I need to "Find the minimal positive integer not occurring in a given sequence. "
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 3
A[2] = 6
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 1
A[5] = 2, the function should return 5.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [−2,147,483,648..2,147,483,647].
I wrote the code in codility, but for many cases it did not worked and the performance test gives 0 %. Please help me out, where I am wrong.
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
if(A.Length ==0) return -1;
int value = A[0];
int min = A.Min();
int max = A.Max();
for (int j = min+1; j < max; j++)
{
if (!A.Contains(j))
{
value = j;
if(value > 0)
{
break;
}
}
}
if(value > 0)
{
return value;
}
else return 1;
}
}
The codility gives error with all except the example, positive and negative only values.
Edit: Added detail to answer your actual question more directly.
"Please help me out, where I am wrong."
In terms of correctness: Consider A = {7,2,5,6,3}. The correct output, given the contents of A, is 1, but our algorithm would fail to detect this since A.Min() would return 2 and we would start looping from 3 onward. In this case, we would return 4 instead; since it's the next missing value.
Same goes for something like A = {14,15,13}. The minimal missing positive integer here is again 1 and, since all the values from 13-15 are present, the value variable will retain its initial value of value=A[0] which would be 14.
In terms of performance: Consider what A.Min(), A.Max() and A.Contains() are doing behind the scenes; each one of these is looping through A in its entirety and in the case of Contains, we are calling it repeatedly for every value between the Min() and the lowest positive integer we can find. This will take us far beyond the specified O(N) performance that Codility is looking for.
By contrast, here's the simplest version I can think of that should score 100% on Codility. Notice that we only loop through A once and that we take advantage of a Dictionary which lets us use ContainsKey; a much faster method that does not require looping through the whole collection to find a value.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
// the minimum possible answer is 1
int result = 1;
// let's keep track of what we find
Dictionary<int,bool> found = new Dictionary<int,bool>();
// loop through the given array
for(int i=0;i<A.Length;i++) {
// if we have a positive integer that we haven't found before
if(A[i] > 0 && !found.ContainsKey(A[i])) {
// record the fact that we found it
found.Add(A[i], true);
}
}
// crawl through what we found starting at 1
while(found.ContainsKey(result)) {
// look for the next number
result++;
}
// return the smallest positive number that we couldn't find.
return result;
}
}
The simplest solution that scored perfect score was:
public int solution(int[] A)
{
int flag = 1;
A = A.OrderBy(x => x).ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if (A[i] <= 0)
continue;
else if (A[i] == flag)
{
flag++;
}
}
return flag;
}
Fastest C# solution so far for [-1,000,000...1,000,000].
public int solution(int[] array)
{
HashSet<int> found = new HashSet<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
{
if (array[i] > 0)
{
found.Add(array[i]);
}
}
int result = 1;
while (found.Contains(result))
{
result++;
}
return result;
}
A tiny version of another 100% with C#
using System.Linq;
class Solution
{
public int solution(int[] A)
{
// write your code in C# 6.0 with .NET 4.5 (Mono)
var i = 0;
return A.Where(a => a > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(a => a).Any(a => a != (i = i + 1)) ? i : i + 1;
}
}
A simple solution that scored 100% with C#
int Solution(int[] A)
{
var A2 = Enumerable.Range(1, A.Length + 1);
return A2.Except(A).First();
}
public class Solution {
public int solution( int[] A ) {
return Arrays.stream( A )
.filter( n -> n > 0 )
.sorted()
.reduce( 0, ( a, b ) -> ( ( b - a ) > 1 ) ? a : b ) + 1;
}
}
It seemed easiest to just filter out the negative numbers. Then sort the stream. And then reduce it to come to an answer. It's a bit of a functional approach, but it got a 100/100 test score.
Got an 100% score with this solution:
https://app.codility.com/demo/results/trainingUFKJSB-T8P/
public int MissingInteger(int[] A)
{
A = A.Where(a => a > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(c => c).ToArray();
if (A.Length== 0)
{
return 1;
}
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
//Console.WriteLine(i + "=>" + A[i]);
if (i + 1 != A[i])
{
return i + 1;
}
}
return A.Max() + 1;
}
JavaScript solution using Hash Table with O(n) time complexity.
function solution(A) {
let hashTable = {}
for (let item of A) {
hashTable[item] = true
}
let answer = 1
while(true) {
if(!hashTable[answer]) {
return answer
}
answer++
}
}
The Simplest solution for C# would be:
int value = 1;
int min = A.Min();
int max = A.Max();
if (A.Length == 0) return value = 1;
if (min < 0 && max < 0) return value = 1;
List<int> range = Enumerable.Range(1, max).ToList();
List<int> current = A.ToList();
List<int> valid = range.Except(current).ToList();
if (valid.Count() == 0)
{
max++;
return value = max;
}
else
{
return value = valid.Min();
}
Considering that the array should start from 1 or if it needs to start from the minimum value than the Enumerable.range should start from Min
MissingInteger solution in C
int solution(int A[], int N) {
int i=0,r[N];
memset(r,0,(sizeof(r)));
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
{
if(( A[i] > 0) && (A[i] <= N)) r[A[i]-1]=A[i];
}
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
{
if( r[i] != (i+1)) return (i+1);
}
return (N+1);
}
My solution for it:
public static int solution()
{
var A = new[] { -1000000, 1000000 }; // You can try with different integers
A = A.OrderBy(i => i).ToArray(); // We sort the array first
if (A.Length == 1) // if there is only one item in the array
{
if (A[0]<0 || A[0] > 1)
return 1;
if (A[0] == 1)
return 2;
}
else // if there are more than one item in the array
{
for (var i = 0; i < A.Length - 1; i++)
{
if (A[i] >= 1000000) continue; // if it's bigger than 1M
if (A[i] < 0 || (A[i] + 1) >= (A[i + 1])) continue; //if it's smaller than 0, if the next integer is bigger or equal to next integer in the sequence continue searching.
if (1 < A[0]) return 1;
return A[i] + 1;
}
}
if (1 < A[0] || A[A.Length - 1] + 1 == 0 || A[A.Length - 1] + 1 > 1000000)
return 1;
return A[A.Length-1] +1;
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int size=A.length;
int small,big,temp;
for (int i=0;i<size;i++){
for(int j=0;j<size;j++){
if(A[i]<A[j]){
temp=A[j];
A[j]=A[i];
A[i]=temp;
}
}
}
int z=1;
for(int i=0;i<size;i++){
if(z==A[i]){
z++;
}
//System.out.println(a[i]);
}
return z;
}
enter code here
}
In C# you can solve the problem by making use of built in library functions. How ever the performance is low for very large integers
public int solution(int[] A)
{
var numbers = Enumerable.Range(1, Math.Abs(A.Max())+1).ToArray();
return numbers.Except(A).ToArray()[0];
}
Let me know if you find a better solution performance wise
C# - MissingInteger
Find the smallest missing integer between 1 - 1000.000.
Assumptions of the OP take place
TaskScore/Correctness/Performance: 100%
using System;
using System.Linq;
namespace TestConsole
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var A = new int[] { -122, -5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 }; // 8
var B = new int[] { 1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2 }; // 5
var C = new int[] { -1, -3 }; // 1
var D = new int[] { -3 }; // 1
var E = new int[] { 1 }; // 2
var F = new int[] { 1000000 }; // 1
var x = new int[][] { A, B, C, D, E, F };
x.ToList().ForEach((arr) =>
{
var s = new Solution();
Console.WriteLine(s.solution(arr));
});
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
// ANSWER/SOLUTION
class Solution
{
public int solution(int[] A)
{
// clean up array for negatives and duplicates, do sort
A = A.Where(entry => entry > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(it => it).ToArray();
int lowest = 1, aLength = A.Length, highestIndex = aLength - 1;
for (int i = 0; i < aLength; i++)
{
var currInt = A[i];
if (currInt > lowest) return lowest;
if (i == highestIndex) return ++lowest;
lowest++;
}
return 1;
}
}
}
Got 100% - C# Efficient Solution
public int solution (int [] A){
int len = A.Length;
HashSet<int> realSet = new HashSet<int>();
HashSet<int> perfectSet = new HashSet<int>();
int i = 0;
while ( i < len)
{
realSet.Add(A[i]); //convert array to set to get rid of duplicates, order int's
perfectSet.Add(i + 1); //create perfect set so can find missing int
i++;
}
perfectSet.Add(i + 1);
if (realSet.All(item => item < 0))
return 1;
int notContains =
perfectSet.Except(realSet).Where(item=>item!=0).FirstOrDefault();
return notContains;
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] a) {
int smallestPositive = 1;
while(a.Contains(smallestPositive)) {
smallestPositive++;
}
return smallestPositive;
}
}
Well, this is a new winner now. At least on C# and my laptop. It's 1.5-2 times faster than the previous champion and 3-10 times faster, than most of the other solutions. The feature (or a bug?) of this solution is that it uses only basic data types. Also 100/100 on Codility.
public int Solution(int[] A)
{
bool[] B = new bool[(A.Length + 1)];
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if ((A[i] > 0) && (A[i] <= A.Length))
B[A[i]] = true;
}
for (int i = 1; i < B.Length; i++)
{
if (!B[i])
return i;
}
return A.Length + 1;
}
Simple C++ solution. No additional memory need, time execution order O(N*log(N)):
int solution(vector<int> &A) {
sort (A.begin(), A.end());
int prev = 0; // the biggest integer greater than 0 found until now
for( auto it = std::begin(A); it != std::end(A); it++ ) {
if( *it > prev+1 ) break;// gap found
if( *it > 0 ) prev = *it; // ignore integers smaller than 1
}
return prev+1;
}
int[] A = {1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2};
Set<Integer> integers = new TreeSet<>();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (A[i] > 0) {
integers.add(A[i]);
}
}
Integer[] arr = integers.toArray(new Integer[0]);
final int[] result = {Integer.MAX_VALUE};
final int[] prev = {0};
final int[] curr2 = {1};
integers.stream().forEach(integer -> {
if (prev[0] + curr2[0] == integer) {
prev[0] = integer;
} else {
result[0] = prev[0] + curr2[0];
}
});
if (Integer.MAX_VALUE == result[0]) result[0] = arr[arr.length-1] + 1;
System.out.println(result[0]);
I was surprised but this was a good lesson. LINQ IS SLOW. my answer below got me 11%
public int solution (int [] A){
if (Array.FindAll(A, x => x >= 0).Length == 0) {
return 1;
} else {
var lowestValue = A.Where(x => Array.IndexOf(A, (x+1)) == -1).Min();
return lowestValue + 1;
}
}
I think I kinda look at this a bit differently but gets a 100% evaluation. Also, I used no library:
public static int Solution(int[] A)
{
var arrPos = new int[1_000_001];
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if (A[i] >= 0)
arrPos[A[i]] = 1;
}
for (int i = 1; i < arrPos.Length; i++)
{
if (arrPos[i] == 0)
return i;
}
return 1;
}
public int solution(int[] A) {
// write your code in Java SE 8
Set<Integer> elements = new TreeSet<Integer>();
long lookFor = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
elements.add(A[i]);
}
for (Integer integer : elements) {
if (integer == lookFor)
lookFor += 1;
}
return (int) lookFor;
}
I tried to use recursion in C# instead of sorting, because I thought it would show more coding skill to do it that way, but on the scaling tests it didn't preform well on large performance tests. Suppose it's best to just do the easy way.
class Solution {
public int lowest=1;
public int solution(int[] A) {
// write your code in C# 6.0 with .NET 4.5 (Mono)
if (A.Length < 1)
return 1;
for (int i=0; i < A.Length; i++){
if (A[i]==lowest){
lowest++;
solution(A);
}
}
return lowest;
}
}
Here is my solution in javascript
function solution(A) {
// write your code in JavaScript (Node.js 8.9.4)
let result = 1;
let haveFound = {}
let len = A.length
for (let i=0;i<len;i++) {
haveFound[`${A[i]}`] = true
}
while(haveFound[`${result}`]) {
result++
}
return result
}
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
var sortedList = A.Where(x => x > 0).Distinct().OrderBy(x => x).ToArray();
var output = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < sortedList.Length; i++)
{
if (sortedList[i] != output)
{
return output;
}
output++;
}
return output;
}
}
You should just use a HashSet as its look up time is also constant instead of a dictionary. The code is less and cleaner.
public int solution (int [] A){
int answer = 1;
var set = new HashSet<int>(A);
while (set.Contains(answer)){
answer++;
}
return answer;
}
This snippet should work correctly.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
int result = 1;
List<int> lst = new List<int>();
lst.Add(1);
lst.Add(2);
lst.Add(3);
lst.Add(18);
lst.Add(4);
lst.Add(1000);
lst.Add(-1);
lst.Add(-1000);
lst.Sort();
foreach(int curVal in lst)
{
if(curVal <=0)
result=1;
else if(!lst.Contains(curVal+1))
{
result = curVal + 1 ;
}
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
}
Related
Given an array of n integers and a number, d, perform left rotations on the array. Then print the updated array as a single line of space-separated integers.
Sample Input:
5 4
1 2 3 4 5
The first line contains two space-separated integers denoting the respective values of n (the number of integers) and d (the number of left rotations you must perform).
The second line contains n space-separated integers describing the respective elements of the array's initial state.
Sample Output:
5 1 2 3 4
static void Main(String[] args)
{
string[] arr_temp = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
int n = Int32.Parse(arr_temp[0]);
int d = Int32.Parse(arr_temp[1]);
string[] arr = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
string[] ans = new string[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
ans[(i + n - d) % n] = arr[i];
}
for (int j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
Console.Write(ans[j] + " ");
}
}
How to use less memory to solve this problem?
This will use less memory in most cases as the second array is only as big as the shift.
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] n = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
LeftShiftArray(n, 4);
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(",", n));
}
public static void LeftShiftArray<T>(T[] arr, int shift)
{
shift = shift % arr.Length;
T[] buffer = new T[shift];
Array.Copy(arr, buffer, shift);
Array.Copy(arr, shift, arr, 0, arr.Length - shift);
Array.Copy(buffer, 0, arr, arr.Length - shift, shift);
}
This problem can get a bit tricky but also has a simple solution if one is familiar with Queues and Stacks.
All I have to do is define a Queue (which will contain the given array) and a Stack.
Next, I just have to Push the Dequeued index to the stack and Enqueue the Popped index in the Queue and finally return the Queue.
Sounds confusing? Check the code below:
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d) {
Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>(a);
Stack<int> stack = new Stack<int>();
while(d > 0)
{
stack.Push(queue.Dequeue());
queue.Enqueue(stack.Pop());
d--;
}
return queue.ToArray();
}
Do you really need to physically move anything? If not, you could just shift the index instead.
Actually you asked 2 questions:
How to efficiently rotate an array?
and
How to use less memory to solve this problem?
Usually efficiency and low memory usage are mutually exclusive. So I'm going to answer your second question, still providing the most efficient implementation under that memory constraint.
The following method can be used for both left (passing negative count) or right (passing positive count) rotation. It uses O(1) space (single element) and O(n * min(d, n - d)) array element copy operations (O(min(d, n - d)) array block copy operations). In the worst case scenario it performs O(n / 2) block copy operations.
The algorithm is utilizing the fact that
rotate_left(n, d) == rotate_right(n, n - d)
Here it is:
public static class Algorithms
{
public static void Rotate<T>(this T[] array, int count)
{
if (array == null || array.Length < 2) return;
count %= array.Length;
if (count == 0) return;
int left = count < 0 ? -count : array.Length + count;
int right = count > 0 ? count : array.Length - count;
if (left <= right)
{
for (int i = 0; i < left; i++)
{
var temp = array[0];
Array.Copy(array, 1, array, 0, array.Length - 1);
array[array.Length - 1] = temp;
}
}
else
{
for (int i = 0; i < right; i++)
{
var temp = array[array.Length - 1];
Array.Copy(array, 0, array, 1, array.Length - 1);
array[0] = temp;
}
}
}
}
Sample usage like in your example:
var array = Enumerable.Range(1, 5).ToArray(); // { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }
array.Rotate(-4); // { 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 }
Isn't using IEnumerables better? Since It won't perform all of those maths, won't allocate that many arrays, etc
public static int[] Rotate(int[] elements, int numberOfRotations)
{
IEnumerable<int> newEnd = elements.Take(numberOfRotations);
IEnumerable<int> newBegin = elements.Skip(numberOfRotations);
return newBegin.Union(newEnd).ToArray();
}
IF you don't actually need to return an array, you can even remove the .ToArray() and return an IEnumerable
Usage:
void Main()
{
int[] n = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int d = 4;
int[] rotated = Rotate(n,d);
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", rotated));
}
I have also tried this and below is my approach...
Thank you
public static int[] RotationOfArray(int[] A, int k)
{
if (A == null || A.Length==0)
return null;
int[] result =new int[A.Length];
int arrayLength=A.Length;
int moveBy = k % arrayLength;
for (int i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++)
{
int tmp = i + moveBy;
if (tmp > arrayLength-1)
{
tmp = + (tmp - arrayLength);
}
result[tmp] = A[i];
}
return result;
}
I have tried to used stack and queue in C# to achieve the output as follows:
public int[] rotateArray(int[] A, int rotate)
{
Queue<int> q = new Queue<int>(A);
Stack<int> s;
while (rotate > 0)
{
s = new Stack<int>(q);
int x = s.Pop();
s = new Stack<int>(s);
s.Push(x);
q = new Queue<int>(s);
rotate--;
}
return q.ToArray();
}
I've solve the challange from Hackerrank by following code. Hope it helps.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.IO;
using System.Text;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
class ArrayLeftRotationSolver
{
TextWriter mTextWriter;
public ArrayLeftRotationSolver()
{
mTextWriter = new StreamWriter(#System.Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("OUTPUT_PATH"), true);
}
public void Solve()
{
string[] nd = Console.ReadLine().Split(' ');
int n = Convert.ToInt32(nd[0]);
int d = Convert.ToInt32(nd[1]);
int[] a = Array.ConvertAll(Console.ReadLine().Split(' '), aTemp => Convert.ToInt32(aTemp))
;
int[] result = rotLeft(a, d);
mTextWriter.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", result));
mTextWriter.Flush();
mTextWriter.Close();
}
private int[] rotLeft(int[] arr, int shift)
{
int n = arr.Length;
shift %= n;
int[] vec = new int[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
vec[(n + i - shift) % n] = arr[i];
}
return vec;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ArrayLeftRotationSolver solver = new ArrayLeftRotationSolver();
solver.Solve();
}
}
}
Hope this helps.
public static int[] leftrotation(int[] arr, int d)
{
int[] newarr = new int[arr.Length];
var n = arr.Length;
bool isswapped = false;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
int index = Math.Abs((i) -d);
if(index == 0)
{
isswapped = true;
}
if (!isswapped)
{
int finalindex = (n) - index;
newarr[finalindex] = arr[i];
}
else
{
newarr[index] = arr[i];
}
}
return newarr;
}
Take the Item at position 0 and add it at the end. remove the item at position 0. repeat n times.
List<int> iList = new List<int>();
private void shift(int n)
{
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
iList.Add(iList[0]);
iList.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
An old question, but I thought I'd add another possible solution using just one intermediate array (really, 2 if you include the LINQ Take expression). This code rotates to right rather than left, but may be useful nonetheless.
public static Int32[] ArrayRightRotation(Int32[] A, Int32 k)
{
if (A == null)
{
return A;
}
if (!A.Any())
{
return A;
}
if (k % A.Length == 0)
{
return A;
}
if (A.Length == 1)
{
return A;
}
if (A.Distinct().Count() == 1)
{
return A;
}
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
var intermediateArray = new List<Int32> {A.Last()};
intermediateArray.AddRange(A.Take(A.Length - 1).ToList());
A = intermediateArray.ToArray();
}
return A;
}
O(1) space, O(n) time solution
I think in theory this is as optimal as it gets, since it makes a.Length in-place swaps and 1 temp variable swap per inner loop.
However I suspect O(d) space solutions would be faster in real life due to less code branching (fewer CPU command pipeline resets) and cache locality (mostly sequential access vs in d element steps).
static int[] RotateInplaceLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
var swapCount = 0;
//get canonical/actual d
d = d % a.Length;
if(d < 0) d += a.Length;
if(d == 0) return a;
for (var i = 0; swapCount < a.Length; i++) //we're done after a.Length swaps
{
var dstIdx = i; //we need this becasue of ~this: https://youtu.be/lJ3CD9M3nEQ?t=251
var first = a[i]; //save first element in this group
for (var j = 0; j < a.Length; j++)
{
var srcIdx = (dstIdx + d) % a.Length;
if(srcIdx == i)// circled around
{
a[dstIdx] = first;
swapCount++;
break; //hence we're done with this group
}
a[dstIdx] = a[srcIdx];
dstIdx = srcIdx;
swapCount++;
}
}
return a;
}
If you take a look at constrains you will see that d <= n (number of rotations <= number of elements in array). Because of that this can be solved in 1 line.
static int[] rotLeft(int[] a, int d)
{
return a.Skip(d).Concat(a.Take(d)).ToArray();
}
// using the same same array, and only one temp variable
// shifting everything several times by one
// works, simple, but slow
public static int[] ArrayRotateLeftCyclical(int[] a, int shift)
{
var length = a.Length;
for (int j = 0; j < shift; j++)
{
int t = a[0];
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
if (i == length - 1)
a[i] = t;
else
a[i] = a[i + 1];
}
}
return a;
}
Let's say if I have a array of integer 'Arr'. To rotate the array 'n' you can do as follows:
static int[] leftRotation(int[] Arr, int n)
{
int tempVariable = 0;
Queue<int> TempQueue = new Queue<int>(a);
for(int i=1;i<=d;i++)
{
tempVariable = TempQueue.Dequeue();
TempQueue.Enqueue(t);
}
return TempQueue.ToArray();`
}
Let me know if any comments. Thanks!
This is my attempt. It is easy, but for some reason it timed out on big chunks of data:
int arrayLength = arr.Length;
int tmpCell = 0;
for (int rotation = 1; rotation <= d; rotation++)
{
for (int i = 0; i < arrayLength; i++)
{
if (arr[i] < arrayElementMinValue || arr[i] > arrayElementMaxValue)
{
throw new ArgumentException($"Array element needs to be between {arrayElementMinValue} and {arrayElementMaxValue}");
}
if (i == 0)
{
tmpCell = arr[0];
arr[0] = arr[1];
}
else if (i == arrayLength - 1)
{
arr[arrayLength - 1] = tmpCell;
}
else
{
arr[i] = arr[i + 1];
}
}
}
what about this?
public static void RotateArrayAndPrint(int[] n, int rotate)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= n.Length; i++)
{
var arrIndex = (i + rotate) > n.Length ? n.Length - (i + rotate) : (i + rotate);
arrIndex = arrIndex < 0 ? arrIndex * -1 : arrIndex;
var output = n[arrIndex-1];
Console.Write(output + " ");
}
}
It's very straight forward answer.
Main thing is how you choose the start index.
public static List<int> rotateLeft(int d, List<int> arr) {
int n = arr.Count;
List<int> t = new List<int>();
int h = d;
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
if ((j + d) % n == 0)
{
h = 0;
}
t.Add(arr[h]);
h++;
}
return t;
}
using this code, I have successfully submitted to hacker rank problem,
// fast and beautiful method
// reusing the same array
// using small temp array to store replaced values when unavoidable
// a - array, s - shift
public static int[] ArrayRotateLeftWithSmallTempArray(int[] a, int s)
{
var l = a.Length;
var t = new int[s]; // temp array with size s = shift
for (int i = 0; i < l; i++)
{
// save cells which will be replaced by shift
if (i < s)
t[i] = a[i];
if (i + s < l)
a[i] = a[i + s];
else
a[i] = t[i + s - l];
}
return a;
}
https://github.com/sam-klok/ArraysRotation
public static void Rotate(int[] arr, int steps)
{
for (int i = 0; i < steps; i++)
{
int previousValue = arr[arr.Length - 1];
for (int j = 0; j < arr.Length; j++)
{
int currentValue = arr[j];
arr[j] = previousValue;
previousValue = currentValue;
}
}
}
Here is an in-place Rotate implementation of a trick posted by גלעד ברקן in another question. The trick is:
Example, k = 3:
1234567
First reverse in place each of the two sections delineated by n-k:
4321 765
Now reverse the whole array:
5671234
My implementation, based on the Array.Reverse method:
/// <summary>
/// Rotate left for negative k. Rotate right for positive k.
/// </summary>
public static void Rotate<T>(T[] array, int k)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(array);
k = k % array.Length;
if (k < 0) k += array.Length;
if (k == 0) return;
Debug.Assert(k > 0);
Debug.Assert(k < array.Length);
Array.Reverse(array, 0, array.Length - k);
Array.Reverse(array, array.Length - k, k);
Array.Reverse(array);
}
Live demo.
Output:
Array: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Rotate(5)
Array: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Rotate(-2)
Array: 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Okay, I know that this code is crude, and all around a messy, but I am no programmer, so bear with me. I have this code that lists a bunch of numbers, but I want it to not list any circular copies of the numbers.
For example, if the number 111262 is on my list, I don't want 112621, 126211, 262111, 621112, or 211126 to be listed.
Sorry, that number cannot be on the list.
For a true example, if the number 111252 is on my list, I don't want 112521, 125211, 252111, 521112, or 211125 to be listed.
Any help is appreciated!
namespace Toric_Classes
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int number_of_perms=0;
bool badsubsum1;
bool badsubsum2;
int subsum1 = 0;
int subsum2 = 0;
int sum = 0;
int class_length=6;
int[] toric_class=new int[class_length];
// The nested for loops scroll through every possible number of length class_length, where each digit can have a value of 1,2,..., or class_length-1
// Each number is looked at as an array, and is not stored anywhere, only printed if it satisfies certain conditions
for(int i1=1; i1<class_length; i1++)
{
toric_class[0] = i1;
for (int i2 = 1; i2 < class_length; i2++)
{
toric_class[1] = i2;
for (int i3 = 1; i3 < class_length; i3++)
{
toric_class[2] = i3;
for (int i4 = 1; i4 < class_length; i4++)
{
toric_class[3] = i4;
for (int i5 = 1; i5 < class_length; i5++)
{
toric_class[4] = i5;
for (int i6 = 1; i6 < class_length; i6++)
{
badsubsum1 = false;
badsubsum2 = false;
toric_class[5] = i6;
// Find the value of the sum of the digits of our array.
// We only want numbers that have a total digit sum being a multiple of class_length
for (int k = 0; k < class_length; k++)
{
sum += toric_class[k];
}
// The follwong two nested loops find the value of every contiguous subsum of our number, but not the total subsum.
// We *do not* want any subsum to be a multiple of class_length.
// That is, if our number is, say, 121342, we want to find 1+2, 1+2+1, 1+2+1+3, 1+2+1+3+4, 2+1, 2+1+3, 2+1+3+4, 2+1+3+4+2, 1+3, 1+3+4, 1+3+4+2, 3+4, 3+4+2, and 4+2
// The following checks 1+2, 1+2+1, 1+2+1+3, 1+2+1+3+4, 2+1, 2+1+3, 2+1+3+4, 1+3, 1+3+4, and 3+4
for (int i = 0; i < class_length - 1; i++)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < class_length - 1; j++)
{
for (int k = i; k < j; k++)
{
subsum1 += toric_class[k];
}
if (subsum1 % class_length == 0)
{
badsubsum1 = true;
break;
}
subsum1 = 0;
}
}
// The following checks 2+1, 2+1+3, 2+1+3+4, 2+1+3+4+2, 1+3, 1+3+4, 1+3+4+2, 3+4, 3+4+2, and 4+2
for (int i = 1; i < class_length; i++)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < class_length; j++)
{
for (int k = i; k < j; k++)
{
subsum2 += toric_class[k];
}
if (subsum2 % class_length == 0)
{
badsubsum2 = true;
break;
}
subsum2 = 0;
}
}
// We only want numbers that satisfies the following conditions
if (sum % class_length == 0 && badsubsum1 == false && badsubsum2 == false)
{
foreach (var item in toric_class)
{
Console.Write(item.ToString());
}
Console.Write(Environment.NewLine);
number_of_perms++;
}
sum = 0;
subsum1 = 0;
subsum2 = 0;
}
}
}
}
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Number of Permuatations: "+number_of_perms);
Console.Read();
}
}
}
EDIT
To clarify, I am creating a list of all numbers with length n that satisfy certain conditions. Consider the number d1d2...dn, where each di is a digit of our number. Each di may have value 1,2,...,n. Our number is in the list if it satisfies the following
The sum of all the digits is a multiple of n, that is,
d1+d2+...+dn = 0 mod n
Every contiguous subsum of the digits is not a multiple of n, aside from the total sum, that is, if i !=1 and j != n, then
di+d(i+1)+...+dj != 0 mod n
I should mention again that a "number" does not strictly use the numbers 0-9 in its digits. It may take any value between 1 and n. In my code, I am using the case where n=6.
The code works by creating an array of length class_length (in the code above, I use class_length=6). We first have 6 nested for loops that simply assign values to the array toric_class. The first for assigns toric_class[0], the second for assigns toric_class[1], and so on. In the first go around, we are generating the array 111111, then 111112, up to 111115, then 111121, etc. So essentially, we are looking at all heximal numbers that do not include 0. Once we reach our sixth value in our array, we check the array toric_class and check its values to ensure that it satisfies the above conditions. If it does, we simply print the array in a line, and move on.
Here is my easy and inefficient way that should work with minimal changes to your code. It requires shared string list var strList = new List<string>(); to store the used numbers. Then this part:
foreach (var item in toric_class)
{
Console.Write(item.ToString());
}
Console.Write(Environment.NewLine);
number_of_perms++;
becomes something like this:
string strItem = " " + string.Join(" ", toric_class) + " "; // Example: int[] {1, 12, 123} becomes " 1 12 123 "
if (!strList.Any(str => str.Contains(strItem))) // Example: if " 1 12 123 1 12 123 " contains " 1 12 123 "
{
Console.WriteLine(strItem);
strItem += strItem.Substring(1); // double the string, but keep only one space between them
strList.Add(strItem);
}
number_of_perms++; // not sure if this should be in the if statement
The idea is that for example the string " 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 2 5 2 " contains all circular copies of the numbers {1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 2}. I used string as a lazy way to check if array contains sub-array, but you can use similar approach to store copy of the used numbers in a list of arrays new List<int[]>() and check if any of the arrays in the list is circular copy of the current array, or even better HashSet<int[]>() approach similar to #slavanap's answer.
The first version of my answer was the easiest, but it works only with array of single digit items.
List is almost the same as array (new List<string>() instead of new string[]), but makes it much easier and efficient to add items to it. For example {1,2}.Add(3) becomes {1,2,3}.
str => str.Contains(strItem) is shortcut for a function that accepts parameter str and returns the result of str.Contains(strItem). That "function" is then passed to the .Any LINQ extension, so
strList.Any(str => str.Contains(strItem))
is shortcut for something like this:
foreach(string str in strList)
{
if (str.Contains(strItem))
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
The following method:
private static List<int> GetCircularEquivalents(int value)
{
var circularList = new List<int>();
var valueString = value.ToString();
var length = valueString.Length - 1;
for (var i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
valueString = valueString.Substring(1, length) + valueString.Substring(0, 1);
circularList.Add(int.Parse(valueString));
}
return circularList;
}
will return a list of the circular numbers derived from the input value. Using your example, this method can be called like this:
var circularList = GetCircularEquivalents(111262);
var dirtyList = new List<int> { 1, 112621, 2, 126211, 3, 262111, 4, 621112, 5, 211126, 6 };
var cleanList = dirtyList.Except(circularList).ToList();
which would result in a cleanList made up of the numbers 1 through 6, i.e. the dirtyList with all the circular numbers derived from 111262 removed.
That's where OOP really benefits. Comments inlined.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication3 {
struct MyInt : IEquatable<MyInt> {
private int _value;
public MyInt(int value) {
_value = value;
}
// make it look like int
static public implicit operator MyInt(int value) {
return new MyInt(value);
}
public static explicit operator int(MyInt instance) {
return instance._value;
}
// main difference in these 3 methods
private int GetDigitsNum() {
int temp, res;
for (res = 0, temp = Math.Abs(_value); temp > 0; ++res, temp /= 10);
return res;
}
public bool Equals(MyInt other) {
int digits = other.GetDigitsNum();
if (digits != this.GetDigitsNum())
return false;
int temp = other._value;
// prepare mul used in shifts
int mul = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < digits - 1; ++i)
mul *= 10;
// compare
for (int i = 0; i < digits; ++i) {
if (temp == _value)
return true;
// ROR
int t = temp % 10;
temp = temp / 10 + t * mul;
}
return false;
}
public override int GetHashCode() {
// hash code must be equal for "equal" items,
// that's why use a sum of digits.
int sum = 0;
for (int temp = _value; temp > 0; temp /= 10)
sum += temp % 10;
return sum;
}
// be consistent
public override bool Equals(object obj) {
return (obj is MyInt) ? Equals((MyInt)obj) : false;
}
public override string ToString() {
return _value.ToString();
}
}
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
List<MyInt> list = new List<MyInt> { 112621, 126211, 262111, 621112, 211126 };
// make a set of unique items from list
HashSet<MyInt> set = new HashSet<MyInt>(list);
// print that set
foreach(int item in set)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
}
Output:
112621
I want to ask how I can reorder the digits in an Int32 so they result in the biggest possible number.
Here is an example which visualizes what I am trying to do:
2927466 -> 9766422
12492771 -> 97742211
I want to perform the ordering of the digits without using the System.Linq namespace and without converting the integer into a string value.
This is what I got so far:
public static int ReorderInt32Digits(int v)
{
int n = Math.Abs(v);
int l = ((int)Math.Log10(n > 0 ? n : 1)) + 1;
int[] d = new int[l];
for (int i = 0; i < l; i++)
{
d[(l - i) - 1] = n % 10;
n /= 10;
}
if (v < 0)
d[0] *= -1;
Array.Sort(d);
Array.Reverse(d);
int h = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < d.Length; i++)
{
int index = d.Length - i - 1;
h += ((int)Math.Pow(10, index)) * d[i];
}
return h;
}
This algorithm works flawlessly but I think it is not very efficient.
I would like to know if there is a way to do the same thing more efficiently and how I could improve my algorithm.
You can use this code:
var digit = 2927466;
String.Join("", digit.ToString().ToCharArray().OrderBy(x => x));
Or
var res = String.Join("", digit.ToString().ToCharArray().OrderByDescending(x => x) );
Not that my answer may or may not be more "efficient", but when I read your code you calculated how many digits there are in your number so you can determine how large to make your array, and then you calculated how to turn your array back into a sorted integer.
It would seem to me that you would want to write your own code that did the sorting part without using built in functionality, which is what my sample does. Plus, I've added the ability to sort in ascending or descending order, which is easy to add in your code too.
UPDATED
The original algorithm sorted the digits, now it sorts the digits so that the end result is the largest or smallest depending on the second parameter passed in. However, when dealing with a negative number the second parameter is treated as opposite.
using System;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
int number1 = 2927466;
int number2 = 12492771;
int number3 = -39284925;
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number1, false));
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number2, true));
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number3, false));
}
private static int OrderDigits(int number, bool asc)
{
// Extract each digit into an array
int[] digits = new int[(int)Math.Floor(Math.Log10(Math.Abs(number)) + 1)];
for (int i = 0; i < digits.Length; i++)
{
digits[i] = number % 10;
number /= 10;
}
// Order the digits
for (int i = 0; i < digits.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < digits.Length; j++)
{
if ((!asc && digits[j] > digits[i]) ||
(asc && digits[j] < digits[i]))
{
int temp = digits[i];
digits[i] = digits[j];
digits[j] = temp;
}
}
}
// Turn the array of digits back into an integer
int result = 0;
for (int i = digits.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
result += digits[i] * (int)Math.Pow(10, digits.Length - 1 - i);
}
return result;
}
}
Results:
9766422
11224779
-22345899
See working example here... https://dotnetfiddle.net/RWA4XV
public static int ReorderInt32Digits(int v)
{
var nums = Math.Abs(v).ToString().ToCharArray();
Array.Sort(nums);
bool neg = (v < 0);
if(!neg)
{
Array.Reverse(nums);
}
return int.Parse(new string(nums)) * (neg ? -1 : 1);
}
This code fragment below extracts the digits from variable v. You can modify it to store the digits in an array and sort/reverse.
int v = 2345;
while (v > 0) {
int digit = v % 10;
v = v / 10;
Console.WriteLine(digit);
}
You can use similar logic to reconstruct the number from (sorted) digits: Multiply by 10 and add next digit.
I'm posting this second answer because I think I got the most efficient algorithm of all (thanks for the help Atul) :)
void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(2927466));
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(12492771));
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(-1024));
}
public static int ReorderInt32Digits2(int v)
{
bool neg = (v < 0);
int mult = neg ? -1 : 1;
int result = 0;
var counts = GetDigitCounts(v);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int idx = neg ? 9 - i : i;
for (int j = 0; j < counts[idx]; j++)
{
result += idx * mult;
mult *= 10;
}
}
return result;
}
// From Atul Sikaria's answer
public static int[] GetDigitCounts(int n)
{
int v = Math.Abs(n);
var result = new int[10];
while (v > 0) {
int digit = v % 10;
v = v / 10;
result[digit]++;
}
return result;
}
I have a code here written in C# that finds the smallest multiple by all numbers from 1 to 20. However, I find it very inefficient since the execution took awhile before producing the correct answer. I would like to know what are the different ways that I can do to improve the code. Thank You.
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort[] array = new ushort[ARRAY_SIZE];
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 1; value < uint.MaxValue; value++)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
array[j] = j;
if (value % array[j] == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] nums = Enumerable.Range(1, 20).ToArray();
int lcm = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < nums.Length; i++)
{
lcm = LCM(lcm, nums[i]);
}
Console.WriteLine("LCM = {0}", lcm);
}
public static int LCM(int value1, int value2)
{
int a = Math.Abs(value1);
int b = Math.Abs(value2);
// perform division first to avoid potential overflow
a = checked((a / GCD(a, b)));
return checked((a * b));
}
public static int GCD(int value1, int value2)
{
int gcd = 1; // Greates Common Divisor
// throw exception if any value=0
if (value1 == 0 || value2 == 0)
{
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
}
// assign absolute values to local vars
int a = Math.Abs(value1); // local var1
int b = Math.Abs(value2); // local var2
// if numbers are equal return the first
if (a == b) { return a; }
// if var "b" is GCD return "b"
if (a > b && a % b == 0) { return b; }
// if var "a" is GCD return "a"
if (b > a && b % a == 0) { return a; }
// Euclid algorithm to find GCD (a,b):
// estimated maximum iterations:
// 5* (number of dec digits in smallest number)
while (b != 0)
{
gcd = b;
b = a % b;
a = gcd;
}
return gcd;
}
}
Source : Fast Integer Algorithms: Greatest Common Divisor and Least Common Multiple, .NET solution
Since the result must also be divisible by 19 (which is the greatest prime number) up to 20, you might only cycle through multiples of 19.
This should get to to the result about 19 times faster.
Here's the code that does this:
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort[] array = new ushort[ARRAY_SIZE];
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 19; value < uint.MaxValue; value += 19)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
array[j] = j;
if (value % array[j] == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
return;
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}
On my machine, this finds the result 232792560 in a little over 2 seconds.
Update
Also, please note that the initial program did not stop when reaching a solution; I have added a return statement to make it stop.
You're just looking for the LCM of the numbers from 1 to 20:
Where the GCD can be efficiently calculated with the Euclidean algorithm.
I don't know C#, but this Python solution shouldn't be hard to translate:
def gcd(a, b):
while b != 0:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
def lcm(a, b):
return (a * b) / gcd(a, b)
numbers = range(1, 20 + 1)
print reduce(numbers, lcm)
It's pretty fast too:
>>> %timeit reduce(lcm, range(1, 20000))
1 loops, best of 3: 258 ms per loop
EDIT: v2.0 - Major speed improvement
Building on w0lf's solution. A faster solution:
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
// this is a bit quick and dirty
// (not too difficult to change to generate primeProduct dynamically for any range)
int primeProduct = 2*3*5*7*11*13*17*19;
for (int value = primeProduct; ; value += primeProduct)
{
bool success = true;
for (int j = 11; j < 21; j++)
{
if (value % j != 0)
{
success = false;
break;
}
}
if (success)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
break;
}
}
}
You needn't check 1-10 since if something is divisible by x (e.g. 12), it is divisible by x/n (e.g. 12/2 = 6). The smallest multiple will always be a multiple of a product of all the primes involved.
Didn't benchmark C# solution, but equivalent Java solution runs in about 0.0000006 seconds.
Well I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to accomplish here but your out side for loop will run approximately 4,294,967,295 time (uint.MaxValue). So that will take some time...
If you have a way to keep from going to uint.MaxValue - like breaking your loop when you have accomplished what you need to - that will speed it up.
Also, since you are setting array[j] equal to j and then apparently never using the array again why not just do:
value % j
instead of
value % array[j]
Using also code written by W0lf (sorry but i cannot comment on your post) I would improve it (only a little) deleting the array that I think is useless..
public static void SmallestMultiple()
{
const ushort ARRAY_SIZE = 21;
ushort check = 0;
for (uint value = 1; value < uint.MaxValue; value++)
{
for (ushort j = 1; j < ARRAY_SIZE; j++)
{
if (value % j == 0)
{
check++;
}
}
if (check == 20)
{
Console.WriteLine("The value is {0}", value);
}
else
{
check = 0;
}
}
}
I am trying convert the following Collatz Conjecture algorithm from:
public class CollatzConjexture
{
public static int Calculate(int StartIndex, int MaxSequence)
{
int ChainLength = 0;
int key = 0;
bool ContinuteCalulating = true;
int LongestChain = 0;
Int64 Remainder = 0;
for (int i = StartIndex; i <= MaxSequence; i++)
{
ChainLength = 1;
Remainder = i;
ContinuteCalulating = true;
while (ContinuteCalulating)
{
Remainder = CalculateCollatzConjecture(Remainder);
if (Remainder == 1)
ContinuteCalulating = false;
ChainLength += 1;
}
if (ChainLength > LongestChain)
{
LongestChain = ChainLength;
key = i;
}
}
return key;
}
private static Int64 CalculateCollatzConjecture(Int64 Number)
{
if (Number % 2 == 0)
return Number / 2;
else
return (3 * Number) + 1;
}
}
To instead use the .NET 4.0 Parallel.For :
int ChainLength = 0;
int key = 0;
bool ContinuteCalulating = true;
int LongestChain = 0;
Int64 Remainder = 0;
int[] nums = Enumerable.Range(1, 1500000).ToArray();
long total = 0;
// Use type parameter to make subtotal a long, not an int
Parallel.For<int>(1, nums.Length, () => 1, (j, loop, subtotal) =>
{
Remainder = j;
while (ContinuteCalulating)
{
Remainder = CalculateCollatzConjecture(Remainder);
if (Remainder == 1)
ContinuteCalulating = false;
ChainLength += 1;
}
if (ChainLength > LongestChain)
{
LongestChain = ChainLength;
key = j;
}
return key;
},
(x) => Interlocked.Add(ref key, x)
);
I have a feeling I'm not too far from it, famous last words.
Thanks in advance.
Your problem is that you don't want to use Parallel.For in this instance because you already have an array (nums) to iterate over, which calls for Parallel.ForEach. However, your array is created with Enumerable.Range and you don't actually use it for anything, so the best way to do it is with AsParallel and LINQ (PLINQ):
public static class CollatzConjexture2
{
public static int Calculate(int StartIndex, int MaxSequence)
{
var nums = Enumerable.Range(StartIndex, MaxSequence);
return nums.AsParallel()
// compute length of chain for each number
.Select(n => new { key = n, len = CollatzChainLength(n) })
// find longest chain
.Aggregate((max, cur) => cur.len > max.len ||
// make sure we have lowest key for longest chain
max.len == cur.len && cur.key < max.key ? cur : max)
// get number that produced longest chain
.key;
}
private static int CollatzChainLength(Int64 Number)
{
int chainLength;
for (chainLength = 1; Number != 1; chainLength++)
Number = (Number & 1) == 0 ? Number >> 1 : Number * 3 + 1;
return chainLength;
}
}
This method is about twice as fast on my computer as the serial implementation. Also note that I optimized the main loop so that it does the computation inline rather than calling a function and it uses bitwise math instead of multiplying and dividing. This made it about twice as fast again. Compiling it for x64 instead of x86 also made it more than twice as fast.