I was asked this question during an interview and I couldn't come up with a satisfactory solution for it. Would appreciate if anybody could give some pointers.
Given a mapping like
mapping = {"A" => 1, "B" => 2, "C" => 3..... "Z" => 26}
encode("A") == "1"
encode("BA") == "21"
encode("ABC") == "123"
encode("") == ""
decode("1") == ["A"] -> 1
decode("21") == ["BA", "V"] -> 2
decode("123") == ["ABC", "JC", "AX"] -> 3
decode("012") == [] -> 0
decode("") == [""] -> 1
decode("102") == ["JB"] -> 1
numDecode(X) == len(decode(X))
numDecode("1") == 1
numDecode("21") == 2
numDecode("123") == 3
numDecode("") == 1
numDecode("102") == 1
numDecode("012") == 0
We need a numDecode method which gives the length of unique solution array.
Updated :
Given a mapping like :
mapping = {"A" => 1, "B" => 2, "C" => 3..... "Z" => 26}
Suppose we are given a string as "A" the it can be encoded as : "1"
encode("A") should return "1"
encode("BA") should return "21" as if mapping is a hash then B has a value of 2, A has a value of 1.
encode("ABC") should return "123" as mapping["A" is 1, mapping["B"] is 2, and mapping["C"] is 3.
encode("") should return "" as it is not in mapping.
Now if decode("1") is called then it should return an array with one element i.e. ["A"] as key matching with 1 as value in mapping is "A".
decode("") should return an array with empty string i.e. [""].
decode("21") should return an array ["BA", "U"] as 2 is "B", 1 is "A" and "U" is 21 in mapping.
decode("012") should return an empty array as string starts with "0" which is not in mapping keys.
decode("102") should return an array as ["JB"] as "10" is J and "2" is B.
And finally numDecode should return the count of unique decoded strings in array. So,
numDecode(X) == len(decode(X))
numDecode("1") == 1
numDecode("21") == 2
numDecode("123") == 3
numDecode("") == 1
numDecode("102") == 1
numDecode("012") == 0
This is an interesting question, and the interview technique that goes with it is most likely to see how far the critical thinking goes. A good interviewer would probably not expect a single canonically correct answer.
If you get as far as a recursive decode solution that you then enumerate, then you are doing well IMO (at least I'd hire most candidates who could demonstrate clearly thinking through a piece of recursive code at interview!)
Having said that, one key hint is that the question asks for a num_decode function, not necessarily for implementations of encode and decode.
There is a deeper understanding and structure accessible here, that can be gained from analysing the permutations and combinations. It allows you to write a num_decode function that can handle long strings with millions of possible answers, without filling memory or taking hours to enumerate all possibilities.
First note that any set of separate ambiguous encoding multiply the number of possibilities for the whole string:
1920 -> 19 is ambiguous 'AI' or 'S' -> 'AIT' or 'ST'
192011 -> 11 is also ambiguous 'AA' or 'K' -> 'AITAA', 'AITK', 'STAA', 'STK'
Here 19 has two possible interpretations, and 11 also has two. A string with both of these separate instances of ambiguous codings has 2 * 2 == 4 valid combinations.
Each independent section of ambiguous coding multiplies the size of the whole set of decode values by the number of possibilities that it represents.
Next how to deal with longer ambiguous sections. What happens when you add an ambiguous digit to an ambiguous sequence:
11 -> 'AA' or 'K' -> 2
111 -> 'AAA', 'AK', 'KA' -> 3
1111 -> 'AAAA', 'AAK', 'AKA', 'KAA', 'KK' -> 5
11111 -> 'AAAAA', 'AAAK', 'AAKA', 'AKAA', 'AKK', 'KAAA', 'KAK', 'KKA' -> 8
2,3,5,8 should look familiar, it is the Fibonacci sequence, what's going on? The answer is that adding one digit to the sequence allows all the previous combinations plus those of the sub-sequence before that. By adding a digit 1 to the sequence 1111 you can either interpret it as 1111(1) or 111(11) - so you can add together the number of possibilities in 1111 and 111 to get the number of possibilities in 11111. That is, N(i) = N(i-1) + N(i-2) which is how to construct the Fibonacci series.
So, if we can detect ambiguous coding sequences, and get their length, we can now calculate the number of possible decodes, without actually doing the decode:
# A caching Fibonacci sequence generator
def fib n
#fibcache ||= []
return #fibcache[n] if #fibcache[n]
a = b = 1
n.times do |i|
a, b = b, a + b
#fibcache[i+1] = a
end
#fibcache[n]
end
def num_decode encoded
# Check that we don't have invalid sequences, raising here, but you
# could technically return 0 and be correct according to question
if encoded.match(/[^0-9]/) || encoded.match(/(?<![12])0/)
raise ArgumentError, "Not a valid encoded sequence"
end
# The look-ahead assertion ensures we don't match
# a '1' or '2' that is needed by a '10' or '20'
ambiguous = encoded.scan(/[12]*1[789]|[12]+[123456](?![0])/)
ambiguous.inject(1) { |n,s| n * fib(s.length) }
end
# A few examples:
num_decode('') # => 1
num_decode('1') # => 1
num_decode('12') # => 2
num_decode('120') # => 1
num_decode('12121212') # => 34
num_decode('1212121212121212121212121211212121212121') # => 165580141
It is relatively short strings like the last one which foil attempts to enumerate
the possibilities directly by decoding.
The regex in the scan took a little experimentation to get right. Adding 7,8 or 9 is ambiguous after a 1, but not after a 2. You also want to avoid counting a 1 or 2 directly before a 0 as part of an ambiguous sequence because 10 or 20 have no other interpretations. I think I made about a dozen attempts at the regex before settling on the current version (which I believe to be correct, but I did keep finding exceptions to correct values most times I tested the first versions).
Finally, as an exercise, it should be possible to use this code as the basis from which to write a decoder that directly output the Nth possible decoding (or even one that enumerated them lazily from any starting point, without requiring excessive memory or CPU time).
Here's a recursive solution:
$mapping = Hash[(0..25).map { |i| [('A'.ord+i).chr,i+1] }]
$itoa = Hash[$mapping.to_a.map { |pair| pair.reverse.map(&:to_s) }]
def decode( str )
return [''] if str.empty?
return $itoa.key?(str) ? [$itoa[str]] : nil if str.length == 1
retval = []
0.upto(str.length-1) do |i|
word = $itoa[str[0..i]] or next
tails = decode(str[i+1..-1]) or next
retval.concat tails.map { |tail| word + tail }
end
return retval
end
Some sample output:
p decode('1') # ["A"]
p decode('21') # ["BA", "U"]
p decode('123') # ["ABC", "AW", "LC"]
p decode('012') # []
p decode('') # [""]
p decode('102') # ["JB"]
p decode('12345') # ["ABCDE", "AWDE", "LCDE"]
Note differences between this output and the question. E.g. The 21st letter of the alphabet is "U", not "V". etc.
#he = Hash[("A".."Z").to_a.zip((1..26).to_a.map(&:to_s))]
# => {"A"=>"1", "B"=>"2",...,"Z"=>"26"}
#hd = #he.invert # => {"1"=>"A", "2"=>"B",.., "26"=>"Z"}
def decode(str, comb='', arr=[])
return arr << s if str.empty?
# Return if the first character of str is not a key of #hd
return arr unless (c = #hd[str[0]])
# Recurse with str less the first char, s with c appended and arr
arr = decode(str[1..-1], s+c, arr)
# If the first two chars of str are a key of #hd (with value c),
# recurse with str less the first two chars, s with c appended and arr
arr = decode(str[2..-1], s+c, arr) if str.size > 1 && (c = #hd[str[0..1]])
arr
end
def num_decode(str) decode(str).size end
decode('1') # => ["A"]
decode('') # => [""].
decode('21') # => ["BA", "U"]
decode('012') # => [""]
decode('102') # => ["JB"]
decode('123') # => ["ABC", "AW", "LC"]
decode('12345') # => ["ABCDE", "AWDE", "LCDE"]
decode('120345') # => ["ATCDE"]
decode('12720132') # => ["ABGTACB", "ABGTMB", "LGTACB", "LGTMB"]
Any more? Yes, I see a hand back there. The gentleman with the red hat wants to see '12121212':
decode('12121212')
# => ["ABABABAB", "ABABABL", "ABABAUB", "ABABLAB", "ABABLL", "ABAUBAB",
"ABAUBL", "ABAUUB", "ABLABAB", "ABLABL", "ABLAUB", "ABLLAB",
"ABLLL", "AUBABAB", "AUBABL", "AUBAUB", "AUBLAB", "AUBLL",
"AUUBAB", "AUUBL", "AUUUB", "LABABAB", "LABABL", "LABAUB",
"LABLAB", "LABLL", "LAUBAB", "LAUBL", "LAUUB", "LLABAB",
"LLABL", "LLAUB", "LLLAB", "LLLL"]
num_decode('1') # => 1
num_decode('21') # => 2
num_decode('12121212') # => 34
num_decode('12912912') # => 8
This looks like a combinatorics problem, but it's also a parsing problem.
(You asked for pointers, so I'm doing this in English rather than dusting off my Ruby.)
I would do something like this:
If X is an empty string, return 1
If X is not a string composed of digits starting with a nonzero digit, return 0
If X contains no 1's or 2's, return 1 (there's only one possible parsing)
If X contains 1's or 2's, it gets a bit more complicated:
Every 1 that is not the last character in X matches both "A" and the first digit of one of the letters "J" through "S".
Every 2 that is not the last character in X and is followed by a digit less than 7 matches both "B" and the first digit of one of the letters.
Count up your 1's and 2's that meet those criteria. Let that number be Y. You have 2^Y combinations of those, so the answer should be 2^Y but you have to subtract 1 for every time you have a 1 and 2 next to each other.
So, if you haven't returned by Step 4 above, count up your 1's that aren't the last character in X, and the 2's that both aren't the last character in X and aren't followed by a 7,8,9, or 10. Let the sum of those counts be called Y.
Now count every instance that those 1's and 2's are neighbors; let that sum be called Z.
The number of possible parsings is (2^Y) - Z.
In the spirit of giving “some pointers”, instead of writing an actually implementation for numDecode let me say that the most logically straightforward way to tackle this problem is with recursion. If the string passed to numDecode is longer than one character then look at the beginning of the string and based on what you see use one or two (or zero) recursive calls to find the correct value.
And the risk of revealing too much, numDecode("1122") should make recursive calls to numDecode("122") and numDecode("22").
# just look for all singles and double as you go down and keep repeating this.. if you get to the end where the string would be 1 or 2 digets long you count 1
# IE
# 121
# 1 that's good 2 that's good 1 that's good if all good then count + 1
# 12 that's good 1 that's good ... no more doubles if all good then count + 1
# 1 that's good 21 that's good if all good then count + 1
# test this on other cases
$str = "2022"
$strlength = $str.length
$count = 0
def decode(str)
if str[0].to_i >= 1 and str[0].to_i <= 9
$count += 1 if str.length == 1
decode(str[1..-1])
end
if str[0..1].to_i >= 10 and str[0..1].to_i <= 26
$count += 1 if str.length == 2
p str.length
decode(str[2..-1])
end
end
decode($str)
p " count is #{$count}"
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'm a beginner in Ruby and I don't understand what this code is doing, could you explain it to me, please?
def a(n)
s = 0
for i in 0..n-1
s += i
end
s
end
def defines a method. Methods can be used to run the same code on different values. For example, lets say you wanted to get the square of a number:
def square(n)
n * n
end
Now I can do that with different values and I don't have to repeat n * n:
square(1) # => 1
square(2) # => 4
square(3) # => 9
= is an assignment.
s = 0 basically says, behind the name s, there is now a zero.
0..n-1 - constructs a range that holds all numbers between 0 and n - 1. For example:
puts (0..3).to_a
# 0
# 1
# 2
# 3
for assigns i each consecutive value of the range. It loops through all values. So first i is 0, then 1, then ... n - 1.
s += i is a shorthand for s = s + i. In other words, increments the existing value of s by i on each iteration.
The s at the end just says that the method (remember the thing we opened with def) will give you back the value of s. In other words - the sum we accumulated so far.
There is your programming lesson in 5 minutes.
This example isn't idiomatic Ruby code even if it is syntactically valid. Ruby hardly ever uses the for construct, iterators are more flexible. This might seem strange if you come from another language background where for is the backbone of many programs.
In any case, the program breaks down to this:
# Define a method called a which takes an argument n
def a(n)
# Assign 0 to the local variable s
s = 0
# For each value i in the range 0 through n minus one...
for i in 0..n-1
# ...add that value to s.
s += i
end
# The result of this method is s, the sum of those values.
s
end
The more Ruby way of expressing this is to use times:
def a(n)
s = 0
# Repeat this block n times, and in each iteration i will represent
# a value in the range 0 to n-1 in order.
n.times do |i|
s += i
end
s
end
That's just addressing the for issue. Already the code is more readable, mind you, where it's n.times do something. The do ... end block represents a chunk of code that's used for each iteration. Ruby blocks might be a little bewildering at first but understanding them is absolutely essential to being effective in Ruby.
Taking this one step further:
def a(n)
# For each element i in the range 0 to n-1...
(0..n-1).reduce |sum, i|
# ...add i to the sum and use that as the sum in the next round.
sum + i
end
end
The reduce method is one of the simple tools in Ruby that's quite potent if used effectively. It allows you to quickly spin through lists of things and compact them down to a single value, hence the name. It's also known as inject which is just an alias for the same thing.
You can also use short-hand for this:
def a(n)
# For each element in the range 0 to n-1, combine them with +
# and return that as the result of this method.
(0..n-1).reduce(&:+)
end
Where here &:+ is shorthand for { |a,b| a + b }, just as &:x would be short for { |a,b| a.x(b) }.
As you are a beginner in Ruby, let's start from the small slices.
0..n-1 => [0, n-1]. E.g. 0..3 => 0, 1, 2, 3 => [0, 3]
for i in 0.. n-1 => this is a for loop. i traverses [0, n-1].
s += i is same as s = s + i
So. Method a(n) initializes s = 0 then in the for loop i traverse [0, n - 1] and s = s + i
At the end of this method there is an s. Ruby omits key words return. so you can see it as return s
def a(n)
s = 0
for i in 0..n-1
s += i
end
s
end
is same as
def a(n)
s = 0
for i in 0..n-1
s = s + i
end
return s
end
a(4) = 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 6
Hope this is helpful.
The method a(n) calculates the sums of the first n natural numbers.
Example:
when n=4, then s = 0+1+2+3 = 6
Let's go symbol by symbol!
def a(n)
This is the start of a function definition, and you're defining the function a that takes a single parameter, n - all typical software stuff. Notably, you can define a function on other things, too:
foo = "foo"
def foo.bar
"bar"
end
foo.bar() # "bar"
"foo".bar # NoMethodError
Next line:
s = 0
In this line, you're both declaring the variable s, and setting it's initial value to 0. Also typical programming stuff.
Notably, the value of the entire expression; s = 0, is the value of s after the assignment:
s = 0
r = t = s += 1 # You can think: r = (t = (s += 1) )
# r and t are now 1
Next line:
for i in 0..n-1
This is starting a loop; specifically a for ... in ... loop. This one a little harder to unpack, but the entire statement is basically: "for each integer between 0 and n-1, assign that number to i and then do something". In fact, in Ruby, another way to write this line is:
(0..n-1).each do |i|
This line and your line are exactly the same.
For single line loops, you can use { and } instead of do and end:
(0..n-1).each{|i| s += i }
This line and your for loop are exactly the same.
(0..n-1) is a range. Ranges are super fun! You can use a lot of things to make up a range, particularly, time:
(Time.now..Time.new(2017, 1, 1)) # Now, until Jan 1st in 2017
You can also change the "step size", so that instead of every integer, it's, say, every 1/10:
(0..5).step(0.1).to_a # [0.0, 0.1, 0.2, ...]
Also, you can make the range exclude the last value:
(0..5).to_a # [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
(0...5).to_a # [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
Next line!
s += i
Usually read aloud a "plus-equals". It's literally the same as: s = s + 1. AFAIK, almost every operator in Ruby can be paired up this way:
s = 5
s -= 2 # 3
s *= 4 # 12
s /= 2 # 6
s %= 4 # 2
# etc
Final lines (we'll take these as a group):
end
s
end
The "blocks" (groups of code) that are started by def and for need to be ended, that's what you're doing here.
But also!
Everything in Ruby has a value. Every expression has a value (including assignment, as you saw with line 2), and every block of code. The default value of a block is the value of the last expression in that block.
For your function, the last expression is simply s, and so the value of the expression is the value of s, after all is said and done. This is literally the same as:
return s
end
For the loop, it's weirder - it ends up being the evaluated range.
This example may make it clearer:
n = 5
s = 0
x = for i in (0..n-1)
s += i
end
# x is (0..4)
To recap, another way to write you function is:
def a(n)
s = 0
(0..n-1).each{ |i| s = s + i }
return s
end
Questions?
I have a number, and would like to see if I multiply the number by a real number, if the new number has the exact same digits as the previous number, only re-arranged. For example, if I wanted to multiply a number by 2 and see if the digits remained the same, I would do
125874
=> 251748
251748 is 125874 multiplied by 2 and both numbers have the exact same digits, only re-arranged. For simplicity, I'm only testing it with multiples of 2 for now. This is what I tried to do and failed.
x = 125874
array = x.to_s.chars.map{|x|x.to_i}
=> [1,2,5,8,7,4]
array.permutation.include?((x * 2).to_s.chars.map{|x|x.to_i}
=> true
Now, I tried to run this in a loop to find all numbers under 100,000 that met this criteria.
range = (1..100000).to_a
range.select do |x|
array = x.to_s.chars.map{|x|x.to_i}
array.permutation.include?((x * 2).to_s.chars.map{|x|x.to_i}
end
=> []
Now, it should have recorded at least 125874 in that array, since 125874 * 2 equals 251748, which is a permutation of 125874.
I think I managed to out-confuse myself on this one.
First assume that if the given number contains repeated digits, we require that the number and product of the number and a multiplier contain the same number of each digit that appears in either number:
def same_digits?(nbr, mult)
nbr.to_s.chars.sort == (nbr * mult).to_s.chars.sort
end
same_digits?(125874,2) #=> true (125874*2 => 251748)
same_digits?(125874,3) #=> false (125874*3 => 377622)
If nbr and nbr*prod must contain the same digits, but not necessarily the same number of each of those digits, the method differs only slightly:
def same_digits?(nbr, mult)
nbr.to_s.chars.uniq.sort == (nbr * mult).to_s.chars.uniq.sort
end
same_digits?(10255,2) #=> true (10255*2 => 20510)
same_digits?(10255,3) #=> false (10255*3 => 30765)
In this second case there are many other ways to determine if two arrays contain the same elements after duplicates have been removed. Let:
a = nbr.to_s.chars.uniq
b = (nbr*mult).to_s.chars.uniq
Above I've used a.sort == b.sort to check for a match. Here are a few of other ways:
(a&b)==a && (a&b)==b # Array intersection
(a-b).empty? && (b-a).empty? # Array difference
require 'set'
a.to_set == b.to_set
In Ruby, I would like to take an array of numbers, select 2 different numbers, add those 2 numbers together and see weather there equal to a variable x.y'd a variable x. Here is the code I used
def arrayIsEqual? (numArray, x)
return true if numArray.sample + numArray.sample == x
return false if numArray.empty? || numArray.count == 1
end
for example
numArray = [4,2,7,5]
x = 11
arrayIsEqual (numArray, n) should return true, since 4 + 7 = n(11)
How do I get this to work?
I don't want it to be 2 random numbers, just any 2 different numbers that add up to n
It looks like you're trying to see if there are any two numbers in the array that add up to the specified value x. However, your code just picks two numbers at random and checks if those numbers add up.
Ruby has the Array#combination method, which generates all combinations of a given length:
def contains_pair_for_sum?(arr, n)
!!arr.uniq.combination(2).detect { |a, b| a + b == n }
end
A few things to note:
First, we named it according to Ruby conventions: each word is separated_by_underscores. The ? on the end means that the method is a predicate method and returns a true or false value.
Inside the method, a few things happen. Let's look at that line, piece by piece.
arr: We take the array that was passed in.
<...>.uniq: We only look at the unique elements (because the OP wants to pick two different numbers).
<...>.combination(2): We ask for all combinations from the array of length 2. If the array was [4, 5, 6], we'd get [[4, 5], [4, 6], [5, 6]].
<...>.detect { |a, b| a + b == n }: We look for the first combination that adds up to n. If we found one, that's the result of that method. Otherwise, we get nil.
!!<...>: Finally, we take the result we got from detect and negate it twice. The first negation produces a Boolean value (true if the value we got was nil, or false if it's anything else); the second negation produces a Boolean value that's identical to the truth value of the first negation. This is a Ruby idiom to coerce a result into being either true or false.
Let's see it in action:
array = [4, 5, 9, 7, 8]
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 11)
# => true (because [4, 7] sums to 11)
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 17)
# => true (because [9, 8] sums to 17)
contains_pair_for_sum?(array, 100)
# => false (no pair matched)
I understand that your question is "is there any pair of numbers in my array equals x", in which case this will do what you need:
def has_pair_equal?(num_array, x)
(0..num_array.length-1).any? do |i|
num_array[i+1..-1].any? { |n| n + num_array[i] == x }
end
end
This checks all sums of pairs of numbers in the array, and checks if their sum is x. sample randomly picks an item from the array, which means that what your code does is "return true sometimes if there is a pair of numbers in my array equals x"
def array_is_equal? (num_array, x)
equality = 0
num_array.each do |a|
equality += 1 if a == x
return true if equality == 2
end
return false
end
Use lowercase and underscores for variables in Ruby. The convention is different here than in some other languages.
One liner
x=[4,2,7,5]; x.each_with_index.any? {|y,i| x.each_with_index.any? {|z,j| unless i==j; z+y==11; end } }
And as a function
def pair_sum_match?(arr, x)
arr.each_with_index.any? do |y,i|
arr.each_with_index.any? do |z,j|
unless i==j
z+y==x
end
end
end
end
Updated: Added each_with_index to avoid self inclusion on checks. It's a lot longer now :-/
Just iterate over it once and use the target number to see if it matches. 100 times faster then most of the answers here
numbers = ( -10..10 ).to_a
numbers.unshift( numbers.first + -1 ) # if you do -20 or 20
numbers.push( numbers.last + 1 )
target = 5
searched = { }
matches = { }
numbers.each do |number|
if searched[ target - number + 1 ] == true
matches[ "#{ number }_plus_#{ target - number }" ] = target
end
searched[ number + 1 ] = true
end
ap matches
Given a non-negative integer n and an arbitrary set of inequalities that are user-defined (in say an external text file), I want to determine whether n satisfies any inequality, and if so, which one(s).
Here is a points list.
n = 0: 1
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
If you draw a number n that's equal to 5, you get 10 points.
If n less than 5, you get 5 points.
If n is 0, you get 1 point.
The stuff left of the colon is the "condition", while the stuff on the right is the "value".
All entries will be of the form:
n1 op n2: val
In this system, equality takes precedence over inequality, so the order that they appear in will not matter in the end. The inputs are non-negative integers, though intermediary and results may not be non-negative. The results may not even be numbers (eg: could be strings). I have designed it so that will only accept the most basic inequalities, to make it easier for writing a parser (and to see whether this idea is feasible)
My program has two components:
a parser that will read structured input and build a data structure to store the conditions and their associated results.
a function that will take an argument (a non-negative integer) and return the result (or, as in the example, the number of points I receive)
If the list was hardcoded, that is an easy task: just use a case-when or if-else block and I'm done. But the problem isn't as easy as that.
Recall the list at the top. It can contain an arbitrary number of (in)equalities. Perhaps there's only 3 like above. Maybe there are none, or maybe there are 10, 20, 50, or even 1000000. Essentially, you can have m inequalities, for m >= 0
Given a number n and a data structure containing an arbitrary number of conditions and results, I want to be able to determine whether it satisfies any of the conditions and return the associated value. So as with the example above, if I pass in 5, the function will return 10.
They condition/value pairs are not unique in their raw form. You may have multiple instances of the same (in)equality but with different values. eg:
n = 0: 10
n = 0: 1000
n > 0: n
Notice the last entry: if n is greater than 0, then it is just whatever you got.
If multiple inequalities are satisfied (eg: n > 5, n > 6, n > 7), all of them should be returned. If that is not possible to do efficiently, I can return just the first one that satisfied it and ignore the rest. But I would like to be able to retrieve the entire list.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm thinking I should use two hash tables: the first one will store the equalities, while the second will store the inequalities.
Equality is easy enough to handle: Just grab the condition as a key and have a list of values. Then I can quickly check whether n is in the hash and grab the appropriate value.
However, for inequality, I am not sure how it will work. Does anyone have any ideas how I can solve this problem in as little computational steps as possible? It's clear that I can easily accomplish this in O(n) time: just run it through each (in)equality one by one. But what happens if this checking is done in real-time? (eg: updated constantly)
For example, it is pretty clear that if I have 100 inequalities and 99 of them check for values > 100 while the other one checks for value <= 100, I shouldn't have to bother checking those 99 inequalities when I pass in 47.
You may use any data structure to store the data. The parser itself is not included in the calculation because that will be pre-processed and only needs to be done once, but if it may be problematic if it takes too long to parse the data.
Since I am using Ruby, I likely have more flexible options when it comes to "messing around" with the data and how it will be interpreted.
class RuleSet
Rule = Struct.new(:op1,:op,:op2,:result) do
def <=>(r2)
# Op of "=" sorts before others
[op=="=" ? 0 : 1, op2.to_i] <=> [r2.op=="=" ? 0 : 1, r2.op2.to_i]
end
def matches(n)
#op2i ||= op2.to_i
case op
when "=" then n == #op2i
when "<" then n < #op2i
when ">" then n > #op2i
end
end
end
def initialize(text)
#rules = text.each_line.map do |line|
Rule.new *line.split(/[\s:]+/)
end.sort
end
def value_for( n )
if rule = #rules.find{ |r| r.matches(n) }
rule.result=="n" ? n : rule.result.to_i
end
end
end
set = RuleSet.new( DATA.read )
-1.upto(8) do |n|
puts "%2i => %s" % [ n, set.value_for(n).inspect ]
end
#=> -1 => 5
#=> 0 => 1
#=> 1 => 5
#=> 2 => 5
#=> 3 => 5
#=> 4 => 5
#=> 5 => 10
#=> 6 => nil
#=> 7 => 7
#=> 8 => nil
__END__
n = 0: 1
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
n = 7: n
I would parse the input lines and separate them into predicate/result pairs and build a hash of callable procedures (using eval - oh noes!). The "check" function can iterate through each predicate and return the associated result when one is true:
class PointChecker
def initialize(input)
#predicates = Hash[input.split(/\r?\n/).map do |line|
parts = line.split(/\s*:\s*/)
[Proc.new {|n| eval(parts[0].sub(/=/,'=='))}, parts[1].to_i]
end]
end
def check(n)
#predicates.map { |p,r| [p.call(n) ? r : nil] }.compact
end
end
Here is sample usage:
p = PointChecker.new <<__HERE__
n = 0: 1
n = 1: 2
n < 5: 5
n = 5: 10
__HERE__
p.check(0) # => [1, 5]
p.check(1) # => [2, 5]
p.check(2) # => [5]
p.check(5) # => [10]
p.check(6) # => []
Of course, there are many issues with this implementation. I'm just offering a proof-of-concept. Depending on the scope of your application you might want to build a proper parser and runtime (instead of using eval), handle input more generally/gracefully, etc.
I'm not spending a lot of time on your problem, but here's my quick thought:
Since the points list is always in the format n1 op n2: val, I'd just model the points as an array of hashes.
So first step is to parse the input point list into the data structure, an array of hashes.
Each hash would have values n1, op, n2, value
Then, for each data input you run through all of the hashes (all of the points) and handle each (determining if it matches to the input data or not).
Some tricks of the trade
Spend time in your parser handling bad input. Eg
n < = 1000 # no colon
n < : 1000 # missing n2
x < 2 : 10 # n1, n2 and val are either number or "n"
n # too short, missing :, n2, val
n < 1 : 10x # val is not a number and is not "n"
etc
Also politely handle non-numeric input data
Added
Re: n1 doesn't matter. Be careful, this could be a trick. Why wouldn't
5 < n : 30
be a valid points list item?
Re: multiple arrays of hashes, one array per operator, one hash per point list item -- sure that's fine. Since each op is handled in a specific way, handling the operators one by one is fine. But....ordering then becomes an issue:
Since you want multiple results returned from multiple matching point list items, you need to maintain the overall order of them. Thus I think one array of all the point lists would be the easiest way to do this.