We Keep Coding

Can't figure out how to correct my array?

Here is my code. I get a red line under StockPrices saying that it can not implicitly convert type decimal to int. Which I understand since StockPrices Array is set as a decimal. I can't figure out how to convert it. (If you find any other issues, please call it out. I'm still learning!)
public int FindNumTimesNegativePriceChange()
{
int difference = 0;
decimal[] negativeChange = new decimal[StockPrices];
for (int i = 0; i < StockPrices.Length - 1; ++i)
{
difference = (int)(StockPrices[i + 1] - StockPrices[i]);
if (difference < 0)
{
negativeChange++;
}
}
return negativeChange;
Currently no result is returned.

If you want a new array with the same length as an existing array, use the Length property for the source array, not the array itself:
new decimal[StockPrices.Length];
But I'm not sure that is what you are looking for at all.
You want a counter, so difference only needs to be an int in this case.
The next issue is that you are explicitly casting decimal values to an int which means you will lose precision. Other data types would throw an exception in this case but decimal allows it and will truncate the values, not round them.
For stock prices, commonly the changes are less than 1, so in this business domain precision is usually important.
If it is your intention to only count whole integer losses then you should include a comment in the code, mainly because explicit casting like this is a common code mistake, comments are a great way to prevent future code reviewers from editing your logic to correct what looks like a mistake.
Depending on your source code management practises, it can be a good idea to include a reference to the documentation / task / change request that is the authority for this logic.
public int FindNumTimesNegativePriceChange()
{
int difference = 0;
int negativeChange = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < StockPrices.Length - 1; ++i)
{
// #11032: Only counting whole dollar changes
difference = (int)(StockPrices[i + 1] - StockPrices[i]);
if (difference < 0)
{
negativeChange++;
}
}
return negativeChange;
}
A final peer review item, this method processes a single input, but currently that input needs to be managed outside of the scope of this method. In this case StockPrices must be declared at the member level, but this logic is easier to isolate and test if you refactor it to pass through the source array:
public int FindNumTimesNegativePriceChange(decimal[] stockPrices)
{
decimal difference = 0;
int negativeChange = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < stockPrices.Length - 1; ++i)
{
difference = stockPrices[i + 1] - stockPrices[i];
if (difference < 0)
{
negativeChange++;
}
}
return negativeChange;
}
This version also computes the difference (delta) as a decimal
Fiddle: https://dotnetfiddle.net/XAyFnm

Changing my iterative selection sort into a recursive sort using C#

I've tried changing my sort into a recursive function where the method calls itself. At least that's my understanding of recursion to forego for loops and the method calls itself to repeat the necessary iterations.
Below is my iterative verion:
for (int i = 0; i < Integers.Count; i++) //loops through all the numbers
{
min = i; //setting the current index number to be the minimum
for (int index = i + 1; index < Integers.Count; index++) //finds and checks pos of min value
{ //and switches it with last element using the swap method
if ((int) Integers[index] > (int) Integers[min]) {
min = index;
}
comparisons++;
}
if (i != min) //if statement for if swop is done
{
Swap(i, min, Integers, ref swops); //swap method called
}
//Swap method called
}
I've tried making it recursive. I read online that it was OK to still have for loops in a recursive funtion which I guess is not true. I just havent been able to develop a working sort. Am I going to need to split the method into 2 where one method traverses a list and the other does the sort?
Here's my selection sort recursive method attempt below:
static void DoSelectionSortRecursive(ArrayList Integers, int i, int swops, int comparisons) {
int min;
min = i;
for (int index = i + 1; index < Integers.Count; index++) //read online that the use of arraylists are deprecated, and i shoudlve rather used List<int> in order to remedy the code. is it necassary
{
if ((int) Integers[index] > (int) Integers[min]) {
min = index;
}
comparisons++;
}
if (i != min) {
Swap(i, min, Integers, ref swops);
}
DoSelectionSortRecursive(Integers, (i + 1), comparisons, swops); //DoSelectionSortRecursive method called
}
This is my imporved attempt including performance measures and everything. The original list of integers in the unsorted lists. 84,24,13,10,37.
and im getting 84,24,13,37,10. clearly not in a sorted descending order.
below is the improved code
static void DoSelectionSortRecursive(ArrayList Integers)
{
Stopwatch timer = new Stopwatch();
timer.Start();
int shifts = 0;
int swops = 0;
int comparisons = 0;
Sort(Integers, 1,ref swops,ref comparisons);
timer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Selection Sort Recursive: ");
Console.WriteLine(timer.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Console.WriteLine(swops);
Console.WriteLine(comparisons);
Console.WriteLine(shifts); //not needed in this sort
Console.WriteLine("-------------------------------------");
foreach (int i in Integers)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
static void Sort(ArrayList Integers, int i, ref int swops, ref int comparisons)
{
int min = i;
int index = i + 1;
if (index < Integers.Count) //read online that the use of arraylists are deprecated, and i shoudlve rather used List<int> in order to remedy the code. is it necassary
{
if ((int)Integers[index] > (int)Integers[min])
{
min = index;
}
comparisons++;
index++;
}
if (i != min)
{
Swap(i, min, Integers, ref swops);
}
if (i < Integers.Count - 1)
{
Sort(Integers, (i + 1), ref comparisons, ref swops); //DoSelectionSortRecursive method called
}
}
static void Swap(int x, int y, ArrayList Integers, ref int swap) //swap method, swaps the position of 2 elements
{
swap++;
int temporary = (int)Integers[x]; //essentially will swap the min with the current position
Integers[x] = Integers[y];
Integers[y] = temporary;
}

There are no "rules" about recursion that say you cannot use loops in the recursive method body. The only rule in recursion is that the function has to call itself, which your second code snippet does, so DoSelectionSortRecursive is legitimately recursive.
For example, merge sort uses recursion for splitting the array and loops for merging the sorted subarrays. It'd be wrong to call it anything but a recursive function, and it'd be somewhat silly to implement the merging stage (an implementation detail of merge sort) recursively -- it'd be slower and harder to reason about, so loops are the natural choice.
On the other hand, the splitting part of merge sort makes sense to write recursively because it chops the problem space down by a logarithmic factor and has multiple branches. The repeated halving means it won't need to make more than a few or a dozen recursive calls on a typical array. These calls don't incur much overhead and fit well within the call stack.
On the other hand, the call stack can easily blow for linear recursive algorithms in languages without tail-call optimization like C# where each index in the linear structure requires a whole stack frame.
Rules prohibiting loops are concoted by educators who are trying to teach recursion by forcing you to use a specific approach in your solution. It's up to your instructor to determine whether one or both loops need to be converted to recursion for it to "count" as far as the course is concerned. (apologies if my assumptions about your educational arrangement are incorrect)
All that is to say that this requirement to write a nested-loop sort recursively is basically a misapplication of recursion for pedagogical purposes. In the "real world", you'd just write it iteratively and be done with it, as Google does in the V8 JavaScript engine, which uses insertion sort on small arrays. I suspect there are many other cases, but this is the one I'm most readily familiar with.
The point with using simple, nested loop sorts in performance-sensitive production code is that they're not recursive. These sorts' advantage is that they avoid allocating stack frames and incurring function call overhead to sort small arrays of a dozen numbers where the quadratic time complexity isn't a significant factor. When the array is mostly sorted, insertion sort in particular doesn't have to do much work and is mostly a linear walk over the array (sometimes a drawback in certain real-time applications that need predictable performance, in which case selection sort might be preferable -- see Wikipedia).
Regarding ArrayLists, the docs say: "We don't recommend that you use the ArrayList class for new development. Instead, we recommend that you use the generic List<T> class." So you can basically forget about ArrayList unless you're doing legacy code (Note: Java does use ArrayLists which are more akin to the C# List. std::list isn't an array in C++, so it can be confusing to keep all of this straight).
It's commendable that you've written your sort iteratively first, then translated to recursion on the outer loop only. It's good to start with what you know and get something working, then gradually transform it to meet the new requirements.
Zooming out a bit, we can isolate the role this inner loop plays when we pull it out as a function, then write and test it independent of the selection sort we hope to use it in. After the subroutine works on its own, then selection sort can use it as a black box and the overall design is verifiable and modular.
More specifically, the role of this inner loop is to find the minimum value beginning at an index: int IndexOfMin(List<int> lst, int i = 0). The contract is that it'll throw an ArgumentOutOfRangeException error if the precondition 0 <= i < lst.Count is violated.
I skipped the metrics variables for simplicity but added a random test harness that gives a pretty reasonable validation against the built-in sort.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
class Sorter
{
private static void Swap(List<int> lst, int i, int j)
{
int temp = lst[i];
lst[i] = lst[j];
lst[j] = temp;
}
private static int IndexOfMin(List<int> lst, int i = 0)
{
if (i < 0 || i >= lst.Count)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
else if (i == lst.Count - 1)
{
return i;
}
int bestIndex = IndexOfMin(lst, i + 1);
return lst[bestIndex] < lst[i] ? bestIndex : i;
}
public static void SelectionSort(List<int> lst, int i = 0)
{
if (i < lst.Count)
{
Swap(lst, i, IndexOfMin(lst, i));
SelectionSort(lst, i + 1);
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var rand = new Random();
int tests = 1000;
int lstSize = 100;
int randMax = 1000;
for (int i = 0; i < tests; i++)
{
var lst = new List<int>();
for (int j = 0; j < lstSize; j++)
{
lst.Add(rand.Next(randMax));
}
var actual = new List<int>(lst);
SelectionSort(actual);
lst.Sort();
if (!lst.SequenceEqual(actual))
{
Console.WriteLine("FAIL:");
Console.WriteLine($"Expected => {String.Join(",", lst)}");
Console.WriteLine($"Actual => {String.Join(",", actual)}\n");
}
}
}
}
Here's a more generalized solution that uses generics and CompareTo so that you can sort any list of objects that implement the IComparable interface. This functionality is more akin to the built-in sort.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
class Sorter
{
public static void Swap<T>(List<T> lst, int i, int j)
{
T temp = lst[i];
lst[i] = lst[j];
lst[j] = temp;
}
public static int IndexOfMin<T>(List<T> lst, int i = 0)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
if (i < 0 || i >= lst.Count)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
else if (i == lst.Count - 1)
{
return i;
}
int bestIndex = IndexOfMin(lst, i + 1);
return lst[bestIndex].CompareTo(lst[i]) < 0 ? bestIndex : i;
}
public static void SelectionSort<T>(List<T> lst, int i = 0)
where T : IComparable<T>
{
if (i < lst.Count)
{
Swap(lst, i, IndexOfMin(lst, i));
SelectionSort(lst, i + 1);
}
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
// same as above
}
}
Since you asked how to smush both of the recursive functions into one, it's possible by keeping track of both i and j indices in the parameter list and adding a branch to figure out whether to deal with the inner or outer loop on a frame. For example:
public static void SelectionSort<T>(
List<T> lst,
int i = 0,
int j = 0,
int minJ = 0
) where T : IComparable<T>
{
if (i >= lst.Count)
{
return;
}
else if (j < lst.Count)
{
minJ = lst[minJ].CompareTo(lst[j]) < 0 ? minJ : j;
SelectionSort(lst, i, j + 1, minJ);
}
else
{
Swap(lst, i, minJ);
SelectionSort(lst, i + 1, i + 1, i + 1);
}
}
All of the code shown in this post is not suitable for production -- the point is to illustrate what not to do.

Is there a way to compare every array value with eachother effectively?

So Ive been trying to compare given double values in an array with eachother to return the smallest one, but the way I do it does not seem to work consistently and very efficient. Im feeling lost.
public static double FindSmallestNum(double[] arr)
{
double max = 0;
for (int x=0;x<arr.Length-1;x++){
if ( arr[x]>= arr[x+1]){
if (max >= arr[x+1]){
max = arr[x+1];
}
}
else if (max >=arr[x]){
max = arr[x];
}
else {
max = arr[x];
}
}
return max;
}

If you are willing to use System.Linq (which it appears that you are, given the accepted answer), then you may as well just go straight to the Min() method:
public static double FindSmallestNum(double[] arr)
{
return arr.Min();
}
Although, given that it's a simple one-line method call, it's not clear that a helper method is really all that helpful in this case.
Problems with your code
In your sample code, it appears that the problem is that you set max = 0; (why do you call it max instead of min?) and then start doing comparisons to see if max is larger than items in the array. This can be problematic, since all positive numbers will be larger than max, so they will never be considered.
To fix this, first let's rename that variable to min, so we remember what we're doing, and then set it to the first value in the array. This way we know we're dealing with a number in our array, and all comparisons will be valid.
Next, we don't need to compare each item with the next item - that comparison is not relevant to finding the smallest of all the items. We only need to compare each item to the current value of min (and do the necessary reassignment if we find a lower number).
This would reduce the code to something like:
public static double FindSmallestNum(double[] input)
{
if (input == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(input));
if (input.Length == 0)
throw new InvalidOperationException("array contains no elements");
// Start with the first number
double smallest = input[0];
// Now compare the rest of the items with 'smallest'
for (int index = 1; index < input.Length; index++)
{
if (input[index] < smallest) smallest = input[index];
}
return smallest;
}

Your code can further be optimized. you can see the below logic. Complexity of this code is O(N)
static void GetSmallest(int[] arr)
{
int first, arr_size = arr.Length;
first = int.MaxValue;
for (int i = 0; i < arr_size; i++)
{
if (arr[i] < first)
{
first = arr[i];
}
}
}
You can use the below code also.
int[] arr = new int[5] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int min = arr.Min();

Just use Linq:
var min = arr.OrderBy(v => v).FirstOrDefault();
min will be the smallest number in your array.

Sorting array using BubbleSort fails

Following algorithm works pretty fine in C#
public int[] Sortieren(int[] array, int decide)
{
bool sorted;
int temp;
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
do
{
sorted= true;
for (int j = 0; j < array.Length - 1; j++)
{
if (decide == 1)
{
if (array[j] < array[j + 1])
{
temp = array[j];
array[j] = array[j + 1];
array[j + 1] = temp;
sorted= false;
}
}else if (decide == 0)
{
if (array[j] > array[j + 1])
{
temp = array[j];
array[j] = array[j + 1];
array[j + 1] = temp;
sorted= false;
}
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Incorrect sorting parameter!");
break;
}
}
} while (!sorted);
}
return array;
}
Same thing in C fails. I only get the first two numbers of the array being sorted. The rest of the numbers are same. So, this code also seems to change the array instead of only sorting it. Any ideas, where are the bugs?
#include <stdio.h>
#include<stdbool.h>
#define MAX 10
void main(void)
{
int random_numbers[MAX],temp,Array_length;
bool sorted;
srand(time(NULL));
for(int i=0;i<=MAX;i++){
random_numbers[i]=rand()%1000;
}
Array_length=sizeof(random_numbers) / sizeof(int);
printf("List of (unsorted) numbers:\n");
for(int i=0;i<MAX;i++){
if(i==MAX-1)
printf("%i",random_numbers[i]);
else
printf("%i,",random_numbers[i]);
}
//Searching algorithm
for(int i=0;i<Array_length;i++){
do{
sorted=true;
for(int j=0;j<Array_length-1;j++){
if(random_numbers[j]>random_numbers[j+1]){
temp=random_numbers[j];
random_numbers[j]==random_numbers[j+1];
random_numbers[j+1]=temp;
sorted=false;
}
}
}while(!sorted);
}
printf("\n");
for(int i=0;i<Array_length;i++){
if(i==Array_length-1)
printf("%i",random_numbers[i]);
else
printf("%i,",random_numbers[i]);
}
}

You have an error in your swap algorithm:
if (zufallszahlen[j] > zufallszahlen[j+1]) {
temp = zufallszahlen[j];
zufallszahlen[j] == zufallszahlen[j+1]; // here
zufallszahlen[j+1] = temp;
sortiert = false;
}
In the line after you assign to temp, your double equal sign results in a check for equality rather than an assignment. This is still legal code (== is an operator and and expressions that use them evaluate to something), and the expression will evaluate to either 1 or 0 depending on the truth value of the statement. Note that this is legal even though you're not using the expression, where normally a boolean value would presumably be used for control flow.
Note that this is true for other operators as well. For example, the = operator assigns the value on the right to the variable on the left, so hypothetically a mistake like if (x = 0) will mean this branch will never be called, since the x = 0 will evaluate to false every time, when you may have meant to branch when x == 0.
Also, why are you using a boolean value to check if the array is sorted? Bubble sort is a simple algorithm, so it should be trivial to implement, and by the definition of an algorithm, it's guaranteed to both finish and be correct. If you were trying to optimize for performance purposes, for example choosing between merge sort and insertion sort based on whether the data was already sorted then I would understand, but you're checking whether the data is sorted as you're sorting it, which doesn't really make sense, since the algorithm will tell you when it's sorted because it will finish. Adding the boolean checking only adds overhead and nets you nothing.
Also, note how in your C# implementation, you repeated the sort process. This is a good sign your design is wrong. You take in an integer as well as the actual int[] array in your C# code, and you use that integer to branch. Then, from what I can gather, you sort using either < or >, depending on the value passed in. I'm pretty confused by this, since either would work. You gain nothing from adding this functionality, so I'm confused as to why you added it in.
Also, why do you repeat the printf statements? Even doing if/else if I might understand. But you're doing if/else. This is logically equivalent to P V ~P and will always evaluate to true, so you might as well get rid of the if and the else and just have one printf statement.
Below is implementation of your Bubble Sort program, and I want to point out a few things. First, it's generally frowned upon to declare main as void (What should main() return in C and C++?).
I quickly want to also point out that even though we are declaring the maximum length of the array as a macro, all of the array functions I defined explicitly take a size_t size argument for referrential transparency.
Last but not least, I would recommend not declaring all your variables at the start of your program/functions. This is a more contested topic among developers, especially because it used to be required, since compilers needed to know exactly what variables needed to be allocated. As compilers got better and better, they could accept variable declarations within code (and could even optimize some variables away altogether), so some developers recommend declaring your variables when you need them, so that their declaration makes sense (i.e... you know you need them), and also to reduce code noise.
That being said, some developers do prefer declaring all their variables at the beginning of the program/function. You'll especially see this:
int i, j, k;
or some variation of that, because the developer pre-declared all of their loop counters. Again, I think it's just code noise, and when you work with C++ some of the language syntax itself is code noise in my opinion, but just be aware of this.
So for example, rather than declaring everything like this:
int zufallszahlen[MAX], temp, Array_length;
You would declare the variables like this:
int zufallszahlen[MAX];
int Array_length = sizeof (zufallszahlen) / sizeof (int);
The temp variable is then put off for as long as possible so that it's obvious when and were it's useful. In my implementation, you'll notice I declared it in the swap function.
For pedagogical purposes I would also like to add that you don't have to use a swap variable when sorting integers because you can do the following:
a = a + b;
b = a - b;
a = a - b;
I will say, however, that I believe the temporary swap variable makes the swap much more instantly familiar, so I would say leave it in, but this is my own personal preference.
I do recommend using size_t for Array_length, however, because that's the type that the sizeof operator returns. It makes sense, too, because the size of an array will not be negative.
Here are the include statements and functions. Remember that I do not include <stdbool.h> because the bool checking you were doing was doing nothing for the algorithm.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#define MAX 10
void PrintArray(int arr[], size_t n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
printf("%d ", arr[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
void PopulateArray(int arr[], size_t n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
arr[i] = rand() % 1000 + 1;
}
}
void BubbleSortArray(int arr[], size_t n) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < n - 1; ++j) {
if (arr[j] > arr[j+1]) {
int temp = arr[j+1];
arr[j+1] = arr[j];
arr[j] = temp;
}
}
}
}
To implement the bubble sort algorithm, the only thing you have to do now is initialize the random number generator like you did, create your array and populate it, and finally sort the array.
int main()
{
srand(time(NULL));
int arr[MAX];
size_t array_length = sizeof (arr) / sizeof (int);
PopulateArray(arr, array_length);
PrintArray(arr, array_length);
BubbleSortArray(arr, array_length);
PrintArray(arr, array_length);
}
I hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions.

Minimum value in 2 arrays

I have 2 arrays, first array holds all the values for resource_wastage and 2nd array holds all the value for power_consumed. To implement a fuzzy logic I need to check of both resource wastage and power consumption are low at the same time then my output would be the array index, if one of them is low and second is not then I should move on to the next value in the array.
Eg:
for(int i=0, i<n; i++)
if(res_was[0] is low in all res_was[i=0 to n] && [pow_con[0] is low in all pow_con[i=0 to n])
{
print i;
break;
}
else continue with next value in arrays;
Please help how to I implement this, I mean check if the values in both arrays are low simultaneously.

You can use something like this. Arrays have special method for Min search.
var resMin = res_was.Min();
var powMin = pow_con.Min();
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
if(res_was[i] == resMin && pow_con[i] == powMin)
{
Console.writeLine(i);
break;
}
}
May be you will need use more complex Min method. You can read about all of them in MSDN.

Also try this;
find the minvalue and minvalue position then compare if equal proceed your process...
int _ires_wasminValue = Enumerable.Range(0, res_was.Length).Min(i => res_was[i]);
int _imin_res_was_pos = Array.IndexOf(res_was, _ires_wasminValue);
int _ipow_cons_minValue = Enumerable.Range(0, res_was.Length).Min(i => res_was[i]);
int _imin_pow_cons_pos = Array.IndexOf(res_was, _ires_wasminValue);
if (_imin_pow_cons_pos==_imin_res_was_pos)
{
Console.writeLine(_imin_pow_cons_pos);
}