I am writing maze generator and at the some point I have to choose random unvisited neighbour of a cell. The first idea was just to enumerate neighbours such as left = 0, top = 1, right = 2, bottom = 3 and use rand() % 4 to generate random number and choose appropriate cell. However, not all cells features 4 neighbours, so that I had to write following code:
Cell* getRandomNeighbour(const Maze* const maze, const Cell* const currentCell) {
int randomNumb = rand() % 4;
int timer = 1;
while(timer > 0) {
if (randomNumb == 0 && currentCell->x < maze->width-1 && maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x+1].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x+1];
if (randomNumb == 1 && currentCell->x > 0 && maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x-1].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x-1];
if (randomNumb == 2 && currentCell->y < maze->height-1 && maze->map[currentCell->y+1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y+1][currentCell->x];
if (randomNumb == 3 && currentCell->y > 0 && maze->map[currentCell->y-1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y-1][currentCell->x];
timer--;
randomNumb = rand() % 4;
}
if (currentCell->x < maze->width-1 && maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x+1].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x+1];
if (currentCell->x > 0 && maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x-1].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x-1];
if (currentCell->y < maze->height-1 && maze->map[currentCell->y+1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y+1][currentCell->x];
if (currentCell->y > 0 && maze->map[currentCell->y-1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited)
return &maze->map[currentCell->y-1][currentCell->x];
return NULL;
}
So, if after 10 iterations the right decision isn't chosen, it will be picked by brute force. This approach seems to be good for the reason that varying of variable timer changes the complexity of maze: the less timer is, the more straightforward maze is. Nevertheless, if my only purpose is to generate completely random maze, it takes a lot of execution time and look a little bit ugly. Is there any pattern(in C language) or way of refactoring that could enable me to deal with this situation without long switches and a lot of if-else constructions?
As #pat and #Ivan Gritsenko suggested, you can limit your random choice to the valid cells only, like this:
Cell* getRandomNeighbour(const Maze* const maze, const Cell* const currentCell)
{
Cell *neighbours[4] = {NULL};
int count = 0;
// first select the valid neighbours
if ( currentCell->x < maze->width - 1
&& maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x + 1].isUnvisited ) {
neighbours[count++] = &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x + 1];
}
if ( currentCell->x > 0
&& maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x - 1].isUnvisited ) {
neighbours[count++] = &maze->map[currentCell->y][currentCell->x - 1];
}
if ( currentCell->y < maze->height - 1
&& maze->map[currentCell->y + 1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited ) {
neighbours[count++] = &maze->map[currentCell->y + 1][currentCell->x];
}
if ( currentCell->y > 0
&& maze->map[currentCell->y - 1][currentCell->x].isUnvisited ) {
neighbours[count++] = &maze->map[currentCell->y - 1][currentCell->x];
}
// then choose one of them (if any)
int chosen = 0;
if ( count > 1 )
{
int divisor = RAND_MAX / count;
do {
chosen = rand() / divisor;
} while (chosen >= count);
}
return neighbours[chosen];
}
The rationale behind the random number generation part (as opposed to the more common rand() % count) is well explained in this answer.
Factoring repeated code, and a more disciplined way of picking the order of directions to try yields this:
// in_maze returns whether x, y is a valid maze coodinate.
int in_maze(const Maze* const maze, int x, int y) {
return 0 <= x && x < maze->width && 0 <= y && y < maze->height;
}
Cell *get_random_neighbour(const Maze* const maze, const Cell* const c) {
int dirs[] = {0, 1, 2, 3};
// Randomly shuffle dirs.
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
int r = i + rand() % (4 - i);
int t = dirs[i];
dirs[i] = dirs[r];
dirs[r] = t;
}
// Iterate through the shuffled dirs, returning the first one that's valid.
for (int trial=0; trial<4; trial++) {
int dx = (dirs[trial] == 0) - (dirs[trial] == 2);
int dy = (dirs[trial] == 1) - (dirs[trial] == 3);
if (in_maze(maze, c->x + dx, c->y + dy)) {
const Cell * const ret = &maze->map[c->y + dy][c->x + dx];
if (ret->isUnvisited) return ret;
}
}
return NULL;
}
(Disclaimer: untested -- it probably has a few minor issues, for example const correctness).
Related
I'm trying to implement the Join Five game. It is a game where, given a grid and a starting configuration of dots, you have to add dots in free crossings, so that each dot that you add forms a 5-dot line with those already in the grid. Two lines may only have 1 dot in common (they may cross or touch end to end)
My game grid is an int array that contains 0 or 1. 1 if there is a dot, 0 if there isn't.
I'm doing kinda well in the implementation, but I'd like to display all the possibles moves.
I made a very long and ugly function that is available here : https://pastebin.com/tw9RdNgi (it was way too long for my post i'm sorry)
here is a code snippet :
if(jeu->plat[i][j] == 0) // if we're on a empty spot
{
for(k = 0; k < lineSize; k++) // for each direction
{
//NORTH
if(jeu->plat[i-1-k][j] == 1) // if there is a dot north
{
n++; // we count it
}
else
{
break; //we change direction
}
} //
This code repeats itself 7 other times changing directions and if n or any other variable reaches 4 we count the x and y as a possible move.
And it's not even treating all the cases, if the available spot is between 2 and 2 dots it will not count it. same for 3 and 1 and 1 and 3.
But I don't think the way I started doing it is the best one. I'm pretty sure there is an easier and more optimized way but i can't figure it out.
So my question is: could somebody help me figure out how to find all the possible 5-dot alignments, or tell me if there is a better way of doing it?
Ok, the problem is more difficult than it appears, and a lot of code is required. Everything would have been simpler if you posted all of the necessary code to run it, that is a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable Example. Anyway, I resorted to putting together a structure for the problem which allows to test it.
The piece which answers your question is the following one:
typedef struct board {
int side_;
char **dots_;
} board;
void board_set_possible_moves(board *b)
{
/* Directions
012
7 3
654 */
static int dr[8] = { -1,-1,-1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 };
static int dc[8] = { -1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0,-1,-1 };
int side_ = b->side_;
char **dots_ = b->dots_;
for (int r = 0; r < side_; ++r) {
for (int c = 0; c < side_; ++c) {
// The place already has a dot
if (dots_[r][c] == 1)
continue;
// Count up to 4 dots in the 8 directions from current position
int ndots[8] = { 0 };
for (int d = 0; d < 8; ++d) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 4; ++i) {
int nr = r + dr[d] * i;
int nc = c + dc[d] * i;
if (nr < 0 || nc < 0 || nr >= side_ || nc >= side_ || dots_[nr][nc] != 1)
break;
++ndots[d];
}
}
// Decide if the position is a valid one
for (int d = 0; d < 4; ++d) {
if (ndots[d] + ndots[d + 4] >= 4)
dots_[r][c] = 2;
}
}
}
}
Note that I defined a square board with a pointer to pointers to chars, one per place. If there is a 0 in one of the places, then there is no dot and the place is not a valid move; if there is a 1, then there is a dot; if there is a 2, then the place has no dot, but it is a valid move. Valid here means that there are at least 4 dots aligned with the current one.
You can model the directions with a number from 0 to 7 (start from NW, move clockwise). Each direction has an associated movement expressed as dr and dc. Moving in every direction I count how many dots are there (up to 4, and stopping as soon as I find a non dot), and later I can sum opposite directions to obtain the total number of aligned points.
Of course these move are not necessarily valid, because we are missing the definition of lines already drawn and so we cannot check for them.
Here you can find a test for the function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
board *board_init(board *b, int side) {
b->side_ = side;
b->dots_ = malloc(side * sizeof(char*));
b->dots_[0] = calloc(side*side, 1);
for (int r = 1; r < side; ++r) {
b->dots_[r] = b->dots_[r - 1] + side;
}
return b;
}
board *board_free(board *b) {
free(b->dots_[0]);
free(b->dots_);
return b;
}
void board_cross(board *b) {
board_init(b, 18);
for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
b->dots_[4][7 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[7][4 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[7][10 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[10][4 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[10][10 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[13][7 + i] = 1;
b->dots_[4 + i][7] = 1;
b->dots_[4 + i][10] = 1;
b->dots_[7 + i][4] = 1;
b->dots_[7 + i][13] = 1;
b->dots_[10 + i][7] = 1;
b->dots_[10 + i][10] = 1;
}
}
void board_print(const board *b, FILE *f)
{
int side_ = b->side_;
char **dots_ = b->dots_;
for (int r = 0; r < side_; ++r) {
for (int c = 0; c < side_; ++c) {
static char map[] = " oX";
fprintf(f, "%c%s", map[dots_[r][c]], c == side_ - 1 ? "" : " - ");
}
fprintf(f, "\n");
if (r < side_ - 1) {
for (int c = 0; c < side_; ++c) {
fprintf(f, "|%s", c == side_ - 1 ? "" : " ");
}
fprintf(f, "\n");
}
}
}
int main(void)
{
board b;
board_cross(&b);
board_set_possible_moves(&b);
board_print(&b, stdout);
board_free(&b);
return 0;
}
I'm trying to write a program in C that will solve the following cryptarithm:
one + one = two
seven is prime
nine is a perfect square
Namely, I need to find the numerical values for the words one, two, seven and nine where each letter (o, n, e, t, w, s, v, i) is assigned a numerical value and the complete number also meets all of the above conditions.
I was thinking along the lines of creating an int array for each of the words and then 1) checking if each word meets the condition (e.g is a prime for "seven") and then 2) checking if each integer in the array is consistant with the value of the other words, where the other words also are found to meet their respective conditions.
I can't really see this working though as I would have to continuously convert the int array to a single int throughout every iteration and then I'm not sure how I can simultaneously match each element in the array with the other words.
Perhaps knowing the MIN and MAX numerical range that must be true for each of the words would be useful?
Any ideas?
For a brute-force (ish) method, I'd start with the prime seven, and use the Sieve of Eratosthenes to get all the prime numbers up to 99999. You could discard all answers where the 2nd and 4th digit aren't the same. After that you could move on to the square nine, because three of the digits are determined by the prime seven. That should narrow down the possibilities nicely, and then you can just use the answer of #pmg to finish it off :-).
Update: The following C# program seems to do it
bool[] poss_for_seven = new bool[100000]; // this will hold the possibilities for `seven`
for (int seven = 0; seven < poss_for_seven.Length; seven++)
poss_for_seven[seven] = (seven > 9999); // `seven` must have 5 digits
// Sieve of Eratosthenes to make `seven` prime
for (int seven = 2; seven < poss_for_seven.Length; seven++) {
for (int j = 2 * seven; j < poss_for_seven.Length; j += seven) {
poss_for_seven[j] = false;
}
}
// look through the array poss_for_seven[], considering each possibility in turn
for (int seven = 10000; seven < poss_for_seven.Length; seven++) {
if (poss_for_seven[seven]) {
int second_digit = ((seven / 10) % 10);
int fourth_digit = ((seven / 1000) % 10);
if (second_digit == fourth_digit) {
int e = second_digit;
int n = (seven % 10); // NB: `n` can't be zero because otherwise `seven` wouldn't be prime
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
int nine = n * 1000 + i * 100 + n * 10 + e;
int poss_sqrt = (int)Math.Floor(Math.Sqrt(nine) + 0.1); // 0.1 in case of of rounding error
if (poss_sqrt * poss_sqrt == nine) {
int o = ((2 * e) % 10); // since 2 * `one` = `two`, we now know `o`
int one = o * 100 + n * 10 + e;
int two = 2 * one;
int t = ((two / 100) % 10);
int w = ((two / 10) % 10);
// turns out that `one`=236, `two`=472, `nine` = 3136.
// look for solutions where `s` != `v` with `s` and `v' different from `o`, `n`, `e`,`t`, `w` and `i`
int s = ((seven / 10000) % 10);
int v = ((seven / 100) % 10);
if (s != v && s != o && s != n && s != e && s != t && s != w && s != i && v != o && v != n && v != e && v != t && v != w && v != i) {
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine(seven + "," + nine + "," + one + "," + two);
}
}
}
}
}
}
It seems that nine is always equal to 3136, so that one = 236 and two = 472. However, there are 21 possibiliites for seven. If one adds the constraint that no two digits can take the same value (which is what the C# code above does), then it reduces to just one possibility (although a bug in my code meant this answer originally had 3 possibilities):
seven,nine,one,two
56963,3136,236,472
I just found the time to build a c program to solve your cryptarithm.
I think that tackling the problem mathematicaly, prior to starting the brute force programming, will heavily increase the speed of the output.
Some math (number theory):
Since ONE + ONE = TWO, O cant be larget than 4, because ONE + ONE would result 4 digits. Also O cant be 0. TWO end with O and is an even number, because it is 2 * ONE.
Applying these 3 filters to O, the possible values remain O= {2,4}
Hence E can be {1,2,6,7} because (E+E) modulus 10 must be = O. More specificaly, O=2 implicates E={1,6} and O=4 implicates E={2,7}
Now lets filter N. Given that SEVEN is prime, N must be an odd number. Also N cant be 5, because all that ends with 5 is divisible by 5. Hence N={1,3,7,9}
Now that we have reduced the possibilites for the most ocurring characters (O,E,N), we are ready to hit this cryptarith with all of our brutality, having iterations drastically reduced.
Heres the C code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#define O 0
#define N 1
#define E 2
#define T 3
#define W 4
#define S 5
#define V 6
#define I 7
bool isPerfectSquare(int number);
bool isPrime(int number);
void printSolutions(int countSolutions);
int filterNoRepeat(int unfilteredCount);
int solutions[1000][8]; // solution holder
int possibilitiesO[2] = {2,4};
int possibilitiesN[4] = {1,3,7,9};
int possibilitiesE[4] = {1,6,2,7};
void main() {
int countSolutions = 0;
int numberOne;
// iterate to fill up the solutions array by: one + one = two
for(int o=0;o<2;o++) {
for(int n=0;n<4;n++) {
for(int e=2*o;e<2*o+2;e++) { // following code is iterated 2*4*2 = 16 times
numberOne = 100*possibilitiesO[o] + 10*possibilitiesN[n] + possibilitiesE[e];
int w = ((2*numberOne)/10)%10;
int t = ((2*numberOne)/100)%10;
// check if NINE is a perfect square
for(int i=0;i<=9;i++) { // i can be anything ----- 10 iterations
int numberNine = 1000*possibilitiesN[n] + 100*i + 10*possibilitiesN[n] + possibilitiesE[e];
if(isPerfectSquare(numberNine)) {
// check if SEVEN is prime
for(int s=1;s<=9;s++) { // s cant be 0 ------ 9 iterations
for(int v=0;v<=9;v++) { // v can be anything other than s ------- 10 iterations
if(v==s) continue;
int numberSeven = 10000*s + 1000*possibilitiesE[e] + 100*v + 10*possibilitiesE[e] + possibilitiesN[n];
if(isPrime(numberSeven)) { // store solution
solutions[countSolutions][O] = possibilitiesO[o];
solutions[countSolutions][N] = possibilitiesN[n];
solutions[countSolutions][E] = possibilitiesE[e];
solutions[countSolutions][T] = t;
solutions[countSolutions][W] = w;
solutions[countSolutions][S] = s;
solutions[countSolutions][V] = v;
solutions[countSolutions][I] = i;
countSolutions++;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
// 16 * 9 * 10 * 10 = 14400 iterations in the WORST scenario, conditions introduced reduce MOST of these iterations to 1 if() line
// iterations consumed by isPrime() function are not taken in count in the aproximation above.
// filter solutions so that no two letter have the same digit
countSolutions = filterNoRepeat(countSolutions);
printSolutions(countSolutions); // voila!
}
bool isPerfectSquare(int number) { // check if given number is a perfect square
double root = sqrt((double)number);
if(root==floor(root)) return true;
else return false;
}
bool isPrime(int number) { // simple algoritm to determine if given number is prime, check interval from sqrt(number) to number/2 with a step of +2
int startValue = sqrt((double)number);
if(startValue%2==0) startValue--; // make it odd
for(int k=startValue;k<number/2;k+=2) {
if(number%k==0) return false;
}
return true;
}
void printSolutions(int countSolutions) {
for(int k=0;k<countSolutions;k++) {
int one = 100*solutions[k][O] + 10*solutions[k][N] + solutions[k][E];
int two = 100*solutions[k][T] + 10*solutions[k][W] + solutions[k][O];
int seven = 10000*solutions[k][S] + 1000*solutions[k][E] + 100*solutions[k][V] + 10*solutions[k][E] + solutions[k][N];
int nine = 1000*solutions[k][N] + 100*solutions[k][I] + 10*solutions[k][N] + solutions[k][E];
printf("ONE: %d, TWO: %d, SEVEN: %d, NINE %d\n",one,two,seven,nine);
}
}
int filterNoRepeat(int unfilteredCount) {
int nrSol = 0;
for(int k=0;k<unfilteredCount;k++) {
bool isValid = true;
for(int i=0;i<7;i++) { // if two letters match, solution is not valid
for(int j=i+1;j<8;j++) {
if(solutions[k][i]==solutions[k][j]) {
isValid = false;
break;
}
}
if(!isValid) break;
}
if(isValid) { // store solution
for(int i=0;i<8;i++) {
solutions[nrSol][i] = solutions[k][i];
}
nrSol++;
}
}
return nrSol;
}
You can try the code yourself if you are still interested in this :P. The result is one single solution: ONE: 236, TWO: 472, SEVEN: 56963, NINE: 3136
This solution is the same as Stochastically's solutions, confirming the correctness of both algorithms i think :).
Thanks for providing this nice cryptarithm and have a nice day!
Brute force FTW!
#define ONE ((o*100) + (n*10) + e)
#define TWO ((t*100) + (w*10) + o)
#define SEVEN ((s*10000) + (e*1010) + (v*100) + n)
#define NINE ((n*1010) + (i*100) + e)
for (o = 1; o < 10; o++) { /* 1st digit cannot be zero (one) */
for (n = 1; n < 10; n++) { /* 1st digit cannot be zero (nine) */
if (n == o) continue;
for (e = 0; n < 10; n++) {
if (e == n) continue;
if (e == o) continue;
/* ... */
if (ONE + ONE == TWO) /* whatever */;
/* ... */
}
}
}
For a game in Gameboy programming, I am using four arrays called top, oldTop, bottom and oldBottom:
struct Point { int x, y; };
struct Rect { struct Point xx, yy; };
Rect top[size], oldTop[size];
Rect bottom[size], oldBottom[i];
where Rect is a struct made of two Struct Points, the top-left and the bottom right corner points.
The idea of the game is to have random-heighted blocks top-down from the ceiling and bottom-up from the floor.
It is similar to the copter-classic game. In my infinite while loop, I shift all of the rectangles down by one pixel using the following code
while (1)
{
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
//in Struct Rect, xx is the top-left corner point, and yy is the bottom right
top[i].xx.x--;
top[i].yy.x--;
bottom[i].xx.x--;
bottom[i].yy.x--;
if (top[i].xx.x < 0)
{
top[i].xx.x += 240;
top[i].yy.x += 240;
}
if (bottom[i].xx.x < 0)
{
bottom[i].xx.x += 240;
bottom[i].yy.x += 240;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
drawRect(oldTop[i], colorBlack);
drawRect(oldBottom[i], colorBlack);
}
/*call delay function that wait for Vertical Blank*/
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
drawRect(top[i], colorGreen);
drawRect(bottom[i], colorGreen);
oldTop[i] = top[i];
oldBottom[i] = bottom[i];
}
}
The drawRect method uses DMA to draw the rectangle.
with this code, the code should display the rectangles like this: (drew this up in paint)
But the result I get is
What is odd is that if I don't draw the bottom row at all, then the top row draws fine. The result only messes up when I draw both. This is really weird because I think that the code should be working fine, and the code is not very complicated. Is there a specific reason this is happening, and is there a way to remedy this?
Thanks.
The code that I use to draw the rectangle looks like this:
void drawRect(int row, int col, int width, int height){
int i;
for (i=0; i<height; i++)
{
DMA[3].src = &color;
DMA[3].dst = videoBuffer + (row+r)*240 + col);
DMA[3].cnt = DMA_ON | DMA_FIXED_SOURCE | width;
}
}
Here's a debugging SSCCE (Short, Self-Contained, Correct Example) based on your code. There are assertions in this code that fire; it runs, but is known not to be correct. I've renamed bottom to btm and oldBottom to oldBtm so that the names are symmetric; it makes the code layout more systematic (but is otherwise immaterial).
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct Point { int x, y; } Point;
typedef struct Rect { struct Point xx, yy; } Rect;
enum { size = 2 };
typedef enum { colourGreen = 0, colourBlack = 1 } Colour;
/*ARGSUSED*/
static void drawRect(Rect r, Colour c)
{
printf(" (%3d)(%3d)", r.xx.x, r.yy.x);
}
int main(void)
{
Rect top[size], oldTop[size];
Rect btm[size], oldBtm[size];
int counter = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
top[i].xx.x = 240 - 4 * i;
top[i].xx.y = 0 + 10 + i;
top[i].yy.x = 240 - 14 * i;
top[i].yy.y = 0 + 20 + i;
btm[i].xx.x = 0 + 72 * i;
btm[i].xx.y = 0 + 10 * i;
btm[i].yy.x = 0 + 12 * i;
btm[i].yy.y = 0 + 20 * i;
oldTop[i] = top[i];
oldBtm[i] = btm[i];
}
while (1)
{
if (counter++ > 480) // Limit amount of output!
break;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
//in Struct Rect, xx is the top-left corner point, and yy is the bottom right
top[i].xx.x--;
top[i].yy.x--;
btm[i].xx.x--;
btm[i].yy.x--;
if (top[i].xx.x < 0)
{
top[i].xx.x += 240;
top[i].yy.x += 240;
}
if (btm[i].xx.x < 0)
{
btm[i].xx.x += 240;
btm[i].yy.x += 240;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
assert(top[i].xx.x >= 0 && top[i].yy.x >= 0);
assert(btm[i].xx.x >= 0 && btm[i].yy.x >= 0);
}
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
drawRect(oldTop[i], colourBlack);
drawRect(oldBtm[i], colourBlack);
}
/*call delay function that wait for Vertical Blank*/
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
drawRect(top[i], colourGreen);
drawRect(btm[i], colourGreen);
oldTop[i] = top[i];
oldBtm[i] = btm[i];
}
putchar('\n');
}
return(0);
}
As noted in a late comment, one big difference between this and your code is that oldBottom in your code is declared as:
Rect top[size], oldTop[size];
Rect bottom[size], oldBottom[i];
using the size i instead of size. This probably accounts for array overwriting issues you see.
There's a second problem though; the assertions in the loop in the middle fire:
(240)(240) ( 0)( 0) (236)(226) ( 72)( 12) (239)(239) (239)(239) (235)(225) ( 71)( 11)
(239)(239) (239)(239) (235)(225) ( 71)( 11) (238)(238) (238)(238) (234)(224) ( 70)( 10)
(238)(238) (238)(238) (234)(224) ( 70)( 10) (237)(237) (237)(237) (233)(223) ( 69)( 9)
(237)(237) (237)(237) (233)(223) ( 69)( 9) (236)(236) (236)(236) (232)(222) ( 68)( 8)
(236)(236) (236)(236) (232)(222) ( 68)( 8) (235)(235) (235)(235) (231)(221) ( 67)( 7)
(235)(235) (235)(235) (231)(221) ( 67)( 7) (234)(234) (234)(234) (230)(220) ( 66)( 6)
(234)(234) (234)(234) (230)(220) ( 66)( 6) (233)(233) (233)(233) (229)(219) ( 65)( 5)
(233)(233) (233)(233) (229)(219) ( 65)( 5) (232)(232) (232)(232) (228)(218) ( 64)( 4)
(232)(232) (232)(232) (228)(218) ( 64)( 4) (231)(231) (231)(231) (227)(217) ( 63)( 3)
(231)(231) (231)(231) (227)(217) ( 63)( 3) (230)(230) (230)(230) (226)(216) ( 62)( 2)
(230)(230) (230)(230) (226)(216) ( 62)( 2) (229)(229) (229)(229) (225)(215) ( 61)( 1)
(229)(229) (229)(229) (225)(215) ( 61)( 1) (228)(228) (228)(228) (224)(214) ( 60)( 0)
Assertion failed: (btm[i].xx.x >= 0 && btm[i].yy.x >= 0), function main, file video.c, line 63.
I think your 'not negative' checks should be revised to:
if (top[i].xx.x < 0)
top[i].xx.x += 240;
if (top[i].yy.x < 0)
top[i].yy.x += 240;
if (btm[i].xx.x < 0)
btm[i].xx.x += 240;
if (btm[i].yy.x < 0)
btm[i].yy.x += 240;
This stops anything going negative. However, it is perfectly plausible that you should simply be checking on the bottom-right x-coordinate (instead of the top-left coordinate) using the original block. Or the wraparound may need to be more complex altogether. That's for you to decipher. But I think that the odd displays occur because you were providing negative values where you didn't intend to and weren't supposed to.
The key points to note here are:
When you're debugging an algorithm, you don't have to use the normal display mechanisms.
When you're debugging, reduce loop sizes where you can (size == 2).
Printing just the relevant information (here, the x-coordinates) helped reduce the output.
Putting the counter code to limit the amount of output simplifies things.
If things are going wrong, look for patterns in what is going wrong early.
I had various versions of the drawRect() function before I got to the design shown, which works well on a wide screen (eg 120x65) terminal window.
I have a simple (brute-force) recursive solver algorithm that takes lots of time for bigger values of OpxCnt variable. For small values of OpxCnt, no problem, works like a charm. The algorithm gets very slow as the OpxCnt variable gets bigger. This is to be expected but any optimization or a different algorithm ?
My final goal is that :: I want to read all the True values in the map array by
executing some number of read operations that have the minimum operation
cost. This is not the same as minimum number of read operations.
At function completion, There should be no True value unread.
map array is populated by some external function, any member may be 1 or 0.
For example ::
map[4] = 1;
map[8] = 1;
1 read operation having Adr=4,Cnt=5 has the lowest cost (35)
whereas
2 read operations having Adr=4,Cnt=1 & Adr=8,Cnt=1 costs (27+27=54)
#include <string.h>
typedef unsigned int Ui32;
#define cntof(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof((x)[0]))
#define ZERO(x) do{memset(&(x), 0, sizeof(x));}while(0)
typedef struct _S_MB_oper{
Ui32 Adr;
Ui32 Cnt;
}S_MB_oper;
typedef struct _S_MB_code{
Ui32 OpxCnt;
S_MB_oper OpxLst[20];
Ui32 OpxPay;
}S_MB_code;
char map[65536] = {0};
static int opx_ListOkey(S_MB_code *px_kod, char *pi_map)
{
int cost = 0;
char map[65536];
memcpy(map, pi_map, sizeof(map));
for(Ui32 o = 0; o < px_kod->OpxCnt; o++)
{
for(Ui32 i = 0; i < px_kod->OpxLst[o].Cnt; i++)
{
Ui32 adr = px_kod->OpxLst[o].Adr + i;
// ...
if(adr < cntof(map)){map[adr] = 0x0;}
}
}
for(Ui32 i = 0; i < cntof(map); i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0x0){return -1;}
}
// calculate COST...
for(Ui32 o = 0; o < px_kod->OpxCnt; o++)
{
cost += 12;
cost += 13;
cost += (2 * px_kod->OpxLst[o].Cnt);
}
px_kod->OpxPay = (Ui32)cost; return cost;
}
static int opx_FindNext(char *map, int pi_idx)
{
int i;
if(pi_idx < 0){pi_idx = 0;}
for(i = pi_idx; i < 65536; i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0x0){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
static int opx_FindZero(char *map, int pi_idx)
{
int i;
if(pi_idx < 0){pi_idx = 0;}
for(i = pi_idx; i < 65536; i++)
{
if(map[i] < 0x1){return i;}
}
return -1;
}
static int opx_Resolver(S_MB_code *po_bst, S_MB_code *px_wrk, char *pi_map, Ui32 *px_idx, int _min, int _max)
{
int pay, kmax, kmin = 1;
if(*px_idx >= px_wrk->OpxCnt)
{
return opx_ListOkey(px_wrk, pi_map);
}
_min = opx_FindNext(pi_map, _min);
// ...
if(_min < 0){return -1;}
kmax = (_max - _min) + 1;
// must be less than 127 !
if(kmax > 127){kmax = 127;}
// is this recursion the last one ?
if(*px_idx >= (px_wrk->OpxCnt - 1))
{
kmin = kmax;
}
else
{
int zero = opx_FindZero(pi_map, _min);
// ...
if(zero > 0)
{
kmin = zero - _min;
// enforce kmax limit !?
if(kmin > kmax){kmin = kmax;}
}
}
for(int _cnt = kmin; _cnt <= kmax; _cnt++)
{
px_wrk->OpxLst[*px_idx].Adr = (Ui32)_min;
px_wrk->OpxLst[*px_idx].Cnt = (Ui32)_cnt;
(*px_idx)++;
pay = opx_Resolver(po_bst, px_wrk, pi_map, px_idx, (_min + _cnt), _max);
(*px_idx)--;
if(pay > 0)
{
if((Ui32)pay < po_bst->OpxPay)
{
memcpy(po_bst, px_wrk, sizeof(*po_bst));
}
}
}
return (int)po_bst->OpxPay;
}
int main()
{
int _max = -1, _cnt = 0;
S_MB_code best = {0};
S_MB_code work = {0};
// SOME TEST DATA...
map[ 4] = 1;
map[ 8] = 1;
/*
map[64] = 1;
map[72] = 1;
map[80] = 1;
map[88] = 1;
map[96] = 1;
*/
// SOME TEST DATA...
for(int i = 0; i < cntof(map); i++)
{
if(map[i] > 0)
{
_max = i; _cnt++;
}
}
// num of Opx can be as much as num of individual bit(s).
if(_cnt > cntof(work.OpxLst)){_cnt = cntof(work.OpxLst);}
best.OpxPay = 1000000000L; // invalid great number...
for(int opx_cnt = 1; opx_cnt <= _cnt; opx_cnt++)
{
int rv;
Ui32 x = 0;
ZERO(work); work.OpxCnt = (Ui32)opx_cnt;
rv = opx_Resolver(&best, &work, map, &x, -42, _max);
}
return 0;
}
You can use dynamic programming to calculate the lowest cost that covers the first i true values in map[]. Call this f(i). As I'll explain, you can calculate f(i) by looking at all f(j) for j < i, so this will take time quadratic in the number of true values -- much better than exponential. The final answer you're looking for will be f(n), where n is the number of true values in map[].
A first step is to preprocess map[] into a list of the positions of true values. (It's possible to do DP on the raw map[] array, but this will be slower if true values are sparse, and cannot be faster.)
int pos[65536]; // Every position *could* be true
int nTrue = 0;
void getPosList() {
for (int i = 0; i < 65536; ++i) {
if (map[i]) pos[nTrue++] = i;
}
}
When we're looking at the subproblem on just the first i true values, what we know is that the ith true value must be covered by a read that ends at i. This block could start at any position j <= i; we don't know, so we have to test all i of them and pick the best. The key property (Optimal Substructure) that enables DP here is that in any optimal solution to the i-sized subproblem, if the read that covers the ith true value starts at the jth true value, then the preceding j-1 true values must be covered by an optimal solution to the (j-1)-sized subproblem.
So: f(i) = min(f(j) + score(pos(j+1), pos(i)), with the minimum taken over all 1 <= j < i. pos(k) refers to the position of the kth true value in map[], and score(x, y) is the score of a read from position x to position y, inclusive.
int scores[65537]; // We effectively start indexing at 1
scores[0] = 0; // Covering the first 0 true values requires 0 cost
// Calculate the minimum score that could allow the first i > 0 true values
// to be read, and store it in scores[i].
// We can assume that all lower values have already been calculated.
void calcF(int i) {
int bestStart, bestScore = INT_MAX;
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) { // Always executes at least once
int attemptScore = scores[j] + score(pos[j + 1], pos[i]);
if (attemptScore < bestScore) {
bestStart = j + 1;
bestScore = attemptScore;
}
}
scores[i] = bestScore;
}
int score(int i, int j) {
return 25 + 2 * (j + 1 - i);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
// Set up map[] however you want
getPosList();
for (int i = 1; i <= nTrue; ++i) {
calcF(i);
}
printf("Optimal solution has cost %d.\n", scores[nTrue]);
return 0;
}
Extracting a Solution from Scores
Using this scheme, you can calculate the score of an optimal solution: it's simply f(n), where n is the number of true values in map[]. In order to actually construct the solution, you need to read back through the table of f() scores to infer which choice was made:
void printSolution() {
int i = nTrue;
while (i) {
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (scores[i] == scores[j] + score(pos[j + 1], pos[i])) {
// We know that a read can be made from pos[j + 1] to pos[i] in
// an optimal solution, so let's make it.
printf("Read from %d to %d for cost %d.\n", pos[j + 1], pos[i], score(pos[j + 1], pos[i]));
i = j;
break;
}
}
}
}
There may be several possible choices, but all of them will produce optimal solutions.
Further Speedups
The solution above will work for an arbitrary scoring function. Because your scoring function has a simple structure, it may be that even faster algorithms can be developed.
For example, we can prove that there is a gap width above which it is always beneficial to break a single read into two reads. Suppose we have a read from position x-a to x, and another read from position y to y+b, with y > x. The combined costs of these two separate reads are 25 + 2 * (a + 1) + 25 + 2 * (b + 1) = 54 + 2 * (a + b). A single read stretching from x-a to y+b would cost 25 + 2 * (y + b - x + a + 1) = 27 + 2 * (a + b) + 2 * (y - x). Therefore the single read costs 27 - 2 * (y - x) less. If y - x > 13, this difference goes below zero: in other words, it can never be optimal to include a single read that spans a gap of 12 or more.
To make use of this property, inside calcF(), final reads could be tried in decreasing order of start-position (i.e. in increasing order of width), and the inner loop stopped as soon as any gap width exceeds 12. Because that read and all subsequent wider reads tried would contain this too-large gap and therefore be suboptimal, they need not be tried.
I'm trying to solve a problem from SPOJ ( link ), which can be briefly described like this: Given n intervals, each with an integer beginning and end, and given the end with max time ( let's call it max_end ) , find in how many ways you can choose a set of intervals that covers 1...max_end. Intervals may overlap. I tried a DP; first sort by end time, then dp[ i ] is a pair, where dp[ i ].first is the minimum number of intervals needed to cover 1...end[ i ] last using interval i and dp[ i ].second is the number of ways to do it. Here's my main DP loop:
for( int i = 1; i < n; i ++ ) {
for( int j = 0; j < i; j ++ ) {
if( ! ( x[ j ].end >= x[ i ].start - 1 ) )
continue;
if( dp[ j ].first + 1 < dp[ i ].first ) {
dp[ i ].first = dp[ j ].first + 1;
dp[ i ].second = dp[ j ].second;
}
else if( dp[ j ].first + 1 == dp[ i ].first ) {
dp[ i ].second += dp[ j ].second;
}
}
}
Unfortunately, it didn't work. Can somebody please tell me where I have a mistake? Thanks in advance! :)
I'm not sure I get your solution idea, but I describe my AC solution:
I'm using function with memorization, but you can re-write it using non-recurcive DP.
Let's say we have our intervals in array
pair a[100];
where
a[i].first is interval begin and a[i].second is interval end.
Sort this array by begin first (default behavior of stl sort algorithm with default pair comparator).
Now imagine that we are 'putting' intervals one by one from beginning to end.
let f(int x, int prev) return the number of ways to finish the filling if currently last interval is x and previous is 'prev'.
we'll calculate it as follows:
int f(int x, int prev) {
// if already calculated dp[x][prev], return it. Otherwise, calculate it
if (dp[x][prev] != -1) {
return dp[x][prev];
}
if (a[x].second == m) {
return dp[x][prev] = 1; // it means - X is last interval in day
}
else {
dp[x][prev] = 0;
for (int i = x + 1; i < n; ++i) { // try to select next interval
if (a[i].first <= a[x].second && // there must be not empty space after x interval
a[i].second > a[x].second && // if this is false, the set won't be minimal - i interval is useless
a[i].first > a[x].first && // if this is false, the set won't be minimal, x interval is useless
a[prev].second < a[i].first) { // if this is false, the set won't be minimal, x interval is useless.
dp[x][prev] = (dp[x][prev] + f(i, x)) % 100000000;
}
}
}
return dp[x][prev];
}
After that we need to call this function for every pair of intervals, first of which start at 0 and second is connected with first:
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
if (a[i].first == 0) {
for (int j = i + 1; j < n; ++j) {
if (a[j].first > 0 && // we don't need to start at 0 - in this case either i or j will be useless
a[j].first <= a[i].second && // there must be no space after i interval
a[j].second > a[i].second) { // in opposite case j will be useless
res = (res + f(j, i)) % 100000000;
}
}
// also we need to check the case when we use only one interval:
if (a[i].second == m) {
res = (res + 1) % 100000000;
}
}
}
After that we only need to print the res.