I want to crate a program that will subtract a decreasing set of numbers. or in other words:
I an array i have the numbers {20,23,67,3,67,12,24}
There are 7 elements in the array so therefore i want to to this:
20 - 7
23 - 6
67 - 5
3 - 4
67 - 3
12 - 2
24 - 1
I would assume I need to use a loop but am not sure of how to do this.
In C there is no specific count of items for arrays, length is fixed. If do you know the size 7 and create the array with the fixed length you can use the below code. You can use pointers for dynamic length arrays, but it is complicated.
int a[7] = {20,23,67,3,67,12,24};
int i;
for(i=7;i>0;i--) {
printf("%d - %d \n", a[i-1], i);
}
You can start a counter at 0 and go through the array until you hit the null terminator and it will print your array in a the order in which it is stored as.
Related
Let A=a1,a2,..an is an array of integers. The size of the array n and the elements of the array are read from SI. Write a program that will transform the array so each element of the original array is replaced with the number of appearance of the least significant digit (the right most) in the number itself. Print the result array on the standard output.
Compute the count of given digit in a number with separate recursive function.
Input:
5
1 11 1121 111222112 22222
Output:
1 2 3 4 5
int i;
for(i=1;i<=n;i++){
int right_most_digit=a[i]%10;
a[i]/=10;
int count=1; //count is equal to 1 as we have already taken the right most digit
while(a[i]!=0){
int digit=a[i]%10;
if(digit==right_most_digit) count++;
a[i]/=10;
}
a[i]=count;
}
I'm working on a search algorithm project, finding the solution for the 16 puzzle.
I have two lists of structs that contain a 2D array board[N][N]
The numbers in the list are unique in a range of 0-15, the difference is their order.
BoardA = 0 1 2 3 BoardB = 4 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 0 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 12 13 14 15
As you can see, the only difference between boards will be the order of the numbers.
Obviously it is possible to iterate through each board checking if
BoardA[i][j] == BoardB[i][j]
However, if there are hundreds or thousands of boards on a list, comparing them this way is undesirable.
Is there a way to quickly or efficiently compare two boards for sameness?
The elements of a two-dimensional array are located in a contiguous memory block. So to compare two arrays, you are just comparing two memory blocks. The fastest way to do it is with memcmp(). You did not specify what type each array element is, so I will use int and you can replace it with another type if your elements are not ints.
if (memcmp(BoardA, BoardB, sizeof(int) * N * N) == 0) {
/* equal */
} else {
not /* equal */
}
You might save a few cycles with tricks like memcmp(), but really the simple, straightforward comparisons will optimize well. If you exit early on failure, then it will only compare all elements in the case where the arrays are equal, in which case every comparison is needed anyway, even with memcmp().
So keep it simple:
int equals(int (*a)[4], int (*b)[4]) {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i += 1) {
for (int j = 0; i < 4; j += 1) {
if (a[i][j] != b[i][j]) return 0;
}
}
return 1;
}
How do i make the printf("%d, veck[i]); print out all 100 numbers of the array instead of only 1-10?
int vek[100];
for(int a=0;a<10;a++){
for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
printf("%d ", vek[i]); //only shows numbers 1-10
}
printf("\n");
}
You should change the index of vek.
printf("%d ", vek[10* a + i]);
The problem here is your array is a line, but you want to print a square.
The indices of the array might be laid out like this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
But you want said indices to be printed to the screen like this:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
.
.
.
Notice the difference between each row going down a column is 10. i takes care of 0-9 going across, so a needs to take care of 0,10,20,... going down.
Wait a minute, that's multiplication. Given that a has the values 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., a*10 gives us 0, 10, 20, 30, ...
If you're still confused, try subtracting the value of i when each number is printed. Or, write out a list of values a and i will have each time the printf is executed.
One of the hardest parts of learning how to program is not actually learning the language; it's learning how to think about problems, and how to visualize what's going on. Or, if you prefer, how to make the magic not be magic.
I like to add a utility function when I play with multi-dimensional arrays in C. So, I have a function that takes the number of rows, and the x and y coordinates of interest. So, I get something like this:
int get_item(int *matrix, int num_rows, int x, int y)
{
return matrix[num_rows * x + y];
}
In your case, you'd call it like this:
printf("%d ", get_item(vek, 10, a, i));
You can also have a similar put_item function as well.
It is an interview question. We have an array of integers of size N containing element between 0 to N-1. It may be possible that a number can occur more than two times. The goal is to find pairs that sum to a given number X.
I did it using an auxiliary array having count of elements of primary array and then rearranging primary according auxiliary array so that primary is sorted and then searched for pairs.
But interviewer wanted space complexity constant, so I told him to sort the array but it is nlogn time complexity solution. He wanted O(n) solution.
Is there any method available to do it in O(n) without any extra space?
No, I don't believe so. You either need extra space to be able to "sort" the data in O(n) by assigning to buckets, or you need to sort in-place which will not be O(n).
Of course, there are always tricks if you can make certain assumptions. For example, if N < 64K and your integers are 32 bits wide, you can multiplex the space required for the count array on top of the current array.
In other words, use the lower 16 bits for storing the values in the array and then use the upper 16 bits for your array where you simply store the count of values matching the index.
Let's use a simplified example where N == 8. Hence the array is 8 elements in length and the integers at each element are less than 8, though they're eight bits wide. That means (initially) the top four bits of each element are zero.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <- index
(0)7 (0)6 (0)2 (0)5 (0)3 (0)3 (0)7 (0)7
The pseudo-code for an O(n) adjustment which stores the count into the upper four bits is:
for idx = 0 to N:
array[array[idx] % 16] += 16 // add 1 to top four bits
By way of example, consider the first index which stores 7. That assignment statement will therefore add 16 to index 7, upping the count of sevens. The modulo operator is to ensure that values which have already been increased only use the lower four bits to specify the array index.
So the array eventually becomes:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <- index
(0)7 (0)6 (1)2 (2)5 (0)3 (1)3 (1)7 (3)7
Then you have your new array in constant space and you can just use int (array[X] / 16) to get the count of how many X values there were.
But, that's pretty devious and requires certain assumptions as mentioned before. It may well be that level of deviousness the interviewer was looking for, or they may just want to see how a prospective employee handle the Kobayashi Maru of coding :-)
Once you have the counts, it's a simple matter to find pairs that sum to a given X, still in O(N). The basic approach would be to get the cartestian product. For example, again consider that N is 8 and you want pairs that sum to 8. Ignore the lower half of the multiplexed array above (since you're only interested in the counts, you have:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 <- index
(0) (0) (1) (2) (0) (1) (1) (3)
What you basically do is step through the array one by one getting the product of the counts of numbers that sum to 8.
For 0, you would need to add 8 (which doesn't exist).
For 1, you need to add 7. The product of the counts is 0 x 3, so that gives nothing.
For 2, you need to add 6. The product of the counts is 1 x 1, so that gives one occurrence of (2,6).
For 3, you need to add 5. The product of the counts is 2 x 1, so that gives two occurrences of (3,5).
For 4, it's a special case since you can't use the product. In this case it doesn't matter since there are no 4s but, if there was one, that couldn't become a pair. Where the numbers you're pairing are the same, the formula is (assuming there are m of them) 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + m-1. With a bit of mathematical widardry, that turns out to be m(m-1)/2.
Beyond that, you're pairing with values to the left, which you've already done so you stop.
So what you have ended up with from
a b c d e f g h <- identifiers
7 6 2 5 3 3 7 7
is:
(2,6) (3,5) (3,5)
(c,b) (e,d) (f,d) <- identifiers
No other values add up to 8.
The following program illustrates this in operation:
#include <stdio.h>
int arr[] = {3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, 3, 5, 8, 9, 4, 4, 4, 4};
#define SZ (sizeof(arr) / sizeof(*arr))
static void dumpArr (char *desc) {
int i;
printf ("%s:\n Indexes:", desc);
for (i = 0; i < SZ; i++) printf (" %2d", i);
printf ("\n Counts :");
for (i = 0; i < SZ; i++) printf (" %2d", arr[i] / 100);
printf ("\n Values :");
for (i = 0; i < SZ; i++) printf (" %2d", arr[i] % 100);
puts ("\n=====\n");
}
That bit above is just for debugging. The actual code to do the bucket sort is below:
int main (void) {
int i, j, find, prod;
dumpArr ("Initial");
// Sort array in O(1) - bucket sort.
for (i = 0; i < SZ; i++) {
arr[arr[i] % 100] += 100;
}
And we finish with the code to do the pairings:
dumpArr ("After bucket sort");
// Now do pairings.
find = 8;
for (i = 0, j = find - i; i <= j; i++, j--) {
if (i == j) {
prod = (arr[i]/100) * (arr[i]/100-1) / 2;
if (prod > 0) {
printf ("(%d,%d) %d time(s)\n", i, j, prod);
}
} else {
if ((j >= 0) && (j < SZ)) {
prod = (arr[i]/100) * (arr[j]/100);
if (prod > 0) {
printf ("(%d,%d) %d time(s)\n", i, j, prod);
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
The output is:
Initial:
Indexes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Counts : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Values : 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 9 4 4 4 4
=====
After bucket sort:
Indexes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Counts : 0 2 1 2 5 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Values : 3 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 9 4 4 4 4
=====
(2,6) 1 time(s)
(3,5) 6 time(s)
(4,4) 10 time(s)
and, if you examine the input digits, you'll find the pairs are correct.
This may be done by converting the input array to the list of counters "in-place" in O(N) time. Of course this assumes input array is not immutable. There is no need for any additional assumptions about unused bits in each array element.
Start with the following pre-processing: try to move each array's element to the position determined by element's value; move element on this position also to the position determined by its value; continue until:
next element is moved to the position from where this cycle was started,
next element cannot be moved because it is already on the position corresponding to its value (in this case put current element to the position from where this cycle was started).
After pre-processing every element either is located at its "proper" position or "points" to its "proper" position. In case we have an unused bit in each element, we could convert each properly positioned element into a counter, initialize it with "1", and allow each "pointing" element to increase appropriate counter. Additional bit allows to distinguish counters from values. The same thing may be done without any additional bits but with less trivial algorithm.
Count how may values in the array are equal to 0 or 1. If there are any such values, reset them to zero and update counters at positions 0 and/or 1. Set k=2 (size of the array's part that has values less than k replaced by counters). Apply the following procedure for k = 2, 4, 8, ...
Find elements at positions k .. 2k-1 which are at their "proper" position, replace them with counters, initial value is "1".
For any element at positions k .. 2k-1 with values 2 .. k-1 update corresponding counter at positions 2 .. k-1 and reset value to zero.
For any element at positions 0 .. 2k-1 with values k .. 2k-1 update corresponding counter at positions k .. 2k-1 and reset value to zero.
All iterations of this procedure together have O(N) time complexity. At the end the input array is completely converted to the array of counters. The only difficulty here is that up to two counters at positions 0 .. 2k-1 may have values greater than k-1. But this could be mitigated by storing two additional indexes for each of them and processing elements at these indexes as counters instead of values.
After an array of counters is produced, we could just multiply pairs of counters (where corresponding pair of indexes sum to X) to get the required counts of pairs.
String sorting is n log n however if you can assume the numbers are bounded (and you can because you're only interested in numbers that sum to a certain value) you can use a Radix sort. Radix sort takes O(kN) time, where "k" is the length of the key. That's a constant in your case, so I think it's fair to say O(N).
Generally I would however solve this using a hash e.g.
http://41j.com/blog/2012/04/find-items-in-an-array-that-sum-to-15/
Though that is of course not a linear time solution.
I'm a c beginner and i've a problem (as usual). I wrote this simple program:
#include <stdio.h>
#define SIZE 10
main()
{
int vettore[9];
int contatore1,contatore2;
for(contatore1 = 0; contatore1 <= 9; ++contatore1)
{
vettore[contatore1] = contatore1*2;
}
printf("%d\n\n", vettore[9]);
for(contatore2 = 0; contatore2 < 10; ++contatore2)
{
printf("%d\n", vettore[contatore2]);
}
printf("\n%d\n", vettore[9]);
return 0;
}
The output of this program is:
18
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
9
10
Why the value of vettore[9] changes 3 times? And why it has the correct value only on the first line of the output? thank you :)
C arrays are zero based so valid indexes for a 9 element array are [0..8]. You are writing beyond the end of your array. This has undefined results but is likely corrupting the next stack variable.
In more detail... vettore has 9 elements, which can be accessed using vettore[0] ... vettore[8]. The final iteration of your first loop writes to vettore[9]. This accesses memory beyond the end of your array. This results in undefined behaviour (i.e. the C standard does not specify expected outcome here) but it is likely that the address of vettore[9] is the same as the address of contatore2, meaning that the latter variable is written to.
You have a similar problem in the next loop which prints more elements than vettore contains.
You can fix this by changing your loops to
for(contatore1 = 0; contatore1 < 9; ++contatore1)
for(contatore2 = 0; contatore2 < 9; ++contatore2)
Note that it would be safer if you changed to calculating the size of the array instead, by using sizeof(vettore)/sizeof(vettore[0]) in the exit test of your loops in place of hard-coding 9.
Your array vettore has 9 elements, but by referencing vettore[9], you're actually referencing the 10th element (since element indexing starts from 0). So it's some random location on the stack, without a well-defined value.
The solution is to index only up to vettore[8], or define vettore to have size 10.
check this out:
for(contatore2 = 0; contatore2 < 10; ++contatore2)
{
printf("%d\n", vettore[contatore2]);
}
you are displaying 11 elements of the vettore array (which is defined as a 9 ints array). I think that the error is in the random allocation on the stack
the vettore size as you defined is 9
int vettore[9];
and in your loop you start from 0 till 9 so you are playing with 10 elements of the array and not 9 (size of the array)
you should define the array with size 10
int vettore[10];
Arrays (i.e. "vectors") start at index zero NOT one; it's contents may be, for example, 5 but it will occupy index locations of 0,1,2,3,4....
[1][2][3][4][5] <- Five items
0 1 2 3 4 <- Their respective locations in the array
Same goes for visualizing characters in strings.....(technically the location in memory contains ASCII value-- look into that for fun ;) )
['c']['a']['t'] <- Three items
0 1 2 <- Their index location in the array
I suggest Kochan's C Programming book; great for starting out!!!