Is there any number repeated in the array? - c++

Question

There's array of size n. The values can be between 0 and (n-1) as the indices.
For example: array[4] = {0, 2, 1, 3}
I should say if there's any number that is repeated more than 1 time.
For example: array[5] = {3,4,1,2,4} -> return true because 4 is repeated.
This question has so many different solutions and I would like to know if this specific solution is alright (if yes, please prove, else refute).
My solution (let's look at the next example):
array: indices 0 1 2 3 4
values 3 4 1 2 0
So I suggest:
count the sum of the indices (4x5 / 2 = 10) and check that the values' sum (3+4+1+2+0) is equal to this sum. if not, there's repeated number.
in addition to the first condition, get the multiplication of the indices(except 0. so: 1x2x3x4) and check if it's equal to the values' multiplication (except 0, so: 3x4x1x2x0).
=> if in each condition, it's equal then I say that there is NO repeated number. otherwise, there IS a repeated number.
Is it correct? if yes, please prove it or show me a link. else, please refute it.

Answer 1

Why your algorithm is wrong?
Your solution is wrong, here is a counter example (there may be simpler ones, but I found this one quite quickly):
int arr[13] = {1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 6};
The sum is 78, and the product is 479001600, if you take the normal array of size 13:
int arr[13] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12};
It also has a sum of 78 and a product of 479001600 so your algorithm does not work.
How to find counter examples?1
To find a counter example2 3:
Take an array from 0 to N - 1;
Pick two even numbers3 M1 > 2 and M2 > 2 between 0 and N - 1 and halve them;
Replace P1 = M1/2 - 1 by 2 * P1 and P2 = M2/2 + 1 by 2 * P2.
In the original array you have:
Product = M1 * P1 * M2 * P2
Sum = 0 + M1 + P1 + M2 + P2
= M1 + M1/2 - 1 + M2 + M2/2 + 1
= 3/2 * (M1 + M2)
In the new array you have:
Product = M1/2 * 2 * P1 + M2/2 * 2 * P2
= M1 * P1 * M2 * P2
Sum = M1/2 + 2P1 + M2/2 + 2P2
= M1/2 + 2(M1/2 - 1) + M2/2 + 2(M2/2 + 1)
= 3/2 * M1 - 2 + 3/2 * M2 + 2
= 3/2 * (M1 + M2)
So both array have the same sum and product, but one has repeated values, so your algorithm does not work.
1 This is one method of finding counter examples, there may be others (there are probably others).
2 This is not exactly the same method I used to find the first counter example - In the original method, I used only one number M and was using the fact that you can replace 0 by 1 without changing the product, but I propose a more general method here in order to avoid argument such as "But I can add a check for 0 in my algorithm.".
3 That method does not work with small array because you need to find 2 even numbers M1 > 2 and M2 > 2 such that M1/2 != M2 (and reciprocally) and M1/2 - 1 != M2/2 + 1, which (I think) is not possible for any array with a size lower than 14.
What algorithms do work?4
Algorithm 1: O(n) time and space complexity.
If you can allocate a new array of size N, then:
template <std::size_t N>
bool has_repetition (std::array<int, N> const& array) {
std::array<bool, N> rep = {0};
for (auto v: array) {
if (rep[v]) {
return true;
}
rep[v] = true;
}
return false;
}
Algorithm 2: O(nlog(n)) time complexity and O(1) space complexity, with a mutable array.
You can simply sort the array:
template <std::size_t N>
bool has_repetition (std::array<int, N> &array) {
std::sort(std::begin(array), std::end(array));
auto it = std::begin(array);
auto ne = std::next(it);
while (ne != std::end(array)) {
if (*ne == *it) {
return true;
}
++it; ++ne;
}
return false;
}
Algorithm 3: O(n^2) time complexity and O(1) space complexity, with non mutable array.
template <std::size_t N>
bool has_repetition (std::array<int, N> const& array) {
for (auto it = std::begin(array); it != std::end(array); ++it) {
for (auto jt = std::next(it); jt != std::end(array); ++jt) {
if (*it == *jt) {
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
4 These algorithms do work, but there may exist other ones that performs better - These are only the simplest ones I could think of given some "restrictions".

Answer 2

What's wrong with your method?
Your method computes some statistics of the data and compares them with those expected for a permutation (= correct answers). While a violation of any of these comparisons is conclusive (the data cannot satisfy the constraint), the inverse is not necessarily the case. You only look at two statistics, and these are too few for sufficiently large data sets. Owing to the fact that the data are integer, the smallest number of data for which your method may fail is larger than 3.

Answer 3

If you are searching duplicates in your array there is simple way:
int N =5;
int array[N] = {1,2,3,4,4};
for (int i = 0; i< N; i++){
for (int j =i+1; j<N; j++){
if(array[j]==array[i]){
std::cout<<"DUPLICATE FOUND\n";
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
Other simple way to find duplicates is using the std::set container for example:
std::set<int> set_int;
set_int.insert(5);
set_int.insert(5);
set_int.insert(4);
set_int.insert(4);
set_int.insert(5);
std::cout<<"\nsize "<<set_int.size();
the output will be 2, because there is 2 individual values

Answer 4

A more in depth explanation why your algorithm is wrong:
count the sum of the indices (4x5 / 2 = 10) and check that the values' sum (3+4+1+2+0) is equal to this sum. if not, there's repeated number.
Given any array A which has no duplicates, it is easy to create an array that meets your first requirement but now contains duplicates. Just take take two values and subtract one of them by some value v and add that value to the other one. Or take multiple values and make sure the sum of them stays the same. (As long as new values are still within the 0 .. N-1 range.) For N = 3 it is already possible to change {0,1,2} to {1,1,1}. For an array of size 3, there are 7 compositions that have correct sum, but 1 is a false positive. For an array of size 4 there are 20 out of 44 have duplicates, for an array of size 5 that's 261 out of 381, for an array of size 6 that's 3612 out of 4332, and so on. It is save to say that the number of false positives grows much faster than real positives.
in addition to the first condition, get the multiplication of the indices(except 0. so: 1x2x3x4) and check if it's equal to the values' multiplication (except 0, so: 3x4x1x2x0).
The second requirement involves the multiplication of all indices above 0. It is easy to realize this is could never be a very strong restriction either. As soon as one of the indices is not prime, the product of all indices is no longer uniquely tied to the multiplicands and a list can be constructed of different values with the same result. E.g. a pair of 2 and 6 can be replaced with 3 and 4, 2 and 9 can be replaced with 6 and 3 and so on. Obviously the number of false positives increases as the array-size gets larger and more non-prime values are used as multiplicands.
None of these requirements is really strong and the cannot compensate for the other. Since 0 is not even considered for the second restriction a false positive can be created fairly easy for arrays starting at size 5. any pair of 0 and 4 can simply be replaced with two 2's in any unique array, for example {2, 1, 2, 3, 2}
What you would need, is to have a result that is uniquely tight to the occurring values. You could tweak your second requirement to a more complex approach and skip over the non-prime values and take 0 into account. For example you could use the first prime as multiplicand (2) for 0, use 3 as multiplicand for 1, 5 as multiplicand for 2, and so on. That would work (you would not need the first requirement), but this approach would be overly complex. An simpler way to get a unique result would be to OR the i-th bit for each value (0 => 1 << 0, 1 => 1 << 1, 2 => 1 << 2, and so on. (Obviously it is faster to check wether a bit was already set by a reoccurring value, rather than wait for the final result. And this is conceptually the same as using a bool array/vector from the other examples!)