Related
I am looking to generate derangements uniformly at random. In other words: shuffle a vector so that no element stays in its original place.
Requirements:
uniform sampling (each derangement is generated with equal probability)
a practical implementation is faster than the rejection method (i.e. keep generating random permutations until we find a derangement)
None of the answers I found so far are satisfactory in that they either don't sample uniformly (or fail to prove uniformity) or do not make a practical comparison with the rejection method. About 1/e = 37% of permutations are derangements, which gives a clue about what performance one might expect at best relative to the rejection method.
The only reference I found which makes a practical comparison is in this thesis which benchmarks 7.76 s for their proposed algorithm vs 8.25 s for the rejection method (see page 73). That's a speedup by a factor of only 1.06. I am wondering if something significantly better (> 1.5) is possible.
I could implement and verify various algorithms proposed in papers, and benchmark them. Doing this correctly would take quite a bit of time. I am hoping that someone has done it, and can give me a reference.
Here is an idea for an algorithm that may work for you. Generate the derangement in cycle notation. So (1 2) (3 4 5) represents the derangement 2 1 4 5 3. (That is (1 2) is a cycle and so is (3 4 5).)
Put the first element in the first place (in cycle notation you can always do this) and take a random permutation of the rest. Now we just need to find out where the parentheses go for the cycle lengths.
As https://mathoverflow.net/questions/130457/the-distribution-of-cycle-length-in-random-derangement notes, in a permutation, a random cycle is uniformly distributed in length. They are not randomly distributed in derangements. But the number of derangements of length m is m!/e rounded up for even m and down for odd m. So what we can do is pick a length uniformly distributed in the range 2..n and accept it with the probability that the remaining elements would, proceeding randomly, be a derangement. This cycle length will be correctly distributed. And then once we have the first cycle length, we repeat for the next until we are done.
The procedure done the way I described is simpler to implement but mathematically equivalent to taking a random derangement (by rejection), and writing down the first cycle only. Then repeating. It is therefore possible to prove that this produces all derangements with equal probability.
With this approach done naively, we will be taking an average of 3 rolls before accepting a length. However we then cut the problem in half on average. So the number of random numbers we need to generate for placing the parentheses is O(log(n)). Compared with the O(n) random numbers for constructing the permutation, this is a rounding error. However it can be optimized by noting that the highest probability for accepting is 0.5. So if we accept with twice the probability of randomly getting a derangement if we proceeded, our ratios will still be correct and we get rid of most of our rejections of cycle lengths.
If most of the time is spent in the random number generator, for large n this should run at approximately 3x the rate of the rejection method. In practice it won't be as good because switching from one representation to another is not actually free. But you should get speedups of the order of magnitude that you wanted.
this is just an idea but i think it can produce a uniformly distributed derangements.
but you need a helper buffer with max of around N/2 elements where N is the size of the items to be arranged.
first is to choose a random(1,N) position for value 1.
note: 1 to N instead of 0 to N-1 for simplicity.
then for value 2, position will be random(1,N-1) if 1 fall on position 2 and random(1,N-2) otherwise.
the algo will walk the list and count only the not-yet-used position until it reach the chosen random position for value 2, of course the position 2 will be skipped.
for value 3 the algo will check if position 3 is already used. if used, pos3 = random(1,N-2), if not, pos3 = random(1,N-3)
again, the algo will walk the list and count only the not-yet-used position until reach the count=pos3. and then position the value 3 there.
this will goes for the next values until totally placed all the values in positions.
and that will generate a uniform probability derangements.
the optimization will be focused on how the algo will reach pos# fast.
instead of walking the list to count the not-yet-used positions, the algo can used a somewhat heap like searching for the positions not yet used instead of counting and checking positions 1 by 1. or any other methods aside from heap-like searching. this is a separate problem to be solved: how to reached an unused item given it's position-count in a list of unused-items.
I'm curious ... and mathematically uninformed. So I ask innocently, why wouldn't a "simple shuffle" be sufficient?
for i from array_size downto 1: # assume zero-based arrays
j = random(0,i-1)
swap_elements(i,j)
Since the random function will never produce a value equal to i it will never leave an element where it started. Every element will be moved "somewhere else."
Let d(n) be the number of derangements of an array A of length n.
d(n) = (n-1) * (d(n-1) + d(n-2))
The d(n) arrangements are achieved by:
1. First, swapping A[0] with one of the remaining n-1 elements
2. Next, either deranging all n-1 remaning elements, or deranging
the n-2 remaining that excludes the index
that received A[0] from the initial matrix.
How can we generate a derangement uniformly at random?
1. Perform the swap of step 1 above.
2. Randomly decide which path we're taking in step 2,
with probability d(n-1)/(d(n-1)+d(n-2)) of deranging all remaining elements.
3. Recurse down to derangements of size 2-3 which are both precomputed.
Wikipedia has d(n) = floor(n!/e + 0.5) (exactly). You can use this to calculate the probability of step 2 exactly in constant time for small n. For larger n the factorial can be slow, but all you need is the ratio. It's approximately (n-1)/n. You can live with the approximation, or precompute and store the ratios up to the max n you're considering.
Note that (n-1)/n converges very quickly.
I am implementing this clustering algorithm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6191/1492.full (free access version) in C in my software and I need to build a distance matrix, but in some cases, the size of the dataset (after redundancy removal) is huge (n > 1 500 000 and it is even larger, going up to 4 000 000 on more complex cases). My problem is, even allocating the upper triangular matrix would be ( (1500000*1500000) - 1500000) * 0.5 * sizeof(float) =~ 5.5e12 Bytes. So, memory allocation fails (even on our computing nodes with 256 GB of RAM) and writing to disk is not an option in this case.
Beside cutting down the size (which I will look) of the dataset to cluster, anybody has an idea of a technique I could use to approximate and store this amount of information ?
N.B. Like I said in the title, I am using C and I can also use C++. Also, if anybody has another clustering algorithm (where the number of clusters is determined with the algorithm itself) to use, please suggest it to me.
Thanks in advance for your time,
You probably have to step back and reconsider your algorithm.
First, perhaps you don't need to have distance matrix between all pairs of data points. Perhaps you could group together similar data points into data bins and then create a matrix of distances between bins.
That is, start by computing pairwise distances between points, but keep only relatively small distances and pointers to "the other" point. Kind of a very sparse matrix of shorter distances. This is straightforward to do in parallel.
Then create data bins that contain groups of points with mutually small distances between them. For example, if you threshold "short" distances in such manner that bins would hold on average, say, 50 data points you'd get 1500000/50=30000 bins.
Then go through your data again and compute distances between bins. That would produce 30000^2 distances, which is a matrix of about 4GB. In addition you still have 30000 with 50^2 distances within bins, which is another 300MB. This amount of data is quite manageable.
If replacing the distance between data points with a distance between the corresponding bins is sufficient precision for your application that would work. It all depends on the kind of data you are dealing with and the precision requirements of your application.
Consider a large set of floating-point intervals in 1-dimension,
e.g.
[1.0, 2.5], 1.0 |---------------|2.5
[1.5, 3.6], 1.5|---------------------|3.6
.....
It is desired to find all intervals that contain a given point. For example given point = 1.2, algorithm should return the first interval, and if given point = 2.0, it should return the first two interval in the above example.
In the problem I am dealing, this operation needs to be repeated for a large number of times for a large number of intervals. Therefore a brute-force search is not desired and performance is an important factor.
After searching about it, I saw this problem is addressed using interval skip list in the context of computational geometry. I was wondering if there is any simple, efficient C++ implementation available.
EDIT: To be more precise about the problem, there are N intervals and for M points, it should be determined which intervals contain each point. N and M are large numbers where M is larger than N.
Suggest using CGAL range trees:
Wikipedia says interval trees (1-dimensional range trees) can "efficiently find all intervals that overlap with any given interval or point".
If your distribution of intervals allows it, it may be worth to consider a gridding approach: choose some grid size s and create an array of lists. Every k-th list enumerates the intervals that overlap with the "cell" [k.s, (k+1).s[.
Then a query amounts to finding the cell that contains the query point (in O(1)) and reporting all intervals in the list that effectively contain it (in O(K)).
Both preprocessing time and storage are O(I.L+G) where I is the number of intervals and L the average interval length in terms of the grid size and G the total number of grid cells. s must be chosen carefully.
Short version: how to most efficiently represent and add two random variables given by lists of their realizations?
Mildly longer version:
for a workproject, I need to add several random variables each of which is given by a list of values. For example, the realizations of rand. var. A are {1,2,3} and the realizations of B are {5,6,7}. Hence, what I need is the distribution of A+B, i.e. {1+5,1+6,1+7,2+5,2+6,2+7,3+5,3+6,3+7}. And I need to do this kind of adding several times (let's denote this number of additions as COUNT, where COUNT might reach 720) for different random variables (C, D, ...).
The problem: if I use this stupid algorithm of summing each realization of A with each realization of B, the complexity is exponential in COUNT. Hence, for the case where each r.v. is given by three values, the amount of calculations for COUNT=720 is 3^720 ~ 3.36xe^343 which will last till the end of our days to calculate:) Not to mention that in real life, the lenght of each r.v. is gonna be 5000+.
Solutions:
1/ The first solution is to use the fact that I am OK with rounding, i.e. having integer values of realizations. Like this, I can represent each r.v. as a vector and for at the index corresponding to a realization I have a value of 1 (when the r.v. has this realization once). So for a r.v. A and a vector of realizations indexed from 0 to 10, the vector representing A would be [0,1,1,1,0,0,0...] and the representation for B would be [0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,10]. Now I create A+B by going through these vectors and do the same thing as above (sum each realization of A with each realization of B and codify it into the same vector structure, quadratic complexity in vector length). The upside of this approach is that the complexity is bound. The problem of this approach is that in real applications, the realizations of A will be in the interval [-50000,50000] with a granularity of 1. Hence, after adding two random variables, the span of A+B gets to -100K, 100K.. and after 720 additions, the span of SUM(A, B, ...) gets to [-36M, 36M] and even quadratic complexity (compared to exponential complexity) on arrays this large will take forever.
2/ To have shorter arrays, one could possibly use a hashmap, which would most likely reduce the number of operations (array accesses) involved in A+B as the assumption is that some non-trivial portion of the theoreical span [-50K, 50K] will never be a realization. However, with continuing summing of more and more random variables, the number of realizations increases exponentially while the span increases only linearly, hence the density of numbers in the span increases over time. And this would kill the hashmap's benefits.
So the question is: how can I do this problem efficiently? The solution is needed for calculating a VaR in electricity trading where all distributions are given empirically and are like no ordinary distributions, hence formulas are of no use, we can only simulate.
Using math was considered as the first option as half of our dept. are mathematicians. However, the distributions that we're going to add are badly behaved and the COUNT=720 is an extreme. More likely, we are going to use COUNT=24 for a daily VaR. Taking into account the bad behaviour of distributions to add, for COUNT=24 the central limit theorem would not hold too closely (the distro of SUM(A1, A2, ..., A24) would not be close to normal). As we're calculating possible risks, we'd like to get a number as precise as possible.
The intended use is this: you have hourly casflows from some operation. The distribution of cashflows for one hour is the r.v. A. For the next hour, it's r.v. B, etc. And your question is: what is the largest loss in 99 percent of cases? So you model the cashflows for each of those 24 hours and add these cashflows as random variables so as to get a distribution of the total casfhlow over the whole day. Then you take the 0.01 quantile.
Try to reduce the number of passes required to make the whole addition, possibly reducing it to a single pass for every list, including the final one.
I don't think you can cut down on the total number of additions.
In addition, you should look into parallel algorithms and multithreading, if applicable.
At this point, most processors are able to perform additions in parallel, given proper instrucions (SSE), which will make the additions many times faster(still not a cure for the complexity problem).
As you said in your question, you're going to need an awful lot of computation to get the exact answer. So it's not going to happen.
However, as you're dealing with random values, it would be possible to apply some mathmatics to the problem. Wouldn't the result of all these additions result in something that approaches the normal distribution? For example, consider rolling a single dice. Each number has equal probability so the realisations don't follow a normal distribution (actually, they probably do, there was a program on BBC4 last week about it and it showed that lottery balls had a normal distribution to their appearance). However, if you roll two dice and sum them, then the realisations do follow a normal distribution. So I think the result of your computation is going to approximate a normal distribution so it becomes a problem of finding the average value and the sigma value for a given set of inputs. You can workout the upper and lower bounds for each input as well as their averages and I'm sure a bit of Googling will provide methods for applying functions to normal distributions.
I guess there is a corollary question and that is what the results are used for? Knowing how the results are used will inform the decision on how the results are created.
Ignoring the programmatic solutions, you can cut down the total number of additions quite significantly as your data set grows.
If we define four groups W, X, Y and Z, each with three elements, by your own maths this leads to a large number of operations:
W + X => 9 operations
(W + X) + Y => 27 operations
(W + X + Y) + Z => 81 operations
TOTAL: 117 operations
However, if we assume a strictly-ordered definition of your "add" operation so that two sets {a,b} and {c,d} always result in {a+c,a+d,b+c,b+d} then your operation is associative. That means that you can do this:
W + X => 9 operations
Y + Z => 9 operations
(W + X) + (Y + Z) => 81 operations
TOTAL: 99 operations
This is a saving of 18 operations, for a simple case. If you extend the above to 6 groups of 3 members, the total number of operations can be dropped from 1089 to 837 - almost 20% saving. This improvement is more pronounced the more data you have (more sets or more elements will give more savings).
Further, this opens the problem to better parallelisation: if you have 200 groups to process, you can start by combining the 100 pairs in parallel, then the 50 pairs or results, then 25, etc. This will allow a large degree of parallelism that should give you much better performance. (For example, 720 sets would be added in ~10 parallel operations as each parallel add will allow increasing COUNT by a factor of 2.)
I'm absolutely no expert on this, but it would seem an ideal problem for using the parallel procesing capability of a typical GPU - my understanding is that something like CUDA would make short work of processing all these calculations in parallel.
EDIT: If your real question is "what's your largest loss" then this is a much easier problem. Given that every value in the ultimate set is the sum of one value from each "component" set, your biggest loss will generally be found by combining the lowest value from each component set. Finding these lower values (one value per set) is a much simpler job, and you then only need sum together that limited set of values.
There are basically two methods. An approximative one and an exact one...
Approximative method models the sum of random variables by a lot of samplings. Basically, having random variables A, B we randomly sample from each r.v. 50K times, add the sampled values (here SSE can help a lot) and we have a distribution of A+B. This is how mathematicians would do this in Mathematica.
Exact method utilizes something Dan Puzey proposed, namely summing only some small portion of each r.v.'s density. Let's say we have random variables with the following "densities" (where each value is of the same likelihood for simplicity sake)
A = {-5,-3,-2}
B = {+0,+1,+2}
C = {+7,+8,+9}
The sum of A+B+C is going to be
{2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7,7,8,8,8,9}
and if I want to know the whole distribution precisely, I have no other choice than summing each elem of A with each elem of B and then each elem of this sum with each elem of C. However, if I only want the 99% VaR of this sum, i.e. 1% percentile of this sum, I only have to sum the smallest elements of A,B,C.
More precisely, I will take nA,nB,nC smallest elements from each distribution. To determine nA,nB,nC let's set these to 1 first. Then, increase nA by one if A[nA] = min( A[nA], B[nB], C[nC]) (counting on that A,B,C are sorted). This way, I can get the nA, nB, nC smallest elements of A,B,C which I will have to sum together (each with each other) and take the X-th smallest sum (where X is 1% multiplied by total combination count of sums, i.e. 3*3*3 for A,B,C). This also tells when to stop increasing nA,nB,nC - stop when nA*nB*nC > X.
However, like this I am doing the same redundancy again, i.e. I am calculating the whole distribution of A+B+C left of the 1% percentile. Even this will be MUCH shorter than calculating the whole distro of A+B+C, however. But I believe there should be a simple iterative algo to tell exaclty the the given VaR number in O(a*b) where a is the number of added r.v.s and b is the max number of elements in the density of each r.v.
I will be glad for any comments on whether I am correct.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
Unique (non-repeating) random numbers in O(1)?
How do you efficiently generate a list of K non-repeating integers between 0 and an upper bound N
I want to generate random number in a certain diapason, and I must be sure, that each new number is not a duplicate of formers. One solution is to store formerly generated numbers in a container and each new number checks aginst the container. If there is such number in the container, then we generate agin, else we use and add it to the container. But with each new number this operation is becoming slower and slower. Is there any better approach, or any rand function that can work faster and ensure uniqueness of the generation?
EDIT: Yes, there is a limit (for example from 0 to 1.000.000.000). But I want to generate 100.000 unique numbers! (Would be great if the solution will be by using Qt features.)
Is there a range for the random numbers? If you have a limit for random numbers and you keep generating unique random numbers, then you'll end up with a list of all numbers from x..y in random order, where x-y is the valid range of your random numbers. If this is the case, you might improve speed greatly by simply generating the list of all numbers x..y and shuffling it, instead of generating the numbers.
I think there are 3 possible approaches, depending on range-size, and performance pattern needed you can use another algorithm.
Create a random number, see if it is in (a sorted) list. If not add and return, else try another.
Your list will grow and consume memory with every number you need. If every number is 32 bit, it will grow with at least 32 bits every time.
Every new random number increases the hit-ratio and this will make it slower.
O(n^2) - I think
Create an bit-array for every number in the range. Mark with 1/True if already returned.
Every number now only takes 1 bit, this can still be a problem if the range is big, but every number now only allocates 1 bit.
Every new random number increases the hit-ratio and this will make it slower.
O(n*2)
Pre-populate a list with all the numbers, shuffle it, and return the Nth number.
The list will not grow, returning numbers will not get slower,
but generating the list might take a long time, and a lot of memory.
O(1)
Depending on needed speed, you could store all lists in a database. There's no need for them to be in memory except speed.
Fill out a list with the numbers you need, then shuffle the list and pick your numbers from one end.
If you use a simple 32-bit linear congruential RNG (such as the so-called "Minimal Standard"), all you have to do is store the seed value you use and compare each generated number to it. If you ever reach that value again, your sequence is starting to repeat itself and you're out of values. This is O(1), but of course limited to 2^32-1 values (though I suppose you could use a 64-bit version as well).
There is a class of pseudo-random number generators that, I believe, has the properties you want: the Linear congruential generator. If defined properly, it will produce a list of integers from 0 to N-1, with no two numbers repeating until you've used all of the numbers in the list once.
#include <stdint.h>
/*
* Choose these values as follows:
*
* The MODULUS and INCREMENT must be relatively prime.
* The MULTIPLIER-1 must be divisible by all prime factors of the MODULUS.
* The MULTIPLIER-1 must be divisible by 4, if the MODULUS is divisible by 4.
*
* In addition, modulus must be <= 2**32 (0x0000000100000000ULL).
*
* A small example would be 8, 5, 3.
* A larger example would be 256, 129, 251.
* A useful example would be 0x0000000100000000ULL, 1664525, 1013904223.
*/
#define MODULUS (0x0000000100000000ULL)
#define MULTIPLIER (1664525)
#define INCREMENT (1013904223)
static uint64_t seed;
uint32_t lcg( void ) {
uint64_t temp;
temp = seed * MULTIPLIER + INCREMENT; // 64-bit intermediate product
seed = temp % MODULUS; // 32-bit end-result
return (uint32_t) seed;
}
All you have to do is choose a MODULUS such that it is larger than the number of numbers you'll need in a given run.
It wouldn't be random if there is such a pattern?
As far as I know you would have to store and filter all unwanted numbers...
unsigned int N = 1000;
vector <unsigned int> vals(N);
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < vals.size(); ++i)
vals[i] = i;
std::random_shuffle(vals.begin(), vals.end());
unsigned int random_number_1 = vals[0];
unsigned int random_number_2 = vals[1];
unsigned int random_number_3 = vals[2];
//etc
You could store the numbers in a vector, and get them by index (1..n-1). After each random generation, remove the indexed number from the vector, then generate the next number in the interval 1..n-2. etc.
If they can't be repeated, they aren't random.
EDIT:
Furthermore..
if they can't be repeated, they don't fit in a finite computer
How many random numbers do you need? Maybe you can apply a shuffle algorithm to a precalculated array of random numbers?
There is no way a random generator will output values depending on previously outputted values, because they wouldn't be random. However, you can improve performance by using different pools of random values each with values combined by a different salt value, which will divide the quantity of numbers to check by the quantity of pools you have.
If the range of the random number doesn't matter you could use a really large range of random numbers and hope you don't get any collisions. If your range is billions of times larger than the number of elements you expect to create your chances of a collision are small but still there. If the numbers don't to have an actual random distribution you could have a two part number {counter}{random x digits} that would ensure a unique number but it wouldn't be randomly distributed.
There's not going to be a pure functional approach that isn't O(n^2) on the number of results returned so far - every time a number is generated you will need to check against every result so far. Additionally, think about what happens when you're returning e.g. the 1000th number out of 1000 - you will require on average 1000 tries until the random algorithm comes up with the last unused number, with each attempt requiring an average of 499.5 comparisons with the already-generated numbers.
It should be clear from this that your description as posted is not quite exactly what you want. The better approach, as others have said, is to take a list of e.g. 1000 numbers upfront, shuffle it, and then return numbers from that list incrementally. This will guarantee you're not returning any duplicates, and return the numbers in O(1) time after the initial setup.
You can allocate enough memory for array of bits with 1 bit for each possible number. and check/set bits for every generated number. for example for numbers from 0 to 65535 you will need only 8192 (8kb) of memory.
Here's an interesting solution I came up with:
Assume you have numbers 1 to 1000 - and you don't have enough memory.
You could put all 1000 numbers into an array, and remove them one by one, but you'll get memory overflow error.
You could split the array in two, so you have an array of 1-500 and one empty array
You could then check if the number exists in array 1, or doesn't exist in the second array.
So assuming you have 1000 numbers, you can get a random number from 1-1000. If its less than 500, check array 1 and remove it if present. If it's NOT in array 2, you can add it.
This halves your memory usage.
If you propogate this using recursion, you can split your 500 array into a 250 and empty array.
Assuming empty arrays use no space, you can decrease your memory usage quite a bit.
Searching will be massively faster too, because if you break it down a lot, you generate a number such as 29. It's less than 500, less than 250, less than 125, less than 62, less than 31, greater than 15, so you do those 6 calculations, then check the array containing an average of 16/2 items - 8 in total.
I should patent this search, although I bet it already exists!
Especially given the desired number of values, you want a Linear Feedback Shift Register.
Why?
No shuffle step, nor a need to keep track of values you've already hit. As long as you go less than the full period, you should be fine.
It turns out that the Wikipedia article has some C++ code examples which are more tested than anything I would give you off the top of my head. Note that you'll want to be pulling values from inside the loops -- the loops just iterate the shift register through. You can see this in the snippet here.
(Yes, I know this was mentioned, briefly in the dupe -- saw it as I was revising. Given it hasn't been brought up here and is the best way to solve the poster's question, I think it should be brought up again.)
Let's say size=100.000 then create an array with this size. Create random numbers then put them into array.Problem is which index that number will be ? randomNumber%size will give you index.
When u put next number, use that function for index and check this value is exist or not. If not exist put it if exist then create new number and try that. U can create in fastest way with this way. Disadvange of this way is you will never find numbers which last section is same.
For example for last sections is
1231232444556
3458923444556
you will never have such numbers in your list even if they are totally different but last sections are same.
First off, there's a huge difference between random and pseudorandom. There's no way to generate perfectly random numbers from a deterministic process (such as a computer) without bringing in some physical process like latency between keystrokes or another entropy source.
The approach of saving all the numbers generated will slow down the computation rather quickly; the more numbers you have, the larger your storage needs, until you've filled up all available memory. A better method would be (as someone's already suggested) using a well known pseudorandom number generator such as the Linear Congruential Generator; it's super fast, requiring only modular multiplication and addition, and the theory behind it gets a lot of mention in Vol. 2 of Knuth's TAOCP. That way, the theory involved guarantees a rather large period before repetition, and the only storage needed are the parameters and seed used.
If you have no problem when a value can be calculated by the previous one, LFSR and LCG are fine. When you don't want that one output value can be calculated by another, you can use a block cipher in counter mode to generate the output sequence, given that the cipher block length is equal to the output length.
Use Hashset generic class . This class does not contain same values. You can put in all of your generated numbers then u can use them in Hashset.You can also check it if it is exist or not .Hashset can determine existence of items in fastest way.Hashset does not slow when list become bigger and this is biggest feature of it.
For example :
HashSet<int> array = new HashSet<int>();
array.Add(1);
array.Add(2);
array.Add(1);
foreach (var item in array)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Console.ReadKey();