Develop Reference

Generate all combinations with unknown number of slots

I have a text file full of strings, one on each line. Some of these strings will contain an unknown number of "#" characters. Each "#" can represent the numbers 1, 2, 3, or 4. I want to generate all possible combinations (permutations?) of strings for each of those "#"s. If there were a set number of "#"s per string, I'd just use nested for loops (quick and dirty). I need help finding a more elegant way to do it with an unknown number of "#"s.
Example 1: Input string is a#bc
Output strings would be:
a1bc
a2bc
a3bc
a4bc
Example 2: Input string is a#bc#d
Output strings would be:
a1bc1d
a1bc2d
a1bc3d
a1bc4d
a2bc1d
a2bc2d
a2bc3d
...
a4bc3d
a4bc4d
Can anyone help with this one? I'm using C#.

This is actually a fairly good place for a recursive function. I don't write C#, but I would create a function List<String> expand(String str) which accepts a string and returns an array containing the expanded strings.
expand can then search the string to find the first # and create a list containing the first part of the string + expansion. Then, it can call expand on the last part of the string and add each element in it's expansion to each element in the last part's expansion.
Example implementation using Java ArrayLists:
ArrayList<String> expand(String str) {
/* Find the first "#" */
int i = str.indexOf("#");
ArrayList<String> expansion = new ArrayList<String>(4);
/* If the string doesn't have any "#" */
if(i < 0) {
expansion.add(str);
return expansion;
}
/* New list to hold the result */
ArrayList<String> result = new ArrayList<String>();
/* Expand the "#" */
for(int j = 1; j <= 4; j++)
expansion.add(str.substring(0,i-1) + j);
/* Combine every expansion with every suffix expansion */
for(String a : expand(str.substring(i+1)))
for(String b : expansion)
result.add(b + a);
return result;
}

I offer you here a minimalist approach for the problem at hand.
Yes, like other have said recursion is the way to go here.
Recursion is a perfect fit here, since we can solve this problem by providing the solution for a short part of the input and start over again with the other part until we are done and merge the results.
Every recursion must have a stop condition - meaning no more recursion needed.
Here my stop condition is that there are no more "#" in the string.
I'm using string as my set of values (1234) since it is an IEnumerable<char>.
All other solutions here are great, Just wanted to show you a short approach.
internal static IEnumerable<string> GetStrings(string input)
{
var values = "1234";
var permutations = new List<string>();
var index = input.IndexOf('#');
if (index == -1) return new []{ input };
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
{
var newInput = input.Substring(0, index) + values[i] + input.Substring(index + 1);
permutations.AddRange(GetStrings(newInput));
}
return permutations;
}
An even shorter and cleaner approach with LINQ:
internal static IEnumerable<string> GetStrings(string input)
{
var values = "1234";
var index = input.IndexOf('#');
if (index == -1) return new []{ input };
return
values
.Select(ReplaceFirstWildCardWithValue)
.SelectMany(GetStrings);
string ReplaceFirstWildCardWithValue(char value) => input.Substring(0, index) + value + input.Substring(index + 1);
}

This is shouting out loud for a recursive solution.
First, lets make a method that generates all combinations of a certain length from a given set of values. Because we are only interested in generating strings, lets take advantage of the fact that string is immutable (see P.D.2); this makes recursive functions so much easier to implement and reason about:
static IEnumerable<string> GetAllCombinations<T>(
ISet<T> set, int length)
{
IEnumerable<string> getCombinations(string current)
{
if (current.Length == length)
{
yield return current;
}
else
{
foreach (var s in set)
{
foreach (var c in getCombinations(current + s))
{
yield return c;
}
}
}
}
return getCombinations(string.Empty);
}
Study carefully how this methods works. Work it out by hand for small examples to understand it.
Now, once we know how to generate all possible combinations, building the strings is easy:
Figure out the number of wildcards in the specified string: this will be our combination length.
For every combination, insert in order each character into the string where we encounter a wildcard.
Ok, lets do just that:
public static IEnumerable<string> GenerateCombinations<T>(
this string s,
IEnumerable<T> set,
char wildcard)
{
var length = s.Count(c => c == wildcard);
var combinations = GetAllCombinations(set, length);
var builder = new StringBuilder();
foreach (var combination in combinations)
{
var index = 0;
foreach (var c in s)
{
if (c == wildcard)
{
builder.Append(combination[index]);
index += 1;
}
else
{
builder.Append(c);
}
}
yield return builder.ToString();
builder.Clear();
}
}
And we're done. Usage would be:
var set = new HashSet<int>(new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4 });
Console.WriteLine(
string.Join("; ", "a#bc#d".GenerateCombinations(set, '#')));
And sure enough, the output is:
a1bc1d; a1bc2d; a1bc3d; a1bc4d; a2bc1d; a2bc2d; a2bc3d;
a2bc4d; a3bc1d; a3bc2d; a3bc3d; a3bc4d; a4bc1d; a4bc2d;
a4bc3d; a4bc4d
Is this the most performant or efficient implementation? Probably not but its readable and maintainable. Unless you have a specific performance goal you are not meeting, write code that works and is easy to understand.
P.D. I’ve omitted all error handling and argument validation.
P.D.2: if the length of the combinations is big, concatenting strings inside GetAllCombinations might not be a good idea. In that case I’d have GetAllCombinations return an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>>, implement a trivial ImmutableStack<T>, and use that as the combination buffer instead of string.

Why am I printing out 'System.Int32[]' instead of my array of numbers? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
C# multidimensional arrays iteration
(5 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I am trying to print out my array of numbers that I have assigned to a particular array. My algorithm for choosing numbers consists of choosing a random number that is not a duplicate and storing it inside the array.
Pretty simple really, but I have no idea as to why it is printing out this error.
int[] ticket1 = new int[4];
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
int temp = rand.Next(43);
while (ticket1.Contains(temp))
{
temp = rand.Next(43);
}
ticket1[i] = temp;
}
Console.WriteLine("{0}{1}", item.PadRight(20), ticket1.ToString());//ticket1 produces System.Int32[] instead of 4 numbers.
//I have changed this line to:
//Console.WriteLine("{0}{1}", item.PadRight(20), string.Join(",", ticket1));
//And it still doesn't work. the error remains. (System.Int32[])
My question is, how can I print out my 4 numbers (beside each other) in string format.
//EDIT: I've found my problem. I am putting my ticket1 inside a foreach loop, it's somehow not reaching out to the array values and it therefore prints out System.Int32[] instead.
All fixed.

If you call ToString() on an array like that, you simply get the full name of the type of class.
You could fix it a few ways. Print only the current item inside the loop, or print each item one at a time outside of the loop:
Console.WriteLine("{0}{1}", item.PadRight(20), ticket1[0]);
Console.WriteLine("{0}{1}", item.PadRight(20), ticket1[1]);
// etc...
Or "flatten" the collection before printing:
Console.WriteLine("My numbers: ", String.Join(", ", ticket1));

ticket1.ToString() does not print the content of the array, only its type, because this is the way the ToString() method is implemented on arrays.
You can fix this in several ways - for example, by using string.Join method:
Console.WriteLine("{0}{1}", item.PadRight(20), string.Join(",", ticket1));

Because you are not writing your array elements, you are writing your array itself, that's why ToString() generates it's full type name.
Change your ticket1.ToString() to ticket1[i] in your for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
int temp = rand.Next(43);
while (ticket1.Contains(temp))
{
temp = rand.Next(43);
}
ticket1[i] = temp;
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", item.PadRight(20), ticket1[i]);
}
If you don't want to print it inside your for loop, then you can use String.Join to concatenate all your elements in your array in a simple string like;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
int temp = rand.Next(43);
while (ticket1.Contains(temp))
{
temp = rand.Next(43);
}
ticket1[i] = temp;
}
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", item.PadRight(20), string.Join(",", ticket1));

Because when you call .ToString() on an object you get the type of that object. For basic primitive (value) types this behavior is overridden to output the value. But for something like an array there's no "default" string representation, so the behavior you're seeing is the default.
You could wrap your data in an object and override .ToString() on that object. If you have to output the values in many places in the code that would be the way to go so you only have to write the logic once. ("Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way around." - Eric Raymond)
But if you only need to do it here then you can just output the values directly. Basically join the values as a string in whatever representation you want. For example, if they should be comma-separated:
Console.WriteLine(
"{0}{1}",
item.PadRight(20),
string.Join(",", ticket1));

Not able to change the value of a Dictionary's key

I wanted to count the number of repeated characters in a text file..
I wrote this code
foreach(char c in File.ReadAllText(path))
{
if(dic.ContainsKey(c))
{
int i=dic[c];
dic[c]=i++;
}
else
{
dic.Add(c,1);
}
}
It's adding all the unique words but it's showing value for all keys as 1 even if there are repeated characters!

I think you want:
dic[c] = i + 1;
Or possibly, although IMHO this just adds complexity since you don't use i after:
dic[c] = ++i;
Explanation:
i++ is a post-increment operation. This means it assigns the current value of i to dic[c] and then increments i. So in summary, you're always reading in i=1, putting the i=1 back into the dictionary, then incrementing i to 2 before sending it to the void.
Addendum:
You don't really need to go through a temporary variable at all. You can simply read and assign the value back in one operation with dic[c] += 1; or even increment it with dic[c]++;.

i++ will add one to the value of i but return the value of i before the increment. You don't want to do that. You just want to return the value of i incremented by one. To do this, just write:
dic[c] = i+1;
On a side note, you could do the whole thing using LINQ instead:
var dic = File.ReadAllText(path).GroupBy(c => c)
.ToDictionary(group => group.Key, group => group.Count());

You want dic[c] = i + 1; or dic[c] += 1 or dic[c]++. In your code the post increment operator is incrementing i after assignment takes place so it has no effect on the value of dic[c].

dic[c]=i++; translates to
dic[c] = i;
i = i++;
i isn't a reference value and thus the value of i placed inside the dictionary will not change after you increment it outside the dictionary.
Use dic[c]++; instead.

This is because i gets incremented after being affected to dict[c]. Try this instead :
if(dic.ContainsKey(c))
{
dic[c] += 1;
}

Dictionary<char, int> LetterCount(string textPath)
{
var dic = new Dictionary<char, int>();
foreach (char c in System.IO.File.ReadAllText(textPath))
{
if (dic.ContainsKey(c))
dic[c]++;
else
dic.Add(c, 1);
}
return dic;
}
Then use like this:
var letters = LetterCount(#"C:\Text.txt");
// letters will contain the result

Why does the same algorithm work in Scala much slower than in C#? And how to make it faster?

The algorithm creates all possible variants of the sequence from variants for each member of the sequence.
C# code :
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var arg = new List<List<int>>();
int i = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++)
{
arg.Add(new List<int>());
for (int j1 = i; j1 < i + 3; j1++)
{
//if (j1 != 5)
arg[j].Add(j1);
}
i += 3;
}
List<Utils<int>.Variant<int>> b2 = new List<Utils<int>.Variant<int>>();
//int[][] bN;
var s = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.StartNew();
//for(int j = 0; j < 10;j++)
b2 = Utils<int>.Produce2(arg);
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(s.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
public class Variant<T>
{
public T element;
public Variant<T> previous;
}
public static List<Variant<T>> Produce2(List<List<T>> input)
{
var ret = new List<Variant<T>>();
foreach (var form in input)
{
var newRet = new List<Variant<T>>(ret.Count * form.Count);
foreach (var el in form)
{
if (ret.Count == 0)
{
newRet.Add(new Variant<T>{ element = el, previous = null });
}
else
{
foreach (var variant in ret)
{
var buf = new Variant<T> { previous = variant, element = el };
newRet.Add(buf);
}
}
}
ret = newRet;
}
return ret;
}
Scala code :
object test {
def main() {
var arg = new Array[Array[Int]](5)
var i = 0
var init = 0
while (i<5)
{
var buf = new Array[Int](3)
var j = 0
while (j<3)
{
buf(j) = init
init = init+1
j = j + 1
}
arg(i)=buf
i = i + 1
}
println("Hello, world!")
val start = System.currentTimeMillis
var res = Produce(arg)
val stop = System.currentTimeMillis
println(stop-start)
/*for(list <- res)
{
for(el <- list)
print(el+" ")
println
}*/
println(res.length)
}
def Produce[T](input:Array[Array[T]]):Array[Variant[T]]=
{
var ret = new Array[Variant[T]](1)
for(val forms <- input)
{
if(forms!=null)
{
var newRet = new Array[Variant[T]](forms.length*ret.length)
if(ret.length>0)
{
for(val prev <-ret)
if(prev!=null)
for(val el <-forms)
{
newRet = newRet:+new Variant[T](el,prev)
}
}
else
{
for(val el <- forms)
{
newRet = newRet:+new Variant[T](el,null)
}
}
ret = newRet
}
}
return ret
}
}
class Variant[T](var element:T, previous:Variant[T])
{
}

As others have said, the difference is in how you're using the collections. Array in Scala is the same thing as Java's primitive array, [], which is the same as C#'s primitive array []. Scala is clever enough to do what you ask (namely, copy the entire array with a new element on the end), but not so clever as to tell you that you'd be better off using a different collection. For example, if you just change Array to ArrayBuffer it should be much faster (comparable to C#).
Actually, though, you'd be better off not using for loops at all. One of the strengths of Scala's collections library is that you have a wide variety of powerful operations at your disposal. In this case, you want to take every item from forms and convert it into a Variant. That's what map does.
Also, your Scala code doesn't seem to actually work.
If you want all possible variants from each member, you really want to use recursion. This implementation does what you say you want:
object test {
def produce[T](input: Array[Array[T]], index: Int = 0): Array[List[T]] = {
if (index >= input.length) Array()
else if (index == input.length-1) input(index).map(elem => List(elem))
else {
produce(input, index+1).flatMap(variant => {
input(index).map(elem => elem :: variant)
})
}
}
def main() {
val arg = Array.tabulate(5,3)((i,j) => i*3+j)
println("Hello, world!")
val start = System.nanoTime
var res = produce(arg)
val stop = System.nanoTime
println("Time elapsed (ms): " + (stop-start)/1000000L)
println("Result length: " + res.length)
println(res.deep)
}
}
Let's unpack this a little. First, we've replaced your entire construction of the initial variants with a single tabulate instruction. tabulate takes a target size (5x3, here), and then a function that maps from the indices into that rectangle into the final value.
We've also made produce a recursive function. (Normally we'd make it tail-recursive, but let's keep things as simple as we can for now.) How do you generate all variants? Well, all variants is clearly (every possibility at this position) + (all variants from later positions). So we write that down recursively.
Note that if we build variants recursively like this, all the tails of the variants end up the same, which makes List a perfect data structure: it's a singly-linked immutable list, so instead of having to copy all those tails over and over again, we just point to them.
Now, how do we actually do the recursion? Well, if there's no data at all, we had better return an empty array (i.e. if index is past the end of the array). If we're on the last element of the array of variations, we basically want each element to turn into a list of length 1, so we use map to do exactly that (elem => List(elem)). Finally, if we are not at the end, we get the results from the rest (which is produce(input, index+1)) and make variants with each element.
Let's take the inner loop first: input(index).map(elem => elem :: variant). This takes each element from variants in position index and sticks them onto an existing variant. So this will give us a new batch of variants. Fair enough, but where do we get the new variant from? We produce it from the rest of the list: produce(input, index+1), and then the only trick is that we need to use flatMap--this takes each element, produces a collection out of it, and glues all those collections together.
I encourage you to throw printlns in various places to see what's going on.
Finally, note that with your test size, it's actually an insigificant amount of work; you can't accurately measure that, even if you switch to using the more accurate System.nanoTime as I did. You'd need something like tabulate(12,3) before it gets significant (500,000 variants produced).

The :+ method of the Array (more precisely of ArrayOps) will always create a copy of the array. So instead of a constant time operation you have one that is more or less O(n).
You do it within nested cycles => your whole stuff will be an order of magnitude slower.
This way you more or less emulate an immutable data structure with a mutable one (which was not designed for it).
To fix it you can either use Array as a mutable data structure (but then try to avoid endless copying), or you can switch to a immutable one. I did not check your code very carefully, but the first bet is usually List, check the scaladoc of the various methods to see their performance behaviour.

ret.length is not 0 all the time, right before return it is 243. The size of array should not be changed, and List in .net is an abstraction on top of array. BUT thank you for the point - problem was that I used :+ operator with array which as I understand caused implicit use of type LinkedList

int array to string

In C#, I have an array of ints, containing digits only. I want to convert this array to string.
Array example:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
How can I convert this to a string formatted as: "012301"?

at.net 3.5 use:
String.Join("", new List<int>(array).ConvertAll(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
at.net 4.0 or above use: (see #Jan Remunda's answer)
string result = string.Join("", array);

You can simply use String.Join function, and as separator use string.Empty because it uses StringBuilder internally.
string result = string.Join(string.Empty, new []{0,1,2,3,0,1});
E.g.: If you use semicolon as separator, the result would be 0;1;2;3;0;1.
It actually works with null separator, and second parameter can be enumerable of any objects, like:
string result = string.Join(null, new object[]{0,1,2,3,0,"A",DateTime.Now});

I realize my opinion is probably not the popular one, but I guess I have a hard time jumping on the Linq-y band wagon. It's nifty. It's condensed. I get that and I'm not opposed to using it where it's appropriate. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like people have stopped thinking about creating utility functions to accomplish what they want and instead prefer to litter their code with (sometimes) excessively long lines of Linq code for the sake of creating a dense 1-liner.
I'm not saying that any of the Linq answers that people have provided here are bad, but I guess I feel like there is the potential that these single lines of code can start to grow longer and more obscure as you need to handle various situations. What if your array is null? What if you want a delimited string instead of just purely concatenated? What if some of the integers in your array are double-digit and you want to pad each value with leading zeros so that the string for each element is the same length as the rest?
Taking one of the provided answers as an example:
result = arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I need to worry about the array being null, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Aggregate(string.Empty, (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
If I want a comma-delimited string, now it becomes this:
result = (arr == null) ? null : arr.Skip(1).Aggregate(arr[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
This is still not too bad, but I think it's not obvious at a glance what this line of code is doing.
Of course, there's nothing stopping you from throwing this line of code into your own utility function so that you don't have that long mess mixed in with your application logic, especially if you're doing it in multiple places:
public static string ToStringLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
// edit: let's replace this with a "better" version using a StringBuilder
//return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(array[0].ToString(), (s, i) => s + "," + i.ToString());
return (array == null) ? null : (array.Length == 0) ? string.Empty : array.Skip(1).Aggregate(new StringBuilder(array[0].ToString()), (s, i) => s.Append(delimiter).Append(i), s => s.ToString());
}
But if you're going to put it into a utility function anyway, do you really need it to be condensed down into a 1-liner? In that case why not throw in a few extra lines for clarity and take advantage of a StringBuilder so that you're not doing repeated concatenation operations:
public static string ToStringNonLinqy<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// edit: replaced my previous implementation to use StringBuilder
if (array.Length > 0)
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
builder.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(array[i]);
}
return builder.ToString()
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
And if you're really so concerned about performance, you could even turn it into a hybrid function that decides whether to do string.Join or to use a StringBuilder depending on how many elements are in the array (this is a micro-optimization, not worth doing in my opinion and possibly more harmful than beneficial, but I'm using it as an example for this problem):
public static string ToString<T>(this T[] array, string delimiter)
{
if (array != null)
{
// determine if the length of the array is greater than the performance threshold for using a stringbuilder
// 10 is just an arbitrary threshold value I've chosen
if (array.Length < 10)
{
// assumption is that for arrays of less than 10 elements
// this code would be more efficient than a StringBuilder.
// Note: this is a crazy/pointless micro-optimization. Don't do this.
string[] values = new string[array.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < values.Length; i++)
values[i] = array[i].ToString();
return string.Join(delimiter, values);
}
else
{
// for arrays of length 10 or longer, use a StringBuilder
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append(array[0]);
for (int i = 1; i < array.Length; i++)
{
sb.Append(delimiter);
sb.Append(array[i]);
}
return sb.ToString();
}
}
else
{
return null;
}
}
For this example, the performance impact is probably not worth caring about, but the point is that if you are in a situation where you actually do need to be concerned with the performance of your operations, whatever they are, then it will most likely be easier and more readable to handle that within a utility function than using a complex Linq expression.
That utility function still looks kind of clunky. Now let's ditch the hybrid stuff and do this:
// convert an enumeration of one type into an enumeration of another type
public static IEnumerable<TOut> Convert<TIn, TOut>(this IEnumerable<TIn> input, Func<TIn, TOut> conversion)
{
foreach (TIn value in input)
{
yield return conversion(value);
}
}
// concatenate the strings in an enumeration separated by the specified delimiter
public static string Delimit<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
IEnumerator<T> enumerator = input.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
// start off with the first element
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
// append the remaining elements separated by the delimiter
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
builder.Append(delimiter);
builder.Append(enumerator.Current);
}
return builder.ToString();
}
else
{
return string.Empty;
}
}
// concatenate all elements
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input)
{
return ToString(input, string.Empty);
}
// concatenate all elements separated by a delimiter
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, string delimiter)
{
return input.Delimit(delimiter);
}
// concatenate all elements, each one left-padded to a minimum length
public static string ToString<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int minLength, char paddingChar)
{
return input.Convert(i => i.ToString().PadLeft(minLength, paddingChar)).Delimit(string.Empty);
}
Now we have separate and fairly compact utility functions, each of which are arguable useful on their own.
Ultimately, my point is not that you shouldn't use Linq, but rather just to say don't forget about the benefits of creating your own utility functions, even if they are small and perhaps only contain a single line that returns the result from a line of Linq code. If nothing else, you'll be able to keep your application code even more condensed than you could achieve with a line of Linq code, and if you are using it in multiple places, then using a utility function makes it easier to adjust your output in case you need to change it later.
For this problem, I'd rather just write something like this in my application code:
int[] arr = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 0, 1 };
// 012301
result = arr.ToString<int>();
// comma-separated values
// 0,1,2,3,0,1
result = arr.ToString(",");
// left-padded to 2 digits
// 000102030001
result = arr.ToString(2, '0');

To avoid the creation of an extra array you could do the following.
var builder = new StringBuilder();
Array.ForEach(arr, x => builder.Append(x));
var res = builder.ToString();

string result = arr.Aggregate("", (s, i) => s + i.ToString());
(Disclaimer: If you have a lot of digits (hundreds, at least) and you care about performance, I suggest eschewing this method and using a StringBuilder, as in JaredPar's answer.)

You can do:
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string results = string.Join("",arr.Select(i => i.ToString()).ToArray());
That gives you your results.

I like using StringBuilder with Aggregate(). The "trick" is that Append() returns the StringBuilder instance itself:
var sb = arr.Aggregate( new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ) );
var result = sb.ToString();

string.Join("", (from i in arr select i.ToString()).ToArray())
In the .NET 4.0 the string.Join can use an IEnumerable<string> directly:
string.Join("", from i in arr select i.ToString())

I've left this here for posterity but don't recommend its use as it's not terribly readable. This is especially true now that I've come back to see if after a period of some time and have wondered what I was thinking when I wrote it (I was probably thinking 'crap, must get this written before someone else posts an answer'.)
string s = string.Concat(arr.Cast<object>().ToArray());

The most efficient way is not to convert each int into a string, but rather create one string out of an array of chars. Then the garbage collector only has one new temp object to worry about.
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string result = new string(Array.ConvertAll<int,char>(arr, x => Convert.ToChar(x + '0')));

This is a roundabout way to go about it its not much code and easy for beginners to understand
int[] arr = {0,1,2,3,0,1};
string joined = "";
foreach(int i in arr){
joined += i.ToString();
}
int number = int.Parse(joined);

If this is long array you could use
var sb = arr.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), ( s, i ) => s.Append( i ), s.ToString());

// This is the original array
int[] nums = {1, 2, 3};
// This is an empty string we will end up with
string numbers = "";
// iterate on every char in the array
foreach (var item in nums)
{
// add the char to the empty string
numbers += Convert.ToString(item);
}
// Write the string in the console
Console.WriteLine(numbers);