Develop Reference

Find the max value of the same length nails after hammered

I'm trying to solve this problem:
Given an array of positive integers, and an integer Y, you are allowed to replace at most Y array-elements with lesser values. Your goal is for the array to end up with as large a subset of identical values as possible. Return the size of this largest subset.
The array is originally sorted in increasing order, but you do not need to preserve that property.
So, for example, if the array is [10,20,20,30,30,30,40,40,40] and Y = 3, the result should be 6, because you can get six 30s by replacing the three 40s with 30s. If the array is [20,20,20,40,50,50,50,50] and Y = 2, the result should be 5, because you can get five 20s by replacing two of the 50s with 20s.
Below is my solution with O(nlogn) time complexity. (is that right?) I wonder if I can further optimize this solution?
Thanks in advance.
public class Nails {
public static int Solutions(int[] A, int Y) {
int N = A.length;
TreeMap < Integer, Integer > nailMap = new TreeMap < Integer, Integer > (Collections.reverseOrder());
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
if (!nailMap.containsKey(A[i])) {
nailMap.put(A[i], 1);
} else {
nailMap.put(A[i], nailMap.get(A[i]) + 1);
}
}
List < Integer > nums = nailMap.values().stream().collect(Collectors.toList());
if (nums.size() == 1) {
return nums.get(0);
}
//else
int max = nums.get(0);
int longer = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < nums.size(); j++) {
int count = 0;
if (Y < longer) {
count = Y + nums.get(j);
} else {
count = longer + nums.get(j);
}
if (max < count) {
max = count;
}
longer += nums.get(j);
}
return max;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
while (scanner.hasNext()) {
String[] input = scanner.nextLine().replaceAll("\\[|\\]", "").split(",");
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(input));
int[] A = new int[input.length - 1];
int Y = Integer.parseInt(input[input.length - 1]);
for (int i = 0; i < input.length; i++) {
if (i < input.length - 1) {
A[i] = Integer.parseInt(input[i]);
} else {
break;
}
}
int result = Solutions(A, Y);
System.out.println(result);
}
}
}

A C++ implementation would like the following where A is the sorted pin size array and K is the number of times the pins can be hammered.
{1,1,3,3,4,4,4,5,5}, K=2 should give 5 as the answer
{1,1,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,6}, K=2 should give 6 as the answer
int maxCount(vector<int>& A, int K) {
int n = A.size();
int best = 0;
int count = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < n-K-1; i++) {
if (A[i] == A[i + 1])
count = count + 1;
else
count = 1;
if (count > best)
best = count;
}
int result = max(best+K, min(K+1, n));
return result;
}

Since the array is sorted to begin with, a reasonably straightforward O(n) solution is, for each distinct value, to count how many elements have that value (by iteration) and how many elements have a greater value (by subtraction).
public static int doIt(final int[] array, final int y) {
int best = 0;
int start = 0;
while (start < array.length) {
int end = start;
while (end < array.length && array[end] == array[start]) {
++end;
}
// array[start .. (end-1)] is now the subarray consisting of a
// single value repeated (end-start) times.
best = Math.max(best, end - start + Math.min(y, array.length - end));
start = end; // skip to the next distinct value
}
assert best >= Math.min(y + 1, array.length); // sanity-check
return best;
}

First, iterate through all the nails and create a hash H that stores the number of nails for each size. For [1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4], H should be:
size count
1 : 1
2 : 2
3 : 3
4 : 3
Now create an little algorithm to evaluate the maximum sum for each size S, given Y:
BestForSize(S, Y){
total = H[S]
while(Y > 0){
S++
if(Y >= H[S] and S < biggestNailSize){
total += H[S]
Y -= H[S]
}
else{
total += Y
Y = 0
}
}
return total;
}
Your answer should be max(BestForSize(0, Y), BestForSize(1, Y), ..., BestForSize(maxSizeOfNail, Y)).
The complexity is O(n²). A tip to optimize is to start from the end. For example, after you have the maximum value of nails in the size 4, how can you use your answer to find the maximum number of size 3?

Here is my java implementation: First I build a reversed map of each integer and its occurence for example {1,1,1,1,3,3,4,4,5,5} would give {5=2, 4=2, 3=2, 1=4}, then for each integer I calculate the max occurence that we can get of it regarding the K and the occurences of the highest integers in the array.
public static int ourFunction(final int[] A, final int K) {
int length = A.length;
int a = 0;
int result = 0;
int b = 0;
int previousValue = 0;
TreeMap < Integer, Integer > ourMap = new TreeMap < Integer, Integer > (Collections.reverseOrder());
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
if (!ourMap.containsKey(A[i])) {
ourMap.put(A[i], 1);
} else {
ourMap.put(A[i], ourMap.get(A[i]) + 1);
}
}
for (Map.Entry<Integer, Integer> entry : ourMap.entrySet()) {
if( a == 0) {
a++;
result = entry.getValue();
previousValue = entry.getValue();
} else {
if( K < previousValue)
b = K;
else
b = previousValue;
if ( b + entry.getValue() > result )
result = b + entry.getValue();
previousValue += entry.getValue();
}
}
return result;
}

Since the array is sorted, we can have an O(n) solution by iterating and checking if current element is equals to previous element and keeping track of the max length.
static int findMax(int []a,int y) {
int n = a.length,current = 1,max = 0,diff = 0;
for(int i = 1; i< n; i++) {
if(a[i] == a[i-1]) {
current++;
diff = Math.min(y, n-i-1);
max = Math.max(max, current+diff);
}else {
current = 1;
}
}
return max;
}

given int array is not sorted than you should sort
public static int findMax(int []A,int K) {
int current = 1,max = 0,diff = 0;
List<Integer> sorted=Arrays.stream(A).sorted().boxed().collect(Collectors.toList());
for(int i = 1; i< sorted.size(); i++) {
if(sorted.get(i).equals(sorted.get(i-1))) {
current++;
diff = Math.min(K, sorted.size()-i-1);
max = Math.max(max, current+diff);
}else {
current = 1;
}
}
return max;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
List<Integer> A = Arrays.asList(3,1,5,3,4,4,3,3,5,5,5,1);
int[] Al = A.stream().mapToInt(Integer::intValue).toArray();
int result=findMax(Al, 5);
System.out.println(result);
}

Find Median from a 2D Matrix where each row should be sorted and the multiplication of row and column number should be odd

Suppose a matrix of 3X3 where the elements are [{1,2,3}{3,6,6}{5,9,9}]. The expected output is 5. But the added code here showing 9. As the solution here is a copy from internet, please help me to understand the code as well. How the min-max value help to find the median and the other approaches as well as the use of binary search.
public class Solution {
public int binarySearch(ArrayList<Integer> arr, int x)
{
int l = 0, r = arr.size() - 1;
while (l <= r)
{
int m = l + (r-l)/2;
if (arr.get(m) == x)
return m;
if (arr.get(m) < x)
l = m + 1;
else
r = m - 1;
}
return -1;
}
public int findMedian(ArrayList<ArrayList<Integer>> A) {
int start=0;
int end=A.size()*A.get(0).size();
int value=-1;
int row=A.size();
int col=A.get(0).size();
int max=Integer.MIN_VALUE;
int min=Integer.MAX_VALUE;
for(int i=0;i<A.size();i++){
if(A.get(i).get(0)<min){
min=A.get(i).get(0);
}
if(A.get(i).get(col-1)>max){
max=A.get(i).get(col-1);
}
}
int desiredIndex=(row * col+1)/2;
while(min<max){
int mid=min+(max-min)/2;
int place = 0;
int index = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < row; ++i)
{
index = binarySearch(A.get(i),mid);
System.out.println("index of : "+index);
if(index < 0)
index = Math.abs(index) - 1;
else
{
while(index <A.get(i).size() && A.get(i).get(index) == mid)
index += 1;
}
place = place + index;
}
if (place < desiredIndex)
min = mid + 1;
else
max = mid;
}
return min;
}
}

I'm not sure where you were searching, but the solution to your problem is readily available online:
public class MedianInRowSorted {
// function to find median in the matrix
static int binaryMedian(int m[][],int r, int c)
{
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
int min = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
for(int i=0; i<r ; i++)
{
// Finding the minimum element
if(m[i][0] < min)
min = m[i][0];
// Finding the maximum element
if(m[i][c-1] > max)
max = m[i][c-1];
}
int desired = (r * c + 1) / 2;
while(min < max)
{
int mid = min + (max - min) / 2;
int place = 0;
int get = 0;
// Find count of elements smaller than mid
for(int i = 0; i < r; ++i)
{
get = Arrays.binarySearch(m[i],mid);
// If element is not found in the array the
// binarySearch() method returns
// (-(insertion_point) - 1). So once we know
// the insertion point we can find elements
// Smaller than the searched element by the
// following calculation
if(get < 0)
get = Math.abs(get) - 1;
// If element is found in the array it returns
// the index(any index in case of duplicate). So we go to last
// index of element which will give the number of
// elements smaller than the number including
// the searched element.
else
{
while(get < m[i].length && m[i][get] == mid)
get += 1;
}
place = place + get;
}
if (place < desired)
min = mid + 1;
else
max = mid;
}
return min;
}
You can test it by running this code inside your main method:
int matrix [][] = {{1,2,3},{3,6,6},{5,9,9}};
System.out.println(binaryMedian(matrix, 3, 3));
It'll return 5, which is the correct median. Let me know if you have any questions and I can go more in depth as to how the function works!

NumberOfDiscIntersections overflow in codility test

In the codility test NumberOfDiscIntersections I am getting perf 100% and correctness 87% with the one test failing being
overflow
arithmetic overflow tests
got -1 expected 2
I can't see what is causing that given that I am using long which is 64-bit. And even if I can get it to 100% perf 100% correctness I am wondering if there is a better way to do this that is not as verbose in Java.
edit: figured out a much better way to do with with two arrays rather than a pair class
// you can also use imports, for example:
import java.util.*;
// you can use System.out.println for debugging purposes, e.g.
// System.out.println("this is a debug message");
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
int j = 0;
Pair[] arr = new Pair[A.length * 2];
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
Pair s = new Pair(i - A[i], true);
arr[j] = s;
j++;
Pair e = new Pair(i + A[i], false);
arr[j] = e;
j++;
}
Arrays.sort(arr, new Pair(0, true));
long numIntersect = 0;
long currentCount = 0;
for (Pair p: arr) {
if (p.start) {
numIntersect += currentCount;
if (numIntersect > 10000000) {
return -1;
}
currentCount++;
} else {
currentCount--;
}
}
return (int) numIntersect;
}
static private class Pair implements Comparator<Pair> {
private long x;
private boolean start;
public Pair(long x, boolean start) {
this.x = x;
this.start = start;
}
public int compare(Pair p1, Pair p2) {
if (p1.x < p2.x) {
return -1;
} else if (p1.x > p2.x) {
return 1;
} else {
if (p1.start && p2.start == false) {
return -1;
} else if (p1.start == false && p2.start) {
return 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
}
}
}

Look at this line:
Pair s = new Pair(i + A[i], true);
This is equivalent with Pair s = new Pair((long)(i + A[i]) , true);
As i is integer, and A[i] is also integer, so this can cause overflow, as value in A[i] can go up to Integer.MAX_VALUE, and the cast to long happened after add operation is completed.
To fix:
Pair s = new Pair((long)i + (long)A[i], true);
Note: I have submitted with my fixed and got 100%
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoRRBY3Q-UXH/

My todays solution. O(N) time complexity. Simple assumption that number of availble pairs in next point of the table is difference between total open circle to that moment (circle) and circles that have been processed before. Maybe it's to simple :)
public int solution04(int[] A) {
final int N = A.length;
final int M = N + 2;
int[] left = new int[M]; // values of nb of "left" edges of the circles in that point
int[] sleft = new int[M]; // prefix sum of left[]
int il, ir; // index of the "left" and of the "right" edge of the circle
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { // counting left edges
il = tl(i, A);
left[il]++;
}
sleft[0] = left[0];
for (int i = 1; i < M; i++) {// counting prefix sums for future use
sleft[i]=sleft[i-1]+left[i];
}
int o, pairs, total_p = 0, total_used=0;
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) { // counting pairs
ir = tr(i, A, M);
o = sleft[ir]; // nb of open till right edge
pairs = o -1 - total_used;
total_used++;
total_p += pairs;
}
if(total_p > 10000000){
total_p = -1;
}
return total_p;
}
int tl(int i, int[] A){
int tl = i - A[i]; // index of "begin" of the circle
if (tl < 0) {
tl = 0;
} else {
tl = i - A[i] + 1;
}
return tl;
}
int tr(int i, int[] A, int M){
int tr; // index of "end" of the circle
if (Integer.MAX_VALUE - i < A[i] || i + A[i] >= M - 1) {
tr = M - 1;
} else {
tr = i + A[i] + 1;
}
return tr;
}

My take on this, O(n):
public int solution(int[] A) {
int[] startPoints = new int[A.length];
int[] endPoints = new int[A.length];
int tempPoint;
int currOpenCircles = 0;
long pairs = 0;
//sum of starting and end points - how many circles open and close at each index?
for(int i = 0; i < A.length; i++){
tempPoint = i - A[i];
startPoints[tempPoint < 0 ? 0 : tempPoint]++;
tempPoint = i + A[i];
if(A[i] < A.length && tempPoint < A.length) //first prevents int overflow, second chooses correct point
endPoints[tempPoint]++;
}
//find all pairs of new circles (combinations), then make pairs with exiting circles (multiplication)
for(int i = 0; i < A.length; i++){
if(startPoints[i] >= 2)
pairs += (startPoints[i] * (startPoints[i] - 1)) / 2;
pairs += currOpenCircles * startPoints[i];
currOpenCircles += startPoints[i];
currOpenCircles -= endPoints[i];
if(pairs > 10000000)
return -1;
}
return (int) pairs;
}

The explanation to Helsing's solution part:
if(startPoints[i] >= 2) pairs += (startPoints[i] * (startPoints[i] - 1)) / 2;
is based on mathematical combinations formula:
Cn,m = n! / ((n-m)!.m!
for pairs, m=2 then:
Cn,2 = n! / ((n-2)!.2
Equal to:
Cn,2 = n.(n-1).(n-2)! / ((n-2)!.2
By simplification:
Cn,2 = n.(n-1) / 2

Not a very good performance, but using streams.
List<Long> list = IntStream.range(0, A.length).mapToObj(i -> Arrays.asList((long) i - A[i], (long) i + A[i]))
.sorted((o1, o2) -> {
int f = o1.get(0).compareTo(o2.get(0));
return f == 0 ? o1.get(1).compareTo(o2.get(1)) : f;
})
.collect(ArrayList<Long>::new,
(acc, val) -> {
if (acc.isEmpty()) {
acc.add(0l);
acc.add(val.get(1));
} else {
Iterator it = acc.iterator();
it.next();
while (it.hasNext()) {
long el = (long) it.next();
if (val.get(0) <= el) {
long count = acc.get(0);
acc.set(0, ++count);
} else {
it.remove();
}
}
acc.add(val.get(1));
}
},
ArrayList::addAll);
return (int) (list.isEmpty() ? 0 : list.get(0) > 10000000 ? -1 : list.get(0));

This one in Python passed all "Correctness tests" and failed all "Performance tests" due to O(n²), so I got 50% score. But it is very simple to understand. I just used the right radius (maximum) and checked if it was bigger or equal to the left radius (minimum) of the next circles. I also avoided to use sort and did not check twice the same circle. Later I will try to improve performance, but the problem here for me was the algorithm. I tried to find a very easy solution to help explain the concept. Maybe this will help someone.
def solution(A):
n = len(A)
cnt = 0
for j in range(1,n):
for i in range(n-j):
if(i+A[i]>=i+j-A[i+j]):
cnt+=1
if(cnt>1e7):
return -1
return cnt

java codility Frog-River-One

I have been trying to solve a Java exercise on a Codility web page.
Below is the link to the mentioned exercise and my solution.
https://codility.com/demo/results/demoH5GMV3-PV8
Can anyone tell what can I correct in my code in order to improve the score?
Just in case here is the task description:
A small frog wants to get to the other side of a river. The frog is currently located at position 0, and wants to get to position X. Leaves fall from a tree onto the surface of the river.
You are given a non-empty zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers representing the falling leaves. A[K] represents the position where one leaf falls at time K, measured in minutes.
The goal is to find the earliest time when the frog can jump to the other side of the river. The frog can cross only when leaves appear at every position across the river from 1 to X.
For example, you are given integer X = 5 and array A such that:
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 3
A[2] = 1
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 2
A[5] = 3
A[6] = 5
A[7] = 4
In minute 6, a leaf falls into position 5. This is the earliest time when leaves appear in every position across the river.
Write a function:
class Solution { public int solution(int X, int[] A); }
that, given a non-empty zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers and integer X, returns the earliest time when the frog can jump to the other side of the river.
If the frog is never able to jump to the other side of the river, the function should return −1.
For example, given X = 5 and array A such that:
A[0] = 1
A[1] = 3
A[2] = 1
A[3] = 4
A[4] = 2
A[5] = 3
A[6] = 5
A[7] = 4
the function should return 6, as explained above. Assume that:
N and X are integers within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [1..X].
Complexity:
expected worst-case time complexity is O(N);
expected worst-case space complexity is O(X), beyond input storage (not counting the storage required for input arguments).
Elements of input arrays can be modified.
And here is my solution:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
int list[] = A;
int sum = 0;
int searchedValue = X;
List<Integer> arrayList = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int iii = 0; iii < list.length; iii++) {
if (list[iii] <= searchedValue && !arrayList.contains(list[iii])) {
sum += list[iii];
arrayList.add(list[iii]);
}
if (list[iii] == searchedValue) {
if (sum == searchedValue * (searchedValue + 1) / 2) {
return iii;
}
}
}
return -1;
}
}

You are using arrayList.contains inside a loop, which will traverse the whole list unnecessarily.
Here is my solution (I wrote it some time ago, but I believe it scores 100/100):
public int frog(int X, int[] A) {
int steps = X;
boolean[] bitmap = new boolean[steps+1];
for(int i = 0; i < A.length; i++){
if(!bitmap[A[i]]){
bitmap[A[i]] = true;
steps--;
if(steps == 0) return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

Here is my solution. It got me 100/100:
public int solution(int X, int[] A)
{
int[] B = A.Distinct().ToArray();
return (B.Length != X) ? -1 : Array.IndexOf<int>(A, B[B.Length - 1]);
}

100/100
public static int solution (int X, int[] A){
int[]counter = new int[X+1];
int ans = -1;
int x = 0;
for (int i=0; i<A.length; i++){
if (counter[A[i]] == 0){
counter[A[i]] = A[i];
x += 1;
if (x == X){
return i;
}
}
}
return ans;
}

A Java solution using Sets (Collections Framework) Got a 100%
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.TreeSet;
public class Froggy {
public static int solution(int X, int[] A){
int steps=-1;
Set<Integer> values = new TreeSet<Integer>();
for(int i=0; i<A.length;i++){
if(A[i]<=X){
values.add(A[i]);
}
if(values.size()==X){
steps=i;
break;
}
}
return steps;
}

Better approach would be to use Set, because it only adds unique values to the list. Just add values to the Set and decrement X every time a new value is added, (Set#add() returns true if value is added, false otherwise);
have a look,
public static int solution(int X, int[] A) {
Set<Integer> values = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (values.add(A[i])) X--;
if (X == 0) return i;
}
return -1;
}
do not forget to import,
import java.util.HashSet;
import java.util.Set;

Here's my solution, scored 100/100:
import java.util.HashSet;
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
HashSet<Integer> hset = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0 ; i < A.length; i++) {
if (A[i] <= X)
hset.add(A[i]);
if (hset.size() == X)
return i;
}
return -1;
}
}

Simple solution 100%
public int solution(final int X, final int[] A) {
Set<Integer> emptyPosition = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 1; i <= X; i++) {
emptyPosition.add(i);
}
// Once all the numbers are covered for position, that would be the
// moment when the frog will jump
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
emptyPosition.remove(A[i]);
if (emptyPosition.size() == 0) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

Here's my solution.
It isn't perfect, but it's good enough to score 100/100.
(I think that it shouldn't have passed a test with a big A and small X)
Anyway, it fills a new counter array with each leaf that falls
counter has the size of X because I don't care for leafs that fall farther than X, therefore the try-catch block.
AFTER X leafs fell (because it's the minimum amount of leafs) I begin checking whether I have a complete way - I'm checking that every int in count is greater than 0.
If so, I return i, else I break and try again.
public static int solution(int X, int[] A){
int[] count = new int[X];
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++){
try{
count[A[i]-1]++;
} catch (ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException e){ }
if (i >= X - 1){
for (int j = 0; j< count.length; j++){
if (count[j] == 0){
break;
}
if (j == count.length - 1){
return i;
}
}
}
}
return -1;
}

Here's my solution with 100 / 100.
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
int len = A.length;
if (X > len) {
return -1;
}
int[] isFilled = new int[X];
int jumped = 0;
Arrays.fill(isFilled, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
int x = A[i];
if (x <= X) {
if (isFilled[x - 1] == 0) {
isFilled[x - 1] = 1;
jumped += 1;
if (jumped == X) {
return i;
}
}
}
}
return -1;
}

Here's what I have in C#. It can probably still be refactored.
We throw away numbers greater than X, which is where we want to stop, and then we add numbers to an array if they haven't already been added.
When the count of the list has reached the expected number, X, then return the result. 100%
var tempArray = new int[X+1];
var totalNumbers = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if (A[i] > X || tempArray.ElementAt(A[i]) != 0)
continue;
tempArray[A[i]] = A[i];
totalNumbers++;
if (totalNumbers == X)
return i;
}
return -1;

below is my solution. I basically created a set which allows uniques only and then go through the array and add every element to set and keep a counter to get the sum of the set and then using the sum formula of consecutive numbers then I got 100% . Note : if you add up the set using java 8 stream api the solution is becoming quadratic and you get %56 .
public static int solution2(int X, int[] A) {
long sum = X * (X + 1) / 2;
Set<Integer> set = new HashSet<Integer>();
int setSum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (set.add(A[i]))
setSum += A[i];
if (setSum == sum) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

My JavaScript solution that got 100 across the board. Since the numbers are assumed to be in the range of the river width, simply storing booleans in a temporary array that can be checked against duplicates will do. Then, once you have amassed as many numbers as the quantity X, you know you have all the leaves necessary to cross.
function solution(X, A) {
covered = 0;
tempArray = [];
for (let i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (!tempArray[A[i]]) {
tempArray[A[i]] = true;
covered++
if(covered === X) return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

Here is my answer in Python:
def solution(X, A):
# write your code in Python 3.6
values = set()
for i in range (len(A)):
if A[i]<=X :
values.add(A[i])
if len(values)==X:
return i
return -1

Just tried this problem as well and here is my solution. Basically, I just declared an array whose size is equal to position X. Then, I declared a counter to monitor if the necessary leaves have fallen at the particular spots. The loop exits when these leaves have been met and if not, returns -1 as instructed.
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
int size = A.length;
int[] check = new int[X];
int cmp = 0;
int time = -1;
for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) {
int temp = A[x];
if (temp <= X) {
if (check[temp-1] > 0) {
continue;
}
check[temp - 1]++;
cmp++;
}
if ( cmp == X) {
time = x;
break;
}
}
return time;
}
}
It got a 100/100 on the evaluation but I'm not too sure of its performance. I am still a beginner when it comes to programming so if anybody can critique the code, I would be grateful.

Maybe it is not perfect but its straightforward. Just made a counter Array to track the needed "leaves" and verified on each iteration if the path was complete. Got me 100/100 and O(N).
public static int frogRiver(int X, int[] A)
{
int leaves = A.Length;
int[] counter = new int[X + 1];
int stepsAvailForTravel = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < leaves; i++)
{
//we won't get to that leaf anyway so we shouldnt count it,
if (A[i] > X)
{
continue;
}
else
{
//first hit!, keep a count of the available leaves to jump
if (counter[A[i]] == 0)
stepsAvailForTravel++;
counter[A[i]]++;
}
//We did it!!
if (stepsAvailForTravel == X)
{
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

This is my solution. I think it's very simple. It gets 100/100 on codibility.
set.contains() let me eliminate duplicate position from table.
The result of first loop get us expected sum. In the second loop we get sum of input values.
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
Set<Integer> set = new HashSet<Integer>();
int sum1 = 0, sum2 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i <= X; i++){
sum1 += i;
}
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++){
if (set.contains(A[i])) continue;
set.add(A[i]);
sum2 += A[i];
if (sum1 == sum2) return i;
}
return -1;
}
}

Your algorithm is perfect except below code
Your code returns value only if list[iii] matches with searchedValue.
The algorithm must be corrected in such a way that, it returns the value if sum == n * ( n + 1) / 2.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
int list[] = A;
int sum = 0;
int searchedValue = X;
int sumV = searchedValue * (searchedValue + 1) / 2;
List<Integer> arrayList = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int iii = 0; iii < list.length; iii++) {
if (list[iii] <= searchedValue && !arrayList.contains(list[iii])) {
sum += list[iii];
if (sum == sumV) {
return iii;
}
arrayList.add(list[iii]);
}
}
return -1;
}
}
I think you need to check the performance as well. I just ensured the output only

This solution I've posted today gave 100% on codility, but respectivly #rafalio 's answer it requires K times less memory
public class Solution {
private static final int ARRAY_SIZE_LOWER = 1;
private static final int ARRAY_SIZE_UPPER = 100000;
private static final int NUMBER_LOWER = ARRAY_SIZE_LOWER;
private static final int NUMBER_UPPER = ARRAY_SIZE_UPPER;
public static class Set {
final long[] buckets;
public Set(int size) {
this.buckets = new long[(size % 64 == 0 ? (size/64) : (size/64) + 1)];
}
/**
* number should be greater than zero
* #param number
*/
public void put(int number) {
buckets[getBucketindex(number)] |= getFlag(number);
}
public boolean contains(int number) {
long flag = getFlag(number);
// check if flag is stored
return (buckets[getBucketindex(number)] & flag) == flag;
}
private int getBucketindex(int number) {
if (number <= 64) {
return 0;
} else if (number <= 128) {
return 1;
} else if (number <= 192) {
return 2;
} else if (number <= 256) {
return 3;
} else if (number <= 320) {
return 4;
} else if (number <= 384) {
return 5;
} else
return (number % 64 == 0 ? (number/64) : (number/64) + 1) - 1;
}
private long getFlag(int number) {
if (number <= 64) {
return 1L << number;
} else
return 1L << (number % 64);
}
}
public static final int solution(final int X, final int[] A) {
if (A.length < ARRAY_SIZE_LOWER || A.length > ARRAY_SIZE_UPPER) {
throw new RuntimeException("Array size out of bounds");
}
Set set = new Set(X);
int ai;
int counter = X;
final int NUMBER_REAL_UPPER = min(NUMBER_UPPER, X);
for (int i = 0 ; i < A.length; i++) {
if ((ai = A[i]) < NUMBER_LOWER || ai > NUMBER_REAL_UPPER) {
throw new RuntimeException("Number out of bounds");
} else if (ai <= X && !set.contains(ai)) {
counter--;
if (counter == 0) {
return i;
}
set.put(ai);
}
}
return -1;
}
private static int min(int x, int y) {
return (x < y ? x : y);
}
}

This is my solution it got me 100/100 and O(N).
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
Map<Integer, Integer> leaves = new HashMap<>();
for (int i = A.length - 1; i >= 0 ; i--)
{
leaves.put(A[i] - 1, i);
}
return leaves.size() != X ? -1 : Collections.max(leaves.values());
}

This is my solution
public func FrogRiverOne(_ X : Int, _ A : inout [Int]) -> Int {
var B = [Int](repeating: 0, count: X+1)
for i in 0..<A.count {
if B[A[i]] == 0 {
B[A[i]] = i+1
}
}
var time = 0
for i in 1...X {
if( B[i] == 0 ) {
return -1
} else {
time = max(time, B[i])
}
}
return time-1
}
A = [1,2,1,4,2,3,5,4]
print("FrogRiverOne: ", FrogRiverOne(5, &A))

Actually I re-wrote this exercise without seeing my last answer and came up with another solution 100/100 and O(N).
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
Set<Integer> leaves = new HashSet<>();
for(int i=0; i < A.length; i++) {
leaves.add(A[i]);
if (leaves.contains(X) && leaves.size() == X) return i;
}
return -1;
}
I like this one better because it is even simpler.

This one works good on codality 100% out of 100%. It's very similar to the marker array above but uses a map:
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
int index = -1;
Map<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (!map.containsKey(A[i])) {
map.put(A[i], A[i]);
X--;
if (X == 0) {index = i;break;}
}
}
return index;
}

%100 with js
function solution(X, A) {
let leafSet = new Set();
for (let i = 0; i < A.length; i += 1) {
if(A[i] <= 0)
continue;
if (A[i] <= X )
leafSet.add(A[i]);
if (leafSet.size == X)
return i;
}
return -1;
}

With JavaScript following solution got 100/100.
Detected time complexity: O(N)
function solution(X, A) {
let leaves = new Set();
for (let i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (A[i] <= X) {
leaves.add(A[i])
if (leaves.size == X) {
return i;
}
}
}
return -1;
}

100% Solution using Javascript.
function solution(X, A) {
if (A.length === 0) return -1
if (A.length < X) return -1
let steps = X
const leaves = {}
for (let i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (!leaves[A[i]]) {
leaves[A[i]] = true
steps--
}
if (steps === 0) {
return i
}
}
return -1
}

C# Solution with 100% score:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
class Solution {
public int solution(int X, int[] A) {
// go through the array
// fill a hashset, until the size of hashset is X
var set = new HashSet<int>();
int i = 0;
foreach (var a in A)
{
if (a <= X)
{
set.Add(a);
}
if (set.Count == X)
{
return i;
}
i++;
}
return -1;
}
}

https://app.codility.com/demo/results/trainingXE7QFJ-TZ7/
I have a very simple solution (100% / 100%) using HashSet. Lots of people check unnecessarily whether the Value is less than or equal to X. This task cannot be otherwise.
public static int solution(int X, int[] A) {
Set<Integer> availableFields = new HashSet<>();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
availableFields.add(A[i]);
if (availableFields.size() == X){
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

public static int solutions(int X, int[] A) {
Set<Integer> values = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if (values.add(A[i])) {
X--;
}
if (X == 0) {
return i;
}
}
return -1;
}

This is my solution. It uses 3 loops but is constant time and gets 100/100 on codibility.
class FrogLeap
{
internal int solution(int X, int[] A)
{
int result = -1;
long max = -1;
var B = new int[X + 1];
//initialize all entries in B array with -1
for (int i = 0; i <= X; i++)
{
B[i] = -1;
}
//Go through A and update B with the location where that value appeared
for (int i = 0; i < A.Length; i++)
{
if( B[A[i]] ==-1)//only update if still -1
B[A[i]] = i;
}
//start from 1 because 0 is not valid
for (int i = 1; i <= X; i++)
{
if (B[i] == -1)
return -1;
//The maxValue here is the earliest time we can jump over
if (max < B[i])
max = B[i];
}
result = (int)max;
return result;
}
}

Short and sweet C++ code. Gets perfect 100%... Drum roll ...
#include <set>
int solution(int X, vector<int> &A) {
set<int> final;
for(unsigned int i =0; i< A.size(); i++){
final.insert(A[i]);
if(final.size() == X) return i;
}
return -1;
}

Implementing a binary insertion sort using binary search in Java

I'm having trouble combining these two algorithms together. I've been asked to modify Binary Search to return the index that an element should be inserted into an array. I've been then asked to implement a Binary Insertion Sort that uses my Binary Search to sort an array of randomly generated ints.
My Binary Search works the way it's supposed to, returning the correct index whenever I test it alone. I wrote out Binary Insertion Sort to get a feel for how it works, and got that to work as well. As soon as I combine the two together, it breaks. I know I'm implementing them incorrectly together, but I'm not sure where my problem lays.
Here's what I've got:
public class Assignment3
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] binary = { 1, 7, 4, 9, 10, 2, 6, 12, 3, 8, 5 };
ModifiedBinaryInsertionSort(binary);
}
static int ModifiedBinarySearch(int[] theArray, int theElement)
{
int leftIndex = 0;
int rightIndex = theArray.length - 1;
int middleIndex = 0;
while(leftIndex <= rightIndex)
{
middleIndex = (leftIndex + rightIndex) / 2;
if (theElement == theArray[middleIndex])
return middleIndex;
else if (theElement < theArray[middleIndex])
rightIndex = middleIndex - 1;
else
leftIndex = middleIndex + 1;
}
return middleIndex - 1;
}
static void ModifiedBinaryInsertionSort(int[] theArray)
{
int i = 0;
int[] returnArray = new int[theArray.length + 1];
for(i = 0; i < theArray.length; i++)
{
returnArray[ModifiedBinarySearch(theArray, theArray[i])] = theArray[i];
}
for(i = 0; i < theArray.length; i++)
{
System.out.print(returnArray[i] + " ");
}
}
}
The return value I get for this when I run it is 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 12. Any suggestions?
UPDATE: updated ModifiedBinaryInsertionSort
static void ModifiedBinaryInsertionSort(int[] theArray)
{
int index = 0;
int element = 0;
int[] returnArray = new int[theArray.length];
for (int i = 1; i < theArray.lenght - 1; i++)
{
element = theArray[i];
index = ModifiedBinarySearch(theArray, 0, i, element);
returnArray[i] = element;
while (index >= 0 && theArray[index] > element)
{
theArray[index + 1] = theArray[index];
index = index - 1;
}
returnArray[index + 1] = element;
}
}

Here is my method to sort an array of integers using binary search.
It modifies the array that is passed as argument.
public static void binaryInsertionSort(int[] a) {
if (a.length < 2)
return;
for (int i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
int lowIndex = 0;
int highIndex = i;
int b = a[i];
//while loop for binary search
while(lowIndex < highIndex) {
int middle = lowIndex + (highIndex - lowIndex)/2; //avoid int overflow
if (b >= a[middle]) {
lowIndex = middle+1;
}
else {
highIndex = middle;
}
}
//replace elements of array
System.arraycopy(a, lowIndex, a, lowIndex+1, i-lowIndex);
a[lowIndex] = b;
}
}

How an insertion sort works is, it creates a new empty array B and, for each element in the unsorted array A, it binary searches into the section of B that has been built so far (From left to right), shifts all elements to the right of the location in B it choose one right and inserts the element in. So you are building up an at-all-times sorted array in B until it is the full size of B and contains everything in A.
Two things:
One, the binary search should be able to take an int startOfArray and an int endOfArray, and it will only binary search between those two points. This allows you to make it consider only the part of array B that is actually the sorted array.
Two, before inserting, you must move all elements one to the right before inserting into the gap you've made.

I realize this is old, but the answer to the question is that, perhaps a little unintuitively, "Middleindex - 1" will not be your insertion index in all cases.
If you run through a few cases on paper the problem should become apparent.
I have an extension method that solves this problem. To apply it to your situation, you would iterate through the existing list, inserting into an empty starting list.
public static void BinaryInsert<TItem, TKey>(this IList<TItem> list, TItem item, Func<TItem, TKey> sortfFunc)
where TKey : IComparable
{
if (list == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("list");
int min = 0;
int max = list.Count - 1;
int index = 0;
TKey insertKey = sortfFunc(item);
while (min <= max)
{
index = (max + min) >> 1;
TItem value = list[index];
TKey compKey = sortfFunc(value);
int result = compKey.CompareTo(insertKey);
if (result == 0)
break;
if (result > 0)
max = index - 1;
else
min = index + 1;
}
if (index <= 0)
index = 0;
else if (index >= list.Count)
index = list.Count;
else
if (sortfFunc(list[index]).CompareTo(insertKey) < 0)
++index;
list.Insert(index, item);
}

Dude, I think you have some serious problem with your code. Unfortunately, you are missing the fruit (logic) of this algorithm. Your divine goal here is to get the index first, insertion is a cake walk, but index needs some sweat. Please don't see this algorithm unless you gave your best and desperate for it. Never give up, you already know the logic, your goal is to find it in you. Please let me know for any mistakes, discrepancies etc. Happy coding!!
public class Insertion {
private int[] a;
int n;
int c;
public Insertion()
{
a = new int[10];
n=0;
}
int find(int key)
{
int lowerbound = 0;
int upperbound = n-1;
while(true)
{
c = (lowerbound + upperbound)/2;
if(n==0)
return 0;
if(lowerbound>=upperbound)
{
if(a[c]<key)
return c++;
else
return c;
}
if(a[c]>key && a[c-1]<key)
return c;
else if (a[c]<key && a[c+1]>key)
return c++;
else
{
if(a[c]>key)
upperbound = c-1;
else
lowerbound = c+1;
}
}
}
void insert(int key)
{
find(key);
for(int k=n;k>c;k--)
{
a[k]=a[k-1];
}
a[c]=key;
n++;
}
void display()
{
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
System.out.println(a[i]);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Insertion i=new Insertion();
i.insert(56);
i.insert(1);
i.insert(78);
i.insert(3);
i.insert(4);
i.insert(200);
i.insert(6);
i.insert(7);
i.insert(1000);
i.insert(9);
i.display();
}
}