I basically need the equivalent result of the following Python itertools command in C:
a = itertools.permutations(range(4),2))
Currently my process involves first "choosing" 5 elements from 10 then generating permutations for those 5 elements as shown here
The issue with this approach is the order of the outputs. I need it to be (a), while what i get is (b), shown below.
a = itertools.permutations(range(4),2)
for i in a:
print(i)
(0, 1)
(0, 2)
(0, 3)
(1, 0)
(1, 2)
(1, 3)
(2, 0)
(2, 1)
(2, 3)
(3, 0)
(3, 1)
(3, 2)
b = itertools.combinations(range(4),2)
for i in b:
c = itertools.permutations(i)
for j in c:
print(j)
(0, 1)
(1, 0)
(0, 2)
(2, 0)
(0, 3)
(3, 0)
(1, 2)
(2, 1)
(1, 3)
(3, 1)
(2, 3)
(3, 2)
An alternate approach which I am using is as follows
void perm(int n, int k)
{
bool valid = true;
int h = 0, i = 0, j = 0, limit = 1;
int id = 0;
int perm[10] = { 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 };
for (i = 0; i < k; i++)
limit *= n;
for (i = 0; i < limit; i++)
{
id = i;
valid = true;
for (j = 0; j < k; j++)
{
perms[j] = id % n;
id /= n;
for (h = j - 1; h >= 0; h--)
if (perms[j] == perms[h])
{
valid = false; break;
}
if (!valid) break;
}
if (valid)
{
for (h = k - 1; h > 0; h--)
printf("%d,", perms[h]);
printf("%d\n", perms[h]);
count++;
}
}
}
Memory is my constraint, so I cannot store the permutations indefinitely. Performance needs to be better than the algorithm above, as when n is 50 and k is 10, I end up iterating through more invalid combinations(60+%)
I am aware of Heap's algorithm for generating permutations in place but again it generates for entire array not k of n like I need.
Questions.
Is there a better way to do this than iterate n^k times?
Can I make a lazy iterator which moves to next permutation given current permutation?
EDIT this is not a duplicate of std::next_permutation implementation as that will permute and entire range of the input.
I have clearly mentioned i need k of n permutation .ie if my range is 10 I want all permutations of a length (k) say 5, std::next_permutation works when length or permutation is same as length of input range
UPDATE
Here is an ugly recursive NextPerm solution which is about 4 times faster than my older solution and gives the incremental nextPerm like a Python lazy iterator.
int nextPerm(int perm[], int k, int n)
{
bool invalid = true;
int subject,i;
if (k == 1)
{
if (perm[0] == n - 1)
return 0;
else { perm[0]=perm[0]+1; return 1; }
}
subject = perm[k - 1]+1;
while (invalid)
{
if (subject == n)
{
subject = 0;
if (!nextPerm(perm, k - 1, n))
return 0;
}
for (i = 0; i < k-1; i++)
{
if (perm[i] != subject)
invalid = false;
else
{
invalid = true;subject++; break;
}
}
}
perm[k - 1] = subject;
return 1;
}
int main()
{
int a, k =3 ,n = 10;
int perm2[3] = { 0,1,2}; //starting permutation
unsigned long long count = 0;
int depth = 0;
do
{
for (a = 0; a < k - 1; a++)
printf("%d,", perm2[a]);
printf("%d\n", perm2[k - 1]);
count++;
}
while (nextPerm(perm2,k,n));
printf("\n%llu", count);
getchar();
return 0;
}
There are simple modification to the standard permutation algorithms which will produce k-permutations.
Lexicographically-ordered permutations (aka std::next_permutation)
In C++, k-permutations can be generated by the simple expedient using std::next_permutation, and just reversing the n-k-suffix of the permutation before each call to std::next_permutation.
It's reasonably clear how that works: the algorithm generates permutations in order, so the first permutation starting with a given prefix has the remaining suffix in increasing order, and the last permutation with the same prefix has its suffix in decreasing order. Decreasing order is simply the reverse of increasing order, so a single call to std::reverse is sufficient.
The lexicographical order next-permutation algorithm is very simple:
Search backwards from the end for an element which could be increased by swapping it with some later element.
Once the rightmost such element is found, find the smallest following element with which it could be swapped, and swap them.
Sort the new suffix into increasing order (by reversing it, since it was previously in decreasing order).
An advantage of the lexicographical algorithm is that it transparently handles arrays with repeated elements. As long as the number of repetitions of any given element is O(1), next-permutation is amortized O(1) (per call), and in the worst case it is O(n). When generating k-permutations, the extra flip causes the cost of next_k_permutation to be O(n-k), which is effectively O(n) if k is fixed. That's still reasonably fast, but not as fast as non-iterative algorithms which can maintain state instead of doing the search in step 1 to figure out which element to move.
The following C implementation is equivalent to std::reverse(); std::next_permutation(); (except that it swaps before reversing):
#include <stddef.h>
/* Helper functions */
static void swap(int* elements, size_t a, size_t b) {
int tmp = elements[a]; elements[a] = elements[b]; elements[b] = tmp;
}
static void flip(int* elements, size_t lo, size_t hi) {
for (; lo + 1 < hi; ++lo, --hi) swap(elements, lo, hi - 1);
}
/* Given an array of n elements, finds the next permutation in
* lexicographical order with a different k-prefix; in effect, it
* generates all k-permutations of the array.
* It is required that the suffix be sorted in ascending order. This
* invariant will be maintained by the function.
* Before the first call, the array must be sorted in ascending order.
* Returns true unless the input is the last k-permutation.
*/
int next_k_permutation(int* elements, size_t n, size_t k) {
// Find the rightmost element which is strictly less than some element to its
// right.
int tailmax = elements[n - 1];
size_t tail = k;
while (tail && elements[tail - 1] >= tailmax)
tailmax = elements[--tail];
// If no pivot was found, the given permutation is the last one.
if (tail) {
size_t swap_in;
int pivot = elements[tail - 1];
// Find the smallest element strictly greater than the pivot, either
// by searching forward from the pivot or backwards from the end.
if (pivot >= elements[n - 1]) {
for (swap_in = tail; swap_in + 1 < k && elements[swap_in + 1] > pivot; ++swap_in) {}
} else {
for (swap_in = n - 1; swap_in > k && elements[swap_in - 1] > pivot; --swap_in) {}
}
// Swap the pivots
elements[tail - 1] = elements[swap_in];
elements[swap_in] = pivot;
// Flip the tail.
flip(elements, k, n);
flip(elements, tail, n);
}
return tail;
}
Here's a simple driver and a sample run:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int intcmp(const void* a, const void* b) {
return *(int*)a < *(int*)b ? -1 :
*(int*)a > *(int*)b ? 1 :
0 ;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
size_t k = (argc > 1) ? atoi(argv[1]) : 0;
if (argc < k + 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s K element...\n"
" where K <= number of elements\n",
argv[0]);
return 1;
}
size_t n = argc - 2;
int elements[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) elements[i] = atoi(argv[i + 2]);
qsort(elements, n, sizeof *elements, intcmp);
do {
const char* delimiter = "";
for (size_t i = 0; i < k; ++i) {
printf("%s%2d ", delimiter, elements[i]);
delimiter = " ";
}
putchar('\n');
} while (next_k_permutation(elements, n, k));
return 0;
}
Sample run (with repeated element):
$ ./k_next_permutation 2 7 3 4 4 5
3 4
3 5
3 7
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 7
5 3
5 4
5 7
7 3
7 4
7 5
Modified Heap's algorithm
As an example of an algorithm which maintains state, Heap's algorithm can be easily modified to produce k-permutations. The only change is that when the algorithm recurses down to position n - k, the k-suffix is reported as the k-permutation and the (n-k)-prefix is transformed the way the Heap algorithm would transform it if it were run to conclusion: the prefix reversed if its length is odd and rotated one to the left if its length is even. (That's a big hint about how Heap's algorithm works, by the way.)
Using the recursive algorithm is a bit annoying because it doesn't really allow incremental permutations. However, it's simple to follow. Here, I've just passed a functor into the recursive procedure which is called with each permutation in turn.
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stddef.h>
/* Helper functions */
static void swap(int* elements, size_t a, size_t b) {
int tmp = elements[a]; elements[a] = elements[b]; elements[b] = tmp;
}
static void flip(int* elements, size_t lo, size_t hi) {
for (; lo + 1 < hi; ++lo, --hi) swap(elements, lo, hi - 1);
}
static void rotate_left(int* elements, size_t lo, size_t hi) {
if (hi > lo) {
int tmp = elements[lo];
for (size_t i = lo + 1; i < hi; ++i) elements[i - 1] = elements[i];
elements[hi - 1] = tmp;
}
}
/* Recursive function; the main function will fill in the extra parameters */
/* Requires hi >= lo and hi >= k. Array must have size (at least) lo + k */
static bool helper(int* array, size_t lo, size_t k, size_t hi,
bool(*process)(void*, int*, size_t), void* baton) {
if (hi == lo) {
if (!process(baton, array + lo, k)) return false;
if (lo % 2)
flip(array, 0, lo);
else
rotate_left(array, 0, lo);
}
else {
for (size_t i = 0; i < hi - 1; ++i) {
if (!helper(array, lo, k, hi - 1, process, baton))
return false;
swap(array, hi % 2 ? 0 : i, hi - 1);
}
if (!helper(array, lo, k, hi - 1, process, baton))
return false;
}
return true;
}
/* Generate all k-permutations of the given array of size n.
* The process function is called with each permutation; if it returns false,
* generation of permutations is terminated.
*/
bool k_heap_permute(int* array, size_t n, size_t k,
bool(*process)(void*, int*, size_t), void* baton) {
assert(k <= n);
return helper(array, n - k, k, n, process, baton);
}
Here's an example of its use:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
bool print_array(void* vf, int* elements, size_t n) {
FILE* f = vf;
const char* delim = "";
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
fprintf(f, "%s%2d", delim, elements[i]);
delim = " ";
}
putc('\n', f);
return true;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
size_t k = (argc > 1) ? atoi(argv[1]) : 0;
if (argc < k + 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s K element...\n"
" where K <= number of elements\n",
argv[0]);
return 1;
}
size_t n = argc - 2;
int elements[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
elements[i] = atoi(argv[i + 2]);
k_heap_permute(elements, n, k, print_array, stdout);
return 0;
}
Sample run:
$ ./permut 2 1 5 9 7 3
7 3
9 3
5 3
1 3
1 5
7 5
9 5
3 5
3 9
1 9
7 9
5 9
5 7
3 7
1 7
9 7
9 1
5 1
3 1
7 1
Related
This is the task I have got:
I need to write a function (not recursive) which has two parameters.
An array of integers.
An integer representing the size of the array.
The function will move the duplicates to an end of the array.
And will give the size of the different digits.
Example:
5 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 2, n = 7
we will get back 5 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 5 , 2 and 5
We must keep the original sort as it is (which means like in example 5 must)
It does not matter how we sort the duplicates ones but just keep the sort for the original array as it is)
The function has to print the number of different digits (like in example 5)
The the input range of numbers in array [-n,n]
I can only use 1 additional array for help.
It has to be O(n)
I tried it so many times and feel like am missing something. Would appreciate any advice/suggestions.
int moveDup(int* arr, int n)
{
int* C = (int*)calloc(n * 2 + 1, sizeof(int));
assert(C);
/*int* count = C + n;*/
int *D = arr[0];
int value = 0, count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
value = arr[i];
if (C[value + n] == 0)
{
*D = arr[i];
D++;
count++;
}
C[value + n] = C[value + n] + 1;
}
while (1 < C[value + n])
{
*D = i;
D++;
C[value + n]--;
}
free(C);
return count;
}
This algorithm will produce the required results in O(n) arithmetic complexity:
Input is an array A with n elements indexed from A0 to An−1 inclusive. For each Ai, −n ≤ Ai ≤ n.
Create an array C that can be indexed from C−n to C+n, inclusive. Initialize C to all zeros.
Define a pointer D. Initialize D to point to A0.
For 0 ≤ i < n:
If CAi=0, copy Ai to where D points and advance D one element.
Increment CAi.
Set r to the number of elements D has been advanced from A0.
For −n ≤ i ≤ +n:
While 1 < CAi:
Copy i to where D points and advance D one element.
Decrement CAi.
Release C.
Return r. A contains the required values.
A sample implementation is:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NumberOf(a) (sizeof (a) / sizeof *(a))
int moveDuplicates(int Array[], int n)
{
int *memory = calloc(2*n+1, sizeof *Array);
if (!memory)
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error, unable to allocate memory.\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
int *count = memory + n;
int *destination = Array;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
// Count each element. If it is unique, move it to the front.
if (!count[Array[i]]++)
*destination++ = Array[i];
// Record how many unique elements were found.
int result = destination - Array;
// Append duplicates to back.
for (int i = -n; i <= n; ++i)
while (0 < --count[i])
*destination++ = i;
free(memory);
return result;
}
int main(void)
{
int Array[] = { 5, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2 };
printf("There are %d different numbers.\n",
moveDuplicates(Array, NumberOf(Array)));
for (int i = 0; i < NumberOf(Array); ++i)
printf(" %d", Array[i]);
printf("\n");
}
here is the right answer, figured it out by myself.
int moveDup(int* arr, int n)
{
int* seen_before = (int*)calloc(n * 2 + 1, sizeof(int));
assert(seen_before);
int val = 0, count = 0, flag = 1;
int j = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
val = arr[i];
if (seen_before[arr[i] + n] == 0)
{
seen_before[arr[i] + n]++;
count++;
continue;
}
else if (flag)
{
j = i + 1;
flag = 0;
}
while (j < n)
{
if (seen_before[arr[j] + n] == 0)
{
count++;
seen_before[arr[j] + n]++;
swap(&arr[i], &arr[j]);
j++;
if (j == n)
{
free(seen_before);
return count;
}
break;
}
/*break;*/
j++;
if (j == n)
{
free(seen_before);
return count;
}
}
}
}
second right answer
int* mem = (int*)calloc(2 * n + 1, sizeof * arr);
assert(mem);
int* count = mem + n;
int* dest = arr;
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
if (count[arr[i]]++ == 0)
{
*dest = arr[i];
*dest++;
}
}
res = dest - arr;
for (i = -n; i <= n; ++i)
{
while (0 < --count[i])
{
*dest++ = i;
}
}
free(mem);
return res;
I'm currently working on an assignment which tells me to get the largest count number on a sequence in a array (ex: arr[] = {1,2,3,4,5}, valid sequence is {1,2},{2,3},{5}, or {2,3,4,5}. I've used an algorithm that finds the largest value of an array without sorting it, but, the online judge considers it wrong because it ran for too long (Time Limit Error). So I've changed my code to use a sorting algorithm.
I'm trying to find the largest value in an array by sorting it first, then printing the last value (biggest) of the array, which worked if I input this:
Input:
1 // cases
3 2
2 2 2
Output:
SIZE of Array is: 3
UNSORTED countArr:
0. 1
1. 1
2. 1
(after sorting) SORTED countArr:
0. 1
1. 1
2. 1
However, if I try to have to input multiple "cases" I would get:
Input:
2 // cases
4 11
2 9 1 1
3 2
2 2 2
Output:
SIZE of Array is: 4
UNSORTED countArr:
0. 2
1. 3
2. 2
3. 1
(after sorting) SORTED countArr:
0. 1
1. 2
2. 2
3. 3
SIZE of Array is: 4 //why did the array size become 4, instead of 3
UNSORTED countArr:
0. 1
1. 1
2. 1
3. 3 // and what is this 3 doing here? it should have ended at number 2.
(after sorting) SORTED countArr:
0. 1
1. 1
2. 1
3. 3 // same as above
If anyone could help, could you tell me where I'm wrong?
Source code:
#include <stdio.h>
// all function is for quicksort
void swap(int* a, int* b) {
int temp = *a;
*a = *b;
*b = temp;
}
int partition (int arr [], int low, int high) {
int pivot = arr [high];
int i = (low - 1);
for (int j = low; j <= high- 1; j++) {
if (arr [j] < pivot) {
i++;
swap (&arr [i], &arr [j]);
}
}
swap (&arr [i + 1], &arr [high]);
return (i + 1);
}
void quickSort (int arr[], int low, int high) {
if (low < high) {
int pi = partition (arr, low, high);
quickSort (arr, low, pi - 1);
quickSort (arr, pi + 1, high);
}
}
int main () {
int cases, numofElement;
int limit, set [5001], sum = 0, count = 0, countArr [100001], size = 0, largest;
int i, j, k, l, m;
scanf ("%d", &cases);
for (i = 0; i < cases; i++) {
scanf ("%d %d", &numofElement, &limit);
for (j = 0; j < numofElement; j++) {
scanf ("%d", &set [j]);
}
// so the program knows if the array 'set []' is reaching its last digit
set [numofElement] = -2;
for (k = 0; k < numofElement; k++) {
if (set [k] > limit) {
// to skip over or (if all sequence is invalid) to print "-1"
countArr [k] = -1;
continue;
}
for (l = k; l < numofElement; l++) {
sum += set [l];
count += 1;
if ((sum <= limit) && (sum + set [l + 1] > limit || set [l + 1] == -2)) {
countArr [k] = count;
sum = 0;
count = 0;
break;
}
}
}
// count how many number there are in 'countArr []', so we can find its largest value
size = 0;
l = 0;
while (countArr [l] != 0) {
size += 1;
l++;
}
printf ("SIZE of Array is: %d\n", size);
printf ("UNSORTED countArr:\n");
for (j = 0; j < size; j++) {
printf ("%d. %d\n", j, countArr [j]);
}
// sort the 'temp []' array, and output its largest value
quickSort (countArr, 0, size - 1);
printf ("(after sorting) SORTED countArr:\n");
for (j = 0; j < size; j++) {
printf ("%d. %d\n", j, countArr [j]);
}
}
return 0;
}
Is a simple error, you don't reset the element of countArr array to 0 at the beginning of the first for cycle.
If you fix this your program should work.
After this istruction you need to add the reset to zero :
for (i = 0; i < cases; i++){
... reset to zero countArr
... rest of the programm
}
I have a task where I have to fill an array with 16 random numbers, in random indexes.
4 of those elements have to be -1, and all the other left indexes have to be 0-15, but different from another, meaning it is impossible for two different indexes have the same number (0-15).
Filling 4 random indexes is easy, and so is filling the other indexes with random numbers between 0-15, but how do I feel them in such way that they are necessarily different from each other?
There are also two more conditions which complicate this task much more, the first one is that the number of the index cannot have the same number within it, meaning arr[3] == 3 is impossible, and another condition is that
(m[p] == j && m[j] == mp && m != j)
is something that we must take care of so it won't happen. For example, if arr[2] == 0 and arr[0] == 2, we have to change it so it won't happen.
I'm so confused, I had literally sat 8 hours yesterday in front of this, trying all sort of things, and I have no idea, honestly..
void FillArray(int *sites, int length)
{
int checkarr[N] = { 0 };
int i,
cnt = 0,
j = 0,
t = 0,
k,
times = 0;
int *p = sites;
while (cnt < C)
{
i = rand() % length;
if (p[i] - 1)
cnt = cnt;
p[i] = -1;
cnt++;
}
while (j < length)
{
if (p[j] == -1) j++;
else
{
p[j] = rand() % length;
checkarr[p[j]]++;
j++;
}
}
j =0;
while (j<length)
{
for (k=0; k<length;k++)
{
while (checkarr[k] > 1)
{
while (t < length)
{
if (p[j] == p[t] && p[j] != -1 && j != t)
{
checkarr[p[t]]--;
p[t] = rand() % length;
checkarr[p[t]]++;
times++;
}
else t++;
}
if (times < 11)
{
j++;
t = 0;
times = 0;
}
}
}
}
}
I tried using the Fisher-Yates shuffle method, but for somereason it doesn't even fill the array. I don't know why
while (j
if (p[j] == -1)
j++;
else {
while (m < length) {
m = rand() % length;
if (helpingArray[m] != -2)
{
p[j] = helpingArray[m];
helpingArray[m] = -2;
j++;
}
else if (helpingArray[m] == -2)
{
j = j;
}
for (w = 0; w < length; w++)
{
if (helpingArray[w] == -2)
count++;
}
if (count == 12) {
m = length;
}
}
}
}
}
I hope this will help, I tried to stay in the line with your first draft and what you were going for, just to note that this should work for an N length array. I changed the conditions on your second while to check the conditions before placing the value- and now you don't need to go over the set array and check and update the values.
you can also go another way as was commented here and just fill the array with values with help of one aux array to check each value is used only once and then randomly swap the indexes under the conditions.
I wrote this down but I didn't run tests- so make sure you understand whats going on and upgrade it to your needs. I do recommend using only one aux array, easy on memory and less whiles and checks.
GOOD LUCK
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#define N 16
#define C 4
void FillArray(int *sites, int length) {
/*these aux arrays will keep track if an index was fill of if a value was used*/
int checkarrIndex[N] = { 0 };
int checkarrVal[N] = { 0 };
int i, cnt = 0, full=0; /*full is when all index are filled */
int *p = sites;
while (cnt < C) {
i = rand() % length;
if (checkarrIndex[i] == 0) /* checkarrIndex will let you know if an index has been gvin a value*/
{
++checkarrIndex[i]; /*now checkarrIndex[i] will be one so this index is now not valid for placement next time*/
p[i] = -1;
++full;/*at the end of this while full will equal 4*/
cnt++;
}
}
while (full < length) /*here you need to draw a random index and a random value for it,
not just a random value for a fixed index like you did, if I got this wrong just
go over the free indexes and place a rand value one at a time in the same manner*/
{
int index; /*will store new random index */
int value; /*will store new random value */
index = rand() % N;
value = rand() % N;/*max value is 15*/
while(checkarrIndex[index]!= 0) /*check if this index was already placed */
{
index = rand() % N; /*try a another one */
}
/*I made this while loop to check all the con before filling the array */
while(checkarrVal[value]!= 0 || p[value]== index || index == value) /*check if this value was already used or if p[i]=j&&p[j]=i cond happens and make sure p[a] != a*/
{
value = rand() % N; /*try a another one */
}
++checkarrIndex[index];/*set index as used */
++checkarrVal[value];/*set value as used */
p[index] = value;
++full; /*another place was filled */
}
}
static void PrintArray(int* arr, size_t size)
{
int i = 0 ;
for (i = 0 ; i< size; ++i)
{
printf("%d| ", arr[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
int main(void)
{
int array[N] = {0};
FillArray(array, N);
PrintArray(array, N);
return 0;
}
I'm not completely sure, but I think the following meets all your special constraints [hopefully].
The random list function is a variation on Fisher Yates. You could recode it to use Durstenfeld if you wish.
I'm not sure that the constraints can be done cleanly in a single pass. That is, apply them while generating the random list.
What I've done is to generate a simple random list. Then, try to detect/fix (by swapping) some of the constraint violations.
Then, fill with negative values, trying to fix the self constraint violations if possible.
If that can't be done, repeat the whole process.
Anyway, here is my version. I split up the large function into several smaller ones. I also added a check function and a diagnostic loop. It is quite a bit different from yours, but other answers did this as well:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NEG 4
int opt_N;
int opt_v;
int opt_T;
#ifdef DEBUG
#define dbg(_fmt...) \
do { \
if (opt_v) \
printf(_fmt); \
} while (0)
#else
#define dbg(_fmt...) /**/
#endif
// prtarray -- print array
void
prtarray(int *arr,int len)
{
int idx;
int val;
int hangflg = 0;
int cnt = 0;
for (idx = 0; idx < len; ++idx) {
val = arr[idx];
if (val < 0)
printf(" [%2.2d]=%d",idx,val);
else
printf(" [%2.2d]=%2.2d",idx,val);
hangflg = 1;
if (++cnt >= 8) {
printf("\n");
cnt = 0;
hangflg = 0;
continue;
}
}
if (hangflg)
printf("\n");
}
// fillrand -- generate randomized list (fisher yates?)
void
fillrand(int *arr,int len)
{
char idxused[len];
char valused[len];
int fillcnt = 0;
int idx;
int val;
for (idx = 0; idx < len; ++idx) {
idxused[idx] = 0;
valused[idx] = 0;
}
for (fillcnt = 0; fillcnt < len; ++fillcnt) {
// get random index
while (1) {
idx = rand() % len;
if (! idxused[idx]) {
idxused[idx] = 1;
break;
}
}
// get random value
while (1) {
val = rand() % len;
if (! valused[val]) {
valused[val] = 1;
break;
}
}
arr[idx] = val;
}
}
// swap2 -- swap elements that are (e.g.) arr[i] == arr[arr[i]])
int
swap2(int *arr,int len)
{
int idx;
int lhs;
int rhs;
int swapflg = 0;
dbg("swap2: ENTER\n");
for (idx = 0; idx < len; ++idx) {
lhs = arr[idx];
rhs = arr[lhs];
// don't swap self -- we handle that later (in negfill)
if (lhs == idx)
continue;
if (rhs == idx) {
dbg("swap2: SWAP idx=%d lhs=%d rhs=%d\n",idx,lhs,rhs);
arr[idx] = rhs;
arr[lhs] = lhs;
swapflg = 1;
}
}
dbg("swap2: EXIT swapflg=%d\n",swapflg);
return swapflg;
}
// negfill -- scan for values that match index and do -1 replacement
int
negfill(int *arr,int len)
{
int idx;
int val;
int negcnt = NEG;
dbg("negfill: ENTER\n");
// look for cells where value matches index (e.g. arr[2] == 2)
for (idx = 0; idx < len; ++idx) {
val = arr[idx];
if (val != idx)
continue;
if (--negcnt < 0)
continue;
// fill the bad cell with -1
dbg("negfill: NEGFIX idx=%d val=%d\n",idx,val);
arr[idx] = -1;
}
// fill remaining values with -1
for (; negcnt > 0; --negcnt) {
while (1) {
idx = rand() % len;
val = arr[idx];
if (val >= 0)
break;
}
dbg("negfill: NEGFILL idx=%d\n",idx);
arr[idx] = -1;
}
dbg("negfill: EXIT negcnt=%d\n",negcnt);
return (negcnt >= 0);
}
// fillarray -- fill array satisfying all contraints
void
fillarray(int *arr,int len)
{
while (1) {
// get randomized list
fillrand(arr,len);
if (opt_v)
prtarray(arr,len);
// swap elements that are (e.g. arr[i] == arr[arr[i]])
while (1) {
if (! swap2(arr,len))
break;
}
// look for self referential values and do -1 fill -- stop on success
if (negfill(arr,len))
break;
}
}
// checkarray -- check for contraint violations
// RETURNS: 0=okay
int
checkarray(int *arr,int len)
{
int idx;
int lhs;
int rhs;
int negcnt = 0;
int swapflg = 0;
dbg("checkarray: ENTER\n");
if (opt_v)
prtarray(arr,len);
for (idx = 0; idx < len; ++idx) {
lhs = arr[idx];
if (lhs < 0) {
++negcnt;
continue;
}
rhs = arr[lhs];
if (rhs == idx) {
printf("checkarray: PAIR idx=%d lhs=%d rhs=%d\n",idx,lhs,rhs);
swapflg = 2;
}
if (lhs == idx) {
printf("checkarray: SELF idx=%d lhs=%d\n",idx,lhs);
swapflg = 1;
}
}
if (negcnt != NEG) {
printf("checkarray: NEGCNT negcnt=%d\n",negcnt);
swapflg = 3;
}
dbg("checkarray: EXIT swapflg=%d\n",swapflg);
return swapflg;
}
int
main(int argc,char **argv)
{
char *cp;
int *arr;
--argc;
++argv;
opt_T = 100;
opt_N = 16;
for (; argc > 0; --argc, ++argv) {
cp = *argv;
if (*cp != '-')
break;
switch (cp[1]) {
case 'N':
opt_N = (cp[2] != 0) ? atoi(cp + 2) : 32;
break;
case 'T':
opt_T = (cp[2] != 0) ? atoi(cp + 2) : 10000;
break;
case 'v':
opt_v = ! opt_v;
break;
}
}
arr = malloc(sizeof(int) * opt_N);
for (int tstno = 1; tstno <= opt_T; ++tstno) {
printf("\n");
printf("tstno: %d\n",tstno);
fillarray(arr,opt_N);
if (checkarray(arr,opt_N))
break;
prtarray(arr,opt_N);
}
free(arr);
return 0;
}
My C is rusty, and I don't want to implement a Fisher-Yates shuffle or deal with the bad behavior of C PRNGs, so I'm expressing the algorithm in pseudo-code. Okay, I lie. It's Ruby, but it reads like pseudo-code and is heavily commented to show the logic of the solution. Consider the comments to be the solution, and the stuff in between a concrete illustration that the algorithm being described actually works.
N = 16
# Create + populate an array containing 0,...,N-1
ary = Array.new(N) { |i| i }
# Shuffle it
ary.shuffle!
# Iterate through the array. If any value equals its index, swap it with
# the value at the next index, unless it's the last array element
ary.each_index { |i| ary[i], ary[i + 1] = ary[i + 1], ary[i] if ary.length - i > 1 && ary[i] == i }
# If the last element equals its index, swap it with any other element
# selected at random. The rand function generates a random integer
# between 0, inclusive, and its argument, exclusive.
last = ary.length - 1
if ary[last] == last
random_index = rand(last)
ary[last], ary[random_index] = ary[random_index], ary[last]
end
# Replace 4 randomly selected entries with -1
4.times { ary[rand(ary.length)] = -1 }
# The array now contains unique elements (except for the -1's),
# none of which are equal to their index value
p ary
# Produces, e.g.: [4, 10, -1, 5, 9, -1, 15, 14, 7, 8, 12, 1, -1, 0, -1, 2]
All of this takes O(N) work. If your last constraint is violated, reject the solution and retry.
I believe the following generates a solution to the constraints with uniform distribution over all the solutions that satisfy the constraints:
Put the numbers 0 to 15 in pool A.
Put the numbers 0 to 15 in pool B.
12 times, draw a number a from pool A and a number b from pool B (in each case drawing randomly with uniform distribution and removing the drawn number from its pool, so it will not be chosen again later). Assign m[a] = b.
For each of the four numbers a remaining in pool A, assign m[a] = -1.
For all i from 0 to 15 (inclusive) and all j from i to 15 (inclusive), test whether m[i] == j && m[j] == i (note that this tests for both swaps and for m[i] == i, as it includes i == j). If such a case is found, reject the assignments and repeat the algorithm from the beginning.
I expect algorithmic improvements are possible to reduce or eliminate the frequency of rejection, but this establishes a baseline correct algorithm.
It is also possible to use a single pool instead of two and instead do some rearranging when the −1 elements are assigned, but the algorithm above is more easily expressed.
I am confused with your description. For placing N elements into N positions, I have a solution.
Question:
Place N elements into N positions with constraints:
(1) arr[i] != i;
(2) if arr[i] = j, then arr[j] != i
Solution:
For current element i (0 <= i < N)
(1) Find candidate position count
(a) count = N - i
(b) if arr[i] is empty => count -= 1
else if arr[arr[i]] is empty => count -= 1
(2) Select a random position from candidates
(a) relative_index = random() % count
(Note: relative_index means the position index in candidates)
(b) Find absolute_index by searching candidates
a candidate index j satisfies following constrains
<1> arr[j] is empy
<2> j != i
<3> j != arr[i] when arr[i] is not empty
I've looked around online for an non-recursive k-combinations algorithm, but have had trouble understanding all of the reindexing involved; The code I've found online is not commented well, or crashes.
For example, if I have the collection, {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'} and I want to find a 3 combinations; ie,
abc
abd
abe
acd
ace
ade
bcd
bce
bde
cde
How can I implement an algorithm to do this? When I write down the general procedure, this it is clear. That is; I increment the last element in a pointer until it points to 'e', increment the second to last element and set the last element to the second to last element + 1, then increment the last element again until it reaches 'e' again, and so on and so forth, as illustrated by how I printed the combinations. I looked at Algorithm to return all combinations of k elements from n for inspiration, but my code only prints 'abc'. Here is a copy of it:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static void
comb(char *buf, int n, int m)
{
// Initialize a pointer representing the combinations
char *ptr = malloc(sizeof(char) * m);
int i, j, k;
for (i = 0; i < m; i++) ptr[i] = buf[i];
while (1) {
printf("%s\n", ptr);
j = m - 1;
i = 1;
// flag used to denote that the end substring is at it's max and
// the j-th indice must be incremented and all indices above it must
// be reset.
int iter_down = 0;
while((j >= 0) && !iter_down) {
//
if (ptr[j] < (n - i) ) {
iter_down = 1;
ptr[j]++;
for (k = j + 1; k < m; k++) {
ptr[k] = ptr[j] + (k - j);
}
}
else {
j--;
i++;
}
}
if (!iter_down) break;
}
}
int
main(void)
{
char *buf = "abcde";
comb(buf, 5, 3);
return 1;
}
The very big problem with your code is mixing up indices and values. You have an array of chars, but then you try to increment the chars as if they were indices into the buffer. What you really need is an array of indices. The array of chars can be discarded, since the indices provide all you need, or you can keep the array of chars separately.
I found a psuedocode description here, http://www4.uwsp.edu/math/nwodarz/Math209Files/209-0809F-L10-Section06_03-AlgorithmsForGeneratingPermutationsAndCombinations-Notes.pdf
and implemented it in C by
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// Prints an array of integers
static void
print_comb(int *val, int len) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
printf("%d ", val[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
// Calculates n choose k
static int
choose(int n, int k)
{
double i, l = 1.0;
double val = 1.0;
for (i = 1.0; i <= k; i++) {
l = ((double)n + 1 - i) / i;
val *= l;
}
return (int) val;
}
static void
comb(int n, int r)
{
int i, j, m, max_val;
int s[r];
// Initialize combinations
for (i = 0; i < r; i++) {
s[i] = i;
}
print_comb(s, r);
// Iterate over the remaining space
for (i = 1; i < choose(n, r); i++) {
// use for indexing the rightmost element which is not at maximum value
m = r - 1;
// use as the maximum value at an index, specified by m
max_val = n - 1; // use for
while(s[m] == max_val) {
m--;
max_val--;
}
// increment the index which is not at it's maximum value
s[m]++;
// iterate over the elements after m increasing their value recursively
// ie if the m-th element is incremented, all elements afterwards are
// incremented by one plus it's offset from m
// For example, this is responsible for switching 0 3 4 to 1 2 3 in
// comb(5, 3) since 3 and 4 in the first combination are at their maximum
// value
for (j = m; j < r - 1; j++) {
s[j + 1] = s[j] + 1;
}
print_comb(s, r);
}
}
int
main(void)
{
comb(5, 3);
return 1;
}
I am trying to write a C code to generate all possible partitions (into 2 or more parts) with distinct elements of a given number. The sum of all the numbers of a given partition should be equal to the given number. For example, for input n = 6, all possible partitions having 2 or more elements with distinct elements are:
1, 5
1, 2, 3
2, 4
I think a recursive approach should work, but I am unable to take care of the added constraint of distinct elements. A pseudo code or a sample code in C/C++/Java would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Edit: If it makes things easier, I can ignore the restriction of the partitions having atleast 2 elements. This will allow the number itself to be added to the list (eg, 6 itself will be a trivial but valid partition).
You don't need recursion at all. The list of numbers is essentially a stack, and by iterating in order you ensure no duplicates.
Here's a version which shows what I mean (you tagged this C, so I wrote it in C. In C++ you could use a dynamic container with push and pop, and tidy this up considerably).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void partition(int part)
{
int *parts;
int *ptr;
int i;
int idx = 0;
int tot = 0;
int cur = 1;
int max = 1;
while((max * (max + 1)) / 2 <= part) max++;
ptr = parts = malloc(sizeof(int) * max);
for(;;) {
if((tot += *ptr++ = cur++) < part) continue;
if(tot == part) {
for(i = 0 ; i < ptr-parts ; i++) {printf("%d ",parts[i]);}
printf("\n");
}
do {
if(ptr == parts) {free(parts); return;}
tot -= cur = *--ptr;
} while(++cur + tot > part);
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
partition(6);
return 0;
}
What you're trying to do doesn't make a lot of sense to me but here's how I would approach it.
First, I'd create a loop that iterates i from 1 to n - 1. In the first loop, you could add the partition 1, i. Then I'd go recursive using the value in i to get all the sub-partitions that can also be added to 1.
And then continue to 2, and so on.
First, write a recursive algorithm that returns all partitions, including those that contain repeats.
Second, write an algorithm that eliminates partitions that contain duplicate elements.
EDIT:
You can avoid results with duplicates by avoiding making recursive calls for already-seen numbers. Pseudocode:
Partitions(n, alreadySeen)
1. if n = 0 then return {[]}
2. else then
3. results = {}
4. for i = 1 to n do
5. if i in alreadySeen then continue
6. else then
7. subresults = Partitions(n - i, alreadySeen UNION {i})
8. for subresult in subresults do
9. results = results UNION {[i] APPEND subresult}
10. return results
EDIT:
You can also avoid generating the same result more than once. Do this by modifying the range of the loop, so that you only add new elements in a monotonically increasing fashion:
Partitions(n, mustBeGreaterThan)
1. if n = 0 then return {[]}
2. else then
3. results = {}
4. for i = (mustBeGreaterThan + 1) to n do
5. subresults = Partitions(n - i, i)
6. for subresult in subresults do
7. results = results UNION {[i] APPEND subresult}
8. return results
I sketched this solution (it can be beautified and optimized) that shouldn't generate duplicates:
void partitions(int target, int curr, int* array, int idx)
{
if (curr + array[idx] == target)
{
for (int i=0; i <= idx; i++)
cout << array[i] << " ";
cout << endl;
return;
}
else if (curr + array[idx] > target)
{
return;
}
else
{
for(int i = array[idx]+1; i < target; i++)
{
array[idx+1] = i;
partitions(target, curr + array[idx], array, idx+1);
}
}
}
int main(){
int array[100];
int N = 6;
for(int i = 1; i < N; i++)
{
array[0] = i;
partitions(N, 0, array, 0);
}
}
It is another solution that is based on an iterative algorithm. It is much faster than #imreal's algorithm and marginally faster than #JasonD's algorithm.
Time needed to compute n = 100
$ time ./randy > /dev/null
./randy > /dev/null 0.39s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.393 total
$ time ./jasond > /dev/null
./jasond > /dev/null 0.43s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.438 total
$ time ./imreal > /dev/null
./imreal > /dev/null 3.28s user 0.13s system 99% cpu 3.435 total
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
int next_partition(int *a, int* kp) {
int k = *kp;
int i, t, b;
if (k == 1) return 0;
if (a[k - 1] - a[k - 2] > 2) {
b = a[k - 2] + 1;
a[k - 2] = b;
t = a[k - 1] - 1;
i = k - 1;
while (t >= 2*b + 3) {
b += 1;
a[i] = b;
t -= b;
i += 1;
}
a[i] = t;
k = i + 1;
} else {
a[k - 2] = a[k - 2] + a[k - 1];
a[k - 1] = 0;
k = k - 1;
}
*kp = k;
return 1;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
int n = 100;
int m = floor(0.5 * (sqrt(8*n + 1) - 1));
int i, k;
int *a;
a = malloc(m * sizeof(int));
k = m;
for (i = 0; i < m - 1; i++) {
a[i] = i + 1;
}
a[m - 1] = n - m*(m-1)/2;
for (i = 0; i < k; i++) printf("%d ", a[i]);
printf("\n");
while (next_partition(a, &k)) {
for (i = 0; i < k; i++) printf("%d ", a[i]);
printf("\n");
}
free(a);
return 0;
}