Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Suppose we have an array of numbers say {1,2,3} and we want to equalize the numbers in the least number of turns possible; where the definition of a "turn" is as follows:
In a turn, you need to fix the value of one of the elements as is, and increment every other number by 1.
Considering the eg. already mentioned - A={1,2,3} , the goal is to equalize them.What I've already done is formulate the logic i.e The method to using a minimum number of turns is to choose the maximum number in each turn.
Iteration 1: Hold A[2]=3. Array at end of iteration => {2,3,3}
Iteration 2: Hold A[2]=3. Array at end of iteration => {3,4,3}
Iteration 3: Hold A[1]=4. Array at end of iteration => {4,4,4}
So,number of turns taken = 3
The code I've written is as follows:
#include<iostream>
#include<stdio.h>
int findMax(int *a,int n)
{
int i,max;
max=1;
for(i=2;i<=n;i++)
{
if(a[i]>a[max])
{
max=i;
}
}
return max;
}
int equality(int *a,int n)
{
int i;
for(i=1;i<n;i++)
{
if(a[i]!=a[i+1]) return 0;
}
return 1;
}
int main()
{
int a[100],i,count,t,posn_max,n,ip=0;
scanf("%d",&t);
while(ip<t)
{
count=0;
scanf("%d",&n);
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
scanf("%d",&a[i]);
}
while(equality(a,n)==0)
{
posn_max=findMax(a,n);
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
if(i!=posn_max)
{
a[i]=a[i]+1;
}
}
count++;
}
printf("%d\n",count);
ip++;
}
return 0;
}
This gives me the correct answer I need alright. But I want to optimize it further.
My Time Limit is 1.0 s . But the judge site tells me my code takes 1.01s. Can anyone help me out?
As far as I can see, I've used scanf/printf statements as compared to cout/cin, in a bid to optimize the input/output part. But what else should I be doing better?
In your algorithm, you are increasing all numbers in the expect for the maximum.
If you do it the other way around, decreasing the maximum and leaving the rest of the numbers, the result should be the same (but with much less memory/array operations)!
To make it even faster, you can get rid of the memory oeprations completely (as suggested by Ivaylo Strandjev also): Find the minimum number and by the idea above (of decreasing numbers instead of increasing) you know how much decreases you require to decrease all numbers to this minimum number. So, after finding the minimum you need one loop to calculate the number of turns.
Take your example of {1,2,3}
The minimum is 1
Number of turns: (1-1)+(2-1)+(3-1) = 0 + 1 + 2 = 3
If you are really clever, it is possible to calculate the number of turns directly when inputting the numbers and keeping track of the current minimum number... Try it! ;)
You only care about the count not about the actual actions you need to perform. So instead of performing the moves one by one try to find a way to count the number of moves without performing them. The code you wrote will not pass in the time limit no matter how well you optimize it. The maximum element observation you've made will help you along the way.
Besides the other comments, if I get this right and your code is just a little bit too slow, here are two optimizations which should help you.
First, you can combine equality() and findMax() and only scan once through the array instead of your current worst case (twice).
Second, you can split the "increase" loop into two parts (below and above the max position). This will remove the effort to check the position in the loop.
1) Try unrolling the loops
2) Can you use SIMD instruction? That would really speed this code up
I would printf in a separate thread, since it's an I/O operation and is much slower than your calculations.
It also does not demand complicated management e.g Producer-Consumer queue, since you only pass the ordered numbers from 0 to last count.
Here's the pseudo-code:
volatile int m_count = 0;
volatile bool isExit = false;
void ParallelPrint()
{
int currCount = 0;
while (!isExit)
{
while (currCount < m_count)
{
currCount++;
printf("%d\n", currCount);
}
Sleep(0); // just content switch
}
}
Open the thread before the scanf("%d",&t); (I guess this initialization time is not counted), and close the thread by isExit = true; before the return from your Main().
Related
Looking at Leetcode #53 (Maximum Subarray, https://leetcode.com/problems/maximum-subarray/), I saw this solution in the comments and adapted my code to it. There is one part I don't understand though — can someone explain?
I am looking to solve it with the sliding window approach.
class Solution {
public:
int maxSubArray(vector<int>& nums) { // runtime O(n), space O(1)
int largestSum = nums[0];
int windowSum = 0;
// int windowStart = 0;
for (int windowEnd = 0; windowEnd < nums.size(); windowEnd++) {
windowSum += nums[windowEnd];
if (nums[windowEnd] > windowSum) { // if the value at this index is greater than the running sum up to and including this index, abandon the running sum and restart the sliding window from here.
windowSum = nums[windowEnd];
// windowStart = windowEnd; is essentially what we are doing
}
if (windowSum > largestSum) { // the window has at least 1 number
largestSum = windowSum;
}
}
return largestSum;
}
};
I'm confused as to why it works that we abandon the running sum if we come across a value that standing alone is greater than the running sum. Can someone explain why this approach works to me? Maybe with an example or two? Failing to see why this doesn't skip potential sliding windows.
The code is poorly written, in a way which obscures its operation. In the if-condition you’re asking about, the only way it could be true is if the sum were negative before the beginning of the loop iteration. That’s what it’s really restarting in response to: an overall unhelpful prefix.
I am trying to find the third highest number in the array with O(n) space and time complexity.
MY program is obviously wrong but that is not the problem.
My for loop in the thirdhighestnum function seem to running only 2 times. I can't seem to find the reason for it. Can anyone help me. Sorry for such basic question I am a beginner here.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int thirdhighestnum(int a[],int size)
{
cout<<" "<<size<<endl;
int first=a[0],second=0,third=0;
for(int i=1;i<size;i++)
{
cout<<a[i]<<";"<<endl;
if(a[i]>first)
{
first=a[i];
if(a[i+1]>first)
{
second=first;
first=a[i+1];
if(a[i+2]>first)
{ third=second;
second=first;
first=a[i+2];
}
}
cout<<i<<endl
return third;
}
}
}
int main()
{ int num,a[10];
cout<<"Enter the elements in the array"<<endl;
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
cin>>a[i];
cout<<"Third highest number is "<<thirdhighestnum(a,10)<<endl;
return 0;
}
It's the location of your return third statement. The moment any number is larger than the first number, it exits the thirdhighestnum function and returns a value. Put it outside your for loop and it should be fine.
Actually it is executing only one time i.e. the first iteration only. When i=1 then it prints a[1] i.e. 2; after that it prints i i.e. 1 so it appears as 2;1 here you think it is printing 2 numbers.
The main problem is your return third statement which terminates your for loop in first iteration only.
This is known as nth_element and library function can do this for you.
As for why your code fails, there is a flaw in your logic
for(int i=1;i<size;i++)
{
// some code
if(a[i]>first)
{
// some more code
cout<<i<<endl
return third;
}
}
So your code exits the first time a[i] is greater than first.
[edit - After reading comments]
The generic name for this type of algorithm is a QuickSelect. It is unlikely you will find a faster algorithm, as this has been the subject of years of academic study.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
yesterday,we had to solve problems at the codeforces contest
I couldn't solve this problem since I am a total beginner.
http://codeforces.com/contest/353/problem/A
I used this algorithm, but something is wrong with it. I think it should print s or f, however it prints nothing. it just auto closes. Even when I added an input to stop instant close
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
int y=0;
int x=0;
int f;
int a;
cin >> a;
int s;
s = 0;
int number [a][a];
for(int i = 0;i<a;i++){
cin >> number[i][0] >> number[i][1];
x += number[i][0];
y += number[i][1];
}
for(int i = 0;i<a;i++){
if(x%2==0 && y%2==0){
return s;
}else if(y%2!=0 && x%2==0){
f = -1;
return f;
}else if(y%2==0 && x%2!=0){
f = -1;
return f;
}else{
y+= number[i][0];
x+= number[i][1];
s++;
}
}
int g;
if(f!=-1){
cout << s;
}else{
cout << f;
}
}
As Angew said, the return statements are incorrect and causing you to exit your main. You want to replace this by a break; to exit the loop but not the function.
I have not spent effort in trying to understand your algorithm, but at first glance it looks more complicated than it should be.
From my understanding of the problem, there are 3 possibilities:
the totals of the upper halves and the lower halves are already even (so nothing needs to be done)
the totals of the upper halves and the lower halves cannot be made even (so no solution exists)
just one Domino needs to be rotated to get the totals of the upper halves and the lower halves to be even (so the time needed is 1 second)
I base this on the fact that adding only even numbers always gives an even result, and adding an even number of odd numbers also always gives an even result.
Based on this, instead of having a 2-dimensional array like in your code, I would maintain 2 distinct arrays - one for the upper half numbers and the other for the lower half numbers. In addition, I would write the following two helper functions:
oddNumCount - takes an array as input; simply returns the number of odd numbers in the array.
oddAndEvenTileExists - takes 2 arrays as input; returns the index of the first tile with an odd+even number combination, -1 if no such tile exists.
Then the meat of my algorithm would be:
if (((oddNumCount(upper_half_array) % 2) == 0) && ((oddNumCount(lower_half_array) % 2) == 0))
{
// nothing needs to be done
result = 0;
}
else if (((oddNumCount(upper_half_array) - oddNumCount(lower_half_array)) % 2) == 0)
{
// The difference between the number of odd numbers in the two halves is even, which means a solution may exist.
// A solution really exists only if there exists a tile in which one number is even and the other is odd.
result = (oddAndEvenTileExists(upper_half_array, lower_half_array) >= 0) ? 1 : -1;
}
else
{
// no solution exists.
result = -1;
}
If you wanted to point out exactly which tile needs to be rotated, then you can save the index that "oddAndEvenTileExists" function returns.
You can write the actual code yourself to test if this works. Even if it doesn't, you would have written some code that hopefully takes you a little above "total beginner".
I'm doing this slot machine game where a 3x3 2D-array is being generated with random letters.
I have successfully made the game work as I want but I wonder if you have any tips on how I can optimize or improve my code.
What I've gotten my code to do:
Generate an 2D-array (3x3) and randomly assign chars out of 3
letters.
An "if" that will compare and see what elements in the array belong
to each other (same char next to eachother for getting
columns/rows/diagonals).
An "if else" that will take total amount of columns/rows/diagonals
and make a prize out of it, depending on total amounts of row in the
slot machine and the bet.
So I'm now wondering if you have any suggestions on how I can improve the "if" code where the program checks if there are any rows/columns/diagonals? The game works as it should but I just wonder if there's any way of optimizing it - Perhaps with a "for-loop"?
I also wonder if you have any tips on the "prize" code where the code calculates total amout of rows/columns/diagonals and multiplies that with the bet.
I mean, there must be a way to optimize this. If I was to do a 100x100 array, the code where the elements are compared would be awfully long :)
I'm new to C++ (this is a course) so I'm looking forward to optimize this.
PS! I'm not asking for a solution but rather suggestions/tips of methods I can use to optimize it.
This is a homework so no solutions please, only suggestions/tips!
My code for the array comparison and prize calculation:
To optimize, running a profiler would give you a lot of information. If you're talking about general guidelines to optimizing your application, here are some:
1 - use threads to process in parallel
2 - reduce cache miss by keeping the data properly aligned depending on the processing done on it. For instance, if you need to use the speed to process the position, keeping them both near each other in memory will reduce cache-misses.
ie:
struct Particle
{
float position;
float speed;
};
Particle particles[NUM_PARTICLES];
vs
float positions[NUM_PARTICLES];
float speeds[NUM_PARTICLES];
3- Don't process what you don't need to process or user can't see. For instance, some stuff may not affect the current states - no need to process it (in graphics, we use scene management like octtrees but the same applies to all - if you don't need it, don't process it).
4- Reduce the amount of floating point operations.
See this post as well - it provices with some good C++ references for optimizations: C++ Optimization Techniques.
About optimizing:
Don't optimize prematurely - it won't help anything. I'm too lazy to write about that, but search internet, read "Code Complete" and "C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices" books.
Don't waste - if optimization won't take more time and is at same readability level, than you can use it.
Optimize AFTER a speed problem arise.
About your problem:
You are absolutely right that there should be better ways to write a code. What you wrote is what workers do, but you need to be smart programmer to make it more easy.
But what you need is more knowledge about language.
Yes, there is a looping possibility for C++. For example following code checks whether a line contains same values:
const int rowCount = 3; // Number of rows
const int colCount = 3; // Number of columns
// Variable for counting same rows
int sameRowsCount = 0;
// Following line is loop: first it sets variable row to 0
// and for each pass it increments it until rowCount is reached
for(int row = 0; row < rowCount; ++row)
{
// This variable stores whether the row contains same values.
// At beginning we assume that it does.
bool isSame = true;
// Now we will check each column in current row. Note that
// we begin with 1 and not 0 - at 0 position is value which
// we check against all others.
for(int col = 1; (col < colCount) && isSame; ++col)
{
if(matrix[0] != matrix[col])
{
// We found different values
isSame = false;
}
}
// If row contains same values, isSame remained true and
// we increment same-rows counter.
if(isSame)
{
++sameRowsCount;
}
}
cout << "Number of same rows: " << sameRowsCount << "." << endl;
Depends on the array size(s) as you mentioned. With small arrays the if statements may be more efficient than using a loop (or two nested) to iterate over all the elements (this is also called 'loop unrolling' and is considered a performance improvement).
To 'optimize' (I'd better say generalize) your code for any array sizes you should use for loops of course to iterate over the x/y indices.
Completed code:
//Check all horiztonal and vertical locations
for(int i = 0; i <= 2; i++)
{
if(matris[i][0] == matris[i][1] && matris[i][1] == matris[i][2])
rows++;
if(matris[0][i] == matris[1][i] && matris[1][i] == matris[2][i])
rows++;
}
//Now check diagonals
if(matris[0][0] == matris[1][1] && matris[1][1] == matris[2][2])
if(matris[0][2] == matris[1][1] && matris[1][1] == matris[2][0])
//Calculate prize
prize = g_satsning*(1 << rows);
In terms of speed, what you have is not going to be inefficient. If you are looking to generalize the code and make it scalable (e.g. if you wanted to add 2 more rows/columns), there are several things you could do (e.g. looping and a more mathematical form of prize calculation).
The looping has already been discussed, but the prize calculation could be simplified a bit using something like the following:
if (rows > 0 && rows < SOMEMAXIMUMVALUE)
{
prize = g_satsning * (1 << rows);
}
else
{
prize = 0;
}
Since your multiplier is an exponent of 2, the math is fairly straight forward. SOMEMAXIMUMVALUE should be declared to be the maximum number of matching rows you expect. For a 3x3 setup, there would be 8 potential matches (3 rows, 3 columns, 2 diagonals), so SOMEMAXIMUMVALUE should be set to 8.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Design patterns for converting recursive algorithms to iterative ones
I can only figure out a recursive way:
how to transform it into iteration?
for simplicity, my recursive way only find the result value.
#include<iostream>
//0-1 bag
using namespace std;
int weight[5]={50,30,45,25,5};
int value[5]={200,180,225,200,50};
int valueAfterTake(int objectNO, int bagSpaceLeft)
{
int take,notTake;
if(objectNO < 0)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
take = value[objectNO] + valueAfterTake(objectNO - 1,bagSpaceLeft - weight[objectNO]);
notTake = valueAfterTake(objectNO - 1, bagSpaceLeft);
}
if(weight[objectNO] > bagSpaceLeft)
{
return notTake;
}
if(take > notTake)
{
return take;
}
else
{
return notTake;
}
}
int main()
{
cout<<valueAfterTake(4,100)<<endl;
return 0;
}
Given what you really want, I think this is a duplicate question of Design patterns for converting recursive algorithms to iterative ones
From the algorithm in 0-1 knapsack problem can put everything in a table of i and w.
Make a two diminutional table filled with NO_VALUE constants(-1 or something like that).
Then when you need to get the value for m[i, w] you find what indexes from the table you need, check if their computed(by comparing to NO_VALUE), and computing them if their not.
Here you will gain much less code execution in tradeoff for space because you will never compute the same value twice.
edit:
In addition, from there you can continue to find patterns, like you're always using one row, or one diagonal and such and cut out everything you don't need in the table.