I have a pseudo code that I have translated into java code but anytime I run the code, I get an empty arraylist as a result but it is supposed to give me a random list of integers.
Here is the pseudo code:
Algorithm 1. RandPerm(N)
Input: Number of cities N
1) Let P = list of length N, (|P|=N) where pi=i
2) Let T = an empty list
3) While |P| > 0
4) Let i = UI(1,|P|)
5) Add pi to the end of T
6) Delete the ith element (pi) from P
7) End While
Output: Random tour T
Here is the java code:
public static ArrayList<Integer> RandPerm(int n)
{
ArrayList<Integer> P = new ArrayList<>(n);
ArrayList<Integer> T = new ArrayList<>();
int i;
while(P.size() > 0)
{
i = CS2004.UI(1, P.size());// generate random numbers between 1 and the size of P
T.add(P.get(i));
P.remove(P.get(i));
}
return T;
}
I don't know what I am doing wrong.
ArrayList<Integer> p = new ArrayList<>(n);
... creates an empty list with an initial capacity of n.
All this does is tell the ArrayList what size array to initialise as backing store - most of the time you achieve nothing useful by specifying this.
So your while(p.size() > 0) runs zero times, because p.size() is zero at the start.
In the pseudocode "where pi=i" suggests to me that you want to initialise the list like this:
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
p.add(i)
}
(I have lowercased your variable name - in Java the convention is for variables to startWithALowerCaseLetter -- only class names StartWithUpperCase. It's also the Java convention to give variables descriptive names, so cityIdentifiers perhaps)
You may want to know that, even if you fix the problem that P is always empty, there are 2 more issues with your implementation.
One is that P.remove(P.get(i)) does not necessarily remove the ith item if the list has equal value items. It scans from the beginning and removes the first occurrence of the item. See ArrayList.remove(Object obj). You should use P.remove(i) instead for the correct results.
Then the performance is O(n^2). The reason is that ArrayList remove an item by shifting all the subsequent items one slot to the left, which is an O(n) operation. To get a much better performance, you can implement your own "remove" operation by swapping the item to the end. When you generate the next random index, generate it within the range [0, beginning index of the removed items at the end). Swapping is O(1) and the overall performance is O(n). This is called Knuth Shuffle by the way.
Related
I'm rather new to Java, and I'm trying to figure out a way to copy all primes inside of an array and copy those to another array.
To do so, I've implemented a separate isPrime() method to check whether the element is a prime, and another method that counts the number of primes in that array countPrimes(), such that I can determine the new array's size.
Here is where I'm kind of stuck:
public static int[] primesIn(int[] arr) {
int primeHolder = countPrimes(arr);
int[] copyArr = new int[primeHolder];
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if (isPrime(arr[i]) == true) {
copyArr[>Needs to start from 0<] = arr[i];
}
}
return copyArr;
}
int[] arrayMan = {3,5,10,15,13};
At copyArr the position should be 0, followed by +1 everytime it finds a prime. If I were to give it i position, as in copyArr[i] = arr[i], then say the prime is at position 5, it would try to save the prime onto position 5of copyArr, which doesn't exist if there are only three primes in the original array, which would've given copyArr a length of only three.
Something tells me a different for loop, or maybe even an additional one would help, but I can't see how I should implement it. Help is greatly appreciated!
Have a second index variable int primeCount, and increment it whenever you find a prime. No need for a 2nd loop.
In modern days of abundant memory, things are usually not done like this. If you don't have some extra hard requirements, you could just use a resizable ArrayList<Integer>, and add() stuff in there. (and convert it back to int[] at the end if needed). This is also better in this case, because typically your countPrimes call will run much slower than ArrayList reallocations.
Read your words carefully:
At copyArr the position should be 0, followed by +1 everytime it
finds a prime.
That means that index in a new array does not depend on its position in the old array. Create a counter. And each time you place a prime number into a new array, increment it by 1. Thus you can always know where to put a new number.
In chapter 8 of Cracking the Coding Interview, 6th Edition, there's a question for finding all the subsets, and this is the given solution:
Arraylist<Arraylist<Integer>> getSubsets(Arraylist<Integer> set, int index) {
Arraylist<Arraylist<Integer>> allsubsets;
if (set.size()== index) {//Base case - add empty set
allsubsets = new Arraylist<Arraylist<Integer>>();
allsubsets.add(new Arraylist<Integer>()); // Empty set
} else {
allsubsets = getSubsets(set, index+ 1);
int item = set.get(index);
Arraylist<Arraylist<Integer>> moresubsets = new Arraylist<Arraylist<Integer>>();
for (Arraylist<Integer> subset : allsubsets) {
Arraylist<Integer> newsubset = new Arraylist<Integer>();
newsubset.addAll(subset);
newsubset.add(item);
moresubsets.add(newsubset);
}
allsubsets.addAll(moresubsets);
}
return allsubsets;
}
To my understanding, I need to add the current element to all the subsets found for the previous element from the given set. I don't understand why the recursive call takes index+1 as a given parameter instead of index-1. Is this a typo or is my understanding incorrect?
The idea behind this particular recursive function seems to be that getSubsets(set, i) means "generate and return all subsets of the elements in the input list s from index i and forward." If you look at how the recursion works, it does so as follows:
If i == set.size(), then we're supposed to generate all subsets of the elements from index set.size() and forward. There aren't any elements here, so the only subset is the empty set.
Otherwise, notice that each subset of the elements of set, starting at index i, either include the ith element or they don't. The subsets that don't contain the ith element are precisely the subsets of set starting from position i + 1 and forward. The ones that do are formed by taking those subsets, then adding in the ith element to them.
So in that sense, the reason the recursion goes to index i + 1 rather than i - 1 is because the intuition is to look at subsets of elements starting from position i and going to the end.
You could alternatively write this function to list subsets from index 0 up through index i if you'd like and then step i downward toward 0. It's a perfectly reasonable way to do this and a great exercise to code it up yourself!
I have a question that doesn't seem possible to me. I have 2+ arrays which I have to compare for common values. I am supposed to do this in O(N) comparisons but can't think of a way. Specifically (k-1)N comparisons where k is the number of arrays. I've narrowed down how I can take multiple arrays and just merge them into a single array. I've gotten that the smallest array is the limiting factor so if I sort that I can save the most comparisons. After spending half the day staring at my screen I've even come up with a way to do this linearly if I discount any duplicates, but I have to keep duplicates So, as far as I know in order to compare any arrays you need at least 2 for loops which would be O(N^2) wouldn't it? I'm also not allowed to hash anything.
For example if I had {1,3,4,3,4,5} as a master and {1,1,3,5,9,3,7} and {3,5,8,4,0,3,2} as arrays to be compared I'd need to have a final of {3,3,5} since I can't get rid of any dupiclates.
I don't want anyone to write the code, I just need to know what I should be doing in the first place.
Use an array of ints. Taking your first list, for each element, set the value at that index to 1. So if the first element is 3, put 1 in array[3]. Now, we know that 3 is present in first list. Putting 1 will help you distinguish from a 3 that is present in the earlier list versus a 3 which is repeated in current list.
Iterate through all the other k-1 lists
For every element, check the value in array for that index
If the value is 0, set it to this list number
If the value is a number less than this list number, this number is a duplicate and has already appeared in a previous list.
If this number is equal to this list index it means this number already occurred in this list but not in previous lists, so not yet a duplicate.
The numbers that you are getting as duplicates, add them to another list.
Finish all iterations
Finally print the duplicates.
Original Wrong Answer
Create a HashSet<int>
Take all values from master and add to it - O(master list count)
Now just iterate through first and second arrays and see if their elements are in that HashSet - O(each list count)
If the lists are sorted, then it's relatively straightforward if you do something like this:
List<Integer> intersection = new ArrayList<>();
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
while (i < list1.size() && j < list2.size()) {
int a = list1.get(i);
int b = list2.get(j);
if (a < b) {
i++;
} else if (b < a) {
j++;
} else { // a == b
intersection.add(a);
i++;
j++;
}
}
On each iteration of the loop, the quantity i + j increases by at least 1, and the loop is guaranteed to be done when i + j >= list1.size() + list2.size(), so the whole thing does at most O(list1.size() + list2.size()) comparisons.
I know the rationale behind nested loops, but this one just make me confused about the reason it wants to reveal:
public static LinkedList LinkedSort(LinkedList list)
{
for(int k = 1; k < list.size(); k++)
for(int i = 0; i < list.size() - k; i++)
{
if(((Birth)list.get(i)).compareTo(((Birth)list.get(i + 1)))>0)
{
Birth birth = (Birth)list.get(i);
list.set( i, (Birth)list.get( i + 1));
list.set(i + 1, birth);
}
}
return list;
}
Why if i is bigger then i + 1, then swap i and i + 1? I know for this coding, i + 1 equals to k, but then from my view, it is impossible for i greater then k, am i right? And what the run result will be looking like? I'm quite confused what this coding wants to tell me， hope you guys can help me clarify my doubts, thank you.
This method implements a bubble sort. It reorders the elements in the list in ascending order. The exact data to be ordered by is not revealed in this code, the actual comparison is done in Birth#compare.
Lets have a look at the inner loop first. It does the actual sorting. The inner loop iterates over the list, and compares the element at position 0 to the element at position 1, then the element at position 1 to the element at position 2 etc. Each time, if the lower element is larger than the higher one, they are swapped.
After the first full run of the inner loop the largest value in the list now sits at the end of the list, since it was always larger than the the value it was compared to, and was always swapped. (try it with some numbers on paper to see what happens)
The inner loop now has to run again. It can ignore the last element, since we already know it contains the largest value. After the second run the second largest value is sitting the the second-to-last position.
This has to be repeated until the whole list is sorted.
This is what the outer loop is doing. It runs the inner loop for the exact number of times to make sure the list is sorted. It also gives the inner loop the last position it has to compare to ignore the part already sorted. This is just an optimization, the inner loop could just ignore k like this:
for(int i = 0; i < list.size() - 1; i++)
This would give the same result, but would take longer since the inner loop would needlessly compare the already sorted values at the end of the list every time.
Example: you have a list of numbers which you want to sort ascendingly:
4 2 3 1
The first iteration do these swap operations: swap(4, 2), swap(4, 3), swap(4, 1). The intermediate result after the 1st iteration is 2 3 1 4. In other words, we were able to determine which number is the greatest one and we don't need to iterate over the last item of the intermediate result.
In the second iteration, we determine the 2nd greatest number with operations: swap(3, 1). The intermediate result looks then 2 1 3 4.
And the end of the 3rd iteration, we have a sorted list.
(I'm new at Java, coming over from Python ---)
I'm going through a tutorial and they've created a program which counts how many times a number appears in a file, then returns that number. One particular part of the program is somewhat mysterious to me and deals with the ArrayList's .get and .set (methods? functions?). The program goes like this:
// (Scan a file with the numbers, say, 2 2 3 4, and put it into data1 variable.)
// (Make An Empty ArrayList with a bunch of 0's)
Scanner data1 = null;
ArrayList<Integer> count = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Integer idx;
while(data1.hasNextInt()){
idx = data1.nextInt();
System.out.println(idx);
System.out.println(count.get(idx)+1);
count.set(idx,count.get(idx)+1);
}
//Then prints out all the values; the ArrayList contains the number of times the number n occurs in the n-th index.
My question comes at the "while" part. For concrete, let's assume data1 has the numbers 2 2 3 4. It seems that it takes idx = 2, then puts a 1 in count[2], which is reasonable. It then takes idx = 2 again (the next integer in data1) and puts a 2 in count[2], which is also reasonable. At this point, the next number in data1 makes idx = 3, but it occurs at the index 2 in the ArrayList, so it should put a 3 in count[3], which is incorrect.
So, what is .get and .set doing here? Do they pop the elements off of the list when they're done with it? Am I overlooking something?
A .get() will not automagically get elements from a List which does not have that many elements. Note: list indices, like arrays, start at 0.
If you do:
final List<Integer> = new ArrayList<Integer>();
list.get(0);
this is a runtime error (IndexOutOfBoundsException) because your list has no elements.
You have to fill it:
list.add(1); // append an element
list.get(0); // returns element at index 0
list.get(1); // IndexOutOfBoundsException!
The .set() method takes an index and a value at an argument. In a similar vein, you cannot set an element which does not already exist, except at the very end of the list:
// start from an empty list
list.set(1, 32); // IndexOutOfBoundsException!
list.set(0, 32); // OK
Final note: try not to use list[i], bracket indices are used for arrays ;) Note that arrays are not resizabe in Java. Lists (which are an implementation of a Collection), however, are. But you must append to them.
So, what this line does:
count.set(idx, count.get(idx) + 1);
is take the value at index idx, add 1 to it, and sets back this value at the same index.
In your specific case, what you are looking for is a sparse array. In Java we use a HashMap<Integer, Integer> for that purpose. You don't need any initialization with zeros, but you do need to check for null:
final Integer curr = count.get(idx);
count.put(idx, curr == null? 1 : curr+1);
You are currently using an ArrayList, which acts like an array, but makes it easier to expand it - for example, add elements to it.
What you want is the java equivalent of the python dict, a key/value storage, in java, this is called a HashMap<K,V> (docs).
Scanner data1 = null;
HashMap<Integer, Integer> count = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
Integer idx;
while(data1.hasNextInt()) {
idx = data1.nextInt();
System.out.println(idx);
Integer g = count.get(idx)+1;
if(g == null) {
g = 0;
}
g++;
System.out.println(g);
count.put(idx, g);
}