I am woking on the solution for the following question.
Given an array of integers, return indices of the two numbers such that they add up to a specific target.
You may assume that each input would have exactly one solution.
Example:
Given nums = [2, 7, 11, 15], target = 9,
Because nums[0] + nums[1] = 2 + 7 = 9,
return [0, 1].
This is the solution submitted in ruby after referring the C++ code http://leetcodeunlock.com/2016/05/20/leetcode-1-two-sum-easy/ .
def two_sum(nums, target)
hash = {}
arr = []
nums.each_with_index do |value,index|
y = target - value
if(hash.find{|key,val| key == value})
arr << hash[value]
arr << index
return arr
else
hash[y] = index
end
end
end
My submission failed with the message : Time limit exceeded. Can anyone point out the mistake and help me optimise the code?
nums = [2, 7, 11, 15]
target = 9
# this will find all combinations of 2 elements that add up to 9
results = (0...nums.size).to_a.combination(2).select { |first, last| nums[first] + nums[last] == target }
results.first #=> [0, 1]
Explanation of some parts of the code:
# Get indexes of all elements of nums array
(0...nums.size).to_a #=> [0, 1, 2, 3]
# Generate all combinations of indexes of each 2 elements
(0...nums.size).to_a.combination(2).to_a #=> [[0, 1], [0, 2], [0, 3], [1, 2], [1, 3], [2, 3]]
I have modified the line
if(hash.find{|key,val| key == value})
to
if(hash.key?(value))
to find if a specific key is present in the hash and this solved the issue.
Code
def sum_to_num(arr, num)
return [num/2, num/2] if num.even? && arr.count(num/2) > 1
a = arr.uniq.
group_by { |n| (2*n-num).abs }.
find { |_,a| a.size > 1 }
a.nil? ? nil : a.last
end
This method requires three or four passes through the array, if num is even, one to count the instances of num/2, one to remove duplicate values, one to group_by and one to find the pair of numbers that sum to the desired total. It therefore should be much faster than methods that evaluate every pair of the array's elements, particularly as the size of the array is increased.
Examples
sum_to_num [2, 11, 7, 15], 9
#=> [2, 7]
sum_to_num [2, 5, 2, 6, 1, -5, 4], 10
#=> [6, 4]
sum_to_num [2, 7, 11, -7, 15], 0
#=> [7, -7]
sum_to_num [2, 7, 11, 7, 15], 14 #???
sum_to_num [2, -7, 11, -7, 15], -14 #???
sum_to_num [2, 7, 11, 15], 17
#=> [2, 15]
sum_to_num [2, -11, 8, 15], 4
#=> [-11, 15]
sum_to_num [2, -11, 8, 15], -3
#=> [-11, 8]
sum_to_num [2, -11, 8, 15], 100
#=> nil
Explanation
Assume x and y sum to num. Then
2*x-num + 2*y-num = 2*(x+y) - 2*num
= 2*num - 2*num
= 0
meaning that 2*x-num and 2*y-num are either both zero or they have the opposite signs and the same absolute value. Similarly, if 2*x-num and 2*y-num sum to zero, then
2*x-num + 2*y-num = 0
2*(x+y) - 2*num = 0
meaning that n+m = num (which is hardly surprising considering that 2*x+num is a linear transformation.
Suppose
arr = [2, 5, 2, 6, 1, -5, 4]
num = 10
then
if num.even? && arr.count(num/2) > 1
#=> if 10.even? && arr.count(5) > 1
#=> if true && false
#=> false
Therefore, do not return [5,5].
b = arr.uniq
#=> [2, 5, 6, 1, -5, 4]
c = b.group_by { |n| (2*n-num).abs }
#=> {6=>[2], 0=>[5], 2=>[6, 4], 8=>[1], 20=>[-5]}
a = c.find { |_,a| a.size > 1 }
#=> [2, [6, 4]]
return nil if a.nil?
# do not return
a.last
#=> [6, 4]
I was doing this challenge for fun and wrote a cleaned up ruby solution.
def two_sum(nums, target)
hash = {}
nums.each_with_index { |number, index| hash[number] = index }
nums.each_with_index do |number, index|
difference = target - number
if hash[difference] && hash[difference] != index
return [index, hash[difference]]
end
end
end
# #param {Integer[]} nums
# #param {Integer} target
# #return {Integer[]}
def two_sum(nums, target)
length = nums.length
for i in 0..length
j = i+1
for a in j..length
if j < length
if nums[i] + nums[a] == target
return [i, a]
end
end
j+=1
end
end
[]
end
Well this is my way of solving this
def two_sum(nums, target)
nums.each_with_index do |value, index|
match_index = nums.find_index(target - value)
return [index, match_index] if match_index
end
nil
end
The above has the advantage that it stops execution when a match is found and so hopefully won't time out. :)
Related
How can I ensure uniqueness in this array while maintaining its length at 5?
def fixed
5.times.collect { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
end
This behaviour seems odd:
5.times.collect.uniq { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
# => [0, 2, 3, 4]
5.times.collect.uniq { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
# => [0, 1, 3]
5.times.collect.uniq { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
# => [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]
5.times.collect.uniq { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
# => [0, 1, 2, 4]
5.times.collect.uniq { SecureRandom.random_number(10) }
# => [0, 1, 2, 3]
When the number of possible values is small – like 10 in your example – then I would generate an array with all options and just pick a random sample of entries:
(0..9).to_a.sample(5)
If the number of possible values is huge then generation all values first is certainly not an option. Then I would generate a random value as long as the array doesn't contain enough entries:
require 'set'
values = Set.new
until values.length == 5 do
values.add(SecureRandom.random_number(1_000_000))
end
values.to_a
Note the I am using a Set to ensure the uniqueness of the values in the second version.
Using SecureRandom
def fixed
unique_numbers = []
5.times.collect do
loop do
number = SecureRandom.random_number(10)
break number unless unique_numbers.include?(number)
end
end
end
And if you want to generate unique numbers between 1 to 10, then you can create array of 1 to 10 and use shuffle or sample to get random numbers.
Using shuffle
> (0...10).to_a.shuffle.take(5)
=> [4, 0, 1, 3, 7]
> (0...10).to_a.shuffle.take(5)
=> [6, 2, 3, 9, 1]
> (0...10).to_a.shuffle.take(5)
=> [9, 2, 5, 8, 4]
> (0...10).to_a.shuffle.take(5)
=> [5, 0, 6, 8, 7]
> (0...10).to_a.shuffle.take(5)
=> [2, 7, 1, 5, 0]
Using sample
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5)
=> [4, 6, 3, 2, 7]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5)
=> [5, 8, 2, 3, 7]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5)
=> [2, 5, 6, 1, 3]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5)
=> [8, 5, 10, 9, 3]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5)
=> [8, 1, 5, 3, 4]
You can also pass SecureRandom custom random generator as an argument with sample
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5, random: SecureRandom)
=> [6, 3, 4, 7, 10]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5, random: SecureRandom)
=> [7, 4, 8, 1, 5]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5, random: SecureRandom)
=> [8, 3, 9, 5, 10]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5, random: SecureRandom)
=> [6, 8, 9, 2, 1]
> (1..10).to_a.sample(5, random: SecureRandom)
=> [9, 10, 1, 8, 2]
Just out of curiosity, using Enumerable#cycle infinite generator.
MAX = 10
SIZE = 5
[MAX].cycle.inject(Set.new) do |acc, max|
break acc if acc.size >= SIZE
acc << SecureRandom.random_number(max)
end
#⇒ #<Set: {2, 1, 7, 0, 9}>
or even with generic loop:
loop.each_with_object(Set.new) do |_, acc|
break acc if acc.size >= SIZE
acc << SecureRandom.random_number(10)
end
#⇒ #<Set: {2, 6, 7, 1, 3}>
One way would be to generate a range of numbers from 0 to 10 and
then shuffle them to get the unique random numbers.
You can convert that range to Array using to_a and shuffle them using shuffle
You can do something like this:
(0..10).to_a.shuffle[0..4] # => [8, 6, 1, 9, 10]
[0..4] will give you the first 5 shuffled elements.
Imagine the following Ruby array:
[9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
What's the easiest way of removing redundant tuples, producing an output like the following:
[9, 5, 2, 9]
uniq is not correct because it's examining the entire array. The ordering of the input is important and must be kept. Is there a straightforward approach to this?
Thanks!
I'd do using Enumerable#chunk
2.0.0-p0 :001 > a = [9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
=> [9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
2.0.0-p0 :002 > a.chunk { |e| e }.map(&:first)
=> [9, 5, 2, 9]
I would do it like
b = [];
a.each { |n| b << n if b.last != n }
and b is the result
only one array scan is needed
I like Arup's answer best, but in case you want a method that is compatible with versions that don't have chunk you can do
a = [9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
a.inject([a[0]]) { |b,c| b.last == c ? b : b << c }
# => [9, 5, 2, 9]
This is my version:
a.each_with_object([]) { |el, arr| arr << el if arr.last != el }
#=> [9, 5, 2, 9]
For those who land on this question looking to remove "redundant" values, the OP is trying to remove "repeated consecutive" values, not "redundant" or "duplicate" values and used the wrong word. They are different situations.
For clarification, removing redundant or duplicate values would be:
asdf = [9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
asdf.uniq # => [9, 5, 2]
Or:
asdf & asdf # => [9, 5, 2]
Or:
require 'set'
asdf.to_set.to_a # => [9, 5, 2]
And, yes, I know the OP is asking for a different result. This is to show the answer for the question that was asked, NOT what what would meet the desired output. For that see the selected answer.
This is to show how you could use an enumerator directly, with the methods Enumerator#next and Enumerator#peek.
def purge_conseq_dups(arr)
return arr if arr.empty?
enum = arr.to_enum
a = []
loop do
e = enum.next
a << e unless e == enum.peek
end
a << arr.last
end
asdf = [9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 2, 9, 9]
purge_conseq_dups(asdf) #=> [9, 5, 2, 9]
When e is the last element of the enumerator enum, enum.peek raises a StopInteration exception which is rescued by Kernel#loop, which responds by breaking out of the loop. At that point all that remains is to append the last element of arr to a.
We could write a << e rather than a << arr.last, provided we initialize e prior to the loop (e.g., e = nil) so that the variable will be in scope in the last line.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking to convert an array of numbers in sequence with gaps into an array of multiple ranges in Ruby.
Each range should be determined the gaps in the sequence:
[1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12]
The expected result would be:
[1-3, 5-6, 8-12]
I haven't been able to come up with any good ideas for tackling the problem. How can I go about solving this?
I would do as below using Enumerable#slice_before :
a = [1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12]
prev = a[0]
p a.slice_before { |e|
prev, prev2 = e, prev
prev2 + 1 != e
}.map{|b,*,c| c ? (b..c) : b }
# >> [1..3, 5..6, 8..12]
a = [1,2,3,5,8,9,10,11,12]
b = [a.first-1] + (a.first..a.last).to_a - a + [a.last + 1]
# => [0, 4, 6, 7, 13]
b.each_cons(2).with_object([]) {|(i,j), c| c << (i+1..j-1) if j > i+1}
# => [1..3, 5..5, 8..12]
Alternatively,
b = [a.first] + ((a.first..a.last).to_a - a).flat_map {|e| [e-1,e+1]}+[a.last]
# => [1, 3, 5, 5, 7, 6, 8, 12]
b.each_slice(2).map {|f,l| l >= f ? f..l : nil}.compact
# => [1..3, 5..5, 8..12]
Note: b.each_slice(2).to_a # => [[1, 3], [5, 5], [7, 6], [8, 12]]
Another solution:
class Array
def to_range_array
res = [ Range.new(first,first) ]
self[1..-1].sort.each{|item|
if res.last.max == (item -1)
res << Range.new(res.pop.min, item)
else
res << Range.new(item, item)
end
}
res
end
end
array = [ 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 ]
p array.to_range_array #[1..3, 5..6, 8..12]
My assumptions:
The ranges are based on the sorted array.
[ 9,10,11,12, 1,2,3,5,6,8] should return the same result as [ 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 ].
Without the sort-command you get [9..12, 1..3, 5..6, 8..8].
Single values result in a one-value range (e.g. 8..8)
a = [1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12]
b = ((a.first..a.last+1).to_a - a).unshift(-(2**(0.size * 8 -2)))
# => [-4611686018427387904, 4, 7, 13]
c = a.slice_before {|i| i > b.first ? b.shift : false}.to_a
# => [[1, 2, 3], [5, 6], [8, 9, 10, 11, 12]]
c.map {|e| (e.first..e.last)}
# => [1..3, 5..6, 8..12]
I much prefer all the variants using Enumerable#slice_before, but here is an alternate solution using Enumerable#each_cons:
def array_to_ranges(arr)
return [] if arr.empty?
seq, i = [[arr[0]]], 0
arr.each_cons(2) { |x,y| y-x == 1 ? seq[i] << y : seq[i+=1] = [y] }
seq.map { |range| range[0]..range[-1] }
end
Note that if any singletons are present in seq it will turn those into ranges as well. For example, if arr = [1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8] array_to_ranges(arr) returns [1..3, 5..5, 7..8]. An empty array is returned if the input is an empty array.
This question already has answers here:
How to chunk an array in Ruby
(2 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I need a way to split an array in to an exact number of smaller arrays of roughly-equal size. Anyone have any method of doing this?
For instance
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
groups = a.method_i_need(3)
groups.inspect
=> [[1,2,3,4,5], [6,7,8,9], [10,11,12,13]]
Note that this is an entirely separate problem from dividing an array into chunks, because a.each_slice(3).to_a would produce 5 groups (not 3, like we desire) and the final group may be a completely different size than the others:
[[1,2,3], [4,5,6], [7,8,9], [10,11,12], [13]] # this is NOT desired here.
In this problem, the desired number of chunks is specified in advance, and the sizes of each chunk will differ by 1 at most.
You're looking for Enumerable#each_slice
a = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
a.each_slice(3) # => #<Enumerator: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]:each_slice(3)>
a.each_slice(3).to_a # => [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7]]
Perhaps I'm misreading the question since the other answer is already accepted, but it sounded like you wanted to split the array in to 3 equal groups, regardless of the size of each group, rather than split it into N groups of 3 as the previous answers do. If that's what you're looking for, Rails (ActiveSupport) also has a method called in_groups:
a = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6]
a.in_groups(2) # => [[0,1,2,3],[4,5,6,nil]]
a.in_groups(3, false) # => [[0,1,2],[3,4], [5,6]]
I don't think there is a ruby equivalent, however, you can get roughly the same results by adding this simple method:
class Array; def in_groups(num_groups)
return [] if num_groups == 0
slice_size = (self.size/Float(num_groups)).ceil
groups = self.each_slice(slice_size).to_a
end; end
a.in_groups(3) # => [[0,1,2], [3,4,5], [6]]
The only difference (as you can see) is that this won't spread the "empty space" across all the groups; every group but the last is equal in size, and the last group always holds the remainder plus all the "empty space".
Update:
As #rimsky astutely pointed out, the above method will not always result in the correct number of groups (sometimes it will create multiple "empty groups" at the end, and leave them out). Here's an updated version, pared down from ActiveSupport's definition which spreads the extras out to fill the requested number of groups.
def in_groups(number)
group_size = size / number
leftovers = size % number
groups = []
start = 0
number.times do |index|
length = group_size + (leftovers > 0 && leftovers > index ? 1 : 0)
groups << slice(start, length)
start += length
end
groups
end
Try
a.in_groups_of(3,false)
It will do your job
As mltsy wrote, in_groups(n, false) should do the job.
I just wanted to add a small trick to get the right balance
my_array.in_group(my_array.size.quo(max_size).ceil, false).
Here is an example to illustrate that trick:
a = (0..8).to_a
a.in_groups(4, false) => [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4], [5, 6], [7, 8]]
a.in_groups(a.size.quo(4).ceil, false) => [[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8]]
This needs some better cleverness to smear out the extra pieces, but it's a reasonable start.
def i_need(bits, r)
c = r.count
(1..bits - 1).map { |i| r.shift((c + i) * 1.0 / bits ) } + [r]
end
> i_need(2, [1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 8])
=> [[1, 3, 5, 7], [2, 4, 6, 8]]
> i_need(3, [1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 8])
=> [[1, 3, 5], [7, 2, 4], [6, 8]]
> i_need(5, [1, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 6, 8])
=> [[1, 3], [5, 7], [2, 4], [6], [8]]
Given a sorted array of n integers, like the following:
ary = [3, 5, 6, 9, 14]
I need to calculate the difference between each element and the next element in the array. Using the example above, I would end up with:
[2, 1, 3, 5]
The beginning array may have 0, 1 or many elements in it, and the numbers I'll be handling will be much larger (I'll be using epoch timestamps). I've tried the following:
times = #messages.map{|m| m.created_at.to_i}
left = times[1..times.length-1]
right = times[0..times.length-2]
differences = left.zip(right).map { |x| x[0]-x[1]}
But my solution above is both not optimal, and not ideal. Can anyone give me a hand?
>> ary = [3, 5, 6, 9, 14] #=> [3, 5, 6, 9, 14]
>> ary.each_cons(2).map { |a,b| b-a } #=> [2, 1, 3, 5]
Edit:
Replaced inject with map.
Similar but more concise:
[3, 5, 6, 9, 14].each_cons(2).collect { |a,b| b-a }
An alternative:
a.map.with_index{ |v,i| (a[i+1] || 0) - v }[0..-2]
Does not work in Ruby 1.8 where map requires a block instead of returning an Enumerator.