If I have the upper triangular portion of a matrix, offset above the diagonal, stored as a linear array, how can the (i,j) indices of a matrix element be extracted from the linear index of the array?
For example, the linear array [a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7, a8, a9 is storage for the matrix
0 a0 a1 a2 a3
0 0 a4 a5 a6
0 0 0 a7 a8
0 0 0 0 a9
0 0 0 0 0
And we want to know the (i,j) index in the array corresponding to an offset in the linear matrix, without recursion.
A suitable result, k2ij(int k, int n) -> (int, int) would satisfy, for example
k2ij(k=0, n=5) = (0, 1)
k2ij(k=1, n=5) = (0, 2)
k2ij(k=2, n=5) = (0, 3)
k2ij(k=3, n=5) = (0, 4)
k2ij(k=4, n=5) = (1, 2)
k2ij(k=5, n=5) = (1, 3)
[etc]
The equations going from linear index to (i,j) index are
i = n - 2 - floor(sqrt(-8*k + 4*n*(n-1)-7)/2.0 - 0.5)
j = k + i + 1 - n*(n-1)/2 + (n-i)*((n-i)-1)/2
The inverse operation, from (i,j) index to linear index is
k = (n*(n-1)/2) - (n-i)*((n-i)-1)/2 + j - i - 1
Verify in Python with:
from numpy import triu_indices, sqrt
n = 10
for k in range(n*(n-1)/2):
i = n - 2 - int(sqrt(-8*k + 4*n*(n-1)-7)/2.0 - 0.5)
j = k + i + 1 - n*(n-1)/2 + (n-i)*((n-i)-1)/2
assert np.triu_indices(n, k=1)[0][k] == i
assert np.triu_indices(n, k=1)[1][k] == j
for i in range(n):
for j in range(i+1, n):
k = (n*(n-1)/2) - (n-i)*((n-i)-1)/2 + j - i - 1
assert triu_indices(n, k=1)[0][k] == i
assert triu_indices(n, k=1)[1][k] == j
First, let's renumber a[k] in opposite order. We'll get:
0 a9 a8 a7 a6
0 0 a5 a4 a3
0 0 0 a2 a1
0 0 0 0 a0
0 0 0 0 0
Then k2ij(k, n) will become k2ij(n - k, n).
Now, the question is, how to calculate k2ij(k, n) in this new matrix. The sequence 0, 2, 5, 9 (indices of diagonal elements) corresponds to triangular numbers (after subtracting 1): a[n - i, n + 1 - i] = Ti - 1. Ti = i * (i + 1)/2, so if we know Ti, it's easy to solve this equation and get i (see formula in the linked wiki article, section "Triangular roots and tests for triangular numbers"). If k + 1 is not exactly a triangular number, the formula will still give you the useful result: after rounding it down, you'll get the highest value of i, for which Ti <= k, this value of i corresponds to the row index (counting from bottom), in which a[k] is located. To get the column (counting from right), you should simply calculate the value of Ti and subtract it: j = k + 1 - Ti. To be clear, these are not exacly i and j from your problem, you need to "flip" them.
I didn't write the exact formula, but I hope that you got the idea, and it will now be trivial to find it after performing some boring but simple calculations.
The following is an implimentation in matlab, which can be easily transferred to another language, like C++. Here, we suppose the matrix has size m*m, ind is the index in the linear array. The only thing different is that here, we count the lower triangular part of the matrix column by column, which is analogus to your case (counting the upper triangular part row by row).
function z= ind2lTra (ind, m)
rvLinear = (m*(m-1))/2-ind;
k = floor( (sqrt(1+8*rvLinear)-1)/2 );
j= rvLinear - k*(k+1)/2;
z=[m-j, m-(k+1)];
For the records, this is the same function, but with one-based indexing, and in Julia:
function iuppert(k::Integer,n::Integer)
i = n - 1 - floor(Int,sqrt(-8*k + 4*n*(n-1) + 1)/2 - 0.5)
j = k + i + ( (n-i+1)*(n-i) - n*(n-1) )÷2
return i, j
end
Here is a more efficient formulation for k:
k = (2 * n - 3 - i) * i / 2 + j - 1
In python 2:
def k2ij(k, n):
rows = 0
for t, cols in enumerate(xrange(n - 1, -1, -1)):
rows += cols
if k in xrange(rows):
return (t, n - (rows - k))
return None
In python, the most efficient way is:
array_size= 3
# make indices using k argument if you want above the diagonal
u, v = np.triu_indices(n=array_size,k=1)
# assuming linear indices above the diagonal i.e. 0 means (0,1) and not (0,0)
linear_indices = [0,1]
ijs = [(i,j) for (i,j) in zip(u[linear_indices], v[linear_indices])]
ijs
#[(0, 1), (0, 2)]
Related
I represent a n*m matrix like chessboard.
1 0 2 0
0 3 0 4
5 0 6 0
0 7 0 8
I don't need to store the zeros in my 1d vector.
vector v = {1, 2, 3, 4.. etc}
I ask the user for a row and column number.
How can i return with i. row j. column element?
if (i+j) % 2 != 0
I return with 0, but i don't know what i need to do when
(i+j) % 2 == 0
Can you help me? (sorry for my bad English)
With regular matrices stored as 1D-vector, coordinate to index would be:
(i + j * width) (or i * height + j depending on convention).
with half case to 0, you just have to divide by 2:
if ((i + j) % 2 != 0) return 0;
else return data[(i + j * width) / 2];
I have a number n and I have to split it into k numbers such that all k numbers are distinct, the sum of the k numbers is equal to n and k is maximum. Example if n is 9 then the answer should be 1,2,6. If n is 15 then answer should be 1,2,3,4,5.
This is what I've tried -
void findNum(int l, int k, vector<int>& s)
{
if (k <= 2 * l) {
s.push_back(k);
return;
}
else if (l == 1) {
s.push_back(l);
findNum(l + 1, k - 1, s);
}
else if(l == 2) {
s.push_back(l);
findNum(l + 2, k - 2, s);
}
else{
s.push_back(l);
findNum(l + 1, k - l, s);
}
}
Initially k = n and l = 1. Resulting numbers are stored in s. This solution even though returns the number n as a sum of k distinct numbers but it is the not the optimal solution(k is not maximal). Example output for n = 15 is 1,2,4,8. What changes should be made to get the correct result?
Greedy algorithm works for this problem. Just start summing up from 1 to m such that sum(1...m) <= n. As soon as it exceeds, add the excess to m-1. Numbers from 1 upto m|m-1 will be the answer.
eg.
18
1+2+3+4+5 < 18
+6 = 21 > 18
So, answer: 1+2+3+4+(5+6-(21-18))
28
1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = 28
So, answer: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7
Pseudocode (in constant time, complexity O(1))
Find k such that, m * (m+1) > 2 * n
Number of terms = m-1
Terms: 1,2,3...m-2,(m-1 + m - (sum(1...m) - n))
sum can be partitionned into k terms in {1, ... , m} if min(k) <= sum <= max(k,m), with
min(k) = 1 + 2 + .. + k = (k*(k+1))/2
max(k,m) = m + (m-1) + .. + (m-k+1) = k*m - (k*(k-1))/2
So, you can use the following pseudo-code:
fn solve(n, k, sum) -> set or error
s = new_set()
for m from n down to 1:
# will the problem be solvable if we add m to s?
if min(k-1) <= sum-m <= max(k-1, m-1) then
s.add(m), sum-=m, k-=1
if s=0 and k=0 then s else error()
I have these indexes:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,etc...
Which are indexes of nodes in a matrix (including diagonal elements):
1
2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
etc...
and I need to get i,j coordinates from these indexes:
1,1
2,1 2,2
3,1 3,2 3,3
4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4
5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5
6,1 6,2 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,6
etc...
When I need to calculate coordinates I have only one index and cannot access others.
Not optimized at all :
int j = idx;
int i = 1;
while(j > i) {
j -= i++;
}
Optimized :
int i = std::ceil(std::sqrt(2 * idx + 0.25) - 0.5);
int j = idx - (i-1) * i / 2;
And here is the demonstration:
You're looking for i such that :
sumRange(1, i-1) < idx && idx <= sumRange(1, i)
when sumRange(min, max) sum integers between min and max, both inxluded.
But since you know that :
sumRange(1, i) = i * (i + 1) / 2
Then you have :
idx <= i * (i+1) / 2
=> 2 * idx <= i * (i+1)
=> 2 * idx <= i² + i + 1/4 - 1/4
=> 2 * idx + 1/4 <= (i + 1/2)²
=> sqrt(2 * idx + 1/4) - 1/2 <= i
In my case (a CUDA kernel implemented in standard C), I use zero-based indexing (and I want to exclude the diagonal) so I needed to make a few adjustments:
// idx is still one-based
unsigned long int idx = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x + 1; // CUDA kernel launch parameters
// but the coordinates are now zero-based
unsigned long int x = ceil(sqrt((2.0 * idx) + 0.25) - 0.5);
unsigned long int y = idx - (x - 1) * x / 2 - 1;
Which results in:
[0]: (1, 0)
[1]: (2, 0)
[2]: (2, 1)
[3]: (3, 0)
[4]: (3, 1)
[5]: (3, 2)
I also re-derived the formula of Flórez-Rueda y Moreno 2001 and arrived at:
unsigned long int x = floor(sqrt(2.0 * pos + 0.25) + 0.5);
CUDA Note: I tried everything I could think of to avoid using double-precision math, but the single-precision sqrt function in CUDA is simply not precise enough to convert positions greater than 121 million or so to x, y coordinates (when using 1,024 threads per block and indexing only along 1 block dimension). Some articles have employed a "correction" to bump the result in a particular direction, but this inevitably falls apart at a certain point.
I have a big matrix as input, and I have the size of a smaller matrix. I have to compute the sum of all possible smaller matrices which can be formed out of the bigger matrix.
Example.
Input matrix size: 4 × 4
Matrix:
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 9 0 0
0 0 9 9
Input smaller matrix size: 3 × 3 (not necessarily a square)
Smaller matrices possible:
1 2 3
5 6 7
9 9 0
5 6 7
9 9 0
0 0 9
2 3 4
6 7 8
9 0 0
6 7 8
9 0 0
0 9 9
Their sum, final output
14 18 22
29 22 15
18 18 18
I did this:
int** matrix_sum(int **M, int n, int r, int c)
{
int **res = new int*[r];
for(int i=0 ; i<r ; i++) {
res[i] = new int[c];
memset(res[i], 0, sizeof(int)*c);
}
for(int i=0 ; i<=n-r ; i++)
for(int j=0 ; j<=n-c ; j++)
for(int k=i ; k<i+r ; k++)
for(int l=j ; l<j+c ; l++)
res[k-i][l-j] += M[k][l];
return res;
}
I guess this is too slow, can anyone please suggest a faster way?
Your current algorithm is O((m - p) * (n - q) * p * q). The worst case is when p = m / 2 and q = n / 2.
The algorithm I'm going to describe will be O(m * n + p * q), which will be O(m * n) regardless of p and q.
The algorithm consists of 2 steps.
Let the input matrix A's size be m x n and the size of the window matrix being p x q.
First, you will create a precomputed matrix B of the same size as the input matrix. Each element of the precomputed matrix B contains the sum of all the elements in the sub-matrix, whose top-left element is at coordinate (1, 1) of the original matrix, and the bottom-right element is at the same coordinate as the element that we are computing.
B[i, j] = Sum[k = 1..i, l = 1..j]( A[k, l] ) for all 1 <= i <= m, 1 <= j <= n
This can be done in O(m * n), by using this relation to compute each element in O(1):
B[i, j] = B[i - 1, j] + Sum[k = 1..j-1]( A[i, k] ) + A[j] for all 2 <= i <= m, 1 <= j <= n
B[i - 1, j], which is everything of the sub-matrix we are computing except the current row, has been computed previously. You keep a prefix sum of the current row, so that you can use it to quickly compute the sum of the current row.
This is another way to compute B[i, j] in O(1), using the property of the 2D prefix sum:
B[i, j] = B[i - 1, j] + B[i, j - 1] - B[i - 1, j - 1] + A[j] for all 1 <= i <= m, 1 <= j <= n and invalid entry = 0
Then, the second step is to compute the result matrix S whose size is p x q. If you make some observation, S[i, j] is the sum of all elements in the matrix size (m - p + 1) * (n - q + 1), whose top-left coordinate is (i, j) and bottom-right is (i + m - p + 1, j + n - q + 1).
Using the precomputed matrix B, you can compute the sum of any sub-matrix in O(1). Apply this to compute the result matrix S:
SubMatrixSum(top-left = (x1, y1), bottom-right = (x2, y2))
= B[x2, y2] - B[x1 - 1, y2] - B[x2, y1 - 1] + B[x1 - 1, y1 - 1]
Therefore, the complexity of the second step will be O(p * q).
The final complexity is as mentioned above, O(m * n), since p <= m and q <= n.
I'm reading about permutations and I'm interested in ranking/unranking methods.
From the abstract of a paper:
A ranking function for the permutations on n symbols assigns a unique
integer in the range [0, n! - 1] to each of the n! permutations. The corresponding
unranking function is the inverse: given an integer between 0 and n! - 1, the
value of the function is the permutation having this rank.
I made a ranking and an unranking function in C++ using next_permutation. But this isn't practical for n>8. I'm looking for a faster method and factoradics seem to be quite popular.
But I'm not sure if this also works with duplicates. So what would be a good way to rank/unrank permutations with duplicates?
I will cover one half of your question in this answer - 'unranking'. The goal is to find the lexicographically 'K'th permutation of an ordered string [abcd...] efficiently.
We need to understand Factorial Number System (factoradics) for this. A factorial number system uses factorial values instead of powers of numbers (binary system uses powers of 2, decimal uses powers of 10) to denote place-values (or base).
The place values (base) are –
5!= 120 4!= 24 3!=6 2!= 2 1!=1 0!=1 etc..
The digit in the zeroth place is always 0. The digit in the first place (with base = 1!) can be 0 or 1. The digit in the second place (with base 2!) can be 0,1 or 2 and so on. Generally speaking, the digit at nth place can take any value between 0-n.
First few numbers represented as factoradics-
0 -> 0 = 0*0!
1 -> 10 = 1*1! + 0*0!
2 -> 100 = 1*2! + 0*1! + 0*0!
3 -> 110 = 1*2! + 1*1! + 0*0!
4 -> 200 = 2*2! + 0*1! + 0*0!
5 -> 210 = 2*2! + 1*1! + 0*0!
6 -> 1000 = 1*3! + 0*2! + 0*1! + 0*0!
7 -> 1010 = 1*3! + 0*2! + 1*1! + 0*0!
8 -> 1100 = 1*3! + 1*2! + 0*1! + 0*0!
9 -> 1110
10-> 1200
There is a direct relationship between n-th lexicographical permutation of a string and its factoradic representation.
For example, here are the permutations of the string “abcd”.
0 abcd 6 bacd 12 cabd 18 dabc
1 abdc 7 badc 13 cadb 19 dacb
2 acbd 8 bcad 14 cbad 20 dbac
3 acdb 9 bcda 15 cbda 21 dbca
4 adbc 10 bdac 16 cdab 22 dcab
5 adcb 11 bdca 17 cdba 23 dcba
We can see a pattern here, if observed carefully. The first letter changes after every 6-th (3!) permutation. The second letter changes after 2(2!) permutation. The third letter changed after every (1!) permutation and the fourth letter changes after every (0!) permutation. We can use this relation to directly find the n-th permutation.
Once we represent n in factoradic representation, we consider each digit in it and add a character from the given string to the output. If we need to find the 14-th permutation of ‘abcd’. 14 in factoradics -> 2100.
Start with the first digit ->2, String is ‘abcd’. Assuming the index starts at 0, take the element at position 2, from the string and add it to the Output.
Output String
c abd
2 012
The next digit -> 1.String is now ‘abd’. Again, pluck the character at position 1 and add it to the Output.
Output String
cb ad
21 01
Next digit -> 0. String is ‘ad’. Add the character at position 1 to the Output.
Output String
cba d
210 0
Next digit -> 0. String is ‘d’. Add the character at position 0 to the Output.
Output String
cbad ''
2100
To convert a given number to Factorial Number System,successively divide the number by 1,2,3,4,5 and so on until the quotient becomes zero. The reminders at each step forms the factoradic representation.
For eg, to convert 349 to factoradic,
Quotient Reminder Factorial Representation
349/1 349 0 0
349/2 174 1 10
174/3 58 0 010
58/4 14 2 2010
14/5 2 4 42010
2/6 0 2 242010
Factoradic representation of 349 is 242010.
One way is to rank and unrank the choice of indices by a particular group of equal numbers, e.g.,
def choose(n, k):
c = 1
for f in xrange(1, k + 1):
c = (c * (n - f + 1)) // f
return c
def rank_choice(S):
k = len(S)
r = 0
j = k - 1
for n in S:
for i in xrange(j, n):
r += choose(i, j)
j -= 1
return r
def unrank_choice(k, r):
S = []
for j in xrange(k - 1, -1, -1):
n = j
while r >= choose(n, j):
r -= choose(n, j)
n += 1
S.append(n)
return S
def rank_perm(P):
P = list(P)
r = 0
for n in xrange(max(P), -1, -1):
S = []
for i, p in enumerate(P):
if p == n:
S.append(i)
S.reverse()
for i in S:
del P[i]
r *= choose(len(P) + len(S), len(S))
r += rank_choice(S)
return r
def unrank_perm(M, r):
P = []
for n, m in enumerate(M):
S = unrank_choice(m, r % choose(len(P) + m, m))
r //= choose(len(P) + m, m)
S.reverse()
for i in S:
P.insert(i, n)
return tuple(P)
if __name__ == '__main__':
for i in xrange(60):
print rank_perm(unrank_perm([2, 3, 1], i))
For large n-s you need arbitrary precision library like GMP.
this is my previous post for an unranking function written in python, I think it's readable, almost like a pseudocode, there is also some explanation in the comments: Given a list of elements in lexicographical order (i.e. ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd']), find the nth permutation - Average time to solve?
based on this you should be able to figure out the ranking function, it's basically the same logic ;)
Java, from https://github.com/timtiemens/permute/blob/master/src/main/java/permute/PermuteUtil.java (my public domain code, minus the error checking):
public class PermuteUtil {
public <T> List<T> nthPermutation(List<T> original, final BigInteger permutationNumber) {
final int size = original.size();
// the return list:
List<T> ret = new ArrayList<>();
// local mutable copy of the original list:
List<T> numbers = new ArrayList<>(original);
// Our input permutationNumber is [1,N!], but array indexes are [0,N!-1], so subtract one:
BigInteger permNum = permutationNumber.subtract(BigInteger.ONE);
for (int i = 1; i <= size; i++) {
BigInteger factorialNminusI = factorial(size - i);
// casting to integer is ok here, because even though permNum _could_ be big,
// the factorialNminusI is _always_ big
int j = permNum.divide(factorialNminusI).intValue();
permNum = permNum.mod(factorialNminusI);
// remove item at index j, and put it in the return list at the end
T item = numbers.remove(j);
ret.add(item);
}
return ret;
}
}