I am basically trying to solve the coin change problem through recursion and here is what i have so far -:
#include<iostream>
#include<conio.h>
using namespace std;
int a[]={1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200},count=0;
//i is the array index we are working at
//a[] contains the list of the denominations
//count keeps track of the number of possibilities
void s(int i,int sum) //the function that i wrote
{
if (!( i>7 || sum<0 || (i==7 && sum!=0) )){
if (sum==0) ++count;
s(i+1,sum);
s(i,sum-a[i]);
}
}
int c(int sum,int i ){ //the function that I took from the algorithmist
if (sum == 0)
return 1;
if (sum < 0)
return 0;
if (i <= 0 && sum > 0 )
return 1;
return (c( sum - a[i], i ) + c( sum, i - 1 ));
}
int main()
{
int a;
cin>>a;
s(0,a);
cout<<c(a,7)<<endl<<count;
getch();
return 0;
}
The first function that is s(i,sum) has been written by me and the second function that is c(sum,i) has been taken from here - (www.algorithmist.com/index.php/Coin_Change).
The problem is that count always return a way higher value than expected. However, the algorithmist solution gives a correct answer but I cannot understand this base case
if (i <= 0 && sum > 0 ) return 1;
If the index (i) is lesser than or equal to zero and sum is still not zero shouldn't the function return zero instead of one?
Also I know that the algorithmist solution is correct because on Project Euler, this gave me the correct answer.
I guess that your problem is "Assuming that I have unlimited support of coins, on how many ways can I change the given sum"?
The algoritimists solution you gave assumes also, that the smallest denomination is 1. Otherwise it will won't work correctly.
Now your question:
if (i <= 0 && sum > 0 ) return 1;
Notice, that the only possibility that i<0 is that you called it with this value - no recursive call will be made with negative value of i. Such case (i<0) is an error so no result is proper (maybe assertion or exception would be better).
Now if i=0, assuming that at index 0 there is coin of value 1 means that there is only one way to exchange sum with this denomination - give sum coins of value 1. Right?
After a moment of thought I found out how to remove assumption that a[0] == 1. Change
if (i <= 0 && sum > 0 ) return 1;
into
if (i <= 0 && sum > 0 ) return sum % a[0] == 0 ? 1 : 0;
I believe the algorithm to be biased towards the choice of denominations, and assumes that there will be only one coin of the smallest denomination. Consider as a counter example of the correctness that there was no 2 coins, just 1,5,... And that the target to return was 4:
(4,1)
(-1,1) -> cut, sum<0 a[1]==5
(4,0) -> i==0 => 1
Either that or you misimplemented the algorithm (can there be an off by one error? Could it be i<0, or the original array be 1-based?)
Related
I am writing code in Hackerrank. And recently the problem said, convert decimal to base 2 and then count the max consecutive 1's in the binary number. And first I come with following solution. It works fine. But I do not understand the counting part of it, even though I wrote it.
The code is
int main(){
int n,ind=0, count=0, mmax=0;
char bin[100];
cin >> n;
while(n){
if(n%2==0) {
bin[ind]='0';
n = n / 2;
ind = ind + 1;
}
else if(n%2==1) {
bin[ind]='1';
n = n / 2;
ind = ind + 1;
}
}
for(int i=0; i<=(ind-1); i++){
if(bin[i] == '1' && bin[i+1] == '1'){
count++;
if(mmax < count)
mmax = count;
}
else
count=0;
}
cout << mmax + 1 << endl;
return 0;
}
In the above code, I guess that variable mmax will give me the max consecutive number of 1's but it gives me value that has (max consecutive - 1), So I just wrote like that and submitted the code. But I am curious about. why it is working that way. I am little bit of confused the way that code works like this.
Thanks
Lets say you have this binary sequence:
11110
Your code will compare starting from the first and second:
|11|110 1 && 1 -> max = 1
1|11|10 1 && 1 -> max = 2
11|11|0 1 && 1 -> max = 3
111|10| 1 && 0 -> max = 3
you can see, that although there are 4 1's you only do 3 comparisons, so your max will always be -1 of the actual max. You can fix this by adding mmax += 1 after your for loop.
Just a little bit of trace using small example will show why.
First, lets say there is only 1 '1' in your array.
Since you require both the current position and your next position to be '1', you will always get 0 for this case.
Let's say I have "11111". At the first '1', since next position is also '1', you increment count once. This repeats until 4th '1' and you increment your count 4 times in total so far. When you reach 5th '1', your next position is not '1', thus your count stops at 4.
In general, your method is like counting gaps between fingers, given 5 fingers, you get 4 gaps.
Side note: your code will fail for the case when there is no '1' in your array.
I am really new to C++. I am following a free online course, and one thing I had to do was to create a program which could scramble the characters of a string.
So, I created a function who received the word as parameter and returned the scrambled word. ctime and cstdlib were included and srand(time(0)); declared in the main.
Basically, the function looked like this :
std::string mixingWord(std::string baseWord)
{
std::string mixWord;
int pos(0);
for (int i = baseWord.length; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (i != 0)
{
pos = rand() % i;
mixWord += baseWord[pos];
baseWord.erase(pos,1);
}
else
{
mixWord += baseWord[0];
}
}
return mixWord;
}
And it worked just fine. But the correct solution was
std::string mixingWord(std::string baseWord)
{
std::string mixWord;
int pos(0);
while (baseWord.size() != 0)
{
pos = rand() % baseWord.size();
mixWord += baseWord[pos];
baseWord.erase(pos, 1);
}
return mixWord;
}
And it works fine as well.
My question is :
Why is the solution working ?
From what I understood, this :
rand() % value
gives out a value between 0 and the value given.
SO, since baseWord.size() returns, let's say 5 in the event of a word like HELLO. rand will generate a number between 0 and 5. So it COULD be 5. and baseWord[5] is out of bound, so it should crash once in a while, but I tried it over 9000 times (sorry, dbz reference), and it never crashed.
Am I just unlucky, or am I not understanding something ?
x % y gives the remainder of x / y. The result can never be y, because if it was, then that would mean y could go into x one more time, and the remainder would actually be zero, because y divides x evenly. So to answer your question:
Am I just unlucky, or am I not understanding something ?
You're misunderstanding something. rand() % value gives a result in the range [0,value - 1] (assuming value is positive), not [0, value].
rand() % 100 returns number between 0 and 99. This is 100 NUMBERs but includes 0 and does not include 100.
A good way to think about this is a random number (1000) % 100 = 0. If I mod a random number with the number N then there is no way to get the number N back.
Along those lines
pos = rand() % baseWord.size();
will never return pos = baseWord.size() so in your case there will not be an indexing issue
I guess you just misunderstood the modulo operator. a % b, with a and b any integer, will return values between 0 and b-1 (inclusive).
As for your HELLO example, it will only return values between 0 and 4, therefore will never encounter out of bound error.
I am trying to implement Long Hand Multiplication method for 8 bit binary numbers stored in two arrays BeforeDecimal1 and BeforeDecimal2. The problem is I always get the wrong result. I tried to figure out the issue but couldn't do it. Here is the code:
This is a much more refined code then previous one. It is giving me result but the result is not correct.
int i=0,carry=0;
while(true)
{
if(BeforeDecimal2[i]!=0)
for(int j=7;j>=0;j--)
{
if(s[j]==1 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==1 && carry==0)
{
cout<<"Inside first, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=1;
s[j]=0;
}
else
if(s[j]==1 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==0 && carry==1)
{
cout<<"Inside second, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=1;
s[j]=0;
}
else
if(s[j]==0 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==0 && carry==1)
{
cout<<"Inside third, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=0;
s[j]=1;
}
else
if(s[j]==0 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==0 && carry==0)
{
cout<<"Inside fourth, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=0;
s[j]=0;
}
else
if(s[j]==0 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==1 && carry==0)
{
cout<<"Inside fifth, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=0;
s[j]=1;
}
else
if(s[j]==1 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==1 && carry==1)
{
//cout<<"Inside fifth, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=1;
s[j]=1;
}
else
if(s[j]==1 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==0 && carry==0)
{
//cout<<"Inside fifth, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=0;
s[j]=1;
}
else
if(s[j]==0 && BeforeDecimal1[j]==1 && carry==1)
{
//cout<<"Inside fifth, j= "<<j<<endl;
carry=1;
s[j]=0;
}
}
for(int h=7;h>=0;h--)
{
if(h==0)
{
BeforeDecimal1[0]=0; // that is inserting zeros from the right
}
else
{
BeforeDecimal1[h]=BeforeDecimal1[h-1];
BeforeDecimal1[h-1]=0;
}
}
if(i==3)
break;
i++;
}
Regards
Maybe it would be easiest to back up and start with 8-bit binary numbers stored as 8-bit binary numbers. Much like when we do decimal multiplication, we start with a number of digits. We take the values of multiplying by those individual digits, and add them together to get the final result. The difference (or one obvious difference) is this since we're working in binary, all our digits represent powers of two, so we can get each intermediate result by simply bit shifting the input.
Since it's binary, we have only two possibilities for each digit: if it's a 0, then we need to add 0 times the other number shifted left the appropriate number of places. Obviously, 0 time whatever is still 0, so we simply do nothing in this case. The other possibility is that we have a 1, in which case we add 1 times the other number shifted left the appropriate number of places.
For example, let's consider something like 17 x 5, or (in binary) 10001 x 101.
10001
101
------
10001
+ 1000100
--------
= 1010101
Converting that to something more recognizable, we get 0x55, or 85d.
In code, that process comes out fairly short and simple. Start with a result of 0. Check whether the least significant bit in one operand is set. If so, add the other operand to the result. Shift the one operand right a bit and the other left a bit, and repeat until the operand you're shifting to the right equals 0:
unsigned short mul(unsigned char input1, unsigned char input2) {
unsigned short result = 0;
while (input2 != 0) {
if (input2 & 1)
result += input1;
input1 <<= 1;
input2 >>= 1;
}
return result;
}
If you want to deal with signed numbers, it's generally easiest to figure up the sign of the result separately, and do the multiplication on the absolute values.
You have problem in following lines of code
if(reverse==0)
{
totalReverse=totalReverse-1;
reverse=totalReverse;
}
after some iterations of the inner for loop (index j based) the values of reverse goes should goes to negative and when reverse less than 3 then there should be exception thrown.
Are you running this code without exception handling?
to me this smells like shift and add. is there a requirement that you may use operations simulating logical gates only?
for your full adder you have 3 inputs s(s[j]), b(BeforeDecimal1[j]), c(carry), and two outputs ns(new s[j]), nc (new carry)
the table looks like this
s b c ns nc
0 0 0 0 0 handled in v5 clause 4
0 0 1 1 0 handled in v5 clause 3
0 1 0 1 0 handled in v6 clause 5
0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 handled in v5 clause 2
1 1 0 0 1 handled in v5 clause 1
1 1 1 1 1
your code covers only 4 (now 5) of these 8 clauses
to avoid the ugly if-else-if rake i recommend to use temporary result variables (carry and s still valid in the next if clause)
when you analyze the table you could also do (pseudo bool notation)
nc = s && b || s && c || b && c;
ns = s XOR b XOR c; // there is no XOR in C++: axb = a&&!b || !a&&b
arithmetic notation
nc = (s + b + c) / 2;
ns = (s + b + c) % 2;
// [...]
for(int j=7;j>=0;j--)
{
// start changed code
const int sum = s[j] + BeforeDecimal1[j] + carry;
s[j]=sum % 2;
carry=sum / 2;
// end changed code
}
// [...]
here is a nice simulation of your problem Sequential Multiplication
Unless your requirement precisely states otherwise, which isn't clear from your question or any of your comments so far, it is not necessary to process arrays of bits. Arrays of bytes are much more efficient in both space and time.
You don't need this exhaustive explosion of cases either. The only special case is where either operand is zero, i.e. a[i]|b[i] == 0, when
result[i] = carry;
carry = 0;
All other cases can be handled by:
result[i] = a[i]*b[i]+carry;
carry = (result[i] >>> 8) & 1;
result[i] &= 0xff;
I don't see much point in the names BeforeDecimal1 and BeforeDecimal2 either.
gooday programers. I have to design a C++ program that reads a sequence of positive integer values that ends with zero and find the length of the longest increasing subsequence in the given sequence. For example, for the following
sequence of integer numbers:
1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 1 2 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 0
the program should return 6
i have written my code which seems correct but for some reason is always returning zero, could someone please help me with this problem.
Here is my code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int x = 1; // note x is initialised as one so it can enter the while loop
int y = 0;
int n = 0;
while (x != 0) // users can enter a zero at end of input to say they have entered all their numbers
{
cout << "Enter sequence of numbers(0 to end): ";
cin >> x;
if (x == (y + 1)) // <<<<< i think for some reason this if statement if never happening
{
n = n + 1;
y = x;
}
else
{
n = 0;
}
}
cout << "longest sequence is: " << n << endl;
return 0;
}
In your program, you have made some assumptions, you need to validate them first.
That the subsequence always starts at 1
That the subsequence always increments by 1
If those are correct assumptions, then here are some tweaks
Move the cout outside of the loop
The canonical way in C++ of testing whether an input operation from a stream has worked, is simply test the stream in operation, i.e. if (cin >> x) {...}
Given the above, you can re-write your while loop to read in x and test that x != 0
If both above conditions hold, enter the loop
Now given the above assumptions, your first check is correct, however in the event the check fails, remember that the new subsequence starts at the current input number (value x), so there is no sense is setting n to 0.
Either way, y must always be current value of x.
If you make the above logic changes to your code, it should work.
In the last loop, your n=0 is execute before x != 0 is check, so it'll always return n = 0. This should work.
if(x == 0) {
break;
} else if (x > y ) {
...
} else {
...
}
You also need to reset your y variable when you come to the end of a sequence.
If you just want a list of increasing numbers, then your "if" condition is only testing that x is equal to one more than y. Change the condition to:
if (x > y) {
and you should have more luck.
You always return 0, because the last number that you read and process is 0 and, of course, never make x == (y + 1) comes true, so the last statement that its always executed before exiting the loop its n=0
Hope helps!
this is wrong logically:
if (x == (y + 1)) // <<<<< i think for some reason this if statement if never happening
{
Should be
if(x >= (y+1))
{
I think that there are more than one problem, the first and most important that you might have not understood the problem correctly. By the common definition of longest increasing subsequence, the result to that input would not be 6 but rather 8.
The problem is much more complex than the simple loop you are trying to implement and it is usually tackled with Dynamic Programming techniques.
On your particular code, you are trying to count in the if the length of the sequence for which each element is exactly the successor of the last read element. But if the next element is not in the sequence you reset the length to 0 (else { n = 0; }), which is what is giving your result. You should be keeping a max value that never gets reset back to 0, something like adding in the if block: max = std::max( max, n ); (or in pure C: max = (n > max? n : max );. Then the result will be that max value.
Assume the availability of a function is_prime. Assume a variable n has been associated with a positive integer. Write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers. The sum should be associated with the variable total.
Note: is_prime takes an integer as a parameter and returns True if and only if that integer is prime.
Well, I wrote is_prime function like this:
def is_prime(n):
n = abs(n)
i = 2
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
but it works except for n==0. How can I fix it to make it work for every integer?
I'm trying to find out answers for both how to write function to get the sum of first n prime numbers and how to modify my is_prime function, which should work for all possible input, not only positive numbers.
Your assignment is as follows.
Assume the availability of a function is_prime. Assume a variable n has been associated with a positive integer. Write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers. The sum should be associated with the variable total.
As NVRAM rightly points out in the comments (and nobody else appears to have picked up on), the question states "assume the availability of a function is_prime".
You don't have to write that function. What you do have to do is "write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers".
The pseudocode for that would be something like:
primes_left = n
curr_num = 2
curr_sum = 0
while primes_left > 0:
if is_prime(curr_num):
curr_sum = curr_sum + curr_num
primes_left = primes_left - 1
curr_num = curr_num + 1
print "Sum of first " + n + " primes is " + curr_sum
I think you'll find that, if you just implement that pseudocode in your language of choice, that'll be all you have to do.
If you are looking for an implementation of is_prime to test your assignment with, it doesn't really matter how efficient it is, since you'll only be testing a few small values anyway. You also don't have to worry about numbers less than two, given the constraints of the code that will be using it. Something like this is perfectly acceptable:
def is_prime(num):
if num < 2:
return false
if num == 2:
return true
divisor = 2
while divisor * divisor <= num:
if num % divisor == 0:
return false
divisor = divisor + 1
return true
In your problem statement it says that n is a positive integer. So assert(n>0) and ensure that your program outer-loop will never is_prime() with a negative value nor zero.
Your algorithm - trial division of every successive odd number (the 'odd' would be a major speed-up for you) - works, but is going to be very slow. Look at the prime sieve for inspiration.
Well, what happens when n is 0 or 1?
You have
i = 2
while i < n: #is 2 less than 0 (or 1?)
...
return True
If you want n of 0 or 1 to return False, then doesn't this suggest that you need to modify your conditional (or function itself) to account for these cases?
Why not just hardcode an answer for i = 0 or 1?
n = abs(n)
i = 2
if(n == 0 || n == 1)
return true //Or whatever you feel 0 or 1 should return.
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
And you could further improve the speed of your algorithm by omitting some numbers. This script only checks up to the square root of n as no composite number has factors greater than its square root if a number has one or more factors, one will be encountered before the square root of that number. When testing large numbers, this makes a pretty big difference.
n = abs(n)
i = 2
if(n == 0 || n == 1)
return true //Or whatever you feel 0 or 1 should return.
while i <= sqrt(n):
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
try this:
if(n==0)
return true
else
n = abs(n)
i = 2
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True