Related
So I really like this syntax in Lisp:
(+ 1 1 2 3 5 8 13)
=> 33
I want to add a list of items in Ruby and would like to approximate this as best as possible.
Right now, my best solution involves an array and the collect/map method.
So:
sum = 0; [1,1,2,3,5,8,13].collect { |n| sum += n }
BUT...
I would like to add methods to this which could return nil.
sum = 0; [1, booking_fee, 8,13].collect { |n| n = 0 if n.nil?; sum += n }
And it would be really nice to do this, where all of the lines in the middle refer to methods that may return nil, but I can't exactly build an array in this manner. This is just an idea of what I want my syntax to look like.
def total
Array.new do
booking_fee
rental_charges
internationalization_charges
discounts
wild_nights
end.collect { |n| n = 0 if n.nil?; sum += n }
end
Any suggestions before I try to hack away and effectuate Greenspun's Rule? (Programming is indeed a compulsion.
I really don't understand your question. If you want a method that works like + does in Lisp, i.e. takes an arbitrary number of arguments and is in prefix position rather than infix, that's trivial:
def plus(*nums)
nums.inject(:+)
end
plus 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 # => 33
If you want to get really fancy, you could override the unary prefix + operator for Arrays:
class Array
def +#
inject(:+)
end
end
+[1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13] # => 33
Please don't do that!
I don't see how the rest of your question is related in any way to a Lisp-style addition operation.
If you want to remove nils from an Array, there's Array#compact for that.
There is already a method inject for doing what you want.
Changing nil to a number without affecting a number is easy: use to_i (or to_f if you are dealing with float).
.
[
booking_fee,
rental_charges,
internationalization_charges,
discounts,
wild_nights,
].inject(0){|sum, item| sum + item.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 :)
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
I am learning ruby and practicing it by solving problems from Project Euler.
This is my solution for problem 12.
# Project Euler problem: 12
# What is the value of the first triangle number to have over five hundred divisors?
require 'prime'
triangle_number = ->(num){ (num *(num + 1)) / 2 }
factor_count = ->(num) do
prime_fac = Prime.prime_division(num)
exponents = prime_fac.collect { |item| item.last + 1 }
fac_count = exponents.inject(:*)
end
n = 2
loop do
tn = triangle_number.(n)
if factor_count.(tn) >= 500
puts tn
break
end
n += 1
end
Any improvements that can be made to this piece of code?
As others have stated, Rubyists will use methods or blocks way more than lambdas.
Ruby's Enumerable is a very powerful mixin, so I feel it pays here to build an enumerable in a similar way as Prime. So:
require 'prime'
class Triangular
class << self
include Enumerable
def each
sum = 0
1.upto(Float::INFINITY) do |i|
yield sum += i
end
end
end
end
This is very versatile. Just checking it works:
Triangular.first(4) # => [1, 3, 7, 10]
Good. Now you can use it to solve your problem:
def factor_count(num)
prime_fac = Prime.prime_division(num)
exponents = prime_fac.collect { |item| item.last + 1 }
exponents.inject(1, :*)
end
Triangular.find{|t| factor_count(t) >= 500} # => 76576500
Notes:
Float::INFINITY is new to 1.9.2. Either use 1.0/0, require 'backports' or do a loop if using an earlier version.
The each could be improved by first checking that a block is passed; you'll often see things like:
def each
return to_enum __method__ unless block_given?
# ...
Rather than solve the problem in one go, looking at the individual parts of the problem might help you understand ruby a bit better.
The first part is finding out what the triangle number would be. Since this uses sequence of natural numbers, you can represent this using a range in ruby. Here's an example:
(1..10).to_a => [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
An array in ruby is considered an enumerable, and ruby provides lots of ways to enumerate over data. Using this notion you can iterate over this array using the each method and pass a block that sums the numbers.
sum = 0
(1..10).each do |x|
sum += x
end
sum => 55
This can also be done using another enumerable method known as inject that will pass what is returned from the previous element to the current element. Using this, you can get the sum in one line. In this example I use 1.upto(10), which will functionally work the same as (1..10).
1.upto(10).inject(0) {|sum, x| sum + x} => 55
Stepping through this, the first time this is called, sum = 0, x = 1, so (sum + x) = 1. Then it passes this to the next element and so sum = 1, x = 2, (sum + x) = 3. Next sum = 3, x = 3, (sum + x) = 6. sum = 6, x = 4, (sum + x) = 10. Etc etc.
That's just the first step of this problem. If you want to learn the language in this way, you should approach each part of the problem and learn what is appropriate to learn for that part, rather than tackling the entire problem.
REFACTORED SOLUTION (though not efficient at all)
def factors(n)
(1..n).select{|x| n % x == 0}
end
def triangle(n)
(n * (n + 1)) / 2
end
n = 2
until factors(triangle(n)).size >= 500
puts n
n += 1
end
puts triangle(n)
It looks like you are coming from writing Ocaml, or another functional language. In Ruby, you would want to use more def to define your methods. Ruby is about staying clean. But that might also be a personal preference.
And rather than a loop do you could while (faction_count(traingle_number(n)) < 500) do but for some that might be too much for one line.
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 :)