When I compute the difference between the largest and the smallest number in an empty vector(v←⍳0) using ⌈⌿(⌈/c)- ⌊⌿(⌊/c) , it gives me a domain error. This statement works fine with normal vectors and matrices.
How do I handle the exception such that it does not give me an error when the vector is empty? It should not return anything or just return a zero.
A guard is the best way to do this:
{0=⍴⍵:0 ⋄ (⌈/⍵)-⌊/⍵}
Note that the use of two reductions, one with axis specfication, is not really needed or correct actually. That is, if you want it to work on all of the elements of a simple array of any dimension, simply ravel the argument first:
{0=⍴⍵:0 ⋄ (⌈/⍵)-⌊/⍵},10 10 ⍴⍳100
99
Or for an array of any structure or depth, you can use "super ravel":
{0=⍴⍵:0 ⋄ (⌈/⍵)-⌊/⍵}∊(1 2 3)(7 8 9 10)
9
Note that quadML (Migration Level) must be set to 3 to ensure that epsilon is "super ravel."
Note also the equivalence of the following when operating on a matrix:
⌈⌿⌈/10 10 ⍴⍳100
99
⌈/⌈/10 10 ⍴⍳100
99
⌈/⌈⌿10 10 ⍴⍳100
99
⌈⌿⌈⌿10 10 ⍴⍳100
99
Using reduction with axis is not needed in this case, and obscures the intent and is also potentially more expensive. Better to just ravel the whole thing.
As I mentioned in the comments, Dyalog APL has guards, which can be used for conditional execution, and thus you can simply check for the empty vector and give a different answer.
This can be implemented in a more traditional/pure APL method however.
This version only works in 1-dimension
In the APL font:
Z←DIFFERENCE V
⍝ Calculate difference between vectors, with empty set protection
⍝ Difference is calculated by a reduced ceiling subtracted from the reduced floor
⍝ eg. (⌈⌿(⌈V)) - (⌊⌿(⌊V))
⍝ Protection is implemented by comparison against the empty set ⍬≡V
⍝ Which yields 0 or 1, and using that result to select an answer from a tuple
⍝ If empty, then it drops the first element, yielding just a zero, otherwise both are retained
⍝ eg. <condition>↓(a b) => 0 = (a b), 1 = (b)
⍝ The final operation is first ↑, to remove the first element from the tuple.
Z←↑(⍬≡V)↓(((⌈⌿(⌈V)) - (⌊⌿(⌊V))) 0)
Or in brace notation, for people without the font.
Z{leftarrow}DIFFERENCE V
{lamp} Calculate difference between vectors, with empty set protection
{lamp} Difference is calculated by a reduced ceiling subtracted from the reduced floor
{lamp} eg. ({upstile}{slashbar}({upstile}V)) - ({downstile}{slashbar}({downstile}V))
{lamp} Protection is implemented by comparison against the empty set {zilde}{equalunderbar}V
{lamp} Which yields 0 or 1, and using that result to select an answer from a tuple
{lamp} If empty, then it drops the first element, yielding just a zero, otherwise both are retained
{lamp} eg. <condition>{downarrow}(a b) => 0 = (a b), 1 = (b)
{lamp} The final operation is first {uparrow}, to remove the first element from the tuple.
Z{leftarrow}{uparrow}({zilde}{equalunderbar}V){downarrow}((({upstile}{slashbar}({upstile}V)) - ({downstile}{slashbar}({downstile}V))) 0)
and an image for the sake of preservation...
Updated. multi-dimensional
Z←DIFFERENCE V
⍝ Calculate difference between vectors, with empty set protection
⍝ Initially enlist the vector to get reduce to single dimension
⍝ eg. ∊V
⍝ Difference is calculated by a reduced ceiling subtracted from the reduced floor
⍝ eg. (⌈/V) - (⌊/V)
⍝ Protection is implemented by comparison against the empty set ⍬≡V
⍝ Which yields 0 or 1, and using that result to select an answer from a tuple
⍝ If empty, then it drops the first element, yielding just a zero, otherwise both are retained
⍝ eg. <condition>↓(a b) => 0 = (a b), 1 = (b)
⍝ The final operation is first ↑, to remove the first element from the tuple.
V←∊V
Z←↑(⍬≡V)↓(((⌈/V) - (⌊/V)) 0)
Related
The following question is about math. The matter is, how to calculate the index of an element in a non-repetitive permutation. Example,
A={a,b,c} The permutation is then 3!=6 therefore: (a,b,c);(a,c,b);(b,a,c);(b,c,a);(c,a,b);(c,b,a)
I researched for algorithm to get the index of an element in this permutation. In internet there are only repetitive permutation algorithms.
The index of (b,c,a) is in this zero-based list, obviously 3. Is there an easy way to calculate the position directly by formula ?
I do not need the itertools from python. Because i use very large permutations.(Example 120!) I messed once with python's itertools' permutations function to get the index of an element over the list iterator. But the results were weary. I need a mathematical solution to get the index directly.
Thanks for reading.
Some clues:
You have n! permutations. Note that (n-1)! permutations start from the first element (a), next (n-1)! permutations start from the second element (b) and so on.
So you can calculate the first term of permutation rank as (n-1)! * Ord(P[0]) where Ord gives ordering number of the first element of permutation in initial sequence (0 for a, 1 for b etc).
Then continue with the second element using (n-2)! multiplier and so on.
Don't forget to exclude used elements from order - for your example b is used, so at the second stage c has index 1 rather 0, ad rank is 2!*1 + 1!*1 + 0! * 0 = 3
This problem gives you a positive integer number which is less than or equal to 100000 (10^5). You have to find out the following things for the number:
i. Is the number prime number? If it is a prime number, then print YES.
ii. If the number is not a prime number, then can we express the number as summation of unique prime numbers? If it is possible, then print YES. Here unique means, you can use any prime number only for one time.
If above two conditions fail for any integer number, then print NO. For more clarification please see the input, output section and their explanations.
Input
At first you are given an integer T (T<=100), which is the number of test cases. For each case you will be given a positive integer X which is less than or equal 100000.
Output
For every test case, print only YES or NO.
Sample
Input Output
3
7
6
10 YES
NO
YES
Case – 1 Explanation: 7 is a prime number.
Case – 2 Explanation: 6 is not a prime number. 6 can be expressed as 6 = 3 + 3 or 6 = 2 + 2 + 2. But you can’t use any prime number more than 1 time. Also there is no way to express 6 as two or three unique prime numbers summation.
Case – 3 Explanation: 10 is not prime number but 10 can be expressed as 10 = 3 + 7 or 10 = 2 + 3 + 5. In this two expressions, every prime number is used only for one time.
Without employing any mathematical tricks (not sure if any exist...you'd think as a mathematician I'd have more insight here), you will have to iterate over every possible summation. Hence, you'll definitely need to iterate over every possible prime, so I'd recommend the first step being to find all the primes at most 10^5. A basic (Sieve of Eratosthenes)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes] will probably be good enough, though faster sieves exist nowadays. I know your question is language agnostic, but you could consider the following as vectorized pseudocode for such a sieve.
import numpy as np
def sieve(n):
index = np.ones(n+1, dtype=bool)
index[:2] = False
for i in range(2, int(np.sqrt(n))):
if index[i]:
index[i**2::i] = False
return np.where(index)[0]
There are some other easy optimizations, but for simplicity this assumes that we have an array index where the indices correspond exactly to whether the number is prime or not. We start with every number being prime, mark 0 and 1 as not prime, and then for every prime we find we mark every multiple of it as not prime. The np.where() at the end just returns the indices where our index corresponds to True.
From there, we can consider a recursive algorithm for actually solving your problem. Note that you might feasibly have a huge number of distinct primes necessary. The number 26 is the sum of 4 distinct primes. It is also the sum of 3 and 23. Since the checks are more expensive for 4 primes than for 2, I think it's reasonable to start by checking the smallest number possible.
In this case, the way we're going to do that is to define an auxiliary function to find whether a number is the sum of precisely k primes and then sequentially test that auxiliary function for k from 1 to whatever the maximum possible number of addends is.
primes = sieve(10**5)
def sum_of_k_primes(x, k, excludes=()):
if k == 1:
if x not in excludes and x in primes:
return (x,)+excludes
else:
return ()
for p in (p for p in primes if p not in excludes):
if x-p < 2:
break
temp = sum_of_k_primes(x-p, k-1, (p,)+excludes)
if temp:
return temp
return ()
Running through this, first we check the case where k is 1 (this being the base case for our recursion). That's the same as asking if x is prime and isn't in one of the primes we've already found (the tuple excludes, since you need uniqueness). If k is at least 2, the rest of the code executes instead. We check all the primes we might care about, stopping early if we'd get an impossible result (no primes in our list are less than 2). We recursively call the same function for smaller k, and if we succeed we propagate that result up the call stack.
Note that we're actually returning the smallest possible tuple of unique prime addends. This is empty if you want your answer to be "NO" as specified, but otherwise it allows you to easily come up with an explanation for why you answered "YES".
partial = np.cumsum(primes)
def max_primes(x):
return np.argmax(partial > x)
def sum_of_primes(x):
for k in range(1, max_primes(x)+1):
temp = sum_of_k_primes(x, k)
if temp:
return temp
return ()
For the rest of the code, we store the partial sums of all the primes up to a given point (e.g. with primes 2, 3, 5 the partial sums would be 2, 5, 10). This gives us an easy way to check what the maximum possible number of addends is. The function just sequentially checks if x is prime, if it is a sum of 2 primes, 3 primes, etc....
As some example output, we have
>>> sum_of_primes(1001)
(991, 7, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(26)
(23, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(27)
(19, 5, 3)
>>> sum_of_primes(6)
()
At a first glance, I thought caching some intermediate values might help, but I'm not convinced that the auxiliary function would ever be called with the same arguments twice. There might be a way to use dynamic programming to do roughly the same thing but in a table with a minimum number of computations to prevent any duplicated efforts with the recursion. I'd have to think more about it.
As far as the exact output your teacher is expecting and the language this needs to be coded in, that'll be up to you. Hopefully this helps on the algorithmic side of things a little.
Say I am tossing a fair coin where 'tails' is assigned the value x = -1/2 and 'heads' is assigned x = 1/2.
I do this N times and I want to obtain the sum. This is what I have tried:
p = 0.5
N = 1e4
X(N,p)=(rand(N).<p)
I know this is incomplete but when I check (rand(N).<p) I see an array consisting of true, false. I interpret this as 'Tails' or 'Heads'. However, I don't know how to assign the values 1/2 and -1/2 to each of these elements in order for me to find the sum. If I simply use sum((rand(N).<p)) I do get an integer value, but I don't think this is the right way to do it because I haven't specified the values 1/2 and -1/2 anywhere.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
As indicated by the comments already, you want to do
sum(rand([-0.5, 0.5], N))
where N must be an integer (you wrote N=1e4, therefore typeof(N) == Float64 and rand won't work).
The documentation of rand (obtained by ?rand) describes what rand(S, N) does:
Pick a random element or array of random elements from the set of
values specified by S
Here, S can be an optional indexable collection, an array of values in your case (or a type like Int). So, above S = [-0.5, 0.5] and rand draws N random elements from this collection, which we can afterwards sum up.
Assigning specific values to a boolean array
Since this is the title of your question, and the answer above doesn't actually address this, let me comment on this as well.
You could do sum((rand(N).<p)-0.5), i.e. you shift all the ones to 0.5 and all the zeros to -0.5 to get the wanted result. Note that this is a general strategy: Let's say you want true to be a and false to be b, where a and b are numbers. You achieve this by (rand(N).<p)*(a-b) + b.
However, beyond being more "complicated", sum((rand(N).<p)-0.5) will allocate temporary arrays, first one of booleans, then one of numbers, the latter of which will eventually go into sum. Because of these unnecessary allocations this approach will be slower than the solution above.
I am looking for help with pseudo code (unless you are a user of Game Maker 8.0 by Mark Overmars and know the GML equivalent of what I need) for how to generate a list / array of unique combinations of a set of X number of integers which size is variable. It can be 1-5 or 1-1000.
For example:
IntegerList{1,2,3,4}
1,2
1,3
1,4
2,3
2,4
3,4
I feel like the math behind this is simple I just cant seem to wrap my head around it after checking multiple sources on how to do it in languages such as C++ and Java. Thanks everyone.
As there are not many details in the question, I assume:
Your input is a natural number n and the resulting array contains all natural numbers from 1 to n.
The expected output given by the combinations above, resembles a symmetric relation, i. e. in your case [1, 2] is considered the same as [2, 1].
Combinations [x, x] are excluded.
There are only combinations with 2 elements.
There is no List<> datatype or dynamic array, so the array length has to be known before creating the array.
The number of elements in your result is therefore the binomial coefficient m = n over 2 = n! / (2! * (n - 2)!) (which is 4! / (2! * (4 - 2)!) = 24 / 4 = 6 in your example) with ! being the factorial.
First, initializing the array with the first n natural numbers should be quite easy using the array element index. However, the index is a property of the array elements, so you don't need to initialize them in the first place.
You need 2 nested loops processing the array. The outer loop ranges i from 1 to n - 1, the inner loop ranges j from 2 to n. If your indexes start from 0 instead of 1, you have to take this into consideration for the loop limits. Now, you only need to fill your target array with the combinations [i, j]. To find the correct index in your target array, you should use a third counter variable, initialized with the first index and incremented at the end of the inner loop.
I agree, the math behind is not that hard and I think this explanation should suffice to develop the corresponding code yourself.
Per DICOM specification, a UID is defined by: 9.1 UID Encoding Rules. In other words the following are valid DICOM UIDs:
"1.2.3.4.5"
"1.3.6.1.4.35045.103501438824148998807202626810206788999"
"1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1143.5028470438645158236649541857909059554"
while the following are illegal DICOM UIDs:
".1.2.3.4.5"
"1..2.3.4.5"
"1.2.3.4.5."
"1.2.3.4.05"
"12345"
"1.2.826.0.1.3680043.2.1143.50284704386451582366495418579090595540"
Therefore I know that the string is at most 64 bytes, and should match the following regex [0-9\.]+. However this regex is really a superset, since there are a lot less than (10+1)^64 (=4457915684525902395869512133369841539490161434991526715513934826241L) possibilities.
How would one computes precisely the number of possibilities to respect the DICOM UID rules ?
Reading the org root / suffix rule clearly indicates that I need at least one dot ('.'). In which case the combination is at least 3 bytes (char) in the form: [0-9].[0-9]. In which case there are 10x10=100 possibilities for UID of length 3.
Looking at the first answer, there seems to be something unclear about:
The first digit of each component shall not be zero unless the
component is a single digit.
What this means is that:
"0.0" is valid
"00.0" or "1.01" are not valid
Thus I would say a proper expression would be:
(([1-9][0-9]*)|0)(\.([1-9][0-9]*|0))+
Using a simple C code, I could find:
f(0) = 0
f(1) = 0
f(2) = 0
f(3) = 100
f(4) = 1800
f(5) = 27100
f(6) = 369000
f(7) = 4753000
f(8) = 59049000
The validation of the Root UID part is outside the scope of this question. A second validation step could take care of rejecting some OID that cannot possibly be registered (some people mention restriction on first and second arc for example). For simplicity we'll accept all possible (valid) Root UID.
While my other answer takes good care of this specific application, here is a more generic approach. It takes care of situations where you have a different regular expression describing the language in question. It also allows for considerably longer string lengths, since it only requires O(log n) arithmetic operations to compute the number of combinations for strings of length up to n. In this case the number of strings grows so quickly that the cost of these arithmetic operations will grow dramatically, but that may not be the case for other, otherwise similar situations.
Build a finite state automaton
Start with a regular expression description of your language in question. Translate that regular expression into a finite state automaton. In your case the regular expression can be given as
(([1-9][0-9]*)|0)(\.([1-9][0-9]*|0))+
The automaton could look like this:
Eliminate ε-transitions
This automaton usually contains ε-transitions (i.e. state transitions which do not correspond to any input character). Remove those, so that one transition corresponds to one character of input. Then add an ε-transition to the accepting state(s). If the accepting states have other outgoing transitions, don't add ε-loops to them, but instead add an ε-transition to an accepting state with no outgoing edges and then add the loop to that. This can be seen as padding the input with ε at its end, without allowing ε in the middle. Taken together, this transformation ensures that performing exactly n state transitions corresponds to processing an input of n characters or less. The modified automaton might look like this:
Note that both the construction of the first automaton from the regular expression and the elimination of ε-transitions can be performed automatically (and perhaps even in a single step. The resulting automata might be more complicated than what I constructed here manually, but the principle is the same.
Ensuring unique paths
You don't have to make the automaton deterministic in the sense that for every combination of source state and input character there is only one target state. That's not the case in my manually constructed one either. But you have to make sure that every complete input has only one possible path to the accepting state, since you'll essentially be counting paths. Making the automaton deterministic would ensure this weaker property, too, so go for that unless you can ensure unique paths without this. In my example the length of each component clearly dictates which path to use, so I didn't make it deterministic. But I've included an example with a deterministic approach at the end of this post.
Build transition matrix
Next, write down the transition matrix. Associate the rows and columns with your states (in order a, b, c, d, e, f in my example). For each arrow in your automaton, write the number of characters included in the label of that arrow in the column associated with the source state and the row associated with the target state of that arrow.
⎛ 0 0 0 0 0 0⎞
⎜ 9 10 0 0 0 0⎟
⎜10 10 0 10 10 0⎟
⎜ 0 0 1 0 0 0⎟
⎜ 0 0 0 9 10 0⎟
⎝ 0 0 0 10 10 1⎠
Read result off that matrix
Now applying this matrix with a column vector once has the following meaning: if the number of possible ways to arrive in a given state is encoded in the input vector, the output vector gives you the number of ways one transition later. Take the 64th power of that matrix, concentrate on the first column (since ste start situation is encoded as (1,0,0,0,0,0), meaning only one way to end up in the start state) and sum up all the entries that correspond to accepting states (only the last one in this case). The bottom left element of the 64th power of this matrix is
1474472506836676237371358967075549167865631190000000000000000000000
which confirms my other answer.
Compute matrix powers efficiently
In order to actually compute the 64th power of that matrix, the easiest approach would be repeated squaring: after squaring the matrix 6 times you have an exponent of 26 = 64. If in some other scenario your exponent (i.e. maximal string length) is not a power of two, you can still perform exponentiation by squaring by multiplying the relevant squares according to the bit pattern of the exponent. This is what makes this approach take O(log n) arithmetic operations to compute the result for string length n, assuming a fixed number of states and therefore fixed cost for each matrix squaring.
Example with deterministic automaton
If you were to make my automaton deterministic using the usual powerset construction, you'd end up with
and sorting the states as a, bc, c, d, cf, cef, f one would get the transition matrix
⎛ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0⎞
⎜ 9 10 0 0 0 0 0⎟
⎜ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0⎟
⎜ 0 1 1 0 1 1 0⎟
⎜ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0⎟
⎜ 0 0 0 9 0 10 0⎟
⎝ 0 0 0 0 1 1 1⎠
and could sum the last three elements of the first column of its 64th power to obtain the same result as above.
Single component
Start by looking for ways to form a single component. The corresponding regular expression for a single component is
0|[1-9][0-9]*
so it is either zero or a non-zero digit followed by arbitrary many zero digits. (I had missed the possible sole zero case at first, but the comment by malat made me aware of this.) If the total length of such a component is to be n, and you write h(n) to denote the number of ways to form such a component of length exactly n, then you can compute that h(n) as
h(n) = if n = 1 then 10 else 9 * 10^(n - 1)
where the n = 1 case allows for all possible digits, and the other cases ensure a non-zero first digit.
One or more components
Subsection 9.1 only writes that a UID is a bunch of dot-separated number components, as outlined above. So in regular expressions that would be
(0|[1-9][0-9]*)(\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*))*
Suppose f(n) is the number of ways to write a UID of length n. Then you have
f(n) = h(n) + sum h(i) * f(n-i-1) for i from 1 to n-2
The first term describes the case of a single component, while the sum takes care of the case where it consists of more than one component. In that case you have a first component of length i, then a dot which accounts for the -1 in the formula, and then the remaining digits form one or more components which is expressed via the recursive use of f.
Two or more components
As the comment by cneller indicates, the part of section 9 before subsection 9.1 indicates that there has to be at least two components. So the proper regular expression would be more like
(0|[1-9][0-9]*)(\.(0|[1-9][0-9]*))+
with a + at the end indicating that we want at least one repetition of the parenthesized expression. Deriving an expression for this simply means leaving out the one-component-only case in the definition of f:
g(n) = sum h(i) * f(n-i-1) for i from 1 to n-2
If you sum all the g(n) for n from 3 (the minimal possible UID length) through 64 you get the number of possible UIDs as
1474472506836676237371358967075549167865631190000000000000000000000
or approximately 1.5e66. Which is considerably less than the 4.5e66 you get from your computation, in terms of absolute difference, although it's definitely on the same order of magnitude. By the way, your estimate doesn't explicitely mention UIDs shorter than 64, but you can always consider padding them with dots in your setup. I did the computation using a few lines of Python code:
f = [0]
g = [0]
h = [0, 10] + [9 * (10**(n-1)) for n in range(2, 65)]
s = 0
for n in range(1, 65):
x = 0
if n >= 3:
for i in range(1, n - 1):
x += h[i] * f[n-i-1]
g.append(x)
f.append(x + h[n])
s += x
print(h)
print(f)
print(g)
print(s)