I'm totally new here but I heard a lot about this site and now that I've been accepted for a 7 months software development 'bootcamp' I'm sharpening my C knowledge for an upcoming test.
I've been assigned a question on a test that I've passed already, but I did not finish that question and it bothers me quite a lot.
The question was a task to write a program in C that moves a character (char) array's cells by 1 to the left (it doesn't quite matter in which direction for me, but the question specified left). And I also took upon myself NOT to use a temporary array/stack or any other structure to hold the entire array data during execution.
So a 'string' or array of chars containing '0' '1' '2' 'A' 'B' 'C' will become
'1' '2' 'A' 'B' 'C' '0' after using the function once.
Writing this was no problem, I believe I ended up with something similar to:
void ArrayCharMoveLeft(char arr[], int arrsize, int times) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= arrsize ; i++) {
ArraySwap2CellsChar(arr, i, i+1);
}
}
As you can see the function is somewhat modular since it allows to input how many times the cells need to move or shift to the left. I did not implement it, but that was the idea.
As far as I know there are 3 ways to make this:
Loop ArrayCharMoveLeft times times. This feels instinctively inefficient.
Use recursion in ArrayCharMoveLeft. This should resemble the first solution, but I'm not 100% sure on how to implement this.
This is the way I'm trying to figure out: No loop within loop, no recursion, no temporary array, the program will know how to move the cells x times to the left/right without any issues.
The problem is that after swapping say N times of cells in the array, the remaining array size - times are sometimes not organized. For example:
Using ArrayCharMoveLeft with 3 as times with our given array mentioned above will yield
ABC021 instead of the expected value of ABC012.
I've run the following function for this:
int i;
char* lastcell;
if (!(times % arrsize))
{
printf("Nothing to move!\n");
return;
}
times = times % arrsize;
// Input checking. in case user inputs multiples of the array size, auto reduce to array size reminder
for (i = 0; i < arrsize-times; i++) {
printf("I = %d ", i);
PrintArray(arr, arrsize);
ArraySwap2CellsChar(arr, i, i+times);
}
As you can see the for runs from 0 to array size - times. If this function is used, say with an array containing 14 chars. Then using times = 5 will make the for run from 0 to 9, so cells 10 - 14 are NOT in order (but the rest are).
The worst thing about this is that the remaining cells always maintain the sequence, but at different position. Meaning instead of 0123 they could be 3012 or 2301... etc.
I've run different arrays on different times values and didn't find a particular pattern such as "if remaining cells = 3 then use ArrayCharMoveLeft on remaining cells with times = 1).
It always seem to be 1 out of 2 options: the remaining cells are in order, or shifted with different values. It seems to be something similar to this:
times shift+direction to allign
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 1R
5 3R
6 5R
7 3R
8 1R
the numbers change with different times and arrays. Anyone got an idea for this?
even if you use recursion or loops within loops, I'd like to hear a possible solution. Only firm rule for this is not to use a temporary array.
Thanks in advance!
If irrespective of efficiency or simplicity for the purpose of studying you want to use only exchanges of two array elements with ArraySwap2CellsChar, you can keep your loop with some adjustment. As you noted, the given for (i = 0; i < arrsize-times; i++) loop leaves the last times elements out of place. In order to correctly place all elements, the loop condition has to be i < arrsize-1 (one less suffices because if every element but the last is correct, the last one must be right, too). Of course when i runs nearly up to arrsize, i+times can't be kept as the other swap index; instead, the correct index j of the element which is to be put at index i has to be computed. This computation turns out somewhat tricky, due to the element having been swapped already from its original place. Here's a modified variant of your loop:
for (i = 0; i < arrsize-1; i++)
{
printf("i = %d ", i);
int j = i+times;
while (arrsize <= j) j %= arrsize, j += (i-j+times-1)/times*times;
printf("j = %d ", j);
PrintArray(arr, arrsize);
ArraySwap2CellsChar(arr, i, j);
}
Use standard library functions memcpy, memmove, etc as they are very optimized for your platform.
Use the correct type for sizes - size_t not int
char *ArrayCharMoveLeft(char *arr, const size_t arrsize, size_t ntimes)
{
ntimes %= arrsize;
if(ntimes)
{
char temp[ntimes];
memcpy(temp, arr, ntimes);
memmove(arr, arr + ntimes, arrsize - ntimes);
memcpy(arr + arrsize - ntimes, temp, ntimes);
}
return arr;
}
But you want it without the temporary array (more memory efficient, very bad performance-wise):
char *ArrayCharMoveLeft(char *arr, size_t arrsize, size_t ntimes)
{
ntimes %= arrsize;
while(ntimes--)
{
char temp = arr[0];
memmove(arr, arr + 1, arrsize - 1);
arr[arrsize -1] = temp;
}
return arr;
}
https://godbolt.org/z/od68dKTWq
https://godbolt.org/z/noah9zdYY
Disclaimer: I'm not sure if it's common to share a full working code here or not, since this is literally my first question asked here, so I'll refrain from doing so assuming the idea is answering specific questions, and not providing an example solution for grabs (which might defeat the purpose of studying and exploring C). This argument is backed by the fact that this specific task is derived from a programing test used by a programing course and it's purpose is to filter out applicants who aren't fit for intense 7 months training in software development. If you still wish to see my code, message me privately.
So, with a great amount of help from #Armali I'm happy to announce the question is answered! Together we came up with a function that takes an array of characters in C (string), and without using any previously written libraries (such as strings.h), or even a temporary array, it rotates all the cells in the array N times to the left.
Example: using ArrayCharMoveLeft() on the following array with N = 5:
Original array: 0123456789ABCDEF
Updated array: 56789ABCDEF01234
As you can see the first cell (0) is now the sixth cell (5), the 2nd cell is the 7th cell and so on. So each cell was moved to the left 5 times. The first 5 cells 'overflow' to the end of the array and now appear as the Last 5 cells, while maintaining their order.
The function works with various array lengths and N values.
This is not any sort of achievement, but rather an attempt to execute the task with as little variables as possible (only 4 ints, besides the char array, also counting the sub function used to swap the cells).
It was achieved using a nested loop so by no means its efficient runtime-wise, just memory wise, while still being self-coded functions, with no external libraries used (except stdio.h).
Refer to Armali's posted solution, it should get you the answer for this question.
Related
I have dynamically allocated array consisting of a lot of numbers (200 000+) and I have to find out, if (and how many) these numbers are contained in given interval. There can be duplicates and all the numbers are in random order.
Example of numbers I get at the beginning:
{1,2,3,1484984,48941651,489416,1816,168189161,6484,8169181,9681916,121,231,684979,795641,231484891,...}
Given interval:
<2;150000>
I created a simple algorithm with 2 for loops cycling through all numbers:
for( int j = 0; j <= numberOfRepeats; j++){
for( int i = 0; i < arraySize; i++){
if(currentNumber == array[i]){
counter++;
}
}
currentNumber++;
}
printf(" -> %d\n", counter);
}
This algorithm is too slow for my task. Is there more efficient way for me to implement my solution? Could sorting the arrays by value help in this case / wouldn't that be too slow?
Example of working program:
{ 1, 7, 22, 4, 7, 5, 11, 9, 1 }
<4;7>
-> 4
The problem was simple as the single comment in my question answered it - there was no reason for second loop. Single loop could do it alone.
My changed code:
for(int i = 0; i <= arraySize-1; i++){
if(array[i] <= endOfInterval && array[i] >= startOfInterval){
counter++;
}
This algorithm is too slow for my task. Is there more efficient way for me to implement my solution? Could sorting the arrays by value help in this case / wouldn't that be too slow?
Of course, it is slow. A single pass algorithm to count the number of elements that are in the set should suffice, just count them in a single pass if they pass the test (be n[i] >= lower bound && be n[i] < upper bound or similar approach) will do the work.
Only in case you need to consider duplicates (e.g. not counting them) you will need to consider if you have already touched them or no. In that case, the sorting solution will be faster (a qsort(3) call is O(nlog(n)) against the O(nn) your double loop is doing, so it will run in an almost linear, then you make a second pass over the data (converting your complexity to O(nlog(n) + n), still lower than O(nn) for the large amount of data you have.
Sorting has the advantage that puts all the repeated key values together, so you have to consider only if the last element you read was the same as the one you are processing now, if it is different, then count it only if it is in the specified range.
One final note: Reading a set of 200,000 integers into an array to filter them, based on some criteria is normally a bad, non-scalable way to solve a problem. Your problem (select the elements that belong to a given interval) allow you for a scalable and better solution by streaming the problem (you read a number, check if it is in the interval, then output it, or count it, or whatever you like to do on it), without using a large amount of memory to hold them all before starting. That is far better way to solve a problem, as it allows you to read a true unbounded set of numbers (coming e.g. from a file) and producing an output based on that:
#include <stdio.h>
#define A (2)
#define B (150000)
int main()
{
int the_number;
size_t count = 0;
int res;
while ((res = scanf("%d", &the_number)) > 0) {
if (the_number >= A && the_number <= B)
count++;
}
printf("%zd numbers fitted in the range\n", count);
}
on this example you can give the program 1.0E26 numbers (assuming that you have an input file system large enough to hold a file this size) and your program will be able to handle it (you cannot create an array with capacity to hold 10^26 values)
my development environment : visual studio
Now, I have to create a input file and print random numbers from 1 to 500000 without duplicating in the file. First, I considered that if I use a big size of local array, problems related to heap may happen. So, I tried to declare as a static array. Then, in main function, I put random numbers without overlapping in the array and wrote the numbers in input file accessing array elements. However, runtime errors(the continuous blinking of the cursor in the console window) continue to occur.
The source code is as follows.
#define SIZE 500000
int sort[500000];
int main()
{
FILE* input = NULL;
input = fopen("input.txt", "w");
if (sort != NULL)
{
srand((unsigned)time(NULL));
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
sort[i] = (rand() % SIZE) + 1;
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
{
if (sort[i] == sort[j])
{
i--;
break;
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++)
{
fprintf(input, "%d ", sort[i]);
}
fclose(input);
}
return 0;
}
When I tried to reduce the array size from 1 to 5000, it has been implemented. So, Carefully, I think it's a memory out phenomenon. Finally, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on how to solve this problem.
“First, I considered that if I use a big size of local array, problems related to heap may happen.”
That does not make any sense. Automatic local objects generally come from the stack, not the heap. (Also, “heap” is the wrong word; a heap is a particular kind of data structure, but the malloc family of routines may use other data structures for managing memory. This can be referred to simply as dynamically allocated memory or allocated memory.)
However, runtime errors(the continuous blinking of the cursor in the console window)…
Continuous blinking of the cursor is normal operation, not a run-time error. Perhaps you are trying to say your program continues executing without ever stopping.
#define SIZE 500000<br>
...
sort[i] = (rand() % SIZE) + 1;
The C standard only requires rand to generate numbers from 0 to 32767. Some implementations may provide more. However, if your implementation does not generate numbers up to 499,999, then it will never generate the numbers required to fill the array using this method.
Also, using % to reduce the rand result skews the distribution. For example, if we were reducing modulo 30,000, and rand generated numbers from 0 to 44,999, then rand() % 30000 would generate the numbers from 0 to 14,999 each two times out of every 45,000 and the numbers from 15,000 to 29,999 each one time out of every 45,000.
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
So this algorithm attempts to find new numbers by rejecting those that duplicate previous numbers. When working on the last of n numbers, the average number of tries is n, if the selection of random numbers is uniform. When working on the second-to-last number, the average is n/2. When working on the third-to-last, the average is n/3. So the average number of tries for all the numbers is n + n/2 + n/3 + n/4 + n/5 + … 1.
For 5000 elements, this sum is around 45,472.5. For 500,000 elements, it is around 6,849,790. So your program will average around 150 times the number of tries with 500,000 elements than with 5,000. However, each try also takes longer: For the first try, you check against zero prior elements for duplicates. For the second, you check against one prior element. For try n, you check against n−1 elements. So, for the last of 500,000 elements, you check against 499,999 elements, and, on average, you have to repeat this 500,000 times. So the last try takes around 500,000•499,999 = 249,999,500,000 units of work.
Refining this estimate, for each selection i, a successful attempt that gets completely through the loop of checking requires checking against all i−1 prior numbers. An unsuccessful attempt will average going halfway through the prior numbers. So, for selection i, there is one successful check of i−1 numbers and, on average, n/(n+1−i) unsuccessful checks of an average of (i−1)/2 numbers.
For 5,000 numbers, the average number of checks will be around 107,455,347. For 500,000 numbers, the average will be around 1,649,951,055,183. Thus, your program with 500,000 numbers takes more than 15,000 times as long than with 5,000 numbers.
When I tried to reduce the array size from 1 to 5000, it has been implemented.
I think you mean that with an array size of 5,000, the program completes execution in a short amount of time?
So, Carefully, I think it's a memory out phenomenon.
No, there is no memory issue here. Modern general-purpose computer systems easily handle static arrays of 500,000 int.
Finally, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on how to solve this problem.
Use a Fischer-Yates shuffle: Fill the array A with integers from 1 to SIZE. Set a counter, say d to the number of selections completed so far, initially zero. Then pick a random number r from 1 to SIZE-d. Move the number in that position of the array to the front by swapping A[r] with A[d]. Then increment d. Repeat until d reaches SIZE-1.
This will swap a random element of the initial array into A[0], then a random element from those remaining into A[1], then a random element from those remaining into A[2], and so on. (We stop when d reaches SIZE-1 rather than when it reaches SIZE because, once d reaches SIZE-1, there is only one more selection to make, but there is also only one number left, and it is already in the last position in the array.)
Hey all I am trying to store a matrix in an array of chars and then print it out.
My code that I have written:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main() {
int i;
int j;
int row=0;
int col=0;
int temp=0;
char c;
int array[3][2] = {{}};
while((c=getchar()) !=EOF && c!=10){
if((c==getchar()) == '\n'){
array[col++][row];
break;
}
array[col][row++]=c;
}
for(i=0; i<=2; i++){
for(j=0; j<=3; j++){
printf("%c ", array[i][j]);
}
printf("\n");
}
}
Using a text file such as:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 1 2 3
I would like to be able to print that back out to the user, however what my code outputs is:
1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8
I cannot figure out what is wrong with my code, some how I am off an iteration in one of my loops, or it has something to do with not handling new lines properly. Thanks!
A few problems that I can see are:
As user3386109 mentioned in the comments, your array should be array[3][4] to match the input file.
The line array[col++][row]; does nothing but increment col, and then uselessly indexes the array and throws away the value. You can do the same thing with just col++;. However, you're not even using col at any later point in the code, so really you don't even need that. The break; all by itself does what you need. Which leads me to...
You're not populating the array like you think you are. You're incrementing col and then immediately breaking out of the loop. So how does the entire array ever get populated? Just by pure luck. As it turns out with your array declared as array[3][4], the array access array[0][4] (which isn't even technically supposed to exist) is equivalent to array[1][0]. This is because all multidimensional arrays (in C and just about any other language) are laid out in memory as flat arrays, because memory itself uses linear addressing. In C, this flattening of multidimensional arrays is done in so-called Row-major order, meaning that as you traverse the raw memory from first address to last, the corresponding multidimensional indices (i,j,k,...z, or in your case just i,j) increment in such a way that the last index will change the fastest. So, not only does col never get incremented except for right before you break out of the loop, but row never gets reset to 0, which means you're storing values in array[0][0], array[0][1], ... array[0][11], not array[0][0] .. array[0][3], array[1][0] .. array[1][3], array[2][0] .. array[2][3] as you were expecting. It was just luck that, thanks to row-major ordering, these two sets of indices were actually equivalent (and C doesn't do array bounds checking for you because it assumes you're doing it yourself).
This is just personal preference, but you will usually see arrays referenced as array[row][col], not array[col][row]. But like I said, that's just preference. If it's easier for you to visualize it as [col][row], then by all means do it that way. Just make sure you do it consistently and don't accidentally switch gears midway through your code to doing [row][col].
Your code will break and only print out part of the matrix if you accidentally put a trailing space at the end of one of your rows of numbers, because of the weird way you're checking for the end of input (doing a second getchar after each initial getchar and checking to see if the second character is \n). This method isn't wrong per se, in the sense that it will work, but it's not very robust and relies on your input data being precisely formatted and containing no trailing spaces. Anyone who has ever spent hours trying to figure out why their Makefile didn't work, only to find out that it was because they had leading spaces instead of tabs can attest to the fact that those kinds of errors can be extremely time-consuming and frustrating to track down. Precisely formatted input data is always a good thing, but your code shouldn't break in unexpected an non-obvious ways (such as only printing out half of a matrix) when it doesn't get perfect input. Edit: It only occurred to me later on that you were actually intending to do two mutually exclusive things here: increment col for the next line of input, and break out of the loop after having (presumably) detected the end of input. You need to figure out which thing you're doing here, although thanks to item #3, your code actually (and oddly) works just by taking user3386109's advice and changing array[3][2] to array[3][4].
I can only assume you used <= 2 and <= 3 in your for loops instead of < 3 and < 4, respectively, because you prefer doing it that way. That's fine, but it generally makes for easier-to-read code if your for loop conditions match up with your array dimensions. Just speculating here, but perhaps that's why you had array[3][2] when you really meant array[3][4].
I found this question on a programming forum:
A table composed of N*M cells,each having a certain quantity of apples, is given. you start from the upper-left corner. At each step you can go down or right one cell.Design an algorithm to find the maximum number of apples you can collect ,if you are moving from upper-left corner to bottom-right corner.
I have thought of three different complexities[in terms of time & space]:
Approach 1[quickest]:
for(j=1,i=0;j<column;j++)
apple[i][j]=apple[i][j-1]+apple[i][j];
for(i=1,j=0;i<row;i++)
apple[i][j]=apple[i-1][j]+apple[i][j];
for(i=1;i<row;i++)
{
for(j=1;j<column;j++)
{
if(apple[i][j-1]>=apple[i-1][j])
apple[i][j]=apple[i][j]+apple[i][j-1];
else
apple[i][j]=apple[i][j]+apple[i-1][j];
}
}
printf("\n maximum apple u can pick=%d",apple[row-1][column-1]);
Approach 2:
result is the temporary array having all slots initially 0.
int getMax(int i, int j)
{
if( (i<ROW) && (j<COL) )
{
if( result[i][j] != 0 )
return result[i][j];
else
{
int right = getMax(i, j+1);
int down = getMax(i+1, j);
result[i][j] = ( (right>down) ? right : down )+apples[i][j];
return result[i][j];
}
}
else
return 0;
}
Approach 3[least space used]:
It doesn't use any temporary array.
int getMax(int i, int j)
{
if( (i<M) && (j<N) )
{
int right = getMax(i, j+1);
int down = getMax(i+1, j);
return apples[i][j]+(right>down?right:down);
}
else
return 0;
}
I want to know which is the best way to solve this problem?
There's little difference between approaches 1 and 2, approach 1 is probably a wee bit better since it doesn't need the stack for the recursion that approach 2 uses since that goes backwards.
Approach 3 has exponential time complexity, thus it is much worse than the other two which have complexitx O(rows*columns).
You can make a variant of approach 1 that proceeds along a diagonal to use only O(max{rows,columns}) additional space.
in term of time the solution 1 is the best because there is no recursie function.
the call of recursive function takes time
Improvement to First Approach
Do you really need the temporary array to be N by M?
No.
If the initial 2-d array has N columns, and M rows, we can solve this with a 1-d array of length M.
Method
In your first approach you save all of the subtotals as you go, but you really only need to know the apple-value of the cell to the left and above when you move to the next column. Once you have determined that, you don't look at those previous cells ever again.
The solution then is to write-over the old values when you start on the next column over.
The code will look like the following (I'm not actually a C programmer, so bear with me):
The Code
int getMax()
{
//apple[][] is the original apple array
//N is # of columns of apple[][]
//M is # of rows of apple[][]
//temp[] is initialized to zeroes, and has length M
for (int currentCol = 0; currentCol < N; currentCol++)
{
temp[0] += apple[currentCol][0]; //Nothing above top row
for (int i = 1; i < M; i++)
{
int applesToLeft = temp[i];
int applesAbove = temp[i-1];
if (applesToLeft > applesAbove)
{
temp[i] = applesToLeft + apple[currentCol][i];
}
else
{
temp[i] = applesAbove + apple[currentCol][i];
}
}
}
return temp[M - 1];
}
Note: there isn't any reason to actually store the values of applesToLeft and applesAbove into local variables, and feel free to use the ? : syntax for the assignment.
Also, if there are less columns than rows, you should rotate this so the 1-d array is the shorter length.
Doing it this way is a direct improvement over your first approach, as it saves memory, and plus iterating over the same 1-d array really helps with caching.
I can only think of one reason to use a different approach:
Multi-Threading
To gain the benefits of multi-threading for this problem, your 2nd approach is just about right.
In your second approach you use a memo to store the intermediate results.
If you make your memo thread-safe (by locking or using a lock-free hash-set) , then you can start multiple threads all trying to get the answer for the bottom-right corner.
[// Edit: actually since assigning ints into an array is an atomic operation, I don't think you would need to lock at all ].
Make each call to getMax choose randomly whether to do the left getMax or above getMax first.
This means that each thread works on a different part of the problem and since there is the memo, it won't repeat work a different thread has already done.
I am currently working on a project for my algorithms class and am at a bit of a standstill. We were assigned to do improvements to merge sort, that was in the book, by implementing specific changes. I have worked fine through the first 2 changes but the 3'rd one is killer.
Merge sort, the one we are improving, copies the contents of the input array into the temporary array, and then copies the temporary array back into the input array. So it recursively sorts the input array, placing the two sorted halves into the temporary array. And then it merges the two halves in the temporary array together, placing the sorted sequence into the input array as it goes.
The improvement is that this double copying is wasteful can be done without. His hint is that: We can make it so that each call to Merge only copies in one direction, but the calls to Merge alternate the direction.
This is supposedly done by blurring the lines between the original and temporary array.
I am not really looking for code as I am confident that I can code this. I just have no idea what i'm supposed to be doing. The professor is gone for the day so I can't ask him until next week when I have his course again.
Has anyone done something like this before? Or can decipher and put it into laymans terms for me :P
The first improvement, simply has it use insertion sort whenever an Array gets small enough that it will benefit greatly, timewise, from doing so.
The second improvement stops allocating two dynamic arrays (the 2 halves that are sorted) and instead allocates 1 array of size n and that is what is used instead of the two dynamic arrays. That's that last one I did. The code for that is :
//#include "InsertionSort.h"
#define INSERTION_CUTOFF 250
#include <limits.h> // needed for INT_MAX (the sentinel)
void merge3(int* inputArray, int p, int q, int r, int* tempArray)
{
int i,j,k;
for (i = p; i <= r; i++)
{
tempArray[i] = inputArray[i];
}
i = p;
j = q+1;
k = p;
while (i <= q && j <= r)
{
if (tempArray[i] <= tempArray[j])
{
inputArray[k++] = tempArray[i++];
}
else
{
inputArray[k++] = tempArray[j++];
}
}
}//merge3()
void mergeSort3Helper(int* inputArray, int p, int r, int* tempArray)
{
if (r - p < INSERTION_CUTOFF)
{
insertionSort(inputArray,p,r);
return;
}
int q = (p+r-1)/2;
mergeSort3Helper(inputArray,p,q,tempArray);
mergeSort3Helper(inputArray,q+1,r,tempArray);
merge3(inputArray,p,q,r,tempArray);
}//mergeSort3Helper()
void mergeSort3(int* inputArray, int p, int r)
{
if (r-p < 1)
{
return;
}
if (r - p < INSERTION_CUTOFF)
{
insertionSort(inputArray,p,r);
return;
}
int* tempArray = malloc((r-p)+1*sizeof(int));
tempArray[r+1] = INT_MAX;
mergeSort3Helper(inputArray,p,r,tempArray);
// This version of merge sort should allocate all the extra space
// needed for merging just once, at the very beginning, instead of
// within each call to merge3().
}//mergeSort3()
The algorithm is like this:
A1: 7 0 2 9 5 1 4 3
A2: (uninitialized)
Step 1:
A1 : unchanged
A2: 0 7 2 9 1 5 3 4
Step 2:
A1: 0 2 7 9 1 3 4 5
A2: unchanged
Step 3:
A1: unchanged
A2: 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 9
This involves you copying only one way each time and follows the steps of mergesort. As your professor said, you blur the lines between the work array and the sorted array by alternating which is which, and only copying once things are sorted.
I suspect it would be difficult and ultimately unprofitable to avoid all copying. What you want to do instead is to avoid the copy you currently do with each merge.
Your current merge3(inputArray, p,q,r, tempArray) returns the merged result in its original array, which requires a copy; it uses its tempArray buffer only as a resource. In order to do better, you need to modify it to something like merge4(inputArray, p,q,r, outputArray), where the result is returned in the second buffer, not the first.
You will need to change the logic in mergeSort3Helper() to deal with this. One approach requires a comparable interface change, to mergeSort4Helper(inputArray, p,q,r, outputArray), such that it also yields its result in its second buffer. This will require a copy at the lowest (insertion sort) level, and a second copy in the top-level mergeSort4() if you want your final result in the same buffer it came in. However, it eliminates all other unnecessary copies.
Alternately, you could add a boolean parameter to mergeSort4Helper() to indicate whether you want the result returned in the first or second buffer. This value would alternate recursively, resulting in at most one copy, at the lowest level.
A final option might be to do the merging non-recursively, and alternate buffers at each pass. This would also result in at most one copy; however, I would expect the resulting access pattern to be inherently less cache-friendly than the recursive one.