I have an array of numbers ([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]). These numbers represent players. I would like these players to each "play" each other exactly once.
I need to create "Rounds" for these games. These rounds will include a even number of matches, and each player can only play in a round, at most, once. If there's an odd number of matches, than a final round with irregular number of matches is okay.
The end result being an array of "Round" arrays. These round arrays will contain the matches between players. The end result being something like below, but complete:
[[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9,10]],[[1,3],[2,4],[5,7],[6,8],[9,1],[10,2]]]
I've found Array#combination for getting the matches created, but I can't seem to get the rounds to build properly.
That is called a round robin tournament. Wikipedia gives the following algorithm
Round 1. (1 plays 14, 2 plays 13, ... )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14 13 12 11 10 9 8
then fix one competitor (number one in this example) and rotate the others clockwise one position:
Round 2. (1 plays 13, 14 plays 12, ... )
1 14 2 3 4 5 6
13 12 11 10 9 8 7
And keep rotating:
Round 3. (1 plays 12, 13 plays 11, ... )
1 13 14 2 3 4 5
12 11 10 9 8 7 6
An odd number of players is handled by one player per round having no game (often implemented by adding a dummy player).
Related
Let's say we have an array of size N with values from 1 to N inside it. We want to check if this array has any duplicates. My friend suggested two ways that I showed him were wrong:
Take the sum of the array and check it against the sum 1+2+3+...+N. I gave the example 1,1,4,4 which proves that this way is wrong since 1+1+4+4 = 1+2+3+4 despite there being duplicates in the array.
Next he suggested the same thing but with multiplication. i.e. check if the product of the elements in the array is equal to N!, but again this fails with an array like 2,2,3,2, where 2x2x3x2 = 1x2x3x4.
Finally, he suggested doing both checks, and if one of them fails, then there is a duplicate in the array. I can't help but feel that this is still incorrect, but I can't prove it to him by giving him an example of an array with duplicates that passes both checks. I understand that the burden of proof lies with him, not me, but I can't help but want to find an example where this doesn't work.
P.S. I understand there are many more efficient ways to solve such a problem, but we are trying to discuss this particular approach.
Is there a way to prove that doing both checks doesn't necessarily mean there are no duplicates?
Here's a counterexample: 1,3,3,3,4,6,7,8,10,10
Found by looking for a pair of composite numbers with factorizations that change the sum & count by the same amount.
I.e., 9 -> 3, 3 reduces the sum by 3 and increases the count by 1, and 10 -> 2, 5 does the same. So by converting 2,5 to 10 and 9 to 3,3, I leave both the sum and count unchanged. Also of course the product, since I'm replacing numbers with their factors & vice versa.
Here's a much longer one.
24 -> 2*3*4 increases the count by 2 and decreases the sum by 15
2*11 -> 22 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 9
2*8 -> 16 decreases the count by 1 and increases the sum by 6.
We have a second 2 available because of the factorization of 24.
This gives us:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
Has the same sum, product, and count of elements as
1,3,3,4,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,22,23
In general you can find these by finding all factorizations of composite numbers, seeing how they change the sum & count (as above), and choosing changes in both directions (composite <-> factors) that cancel out.
I've just wrote a simple not very effective brute-force function. And it shows that there is for example
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9
sequence that has the same sum and product as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For n = 10 there are more such sequences:
1 2 3 4 6 6 6 7 10 10
1 2 4 4 4 5 7 9 9 10
1 3 3 3 4 6 7 8 10 10
1 3 3 4 4 4 7 9 10 10
2 2 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 10
My write-only c++ code is here: https://ideone.com/2oRCbh
Given the array [5, 4, 12, 3, 11, 7, 2, 8, 1, 9] that forms a triangle like so:
5
4 12
3 11 7
2 8 1 9
Result should be 5 + 12 + 7 + 9 = 31.
Write a function that will traverse the triangle and find the largest possible sum of values when you can go from one point to either directly bottom left, or bottom right.
Refering to the dynamic algorithm in that link:
http://www.mathblog.dk/project-euler-18/
Result is 36.
5
4 12
3 11 7
2 8 1 9
5
4 12
11 19 16
5
23 31
36
Where is my mistake ??
The description of Problem 18 starts with an example where the optimal path is “left-right-right”. So you get a new choice of direction after every step, which means that after taking the first step to the right, you are still free to take the second step to the left and eventually come up with 5+12+11+8=36 as the optimal solution in your example, larger than the 31 you assumed. So the computation is correct in solving the problem as described. Your assumption about choosing a direction only once and then sticking with that choice would lead to a different (and rather boring) problem.
From the Wikipedia page for block sort I figured out that block sort works by dividing the initial array into small subarrays of length 16 for example, sorting all those subarrays in O(n) time, then merging all these blocks in a way I can't understand.
For example, considering an array of length 16, dividing it in 4 block, each of length 4, and sorting those blocks, we get:
10 1 8 3 4 19 20 13 14 17 8 9 12 18 7 20
10 1 8 3 ----- 4 19 20 13 ----- 14 17 8 9 ----- 12 18 7 20
1 3 8 10 ----- 4 13 19 20 ----- 8 9 14 17 ----- 7 12 18 20
Can anyone please explain me how does merge step works?
Usually merge sort goes even further and splits the array in blocks of 2. To merge, it creates a pointer to the begging of both blocks and compares their values. It picks the smaller and increments the corresponding pointer.
1 4 5 ...
^
2 3 4 ...
^
Pick 1, because its smaller, and update pointer
1 4 5 ...
^
2 3 4 ...
^
Pick 2
1 4 5 ...
^
2 3 4 ...
^
Pick 3 and so on....
These values are put on an array which is gonna be compared with another array created with the same technique. And it goes on and on merging until all the members are sorted. I'm not considering the whole lot of optimizations that you could do in a real merge algorithm.
The first thing of block sort merging is to extract buffers. That is the only thing I know a lot about, and it starts like this. Find the square root of the array's length, and find that many unique values in the beginning and end. Using either rotations or reversals, you can put them all in the beginning and end. Then, I don't know how to merge the other stuff.
Can somebody please explain this heuristic function, for example for the following arrangement of 4x4 puzzle, whats the X-Y heuristic cost?
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
0 13 14 15
(0 indicates blank space)
As from here and here the X-Y heuristic is computed by the sum of the minimum number of column-adjacent blank swaps to get all tiles in their destination column and the minimum number of row adjacent blank swaps to get all tiles in their destination row.
So in this situation:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
0 13 14 15
the only misplaced tiles are 13 , 14 and 15, assuming the goal state is
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 0
So in this case the we have to compute at first the number of column swaps the blank has to do to get all the tiles in the correct position. This is equivalent to 3, since the blank has to move three times to the the right column to be in the right position (and to have all the tiles in the right position)
Then we have to compute the number of row swaps the blank has to do. This is 0 thanks to the fact that all the tiles are already on the correct row.
Finally h(n) = 3 + 0 = 3 .
I used the quicksort algorithm to sort
11 8 9 4 2 5 3 12 6 10 7
and I got the list:
4 3 2 5 9 11 8 12 6 10 7.
5 was used as a pivot. Now I am stuck. How do I proceed to sort the lowersublist and the uppersublist?
pivot=5 11 8 9 4 2 5 3 12 6 10 7
Move pivot to position 0 5 8 9 4 2 11 3 12 6 10 7
i (position 1 = 8)
j (position 6 = 3) ⇒ swap 8 and 3 5 3 9 4 2 11 8 12 6 10 7
i (position 2 = 9)
j (position 4 = 2) ⇒ swap 9 and 2 5 3 2 4 9 11 8 12 6 10 7
i (position 3 = 4)
– no smaller elements than 5 ⇒ swap 5 and 4 4 3 2 5 9 11 8 12 6 10 7
– list after the partition
Quicksort is a recursive algorithm. Once you have sorted the elements by the pivot, you get two sets of items. The first with all elements smaller or equal to the pivot, and the second with all elements larger than the pivot. What you do now, is that you apply quicksort again to each of these sets (with an appropriate pivot).
To do this, you will have to choose a new pivot every time. You can do something like always pick the first element, or draw one at random.
Once you reach a point where a set contains only one element, you stop.
A good way to understand these things is to try to sort a deck of cards using this algorithm. All cards are face down, and you are only allowed to look at two cards at a time, compare these and switch them if necessary. You must pretend to not remember any of the cards that are face down for that to work.
A key component of the algorithm is that the chosen pivot value came from the original list, which means (in your case) the element with the value 5 is now in the correct final position after the first partitioning:
4 3 2 5 9 11 8 12 6 10 7
This should be fairly obvious and follows simple intuition. If every element to the left of an item is smaller than that item and every element to the right is larger, then the item must be in the correct, sorted position.
The insight necessary to understanding the entire Quicksort algorithm is that you can just keep doing this to each of the sublists -- the list of values to the left of the pivot and the list containing all values to the right -- to arrive at the final, sorted list. This is because:
Each partitioning puts one more element in its proper position
Each iteration removes one element -- the pivot -- from the list of elements left to process (which is why we'll eventually reach the base case of zero (or one, depending on how you do it) elements)
Let's assume you chose the partition value of 5 based on the following pseudo-code:
Math.floor(list.length / 2)
For our purposes, the actual choice of a pivot doesn't really matter. This one works for your orginal choice, so we'll go with it. Now, let's play this out 'till the end (starting where you left off):
concat(qs([4 3 2]), 5, qs([9 11 8 12 6 10 7])) =
concat(qs([2]), 3, qs([4]), 5, qs([9, 11, 8, 6, 10, 7]), 12, qs([])) =
concat(2, 3, 4, 5, qs([6, 7]), 8, qs([9, 11, 10]), 12) =
concat(2, 3, 4, 5, qs([6]), 7, qs([]), 8, qs([9, 10]), 11, qs([]), 12) =
concat(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, qs([9]), 10, qs([]), 11, 12) =
concat(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
Note that each time you see a single call to qs it will follow this pattern:
qs(<some_left_list>), <the_pivot>, qs(<some_right_list>)
And each call of qs on one line results in two more such calls on the following line (representing the processing of both new sublists (except note that I immediately decompose calls to qs on single-value lists)).
It's a good idea to go through this exercise yourself. Yes, with actual pen and paper.