We Keep Coding

Computing the size of a linked list using recursion/helper function - Java

Beginner here using Java (first year student), and am unable to get the below function to work. The goal is to use recursion and a helper function to compute the size of a singly linked list. When running the code against test lists, it keeps returning List changed to [].
I'm struggling in general with Java, so any help is appreciated. Thank you
public class MyLinked {
static class Node {
public Node(double item, Node next) {
this.item = item;
this.next = next;
}
public double item;
public Node next;
}
int N;
Node first;
public int sizeForward() {
return sizeForwardHelper(first);
}
public int sizeForwardHelper(Node n) {
Node current = first;
if (current == null) {
return 0;
} else {
first = first.next;
return sizeForward() + 1;
}
}
I believe I have the first portion set up to return 0 if there are no elements in the List. I believe it's the second part that isn't setting up correctly?
Thanks

Because it’s important for your learning to not spoonfeed you, I’ll describe an approach rather than provide code.
Use this fact:
The length of the list from any given node to the end is 1 plus the length measured from the next node (if there is one).
Usually (as would work here), recursive functions take this form:
If the terminating condition is true, return some value
Otherwise, return some value plus the recursively calculated value
When writing a recursive function, first decide on the terminating condition. In this case, n == null is the obvious choice, and you’d return 0, because you’ve run off the end of the list and the length of nothing (ie no node) is nothing. This also handles the empty list (when first is null) without any special code.
Otherwise, return 1 (the length of one node) plus the length of next.
Put that all together and you’ll have your answer.
——
Hint: The body of the recursive helper method can be coded using one short line if you use a ternary expression.

Instead of calling your wrapper function call your helper function recursively. Try the following:
public int sizeForward () {
return sizeForwardHelper (first);
}
public int sizeForwardHelper(Node n) {
if (n == null) // base case
return 0;
return sizeForwardHelper(n.next) + 1; // count this node + rest of list
}

Your method that computes the size of the list actually modifies the list in the process (with first = first.next; you set the first element to the next, and since there is a recursion, the first element always end up being null which is equivalent to an empty list with your design). Your method will work once, but your list will be empty afterwards.
To illustrate this, I added a print next to the instruction first = first.next; and wrote the following main:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Node n2 = new Node(2d, null);
Node n1 = new Node(1d, n2);
Node n = new Node(0, n1);
MyLinked l = new MyLinked(n);
System.out.println("The first element is: "+l.first.item);
System.out.println("The size is: "+l.sizeForward());
System.out.println("The first element is: "+l.first);
}
It yields:
The first element is: 0.0
first is set to 1.0
first is set to 2.0
first is set to null
The size is: 3
The first element is: null
Clearly, you should not modify the list while computing its size. The helper method should return 0 if the node is null (empty list), and 1 plus the size of the rest of the list otherwise. Here is the code.
public int sizeForwardHelper(Node n) {
if (n == null)
return 0;
else
return sizeForwardHelper(n.next) +1;
}
The goal of the arg free method sizeForward() is just to call the helper. The helper should not use it though.

Java Searching through two Arrays

I have 2 ArrayList's. ArrayList A has 8.1k elements and ArrayList B has 81k elements.
I need to iterate through B, search for that particular item in A then change a field in the matched element in list B.
Here's my code:
private void mapAtoB(List<A> aList, ListIterator<B> it) {
AtomicInteger i = new AtomicInteger(-1);
while(it.hasNext()) {
System.out.print(i.incrementAndGet() + ", ");
B b = it.next();
aList.stream().filter(a -> b.equalsB(a)).forEach(a -> {
b.setId(String.valueOf(a.getRedirectId()));
it.set(b);
});
}
System.out.println();
}
public class B {
public boolean equalsB(A a) {
if (a == null) return false;
if (this.getFullURL().contains(a.getFirstName())) return true;
return false;
}
}
But this is taking forever. To finish this method it takes close to 15 minutes. Is there any way to optimize any of this? 15 min run time is way too much.

I'll be happy to see a good and thorough solution, meanwhile I can propose two ideas (or maybe two reincarnations of one).
The first one is to speed up searching of all objects of type A in one object of type B. For that, Rabin-Karp algorithm seems applicable and simple enough to quickly implement, and Aho-Corasick harder but will probably give better results, not sure how much better.
The other option is to limit the number of objects of type B which should be fully processed for each object of A, for that you could e.g. build an inverse N-gram index: for each fullUrl you take all its substrings of length N ("N-grams"), and you build a map from each such N-gram to a set of B's that have such N-gram in their fullUrl. When searching for an object A, you take all of its N-grams, find a set of B's for each such N-gram and intersect all these sets, the intersection will contain all B's that you should fully process. I implemented this approach quickly, for the sizes you specified it gives a 6-7 time speedup for N=4; as N grows, search becomes faster, but building the index slows down (so if you can reuse it you are probably better off choosing a bigger N). This index takes about 200 Mb for the sizes you specified, so this approach will only scale this far with the growth of the collection of B's. Assuming that all strings are longer than NGRAM_LENGTH, here's the quick and dirty code for building the index using Guava's SetMultimap, HashMultimap:
SetMultimap<String, B> idx = HashMultimap.create();
for (B b : bList) {
for (int i = 0; i < b.getFullURL().length() - NGRAM_LENGTH + 1; i++) {
idx.put(b.getFullURL().substring(i, i + NGRAM_LENGTH), b);
}
}
And for the search:
private void mapAtoB(List<A> aList, SetMultimap<String, B> mmap) {
for (A a : aList) {
Collection<B> possible = null;
for (int i = 0; i < a.getFirstName().length() - NGRAM_LENGTH + 1; i++) {
String ngram = a.getFirstName().substring(i, i + NGRAM_LENGTH);
Set<B> forNgram = mmap.get(ngram);
if (possible == null) {
possible = new ArrayList<>(forNgram);
} else {
possible.retainAll(forNgram);
}
if (possible.size() < 20) { // it's ok to scan through 20
break;
}
}
for (B b : possible) {
if (b.equalsB(a)) {
b.setId(a.getRedirectId());
}
}
}
}
A possible direction for optimization would be to use hashes instead of full N-grams thus reducing the memory footprint and necessity for N-gram key comparisons.

Implementing an equals() method to compare contents of two 'bag' objects

I am working on a school assignment. The objective is to practice GUI's, clone() methods, and using/ modifying existing code. I am trying to write an equals method in the way the instructor desires-- by using a clone of the object, removing items from the bag (returns boolean based on success or failure to remove).
The bag is represented in an array, and should return true in cases such as {1,2,3} and {3,2,1}, ie order does not matter, only the number of each number present in the arrays.
Here is the issue
It works in most cases, however there is a bug in cases where the bags contain numbers as such: {1,1,2} and {1,2,2} and other similar iterations. It is returning true instead of false.
I believe it has something to do with the remove() method we are supposed to use. If i understand it correctly, it is supposed to put the value at the 'end' of the array and decrease the manyItems counter (this is a variable for number of items in the array, because array.length is by default in the constructor 10.)
The code is largely written by another person. We had to import the existing files and write new methods to complete the task we were given. I have all the GUI part done so i will not include that class, only the used methods in the IntArrayBag class.
A second pair of eyes would be helpful. Thanks.
public class IntArrayBag implements Cloneable
{
// Invariant of the IntArrayBag class:
// 1. The number of elements in the bag is in the instance variable
// manyItems, which is no more than data.length.
// 2. For an empty bag, we do not care what is stored in any of data;
// for a non-empty bag, the elements in the bag are stored in data[0]
// through data[manyItems-1], and we don�t care what�s in the
// rest of data.
private int[ ] data;
private int manyItems;
public IntArrayBag( )
{
final int INITIAL_CAPACITY = 10;
manyItems = 0;
data = new int[INITIAL_CAPACITY];
}
public IntArrayBag clone( )
{ // Clone an IntArrayBag object.
IntArrayBag answer;
try
{
answer = (IntArrayBag) super.clone( );
}
catch (CloneNotSupportedException e)
{ // This exception should not occur. But if it does, it would probably
// indicate a programming error that made super.clone unavailable.
// The most common error would be forgetting the "Implements Cloneable"
// clause at the start of this class.
throw new RuntimeException
("This class does not implement Cloneable");
}
answer.data = data.clone( );
return answer;
}
public int size( )
{
return manyItems;
}
public boolean remove(int target)
{
int index; // The location of target in the data array.
// First, set index to the location of target in the data array,
// which could be as small as 0 or as large as manyItems-1; If target
// is not in the array, then index will be set equal to manyItems;
for (index = 0; (index < manyItems) && (target != data[index]); index++)
// No work is needed in the body of this for-loop.
;
if (index == manyItems)
// The target was not found, so nothing is removed.
return false;
else
{ // The target was found at data[index].
// So reduce manyItems by 1 and copy the last element onto data[index].
manyItems--;
data[index] = data[manyItems];
return true;
}
}
//I added extra variables that are not needed to try to increase readability,
//as well as when i was trying to debug the code originally
public boolean equals(Object obj){
if (obj instanceof IntArrayBag){
IntArrayBag canidate = (IntArrayBag) obj; // i know this can be changed, this was required
IntArrayBag canidateTest = (IntArrayBag) canidate.clone(); //this was created
//as a clone because it was otherwise referring to the same memory address
//this caused items to be removed from bags when testing for equality
IntArrayBag test = (IntArrayBag) this.clone();
//fast check to see if the two objects have the same number of items,
//if they dont will return false and skip the item by item checking
if (test.size() != canidateTest.size())
return false;
//the loop will go through every element in the test bag it will
//then remove the value that is present at the first index of the test bag
for (int i = 0; (i < (test.size()) || i < (canidateTest.size())); i++){
int check = test.data[i];
//remove() returns a boolean so if the value is not present in each bag
//then the conditional will be met and the method will return false
boolean test1 = test.remove(check);
boolean test2 = canidateTest.remove(check);
if (test1 != test2)
return false;
}//end for loop
// if the loop goes through every element
//and finds every value was true it will return true
return true;
}//end if
else
return false;
}//end equals
}

I cannot see the big picture, as I havent coded GUIs in Java before, however, as far as comparing 2 int[] arrays, I would sort the arrays before the comparison. This will allow you to eliminate problem cases like the one you stated ( if sorting is possible), then apply something like:
while(array_1[index]==array_2[index] && index<array_1.length)
{index++;}
and find where did the loop break by checking the final value of index

Is it explicitly stated to use clone? You can achieve it easily by overriding the hashCode() for this Object.
You can override the hashCode() for this object as follows:
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 5;
int result = 1;
/* Sort Array */
Arrays.sort(this.data);
/* Calculate Hash */
for(int d : this.data) {
result = prime * result + d;
}
/* Return Result */
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj) return true;
if (obj == null || this.getClass() != obj.getClass()){
return false;
}
return false;
}
If you want to continue using your implementation for equals to compare test and CandidateTest then also you can compute unique hashes and make decision based on the results.
Here is the code snippet:
/* Assuming that you have put size comparison logic on top
and the two objects are of same size */
final int prime = 31;
int testResult = 1;
int candidateTestResult = 1;
for(int i = 0; i < test.size(); i++) {
testResult = prime * testResult + test.data[i];
candidateTestResult = prime * candidateTestResult + candidateTest.data[i];
}
/* Return Result */
return testResult == candidateTestResult;

I believe the problem is in this line:
for (int i = 0; (i < (test.size()) || i < (canidateTest.size())); i++){
The problem here is that test and canidateTest are the clones that you made, and you are removing elements from those bags. And any time you remove an element from the bag, the size will decrease (because you decrease manyItems, and size() returns manyItems). This means you're only going to go through half the array. Suppose the original size is 4. Then, the first time through the loop, i==0 and test.size()==4; the second time, i==0 and test.size()==3; the third time, i==2 and test.size()==2, and you exit the loop. So you don't look at all 4 elements--you only look at 2.
You'll need to decide: do you want to go through the elements of the original array, or the elements of the clone? If you go through the elements of the clone, you actually never need to increment i. You can always look at test.data[0], since once you look at it, you remove it, so you know test.data[0] will be replaced with something else. In fact, you don't need i at all. Just loop until the bag size is 0, or until you determine that the bags aren't equal. On the other hand, if you go through the elements of this.data (i.e. look at this.data[i] or just data[i]), then make sure i goes all the way up to this.size().
(One more small point: the correct spelling is "candidate".)

Maybe you should try SET interface
view this in detail ：http://www.tutorialspoint.com/java/java_set_interface.htm
A set object cannot contains duplicate elements, so it's suitable for your assignment than build your own class.
For example：[1,1,2] and [1,2,2]
you can use this to test whether they are equal
arr1 = {1,1,2}
arr2 = {1,2,2}
Set<Integer> set = new HashSet<Integer>();
for(int i : arr1){//build set of arr1
if(set.contains(i)==false){
set.add(i)
}
}
for(int i:arr2){
if(set.contains(i)==false){
System.out.println('not equal');
break;
}
}
Hope this is helpful.

Investigate a queue with linked lists in java

.. I have to use a piece of code in java but I don't understand some parts of it.
The code uses methods (.isEmpty() etc. ) from a simple Queue i made in another document.
It is suppposed to investigate an array (which has linked lists in each address) and do some sort of processing with its values.
The problem is that i dont know what marked[s] = true; ,marked[t.v] = true; and parent[t.v] = k; are and how do they work as variables (?)
void BFS(int s)
{
Queue<Integer> Q = new Queue<Integer>();
marked[s] = true;
Q.put(s);
while (!Q.isEmpty())
{
k = Q.get();
for (Node t = adj[k]; t != null; t = t.next)
if (!marked[t.v]) {
marked[t.v] = true;
parent[t.v] = k;
Q.put(t.v);
}
}
}
}
edit: I wrote matrix instead of array, sorry.

marked[] parent and adj are all arrays.
t as you can see from the code, is a Node object. That node object will have a member variable called v. t.v therefore fetches the value of the variable v in the Node object t.
marked[t.v] finds the element in the array with index equal to t.v. e.g. if t.v is equal to 0, then you are fetching marked[0] which is the first element in the marked array.

Java: Recursively Finding the minimum element in a list

I will preface this by saying it is homework. I am just looking for some pointers. I have been racking my brain with this one, and for the life of me i am just not getting it. We are asked to find the minimum element in a list. I know i need a sublist in here, but after that i am not sure. any pointers would be great. thanks.
/** Find the minimum element in a list.
*
* #param t a list of integers
*
* #return the minimum element in the list
*/
public static int min(List<Integer> t) {
if (t.size() == 1){
return t.get(0);
}
else{
List<Integer> u = t.subList(1, t.size());

The point of a recursive algorithm is that everything that must be computed is done through return values or additional parameters. You shouldn't have anything outside the local call of the recursive step.
Since you have to find the minimum element you should take some considerations:
the min element of a list composed by one element is that element
the min element of a generic list is the minimum between the first element and the minimum of the remaining list
By taking these into consideration it should be easy to implement. Especially because recursive algorithms have the convenience of being really similar to their algorithmic description.

You need to find the relationship between the function min applied to a list and the function min applied to a sublist.
min([a b c d e ...]) = f(a, min([b c d e ...]))
Now you just need to find the function f. Once you have the relationship, then to implement it is easy. Good luck.

In the most general sense, recursion is a concept based on breaking down work, and then delegating the smaller chunk of work to a copy of yourself. For recursion to work, you need three main things:
The breakdown of work. How are you going to make each step "simpler"?
The recursive call. At some point your function must call itself, but with less "work".
The base case. What is a (usually trivial) end case that will stop the recursion process?
In your case, you're trying to create a function min that operates on a list. You're correct in thinking that you could somehow reduce (breakdown) your work by making the list one smaller each time (sublist out the first element). As others have mentioned, the idea would be to check the first element (which you just pulled off) against the "rest of the list". Well here's where the leap of faith comes in. At this point, you can "assume" that your min function will work on the sublist, and just make a function call on the sublist (the recursive call). Now you have to make sure all your calls will return (i.e. make sure it will not recurse forever). That's where your base case comes in. If your list is of size 1, the only element is the smallest of the list. No need to call min again, just return (that part you already have in your original post).

/**
* The function computes the minimum item of m (-1 if m is empty).
* #param m: The MyList we want to compute its minimum item.
* #return: The minimum item of MyList
*/
public int minimum(MyList<Integer> m){
int res = 0;
int e0 = 0;
int e1 = 0;
// Scenarios Identification
int scenario = 0;
// Type 1. MyLyst is empty
if(m.length() == 0) {
scenario = 1;
}else {
// Type 2. MyLyst is not empty
scenario = 2;
}
// Scenario Implementation
switch(scenario) {
// If MyLyst is empty
case 1:
res = -1;
break;
// If there is 1 or more elements
case 2:
//1. Get and store first element of array
e0 = m.getElement(0);
//2. We remove the first element from MyList we just checked
m.removeElement(0);
//3. We recursively solve the smaller problem
e1 = minimum(m);
//4. Compare and store results
if(e0 < e1) {
res = e0;
}
else {
res = e1;
}
//5. Return removed element back to the array
m.addElement(0, e0);
break;
}
//6. Return result
return res;
}

There you go, Try this out in the method:
public static Integer minimum(List<Integer> t) {
int minInt;
if (t.size() == 1) {
return t.get(0);
} else {
int first = t.get(0);
List<Integer> u = t.subList(1, t.size());
minInt = Math.min(first, u.get(0));
minInt = IntegerList.minimum(u);
}
return minInt;
}
Hopefully this solves your issue.