What is the best way to solve this?
A balancing point of an N-element array A is an index i such that all elements on lower indexes have values <= A[i] and all elements on higher indexes have values higher or equal A[i].
For example, given:
A[0]=4 A[1]=2 A[2]=7 A[3]=11 A[4]=9
one of the correct solutions is: 2. All elements below A[2] is less than A[2], all elements after A[2] is more than A[2].
One solution that appeared to my mind is O(nsquare) solution. Is there any better solution?
Start by assuming A[0] is a pole. Then start walking the array; comparing each element A[i] in turn against A[0], and also tracking the current maximum.
As soon as you find an i such that A[i] < A[0], you know that A[0] can no longer be a pole, and by extension, neither can any of the elements up to and including A[i]. So now continue walking until you find the next value that's bigger than the current maximum. This then becomes the new proposed pole.
Thus, an O(n) solution!
In code:
int i_pole = 0;
int i_max = 0;
bool have_pole = true;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++)
{
if (A[i] < A[i_pole])
{
have_pole = false;
}
if (A[i] > A[i_max])
{
i_max = i;
if (!have_pole)
{
i_pole = i;
}
have_pole = true;
}
}
If you want to know where all the poles are, an O(n log n) solution would be to create a sorted copy of the array, and look to see where you get matching values.
EDIT: Sorry, but this doesn't actually work. One counterexample is [2, 5, 3, 1, 4].
Make two auxiliary arrays, each with as many elements as the input array, called MIN and MAX.
Each element M of MAX contains the maximum of all the elements in the input from 0..M. Each element M of MIN contains the minimum of all the elements in the input from M..N-1.
For each element M of the input array, compare its value to the corresponding values in MIN and MAX. If INPUT[M] == MIN[M] and INPUT[M] == MAX[M] then M is a balancing point.
Building MIN takes N steps, and so does MAX. Testing the array then takes N more steps. This solution has O(N) complexity and finds all balancing points. In the case of sorted input every element is a balancing point.
Create a double-linked list such as i-th node of this list contains A[i] and i. Traverse this list while elements grow (counting maximum of these elements). If some A[bad] < maxSoFar it can't be MP. Remove it and go backward removing elements until you find A[good] < A[bad] or reach the head of the list. Continue (starting with maxSoFar as maximum) until you reach end of the list. Every element in result list is MP and every MP is in this list. Complexity is O(n) since is maximum of steps is performed for descending array - n steps forward and n removals.
Update
Oh my, I confused "any" with "every" in problem definition :).
You can combine bmcnett's and Oli's answers to find all the poles as quickly as possible.
std::vector<int> i_poles;
i_poles.push_back(0);
int i_max = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++)
{
while (!i_poles.empty() && A[i] < A[i_poles.back()])
{
i_poles.pop_back();
}
if (A[i] >= A[i_max])
{
i_poles.push_back(i);
}
}
You could use an array preallocated to size N if you wanted to avoid reallocations.
Related
I need to implement an algorithm in C++ that, when given three arrays of unequal sizes, produces triplets a,b,c (one element contributed by each array) such that max(a,b,c) - min(a,b,c) is minimized. The algorithm should produce a list of these triplets, in order of size of max(a,b,c)-min(a,b,c). The arrays are sorted.
I've implemented the following algorithm (note that I now use arrays of type double), however it runs excruciatingly slow (even when compiled using GCC with -03 optimization, and other combinations of optimizations). The dataset (and, therefore, each array) has potentially tens of millions of elements. Is there a faster/more efficient method? A significant speed increase is necessary to accomplish the required task in a reasonable time frame.
void findClosest(vector<double> vec1, vector<double> vec2, vector<double> vec3){
//calculate size of each array
int len1 = vec1.size();
int len2 = vec2.size();
int len3 = vec3.size();
int i = 0; int j = 0; int k = 0; int res_i, res_j, res_k;
int diff = INT_MAX;
int iter = 0; int iter_bound = min(min(len1,len2),len3);
while(iter < iter_bound)
while(i < len1 && j < len2 && k < len3){
int minimum = min(min(vec1[i], vec2[j]), vec3[k]);
int maximum = max(max(vec1[i], vec2[j]), vec3[k]);
//if new difference less than previous difference, update difference, store
//resultants
if(fabs(maximum - minimum) < diff){ diff = maximum-minimum; res_i = i; res_j = j; res_k = k;}
//increment minimum value
if(vec1[i] == minimum) ++i;
else if(vec2[j] == minimum) ++j;
else ++k;
}
//"remove" triplet
vec1.erase(vec1.begin() + res_i);
vec2.erase(vec2.begin() + res_j);
vec3.erase(vec3.begin() + res_k);
--len1; --len2; --len3;
++iter_bound;
}
OK, you're going to need to be clever in a few ways to make this run well.
The first thing that you need is a priority queue, which is usually implemented with a heap. With that, the algorithm in pseudocode is:
Make a priority queue for possible triples in order of max - min, then how close median is to their average.
Make a pass through all 3 arrays, putting reasonable triples for every element into the priority queue
While the priority queue is not empty:
Pull a triple out
If all three of the triple are not used:
Add triple to output
Mark the triple used
else:
If you can construct reasonable triplets for unused elements:
Add them to the queue
Now for this operation to succeed, you need to efficiently find elements that are currently unused. Doing that at first is easy, just keep an array of bools where you mark off the indexes of the used values. But once a lot have been taken off, your search gets long.
The trick for that is to have a vector of bools for individual elements, a second for whether both in a pair have been used, a third for where all 4 in a quadruple have been used and so on. When you use an element just mark the individual bool, then go up the hierarchy, marking off the next level if the one you're paired with is marked off, else stopping. This additional data structure of size 2n will require an average of marking 2 bools per element used, but allows you to find the next unused index in either direction in at most O(log(n)) steps.
The resulting algorithm will be O(n log(n)).
I am trying to find all pairs in an array with sum equal to k. My current solution takes O(n*log(n)) time (code snippet below).Can anybody help me in finding a better solution, O(n) or O(lgn) may be (if it exists)
map<int,int> mymap;
map<int,int>::iterator it;
cin>>n>>k;
for( int i = 0 ; i < n ; i++ ){
cin>>a;
if( mymap.find(a) != mymap.end() )
mymap[a]++;
else
mymap[a] = 1;
}
for( it = mymap.begin() ; it != mymap.end() ; it++ ){
int val = it->first;
if( mymap.find(k-val) != mymap.end() ){
cnt += min( it->second, mymap.find(k-val)->second );
it->second = 0;
}
}
cout<<cnt;
Another aproach which will take O(log n) in the best case and O(nlog n) in the worst one for positive numbers can be done in this way:
Find element in array that is equal to k/2 or if it doesn’t exist than finds the minimum greater then k/2. All combinations with this element and all greater elements will be interested for us because p + s >= k when p>= k/2 and s>=k/2. Array is sorted, so binary search with some modifications can be used. This step will take O(log n) time.
All elements which are less then k/2 + elements greater or equal to "mirror elements" (according to median k/2) will also be interested for us because p + s >= k when p=k/2-t and s>= k/2+t. Here we need to loop through elements less then k/2 and find their mirror elements (binary search). The loop should be stopped if mirror element is greater then the last array.
For instance we have array {1,3,5,8,11} and k = 10, so on the first step we will have k/2 = 5 and pairs {5,7}, {8,11}, {8, 11}. The count of these pairs will be calculated by formula l * (l - 1)/2 where l = count of elements >= k/2. In our case l = 3, so count = 3*2/2=3.
On the second step for 3 number a mirror element will be 7 (5-2=3 and 5+2=7), so pairs {3, 8} and {3, 11} will be interested. For 1 number mirror will be 9 (5-4=1 and 5+4=9), so {1, 11} is what we look for.
So, if k/2 < first array element this algorithm will be O(log n).
For negative the algorithm will be a little bit more complex but can be solved also with the same complexity.
There exists a rather simple O(n) approach using the so-called "two pointers" or "two iterators" approach. The key idea is to have two iterators (not necessarily C++ iterators, indices would do too) running on the same array so that if first iterator points to value x, then the second iterator points to the maximal element in the array that is less then k-x.
We will be increasing the first iterator, and while doing this we'll also change the second iterator to maintain this property. Note that as the first pointer increases, the corresponding position of the second pointer will only decrease, so on every iteration we can start from the position where we stopped at the previous iteration; we will never need to increase the second pointer. This is how we achieve O(n) time.
Code is like this (did not test this, but the idea should be clear)
vector<int> a; // the given array
int r = a.size() - 1;
for (int l=0; l<a.size(); l++) {
while ((r >= 0) && (a[r] >= k - a[l]))
r--;
// now r is the maximal position in a so that a[r] < k - a[l]
// so all elements right to r form a needed pair with a[l]
ans += a.size() - r - 1; // this is how many pairs we have starting at l
}
Another approach which might be simpler to code, but a bit slower, is O(n log n) using binary search. For each element a[l] of the array, you can find the maximal position r so that a[r]<k-a[l] using binary search (this is the same r as in the first algorithm).
#Drew Dormann - thanks for the remark.
Run through the array with two pointers. left and right.
Assuming left is the small side, start with left at location 0 and then right moves towards left until a[left]+a[right] >= k for the last time.
When this is achieved, then total_count += (a.size - right + 1).
You then move left one step forwards and right needs to (maybe) move towards it. Repeat this until they meet.
When this is done, and let us say they met at location x, then totla_count += choose(2, a.size - x).
Sort the array (n log n)
for (i = 1 to n)
Start at the root
if a[i] + curr_node >= k, go left and match = indexof(curr_nod)e
else, go right
If curr_node = leaf node, add all nodes after a[match] to the list of valid pairs with a[i]
Step 2 also takes O(n log n). The for loop runs n times. Within the loop, we perform a binary search for each node i.e. log n steps. Hence the overall complexity of the algorithm is O (n log n).
This should do the work:
void count(int A[], int n) //n being the number of terms in array
{ int i, j, k, count = 0;
cin>>k;
for(i = 0; i<n; i++)
for(j = 0; j<n; j++)
if(A[i] + A[j] >= k)
count++ ;
cout<<"There are "<<count<<" such numbers" ;
}
I was trying to solve the problem zig zag sequences on top coder.The time complexity of my code is O(n*n). How can I reduce it to O(n) or O(nlog (n))
Pseudo code or explanation of the algorithm will be really helpful to me
Here is the problem statement.
Problem Statement
A sequence of numbers is called a zig-zag sequence if the differences between successive numbers strictly alternate between positive and negative. The first difference (if one exists) may be either positive or negative. A sequence with fewer than two elements is trivially a zig-zag sequence.
For example, 1,7,4,9,2,5 is a zig-zag sequence because the differences (6,-3,5,-7,3) are alternately positive and negative. In contrast, 1,4,7,2,5 and 1,7,4,5,5 are not zig-zag sequences, the first because its first two differences are positive and the second because its last difference is zero.
Given a sequence of integers, sequence, return the length of the longest subsequence of sequence that is a zig-zag sequence. A subsequence is obtained by deleting some number of elements (possibly zero) from the original sequence, leaving the remaining elements in their original order.
And here is my code
#include <iostream>
#include<vector>
#include<cstring>
#include<cstdio>
using namespace std;
class ZigZag
{
public:
int dp[200][2];
void print(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cout<<dp[i][0]<<endl;
}
}
int longestZigZag(vector<int> a)
{
int n=a.size();
//int dp[n][2];
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cout<<a[i]<<" "<<"\t";
}
cout<<endl;
memset(dp,sizeof(dp),0);
dp[0][1]=dp[0][0]=1;
for(int i=1;i<n;i++)
{
dp[i][1]=dp[i][0]=1;
for(int j=0;j<i;j++)
{
if(a[i]<a[j])
{
dp[i][0]=max(dp[j][1]+1,dp[i][0]);
}
if(a[j]<a[i])
{
dp[i][1]=max(dp[j][0]+1,dp[i][1]);
}
}
cout<<dp[i][1]<<"\t"<<dp[i][0]<<" "<<i<<endl;
//print(n);
}
cout<<dp[n-1][0]<<endl;
return max(dp[n-1][0],dp[n-1][1]);
}
};
U can do it in O(n) using a greedy approach. Take the first non-repeating number - this is the first number of your zigzag subsequence. Check whether the next number in the array is lesser than or greater than the first number.
Case 1: If lesser, check the next element to that and keep going till you find the least element (ie) the element after that would be greater than the previous element. This would be your second element.
Case 2: If greater, check the next element to that and keep going till you find the greatest element (ie) the element after that would be lesser than the previous element. This would be your second element.
If u have used Case 1 to find the second element, use Case 2 to find the third element or vice-versa. Keep alternating between these two cases till u have no more elements in the original sequence. The resultant numbers u get would form the longest zigzag subsequence.
Eg: { 1, 17, 5, 10, 13, 15, 10, 5, 16, 8 }
The resulting subsequence:
1 -> 1,17 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5 (Case 1) -> 1,17,5,15 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5,15,5 (Case 1) -> 1,17,5,15,5,16 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5,15,5,16,8 (Case 1)
Hence the length of the longest zigzag subsequence is 7.
U can refer to sjelkjd's solution for an implementation of this idea.
As the subsequence should not be necessarily contiguous you can't make it O(n). In a worst case the complexity is O(2^n). Howewer, I did some checks to cut off subtrees as soon as possible.
int maxLenght;
void test(vector<int>& a, int sign, int last, int pos, int currentLenght) {
if (maxLenght < currentLenght) maxLenght = currentLenght;
if (pos >= a.size() || pos >= a.size() + currentLenght - maxLenght) return;
if (last != a[pos] && (last - a[pos] >= 0) != sign)
test(a,!sign,a[pos],pos+1,currentLenght+1);
test(a,sign,last,pos+1,currentLenght);
}
int longestZigZag(vector<int>& a) {
maxLenght = 0;
test(a,0,a[0],1,1);
test(a,!0,a[0],1,1);
return maxLenght;
}
You can use RMQs to remove the inner for-loop. When you find the answer for dp[i][0] and dp[i][1], save it in two RMQ trees - say, RMQ0 and RMQ1 - just like you're doing now with the two rows of the dp array. So, when you calculate dp[i][0], you put the value dp[i][0] on position a[i] in RMQ0, meaning that there is a zig-zag sequence with length dp[i][0] ending increasingly with number a[i].
Then, in order to calculate dp[i + 1][0], you don't have to loop through all the numbers between 0 and i. Instead, you can query RMQ0 for the largest number on position > a[i + 1]. This will give you the longest zig-zag subsequence ending with a number larger than the current one - i.e. the longest one that can be continued decreasingly with the number a[i + 1]. Then you can do the same for RMQ1 for the other half of the zig-zag subsequences.
Since you can implement dynamic RMQ with query complexity of O(log N), this gives you an overall complexity of O(N log N).
You can solve this problem in O(n) time and O(n) extra space.
Algorithm goes as follows.
Store the difference of alternative term in new array of size n-1
Now traverse the new array and just check whether the product of alternative term is less then zero or not.
Increment result accordingly. If while traversing you find that array is product is more than zero in that case you store the result and again start counting for the rest of the element in difference array.
Find the maximum among them store it into result, and return (result+1)
Here is it's implementation in C++
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
int n;
cin>>n;
vector<int> data(n);
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
cin>>data[i];
vector<int> diff(n-1);
for(int i = 1; i < n; i++)
diff[i-1] = data[i]-data[i-1];
int res = 1;
if( n < 2)
cout<<res<<"\n";
else
{
int temp_idx = 0;
for(int i = 1; i < n-1; i++)
{
if(diff[i]*diff[i-1] < 0)
{
temp_idx++;
res++;
}
else
{
res = max(res,temp_idx);
temp_idx = 1;
}
}
cout<<res+1<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
This is a purely theoretical solution. This is how you would solve it if you would be asked for it in an academical environment, standing next to the chalkboard.
The solution to the problem can be created using dynamic programming:
The subproblem has the form of: if I have an element x of the sequence, what is the longest subsequence that is ending on that element?
Then you can work out your solution using recursive calls, which should look something like this (the directions of the relations might be wrong, I haven't checked it):
S - given sequence (array of integers)
P(i), Q(i) - length of the longest zigzag subsequence on elements S[0 -> i] inclusive (the longest sequence that is correct, where S[i] is the last element)
P(i) = {if i == 0 then 1
{max(Q(j) if A[i] < A[j] for every 0 <= j < i)
Q(i) = {if i == 0 then 0 #yields 0 because we are pedantic about "is zig the first relation, or is it zag?". If we aren't, then this can be a 1.
{max(P(j) if A[i] > A[j] for every 0 <= j < i)
This should be O(n) with the right memoization (storing each output of Q(i) and P(i)), because each subproblem is only computed once: n*|P| + n*|Q|.
These calls return the length of the solution - the actual result can be found by storing "parent pointer" whenever a max value is found, and then traversing backwards on these pointers.
You can avoid the recursion simply by substituting function calls with array lookups: P[i] and Q[i], and using a for loop.
I have two vectors, each contains n unsorted elements, how can I get n largest elements in these two vectors?
my solution is merge two vector into one with 2n elements, and then use std::nth_element algorithm, but I found that's not quite efficient, so anyone has more efficient solution. Really appreciate.
You may push the elements into priority_queue and then pop n elements out.
Assuming that n is far smaller than N this is quite efficient. Getting minElem is cheap and sorted inserting in L cheaper than sorting of the two vectors if n << N.
L := SortedList()
For Each element in any of the vectors do
{
minElem := smallest element in L
if( element >= minElem or if size of L < n)
{
add element to L
if( size of L > n )
{
remove smallest element from L
}
}
}
vector<T> heap;
heap.reserve(n + 1);
vector<T>::iterator left = leftVec.begin(), right = rightVec.begin();
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (left != leftVec.end()) heap.push_back(*left++);
else if (right != rightVec.end()) heap.push_back(*right++);
}
if (left == leftVec.end() && right == rightVec.end()) return heap;
make_heap(heap.begin(), heap.end(), greater<T>());
while (left != leftVec.end()) {
heap.push_back(*left++);
push_heap(heap.begin(), heap.end(), greater<T>());
pop_heap(heap.begin(), heap.end(), greater<T>());
heap.pop_back();
}
/* ... repeat for right ... */
return heap;
Note I use *_heap directly rather than priority_queue because priority_queue does not provide access to its underlying data structure. This is O(N log n), slightly better than the naive O(N log N) method if n << N.
You can do the "n'th element" algorithm conceptually in parallel on the two vectors quite easiely (at least the simple variant that's only linear in the average case).
Pick a pivot.
Partition (std::partition) both vectors by that pivot. You'll have the first vector partitioned by some element with rank i and the second by some element with rank j. I'm assuming descending order here.
If i+j < n, recurse on the right side for the n-i-j greatest elements. If i+j > n, recurse on the left side for the n greatest elements. If you hit i+j==n, stop the recursion.
You basically just need to make sure to partition both vectors by the same pivot in every step. Given a decent pivot selection, this algorithm is linear in the average case (and works in-place).
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_algorithm#Partition-based_general_selection_algorithm
Edit: (hopefully) clarified the algorithm a bit.
There are N values in the array, and one of them is the smallest value. How can I find the smallest value most efficiently?
If they are unsorted, you can't do much but look at each one, which is O(N), and when you're done you'll know the minimum.
Pseudo-code:
small = <biggest value> // such as std::numerical_limits<int>::max
for each element in array:
if (element < small)
small = element
A better way reminded by Ben to me was to just initialize small with the first element:
small = element[0]
for each element in array, starting from 1 (not 0):
if (element < small)
small = element
The above is wrapped in the algorithm header as std::min_element.
If you can keep your array sorted as items are added, then finding it will be O(1), since you can keep the smallest at front.
That's as good as it gets with arrays.
You need too loop through the array, remembering the smallest value you've seen so far. Like this:
int smallest = INT_MAX;
for (int i = 0; i < array_length; i++) {
if (array[i] < smallest) {
smallest = array[i];
}
}
The stl contains a bunch of methods that should be used dependent to the problem.
std::find
std::find_if
std::count
std::find
std::binary_search
std::equal_range
std::lower_bound
std::upper_bound
Now it contains on your data what algorithm to use.
This Artikel contains a perfect table to help choosing the right algorithm.
In the special case where min max should be determined and you are using std::vector or ???* array
std::min_element
std::max_element
can be used.
If you want to be really efficient and you have enough time to spent, use SIMD instruction.
You can compare several pairs in one instruction:
r0 := min(a0, b0)
r1 := min(a1, b1)
r2 := min(a2, b2)
r3 := min(a3, b3)
__m64 _mm_min_pu8(__m64 a , __m64 b );
Today every computer supports it. Other already have written min function for you:
http://smartdata.usbid.com/datasheets/usbid/2001/2001-q1/i_minmax.pdf
or use already ready library.
If the array is sorted in ascending or descending order then you can find it with complexity O(1).
For an array of ascending order the first element is the smallest element, you can get it by arr[0] (0 based indexing).
If the array is sorted in descending order then the last element is the smallest element,you can get it by arr[sizeOfArray-1].
If the array is not sorted then you have to iterate over the array to get the smallest element.In this case time complexity is O(n), here n is the size of array.
int arr[] = {5,7,9,0,-3,2,3,4,56,-7};
int smallest_element=arr[0] //let, first element is the smallest one
for(int i =1;i<sizeOfArray;i++)
{
if(arr[i]<smallest_element)
{
smallest_element=arr[i];
}
}
You can calculate it in input section (when you have to find smallest element from a given array)
int smallest_element;
int arr[100],n;
cin>>n;
for(int i = 0;i<n;i++)
{
cin>>arr[i];
if(i==0)
{
smallest_element=arr[i]; //smallest_element=arr[0];
}
else if(arr[i]<smallest_element)
{
smallest_element = arr[i];
}
}
Also you can get smallest element by built in function
#inclue<algorithm>
int smallest_element = *min_element(arr,arr+n); //here n is the size of array
You can get smallest element of any range by using this function
such as,
int arr[] = {3,2,1,-1,-2,-3};
cout<<*min_element(arr,arr+3); //this will print 1,smallest element of first three element
cout<<*min_element(arr+2,arr+5); // -2, smallest element between third and fifth element (inclusive)
I have used asterisk (*), before min_element() function. Because it returns pointer of smallest element.
All codes are in c++.
You can find the maximum element in opposite way.
Richie's answer is close. It depends upon the language. Here is a good solution for java:
int smallest = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
int array[]; // Assume it is filled.
int array_length = array.length;
for (int i = array_length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (array[i] < smallest) {
smallest = array[i];
}
}
I go through the array in reverse order, because comparing "i" to "array_length" in the loop comparison requires a fetch and a comparison (two operations), whereas comparing "i" to "0" is a single JVM bytecode operation. If the work being done in the loop is negligible, then the loop comparison consumes a sizable fraction of the time.
Of course, others pointed out that encapsulating the array and controlling inserts will help. If getting the minimum was ALL you needed, keeping the list in sorted order is not necessary. Just keep an instance variable that holds the smallest inserted so far, and compare it to each value as it is added to the array. (Of course, this fails if you remove elements. In that case, if you remove the current lowest value, you need to do a scan of the entire array to find the new lowest value.)
An O(1) sollution might be to just guess: The smallest number in your array will often be 0. 0 crops up everywhere. Given that you are only looking at unsigned numbers. But even then: 0 is good enough. Also, looking through all elements for the smallest number is a real pain. Why not just use 0? It could actually be the correct result!
If the interviewer/your teacher doesn't like that answer, try 1, 2 or 3. They also end up being in most homework/interview-scenario numeric arrays...
On a more serious side: How often will you need to perform this operation on the array? Because the sollutions above are all O(n). If you want to do that m times to a list you will be adding new elements to all the time, why not pay some time up front and create a heap? Then finding the smallest element can really be done in O(1), without resulting to cheating.
If finding the minimum is a one time thing, just iterate through the list and find the minimum.
If finding the minimum is a very common thing and you only need to operate on the minimum, use a Heap data structure.
A heap will be faster than doing a sort on the list but the tradeoff is you can only find the minimum.
If you're developing some kind of your own array abstraction, you can get O(1) if you store smallest added value in additional attribute and compare it every time a new item is put into array.
It should look something like this:
class MyArray
{
public:
MyArray() : m_minValue(INT_MAX) {}
void add(int newValue)
{
if (newValue < m_minValue) m_minValue = newValue;
list.push_back( newValue );
}
int min()
{
return m_minValue;
}
private:
int m_minValue;
std::list m_list;
}
//find the min in an array list of #s
$array = array(45,545,134,6735,545,23,434);
$smallest = $array[0];
for($i=1; $i<count($array); $i++){
if($array[$i] < $smallest){
echo $array[$i];
}
}
//smalest number in the array//
double small = x[0];
for(t=0;t<x[t];t++)
{
if(x[t]<small)
{
small=x[t];
}
}
printf("\nThe smallest number is %0.2lf \n",small);
Procedure:
We can use min_element(array, array+size) function . But it iterator
that return the address of minimum element . If we use *min_element(array, array+size) then it will return the minimum value of array.
C++ implementation
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int num;
cin>>num;
int arr[10];
for(int i=0; i<num; i++)
{
cin>>arr[i];
}
cout<<*min_element(arr,arr+num)<<endl;
return 0;
}
int small=a[0];
for (int x: a.length)
{
if(a[x]<small)
small=a[x];
}
C++ code
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int n = 5;
int arr[n] = {12,4,15,6,2};
int min = arr[0];
for (int i=1;i<n;i++){
if (min>arr[i]){
min = arr[i];
}
}
cout << min;
return 0;
}