everyone. I've this small task to do:
There are two sequences of numbers:
A[0], A[1], ... , A[n].
B[0], B[1], ... , B[m].
Do the following operations with the sequence A:
Remove the items whose indices are divisible by B[0].
In the items remained, remove those whose indices are divisible by B[1].
Repeat this process up to B[m].
Output the items finally remained.
Input is like this: (where -1 is delimiter for two sequences A and B)
1 2 4 3 6 5 -1 2 -1
Here goes my code (explanation done via comments):
List<int> result = new List<int>(); // list for sequence A
List<int> values = new List<int>(); // list for holding value to remove
var input = Console.ReadLine().Split().Select(int.Parse).ToArray();
var len = Array.IndexOf(input, -1); // getting index of the first -1 (delimiter)
result = input.ToList(); // converting input array to List
result.RemoveRange(len, input.Length - len); // and deleting everything beyond first delimiter (including it)
for (var i = len + 1; i < input.Length - 1; i++) // for the number of elements in the sequence B
{
for (var j = 0; j < result.Count; j++) // going through all elmnts in sequence A
{
if (j % input[i] == 0) // if index is divisible by B[i]
{
values.Add(result[j]); // adding associated value to List<int> values
}
}
foreach (var value in values) // after all elements in sequence A have been looked upon, now deleting those who apply to criteria
{
result.Remove(value);
}
}
But the problem is that I'm only passing 5/11 tests cases. The 25% is 'Wrong result' and the rest 25% - 'Timed out'. I understand that my code is probably very badly written, but I really can't get to understand how to improve it.
So, if someone more experienced could explain (clarify) next points to me it would be very cool:
1. Am I doing parsing from the console input right? I feel like it could be done in a more elegant/efficient way.
2. Is my logic of getting value which apply to criteria and then storing them for later deleting is efficient in terms of performance? Or is there any other way to do it?
3. Why is this code not passing all test-cases or how would you change it in order to pass all of them?
I'm writing the answer once again, since I have misunderstood the problem completely. So undoubtly the problem in your code is a removal of elements. Let's try to avoid that. Let's try to make a new array C, where you can store all the correct numbers that should be left in the A array after each removal. So if index id is not divisible by B[i], you should add A[id] to the array C. Then, after checking all the indices with the B[i] value, you should replace the array A with the array C and do the same for B[i + 1]. Repeat until you reach the end of the array B.
The algorithm:
1. For each value in B:
2. For each id from 1 to length(A):
3. If id % value != 0, add A[id] to C
4. A = C
5. Return A.
EDIT: Be sure to make a new array C for each iteration of the 1. loop (or clear C after replacing A with it)
Related
I have a task to find the difference between every integer in an array of random numbers and return the lowest difference. A requirement is that the integers can be between 0 and int.maxvalue and that the array will contain 1 million integers.
I put some code together which works fine for a small amount of integers but it takes a long time (so long most of the time I give up waiting) to do a million. My code is below, but I'm looking for some insight on how I can improve performance.
for(int i = 0; i < _RandomIntegerArray.Count(); i++) {
for(int ii = i + 1; ii < _RandomIntegerArray.Count(); ii++) {
if (_RandomIntegerArray[i] == _RandomIntegerArray[ii]) continue;
int currentDiff = Math.Abs(_RandomIntegerArray[i] - _RandomIntegerArray[ii]);
if (currentDiff < lowestDiff) {
Pairs.Clear();
}
if (currentDiff <= lowestDiff) {
Pairs.Add(new NumberPair(_RandomIntegerArray[i], _RandomIntegerArray[ii]));
lowestDiff = currentDiff;
}
}
}
Apologies to everyone that has pointed out that I don't sort; unfortunately sorting is not allowed.
Imagine that you have already found a pair of integers a and b from your random array such that a > b and a-b is the lowest among all possible pairs of integers in the array.
Does an integer c exist in the array such that a > c > b, i.e. c goes between a and b? Clearly, the answer is "no", because otherwise you'd pick the pair {a, c} or {c, b}.
This gives an answer to your problem: a and b must be next to each other in a sorted array. Sorting can be done in O(N*log N), and the search can be done in O(N) - an improvement over O(N2) algorithm that you have.
As per #JonSkeet try sorting the array first and then only compare consecutive array items, which means that you only need to iterate the array once:
Array.Sort(_RandomIntegerArray);
for (int i = 1; i < _RandomIntegerArray.Count(); i++)
{
int currentDiff = _RandomIntegerArray[i] - _RandomIntegerArray[i-1];
if (currentDiff < lowestDiff)
{
Pairs.Clear();
}
if (currentDiff <= lowestDiff)
{
Pairs.Add(new NumberPair(_RandomIntegerArray[i], _RandomIntegerArray[i-1]));
lowestDiff = currentDiff;
}
}
In my testing this results in < 200 ms elapsed for 1 million items.
You've got a million integers out of a possible 2.15 or 4.3 billion (signed or unsigned). That means the largest possible min distance is either about 2150 or 4300. Let's say that the max possible min distance is D.
Divide the legal integers into groups of length D. Create a hash h keyed on integers with arrays of ints as values. Process your array by taking each element x, and adding it to h[x/D].
The point of doing this is that any valid pair of points is either contained in h(k) for some k, or collectively in h(k) and h(k+1).
Find your pair of points by going through the keys of the hash and checking the points associated with adjacent keys. You can sort if you like, or use a bitvector, or any other method but now you're dealing with small arrays (on average 1 element per array).
As elements of the array are b/w 0 to int.maxvalue, so I suppose maxvalue will be less than 1 million. If it is so you just need to initialise the array[maxvalue] to 0 and then as you read 1 million values increment the value in your array.
Now read this array and find the lowest value as described by others as if all the values were sorted. If at any element is present more than 1 than its value will be >1 so you could easily say that min. difference is 0.
NOTE- This method is efficient only if you do not use sorting and more importantly int.maxvalue<<<<<(less than) 10^6(1 million).
It helps a little if you do not count on each iteration
int countIntegers = _RandomIntegerArray.Count();
for(int i = 0; i < countIntegers; i++) {
//...
for(int ii = i + 1; ii < countIntegers; ii++) {
//...
Given that Count() is only returning the number of Ints in an array on each successful count and not modifying the array or caching output until modifications.
How about splitting up the array into arraysize/number of processors sized chunks and running each chunk in a different thread. (Neil)
Assume three parts A, B and C of size as close as possible.
For each part, find the minimum "in-part" difference and that of pairs with the first component from the current part and the second from the next part (A being the next from C).
With a method taking O(n²) time, n/3 should take one ninth, done 2*3 times, this amounts to two thirds plus change for combining the results.
This calls to be applied recursively - remember Карацу́ба/Karatsuba multiplication?
Wait - maybe use two parts after all, for three fourth of the effort - very close to "Karatsuba". (When not seeing how to use an even number of parts, I was thinking multiprocessing with every processor doing "the same".)
I am facing a very difficult situation, suppose I have a array of dynamic numbers. The condition is the array may contain 10 numbers to 20 numbers. It can contain 10, 12, 14, ... to 20 integers. Now based on the ArrayList.Count(), I am going to choose 3(if array contains 10 integers) to 6 (if array contain 20 integers) numbers out of this array, and add those numbers. say that number is "X".
Now I have to check if there exist any three integers in the list whose sum is equal to X, if its equal, then again I have to repeat the same procedure until I find a unique sum from the list.
So how can I do it? The best part is all the numbers in the array is unique, there is no repeat of the numbers in the array.
First Idea
I though of one idea, for 3 numbers, Suppose I generate a unique number.
foreach (var i in List) // values of i = 1, 5, 8 (Assume)
{
sum += listOfUniqueIntegers[i];
}
// Fix the first element as List[i]
for (int i = 0; i < List.Count()-2; i++)
{
// Fix the second element as List[j]
for (int j = i+1; j < List.Count()-1; j++)
{
// Now look for the third number
for (int k = j+1; k < List.Count(); k++)
{
if (List[i] + List[j] + List[k] == sum)
{
// Here I will again create one more unique value
// and assign it to sum and repeat i = 0, j = 0, k = 0;
}
}
}
}
But the problem with this approach is its time complexity os n^3 so if I have to generate a sum from 6 numbers when List size is 20, it will be n^6, which is not expected.
Second idea
I though I can sort the List, but then what logic shall I use to choose 3 integers so that it's sum is unique in the List.
Lets say I sort the list and choose three smallest number or choose from the sorted list 3rd 3+1=4 th and 3+2=5th element, and sum=List[3]+List[4]+List[5];
this is also not expected, any pattern to choose three numbers is not suggested. It should be randomly chosen and the sum should be unique.
So I am not getting any idea to generate a optimal solution for this.
Can anybody please help me.
Just use the 3 largest numbers.
Let me explain the situation first:
I receive a value from my Binary Search on a collection, and quickly jump to that to do some coding. Next I want to jump to the next item in the list. But this next item is not exactly the one that follows it could be 3 or 4 items later. Here is my data to understand the sitatuion
Time ID
0604 ABCDE
0604 EFGH
0604 IJKL
0626 Some Data1
0626 Some Data2
0626 Some Data3
0626 Some Data4
Let's say Binary search return's index 0, I jump to index 0 (0604 ABCDE). I process/consume all 0604. Now I am at index 0, how do I jump to index 3 (0626) and consume / process all of it. Keeping in mind this will not always be the same. Data can be different. So I can't simply jump : index + 3
Here's my code:
var matches = recordList.Where(d => d.DateDetails == oldPointer);
var lookup = matches.ToLookup(d => d.DateDetails).First();
tempList = lookup.ToList();// build templist
oldPointer here is the index I get from Binary search. I take this up and build a templist. Now after this I want to jump to 0626.
How many records with the same "old pointer" do you typically expect? Is usually going to be less than 100? if so: don't over-complicate it - just iterate:
public static int FindNextPointerIndex(int oldIndex, string oldPointer, ...)
{
for(int i = oldIndex + 1; i < collection.Count ; i++)
{
if(collection[i].DateDetails != oldPointer) return i;
}
return -1;
}
If you want something more elegant, you will have to pre-index the data by DateDetails, presumably using something like a ToLookup over the entire collection, but: note that this makes changes to the data more complicated.
Have a look at Skip List , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skip_list
It will allow you to jump forward more than 1 in your linked list, but the down side to find the start of your search will be O(n)
I have an array of boolean values and need to randomly select a specific quantity of indices for values which are true.
What is the most efficient way to generate the array of indices?
For instance,
BitArray mask = GenerateSomeMask(length: 100000);
int[] randomIndices = RandomIndicesForTrue(mask, quantity: 10);
In this case the length of randomIndices would be 10.
There's a faster way to do this that requires only a single scan of the list.
Consider picking a line at random from a text file when you don't know how many lines are in the file, and the file is too large to fit in memory. The obvious solution is to read the file once to count the lines, pick a random number in the range of 0 to Count-1, and then read the file again up to the chosen line number. That works, but requires you to read the file twice.
A faster solution is to read the first line and save it as the selected line. You replace the selected line with the next line with probability 1/2. When you read the third line, you replace with probability 1/3, etc. When you've read the entire file, you have selected a line at random, and every line had equal probability of being selected. The code looks something like this:
string selectedLine = null;
int numLines = 0;
Random rnd = new Random();
foreach (var line in File.ReadLines(filename))
{
++numLines;
double prob = 1.0/numLines;
if (rnd.Next() >= prob)
selectedLine = line;
}
Now, what if you want to select 2 lines? You select the first two. Then, as each line is read the probability that it will replace one of the two lines is 2/n, where n is the number of lines already read. If you determine that you need to replace a line, you randomly select the line to be replaced. You can follow that same basic idea to select any number of lines at random. For example:
string[] selectedLines = new int[M];
int numLines = 0;
Random rnd = new Random();
foreach (var line in File.ReadLines(filename))
{
++numLines;
if (numLines <= M)
{
selectedLines[numLines-1] = line;
}
else
{
double prob = (double)M/numLines;
if (rnd.Next() >= prob)
{
int ix = rnd.Next(M);
selectedLines[ix] = line;
}
}
}
You can apply that to your BitArray quite easily:
int[] selected = new int[quantity];
int num = 0; // number of True items seen
Random rnd = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < items.Length; ++i)
{
if (items[i])
{
++num;
if (num <= quantity)
{
selected[num-1] = i;
}
else
{
double prob = (double)quantity/num;
if (rnd.Next() > prob)
{
int ix = rnd.Next(quantity);
selected[ix] = i;
}
}
}
}
You'll need some special case code at the end to handle the case where there aren't quantity set bits in the array, but you'll need that with any solution.
This makes a single pass over the BitArray, and the only extra memory it uses is for the list of selected indexes. I'd be surprised if it wasn't significantly faster than the LINQ version.
Note that I used the probability calculation to illustrate the math. You can change the inner loop code in the first example to:
if (rnd.Next(numLines+1) == numLines)
{
selectedLine = line;
}
++numLines;
You can make a similar change to the other examples. That does the same thing as the probability calculation, and should execute a little faster because it eliminates a floating point divide for each item.
There are two families of approaches you can use: deterministic and non-deterministic. The first one involves finding all the eligible elements in the collection and then picking N at random; the second involves randomly reaching into the collection until you have found N eligible items.
Since the size of your collection is not negligible at 100K and you only want to pick a few out of those, at first sight non-deterministic sounds like it should be considered because it can give very good results in practice. However, since there is no guarantee that N true values even exist in the collection, going non-deterministic could put your program into an infinite loop (less catastrophically, it could just take a very long time to produce results).
Therefore I am going to suggest going for a deterministic approach, even though you are going to pay for the guarantees you need through the nose with resource usage. In particular, the operation will involve in-place sorting of an auxiliary collection; this will practically undo the nice space savings you got by using BitArray.
Theory aside, let's get to work. The standard way to handle this is:
Filter all eligible indices into an auxiliary collection.
Randomly shuffle the collection with Fisher-Yates (there's a convenient implementation on StackOverflow).
Pick the N first items of the shuffled collection. If there are less than N then your input cannot satisfy your requirements.
Translated into LINQ:
var results = mask
.Select((i, f) => Tuple.Create) // project into index/bool pairs
.Where(t => t.Item2) // keep only those where bool == true
.Select(t => t.Item1) // extract indices
.ToList() // prerequisite for next step
.Shuffle() // Fisher-Yates
.Take(quantity) // pick N
.ToArray(); // into an int[]
if (results.Length < quantity)
{
// not enough true values in input
}
If you have 10 indices to choose from, you could generate a random number from 0 to 2^10 - 1, and use that as you mask.
I have an array of repeating letters:
AABCCD
and I would like to put them into pseudo-random order. Simple right, just use Fisher-Yates => done. However there is a restriction on the output - I don't want any runs of the same letter. I want at least two other characters to appear before the same character reappears. For example:
ACCABD
is not valid because there are two Cs next to each other.
ABCACD
is also not valid because there are two C's next to each other (CAC) with only one other character (A) between them, I require at least two other characters.
Every valid sequence for this simple example:
ABCADC ABCDAC ACBACD ACBADC ACBDAC ACBDCA ACDABC ACDACB ACDBAC ACDBCA
ADCABC ADCBAC BACDAC BCADCA CABCAD CABCDA CABDAC CABDCA CADBAC CADBCA
CADCAB CADCBA CBACDA CBADCA CDABCA CDACBA DACBAC DCABCA
I used a brute force approach for this small array but my actual problem is arrays with hundreds of elements. I've tried using Fisher-Yates with some suppression - do normal Fisher-Yates and then if you don't like the character that comes up, try X more times for a better one. Generates valid sequences about 87% of the time only and is very slow. Wondering if there's a better approach. Obviously this isn't possible for all arrays. An array of just "AAB" has no valid order, so I'd like to fail down to the best available order of "ABA" for something like this.
Here is a modified Fisher-Yates approach. As I mentioned, it is very difficult to generate a valid sequence 100% of the time, because you have to check that you haven't trapped yourself by leaving only AAA at the end of your sequence.
It is possible to create a recursive CanBeSorted method, which tells you whether or not a sequence can be sorted according to your rules. That will be your basis for a full solution, but this function, which returns a boolean value indicating success or failure, should be a starting point.
public static bool Shuffle(char[] array)
{
var random = new Random();
var groups = array.ToDictionary(e => e, e => array.Count(v => v == e));
char last = '\0';
char lastButOne = '\0';
for (int i = array.Length; i > 1; i--)
{
var candidates = groups.Keys.Where(c => groups[c] > 0)
.Except(new[] { last, lastButOne }).ToList();
if (!candidates.Any())
return false;
var #char = candidates[random.Next(candidates.Count)];
var j = Array.IndexOf(array.Take(i).ToArray(), #char);
// Swap.
var tmp = array[j];
array[j] = array[i - 1];
array[i - 1] = tmp;
lastButOne = last;
last = #char;
groups[#char] = groups[#char] - 1;
}
return true;
}
Maintain a link list that will keep track of the letter and it's position in the result.
After getting the random number,Pick it's corresponding character from the input(same as Fisher-Yates) but now search in the list whether it has already occurred or not.
If not, insert the letter in the result and also in the link list with its position in the result.
If yes, then check it's position in the result(that you have stored in the link list when you have written that letter in result). Now compare this location with the current inserting location, If mod(currentlocation-previouslocation) is 3 or greater, you can insert that letter in the result otherwise not, if not choose the random number again.