.length.even? ? 1 : 0)]
end
Which yields:
middle_permutation('zxcvbnmasd')
# => "mzxvsndcba"
You don't need to generate all permutations. Just find overall number of permutations as PN = N! where N is string (of different chars) length and calculate only needed PN/2-th permutation by its number - for example, using this approach
public static int[] perm(int n, int k)
{
int i, ind, m=k;
int[] permuted = new int[n];
int[] elems = new int[n];
for(i=0;i<n;i++) elems[i]=i;
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
ind=m%(n-i);
m=m/(n-i);
permuted[i]=elems[ind];
elems[ind]=elems[n-i-1];
}
return permuted;
}
So it turns out there are two tracks to this, odd strings and even strings.
For odd strings, you take out the middle character Element of the sorted array and the one before it, in that order. When you do that you have two remaining arrays, the one the right and left, both alphabetically sorted. You tack on elements of the right array, starting with the last element, then do the same for the one on the left.
For even strings, Do the same but only take one character in the first step: the (N/2) element.
Here's my solution:
def middle_permutation(string)
string_array = string.chars.sort
mid_string = []
length = string.length
if length.even?
mid_string << string_array[length/2-1]
string_array.delete_at(length/2-1)
(mid_string << string_array.reverse).flatten.join
else
mid_string << string_array[(length/2)-1..length/2].reverse
string_array.slice!((length/2)-1, 2)
(mid_string << string_array.reverse).flatten.join
end
end
I have an array of numbers:
array = [234, 928234, 234932]
I need to count how many of the elements in array have the first three digits as 234; i.e., the result should count in array[0] and array[2].
Is there a way to use .count? If I use array.count("234"), it will count in all elements. Is there something I can add to array.count{ } to make it work?
You'd have to stringify each element before you can make that kind of comparison:
[234, 928234, 234932].count { |num| num.to_s.start_with? '234' }
See also: String#start_with?
Integer#digits returns an Array of Integers representing the digits of an Integer. The digits are returned least-significant place first, so what you'll want to do is look at the last three elements of the Array and compare them to [4, 3, 2]:
array.count {|n| n.digits[-3..-1] == [4, 3, 2] }
#=> 2
Like Jorg is doing you can pass a block to #count and in that block convert the number to a string then use simple string match.
array = [234, 928234, 234932, 234444234, 234, 2345]
array.count{|x| x.to_s.match(/^234/)}
5
My input is:
aaabbbb
I have written the following code:
here = string.split(//)
count = Hash.new(0)
there = here.each {|a|
count[a] += 1
}
This gives me the following output:
{"a"=>3, "b"=>4}
Now, I want to check the number of odd values in my hash for example if my output had been:
{"a"=>3, "b"=>4, "c"=>3}
Then the answer should be:
2
Note: I am doing this to check if aaabbbb can form an anagram which could be a palindrome. So if there are more than 2 characters with odd value then it would not form a palindrome and vice-versa.
Just use count method.
count.count{|k,v| v.odd?}
You can use Hash#values to get an array of values. Then count the number of odd elements in it:
res = {"a"=>3, "b"=>4, "c"=>3}
res.values.count(&:odd?)
#=> 2
You can do that by using iterating over each_value of count and then select and then check the length
count.each_value.select { |n| n.odd? }.length
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)