Related
I am implementing an algorithm to solve the Coin Change problem, where given an array that indicates types of coins (i.e. int[] coinValues = {1,4,6};) and a value to achieve (i.e. int totalAmount=8;), an array is returned where the value at position 0 indicates the minimum number of coins needed to achieve totalAmount. The rest of the array will keep a track of how many coins are needed to achieve the total sum.
An example input of coins = {1,4,6} and total = 8 should return the array [3,2,0,1]. However, my code is returning [1,2,0,1].
Another example would be coins = {2,4,8,16,34,40,64} and total = 50 should return the array [2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0]. My code is not returning that result.
The algorithm is implemented with 2 methods: CoinChange and CoinCount. CoinChange creates the coin matrix and CoinCount keeps track of the coins required to achieve the total sum.
package P5;
import java.util.Arrays;
public class CoinChange7 {
public static int[] CoinChange(int[] v, int sum) {
int[][] aux = new int[v.length + 1][sum + 1];
// Initialising first column with 0
for(int i = 1; i <= v.length; i++) {
aux[i][0] = 0;
}
// Implementing the recursive solution
for(int i = 1; i <= v.length-1; i++) {
for(int j = 1; j <= sum; j++) {
if(i == 1) {
if(v[1] > j) {
aux[i][0]=999999999; //instead of Integer.MAX_VALUE
} else {
aux[i][j]=1 + aux[1][j-v[1]];
}
} else {
if(v[i] > j) { //choose best option ,discard this coin or use it.
aux[i][j] = aux[i - 1][j];
} else
aux[i][j] = Math.min(aux[i-1][j],1 + aux[i][j-v[i]]);
}
}
}
int []z=CoinCount(sum,aux,v);
return z; // Return solution to the initial problem
}
public static int[] CoinCount(int A, int[][] aux, int[] d){
int coin = d.length-1;
int limit=A;
int [] typo=new int[d.length+1]; //We create solution array, that will count no of coins
for (int k=0;k<typo.length;k++) {
typo[k]=0;
} while (coin>0 || limit>0){
if(limit-d[coin]>=0 && coin-1>=0){
if(1+aux[coin][limit-d[coin]]<aux[coin-1][limit]){
typo[coin+1]=typo[coin+1]+1;
limit=limit-d[coin];
} else {
coin=coin-1;
}
} else if(limit-d[coin]>=0) {
typo[coin+1]=typo[coin+1]+1;
limit=limit-d[coin];
} else if(coin-1>=0) {
coin=coin-1;
}
}
typo[0]= aux[d.length-1][A];
return typo; //return the final array with solutions of each coin
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] coins = {1,4,6};
int sum = 8;
int[] x=CoinChange(coins,sum);
System.out.println("At least " + Arrays.toString(x) +" from set "+ Arrays.toString(coins)
+ " coins are required to make a value of " + sum);
}
}
Clarification
I don't know if you still need the answer to this question but I will try to answer it anyway.
First, there are a few things I would like to clarify. The coin change problem does not have a unique solution. If you want both the minimum of coins used to make the change and frequencies of coins usage, I think that depends on the approach used to solve the program and the arrangement of the coins.
For example: Take the coins to be [4,6,8] and amount = 12. You'll quickly see that the minimum coins required to make this change is 2. Going by your choice of output, the following are all correct: [2,0,2,0] and [2,1,0,1].
By the way, the Coin change problem can be solved in many ways. A simple recursive DP approach in Java is here. It only returns the min coins needed to make the change at O(nlog(n)) time and O(n) space.
Another approach is by using a 2D DP matrix (same with the approach you tried using) at both O(n^2) time and space. Explanation on how to use this approach is here. Please be careful with the explanation because it is not generally correct. I noticed it's almost the same as the one you used.
Your solution
I will mention a few things about your solution that may have affected the result.
The number of rows of the DP matrix is v.length not v.length + 1.
Based on your solution, this should not affect the result because I noticed you don't seem comfortable with zero indexes.
I think it is not necessary to initialize the first column of the DB matrix since the data type you used is int, which is 0 by default. Again, this does not affect the answer, though.
The way you filled row 1 (supposed to be the first row, but you ignored row 0) is not good and may affect the result of some solutions.
The only mistake I see there is that there is no uniform value to specify amounts (i.e. j) that cannot be solved using the single coin (i.e. v[0]). Negative numbers could have been better because any positive integer is a potential valid solution for the cell. You could use -1 (if you're going by the Leetcode instruction). This way, you'll easily know cells that contain invalid values while filling the rest of the matrix.
The way you compute aux[i][j] is wrong because you are using the wrong coins. you are using v[i] instead of v[i-1] since you aux.length is one bigger than the v.length.
I did not look at the countCoint method. It looks complex for a seemingly simple problem. Please see my solution.
My Solution
public int[] change(int[] coins, int amount){
int[][] DP = new int[coins.length][amount+1];
//fill the first column with 0
//int array contains 0 by default, so this part is not necessary
/*
for (int i = 0; i < coins.length; i++) {
DP[i][0] =0;
}
*/
//fill the first row.
//At 0th row, we are trying to find the min number of ways to change j amount using only
//one coin i.e. coins[0] (that is the meaning of DP[0][j];
for (int j = 1; j <= amount; j++) {
if(coins[0] > j || j % coins[0] != 0){
DP[0][j] = -1;
}else{
DP[0][j] = j /coins[0];
}
}
//iterate the rest of the unfilled DP
for (int i = 1; i < coins.length; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j < amount+1; j++) {
if(coins[i] > j){
DP[i][j] = DP[i-1][j];
}else {
int prev = DP[i-1][j];
int cur = 1+DP[i][j-coins[i]];
if(cur == 0){
DP[i][j] = DP[i-1][j];
} else if(prev == -1) {
DP[i][j] = 1 + DP[i][j - coins[i]];
}else{
DP[i][j] = Math.min(DP[i-1][j],1+DP[i][j-coins[i]]);
}
}
}
}
return countCoin(coins,amount,DP);
}
public int[] countCoin(int[] coins, int amount, int[][] DP){
int[] result = new int[coins.length+1];//The 1 added is to hold result.
int i = coins.length -1;
int j = amount;
//while the rest will contain counter for coins used.
result[0] = DP[i][j];
if(result[0] ==0 || result[0] ==-1)return result;
while (j > 0 ){
if(i-1 >= 0 && DP[i][j] == DP[i-1][j]){
i = i-1;
}else{
j = j - coins[i];
result[i+1] += 1;
}
}
return result;
}
I have developed a code for expressing the number in terms of the power of the 2 and I am attaching the same code below.
But the problem is that the expressed output should of minimum length.
I am getting output as 3^2+1^2+1^2+1^2 which is not minimum length.
I need to output in this format:
package com.algo;
import java.util.Scanner;
public class GetInputFromUser {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
int n;
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter an integer");
n = in.nextInt();
System.out.println("The result is:");
algofunction(n);
}
public static int algofunction(int n1)
{
int r1 = 0;
int r2 = 0;
int r3 = 0;
//System.out.println("n1: "+n1);
r1 = (int) Math.sqrt(n1);
r2 = (int) Math.pow(r1, 2);
// System.out.println("r1: "+r1);
//System.out.println("r2: "+r2);
System.out.print(r1+"^2");
r3 = n1-r2;
//System.out.println("r3: "+r3);
if (r3 == 0)
return 1;
if(r3 == 1)
{
System.out.print("+1^2");
return 1;
}
else {
System.out.print("+");
algofunction(r3);
return 1;
}
}
}
Dynamic programming is all about defining the problem in such a way that if you knew the answer to a smaller version of the original, you could use that to answer the main problem more quickly/directly. It's like applied mathematical induction.
In your particular problem, we can define MinLen(n) as the minimum length representation of n. Next, say, since we want to solve MinLen(12), suppose we already knew the answer to MinLen(1), MinLen(2), MinLen(3), ..., MinLen(11). How could we use the answer to those smaller problems to figure out MinLen(12)? This is the other half of dynamic programming - figuring out how to use the smaller problems to solve the bigger one. It doesn't help you if you come up with some smaller problem, but have no way of combining them back together.
For this problem, we can make the simple statement, "For 12, it's minimum length representation DEFINITELY has either 1^2, 2^2, or 3^2 in it." And in general, the minimum length representation of n will have some square less than or equal to n as a part of it. There is probably a better statement you can make, which would improve the runtime, but I'll say that it is good enough for now.
This statement means that MinLen(12) = 1^2 + MinLen(11), OR 2^2 + MinLen(8), OR 3^2 + MinLen(3). You check all of them and select the best one, and now you save that as MinLen(12). Now, if you want to solve MinLen(13), you can do that too.
Advice when solo:
The way I would test this kind of program myself is to plug in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, and see the first time it goes wrong. Additionally, any assumptions I happen to have thought were a good idea, I question: "Is it really true that the largest square number less than n will be in the representation of MinLen(n)?"
Your code:
r1 = (int) Math.sqrt(n1);
r2 = (int) Math.pow(r1, 2);
embodies that assumption (a greedy assumption), but it is wrong, as you've clearly seen with the answer for MinLen(12).
Instead you want something more like this:
public ArrayList<Integer> minLen(int n)
{
// base case of recursion
if (n == 0)
return new ArrayList<Integer>();
ArrayList<Integer> best = null;
int bestInt = -1;
for (int i = 1; i*i <= n; ++i)
{
// Check what happens if we use i^2 as part of our representation
ArrayList<Integer> guess = minLen(n - i*i);
// If we haven't selected a 'best' yet (best == null)
// or if our new guess is better than the current choice (guess.size() < best.size())
// update our choice of best
if (best == null || guess.size() < best.size())
{
best = guess;
bestInt = i;
}
}
best.add(bestInt);
return best;
}
Then, once you have your list, you can sort it (no guarantees that it came in sorted order), and print it out the way you want.
Lastly, you may notice that for larger values of n (1000 may be too large) that you plug in to the above recursion, it will start going very slow. This is because we are constantly recalculating all the small subproblems - for example, we figure out MinLen(3) when we call MinLen(4), because 4 - 1^2 = 3. But we figure it out twice for MinLen(7) -> 3 = 7 - 2^2, but 3 also is 7 - 1^2 - 1^2 - 1^2 - 1^2. And it gets much worse the larger you go.
The solution to this, which lets you solve up to n = 1,000,000 or more, very quickly, is to use a technique called Memoization. This means that once we figure out MinLen(3), we save it somewhere, let's say a global location to make it easy. Then, whenever we would try to recalculate it, we check the global cache first to see if we already did it. If so, then we just use that, instead of redoing all the work.
import java.util.*;
class SquareRepresentation
{
private static HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>> cachedSolutions;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
cachedSolutions = new HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>>();
for (int j = 100000; j < 100001; ++j)
{
ArrayList<Integer> answer = minLen(j);
Collections.sort(answer);
Collections.reverse(answer);
for (int i = 0; i < answer.size(); ++i)
{
if (i != 0)
System.out.printf("+");
System.out.printf("%d^2", answer.get(i));
}
System.out.println();
}
}
public static ArrayList<Integer> minLen(int n)
{
// base case of recursion
if (n == 0)
return new ArrayList<Integer>();
// new base case: problem already solved once before
if (cachedSolutions.containsKey(n))
{
// It is a bit tricky though, because we need to be careful!
// See how below that we are modifying the 'guess' array we get in?
// That means we would modify our previous solutions! No good!
// So here we need to return a copy
ArrayList<Integer> ans = cachedSolutions.get(n);
ArrayList<Integer> copy = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i: ans) copy.add(i);
return copy;
}
ArrayList<Integer> best = null;
int bestInt = -1;
// THIS IS WRONG, can you figure out why it doesn't work?:
// for (int i = 1; i*i <= n; ++i)
for (int i = (int)Math.sqrt(n); i >= 1; --i)
{
// Check what happens if we use i^2 as part of our representation
ArrayList<Integer> guess = minLen(n - i*i);
// If we haven't selected a 'best' yet (best == null)
// or if our new guess is better than the current choice (guess.size() < best.size())
// update our choice of best
if (best == null || guess.size() < best.size())
{
best = guess;
bestInt = i;
}
}
best.add(bestInt);
// check... not needed unless you coded wrong
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < best.size(); ++i)
{
sum += best.get(i) * best.get(i);
}
if (sum != n)
{
throw new RuntimeException(String.format("n = %d, sum=%d, arr=%s\n", n, sum, best));
}
// New step: Save the solution to the global cache
cachedSolutions.put(n, best);
// Same deal as before... if you don't return a copy, you end up modifying your previous solutions
//
ArrayList<Integer> copy = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i: best) copy.add(i);
return copy;
}
}
It took my program around ~5s to run for n = 100,000. Clearly there is more to be done if we want it to be faster, and to solve for larger n. The main issue now is that in storing the entire list of results of previous answers, we use up a lot of memory. And all of that copying! There is more you can do, like storing only an integer and a pointer to the subproblem, but I'll let you do that.
And by the by, 1000 = 30^2 + 10^2.
Background: Very new at Java, have little understanding. Would prefer a "point in the right direction" with explanation, if possible, than a copy/paste answer without explanation. If I want to stop being a novice, I need to learn! :)
Anyway, my goal is, as simply as possible, to be given 2 arrays numberList and winningNumbers, compare them, and return the percentage that numberList matches winningNumbers. Both array lengths will always be 10.
I have no idea where to start. I have been googling and going at this for 2 hours. My idea is to write a for loop that compares each individually integer in a string to one in the other, but I am not sure how to do that, or if there is a simpler method. I have little knowledge of arrays, and the more I google the more confused I become.
So far the only thing I have is
public double getPercentThatMatch(int[] winningNumbers) {}
numberList is preset.
one way you could approach it is to:
1) convert both lists to sets.
2) subtract one from the other. ie if 4 are the same, the resulting set will have the 6 values not the same
3) 10 - (size of resulting set) * 100 = %
Here's a runnable example of how you would compare the two arrays of ints to get a percent match.
public class LotteryTicket {
int[] numberList;
LotteryTicket(int... numbers) {
numberList = numbers;
}
public int getPercentThatMatch(int[] winningNumbers) {
Arrays.sort(numberList);
Arrays.sort(winningNumbers);
int i = 0, n = 0, match = 0;
while (i < numberList.length && n < winningNumbers.length) {
if (numberList[i] < winningNumbers[n]) {
i++;
} else if (numberList[i] > winningNumbers[n]) {
n++;
} else {
match++;
i++;
n++;
}
}
return match * 100 / winningNumbers.length;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] winningNumbers = { 12, 10, 4, 3, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 1 };
LotteryTicket ticket = new LotteryTicket(5, 2, 6, 7, 8, 4, 3, 1, 9, 0);
int percentMatching = ticket.getPercentThatMatch(winningNumbers);
System.out.println(percentMatching + "%");
}
}
Output:
80%
Since you wanted to be pointed in the right direction, rather than havving proper code, and assuming you want to use arrays to solve the problem, try to put something like this in your method:
(loop through arrayA){
(loop through arrayB){
if (current arrayA number is equal to current arrayB number){
then increase match counter by one, since this exists.
also break out of current arrayB loop. (Check next arrayA now.)
}
}
}
When done: return 100*matchCount/totalCount, as a double
So for every index in one array, you check against every other index of the other array. Increase a counter each time there's a match, and you'll be able to get a ratio of matches. If you use an integer as a counter, remember that division with integers acts funky, so you'd need to throw to a double:
double aDoubleNumber = (double) intNumber / anotherIntNumber
The problem would be easier if we consider them set. Let you have two set -
Set<Integer> s1 = //a HashSet of Integer;
Set<Integer> s2 = //a HashSet of Integer;
Now make a copy of s1 for example s11 and do the following thing -
s1.retainAll(s2);
Now s1 contains only element of both sets - that is the intersection.
After that you can easily calculate the percentage
Edit: You can convert the array to a set easily by using the following code snippet (I am assuming you have array of int) -
Set<Integer> s1 = new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(somePrimiteiveIntArray));
I think this trick will works for other primitive type also.
Hope this will help.
Thanks a lot.
I am going to attempt to beat a dead horse and explain the easiest (conceptual) way to approach this problem I will include some code but leave a lot up to interpretation.
You have two arrays so I would change the overall method to something like this:
public double getPercentage(int[] arrayA, int[] arrayB) {
double percentage=0;
for(/*go through the first array*/) {
for(/*go through second array*/) {
if(arrayA[i]==arrayB[j]) { /*note the different indices*/
percentage++; /*count how many times you have matching values*/
/* NOTE: This only works if you don't have repeating values in arrayA*/
}
}
}
return (percentage/arrayA.length)*100; /*return the amount of times over the length times 100*/
}
You are going to move through the first array with the first loop and the second array with the second loop. So you go through every value in arrayB for each value in arrayA to check.
In my approach I tried storing the winning numbers in a Hashset (one pass iteration, O(n) )
And when iterating on the numberList, I would check for presence of number in Hashset and if so, I will increment the counter. (one pass iteration, so O(n) )
The percentage is thus calculated by dividing the counter with size of array.
See if the sample code makes sense:
import java.util.HashSet;
public class Arraycomparison {
public static void main(String ... args){
int[] arr0 = {1,4,2,7,6,3,5,0,3,9,3,5,7};
int[] arr1 = {5,2,4,1,3,7,8,3,2,6,4,4,1};
HashSet set = new HashSet();
for(int j = 0; j < arr1.length; j++){
set.add(arr1[j]);
}
double counter = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < arr0.length; i++){
if(set.contains(arr0[i])){
counter++;
}
}
System.out.println("Match percentage between arrays : " + counter/arr0.length*100);
}
}
You should use List over array, because that's a convenient way, but with array:
public class Winner {
public static void main(String... args) {
double result = getPercentThatMatch(new int[]{1,2,3,4,5}, new int[]{2,3,4,5,6});
System.out.println("Result="+result+"%");
}
public static double getPercentThatMatch(int[] winningNumbers,
int[] numberList) { // it is confusing to call an array as List
int match = 0;
for (int win : winningNumbers) {
for (int my : numberList ){
if (win == my){
System.out.println(win + " == " + my);
match++;
}
}
}
int max = winningNumbers.length; // assume that same length
System.out.println("max:"+max);
System.out.println("match:"+match);
double devide = match / max; // it won't be good, because the result will be intm so Java will trunc it!
System.out.println("int value:"+devide);
devide = (double) match / max; // you need to cast to float or double
System.out.println("float value:"+devide);
double percent = devide * 100;
return percent;
}
}
Hope this helps. ;)
//For unique elements
getpercentage(arr1, arr2){
res = arr1.filter(element=>arr2.includes(element))
return res.lenght/arr2.lenght * 100;
}
//For duplicate elements
getpercentage(arr1, arr2){
const setA = Set(arr1);
const setB = Set(arr2);
Let res = [ ];
for(let i of setB){
if(setA.has(i)){
res.push(i);
}
}
return res.lenght/setA.size* 100;
I feel like I am pretty close, but my return value keeps printing out the first value in the array..
public static double mx(int[] nums, int track)
maxNow = nums[0];
if (count < [lengthofarray] - 1 && nums[track] != 0)
{
if (numbers[track] > maxval)
maxval = numbers[track];
System.out.println(maxval);
return maxval = mx(nums, track+1);
}
else
return maxval;
}
currentMax is a local variable declared inside findMax. This means that if findMax calls itself, which calls itself again, which calls itself again, so that it's now on the stack four times, there will be four different currentMax variables; each findMax has its own. Thus, if one of those findMax invocations modifies currentMax, it only modifies its own; the modification has no effect on the local currentMax variables belonging to the other invocations of findMax.
There are ways to get the method invocations to share the same currentMax (passing it as a parameter, as suggested in another answer, is a possibility), but you don't need them here. Instead, look at the problem a little differently: If you want to find the maximum of numbers[3] through numbers[10], you can call your function recursively to find the maximum of numbers[4] through numbers[10], then look at numbers[3] and compare it against the maximum you found recursively.
P.S. I do not recommend making currentMax a static field in order to get it to be shared; using a global field to hold results of recursion is usually poor programming practice, in my view. (It introduces thread-unsafety, for one thing.) There are ways to do this if done carefully, but in general I believe it should be avoided.
try to simplify the code:
public static int findMax(int[] numbers, int count){
if (count > 0) {
return Math.max(numbers[count], findMax(numbers, count-1))
}
else {
return numbers[0];
}
}
Here is how you can visualize this problem:
Your data can look like
{a, b, c, d, e}
you need to find max using
max(a, max(restOfElements))
which means you need to again use
max(a, max(b, max(restOfElements)))
.
.
.
max(a, max(b, max(c, max (d, max(e, nothing)))))
and last case can be visualized even better as
max(a, . . . . )
max(b, . . . )
max(c, . . )
max (d, . )
max(e, nothing)
So in the end you have two cases
when you are handling e, where you can't compare it with anything
when you are comparing current value with max of values after it
To handle first case you just need to return e because there is nothing else to compare it with.
To handle second case just get max value from rest of elements, compare it with your current value and return greater one.
Here is how your code can look like (hover over box to see code, but before you do it, try to implement it yourself again)
public static double findMax(double[] numbers, int count) {
if (count == numbers.length - 1)//we are handling last element
return numbers[count];
//else, we are returning greater number between current element,
//and max from rest of elements
return Math.max(numbers[count], findMax(numbers, count + 1));
}
Usage example:
double[] arr = { 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 3 };
System.out.println(findMax(arr, 0));
Output: 4.0
As an exercise instead of dividing your problem inmax(a, max(b, max(c, max(d, max(e)))) try to create method which will do it like max(max(max(max(max(a), b), c), d), e)
Well since we're giving out answers, here's how I would do it:
max(arr[1-n]) = max(arr[1], max(arr[2-n]);
public static double findMax(final double ...arr){
return findMax(arr, 0);
}
private static double findMax(final double[] arr, final int start){
// base case, if this is the end of the array, the max of the "rest"
// is just this element
if(start == arr.length - 1)
return arr[start];
// else continue
// find the max of the rest of the array
final double nextMax = findMax(arr, start + 1);
// return this index if it's greater than the next max,
// else return the next max
return arr[start] > nextMax ? arr[start] : nextMax;
}
Here's my try at it:
public static double findMax(double[] numbers, int count, double currentMax){
if( count < numbers.length ){
if( numbers[count] > currentMax ){
currentMax = numbers[count];
}
currentMax = findMax( numbers, count+1, currentMax );
}
return currentMax;
}
What exactly is the purpose of && numbers[count] != 0? What if all your numbers are negative?
Second, try passing the currentmax as an argument, instead of initializing it inside the method. You want to keep track of your currentMax. Initializing it as a local variable would not do that, but would reset it to the first element at each call.
public static double findMax(double[] numbers, int count, double currentMax)
{
if (count < numbers.length)// && numbers[count] != 0) //While the value of count remains lower than the size of the array and the current element of the arraylist doesn't = 0, the execute the code..
{
if (numbers[count] > currentMax)
currentMax = numbers[count];
return currentMax = findMax(numbers, count+1, currentMax);
}
else return currentMax;
}
In an array first we have to find whether a desired number exists in that or not?
If not then how will I find nearer number to the given desired number in Java?
An idea:
int nearest = -1;
int bestDistanceFoundYet = Integer.MAX_INTEGER;
// We iterate on the array...
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
// if we found the desired number, we return it.
if (array[i] == desiredNumber) {
return array[i];
} else {
// else, we consider the difference between the desired number and the current number in the array.
int d = Math.abs(desiredNumber - array[i]);
if (d < bestDistanceFoundYet) {
// For the moment, this value is the nearest to the desired number...
bestDistanceFoundYet = d; // Assign new best distance...
nearest = array[i];
}
}
}
return nearest;
Another common definition of "closer" is based on the square of the difference. The outline is similar to that provided by romaintaz, except that you'd compute
long d = ((long)desiredNumber - array[i]);
and then compare (d * d) to the nearest distance.
Note that I've typed d as long rather than int to avoid overflow, which can happen even with the absolute-value-based calculation. (For example, think about what happens when desiredValue is at least half of the maximum 32-bit signed value, and the array contains a value with corresponding magnitude but negative sign.)
Finally, I'd write the method to return the index of the value located, rather than the value itself. In either of these two cases:
when the array has a length of zero, and
if you add a "tolerance" parameter that bounds the maximum difference you will consider as a match,
you can use -1 as an out-of-band value similar to the spec on indexOf.
//This will work
public int nearest(int of, List<Integer> in)
{
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
int closest = of;
for (int v : in)
{
final int diff = Math.abs(v - of);
if (diff < min)
{
min = diff;
closest = v;
}
}
return closest;
}
If the array is sorted, then do a modified binary search. Basically if you do not find the number, then at the end of search return the lower bound.
Pseudocode to return list of closest integers.
myList = new ArrayList();
if(array.length==0) return myList;
myList.add(array[0]);
int closestDifference = abs(array[0]-numberToFind);
for (int i = 1; i < array.length; i++) {
int currentDifference= abs(array[i]-numberToFind);
if (currentDifference < closestDifference) {
myList.clear();
myList.add(array[i]);
closestDifference = currentDifference;
} else {
if(currentDifference==closestDifference) {
if( myList.get(0) !=array[i]) && (myList.size() < 2) {
myList.add(array[i]);
}
}
}
}
return myList;
Array.indexOf() to find out wheter element exists or not. If it does not, iterate over an array and maintain a variable which holds absolute value of difference between the desired and i-th element. Return element with least absolute difference.
Overall complexity is O(2n), which can be further reduced to a single iteration over an array (that'd be O(n)). Won't make much difference though.
Only thing missing is the semantics of closer.
What do you do if you're looking for six and your array has both four and eight?
Which one is closest?
int d = Math.abs(desiredNumber - array[i]);
if (d < bestDistanceFoundYet) {
// For the moment, this value is the nearest to the desired number...
nearest = array[i];
}
In this way you find the last number closer to desired number because bestDistanceFoundYet is constant and d memorize the last value passign the if (d<...).
If you want found the closer number WITH ANY DISTANCE by the desired number (d is'nt matter), you can memorize the last possibile value.
At the if you can test
if(d<last_d_memorized){ //the actual distance is shorter than the previous
// For the moment, this value is the nearest to the desired number...
nearest = array[i];
d_last_memorized=d;//is the actual shortest found delta
}
A few things to point out:
1 - You can convert the array to a list using
Arrays.asList(yourIntegerArray);
2 - Using a list, you can just use indexOf().
3 - Consider a scenario where you have a list of some length, you want the number closest to 3, you've already found that 2 is in the array, and you know that 3 is not. Without checking the other numbers, you can safely conclude that 2 is the best, because it's impossible to be closer. I'm not sure how indexOf() works, however, so this may not actually speed you up.
4 - Expanding on 3, let's say that indexOf() takes no more time than getting the value at an index. Then if you want the number closest to 3 in an array and you already have found 1, and have many more numbers to check, then it'll be faster to just check whether 2 or 4 is in the array.
5 - Expanding on 3 and 4, I think it might be possible to apply this to floats and doubles, although it would require that you use a step size smaller than 1... calculating how small seems beyond the scope of the question, though.
// paulmurray's answer to your question is really the best :
// The least square solution is way more elegant,
// here is a test code where numbertoLookFor
// is zero, if you want to try ...
import java.util.* ;
public class main {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] somenumbers = {-2,3,6,1,5,5,-1} ;
ArrayList<Integer> l = new ArrayList<Integer>(10) ;
for(int i=0 ; i<somenumbers.length ; i++)
{
l.add(somenumbers[i]) ;
}
Collections.sort(l,
new java.util.Comparator<Integer>()
{
public int compare(Integer n1, Integer n2)
{
return n1*n1 - n2*n2 ;
}
}
) ;
Integer first = l.get(0) ;
System.out.println("nearest number is " + first) ;
}
}
int[] somenumbers = getAnArrayOfSomenumbers();
int numbertoLookFor = getTheNumberToLookFor();
boolean arrayContainsNumber =
new HashSet(Arrays.asList(somenumbers))
.contains(numbertoLookfor);
It's fast, too.
Oh - you wanted to find the nearest number? In that case:
int[] somenumbers = getAnArrayOfSomenumbers();
int numbertoLookFor = getTheNumberToLookFor();
ArrayList<Integer> l = new ArrayList<Integer>(
Arrays.asList(somenumbers)
);
Collections.sort(l);
while(l.size()>1) {
if(numbertoolookfor <= l.get((l.size()/2)-1)) {
l = l.subList(0, l.size()/2);
}
else {
l = l.subList(l.size()/2, l.size);
}
}
System.out.println("nearest number is" + l.get(0));
Oh - hang on: you were after a least squares solution?
Collections.sort(l, new Comparator<Integer>(){
public int compare(Integer o1, Integer o2) {
return (o1-numbertoLookFor)*(o1-numbertoLookFor) -
(o2-numbertoLookFor)*(o2-numbertoLookFor);
}});
System.out.println("nearest number is" + l.get(0));