We Keep Coding

inaccurate results with function to add an array of digits together

so i have this function:
static int[] AddArrays(int[] a, int[] b)
{
int length1 = a.Length;
int length2 = b.Length;
int carry = 0;
int max_length = Math.Max(length1, length2) + 1;
int[] minimum_arr = new int[max_length - length1].Concat(a).ToArray();
int[] maximum_arr = new int[max_length - length2].Concat(b).ToArray();
int[] new_arr = new int[max_length];
for (int i = max_length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
int first_digit = maximum_arr[i];
int second_digit = i - (max_length - minimum_arr.Length) >= 0 ? minimum_arr[i - (max_length - minimum_arr.Length)] : 0;
if (second_digit + first_digit + carry > 9)
{
new_arr[i] = (second_digit + first_digit + carry) % 10;
carry = 1;
}
else
{
new_arr[i] = second_digit + first_digit + carry;
carry = 0;
}
}
if (carry == 1)
{
int[] result = new int[max_length + 1];
result[0] = 1;
Array.Copy(new_arr, 0, result, 1, max_length);
return result;
}
else
{
return new_arr;
}
}
it basically takes 2 lists of digits and adds them together. the point of this is that each array of digits represent a number that is bigger then the integer limits. now this function is close to working the results get innacurate at certein places and i honestly have no idea why. for example if the function is given these inputs:
"1481298410984109284109481491284901249018490849081048914820948019" and
"3475893498573573849739857349873498739487598" (both of these are being turned into a array of integers before being sent to the function)
the expected output is:
1,481,298,410,984,109,284,112,957,384,783,474,822,868,230,706,430,922,413,560,435,617
and what i get is:
1,481,298,410,984,109,284,457,070,841,142,258,634,158,894,233,092,241,356,043,561,7
i would very much appreciate some help with this ive been trying to figure it out for hours and i cant seem to get it to work perfectly.

I suggest Reverse arrays a and b and use good old school algorithm:
static int[] AddArrays(int[] a, int[] b) {
Array.Reverse(a);
Array.Reverse(b);
int[] result = new int[Math.Max(a.Length, b.Length) + 1];
int carry = 0;
int value = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Max(a.Length, b.Length); ++i) {
value = (i < a.Length ? a[i] : 0) + (i < b.Length ? b[i] : 0) + carry;
result[i] = value % 10;
carry = value / 10;
}
if (carry > 0)
result[result.Length - 1] = carry;
else
Array.Resize(ref result, result.Length - 1);
// Let's restore a and b
Array.Reverse(a);
Array.Reverse(b);
Array.Reverse(result);
return result;
}
Demo:
string a = "1481298410984109284109481491284901249018490849081048914820948019";
string b = "3475893498573573849739857349873498739487598";
string c = string.Concat(AddArrays(
a.Select(d => d - '0').ToArray(),
b.Select(d => d - '0').ToArray()));
Console.Write(c);
Output:
1481298410984109284112957384783474822868230706430922413560435617

Factorials of Big numbers without BigInteger (C#)

Is there an algorithm for calculating a factorial without using System.Numerics library? We receive an int number and we need to return factorial of this number as string(if n = 30, we should return "265252859812191058636308480000000", if n = 70, we should return "11978571669969891796072783721689098736458938142546425857555362864628009582789845319680000000000000000" ect. Numbers are very big)
I tried to find out, did anyone already write an article about that, but I didn't find anything.

It suffices to implement multiplication of a large number as a string by a small integer.
Illustration: 12! = 11! x 12 is obtained by multiplying every digit by 12 and summing (with shifts):
39916800
36
108
108
12
72
96
0
0
---------
479001600

A lazy solution. It is possible to evaluate the factorial with just BigNum addition, replacing the multiplications by successive additions. (For n!, we will perform 1+2+3+...n-1 additions. This is acceptable for moderate n.)
The computation uses two pre-allocated string (arrays of char), which are initially filled with null bytes (Writeline skips them). When adding from right to left, we stop when we meet a null.
int n = 20;
// Factorial and temporary string; 100! fits in 158 digits
const int N = 158;
char[] f = new char[N], t = new char[N];
f[N - 1] = '1'; // 1!
// Product up to n by successive additions
for (int i = 2; i <= n; i++)
{
// t= f
f.CopyTo(t, 0);
for (int j = 0; j < i - 1; j++)
{
// f+= t, repeated i-1 times
int c = 0; // Carry
for (int k = N - 1; k >= 0; k--)
{
if (t[k] == 0 && c == 0) break; // Significant part exhausted
int d = Math.Max(0, t[k] - '0') + Math.Max(0, f[k] - '0') + c;
c= d / 10; d = d % 10; f[k] = (char)(d + '0'); // Next carry/digit
}
}
Console.WriteLine(f);
}
Output:
2
6
24
120
720
5040
40320
362880
3628800
39916800
479001600
6227020800
87178291200
1307674368000
20922789888000
355687428096000
6402373705728000
121645100408832000
2432902008176640000

static string FindFactorial(int n)
{
int[] result = new int[500000];
result[0] = 1;
int resultSize = 1;
for (int x = 2; x <= n; x++)
resultSize = Multiply(x, result, resultSize);
string factorial = "";
for (int i = resultSize - 1; i >= 0; i--)
factorial += result[i].ToString();
return factorial;
}
static int Multiply(int x, int[] result, int resultSize)
{
int carry = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < resultSize; i++)
{
int product = result[i] * x + carry;
result[i] = product % 10;
carry = product / 10;
}
while (carry != 0)
{
result[resultSize] = carry % 10;
carry /= 10;
resultSize++;
}
return resultSize;
}
This will work

How can i optimize this problem while using only 3 for loops?

So the problem that I'm trying to optimize is to find and print all four-digit numbers of the type ABCD for which: A + B = C + D.
For example:
1001
1010
1102
etc.
I have used four for loops to solve this (one for every digit of the number).
for (int a = 1; a <= 9; a++)
{
for (int b = 0; b <= 9; b++)
{
for (int c = 0; c <= 9; c++)
{
for (int d = 0; d <= 9; d++)
{
if ((a + b) == (c + d))
{
Console.WriteLine(" " + a + " " + b + " " + c + " " + d);
}
}
}
}
}
My question is: how can I solve this using only 3 for loops?

Here's an option with two loops (though still 10,000 iterations), separating the pairs of digits:
int sumDigits(int input)
{
int result = 0;
while (input != 0)
{
result += input % 10;
input /= 10;
}
return result;
}
//optimized for max of two digits
int sumDigitsAlt(int input)
{
return (input % 10) + ( (input / 10) % 10);
}
// a and b
for (int i = 0; i <= 99; i++)
{
int sum = sumDigits(i);
// c and d
for (int j = 0; j <= 99; j++)
{
if (sum == sumDigits(j))
{
Console.WriteLine( (100 * i) + j);
}
}
}
I suppose the while() loop inside of sumDigits() might count as a third loop, but since we know we have at most two digits we could remove it if needed.
And, of course, we can use a similar tactic to do this with one loop which counts from 0 to 9999, and even that we can hide:
var numbers = Enumerable.Range(0, 10000).
Where(n => {
// there is no a/b
if (n < 100 && n == 0) return true;
if (n < 100) return false;
int sumCD = n % 10;
n /= 10;
sumCD += n % 10;
n /= 10;
int sumAB = n % 10;
n /= 10;
sumAB += n % 10;
return (sumAB == sumCD);
});

One approach is to write a method that takes in an integer and returns true if the integer is four digits and the sum of the first two equal the sum of the second two:
public static bool FirstTwoEqualLastTwo(int input)
{
if (input < 1000 || input > 9999) return false;
var first = input / 1000;
var second = (input - first * 1000) / 100;
var third = (input - first * 1000 - second * 100) / 10;
var fourth = input - first * 1000 - second * 100 - third * 10;
return (first + second) == (third + fourth);
}
Then you can write a single loop from 1000-9999 and output the numbers for which this is true with a space between each digit (not sure why that's the output, but it appears that's what you were doing in your sample code):
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 1000; i < 10000; i++)
{
if (FirstTwoEqualLastTwo(i))
{
Console.WriteLine(" " + string.Join(" ", i.ToString().ToArray()));
}
}
Console.Write("Done. Press any key to exit...");
Console.ReadKey();
}

We can compute the value of d from the values of a,b,c.
for (int a = 1; a <= 9; a++)
{
for (int b = 0; b <= 9; b++)
{
for (int c = 0; c <= 9; c++)
{
if (a + b >= c && a + b <= 9 + c)
{
int d = a + b - c;
Console.WriteLine(" " + a + " " + b + " " + c + " " + d);
}
}
}
}
We can further optimize by changing the condition of the third loop to for (int c = max(0, a + b - 9); c <= a + b; c++) and getting rid of the if statement.

Damerau–Levenshtein distance algorithm, disable counting of delete

How can i disable counting of deletion, in this implementation of Damerau-Levenshtein distance algorithm, or if there is other algorithm already implemented please point me to it.
Example(disabled deletion counting):
string1: how are you?
string2: how oyu?
distance: 1 (for transposition, 4 deletes doesn't count)
And here is the algorithm:
public static int DamerauLevenshteinDistance(string string1, string string2, int threshold)
{
// Return trivial case - where they are equal
if (string1.Equals(string2))
return 0;
// Return trivial case - where one is empty
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(string1) || String.IsNullOrEmpty(string2))
return (string1 ?? "").Length + (string2 ?? "").Length;
// Ensure string2 (inner cycle) is longer_transpositionRow
if (string1.Length > string2.Length)
{
var tmp = string1;
string1 = string2;
string2 = tmp;
}
// Return trivial case - where string1 is contained within string2
if (string2.Contains(string1))
return string2.Length - string1.Length;
var length1 = string1.Length;
var length2 = string2.Length;
var d = new int[length1 + 1, length2 + 1];
for (var i = 0; i <= d.GetUpperBound(0); i++)
d[i, 0] = i;
for (var i = 0; i <= d.GetUpperBound(1); i++)
d[0, i] = i;
for (var i = 1; i <= d.GetUpperBound(0); i++)
{
var im1 = i - 1;
var im2 = i - 2;
var minDistance = threshold;
for (var j = 1; j <= d.GetUpperBound(1); j++)
{
var jm1 = j - 1;
var jm2 = j - 2;
var cost = string1[im1] == string2[jm1] ? 0 : 1;
var del = d[im1, j] + 1;
var ins = d[i, jm1] + 1;
var sub = d[im1, jm1] + cost;
//Math.Min is slower than native code
//d[i, j] = Math.Min(del, Math.Min(ins, sub));
d[i, j] = del <= ins && del <= sub ? del : ins <= sub ? ins : sub;
if (i > 1 && j > 1 && string1[im1] == string2[jm2] && string1[im2] == string2[jm1])
d[i, j] = Math.Min(d[i, j], d[im2, jm2] + cost);
if (d[i, j] < minDistance)
minDistance = d[i, j];
}
if (minDistance > threshold)
return int.MaxValue;
}
return d[d.GetUpperBound(0), d.GetUpperBound(1)] > threshold
? int.MaxValue
: d[d.GetUpperBound(0), d.GetUpperBound(1)];
}

public static int DamerauLevenshteinDistance( string string1
, string string2
, int threshold)
{
// Return trivial case - where they are equal
if (string1.Equals(string2))
return 0;
// Return trivial case - where one is empty
// WRONG FOR YOUR NEEDS:
// if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(string1) || String.IsNullOrEmpty(string2))
// return (string1 ?? "").Length + (string2 ?? "").Length;
//DO IT THIS WAY:
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(string1))
// First string is empty, so every character of
// String2 has been inserted:
return (string2 ?? "").Length;
if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(string2))
// Second string is empty, so every character of string1
// has been deleted, but you dont count deletions:
return 0;
// DO NOT SWAP THE STRINGS IF YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH INSERTIONS
// IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THEN WITH DELETIONS:
// THE FOLLOWING IS WRONG FOR YOUR NEEDS:
// // Ensure string2 (inner cycle) is longer_transpositionRow
// if (string1.Length > string2.Length)
// {
// var tmp = string1;
// string1 = string2;
// string2 = tmp;
// }
// Return trivial case - where string1 is contained within string2
if (string2.Contains(string1))
//all changes are insertions
return string2.Length - string1.Length;
// REVERSE CASE: STRING2 IS CONTAINED WITHIN STRING1
if (string1.Contains(string2))
//all changes are deletions which you don't count:
return 0;
var length1 = string1.Length;
var length2 = string2.Length;
// PAY ATTENTION TO THIS CHANGE!
// length1+1 rows is way too much! You need only 3 rows (0, 1 and 2)
// read my explanation below the code!
// TOO MUCH ROWS: var d = new int[length1 + 1, length2 + 1];
var d = new int[2, length2 + 1];
// THIS INITIALIZATION COUNTS DELETIONS. YOU DONT WANT IT
// or (var i = 0; i <= d.GetUpperBound(0); i++)
// d[i, 0] = i;
// But you must initiate the first element of each row with 0:
for (var i = 0; i <= 2; i++)
d[i, 0] = 0;
// This initialization counts insertions. You need it, but for
// better consistency of code I call the variable j (not i):
for (var j = 0; j <= d.GetUpperBound(1); j++)
d[0, j] = j;
// Now do the job:
// for (var i = 1; i <= d.GetUpperBound(0); i++)
for (var i = 1; i <= length1; i++)
{
//Here in this for-loop: add "%3" to evey term
// that is used as first index of d!
var im1 = i - 1;
var im2 = i - 2;
var minDistance = threshold;
for (var j = 1; j <= d.GetUpperBound(1); j++)
{
var jm1 = j - 1;
var jm2 = j - 2;
var cost = string1[im1] == string2[jm1] ? 0 : 1;
// DON'T COUNT DELETIONS! var del = d[im1, j] + 1;
var ins = d[i % 3, jm1] + 1;
var sub = d[im1 % 3, jm1] + cost;
// Math.Min is slower than native code
// d[i, j] = Math.Min(del, Math.Min(ins, sub));
// DEL DOES NOT EXIST
// d[i, j] = del <= ins && del <= sub ? del : ins <= sub ? ins : sub;
d[i % 3, j] = ins <= sub ? ins : sub;
if (i > 1 && j > 1 && string1[im1] == string2[jm2] && string1[im2] == string2[jm1])
d[i % 3, j] = Math.Min(d[i % 3, j], d[im2 % 3, jm2] + cost);
if (d[i % 3, j] < minDistance)
minDistance = d[i % 3, j];
}
if (minDistance > threshold)
return int.MaxValue;
}
return d[length1 % 3, d.GetUpperBound(1)] > threshold
? int.MaxValue
: d[length1 % 3, d.GetUpperBound(1)];
}
here comes my explanation why you need only 3 rows:
Look at this line:
var d = new int[length1 + 1, length2 + 1];
If one string has the length n and the other has the length m, then your code needs a space of (n+1)*(m+1) integers. Each Integer needs 4 Byte. This is waste of memory if your strings are long. If both strings are 35.000 byte long, you will need more than 4 GB of memory!
In this code you calculate and write a new value for d[i,j]. And to do this, you read values from its upper neighbor (d[i,jm1]), from its left neighbor (d[im1,j]), from its upper-left neighbor (d[im1,jm1]) and finally from its double-upper-double-left neighbour (d[im2,jm2]). So you just need values from your actual row and 2 rows before.
You never need values from any other row. So why do you want to store them? Three rows are enough, and my changes make shure, that you can work with this 3 rows without reading any wrong value at any time.

I would advise not rewriting this specific algorithm to handle specific cases of "free" edits. Many of them radically simplify the concept of the problem to the point where the metric will not convey any useful information.
For example, when substitution is free the distance between all strings is the difference between their lengths. Simply transmute the smaller string into the prefix of the larger string and add the needed letters. (You can guarantee that there is no smaller distance because one insertion is required for each character of edit distance.)
When transposition is free the question reduces to determining the sum of differences of letter counts. (Since the distance between all anagrams is 0, sorting the letters in each string and exchanging out or removing the non-common elements of the larger string is the best strategy. The mathematical argument is similar to that of the previous example.)
In the case when insertion and deletion are free the edit distance between any two strings is zero. If only insertion OR deletion is free this breaks the symmetry of the distance metric - with free deletions, the distance from a to aa is 1, while the distance from aa to a is 1. Depending on the application this could possibly be desirable; but I'm not sure if it's something you're interested in. You will need to greatly alter the presented algorithm because it makes the mentioned assumption of one string always being longer than the other.

Try to change var del = d[im1, j] + 1; to var del = d[im1, j];, I think that solves your problem.

loose string search within an array with C#

lets say we have a
string[] array = {"telekinesis", "laureate", "Allequalsfive", "Indulgence"};
and we need to find a word within this array
normally we'd do following: (or use any similar method to find a string)
bool result = array.Contains("laureate"); // returns true
In my case, the word that I am searching for, may have errors in it (as the title suggests).
For example, I can't distinguish a difference between letters "I"(large "i") and "l"(small "L") and "1"(number one).
Is there any way how I can find a word such as "Allequalsfive" or "A11equalsfive" or "AIIequalsfive"? (loose search) Normally result will be "false".
If only I can specify to ignore some letters.. (the sequence is constant, other letters are constants).

With the help of extension methods & Levenshtein Distance algorithm
var array = new string[]{ "telekinesis", "laureate",
"Allequalsfive", "Indulgence" };
bool b = array.LooseContains("A11equalsfive", 2); //returns true
-
public static class UsefulExtensions
{
public static bool LooseContains(this IEnumerable<string> list, string word,int distance)
{
foreach (var s in list)
if (s.LevenshteinDistance(word) <= distance) return true;
return false;
}
//
//http://www.merriampark.com/ldcsharp.htm
//
public static int LevenshteinDistance(this string s, string t)
{
int n = s.Length;
int m = t.Length;
int[,] d = new int[n + 1, m + 1];
// Step 1
if (n == 0)
return m;
if (m == 0)
return n;
// Step 2
for (int i = 0; i <= n; d[i, 0] = i++){}
for (int j = 0; j <= m; d[0, j] = j++){}
// Step 3
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
//Step 4
for (int j = 1; j <= m; j++)
{
// Step 5
int cost = (char.ToUpperInvariant(t[j - 1]) == char.ToUpperInvariant(s[i - 1])) ? 0 : 1;
// Step 6
d[i, j] = Math.Min(
Math.Min(d[i - 1, j] + 1, d[i, j - 1] + 1),
d[i - 1, j - 1] + cost);
}
}
// Step 7
return d[n, m];
}
}

You can use the Contains overload that takes an IEqualityComparer<TSource>.
Implement your own equality comparer that ignores the letters you want and off you go.

if you only need to know if the word is loosely contained in your array, then you can just "clean" the letters you want to ignore (e.g. replace "1" by "l") in both your search word and array:
Func<string, string> clean = x => x.ToLower().Replace('1', 'l');
var array = (new string[] { "telekinesis", "laureate", "A11equalsfive", "Indulgence" }).Select(x => clean(x));
bool result = array.Contains(clean("allequalsfive"));
Otherwise you can look up the Where() LINQ keyword, which lets you filter an array based on a function that you specify.