I was trying to better my understanding of BST and came across this problem. Maybe it's late and my brain isn't functioning but I cant seem to figure it out.
What is the output of the method call x.someMethod(9)? (x is the BinTreeNode depicted below.)
public int someMethod(int k) {
if (k > size() || k < 1)
return -1;
int x = 0;
if (left != null)
x = left.size();
if (k <= x)
return left.someMethod(k);
else if (k - x == 1)
return data;
else
return right.someMethod(k-x-1);
}
x→10
/ \
5 15
/ \ \
2 7 20
/ / \ / \
1 6 9 18 35
someMethod(k) outputs the value of kth smallest number stored in the BST.
Termination is straight forward.
The code recursively selects left subtree or right depending on number of nodes in left subtree and k.
Answer is 20 in the above case.
Related
Find the nth int with 10 set bits
n is an int in the range 0<= n <= 30 045 014
The 0th int = 1023, the 1st = 1535 and so on
snob() same number of bits,
returns the lowest integer bigger than n with the same number of set bits as n
int snob(int n) {
int a=n&-n, b=a+n;
return b|(n^b)/a>>2;
}
calling snob n times will work
int nth(int n){
int o =1023;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)o=snob(o);
return o;
}
example
https://ideone.com/ikGNo7
Is there some way to find it faster?
I found one pattern but not sure if it's useful.
using factorial you can find the "indexes" where all 10 set bits are consecutive
1023 << x = the (x+10)! / (x! * 10!) - 1 th integer
1023<<1 is the 10th
1023<<2 is the 65th
1023<<3 the 285th
...
Btw I'm not a student and this is not homework.
EDIT:
Found an alternative to snob()
https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#NextBitPermutation
int lnbp(int v){
int t = (v | (v - 1)) + 1;
return t | ((((t & -t) / (v & -v)) >> 1) - 1);
}
I have built an implementation that should satisfy your needs.
/** A lookup table to see how many combinations preceeded this one */
private static int[][] LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS;
/** The number of possible combinations with i bits */
private static int[] NBR_COMBINATIONS;
static {
LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS = new int[Integer.SIZE][Integer.SIZE];
for (int bit = 0; bit < Integer.SIZE; bit++) {
// Ignore less significant bits, compute how many combinations have to be
// visited to set this bit, i.e.
// (bit = 4, pos = 5), before came 0b1XXX and 0b1XXXX, that's C(3, 3) + C(4, 3)
int nbrBefore = 0;
// The nth-bit can be only encountered after pos n
for (int pos = bit; pos < Integer.SIZE; pos++) {
LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[bit][pos] = nbrBefore;
nbrBefore += nChooseK(pos, bit);
}
}
NBR_COMBINATIONS = new int[Integer.SIZE + 1];
for (int bits = 0; bits < NBR_COMBINATIONS.length; bits++) {
NBR_COMBINATIONS[bits] = nChooseK(Integer.SIZE, bits);
assert NBR_COMBINATIONS[bits] > 0; // Important for modulo check. Otherwise we must use unsigned arithmetic
}
}
private static int nChooseK(int n, int k) {
assert k >= 0 && k <= n;
if (k > n / 2) {
k = n - k;
}
long nCk = 1; // (N choose 0)
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++) {
// (N choose K+1) = (N choose K) * (n-k) / (k+1);
nCk *= (n - i);
nCk /= (i + 1);
}
return (int) nCk;
}
public static int nextCombination(int w, int n) {
// TODO: maybe for small n just advance naively
// Get the position of the current pattern w
int nbrBits = 0;
int position = 0;
while (w != 0) {
final int currentBit = Integer.lowestOneBit(w); // w & -w;
final int bitPos = Integer.numberOfTrailingZeros(currentBit);
position += LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[nbrBits][bitPos];
// toggle off bit
w ^= currentBit;
nbrBits++;
}
position += n;
// Wrapping, optional
position %= NBR_COMBINATIONS[nbrBits];
// And reverse lookup
int v = 0;
int m = Integer.SIZE - 1;
while (nbrBits-- > 0) {
final int[] bitPositions = LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[nbrBits];
// Search for largest bitPos such that position >= bitPositions[bitPos]
while (Integer.compareUnsigned(position, bitPositions[m]) < 0)
m--;
position -= bitPositions[m];
v ^= (0b1 << m--);
}
return v;
}
Now for some explanation. LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[bit][pos] is the core of the algorithm that makes it as fast as it is. The table is designed so that a bit pattern with k bits at positions p_0 < p_1 < ... < p_{k - 1} has a position of `\sum_{i = 0}^{k - 1}{ LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS[i][p_i] }.
The intuition is that we try to move back the bits one by one until we reach the pattern where are all bits are at the lowest possible positions. Moving the i-th bit from position to k + 1 to k moves back by C(k-1, i-1) positions, provided that all lower bits are at the right-most position (no moving bits into or through each other) since we skip over all possible combinations with the i-1 bits in k-1 slots.
We can thus "decode" a bit pattern to a position, keeping track of the bits encountered. We then advance by n positions (rolling over in case we enumerated all possible positions for k bits) and encode this position again.
To encode a pattern, we reverse the process. For this, we move bits from their starting position forward, as long as the position is smaller than what we're aiming for. We could, instead of a linear search through LOOKUP_TABLE_COMBINATION_POS, employ a binary search for our target index m but it's hardly needed, the size of an int is not big. Nevertheless, we reuse our variant that a smaller bit must also come at a less significant position so that our algorithm is effectively O(n) where n = Integer.SIZE.
I remain with the following assertions to show the resulting algorithm:
nextCombination(0b1111111111, 1) == 0b10111111111;
nextCombination(0b1111111111, 10) == 0b11111111110;
nextCombination(0x00FF , 4) == 0x01EF;
nextCombination(0x7FFFFFFF , 4) == 0xF7FFFFFF;
nextCombination(0x03FF , 10) == 0x07FE;
// Correct wrapping
nextCombination(0b1 , 32) == 0b1;
nextCombination(0x7FFFFFFF , 32) == 0x7FFFFFFF;
nextCombination(0xFFFFFFEF , 5) == 0x7FFFFFFF;
Let us consider the numbers with k=10 bits set.
The trick is to determine the rank of the most significant one, for a given n.
There is a single number of length k: C(k, k)=1. There are k+1 = C(k+1, k) numbers of length k + 1. ... There are C(m, k) numbers of length m.
For k=10, the limit n are 1 + 10 + 55 + 220 + 715 + 2002 + 5005 + 11440 + ...
For a given n, you easily find the corresponding m. Then the problem is reduced to finding the n - C(m, k)-th number with k - 1 bits set. And so on recursively.
With precomputed tables, this can be very fast. 30045015 takes 30 lookups, so that I guess that the worst case is 29 x 30 / 2 = 435 lookups.
(This is based on linear lookups, to favor small values. By means of dichotomic search, you reduce this to less than 29 x lg(30) = 145 lookups at worse.)
Update:
My previous estimates were pessimistic. Indeed, as we are looking for k bits, there are only 10 determinations of m. In the linear case, at worse 245 lookups, in the dichotomic case, less than 50.
(I don't exclude off-by-one errors in the estimates, but clearly this method is very efficient and requires no snob.)
I'd like to calculate a non-uniformly distributed random number in the range [0, n - 1]. So the min possible value is zero. The maximum possible value is n-1. I'd like the min-value to occur the most often and the max to occur relatively infrequently with an approximately linear curve between (Gaussian is fine too). How can I do this in Objective-C? (possibly using C-based APIs)
A very rough sketch of my current idea is:
// min value w/ p = 0.7
// some intermediate value w/ p = 0.2
// max value w/ p = 0.1
NSUInteger r = arc4random_uniform(10);
if (r <= 6)
result = 0;
else if (r <= 8)
result = (n - 1) / 2;
else
result = n - 1;
I think you're on basically the right track. There are possible precision or range issues but in general if you wanted to randomly pick, say, 3, 2, 1 or 0 and you wanted the probability of picking 3 to be four times as large as the probability of picking 0 then if it were a paper exercise you might right down a grid filled with:
3 3 3 3
2 2 2
1 1
0
Toss something onto it and read the number it lands on.
The number of options there are for your desired linear scale is:
- 1 if number of options, n, = 1
- 1 + 2 if n = 2
- 1 + 2 + 3 if n = 3
- ... etc ...
It's a simple sum of an arithmetic progression. You end up with n(n+1)/2 possible outcomes. E.g. for n = 1 that's 1 * 2 / 2 = 1. For n = 2 that's 2 * 3 /2 = 3. For n = 3 that's 3 * 4 / 2 = 6.
So you would immediately write something like:
NSUInteger random_linear(NSUInteger range)
{
NSUInteger numberOfOptions = (range * (range + 1)) / 2;
NSUInteger uniformRandom = arc4random_uniform(numberOfOptions);
... something ...
}
At that point you just have to decide which bin uniformRandom falls into. The simplest way is with the most obvious loop:
NSUInteger random_linear(NSUInteger range)
{
NSUInteger numberOfOptions = (range * (range + 1)) / 2;
NSUInteger uniformRandom = arc4random_uniform(numberOfOptions);
NSUInteger index = 0;
NSUInteger optionsToDate = 0;
while(1)
{
if(optionsToDate >= uniformRandom) return index;
index++;
optionsToDate += index;
}
}
Given that you can work out optionsToDate without iterating, an immediately obvious faster solution is a binary search.
An even smarter way to look at it is that uniformRandom is the sum of the boxes underneath a line from (0, 0) to (n, n). So it's the area underneath the graph, and the graph is a simple right-angled triangle. So you can work backwards from the area formula.
Specifically, the area underneath the graph from (0, 0) to (n, n) at position x is (x*x)/2. So you're looking for x, where:
(x-1)*(x-1)/2 <= uniformRandom < x*x/2
=> (x-1)*(x-1) <= uniformRandom*2 < x*x
=> x-1 <= sqrt(uniformRandom*2) < x
In that case you want to take x-1 as the result hadn't progressed to the next discrete column of the number grid. So you can get there with a square root operation simple integer truncation.
So, assuming I haven't muddled my exact inequalities along the way, and assuming all precisions fit:
NSUInteger random_linear(NSUInteger range)
{
NSUInteger numberOfOptions = (range * (range + 1)) / 2;
NSUInteger uniformRandom = arc4random_uniform(numberOfOptions);
return (NSUInteger)sqrtf((float)uniformRandom * 2.0f);
}
What if you try squaring the return value of arc4random_uniform() (or multiplying two of them)?
int rand_nonuniform(int max)
{
int r = arc4random_uniform(max) * arc4random_uniform(max + 1);
return r / max;
}
I've quickly written a sample program for testing it and it looks promising:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int arr[10] = { 0 };
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
arr[rand_nonuniform(10)]++;
}
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
printf("%2d. = %2d\n", i, arr[i]);
}
return 0;
}
Result:
0. = 3656
1. = 1925
2. = 1273
3. = 909
4. = 728
5. = 574
6. = 359
7. = 276
8. = 187
9. = 113
So off the top of my head, I can think of a few solutions (focusing on getting random odd numbers for example):
int n;
while (n == 0 || n % 2 == 0) {
n = (arc4random() % 100);
}
eww.. right? Not efficient at all..
int n = arc4random() % 100);
if (n % 2 == 0) n += 1;
But I don't like that it's always going to increase the number if it's not odd.. Maybe that shouldn't matter? Another approach could be to randomize that:
int n = arc4random() % 100);
if (n % 2 == 0) {
if (arc4random() % 2 == 0) {
n += 1;
else {
n -= 1;
}
}
But this feels a little bleah to me.. So I am wondering if there is a better way to do this sort of thing?
Generate a random number and then multiply it by two for even, multiply by two plus 1 for odd.
In general, you want to keep these simple or you run the risk of messing up the distribution of numbers. Take the output of the typical [0...1) random number generator and then use a function to map it to the desired range.
FWIW - It doesn't look like you're skewing the distributions above, except for the third one. Notice that getting 99 is less probable than all the others unless you do your adjustments with a modulus incl. negative numbers. Since..
P(99) = P(first roll = 99) + P(first roll = 100 & second roll = -1) + P(first roll = 98 & second roll = +1)
and P(first roll = 100) = 0
If you want a random set of binary digits followed by a fixed digit, then I'd go with bitwise operations:
odd = arc4random() | 1;
even = arc4random() & ~ 1;
Please see the code I've used to find what I believe are all Amicable Pairs (n, m), n < m, 2 <= n <= 65 million. My code: http://tutoree7.pastebin.com/wKvMAWpT. The found pairs: http://tutoree7.pastebin.com/dpEc0RbZ.
I'm finding that each additional million now takes 24 minutes on my laptop. I'm hoping there are substantial numbers of n that can be filtered out in advance. This comes close, but no cigar: odd n that don't end in '5'. There is only one counterexample pair so far, but that's one too many: (34765731, 36939357). That as a filter would filter out 40% of all n.
I'm hoping for some ideas, not necessarily the Python code for implementing them.
Here is a nice article that summarizes all optimization techniques for finding amicable pairs
with sample C++ code
It finds all amicable numbers up to 10^9 in less than a second.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int sumOfFactors(int );
int main(){
int x, y, start, end;
printf("Enter start of the range:\n");
scanf("%d", &start);
printf("Enter end of the range:\n");
scanf("%d", &end);
for(x = start;x <= end;x++){
for(y=end; y>= start;y--){
if(x == sumOfFactors(y) && y == sumOfFactors(x) && x != y){
printf("The numbers %d and %d are Amicable pair\n", x,y);
}
}
}
return 0;
}
int sumOfFactors(int x){
int sum = 1, i, j;
for(j=2;j <= x/2;j++){
if(x % j == 0)
sum += j;
}
return sum;
}
def findSumOfFactors(n):
sum = 1
for i in range(2, int(n / 2) + 1):
if n % i == 0:
sum += i
return sum
start = int(input())
end = int(input())
for i in range(start, end + 1):
for j in range(end, start + 1, -1):
if i is not j and findSumOfFactors(i) == j and findSumOfFactors(j) == i and j>1:
print(i, j)
I just recently started studying Objective-C (or programming for that matter) and am stuck at a simple program.
I'm trying to create change in quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies but noticed that the solution I came up with would give random value to nickels or pennies.
Ex.
Change for 25 would come out to "The change is 1 quarter, 0 dime, -1881139893 nickels, and 4096 pennis"
Ex2.
Change for 30 would come out to "The change is 1 quarter, 0 dime, 1 nickels, and 4096 pennis"
What can I add/change to fix this behavior?
Also, is there any better solution then having to run 4 different if statements?
Thanks!
Here's my code below:
int orig, q, d, n, p;
NSLog(#"Give money to make change");
scanf("%i", &orig);
if(orig >= 25) {
q = orig/25;
orig -= q*25;
}
if(orig >= 10 && orig < 25) {
d = orig/10;
orig -= d*10;
}
if(orig >= 5 && orig < 10) {
n = orig/5;
orig -= n*5;
}
if(orig >= 1 && orig < 5) {
p = orig;
}
NSLog(#"The change is %i quarter, %i dime, %i nickels, and %i pennis", q, d, n, p);
You don't initialize your variables to start with, so they all start with random values, then in your code, in the case where there's no pennys, you never set p to anything, so it retains its initial random value, which you then see in your output. You can fix it by initializing your variables at the start.
int orig=0, q=0, d=0, n=0, p=0;
You should make use of modulus instead. I don't want to ruin your learning experience so this is an example of how you can use modulus to calculate days, hours, minutes and seconds for time given in seconds only.
int x = 1123123;
int seconds = x % 60;
x /= 60;
int minutes = x % 60;
x /= 60;
int hours = x % 24;
x /= 24;
int days = x;
Now apply it to your problem :)