Coins with different value are spread in circle around a round table . We can choose any coin such that for any two adjacent pair of coins , atleast one must be selected (both maybe selected too) . In such condition we have to find minimum possible value of coins selected .
I have to respect time complexity so instead of using naive recursive bruteforce , i tried doing it using dynamic programming . But i get Wrong Answer - my algorithm is incorrect .
If someone could suggest an algorithm to do it dynamically , i could code myself in c++ . Also maximum number of coins is 10^6 , so i think O(n) solution exists .
EDIT : Okay , i also add an example .
If coins value around table is 1,2,1,2,2 (in circle) , then minimum value of coin would be 4 by selecting 1st,3rd & 4th(or 5th) .
Having everything in a circle hampers dynamic programming, because there is no stable start point.
If you knew that a particular coin would be included in the best answer, you could use that as your start point. Renumber it coin 1 and use dynamic programming to work out the best cost of 1..N, with and without the Nth coin selected. Given this you can work out the best cost of 1..N+1 and so on.
Actually you can also use this method if somebody tells you that a particular coin would not be selected - you just have slightly different starting conditions. Or you could use that fact that if you know that a particular coin is not selected, the two on either side of it must be selected.
Any coin is either selected or not, so you can look at the costs both ways, produced by solving two dynamic programming problems, and pick whichever cost is cheapest.
I think the following algorithm will get you the best solution. I have not gone through your code (sorry):
We will select a random point in the circle to start. Say it's 1. We will look at what happens if it would be selected.
So we select 1. Move up in the circle and you get the choice of selecting 2 or not. This can be shown in a tree where the top branch represents selecting the coin and the lower one not selecting the coin. The numbers represent the total sum of the selected coins.
3 = 1 and 2 both selected
/
1
\
1 = 1 selected, 2 not
Now we continue in the circle and get the choice of selecting 3 or not. This gives a tree like
6 = 1, 2 and 3 selected
/
3
/ \
/ 3= 1 and 2 selected, 3 not
/
1
\
\ 4 = 1 and 3 selected, 2 not
\ /
1
\
1 = 1 selected, 2 and 3 not
Now in that tree, we can prune! Given your problem statement, you have to keep track of which coins are taken to make sure every coin is 'covered'. Say the last 2 coins were not selected. Then you know the the next has to be selected in order not to violate your constraints. More importantly, the possibilities in the rest of your algorithm only depend on the choice of the last 2 coins.
Now look at all branches that have selected the last coin (3). You only need to keep the one with the lowest weight. Both those branches are free to choose what they want in the rest of the algorithm. In this case, we can safely remove the top branch. We then have 3 possible paths left.
Now take a look at what happens if we enumerate the choices for coin 4
3 7= 1, 2 and 4 selected, 3 not
/ \ /
/ 3
/ \
3 = 1 and 2 selected, 3 and 4 not
1 8 = 1, 3 and 4 selected, 2 not
\ /
\ 4
\ / \
1 4 = 1 and 3 selected, 2 and 4 not
5 = 1 and 4 selected, 2 and 3 not
\ /
1
\
1 = only 1 selected
Now you have 6 choices. However, the lowest branch (only 1 is selected) is invalid because 3 is not adjacent to anything. You can prune that to have 5 branches left. Of those 5 there are 3 that selected 4 (=the last coin so far) and we can do the same thing as before: only keep the cheapest branch. This reduces the number of branches to 3 again.
You can keep doing this for your whole circle until you reach the start again. Then you should have 3 paths of which you can choose the cheapest. This gives you the best solution if you start of by selecting coin 1.
Now we have the best solution for when 1 is selected. However, It could be that 1 should not be selected. It could be that it is adjacent to another coin that is selected: coin 2 or coin 6. If we now do the above algorithm once for coin 2 instead of coin 1 and once for coin 6 we should have the best solution.
This approach relies on the fact that either coin 1, 2 or 6 is selected.
I hope I made my approach comprehensible. It's rather long and you could do it fasterr by using some state transition diagram in which you only maintain the possible states (which depends on the last 2 coins) and work on that. The methods are the same as above, only more compact)
O(n) suggestion, by induction. Hmm, I read the wiki now and I found out it counts as dynamic programming. Really a broad term. I had a different understanding of dynamic programming before.
Glossary
We have N coins in N places. Coin values are a[i], where 0 <= i < N. Each coin may be selected or deselected which we express as the sequence of 0 and 1.
Algorithm description
00 is invalid sequence in any place, because it would violate the problem constraints. 111 is also invalid because it is not optimal, 101 is always better.
Sequentially for every place i we calculate 3 best sums, for 3 codes: 01, 10, 11. The code comes from the setting of last 2 coins, that is i-1 and i. So we have best (minimum) sums in variables b01, b02, b11.
We have to start from something sure, so we will apply the algorithm 2 times. One for coin at place 0 set, and one for unset.
At the beginning we try places 0 and 1 and initiate bs directly. b01 = a[1], b10 = a[0], b11 = a[0] + a[1]. However if this is the round in which we choose the first coin to be unset, we can accept only b01 solution. So we assign a big number to b10 and b11. These solutions will be quickly dropped by next algorithm steps. On the second round we will do the opposite: assign big nuber to b01, because first bit must be set.
At step i we have best sums for place i-1 in bs. We compute cs which are the best sums for place i.
c01 = b10 + a[i] // 101 (10 -> 01)
c10 = min(b01, b11) // 010 (01 -> 10) or 110 (11 -> 10)
c11 = b01 + a[i] // 011 (01 -> 11)
That comes from following possibilities:
010 - b01 -> c10
011 - b01 -> c11
100 - invalid
101 - b10 -> c01
110 - b11 -> c10
111 - invalid
Of course we finish each step with assigning best sums back to bs.
When we processed all the coins we must drop the solutions that are incompatible with the initial assumption. Bits i-2, i-1 and 0 must produce valid sequences.
This is example run for 123456 sequence.
A. assume first bit 0
1 a[1] = 2: b01 = 2, b10 = 999, b11 = 999
2 a[2] = 3: b01 = 1002, b10 = 2, b11 = 5
3 a[3] = 4: b01 = 6, b10 = 9, b11 = 1006
4 a[4] = 5: b01 = 13, b10 = 6, b11 = 11
5 a[5] = 6: b01 = 12, b10 = 13, b11 = 19
b10 is unacceptable, we choose better from b01 and b11, which is 12.
B. assume first bit 1
1 a[1] = 2: b01 = 999, b10 = 1, b11 = 3
2 a[2] = 3: b01 = 4, b10 = 3, b11 = 1002
3 a[3] = 4: b01 = 7, b10 = 4, b11 = 8
4 a[4] = 5: b01 = 9, b10 = 12, b11 = 12
5 a[5] = 6: b01 = 18, b10 = 9, b11 = 15
Now b11 is invalid as it would produce 111. So we choose best of b01 and b10, which is 9. Step A gave 12, step B gave 9. 9 is better. This is the result.
I made the above calculations manually, so sorry if there is a mistake in them. However for the first coin unset I computed 2+4+6 and for first coin set the result was 1+3+5. Seems to be right.
Related
I am searching for a method to create, in a fast way a random matrix A with the follwing properties:
A = transpose(A)
A(i,i) = 0 for all i
A(i,j) >= 0 for all i, j
sum(A) =~ degree; the sum of rows are randomly distributed by a distribution I want to specify (here =~ means approximate equality).
The distribution degree comes from a matrix orig, specifically degree=sum(orig), thus I know that matrices with this distribution exist.
For example: orig=[0 12 7 5; 12 0 1 9; 7 1 0 3; 5 9 3 0]
orig =
0 12 7 5
12 0 1 9
7 1 0 3
5 9 3 0
sum(orig)=[24 22 11 17];
Now one possible matrix A=[0 11 5 8, 11 0 4 7, 5 4 0 2, 8 7 2 0] is
A =
0 11 5 8
11 0 4 7
5 4 0 2
8 7 2 0
with sum(A)=[24 22 11 17].
I am trying this for quite some time, but unfortunatly my two ideas didn't work:
version 1:
I switch Nswitch times two random elements: A(k1,k3)--; A(k1,k4)++; A(k2,k3)++; A(k2,k4)--; (the transposed elements aswell).
Unfortunatly, Nswitch = log(E)*E (with E=sum(sum(nn))) in order that the Matrices are very uncorrelated. As my E > 5.000.000, this is not feasible (in particular, as I need at least 10 of such matrices).
version 2:
I create the matrix according to the distribution from scratch. The idea is, to fill every row i with degree(i) numbers, based on the distribution of degree:
nn=orig;
nnR=zeros(size(nn));
for i=1:length(nn)
degree=sum(nn);
howmany=degree(i);
degree(i)=0;
full=rld_cumsum(degree,1:length(degree));
rr=randi(length(full),[1,howmany]);
ff=full(rr);
xx=i*ones([1,length(ff)]);
nnR = nnR + accumarray([xx(:),ff(:)],1,size(nnR));
end
A=nnR;
However, while sum(A')=degree, sum(A) systematically deviates from degree, and I am not able to find the reason for that.
Small deviations from degree are fine of course, but there seem to be systmatical deviations in particulat of the matrices contain in some places large numbers.
I would be very happy if somebody could either show me a fast method for version1, or a reason for the systematic deviation of the distribution in version 2, or a method to create such matrices in a different way. Thank you!
Edit:
This is the problem in matsmath's proposed solution:
Imagine you have the matrix:
orig =
0 12 3 1
12 0 1 9
3 1 0 3
1 9 3 0
with r(i)=[16 22 7 13].
Step 1: r(1)=16, my random integer partition is p(i)=[0 7 3 6].
Step 2: Check that all p(i)<=r(i), which is the case.
Step 3:
My random matrix starts looks like
A =
0 7 3 6
7 0 . .
3 . 0 .
6 . . 0
with the new row sum vector rnew=[r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)]=[15 4 7]
Second iteration (here the problem occures):
Step 1: rnew(1)=15, my random integer partition is p(i)=[0 A B]: rnew(1)=15=A+B.
Step 2: Check that all p(i)<=rnew(i), which gives A<=4, B<=7. So A+B<=11, but A+B has to be 15. contradiction :-/
Edit2:
This is the code representing (to the best of my knowledge) the solution posted by David Eisenstat:
orig=[0 12 3 1; 12 0 1 9; 3 1 0 3; 1 9 3 0];
w=[2.2406 4.6334 0.8174 1.6902];
xfull=zeros(4);
for ii=1:1000
rndmat=[poissrnd(w(1),1,4); poissrnd(w(2),1,4); poissrnd(w(3),1,4); poissrnd(w(4),1,4)];
kkk=rndmat.*(ones(4)-eye(4)); % remove diagonal
hhh=sum(sum(orig))/sum(sum(kkk))*kkk; % normalisation
xfull=xfull+hhh;
end
xf=xfull/ii;
disp(sum(orig)); % gives [16 22 7 13]
disp(sum(xf)); % gives [14.8337 9.6171 18.0627 15.4865] (obvious systematic problem)
disp(sum(xf')) % gives [13.5230 28.8452 4.9635 10.6683] (which is also systematically different from [16, 22, 7, 13]
Since it's enough to approximately preserve the degree sequence, let me propose a random distribution where each entry above the diagonal is chosen according to a Poisson distribution. My intuition is that we want to find weights w_i such that the i,j entry for i != j has mean w_i*w_j (all of the diagonal entries are zero). This gives us a nonlinear system of equations:
for all i, (sum_{j != i} w_i*w_j) = d_i,
where d_i is the degree of i. Equivalently,
for all i, w_i * (sum_j w_j) - w_i^2 = d_i.
The latter can be solved by applying Newton's method as described below from a starting solution of w_i = d_i / sqrt(sum_j d_j).
Once we have the w_is, we can sample repeatedly using poissrnd to generate samples of multiple Poisson distributions at once.
(If I have time, I'll try implementing this in numpy.)
The Jacobian matrix of the equation system for a 4 by 4 problem is
(w_2 + w_3 + w_4) w_1 w_1 w_1
w_2 (w_1 + w_3 + w_4) w_2 w_2
w_3 w_3 (w_1 + w_2 + w_4) w_3
w_4 w_4 w_4 (w_1 + w_2 + w_3).
In general, let A be a diagonal matrix where A_{i,i} = sum_j w_j - 2*w_i. Let u = [w_1, ..., w_n]' and v = [1, ..., 1]'. The Jacobian can be written J = A + u*v'. The inverse is given by the Sherman--Morrison formula
A^-1*u*v'*A^-1
J^-1 = (A + u*v')^-1 = A^-1 - -------------- .
1 + v'*A^-1*u
For the Newton step, we need to compute J^-1*y for some given y. This can be done straightforwardly in time O(n) using the above equation. I'll add more detail when I get the chance.
First approach (based on version2)
Let your row sum vector given by the matrix orig [r(1),r(2),...,r(n)].
Step 1. Take a random integer partition of the integer r(1) into exactly n-1 parts, say p(2), p(3), ..., p(n)
Step 2. Check if p(i)<=r(i) for all i=2...n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 3. Fill out your random matrix first row and colum by the entries 0, p(2), ... , p(n), and consider the new row sum vector [r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)].
Repeat these steps with a matrix of order n-1.
The point is, that you randomize one row at a time, and reduce the problem to searching for a matrix of size one less.
As pointed out by OP in the comment, this naive algorithm fails. The reason is that the matrices in question have a further necessary condition on their entries as follows:
FACT:
If A is an orig matrix with row sums [r(1), r(2), ..., r(n)] then necessarily for every i=1..n it holds that r(i)<=-r(i)+sum(r(j),j=1..n).
That is, any row sum, say the ith, r(i), is necessarily at most as big as the sum of the other row sums (not including r(i)).
In light of this, a revised algorithm is possible. Note that in Step 2b. we check if the new row sum vector has the property discussed above.
Step 1. Take a random integer partition of the integer r(1) into exactly n-1 parts, say p(2), p(3), ..., p(n)
Step 2a. Check if p(i)<=r(i) for all i=2...n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 2b. Check if r(i)-p(i)<=-r(i)+p(i)+sum(r(j)-p(j),j=2..n) for all i=2..n. If not, go to Step 1.
Step 3. Fill out your random matrix first row and colum by the entries 0, p(2), ... , p(n), and consider the new row sum vector [r(2)-p(2),...,r(n)-p(n)].
Second approach (based on version1)
I am not sure if this approach gives you random matrices, but it certainly gives you different matrices.
The idea here is to change some parts of your orig matrix locally, in a way which maintains all of its properties.
You should look for a random 2x2 submatrix below the main diagonal which contains strictly positive entries, like [[a,b],[c,d]] and perturbe its contents by a random value r to [[a+r,b-r],[c-r,d+r]]. You make the same change above the main diagonal too, to keep your new matrix symmetric. Here the point is that the changes within the entries "cancel" each other out.
Of course, r should be chosen in a way such that b-r>=0 and c-r>=0.
You can pursue this idea to modify larger submatrices too. For example, you might choose 3 random row coordinates r1, r2, r2 and 3 random column coordinates c1, c2, and c3 and then make changes in your orig matrix at the 9 positions (ri,cj) as follows: you change your 3x3 submatrix [[a b c],[d e f], [g h i]] to [[a-r b+r c] [d+r e f-r], [g h-r i+r]]. You do the same at the transposed places. Again, the random value r must be chosen in a way so that a-r>=0 and f-r>=0 and h-r>=0. Moreover, c1 and r1, and c3 and r3 must be distinct as you can't change the 0 entries in the main diagonal of the matrix orig.
You can repeat such things over and over again, say 100 times, until you find something which looks random. Note that this idea uses the fact that you have existing knowledge of a solution, this is the matrix orig, while the first approach does not use such knowledge at all.
I was asked this question in a test and I need help with regards to how I should approach the solution, not the actual answer. The question is
You have been given a 7 digit number(with each digit being distinct and 0-9). The number has this property
product of first 3 digits = product of last 3 digits = product of central 3 digits
Identify the middle digit.
Now, I can do this on paper by brute force(trial and error), the product is 72 and digits being
8,1,9,2,4,3,6
Now how do I approach the problem in a no brute force way?
Let the number is: a b c d e f g
So as per the rule(1):
axbxc = cxdxe = exfxg
more over we have(2):
axb = dxe and
cxd = fxg
This question can be solved with factorization and little bit of hit/trial.
Out of the digits from 1 to 9, 5 and 7 can rejected straight-away since these are prime numbers and would not fit in the above two equations.
The digits 1 to 9 can be factored as:
1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 2X2, 6 = 2X3, 8 = 2X2X2, 9 = 3X3
After factorization we are now left with total 7 - 2's, 4 - 3's and the number 1.
As for rule 2 we are left with only 4 possibilities, these 4 equations can be computed by factorization logic since we know we have overall 7 2's and 4 3's with us.
1: 1X8(2x2x2) = 2X4(2x2)
2: 1X6(3x2) = 3X2
3: 4(2x2)X3 = 6(3x2)X2
4: 9(3x3)X2 = 6(3x2)X3
Skipping 5 and 7 we are left with 7 digits.
With above equations we have 4 digits with us and are left with remaining 3 digits which can be tested through hit and trial. For example, if we consider the first case we have:
1X8 = 2X4 and are left with 3,6,9.
we have axbxc = cxdxe we can opt c with these 3 options in that case the products would be 24, 48 and 72.
24 cant be correct since for last three digits we are left with are 6,9,4(=216)
48 cant be correct since for last three digits we are left with 3,9,4(=108)
72 could be a valid option since the last three digits in that case would be 3,6,4 (=72)
This question is good to solve with Relational Programming. I think it very clearly lets the programmer see what's going on and how the problem is solved. While it may not be the most efficient way to solve problems, it can still bring desired clarity and handle problems up to a certain size. Consider this small example from Oz:
fun {FindDigits}
D1 = {Digit}
D2 = {Digit}
D3 = {Digit}
D4 = {Digit}
D5 = {Digit}
D6 = {Digit}
D7 = {Digit}
L = [D1 D2 D3] M = [D3 D4 D5] E= [D5 D6 D7] TotL in
TotL = [D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7]
{Unique TotL} = true
{ProductList L} = {ProductList M} = {ProductList E}
TotL
end
(Now this would be possible to parameterize furthermore, but non-optimized to illustrate the point).
Here you first pick 7 digits with a function Digit/0. Then you create three lists, L, M and E consisting of the segments, as well as a total list to return (you could also return the concatenation, but I found this better for illustration).
Then comes the point, you specify relations that have to be intact. First, that the TotL is unique (distinct in your tasks wording). Then the next one, that the segment products have to be equal.
What now happens is that a search is conducted for your answers. This is a depth-first search strategy, but could also be breadth-first, and a solver is called to bring out all solutions. The search strategy is found inside the SolveAll/1 function.
{Browse {SolveAll FindDigits}}
Which in turns returns this list of answers:
[[1 8 9 2 4 3 6] [1 8 9 2 4 6 3] [3 6 4 2 9 1 8]
[3 6 4 2 9 8 1] [6 3 4 2 9 1 8] [6 3 4 2 9 8 1]
[8 1 9 2 4 3 6] [8 1 9 2 4 6 3]]
At least this way forward is not using brute force. Essentially you are searching for answers here. There might be heuristics that let you find the correct answer sooner (some mathematical magic, perhaps), or you can use genetic algorithms to search the space or other well-known strategies.
Prime factor of distinct digit (if possible)
0 = 0
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 2 x 2
5 = 5
6 = 2 x 3
7 = 7
8 = 2 x 2 x 2
9 = 3 x 3
In total:
7 2's + 4 3's + 1 5's + 1 7's
With the fact that When A=B=C, composition of prime factor of A must be same as composition of prime factor of B and that of C, 0 , 5 and 7 are excluded since they have unique prime factor that can never match with the fact.
Hence, 7 2's + 4 3's are left and we have 7 digit (1,2,3,4,6,8,9). As there are 7 digits only, the number is formed by these digits only.
Recall the fact, A, B and C must have same composition of prime factors. This implies that A, B and C have same number of 2's and 3's in their composition. So, we should try to achieve (in total for A and B and C):
9 OR 12 2's AND
6 3's
(Must be product of 3, lower bound is total number of prime factor of all digits, upper bound is lower bound * 2)
Consider point 2 (as it has one possibility), A has 2 3's and same for B and C. To have more number of prime factor in total, we need to put digit in connection digit between two product (third or fifth digit). Extract digits with prime factor 3 into two groups {3,6} and {9} and put digit into connection digit. The only possible way is to put 9 in connection digit and 3,6 on unconnected product. That mean xx9xx36 or 36xx9xx (order of 3,6 is not important)
With this result, we get 9 x middle x connection digit = connection digit x 3 x 6. Thus, middle = (3 x 6) / 9 = 2
My answer actually extends #Ansh's answer.
Let abcdefg be the digits of the number. Then
ab=de
cd=fg
From these relations we can exclude 0, 5 and 7 because there are no other multipliers of these numbers between 0 and 9. So we are left with seven numbers and each number is included once in each answer. We are going to examine how we can pair the numbers (ab, de, cd, fg).
What happens with 9? It can't be combined with 3 or 6 since then their product will have three times the factor 3 and we have at total 4 factors of 3. Similarly, 3 and 6 must be combined at least one time together in response to the two factors of 9. This gives a product of 18 and so 9 must be combined at least once with 2.
Now if 9x2 is in a corner then 3x6 must be in the middle. Meaning in the other corner there must be another multiplier of 3. So 9 and 2 are in the middle.
Let's suppose ab=3x6 (The other case is symmetric). Then d must be 9 or 2. But if d is 9 then f or g must be multiplier of 3. So d is 2 and e is 9. We can stop here and answer the middle digit is
2
Now we have 2c = fg and the remaining choices are 1, 4, 8. We see that the only solutions are c = 4, f = 1, g = 8 and c = 4, f = 8, g = 1.
So if is 3x6 is in the left corner we have the following solutions:
3642918, 3642981, 6342918, 6342981
If 3x6 is in the right corner we have the following solutions which are the reverse of the above:
8192463, 1892463, 8192436, 1892436
Here is how you can consider the problem:
Let's note the final solution N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 for the 3 numbers N1N2N3, N3N4N5 and N5N6N7
0, 5 and 7 are to exclude because they are prime and no other ciphers is a multiple of them. So if they had divided one of the 3 numbers, no other number could have divided the others.
So we get the 7 remaining ciphers : 1234689
where the product of the ciphers is 2^7*3^4
(N1*N2*N3) and (N5*N6*N7) are equals so their product is a square number. We can then remove, one of the number (N4) from the product of the previous point to find a square number (i.e. even exponents on both numbers)
N4 can't be 1, 3, 4, 6, 9.
We conclude N4 is 2 or 8
If N4 is 8 and it divides (N3*N4*N5), we can't use the remaining even numbers (2, 4, 6) to divides
both (N1*N2*N3) and (N6*N7*N8) by 8. So N4 is 2 and 8 does not belong to the second group (let's put it in N1).
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8XX, 2nd group: X2X 3rd group: XXX
Note: at this point we know that the product is 72 because it is 2^3*3^2 (the square root of 2^6*3^4) but the result is not really important. We have made the difficult part knowing the 7 numbers and the middle position.
Then, we know that we have to distribute 2^3 on (N1*N2*N3), (N3*N4*N5), (N5*N6*N7) because 2^3*2*2^3=2^7
We already gave 8 to N1, 2 to N4 and we place 6 to N6, and 4 to N5 position, resulting in each of the 3 numbers being a multiple of 8.
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8XX, 2nd group: X24 3rd group: 46X
We have the same way of thinking considering the odd number, we distribute 3^2, on each part knowing that we already have a 6 in the last group.
Last group will then get the 3. And first and second ones the 9.
Now, we have: 1st grp: 8X9, 2nd group: 924 3rd group: 463
And, then 1 at N2, which is the remaining position.
This problem is pretty easy if you look at the number 72 more carefully.
We have our number with this form abcdefg
and abc = cde = efg, with those digits 8,1,9,2,4,3,6
So, first, we can conclude that 8,1,9 must be one of the triple, because, there is no way 1 can go with other two numbers to form 72.
We can also conclude that 1 must be in the start/end of the whole number or middle of the triple.
So now we have 819defg or 918defg ...
Using some calculations with the rest of those digits, we can see that only 819defg is possible, because, we need 72/9 = 8,so only 2,4 is valid, while we cannot create 72/8 = 9 from those 2,4,3,6 digits, so -> 81924fg or 81942fg and 819 must be the triple that start or end our number.
So the rest of the job is easy, we need either 72/4 = 18 or 72/2 = 36, now, we can have our answers: 8192436 or 8192463.
7 digits: 8,1,9,2,4,3,6
say XxYxZ = 72
1) pick any two from above 7 digits. say X,Y
2) divide 72 by X and then Y.. you will get the 3rd number i.e Z.
we found XYZ set of 3-digits which gives result 72.
now repeat 1) and 2) with remaining 4 digits.
this time we found ABC which multiplies to 72.
lets say, 7th digit left out is I.
3) divide 72 by I. result R
4) divide R by one of XYZ. check if result is in ABC.
if No, repeat the step 3)
if yes, found the third pair.(assume you divided R by Y and the result is B)
YIB is the third pair.
so... solution will be.
XZYIBAC
You have your 7 numbers - instead of looking at it in groups of 3 divide up the number as such:
AB | C | D | E | FG
Get the value of AB and use it to get the value of C like so: C = ABC/AB
Next you want to do the same thing with the trailing 2 digits to find E using FG. E = EFG/FG
Now that you have C & E you can solve for D
Since CDE = ABC then D = ABC/CE
Remember your formulas - instead of looking at numbers create a formula aka an algorithm that you know will work every time.
ABC = CDE = EFG However, you have to remember that your = signs have to balance. You can see that D = ABC/CE = EFG/CE Once you know that, you can figure out what you need in order to solve the problem.
Made a quick example in a fiddle of the code:
http://jsfiddle.net/4ykxx9ve/1/
var findMidNum = function() {
var num = [8, 1, 9, 2, 4, 3, 6];
var ab = num[0] * num[1];
var fg = num[5] * num[6];
var abc = num[0] * num[1] * num[2];
var cde = num[2] * num[3] * num[4];
var efg = num[4] * num[5] * num[6];
var c = abc/ab;
var e = efg/fg;
var ce = c * e
var d = abc/ce;
console.log(d); //2
}();
You have been given a 7 digit number(with each digit being distinct and 0-9). The number has this property
product of first 3 digits = product of last 3 digits = product of central 3 digits
Identify the middle digit.
Now, I can do this on paper by brute force(trial and error), the product is 72 and digits being
8,1,9,2,4,3,6
Now how do I approach the problem in a no brute force way?
use linq and substring functions
example var item = array.Skip(3).Take(3) in such a way that you have a loop
for(f =0;f<charlen.length;f++){
var xItemSum = charlen[f].Skip(f).Take(f).Sum(f => f.Value);
}
// untested code
I have already read What is an "external node" of a "magic" 3-gon ring? and I have solved problems up until 90 but this n-gon thing totally baffles me as I don't understand the question at all.
So I take this ring and I understand that the external circles are 4, 5, 6 as they are outside the inner circle. Now he says there are eight solutions. And the eight solutions are without much explanation listed below. Let me take
9 4,2,3; 5,3,1; 6,1,2
9 4,3,2; 6,2,1; 5,1,3
So how do we arrive at the 2 solutions? I understand 4, 3, 2, is in straight line and 6,2,1 is in straight line and 5, 1, 3 are in a straight line and they are in clockwise so the second solution makes sense.
Questions
Why does the first solution 4,2,3; 5,3,1; 6,1,2 go anti clock wise? Should it not be 423 612 and then 531?
How do we arrive at 8 solutions. Is it just randomly picking three numbers? What exactly does it mean to solve a "N-gon"?
The first doesn't go anti-clockwise. It's what you get from the configuration
4
\
2
/ \
1---3---5
/
6
when you go clockwise, starting with the smallest number in the outer ring.
How do we arrive at 8 solutions. Is it just randomly picking three numbers? What exactly does it mean to solve a "N-gon"?
For an N-gon, you have an inner N-gon, and for each side of the N-gon one spike, like
X
|
X---X---X
| |
X---X---X
|
X
so that the spike together with the side of the inner N-gon connects a group of three places. A "solution" of the N-gon is a configuration where you placed the numbers from 1 to 2*N so that each of the N groups sums to the same value.
The places at the end of the spikes appear in only one group each, the places on the vertices of the inner N-gon in two. So the sum of the sums of all groups is
N
∑ k + ∑{ numbers on vertices }
k=1
The sum of the numbers on the vertices of the inner N-gon is at least 1 + 2 + ... + N = N*(N+1)/2 and at most (N+1) + (N+2) + ... + 2*N = N² + N*(N+1)/2 = N*(3*N+1)/2.
Hence the sum of the sums of all groups is between
N*(2*N+1) + N*(N+1)/2 = N*(5*N+3)/2
and
N*(2*N+1) + N*(3*N+1)/2 = N*(7*N+3)/2
inclusive, and the sum per group must be between
(5*N+3)/2
and
(7*N+3)/2
again inclusive.
For the triangle - N = 3 - the bounds are (5*3+3)/2 = 9 and (7*3+3)/2 = 12. For a square - N = 4 - the bounds are (5*4+3)/2 = 11.5 and (7*4+3)/2 = 15.5 - since the sum must be an integer, the possible sums are 12, 13, 14, 15.
Going back to the triangle, if the sum of each group is 9, the sum of the sums is 27, and the sum of the numbers on the vertices must be 27 - (1+2+3+4+5+6) = 27 - 21 = 6 = 1+2+3, so the numbers on the vertices are 1, 2 and 3.
For the sum to be 9, the value at the end of the spike for the side connecting 1 and 2 must be 6, for the side connecting 1 and 3, the spike value must be 5, and 4 for the side connecting 2 and 3.
If you start with the smallest value on the spikes - 4 - you know you have to place 2 and 3 on the vertices of the side that spike protrudes from. There are two ways to arrange the two numbers there, leading to the two solutions for sum 9.
If the sum of each group is 10, the sum of the sums is 30, and the sum of the numbers on the vertices must be 9. To represent 9 as the sum of three distinct numbers from 1 to 6, you have the possibilities
1 + 2 + 6
1 + 3 + 5
2 + 3 + 4
For the first group, you have one side connecting 1 and 2, so you'd need a 7 on the end of the spike to make 10 - no solution.
For the third group, the minimal sum of two of the numbers is 5, but 5+6 = 11 > 10, so there's no place for the 6 - no solution.
For the second group, the sums of the sides are
1 + 3 = 4 -- 6 on the spike
1 + 5 = 6 -- 4 on the spike
3 + 5 = 8 -- 2 on the spike
and you have two ways to arrange 3 and 5, so that the group is either 2-3-5 or 2-5-3, the rest follows again.
The solutions for the sums 11 and 12 can be obtained similarly, or by replacing k with 7-k in the solutions for the sums 9 resp. 10.
To solve the problem, you must now find out
what it means to obtain a 16-digit string or a 17-digit string
which sum for the groups gives rise to the largest value when the numbers are concatenated in the prescribed way.
(And use pencil and paper for the fastest solution.)
given a sorted array of distinct integers, what is the minimum number of steps required to make the integers contiguous? Here the condition is that: in a step , only one element can be changed and can be either increased or decreased by 1 . For example, if we have 2,4,5,6 then '2' can be made '3' thus making the elements contiguous(3,4,5,6) .Hence the minimum steps here is 1 . Similarly for the array: 2,4,5,8:
Step 1: '2' can be made '3'
Step 2: '8' can be made '7'
Step 3: '7' can be made '6'
Thus the sequence now is 3,4,5,6 and the number of steps is 3.
I tried as follows but am not sure if its correct?
//n is the number of elements in array a
int count=a[n-1]-a[0]-1;
for(i=1;i<=n-2;i++)
{
count--;
}
printf("%d\n",count);
Thanks.
The intuitive guess is that the "center" of the optimal sequence will be the arithmetic average, but this is not the case. Let's find the correct solution with some vector math:
Part 1: Assuming the first number is to be left alone (we'll deal with this assumption later), calculate the differences, so 1 12 3 14 5 16-1 2 3 4 5 6 would yield 0 -10 0 -10 0 -10.
sidenote: Notice that a "contiguous" array by your implied definition would be an increasing arithmetic sequence with difference 1. (Note that there are other reasonable interpretations of your question: some people may consider 5 4 3 2 1 to be contiguous, or 5 3 1 to be contiguous, or 1 2 3 2 3 to be contiguous. You also did not specify if negative numbers should be treated any differently.)
theorem: The contiguous numbers must lie between the minimum and maximum number. [proof left to reader]
Part 2: Now returning to our example, assuming we took the 30 steps (sum(abs(0 -10 0 -10 0 -10))=30) required to turn 1 12 3 14 5 16 into 1 2 3 4 5 6. This is one correct answer. But 0 -10 0 -10 0 -10+c is also an answer which yields an arithmetic sequence of difference 1, for any constant c. In order to minimize the number of "steps", we must pick an appropriate c. In this case, each time we increase or decrease c, we increase the number of steps by N=6 (the length of the vector). So for example if we wanted to turn our original sequence 1 12 3 14 5 16 into 3 4 5 6 7 8 (c=2), then the differences would have been 2 -8 2 -8 2 -8, and sum(abs(2 -8 2 -8 2 -8))=30.
Now this is very clear if you could picture it visually, but it's sort of hard to type out in text. First we took our difference vector. Imagine you drew it like so:
4|
3| *
2| * |
1| | | *
0+--+--+--+--+--*
-1| |
-2| *
We are free to "shift" this vector up and down by adding or subtracting 1 from everything. (This is equivalent to finding c.) We wish to find the shift which minimizes the number of | you see (the area between the curve and the x-axis). This is NOT the average (that would be minimizing the standard deviation or RMS error, not the absolute error). To find the minimizing c, let's think of this as a function and consider its derivative. If the differences are all far away from the x-axis (we're trying to make 101 112 103 114 105 116), it makes sense to just not add this extra stuff, so we shift the function down towards the x-axis. Each time we decrease c, we improve the solution by 6. Now suppose that one of the *s passes the x axis. Each time we decrease c, we improve the solution by 5-1=4 (we save 5 steps of work, but have to do 1 extra step of work for the * below the x-axis). Eventually when HALF the *s are past the x-axis, we can NO LONGER IMPROVE THE SOLUTION (derivative: 3-3=0). (In fact soon we begin to make the solution worse, and can never make it better again. Not only have we found the minimum of this function, but we can see it is a global minimum.)
Thus the solution is as follows: Pretend the first number is in place. Calculate the vector of differences. Minimize the sum of the absolute value of this vector; do this by finding the median OF THE DIFFERENCES and subtracting that off from the differences to obtain an improved differences-vector. The sum of the absolute value of the "improved" vector is your answer. This is O(N) The solutions of equal optimality will (as per the above) always be "adjacent". A unique solution exists only if there are an odd number of numbers; otherwise if there are an even number of numbers, AND the median-of-differences is not an integer, the equally-optimal solutions will have difference-vectors with corrective factors of any number between the two medians.
So I guess this wouldn't be complete without a final example.
input: 2 3 4 10 14 14 15 100
difference vector: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-2 3 4 10 14 14 15 100 = 0 0 0 -5 -8 -7 -7 -91
note that the medians of the difference-vector are not in the middle anymore, we need to perform an O(N) median-finding algorithm to extract them...
medians of difference-vector are -5 and -7
let us take -5 to be our correction factor (any number between the medians, such as -6 or -7, would also be a valid choice)
thus our new goal is 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+5=7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14, and the new differences are 5 5 5 0 -3 -2 -2 -86*
this means we will need to do 5+5+5+0+3+2+2+86=108 steps
*(we obtain this by repeating step 2 with our new target, or by adding 5 to each number of the previous difference... but since you only care about the sum, we'd just add 8*5 (vector length times correct factor) to the previously calculated sum)
Alternatively, we could have also taken -6 or -7 to be our correction factor. Let's say we took -7...
then the new goal would have been 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+7=9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, and the new differences would have been 7 7 7 2 1 0 0 -84
this would have meant we'd need to do 7+7+7+2+1+0+0+84=108 steps, the same as above
If you simulate this yourself, can see the number of steps becomes >108 as we take offsets further away from the range [-5,-7].
Pseudocode:
def minSteps(array A of size N):
A' = [0,1,...,N-1]
diffs = A'-A
medianOfDiffs = leftMedian(diffs)
return sum(abs(diffs-medianOfDiffs))
Python:
leftMedian = lambda x:sorted(x)[len(x)//2]
def minSteps(array):
target = range(len(array))
diffs = [t-a for t,a in zip(target,array)]
medianOfDiffs = leftMedian(diffs)
return sum(abs(d-medianOfDiffs) for d in diffs)
edit:
It turns out that for arrays of distinct integers, this is equivalent to a simpler solution: picking one of the (up to 2) medians, assuming it doesn't move, and moving other numbers accordingly. This simpler method often gives incorrect answers if you have any duplicates, but the OP didn't ask that, so that would be a simpler and more elegant solution. Additionally we can use the proof I've given in this solution to justify the "assume the median doesn't move" solution as follows: the corrective factor will always be in the center of the array (i.e. the median of the differences will be from the median of the numbers). Thus any restriction which also guarantees this can be used to create variations of this brainteaser.
Get one of the medians of all the numbers. As the numbers are already sorted, this shouldn't be a big deal. Assume that median does not move. Then compute the total cost of moving all the numbers accordingly. This should give the answer.
community edit:
def minSteps(a):
"""INPUT: list of sorted unique integers"""
oneMedian = a[floor(n/2)]
aTarget = [oneMedian + (i-floor(n/2)) for i in range(len(a))]
# aTargets looks roughly like [m-n/2?, ..., m-1, m, m+1, ..., m+n/2]
return sum(abs(aTarget[i]-a[i]) for i in range(len(a)))
This is probably not an ideal solution, but a first idea.
Given a sorted sequence [x1, x2, …, xn]:
Write a function that returns the differences of an element to the previous and to the next element, i.e. (xn – xn–1, xn+1 – xn).
If the difference to the previous element is > 1, you would have to increase all previous elements by xn – xn–1 – 1. That is, the number of necessary steps would increase by the number of previous elements × (xn – xn–1 – 1). Let's call this number a.
If the difference to the next element is >1, you would have to decrease all subsequent elements by xn+1 – xn – 1. That is, the number of necessary steps would increase by the number of subsequent elements × (xn+1 – xn – 1). Let's call this number b.
If a < b, then increase all previous elements until they are contiguous to the current element. If a > b, then decrease all subsequent elements until they are contiguous to the current element. If a = b, it doesn't matter which of these two actions is chosen.
Add up the number of steps taken in the previous step (by increasing the total number of necessary steps by either a or b), and repeat until all elements are contiguous.
First of all, imagine that we pick an arbitrary target of contiguous increasing values and then calculate the cost (number of steps required) for modifying the array the array to match.
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
Target: 4 5 6 7 8 9
Difference: +1 0 -1 -1 -2 -7 -> Cost = 12
Sign: + 0 - - - -
Because the input array is already ordered and distinct, it is strictly increasing. Because of this, it can be shown that the differences will always be non-increasing.
If we change the target by increasing it by 1, the cost will change. Each position in which the difference is currently positive or zero will incur an increase in cost by 1. Each position in which the difference is currently negative will yield a decrease in cost by 1:
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
New target: 5 6 7 8 9 10
New Difference: +2 +1 0 0 -1 -6 -> Cost = 10 (decrease by 2)
Conversely, if we decrease the target by 1, each position in which the difference is currently positive will yield a decrease in cost by 1, while each position in which the difference is zero or negative will incur an increase in cost by 1:
Original: 3 5 7 8 10 16
New target: 3 4 5 6 7 8
New Difference: 0 -1 -2 -2 -3 -8 -> Cost = 16 (increase by 4)
In order to find the optimal values for the target array, we must find a target such that any change (increment or decrement) will not decrease the cost. Note that an increment of the target can only decrease the cost when there are more positions with negative difference than there are with zero or positive difference. A decrement can only decrease the cost when there are more positions with a positive difference than with a zero or negative difference.
Here are some example distributions of difference signs. Remember that the differences array is non-increasing, so positives always have to be first and negatives last:
C C
+ + + - - - optimal
+ + 0 - - - optimal
0 0 0 - - - optimal
+ 0 - - - - can increment (negatives exceed positives & zeroes)
+ + + 0 0 0 optimal
+ + + + - - can decrement (positives exceed negatives & zeroes)
+ + 0 0 - - optimal
+ 0 0 0 0 0 optimal
C C
Observe that if one of the central elements (marked C) is zero, the target must be optimal. In such a circumstance, at best any increment or decrement will not change the cost, but it may increase it. This result is important, because it gives us a trivial solution. We pick a target such that a[n/2] remains unchanged. There may be other possible targets that yield the same cost, but there are definitely none that are better. Here's the original code modified to calculate this cost:
//n is the number of elements in array a
int targetValue;
int cost = 0;
int middle = n / 2;
int startValue = a[middle] - middle;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
targetValue = startValue + i;
cost += abs(targetValue - a[i]);
}
printf("%d\n",cost);
You can not do it by iterating once on the array, that's for sure.
You need first to check the difference between each two numbers, for example:
2,7,8,9 can be 2,3,4,5 with 18 steps or 6,7,8,9 with 4 steps.
Create a new array with the difference like so: for 2,7,8,9 it wiil be 4,1,1. Now you can decide whether to increase or decrease the first number.
Lets assume that the contiguous array looks something like this -
c c+1 c+2 c+3 .. and so on
Now lets take an example -
5 7 8 10
The contiguous array in this case will be -
c c+1 c+2 c+3
In order to get the minimum steps, the sum of the modulus of the difference of the integers(before and after) w.r.t the ith index should be the minimum. In which case,
(c-5)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-7)^2 should be minimum
Let f(c) = (c-5)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-6)^2 + (c-7)^2
= 4c^2 - 48c + 146
Applying differential calculus to get the minima,
f'(c) = 8c - 48 = 0
=> c = 6
So our contiguous array is 6 7 8 9 and the minimum cost here is 2.
To sum it up, just generate f(c), get the first differential and find out c.
This should take O(n).
Brute force approach O(N*M)
If one draws a line through each point in the array a then y0 is a value where each line starts at index 0. Then the answer is the minimum among number of steps reqired to get from a to every line that starts at y0, in Python:
y0s = set((y - i) for i, y in enumerate(a))
nsteps = min(sum(abs(y-(y0+i)) for i, y in enumerate(a))
for y0 in xrange(min(y0s), max(y0s)+1)))
Input
2,4,5,6
2,4,5,8
Output
1
3
For example, if it is the choice of chocolate, ice cream, donut, ..., for the order of their preference.
If user 1 choose
A B C D E F G H I J
and user 2 chooses
J A B C I G F E D H
what are some good ways to calculate a score from 0 to 100 to tell how close their choices are? It has to make sense, such as if most answers are the same but just 1 or 2 answers different, the score cannot be made to extremely low. Or, if most answers are just "shifted by 1 position", then we cannot count them as "all different" and give 0 score for those differences of only 1 position.
Assign each letter item an integer value starting at 1
A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6 (stopping at F for simplicity)
Then consider the order the items are placed, use this as a multiple
So if a number is the first item, its multiplier is 1, if its the 6th item the multipler is 6
Figure out the maximum score you could have (basically when everything is in consecutive order)
item a b c d e f
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
value 1 2 3 4 5 6
score 1 4 9 16 25 36 Sum = 91, Score = 100% (MAX)
item a b d c e f
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
value 1 2 4 3 5 6
score 1 4 12 12 25 36 Sum = 90 Score = 99%
=======================
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
item f d b c e a
value 6 4 2 3 5 1
score 6 8 6 12 25 6 Sum = 63 Score = 69%
order 1 2 3 4 5 6
item d f b c e a
value 4 6 2 3 5 1
score 4 12 6 12 25 6 Sum = 65 Score = 71%
obviously this is a very crude implementation that I just came up with. It may not work for everything. Examples 3 and 4 are swapped by one position yet the score is off by 2% (versus ex 1 and 2 which are off by 1%). It's just a thought. I'm no algorithm expert. You could probably use the final number and do something else to it for a better numerical comparison.
You could
Calculate the edit distance between the sequences;
Subtract the edit distance from the sequence length;
Divide that by the length of the sequence
Multiply it by hundred
Score = 100 * (SequenceLength - Levenshtein( Sequence1, Sequence2 ) ) / SequenceLength
Edit distance is basically the number of operations required to transform sequence one in sequence two. An algorithm therefore is the Levenshtein distance algorithm.
Examples:
Weights
insert: 1
delete: 1
substitute: 1
Seq 1: ABCDEFGHIJ
Seq 2: JABCIGFEDH
Score = 100 * (10-7) / 10 = 30
Seq 1: ABCDEFGHIJ
Seq 2: ABDCFGHIEJ
Score = 100 * (10-3) / 10 = 70
The most straightforward way to calculate it is the Levenshtein distance, which is the number of changes that must be done to transform one string to another.
Disadvantage of Levenshtein distance for your task is that it doesn't measure closeness between products themselves. I.e. you will not know how A and J are close to each other. For example, user 1 may like donuts, and user 2 may like buns, and you know that most people who like first also like the second. From this information you can infer that user 1 makes choices that are close to choices of user 2, through they don't have same elements.
If this is your case, you will have to use one of two: statistical methods to infer correlation between choices or recommendation engines.