I would like to serialize parallel information like 1,23,5,32,6,1,0,5,1,6 into one single integer ("index" from now on).
The array has always exactly ten evalues and the order of the values matters. The values of the array are integers that can reach from 0 to +inf and are completely independent from each other.
I thought through a few possible solutions, but I can't come up with a solution where every possible array has exactly one possible index and where every possible index has exactly one possible array.
You can imagine the situation like ten ordered boxes in a row in which specific numbers of balls were put. Now there is an infinite number of these rows and each of the row has a different number of balls in the boxes. How can you give each of the rows one number (like a catalogue) and you exactly know how many balls are in which box?
I know that the index number is going to be ridiculously big with big array values, but I won't use big array values anyway.
examples:
Index: array
0: (0,0,0,0...,0,0)
1: (0,0,0,0...,0,1)
There should be a simple mathematical solution to this, but I don't see it.
You could just interleave the digits. Example with arrays of size 3 instead of 10:
(123, 456, 789) --> 147258369
insert leading zeros if necessary:
(123, 4, 5) --> 100200345
The above answer by henrik assumes that you know the maximum number of digits for a number, if you already know that then no need to interleave, just concatenate the numbers padded with zeros.
I have a general construct :) Assume only two dimensions and arrange the pairs like this and maintain two integers.
(0,0) \\offset:0 -- sum:0
(0, 1), (1, 0) \\offset:1+0 -- sum:1
(0, 2), (1, 1), (2, 0) \\ offset:1+2 -- sum:2
so essentially the index for a tuple is the index+offset where offset is determined by the level(fibbonacci(level), the level is determined by the sum of the terms, the index is determined by the ordering. (Offset+index) is guaranteed to be unique and can be decoded by dynamic programming
For more than two dimensions just recursively collapse dimensions, get an integer for first two dimensions this reduces your problem by 1 dimension and then you can keep going :)
Related
I have array A (44x1) and B (41x1), and I want to count for both arrays how many times the elements are repeated. And if the repeated values are present in both arrays, I want their counting to be divided (for instance: value 0.5 appears 500 times in A and 350 times in B, so now divide 500 by 350).
I have to do this for bigger arrays as well, so I was thinking about using a looping (but no idea how to do it on MATLAB).
I got what I want on python:
import pandas as pd
data1 = pd.read_excel('C:/Users/Desktop/Python/data1.xlsx')
data2 = pd.read_excel('C:/Users/Desktop/Python/data2.xlsx')
for i in data1['Mag'].value_counts() & data2['Mag'].value_counts():
a = data1['Mag'].value_counts()/data2['Mag'].value_counts()
print(a)
break
Any idea of how to do the same on MATLAB? Thanks!
Since you can enumerate all valid earthquake magnitude values, you could use:
% Make up some data
A=randi([2 58],[100 1])/10;
B=randi([2 58],[20 1])/10;
% Round data to nearest tenth
%A=round(A,1); %uncomment if necessary
%B=round(B,1); %same
% Divide frequencies
validmags=0.2:0.1:5.8;
Afreqs=sum(double( abs(A-validmags)<1e-6 ),1); %relies on implicit expansion; A must be a column vector and validmags must be a row vector; dimension argument to sum() only to remind user; double() not really needed
Bfreqs=sum(double( abs(B-validmags)<1e-6 ),1); %same
Bfreqs./Afreqs, %for a fancier version: [{'Magnitude'} num2cell(validmags) ; {'Freq(B)/Freq(A)'} num2cell(Bfreqs./Afreqs)].'
The last line will produce NaN for 0/0, +Inf for nn/0, and 0 for 0/nn.
You could also use uniquetol, align the unique values of each vector, and divide the respective absolute frequencies. But I think the above approach is cleaner and easier to understand.
How to make pairs of a sorted array such that the addition on the pairs after by multiplying of a pair is highest?
for example:
input array A[6,3,2,5]
output: (6 * 5)+(3 * 2)=36
You can achieve maximum product by multiplying the first two largest numbers. In the example you have given, A[6, 3, 2, 5]. The two largest number are 6 and 5. Therefore the maximum product that can be achieved by picking any two numbers from the array is 6*5 = 30.
I can help more if you may give more examples and show how to do the pairing in inputs of larger size. Describe your question a bit more.
My mind is blown since I began, last week, trying to sort an array of N elements by condition: the difference between 2 elements being always less or equal to the next 2 elements. For example:
Α[4] = { 10, 2, 7, 4}
It is possible to rearrange that array this way:
{2, 7, 10, 4} because (2 - 7 = -5) < (7 - 10 = -3) < (10 - 4 = 6)
{4, 10, 7, 2} because (4 - 10 = -6) < (10 - 7 = 3) < (7 - 2 = 5)
One solution I considered was just shuffling the array and checking each time if it agreed with the conditions, an efficient method for a small number of elements, but time consuming or even impossible for a larger number of elements.
Another was trying to move elements around the array with loops, hoping again to meet the requirements, but again this method is very time consuming and also sometimes not possible.
Trying to find an algorithm doesn't seem to have any result but there must be something.
Thank you very much in advance.
I normally don't just provide code, but this question intrigued me, so here's a brute-force solution, that might get you started.
The concept will always be slow because the individual elements in the list to be sorted are not independent of each other, so they cannot be sorted using traditional O(N log N) algorithms. However, the differences can be sorted that way, which simplifies checking for a solution, and permutations could be checked in parallel to speed up the processing.
import os,sys
import itertools
def is_diff_sorted(qa):
diffs = [qa[i] - qa[i+1] for i in range(len(qa)-1)]
for i in range(len(diffs)-1):
if diffs[i] > diffs[i+1]:
return False
return True
a = [2,4,7,10]
#a = [1,4,6,7,20]
a.sort()
for perm in itertools.permutations(a):
if is_diff_sorted(perm):
print "Solution:",str(a)
break
This condition is related to differentiation. The (negative) difference between neighbouring elements has to be steady or increasing with increasing index. Multiply the condition by -1 and you get
a[i+1]-a[i] => a[i+2]-a[i+1]
or
0 => (a[i+2]-a[i+1])- (a[i+1]-a[i])
So the 2nd derivative has to be 0 or negative, which is the same as having the first derivative stay the same or changing downwards, like e.g. portions of the upper half of a circle. That does not means that the first derivative itself has to start out positive or negative, just that it never change upward.
The problem algorithmically is that it can't be a simple sort, since you never compare just 2 elements of the list, you'll have to compare three at a time (i,i+1,i+2).
So the only thing you know apart from random permutations is given in Klas` answer (values first rising if at all, then falling if at all), but his is not a sufficient condition since you can have a positive 2nd derivative in his two sets (rising/falling).
So is there a solution much faster than the random shuffle? I can only think of the following argument (similar to Klas' answer). For a given vector the solution is more likely if you separate the data into a 1st segment that is rising or steady (not falling) and a 2nd that is falling or steady (not rising) and neither is empty. Likely an argument could be made that the two segments should have approximately equal size. The rising segment should have the data that are closer together and the falling segment should contain data that are further apart. So one could start with the mean, and look for data that are close to it, move them to the first set,then look for more widely spaced data and move them to the 2nd set. So a histogram might help.
[4 7 10 2] --> diff [ 3 3 -8] --> 2diff [ 0 -11]
Here is a solution based on backtracking algorithm.
Sort input array in non-increasing order.
Start dividing the array's values into two subsets: put the largest element to both subsets (this would be the "middle" element), then place second largest one into arbitrary subset.
Sequentially put the remaining elements to either subset. If this cannot be done without violating the "difference" condition, use other subset. If both subsets are not acceptable, rollback and change preceding decisions.
Reverse one of the arrays produced on step 3 and concatenate it with other array.
Below is Python implementation (it is not perfect, the worst defect is recursive implementation: while recursion is quite common for backtracking algorithms, this particular algorithm seems to work in linear time, and recursion is not good for very large input arrays).
def is_concave_end(a, x):
return a[-2] - a[-1] <= a[-1] - x
def append_element(sa, halves, labels, which, x):
labels.append(which)
halves[which].append(x)
if len(labels) == len(sa) or split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
if which == 1 or not is_concave_end(halves[1], halves[0][-1]):
halves[which].pop()
labels.pop()
return False
labels[-1] = 1
halves[1].append(halves[0][-1])
halves[0].pop()
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
halves[1].pop()
labels.pop()
def split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
x = sa[len(labels)]
if len(halves[0]) < 2 or is_concave_end(halves[0], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 0, x)
if is_concave_end(halves[1], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 1, x)
def make_concave(a):
sa = sorted(a, reverse = True)
halves = [[sa[0]], [sa[0], sa[1]]]
labels = [0, 1]
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return list(reversed(halves[1][1:])) + halves[0]
print make_concave([10, 2, 7, 4])
It is not easy to produce a good data set to test this algorithm: plain set of random numbers either is too simple for this algorithm or does not have any solutions. Here I tried to generate a set that is "difficult enough" by mixing together two sorted lists, each satisfying the "difference" condition. Still this data set is processed in linear time. And I have no idea how to prepare any data set that would demonstrate more-than-linear time complexity of this algorithm...
Not that since the diffence should be ever-rising, any solution will have element first in rising order and then in falling order. The length of either of the two "suborders" may be 0, so a solution could consist of a strictly rising or strictly falling sequence.
The following algorithm will find any solutions:
Divide the set into two sets, A and B. Empty sets are allowed.
Sort A in rising order and B in falling order.
Concatenate the two sorted sets: AB
Check if you have a solution.
Do this for all possible divisions into A and B.
Expanding on the #roadrunner66 analysis, the solution is to take two smallest elements of the original array, and make them first and last in the target array; take two next smallest elements and make them second and next-to-last; keep going until all the elements are placed into the target. Notice that which one goes to the left, and which one to the right doesn't matter.
Sorting the original array facilitates the process (finding smallest elements becomes trivial), so the time complexity is O(n log n). The space complexity is O(n), because it requires a target array. I don't know off-hand if it is possible to do it in-place.
If I have a string S of length n, and a list of tuples (a,b), where a specifies the staring position of the substring of S and b is the length of the substring. To check if any substring overlaps, we can, for example, mark the position in S whenever it's touched. However, I think this will take O(n^2) time if the list of tuples has a size of n (looping the tuple list, then looping S).
Is it possible to check if any substring actually overlaps with the other in O(n) time?
Edit:
For example, S = "abcde". Tuples = [(1,2),(3,3),(4,2)], representing "ab","cde" and "de". I want to the know an overlap is discovered when (4,2) is read.
I was thinking it is O(n^2) because you get a tuple every time, then you need to loop through the substring in S to see if any character is marked dirty.
Edit 2:
I cannot exit once a collide is detected. Imagine I need to report all the subsequent tuples that collide, so i have to loop through the whole tuple list.
Edit 3:
A high level view of the algorithm:
for each tuple (a,b)
for (int i=a; i <= a+b; i++)
if S[i] is dirty
then report tuple and break //break inner loop only
Your basic approach is correct, but you could optimize your stopping condition, in a way that guarantees bounded complexity in the worst case. Think about it this way - how many positions in S would you have to traverse and mark in the worst case?
If there is no collision, then at worst you'll visit length(S) positions (and run out of tuples by then, since any additional tuple would have to collide). If there is a collision - you can stop at the first marked object, so again you're bounded by the max number of unmarked elements, which is length(S)
EDIT: since you added a requirement to report all colliding tuples, let's calculate this again (extending my comment) -
Once you marked all elements, you can detect collision for every further tuple with a single step (O(1)), and therefore you would need O(n+n) = O(n).
This time, each step would either mark an unmarked element (overall n in the worst case), or identify a colliding tuple (worst O(tuples) which we assume is also n).
The actual steps may be interleaved, since the tuples may be organized in any way without colliding first, but once they do (after at most n tuples which cover all n elements before colliding for the first time), you have to collide every time on the first step. other arrangements may collide earlier even before marking all elements, but again - you're just rearranging the same number of steps.
Worst case example: one tuple covering the entire array, then n-1 tuples (doesn't matter which) -
[(1,n), (n,1), (n-1,1), ...(1,1)]
First tuple would take n steps to mark all elements, the rest would take O(1) each to finish. overall O(2n)=O(n). Now convince yourself that the following example takes the same number of steps -
[(1,n/2-1), (1,1), (2,1), (3,1), (n/2,n/2), (4,1), (5,1) ...(n,1)]
According to your description and comment, the overlap problem may be not about string algorithm, it can be regarded as "segment overlap" problem.
Just use your example, it can be translated to 3 segments: [1, 2], [3, 5], [4, 5]. The question is to check whether the 3 segments have overlap.
Suppose we have m segments each have format [start, end] which means segment start position and end position, one efficient algorithm to detect overlap is to sort them by start position in ascending order, it takes O(m * lgm). Then iterate the sorted m segments, for each segment, try to find whether its end position, here you only need to check:
if(start[i] <= max(end[j], 1 <= j <= i-1) {
segment i is overlap;
}
maxEnd[i] = max(maxEnd[i-1], end[i]); // update max end position of 1 to i
Which each check operation takes O(1). Then the total time complexity is O(m*lgm + m), which can be regarded as O(m*lgm). While for each output, time complexity is related to each tuple's length, which is also related to n.
This is a segment overlap problem and the solution should be possible in O(n) itself if the list of tuples has been sorted in ascending order wrt the first field. Consider the following approach:
Transform the intervals from (start, number of characters) to (start, inclusive_end). Hence the above example becomes: [(1,2),(3,3),(4,2)] ==> [(1, 2), (3, 5), (4, 5)]
The tuples are valid if transformed consecutive tuples (a, b) and (c, d) always follow b < c. Else there is an overlap in the tuples mentioned above.
Each of 1 and 2 can be done in O(n) if the array is sorted in the form mentioned above.
I have a large matrix, let's call it A, which has dimension Mx3, e.g. M=4000 rows x 3 columns. Each row in the matrix contains three numbers, eg. [241 112 478]. Out of these three numbers, we can construct three pairs, eg. [241 112], [112 478], [241 478]. Of the other 3999 rows:
For each of the three pairs, exactly one row of M (only one) will contain the same pair. However, the order of the numbers could be scrambled. For example, exactly one row will read: [333 478 112]. No other row will have both 478 and 112. I am interested in finding the index of that row, for each of the three pairs. The output should then be another matrix, call it B, with same dimensions 4000x3, where each row has the indices of the rows in the original matrix A that share a pair of numbers.
No other row will contain the same three numbers.
Other rows may contain none of the numbers or one of the numbers.
Here's a function that accomplishes this, but is very slow - I'd like to know if there is a more efficient way. Thanks in advance!
M=size(A,1); % no elements
B=zeros(M,3);
for j=1:M
l=1;
k=1;
while l<4 % there cant be more than 3
if k~=j
s=sum(ismember(A(j,:),A(k,:)));
if s==2
B(j,l)=k;
l=l+1;
end
end
k=k+1;
end
For loops are not needed, just use ismember the following way:
row_id1=find(sum(ismember(M,[241 112]),2)>1);
row_id2=find(sum(ismember(M,[478 112]),2)>1);
row_id3=find(sum(ismember(M,[478 241]),2)>1);
each row_id will give you the row index of the pair in that line regardless of the order at which it appears.
The only assumption made here is that one of the pair numbers you look for will not appear twice in a row, (i.e. [112 333 112]). If that assumption is wrong, this can be addressed using unique.