Good afternoon, I have a problem making recurrence table with randomly increasing sequence. I want it to return an increasing sequence with a random difference between two elements. Right now I've got:
RecurrenceTable[{a[k+1]==a[k] + RandomInteger[{0,4}], a[1]==-12},a,{k,1,5}]
But it returns me an arithmetic progression with chosen d for all k (e.g. {-12,-8,-4,0,4,8,12,16,20,24}).
Also, I will be really grateful for explaining why if I replace every k in my code with n I get:
RecurrenceTable[{4+a[n] == a[n],a[1] == -12},a,{n,1,10}]
Thank You very much for Your time!
I don't believe that RecurrenceTable is what you are looking for.
Try this instead
FoldList[Plus,-12,RandomInteger[{0,4},5]]
which returns, this time,
{-12,-8,-7,-3,1,2}
and returns, this time,
{-12,-9,-5,-3,0,1}
Related
I have the following code. I think the solution has O(n^2) because it is a nested loop according to the attached image. can anyone confirm?
function sortSmallestToLargest(data):
sorted_data={}
while data is not empty:
smallest_data=data[0]
foreach i in data:
if (i < smallest_data):
smallest_data= i
sorted_data.add(smallest_data)
data.remove(smallest_data)
return sorted_data
reference image
Ok, now I see what you are doing! Yes, you are right, it's O(n²), because you're always looping through every element of data. Your data will decrease by one every loop, but because with O complexity we don't care about constants, we can say it's O(n) for each loop. Multiplying (because one is inside the other) we have O(n²).
I am new to LabVIEW and I am trying to read a code written in LabVIEW. The block diagram is this:
This is the program to input x and y functions into the voltage input. It is meant to give an input voltage in different forms (sine, heartshape , etc.) into the fast-steering mirror or galvano mirror x and y axises.
x and y function controls are for inputting a formula for a function, and then we use "evaluation single value" function to input into a daq assistant.
I understand that { 2*(|-Mpi|)/N }*i + -Mpi*pi goes into the x value. However, I dont understand why we use this kind of formula. Why we need to assign a negative value and then do the absolute value of -M*pi. Also, I don`t understand why we need to divide to N and then multiply by i. And finally, why need to add -Mpi again? If you provide any hints about this I would really appreciate it.
This is just a complicated way to write the code/formula. Given what the code looks like (unnecessary wire bends, duplicate loop-input-tunnels, hidden wires, unnecessary coercion dots, failure to use appropriate built-in 'negate' function) not much care has been given in writing it. So while it probably yields the correct results you should not expect it to do so in the most readable way.
To answer you specific questions:
Why we need to assign a negative value and then do the absolute value
We don't. We can just move the negation immediately before the last addition or change that to a subtraction:
{ 2*(|Mpi|)/N }*i - Mpi*pi
And as #yair pointed out: We are not assigning a value here, we are basically flipping the sign of whatever value the user entered.
Why we need to divide to N and then multiply by i
This gives you a fraction between 0 and 1, no matter how many steps you do in your for-loop. Think of N as a sampling rate. I.e. your mirrors will always do the same movement, but a larger N just produces more steps in between.
Why need to add -Mpi again
I would strongly assume this is some kind of quick-and-dirty workaround for a bug that has not been fixed properly. Looking at the code it seems this +Mpi*pi has been added later on in the development process. And while I don't know what the expected values are I would believe that multiplying only one of the summands by Pi is probably wrong.
I was reading book about competitive programming and was encountered to problem where we have to count all possible paths in the n*n matrix.
Now the conditions are :
`
1. All cells must be visited for once (cells must not be unvisited or visited more than once)
2. Path should start from (1,1) and end at (n,n)
3. Possible moves are right, left, up, down from current cell
4. You cannot go out of the grid
Now this my code for the problem :
typedef long long ll;
ll path_count(ll n,vector<vector<bool>>& done,ll r,ll c){
ll count=0;
done[r][c] = true;
if(r==(n-1) && c==(n-1)){
for(ll i=0;i<n;i++){
for(ll j=0;j<n;j++) if(!done[i][j]) {
done[r][c]=false;
return 0;
}
}
count++;
}
else {
if((r+1)<n && !done[r+1][c]) count+=path_count(n,done,r+1,c);
if((r-1)>=0 && !done[r-1][c]) count+=path_count(n,done,r-1,c);
if((c+1)<n && !done[r][c+1]) count+=path_count(n,done,r,c+1);
if((c-1)>=0 && !done[r][c-1]) count+=path_count(n,done,r,c-1);
}
done[r][c] = false;
return count;
}
Here if we define recurrence relation then it can be like: T(n) = 4T(n-1)+n2
Is this recurrence relation true? I don't think so because if we use masters theorem then it would give us result as O(4n*n2) and I don't think it can be of this order.
The reason, why I am telling, is this because when I use it for 7*7 matrix it takes around 110.09 seconds and I don't think for n=7 O(4n*n2) should take that much time.
If we calculate it for n=7 the approx instructions can be 47*77 = 802816 ~ 106. For such amount of instruction it should not take that much time. So here I conclude that my recurrene relation is false.
This code generates output as 111712 for 7 and it is same as the book's output. So code is right.
So what is the correct time complexity??
No, the complexity is not O(4^n * n^2).
Consider the 4^n in your notation. This means, going to a depth of at most n - or 7 in your case, and having 4 choices at each level. But this is not the case. In the 8th, level you still have multiple choices where to go next. In fact, you are branching until you find the path, which is of depth n^2.
So, a non tight bound will give us O(4^(n^2) * n^2). This bound however is far from being tight, as it assumes you have 4 valid choices from each of your recursive calls. This is not the case.
I am not sure how much tighter it can be, but a first attempt will drop it to O(3^(n^2) * n^2), since you cannot go from the node you came from. This bound is still far from optimal.
Hey guys, I know that there are a million questions on random numbers, but exactly because of that I searched a lot but I couldn't find something similar to mine - without implying it's not there. In any case, pardon me if I am repeating a question, just point me to it if that's the case.
So, I wanna do something simple in the most efficient way.
I want to generate randomly all N integers in the range [0, N], one by one, such that there are no repetitions.
I know, I can do this by inserting everything in a list, shuffle it, get the head and then remove head from the list. But then I will have shuffled my list of length N, N-1 times.
Any better / faster idea?
You can just do one shuffle, and then step through the list.
I'd recommend a Fisher-Yates shuffle.
This question has been asked a few times, and in each case the correct answer given is to shuffle an array (either the original, or an array of indices), however this isn't a satisfactory answer in cases where the number of possible indices is prohibitively large (either it's huge, or memory is tight, or you simply crave maximum efficiency for whatever reason).
As such I want to add an alternative for the sake of completeness. Now, this isn't truly random, so if that's what you need then do not use this, however, if your goal is simply "good enough" with minimal memory requirements then the following pseudo-code may be of interest:
function init:
start = random [0, length) // Pick a fully random starting index
stride = random [1, length - 1) // Pick a random step size
next_index = start
function advance_next_index:
next_index = (next_index + stride) % length
if next_index is equal to start then
start = (start + 1) % length
next_index = start
Here's an example of how to implement a re-usable function for grabbing pseudo-random values:
counter = length
function pseudo_random:
counter = counter + 1
if counter is equal to length then
init()
counter = 0
advance_next_index()
return next_index
Quite simply pseudo_random will call init once every length iterations, thus re-shuffling the "random" pattern of results produced by advance_next_index, and ensure that for every length values there is not a single duplicate.
To reiterate; this isn't a particularly random algorithm, so it must not be used in situations where true randomness is required. However, the results are random enough for some basic, non-critical, tasks, and it has a tiny memory footprint. For example, if you just want to randomise some behaviour in a game to avoid something becoming repetitive, or the data-set is large and never exposed to the user (in which case it is effectively random to them) it would take a long time to piece together the order and somehow exploit it.
If anyone knows of any better algorithms with similar properties then please share!
You are given an array of elements. Some/all of them are duplicates. Find them in 0(n) time and 0(1) space. Property of inputs - Number are in the range of 1..n where n is the limit of the array.
If the O(1) storage is a limitation on additional memory, and not an indication that you can't modify the input array, then you can do it by sorting while iterating over the elements: move each misplaced element to its "correct" place - if it's already occupied by the correct number then print it as a duplicate, otherwise take the "incorrect" existing content and place it correctly before continuing the iteration. This may in turn require correcting other elements to make space, but there's a stack of at most 1 and the total number of correction steps is limited to N, added to the N-step iteration you get 2N which is still O(N).
Since both the number of elements in the array and the range of the array are variable based on n, I don't believe you can do this. I may be wrong, personally I doubt it, but I've been wrong before :-)
EDIT: And it looks like I may be wrong again :-) See Tony's answer, I believe he may have nailed it. I'll delete this answer once enough people agree with me, or it gets downvoted too much :-)
If the range was fixed (say, 1..m), you could do it thus:
dim quant[1..m]
for i in 1..m:
quant[m] = 0
for i in 1..size(array):
quant[array[i]] = quant[array[i]] + 1
for i in 1..m:
if quant[i] > 1:
print "Duplicate value: " + i
This works since you can often trade off space against time in most algorithms. But, because the range also depends on the input value, the normal trade-off between space and time is not plausible.