Related
I am new to Java so I don't really understand this yet, I just want to know how does this code work and how the count increase. Why is there a loop inside a loop?
(This is not my own code it is something i am studying.)
Random r = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
int n = r.nextInt(3);
Gridbox[i][j] = n;
if (n == 0)
{
count++;
}
}
r.nextInt(3) results in a uniform random number between 0 (inclusive) and 3 (exclusive). Why? Because the docs say so; javadoc is a great place to start when trying to figure out what things do.
In other words, 33% of the time that returns 0, 33% of the time it returns 1, and 33% of the time it returns 2, randomly determined.
In other words, 33% of the time (on average), n would be 0, and count would be increased.
All this code does is loop 5 times (first 'for'), and per outer loop, loop 5 times (for a total of 5*5 = 25 times a random number is generated).
Gridbox is some sort of 5 by 5 array; the randomly generated number is placed in this grid, and count is incremented 33% of the time.
The count increases here, by one each time this line is executed:
count++;
Look up the increment operator ++ to understand.
There is loop inside a loop, a socalled pair of nested loops, in order to cover all possible combinations of possible is and js, i.e. to cover all of the 2D range.
If you want to learn a programming language I recommend to first read a book and maybe follow tutorials. Reading existing code is for later, though not a bad idea.
I added a comment to every line of code; and tried to explain here.
You're creating a gridbox of size i x j. In your code's case you are hardcoding i and j to a size of 5(using the for loops both sized 5)
r.nextInt(3) results in a uniform random number between 0 (inclusive) and 3 (exclusive). So you are assigning each value inside the gridbox a random value between 0 and 3.
Whenever you do the assignment, if the value is 0 increment the count.
//random class that allows generation of random values
Random r = new Random();
//for loop of size 5, start at 0 and go through it 5 times. **i** is the first param of gridbox
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
//for loop of size 5, start at 0 and go through it 5 times. **j** is the second param of Gridbox
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
// assign random integer value between 0 and 3 to field n.
int n = r.nextInt(3);
// push n into GridBox. this might be a typo. In java Capital indicates its a class not a instance of the class
Gridbox[i][j] = n;
// if **n is equal 0 increment count.
if (n == 0)
{
count++;
}
}
I imagine you need to do a instantiation
//this needs to be properly instantiated, to right size.
Gridbox gridbox = new Gridbox();
gridbox[i][j] = n
I have 2 arrays of intervals, trip_beginning and trip_end.
trip_beginning[j] trip_end[j] representing the end and beginning of the jth interval.
Arrays M and S are sorted.
The program needs to filter out trips (badTrip) if it contains any index in S, and if it is not a badTrip, it needs to count up the number of M indexes in its interval.
The trip with the maxCt count (tripMax) at the end wins.
The code returns the correct result but needs to be asymptotically quicker.
T*(log(M+S).
Because of the for loop this is not the case.
Is there are quicker way to do the inter-interval (incl. endpoint) comparisons?
int tripMax = 0;
int maxCt = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for (int j=0; j< trip_beginning.length; j++){
int tripNo = j+1;
boolean badTrip = false;
int tripS = trip_beginning[j];
int tripE = trip_end[j];
int mountains = 0;
for (int k=tripS; k <= tripE; k++){
if (Bsearch(S,k)==1){
badTrip= true;
// break;
}
if (!badTrip && Bsearch(M,k)==1){
mountains++;
}
} //endfor
if (!badTrip && (mountains>maxCt)){
maxCt = mountains;
tripMax = tripNo;
}
You should only do binary search on two values: trip_beginning[j] and trip_end[j] + 1, instead of every integer between them. The binary search should find the maximum index which the corresponding value is smaller than the number to be searched for (-1 if smaller or equal to the first number in the array). Then calculate the index difference between the two ends of the trip. For S, if the index difference is not 0, then some elements in S are between the two ends, therefore a bad trip. For M, the index difference is the number of mountains. This gives O(n(log|S| + log|M|)) time.
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
I have the following problem I need to optimize. For a given array(with duplicated keys allowed), for each position i in the array, I need to compute all bigger values right of i, and all smaller values left of i. If we have:
1 1 4 3 5 6 7 and i = 3(value 3), the count of smaller values to left of i is 1(no repeated keys), and to the right, the number of bigger values is 3.
The brute force solution of this problem is ~N^2, and with some extra space I can manage to compute the smaller values from the bigger ones, so reducing complexity to ~(N^2)/2.
My question is: is there a faster way to get it done? Maybe NlgN? I imagine there is a data structure out there I don't know which will allow me to do the computation faster.
EDIT: Thank you all for your replies and discussions. You can find two good solutions two the problem below. Always a pleasure learning from developers in stackoverflow.
Here's an O(n log n) solution.
As hinted by #SayonjiNakate, the solution using segment tree (I used Fenwick tree in my implementation) runs in O(n log M) time, where M is the maximum possible value in the array.
Firstly, note that the problem "number of smaller elements on the left" is equivalent to the problem "number of greater elements on the right" by reversing and negating the array. So, in my explanation below I only describe the "number of smaller elements on the left", which I call "lesser_left_count".
Algorithm for lesser_left_count:
The idea is to be able to find the total of numbers smaller than a specific number.
Define an array tree with size upto MAX_VALUE, which will store the value 1 for seen numbers and 0 otherwise.
Then as we traverse the array, when we see a number num, just assign the value 1 to tree[num] (update operation). Then lesser_left_count for a number num is the sum from 1 to num-1 (sum operation) so far, since all smaller numbers to the left of current position would have been set to 1.
Simple right? If we use Fenwick tree, the update and sum operation can be done each in O(log M) time, where M is the maximum possible value in the array. Since we are iterating over the array, total time is O(n log M).
The only disadvantage of the naive solution is that it uses a lot of memory as M gets bigger (I set M=2^20-1 in my code, which take around 4MB of memory). This can be improved by mapping distinct integers in the array into smaller integers (in a way that preserve the order). The mapping can be done in simply O(n log n) by sorting the array. So the number M can be reinterpreted as "number of distinct elements in the array".
So the memory wouldn't be any problem anymore, because if after this improvement you indeed need huge memory, that means there are that many distinct numbers in your array, and the time complexity of O(n) will already be too high to be calculated in normal machine anyway.
For the sake of simplicity, I didn't include that improvement in my code.
Oh, and since Fenwick tree only works for positive numbers, I converted the numbers in the array to be minimum 1. Note that this doesn't change the result.
Python code:
MAX_VALUE = 2**20-1
f_arr = [0]*MAX_VALUE
def reset():
global f_arr, MAX_VALUE
f_arr[:] = [0]*MAX_VALUE
def update(idx,val):
global f_arr
while idx<MAX_VALUE:
f_arr[idx]+=val
idx += (idx & -idx)
def cnt_sum(idx):
global f_arr
result = 0
while idx > 0:
result += f_arr[idx]
idx -= (idx & -idx)
return result
def count_left_less(arr):
reset()
result = [0]*len(arr)
for idx,num in enumerate(arr):
cnt_prev = cnt_sum(num-1)
if cnt_sum(num) == cnt_prev: # If we haven't seen num before
update(num,1)
result[idx] = cnt_prev
return result
def count_left_right(arr):
arr = [x for x in arr]
min_num = min(arr)
if min_num<=0: # Got nonpositive numbers!
arr = [min_num+1+x for x in arr] # Convert to minimum 1
left = count_left_less(arr)
arr.reverse() # Reverse for greater_right_count
max_num = max(arr)
arr = [max_num+1-x for x in arr] # Negate the entries, keep minimum 1
right = count_left_less(arr)
right.reverse() # Reverse the result, to align with original array
return (left, right)
def main():
arr = [1,1,3,2,4,5,6]
(left, right) = count_left_right(arr)
print 'Array: ' + str(arr)
print 'Lesser left count: ' + str(left)
print 'Greater right cnt: ' + str(right)
if __name__=='__main__':
main()
will produce:
Original array: [1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 6]
Lesser left count: [0, 0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5]
Greater right cnt: [5, 5, 3, 3, 2, 1, 0]
or if you want Java code:
import java.util.Arrays;
class Main{
static int MAX_VALUE = 1048575;
static int[] fArr = new int[MAX_VALUE];
public static void main(String[] args){
int[] arr = new int[]{1,1,3,2,4,5,6};
System.out.println("Original array: "+toString(arr));
int[][] leftRight = lesserLeftRight(arr);
System.out.println("Lesser left count: "+toString(leftRight[0]));
System.out.println("Greater right cnt: "+toString(leftRight[1]));
}
public static String toString(int[] arr){
String result = "[";
for(int num: arr){
if(result.length()!=1){
result+=", ";
}
result+=num;
}
result+="]";
return result;
}
public static void reset(){
Arrays.fill(fArr,0);
}
public static void update(int idx, int val){
while(idx < MAX_VALUE){
fArr[idx]+=val;
idx += (idx & -idx);
}
}
public static int cntSum(int idx){
int result = 0;
while(idx > 0){
result += fArr[idx];
idx -= (idx & -idx);
}
return result;
}
public static int[] lesserLeftCount(int[] arr){
reset();
int[] result = new int[arr.length];
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++){
result[i] = cntSum(arr[i]-1);
if(cntSum(arr[i])==result[i]) update(arr[i],1);
}
return result;
}
public static int[][] lesserLeftRight(int[] arr){
int[] left = new int[arr.length];
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++){
left[i] = arr[i];
if(min>arr[i]) min=arr[i];
}
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++) left[i]+=min+1;
left = lesserLeftCount(left);
int[] right = new int[arr.length];
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++){
right[i] = arr[arr.length-1-i];
if(max<right[i]) max=right[i];
}
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++) right[i] = max+1-right[i];
right = lesserLeftCount(right);
int[] rightFinal = new int[right.length];
for(int i=0; i<right.length; i++) rightFinal[i] = right[right.length-1-i];
return new int[][]{left, rightFinal};
}
}
which will produce same result.
Try segment tree data structure used for solving RMQ.
It would give you exactly n log n.
And look through RMQ problem generally, your problem may be reduced to it.
Here's a relatively simple solution that's O(N lg(N)) that doesn't rely on the entries being among finitely many integers (in particular, it should work for any ordered data type).
We assume the output is to be stored in two arrays; lowleft[i] will at the end contain the number of distinct values x[j] with j < i and x[j] < x[i], and highright[i] will at the end contain the number of distinct values x[j] with j > i and x[j] > x[i].
Create a balanced tree data structure that maintains in each node, the number of nodes in the subtree rooted at that node. This is fairly standard, but not a part of the Java standard library I think; it's probably easiest to do an AVL tree or so. The type of the values in the nodes should be the type of the values in your array.
Now first iterate forward through the array. We start with an empty balanced tree. For every value x[i] we encounter, we enter it into the balanced tree (near the end there are O(N) entries in this tree, so this step takes O(lg(N)) time). When searching for the position to enter x[i], we keep track of the number of values less than x[i] by adding up the sizes of all left subtrees whenever we take the right subtree, and adding what will be the size of the left subtree of x[i]. We enter this number into lowleft[i].
If the value x[i] is already in the tree, we just carry on with the next iteration of this loop. If the value x[i] is not in there, we enter it and rebalance the tree, taking care to update the subtree sizes correctly.
Each iteration of this loop takes O(lg(N)) steps, for a total of O(N lg(N)). We now start with an empty tree and do the same thing iterating backward through the array, finding the position for every x[i] in the tree, and every time recording the size of all subtrees to the right of the new node as highright[i]. Total complexity therefore O(N lg(N)).
Here is an algorithm which should give you O(NlgN):
Iterate over the list once and build a map of key => indexList. So for ever key (element in the array) you store a list of all the indices where that key is in the array. This will take O(N) (iterate over the list) + N*O(1) (appending N items to lists) steps. So this step is O(N). The second step requires that these lists are sorted which they will be as we are iterating over the list from left to right so a newly inserted index in a list will always be larger than all the other ones which are already in there.
Iterate over the list again and for each element search the index lists for all keys which are larger than the current element for the first index which is after the current index. This gives you the number of elements to the right of the current one which are larger than the current element. As the index lists are sorted you can do a binary search which will take O(k * lgN) steps with k being the number of keys larger then the current one. If the number of keys has an upper limit then this is a constant as far as big-O is concerned. The second step here is to search all smaller keys and find the first index in the list which is prior to the current one. This will give you the number of element to the left of the current one which are smaller. Same reasoning as above this is O(k * lgN)
So assuming the number of keys is limited this should give you O(N) + N * 2 * O(lgN) so overall O(NlgN) if I'm not mistaken.
Edit: Pseudo code:
int[] list;
map<int => int[]> valueIndexMap;
foreach (int i = 0; i < list.length; ++i) { // N iterations
int currentElement = list[i]; // O(1)
int[] indexList = valueIndexMap[currentElement]; // O(1)
indexList.Append(i); // O(1)
}
foreach (int i = 0; i < list.length; ++i) { // N iterations
int currentElement = list[i]; // O(1)
int numElementsLargerToTheRight;
int numElementsSmallerToTheLeft;
foreach (int k = currentElement + 1; k < maxKeys; ++k) { // k iterations with k being const
int[] indexList = valueIndexMap[k]; // O(1)
int firstIndexBiggerThanCurrent = indexList.BinaryFindFirstEntryLargerThan(i); // O(lgN)
numElementsLargerToTheRight += indexList.Length - firstIndexBiggerThanCurrent; // O(1)
}
foreach (int k = currentElement - 1; k >= 0; --k) { // k iterations with k being const
int[] indexList = valueIndexMap[k]; // O(1)
int lastIndexSmallerThanCurrent = indexList.BinaryFindLastEntrySmallerThan(i); // O(lgN)
numElementsSmallerToTheLeft += lastIndexSmallerThanCurrent; // O(1)
}
}
Update: I tinkered around with a C# implementation in case anyone is interested;