Given an array of the array [X,Y]:
a=[[1,2],[2,2],[3,2],[4,2],[5,2],[6,2]]
What is the most efficient way to sum all the Y digits for 2<=X<4?
I'd work with this:
a.select{ |x,y| (2...4) === x }.inject(0){ |m, (x,y)| m + y }
=> 4
I don't really like using ... though, because it confuses people by how it works. Here are some equivalent ways of testing:
a.select{ |x,y| (2..3) === x }.inject(0){ |m, (x,y)| m + y }
ary.select{ |x,y| (2 <= x) && (x < 4) }.inject(0){ |m, (x,y)| m + y } } }
Here's some benchmark code:
require 'benchmark'
a = [ [1,2], [2,2], [3,2], [4,2], [5,2], [6,2] ]
n = 1_000_000
Benchmark.bm(12) do |b|
b.report('The Tin Man') { n.times { a.select{ |x,y| (2...4) === x }.inject(0){ |m, (x,y)| m + y } } }
b.report('The Tin Man2') { n.times { a.select{ |x,y| (2 <= x) && (x < 4) }.inject(0){ |m, (x,y)| m + y } } }
b.report('Mik_Die') { n.times { a.select{ |i| (2...4).include? i[0] }.map(&:last).reduce(:+) } }
b.report('Justin Ko') { n.times { a.inject(0){ |sum, coord| (coord[0] >= 2 and coord[0] < 4) ? sum + coord[1] : sum } } }
b.report('Justin Ko2') { n.times { a.inject(0){ |sum, (x,y)| (x >= 2 and x < 4) ? sum + y : sum } } }
b.report('Leo Correa') { n.times { sum = 0; a.each { |x, y| sum += y if x >= 2 and x < 4 } } }
b.report('tokland') { n.times { a.map { |x, y| y if x >= 2 && x < 4 }.compact.inject(0, :+) } }
end
And its output:
user system total real
The Tin Man 4.020000 0.000000 4.020000 ( 4.020154)
The Tin Man2 2.420000 0.000000 2.420000 ( 2.424424)
Mik_Die 3.830000 0.000000 3.830000 ( 3.836531)
Justin Ko 2.070000 0.000000 2.070000 ( 2.072446)
Justin Ko2 2.000000 0.000000 2.000000 ( 2.035079)
Leo Correa 1.260000 0.000000 1.260000 ( 1.259672)
tokland 2.650000 0.010000 2.660000 ( 2.645466)
The lesson learned here is inject is costly.
I would use inject:
a = [[1,2],[2,2],[3,2],[4,2],[5,2],[6,2]]
sum = a.inject(0){ |sum, (x,y)| (x >= 2 and x < 4) ? sum + y : sum }
puts sum
#=> 4
The rdoc describes the inject method well:
inject(initial) {| memo, obj | block } → obj
Combines all elements of enum by applying a binary operation,
specified by a block or a symbol that names a method or operator.
If you specify a block, then for each element in enum the block is
passed an accumulator value (memo) and the element. If you specify a
symbol instead, then each element in the collection will be passed to
the named method of memo. In either case, the result becomes the new
value for memo. At the end of the iteration, the final value of memo
is the return value for the method.
If you do not explicitly specify an initial value for memo, then uses
the first element of collection is used as the initial value of memo.
Update - Benchmark Array vs Unpacking:
#tokland had suggested unpacking the pairs, which definitely improves readability. The following benchmark was run to see if it was faster than using the array (ie my original solution).
require 'benchmark'
a = [ [1,2], [2,2], [3,2], [4,2], [5,2], [6,2] ]
n = 2_000_000
Benchmark.bm(12) do |b|
b.report('array'){n.times{a.inject(0){ |sum, coord| (coord[0] >= 2 and coord[0] < 4) ? sum + coord[1] : sum }}}
b.report('unpacked'){n.times{a.inject(0){ |sum, (x,y)| (x >= 2 and x < 4) ? sum + y : sum }}}
end
Which gave the results
user system total real
array 3.916000 0.000000 3.916000 ( 3.925393)
unpacked 3.619000 0.000000 3.619000 ( 3.616361)
So, in at least this case, unpacking the pairs is better.
I like the inject answer that #JustinKo gave but here's another solution that might be easier to understand if you are new to Ruby.
a=[[1,2],[2,2],[3,2],[4,2],[5,2],[6,2]]
sum = 0
a.each { |x, y| sum += y if x >= 2 and x < 4 }
puts sum
#=> 4
It's more clearly in ruby to use chains of more simple methods. So:
a=[[1,2],[2,2],[3,2],[4,2],[5,2],[6,2]]
a.select{ |i| (2...4).include? i[0] }.map(&:last).reduce(:+)
# => 4
Conceptually what you'd like to use is a list-comphrehension. Alas, Ruby has no built-in syntax for LCs, but a compact+map does the job just fine:
a.map { |x, y| y if x >= 2 && x < 4 }.compact.inject(0, :+)
#=> 4
If you are writing a medium/large script you'll probably have (and should have) an extensions
module. Add the required methods so you can write declarative and concise code:
a.map_select { |x, y| y if x >= 2 && x < 4 }.sum
Or even:
a.sum { |x, y| y if x >= 2 && x < 4 }
Related
I have a unique sorted array: [2,4,6,8,10].
I have a variable called i. If i is 5, I want to return the elements in the array that 5 falls between. In this case [4,6]. If i is 8, then [8,10].
How should I go about this?
I've tried with partition, to some extent. If i happens to be a number directly equal to one of the values in the array. This seems to work:
a=[2,4,6,8,10]
i = 6
a.partition { |v| v < i }.max[0..1] # returns [6,8]
However, if i is a number not directly equal to any of the values in the array. For example 5, it gets a little trickier.
I got it working for the last case:
a=[2,4,6,8,10]
i = 5
partition = a.partition { |v| v < i }
[].tap { |a| a << partition[0].max; a << partition[1].min } # returns [6,8]
While this works, I am looking to see if there is a better way to write this logic.
You could use Enumerable#each_cons.
def mind_the_gap(arr, n)
arr.each_cons(2).find { |l,u| l <= n && n < u }
end
arr = [2,4,6,8,10]
mind_the_gap(arr, 5) #=> [4,6]
mind_the_gap(arr, 8) #=> [8,10]
mind_the_gap(arr, 1) #=> nil
mind_the_gap(arr, 10) #=> nil
If you don't want the last two examples to return nil, you could change the method as follows.
def mind_the_gap(arr, n)
rv = arr.each_cons(2).find { |l,u| l <= n && n < u }
return rv unless rv.nil?
n < arr.first ? :low : :high
end
mind_the_gap(arr, 5) #=> [4,6]
mind_the_gap(arr, 8) #=> [8,10]
mind_the_gap(arr, 1) #=> :low
mind_the_gap(arr, 10) #=> :high
Another way is to use Enumerable#slice_when.
def mind_the_gap(arr, n)
a = arr.slice_when { |l,u| l <= n && n < u }.to_a
return [a.first.last, a.last.first] unless a.size == 1
n < arr.first ? :low : :high
end
mind_the_gap(arr, 5) #=> [4,6]
mind_the_gap(arr, 8) #=> [8,10]
mind_the_gap(arr, 1) #=> :low
mind_the_gap(arr, 10) #=> :high
If you're looking for elements inside a sorted array, the "better way" probably involves bsearch or bsearch_index.
The second element in the pair is the first element in the array that is greater than your variable, so bsearch_index can return it directly. You need to check it isn't nil or 0 before returning the found element and the previous one :
a = [2, 4, 6, 8, 10]
def find_surrounding_pair(array, element)
second_index = array.bsearch_index { |x| x > element }
array[second_index - 1, 2] if second_index && second_index > 0
end
puts find_surrounding_pair(a, 1).nil?
puts find_surrounding_pair(a, 2) == [2, 4]
puts find_surrounding_pair(a, 7) == [6, 8]
puts find_surrounding_pair(a, 8) == [8, 10]
puts find_surrounding_pair(a, 12).nil?
#=> true * 5
The complexity of this method should be O(log n).
what about this
val = 5
a = [2,4,6,8,10] # assuming it's sorted
a.slice(a.rindex {|e| e <= val}, 2)
It doesn't account for the case when the lookup value is equal or bigger the last element of the array. I'd probably append a nil element for this, if that would be appropriate for the problem.
This looks like a good use to check for the inclusion in a range:
a = [2,4,6,8,10]
b = 5
a.each_cons(2).select { |i, j| (i .. j) === b }
# => [[4, 6]]
It's not clear exactly what you mean by "falls between". In the code above 8 would fall between two sets of numbers:
b = 8
a.each_cons(2).select { |i, j| (i .. j) === b }
# => [[6, 8], [8, 10]]
if the test is i <= b <= j. If it's i <= b < j then use ... instead of ..:
a.each_cons(2).select { |i, j| (i ... j) === b }
# => [[8, 10]]
I'm not a big fan of using ... but it simplifies the code.
From the Range documentation:
Ranges constructed using .. run from the beginning to the end inclusively. Those created using ... exclude the end value.
You could change that to:
a.each_cons(2).select { |i, j| i <= b && b <= j }
or:
a.each_cons(2).select { |i, j| i <= b && b < j }
if those work better for your mind. Using a Range is a little slower, but not radically so.
Here is a brain bender.
I am trying to rewrite the Ruby Inject method. I have got as far as below.
class Array
def injector(input = nil)
if input == nil
num = self.first
else
num = input
end
self[0..-1].each do |x|
num = yield(num, x)
end
return num
end
end
It is passing some tests, but it is not fully accurate, for example;
[1,2,3,4,5].injector(0) {|x,y| x + y} #=> 14
As opposed to the expected output 15, is it a rounding error? I cannot seem to figure this one out
Additional example (above updated [0..-1]):
[9,8,7,6,5].injector {|x,y| x * y} #=> 136080
Ruby .inject outputs 15120
The starting index is important as it depends on your input.
class Array
def injector(input = nil)
if input.nil?
start = 1
num = self.first
else
start = 0
num = input
end
self[start..-1].each do |x|
num = yield(num, x)
end
return num
end
end
Using nil as the default is probably wrong, I should be able to pass nil in as the default memo.
class Array
def injector(memo = (i=1; first))
(i||0).upto(length-1) { |i| memo = yield memo, self[i] }
memo
end
end
[1,2,3,4,5].injector(1) { |sum, n| sum + n }
[1,2,3,4,5].injector(0) { |sum, n| sum + n }
[1,2,3,4,5].injector { |sum, n| sum + n }
[1,2,3].injector(2) { |product, n| product * n }
[1,2,3].injector(1) { |product, n| product * n }
[1,2,3].injector { |product, n| product * n }
['b', 'c', 'd'].injector('a') { |str, char| str + char } # => "abcd"
['b', 'c', 'd'].injector { |str, char| str + char } # => "bcd"
seen = []
[1].injector(nil) { |prev, crnt| seen << prev << crnt }
seen # => [nil, 1]
Given two numbers, say (14, 18), the problem is to find the sum of all the numbers in this range, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 recursively. Now, I have done this using loops but I have trouble doing this recursively.
Here is my recursive solution:
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a,b)
total = 0
#base case is a == b, the stopping condition
if a - b == 0
puts "sum is: "
return total + a
end
if b - a == 0
puts "sum is: "
return total + b
end
#case 1: a > b, start from b, and increment recursively
if a > b
until b > a
puts "case 1"
total = b + sum_cumulative_recursive(a, b+1)
return total
end
end
#case 2: a < b, start from a, and increment recursively
if a < b
until a > b
puts "case 2"
total = a + sum_cumulative_recursive(a+1, b)
return total
end
end
end
Here are some sample test cases:
puts first.sum_cumulative_recursive(4, 2)
puts first.sum_cumulative_recursive(14, 18)
puts first.sum_cumulative_recursive(-2,-2)
My solution works for cases where a > b, and a < b, but it doesn't work for a == b.
How can I fix this code so that it works?
Thank you for your time.
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a,b)
return a if a == b
a, b = [a,b].sort
a + sum_cumulative_recursive(a + 1, b)
end
EDIT
Here is the most efficient solution I could see from some informal benchmarks:
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a,b)
return a if a == b
a, b = b, a if a > b
a + sum_cumulative_recursive(a + 1, b)
end
Using:
Benchmark.measure { sum_cumulative_recursive(14,139) }
Benchmark for my initial response: 0.005733
Benchmark for #Ajedi32's response: 0.000371
Benchmark for my new response: 0.000115
I was also surprised to see that in some cases, the recursive solution approaches or exceeds the efficiency of the more natural inject solution:
Benchmark.measure { 10.times { (1000..5000).inject(:+) } }
# => 0.010000 0.000000 0.010000 ( 0.027827)
Benchmark.measure { 10.times { sum_cumulative_recursive(1000,5000) } }
# => 0.010000 0.010000 0.020000 ( 0.019441)
Though you run into stack level too deep errors if you take it too far...
I'd do it like this:
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a, b)
a, b = a.to_i, b.to_i # Only works with ints
return sum_cumulative_recursive(b, a) if a > b
return a if a == b
return a + sum_cumulative_recursive(a+1, b)
end
Here's one way of doing it. I assume this is just an exercise, as the sum of the elements of a range r is of course just (r.first+r.last)*(f.last-r.first+1)/2.
def sum_range(range)
return nil if range.last < range.first
case range.size
when 1 then range.first
when 2 then range.first + range.last
else
range.first + range.last + sum_range(range.first+1..range.last-1)
end
end
sum_range(14..18) #=> 80
sum_range(14..14) #=> 14
sum_range(14..140) #=> 9779
sum_range(14..139) #=> 9639
Another solution would be to have a front-end invocation that fixes out-of-order arguments, then a private recursive back-end which does the actual work. I find this is useful to avoid repeated checks of arguments once you've established they're clean.
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a, b)
a, b = b, a if b < a
_worker_bee_(a, b)
end
private
def _worker_bee_(a, b)
a < b ? (a + _worker_bee_(a+1,b-1) + b) : a == b ? a : 0
end
This variant would cut the stack requirement in half by summing from both ends.
If you don't like that approach and/or you really want to trim the stack size:
def sum_cumulative_recursive(a, b)
if a < b
mid = (a + b) / 2
sum_cumulative_recursive(a, mid) + sum_cumulative_recursive(mid+1, b)
elsif a == b
a
else
sum_cumulative_recursive(b, a)
end
end
This should keep the stack size to O(log |b-a|).
Given these arrays, how do I remove three occurrences of a value while keeping the fourth or fifth in the array?
[1,5,1,1,1] # => [1,5]
[3,3,3,2,3] # => [3,2]
[3,4,5,3,3] # => [4,5]
[1,1,1,1,1] # => [1,1]
[1,2,2,4,5] # => [1,2,2,4,5]
Here's what I've tried:
array = [1,5,1,1,1]
top3 = array.select { |x| array.count(x) >= 3 }[0..2]
last2 = array - top3
This strategy (and similar) only seem to work when there are three duplicates but not four or five. Are there elegant solutions to this problem?
UPDATE: Thank you for your amazing answers. As a beginning rubyist I learned a lot just from analyzing each response. My question came from a Ruby Koan challenge for a dice program. Here's my complete solution implemented with Abdo's suggestion. I'm sure there are more efficient ways to implement the program :)
def score(dice)
a,b,c,d,e = dice
array = [a,b,c,d,e]
total = 0
triples = array.select {|x| array.count(x) >= 3}[0..2]
singles = array.group_by{|i| i}.values.map{ |a|
a.length > 2 ? a[0, a.length - 3] : a
}.inject([], :+)
# Calculate values for triples
# 1 * 3 = 1000pts
# 2 * 3 = 200pts
# 3 * 3 = 300pts
# 4 * 3 = 400pts
# 5 * 3 = 500pts
# 6 * 3 = 600pts
case triples[0]
when 1 then total += triples[0]*1000
when (2..6) then total += triples[0]*100
end
# Calculate values for singles:
# 1s = 100pts each
# 5s = 50pts each
singles.include? (1) ? singles.select {|x| x == 1 }.each {|x| total += x*100 } : total
singles.include? (5) ? singles.select {|x| x == 5 }.each {|x| total += x*10 } : total
return total
end
puts score([5,1,1, 5, 6]) # 300 points
puts score([]) # 0 points
puts score([1,1,1,5,1]) # 1150 points
puts score([2,3,4,6,2]) # 0 points
puts score([3,4,5,3,3]) # 350 points
puts score([1,5,1,2,4]) # 250 points
array = [1,5,1,1,1]
occurrence = {}
array.select do|a|
if(array.count(a) > 3)
occurrence[a] ||= []
occurrence[a] << a
occurrence[a].count > 3
else
true
end
end
PS: This solution preserves the order of the elements in the original array
Here's a faster solution when the size of the array is large:
(I avoid using count because it would loop through the array in an inner loop)
arr.inject({}) {
|h, i| h[i] ||= 0; h[i] += 1; h
}.collect_concat {|k,v| [k] * (v > 2 ? v - 3 : v) }
Here's the fruity comparison to the other working solutions:
arr = 1000.times.collect { rand(100) }.shuffle
require 'fruity'
compare do
vimsha {
occurrence = {};
arr.select do|a|
if(arr.count(a) > 3)
occurrence[a] ||= []
occurrence[a] << a
occurrence[a].count > 3
else
true
end
end
}
caryswoveland {
arr.uniq.reduce([]) {|a,e| a + [e]*((cnt=arr.count(e)) > 2 ? cnt-3 : cnt)}
}
aruprakshit {
num_to_del = arr.find { |e| arr.count(e) >= 3 }
if !num_to_del.nil?
3.times do
ind = arr.index { |e| e == num_to_del }
arr.delete_at(ind)
end
end
arr
}
# edited as suggested by #CarySwoveland
abdo {
arr.each_with_object(Hash.new {|h,k| h[k]=[]}) {|i,h| h[i] += 1
}.collect_concat { |k,v| [k] * (v > 2 ? v - 3 : v) }
}
broisatse {
arr.group_by{|i| i}.values.map{ |a|
a.length > 2 ? a[0, a.length - 3] : a
}.inject([], :+)
}
end
Here's the comparison result:
Running each test 64 times. Test will take about 48 seconds.
broisatse is faster than abdo by 30.000000000000004% ± 10.0%
abdo is faster than aruprakshit by 4x ± 1.0 (results differ: ...)
aruprakshit is similar to caryswoveland (results differ: ...)
caryswoveland is similar to vimsha (results differ: ...)
Note: I took #aruprakshit's code outside the method so we don't waste time in the method call itself.
When the array's size is increased further:
arr = 1000.times.collect { rand(1000) }.shuffle
we get:
abdo is faster than broisatse by 3x ± 1.0
broisatse is faster than aruprakshit by 6x ± 10.0
aruprakshit is faster than caryswoveland by 2x ± 1.0
caryswoveland is similar to vimsha
Another way, assuming order need not be preserved (which is consistent with a comment by the asker):
array = [1,2,4,1,2,1,2,1,1,4]
array.uniq.reduce([]) {|a,e| a + [e]*((cnt=array.count(e)) > 2 ? cnt-3 : cnt)}
#=> [1, 1, 4, 4]
Try something like:
a.group_by{|i| i}.values.map{|a| a[0, a.length % 3]}.inject([], :+)
This will remove all triplets from the array. If you want to remove only the first triplet, then do:
a.group_by{|i| i}.values.map{|a| a.length > 2 ? a[0, a.length - 3] : a }.inject([], :+)
Note: This might mess up the order of the array:
[1,2,1,2,3] #=> [1,1,2,2,3]
Let me know if you need to keep the order and, if so, which elements need to be removed if there are more than three, e.g. what should say: [1,1,2,1,1,] - [1,2] or [2,1]?
x.group_by{|i| i }.values.select{|a| a.size >= 3 }.each{|a| c=[3,a.size].min; x.delete_if{|e| a[0]==e && (c-=1)>=0 } }
It will remove the first [3,a.size].min occurrences of a[0] from the input x where a is, for example, [1,1,1,1] for x = [1,2,1,1,1]
I'd do as below :
def del_first_three(a)
num_to_del = a.find { |e| a.count(e) >= 3 }
return a if num_to_del.nil?
3.times do
ind = a.index { |e| e == num_to_del }
a.delete_at(ind)
end
a
end
del_first_three([3,4,5,3,3]) # => [4, 5]
del_first_three([1,5,1,1,1]) # => [5, 1]
del_first_three([1,2,2,4,5]) # => [1, 2, 2, 4, 5]
I'm trying to learn Ruby, and am going through some of the Project Euler problems. I solved problem number two as such:
def fib(n)
return n if n < 2
vals = [0, 1]
n.times do
vals.push(vals[-1]+vals[-2])
end
return vals.last
end
i = 1
s = 0
while((v = fib(i)) < 4_000_000)
s+=v if v%2==0
i+=1
end
puts s
While that works, it seems not very ruby-ish—I couldn't come up with any good purely Ruby answer like I could with the first one ( puts (0..999).inject{ |sum, n| n%3==0||n%5==0 ? sum : sum+n }).
For a nice solution, why don't you create a Fibonacci number generator, like Prime or the Triangular example I gave here.
From this, you can use the nice Enumerable methods to handle the problem. You might want to wonder if there is any pattern to the even Fibonacci numbers too.
Edit your question to post your solution...
Note: there are more efficient ways than enumerating them, but they require more math, won't be as clear as this and would only shine if the 4 million was much higher.
As demas' has posted a solution, here's a cleaned up version:
class Fibo
class << self
include Enumerable
def each
return to_enum unless block_given?
a = 0; b = 1
loop do
a, b = b, a + b
yield a
end
end
end
end
puts Fibo.take_while { |i| i < 4000000 }.
select(&:even?).
inject(:+)
My version based on Marc-André Lafortune's answer:
class Some
#a = 1
#b = 2
class << self
include Enumerable
def each
1.upto(Float::INFINITY) do |i|
#a, #b = #b, #a + #b
yield #b
end
end
end
end
puts Some.take_while { |i| i < 4000000 }.select { |n| n%2 ==0 }
.inject(0) { |sum, item| sum + item } + 2
def fib
first, second, sum = 1,2,0
while second < 4000000
sum += second if second.even?
first, second = second, first + second
end
puts sum
end
You don't need return vals.last. You can just do vals.last, because Ruby will return the last expression (I think that's the correct term) by default.
fibs = [0,1]
begin
fibs.push(fibs[-1]+fibs[-2])
end while not fibs[-1]+fibs[-2]>4000000
puts fibs.inject{ |sum, n| n%2==0 ? sum+n : sum }
Here's what I got. I really don't see a need to wrap this in a class. You could in a larger program surely, but in a single small script I find that to just create additional instructions for the interpreter. You could select even, instead of rejecting odd but its pretty much the same thing.
fib = Enumerator.new do |y|
a = b = 1
loop do
y << a
a, b = b, a + b
end
end
puts fib.take_while{|i| i < 4000000}
.reject{|x| x.odd?}
.inject(:+)
That's my approach. I know it can be less lines of code, but maybe you can take something from it.
class Fib
def first
#p0 = 0
#p1 = 1
1
end
def next
r =
if #p1 == 1
2
else
#p0 + #p1
end
#p0 = #p1
#p1 = r
r
end
end
c = Fib.new
f = c.first
r = 0
while (f=c.next) < 4_000_000
r += f if f%2==0
end
puts r
I am new to Ruby, but here is the answer I came up with.
x=1
y=2
array = [1,2]
dar = []
begin
z = x + y
if z % 2 == 0
a = z
dar << a
end
x = y
y = z
array << z
end while z < 4000000
dar.inject {:+}
puts "#{dar.sum}"
def fib_nums(num)
array = [1, 2]
sum = 0
until array[-2] > num
array.push(array[-1] + array[-2])
end
array.each{|x| sum += x if x.even?}
sum
end