Related
In this case, the MAX is only 5, so I could check the duplicates one by one, but how could I do this in a simpler way? For example, what if the MAX has a value of 20?
Thanks.
int MAX = 5;
for (i = 1 , i <= MAX; i++)
{
drawNum[1] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
while (drawNum[2] == drawNum[1])
{
drawNum[2] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[3] == drawNum[1]) || (drawNum[3] == drawNum[2]) )
{
drawNum[3] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[4] == drawNum[1]) || (drawNum[4] == drawNum[2]) || (drawNum[4] == drawNum[3]) )
{
drawNum[4] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[5] == drawNum[1]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[2]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[3]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[4]) )
{
drawNum[5] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
}
The simplest way would be to create a list of the possible numbers (1..20 or whatever) and then shuffle them with Collections.shuffle. Then just take however many elements you want. This is great if your range is equal to the number of elements you need in the end (e.g. for shuffling a deck of cards).
That doesn't work so well if you want (say) 10 random elements in the range 1..10,000 - you'd end up doing a lot of work unnecessarily. At that point, it's probably better to keep a set of values you've generated so far, and just keep generating numbers in a loop until the next one isn't already present:
if (max < numbersNeeded)
{
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Can't ask for more numbers than are available");
}
Random rng = new Random(); // Ideally just create one instance globally
// Note: use LinkedHashSet to maintain insertion order
Set<Integer> generated = new LinkedHashSet<Integer>();
while (generated.size() < numbersNeeded)
{
Integer next = rng.nextInt(max) + 1;
// As we're adding to a set, this will automatically do a containment check
generated.add(next);
}
Be careful with the set choice though - I've very deliberately used LinkedHashSet as it maintains insertion order, which we care about here.
Yet another option is to always make progress, by reducing the range each time and compensating for existing values. So for example, suppose you wanted 3 values in the range 0..9. On the first iteration you'd generate any number in the range 0..9 - let's say you generate a 4.
On the second iteration you'd then generate a number in the range 0..8. If the generated number is less than 4, you'd keep it as is... otherwise you add one to it. That gets you a result range of 0..9 without 4. Suppose we get 7 that way.
On the third iteration you'd generate a number in the range 0..7. If the generated number is less than 4, you'd keep it as is. If it's 4 or 5, you'd add one. If it's 6 or 7, you'd add two. That way the result range is 0..9 without 4 or 6.
Here's how I'd do it
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Random;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int size = 20;
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>(size);
for(int i = 1; i <= size; i++) {
list.add(i);
}
Random rand = new Random();
while(list.size() > 0) {
int index = rand.nextInt(list.size());
System.out.println("Selected: "+list.remove(index));
}
}
}
As the esteemed Mr Skeet has pointed out:
If n is the number of randomly selected numbers you wish to choose and N is the total sample space of numbers available for selection:
If n << N, you should just store the numbers that you have picked and check a list to see if the number selected is in it.
If n ~= N, you should probably use my method, by populating a list containing the entire sample space and then removing numbers from it as you select them.
//random numbers are 0,1,2,3
ArrayList<Integer> numbers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Random randomGenerator = new Random();
while (numbers.size() < 4) {
int random = randomGenerator .nextInt(4);
if (!numbers.contains(random)) {
numbers.add(random);
}
}
This would be a lot simpler in java-8:
Stream.generate(new Random()::ints)
.flatMap(IntStream::boxed)
.distinct()
.limit(16) // whatever limit you might need
.toArray(Integer[]::new);
There is another way of doing "random" ordered numbers with LFSR, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_feedback_shift_register
with this technique you can achieve the ordered random number by index and making sure the values are not duplicated.
But these are not TRUE random numbers because the random generation is deterministic.
But depending your case you can use this technique reducing the amount of processing on random number generation when using shuffling.
Here a LFSR algorithm in java, (I took it somewhere I don't remeber):
public final class LFSR {
private static final int M = 15;
// hard-coded for 15-bits
private static final int[] TAPS = {14, 15};
private final boolean[] bits = new boolean[M + 1];
public LFSR() {
this((int)System.currentTimeMillis());
}
public LFSR(int seed) {
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
bits[i] = (((1 << i) & seed) >>> i) == 1;
}
}
/* generate a random int uniformly on the interval [-2^31 + 1, 2^31 - 1] */
public short nextShort() {
//printBits();
// calculate the integer value from the registers
short next = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
next |= (bits[i] ? 1 : 0) << i;
}
// allow for zero without allowing for -2^31
if (next < 0) next++;
// calculate the last register from all the preceding
bits[M] = false;
for(int i = 0; i < TAPS.length; i++) {
bits[M] ^= bits[M - TAPS[i]];
}
// shift all the registers
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
bits[i] = bits[i + 1];
}
return next;
}
/** returns random double uniformly over [0, 1) */
public double nextDouble() {
return ((nextShort() / (Integer.MAX_VALUE + 1.0)) + 1.0) / 2.0;
}
/** returns random boolean */
public boolean nextBoolean() {
return nextShort() >= 0;
}
public void printBits() {
System.out.print(bits[M] ? 1 : 0);
System.out.print(" -> ");
for(int i = M - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
System.out.print(bits[i] ? 1 : 0);
}
System.out.println();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
LFSR rng = new LFSR();
Vector<Short> vec = new Vector<Short>();
for(int i = 0; i <= 32766; i++) {
short next = rng.nextShort();
// just testing/asserting to make
// sure the number doesn't repeat on a given list
if (vec.contains(next))
throw new RuntimeException("Index repeat: " + i);
vec.add(next);
System.out.println(next);
}
}
}
Another approach which allows you to specify how many numbers you want with size and the min and max values of the returned numbers
public static int getRandomInt(int min, int max) {
Random random = new Random();
return random.nextInt((max - min) + 1) + min;
}
public static ArrayList<Integer> getRandomNonRepeatingIntegers(int size, int min,
int max) {
ArrayList<Integer> numbers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
while (numbers.size() < size) {
int random = getRandomInt(min, max);
if (!numbers.contains(random)) {
numbers.add(random);
}
}
return numbers;
}
To use it returning 7 numbers between 0 and 25.
ArrayList<Integer> list = getRandomNonRepeatingIntegers(7, 0, 25);
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
System.out.println("" + list.get(i));
}
The most efficient, basic way to have non-repeating random numbers is explained by this pseudo-code. There is no need to have nested loops or hashed lookups:
// get 5 unique random numbers, possible values 0 - 19
// (assume desired number of selections < number of choices)
const int POOL_SIZE = 20;
const int VAL_COUNT = 5;
declare Array mapping[POOL_SIZE];
declare Array results[VAL_COUNT];
declare i int;
declare r int;
declare max_rand int;
// create mapping array
for (i=0; i<POOL_SIZE; i++) {
mapping[i] = i;
}
max_rand = POOL_SIZE-1; // start loop searching for maximum value (19)
for (i=0; i<VAL_COUNT; i++) {
r = Random(0, max_rand); // get random number
results[i] = mapping[r]; // grab number from map array
mapping[r] = max_rand; // place item past range at selected location
max_rand = max_rand - 1; // reduce random scope by 1
}
Suppose first iteration generated random number 3 to start (from 0 - 19). This would make results[0] = mapping[3], i.e., the value 3. We'd then assign mapping[3] to 19.
In the next iteration, the random number was 5 (from 0 - 18). This would make results[1] = mapping[5], i.e., the value 5. We'd then assign mapping[5] to 18.
Now suppose the next iteration chose 3 again (from 0 - 17). results[2] would be assigned the value of mapping[3], but now, this value is not 3, but 19.
This same protection persists for all numbers, even if you got the same number 5 times in a row. E.g., if the random number generator gave you 0 five times in a row, the results would be: [ 0, 19, 18, 17, 16 ].
You would never get the same number twice.
Generating all the indices of a sequence is generally a bad idea, as it might take a lot of time, especially if the ratio of the numbers to be chosen to MAX is low (the complexity becomes dominated by O(MAX)). This gets worse if the ratio of the numbers to be chosen to MAX approaches one, as then removing the chosen indices from the sequence of all also becomes expensive (we approach O(MAX^2/2)). But for small numbers, this generally works well and is not particularly error-prone.
Filtering the generated indices by using a collection is also a bad idea, as some time is spent in inserting the indices into the sequence, and progress is not guaranteed as the same random number can be drawn several times (but for large enough MAX it is unlikely). This could be close to complexity O(k n log^2(n)/2), ignoring the duplicates and assuming the collection uses a tree for efficient lookup (but with a significant constant cost k of allocating the tree nodes and possibly having to rebalance).
Another option is to generate the random values uniquely from the beginning, guaranteeing progress is being made. That means in the first round, a random index in [0, MAX] is generated:
items i0 i1 i2 i3 i4 i5 i6 (total 7 items)
idx 0 ^^ (index 2)
In the second round, only [0, MAX - 1] is generated (as one item was already selected):
items i0 i1 i3 i4 i5 i6 (total 6 items)
idx 1 ^^ (index 2 out of these 6, but 3 out of the original 7)
The values of the indices then need to be adjusted: if the second index falls in the second half of the sequence (after the first index), it needs to be incremented to account for the gap. We can implement this as a loop, allowing us to select arbitrary number of unique items.
For short sequences, this is quite fast O(n^2/2) algorithm:
void RandomUniqueSequence(std::vector<int> &rand_num,
const size_t n_select_num, const size_t n_item_num)
{
assert(n_select_num <= n_item_num);
rand_num.clear(); // !!
// b1: 3187.000 msec (the fastest)
// b2: 3734.000 msec
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_select_num; ++ i) {
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
size_t n_where = i;
for(size_t j = 0; j < i; ++ j) {
if(n + j < rand_num[j]) {
n_where = j;
break;
}
}
// see where it should be inserted
rand_num.insert(rand_num.begin() + n_where, 1, n + n_where);
// insert it in the list, maintain a sorted sequence
}
// tier 1 - use comparison with offset instead of increment
}
Where n_select_num is your 5 and n_number_num is your MAX. The n_Rand(x) returns random integers in [0, x] (inclusive). This can be made a bit faster if selecting a lot of items (e.g. not 5 but 500) by using binary search to find the insertion point. To do that, we need to make sure that we meet the requirements.
We will do binary search with the comparison n + j < rand_num[j] which is the same as n < rand_num[j] - j. We need to show that rand_num[j] - j is still a sorted sequence for a sorted sequence rand_num[j]. This is fortunately easily shown, as the lowest distance between two elements of the original rand_num is one (the generated numbers are unique, so there is always difference of at least 1). At the same time, if we subtract the indices j from all the elements rand_num[j], the differences in index are exactly 1. So in the "worst" case, we get a constant sequence - but never decreasing. The binary search can therefore be used, yielding O(n log(n)) algorithm:
struct TNeedle { // in the comparison operator we need to make clear which argument is the needle and which is already in the list; we do that using the type system.
int n;
TNeedle(int _n)
:n(_n)
{}
};
class CCompareWithOffset { // custom comparison "n < rand_num[j] - j"
protected:
std::vector<int>::iterator m_p_begin_it;
public:
CCompareWithOffset(std::vector<int>::iterator p_begin_it)
:m_p_begin_it(p_begin_it)
{}
bool operator ()(const int &r_value, TNeedle n) const
{
size_t n_index = &r_value - &*m_p_begin_it;
// calculate index in the array
return r_value < n.n + n_index; // or r_value - n_index < n.n
}
bool operator ()(TNeedle n, const int &r_value) const
{
size_t n_index = &r_value - &*m_p_begin_it;
// calculate index in the array
return n.n + n_index < r_value; // or n.n < r_value - n_index
}
};
And finally:
void RandomUniqueSequence(std::vector<int> &rand_num,
const size_t n_select_num, const size_t n_item_num)
{
assert(n_select_num <= n_item_num);
rand_num.clear(); // !!
// b1: 3578.000 msec
// b2: 1703.000 msec (the fastest)
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_select_num; ++ i) {
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
std::vector<int>::iterator p_where_it = std::upper_bound(rand_num.begin(), rand_num.end(),
TNeedle(n), CCompareWithOffset(rand_num.begin()));
// see where it should be inserted
rand_num.insert(p_where_it, 1, n + p_where_it - rand_num.begin());
// insert it in the list, maintain a sorted sequence
}
// tier 4 - use binary search
}
I have tested this on three benchmarks. First, 3 numbers were chosen out of 7 items, and a histogram of the items chosen was accumulated over 10,000 runs:
4265 4229 4351 4267 4267 4364 4257
This shows that each of the 7 items was chosen approximately the same number of times, and there is no apparent bias caused by the algorithm. All the sequences were also checked for correctness (uniqueness of contents).
The second benchmark involved choosing 7 numbers out of 5000 items. The time of several versions of the algorithm was accumulated over 10,000,000 runs. The results are denoted in comments in the code as b1. The simple version of the algorithm is slightly faster.
The third benchmark involved choosing 700 numbers out of 5000 items. The time of several versions of the algorithm was again accumulated, this time over 10,000 runs. The results are denoted in comments in the code as b2. The binary search version of the algorithm is now more than two times faster than the simple one.
The second method starts being faster for choosing more than cca 75 items on my machine (note that the complexity of either algorithm does not depend on the number of items, MAX).
It is worth mentioning that the above algorithms generate the random numbers in ascending order. But it would be simple to add another array to which the numbers would be saved in the order in which they were generated, and returning that instead (at negligible additional cost O(n)). It is not necessary to shuffle the output: that would be much slower.
Note that the sources are in C++, I don't have Java on my machine, but the concept should be clear.
EDIT:
For amusement, I have also implemented the approach that generates a list with all the indices 0 .. MAX, chooses them randomly and removes them from the list to guarantee uniqueness. Since I've chosen quite high MAX (5000), the performance is catastrophic:
// b1: 519515.000 msec
// b2: 20312.000 msec
std::vector<int> all_numbers(n_item_num);
std::iota(all_numbers.begin(), all_numbers.end(), 0);
// generate all the numbers
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_number_num; ++ i) {
assert(all_numbers.size() == n_item_num - i);
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
rand_num.push_back(all_numbers[n]); // put it in the output list
all_numbers.erase(all_numbers.begin() + n); // erase it from the input
}
// generate random numbers
I have also implemented the approach with a set (a C++ collection), which actually comes second on benchmark b2, being only about 50% slower than the approach with the binary search. That is understandable, as the set uses a binary tree, where the insertion cost is similar to binary search. The only difference is the chance of getting duplicate items, which slows down the progress.
// b1: 20250.000 msec
// b2: 2296.000 msec
std::set<int> numbers;
while(numbers.size() < n_number_num)
numbers.insert(n_Rand(n_item_num - 1)); // might have duplicates here
// generate unique random numbers
rand_num.resize(numbers.size());
std::copy(numbers.begin(), numbers.end(), rand_num.begin());
// copy the numbers from a set to a vector
Full source code is here.
Your problem seems to reduce to choose k elements at random from a collection of n elements. The Collections.shuffle answer is thus correct, but as pointed out inefficient: its O(n).
Wikipedia: Fisher–Yates shuffle has a O(k) version when the array already exists. In your case, there is no array of elements and creating the array of elements could be very expensive, say if max were 10000000 instead of 20.
The shuffle algorithm involves initializing an array of size n where every element is equal to its index, picking k random numbers each number in a range with the max one less than the previous range, then swapping elements towards the end of the array.
You can do the same operation in O(k) time with a hashmap although I admit its kind of a pain. Note that this is only worthwhile if k is much less than n. (ie k ~ lg(n) or so), otherwise you should use the shuffle directly.
You will use your hashmap as an efficient representation of the backing array in the shuffle algorithm. Any element of the array that is equal to its index need not appear in the map. This allows you to represent an array of size n in constant time, there is no time spent initializing it.
Pick k random numbers: the first is in the range 0 to n-1, the second 0 to n-2, the third 0 to n-3 and so on, thru n-k.
Treat your random numbers as a set of swaps. The first random index swaps to the final position. The second random index swaps to the second to last position. However, instead of working against a backing array, work against your hashmap. Your hashmap will store every item that is out of position.
int getValue(i)
{
if (map.contains(i))
return map[i];
return i;
}
void setValue(i, val)
{
if (i == val)
map.remove(i);
else
map[i] = val;
}
int[] chooseK(int n, int k)
{
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
int randomIndex = nextRandom(0, n - i); //(n - i is exclusive)
int desiredIndex = n-i-1;
int valAtRandom = getValue(randomIndex);
int valAtDesired = getValue(desiredIndex);
setValue(desiredIndex, valAtRandom);
setValue(randomIndex, valAtDesired);
}
int[] output = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
output[i] = (getValue(n-i-1));
}
return output;
}
You could use one of the classes implementing the Set interface (API), and then each number you generate, use Set.add() to insert it.
If the return value is false, you know the number has already been generated before.
Instead of doing all this create a LinkedHashSet object and random numbers to it by Math.random() function .... if any duplicated entry occurs the LinkedHashSet object won't add that number to its List ... Since in this Collection Class no duplicate values are allowed .. in the end u get a list of random numbers having no duplicated values .... :D
With Java 8 upwards you can use the ints method from the IntStream interface:
Returns an effectively unlimited stream of pseudorandom int values.
Random r = new Random();
int randomNumberOrigin = 0;
int randomNumberBound = 10;
int size = 5;
int[] unique = r.ints(randomNumberOrigin, randomNumberBound)
.distinct()
.limit(size)
.toArray();
Following code create a sequence random number between [1,m] that was not generated before.
public class NewClass {
public List<Integer> keys = new ArrayList<Integer>();
public int rand(int m) {
int n = (int) (Math.random() * m + 1);
if (!keys.contains(n)) {
keys.add(n);
return n;
} else {
return rand(m);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int m = 4;
NewClass ne = new NewClass();
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
System.out.println(ne.rand(m));
}
System.out.println("list: " + ne.keys);
}
}
The most easy way is use nano DateTime as long format.
System.nanoTime();
There is algorithm of card batch: you create ordered array of numbers (the "card batch") and in every iteration you select a number at random position from it (removing the selected number from the "card batch" of course).
Here is an efficient solution for fast creation of a randomized array. After randomization you can simply pick the n-th element e of the array, increment n and return e. This solution has O(1) for getting a random number and O(n) for initialization, but as a tradeoff requires a good amount of memory if n gets large enough.
There is a more efficient and less cumbersome solution for integers than a Collections.shuffle.
The problem is the same as successively picking items from only the un-picked items in a set and setting them in order somewhere else. This is exactly like randomly dealing cards or drawing winning raffle tickets from a hat or bin.
This algorithm works for loading any array and achieving a random order at the end of the load. It also works for adding into a List collection (or any other indexed collection) and achieving a random sequence in the collection at the end of the adds.
It can be done with a single array, created once, or a numerically ordered collectio, such as a List, in place. For an array, the initial array size needs to be the exact size to contain all the intended values. If you don't know how many values might occur in advance, using a numerically orderred collection, such as an ArrayList or List, where the size is not immutable, will also work. It will work universally for an array of any size up to Integer.MAX_VALUE which is just over 2,000,000,000. List objects will have the same index limits. Your machine may run out of memory before you get to an array of that size. It may be more efficient to load an array typed to the object types and convert it to some collection, after loading the array. This is especially true if the target collection is not numerically indexed.
This algorithm, exactly as written, will create a very even distribution where there are no duplicates. One aspect that is VERY IMPORTANT is that it has to be possible for the insertion of the next item to occur up to the current size + 1. Thus, for the second item, it could be possible to store it in location 0 or location 1. For the 20th item, it could be possible to store it in any location, 0 through 19. It is just as possible the first item to stay in location 0 as it is for it to end up in any other location. It is just as possible for the next new item to go anywhere, including the next new location.
The randomness of the sequence will be as random as the randomness of the random number generator.
This algorithm can also be used to load reference types into random locations in an array. Since this works with an array, it can also work with collections. That means you don't have to create the collection and then shuffle it or have it ordered on whatever orders the objects being inserted. The collection need only have the ability to insert an item anywhere in the collection or append it.
// RandomSequence.java
import java.util.Random;
public class RandomSequence {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// create an array of the size and type for which
// you want a random sequence
int[] randomSequence = new int[20];
Random randomNumbers = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < randomSequence.length; i++ ) {
if (i == 0) { // seed first entry in array with item 0
randomSequence[i] = 0;
} else { // for all other items...
// choose a random pointer to the segment of the
// array already containing items
int pointer = randomNumbers.nextInt(i + 1);
randomSequence[i] = randomSequence[pointer];
randomSequence[pointer] = i;
// note that if pointer & i are equal
// the new value will just go into location i and possibly stay there
// this is VERY IMPORTANT to ensure the sequence is really random
// and not biased
} // end if...else
} // end for
for (int number: randomSequence) {
System.out.printf("%2d ", number);
} // end for
} // end main
} // end class RandomSequence
It really all depends on exactly WHAT you need the random generation for, but here's my take.
First, create a standalone method for generating the random number.
Be sure to allow for limits.
public static int newRandom(int limit){
return generatedRandom.nextInt(limit); }
Next, you will want to create a very simple decision structure that compares values. This can be done in one of two ways. If you have a very limited amount of numbers to verify, a simple IF statement will suffice:
public static int testDuplicates(int int1, int int2, int int3, int int4, int int5){
boolean loopFlag = true;
while(loopFlag == true){
if(int1 == int2 || int1 == int3 || int1 == int4 || int1 == int5 || int1 == 0){
int1 = newRandom(75);
loopFlag = true; }
else{
loopFlag = false; }}
return int1; }
The above compares int1 to int2 through int5, as well as making sure that there are no zeroes in the randoms.
With these two methods in place, we can do the following:
num1 = newRandom(limit1);
num2 = newRandom(limit1);
num3 = newRandom(limit1);
num4 = newRandom(limit1);
num5 = newRandom(limit1);
Followed By:
num1 = testDuplicates(num1, num2, num3, num4, num5);
num2 = testDuplicates(num2, num1, num3, num4, num5);
num3 = testDuplicates(num3, num1, num2, num4, num5);
num4 = testDuplicates(num4, num1, num2, num3, num5);
num5 = testDuplicates(num5, num1, num2, num3, num5);
If you have a longer list to verify, then a more complex method will yield better results both in clarity of code and in processing resources.
Hope this helps. This site has helped me so much, I felt obliged to at least TRY to help as well.
I created a snippet that generates no duplicate random integer. the advantage of this snippet is that you can assign the list of an array to it and generate the random item, too.
No duplication random generator class
With Java 8 using the below code, you can create 10 distinct random Integer Numbers within a range of 1000.
Random random = new Random();
Integer[] input9 = IntStream.range(1, 10).map(i -> random.nextInt(1000)).boxed().distinct()
.toArray(Integer[]::new);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(input9));
Modify the range to generate more numbers example : range(1,X). It will generate X distinct random numbers.
Modify the nextInt value to select the random number range : random.nextInt(Y)::random number will be generated within the range Y
In this case, the MAX is only 5, so I could check the duplicates one by one, but how could I do this in a simpler way? For example, what if the MAX has a value of 20?
Thanks.
int MAX = 5;
for (i = 1 , i <= MAX; i++)
{
drawNum[1] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
while (drawNum[2] == drawNum[1])
{
drawNum[2] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[3] == drawNum[1]) || (drawNum[3] == drawNum[2]) )
{
drawNum[3] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[4] == drawNum[1]) || (drawNum[4] == drawNum[2]) || (drawNum[4] == drawNum[3]) )
{
drawNum[4] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
while ((drawNum[5] == drawNum[1]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[2]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[3]) ||
(drawNum[5] == drawNum[4]) )
{
drawNum[5] = (int)(Math.random()*MAX)+1;
}
}
The simplest way would be to create a list of the possible numbers (1..20 or whatever) and then shuffle them with Collections.shuffle. Then just take however many elements you want. This is great if your range is equal to the number of elements you need in the end (e.g. for shuffling a deck of cards).
That doesn't work so well if you want (say) 10 random elements in the range 1..10,000 - you'd end up doing a lot of work unnecessarily. At that point, it's probably better to keep a set of values you've generated so far, and just keep generating numbers in a loop until the next one isn't already present:
if (max < numbersNeeded)
{
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Can't ask for more numbers than are available");
}
Random rng = new Random(); // Ideally just create one instance globally
// Note: use LinkedHashSet to maintain insertion order
Set<Integer> generated = new LinkedHashSet<Integer>();
while (generated.size() < numbersNeeded)
{
Integer next = rng.nextInt(max) + 1;
// As we're adding to a set, this will automatically do a containment check
generated.add(next);
}
Be careful with the set choice though - I've very deliberately used LinkedHashSet as it maintains insertion order, which we care about here.
Yet another option is to always make progress, by reducing the range each time and compensating for existing values. So for example, suppose you wanted 3 values in the range 0..9. On the first iteration you'd generate any number in the range 0..9 - let's say you generate a 4.
On the second iteration you'd then generate a number in the range 0..8. If the generated number is less than 4, you'd keep it as is... otherwise you add one to it. That gets you a result range of 0..9 without 4. Suppose we get 7 that way.
On the third iteration you'd generate a number in the range 0..7. If the generated number is less than 4, you'd keep it as is. If it's 4 or 5, you'd add one. If it's 6 or 7, you'd add two. That way the result range is 0..9 without 4 or 6.
Here's how I'd do it
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Random;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int size = 20;
ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<Integer>(size);
for(int i = 1; i <= size; i++) {
list.add(i);
}
Random rand = new Random();
while(list.size() > 0) {
int index = rand.nextInt(list.size());
System.out.println("Selected: "+list.remove(index));
}
}
}
As the esteemed Mr Skeet has pointed out:
If n is the number of randomly selected numbers you wish to choose and N is the total sample space of numbers available for selection:
If n << N, you should just store the numbers that you have picked and check a list to see if the number selected is in it.
If n ~= N, you should probably use my method, by populating a list containing the entire sample space and then removing numbers from it as you select them.
//random numbers are 0,1,2,3
ArrayList<Integer> numbers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Random randomGenerator = new Random();
while (numbers.size() < 4) {
int random = randomGenerator .nextInt(4);
if (!numbers.contains(random)) {
numbers.add(random);
}
}
This would be a lot simpler in java-8:
Stream.generate(new Random()::ints)
.flatMap(IntStream::boxed)
.distinct()
.limit(16) // whatever limit you might need
.toArray(Integer[]::new);
There is another way of doing "random" ordered numbers with LFSR, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_feedback_shift_register
with this technique you can achieve the ordered random number by index and making sure the values are not duplicated.
But these are not TRUE random numbers because the random generation is deterministic.
But depending your case you can use this technique reducing the amount of processing on random number generation when using shuffling.
Here a LFSR algorithm in java, (I took it somewhere I don't remeber):
public final class LFSR {
private static final int M = 15;
// hard-coded for 15-bits
private static final int[] TAPS = {14, 15};
private final boolean[] bits = new boolean[M + 1];
public LFSR() {
this((int)System.currentTimeMillis());
}
public LFSR(int seed) {
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
bits[i] = (((1 << i) & seed) >>> i) == 1;
}
}
/* generate a random int uniformly on the interval [-2^31 + 1, 2^31 - 1] */
public short nextShort() {
//printBits();
// calculate the integer value from the registers
short next = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
next |= (bits[i] ? 1 : 0) << i;
}
// allow for zero without allowing for -2^31
if (next < 0) next++;
// calculate the last register from all the preceding
bits[M] = false;
for(int i = 0; i < TAPS.length; i++) {
bits[M] ^= bits[M - TAPS[i]];
}
// shift all the registers
for(int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
bits[i] = bits[i + 1];
}
return next;
}
/** returns random double uniformly over [0, 1) */
public double nextDouble() {
return ((nextShort() / (Integer.MAX_VALUE + 1.0)) + 1.0) / 2.0;
}
/** returns random boolean */
public boolean nextBoolean() {
return nextShort() >= 0;
}
public void printBits() {
System.out.print(bits[M] ? 1 : 0);
System.out.print(" -> ");
for(int i = M - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
System.out.print(bits[i] ? 1 : 0);
}
System.out.println();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
LFSR rng = new LFSR();
Vector<Short> vec = new Vector<Short>();
for(int i = 0; i <= 32766; i++) {
short next = rng.nextShort();
// just testing/asserting to make
// sure the number doesn't repeat on a given list
if (vec.contains(next))
throw new RuntimeException("Index repeat: " + i);
vec.add(next);
System.out.println(next);
}
}
}
Another approach which allows you to specify how many numbers you want with size and the min and max values of the returned numbers
public static int getRandomInt(int min, int max) {
Random random = new Random();
return random.nextInt((max - min) + 1) + min;
}
public static ArrayList<Integer> getRandomNonRepeatingIntegers(int size, int min,
int max) {
ArrayList<Integer> numbers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
while (numbers.size() < size) {
int random = getRandomInt(min, max);
if (!numbers.contains(random)) {
numbers.add(random);
}
}
return numbers;
}
To use it returning 7 numbers between 0 and 25.
ArrayList<Integer> list = getRandomNonRepeatingIntegers(7, 0, 25);
for (int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++) {
System.out.println("" + list.get(i));
}
The most efficient, basic way to have non-repeating random numbers is explained by this pseudo-code. There is no need to have nested loops or hashed lookups:
// get 5 unique random numbers, possible values 0 - 19
// (assume desired number of selections < number of choices)
const int POOL_SIZE = 20;
const int VAL_COUNT = 5;
declare Array mapping[POOL_SIZE];
declare Array results[VAL_COUNT];
declare i int;
declare r int;
declare max_rand int;
// create mapping array
for (i=0; i<POOL_SIZE; i++) {
mapping[i] = i;
}
max_rand = POOL_SIZE-1; // start loop searching for maximum value (19)
for (i=0; i<VAL_COUNT; i++) {
r = Random(0, max_rand); // get random number
results[i] = mapping[r]; // grab number from map array
mapping[r] = max_rand; // place item past range at selected location
max_rand = max_rand - 1; // reduce random scope by 1
}
Suppose first iteration generated random number 3 to start (from 0 - 19). This would make results[0] = mapping[3], i.e., the value 3. We'd then assign mapping[3] to 19.
In the next iteration, the random number was 5 (from 0 - 18). This would make results[1] = mapping[5], i.e., the value 5. We'd then assign mapping[5] to 18.
Now suppose the next iteration chose 3 again (from 0 - 17). results[2] would be assigned the value of mapping[3], but now, this value is not 3, but 19.
This same protection persists for all numbers, even if you got the same number 5 times in a row. E.g., if the random number generator gave you 0 five times in a row, the results would be: [ 0, 19, 18, 17, 16 ].
You would never get the same number twice.
Generating all the indices of a sequence is generally a bad idea, as it might take a lot of time, especially if the ratio of the numbers to be chosen to MAX is low (the complexity becomes dominated by O(MAX)). This gets worse if the ratio of the numbers to be chosen to MAX approaches one, as then removing the chosen indices from the sequence of all also becomes expensive (we approach O(MAX^2/2)). But for small numbers, this generally works well and is not particularly error-prone.
Filtering the generated indices by using a collection is also a bad idea, as some time is spent in inserting the indices into the sequence, and progress is not guaranteed as the same random number can be drawn several times (but for large enough MAX it is unlikely). This could be close to complexity O(k n log^2(n)/2), ignoring the duplicates and assuming the collection uses a tree for efficient lookup (but with a significant constant cost k of allocating the tree nodes and possibly having to rebalance).
Another option is to generate the random values uniquely from the beginning, guaranteeing progress is being made. That means in the first round, a random index in [0, MAX] is generated:
items i0 i1 i2 i3 i4 i5 i6 (total 7 items)
idx 0 ^^ (index 2)
In the second round, only [0, MAX - 1] is generated (as one item was already selected):
items i0 i1 i3 i4 i5 i6 (total 6 items)
idx 1 ^^ (index 2 out of these 6, but 3 out of the original 7)
The values of the indices then need to be adjusted: if the second index falls in the second half of the sequence (after the first index), it needs to be incremented to account for the gap. We can implement this as a loop, allowing us to select arbitrary number of unique items.
For short sequences, this is quite fast O(n^2/2) algorithm:
void RandomUniqueSequence(std::vector<int> &rand_num,
const size_t n_select_num, const size_t n_item_num)
{
assert(n_select_num <= n_item_num);
rand_num.clear(); // !!
// b1: 3187.000 msec (the fastest)
// b2: 3734.000 msec
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_select_num; ++ i) {
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
size_t n_where = i;
for(size_t j = 0; j < i; ++ j) {
if(n + j < rand_num[j]) {
n_where = j;
break;
}
}
// see where it should be inserted
rand_num.insert(rand_num.begin() + n_where, 1, n + n_where);
// insert it in the list, maintain a sorted sequence
}
// tier 1 - use comparison with offset instead of increment
}
Where n_select_num is your 5 and n_number_num is your MAX. The n_Rand(x) returns random integers in [0, x] (inclusive). This can be made a bit faster if selecting a lot of items (e.g. not 5 but 500) by using binary search to find the insertion point. To do that, we need to make sure that we meet the requirements.
We will do binary search with the comparison n + j < rand_num[j] which is the same as n < rand_num[j] - j. We need to show that rand_num[j] - j is still a sorted sequence for a sorted sequence rand_num[j]. This is fortunately easily shown, as the lowest distance between two elements of the original rand_num is one (the generated numbers are unique, so there is always difference of at least 1). At the same time, if we subtract the indices j from all the elements rand_num[j], the differences in index are exactly 1. So in the "worst" case, we get a constant sequence - but never decreasing. The binary search can therefore be used, yielding O(n log(n)) algorithm:
struct TNeedle { // in the comparison operator we need to make clear which argument is the needle and which is already in the list; we do that using the type system.
int n;
TNeedle(int _n)
:n(_n)
{}
};
class CCompareWithOffset { // custom comparison "n < rand_num[j] - j"
protected:
std::vector<int>::iterator m_p_begin_it;
public:
CCompareWithOffset(std::vector<int>::iterator p_begin_it)
:m_p_begin_it(p_begin_it)
{}
bool operator ()(const int &r_value, TNeedle n) const
{
size_t n_index = &r_value - &*m_p_begin_it;
// calculate index in the array
return r_value < n.n + n_index; // or r_value - n_index < n.n
}
bool operator ()(TNeedle n, const int &r_value) const
{
size_t n_index = &r_value - &*m_p_begin_it;
// calculate index in the array
return n.n + n_index < r_value; // or n.n < r_value - n_index
}
};
And finally:
void RandomUniqueSequence(std::vector<int> &rand_num,
const size_t n_select_num, const size_t n_item_num)
{
assert(n_select_num <= n_item_num);
rand_num.clear(); // !!
// b1: 3578.000 msec
// b2: 1703.000 msec (the fastest)
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_select_num; ++ i) {
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
std::vector<int>::iterator p_where_it = std::upper_bound(rand_num.begin(), rand_num.end(),
TNeedle(n), CCompareWithOffset(rand_num.begin()));
// see where it should be inserted
rand_num.insert(p_where_it, 1, n + p_where_it - rand_num.begin());
// insert it in the list, maintain a sorted sequence
}
// tier 4 - use binary search
}
I have tested this on three benchmarks. First, 3 numbers were chosen out of 7 items, and a histogram of the items chosen was accumulated over 10,000 runs:
4265 4229 4351 4267 4267 4364 4257
This shows that each of the 7 items was chosen approximately the same number of times, and there is no apparent bias caused by the algorithm. All the sequences were also checked for correctness (uniqueness of contents).
The second benchmark involved choosing 7 numbers out of 5000 items. The time of several versions of the algorithm was accumulated over 10,000,000 runs. The results are denoted in comments in the code as b1. The simple version of the algorithm is slightly faster.
The third benchmark involved choosing 700 numbers out of 5000 items. The time of several versions of the algorithm was again accumulated, this time over 10,000 runs. The results are denoted in comments in the code as b2. The binary search version of the algorithm is now more than two times faster than the simple one.
The second method starts being faster for choosing more than cca 75 items on my machine (note that the complexity of either algorithm does not depend on the number of items, MAX).
It is worth mentioning that the above algorithms generate the random numbers in ascending order. But it would be simple to add another array to which the numbers would be saved in the order in which they were generated, and returning that instead (at negligible additional cost O(n)). It is not necessary to shuffle the output: that would be much slower.
Note that the sources are in C++, I don't have Java on my machine, but the concept should be clear.
EDIT:
For amusement, I have also implemented the approach that generates a list with all the indices 0 .. MAX, chooses them randomly and removes them from the list to guarantee uniqueness. Since I've chosen quite high MAX (5000), the performance is catastrophic:
// b1: 519515.000 msec
// b2: 20312.000 msec
std::vector<int> all_numbers(n_item_num);
std::iota(all_numbers.begin(), all_numbers.end(), 0);
// generate all the numbers
for(size_t i = 0; i < n_number_num; ++ i) {
assert(all_numbers.size() == n_item_num - i);
int n = n_Rand(n_item_num - i - 1);
// get a random number
rand_num.push_back(all_numbers[n]); // put it in the output list
all_numbers.erase(all_numbers.begin() + n); // erase it from the input
}
// generate random numbers
I have also implemented the approach with a set (a C++ collection), which actually comes second on benchmark b2, being only about 50% slower than the approach with the binary search. That is understandable, as the set uses a binary tree, where the insertion cost is similar to binary search. The only difference is the chance of getting duplicate items, which slows down the progress.
// b1: 20250.000 msec
// b2: 2296.000 msec
std::set<int> numbers;
while(numbers.size() < n_number_num)
numbers.insert(n_Rand(n_item_num - 1)); // might have duplicates here
// generate unique random numbers
rand_num.resize(numbers.size());
std::copy(numbers.begin(), numbers.end(), rand_num.begin());
// copy the numbers from a set to a vector
Full source code is here.
Your problem seems to reduce to choose k elements at random from a collection of n elements. The Collections.shuffle answer is thus correct, but as pointed out inefficient: its O(n).
Wikipedia: Fisher–Yates shuffle has a O(k) version when the array already exists. In your case, there is no array of elements and creating the array of elements could be very expensive, say if max were 10000000 instead of 20.
The shuffle algorithm involves initializing an array of size n where every element is equal to its index, picking k random numbers each number in a range with the max one less than the previous range, then swapping elements towards the end of the array.
You can do the same operation in O(k) time with a hashmap although I admit its kind of a pain. Note that this is only worthwhile if k is much less than n. (ie k ~ lg(n) or so), otherwise you should use the shuffle directly.
You will use your hashmap as an efficient representation of the backing array in the shuffle algorithm. Any element of the array that is equal to its index need not appear in the map. This allows you to represent an array of size n in constant time, there is no time spent initializing it.
Pick k random numbers: the first is in the range 0 to n-1, the second 0 to n-2, the third 0 to n-3 and so on, thru n-k.
Treat your random numbers as a set of swaps. The first random index swaps to the final position. The second random index swaps to the second to last position. However, instead of working against a backing array, work against your hashmap. Your hashmap will store every item that is out of position.
int getValue(i)
{
if (map.contains(i))
return map[i];
return i;
}
void setValue(i, val)
{
if (i == val)
map.remove(i);
else
map[i] = val;
}
int[] chooseK(int n, int k)
{
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
int randomIndex = nextRandom(0, n - i); //(n - i is exclusive)
int desiredIndex = n-i-1;
int valAtRandom = getValue(randomIndex);
int valAtDesired = getValue(desiredIndex);
setValue(desiredIndex, valAtRandom);
setValue(randomIndex, valAtDesired);
}
int[] output = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
output[i] = (getValue(n-i-1));
}
return output;
}
You could use one of the classes implementing the Set interface (API), and then each number you generate, use Set.add() to insert it.
If the return value is false, you know the number has already been generated before.
Instead of doing all this create a LinkedHashSet object and random numbers to it by Math.random() function .... if any duplicated entry occurs the LinkedHashSet object won't add that number to its List ... Since in this Collection Class no duplicate values are allowed .. in the end u get a list of random numbers having no duplicated values .... :D
With Java 8 upwards you can use the ints method from the IntStream interface:
Returns an effectively unlimited stream of pseudorandom int values.
Random r = new Random();
int randomNumberOrigin = 0;
int randomNumberBound = 10;
int size = 5;
int[] unique = r.ints(randomNumberOrigin, randomNumberBound)
.distinct()
.limit(size)
.toArray();
Following code create a sequence random number between [1,m] that was not generated before.
public class NewClass {
public List<Integer> keys = new ArrayList<Integer>();
public int rand(int m) {
int n = (int) (Math.random() * m + 1);
if (!keys.contains(n)) {
keys.add(n);
return n;
} else {
return rand(m);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int m = 4;
NewClass ne = new NewClass();
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
System.out.println(ne.rand(m));
}
System.out.println("list: " + ne.keys);
}
}
The most easy way is use nano DateTime as long format.
System.nanoTime();
There is algorithm of card batch: you create ordered array of numbers (the "card batch") and in every iteration you select a number at random position from it (removing the selected number from the "card batch" of course).
Here is an efficient solution for fast creation of a randomized array. After randomization you can simply pick the n-th element e of the array, increment n and return e. This solution has O(1) for getting a random number and O(n) for initialization, but as a tradeoff requires a good amount of memory if n gets large enough.
There is a more efficient and less cumbersome solution for integers than a Collections.shuffle.
The problem is the same as successively picking items from only the un-picked items in a set and setting them in order somewhere else. This is exactly like randomly dealing cards or drawing winning raffle tickets from a hat or bin.
This algorithm works for loading any array and achieving a random order at the end of the load. It also works for adding into a List collection (or any other indexed collection) and achieving a random sequence in the collection at the end of the adds.
It can be done with a single array, created once, or a numerically ordered collectio, such as a List, in place. For an array, the initial array size needs to be the exact size to contain all the intended values. If you don't know how many values might occur in advance, using a numerically orderred collection, such as an ArrayList or List, where the size is not immutable, will also work. It will work universally for an array of any size up to Integer.MAX_VALUE which is just over 2,000,000,000. List objects will have the same index limits. Your machine may run out of memory before you get to an array of that size. It may be more efficient to load an array typed to the object types and convert it to some collection, after loading the array. This is especially true if the target collection is not numerically indexed.
This algorithm, exactly as written, will create a very even distribution where there are no duplicates. One aspect that is VERY IMPORTANT is that it has to be possible for the insertion of the next item to occur up to the current size + 1. Thus, for the second item, it could be possible to store it in location 0 or location 1. For the 20th item, it could be possible to store it in any location, 0 through 19. It is just as possible the first item to stay in location 0 as it is for it to end up in any other location. It is just as possible for the next new item to go anywhere, including the next new location.
The randomness of the sequence will be as random as the randomness of the random number generator.
This algorithm can also be used to load reference types into random locations in an array. Since this works with an array, it can also work with collections. That means you don't have to create the collection and then shuffle it or have it ordered on whatever orders the objects being inserted. The collection need only have the ability to insert an item anywhere in the collection or append it.
// RandomSequence.java
import java.util.Random;
public class RandomSequence {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// create an array of the size and type for which
// you want a random sequence
int[] randomSequence = new int[20];
Random randomNumbers = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < randomSequence.length; i++ ) {
if (i == 0) { // seed first entry in array with item 0
randomSequence[i] = 0;
} else { // for all other items...
// choose a random pointer to the segment of the
// array already containing items
int pointer = randomNumbers.nextInt(i + 1);
randomSequence[i] = randomSequence[pointer];
randomSequence[pointer] = i;
// note that if pointer & i are equal
// the new value will just go into location i and possibly stay there
// this is VERY IMPORTANT to ensure the sequence is really random
// and not biased
} // end if...else
} // end for
for (int number: randomSequence) {
System.out.printf("%2d ", number);
} // end for
} // end main
} // end class RandomSequence
It really all depends on exactly WHAT you need the random generation for, but here's my take.
First, create a standalone method for generating the random number.
Be sure to allow for limits.
public static int newRandom(int limit){
return generatedRandom.nextInt(limit); }
Next, you will want to create a very simple decision structure that compares values. This can be done in one of two ways. If you have a very limited amount of numbers to verify, a simple IF statement will suffice:
public static int testDuplicates(int int1, int int2, int int3, int int4, int int5){
boolean loopFlag = true;
while(loopFlag == true){
if(int1 == int2 || int1 == int3 || int1 == int4 || int1 == int5 || int1 == 0){
int1 = newRandom(75);
loopFlag = true; }
else{
loopFlag = false; }}
return int1; }
The above compares int1 to int2 through int5, as well as making sure that there are no zeroes in the randoms.
With these two methods in place, we can do the following:
num1 = newRandom(limit1);
num2 = newRandom(limit1);
num3 = newRandom(limit1);
num4 = newRandom(limit1);
num5 = newRandom(limit1);
Followed By:
num1 = testDuplicates(num1, num2, num3, num4, num5);
num2 = testDuplicates(num2, num1, num3, num4, num5);
num3 = testDuplicates(num3, num1, num2, num4, num5);
num4 = testDuplicates(num4, num1, num2, num3, num5);
num5 = testDuplicates(num5, num1, num2, num3, num5);
If you have a longer list to verify, then a more complex method will yield better results both in clarity of code and in processing resources.
Hope this helps. This site has helped me so much, I felt obliged to at least TRY to help as well.
I created a snippet that generates no duplicate random integer. the advantage of this snippet is that you can assign the list of an array to it and generate the random item, too.
No duplication random generator class
With Java 8 using the below code, you can create 10 distinct random Integer Numbers within a range of 1000.
Random random = new Random();
Integer[] input9 = IntStream.range(1, 10).map(i -> random.nextInt(1000)).boxed().distinct()
.toArray(Integer[]::new);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(input9));
Modify the range to generate more numbers example : range(1,X). It will generate X distinct random numbers.
Modify the nextInt value to select the random number range : random.nextInt(Y)::random number will be generated within the range Y
Currently I have this prime generator that is limited to n < 2^32-1. I'm not entirely sure how I could expand the limit further, given the limit of elements in an array.
Sieve:
public class Main {
public static void main(String args[]){
long N = 2000000000;
// initially assume all integers are prime
boolean[] isPrime = new boolean[N + 1];
for (int i = 2; i <= N; i++) {
isPrime[i] = true;
}
// mark non-primes <= N using Sieve of Eratosthenes
for (int i = 2; i*i <= N; i++) {
// if i is prime, then mark multiples of i as nonprime
// suffices to consider mutiples i, i+1, ..., N/i
if (isPrime[i]) {
for (int j = i; i*j <= N; j++) {
isPrime[i*j] = false;
}
}
}
}
}
How could I modify this to go past n = 2^32-1?
You may use an array of BitSet objects to represent long bit-set. Here's the complete example:
public class Main {
private static class LongBitSet {
// max value stored in single BitSet
private static final int BITSET_SIZE = 1 << 30;
BitSet[] bitsets;
public LongBitSet(long limit) {
bitsets = new BitSet[(int) (limit/BITSET_SIZE+1)];
// set all bits by default
for(int i=0; i<bitsets.length; i++) {
bitsets[i] = new BitSet();
int max = (int) (i == bitsets.length-1 ?
limit % BITSET_SIZE : BITSET_SIZE);
bitsets[i].set(0, max);
}
}
// clear specified bit
public void clear(long pos) {
bitsets[(int) (pos / BITSET_SIZE)].clear((int) (pos % BITSET_SIZE));
}
// get the value of the specified bit
public boolean get(long pos) {
return bitsets[(int) (pos / BITSET_SIZE)].get((int) (pos % BITSET_SIZE));
}
// get the number of set bits
public long cardinality() {
long cardinality = 0;
for(BitSet bs : bitsets) {
cardinality += bs.cardinality();
}
return cardinality;
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
long N = 4000000000L;
// initially assume all integers are prime
LongBitSet bs = new LongBitSet(N+1);
// clear 0 and 1: non-primes
bs.clear(0);
bs.clear(1);
// mark non-primes <= N using Sieve of Eratosthenes
for (long i = 2; i * i <= N; i++) {
if (bs.get(i)) {
for (long j = i; i * j <= N; j++) {
bs.clear(i * j);
}
}
}
System.out.println(bs.cardinality());
}
}
This program for N = 4_000_000_000L takes around 512Mb of memory, works couple of minutes and prints 189961812 which is correct number of primes below 4 billions according to Wolfram Alpha. If you have enough RAM, you may try setting even bigger N.
You can segment the sieve: instead of allocating a single, gigantic array you allocate many small arrays. If you want to find the primes up to 10^10 you might use arrays (or better yet, BitSets) of size 10^6 or so. Then you run the sieve 10^4 times. Each time you run a new segment you need to find out where to start each prime in the sieve, but that's not really too hard.
In addition to allowing much smaller memory use this keeps more of the memory in the cache, so it's often significantly faster.
I see options:
pack 16 numbers / 1 BYTE
remember odd numbers only per each bit
use unsigned variable to avoid sign bit waste
use more than 1 table
but in 32bit app you are limited by OS capabilities
usually to 1/2/4 GB of usable memory
such big table usually does not fit inside CACHE so it is not very fast anyway
you can use more approaches at once
I combine periodic sieves with found prime list binary search
If you choose the sizes right you can even improve performance
by better using platform Caching properties
see Prime numbers by Eratosthenes quicker sequential than concurrently?
the idea is to use sieves to test small divisors
and only then check the presence inside prime list
it is not requiring that much memory
and is pretty fast
to spare memory you can combine 16/32/64 bit variables
use small bit width while you can
so have prime list divided to 3 groups: small/medium/big
if you want also bigints add them as 4th list
I tried to find the smallest element in an integer array using what i understood about divide and conquor algorithm.
I am getting correct results.
But i am not sure if it is a conventional way of using divide and conquor algorithm.
If there is any other smarter way of implementing divide and conquor algorithm than what i have tried then please let me know it.
public static int smallest(int[] array){
int i = 0;
int array1[] = new int[array.length/2];
int array2[] = new int[array.length - (array.length/2)];
for(int index = 0; index < array.length/2 ; index++){
array1[index] = array[index];
}
for(int index = array.length/2; index < array.length; index++){
array2[i] = array[index];
i++;
}
if(array.length > 1){
if(smallest(array1) < smallest(array2)){
return smallest(array1);
}else{
return smallest(array2);
}
}
return array[0];
}
Your code is correct, but You can write less code using existing functions like Arrays.copyOfRange and Math.min
public static int smallest(int[] array) {
if (array.length == 1) {
return array[0];
}
int array1[] = Arrays.copyOfRange(array, 0, array.length / 2);
int array2[] = Arrays.copyOfRange(array, array.length / 2, array.length);
return Math.min(smallest(array1), smallest(array2));
}
Another point. Testing for the length == 1 at the beginning is more readable version. Functionally it is identical. From a performance point of view it creates less arrays, exiting as soon as possible from the smallest function.
It is also possible to use a different form of recursion where it is not necessary to create new arrays.
private static int smallest(int[] array, int from, int to) {
if (from == to) {
return array[from];
}
int middle = from + (to - from) / 2;
return Math.min(smallest(array, from, middle), smallest(array, middle + 1, to));
}
public static int smallest(int[] array){
return smallest(array, 0, array.length - 1);
}
This second version is more efficient because it doesn't creates new arrays.
I don't find any use in using a divide and conquer in this paticular program.
Anyhow you search for the whole array from 1 to N, but in two steps
1. 1 to N / 2
2. N / 2 + 1 to N
This is equivalent to 1 to N.
Also you program check for few additional checks after the loops which aren't actually required when you do it directly.
int min = a[0];
for(int i = 1; i < arr.length; i++)
if(min < a[i])
a[i] = min;
This is considered most efficient in finding out the minimum value.
When do I use divide and conquer
A divide and conquer algorithm works by recursively breaking down a problem into two or more sub-problems, until these become simple enough to be solved directly.
Consider the Merge Sort Algorithm.
Here, we divide the problem step by step untill we get smaller problem and then we combine them to sort them. In this case this is considered optimal. The normal runs in a O(n * n) and this runs in O(n log n).
But in finding the minimum the original has O(n). So this is good.
Divide And Conquer
The book
Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis in Java, 2nd edtition, Mark Allen Weiss
Says that a D&C algorithm should have two disjoint recursive calls. I.e like QuickSort. The above algorithm does not have this, even if it can be implemented recursively.
What you did here with code is correct. But there are more efficient ways of solving this code, of which i'm sure you're aware of.
Although divide and conquer algorithm can be applied to this problem, but it is more suited for complex data problem or to understand a difficult data problem by dividing it into smaller fragments. One prime example would be 'Tower of Hanoi'.
As far as your code is concerned, it is correct. Here's another copy of same code-
public class SmallestInteger {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int small ;
int array[] = {4,-2,8,3,56,34,67,84} ;
small = smallest(array) ;
System.out.println("The smallest integers is = " + small) ;
}
public static int smallest(int[] array) {
int array1[] = new int[array.length/2];
int array2[] = new int[array.length - (array.length/2)];
for (int index = 0; index < array.length/2 ; index++) {
array1[index] = array[index];
}
for (int index = array.length/2; index < array.length; index++) {
array2[index - array.length/2] = array[index] ;
}
if (array.length > 1) {
if(smallest(array1) < smallest(array2)) {
return smallest(array1) ;
}
else {
return smallest(array2) ;
}
}
return array[0] ;
}
}
Result came out to be-
The smallest integers is = -2
I have an array with positive integers in random order. A number x
from the list is given ,we need to find any two numbers in the list
having sum equal to x.Running time must be less than n^2.
{edit}
What I did is that , I put all the numbers less than half of x in one array and greater than half of x in another array and all greater than x are discarded and then the idea is that the required two numbers must from the two arrays (not from a single array) and by iterating I can get the two numbers.
Now for the worst case I am little confuse is that approach is good? or if anyone guide me something more better than this also can we achieve log n or n *log n ?
Your solution is both wrong, and in O(n^2).
It is wrong since consider x=5 and arr=[1,2,3,5] - the two numbers needed are from one array, not from both.
What if arr=[3,3,6], x=6, you will place both 3s in one list (not greater than x/2 for example), and will fail to find 3+3=6.
Your algorithm runs in O(n^2), because assume exactly half of the elements are greater than x1, and half are smaller than x. Then, the number of combinations you have to check are (n/2*n/2) /2 = n^2/8
To solve it in O(nlogn), think what happens if you sort the data, given a number arr[i], can you find efficiently if there is a number x-arr[i] in the now sorted array?
You can even enhance the above to O(n) average case by placing the elements in a hash-set, and now, given an number y, can you find efficiently if x-y is also in the set?
EDIT:
Stroked out parts are not relevant anymore since OP editted the question, added a new cause of concern instead.
(1) than x/2 in the editted question.
Here is O(n) solution for finding the first pair of indices of array which sums to the expected target. The solution will stop when it finds the first 2 indices that sum to target, if you need all the pairs that add up to target then instead of using int[] result, you can use ArrayList or even a Map, process the complete array and return it with all the pairs of indices. There is an obvious assumption that the Map's hashcode function is really good and there are not much collisions so that map operations perform in O(1) time.
import java.util.*;
public class Solution {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] array = new int[] {1,2,4,7,12,67,12,5,9,1,10};
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(sum(array, 68)));
}
public static int[] sum(int[] array, int target) {
int[] result = new int[2];
Map<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
// n iterations
for (int index = 0; index < array.length; index++) {
// constant
if (map.containsKey(target - array[index])) {
result[1] = index;
// constant
result[0] = map.get(target - array[index]);
return result;
}
// constant
map.put(array[index], index);
}
return result;
}
}
Here you go,
Sort the array using merge sort (Time complexity: n logn). Take two pointers/counters, say i & j, one starts from index 0 and another from n-1 (assuming n size of array is n).
if array[i]+array[j]=sum
return;
else if (array[i]+array[j]<sum) i++;
else j--;
Do it until i>j.
Overall time complexity: n logn
/* Time Complexity = O(n)-since HashMap operations take O(1) time*/
public static ArrayList<Integer> twoSum(int[] arr , int target){
if (arr == null){
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
ArrayList<Integer> targetHolder = new ArrayList<>();
HashMap<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
for (int i = 0 ; i < arr.length ; i++){
if (map.containsKey(arr[i])){
int index = map.get(arr[i]);
targetHolder.add(index+1);
targetHolder.add(i+1);
}
else{
map.put(target-arr[i], i);
}
}
return targetHolder;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] A = {1,2,3,4,5,6};
System.out.println(twoSum(A, 6));
}
}
public void function(int[] array, int sum){
for(int i = 0; i < array.length/2; i ++){
for(int j = array.length-1;; j--){
if(array[i]+array[j] < sum) break;
if(array[i]+array[j] == sum) System.out.println(array[i]+" + "+array[j]+" = "+sum);
}
}
}