I'm trying to implement a solution using the backtracking algorithm.
I have some weights [1,2,7,10,20,70,100,200,700...] and I want to return the weights after a given input/
For example input => 12 should return [2,10]
For example input => 8 should return [1,7]
My code seem's not to work well. It works only for some input numbers like 13 or 8
for targetValue in [13] {
var currentValue = 0
var usedWeights: [Int] = []
for weight in weights {
if targetValue > weight {
currentValue += weight
usedWeights.append(weight)
} else if weight > targetValue {
let rememberLast = usedWeights.last ?? 0
usedWeights.remove(at: usedWeights.count-1)
currentValue -= rememberLast
if currentValue > targetValue || currentValue < targetValue {
let last = usedWeights.remove(at: usedWeights.count-1)
currentValue -= last
usedWeights.append(rememberLast)
currentValue -= rememberLast
print(usedWeights) /// [1, 2, 10] Yeah it work's :) but only for some number ..:(
}
}
}
}
The used weights should be unique.
I have some trouble to find the weights.
This is how the algorithm work
Input => 13
1
1+2
1+2+7
1+2+7+10 //currentValue is now 20
1+2+7 // still no solution get the last removed element and remove the current last element
1+2+10 // Correct weights
I hope you can help me and I explain what I'm doing wrong.
Here's one solution. Iterate in reverse through the weights. If the weight is less than or equal to the current total, use the weight.
let weights = [1,2,7,10,20,70,100,200,700] // the weights you have
let needed = 12 // The total weight you want
var total = needed // The current working total
var needs = [Int]() // The resulting weights needed
for weight in weights.reversed() {
if weight <= total {
needs.append(weight)
total -= weight
}
}
if total == 0 {
print("Need \(needs) for \(needed)")
} else {
print("No match for \(needed)")
}
I don't know how you set the weight.
But consider:
[2,3,6,10,20]
and needed = 21
Then the algorithm will not find it (no match), when there is a solution obviously: 2 + 3 + 6 + 10
So, you should call recursively the search algorithm when it fails, after removing from the weights the first you picked.
This is not very clean, but seem to work (in code, some issue in playground)
func searchIt(weightsSearch: [Int], neededSearch: Int) -> (needs: [Int], remainingWeights: [Int], found: Bool) {
var total = neededSearch // The current working total
var needs = [Int]() // The resulting weights needed
var remaining = weightsSearch
var firstNotYetSelected = true
var position = weightsSearch.count - 1
for weight in weightsSearch.reversed() {
if weight <= total {
needs.append(weight)
total -= weight
if firstNotYetSelected {
remaining.remove(at : position)
}
firstNotYetSelected = false
position -= 1
}
}
return (needs, remaining, total == 0)
}
var needs = [Int]() // The resulting weights needed
var remainingWeights = weights
var foundIt: Bool
repeat {
(needs, remainingWeights, foundIt) = searchIt(weightsSearch: remainingWeights, neededSearch: needed)
if foundIt {
print("Need \(needs) for \(needed)")
break
} else {
print("No match yet for \(needed)")
}
} while remainingWeights.count >= 1
with the test case
let weights = [2,3,6,10,20]
let needed = 21
we get
No match yet for 21
Need [10, 6, 3, 2] for 21
If you want ALL the solutions, replace break statement by continue.
With the test case
let weights = [2,3,6,10,15,20]
let needed = 21
we get the 2 solutions
No match for 21
No match for 21
Need [15, 6] for 21
Need [10, 6, 3, 2] for 21
No match for 21
No match for 21
No match for 21
Related
In my app people give grades to each other, out of ten point. Each day, an algorithm computes a match for as much people as possible (it's impossible to compute a match for everyone). It makes a graph where vertexes are users and edges are the grades
I simplify the problem by saying that if 2 people give a grade to each other, there is an edge between them with a weight of their respective grade average. But if A give a grade to B, but B doesnt, their is no edge between them and they can never match : this way, the graph is not oriented anymore
I would like that, in average everybody be happy, but in the same time, I would like as few as possible of people that have no match.
Being very deterministic, I made an algorithm that find ALL maximal matchings in a graph. I did that because I thought I could analyse all these maximal matchings and apply a value function that could look like :
V(Matching) = exp(|M| / max(|M|)) * sum(weight of all Edge in M)
That is to say, a matching is high-valued if its cardinal is close to the cardinal of the maximum matching, and if the sum of the grade between people is high. I put an exponential function to the ratio |M|/max|M| because I consider it's a big problem if M is lower that 0.8 (so the exp will be arranged to highly decrease V as |M|/max|M| reaches 0.8)
I would have take the matching where V(M) is maximal. Though, the big problem is that my function that computes all maximal matching takes a lot of time. For only 15 vertex and 20 edges, it takes almost 10 minutes...
Here is the algorithm (in Swift) :
import Foundation
struct Edge : CustomStringConvertible {
var description: String {
return "e(\(v1), \(v2))"
}
let v1:Int
let v2:Int
let w:Int?
init(_ arrint:[Int])
{
v1 = arrint[0]
v2 = arrint[1]
w = nil
}
init(_ v1:Int, _ v2:Int)
{
self.v1 = v1
self.v2 = v2
w = nil
}
init(_ v1:Int, _ v2:Int, _ w:Int)
{
self.v1 = v1
self.v2 = v2
self.w = w
}
}
let mygraph:[Edge] =
[
Edge([1, 2]),
Edge([1, 5]),
Edge([2, 5]),
Edge([2, 3]),
Edge([3, 4]),
Edge([3, 6]),
Edge([5, 6]),
Edge([2,6]),
Edge([4,1]),
Edge([3,5]),
Edge([4,2]),
Edge([7,1]),
Edge([7,2]),
Edge([8,1]),
Edge([9,8]),
Edge([11,2]),
Edge([11, 8]),
Edge([12,13]),
Edge([1,6]),
Edge([4,7]),
Edge([5,7]),
Edge([3,5]),
Edge([9,1]),
Edge([10,11]),
Edge([10,4]),
Edge([10,2]),
Edge([10,1]),
Edge([10, 12]),
]
// remove all the edge and vertex "touching" the edges and vertex in "edgePath"
func reduce (graph:[Edge], edgePath:[Edge]) -> [Edge]
{
var alreadyUsedV:[Int] = []
for edge in edgePath
{
alreadyUsedV.append(edge.v1)
alreadyUsedV.append(edge.v2)
}
return graph.filter({ edge in
return alreadyUsedV.first(where:{ edge.v1 == $0 }) == nil && alreadyUsedV.first(where:{ edge.v2 == $0 }) == nil
})
}
func findAllMaximalMatching(graph Gi:[Edge]) -> [[Edge]]
{
var matchings:[[Edge]] = []
var G = Gi // current graph (reduced at each depth)
var M:[Edge] = [] // current matching being built
var Cx:[Int] = [] // current path in the possibilities tree
// eg : Cx[1] = 3 : for the depth 1, we are at the 3th edge
var d:Int = 0 // current depth
var debug_it = 0
while(true)
{
if(G.count == 0) // if there is no available edge in graph, it means we have a matching
{
if(M.count > 0) // security, if initial Graph is empty we cannot return an empty matching
{
matchings.append(M)
}
if(d == 0)
{
// depth = 0, we cannot decrement d, we have finished all the tree possibilities
break
}
d = d - 1
_ = M.popLast()
G = reduce(graph: Gi, edgePath: M)
}
else
{
let indexForThisDepth = Cx.count > d ? Cx[d] + 1 : 0
if(G.count < indexForThisDepth + 1)
{
// depth ended,
_ = Cx.popLast()
if( d == 0)
{
break
}
d = d - 1
_ = M.popLast()
// reduce from initial graph to the decremented depth
G = reduce(graph: Gi, edgePath: M)
}
else
{
// matching not finished to be built
M.append( G[indexForThisDepth] )
if(indexForThisDepth == 0)
{
Cx.append(indexForThisDepth)
}
else
{
Cx[d] = indexForThisDepth
}
d = d + 1
G = reduce(graph: G, edgePath: M)
}
}
debug_it += 1
}
print("matching counts : \(matchings.count)")
print("iterations : \(debug_it)")
return matchings
}
let m = findAllMaximalMatching(graph: mygraph)
// we have compute all the maximal matching, now we loop through all of them to find the one that has V(Mi) maximum
// ....
Finally my question is : how can I optimize this algorithm to find all maximal matching and to compute my value function on them to find the best matching for my app in a polynomial time ?
I may be missing something since the question is quite complicated, but why not simply use maximum flow problem, with every vertex appearing twice and the edges weights are the average grading if exists? It will return the maximal flow if configured correctly and runs polynomial time.
I want to add the numbers together and print every 4 elements, however i cannot wrap my head around using the stride function, if i am using the wrong approach please explain a better method
var numbers = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]
func addNumbersByStride(){
var output = Stride...
//first output = 1+2+3+4 = 10
//second output = 5+6+7+8 = 26 and so on
print(output)
}
It seems you would like to use stride ...
let arr = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]
let by = 4
let i = stride(from: arr.startIndex, to: arr.endIndex, by: by)
var j = i.makeIterator()
while let n = j.next() {
let e = min(n.advanced(by: by), arr.endIndex)
let sum = arr[n..<e].reduce(0, +)
print("summ of arr[\(n)..<\(e)]", sum)
}
prints
summ of arr[0..<4] 10
summ of arr[4..<8] 26
summ of arr[8..<12] 42
summ of arr[12..<13] 13
You can first split the array into chunks, and then add the chunks up:
extension Array {
// split array into chunks of n
func chunked(into size: Int) -> [[Element]] {
return stride(from: 0, to: count, by: size).map {
Array(self[$0 ..< Swift.min($0 + size, count)])
}
}
}
// add each chunk up:
let results = numbers.chunked(into: 4).map { $0.reduce(0, +) }
If you would like to discard the last sum if the length of the original array is not divisible by 4, you can add an if statement like this:
let results: [Int]
if numbers.count % 4 != 0 {
results = Array(numbers.chunked(into: 4).map { $0.reduce(0, +) }.dropLast())
} else {
results = numbers.chunked(into: 4).map { $0.reduce(0, +) }
}
This is quite a basic solution and maybe not so elegant. First calculate and print sum of every group of 4 elements
var sum = 0
var count = 0
for n in stride(from: 4, to: numbers.count, by: 4) {
sum = 0
for i in n-4..<n {
sum += numbers[i]
}
count = n
print(sum)
}
Then calculate the sum of the remaining elements
sum = 0
for n in count..<numbers.count {
sum += numbers[n]
}
print(sum)
Per Codefighters:
Note: Write a solution with O(n) time complexity and O(1) additional space complexity, since this is what you would be asked to do during a real interview.
Given an array a that contains only numbers in the range from 1 to a.length, find the first duplicate number for which the second occurrence has the minimal index. In other words, if there are more than 1 duplicated numbers, return the number for which the second occurrence has a smaller index than the second occurrence of the other number does. If there are no such elements, return -1.
Example
For a = [2, 3, 3, 1, 5, 2], the output should be firstDuplicate(a) = 3.
There are 2 duplicates: numbers 2 and 3. The second occurrence of 3 has a smaller index than than second occurrence of 2 does, so the answer is 3.
For a = [2, 4, 3, 5, 1], the output should be firstDuplicate(a) = -1.
So here is what I came up with. It works but fails on the final test because it ran over 4000ms. I am stuck to what else I can do. Any Ideas to improve speed?
func firstDuplicate(a : [Int]) -> Int {
var duplicateIndexArray = [Int]()
for firstIndex in 0..<a.count {
for secondIndex in 0..<a.count {
if a[firstIndex] == a[secondIndex] && firstIndex != secondIndex {
print(firstIndex, secondIndex)
if !(duplicateIndexArray.contains(firstIndex)){
duplicateIndexArray.append(secondIndex)
break
}
}
}
}
// Check for duplicacy
if duplicateIndexArray.count > 0 {
print(duplicateIndexArray)
return a[duplicateIndexArray.min()!]
}
return -1
}
The O(n) time part is easy, but the O(1) additional space is a bit tricky. Usually, a hash set (or bit array in your case) can be used to check if a number occurred more than once, but that requires O(n) additional space. For O(1) additional space, we can use the source array itself as a bit array by making some of the numbers in it negative.
For example if the first number in the array is 3, then we make the number at position 3-1 negative. If one of the other numbers in the array is also 3, we can check if the number at position 3-1 is negative.
I don't have any experience with Swift, so I'll try to write a function in pseudocode:
function firstDuplicate(a)
result = -1
for i = 0 to a.count - 1
if a[abs(a[i])-1] < 0 then
result = a[i]
exit for loop
else
a[abs(a[i])-1] = -a[abs(a[i])-1]
// optional restore the negative numbers back to positive
for i = 0 to a.count - 1
if a[i] < 0 then
a[i] = -a[i]
return result
Replace this line
for secondIndex in 0..<a.count
with
for secondIndex in firstIndex..<a.count
There is no requirement of double checking
So Your Final code is
func firstDuplicate(a : [Int]) -> Int {
var duplicateIndexArray = [Int]()
for firstIndex in 0..<a.count {
for secondIndex in firstIndex..<a.count {
if a[firstIndex] == a[secondIndex] && firstIndex != secondIndex {
print(firstIndex, secondIndex)
if !(duplicateIndexArray.contains(firstIndex))
{
duplicateIndexArray.append(secondIndex)
break
}
}
}
}
// Check for duplicacy
if duplicateIndexArray.count > 0
{
print(duplicateIndexArray)
return a[duplicateIndexArray.min()!]
}
return -1
}
func firstDuplicate(input: [Int]) -> Int{
var map : [String : Int] = [:]
var result = -1
for i in 0 ..< input.count {
if map["\(input[i])"] != nil {
result = i
break
}
else {
map["\(input[i])"] = i
}
}
return result
}
I am trying to solve the task
Using a standard for-in loop add all odd numbers less than or equal to 100 to the oddNumbers array
I tried the following:
var oddNumbers = [Int]()
var numbt = 0
for newNumt in 0..<100 {
var newNumt = numbt + 1; numbt += 2; oddNumbers.append(newNumt)
}
print(oddNumbers)
This results in:
1,3,5,7,9,...199
My question is: Why does it print numbers above 100 although I specify the range between 0 and <100?
You're doing a mistake:
for newNumt in 0..<100 {
var newNumt = numbt + 1; numbt += 2; oddNumbers.append(newNumt)
}
The variable newNumt defined inside the loop does not affect the variable newNumt declared in the for statement. So the for loop prints out the first 100 odd numbers, not the odd numbers between 0 and 100.
If you need to use a for loop:
var odds = [Int]()
for number in 0...100 where number % 2 == 1 {
odds.append(number)
}
Alternatively:
let odds = (0...100).filter { $0 % 2 == 1 }
will filter the odd numbers from an array with items from 0 to 100. For an even better implementation use the stride operator:
let odds = Array(stride(from: 1, to: 100, by: 2))
If you want all the odd numbers between 0 and 100 you can write
let oddNums = (0...100).filter { $0 % 2 == 1 }
or
let oddNums = Array(stride(from: 1, to: 100, by: 2))
Why does it print numbers above 100 although I specify the range between 0 and <100?
Look again at your code:
for newNumt in 0..<100 {
var newNumt = numbt + 1; numbt += 2; oddNumbers.append(newNumt)
}
The newNumt used inside the loop is different from the loop variable; the var newNumt declares a new variable whose scope is the body of the loop, so it gets created and destroyed each time through the loop. Meanwhile, numbt is declared outside the loop, so it keeps being incremented by 2 each time through the loop.
I see that this is an old question, but none of the answers specifically address looping over odd numbers, so I'll add another. The stride() function that Luca Angeletti pointed to is the right way to go, but you can use it directly in a for loop like this:
for oddNumber in stride(from:1, to:100, by:2) {
// your code here
}
stride(from:,to:,by:) creates a list of any strideable type up to but not including the from: parameter, in increments of the by: parameter, so in this case oddNumber starts at 1 and includes 3, 5, 7, 9...99. If you want to include the upper limit, there's a stride(from:,through:,by:) form where the through: parameter is included.
If you want all the odd numbers between 0 and 100 you can write
for i in 1...100 {
if i % 2 == 1 {
continue
}
print(i - 1)
}
For Swift 4.2
extension Collection {
func everyOther(_ body: (Element) -> Void) {
let start = self.startIndex
let end = self.endIndex
var iter = start
while iter != end {
body(self[iter])
let next = index(after: iter)
if next == end { break }
iter = index(after: next)
}
}
}
And then you can use it like this:
class OddsEvent: UIViewController {
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
(1...900000).everyOther{ print($0) } //Even
(0...100000).everyOther{ print($0) } //Odds
}
}
This is more efficient than:
let oddNums = (0...100).filter { $0 % 2 == 1 } or
let oddNums = Array(stride(from: 1, to: 100, by: 2))
because supports larger Collections
Source: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2018/229/
I got a simple code which works and which I am programming in and old fashioned way and I am sure there is a more elegant way of doing this in swift. Here is the code:
var cardsInCompartment1:Int = 0
var cardsInCompartment2:Int = 0
for card in cards{
if card.compartment == 1{
cardsInCompartment1 += 1
print(cardsInCompartment1)
}
if card.compartment == 2{
cardsInCompartment2 += 1
print(cardsInCompartment2)
}
}
I basically got cards in different compartments and now I want to count how many cards are in each compartment.
How about using filter to select the cards you want? Then you can just count them:
let cardsInCompartment1 = cards.filter { $0.compartment == 1 }.count
let cardsInCompartment2 = cards.filter { $0.compartment == 2 }.count
If you have a bunch of compartments, you could store the counts in a dictionary:
var compartmentCounts = [Int:Int]()
cards.forEach {
compartmentCounts[$0.compartment] = (compartmentCounts[$0.compartment] ?? 0) + 1
}
In this case, the key would be the compartment#, and the value would be the card count. Something like [1: 32, 2: 42] if there are 32 and 42 cards in each respective compartment.
Try this:
var cardsInCompartment1:Int = 0
var cardsInCompartment2:Int = 0
for card in cards {
(card.compartment == 1) ? (cardsInCompartment1 += 1) : (cardsInCompartment2 += 1)
}
I think you should store the cardsInCompartment as arrays:
var cardsInCompartment = [0, 0] // you can add more to this array
Then you can just loop through the cards and add the values to the array elements:
for card in cards {
cardsInCompartment[card.compartment - 1] += 1
print(cardsInCompartment[card.compartment - 1])
}
What about a switch statement? Something like this?
var card:Int = 1
var CardsInCompartment:Int = 0
switch (card) {
case 1:
CardsInCompartment += 1
print("CardsInCompartment \(CardsInCompartment)")
case 2:
CardsInCompartment += 2
print("CardsInCompartment \(CardsInCompartment)")
default:
}
Or, use an Array to keep your counts:
var counts = [ 0, 0, 0 ] // create an array of integers, where the Ints in the array represent the count of cards in each compartment
cards.forEach { counts[ $0.compartment ] += 1 } // for each card, increment the count in array corresponding to the compartment of the card. (if card.compartment == 1, increment counts[1], and so on
print("cards in compartment 1 \(counts[1])")
print("cards in compartment 2 \(counts[2])")
(This assumes your only compartments are integers 1 and 2)
I like Aaron Brager's idea which counts values into dictionary. I am using reduce to eliminate mutable dictionary outside the 'loop' (more functional)
let d = cards.reduce([:]) { (d, card) -> [Int:Int] in
var d = d
let s = d[card.compartment] ?? 0
d[card.compartment] = s + 1
return d
}