Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I realize the title is a bit odd. But this is a statistics problem that I am trying to figure out, but am stumped. (No no, its not homework, see the bottom for the real explanation)
The premise is simple. You have N buckets. Each bucket can hold H balls. None of the buckets is full. You have D balls already in the buckets, but you don't know where the balls are (you forgot!) You choose a bucket at random to add 1 ball. What is the probability that that bucket will then be full.
Some example possible diagrams, with N = 4, H = 3, D = 4. Each case is just a hypothetical arrangement of the balls. for one of many cases.
Scenario 1: 1 bucket could be filled.
| | | | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| B | | | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| B | B | | B |
+ - + - + - + - +
Scenario 2: 2 buckets could be filled.
| | | | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| | B | B | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| | B | B | |
+ - + - + - + - +
Scenario 3: 0 buckets could be filled.
| | | | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| | | | |
+ - + - + - + - +
| B | B | B | B |
+ - + - + - + - +
The problem is I need a general purpose equation in the form of P = f(N, H, D)
Alright, you've tuned in this far. The reason behind this query on math, is I'm curious in having large battles between units. Each unit could belong to a brigade that contains many units of the same type. however, the battle will progress slowly over time. At each phase of the battle, the state will be saved to the DB. Instead of saving each unit and each health for each unit, I want to save the number of units and the total damage on the brigade. When damage is added to a brigade, the f(N, H, D) is run and returns a % chance that a unit in the brigade is destroyed (all of its HP are used up). This then removes that unit from the brigade decrementing N by 1 and D by H.
Before you launch into too much criticism of the idea. Remember, if you have VAST VAST large armies, this sort of information cannot be efficiently stored in a small DB, and with the limitations of Web, I can't keep the data for all the units in memory at the same time. Anyway, thanks for the thoughts.
I believe this boils down to the probability that the first bucket holds H-1 balls (because your probability is really the probability that the bucket you pick to drop a ball into has H-1 balls.
I'm guessing this should be solvable with combinatorics, then, but that is not my strong point.
As a side note: this is not a statistics problem, but a probability problem.
if you could afford to store for each brigade the number n[h] of units with h hits for each possible h, then the problem becomes straighforward: with probability n[h]/N you select a unit with h hits, and then increment n[h+1] and decrement n[h], or if you've selected h=max-1 you decrement n[h] and N.
If you can't afford the extra memory, a reasonable and tractable choice would be the maximum entropy distribution, see here for example
Related
I would like to design a data structure and algorithm such that, given an array of elements, where each element has a weight according to [a,b], I can achieve constant time insertion and deletion. The deletion is performed randomly where the probability of an element being deleted is proportional to its weight.
I do not believe there is a deterministic algorithm that can achieve both operations in constant time, but I think there are there randomized algorithms that should be can accomplish this?
I don't know if O(1) worst-case time is impossible; I don't see any particular reason it should be. But it's definitely possible to have a simple data structure which achieves O(1) expected time.
The idea is to store a dynamic array of pairs (or two parallel arrays), where each item is paired with its weight; insertion is done by appending in O(1) amortised time, and an element can be removed by index by swapping it with the last element so that it can be removed from the end of the array in O(1) time. To sample a random element from the weighted distribution, choose a random index and generate a random number in the half-open interval [0, 2); if it is less than the element's weight, select the element at that index, otherwise repeat this process until an element is selected. The idea is that each index is equally likely to be chosen, and the probability it gets kept rather than rejected is proportional to its weight.
This is a Las Vegas algorithm, meaning it is expected to complete in a finite time, but with very low probability it can take arbitrarily long to complete. The number of iterations required to sample an element will be highest when every weight is exactly 1, in which case it follows a geometric distribution with parameter p = 1/2, so its expected value is 2, a constant which is independent of the number of elements in the data structure.
In general, if all weights are in an interval [a, b] for real numbers 0 < a <= b, then the expected number of iterations is at most b/a. This is always a constant, but it is potentially a large constant (i.e. it takes many iterations to select a single sample) if the lower bound a is small relative to b.
This is not an answer per se, but just a tiny example to illustrate the algorithm devised by #kaya3
| value | weight |
| v1 | 1.0 |
| v2 | 1.5 |
| v3 | 1.5 |
| v4 | 2.0 |
| v5 | 1.0 |
| total | 7.0 |
The total weight is 7.0. It's easy to maintain in O(1) by storing it in some memory and increasing/decreasing at each insertion/removal.
The probability of each element is simply it's weight divided by total weight.
| value | proba |
| v1 | 1.0/7 | 0.1428...
| v2 | 1.5/7 | 0.2142...
| v3 | 1.5/7 | 0.2142...
| v4 | 2.0/7 | 0.2857...
| v5 | 1.0/7 | 0.1428...
Using the algorithm of #kaya3, if we draw a random index, then the probability of each value is 1/size (1/5 here).
The chance of being rejected is 50% for v1, 25% for v2 and 0% for v4. So at first round, the probability to be selected are:
| value | proba |
| v1 | 2/20 | 0.10
| v2 | 3/20 | 0.15
| v3 | 3/20 | 0.15
| v4 | 4/20 | 0.20
| v5 | 2/20 | 0.10
| total | 14/20 | (70%)
Then the proba of having a 2nd round is 30%, and the proba of each index is 6/20/5 = 3/50
| value | proba 2 rounds |
| v1 | 2/20 + 6/200 | 0.130
| v2 | 3/20 + 9/200 | 0.195
| v3 | 3/20 + 9/200 | 0.195
| v4 | 4/20 + 12/200 | 0.260
| v5 | 2/20 + 6/200 | 0.130
| total | 14/20 + 42/200 | (91%)
The proba to have a 3rd round is 9%, that is 9/500 for each index
| value | proba 3 rounds |
| v1 | 2/20 + 6/200 + 18/2000 | 0.1390
| v2 | 3/20 + 9/200 + 27/2000 | 0.2085
| v3 | 3/20 + 9/200 + 27/2000 | 0.2085
| v4 | 4/20 + 12/200 + 36/2000 | 0.2780
| v5 | 2/20 + 6/200 + 18/2000 | 0.1390
| total | 14/20 + 42/200 + 126/2000 | (97,3%)
So we see that the serie is converging to the correct probabilities. The numerators are multiple of the weight, so it's clear that the relative weight of each element is respected.
This is a sketch of an answer.
With weights only 1, we can maintain a random permutation of the inputs.
Each time an element is inserted, put it at the end of the array, then pick a random position i in the array, and swap the last element with the element at position i.
(It may well be a no-op if the random position turns out to be the last one.)
When deleting, just delete the last element.
Assuming we can use a dynamic array with O(1) (worst case or amortized) insertion and deletion, this does both insertion and deletion in O(1).
With weights 1 and 2, the similar structure may be used.
Perhaps each element of weight 2 should be put twice instead of once.
Perhaps when an element of weight 2 is deleted, its other copy should also be deleted.
So we should in fact store indices instead of the elements, and another array, locations, which stores and tracks the two indices for each element. The swaps should keep this locations array up-to-date.
Deleting an arbitrary element can be done in O(1) similarly to inserting: swap with the last one, delete the last one.
I am trying to implement a kernel density estimation. However my code does not provide the answer it should. It is also written in julia but the code should be self explanatory.
Here is the algorithm:
where
So the algorithm tests whether the distance between x and an observation X_i weighted by some constant factor (the binwidth) is less then one. If so, it assigns 0.5 / (n * h) to that value, where n = #of observations.
Here is my implementation:
#Kernel density function.
#Purpose: estimate the probability density function (pdf)
#of given observations
##param data: observations for which the pdf should be estimated
##return: returns an array with the estimated densities
function kernelDensity(data)
|
| #Uniform kernel function.
| ##param x: Current x value
| ##param X_i: x value of observation i
| ##param width: binwidth
| ##return: Returns 1 if the absolute distance from
| #x(current) to x(observation) weighted by the binwidth
| #is less then 1. Else it returns 0.
|
| function uniformKernel(x, observation, width)
| | u = ( x - observation ) / width
| | abs ( u ) <= 1 ? 1 : 0
| end
|
| #number of observations in the data set
| n = length(data)
|
| #binwidth (set arbitraily to 0.1
| h = 0.1
|
| #vector that stored the pdf
| res = zeros( Real, n )
|
| #counter variable for the loop
| counter = 0
|
| #lower and upper limit of the x axis
| start = floor(minimum(data))
| stop = ceil (maximum(data))
|
| #main loop
| ##linspace: divides the space from start to stop in n
| #equally spaced intervalls
| for x in linspace(start, stop, n)
| | counter += 1
| | for observation in data
| | |
| | | #count all observations for which the kernel
| | | #returns 1 and mult by 0.5 because the
| | | #kernel computed the absolute difference which can be
| | | #either positive or negative
| | | res[counter] += 0.5 * uniformKernel(x, observation, h)
| | end
| | #devide by n times h
| | res[counter] /= n * h
| end
| #return results
| res
end
#run function
##rand: generates 10 uniform random numbers between 0 and 1
kernelDensity(rand(10))
and this is being returned:
> 0.0
> 1.5
> 2.5
> 1.0
> 1.5
> 1.0
> 0.0
> 0.5
> 0.5
> 0.0
the sum of which is: 8.5 (The cumulative distibution function. Should be 1.)
So there are two bugs:
The values are not properly scaled. Each number should be around one tenth of their current values. In fact, if the number of observation increases by 10^n n = 1, 2, ... then the cdf also increases by 10^n
For example:
> kernelDensity(rand(1000))
> 953.53
They don't sum up to 10 (or one if it were not for the scaling error). The error becomes more evident as the sample size increases: there are approx. 5% of the observations not being included.
I believe that I implemented the formula 1:1, hence I really don't understand where the error is.
I'm not an expert on KDEs, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but a very similar (but much faster!) implementation of your code would be:
function kernelDensity{T<:AbstractFloat}(data::Vector{T}, h::T)
res = similar(data)
lb = minimum(data); ub = maximum(data)
for (i,x) in enumerate(linspace(lb, ub, size(data,1)))
for obs in data
res[i] += abs((obs-x)/h) <= 1. ? 0.5 : 0.
end
res[i] /= (n*h)
end
sum(res)
end
If I'm not mistaken, the density estimate should integrate to 1, that is we would expect kernelDensity(rand(100), 0.1)/100 to get at least close to 1. In the implementation above I'm getting there, give or take 5%, but then again we don't know that 0.1 is the optimal bandwith (using h=0.135 instead I'm getting there to within 0.1%), and the uniform Kernel is known to only be about 93% "efficient".
In any case, there's a very good Kernel Density package in Julia available here, so you probably should just do Pkg.add("KernelDensity") instead of trying to code your own Epanechnikov kernel :)
To point out the mistake: You have n bins B_i of size 2h covering [0,1], a random point X lands in expected number of bins. You divide by 2 n h.
For n points, the expected value of your function is .
Actually, you have some bins of size < 2h. (for example if start = 0, half of first the bin is outside of [0,1]), factoring this in gives the bias.
Edit: Btw, the bias is easy to calculate if you assume that the bins have random locations in [0,1]. Then the bins are on average missing h/2 = 5% of their size.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I know how to solve this problem without recursion, but with it, I am having some difficulty understanding..I need a deep explanation of how this works line by line
Here is how the problem is done:
def fibo(num)
if num < 2
num
else
#this is where I get lost on the line below..
fibo(num-1) + fibo(num-2)
end
end
p fibo(6)
In the Fibonacci sequence, each number in the sequence after the first 2 is the sum of the previous 2 numbers:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ...
When you write a recursive function, you explicitly handle the base cases (which are fibo(0) and fibo(1) in your case), and then anything else is computed by calling the function you are writing, building up later results by operating on earlier ones.
By definition, after the first 2 numbers in the sequence, a Fibonacci number is the sum of the previous 2 numbers. In other words, fibo(n) = fibo(n-1) + fibo(n-2). This is what this line of code is doing:
fibo(num-1) + fibo(num-2)
It is returning the value of fibo(num) by calling itself (that is "recursion") for the previous 2 numbers and adding them together.
Because they are base cases, we know fibo(0) will be 0, and fibo(1) will be 1. Let's look at how this works for fibo(4):
fibo(4) = fibo(3) + fibo(2)
fibo(4) = (fibo(2) + fibo(1)) + (fibo(1) + fibo(0))
= (fibo(2) + 1 ) + ( 1 + 0 )
= (fibo(2) + 2)
= ((fibo(1) + fibo(0)) + 2
= 1 + 0 + 2
= 3
So, the program eventually computes the correct result by breaking each computation into simpler problems until it reaches the base case which has defined answer. Note that this is not very efficient, since the fibo is called 9 times to compute fibo(4).
If you know stack frame, you can better understand recursion. Let's take a simpler x = Fib(3) to show the stack frame change.
(1) When calling Fib(3), Fib function's stack is like this with 3 as parameter: | |
| 3 |
(2) when Fib(3) went to the line Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2), the stack is like this: | |
| 2 |
| 3 |
(3) then this Fib(2) is evaluated into Fib(1)+Fib(0), the stack is like this: | 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
(4) fib(1) returns the value 1, now it's fib(0)'s turn to be evaluated: | 0 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
(5) Fib(0) returns 0, now Fib(2)'s value is 1 and is returned to Fib(3), | 1 |
now Fib(3) need another part, Fib(1), the stack is like this: | 3 |
(6) Fib(1) returns 1, now Fib(3) is evaluated as 2, and get returned, stack is empty.
Edit: why StackOverflow does not keep the format?
Altenatively, please refer to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_(computer_science)
or this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0bb7UYy0pY
First, it is good to understand that fundamentally there is no difference between iteration and recursion and the problem that can be solved using the iterative method can be solved recursively and the other way around.
For this particular example, take a look at this drawing. It shows what's going on step by step: http://natashatherobot.com/wp-content/uploads/fibonacci.png
This post will be useful to read: http://natashatherobot.com/recursion-factorials-fibonacci-ruby/
I'm designing an algorithm to test whether cells on a grid are adjacent or not.
The catch is that the cells are not on a flat grid. They are on a multi-level grid such as the one drawn below.
Level 1 (Top Level)
| - - - - - |
| A | B | C |
| - - - - - |
| D | E | F |
| - - - - - |
| G | H | I |
| - - - - - |
Level 2
| -Block A- | -Block B- |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ...
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
| -Block D- | -Block E- |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ...
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| - - - - - | - - - - - |
. .
. .
. .
This diagram is simplified from my actual need but the concept is the same. There is a top level block with many cells within it (level 1). Each block is further subdivided into many more cells (level 2). Those cells are further subdivided into level 3, 4 and 5 for my project but let's just stick to two levels for this question.
I'm receiving inputs for my function in the form of "A8, A9, B7, D3". That's a list of cell Ids where each cell Id has the format (level 1 id)(level 2 id).
Let's start by comparing just 2 cells, A8 and A9. That's easy because they are in the same block.
private static RelativePosition getRelativePositionInTheSameBlock(String v1, String v2) {
RelativePosition relativePosition;
if( v1-v2 == -1 ) {
relativePosition = RelativePosition.LEFT_OF;
}
else if (v1-v2 == 1) {
relativePosition = RelativePosition.RIGHT_OF;
}
else if (v1-v2 == -BLOCK_WIDTH) {
relativePosition = RelativePosition.TOP_OF;
}
else if (v1-v2 == BLOCK_WIDTH) {
relativePosition = RelativePosition.BOTTOM_OF;
}
else {
relativePosition = RelativePosition.NOT_ADJACENT;
}
return relativePosition;
}
An A9 - B7 comparison could be done by checking if A is a multiple of BLOCK_WIDTH and whether B is (A-BLOCK_WIDTH+1).
Either that or just check naively if the A/B pair is 3-1, 6-4 or 9-7 for better readability.
For B7 - D3, they are not adjacent but D3 is adjacent to A9 so I can do a similar adjacency test as above.
So getting away from the little details and focusing on the big picture. Is this really the best way to do it? Keeping in mind the following points:
I actually have 5 levels not 2, so I could potentially get a list like "A8A1A, A8A1B, B1A2A, B1A2B".
Adding a new cell to compare still requires me to compare all the other cells before it (seems like the best I could do for this step
is O(n))
The cells aren't all 3x3 blocks, they're just that way for my example. They could be MxN blocks with different M and N for
different levels.
In my current implementation above, I have separate functions to check adjacency if the cells are in the same blocks, if they are in
separate horizontally adjacent blocks or if they are in separate
vertically adjacent blocks. That means I have to know the position of
the two blocks at the current level before I call one of those
functions for the layer below.
Judging by the complexity of having to deal with mulitple functions for different edge cases at different levels and having 5 levels of nested if statements. I'm wondering if another design is more suitable. Perhaps a more recursive solution, use of other data structures, or perhaps map the entire multi-level grid to a single-level grid (my quick calculations gives me about 700,000+ atomic cell ids). Even if I go that route, mapping from multi-level to single level is a non-trivial task in itself.
I actually have 5 levels not 2, so I could potentially get a list like "A8A1A, A8A1B, B1A2A, B1A2B".
Adding a new cell to compare still requires me to compare all the other cells before it (seems like the best I could do for this step is
O(n))
The cells aren't all 3x3 blocks, they're just that way for my example. They could be MxN blocks with different M and N for different
levels.
I don't see a problem with these points: if a cell is not adjacent at the highest level one then we can stop the computation right there and we don't have to compute adjacency at the lower levels. If there are only five levels then you'll do at most five adjacency computations which should be fine.
In my current implementation above, I have separate functions to check adjacency if the cells are in the same blocks, if they are in separate horizontally adjacent blocks or if they are in separate vertically adjacent blocks. That means I have to know the position of the two blocks at the current level before I call one of those functions for the layer below.
You should try to rewrite this. There should only be two methods: one that computes whether two cells are adjacent and one that computes whether two cells are adjacent at a given level:
RelativePosition isAdjacent(String cell1, String cell2);
RelativePosition isAdjacentAtLevel(String cell1, String cell2, int level);
The method isAdjacent calls the method isAdjacentAtLevel for each of the levels. I'm not sure whether cell1 or cell2 always contain information of all the levels but isAdjacent could analyze the given cell strings and call the appropriate level adjacency checks accordingly. When two cells are not adjacent at a particular level then all deeper levels don't need to be checked.
The method isAdjacentAtLevel should do: lookup M and N for the given level, extract the information from cell1 and cell2 of the given level and perform the adjacency computation. The computation should be the same for each level as each level, on its own, has the same block structure.
Calculate and compare the absolute x and y coordinate for the lowest level.
For the example (assuming int index0 = 0 for A, 1 for B, ... and index1 = 0...8):
int x = (index0 % 3) * 3 + index1 % 3;
int y = (index0 / 3) * 3 + index1 / 3;
In general, given
int[] WIDTHS; // cell width at level i
int[] HEIGHTS; // cell height at level i
// indices: cell index at each level, normalized to 0..WIDTH[i]*HEIGHT[i]-1
int getX (int[] indices) {
int x = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < indices.length; i++) {
x = x * WIDTHS[i] + indices[i] % WIDTHS[i];
}
return x;
}
int getY (int[] indices) {
int y = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < indices.length; i++) {
y = y * HEIGHTS[i] + indices[i] / WIDTHS[i];
}
return x;
}
You can use a space filling curve, for example a peano curve or z morton curve.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
You are given a set of blocks to build a panel using 3”×1” and 4.5”×1" blocks.
For structural integrity, the spaces between the blocks must not line up in adjacent rows.
There are 2 ways in which to build a 7.5”×1” panel, 2 ways to build a 7.5”×2” panel, 4 ways to build a 12”×3” panel, and 7958 ways to build a 27”×5” panel. How many different ways are there to build a 48”×10” panel?
This is what I understand so far:
with the blocks 3 x 1 and 4.5 x 1
I've used combination formula to find all possible combinations that the 2 blocks can be arranged in a panel of this size
C = choose --> C(n, k) = n!/r!(n-r)! combination of group n at r at a time
Panel: 7.5 x 1 = 2 ways -->
1 (3 x 1 block) and 1 (4.5 x 1 block) --> Only 2 blocks are used--> 2 C 1 = 2 ways
Panel: 7.5 x 2 = 2 ways
I used combination here as well
1(3 x 1 block) and 1 (4.5 x 1 block) --> 2 C 1 = 2 ways
Panel: 12 x 3 panel = 2 ways -->
2(4.5 x 1 block) and 1(3 x 1 block) --> 3 C 1 = 3 ways
0(4.5 x 1 block) and 4(3 x 1 block) --> 4 C 0 = 1 way
3 ways + 1 way = 4 ways
(This is where I get confused)
Panel 27 x 5 panel = 7958 ways
6(4.5 x 1 block) and 0(3 x 1) --> 6 C 0 = 1 way
4(4.5 x 1 block) and 3(3 x 1 block) --> 7 C 3 = 35 ways
2(4.5 x 1 block) and 6(3 x 1 block) --> 8 C 2 = 28 ways
0(4.5 x 1 block) and 9(3 x 1 block) --> 9 C 0 = 1 way
1 way + 35 ways + 28 ways + 1 way = 65 ways
As you can see here the number of ways is nowhere near 7958. What am I doing wrong here?
Also how would I find how many ways there are to construct a 48 x 10 panel?
Because it's a little difficult to do it by hand especially when trying to find 7958 ways.
How would write a program to calculate an answer for the number of ways for a 7958 panel?
Would it be easier to construct a program to calculate the result? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I don't think the "choose" function is directly applicable, given your "the spaces between the blocks must not line up in adjacent rows" requirement. I also think this is where your analysis starts breaking down:
Panel: 12 x 3 panel = 2 ways -->
2(4.5 x 1 block) and 1(3 x 1 block)
--> 3 C 1 = 3 ways
0(4.5 x 1 block) and 4(3 x 1 block)
--> 4 C 0 = 1 way
3 ways + 1 way = 4 ways
...let's build some panels (1 | = 1 row, 2 -'s = 1 column):
+---------------------------+
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
Here we see that there are 4 different basic row types, but none of these are valid panels (they all violate the "blocks must not line up" rule). But we can use these row types to create several panels:
+---------------------------+
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
...
But again, none of these are valid. The valid 12x3 panels are:
+---------------------------+
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
+---------------------------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
+---------------------------+
So there are in fact 4 of them, but in this case it's just a coincidence that it matches up with what you got using the "choose" function. In terms of total panel configurations, there are quite more than 4.
Find all ways to form a single row of the given width. I call this a "row type". Example 12x3: There are 4 row types of width 12: (3 3 3 3), (4.5 4.5 3), (4.5 3 4.5), (3 4.5 4.5). I would represent these as a list of the gaps. Example: (3 6 9), (4.5 9), (4.5 7.5), (3 7.5).
For each of these row types, find which other row types could fit on top of it.
Example:
a. On (3 6 9) fits (4.5 7.5).
b. On (4.5 9) fits (3 7.5).
c: On (4.5 7.5) fits (3 6 9).
d: On (3 7.5) fits (4.5 9).
Enumerate the ways to build stacks of the given height from these rules. Dynamic programming is applicable to this, as at each level, you only need the last row type and the number of ways to get there.
Edit: I just tried this out on my coffee break, and it works. The solution for 48x10 has 15 decimal digits, by the way.
Edit: Here is more detail of the dynamic programming part:
Your rules from step 2 translate to an array of possible neighbours. Each element of the array corresponds to a row type, and holds that row type's possible neighbouring row types' indices.
0: (2)
1: (3)
2: (0)
3: (1)
In the case of 12×3, each row type has only a single possible neighbouring row type, but in general, it can be more.
The dynamic programming starts with a single row, where each row type has exactly one way of appearing:
1 1 1 1
Then, the next row is formed by adding for each row type the number of ways that possible neighbours could have formed on the previous row. In the case of a width of 12, the result is 1 1 1 1 again. At the end, just sum up the last row.
Complexity:
Finding the row types corresponds to enumerating the leaves of a tree; there are about (/ width 3) levels in this tree, so this takes a time of O(2w/3) = O(2w).
Checking whether two row types fit takes time proportional to their length, O(w/3). Building the cross table is proportional to the square of the number of row types. This makes step 2 O(w/3·22w/3) = O(2w).
The dynamic programming takes height times the number of row types times the average number of neighbours (which I estimate to be logarithmic to the number of row types), O(h·2w/3·w/3) = O(2w).
As you see, this is all dominated by the number of row types, which grow exponentially with the width. Fortunately, the constant factors are rather low, so that 48×10 can be solved in a few seconds.
This looks like the type of problem you could solve recursively. Here's a brief outline of an algorithm you could use, with a recursive method that accepts the previous layer and the number of remaining layers as arguments:
Start with the initial number of layers (e.g. 27x5 starts with remainingLayers = 5) and an empty previous layer
Test all possible layouts of the current layer
Try adding a 3x1 in the next available slot in the layer we are building. Check that (a) it doesn't go past the target width (e.g. doesn't go past 27 width in a 27x5) and (b) it doesn't violate the spacing condition given the previous layer
Keep trying to add 3x1s to the current layer until we have built a valid layer that is exactly (e.g.) 27 units wide
If we cannot use a 3x1 in the current slot, remove it and replace with a 4.5x1
Once we have a valid layer, decrement remainingLayers and pass it back into our recursive algorithm along with the layer we have just constructed
Once we reach remainingLayers = 0, we have constructed a valid panel, so increment our counter
The idea is that we build all possible combinations of valid layers. Once we have (in the 27x5 example) 5 valid layers on top of each other, we have constructed a complete valid panel. So the algorithm should find (and thus count) every possible valid panel exactly once.
This is a '2d bin packing' problem. Someone with decent mathematical knowledge will be able to help or you could try a book on computational algorithms. It is known as a "combinatorial NP-hard problem". I don't know what that means but the "hard" part grabs my attention :)
I have had a look at steel cutting prgrams and they mostly use a best guess. In this case though 2 x 4.5" stacked vertically can accommodate 3 x 3" inch stacked horizontally. You could possibly get away with no waste. Gets rather tricky when you have to figure out the best solution --- the one with minimal waste.
Here's a solution in Java, some of the array length checking etc is a little messy but I'm sure you can refine it pretty easily.
In any case, I hope this helps demonstrate how the algorithm works :-)
import java.util.Arrays;
public class Puzzle
{
// Initial solve call
public static int solve(int width, int height)
{
// Double the widths so we can use integers (6x1 and 9x1)
int[] prev = {-1}; // Make sure we don't get any collisions on the first layer
return solve(prev, new int[0], width * 2, height);
}
// Build the current layer recursively given the previous layer and the current layer
private static int solve(int[] prev, int[] current, int width, int remaining)
{
// Check whether we have a valid frame
if(remaining == 0)
return 1;
if(current.length > 0)
{
// Check for overflows
if(current[current.length - 1] > width)
return 0;
// Check for aligned gaps
for(int i = 0; i < prev.length; i++)
if(prev[i] < width)
if(current[current.length - 1] == prev[i])
return 0;
// If we have a complete valid layer
if(current[current.length - 1] == width)
return solve(current, new int[0], width, remaining - 1);
}
// Try adding a 6x1
int total = 0;
int[] newCurrent = Arrays.copyOf(current, current.length + 1);
if(current.length > 0)
newCurrent[newCurrent.length - 1] = current[current.length - 1] + 6;
else
newCurrent[0] = 6;
total += solve(prev, newCurrent, width, remaining);
// Try adding a 9x1
if(current.length > 0)
newCurrent[newCurrent.length - 1] = current[current.length - 1] + 9;
else
newCurrent[0] = 9;
total += solve(prev, newCurrent, width, remaining);
return total;
}
// Main method
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// e.g. 27x5, outputs 7958
System.out.println(Puzzle.solve(27, 5));
}
}