i need to write algo for this problem. i have never written an algo before . please correct me.
there is a list which contains four collumns each with numbers with upto 5 digits and about 10 rows in total. we have to remove the rows containng any number with less than 3 digits.
here is how i have tried
read list into multi-dimensional array
for each number in the array
if numdigits < 3
delete all numbers of that row
i know this is not the correct algorithm . can you help me correct it .
When creating your original list, rather check the individual values then, and not add it to that list if any of the numbers has less than 3 digits, that way reducing the original list size.
EDIT:
foreach row in original_document
{
bool allMoreThan3Digits = true
foreach cell in row
allMoreThan3Digits = allMoreThan3Digits && (ABS(cell.Value) >= 100)
if (allMoreThan3Digits)
add row to new list
}
Something like that.
With up to 5 digits in total in each column? If so here is what I would do.
For each row in list
For each column in row
if column number < 100 then
row delete
Related
I am working on something which I feel an NP-hard problem. So, I am not looking for the optimal solution but I am looking for a better heuristics. An integer input matrix (matrix A in the following example) is given as input and I have to produce an integer output matrix (matrix B in the following example) whose number of rows are smaller than the input matrix and should obey the following two conditions:
1) Each column of the output matrix should contain integers in the same order as they appear in the input matrix. (In the example below, first column of the matrix A and matrix B have the same integers 1,3 in the same order.)
2) Same integers must not appear in the same row (In the example below, first row of the matrix B contains the integers 1,3 and 2 which are different from each other.)
Note that the input matrix always obey the 2nd condition.
What a greedy algorithm looks like to solve this problem?
Example:
In this example the output matrix 'Matrix B' contains all the integers as they appear in the input matrix 'Matrix A" but the output matrix has 5 rows and the input matrix has 6 rows. So, the output 'Matrix B' is a valid solution of the input 'Matrix A'.
I would produce the output one row at a time. When working out what to put in the row I would consider the next number from each input column, starting from the input column which has the most numbers yet to be placed, and considering the columns in decreasing order of numbers yet to be placed. Where a column can put a number in the current output row when its turn comes up it should do so.
You could extend this to a branch and bound solution to find the exact best answer. Recursively try all possible rows at each stage, except when you can see that the current row cannot possibly improve on the best answer so far. You know that if you have a column with k entries yet to be placed, in the best possible case you will need at least k more rows.
In practice I would expect that this will be too expensive to be practical, so you will need to ignore some possible rows which you cannot rule out, and so cannot guarantee to find the best answer. You could try using a heuristic search such as Limited Discrepancy search.
Another non-exact speedup is to multiply the estimate for the number of rows that the best possible answer derived from a partial solution will require by some factor F > 1. This will allow you to rule out some solutions earlier than branch and bound. The answer you find can be no more than F times more expensive than the best possible answer, because you only discard possibilities that cannot improve on the current answer by more than a factor of F.
A greedy solution to this problem would involve placing the numbers column by column, top down, as they appear.
Pseudocode:
For each column c in A:
r = 0 // row index of next element in A
nextRow = 0 // row index of next element to be placed in B
while r < A.NumRows()
while r < A.NumRows() && A[r, c] is null:
r++ // increment row to check in A
if r < A.NumRows() // we found a non-null entry in A
while nextRow < A.NumRows() && ~CheckConstraints(A[r,c], B[nextRow, c]):
nextRow++ // increment output row in B
if 'nextRow' >= A.NumRows()
return unsolvable // couldn't find valid position in B
B[nextRow, c] = v // successfully found position in B
++nextRow // increment output row in B
If there are no conflicts you end up "packing" B as tightly as possible. Otherwise you greedily search for the next non-conflicting row position in B. If none can be found, the problem is unsolvable.
The helper function CheckConstraints checks backwards in columns for the same row value in B to ensure the same value hasn't already been placed in a row.
If the problem statement is relaxed such that the output row count in B is <= the row count in A, then if we are unable to pack B any tighter, then we can return A as a solution.
For example, I have the numbers 46,47,54,58,60, and 66. I want to make group them in such a way as to make the largest possible group sizes. Numbers get grouped if their values are within plus or minus 10 (inclusive). So, depending on which number you start with, for this example there can be three possible outcomes (shown in the image).
What I want is the second possible outcome, which would occur if you started with 54, as the numbers within 44 to 64 would be grouped, leaving 66 by itself, and creating the largest group (5 items).
I realize I could easily brute force this example, but I really have a long list of numbers and it needs to do this across thousands of numbers.. Can anyone tell me about algorithms I should be reading about or give me suggestions?
You can simply sort the array first. Then for every i th number you can do a binary search to find the right most number that's within ith number + 20 range, let the position of such right most index is X. You have to find the largest (X-i+1) for all ith numbers and we are done :)
Runtime analysis: Runtime for this algorithm will be O(NlgN), where N is the number of items in the original array.
A better solution: Let's assume we have the array ar[] and ar[] has N items.
sort ar[] in non decreasing order
set max_result = 0, set cur_index = 0, i=0
increase i while i
set max_result to max(max_result,i-cur_index+1)
set cur_index=cur_index+1
if cur_index
Runtime Analysis: O(N), where N is the number of items in the array ar[] as cur_index will iterate through the array exactly once and i will iterate just once too.
Correctness: as the array is sorted in non decreasing order, if i < j and j < k and ar[i]+20 > ar[k] then ar[j]+20 > ar[k] too. So we don't need to check for these items those are already checked for previous item.
This is what I wanted to do. Sorry I didn't explain myself very well. Each iteration finds the largest possible group, using the numbers that are left after removing the previous largest group. Matlab code:
function out=groupNums(y)
d=10;
out=[];
if length(y)==1
out=y;
return
end
group=[];
for i=1:length(y)
group{i}=find(y<=y(i)+d & y>=y(i)-d);
end
[~,idx]=max(cellfun(#length,group));
out=[out,{y(group{idx})}];
y(group{idx})=[];
out=[out,groupNums(y)];
I am new to Octave. I have two matrices. I have to compare a particular column of a one matrix with the other(my matrix A is containing more than 5 variables, similarly matrix B is containing the same.) and if elements in column one of matrix A is equal to elements in the second matrix B then I have to use the third column of second matrix B to compute certain values.I am doing this with octave by using for loop , but it consumes a lot of time to do the computation for single day , i have to do this for a year . Because size of matrices is very large.Please suggest some alternative way so that I can reduce my time and computation.
Thank you in advance.
Thanks for your quick response -hfs
continuation of the same problem,
Thank u, but this will work only if both elements in both the rows are equal.For example my matrices are like this,
A=[1 2 3;4 5 6;7 8 9;6 9 1]
B=[1 2 4; 4 2 6; 7 5 8;3 8 4]
here column 1 of first element of A is equal to column 1 of first element of B,even the second column hence I can take the third element of B, but for the second element of column 1 is equal in A and B ,but second element of column 2 is different ,here it should search for that element and print the element in the third column,and am doing this with for loop which is very slow because of larger dimension.In mine actual problem I have given for loop as written below:
for k=1:37651
for j=1:26018
if (s(k,1:2)==l(j,1:2))
z=sin((90-s(k,3))*pi/180) , break ,end
end
end
I want an alternative way to do this which should be faster than this.
You should work with complete matrices or vectors whenever possible. You should try commands and inspect intermediate results in the interactive shell to see how they fit together.
A(:,1)
selects the first column of a matrix. You can compare matrices/vectors and the result is a matrix/vector of 0/1 again:
> A(:,1) == B(:,1)
ans =
1
1
0
If you assign the result you can use it again to index into matrices:
I = A(:,1) == B(:,1)
B(I, 3)
This selects the third column of B of those rows where the first column of A and B is equal.
I hope this gets you started.
I need to find out a method to determine how many items should appear per column in a multiple column list to achieve the most visual balance. Here are my criteria:
The list should only be split into multiple columns if the item count is greater than 10.
If multiple columns are required, they should contain no less than 5 (except for the last column in case of a remainder) and no more than 10 items.
If all columns cannot contain an equal number of items
All but the last column should be equal in number.
The number of items in each column should be optimized to achieve the smallest difference between the last column and the other column(s).
Well, your requirements and your examples appear a bit contradictory. For instance, your second example could be divided into two columns with 11 items in each, and satisfy your criteria. Let's assume that for rule #2 you meant that there should be <= 10 items / column.
In addition, I think you need to add another rule to make the requirements sensible:
The number of columns must not be greater than what is required to accomodate overflow.
Otherwise, you will often end up with degenerate solutions where you have far more columns than you need. For example, in the case of 26 items you probably don't want 13 columns of 2 items each.
If that's case, here's a simple calculation that should work well and is easy to understand:
int numberOfColumns = CEILING(numberOfItems / 10);
int numberOfItemsPerColumn = CEILING(numberOfItems / numberOfColumns);
Now you'll create N-1 columns of items (having `numberOfItemsPerColumn each) and the overflow will go in the last column. By this definition, the overflow should be minimized in the last column.
If you want to automatically determine the appropriate number of columns, and have no restrictions on its limits, I would suggest the following:
Calculate the square root of the total number of items. That would make an squared layout.
Divide that number by 1.618, and assign that to the total number of rows.
Multiply that same number by 1.618, and assign that to the total number of columns.
All columns but the right most one will have the same number of items.
By the way, the constant 1.618 is the Golden Ratio. That will achieve a more pleasant layout than a squared one.
Divide and multiply the other way round for vertical displays.
Hope this algorithm helps anyone with a similar problem.
Here's what you're trying to solve:
minimize y - z where n = xy + z and 5 <= y <= 10 and 0 <= z <= y
where you have n items split into x full columns of y items and one remainder column of z items.
There is almost certainly a smart way of doing this, but given these constraints a brute force implementation exploring all 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 40 possible combinations for y and z would take no time at all (only assignments where (n - z) mod y = 0 are solutions).
I think a brute force solution is easy, given the constraint on the number of items per columns: let v be the number of items per column (except the last one), then v belongs to [5,10] and can thus take a whooping 6 different values.
Evaluating 6 values is easy enough. Python one-liner (or not so far) to prove it:
# compute the difference between the number of items for the normal columns
# and for the last column, lesser is better
def helper(n,v):
modulo = n % v
if modulo == 0: return 0
else: return v - modulo
# values can only be in [5,10]
# we compute the difference with the last column for each
# build a list of tuples (difference, - number of items)
# (because the greater the value the better, it means less columns)
# extract the min automatically (in case of equality, less is privileged)
# and then pick the number of items from the tuple and re-inverse it
def compute(n): return - min([(helper(n,v), -v) for v in [5,6,7,8,9,10]])[1]
For 77 this yields: 7 meaning 7 items per columns
For 22 this yields: 8 meaning 8 items per columns
How would you implement a random number generator that, given an interval, (randomly) generates all numbers in that interval, without any repetition?
It should consume as little time and memory as possible.
Example in a just-invented C#-ruby-ish pseudocode:
interval = new Interval(0,9)
rg = new RandomGenerator(interval);
count = interval.Count // equals 10
count.times.do{
print rg.GetNext() + " "
}
This should output something like :
1 4 3 2 7 5 0 9 8 6
Fill an array with the interval, and then shuffle it.
The standard way to shuffle an array of N elements is to pick a random number between 0 and N-1 (say R), and swap item[R] with item[N]. Then subtract one from N, and repeat until you reach N =1.
This has come up before. Try using a linear feedback shift register.
One suggestion, but it's memory intensive:
The generator builds a list of all numbers in the interval, then shuffles it.
A very efficient way to shuffle an array of numbers where each index is unique comes from image processing and is used when applying techniques like pixel-dissolve.
Basically you start with an ordered 2D array and then shift columns and rows. Those permutations are by the way easy to implement, you can even have one exact method that will yield the resulting value at x,y after n permutations.
The basic technique, described on a 3x3 grid:
1) Start with an ordered list, each number may exist only once
0 1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8
2) Pick a row/column you want to shuffle, advance it one step. In this case, i am shifting the second row one to the right.
0 1 2
5 3 4
6 7 8
3) Pick a row/column you want to shuffle... I suffle the second column one down.
0 7 2
5 1 4
6 3 8
4) Pick ... For instance, first row, one to the left.
2 0 7
5 1 4
6 3 8
You can repeat those steps as often as you want. You can always do this kind of transformation also on a 1D array. So your result would be now [2, 0, 7, 5, 1, 4, 6, 3, 8].
An occasionally useful alternative to the shuffle approach is to use a subscriptable set container. At each step, choose a random number 0 <= n < count. Extract the nth item from the set.
The main problem is that typical containers can't handle this efficiently. I have used it with bit-vectors, but it only works well if the largest possible member is reasonably small, due to the linear scanning of the bitvector needed to find the nth set bit.
99% of the time, the best approach is to shuffle as others have suggested.
EDIT
I missed the fact that a simple array is a good "set" data structure - don't ask me why, I've used it before. The "trick" is that you don't care whether the items in the array are sorted or not. At each step, you choose one randomly and extract it. To fill the empty slot (without having to shift an average half of your items one step down) you just move the current end item into the empty slot in constant time, then reduce the size of the array by one.
For example...
class remaining_items_queue
{
private:
std::vector<int> m_Items;
public:
...
bool Extract (int &p_Item); // return false if items already exhausted
};
bool remaining_items_queue::Extract (int &p_Item)
{
if (m_Items.size () == 0) return false;
int l_Random = Random_Num (m_Items.size ());
// Random_Num written to give 0 <= result < parameter
p_Item = m_Items [l_Random];
m_Items [l_Random] = m_Items.back ();
m_Items.pop_back ();
}
The trick is to get a random number generator that gives (with a reasonably even distribution) numbers in the range 0 to n-1 where n is potentially different each time. Most standard random generators give a fixed range. Although the following DOESN'T give an even distribution, it is often good enough...
int Random_Num (int p)
{
return (std::rand () % p);
}
std::rand returns random values in the range 0 <= x < RAND_MAX, where RAND_MAX is implementation defined.
Take all numbers in the interval, put them to list/array
Shuffle the list/array
Loop over the list/array
One way is to generate an ordered list (0-9) in your example.
Then use the random function to select an item from the list. Remove the item from the original list and add it to the tail of new one.
The process is finished when the original list is empty.
Output the new list.
You can use a linear congruential generator with parameters chosen randomly but so that it generates the full period. You need to be careful, because the quality of the random numbers may be bad, depending on the parameters.