Max in array and its frequency - c

How do you write a function that finds max value in an array as well as the number of times the value appears in the array?
We have to use recursion to solve this problem.
So far i am thinking it should be something like this:
int findMax(int[] a, int head, int last)
{
int max = 0;
if (head == last) {
return a[head];
}
else if (a[head] < a[last]) {
count ++;
return findMax(a, head + 1, last);
}
}
i am not sure if this will return the absolute highest value though, and im not exactly sure how to change what i have

Setting the initial value of max to INT_MIN solves a number of issues. #Rerito
But the approach OP uses iterates through each member of the array and incurs a recursive call for each element. So if the array had 1000 int there would be about 1000 nested calls.
A divide and conquer approach:
If the array length is 0 or 1, handle it. Else find the max answer from the 1st and second halves. Combine the results as appropriate. By dividing by 2, the stack depth usage for a 1000 element array will not exceed 10 nested calls.
Note: In either approach, the number of calls is the same. The difference lies in the maximum degree of nesting. Using recursion where a simple for() loop would suffice is questionable. To conquer a more complex assessment is recursion's strength, hence this approach.
To find the max and its frequency using O(log2(length)) stack depth usage:
#include <stddef.h>
typedef struct {
int value;
size_t frequency; // `size_t` better to use that `int` for large arrays.
} value_freq;
value_freq findMax(const int *a, size_t length) {
value_freq vf;
if (length <= 1) {
if (length == 0) {
vf.value = INT_MIN; // Degenerate value if the array was size 0.
vf.frequency = 0;
} else {
vf.value = *a;
vf.frequency = 1;
}
} else {
size_t length1sthalf = length / 2;
vf = findMax(a, length1sthalf);
value_freq vf1 = findMax(&a[length1sthalf], length - length1sthalf);
if (vf1.value > vf.value)
return vf1;
if (vf.value == vf1.value)
vf.frequency += vf1.frequency;
}
return vf;
}

Your are not thaaaat far.
In order to save the frequency and the max you can keep a pointer to a structure, then just pass the pointer to the start of your array, the length you want to go through, and a pointer to this struct.
Keep in mind that you should use INT_MIN in limits.h as your initial max (see reset(maxfreq *) in the code below), as int can carry negative values.
The following code does the job recursively:
#include <limits.h>
typedef struct {
int max;
int freq;
} maxfreq;
void reset(maxfreq *mfreq){
mfreq->max = INT_MIN;
mfreq->freq = 0;
}
void findMax(int* a, int length, maxfreq *mfreq){
if(length>0){
if(*a == mfreq->max)
mfreq->freq++;
else if(*a > mfreq->max){
mfreq->freq = 1;
mfreq->max = *a;
}
findMax(a+1, length - 1, mfreq);
}
}
A call to findMax will recall itself as many times as the initial length plus one, each time incrementing the provided pointer and processing the corresponding element, so this is basically just going through all of the elements in a once, and no weird splitting.

this works fine with me :
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
// define a struct that contains the (max, freq) information
struct arrInfo
{
int max;
int count;
};
struct arrInfo maxArr(int * arr, int max, int size, int count)
{
int maxF;
struct arrInfo myArr;
if(size == 0) // to return from recursion we check the size left
{
myArr.max = max; // prepare the struct to output
myArr.count = count;
return(myArr);
}
if(*arr > max) // new maximum found
{
maxF = *arr; // update the max
count = 1; // initialize the frequency
}
else if (*arr == max) // same max encountered another time
{
maxF = max; // keep track of same max
count ++; // increase frequency
}
else // nothing changes
maxF = max; // keep track of max
arr++; // move the pointer to next element
size --; // decrease size by 1
return(maxArr(arr, maxF, size, count)); // recursion
}
int main()
{
struct arrInfo info; // return of the recursive function
// define an array
int arr[] = {8, 4, 8, 3, 7};
info = maxArr(arr, 0, 5, 1); // call with max=0 size=5 freq=1
printf("max = %d count = %d\n", info.max, info.count);
return 0;
}
when ran, it outputs :
max = 8 count = 3
Notice
In my code example I assumed the numbers to be positive (initializing max to 0), I don't know your requirements but you can elaborate.

The reqirements in your assignment are at least questionable. Just for reference, here is how this should be done in real code (to solve your assignment, refer to the other answers):
int findMax(int length, int* array, int* maxCount) {
int trash;
if(!maxCount) maxCount = &trash; //make sure we ignore it when a NULL pointer is passed in
*maxCount = 0;
int result = INT_MIN;
for(int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if(array[i] > result) {
*maxCount = 1;
result = array[i];
} else if(array[i] == result) {
(*maxCount)++;
}
}
return result;
}
Always do things as straight forward as you can.

Related

last number in a function array

I want to write a function where I have a given array and number N. The last occurrence of this number I want to return address. If said number cannot be found I want to use a NULL-pointer
Start of the code I've made:
int main(void) {
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
for (int i = 0; i <= 6; i++) {
if (ary[i] == 3) {
printf("%u\n", ary[i]);
}
}
return 0;
}
result in command prompt:
3
3
The biggest trouble I'm having is:
it prints all occurrences, but not the last occurrence as I want
I haven't used pointers much, so I don't understand how to use the NULL-pointer
I see many minor problems in your program:
If you want to make a function, make a function so your parameters and return types are explicit, instead of coding directly in the main.
C arrays, like in most languages, start the indexing at 0 so if there are N element the first has index 0, then the second has 1, etc... So the very last element (the Nth) has index N-1, so in your for loops, always have condition "i < size", not "i <= size" or ( "i <= size-1" if y'r a weirdo)
If you want to act only on the last occurence of something, don't act on every. Just save every new occurence to the same variable and then, when you're sure it was the last, act on it.
A final version of the function you describe would be:
int* lastOccurence(int n, int* arr, int size){
int* pos = NULL;
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
if(arr[i] == n){
pos = &arr[i]; //Should be equal to arr + i*sizeof(int)
}
}
return pos;
}
int main(void){
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
printf("%p\n", lastOccurence(3, ary, 6);
return 0;
}
Then I'll add that the NULL pointer is just 0, I mean there is literally the line "#define NULL 0" inside the runtime headers. It is just a convention that the memory address 0 doesn't exist and we use NULL instead of 0 for clarity, but it's exactly the same.
Bugs:
i <= 6 accesses the array out of bounds, change to i < 6.
printf("%u\n", ary[i]); prints the value, not the index.
You don't actually compare the value against n but against a hard-coded 3.
I think that you are looking for something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
int* last_index = NULL;
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
if (ary[i] == n) {
last_index = &ary[i];
}
}
if(last_index == NULL) {
printf("Number not found\n");
}
else {
printf("Last index: %d\n", (int)(last_index - ary));
}
return 0;
}
The pointer last_index points at the last found item, if any. By subtracting the array's base address last_index - ary we do pointer arithmetic and get the array item.
The cast to int is necessary to avoid a quirk where subtracting pointers in C actually gives the result in a large integer type called ptrdiff_t - beginners need not worry about that one, so just cast.
First of all, you will read from out of array range, since your array last element is 5, and you read up to 6, which can lead in segmentation faults. #Ludin is right saying that you should change
for (int i = 0; i <= 6; i++) // reads from 0 to 6 range! It is roughly equal to for (int i = 0; i == 6; i++)
to:
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) // reads from 0 to 5
The last occurrence of this number I want to return as address.
You are printing only value of 3, not address. To do so, you need to use & operator.
If said number cannot be found I want to use a NULL-pointer
I don't understand, where do you want to return nullpointer? Main function can't return nullpointer, it is contradictory to its definition. To do so, you need to place it in separate function, and then return NULL.
If you want to return last occurence, then I would iterate from the end of this array:
for (int i = 5; i > -1; i--) {
if (ary[i] == 3) {
printf("place in array: %u\n", i); // to print iterator
printf("place in memory: %p\n", &(ary[i])); // to print pointer
break; // if you want to print only last occurence in array and don't read ruther
}
else if (i == 0) {
printf("None occurences found");
}
}
If you want to return an address you need yo use a function instead of writing code in main
As you want to return the address of the last occurence, you should iterate the array from last element towards the first element instead of iterating from first towards last elements.
Below are 2 different implementations of such a function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
int* f(int n, size_t sz, int a[])
{
assert(sz > 0 && a != NULL);
// Iterate the array from last element towards first element
int* p = a + sz;
do
{
--p;
if (*p == n) return p;
} while(p != a);
return NULL;
}
int* g(int n, size_t sz, int a[])
{
assert(sz > 0 && a != NULL);
// Iterate the array from last element towards first element
size_t i = sz;
do
{
--i;
if (a[i] == n) return &a[i];
} while (i > 0);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
int n = 3;
int ary[] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
size_t elements = sizeof ary / sizeof ary[0];
int* p;
p = g(n, elements, ary); // or p = f(n, elements, ary);
if (p != NULL)
{
printf("Found at address %p - value %d\n", (void*)p, *p);
}
else
{
printf("Not found. The function returned %p\n", (void*)p);
}
return 0;
}
Working on the specified requirements in your question (i.e. a function that searches for the number and returns the address of its last occurrence, or NULL), the code below gives one way of fulfilling those. The comments included are intended to be self-explanatory.
#include <stdio.h>
// Note that an array, passed as an argument, is converted to a pointer (to the
// first element). We can change this in our function, because that pointer is
// passed BY VALUE (i.e. it's a copy), so it won't change the original
int* FindLast(int* arr, size_t length, int find)
{
int* answer = NULL; // The result pointer: set to NULL to start off with
for (size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) { // Note the use of < rather than <=
if (*arr == find) {
answer = arr; // Found, so set our pointer to the ADDRESS of this element
// Note that, if multiple occurrences exist, the LAST one will be the answer
}
++arr; // Move on to the next element's address
}
return answer;
}
int main(void)
{
int num = 3; // Number to find
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 }; // array to search
size_t arrlen = sizeof(ary) / sizeof(ary[0]); // Classic way to get length of an array
int* result = FindLast(ary, arrlen, num); // Call the function!
if (result == NULL) { // No match was found ...
printf("No match was found in the array!\n");
}
else {
printf("The address of the last match found is %p.\n", (void*)result); // Show the address
printf("The element at that address is: %d\n", *result); // Just for a verification/check!
}
return 0;
}
Lots of answers so far. All very good answers, too, so I won't repeat the same commentary about array bounds, etc.
I will, however, take a different approach and state, "I want to use a NULL-pointer" is a silly prerequisite for this task serving only to muddle and complicate a very simple problem. "I want to use ..." is chopping off your nose to spite your face.
The KISS principle is to "Keep It Simple, St....!!" Those who will read/modify your code will appreciate your efforts far more than admiring you for making wrong decisions that makes their day worse.
Arrays are easy to conceive of in terms of indexing to reach each element. If you want to train in the use of pointers and NULL pointers, I suggest you explore "linked lists" and/or "binary trees". Those data structures are founded on the utility of pointers.
int main( void ) {
const int n = 3, ary[] = { 1, 3, 7, 8, 3, 9 };
size_t sz = sizeof ary/sizeof ary[0];
// search for the LAST match by starting at the end, not the beginning.
while( sz-- )
if( ary[ sz ] == n ) {
printf( "ary[ %sz ] = %d\n", sz, n );
return 0;
}
puts( "not found" );
return 1; // failed to find it.
}
Consider that the array to be searched is many megabytes. To find the LAST match, it makes sense to start at the tail, not the head of the array.
Simple...

How to find the minimum number of coins needed for a given target amount(different from existing ones)

This is a classic question, where a list of coin amounts are given in coins[], len = length of coins[] array, and we try to find minimum amount of coins needed to get the target.
The coins array is sorted in ascending order
NOTE: I am trying to optimize the efficiency. Obviously I can run a for loop through the coins array and add the target%coins[i] together, but this will be erroneous when I have for example coins[] = {1,3,4} and target = 6, the for loop method would give 3, which is 1,1,4, but the optimal solution is 2, which is 3,3.
I haven't learned matrices and multi-dimensional array yet, are there ways to do this problem without them? I wrote a function, but it seems to be running in an infinity loop.
int find_min(const int coins[], int len, int target) {
int i;
int min = target;
int curr;
for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (target == 0) {
return 0;
}
if (coins[i] <= target) {
curr = 1 + find_min(coins, len, target - coins[i]);
if (curr < min) {
min = curr;
}
}
}
return min;
}
I can suggest you this reading,
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/generate-a-combination-of-minimum-coins-that-results-to-a-given-value/
the only thing is that there is no C version of the code, but if really need it you can do the porting by yourself.
Since no one gives a good answer, and that I figured it out myself. I might as well post an answer.
I add an array called lp, which is initialized in main,
int lp[4096];
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= COINS_MAX_TARGET; i++) {
lp[i] = -1;
}
every index of lp is equal to -1.
int find_min(int tar, const int coins[], int len, int lp[])
{
// Base case
if (tar == 0) {
lp[0] = 0;
return 0;
}
if (lp[tar] != -1) {
return lp[tar];
}
// Initialize result
int result = COINS_MAX_TARGET;
// Try every coin that is smaller than tar
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
if (coins[i] <= tar) {
int x = find_min(tar - coins[i], coins, len, lp);
if (x != COINS_MAX_TARGET)
result = ((result > (1 + x)) ? (1+x) : result);
}
}
lp[tar] = result;
return result;
}

A function in C runs for a set of values but gives Segmentation Fault: 11 for another

I am trying to find unique non-zero intersection between two sets. I have written a program which works for some set of arrays but gives segmentation fault for some. I have been trying to figure out why but have failed, any help will be greatly valued. The thing is the functions defined (NoRep and ComEle) are working fine but are unable to return the value to the assigned pointer in the case when Seg Fault is shown. Below is the code:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<math.h>
#include<string.h>
int* ComEle(int ar_1[], int size_ar1, int ar_2[], int size_ar2);
int* NoRep(int a[], int l1);
int main ()
{
// Case 1: Gives segmentation fault
int A[10] = {1,1,0,2,2,0,1,1,1,0};
int B[10] = {1,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,4,0};
int *C = ComEle(A,10,B,10); printf("check complete\n");
// //Case 2: Does not give segmentation fault
// int A[4] = {2,3,4,5};
// int B[4] = {1,2,3,4};
// int *C = ComEle(A,4,B,4); printf("check complete\n");
}
//---------------- Local Functions --------------------//
int* ComEle(int ar_1[], int size_ar1, int ar_2[], int size_ar2) {
// sort of intersection of two arrays but only for nonzero elements.
int i=0, j=0, cnt1 = 0;
int temp1 = size_ar1+size_ar2;
int CE1[temp1]; for(i=0;i<temp1;i++) {CE1[i] = 0;}
/* Size of CE1 is knowingly made big enough to accommodate repeating
common elements which can expand the size of resultant array to
values bigger than those for the individual arrays themselves! */
for(i=0;i<size_ar1;i++) {
j = 0;
while(j<size_ar2) {
if(ar_1[i]==ar_2[j] && ar_1[i]!=0) {
CE1[cnt1] = ar_1[i];
cnt1++;
}
j++;
}
}
// Have to remove repeating elements.
int *CE = NoRep(CE1, cnt1);
for(i=0;i<(CE[0]+1);i++) {printf("CE:\t%d\n", CE[i]);}
printf("ComEle: %p\n",CE);
return(CE);
}
int* NoRep(int a[], int l1) {
int cnt = 0, i = 0, j =0;
int *NR; NR = (int*)calloc((l1), sizeof(int));
//int NR[l1]; for(i=0;i<l1;i++) {NR[i] = 0;}
for(i=0;i<l1;i++) {
j = 0;
while(j<i) {
if(a[i]==a[j]) {break;}
j++;
}
if(j == i) {
cnt++;
NR[cnt] = a[i];
}
}
NR[0] = cnt; // First element: # of relevant elements.
printf("NoRep: %p\n",NR);
return(NR);
}
Thanks again for your help!
Take a look at this code:
int temp1 = size_ar1+size_ar2;
int CE1[temp1]; for(i=0;i<temp1;i++) {CE1[i] = 0;}
/* Size of CE1 is knowingly made big enough to accommodate repeating
common elements which can expand the size of resultant array to
values bigger than those for the individual arrays themselves! */
for(i=0;i<size_ar1;i++) {
j = 0;
while(j<size_ar2) {
if(ar_1[i]==ar_2[j] && ar_1[i]!=0) {
CE1[cnt1] = ar_1[i];
cnt1++;
}
j++;
}
}
Here you have nested loops, i.e. a for-loop with a while-loop inside. So - in worst case - how many times can cnt1 be incremented?
The answer is size_ar1 * size_ar2
But your code only reserve size_ar1 + size_ar2 element for CE1. So you may end up writing outside the array.
You can see this very easy by printing cnt1 inside the loop.
In other words - your CE1 is too small. It should be:
int temp1 = size_ar1*size_ar2; // NOTICE: * instead of +
int CE1[temp1]; for(i=0;i<temp1;i++) {CE1[i] = 0;}
But be careful here - if the input arrays are big, the VLA gets huge and you may run in to stack overflow. Consider dynamic memory allocation instead of an array.
Besides the accepted answer: I have been missing a break statement in the while loop in ComEle function. It was not giving me the expected value of cnt1. The following will be the correct way to do it:
for(i=0;i<size_ar1;i++) {
j = 0;
while(j<size_ar2) {
if(ar_1[i]==ar_2[j] && ar_1[i]!=0) {
CE1[cnt1] = ar_1[i];
cnt1++;
break;
}
j++;
}
}
This will also do away with the requirement for a bigger array or dynamic allocation as suggested (and rightly so) by #4386427

C Sort Algorithm Not Outputting Correct Values?

new to C here. I am making a program that will sort and search a list of random ints for learning purposes, and trying to implement Bubble sort, but am getting odd results in my console during debugging.
I have an array like so:
arr[0] = 3
arr[1] = 2
arr[2] = 1
So if I was to sort this list from least to greatest, it should be in the reverse order. Instead, my sort function seems to be logically flawed, and is outputting the following.
arr[0] = 0
arr[1] = 1
arr[2] = 2
Obviously I am new because someone that knows better will probably spot my mistake very quickly.
find.c
/**
* Prompts user for as many as MAX values until EOF is reached,
* then proceeds to search that "haystack" of values for given needle.
*
* Usage: ./find needle
*
* where needle is the value to find in a haystack of values
*/
#include <cs50.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "helpers.h"
// maximum amount of hay
const int MAX = 65536;
int main(int argc, string argv[])
{
// ensure proper usage
if (argc != 2)
{
printf("Usage: ./find needle\n");
return -1;
}
// remember needle
int needle = atoi(argv[1]);
// fill haystack
int size;
int haystack[MAX];
for (size = 0; size < MAX; size++)
{
// wait for hay until EOF
printf("\nhaystack[%i] = ", size);
int straw = get_int();
if (straw == INT_MAX)
{
break;
}
// add hay to stack
haystack[size] = straw;
}
printf("\n");
// sort the haystack
sort(haystack, size);
// try to find needle in haystack
if (search(needle, haystack, size))
{
printf("\nFound needle in haystack!\n\n");
return 0;
}
else
{
printf("\nDidn't find needle in haystack.\n\n");
return 1;
}
}
helpers.c
#include <cs50.h>
#include "helpers.h"
#include <stdio.h>
/**
* Returns true if value is in array of n values, else false.
*/
bool search(int value, int values[], int n)
{
// TODO: implement a searching algorithm
return false;
}
/**
* Sorts array of n values.
*/
void sort(int values[], int n)
{
// TODO: implement an O(n^2) sorting algorithm
int tmp = 0;
int i = 0;
bool swapped = false;
bool sorted = false;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
printf("%i\n", values[i]);
}
while (!sorted)
{
//check if number on left is greater than number on right in sequential order of the array.
if (values[i] > values[i+1])
{
tmp = values[i];
values[i] = values[i+1];
values[i+1] = tmp;
swapped = true;
}
if (i >= n - 1)
{
if (!swapped)
{
//No swaps occured, meaning I can assume the list is sorted.
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
printf("%i\n", values[i]);
}
sorted = true;
break;
} else {
//A swap occured on this pass through of the array. Set the flag back to false for the next pass through, repeating until no swaps are detected. (Meaning every number is in its proper place.)
i = 0;
swapped = false;
}
} else {
i++;
}
}
}
The problem is that you do the comparison and swap before you do the test if (i >= n - 1). This means that it will compare values[i] > values[i+1] when i == n-1, so it will access outside the array bounds, which is undefined behavior. In your case, there happens to be 0 in the memory after the array, so this is getting swapped into the array, and then it gets sorted to the beginning of the array.
Change
if (values[i] > values[i+1])
to
if (i < n-1 && values[i] > values[i+1])
The highest entries you can swap in an array 0..n-1 are n-2 and n-1. So i may not be larger than n-2 so i+1 accesses n-1.
Therefore your check must be:
if (i > n - 2)

Segmentation fault (core dumped) error, in a C search function

I'm trying to write a C program to take an array of discrete positive integers and find the length of the longest increasing subsequence.
'int* a' is the array of randomly generated integers, which is of length 'int b'
call:
lis_n = answer(seq, seq_size);
function:
int answer(int* a, int b) {
if (a == NULL) {return -1;}
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
int k = 0;
//instantiate max and set it to 0
int max = 0;
//make an array storing all included numbers
int included[b];
memset(included, 0, b*sizeof(int));
//create a pointer to the index in included[] with the largest value
int indexMax = 0;
//create a pointer to the index in a[]
int indexArray = 0;
//index of a[] for max included
int maxToA = 0;
//set the first included number to the first element in a[]
included[indexMax] = a[indexArray];
//loop until break
while (1) {
if (a[indexArray] > included[indexMax]/*digit greater than last included*/) {
//include the digit
included[indexMax+1] = a[indexArray];
//increment current max pointer
indexMax++;
}
j = b - 1;
while (indexArray >= j/*pointer is at end"*/) {
if (j == (b - 1)) {
if ((indexMax+1) > max/*total is greater than current max*/) {
max = indexMax + 1;
}
}
if (a[b-1] == included[0]/*last element is in included[0], stop*/) {
return max;
} else {
//max included is set to zero
included[indexMax] = 0;
//max included pointer decreased
indexMax--;
//set array pointer to new max included
for (k=0;k<(b-1);k++) {
if (a[k] == included[indexMax]) {
indexArray = k;
}
}
//increment array pointer
indexArray++;
j--;
}
}
indexArray++;
printf("(");
for (i=0;i<b;i++) {
printf("%d,",included[i]);
}
printf(")");
}
}
I'm receiving 'Segmentation fault (core dumped)' in the terminal upon running.
Any help would be awesome.
You have declared
int indexMax = 0;
And here you use it as an array index
incuded[indexMax] = 0;
You increment and decrement it
indexMax++;
...
indexMax--;
You check its range but you don't limit it, you alter the value you compare it with
if ((indexMax+1) > max/*total is greater than current max*/) {
max = indexMax + 1;
}
You never check indexMax against b or with 0
int included[b];
So you are almost guaranteed to exceed the bounds of included[].
Some general points of advice. Make your function and variable names meaningful. Avoid making a premature exit from a function wherever possible. Avoid while(1) wherever possible. And never make assumptions about array sizes (including C "strings"). It might seem hard work putting in the overhead, but there is a payoff. The payoff is not just about catching unexpected errors, it makes you think about the code you are writing as you do it.
I've done something like this for homework before. I got help from:
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/30491/maximum-subarray-problem-iterative-on-algorithm
Make sure you are not trying to index past the size of your array. What I would do would be to find out the size of array a[] (which looks like it is b) and subtract 1. Make sure you are not trying to access past the size of the array.

Resources