I have to find all of the elements which have the maximum frequency. For example, if array a={1,2,3,1,2,4}, I have to print as 1, also 2. My code prints only 2. How to print the second one?
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<string.h>
#define n 6
int main(){
int a[n]={1,2,3,1,2,4};
int counter=0,mostFreq=-1,maxcnt=0;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
for(int j=i+1;j<n;j++){
if(a[i]==a[j]){
counter++;
}
}
if(counter>maxcnt){
maxcnt=counter;
mostFreq=a[i];
}
}
printf("The most frequent element is: %d",mostFreq);
}
How to print the second one?
The goal it not only to print a potential 2nd one, but all the all of the elements which have the maximum frequency.
OP already has code that determines the maximum frequency. Let us build on that. Save it as int target = mostFreq;.
Instead of printing mostFreq, a simple (still O(n*n)) approach would perform the same 2-nested for() loops again. Replace this 2nd:
if(counter>maxcnt){
maxcnt=counter;
mostFreq=a[i];
}
With:
if(counter == target){
; // TBD code: print the a[i] and counter.
}
For large n, a more efficient approach would sort a[] (research qsort()). Then walk the sorted a[] twice, first time finding the maximum frequency and the 2nd time printing values that match this frequency.
This is O(n* log n) in time and O(n) in memory (if a copy of the original array needed to preserve the original). If also works well with negative values or if we change the type of a[] from int to long long, double, etc.
The standard student solution to such problems would be this:
Make a second array called frequency, of the same size as the maximum value occurring in your data.
Init this array to zero.
Each time you encounter a value in the data, use that value as an index to access the frequency array, then increment the corresponding frequency by 1. For example freq[value]++;.
When done, search through the frequency array for the largest number(s). Optionally, you could sort it.
We can (potentially) save some effort in an approach with unsorted data by creating an array of boolean flags to determine whether we need to count an element at all.
For the array {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4} we do have nested for loops, so O(n) complexity, but we can avoid the inner loop entirely for repeated numbers.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
int main(void) {
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4};
size_t arr_size = sizeof(arr) / sizeof(*arr);
bool checked[arr_size];
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) checked[i] = false;
unsigned int counts[arr_size];
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) counts[i] = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) {
if (!checked[i]) {
checked[i] = true;
counts[i]++;
for (size_t j = i+1; j < arr_size; j++) {
if (arr[i] == arr[j]) {
checked[j] = true;
counts[i]++;
}
}
}
}
unsigned int max = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) {
if (counts[i] > max) max = counts[i];
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < arr_size; i++) {
if (counts[i] == max)
printf("%d\n", arr[i]);
}
return 0;
}
Related
I was working on the following 2d-array program to output this result shown in picture:
I can't seem to get the min value for the result and get it displayed in array form.
The code is below:
#include<stdio.h>
#define NUMROWS 2
#define NUMCOLS 3
//accessing elements of 2D array using pointers
int main(void){
const int table[NUMROWS][NUMCOLS]={{1,2,3},{5,6,7}};
int minvals[NUMROWS];
int i, j;
int *ptr = &table;
//accessing the elements of 2D array using ptr
printf("table values: min value\n");
for(int i=0;i<NUMROWS;i++){
for(int j=0;j<NUMCOLS;j++)
printf("%d ",*((ptr+i*NUMCOLS)+j));
printf("\n");
}
for(int i=0;i<NUMROWS;i++){
for(int j=0;j<NUMCOLS;j++)
printf("%d ",*((ptr+i*NUMCOLS)+j)<minvals[i]);
}
return 0;
}
The existence of minvals would imply that you are expected to calculate the minimum value of each 'row' of table before then moving on to printing. As it stands, had your program properly calculated the minimum values of each array, your printing would be rather out of order.
There's no need to do any tricky, manual pointer manipulation. Simple array subscription is much clearer.
Let's start simple and return to basics by looking at the way we find the minimum value in a one dimensional array, as it is the core of this problem.
To find the minimum value in an array we need a few things to start:
An array
The length of the array
An initial value to compare against
The array itself is obviously each subarray of table, and the length in this case is known to be NUMCOLS. Our initial value should either be INT_MAX (or another type-appropriate maximum constant found <limits.h>), such that every element in the array is equal to or less than our initial value, or a value from the array itself.
Often times we opt for the second option here, choosing the first element in the array as our initial value, and comparing it to the second and onward elements.
As such, finding the minimum value in a single 'row' would look like this
const int row[NUMCOLS] = { 9, 2, 5 };
int min = row[0];
for (int i = 1; i < NUMCOLS; i++)
if (row[i] < min)
min = row[i];
but since we want to find and record the minimum value of each 'row' in table, we're going to use a nested loop. Instead of the min variable from before, we store each value in the associated index of our minvals array.
for (i = 0; i < NUMROWS; i++) {
minvals[i] = table[i][0];
for (j = 1; j < NUMCOLS; j++)
if (table[i][j] < minvals[i])
minvals[i] = table[i][j];
}
When it comes time to print, we're going to repeat our nested loop. Our inner loop prints each element of each 'row' of table, and we end each iteration of the outer loop by printing the value found in minvals with the same index of our 'row'.
for (i = 0; i < NUMROWS; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < NUMCOLS; j++)
printf("%6d", table[i][j]);
printf(":%6d\n", minvals[i]);
}
Here's a working example.
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUMROWS 2
#define NUMCOLS 3
int main(void) {
const int table[NUMROWS][NUMCOLS] = {
{ 9, 2, 5 },
{ 3, -4, -12 }
};
int minvals[NUMROWS];
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < NUMROWS; i++) {
minvals[i] = table[i][0];
for (j = 1; j < NUMCOLS; j++)
if (table[i][j] < minvals[i])
minvals[i] = table[i][j];
}
puts("Table value: minimum values");
for (i = 0; i < NUMROWS; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < NUMCOLS; j++)
printf("%6d", table[i][j]);
printf(":%6d\n", minvals[i]);
}
}
A good further exercise for you would be to compose the logic of the inner loop for finding minimum values into a more generic function. Its function signature would look like
int min(int *array, size_t length);
allowing it to work on arrays of varying sizes. Then our outer loop could be as simple as:
for (i = 0; i < NUMROWS; i++)
minvals[i] = min(table[i], NUMCOLS);
The line
int *ptr = &table;
is wrong, because &table is of type int (*)[2][3] (i.e. a pointer to the entire table), whereas ptr is a pointer to a single element. Also, your pointer is non-const, so it cannot point be made to point into a const array.
If you want ptr to point to a single int value, then you should declare it the following way:
const int *ptr = &table[0][0];
Also, you are reading the contents of the array minvals, although that array contains uninitialized data. This does not make sense and causes undefined behavior.
Instead of doing complex pointer arithmetic with the expression
*((ptr+i*NUMCOLS)+j))
you can simply write the following:
table[i][j]
That way, you do not need the pointer ptr and your code is simpler.
I have written code that allows you to enter one dimension of a NxN double array. It will then print random numbers in a 2D array and it finds the maximum and minimum number of each row. It then prints them and their coordinates (row and column).
ATTENTION!!!!
I have altered my code in such a way that it finds the minimum number of the maximum. I now don't know how to find it's coordinates
My code is as follows:
int N, i, j, min=1000, max, m , o;
time_t t;
int masyvas[100][100], minmax[100];
printf("Enter one dimension of a NxN array\n");
scanf("%d", &N);
srand((unsigned) time(&t));
for (i=0; i<N; i++)
{
for (j=0; j<N; j++)
{
masyvas[i][j] = rand() % 10;
printf("%4d", masyvas[i][j]);
}
printf("\n");
}
int k, l, idkeymax, idkeymin;
for(k=0; k<N; k++)
{
max=-1000;
for(l=0; l<N; l++)
{
if(max<masyvas[k][l])
{
max=masyvas[k][l];
}
}
minmax[k]=max;
}
for(m=0; m<N; m++)
{if(minmax[m]<min)
min=minmax[m];
}
printf("maziausias skaicius tarp didziausiu yra %d eiluteje %d stulpelyje %d\n",min);
Here's the pseudo code of what you need to do.
for row in grid {
row_max = max_in_row(row)
grid_min = min(grid_min, row_max)
}
Step one is to write a routine that finds the max and location in a list. You could do this as one big function, but it's much easier to understand and debug in pieces.
You also need the index where it was found. Since C can't return multiple values, we'll need a struct to store the number/index pair. Any time you make a struct, make routines to create and destroy it. It might seem like overkill for something as trivial as this, but it will make your code much easier to understand and debug.
typedef struct {
int num;
size_t idx;
} Int_Location_t;
static Int_Location_t* Int_Location_new() {
return calloc(1, sizeof(Int_Location_t));
}
static void Int_Location_destroy( Int_Location_t* loc ) {
free(loc);
}
Now we can make a little function that finds the max number and position in a row.
static Int_Location_t* max_in_row(int *row, size_t num_rows) {
Int_Location_t *loc = Int_Location_new();
/* Start with the first element as the max */
loc->num = row[0];
loc->idx = 0;
/* Compare starting with the second element */
for( size_t i = 1; i < num_rows; i++ ) {
if( row[i] > loc->num ) {
loc->num = row[i];
loc->idx = i;
}
}
return loc;
}
Rather than starting with some arbitrary max or min, I've used an alternative technique where I set the max to be the first element and then start checking from the second one.
Now that I have a function to find the max in a row, I can now loop over it, get the max of each row, and compare it with the minimum for the whole table.
int main() {
int grid[3][3] = {
{10, 12, 15},
{-50, -15, -10},
{1,2,3}
};
int min = INT_MAX;
size_t row = 0;
size_t col = 0;
for( size_t i = 0; i < 3; i++ ) {
Int_Location_t *max = max_in_row(grid[i], 3);
printf("max for row %zu is %d at %zu\n", i, max->num, max->idx);
if( max->num < min ) {
min = max->num;
col = max->idx;
row = i;
}
Int_Location_destroy(max);
}
printf("min for the grid is %d at row %zu, col %zu\n", min, row, col);
}
I used a different technique for initializing the minimum location, because getting the first maximum would require repeating some code in the loop. Instead I set min to the lowest possible integer, INT_MAX from limits.h which is highest possible integers. This allows the code to be used with any range of integers, there are no restrictions. This is a very common technique when working with min/max algorithms.
I am making a program which finds the smallest number in the array without sorting it.. The output is always 0. Please explain me why?
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
void main() {
int num[5] = {5, 2, 1, 6, 9}, i, j;
int min = num[0];
for (i=0; i<5; i++) {
if (min > num[i+1]) {
min = num[i+1];
}
}
printf("Smallest number is %d", min);
getch();
}
In this expression: num[i+1] you're trying to access an element outside of the array - valid array indexes go from zero to the array's length minus one (which is 4 in this case, but 4+1 is out of the array).
And anyway you should not hard-code array lengths, write your loop like this instead:
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i] < min) {
min = num[i];
}
}
That way it'll always work, it won't matter the actual length of the array.
When i is 4 you are accessing num[5] which is outside the range of the array num. There are no guarantees what num[5] would be but most of the time there are couple trailing 0's after new memory allocation. It should be
for (i=1; i<5; i++) {
if (min > num[i]) {
min = num[i];
}
}
I have a function that takes a one-dimensional array of N positive integers and returns the number of elements that are larger than all the next. The problem is exist a function to do it that in a better time? My code is the following:
int count(int *p, int n) {
int i, j;
int countNo = 0;
int flag = 0;
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {
flag = 1;
for(j = i + 1; j < n; j++) {
if(p[i] <= p[j]) {
flag = 0;
break;
}
}
if(flag) {
countNo++;
}
}
return countNo;
}
My solution is O(n^2). Can it be done better?
You can solve this problem in linear time(O(n) time). Note that the last number in the array will always be a valid number that fits the problem definition. So the function will always output a value that will be greater than equal to 1.
For any other number in the array to be a valid number it must be greater than or equal to the greatest number that is after that number in the array.
So iterate over the array from right to left keeping track of the greatest number found till now and increment the counter if current number is greater than or equal to the greatest found till now.
Working code
int count2(int *p, int n) {
int max = -1000; //this variable represents negative infinity.
int cnt = 0;
int i;
for(i = n-1; i >=0; i--) {
if(p[i] >= max){
cnt++;
}
if(p[i] > max){
max = p[i];
}
}
return cnt;
}
Time complexity : O(n)
Space complexity : O(1)
It can be done in O(n).
int count(int *p, int n) {
int i, currentMax;
int countNo = 0;
currentMax = p[n-1];
for(i = n-1; i >= 0; i--) {
if(currentMax < p[i])
{
countNo ++;
currentMax = p[i];
}
}
return countNo;
}
Create an auxillary array aux:
aux[i] = max{arr[i+1], ... ,arr[n-1] }
It can be done in linear time by scanning the array from right to left.
Now, you only need the number of elements such that arr[i] > aux[i]
This is done in O(n).
Walk backwards trough the array, and keep track of the current maximum. Whenever you find a new maximum, that element is larger than the elements following.
Yes, it can be done in O(N) time. I'll give you an approach on how to go about it. If I understand your question correctly, you want the number of elements that are larger than all the elements that come next in the array provided the order is maintained.
So:
Let len = length of array x
{...,x[i],x[i+1]...x[len-1]}
We want the count of all elements x[i] such that x[i]> x[i+1]
and so on till x[len-1]
Start traversing the array from the end i.e. at i = len -1 and keep track of the largest element that you've encountered.
It could be something like this:
max = x[len-1] //A sentinel max
//Start a loop from i = len-1 to i = 0;
if(x[i] > max)
max = x[i] //Update max as you encounter elements
//Now consider a situation when we are in the middle of the array at some i = j
{...,x[j],....x[len-1]}
//Right now we have a value of max which is the largest of elements from i=j+1 to len-1
So when you encounter an x[j] that is larger than max, you've essentially found an element that's larger than all the elements next. You could just have a counter and increment it when that happens.
Pseudocode to show the flow of algorithm:
counter = 0
i = length of array x - 1
max = x[i]
i = i-1
while(i>=0){
if(x[i] > max){
max = x[i] //update max
counter++ //update counter
}
i--
}
So ultimately counter will have the number of elements you require.
Hope I was able to explain you how to go about this. Coding this should be a fun exercise as a starting point.
Given an array of size n. It contains numbers in the range 1 to n. Each number is present at
least once except for 2 numbers. Find the missing numbers.
eg. an array of size 5
elements are suppose 3,1,4,4,3
one approach is
static int k;
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
for(j=0;j<n;j++)
{
if(i==a[j])
break;
}
if(j==n)
{
k++;
printf("missing element is", a[j]);
}
if(k==2)
break;}
another solution can be..
for(i=0;i
Let me First explain the concept:
You know that sum of natural numbers 1....n is
(n*(n+1))/2.Also you know the sum of square of sum of first n natural numbers 1,2....n is n*(n+1)*(2n+1)/6.Thus you could solve the above problem in O(n) time using above concept.
Also if space complexity is not of much consideration you could use count based approach which requires O(n) time and space complexity.
For more detailed solution visit Find the two repeating elements in a given array
I like the "use array elements as indexes" method from Algorithmist's link.
Method 5 (Use array elements as index)
Thanks to Manish K. Aasawat for suggesting this method.
traverse the list for i= 1st to n+2 elements
{
check for sign of A[abs(A[i])] ;
if positive then
make it negative by A[abs(A[i])]=-A[abs(A[i])];
else // i.e., A[abs(A[i])] is negative
this element (ith element of list) is a repetition
}
The only difference is that here it would be traversing 1 to n.
Notice that this is a single-pass solution that uses no extra space (besides storing i)!
Footnote:
Technically it "steals" some extra space -- essentially it is the counter array solution, but instead of allocating its own array of ints, it uses the sign bits of the original array as counters.
Use qsort() to sort the array, then loop over it once to find the missing values. Average O(n*log(n)) time because of the sort, and minimal constant additional storage.
I haven't checked or run this code, but you should get the idea.
int print_missing(int *arr, size_t length) {
int *new_arr = calloc(sizeof(int) * length);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < length; i++) {
new_arr[arr[i]] = 1;
}
for(i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if(!new_arr[i]) {
printf("Number %i is missing\n", i);
}
}
free(new_arr);
return 0;
}
Runtime should be O(2n). Correct me if I'm wrong.
It is unclear why the naive approach (you could use a bitfield or an array) of marking the items you have seen isn't just fine. O(2n) CPU, O(n/8) storage.
If you are free to choose the language, then use python's sets.
numbers = [3,1,4,4,3]
print set (range (1 , len (numbers) + 1) ) - set (numbers)
Yields the output
set([2, 5])
Here you go. C# solution:
static IEnumerable<int> FindMissingValuesInRange( int[] numbers )
{
HashSet<int> values = new HashSet<int>( numbers ) ;
for( int value = 1 ; value <= numbers.Length ; ++value )
{
if ( !values.Contains(value) ) yield return value ;
}
}
I see a number of problems with your code. First off, j==n will never happen, and that doesn't give us the missing number. You should also initialize k to 0 before you attempt to increment it. I wrote an algorithm similar to yours, but it works correctly. However, it is not any faster than you expected yours to be:
int k = 0;
int n = 5;
bool found = false;
int a[] = { 3, 1, 4, 4, 3 };
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++)
{
for(int j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
if(a[j] == i)
{
found = true;
break;
}
}
if(!found)
{
printf("missing element is %d\n", i);
k++;
if(k==2)
break;
}
else
found = false;
}
H2H
using a support array you can archeive O(n)
int support[n];
// this loop here fills the support array with the
// number of a[i]'s occurences
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
support[a[i]] += 1;
// now look which are missing (or duplicates, or whatever)
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
if(support[i] == 0) printf("%d is missing", i);
**
for(i=0; i < n;i++)
{
while((a[i]!=i+1)&&(a[i]!=a[a[i]-1])
{
swap(a[i],a[a[i]-1]);
}
for(i=0;i< n;i++)
{
if(a[i]!=i+1)
printf("%d is missing",i+1); }
this takes o(n) time and o(1) space
========================================**
We can use the following code to find duplicate and missing values:
int size = 8;
int arr[] = {1, 2, 3, 5, 1, 3};
int result[] = new int[size];
for(int i =0; i < arr.length; i++)
{
if(result[arr[i]-1] == 1)
{
System.out.println("repeating: " + (arr[i]));
}
result[arr[i]-1]++;
}
for(int i =0; i < result.length; i++)
{
if(result[i] == 0)
{
System.out.println("missing: " + (i+1));
}
}
This is an interview question: Missing Numbers.
condition 1 : The array must not contain any duplicates.
The complete solution is :
public class Solution5 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a[] = { 1,8,6,7,10};
Arrays.sort(a);
List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();
int start = a[0];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
int ch = a[i];
if(start == ch) {
start++;
}else {
list.add(start);
start++;
//must do this
i--;
}
}//for
System.out.println(list);
}//main
}