I have a function in java which is written with a recursive algorithm that needs to be written in Iterative form. The thing is that I dont know where to start in wrapping my mind around a new algorithm for this. This is an assignment I am working on.
Consider the following computational problem:
Suppose you work as a consultant and you have a sequence of n potential consulting jobs that pay A[0],A[1],..,A[n-1] dollars, respectively (so job 0 pays A[0] dollars, job 1 pays A[1] dollars, etc.).
Also, job i starts on day i (i = 0 ; : : : ; n 1 ).
However, each job requires 2 days, so you cannot perform any two consecutive jobs. The goal is to determine the maximum amount of money, denoted by F(n) ; you can earn from a valid job schedule selected from the n jobs A[0] through A[n-1]
:
As an example, consider the following input array:
0 1 2 3 4 5
A 5 6 8 6 2 4
An optimal schedule is to do jobs 0 ; 2 ; and 5 ; for which the amount of money
earned, F(6) = A[0] + A [2] + A [5] = 17 ; is as large as possible. Notice that this
is a valid schedule, as no two consecutive jobs are included.
My function for the recursive version that solves this is as follows:
public static int jobScheduleRecursive(int[] A, int n)
{
n = A.length;
if(n == 0){return 0;}
else if(n == 1){return A[0];}
else if(n >= 2){return max(jobScheduleRecursive(A, (n-1)), (A[n-1])
+ jobScheduleRecursive(A, n-2));}
else return -1;
}
To sum up, I have to come up with an iterative algorithm that does this job. The only problem is that i have no idea how to proceed. I would appreciate any advice to lead me in the right direction.
sometimes, iterative solutions for a known recursive solution to problems isn't straight forward as the recursive solution. The easiest way to achieve iterative solution is to use - Dynamic Programming basically what you want is to create a temporary array that holds the solution to all sub-problems in the way. to achieve that, create a dynamically allocated array in the size of your input. and if for instance your recursive function is int foo(int a)
fill the array with the solutions to 1..n, where n is the input for your original problem.
change the algorithm, that instead of calling itself recursivelly, it will check if the solution for the sub-problem allready exists in the array, if not, it fills it up. that way a sub-problem won't compute numerus times, but only once.
Related
I'm trying to come up with an algorithm for the following problem :
I've got a collection of triplets of integers - let's call these integers A, B, C. The value stored inside can be big, so generally it's impossible to create an array of size A, B, or C. The goal is to minimize the size of the collection. To do this, we're provided a simple rule that allows us to merge the triplets :
For two triplets (A, B, C) and (A', B', C'), remove the original triplets and place the triplet (A | A', B, C) if B == B' and C = C', where | is bitwise OR. Similar rules hold for B and C also.
In other words, if two values of two triplets are equal, remove these two triplets, bitwise OR the third values and place the result to the collection.
The greedy approach is usually misleading in similar cases and so it is for this problem, but I can't find a simple counterexample that'd lead to a correct solution. For a list with 250 items where the correct solution is 14, the average size computed by greedy merging is about 30 (varies from 20 to 70). The sub-optimal overhead gets bigger as the list size increases.
I've also tried playing around with set bit counts, but I've found no meaningful results. Just the obvious fact that if the records are unique (which is safe to assume), the set bit count always increases.
Here's the stupid greedy implementation (it's just a conceptual thing, please don't regard the code style) :
public class Record {
long A;
long B;
long C;
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Record> data = new ArrayList<>();
// Fill it with some data
boolean found;
do {
found = false;
outer:
for (int i = 0; i < data.size(); ++i) {
for (int j = i+1; j < data.size(); ++j) {
try {
Record r = merge(data.get(i), data.get(j));
found = true;
data.remove(j);
data.remove(i);
data.add(r);
break outer;
} catch (IllegalArgumentException ignored) {
}
}
}
} while (found);
}
public static Record merge(Record r1, Record r2) {
if (r1.A == r2.A && r1.B == r2.B) {
Record r = new Record();
r.A = r1.A;
r.B = r1.B;
r.C = r1.C | r2.C;
return r;
}
if (r1.A == r2.A && r1.C == r2.C) {
Record r = new Record();
r.A = r1.A;
r.B = r1.B | r2.B;
r.C = r1.C;
return r;
}
if (r1.B == r2.B && r1.C == r2.C) {
Record r = new Record();
r.A = r1.A | r2.A;
r.B = r1.B;
r.C = r1.C;
return r;
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Unable to merge these two records!");
}
Do you have any idea how to solve this problem?
This is going to be a very long answer, sadly without an optimal solution (sorry). It is however a serious attempt at applying greedy problem solving to your problem, so it may be useful in principle. I didn't implement the last approach discussed, perhaps that approach can yield the optimal solution -- I can't guarantee that though.
Level 0: Not really greedy
By definition, a greedy algorithm has a heuristic for choosing the next step in a way that is locally optimal, i.e. optimal right now, hoping to reach the global optimum which may or may not be possible always.
Your algorithm chooses any mergable pair and merges them and then moves on. It does no evaluation of what this merge implies and whether there is a better local solution. Because of this I wouldn't call your approach greedy at all. It is just a solution, an approach. I will call it the blind algorithm just so that I can succinctly refer to it in my answer. I will also use a slightly modified version of your algorithm, which, instead of removing two triplets and appending the merged triplet, removes only the second triplet and replaces the first one with the merged one. The order of the resulting triplets is different and thus the final result possibly too. Let me run this modified algorithm over a representative data set, marking to-be-merged triplets with a *:
0: 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
1: 0 1 0* 0 1 2 0 1 2
2: 1 2 0 1 2 0* 1 2 1
3: 0 1 2*
4: 1 2 1 1 2 1*
5: 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
Result: 4
Level 1: Greedy
To have a greedy algorithm, you need to formulate the merging decision in a way that allows for comparison of options, when multiple are available. For me, the intuitive formulation of the merging decision was:
If I merge these two triplets, will the resulting set have the maximum possible number of mergable triplets, when compared to the result of merging any other two triplets from the current set?
I repeat, this is intuitive for me. I have no proof that this leads to the globally optimal solution, not even that it will lead to a better-or-equal solution than the blind algorithm -- but it fits the definition of greedy (and is very easy to implement). Let's try it on the above data set, showing between each step, the possible merges (by indicating the indices of triplet pairs) and resulting number of mergables for each possible merge:
mergables
0: 3 2 3 (1,3)->2
1: 0 1 0 (1,5)->1
2: 1 2 0 (2,4)->2
3: 0 1 2 (2,5)->2
4: 1 2 1
5: 0 2 0
Any choice except merging triplets 1 and 5 is fine, if we take the first pair, we get the same interim set as with the blind algorithm (I will this time collapse indices to remove gaps):
mergables
0: 3 2 3 (2,3)->0
1: 0 1 2 (2,4)->1
2: 1 2 0
3: 1 2 1
4: 0 2 0
This is where this algorithm gets it differently: it chooses the triplets 2 and 4 because there is still one merge possible after merging them in contrast to the choice made by the blind algorithm:
mergables
0: 3 2 3 (2,3)->0 3 2 3
1: 0 1 2 0 1 2
2: 1 2 0 1 2 1
3: 1 2 1
Result: 3
Level 2: Very greedy
Now, a second step from this intuitive heuristic is to look ahead one merge further and to ask the heuristic question then. Generalized, you would look ahead k merges further and apply the above heuristic, backtrack and decide the best option. This gets very verbose by now, so to exemplify, I will only perform one step of this new heuristic with lookahead 1:
mergables
0: 3 2 3 (1,3)->(2,3)->0
1: 0 1 0 (2,4)->1*
2: 1 2 0 (1,5)->(2,4)->0
3: 0 1 2 (2,4)->(1,3)->0
4: 1 2 1 (1,4)->0
5: 0 2 0 (2,5)->(1,3)->1*
(2,4)->1*
Merge sequences marked with an asterisk are the best options when this new heuristic is applied.
In case a verbal explanation is necessary:
Instead of checking how many merges are possible after each possible merge for the starting set; this time we check how many merges are possible after each possible merge for each resulting set after each possible merge for the starting set. And this is for lookahead 1. For lookahead n, you'd be seeing a very long sentence repeating the part after each possible merge for each resulting set n times.
Level 3: Let's cut the greed
If you look closely, the previous approach has a disastrous perfomance for even moderate inputs and lookaheads(*). For inputs beyond 20 triplets anything beyond 4-merge-lookahead takes unreasonably long. The idea here is to cut out merge paths that seem to be worse than an existing solution. If we want to perform lookahead 10, and a specific merge path yields less mergables after three merges, than another path after 5 merges, we may just as well cut the current merge path and try another one. This should save a lot of time and allow large lookaheads which would get us closer to the globally optimal solution, hopefully. I haven't implemented this one for testing though.
(*): Assuming a large reduction of input sets is possible, the number of merges is
proportional to input size, and
lookahead approximately indicates how much you permute those merges.
So you have choose lookahead from |input|, which is
the binomial coefficient that for lookahead ≪ |input| can be approximated as
O(|input|^lookahead) -- which is also (rightfully) written as you are thoroughly screwed.
Putting it all together
I was intrigued enough by this problem that I sat and coded this down in Python. Sadly, I was able to prove that different lookaheads yield possibly different results, and that even the blind algorithm occasionally gets it better than lookahead 1 or 2. This is a direct proof that the solution is not optimal (at least for lookahead ≪ |input|). See the source code and helper scripts, as well as proof-triplets on github. Be warned that, apart from memoization of merge results, I made no attempt at optimizing the code CPU-cycle-wise.
I don't have the solution, but I have some ideas.
Representation
A helpful visual representation of the problem is to consider the triplets as points of the 3D space. You have integers, so the records will be nodes of a grid. And two records are mergeable if and only if the nodes representing them sit on the same axis.
Counter-example
I found an (minimal) example where a greedy algorithm may fail. Consider the following records:
(1, 1, 1) \
(2, 1, 1) | (3, 1, 1) \
(1, 2, 1) |==> (3, 2, 1) |==> (3, 3, 1)
(2, 2, 1) | (2, 2, 2) / (2, 2, 2)
(2, 2, 2) /
But by choosing the wrong way, it might get stuck at three records:
(1, 1, 1) \
(2, 1, 1) | (3, 1, 1)
(1, 2, 1) |==> (1, 2, 1)
(2, 2, 1) | (2, 2, 3)
(2, 2, 2) /
Intuition
I feel that this problem is somehow similar to finding the maximal matching in a graph. Most of those algorithms finds the optimal solution by begining with an arbitrary, suboptimal solution, and making it 'more optimal' in each iteration by searching augmenting paths, which have the following properties:
they are easy to find (polynomial time in the number of nodes),
an augmenting path and the current solution can be crafted to a new solution, which is strictly better than the current one,
if no augmenting path is found, the current solution is optimal.
I think that the optimal solution in your problem can be found in the similar spirit.
Based on your problem description:
I'm given a bunch of events in time that's usually got some pattern.
The goal is to find the pattern. Each of the bits in the integer
represents "the event occurred in this particular year/month/day". For
example, the representation of March 7, 2014 would be [1 <<
(2014-1970), 1 << 3, 1 << 7]. The pattern described above allows us to
compress these events so that we can say 'the event occurred every 1st
in years 2000-2010'. – Danstahr Mar 7 at 10:56
I'd like to encourage you with the answers that MicSim has pointed at, specifically
Based on your problem description, you should check out this SO
answers (if you didn't do it already):
stackoverflow.com/a/4202095/44522 and
stackoverflow.com/a/3251229/44522 – MicSim Mar 7 at 15:31
The description of your goal is much more clear than the approach you are using. I'm scared that you won't get anywhere with the idea of merging. Sounds scary. The answer you get depends upon the order that you manipulate your data. You don't want that.
It seems you need to keep data and summarize. So, you might try counting those bits instead of merging them. Try clustering algorithms, sure, but more specifically try regression analysis. I should think you would get great results using a correlation analysis if you create some auxiliary data. For example, if you create data for "Monday", "Tuesday", "first Monday of the month", "first Tuesday of the month", ... "second Monday of the month", ... "even years", "every four years", "leap years", "years without leap days", ... "years ending in 3", ...
What you have right now is "1st day of the month", "2nd day of the month", ... "1st month of the year", "2nd month of the year", ... These don't sound like sophisticated enough descriptions to find the pattern.
If you feel it is necessary to continue the approach you have started, then you might treat it more as a search than a merge. What I mean is that you're going to need a criteria/measure for success. You can do the merge on the original data while requiring strictly that A==A'. Then repeat the merge on the original data while requiring B==B'. Likewise C==C'. Finally compare the results (using the criteria/measure). Do you see where this is going? Your idea of bit counting could be used as a measure.
Another point, you could do better at performance. Instead of double-looping through all your data and matching up pairs, I'd encourage you to do single passes through the data and sort it into bins. The HashMap is your friend. Make sure to implement both hashCode() and equals(). Using a Map you can sort data by a key (say where month and day both match) and then accumulate the years in the value. Oh, man, this could be a lot of coding.
Finally, if the execution time isn't an issue and you don't need performance, then here's something to try. Your algorithm is dependent on the ordering of the data. You get different answers based on different sorting. Your criteria for success is the answer with the smallest size after merging. So, repeatedly loop though this algorithm: shuffle the original data, do your merge, save the result. Now, every time through the loop keep the result which is the smallest so far. Whenever you get a result smaller than the previous minimum, print out the number of iterations, and the size. This is a very simplistic algorithm, but given enough time it will find small solutions. Based on your data size, it might take too long ...
Kind Regards,
-JohnStosh
So this is a 2 part question.
I have some code that asks for the time complexity, and it consists of 3 for loops (nested):
public void use_space(int n)
for(int i=0;i<N;i++)
for(int j=0;j<N;j++)
for(int k=0;k<N;k++)
//and at the end of the code, it makes a recursive call to the function
use_space(n/2);
use_space(n/2);
So what I derived for this time complexity recurrence was: T(n) = 2T(n/2) + n^3. The reason I got that was because there were 2 recursive calls to the function each consisting of n/2 time and the nested for loops take n^3 time (3 loops).
IS this correct?
And then for the space complexity, I got S(n) = S(n/2) + n
Hope someone can clarify and tell me if this is wrong/explain. All help would be greatly appreciated.
Your timecomplexity is correct. You can use masters theorem to simplify it to Theta(n^3)
But your space complexity seems to be (a little) incorrect.
For every call of use_space(n) you have to save three numbers i, j and k. This numbers are at most of the size of n (if n == N, I think you mixed them up), so they need log n bits to be saved. Due to freeing the space after finishing use_space you only have to save one additional call use_space(n/2).
So you get the space complexity S(n) = S(n/2) + 3 log n.
Improvement: You could free i, j and k after ending the three loops, so you do not need 3 log n AND S(n/2) (at the same time), but first 3 log n and after this S(n/2), which will be frist 3 log (n/2) and then S(n/4) (and so on), so you only need the maximum of the space used at the same time, which would be 3 log n.
I need to find algorithm which will find the longest seqeunce of element in one
dimension array.
For example:
int[] myArr={1,1,1,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,3,3,4,3,3}
solution will be 5 because sequnece of 5 is the longest.
This is my solution of the problem:
static int findSequence(int [] arr, int arrLength){
int frequency=1;
int bestNumber=arr[0];
int bestFrequency=0;
for(int n=1;n<arrLength;n++){
if(arr[n]!=arr[n-1]){
if(frequency>bestFrequency){
bestNumber=arr[n-1];
bestFrequency=frequency;
}
frequency=1;
}else {
frequency++;
}
}
if( frequency>bestFrequency){
bestNumber=arr[arrLength-1];
bestFrequency=frequency;
}
return bestNumber;
}
but I'm not satisfied.May be some one know more effective solution?
You can skip the some number in the array in the following pattern:
Maintain a integer jump_count to maintain the number of elements to skip (which will be bestFrequency/2). The divisor 2 can be changed according to the data set. Update the jump_count every time you update the bestFrequency.
Now, after every jump
If previous element is not equal to current element and frequency <= jump_count, then scan backwards from current element to find number of duplicates and update the frequency.
e.g. 2 2 2 2 3 3 and frequency = 0 (bold are previous and current elements), then scan backwards to find number of 3's and update the frequency = 2
If previous element is not equal to current element and frequency > jump_count, scan for scan for every element to update the frequency and update the bestFrequency if needed.
e.g. 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 and frequency = 1 (bold are previous and current elements), scan for number of 2's in this jump and update the frequency = 1 + 4. Now, frequency < bestFrequency, scan backwards to find number of 3's and update the frequency = 2.
If previous element = current element, scan the jump to make sure it is continuous sequence. If yes, update the frequency to frequency + jump_count, else consider this as the same case as step 2.
Here, we will consider two examples:
a) 2 2 2 2 2 2 (bold are previous and current elements), check if the jump contains all 2's. Yes in this case, so add the jump_count to frequency.
b) 2 2 2 2 3 2 (bold are previous and current elements), check if the jump contains all the 2's. No in this case, so considering this as in step 2. So, scan for number of 2's in this jump and update the frequency = 1 + 4. Now, frequency < bestFrequency, scan backwards to find number of 2's(from the current element) and update the frequency = 1.
Optimization: You can save some loops in many cases.
P.S. Since this is my first answer, I hope I am able to convey myself.
Try this:
public static void longestSequence(int[] a) {
int count = 1, max = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
if (a[i] == a[i - 1]) {
count++;
} else {
if (count > max) {
max = count;
}
count = 1;
}
}
if (count> max)
System.out.println(count);
else
System.out.println(max);
}
Your algorithm is pretty good.
It touches each array element (except the last) only once. This puts it at O(n) runtime which for this problem seems like the best worst case runtime you can get and is a pretty good worst case runtime as far as algorithms go.
One possible suggestion is when you find a new bestFrequency and n+bestFrequency > arrayLength you can break out of the loops. This is because you know a longer sequence cannot be found.
The only optimization that seems possible is:
for(int n=1;n<arrLength && frequency + (arrLength - n) >= bestFrequency;n++){
because you don't need to search any further one you can't possible exceed the best frequency with the number of elements remaining (probably possible to simplify that even further given a little more thought).
But as others point out, you're doing a O(n) search on n elements for a sequence - there's really no more efficient algorithm available.
I was thinking this must be an O(n) problem, but now I'm wondering if it doesn't have to be, that you could potentially make it O(log n) using a binary search (I don't think what #BlackJack posted actually works quite right, but it was inspiring):
Was thinking something like keep track of first, last element (in a block, probably a recursive algorithm). Do a binary split (so middle element to start). If it matches either first or last, you possibly have a run of at least that length. Check if the total length could exceed the current known max run. If so, continue, if not break.
Then repeat the process - do a binary split of one of those halves to see if the middle item matches. Repeat this process, recursing up and down to get the maximum length of a single run within a branch. Stop searching a branch when it can't possibly exceed the maximum run length.
I think this still comes out to be an O(n) algorithm because the worth-case is still searching every single element (consider a max length of 1 or 2). But you limit to checking each item once, and you search into the most-likely longest branches first (based on start/middle/end matches), it could potentially skip some fairly long runs. A breadth-first rather than depth-first search would also help.
I'm working with recursion trying to become better at with it. My current activity is trying to program a recursive method that generates the maximum number of events one could schedule. Heres my method so far:
public int maxEvents(int n, int[] Start) {
if(n<=0) return 0;
if(n==1) return 1;
else return maxEvents(n-1, Start) + maxEvents(Start[n]-1, Start);
}
Basically my main method passes maxEvents an int n, which is the last Event. So say I have 4 events (1-4) then n would be 4. The next part is an array who's value at the index is the time the event starts, and the index itself is when the event ends.
The preconditions are:
n >= 0
days and conventions go from 1 to n
Event n ends at (and includes) day n and begins at Start[n]
Begin[0] is unused
For all i from 1 to n, Begin[i] <= i ( Convention i can't have a later beginning day than ending day, of course.)
At the end my method is supposed to return:
The maximum number of conventions you can host if you must select only from conventions 1 through n. (This set is empty if n = 0)
Some example input / outputs:
n = 3 Begin[1]=1 Begin[2]=1 Begin[3]=3
maxEvents=2
Or:
n = 5 Begin[1]=1 Begin[2]=1 Begin[3]=2 Begin[4]=3 Begin[5]=4
maxEvents=3
My two recursive calls should count the maximum number without inviting n, you can then chose from 1 to n-1. And count the maximum number inviting n, noting that Begin[n]-1 is the last convention that does not conflict with the beginning of convention n. Then I could take the max of the two, and return that.
I've tried using different if statements, saying something like:
if("recursion call 1">"recursion call 2"){
return "recursion call 1";
}
And using something like "maxEvents(Start[n]-1, Start)" as one of my recursive calls (like used in my above code) however its not returning the correct values, like the ones I listed above. All in all I'm having trouble with the concept of recursion, and I know something is wrong with my recursive calls, so if someone could point me in the right direction that'd be great. Thanks!
Does this work?
return Math.max(maxEvents(n-1, Start), 1 + maxEvents(Start[n]-1, Start))
The idea is that you are splitting into two mutually exclusive cases: one where the nth event is not included and another where nth event is included. Out of the two, you have to select the bigger. So adding the two is not correct - taking the max is the right way. But you have to also add a 1 to the second option to account for including the nth event.
I have an algorithm, and I want to figure it what it does. I'm sure some of you can just look at this and tell me what it does, but I've been looking at it for half an hour and I'm still not sure. It just gets messy when I try to play with it. What are your techniques for breaking down an algoritm like this? How do I analyze stuff like this and know whats going on?
My guess is its sorting the numbers from smallest to biggest, but I'm not too sure.
1. mystery(a1 , a2 , . . . an : array of real numbers)
2. k = 1
3. bk = a1
4. for i = 2 to n
5. c = 0
6. for j = 1 to i − 1
7. c = aj + c
8. if (ai ≥ c)
9. k = k + 1
10. bk = ai
11. return b1 , b2 , . . . , bk
Here's an equivalent I tried to write in Java, but I'm not sure if I translated properly:
public int[] foo(int[] a) {
int k=1;
int nSize=10;
int[] b=new int[nSize];
b[k]=a[1];
for (int i=2;i<a.length;){
int c=0;
for (int j=1;j<i-1;)
c=a[j]+c;
if (a[i]>=c){
k=k+1;
b[k]=a[i];
Google never ceases to amaze, due on the 29th I take it? ;)
A Java translation is a good idea, once operational you'll be able to step through it to see exactly what the algorithm does if you're having problems visualizing it.
A few pointers: the psuedo code has arrays indexed 1 through n, Java's arrays are indexed 0 through length - 1. Your loops need to be modified to suit this. Also you've left the increments off your loops - i++, j++.
Making b magic constant sized isn't a good idea either - looking at the pseudo code we can see it's written to at most n - 1 times, so that would be a good starting point for its size. You can resize it to fit at the end.
Final tip, the algorithm's O(n2) timed. This is easy to determine - outer for loop runs n times, inner for loop n / 2 times, for total running time of (n * (n / 2)). The n * n dominates, which is what Big O is concerned with, making this an O(n2) algorithm.
The easiest way is to take a sample but small set of numbers and work it on paper. In your case let's take number a[] = {3,6,1,19,2}. Now we need to step through your algorithm:
Initialization:
i = 2
b[1] = 3
After Iteration 1:
i = 3
b[2] = 6
After Iteration 2:
i = 4
b[2] = 6
After Iteration 3:
i = 5
b[3] = 19
After Iteration 4:
i = 6
b[3] = 19
Result b[] = {3,6,19}
You probably can guess what it is doing.
Your code is pretty close to the pseudo code, but these are a few errors:
Your for loops are missing the increment rules: i++, j++
Java arrays are 0 based, not 1 based, so you should initialize k=0, a[0], i=1, e.t.c.
Also, this isn't sorting, more of a filtering - you get some of the elements, but in the same order.
How do I analyze stuff like this and know whats going on?
The basic technique for something like this is to hand execute it with a pencil and paper.
A more advanced technique is to decompose the code into parts, figure out what the parts do and then mentally reassemble it. (The trick is picking the boundaries for decomposing. That takes practice.)
Once you get better at it, you will start to be able to "read" the pseudo-code ... though this example is probably a bit too gnarly for most coders to handle like that.
When converting to java, be careful with array indexes, as this pseudocode seems to imply a 1-based index.
From static analysis:
a is the input and doesn't change
b is the output
k appears to be a pointer to an element of b, that will only increment in certain circumstances (so we can think of k = k+1 as meaning "the next time we write to b, we're going to write to the next element")
what does the loop in lines 6-7 accomplish? So what's the value of c?
using the previous answer then, when is line 8 true?
since lines 9-10 are only executed when line 8 is true, what does that say about the elements in the output?
Then you can start to sanity check your answer:
will all the elements of the output be set?
try running through the psuedocode with an input like [1,2,3,4] -- what would you expect the output to be?
def funct(*a)
sum = 0
a.select {|el| (el >= sum).tap { sum += el }}
end
Srsly? Who invents those homework questions?
By the way: since this is doing both a scan and a filter at the same time, and the filter depends on the scan, which language has the necessary features to express this succinctly in such a way that the sequence is only traversed once?