After updating Xcode to 7.3 I am having some warnings saying :
'++' is deprecated: it will be removed in Swift 3
The code where the warning appear is a function that merges two arrays:
arr4.append(arr1[i++])
I have tried changing it with :
arr4.append(arr1[i += 1])
but I get an error saying :
Cannot subscript a value of type '[[String]]' with an index of type
'()'
The full code is:
let arr1 = [["aaa","111"],["bbb","222"],["ccc","333"]]
let arr2 = [["ddd","444"],["eee","555"],["fff","666"]]
var arr4 = zip(arr1, arr2).reduce([]) { ( newArr, p:(Array<String>, Array<String>)) -> [[String]] in
var arr = newArr
arr.append(p.0)
arr.append(p.1)
return arr
}
var i = arr4.count / 2
while i < arr1.count {
arr4.append(arr1[i++]) // WARNING
}
while i < arr2.count {
arr4.append(arr2[i++]) // WARNING
}
print(arr4)
Use:
arr4.append(arr1[i])
i += 1
The motivation for the change is legibility — ensuring that steps are properly spelt out, reducing ambiguity. The result of the expression a += 1 is of type void — it does something, but doesn't evaluate to anything — which is expressed as the empty tuple, (), and cannot be used as an array index.
(Aside: += 1 also isn't a direct substitution for ++ in C.
int a = 3;
int b = a += 1;
NSLog(#"%d %d", a, b);
... will produce a different output than the equivalent b = a ++;.)
Code:
arr4.append(arr1[i])
i += 1
If you insist to do it in a single line. you can but it looks ugly:
arr4.append(arr1[(i += 1) - 1])
I not sure. test it.
Related
I have got a code that generates all possible correct strings of balanced brackets. So if the input is n = 4 there should be 4 brackets in the string and thus the answers the code will give are: {}{} and
{{}}.
Now, what I would like to do is print the number of possible strings. For example, for n = 4 the outcome would be 2.
Given my code, is this possible and how would I make that happen?
Just introduce a counter.
// Change prototype to return the counter
int findBalanced(int p,int n,int o,int c)
{
static char str[100];
// The counter
static int count = 0;
if (c == n) {
// Increment it on every printout
count ++;
printf("%s\n", str);
// Just return zero. This is not used anyway and will give
// Correct result for n=0
return 0;
} else {
if (o > c) {
str[p] = ')';
findBalanced(p + 1, n, o, c + 1);
}
if (o < n) {
str[p] = '(';
findBalanced(p + 1, n, o + 1, c);
}
}
// Return it
return count;
}
What you're looking for is the n-th Catalan number. You'll need to implement binomial coefficient to calculate it, but that's pretty much it.
I was under the impression that the assignment to entry in nil map error would only happen if we would want to assign to a double map, that is, when a map on a deeper level is trying to be assigned while the higher one doesn't exist, e.g.:
var mm map[int]map[int]int
mm[1][2] = 3
But it also happens for a simple map (though with struct as a key):
package main
import "fmt"
type COO struct {
x int
y int
}
var neighbours map[COO][]COO
func main() {
for i := 0; i < 30; i++ {
for j := 0; j < 20; j++ {
var buds []COO
if i < 29 {
buds = append(buds, COO{x: i + 1, y: j})
}
if i > 0 {
buds = append(buds, COO{x: i - 1, y: j})
}
if j < 19 {
buds = append(buds, COO{x: i, y: j + 1})
}
if j > 0 {
buds = append(buds, COO{x: i, y: j - 1})
}
neighbours[COO{x: i, y: j}] = buds // <--- yields error
}
}
fmt.Println(neighbours)
}
What could be wrong?
You need to initialize neighbours: var neighbours = make(map[COO][]COO)
See the second section in: https://blog.golang.org/go-maps-in-action
You'll get a panic whenever you try to insert a value into a map that hasn't been initialized.
In Golang, everything is initialized to a zero value, it's the default value for uninitialized variables.
So, as it has been conceived, a map's zero value is nil. When trying to use an non-initialized map, it panics. (Kind of a null pointer exception)
Sometimes it can be useful, because if you know the zero value of something you don't have to initialize it explicitly:
var str string
str += "42"
fmt.Println(str)
// 42 ; A string zero value is ""
var i int
i++
fmt.Println(i)
// 1 ; An int zero value is 0
var b bool
b = !b
fmt.Println(b)
// true ; A bool zero value is false
If you have a Java background, that's the same thing: primitive types have a default value and objects are initialized to null;
Now, for more complex types like chan and map, the zero value is nil, that's why you have to use make to instantiate them. Pointers also have a nil zero value. The case of arrays and slice is a bit more tricky:
var a [2]int
fmt.Println(a)
// [0 0]
var b []int
fmt.Println(b)
// [] ; initialized to an empty slice
The compiler knows the length of the array (it cannot be changed) and its type, so it can already instantiate the right amount of memory. All of the values are initialized to their zero value (unlike C where you can have anything inside your array). For the slice, it is initialized to the empty slice [], so you can use append normally.
Now, for structs, it is the same as for arrays. Go creates a struct with all its fields initialized to zero values. It makes a deep initialization, example here:
type Point struct {
x int
y int
}
type Line struct {
a Point
b Point
}
func main() {
var line Line
// the %#v format prints Golang's deep representation of a value
fmt.Printf("%#v\n", line)
}
// main.Line{a:main.Point{x:0, y:0}, b:main.Point{x:0, y:0}}
Finally, the interface and func types are also initialized to nil.
That's really all there is to it. When working with complex types, you just have to remember to initialize them. The only exception is for arrays because you can't do make([2]int).
In your case, you have map of slice, so you need at least two steps to put something inside: Initialize the nested slice, and initialize the first map:
var buds []COO
neighbours := make(map[COO][]COO)
neighbours[COO{}] = buds
// alternative (shorter)
neighbours := make(map[COO][]COO)
// You have to use equal here because the type of neighbours[0] is known
neighbours[COO{}] = make([]COO, 0)
I am just trying to understand how the recursion works in this example, and would appreciate it if somebody could break this down for me. I have the following algorithm which basically returns the maximum element in an array:
int MaximumElement(int array[], int index, int n)
{
int maxval1, maxval2;
if ( n==1 ) return array[index];
maxval1 = MaximumElement(array, index, n/2);
maxval2 = MaximumElement(array, index+(n/2), n-(n/2));
if (maxval1 > maxval2)
return maxval1;
else
return maxval2;
}
I am not able to understand how the recursive calls work here. Does the first recursive call always get executed when the second call is being made? I really appreciate it if someone could please explain this to me. Many thanks!
Code comments embedded:
// the names index and n are misleading, it would be better if we named it:
// startIndex and rangeToCheck
int MaximumElement(int array[], int startIndex, int rangeToCheck)
{
int maxval1, maxval2;
// when the range to check is only one cell - return it as the maximum
// that's the base-case of the recursion
if ( rangeToCheck==1 ) return array[startIndex];
// "divide" by checking the range between the index and the first "half" of the range
System.out.println("index = "+startIndex+"; rangeToCheck/2 = " + rangeToCheck/2);
maxval1 = MaximumElement(array, startIndex, rangeToCheck/2);
// check the second "half" of the range
System.out.println("index = "+startIndex+"; rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2 = " + (rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2)));
maxval2 = MaximumElement(array, startIndex+(rangeToCheck/2), rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2));
// and now "Conquer" - compare the 2 "local maximums" that we got from the last step
// and return the bigger one
if (maxval1 > maxval2)
return maxval1;
else
return maxval2;
}
Example of usage:
int[] arr = {5,3,4,8,7,2};
int big = MaximumElement(arr,0,arr.length-1);
System.out.println("big = " + big);
OUTPUT:
index = 0; rangeToCheck/2 = 2
index = 0; rangeToCheck/2 = 1
index = 0; rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2 = 1
index = 0; rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2 = 3
index = 2; rangeToCheck/2 = 1
index = 2; rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2 = 2
index = 3; rangeToCheck/2 = 1
index = 3; rangeToCheck-(rangeToCheck/2 = 1
big = 8
What is happening here is that both recursive calls are being made, one after another. The first one searches have the array and returns the max, the second searches the other half and returns the max. Then the two maxes are compared and the bigger max is returned.
Yes. What you have guessed is right. Out of the two recursive calls MaximumElement(array, index, n/2) and MaximumElement(array, index+(n/2), n-(n/2)), the first call is repeatedly carried out until the call is made with a single element of the array. Then the two elements are compared and the largest is returned. Then this comparison process is continued until the largest element is returned.
Project Euler problem 14:
The following iterative sequence is
defined for the set of positive
integers:
n → n/2 (n is even) n → 3n + 1 (n is
odd)
Using the rule above and starting with
13, we generate the following
sequence: 13 → 40 → 20 → 10 → 5 → 16 →
8 → 4 → 2 → 1
It can be seen that this sequence
(starting at 13 and finishing at 1)
contains 10 terms. Although it has not
been proved yet (Collatz Problem), it
is thought that all starting numbers
finish at 1.
Which starting number, under one
million, produces the longest chain?
My first instinct is to create a function to calculate the chains, and run it with every number between 1 and 1 million. Obviously, that takes a long time. Way longer than solving this should take, according to Project Euler's "About" page. I've found several problems on Project Euler that involve large groups of numbers that a program running for hours didn't finish. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong.
How can I handle large groups of numbers quickly?
What am I missing here?
Have a read about memoization. The key insight is that if you've got a sequence starting A that has length 1001, and then you get a sequence B that produces an A, you don't to repeat all that work again.
This is the code in Mathematica, using memoization and recursion. Just four lines :)
f[x_] := f[x] = If[x == 1, 1, 1 + f[If[EvenQ[x], x/2, (3 x + 1)]]];
Block[{$RecursionLimit = 1000, a = 0, j},
Do[If[a < f[i], a = f[i]; j = i], {i, Reverse#Range#10^6}];
Print#a; Print[j];
]
Output .... chain length´525´ and the number is ... ohhhh ... font too small ! :)
BTW, here you can see a plot of the frequency for each chain length
Starting with 1,000,000, generate the chain. Keep track of each number that was generated in the chain, as you know for sure that their chain is smaller than the chain for the starting number. Once you reach 1, store the starting number along with its chain length. Take the next biggest number that has not being generated before, and repeat the process.
This will give you the list of numbers and chain length. Take the greatest chain length, and that's your answer.
I'll make some code to clarify.
public static long nextInChain(long n) {
if (n==1) return 1;
if (n%2==0) {
return n/2;
} else {
return (3 * n) + 1;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
long iniTime=System.currentTimeMillis();
HashSet<Long> numbers=new HashSet<Long>();
HashMap<Long,Long> lenghts=new HashMap<Long, Long>();
long currentTry=1000000l;
int i=0;
do {
doTry(currentTry,numbers, lenghts);
currentTry=findNext(currentTry,numbers);
i++;
} while (currentTry!=0);
Set<Long> longs = lenghts.keySet();
long max=0;
long key=0;
for (Long aLong : longs) {
if (max < lenghts.get(aLong)) {
key = aLong;
max = lenghts.get(aLong);
}
}
System.out.println("number = " + key);
System.out.println("chain lenght = " + max);
System.out.println("Elapsed = " + ((System.currentTimeMillis()-iniTime)/1000));
}
private static long findNext(long currentTry, HashSet<Long> numbers) {
for(currentTry=currentTry-1;currentTry>=0;currentTry--) {
if (!numbers.contains(currentTry)) return currentTry;
}
return 0;
}
private static void doTry(Long tryNumber,HashSet<Long> numbers, HashMap<Long, Long> lenghts) {
long i=1;
long n=tryNumber;
do {
numbers.add(n);
n=nextInChain(n);
i++;
} while (n!=1);
lenghts.put(tryNumber,i);
}
Suppose you have a function CalcDistance(i) that calculates the "distance" to 1. For instance, CalcDistance(1) == 0 and CalcDistance(13) == 9. Here is a naive recursive implementation of this function (in C#):
public static int CalcDistance(long i)
{
if (i == 1)
return 0;
return (i % 2 == 0) ? CalcDistance(i / 2) + 1 : CalcDistance(3 * i + 1) + 1;
}
The problem is that this function has to calculate the distance of many numbers over and over again. You can make it a little bit smarter (and a lot faster) by giving it a memory. For instance, lets create a static array that can store the distance for the first million numbers:
static int[] list = new int[1000000];
We prefill each value in the list with -1 to indicate that the value for that position is not yet calculated. After this, we can optimize the CalcDistance() function:
public static int CalcDistance(long i)
{
if (i == 1)
return 0;
if (i >= 1000000)
return (i % 2 == 0) ? CalcDistance(i / 2) + 1 : CalcDistance(3 * i + 1) + 1;
if (list[i] == -1)
list[i] = (i % 2 == 0) ? CalcDistance(i / 2) + 1: CalcDistance(3 * i + 1) + 1;
return list[i];
}
If i >= 1000000, then we cannot use our list, so we must always calculate it. If i < 1000000, then we check if the value is in the list. If not, we calculate it first and store it in the list. Otherwise we just return the value from the list. With this code, it took about ~120ms to process all million numbers.
This is a very simple example of memoization. I use a simple list to store intermediate values in this example. You can use more advanced data structures like hashtables, vectors or graphs when appropriate.
Minimize how many levels deep your loops are, and use an efficient data structure such as IList or IDictionary, that can auto-resize itself when it needs to expand. If you use plain arrays they need to be copied to larger arrays as they expand - not nearly as efficient.
This variant doesn't use an HashMap but tries only to not repeat the first 1000000 numbers. I don't use an hashmap because the biggest number found is around 56 billions, and an hash map could crash.
I have already done some premature optimization. Instead of / I use >>, instead of % I use &. Instead of * I use some +.
void Main()
{
var elements = new bool[1000000];
int longestStart = -1;
int longestRun = -1;
long biggest = 0;
for (int i = elements.Length - 1; i >= 1; i--) {
if (elements[i]) {
continue;
}
elements[i] = true;
int currentStart = i;
int currentRun = 1;
long current = i;
while (current != 1) {
if (current > biggest) {
biggest = current;
}
if ((current & 1) == 0) {
current = current >> 1;
} else {
current = current + current + current + 1;
}
currentRun++;
if (current < elements.Length) {
elements[current] = true;
}
}
if (currentRun > longestRun) {
longestStart = i;
longestRun = currentRun;
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Longest Start: {0}, Run {1}", longestStart, longestRun);
Console.WriteLine("Biggest number: {0}", biggest);
}
----------Updated ------------
codymanix and moonshadow have been a big help thus far. I was able to solve my problem using the equations and instead of using right shift I divided by 29. Because with 32bits signed 2^31 = overflows to 29. Which works!
Prototype in PHP
$r = $x - (($x - $y) & (($x - $y) / (29)));
Actual code for LEADS (you can only do one math function PER LINE!!! AHHHH!!!)
DERIVDE1 = IMAGE1 - IMAGE2;
DERIVED2 = DERIVED1 / 29;
DERIVED3 = DERIVED1 AND DERIVED2;
MAX = IMAGE1 - DERIVED3;
----------Original Question-----------
I don't think this is quite possible with my application's limitations but I figured it's worth a shot to ask.
I'll try to make this simple. I need to find the max values between two numbers without being able to use a IF or any conditional statement.
In order to find the the MAX values I can only perform the following functions
Divide, Multiply, Subtract, Add, NOT, AND ,OR
Let's say I have two numbers
A = 60;
B = 50;
Now if A is always greater than B it would be simple to find the max value
MAX = (A - B) + B;
ex.
10 = (60 - 50)
10 + 50 = 60 = MAX
Problem is A is not always greater than B. I cannot perform ABS, MAX, MIN or conditional checks with the scripting applicaiton I am using.
Is there any way possible using the limited operation above to find a value VERY close to the max?
finding the maximum of 2 variables:
max = a-((a-b)&((a-b)>>31))
where >> is bitwise right-shift (also called SHR or ASR depeding on signedness).
Instead of 31 you use the number of bits your numbers have minus one.
I guess this one would be the most simplest if we manage to find difference between two numbers (only the magnitude not sign)
max = ((a+b)+|a-b|)/2;
where |a-b| is a magnitude of difference between a and b.
If you can't trust your environment to generate the appropriate branchless operations when they are available, see this page for how to proceed. Note the restriction on input range; use a larger integer type for the operation if you cannot guarantee your inputs will fit.
Solution without conditionals. Cast to uint then back to int to get abs.
int abs (a) { return (int)((unsigned int)a); }
int max (a, b) { return (a + b + abs(a - b)) / 2; }
int max3 (a, b, c) { return (max(max(a,b),c); }
Using logical operations only, short circuit evaluation and assuming the C convention of rounding towards zero, it is possible to express this as:
int lt0(int x) {
return x && (!!((x-1)/x));
}
int mymax(int a, int b) {
return lt0(a-b)*b+lt0(b-a)*a;
}
The basic idea is to implement a comparison operator that will return 0 or 1. It's possible to do a similar trick if your scripting language follows the convention of rounding toward the floor value like python does.
function Min(x,y:integer):integer;
Var
d:integer;
abs:integer;
begin
d:=x-y;
abs:=d*(1-2*((3*d) div (3*d+1)));
Result:=(x+y-abs) div 2;
end;
Hmmm. I assume NOT, AND, and OR are bitwise? If so, there's going to be a bitwise expression to solve this. Note that A | B will give a number >= A and >= B. Perhaps there's a pruning method for selecting the number with the most bits.
To extend, we need the following to determine whether A (0) or B (1) is greater.
truth table:
0|0 = 0
0|1 = 1
1|0 = 0
1|1 = 0
!A and B
therefore, will give the index of the greater bit. Ergo, compare each bit in both numbers, and when they are different, use the above expression (Not A And B) to determine which number was greater. Start from the most significant bit and proceed down both bytes. If you have no looping construct, manually compare each bit.
Implementing "when they are different":
(A != B) AND (my logic here)
try this, (but be aware for overflows)
(Code in C#)
public static Int32 Maximum(params Int32[] values)
{
Int32 retVal = Int32.MinValue;
foreach (Int32 i in values)
retVal += (((i - retVal) >> 31) & (i - retVal));
return retVal;
}
You can express this as a series of arithmetic and bitwise operations, e.g.:
int myabs(const int& in) {
const int tmp = in >> ((sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT) - 1);
return tmp - (in ^ tmp(;
}
int mymax(int a, int b) {
return ((a+b) + myabs(b-a)) / 2;
}
//Assuming 32 bit integers
int is_diff_positive(int num)
{
((num & 0x80000000) >> 31) ^ 1; // if diff positive ret 1 else 0
}
int sign(int x)
{
return ((num & 0x80000000) >> 31);
}
int flip(int x)
{
return x ^ 1;
}
int max(int a, int b)
{
int diff = a - b;
int is_pos_a = sign(a);
int is_pos_b = sign(b);
int is_diff_positive = diff_positive(diff);
int is_diff_neg = flip(is_diff_positive);
// diff (a - b) will overflow / underflow if signs are opposite
// ex: a = INT_MAX , b = -3 then a - b => INT_MAX - (-3) => INT_MAX + 3
int can_overflow = is_pos_a ^ is_pos_b;
int cannot_overflow = flip(can_overflow);
int res = (cannot_overflow * ( (a * is_diff_positive) + (b *
is_diff_negative)) + (can_overflow * ( (a * is_pos_a) + (b *
is_pos_b)));
return res;
}
This is my implementation using only +, -, *, %, / operators
using static System.Console;
int Max(int a, int b) => (a + b + Abs(a - b)) / 2;
int Abs(int x) => x * ((2 * x + 1) % 2);
WriteLine(Max(-100, -2) == -2); // true
WriteLine(Max(2, -100) == 2); // true
I just came up with an expression:
(( (a-b)-|a-b| ) / (2(a-b)) )*b + (( (b-a)-|b-a| )/(2(b-a)) )*a
which is equal to a if a>b and is equal to b if b>a
when a>b:
a-b>0, a-b = |a-b|, (a-b)-|a-b| = 0 so the coeficcient for b is 0
b-a<0, b-a = -|b-a|, (b-a)-|b-a| = 2(b-a)
so the coeficcient for a is 2(b-a)/2(b-a) which is 1
so it would ultimately return 0*b+1*a if a is bigger and vice versa
Find MAX between n & m
MAX = ( (n/2) + (m/2) + ( ((n/2) - (m/2)) * ( (2*((n/2) - (m/2)) + 1) % 2) ) )
Using #define in c:
#define MAX(n, m) ( (n/2) + (m/2) + ( ((n/2) - (m/2)) * ( (2*((n/2) - (m/2)) + 1) % 2) ) )
or
#define ABS(n) ( n * ( (2*n + 1) % 2) ) // Calculates abs value of n
#define MAX(n, m) ( (n/2) + (m/2) + ABS((n/2) - (m/2)) ) // Finds max between n & m
#define MIN(n, m) ( (n/2) + (m/2) - ABS((n/2) - (m/2)) ) // Finds min between n & m
please look at this program.. this might be the best answer till date on this page...
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
int a,b;
a=3;
b=5;
printf("%d %d\n",a,b);
b = (a+b)-(a=b); // this line is doing the reversal
printf("%d %d\n",a,b);
return 0;
}
If A is always greater than B .. [ we can use] .. MAX = (A - B) + B;
No need. Just use: int maxA(int A, int B){ return A;}
(1) If conditionals are allowed you do max = a>b ? a : b.
(2) Any other method either use a defined set of numbers or rely on the implicit conditional checks.
(2a) max = a-((a-b)&((a-b)>>31)) this is neat, but it only works if you use 32 bit numbers. You can expand it arbitrary large number N, but the method will fail if you try to find max(N-1, N+1). This algorithm works for finite state automata, but not a Turing machine.
(2b) Magnitude |a-b| is a condition |a-b| = a-b>0 a-b : b-a
What about:
Square root is also a condition. Whenever c>0 and c^2 = d we have second solution -c, because (-c)^2 = (-1)^2*c^2 = 1*c^2 = d. Square root returns the greatest in the pair. I comes with a build in int max(int c1, int c2){return max(c1, c2);}
Without comparison operator math is very symmetric as well as limited in power. Positive and negative numbers cannot be distinguished without if of some sort.
It depends which language you're using, but the Ternary Operator might be useful.
But then, if you can't perform conditional checks in your 'scripting application', you probably don't have the ternary operator.
using System;
namespace ConsoleApp2
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
float a = 101, b = 15;
float max = (a + b) / 2 + ((a > b) ? a - b : b - a) / 2;
}
}
}
#region GetMaximumNumber
/// <summary>
/// Provides method to get maximum values.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="values">Integer array for getting maximum values.</param>
/// <returns>Maximum number from an array.</returns>
private int GetMaximumNumber(params int[] values)
{
// Declare to store the maximum number.
int maximumNumber = 0;
try
{
// Check that array is not null and array has an elements.
if (values != null &&
values.Length > 0)
{
// Sort the array in ascending order for getting maximum value.
Array.Sort(values);
// Get the last value from an array which is always maximum.
maximumNumber = values[values.Length - 1];
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
return maximumNumber;
}
#endregion