Related
Given this array:
int a[] = {5, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5};
Would it be possible to remove all ints which equals 5 and move the rest the front of the array?
So that after the removal the array would look like this:
int a[] = {8, 6, 9, 0, 0, 0}
I don't know if by removing a element it becomes a 0 or a NULL?
Thanks!
You can do it with two iterations over the array, first iteration two to turn the element you want to delete, second iteration to separate zeros from non-zeros.
int a[] = {5, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5};
int n = 6;
for(int i = 0 ; i < n ; i++ ) {
if(a[i] == 5 ) {
a[i] = 0;
}
}
int* zero = a;
int* nonZero = a;
int j = 0;
while(j < n) {
while(*zero != 0) {
zero++;
}
while(*nonZero == 0) {
nonZero++;
j++;
}
if(zero < nonZero) {
*zero = *nonZero;
*nonZero = 0;
}
j++;
}
Your array is statically allocated, so always has the same size and deleted elements have the 0 value (according how you define the deleted values).
This link can help you and explains about how to delete element from array.
It is been awhile that i have programmed in C but it is posibble.
This is just a pseudo code, but you just need to change it to way of C programming.
int a[] = {5, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5};
int b[] = {5, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5}; // copy of array a to hold temp
for(int i = 0; i < Size of array; i++ ){
for(int j = i; j < Size of array; j++ ){
if(b[j] != 5){
a[i] = b[j];
a[j] = b[i];
break;
}
}
}
It will be like (▼: Target to swap, F: Finished, X: Not a targe to swap, N: Not processed):
▼, ▼, N, N, N, N
5, 8, 5, 6, 9, 5
F, ▼, X, ▼, N, N
8, 5, 5, 6, 9, 5
F, F, ▼, X, ▼, N
8, 6, 5, 5, 9, 5
Result:
8, 6, 9, 5, 5, 5
And remove 5s, it is quite different depends what you mean. If you do not change size of array then they can be 0 or undefined(null). So I think it differs by how you program the function that returns array.
your array is not dynamic so you just can't reduce its size after its been allocated.setting the value zero might solve the problem in your case.
I am programming in C. What is the best method (I mean in linear time) to spit array on elements less, equals and greater than some value x.
For example if I have array
{1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 1, 7, 3, 5, 11}
and x = 7 then it should be
{1, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5, 7, 7, 13, 11 }
I don't want to sort elements because I need more efficient way. Of course in this example in could be any permutation of {1, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5} and {13, 11}.
My thougt: less or grater than some element in array... In this example it is 7.
My function is:
int x = 7;
int u =0, z = 0;
for(int i=0; i<size-1; i++) // size - 1 because the last element will be choosen value
{
if(A[i] == x)
swap(A[i], A[u]);
else if(A[i] == x)
{
swap(A[i], A[n-(++z)]);
continue;
}
i++
}
for(int i = 0; i<z; i++)
swap(A[u+i],A[size-(++z)];
where u is number of current less elements, and z is the number of equals element
But if I have every elements in array equals there it doesn't work (size-(++z)) is going under 0
This is the so-called Dutch national flag problem, named after the three-striped Dutch flag. (It was named that by E.W. Dijkstra, who was Dutch.) It's similar to the partition function needed to implement quicksort, but in most explanations of quicksort a two-way partitioning algorithm is presented whereas here we are looking for a three-way partition. The classic quicksort partitioning algorithms divide the vector into two parts, one consisting of elements no greater than the pivot and the other consisting of elements strictly greater. [See note 1]
The wikipedia article gives pseudocode for Dijkstra's solution, which (unlike the classic partition algorithm usually presented in discussions of quicksort) moves left to right through the vector:
void dutchflag(int* v, size_t n, int x) {
for (size_t lo = 0, hi = n, j = 0; j < hi; ) {
if (v[j] < x) {
swap(v, lo, j); ++lo; ++j;
} else if (v[j] > x) {
--hi; swap(v, j, hi);
} else {
++j;
}
}
There is another algorithm, discovered in 1993 by Bentley and McIlroy and published in their paper "Engineering a Sort Function" which has some nice diagrams illustrating how various partitioning functions work, as well as some discussion about why partitioning algorithms matter. The Bentley & McIlroy algorithm is better in the case that the pivot element occurs infrequently in the list while Dijkstra's is better if it appears often, so you have to know something about your data in order to choose between them. I believe that most modern quicksort algorithms use Bentley & McIlroy, because the common case is that the array to be sorted has few duplicates.
Notes
The Hoare algorithm as presented in the Wikipedia Quicksort article, does not rearrange values equal to the pivot, so they can end up being present in both partitions. Consequently, it is not a true partitioning algorithm.
You can do this:
1) Loop through the array, if element is less than x then put in new array1.
2)If element is greater than x then put in new array2.
This is linear time O(n)
I tried something like this below which I think is O(n). Took me a little bit to work the kinks out but I think it's pretty similar to the dutchflag answer above.
My ouptput
a.exe
1 4 6 5 3 1 7 7 11 13
1 4 5 6 3 1 7 7 7 11 13
code:
#define ARRAY_SIZE(x) (sizeof(x)/sizeof(x[0]))
void order(int * list, int size, int orderVal)
{
int firstIdx, lastIdx, currVal, tempVal;
firstIdx = 0;
lastIdx = size-1;
for ( ;lastIdx>firstIdx;firstIdx++)
{
currVal = list[firstIdx];
if (currVal >= orderVal)
{
tempVal = list[lastIdx];
list[lastIdx] = currVal;
lastIdx--;
list[firstIdx] = tempVal;
if (tempVal >= orderVal)
firstIdx--;
}
}
lastIdx = size-1;
for( ;lastIdx>firstIdx && middleNum>0;lastIdx--)
{
currVal = list[lastIdx];
if (currVal == orderVal)
{
tempVal = list[firstIdx];
list[firstIdx] = currVal;
firstIdx++;
list[lastIdx] = tempVal;
if (tempVal == orderVal)
lastIdx++;
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
int i;
int list[] = {1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 1, 7, 3, 5, 11};
int list2[] = {1, 4, 7, 6, 7, 13, 1, 7, 3, 5, 11};
order(list, ARRAY_SIZE(list), 7);
for (i=0; i<ARRAY_SIZE(list); i++)
printf("%d ", list[i]);
printf("\n");
order(list2, ARRAY_SIZE(list2), 7);
for (i=0; i<ARRAY_SIZE(list2); i++)
printf("%d ", list2[i]);
}
Here is an example using a bubble sort. Which type of sort algorithm is best, is up to you, this is just to demonstrate. Here, I treat values < x as -1, values == x as 0, values > x as 1.
Note that the elements < x and those > x are still in the same sequence.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int array[] = { 1, 4, 6, 7, 13, 1, 7, 3, 5, 11 };
int x = 7;
int len = sizeof array / sizeof array[0];
int i, j, m, n, tmp;
for (i=0; i<len-1; i++) {
m = array[i] < x ? -1 : array[i] == x ? 0 : 1;
for (j=i+1; j<len; j++) {
n = array[j] < x ? -1 : array[j] == x ? 0 : 1;
if (m > n) {
tmp = array[i]; // swap the array element
array[i] = array[j];
array[j] = tmp;
m = n; // and replace alias
}
}
}
for(i=0; i<len; i++)
printf("%d ", array[i]);
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
Program output:
1 4 6 1 3 5 7 7 13 11
I've been tasked with making a recursive function that takes an array of numbers, and turns it into an array of the cumulative sum of all the numbers up to this point, thus:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 becomes 1, 3, 6, 10, 15
This is what I came up with:
#include <stdio.h>
int cumul(int tab[], int length, int ind) {
if (ind > 0) {
tab[ind] += tab[ind-1];
}
if (ind < length) {
cumul(tab, length, ind+1);
}
return 0;
}
int main() {
int ind;
int tab[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6};
int length = sizeof(tab)/sizeof(tab[0]);
for (ind = 0; ind < length; ind++) {
printf("%d ", tab[ind]);
}
printf("\n");
cumul(tab, length, 0);
for (ind = 0; ind < length; ind++) {
printf("%d ", tab[ind]);
}
printf("\n");
return 0;
}
It works well in most cases but I've hit a snag for oddly specific arrays:
For example, it doesn't work for tab[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, here's the output:
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 6 10 15 21 27 7 4196016 0 -1076574208 32528 -1609083416 32767 -1609083416 32767 0 1 4195802 0 0 0 -1815242402 30550560 4195424 0 -1609083424
I have no idea why it goes bonkers. It works fine for just about any tab[5] and tab[7] arrays I tried, but fails for every tab[6] array I tried.
The problem occurs when ind reaches length-1. For example, if length is 6, and ind is 5, then the recursive call is
cumul(tab, 6, 6); // length=6 ind+1=6
At the next level of recursion, after the if ( ind > 0 ), the code will do this
tab[6] += tab[5]; // ind=6 ind-1=5
That results in undefined behavior because you're writing beyond the end of the array.
You could check the upper bound in the first if statement, e.g.
if ( ind > 0 && ind < length )
But it's better to just avoid the recursive call by changing the second if statement to
if ( ind < length - 1 )
Either change avoids the situation where you access tab[length].
I have a C array fftArray[64] that contains values that I want averaged and placed into another array frequencyBar[8]. Getting the average of the entire array would be easy enough using a for statement.
int average, sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++)
{
sum += fftArray[i];
}
average = sum/64;
But I just can't seem to figure out how to get the average from fftArray[0] through fftArray[8] and store this in frequencyBar[0], the average of fftArray[9] through fftArray[16] and store this in frequencyBar[1], etc. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks
This looks like a homework assignment, so, rather than give you the outright answer, I'd rather just point you in the right direction...
use a nested loop (one inside the other). One loop cycles 0-7, the other one 0 - 63. Use the smaller one to populate your sliced averages.
or better yet use the % operator to see when you've gone through 8 elements and do an average of your total, then reset the total for the next set. Then you'll have learned how to use the % operator too! :)
[EDIT]
ok, if not homework then something like this... I haven't written C in 5 years, so treat this as pseudo code:
//assuming you have a fftArray[64] with data, as per your question
int i,sum,avCounter,total;
int averages[8];
for(i=0 , avCounter=0, total=0 ; i<64; ){
total += fftArray[i];
if(++i % 8 == 0){ //%gives you the remainder which will be 0 every 8th cycle
averages[avCounter++] = total / 8
total = 0; //reset for next cycle
}
}
I think this will work better than a nested loop... but I'm not sure since % is division which is more processor heavy than addition... however... I doubt anyone would notice :)
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
int sum = 0;
for (j = 0; j < 8; j++) {
sum += fftArray[ 8*i + j ];
}
frequencyBar[i] = sum / 8;
}
Bonus exercise: Optimize this code for speed on your chosen platform.
TF,
DISCLAIMER: This code is just off the top of my head... it hasn't even been compiled, let alone tested.
// returns the average of array[first..last] inclusive.
int average(int[] array, int first, int last) {
int sum = 0;
for (i = first; i <= last; i++)
sum += array[i];
return sum / (last - first + 1); // not sure about the +1
}
Then what you'd do is loop through the indexes of your frequencyBar array [0..7], setting frequencyBar[i] = average(array, first, last);... the tricky bit is calculating the first and last indexes... try i*8 and (i+1)*8 respectively... that may not be exactly right, but it'll be close ;-)
Cheers. Keith.
EDIT: Bored... waiting for my test results to come back. No news is good news, right? ;-)
It turns out that passing the length is a fair bit simpler than passing the last index.
#include <stdio.h>
int sum(int array[], int first, int length) {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = first; i < first+length; i++)
sum += array[i];
return sum;
}
double average(int array[], int first, int length) {
double total = sum(array, first, length);
#ifdef DEBUG
printf("DEBUG: [%2d..%2d] %d", first, first+length-1, array[first]);
for (int i = first+1; i < first+length; i++)
printf(" + %d", array[i]);
printf(" = %d / %d = %f\n", (int)total, length, total/length);
#endif
return total / length;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int array[] = { // average
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, // 2.625
4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, // 3.125
2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, // 3
5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, // 2.875
3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, // 3.375
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, // 2.625
4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, // 3.125
2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 // 3
};
double frequency[8];
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
frequency[i] = average(array, i*8, 8);
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
printf("%f ", frequency[i]);
printf("\n");
}
Watch your sum doesn't wrap around if fftArray has large value in!
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Reordering of array elements
In given array of elements like [a1,a2,a3,..an,b1,b2,b3,..bn,c1,c2,c3,...cn] Write a program to merge them like [a1,b1,c1,a2,b2,c2,...an,bn,cn].
We have to do it in O(1) extra space.
Sample Testcases:
Input #00:
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}
Output #00:
{1,5,9,2,6,10,3,7,11,4,8,12}
Explanation:
Here as you can notice, the array is of the form
{a1,a2,a3,a4,b1,b2,b3,b4,c1,c2,c3,c4}
EDIT:
I got it in Amazon placement test. Have been trying it for a long time.
PLease provide psuedo code. What i tried is finding new position p for second element e(1st is already at correct position), inserting e at p and repeating the same for the old element at position p. But this is ending in a cycle.
I tried detecting cycle and incrementing the starting position by 1. But even this is not working.
EDIT2:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int pos(int i, int n)
{
if(i<n)
{
return 3*i;
}
else if(i>=n && i<2*n)
{
return 3*(i-n) + 1;
}
else if(i>=2*n && i<3*n)
{
return 3*(i-2*n) + 2;
}
return -1;
}
void printn(int* A, int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<3*n;i++)
cout << A[i]<<";";
cout << endl;
}
void merge(int A[], int n)
{
int j=1;
int k =-1;
int oldAj = A[1];
int count = 0;
int temp;
while(count<3*n-1){
printn(A,n);
k = pos(j,n);
temp = A[k];
A[k] = oldAj;
oldAj = temp;
j = k;
count++;
if(j==1) {j++;}
}
}
int main()
{
int A[21] = {1,4,7,10,13,16,19,2,5,8,11,14,17,20,3,6,9,12,15,18,21};
merge(A,7);
cin.get();}
This is the so called in-place in-shuffle algorithm, and it's an extremely hard task if you want to do it efficiently. I'm just posting this entry so people don't post their so called "solutions" claiming that it can be extended to work with O(1) space, without any proof...
Here is a paper for a simpler case when the list is in the form: a1 a2 a3 ... an b1 b2 b3 .. bn:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0805/0805.1598v1.pdf
Here's is a description of an algorithm with 3 elements of extra space and O(n^2) complexity:
sa, sb, sc are, respectively, next source index for a, b and c sequences.
d is the copy destination index.
On each iterarion:
Copy elements at sa, sb and sc to temporary storage
Shift the array elements to the left to fill in the now vacant indices sa, sb and sc
This leaves three empty positions at d
Copy the three elements from temporary storage to empty positions.
Example (dots indicate "empty" positions):
First iteration:
copy to tmp: ., 2, 3, 4, ., 6, 7, 8, .,10,11,12
1 5 9
shift: ., ., ., 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,10,11,12
copy to dst: 1, 5, 9, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,10,11,12
Second iteration:
copy to tmp: 1, 5, 9, ., 3, 4, ., 7, 8, .,11,12
2 6 10
shift: 1, 5, 9, ., ., ., 3, 4, 7, 8,11,12
copy to dst: 1, 5, 9, 2, 6,10, 3, 4, 7, 8,11,12
Third iteration:
copy to tmp: 1, 5, 9, 2, 6,10, ., 4, ., 8, .,12
3 7 11
shift: 1, 5, 9, 2, 6,10, ., ., ., 4, 8,12
copy to dst: 1, 5, 9, 2, 6,10, 3, 7 11, 4, 8,12
EDIT:
And here's a working program (it takes a bit more than a verbal description :)))
#include <stdio.h>
#define N 4
int a[] = {1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12};
void
rearrange ()
{
int i;
int d;
int sa, sb, sc;
int tmp [3];
d = 0;
sa = 0;
sb = sa + N;
sc = sb + N;
while (sc < N*3)
{
/* Copy out. */
tmp [0] = a [sa];
tmp [1] = a [sb];
tmp [2] = a [sc];
/* Shift */
for (i = sc; i > sb + 1; --i)
a [i] = a [i - 1];
for (i = sb + 1; i > sa + 2; --i)
a [i] = a [i - 2];
sa += 3;
sb += 2;
sc++;
/* Copy in. */
a [d++] = tmp [0];
a [d++] = tmp [1];
a [d++] = tmp [2];
}
}
int
main ()
{
int i;
rearrange ();
for (i = 0; i < N*3; ++i)
printf ("%d\n", a [i]);
putchar ('\n');
return 0;
}
Appears to work. shrug
This is the general solution to the problems like yours.
First of all, for each source index you know the destination index. Now, you go like that:
Take the first item. Find its final place. Memorize the item at that place, and store the first item there. Now, find the place where the memorized item belongs to, and put that item there, memorizing that replaced item. Continue the process until it hits the place of the first item (obviously).
If you've replaced all the items, you are finished. If not, take the first non-transferred item and continue repeat the procedure from step 1, starting with that item.
You'll need to mark which items you've transferred already. There are different ways to do it: for example, you can use one bit from the item's storage.
Okay, the solution above is not exactly O(1), as it requires N extra bits. Here is the outline of O(1) solution by place, though less efficient:
Consider the items a1, b1, c1. They need to be located at the first 3 places of the result. So we are doing the following: remembering a1, b1, c1, compacting the array except these three items to the back (so it looks like this: , , , a2, a3, ..., an, b2, b3, ..., bn, c2, c3, ..., cn), and put the items a1, b1, c1 at their places at the beginning. Now, we found the place for the first 3 items, so continue this procedure for a2, b2, c2 and so on.
Edit:
let's consider the time complexity of the outline above. Denote list size 3*n. We need n steps. Each single compactification of the list can be done in one pass, and therefore is O(n). All the other operations inside a step are O(1), so we get altogether n * O(n) = O(n^2) complexity. This is far from the best solution, however, as #yi_H mentions, linear-time solution requires heavy usage of more-or-less advanced mathematics.
I can't find any O(n) algorithm but this is O(n^2) in-place one, I'll move triples to the last each time code is tested by given input, is in C#, may be is buggy, If is so let me know:
int[] a = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 };
int m = a.Length / 3;
int firstB = a[m];
for (int i = m-1; i > 0; i--)
{
int second = a[3 * m - 3];
int third = a[3 * m - 2];
//a[i + 2 * m] = a[i +2 * m];
a[3 * m - 2] = a[2 * m - 1];
a[3 * m - 3] = a[m - 1];
for (int j = m - 1; j < 2 * m - 1; j++)
{
a[j] = a[j + 1];
}
for (int j = 2 * m - 2; j < 3 * m - 3; j++)
{
a[j] = a[j + 2];
}
a[3 * m - 5] = second;
a[3 * m - 4] = third;
m--;
}
a[1] = firstB;
Here we have x * y numbers:
a_11, a_12, ..., a_1x,
a_21, a_22, ..., a_2x,
...
a_y1, a_y2, ..., a_yx
then the number a_ij has the index i*x + j in an array;
after your program, the new index will be
j * y + i
in your interview
{a1,a2,a3,a4,b1,b2,b3,b4,c1,c2,c3,c4}
x is 4, and y is 3,
so with the index ``n''
i = (n - (n % 4)) / 4;
j = n % 4;
now you can calculate the new index with i, j, x, y.
Good Luck.