I'm having trouble generating two independent random sequences using the rand and srand functions. The details are below, any help would be most appreciated.
I'm working on a puzzle game for the iPhone, and usually for the random number generation I use the arc4 function. However for the multiplayer mode I want both players to have the same pieces throughout the game, and the only way I can control it is to have two repeatable random sequences. If I then send the seeds to the other device, the games will be identical. However when I use rand and srand and try to switch to the other seed, the sequence starts from scratch, I somehow have to initialize two independent sequences generated with a seed.
Thank you for your responses
Cryptographically bad PRNGs like rand() operate by feeding the previous result back into a certain mathematical procedure.
In order to continue a sequence from where it left off, all you have to do is store the last-generated number and use it as the seed:
srand(time(0));
int player1_rand_num = rand();
NSLog(#"Player 1: %d, %d, %d", rand(), rand(), rand());
srand(7);
int player2_rand_num = rand();
NSLog(#"Player 2: %d, %d, %d", rand(), rand(), rand());
// Re-seed Player 1 sequence
srand(player1_rand_num);
// Displays the same "random" numbers as the first NSLog
NSLog(#"Player 1 again: %ld, %ld, %ld", rand(), rand(), rand());
// and so on...
The random() function generates better random numbers, and has a separate pair of functions, initstate() and setstate() which will give you the state of the generator. You can store the state and pass it into setstate() to resume the sequence from where you left off. I direct you to man 3 random for the details.
First off, as others have pointed out already, you should use random() instead of rand(). Secondly, while your singleton approach may work for you, you could solve your problem more easily and IMHO more elgantly by using setstate(3). See Use of setstate(3) doesn't produce expected sequence of random numbers for an example on how to switch between two random number states.
Thank you for the suggestions, this is how I implemented the whole thing. I created a singleton class with 2 instance variables - seed1 and seed2 - anytime I want to get a number from the first generator I use the method generator1, same for generator2 method. The seed1/2 is instantly set to a newly generated number every time so I can just continue where I left off. In conlusion, Josh Caswell gave me all the information I needed. Check out the code if you ever need something like this. The object inits with seeds 1 and 1 but during the game they get replaced with some other numbers that both devices share.
#implementation RandomNumberGenerator
#synthesize seed1,seed2;
static RandomNumberGenerator *sharedGenerator = nil;
+(RandomNumberGenerator *) sharedInstance
{
if(!sharedGenerator) {
sharedGenerator = [[RandomNumberGenerator alloc] initWithSeed1:1 andSeed2:1];
}
return sharedGenerator;
}
-(id) initWithSeed1:(int) seedOne andSeed2:(int) seedTwo{
self = [super init];
if (self)
{
seed1 = seedOne;
seed2 = seedTwo;
}
return self;
}
-(int) generator1{
srand(seed1);
int j = rand();
seed1 = j;
return abs(j);
}
-(int) generator2 {
srand(seed2);
int k = rand();
seed2 = k;
return abs(k);
}
-(int) giveRandom {
//return abs(arc4random());
return abs(arc4random());
}
#end
Did you seed your random number generator?
srand( myIdenticalSeedValueForBothPartners );
See this question or here [C++ reference].
In case you don't need to call rand() many thousand times:
int nthRandBasedOnSeed( int seed, int count ) {
srand( seed );
int result;
while( 0 < count-- ) {
result = rand();
}
return result;
}
Alternately, you might consider sending with the seed a "count". This count would simply indicate where in the seeded-series you are and would get incretented each time you generate a random number with that seed. This approach gives you the flexibility of using any random generator you like and keeps communication to a minimum.
int playerSeed = 12345;
int playerRndCount = 0;
int generateRandomNumber() {
playerRndCount++;
return rand();
}
void synchSeed(seed, count) {
srand(seed);
for (int i=0; i<count; i++)
generateRandumNumber();
}
Some random number generator libraries allow you to save the state of the generator. This way, you can restore it later, and continue with a sequence already in progress. One I know of is called RandomLib, and it can be found on SourceForge.
Another option is save the seed, and count how many times you've pulled a value from the generator after seeding. Later on when you want to continue, reseed with the original seed, and pull off the same quantity. This probably isn't the best method, but should work fine if not done a lot.
So I'm trying to write a simple genetic algorithm for solving a sudoku (not the most efficient way, I know, but it's just to practice evolutionary algorithms). I'm having some problems coming up with an efficient evaluation function to test if the puzzle is solved or not and how many errors there are. My first instinct would be to check if each row and column of the matrix (doing it in octave, which is similar to matlab) have unique elements by ordering them, checking for duplicates and then putting them back the way they were, which seems long winded. Any thoughts?
Sorry if this has been asked before...
Speedups:
Use bitwise operations instead of sorting.
I made 100 line sudoku solver in c it reasonably fast. For or super speed you need to implement DLX algorhitm, there is also some file on matlab exchange for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_cover
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth's_Algorithm_X
#include "stdio.h"
int rec_sudoku(int (&mat)[9][9],int depth)
{
int sol[9][9][10]; //for eliminating
if(depth == 0) return 1;
for(int i=0;i<9;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<9;j++)
{
sol[i][j][9]=9;
for(int k=0;k<9;k++)
{
if(mat[i][j]) sol[i][j][k]=0;
else sol[i][j][k]=1;
}
}
}
for(int i=0;i<9;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<9;j++)
{
if(mat[i][j] == 0) continue;
for(int k=0;k<9;k++)
{
if(sol[i][k][mat[i][j]-1])
{
if(--sol[i][k][9]==0) return 0;
sol[i][k][mat[i][j]-1]=0;
}
if(sol[k][j][mat[i][j]-1])
{
if(--sol[k][j][9]==0) return 0;
sol[k][j][mat[i][j]-1]=0;
}
}
for(int k=(i/3)*3;k<(i/3+1)*3;k++)
{
for(int kk=(j/3)*3;kk<(j/3+1)*3;kk++)
{
if(sol[k][kk][mat[i][j]-1])
{
if(--sol[k][kk][9]==0) return 0;
sol[k][kk][mat[i][j]-1]=0;
}
}
}
}
}
for(int c=1;c<=9;c++)
{
for(int i=0;i<9;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<9;j++)
{
if(sol[i][j][9] != c) continue;
for(int k=0;k<9;k++)
{
if(sol[i][j][k] != 1) continue;
mat[i][j]=k+1;
if(rec_sudoku(mat,depth-1)) return 1;
mat[i][j]=0;
}
return 0;
}
}
}
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
int matrix[9][9] =
{
{1,0,0,0,0,7,0,9,0},
{0,3,0,0,2,0,0,0,8},
{0,0,9,6,0,0,5,0,0},
{0,0,5,3,0,0,9,0,0},
{0,1,0,0,8,0,0,0,2},
{6,0,0,0,0,4,0,0,0},
{3,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0},
{0,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,7},
{0,0,7,0,0,0,3,0,0}
};
int d=0;
for(int i=0;i<9;i++) for(int j=0;j<9;j++) if(matrix[i][j] == 0) d++;
if(rec_sudoku(matrix,d)==0)
{
printf("no solution");
return 0;
}
for(int i=0;i<9;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<9;j++)
{
printf("%i ",matrix[i][j]);
}
printf("\n");
}
return 1;
}
The check is easy, you'll create sets for rows, columns, and 3x3's adding a number if it does not exist and altering your fitness accordingly if it does not.
The real trick however is "altering your fitness" accordingly. Some problems seem well suited to GA and ES (evolution strategies), that is we look for a solution in tolerance, sudoku has an exact answer... tricky.
My first crack would probably be creating solutions with variable length chromosomes (well they could be fixed length but 9x9's with blanks). The fitness function should be able to determine which part of the solution is guaranteed and which part is not (sometimes you must take a guess in the dark in a really tough sudoku game and then back track if it does not work out), it would be a good idea to create children for each possible branch.
This then is a recursive solution. However you could start scanning from different positions on the board. Recombination would combine solutions which combine unverified portions which have overlapping solutions.
Just thinking about it in this high level easy going fashion I can see how mind bending this will be to implement!
Mutation would only be applied when there is more than one path to take, after all a mutation is a kind of guess.
Sounds good, except for the 'putting them back' part. You can just put the numbers from any line, column or square in the puzzle in a list and check for doubles any way you want. If there are doubles, there is an error. If all numbers are unique there's not. You don't need to take the actual numbers out of the puzzle, so there is no need for putting them back either.
Besides, if you're writing a solver, it should not make any invalid move, so this check would not be needed at all.
I would use the grid's numbers as an index, and increment an 9 elements length array's respective element => s_array[x]++ where x is the number taken from the grid.
Each and every element must be 1 in the array at the end of checking one row. If 0 occurs somewhere in the array, that line is wrong.
However this is just a simple sanity check if there are no problems, line-wise.
PS: if it were 10 years ago, I would suggest an assembly solution with bit manipulation (1st bit, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, etc. for the values 1,2 or 3) and check if the result is 2^10-1.
When I solved this problem, I just counted the number of duplicates in each row, column and sub-grid (in fact I only had to count duplicates in columns and sub-grids as my evolutionary operators were designed never to introduce duplicates into rows). I just used a HashSet to detect duplicates. There are faster ways but this was quick enough for me.
You can see this visualised in my Java applet (if it's too fast, increase the population size to slow it down). The coloured squares are duplicates. Yellow squares conflict with one other square, orange with two other squares and red with three or more.
Here is my solution. Sudoku solving solution in C++
Here is my solution using set. If for a line, a block or a column you get a set length of (let say) 7, your fitness would be 9 - 7.
If you are operating on a small set of integers sorting can be done in O(n) using bucket sorting.
You can use tmp arrays to do this task in matlab:
function tf = checkSubSet( board, sel )
%
% given a 9x9 board and a selection (using logical 9x9 sel matrix)
% verify that board(sel) has 9 unique elements
%
% assumptions made:
% - board is 9x9 with numbers 1,2,...,9
% - sel has only 9 "true" entries: nnz(sel) = 9
%
tmp = zeros(1,9);
tmp( board( sel ) ) = 1; % poor man's bucket sorting
tf = all( tmp == 1 ) && nnz(sel) == 9 && numel(tmp) == 9; % check validity
Now we can use checkSubSet to verify the board is correct
function isCorrect = checkSudokuBoard( board )
%
% assuming board is 9x9 matrix with entries 1,2,...,9
%
isCorrect = true;
% check rows and columns
for ii = 1:9
sel = false( 9 );
sel(:,ii) = true;
isCorrect = checkSubSet( board, sel );
if ~isCorrect
return;
end
sel = false( 9 );
sel( ii, : ) = true;
isCorrect = checkSubSet( board, sel );
if ~isCorrect
return;
end
end
% check all 3x3
for ii=1:3:9
for jj=1:3:9
sel = false( 9 );
sel( ii + (0:2) , jj + (0:2) ) = true;
isCorrect = checkSubSet( board, sel );
if ~isCorrect
return;
end
end
end
I have three integers
I would like to determine what is the highest and which is the lowest value using Objective-C
Thank you!
It is good to store that numbers in an array. Just plain C array is good enough and in Objective-C best for performance. To find a minimum you can use this function. Similar for maximum.
int find_min(int numbers[], int N){
int min = numbers[0];
for(int i=1;i<N;i++)
if(min>numbers[i])min=numbers[i];
return min;
}
If that is just three numbers you can do the comparisons manually for best performance. There is a MIN() and MAX() macro in Cocoa in Foundation/NSObjCRuntime.h. For the maximum, just do:
int m = MAX(myI1, MAX(myI2, myI3));
This may be scaled to more numbers and may be faster than the first approach using loop.
Unfortunately there is no short and elegant neither a generalized way for that in Cocoa.
Plain C Array + custom loop would be the best. With an NSArray you would have to wrap the Integers in NSNumbers without getting any benefit out of that.
Objective-C's built in MAX(a,b) and MIN(a,b) macros only work for two values.
I have two macros I've created for using 2 or more values called multi-max and multi-min (MMAX and MMIN)
Here is their definition, just copy paste into your .h
#define MMAX(...) ({\
long double __inputs[(sizeof((long double[]){__VA_ARGS__})/sizeof(long double))] = {__VA_ARGS__};\
long double __maxValue = __inputs[0];\
for (int __i = 0; __i < (sizeof((long double[]){__VA_ARGS__})/sizeof(long double)); ++__i) {\
long double __inputValue = __inputs[__i];\
__maxValue = __maxValue>__inputValue?__maxValue:__inputValue;\
}\
__maxValue;\
})
#define MMIN(...) ({\
long double __inputs[(sizeof((long double[]){__VA_ARGS__})/sizeof(long double))] = {__VA_ARGS__};\
long double __minValue = __inputs[0];\
for (int __i = 0; __i < (sizeof((long double[]){__VA_ARGS__})/sizeof(long double)); ++__i) {\
long double __inputValue = __inputs[__i];\
__minValue = __minValue<__inputValue?__minValue:__inputValue;\
}\
__minValue;\
})
Example use:
x = MMAX(2,3,9,5);
//sets x to 9.
Using this website i have tried to make a beat detection engine. http://www.gamedev.net/reference/articles/article1952.asp
{
ALfloat energy = 0;
ALfloat aEnergy = 0;
ALint beats = 0;
bool init = false;
ALfloat Ei[42];
ALfloat V = 0;
ALfloat C = 0;
ALshort *hold;
hold = new ALshort[[myDat length]/2];
[myDat getBytes:hold length:[myDat length]];
ALuint uiNumSamples;
uiNumSamples = [myDat length]/4;
if(alDatal == NULL)
alDatal = (ALshort *) malloc(uiNumSamples*2);
if(alDatar == NULL)
alDatar = (ALshort *) malloc(uiNumSamples*2);
for (int i = 0; i < uiNumSamples; i++)
{
alDatal[i] = hold[i*2];
alDatar[i] = hold[i*2+1];
}
energy = 0;
for(int start = 0; start<(22050*10); start+=512){
for(int i = start; i<(start+512); i++){
energy+= ((alDatal[i]*alDatal[i]) + (alDatal[i]*alDatar[i]));
}
aEnergy = 0;
for(int i = 41; i>=0; i--){
if(i ==0){
Ei[0] = energy;
}
else {
Ei[i] = Ei[i-1];
}
if(start >= 21504){
aEnergy+=Ei[i];
}
}
aEnergy = aEnergy/43.f;
if (start >= 21504) {
for(int i = 0; i<42; i++){
V += (Ei[i]-aEnergy);
}
V = V/43.f;
C = (-0.0025714*V)+1.5142857;
init = true;
if(energy >(C*aEnergy)) beats++;
}
}
}
alDatal and alDatar are (short*) type;
myDat is NSdata that holds the actual audio data of a wav file formatted to
22050 khz and 16 bit stereo.
This doesn't seem to work correctly. If anyone could help me out that would be amazing. I've been stuck on this for 3 days.
The desired result is after the 10 seconds worth of data has been processed i should be able to multiply that by 6 and have an estimated beats per minute.
My current results are 389 beats every 10 seconds, 2334 BPM the song i know is right around 120 BPM.
That code really has been smacked about with the ugly stick. If you're going to ask other people to find your bugs for you, it's a good idea to make things presentable first. Strangely enough, this will often help you to find them for yourself too.
So, before I point out some of the more fundamental errors, I have to make a few schoolmarmly suggestions:
Don't sprinkle your code with magic numbers. Is it really that hard to type a few lines like const ALuint SAMPLE_RATE = 22050? Trust me, it makes life a lot easier.
Use variable names that you aren't going to mix up easily. One of your bugs is a substitution of alDatal for alDatar. That probably wouldn't have happened if they were called left and right. Similarly, what is the point of having a meaningful variable name like energy if you're just going to stick it alongside the meaningless but more or less identical aEnergy? Why not something informative like average?
Declare variables close to where you're going to use them and in the appropriate scope. Another of your bugs is that you don't reset your calculated energy sum when you move your averaging window, so the energy will just add up and up. But you don't need the energy outside that loop, and if you declared it inside the problem couldn't happen.
There are some other things I personally find a little irksome, like the random bracing and indentation, and mixing of C and C++ allocations, and odd inconsistent scraps of Hungarian prefixing, but at least some of those may be more a matter of taste so I won't go on.
Anyway, here are some reasons why your code doesn't work:
First up, look at the right hand side of this line:
energy+= ((alDatal[i]*alDatal[i]) + (alDatal[i]*alDatar[i]));
You want the square of each channel value, so it should really say:
energy+= ((alDatal[i]*alDatal[i]) + (alDatar[i]*alDatar[i]));
Spot the difference? Not easy with those names, is it?
Second, you should be computing the total energy over each window of samples, but you're only setting energy = 0 outside the outer loop. So the sum accumulates, and consequently the current window energy will always be the biggest you've ever encountered.
Third, your variance calculation is wrong. You have:
V += (Ei[i]-aEnergy);
But it should be the sum of the squares of the differences from the mean:
V += (Ei[i] - aEnergy) * (Ei[i] - aEnergy);
There may well be other errors as well. For instance, you don't allocate the data buffers if they're not NULL, but assume that they're the right length -- which you've only just calculated. You may justify that in terms of some consistent usage you've stuck to throughout your code, but from the perspective of what we can see here it looks like a pretty bad idea.
I have from 4 up to 20 variables that differ in size.
They are all of type float and number values.
Is there an easy way to find the smallest value among them and assign it to a variable?
Thanks
Not sure about objective-c but the procedure's something like:
float min = arrayofvalues[0];
foreach( float value in arrayofvalues)
{
if(value < min)
min=value;
}
I agree with Davy8 - you could try rewriting his code into Objective C.
But, I have found some min()-like code - in Objective C!
Look at this:
- (int) smallestOf: (int) a andOf: (int) b andOf: (int) c
{
int min = a;
if ( b < min )
min = b;
if( c < min )
min = c;
return min;
}
This code assumes it'll always compare only three variables, but I guess that's something you can deal with ;)
The best solution, without foreach.
`- (float)minFromArray:(float *)array size:(int)arrSize
{
float min;
int i;
min = array[0]
for(i=1;i<arrSize;i++)
if(array[i] < min)
min = array[i];
return min;
}
`
If you want to be sure, add a check of the arrSize > 0.
Marco
Thanks for all your answers and comments.. I learn a lot from you guys :)
I ended up using something like Martin suggested.
if (segmentValueNumber == 11){
float min = 100000000;
if(game51 > 0, game51 < min){
min=game51;
}
if(game52 > 0, game52 < min){
min=game52;
}
}
...............................................
I could not figure out how to implement it all into one array since each result depends on a segment control, and I think the program is more optimised this way since it only checks relevant variables.
But thanks again, you are most helpful..