I have an array a = [3,6,774,24,56,2,64,56,34]. I need to find the second largest number in a single iteration using Ruby. How do I achieve it?
Simple:
array.sort[-2]
And you're done :)
This works, but am not sure for the "single iteration"
a.max(2)[1]
sort is probably overkill here, especially for really large arrays. Don't quite understand "single iteration", one line you mean?
a = [3,6,774,24,56,2,64,56,34]
b = a.shift(2).sort
c =
a.inject(b) do |(m2, m), e|
case
when e > m
[m, e]
when e > m2
[e, m]
else
[m2, m]
end
end
c.first #=> 64
Just for fun, this method gets the Nth greatest value in a enumerable (you'd use a bisect module to make the insertion into acc more efficient). As pointed out by #Victor, you would only use it when the length of the array is much bigger than n, othersize a simple array.sort[-n] is faster.
module Enumerable
def max_nth(n)
inject([]) do |acc, x|
(acc + [x]).sort[[acc.size-(n-1), 0].max..-1]
end.first
end
end
p [1, 5, 2, 32, 2, 41, 15, 55].max_nth(2) #=> 41
It works too:
arr.sort.reverse[1]
For me,
a = [3,6,774,24,56,2,64,56,34]
a.uniq # create a new array with the only unique value
a.sort[-2] # find the second greatest value
For me this worked:
data_array5 = [45,65632,232,34345,343,23,23,56]
puts data_array5.sort[data_array5.length()-2]
This is generic you replace 2 with any n number to get nth maxmium
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
puts array.max(2).last
Related
I was doing this question on codewars: "Given an array, find the int that appears an odd number of times. There will always be only one integer that appears an odd number of times."
Code:
def find_it(seq)
int = []
for a in seq do
count = 0
for b in seq do
if a == b
count += 1
end
end
if count % 2.0 != 0
int << b
end
end
puts int.uniq[0].to_i
end
It was tested against a couple inputs, but the answers were wrong for these two arrays:
find_it([1,1,2,-2,5,2,4,4,-1,-2,5]) - returns 5 instead of -1
find_it([1,1,1,1,1,1,10,1,1,1,1]) - returns 1 instead of 10
What went wrong with my code?
if count % 2.0 != 0
int << b
end
The problem you have here is that your pushing b instead of a into the integer array, so what's happening is that instead of the value that you counted being pushed in, your pushing in the last value of b which is the last value element in the array regardless as long as the condition that the counter is an odd number, although b and counter have nothing to do with each other. so to fix it you replace b with a so that it pushes in the value you are testing comparing with the other elements in the second loop
fix:
if count % 2.0 != 0
int << a
end
a similar yet simpler code that does a similar job except in a shorter and more understandable way is:
def find_it(seq)
numberWithOddCount = 0
seq.each do |currentElement|
counter = 0
seq.each { |elementToCompare| counter += 1 if currentElement == elementToCompare}
numberWithOddCount = currentElement if counter % 2 != 0
end
numberWithOddCount
end
Just added a few tid-bits that you could also utilize to shorten and simplify code.
Happy Coding!
Note:
You could utilize built in ruby methods in creative ways to make the code do what you want in very few lines (or even one line) such as what #iGian did in the questions comments, but if your still new to ruby then its best to utilize those methods one by one when learning them otherwise you'll be confused. But if your willing to take the time now to learn them, I suggest you take his code and separate each method execution into its own line and output what each method had done to know what's doing what. and practice using each separately.
#aimen_alt is right about your mistake
but let's decompose your problem.
First, you need to calculate the appearances of each number.
Second, you need to find the one with the odd count of the appearances.
Accordingly to the problem, there is only one such number, so you can return it right away.
You can go your way and do it in O(N^2) complexity by scanning your sequence for each item in the sequence (so N items in the sequence multiply by the size of the sequence N = N*N). You can do it linearly* by constructing a Hash and than you'll be able to get the key with odd value:
def find_it(seq)
numbers = {}
seq.each do |item|
numbers[item] = numbers[item].to_i + 1
end
numbers.select{ |k,v| v.odd? }.first.first
end
to be more idiomatic you can use group_by to group the numbers themselves:
seq = [1, 2, 6, 1, 2]
seq.group_by{ |item| item }
#=> {1=>[1, 1], 2=>[2, 2], 6=>[6]}
You can see that each value is an Array, and you just need to get one with the odd amount of items:
seq = [1, 2, 6, 1, 2]
seq.group_by{ |item| item }.select{ |k, v| v.size.odd? }
#=> {6=>[6]}
And the last thing you would like to do is to get the value of the key:
seq.group_by{ |item| item }.select{ |k, v| v.size.odd? }.keys.first
So, the final solution would be
def find_it(seq)
seq.group_by{ |item| item }
.select{ |k, v| v.size.odd? }
.keys
.first
end
as #pascalbetz mentioned:
def find_it(seq)
seq.group_by{ |item| item }
.find{ |k, v| v.size.odd? }
.first
end
def find_it(seq)
seq.group_by{|x| x}.select{|k, v| (v.count % 2.0 !=0)}.first[0]
end
The above code will take a sequence in an array. Here we are grouping by elements:
For example:
[1,1,2,-2,5,2,4,4,-1,-2,5].group_by{|x| x}
# => {1=>[1, 1], 2=>[2, 2], -2=>[-2, -2], 5=>[5, 5], 4=>[4, 4], -1=>[-1]}
after getting the above results, we are finding the whose elements count not odd with the select condition.
ex:
[1,1,2,-2,5,2,4,4,-1,-2,5].group_by{|x| x}.select{|k, v| (v.count % 2.0 !=0)}
we will get the results as {-1=>[-1]}
we are taking the key as result element.
What about this one
def find_it(seq)
seq.reduce(:^)
end
^ -> this symbol is bitwise XOR.
reduce function is taking each value and doing whatever work assigned inside. In this case, it's taking each element and doing an XOR operation. the first element is doing XOR with zero and the next element doing XOR with the previous result and so on.
In this way, we found the odd element.
How XOR operation work
0 ^ 2 = 2
4 ^ 4 = 0
If you want to know more about XOR. kindly refer to this.
Thank you for all the detailed answers, I'm going over everyone's answers now. I'm new to Ruby, and I'm still in the process of learning the methods/rules of using them/Big O notation, so I much appreciated everyone's input. Codewar listed some top ranked solutions. This seems to be the fastest so far:
def find_it(seq)
seq.detect { |n| seq.count(n).odd? }
end
I want to iterate through an array, each element of which is an array of two integers (e.g. `[3,5]'); for each of these elements, I want to calculate the sum of the two integers, exiting the loop when any of these sums exceeds a certain arbitrary value. The source array is quite large, and I will likely find the desired value near the beginning, so looping through all of the unneeded elements is not a good option.
I have written three loops to do this, all of which produce the desired result. My question is: which is more idiomatic Ruby? Or--better yet--is there a better way? I try not to use non-local loop variables in, but break statements look kind of hackish to my (admittedly novice) eye.
# Loop A
pairs.each do |pair|
pair_sum = pair.inject(:+)
arr1 << pair_sum
break if pair_sum > arr2.max
end
#Loop B - (just A condensed)
pairs.each { |pair| arr1.last <= arr2.max ? arr1 << pair.inject(:+) : break }
#Loop C
i = 0
pair_sum = 0
begin
pair_sum = pairs[i].inject(:+)
arr1 << pair_sum
i += 1
end until pair_sum > arr2.max
A similar question was asked at escaping the .each { } iteration early in Ruby, but the responses were essentially that, while using .each or .each_with_index and exiting with break when the target index was reached would work, .take(num_elements).each is more idiomatic. In my situation, however, I don't know in advance how many elements I'll have to iterate through, presenting me with what appears to be a boundary case.
This is from a project Euler-type problem I've already solved, btw. Just wondering about the community-preferred syntax. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.
take and drop have a variant take_while and drop_while where instead of providing a fixed number of elements you provide a block. Ruby will accumulate values from the receiver (in the case of take_while) as long as the block returns true. Your code could be rewritten as
array.take_while {|pair| pair.sum < foo}.map(&:sum)
This does mean that you calculate the sum of some of these pairs twice.
In Ruby 2.0 there's Enumerable#lazy which returns a lazy enumerator:
sums = pairs.lazy.map { |a, b| a + b }.take_while { |pair_sum| pair_sum < some_max_value }.force
This avoids calculating the sums twice.
[[1, 2], [3, 4], [5, 6]].find{|x, y| x + y > 6}
# => [3, 4]
[[1, 2], [3, 4], [5, 6]].find{|x, y| x + y > 6}.inject(:+)
#=> 7
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)
I want a ruby program, it have 2 Arguments(a,b) ,which output the Prime
numbers between a and b. here is my program. but it's wrong. i don't know
where is the problem. can anyone help me?
a,b=ARGV
def prime (a,b)
for i in 2..b
f=true
for p in 2...i
if i%p==0
f =!f
break
end
end
print i, "--" if f
end
end
sushu=prime(a,b)
p "the prime zweischen #{a} and #{b} is #{sushu}."
The other answers already pointed out what is wrong with your code (using strings instead of integers and not using the argument a. However, if you are on Ruby 1.9, there's a much easier way to achieve what you want:
require 'prime'
def prime(a, b)
(a..b).select(&:prime?)
end
prime(1,20)
#=> [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19]
You do not consider the in parameter a. Probably changing i to iterate from a..b, instead of ..b will fix your problem.
a,b=ARGV
def prime (a,b)
for i in a..b
f=true
for p in 2...i
if i%p==0
f =!f
break
end
end
print i, "--" if f
end
end
sushu=prime(a,b)
p "the prime zweischen #{a} and #{b} is #{sushu}."
Try
sushu=prime(a.to_i,b.to_i)
This is what I have so far:
myArray.map!{ rand(max) }
Obviously, however, sometimes the numbers in the list are not unique. How can I make sure my list only contains unique numbers without having to create a bigger list from which I then just pick the n unique numbers?
Edit:
I'd really like to see this done w/o loop - if at all possible.
(0..50).to_a.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }[0..x]
(0..50).to_a can be replaced with any array.
0 is "minvalue", 50 is "max value"
x is "how many values i want out"
of course, its impossible for x to be permitted to be greater than max-min :)
In expansion of how this works
(0..5).to_a ==> [0,1,2,3,4,5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ -1 } ==> [0, 1, 2, 4, 3, 5] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ 1 } ==> [5, 3, 0, 4, 2, 1] # constant
[0,1,2,3,4,5].sort{ rand() - 0.5 } ==> [1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ] # random
[1, 5, 0, 3, 4, 2 ][ 0..2 ] ==> [1, 5, 0 ]
Footnotes:
It is worth mentioning that at the time this question was originally answered, September 2008, that Array#shuffle was either not available or not already known to me, hence the approximation in Array#sort
And there's a barrage of suggested edits to this as a result.
So:
.sort{ rand() - 0.5 }
Can be better, and shorter expressed on modern ruby implementations using
.shuffle
Additionally,
[0..x]
Can be more obviously written with Array#take as:
.take(x)
Thus, the easiest way to produce a sequence of random numbers on a modern ruby is:
(0..50).to_a.shuffle.take(x)
This uses Set:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
return randoms.to_a if randoms.size >= n
end
end
Ruby 1.9 offers the Array#sample method which returns an element, or elements randomly selected from an Array. The results of #sample won't include the same Array element twice.
(1..999).to_a.sample 5 # => [389, 30, 326, 946, 746]
When compared to the to_a.sort_by approach, the sample method appears to be significantly faster. In a simple scenario I compared sort_by to sample, and got the following results.
require 'benchmark'
range = 0...1000000
how_many = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
range.to_a.sample(how_many)
end
=> 0.081083
Benchmark.realtime do
(range).sort_by{rand}[0...how_many]
end
=> 2.907445
Just to give you an idea about speed, I ran four versions of this:
Using Sets, like Ryan's suggestion.
Using an Array slightly larger than necessary, then doing uniq! at the end.
Using a Hash, like Kyle suggested.
Creating an Array of the required size, then sorting it randomly, like Kent's suggestion (but without the extraneous "- 0.5", which does nothing).
They're all fast at small scales, so I had them each create a list of 1,000,000 numbers. Here are the times, in seconds:
Sets: 628
Array + uniq: 629
Hash: 645
fixed Array + sort: 8
And no, that last one is not a typo. So if you care about speed, and it's OK for the numbers to be integers from 0 to whatever, then my exact code was:
a = (0...1000000).sort_by{rand}
Yes, it's possible to do this without a loop and without keeping track of which numbers have been chosen. It's called a Linear Feedback Shift Register: Create Random Number Sequence with No Repeats
[*1..99].sample(4) #=> [64, 99, 29, 49]
According to Array#sample docs,
The elements are chosen by using random and unique indices
If you need SecureRandom (which uses computer noise instead of pseudorandom numbers):
require 'securerandom'
[*1..99].sample(4, random: SecureRandom) #=> [2, 75, 95, 37]
How about a play on this? Unique random numbers without needing to use Set or Hash.
x = 0
(1..100).map{|iter| x += rand(100)}.shuffle
You could use a hash to track the random numbers you've used so far:
seen = {}
max = 100
(1..10).map { |n|
x = rand(max)
while (seen[x])
x = rand(max)
end
x
}
Rather than add the items to a list/array, add them to a Set.
If you have a finite list of possible random numbers (i.e. 1 to 100), then Kent's solution is good.
Otherwise there is no other good way to do it without looping. The problem is you MUST do a loop if you get a duplicate. My solution should be efficient and the looping should not be too much more than the size of your array (i.e. if you want 20 unique random numbers, it might take 25 iterations on average.) Though the number of iterations gets worse the more numbers you need and the smaller max is. Here is my above code modified to show how many iterations are needed for the given input:
require 'set'
def rand_n(n, max)
randoms = Set.new
i = 0
loop do
randoms << rand(max)
break if randoms.size > n
i += 1
end
puts "Took #{i} iterations for #{n} random numbers to a max of #{max}"
return randoms.to_a
end
I could write this code to LOOK more like Array.map if you want :)
Based on Kent Fredric's solution above, this is what I ended up using:
def n_unique_rand(number_to_generate, rand_upper_limit)
return (0..rand_upper_limit - 1).sort_by{rand}[0..number_to_generate - 1]
end
Thanks Kent.
No loops with this method
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
require 'benchmark'
max = 1000000
size = 5
Benchmark.realtime do
Array.new(size) { rand(max) }
end
=> 1.9114e-05
Here is one solution:
Suppose you want these random numbers to be between r_min and r_max. For each element in your list, generate a random number r, and make list[i]=list[i-1]+r. This would give you random numbers which are monotonically increasing, guaranteeing uniqueness provided that
r+list[i-1] does not over flow
r > 0
For the first element, you would use r_min instead of list[i-1]. Once you are done, you can shuffle the list so the elements are not so obviously in order.
The only problem with this method is when you go over r_max and still have more elements to generate. In this case, you can reset r_min and r_max to 2 adjacent element you have already computed, and simply repeat the process. This effectively runs the same algorithm over an interval where there are no numbers already used. You can keep doing this until you have the list populated.
As far as it is nice to know in advance the maxium value, you can do this way:
class NoLoopRand
def initialize(max)
#deck = (0..max).to_a
end
def getrnd
return #deck.delete_at(rand(#deck.length - 1))
end
end
and you can obtain random data in this way:
aRndNum = NoLoopRand.new(10)
puts aRndNum.getrnd
you'll obtain nil when all the values will be exausted from the deck.
Method 1
Using Kent's approach, it is possible to generate an array of arbitrary length keeping all values in a limited range:
# Generates a random array of length n.
#
# #param n length of the desired array
# #param lower minimum number in the array
# #param upper maximum number in the array
def ary_rand(n, lower, upper)
values_set = (lower..upper).to_a
repetition = n/(upper-lower+1) + 1
(values_set*repetition).sample n
end
Method 2
Another, possibly more efficient, method modified from same Kent's another answer:
def ary_rand2(n, lower, upper)
v = (lower..upper).to_a
(0...n).map{ v[rand(v.length)] }
end
Output
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [0, 8, 2, 5, 6] expected
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 9).to_s # [7, 8, 2, 4, 3] different result for same params
puts (ary_rand 5, 0, 1).to_s # [0, 0, 1, 0, 1] repeated values from limited range
puts (ary_rand 5, 9, 0).to_s # [] no such range :)