We Keep Coding

Why multiply Random.Next() by a Constant?

I recently read an article explaining how to generate a weighted random number, and there's a piece of the code that I don't understand:
int r = ((int)(rand.Next() * (323567)) % prefix[n - 1]) + 1;
Why is rand.Next being multiplied by a constant 323567? Would the code work without this constant?
Below is the full code for reference, and you can find the full article here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/random-number-generator-in-arbitrary-probability-distribution-fashion/
Any help is appreciated, thank you!!
// C# program to generate random numbers
// according to given frequency distribution
using System;
class GFG{
// Utility function to find ceiling
// of r in arr[l..h]
static int findCeil(int[] arr, int r,
int l, int h)
{
int mid;
while (l < h)
{
// Same as mid = (l+h)/2
mid = l + ((h - l) >> 1);
if (r > arr[mid])
l = mid + 1;
else
h = mid;
}
return (arr[l] >= r) ? l : -1;
}
// The main function that returns a random number
// from arr[] according to distribution array
// defined by freq[]. n is size of arrays.
static int myRand(int[] arr, int[] freq, int n)
{
// Create and fill prefix array
int[] prefix = new int[n];
int i;
prefix[0] = freq[0];
for(i = 1; i < n; ++i)
prefix[i] = prefix[i - 1] + freq[i];
// prefix[n-1] is sum of all frequencies.
// Generate a random number with
// value from 1 to this sum
Random rand = new Random();
int r = ((int)(rand.Next() * (323567)) % prefix[n - 1]) + 1; // <--- RNG * Constant
// Find index of ceiling of r in prefix array
int indexc = findCeil(prefix, r, 0, n - 1);
return arr[indexc];
}
// Driver Code
static void Main()
{
int[] arr = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int[] freq = { 10, 5, 20, 100 };
int i, n = arr.Length;
// Let us generate 10 random numbers
// according to given distribution
for(i = 0; i < 5; i++)
Console.WriteLine(myRand(arr, freq, n));
}
}
UPDATE:
I ran this code to check it:
int[] intArray = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] weights = new int[] { 5, 20, 20, 40, 15 };
List<int> results = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
results.Add(WeightedRNG.GetRand(intArray, weights, intArray.Length));
}
for (int i = 0; i < intArray.Length; i++)
{
int itemsFound = results.Where(x => x == intArray[i]).Count();
Console.WriteLine($"{intArray[i]} was returned {itemsFound} times.");
}
And here are the results with the constant:
1 was returned 5096 times.
2 was returned 19902 times.
3 was returned 20086 times.
4 was returned 40012 times.
5 was returned 14904 times.
And without the constant...
1 was returned 100000 times.
2 was returned 0 times.
3 was returned 0 times.
4 was returned 0 times.
5 was returned 0 times.
It completely breaks without it.

The constant does serve a purpose in some environments, but I don't believe this code is correct for C#.
To explain, let's look at the arguments to the function. The first sign something is off is passing n as an argument instead of inferring it from the arrays. The second sign is it's poor practice in C# to deal with paired arrays rather than something like a 2D array or sequence of single objects (such as a Tuple). But those are just indicators something is odd, and not evidence of any bugs.
So let's put that on hold for a moment and explain why a constant might matter by looking a small example.
Say you have three numbers (1, 2, and 3) with weights 3, 2, and 2. This function first builds up a prefix array, where each item includes the chances of finding the number for that index and all previous numbers.
We end up with a result like this: (3, 5, 7). Now we can use the last value and take a random number from 1 to 7. Values 1-3 result in 1, values 4 and 5 result in 2, and values 6 and 7 result in 3.
To find this random number the code now calls rand.Next(), and this is where I think the error comes in. In many platforms, the Next() function returns a double between 0 and 1. That's too small to use to lookup your weighted value, so you then multiply by a prime constant related the platform's epsilon value to ensure you have a reasonably large result that will cover the entire possible range of desired weights (in this case, 1-7) and then some. Now you take the remainder (%) vs your max weight (7), and map it via the prefix array to get the final result.
So the first error is, in C#, .Next() does not return a double. It is documented to return a non-negative random integer between 0 and int.MaxValue. Multiply that by 323567 and you're asking for integer overflow exceptions. Another sign of this mistake is the cast to int: the result of this function is already an int. And let's not even talk the meaningless extra parentheses around (323567).
There is also another, more subtle, error.
Let's the say the result of the (int)(rand.Next() * 323567) expression is 10. Now we take this value and get the remainder when dividing by our max value (%7). The problem here is we have two chances to roll a 1, 2, or 3 (the extra chance is if the original was 8, 9, or 10), and only once chance for the remaining weights (4-7). So we have introduced unintended bias into the system, completely throwing off the expected weights. (This is a simplification. The actual number space is not 1-10; it's 0 * 323567 - 0.999999 * 323567. But the potential for bias still exists as long that max value is not evenly divisible by the max weight value).
It's possible the constant was chosen because it has properties to minimize this effect, but again: it was based on a completely different kind of .Next() function.
Therefore the rand.Next() line should probably be changed to look like this:
int r = rand.Next(prefix[n - 1]) +1;
or this:
int r = ((int)(rand.NextDouble() * (323567 * prefix[n - 1])) % prefix[n - 1]) + 1;
But, given the other errors, I'd be wary of using this code at all.
For fun, here's an example running several different options:
https://dotnetfiddle.net/Y5qhRm
The original random method (using NextDouble() and a bare constant) doesn't fare as badly as I'd expect.

Given an array of integers, how can I find all common multiples up to a maximum number?

This is my first question on this site. I am practicing on a problem on Hackerrank that asks to find numbers "Between two Sets". Given two arrays of integers, I must find the number(s) that fit the following two criteria:
1) The elements in the first array must all be factors of the number(s)
2) The number(s) must factor into all elements of the second array
I know that I need to find all common multiples of every element in the first array, but those multiples need to be less than or equal to the minimum value of the second array. I first sort the first array then find all the multiples of ONLY the largest number in the first array (again, up to a max of the second array's minimum) and store those multiples in a list. Then, I move on to the second largest element in the first array and test it against the array of existing multiples. All elements in the list of existing multiples that isn't also a multiple of the second largest element of the first array is removed. I then test the third largest value of the first array, all the way to the minimum value. The list of existing multiples should be getting trimmed as I iterate through the first array in descending order. I've written a solution which passes only 5 out of the 9 test cases on the site, see code below. My task was to edit the getTotalX function and I created the getCommonMultiples function myself as a helper. I did not create nor edit the main function. I am not sure why I am not passing the other 4 test cases as I can't see what any of the test cases are.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
class Solution {
/*
* Complete the getTotalX function below.
*/
static int getTotalX(int[] a, int[] b) {
//get minimum value of second array
int b_min = b.Min();
//create List to hold multiples
List<int> multiples = getCommonMultiples(a, b_min);
//create List to hold number of ints which are in solution
List<int> solutions = new List<int>();
foreach(int x in multiples)
{
foreach(int y in b)
{
if (y % x == 0 && !solutions.Contains(x))
{
solutions.Add(x);
}
else
{
break;
}
}
}
return solutions.Count;
}
static List<int> getCommonMultiples(int[] array, int max)
{
//make sure array is sorted
Array.Sort(array);
int x = array.Length - 1; //x will be the last # in array -- the max
int y = 1;
//find all multiples of largest number first and store in a list
int z = array[x] * y;
List<int> commonMultiples = new List<int>();
while(z <= max)
{
commonMultiples.Add(z);
y++;
z = array[x] * y;
}
//all multiples of largest number are now added to the list
//go through the smaller numbers in query array
//only keep elements in list if they are also multiples of smaller
//numbers
int xx = array.Length - 2;
for(int a = array[xx]; xx >= 0; xx--)
{
foreach(int b in commonMultiples.ToList())
{
if (b % a != 0)
{
commonMultiples.Remove(b);
}
else
{
continue;
}
}
}
return commonMultiples;
}
static void Main(string[] args) {
TextWriter tw = new StreamWriter(#System.Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("OUTPUT_PATH"), true);
string[] nm = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
int n = Convert.ToInt32(nm[0]);
int m = Convert.ToInt32(nm[1]);
int[] a = Array.ConvertAll(Console.ReadLine().Split(' '), aTemp => Convert.ToInt32(aTemp))
;
int[] b = Array.ConvertAll(Console.ReadLine().Split(' '), bTemp => Convert.ToInt32(bTemp))
;
int total = getTotalX(a, b);
tw.WriteLine(total);
tw.Flush();
tw.Close();
}
}
Again, I can't see the test cases so I do not know what exactly the issue is. I went through the code line by line and can't find any OutOfBoundExceptions or things of that sort so it has to be a logic issue. Thanks for the help!
A typical sample involves 3 lines of input. The first line has 2 integers which gives the length of the first array and the second array, respectively. The second line will give the integers in the first array. The third line will give the integers in the second array. The output needs to be the total number of integers "in between" the two arrays. It will looks like this:
Sample Input
2 3
2 4
16 32 96
Sample Output
3
Explanation: 2 and 4 divide evenly into 4, 8, 12 and 16.
4, 8 and 16 divide evenly into 16, 32, 96.
4, 8 and 16 are the only three numbers for which each element of the first array is a factor and each is a factor of all elements of the second array.

I see two issues with the code you posted.
Firstly, as #Hans Kesting pointed out, a = array[xx] is not being updated each time in the for loop. Since the variable a is only used in one spot, I recommend just replacing that use with array[xx] and be done with it as follows:
for(int xx = array.Length - 2; xx >= 0; xx--)
{
foreach(int b in commonMultiples.ToList())
{
if (b % array[xx] != 0)
{
commonMultiples.Remove(b);
For your understanding of for loops: to properly increment a each time you'd write the for loop like this:
for(int xx = array.Length - 2, a = array[xx]; xx >= 0; xx--, a = array[xx])
The first part of the for loop (up until ;) is the initialization stage which is only called before the entering the loop the first time. The second part is the while condition that is checked before each time through loop (including the first) and if at any time it evaluates to false, the loop is broken (stopped). The third part is the increment stage that is called only after each successful loop.
Because of that in order to keep a up to date in the for loop head, it must appear twice.
Secondly, your solutions in getTotalX is additive, meaning that each multiple that works for each value in array b is added as a solution even if it doesn't fit the other values in b. To get it to work the way that you want, we have to use a Remove loop, rather than an Add loop.
List<int> multiples = getCommonMultiples(a, b_min);
//create List to hold number of ints which are in solution
List<int> solutions = multiples.ToList();
foreach(int x in multiples)
{
foreach(int y in b)
{
if (y % x != 0)
{
solutions.Remove(x);
break;
}
}
}
You could also use LINQ to perform an additive solution where it takes into account All members of b:
//create List to hold number of ints which are in solution
List<int> solutions = multiples.Where((x) => b.All((y) => y % x == 0)).ToList();

How to get count of numbers in int and how to split a number without making a string

I have a number like 601511616
If all number's length is multiple of 3, how can a split the number into an array without making a string
Also, how can I count numbers in the int without making a string?
Edit: Is there a way to simply split the number, knowing it's always in a multiple of 3... good output should look like this: {616,511,601}

You can use i % 10 in order to get the last digit of integer.
Then, you can use division by 10 for removing the last digit.
1234567 % 10 = 7
1234567 / 10 = 123456
Here is the code sample:
int value = 601511616;
List<int> digits = new List<int>();
while (value > 0)
{
digits.Add(value % 10);
value /= 10;
}
// digits is [6,1,6,1,1,5,1,0,6] now
digits.Reverse(); // Values has been inserted from least significant to the most
// digits is [6,0,1,5,1,1,6,1,6] now
Console.WriteLine("Count of digits: {0}", digits.Count); // Outputs "9"
for (int i = 0; i < digits.Count; i++) // Outputs "601,511,616"
{
Console.Write("{0}", digits[i]);
if (i > 0 && i % 3 == 0) Console.Write(","); // Insert comma after every 3 digits
}
IDEOne working demonstration of List and division approach.
Actually, if you don't need to split it up but only need to output in 3-digit groups, then there is a very convenient and proper way to do this with formatting.
It will work as well :)
int value = 601511616;
Console.WriteLine("{0:N0}", value); // 601,511,616
Console.WriteLine("{0:N2}", value); // 601,511,616.00
IDEOne working demonstration of formatting approach.

I can't understand your question regarding how to split a number into an array without making a string - sorry. But I can understand the question about getting the count of numbers in an int.
Here's your answer to that question.
Math.Floor(Math.Log10(601511616) + 1) = 9
Edit:
Here's the answer to your first question..
var n = 601511616;
var nArray = new int[3];
for (int i = 0, numMod = n; i < 3; numMod /= 1000, i++)
nArray[i] = numMod%1000;
Please keep in mind there's no safety in this operation.
Edit#3
Still not perfect, but a better example.
var n = 601511616;
var nLength = (int)Math.Floor(Math.Log10(n) + 1)/ 3;
var nArray = new int[nLength];
for (int i = 0, numMod = n; i < nLength; numMod /= 1000, i++)
nArray[i] = numMod%1000;
Edit#3:
IDEOne example http://ideone.com/SSz3Ni
the output is exactly as the edit approved by the poster suggested.
{ 616, 511, 601 }

Using Log10 to calculate the number of digits is easy, but it involves floating-point operations which is very slow and sometimes incorrect due to rounding errors. You can use this way without calculating the value size first. It doesn't care if the number of digits is a multiple of 3 or not.
int value = 601511616;
List<int> list = new List<int>();
while (value > 0) // main part to split the number
{
int t = value % 1000;
value /= 1000;
list.Add(t);
}
// Convert back to an array only if it's necessary, otherwise use List<T> directly
int[] splitted = list.ToArray();
This will store the splitted numbers in reverse order, i.e. 601511616 will become {616, 511, 601}. If you want the numbers in original order, simply iterate the array backwards. Alternatively use Array.Reverse or a Stack

Since you already know they are in multiples of 3, you can just use the extracting each digit method but use 1000 instead of 10. Here is the example
a = 601511616
b = []
while(a):
b.append(a%1000)
a = a//1000
print(b)
#[616, 511, 601]

Most evenly distribute letters of the alphabet across sequence

I'm wondering if there is a sweet way I can do this in LINQ or something but I'm trying to most evenly distribute the letters of the alphabet across X parts where X is a whole number > 0 && <= 26. For example here might be some possible outputs.
X = 1 : 1 partition of 26
X = 2 : 2 partitions of 13
X = 3 : 2
partitions of 9 and one partition of 8
etc....
Ultimately I don't want to have any partitions that didn't end up getting at least one and I'm aiming to have them achieve the most even distribution that the range of difference between partition sizes is as small as posssible.
This is the code I tried orginally:
char[] alphabet = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ".ToCharArray();
int pieces = (int)Math.Round((double)alphabet.Count() / numberOfParts);
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfParts.Count; ++i) {
char[] subset = i == numberOfParts.Count - 1 ? alphabet.Skip(i * pieces).ToArray()
: alphabet.Skip(i * pieces).Take(pieces).ToArray();
... // more code following
This seemed to be working fine at first but I realized in testing that there is a problem when X is 10. Based on this logic I'm getting 8 groups of 3 and one group of 2, leaving the 10th group 0 which is no good as I'm going for the most even distribution.
The most ideal distribution for 10 in this case would be 6 groupings of 3 and 4 groupings of 2. Any thoughts on how this might be implemented?

In general, the easiest way to implement the logic is using the modulo operator, %. Get familiar with this operator; it's very useful for the situations where it helps. There are a number of ways to write the actual code to do the distribution of letters, using arrays or not as you wish etc., but this short expression should give you an idea:
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ".IndexOf(letter) % partitionCount
This expression gives the zero-based index of the partition in which to deposit an upper-case letter. The string is just shown for convenience, but could be an array or some other way of representing the alphabet. You could loop over the alphabet, using logic similar to the above to choose where to deposit each letter. Up to you would be where to put the logic: inside a loop, in a method, etc.
There's nothing magical about modular arithmetic; it just "wraps around" after the end of the set of usable numbers is reached. A simple context in which we've all encountered this is in division; the % operator is essentially just giving a division remainder. Now that you understand what the % operator is doing, you could easily write your own code to do the same thing, in any language.
Putting this all together, you could write a utility, class or extension method like this one--note the % to calculate the remainder, and that simple integer division discards it:
/// <summary>
/// Returns partition sized which are as close as possible to equal while using the indicated total size available, with any extra distributed to the front
/// </summary>
/// <param name="totalSize">The total number of elements to partition</param>
/// <param name="partitionCount">The number of partitions to size</param>
/// <param name="remainderAtFront">If true, any remainder will be distributed linearly starting at the beginning; if false, backwards from the end</param>
/// <returns>An int[] containing the partition sizes</returns>
public static int[] GetEqualizedPartitionSizes(int totalSize, int partitionCount, bool remainderAtFront = true)
{
if (totalSize < 1)
throw new ArgumentException("Cannot partition a non-positive number (" + totalSize + ")");
else if (partitionCount < 1)
throw new ArgumentException("Invalid partition count (" + partitionCount + ")");
else if (totalSize < partitionCount)
throw new ArgumentException("Cannot partition " + totalSize + " elements into " + partitionCount + " partitions");
int[] partitionSizes = new int[partitionCount];
int basePartitionSize = totalSize / partitionCount;
int remainder = totalSize % partitionCount;
int remainderPartitionSize = basePartitionSize + 1;
int x;
if (remainderAtFront)
{
for (x = 0; x < remainder; x++)
partitionSizes[x] = remainderPartitionSize;
for (x = remainder; x < partitionCount; x++)
partitionSizes[x] = basePartitionSize;
}
else
{
for (x = 0; x < partitionCount - remainder; x++)
partitionSizes[x] = basePartitionSize;
for (x = partitionCount - remainder; x < partitionCount; x++)
partitionSizes[x] = remainderPartitionSize;
}
return partitionSizes;
}

I feel like the simplest way to achieve this is to perform a round robin distribution on each letter. Cycle through each letter of the alphabet and add to it, then repeat. Have a running count that determines what letter you will be putting your item in, then when it hits >26, reset it back to 0!

What I did in one app I had to distribute things in groups was something like this
var numberOfPartitions = GetNumberOfPartitions();
var numberOfElements = GetNumberOfElements();
while (alphabet.Any())
{
var elementsInCurrentPartition = Math.Ceil((double)numberOfPartitions / numberOfElements)
for (int i = 0; i < elementsInCurrentPartition; i++)
{
//fill your partition one element at a time and remove the element from the alphabet
numberOfElements--;
}
numberOfPartitions--;
}
This won't give you the exact result you expected (i.e. ideal result for 10 partitions) but it's pretty close.
p.s. this isn't tested :)

A pseudocode algorithm I have now tested:
Double count = alphabet.Count()
Double exact = count / numberOfParts
Double last = 0.0
Do Until last >= count
Double next = last + exact
ranges.Add alphabet, from:=Round(last), to:=Round(next)
last = next
Loop
ranges.Add can ignore empty ranges :-)
Here is a LinqPad VB.NET implementation of this algorithm.
So a Linq version of this would be something like
Double count = alphabet.Count();
Double exact = count / numberOfParts;
var partitions = Enumerable.Range(0, numberOfParts + 1).Select(n => Round((Double)n * exact));
Here is a LinqPad VB.NET implementation using this Linq query.

(sorry for formatting, mobile)
First, you need something like a batch method:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Batch<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int groupSize)
{
var tempSource = source.Select(n => n);
while (tempSource.Any())
{
yield return tempSource.Take(groupSize);
tempSource = tempSource.Skip(groupSize);
}
}
Then, just call it like this:
var result = alphabet.Batch((int)Math.Ceiling(x / 26.0));

How to make this function process in constant time?

I need to find the n-th term of this infinite series: 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4...
Can you give me a constant time function for this task?
int i = 1;
while(true)
{
if(i = n)
//do things and exit the loop
i++;
}
I think this isn`t going to be a constant time function...

Edit
After reading more comments, it appears I misunderstood the question.
If you want to find the item at nth position an array in constant time, then the answer is trivial: x[n], because array access is constant time. However, if for some reason you were using some container where access time is not constant (e.g. linked list), or did not want to look up value in the array, you'd have to use the arithmetic series formulas to find the answer.
Arithmetic series tells us that the position n of the ith unique item would be
n = i * (i - 1) / 2
So we just need to solve for i. Using quadratic formula, and discarding the nonsensical negative option, we get:
i = Math.Floor( (1 + Math.Sqrt(1 + 8 * n)) / 2)
Original Response
I'm assuming you're looking for the position of the nth unique term, because otherwise the problem is trivial.
Sounds like the first occurrence of the nth unique term should follow arithmetic series. I.e. the position of nth unique term would be:
n * (n - 1) / 2

Given my understanding of the problem, this is more of a math problem than a programming one.
If the problem is:
Given an infinite series that consists of 1 copy of 1, 2 copies of 2, 3 copies of 3... n copies of n, what is the kth value in this series?
Now the first clue when approaching this problem is that there are 1 + 2 + 3... + n values before the first occurance of n + 1. Specifically there are (sum of the first n numbers) values before n+1, or (n)(n-1)/2.
Now set (n)(n-1)/2 = k. Multiply out and rationalize to n^2 - n - 2k = 0. Solve using quadratic equation, you get n = (1 + sqrt(1+8k))/2. The floor of this gives you how many full copies of n there are before, and happily, given zero based indexing, the floor gives you the value at the kth point in the array.
That means your final answer in c# is
return (int) Math.Floor((1 + Math.Sqrt(1 + 8 * k)) / 2);
Given non zero based indexing,
return (int) Math.Floor((1 + Math.Sqrt(-7 + 8 * k)) / 2);

public static long Foo(long index)
{
if (index < 0)
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
long nowNum = 0;
long nowIndex = 0;
do
{
nowIndex += nowNum;
nowNum++;
} while (nowIndex < index);
return nowNum;
}