Im new so if this question was already Asked (i didnt find it scrolling through the list of results though) please send me the link.
I got a math quiz and im to lazy to go through all the possibilities so i thought i can find a program instead. I know a bit about programming but not much.
Is it possible (and in what programming language, and how) to read only one digit, e.g at the 3rd Position, in a integer?
And how is an integer actually saved, in a kind of array?
Thanks!
You can get rid of any lower valued digit (the ones and tens if you only want the hundreds) by dividing with rounding/truncation. 1234/100 is 12 in most languages if you are doing integer division.
You can get rid of any higher valued digits by using taking the modulus. 12 % 10 is 2 in many languages; just find out how the modulus is done in yours. I use "modulus" meaning "divide and keep the rest only", i.e. it is the opposite of "divide with rounding"; that which is lost by rounding is the final result of the modulus.
The alternative is however to actually NOT see the input as a number and treat it as text. That way it is often easier to ignore the last 2 characters and all leading characters.
I have to write the function series : int -> int -> result list list, so the first int for the number of games and the second int for the points to earn.
I already thought about an empirical solution by creating all permutations and filtering the list, but I think this would be in ocaml very dirty solution with many lines of code. And I cant find another way to solve this problem.
The following types are given
type result = Win (* 3 points *)
| Draw (* 1 point *)
| Loss (* 0 points *)
so if i call
series 3 4
the solution should be:
[[Win ;Draw ;Loss]; [Win ;Loss ;Draw]; [Draw ;Win ;Loss];
[Draw ;Loss ;Win]; [Loss ;Win ;Draw]; [Loss ;Draw ;Win]]
Maybe someone can give me a hint or a code example how to start.
Consider calls of the form series n (n / 2), and consider cases where all the games were Draw or Loss. Under these restrictions the number of answers is proportional to 2^n/sqrt(n). (Guys online get this from Stirling's approximation.)
This doesn't include any series where anybody wins a game. So the actual result lists will be longer than this in general.
I conclude that the number of possible answers is gigantic, and hence that your actual cases are going to be small.
If your actual cases are small, there might be no problem with using a brute-force approach.
Contrary to your claim, brute-force code is usually quite short and easy to understand.
You can easily write a function to list all possible sequences of length n taken from Win, Lose, Draw. You can then filter them for the correct sum. Asymptotically this is probably only a little worse than the fastest algorithm, due to the near-exponential behavior described above.
A simple recursive solution would go along this way:
if there's 0 game to play and 0 point to earn, then there is exactly one (empty) solution
if there's 0 game to play and 1 or more points to earn, there is no solution.
otherwise, p points must be earned in g games: any solution for p points in g-1 game can be extended to a solution by adding a Loss in front of it. If p>=1, you can similarly add a Draw to any solution for p-1 in g-1 games, and if p>=3, there might also be possibilities starting with a Win.
I want to create a divide and conquer algorithm (O(nlgn) runtime) to determine if there exists a number in an array that occurs k times. A constraint on this problem is that only a equality/inequality comparison method is defined on the objects of the array (i.e can't use <, >).
So I have tried a number of approaches including splitting the array into k pieces of equal size (approximately). The approach is similar to finding the majority item in an array, however in the majority case when you split the array, you know that one half must have a majority item if such an item exists. Any pointers or tips that one could provide to put me in the right direction ?
EDIT: To clear up a little, I am wondering whether the problem of finding the majority item by splitting the array in half and using a recursive solution can be extended to other situations where k may be n/4 or n/5 etc.
Maybe I should of phrased the question using n/k instead.
This is impossible. As a simple example of why this is impossible, consider an input with a length-n array, all elements distinct, and k=2. The only way to be sure no element appears twice is to compare every element against every other element, which takes O(n^2) time. Until you perform all possible comparisons, you cannot be sure that some pair you didn't compare isn't actually equal.
I just wonder how can i round to the nearest zero bitwise? Previously, I perform the long division using a loop. However, since the number always divided by a number power by 2. I decide to use bit shifting. So, I can get result like this:
12/4=3
13/4=3
14/4=3
15/4=3
16/4=4
can I do this by performing the long division like usual?
12>>2
13>>2
if I use this kind of bit shifting, are the behavior different for different compiler? how about rounding up? I am using visual c++ 2010 compiler and gcc. thx
Bitwise shifts are equivalent to round-to-negative-infinity divisions by powers of two, meaning that the answer is never bigger than the unrounded value (so e.g. (-3) >> 1 is equal to -2).
For non-negative integers, this is equivalent to round-to-zero.
I have been playing with an implementation of lookandsay (OEIS A005150) in J. I have made two versions, both very simple, using while. type control structures. One recurs, the other loops. Because I am compulsive, I started running comparative timing on the versions.
look and say is the sequence 1 11 21 1211 111221 that s, one one, two ones, etc.
For early elements of the list (up to around 20) the looping version wins, but only by a tiny amount. Timings around 30 cause the recursive version to win, by a large enough amount that the recursive version might be preferred if the stack space were adequate to support it. I looked at why, and I believe that it has to do with handling intermediate results. The 30th number in the sequence has 5808 digits. (32nd number, 9898 digits, 34th, 16774.)
When you are doing the problem with recursion, you can hold the intermediate results in the recursive call, and the unstacking at the end builds the results so that there is minimal handling of the results.
In the list version, you need a variable to hold the result. Every loop iteration causes you to need to add two elements to the result.
The problem, as I see it, is that I can't find any way in J to modify an extant array without completely reassigning it. So I am saying
try. o =. o,e,(0&{y) catch. o =. e,(0&{y) end.
to put an element into o where o might not have a value when we start. That may be notably slower than
o =. i.0
.
.
.
o =. (,o),e,(0&{y)
The point is that the result gets the wrong shape without the ravels, or so it seems. It is inheriting a shape from i.0 somehow.
But even functions like } amend don't modify a list, they return a list that has a modification made to it, and if you want to save the list you need to assign it. As the size of the assigned list increases (as you walk the the number from the beginning to the end making the next number) the assignment seems to take more time and more time. This assignment is really the only thing I can see that would make element 32, 9898 digits, take less time in the recursive version while element 20 (408 digits) takes less time in the loopy version.
The recursive version builds the return with:
e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
The above line is both the return line from the function and the recursion, so the whole return vector gets built at once as the call gets to the end of the string and everything unstacks.
In APL I thought that one could say something on the order of:
a[1+rho a] <- new element
But when I try this in NARS2000 I find that it causes an index error. I don't have access to any other APL, I might be remembering this idiom from APL Plus, I doubt it worked this way in APL\360 or APL\1130. I might be misremembering it completely.
I can find no way to do that in J. It might be that there is no way to do that, but the next thought is to pre-allocate an array that could hold results, and to change individual entries. I see no way to do that either - that is, J does not seem to support the APL idiom:
a<- iota 5
a[3] <- -1
Is this one of those side effect things that is disallowed because of language purity?
Does the interpreter recognize a=. a,foo or some of its variants as a thing that it should fastpath to a[>:#a]=.foo internally?
This is the recursive version, just for the heck of it. I have tried a bunch of different versions and I believe that the longer the program, the slower, and generally, the more complex, the slower. Generally, the program can be chained so that if you want the nth number you can do lookandsay^: n ] y. I have tried a number of optimizations, but the problem I have is that I can't tell what environment I am sending my output into. If I could tell that I was sending it to the next iteration of the program I would send it as an array of digits rather than as a big number.
I also suspect that if I could figure out how to make a tacit version of the code, it would run faster, based on my finding that when I add something to the code that should make it shorter, it runs longer.
lookandsay=: 3 : 0
if. 0 = # ,y do. return. end. NB. return on empty argument
if. 1 ~: ##$ y do. NB. convert rank 0 argument to list of digits
y =. (10&#.^:_1) x: y
f =. 1
assert. 1 = ##$ y NB. the converted argument must be rank 1
else.
NB. yw =. y
f =. 0
end.
NB. e should be a count of the digits that match the leading digit.
e=.+/*./\y=0&{y
if. f do.
o=. e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
assert. e = 0&{ o
10&#. x: o
return.
else.
e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
return.
end.
)
I was interested in the characteristics of the numbers produced. I found that if you start with a 1, the numerals never get higher than 3. If you start with a numeral higher than 3, it will survive as a singleton, and you can also get a number into the generated numbers by starting with something like 888888888 which will generate a number with one 9 in it and a single 8 at the end of the number. But other than the singletons, no digit gets higher than 3.
Edit:
I did some more measuring. I had originally written the program to accept either a vector or a scalar, the idea being that internally I'd work with a vector. I had thought about passing a vector from one layer of code to the other, and I still might using a left argument to control code. With I pass the top level a vector the code runs enormously faster, so my guess is that most of the cpu is being eaten by converting very long numbers from vectors to digits. The recursive routine always passes down a vector when it recurs which might be why it is almost as fast as the loop.
That does not change my question.
I have an answer for this which I can't post for three hours. I will post it then, please don't do a ton of research to answer it.
assignments like
arr=. 'z' 15} arr
are executed in place. (See JWiki article for other supported in-place operations)
Interpreter determines that only small portion of arr is updated and does not create entire new list to reassign.
What happens in your case is not that array is being reassigned, but that it grows many times in small increments, causing memory allocation and reallocation.
If you preallocate (by assigning it some large chunk of data), then you can modify it with } without too much penalty.
After I asked this question, to be honest, I lost track of this web site.
Yes, the answer is that the language has no form that means "update in place, but if you use two forms
x =: x , most anything
or
x =: most anything } x
then the interpreter recognizes those as special and does update in place unless it can't. There are a number of other specials recognized by the interpreter, like:
199(1000&|#^)199
That combined operation is modular exponentiation. It never calculates the whole exponentiation, as
199(1000&|^)199
would - that just ends as _ without the #.
So it is worth reading the article on specials. I will mark someone else's answer up.
The link that sverre provided above ( http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/In-Place%20Operations ) shows the various operations that support modifying an existing array rather than creating a new one. They include:
myarray=: myarray,'blah'
If you are interested in a tacit version of the lookandsay sequence see this submission to RosettaCode:
las=: ,#((# , {.);.1~ 1 , 2 ~:/\ ])&.(10x&#.inv)#]^:(1+i.#[)
5 las 1
11 21 1211 111221 312211