In the python documentation for versions 2.x it says explicitly that there are seven sequence data types. The docs go on to discuss sets and tuples some time later (on the same page), both of which are not included in the above seven. Does anyone know what exactly makes defines a sequence type? My intuited definition has sets and tuples fitting the bill quite nicely, and I haven't had any luck finding an explicit official definition.
Thanks!
The word "sequence" implies an order, but sets are not in a specific order.
Element index is a fundamental notion for Python sequences. If you look at the table of sequence operations, you'll see a few that work directly with indices:
s[i] ith item of s, origin 0 (3)
s[i:j] slice of s from i to j (3)(4)
s[i:j:k] slice of s from i to j with step k (3)(5)
s.index(i) index of the first occurence of i in s
Sets and dictionaries have no notion of an element index, and therefore can't be considered sequences.
In mathematics, informally speaking, a sequence is an ordered list of objects (or events). Like a set, it contains members (also called elements, or terms). The number of ordered elements (possibly infinite) is called the length of the sequence. Unlike a set, order matters, and exactly the same elements can appear multiple times at different positions in the sequence. Most precisely, a sequence can be defined as a function whose domain is a countable totally ordered set, such as the natural numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence
;)
See the Python glossary:
Sequence
An iterable which supports efficient element access using integer indices via the __getitem__() special method and defines a len() method that returns the length of the sequence. Some built-in sequence types are list, str, tuple, and unicode. Note that dict also supports __getitem__() and __len__(), but is considered a mapping rather than a sequence because the lookups use arbitrary immutable keys rather than integers.
Tuples are sequences. Sets aren't sequences - they have no order and they can't be indexed via set[index] - they even don't have any kind of notion of indices. (They are iterable, though - you can iterate over their items.)
Related
I don't understand slice declarations in Go.
For, me a declaration for the first and second element of an array must be 0:1.
But it is 0:2. Why? How should I read this, from zero to 2 minus 1 (all the time)?
var slice = array[0:2]
Slice bounds are half open, this is very standard for many programming languages. One advantage is that it makes the length of the range apparent (2-0=2). Specifically, it's common to do this:
s[start:start+len]
And it's obvious that this selects len elements from the slice, starting with start. If the range would be fully closed (both bounds included), there would have to be a lot of -1s in code to deal with slicing and subslicing.
It works similarly in C++ ranges and Python, etc. Here's some reasoning from a C++ answer, attributed to Dijkstra:
You want the size of the range to be a simple difference end − begin;
including the lower bound is more "natural" when sequences degenerate to empty ones, and also because the alternative (excluding the lower bound) would require the existence of a "one-before-the-beginning" sentinel value.
A slice is formed by specifying two indices, a low and high bound,
separated by a colon:
a[low : high]
This selects a half-open range which includes the first
element, but excludes the last one.
This is from Golang's page on slices https://tour.golang.org/moretypes/7
Given a very long list of Product Names, find the first product name which is unique (occurred exactly once ). You can only iterate once in the file.
I am thinking of taking a hashmap and storing the (keys,count) in a doubly linked list.
basically a linked hashmap
can anyone optimize this or give a better approach
Since you can only iterate the list once, you have to store
each string that occurs exactly once, because it could be the output
their relative position within the list
each string that occurs more than once (or their hash, if you're not afraid)
Notably, you don't have to store the relative positions of strings that occur more than once.
You need
efficient storage of the set of strings. A hash set is a good candidate, but a trie could offer better compression depending on the set of strings.
efficient lookup by value. This rules out a bare list. A hash-set is the clear winner, but a trie also performs well. You can store the leaves of the trie in a hash set.
efficient lookup of the minimum. This asks for a linked list.
Conclusion:
Use a linked hash-set for the set of strings, and a flag indicating if they're unique. If you're fighting for memory, use a linked trie. If a linked trie is too slow, store the trie leaves in a hash map for look-up. Include only the unique strings in the linked list.
In total, your nodes could look like: Node:{Node[] trieEdges, Node trieParent, String inEdge, Node nextUnique, Node prevUnique}; Node firstUnique, Node[] hashMap
If you strive for ease of implementation, you can have two hash-sets instead (one linked).
The following algorithm solves it in O(N+M) time.
where
N=number of strings
M=total number of characters put together in all strings.
The steps are as follows:
`1. Create a hash value for each string`
`2. Xor it and find the one which didn't have a pair`
Xor has this useful property that if you do a xor a=0 and b xor 0=b.
Tips to generate the hash value for a string:
Use a 27 base number system, and give a a value of 1, b a value of 2 and so on till z which gets 26, and so if string is "abc" , we compute hash value as:
H=3*(27 power 0)+2*(27 power 1)+ 1(27 power 2)
=786
You could use modulus operator to make hash values small enough to fit in 32-bit integers.If you do that keep an eye out for collisions, which are basically two strings which are different but get the same hash value due to the modulus operation.
Mostly I guess you won't be needing it.
So compute the hash for each string, and then start from the first hash and keep xor-ing, the result will hold the hash value of the string which din't have a pair.
Caution:This is useful only when strings occur in pairs.Still this is a good idea to start with, that's why I answered it.
Using a linked hashmap is obvious enough. Otherwise, you could use a TreeMap style data structure where the strings are ordered by count. So as soon as you are done reading the input, the root of your tree is unique if a unique string exists. Unlike a linked hash map, insertion takes at most O(log n) as opposed to O(n). You can read up on TreeMaps for insight on how to augment a basic TreeMap into what you need. Also in your linked hashmap you may have to travel O(n) to find your first unique key. With a TreeMap style data structure, your look up is O(1) -- the root. Even if more unique keys exist, the first one you encountered will be the root. The subsequent ones will be children of the root.
I want to store lots of data so that
they can be accessed by an index,
each data is just yes and no (so probably one bit is enough for each)
I am looking for the data structure which has the highest performance and occupy least space.
probably storing data in a flat memory, one bit per data is not a good choice on the other hand using different type of tree structures still use lots of memory (e.g. pointers in each node are required to make these tree even though each node has just one bit of data).
Does anyone have any Idea?
What's wrong with using a single block of memory and either storing 1 bit per byte (easy indexing, but wastes 7 bits per byte) or packing the data (slightly trickier indexing, but more memory efficient) ?
Well in Java the BitSet might be a good choice http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/BitSet.html
If I understand your question correctly you should store them in an unsigned integer where you assign each value to a bit of the integer (flag).
Say you represent 3 values and they can be on or off. Then you assign the first to 1, the second to 2 and the third to 4. Your unsigned int can then be 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7 depending on which values are on or off and you check the values using bitwise comparison.
Depends on the language and how you define 'index'. If you mean that the index operator must work, then your language will need to be able to overload the index operator. If you don't mind using an index macro or function, you can access the nth element by dividing the given index by the number of bits in your type (say 8 for char, 32 for uint32_t and variants), then return the result of arr[n / n_bits] & (1 << (n % n_bits))
Have a look at a Bloom Filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter
It performs very well and is space-efficient. But make sure you read the fine print below ;-): Quote from the above wiki page.
An empty Bloom filter is a bit array
of m bits, all set to 0. There must
also be k different hash functions
defined, each of which maps or hashes
some set element to one of the m array
positions with a uniform random
distribution. To add an element, feed
it to each of the k hash functions to
get k array positions. Set the bits at
all these positions to 1. To query for
an element (test whether it is in the
set), feed it to each of the k hash
functions to get k array positions. If
any of the bits at these positions are
0, the element is not in the set – if
it were, then all the bits would have
been set to 1 when it was inserted. If
all are 1, then either the element is
in the set, or the bits have been set
to 1 during the insertion of other
elements. The requirement of designing
k different independent hash functions
can be prohibitive for large k. For a
good hash function with a wide output,
there should be little if any
correlation between different
bit-fields of such a hash, so this
type of hash can be used to generate
multiple "different" hash functions by
slicing its output into multiple bit
fields. Alternatively, one can pass k
different initial values (such as 0,
1, ..., k − 1) to a hash function that
takes an initial value; or add (or
append) these values to the key. For
larger m and/or k, independence among
the hash functions can be relaxed with
negligible increase in false positive
rate (Dillinger & Manolios (2004a),
Kirsch & Mitzenmacher (2006)).
Specifically, Dillinger & Manolios
(2004b) show the effectiveness of
using enhanced double hashing or
triple hashing, variants of double
hashing, to derive the k indices using
simple arithmetic on two or three
indices computed with independent hash
functions. Removing an element from
this simple Bloom filter is
impossible. The element maps to k
bits, and although setting any one of
these k bits to zero suffices to
remove it, this has the side effect of
removing any other elements that map
onto that bit, and we have no way of
determining whether any such elements
have been added. Such removal would
introduce a possibility for false
negatives, which are not allowed.
One-time removal of an element from a
Bloom filter can be simulated by
having a second Bloom filter that
contains items that have been removed.
However, false positives in the second
filter become false negatives in the
composite filter, which are not
permitted. In this approach re-adding
a previously removed item is not
possible, as one would have to remove
it from the "removed" filter. However,
it is often the case that all the keys
are available but are expensive to
enumerate (for example, requiring many
disk reads). When the false positive
rate gets too high, the filter can be
regenerated; this should be a
relatively rare event.
If I have N arrays, what is the best(Time complexity. Space is not important) way to find the common elements. You could just find 1 element and stop.
Edit: The elements are all Numbers.
Edit: These are unsorted. Please do not sort and scan.
This is not a homework problem. Somebody asked me this question a long time ago. He was using a hash to solve the problem and asked me if I had a better way.
Create a hash index, with elements as keys, counts as values. Loop through all values and update the count in the index. Afterwards, run through the index and check which elements have count = N. Looking up an element in the index should be O(1), combined with looping through all M elements should be O(M).
If you want to keep order specific to a certain input array, loop over that array and test the element counts in the index in that order.
Some special cases:
if you know that the elements are (positive) integers with a maximum number that is not too high, you could just use a normal array as "hash" index to keep counts, where the number are just the array index.
I've assumed that in each array each number occurs only once. Adapting it for more occurrences should be easy (set the i-th bit in the count for the i-th array, or only update if the current element count == i-1).
EDIT when I answered the question, the question did not have the part of "a better way" than hashing in it.
The most direct method is to intersect the first 2 arrays and then intersecting this intersection with the remaining N-2 arrays.
If 'intersection' is not defined in the language in which you're working or you require a more specific answer (ie you need the answer to 'how do you do the intersection') then modify your question as such.
Without sorting there isn't an optimized way to do this based on the information given. (ie sorting and positioning all elements relatively to each other then iterating over the length of the arrays checking for defined elements in all the arrays at once)
The question asks is there a better way than hashing. There is no better way (i.e. better time complexity) than doing a hash as time to hash each element is typically constant. Empirical performance is also favorable particularly if the range of values is can be mapped one to one to an array maintaining counts. The time is then proportional to the number of elements across all the arrays. Sorting will not give better complexity, since this will still need to visit each element at least once, and then there is the log N for sorting each array.
Back to hashing, from a performance standpoint, you will get the best empirical performance by not processing each array fully, but processing only a block of elements from each array before proceeding onto the next array. This will take advantage of the CPU cache. It also results in fewer elements being hashed in favorable cases when common elements appear in the same regions of the array (e.g. common elements at the start of all arrays.) Worst case behaviour is no worse than hashing each array in full - merely that all elements are hashed.
I dont think approach suggested by catchmeifyoutry will work.
Let us say you have two arrays
1: {1,1,2,3,4,5}
2: {1,3,6,7}
then answer should be 1 and 3. But if we use hashtable approach, 1 will have count 3 and we will never find 1, int his situation.
Also problems becomes more complex if we have input something like this:
1: {1,1,1,2,3,4}
2: {1,1,5,6}
Here i think we should give output as 1,1. Suggested approach fails in both cases.
Solution :
read first array and put into hashtable. If we find same key again, dont increment counter. Read second array in same manner. Now in the hashtable we have common elelements which has count as 2.
But again this approach will fail in second input set which i gave earlier.
I'd first start with the degenerate case, finding common elements between 2 arrays (more on this later). From there I'll have a collection of common values which I will use as an array itself and compare it against the next array. This check would be performed N-1 times or until the "carry" array of common elements drops to size 0.
One could speed this up, I'd imagine, by divide-and-conquer, splitting the N arrays into the end nodes of a tree. The next level up the tree is N/2 common element arrays, and so forth and so on until you have an array at the top that is either filled or not. In either case, you'd have your answer.
Without sorting and scanning the best operational speed you'll get for comparing 2 arrays for common elements is O(N2).
Background:
I'm working with permutations of the sequence of integers {0, 1, 2 ... , n}.
I have a local search algorithm that transforms a permutation in some systematic way into another permutation. The point of the algorithm is to produce a permutation that minimises a cost function. I'd like to work with a wide range of problems, from n=5 to n=400.
The problem:
To reduce search effort I need to be able to check if I've processed a particular permutation of integers before. I'm using a hash table for this and I need to be able to generate an id for each permutation which I can use as a key into the table. However, I can't think of any nice hash function that maps a set of integers into a key such that collisions do not occur too frequently.
Stuff I've tried:
I started out by generating a sequence of n prime numbers and multiplying the ith number in my permutation with the ith prime then summing the results. The resulting key however produces collisions even for n=5.
I also thought to concatenate the values of all numbers together and take the integer value of the resulting string as a key but the id quickly becomes too big even for small values of n. Ideally, I'd like to be able to store each key as an integer.
Does stackoverflow have any suggestions for me?
Zobrist hashing might work for you. You need to create an NxN matrix of random integers, each cell representing that element i is in the jth position in the current permutation.
For a given permutation you pick the N cell values, and xor them one by one to get the permutation's key (note that key uniqueness is not guaranteed).
The point in this algorithm is, that if you swap to elements in your permutations, you can easily generate the new key from the current permutation by simply xor-ing out the old and xor-ing in the new positions.
Judging by your question, and the comments you've left, I'd say your problem is not possible to solve.
Let me explain.
You say that you need a unique hash from your combination, so let's make that rule #1:
1: Need a unique number to represent a combination of an arbitrary number of digits/numbers
Ok, then in a comment you've said that since you're using quite a few numbers, storing them as a string or whatnot as a key to the hashtable is not feasible, due to memory constraints. So let's rewrite that into another rule:
2: Cannot use the actual data that were used to produce the hash as they are no longer in memory
Basically, you're trying to take a large number, and store that into a much smaller number range, and still have uniqueness.
Sorry, but you can't do that.
Typical hashing algorithms produce relatively unique hash values, so unless you're willing to accept collisions, in the sense that a new combination might be flagged as "already seen" even though it hasn't, then you're out of luck.
If you were to try a bit-field, where each combination has a bit, which is 0 if it hasn't been seen, you still need large amounts of memory.
For the permutation in n=20 that you left in a comment, you have 20! (2,432,902,008,176,640,000) combinations, which if you tried to simply store each combination as a 1-bit in a bit-field, would require 276,589TB of storage.
You're going to have to limit your scope of what you're trying to do.
As others have suggested, you can use hashing to generate an integer that will be unique with high probability. However, if you need the integer to always be unique, you should rank the permutations, i.e. assign an order to them. For example, a common order of permutations for set {1,2,3} is the lexicographical order:
1,2,3
1,3,2
2,1,3
2,3,1
3,1,2
3,2,1
In this case, the id of a permutation is its index in the lexicographical order. There are other methods of ranking permutations, of course.
Making ids a range of continuous integers makes it possible to implement the storage of processed permutations as a bit field or a boolean array.
How fast does it need to be?
You could always gather the integers as a string, then take the hash of that, and then just grab the first 4 bytes.
For a hash you could use any function really, like MD5 or SHA-256.
You could MD5 hash a comma separated string containg your ints.
In C# it would look something like this (Disclaimer: I have no compiler on the machine I'm using today):
using System;
using System.Security.Cryptography;
using System.Text;
public class SomeClass {
static Guid GetHash(int[] numbers) {
string csv = string.Join(',', numbers);
return new Guid(new MD5CryptoServiceProvider().ComputeHash(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(csv.Trim())));
}
}
Edit: What was I thinking? As stated by others, you don't need a hash. The CSV should be sufficient as a string Id (unless your numbers array is big).
Convert each number to String, concatenate Strings (via StringBuffer) and take contents of StringBuffer as a key.
Not relates directly to the question, but as an alternative solution you may use Trie tree as a look up structure. Trie trees are very good for strings operations, its implementation relatively easy and it should be more faster (max of n(k) where k is length of a key) than hashset for a big amount of long strings. And you aren't limited in key size( such in a regular hashset in must int, not bigger). Key in your case will be a string of all numbers separated by some char.
Prime powers would work: if p_i is the ith prime and a_i is the ith element of your tuple, then
p_0**a_0 * p_1**a_1 * ... * p_n**a_n
should be unique by the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. Those numbers will get pretty big, though :-)
(e.g. for n=5, (1,2,3,4,5) will map to 870,037,764,750 which is already more than 32 bits)
Similar to Bojan's post it seems like the best way to go is to have a deterministic order to the permutations. If you process them in that order then there is no need to do a lookup to see if you have already done any particular permutation.
get two permutations of same series of numbers {1,.., n}, construct a mapping tupple, (id, permutation1[id], permutation2[id]), or (id, f1(id), f2(id)); you will get an unique map by {f3(id)| for tuple (id, f1(id), f2(id)) , from id, we get a f2(id), and find a id' from tuple (id',f1(id'),f2(id')) where f1(id') == f2(id)}