Develop Reference

binary partition an array using java

I am a beginner(first year uni student) programmer trying to solve this problem which i'm finding somewhat difficult. If you are to answer this question, don't provide me with a complex daunting algorithm that will leave me scratching my head. I'll really appreciate it if you explain it step my step (both logically/conceptually then through code)
The problem is as follows:image
I have tried to attempt it and my code only works for a certain case that i tested.
package com.company;
import java.lang.Math;
public class Main {
public static int[][] binary_partition(int array[], int k){
int x = (int) Math.pow(2,k);
int[][] partition = new int[((array.length/x)*2)][array.length/x];
int divisor = array.length/x;
if ((array.length % 2) != 0){
return partition;
}
if (divisor >= array.length-1){
return partition;
}
if (k==1){
return partition;
}
int p = 0;
for(int i=0;i<((array.length/x)*2);i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j<array.length/x;j++)
{
partition[i][j] = array[p];
p += 1;
}
}
return partition;
}
public static void main(String[] args){
int[] array = {3, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 2, 3};
int[][] result = binary_partition(array,2);
for (int[] x : result){
for (int y : x)
{
System.out.print(y + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
}

Your question is unclear, but this solution creates a function that partitions an array with the right length into 2^k sets.
First, an interesting fact: using the bitshift operator << on an integer increases its value by a power of two. So to find out the size of your partition, you could write
int numPartitions = 1 << k; // Equivalent to getting the integer value of 2^k
With this fact, the function becomes
public static int[][] partition(int[] set, int k) {
if (set == null)
return null; // Don't try to partition a null reference
// If k = 0, the partition of the set is just the set
if (k == 0) {
int[][] partition = new int[1][set.length];
// Copy the original set into the partition
System.arraycopy(set, 0, partition[0], 0, set.length);
return partition;
}
int numPartitions = 1 << k; // The number of sets to partition the array into
int numElements = set.length / numPartitions; // The number of elements per partition
/* Check if the set has enough elements to create a partition and make sure
that the partitions are even */
if (numElements == 0 || set.length % numElements != 0)
return null; // Replace with an error/exception of your choice
int[][] partition = new int[numPartitions][numElements];
int index = 0;
for (int r = 0; r < numPartitions; r++) {
for (int c = 0; c < numElements; c++) {
partition[r][c] = set[index++]; // Assign an element to the partition
}
}
return partition;
}

There are a few lines of your code where the intention is not clear. For example, it is not clear why you are validating divisor >= array.length-1. Checking k==1 is also incorrect because k=1 is a valid input to the method. In fact, all your validation checks are not needed. All you need to validate is that array.length is divisible by x.
The main problem that you have seems to be that you mixed up the lengths of the resulting array.
The resulting array should have a length of array.length / x, and each of the subarrays should have a length of x, hence:
int[][] partition = new int[array.length/x][x];
If you also fix your bounds on the for loops, your code should work.
Your nested for loop can be rewritten as a single for loop:
for(int i = 0 ; i < array.length ; i++)
{
int index = i / x;
int subArrayIndex = i % x;
partition[index][subArrayIndex] = array[i];
}
You just need to figure out which indices a an element array[i] belongs by dividing and getting the remainder.

Restaurant Maximum Profit using Dynamic Programming

Its an assignment task,I have spend 2 days to come up with a solution but still having lots of confusion,however here I need to make few points clear. Following is the problem:
Yuckdonald’s is considering opening a series of restaurant along QVH. n possible locations are along a straight line and the distances of these locations from the start of QVH are in miles and in increasing order m1, m2, ...., mn. The constraints are as follows:
1. At each location, Yuckdonald may open one restaurant and expected profit from opening a restaurant at location i is given as pi
2. Any two restaurants should be at least k miles apart, where k is a positive integer
My solution:
public class RestaurantProblem {
int[] Profit;
int[] P;
int[] L;
int k;
public RestaurantProblem(int[] L , int[] P, int k) {
this.L = L;
this.P = P;
this.k = k;
Profit = new int[L.length];
}
public int compute(int i){
if(i==0)
return 0;
Profit[i]= P[i]+(L[i]-L[i-1]< k ? 0:compute(i-1));//if condition satisfies then adding previous otherwise zero
if (Profit[i]<compute(i-1)){
Profit[i] = compute(i-1);
}
return Profit[i];
}
public static void main(String args[]){
int[] m = {0,5,10,15,19,25,28,29};
int[] p = {0,10,4,61,21,13,19,15};
int k = 5;
RestaurantProblem rp = new RestaurantProblem(m, p ,k);
rp.compute(m.length-1);
for(int n : rp.Profit)
System.out.println(n);
}
}
This solution giving me 88 however if I exclude (Restaurant at 25 with Profit 13) and include (Restaurant 28 with profit 19) I can have 94 max...
point me if I am wrong or how can I achieve this if its true.

I was able to identify 2 mistakes:
You are not actually using dynamic programming
, you are just storing the results in a data structure, which wouldn't be that bad for performance if the program worked the way you have written it and if you did only 1 recursive call.
However you do at least 2 recursive calls. Therefore the program runs in Ω(2^n) instead of O(n).
Dynamic programming usually works like this (pseudocode):
calculate(input) {
if (value already calculated for input)
return previously calculated value
else
calculate and store value for input and return result
}
You could do this by initializing the array elements to -1 (or 0 if all profits are positive):
Profit = new int[L.length];
Arrays.fill(Profit, -1); // no need to do this, if you are using 0
public int compute(int i) {
if (Profit[i] >= 0) { // modify the check, if you're using 0 for non-calculated values
// reuse already calculated value
return Profit[i];
}
...
You assume the previous restaurant can only be build at the previous position
Profit[i] = P[i] + (L[i]-L[i-1]< k ? 0 : compute(i-1));
^
Just ignores all positions before i-1
Instead you should use the profit for the last position that is at least k miles away.
Example
k = 3
L 1 2 3 ... 100
P 5 5 5 ... 5
here L[i] - L[i-1] < k is true for all i and therefore the result will just be P[99] = 5 but it should be 34 * 5 = 170.
int[] lastPos;
public RestaurantProblem(int[] L, int[] P, int k) {
this.L = L;
this.P = P;
this.k = k;
Profit = new int[L.length];
lastPos = new int[L.length];
Arrays.fill(lastPos, -2);
Arrays.fill(Profit, -1);
}
public int computeLastPos(int i) {
if (i < 0) {
return -1;
}
if (lastPos[i] >= -1) {
return lastPos[i];
}
int max = L[i] - k;
int lastLastPos = computeLastPos(i - 1), temp;
while ((temp = lastLastPos + 1) < i && L[temp] <= max) {
lastLastPos++;
}
return lastPos[i] = lastLastPos;
}
public int compute(int i) {
if (i < 0) {
// no restaurants can be build before pos 0
return 0;
}
if (Profit[i] >= 0) { // modify the check, if you're using 0 for non-calculated values
// reuse already calculated value
return Profit[i];
}
int profitNoRestaurant = compute(i - 1);
if (P[i] <= 0) {
// no profit can be gained by building this restaurant
return Profit[i] = profitNoRestaurant;
}
return Profit[i] = Math.max(profitNoRestaurant, P[i] + compute(computeLastPos(i)));
}

To my understanding, the prolem can be modelled with a two-dimensional state space, which I don't find in the presented implementation. For each (i,j) in{0,...,n-1}times{0,...,n-1}` let
profit(i,j) := the maximum profit attainable for selecting locations
from {0,...,i} where the farthest location selected is
no further than at position j
(or minus infinity if no such solution exist)
and note that the recurrence relation
profit(i,j) = min{ p[i] + profit(i-1,lastpos(i)),
profit(i-1,j)
}
where lastpos(i) is the location which is farthest from the start, but no closer than k to position i; the first case above corresponds to selection location i into the solution while the second case corresponds to omitting location j in the solution. The overall solution can be obtained by evaluating profit(n-1,n-1); the evaluation can be done either recursively or by filling a two-dimensional array in a bottom-up manner and returning its contents at (n-1,n-1).

Max Double Slice Sum codility O(1) space complexity fail performance test case

I was trying figure out why the below solution failed for a single performance test case for the 'Max Double Slice Sum' problem in the codility website: https://codility.com/demo/take-sample-test/max_double_slice_sum
There is another solution O(n) space complexity which is easier to comprehend overhere: Max double slice sum. But i am just wondering why this O(1) solution doesn't work. Below is the actual code:
import java.util.*;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
long maxDS = 0;
long maxDSE = 0;
long maxS = A[1];
for(int i=2; i<A.length-1; ++i){
//end at i-index
maxDSE = Math.max(maxDSE+A[i], maxS);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE);
maxS = Math.max(A[i], maxS + A[i]);
}
return (int)maxDS;
}
}
The idea is simple as follow:
The problem can be readdress as finding max(A[i]+A[i+1]+...+A[j]-A[m]); 1<=i<=m<=j<=n-2; while n = A.length; we call A[m] is missing element within the slice.
maxS[i] will keep max slice which end at current index i; in other words, = max(A[t] + ... + A[i]); while t < i; so when i=1; maxS = A[1]; Note that in solution, we don't keep array but rather latest maxS at current index (See above code).
maxDSE[i] is max of all double slice which end at i; in other words, = max(A[t]+A[t+1]+...+A[i]-A[m])--end at A[i]; maxDS is the final max of double slice sum which we try to find.
Now, we just use a for-loop from i=2; -> i=A.length-2; For each index i, we notice some findings:
If the missing element is A[i], then maxDSE[i] = maxS[i-1] (max sum of
all slice which end at i-1 => or A[t] + ... + A[i] - A[i]);
If missing element is not A[i] -> so it must be somewhere from A[1]->A[i-1] -> maxDSE = maxDSE[i-1] + A[i]; such as A[t] + ... + A[i] - A[m] (not that A[i] must be last element) with t
so maxDSE[i] = Math.max(maxDSE[i-1]+A[i], maxS[i-1]);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE); max amount all maxDSE;
and maxS[i] = Math.max(A[i], maxS[i-1]+A[i]);
by that way, maxDS will be the final result.
But strange that, I was only able to get 92%; with one failed performance test case as shown here:
medium_range
-1000, ..., 1000
WRONG ANSWER
got 499499 expected 499500
Could anyone please enlighten me where is problem in my solution? Thanks!

Ok, I found the error with my code. Seems that I forgot one corner cases. When calculate DSE[i], in cases A[i] is missing number, maxS should contain the case when array is empty. In other word, maxS should be calculated as:
maxS[i] = Math.max(0, Math.max(A[i]+maxS[i-1], A[i])); while 0 is for case of empty subarray (end at i-th); Math.max(A[i]+maxS[i-1], A[i]) is max of all slice with at least one element (end at i-index). The complete code as follow:
import java.util.*;
class Solution {
public int solution(int[] A) {
long maxDS = 0;
long maxDSE = 0;
long maxS = A[1];
for(int i=2; i<A.length-1; ++i){
maxDSE = Math.max(maxDSE+A[i], maxS);
maxDS = Math.max(maxDS, maxDSE);
maxS = Math.max(0, Math.max(A[i], maxS + A[i]));
}
return (int)maxDS;
}
}

It seems that for the input [-11, -53, -4, 38, 76, 80], your solution doesn't work. Yes, it tricks all the codility test cases, but I managed to trick all codility test cases for other problems too.
If you don't just want to trick codility, but also you want to come with a good solution, I suggest that you create a loop and a large number of random test cases (in number of elements and element values), and create a test method of your own, that you are sure works (even if the complexity is quadratic), compare the results from both methods and then analyze the current random input that doesn't fit.

Here is clear solution. Best approach is to use algorithm of Kanade O(N) and O(1) by space
public class DuplicateDetermineAlgorithm {
public static boolean isContainsDuplicate(int[] array) {
if (array == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Input array can not be null");
}
if (array.length < 2) {
return false;
}
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
int pointer = convertToPositive(array[i]) - 1;
if (array[pointer] > 0) {
array[pointer] = changeSign(array[pointer]);
} else {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
private static int convertToPositive(int value) {
return value < 0 ? changeSign(value) : value;
}
private static int changeSign(int value) {
return -1 * value;
}
}

I have coded it in vb.net and got 100/100 getting idea form solution by Guillermo
Private Function solution(A As Integer()) As Integer
' write your code in VB.NET 4.0
Dim Slice1() As Integer = Ending(A)
Dim slice2() As Integer = Starting(A)
Dim maxSUM As Integer = 0
For i As Integer = 1 To A.Length - 2
maxSUM = Math.Max(maxSUM, Slice1(i - 1) + slice2(i + 1))
Next
Return maxSUM
End Function
Public Shared Function Ending(input() As Integer) As Integer()
Dim result As Integer() = New Integer(input.Length - 1) {}
result(0) = InlineAssignHelper(result(input.Length - 1), 0)
For i As Integer = 1 To input.Length - 2
result(i) = Math.Max(0, result(i - 1) + input(i))
Next
Return result
End Function
Public Shared Function Starting(input() As Integer) As Integer()
Dim result As Integer() = New Integer(input.Length - 1) {}
result(0) = InlineAssignHelper(result(input.Length - 1), 0)
For i As Integer = input.Length - 2 To 1 Step -1
result(i) = Math.Max(0, result(i + 1) + input(i))
Next
Return result
End Function
Private Shared Function InlineAssignHelper(Of T)(ByRef target As T, value As T) As T
target = value
Return value
End Function
Visit Codility to see the results

Using Binary Search with sorted Array with duplicates [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Finding multiple entries with binary search
(15 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I've been tasked with creating a method that will print all the indices where value x is found in a sorted array.
I understand that if we just scanned through the array from 0 to N (length of array) it would have a running time of O(n) worst case. Since the array that will be passed into the method will be sorted, I'm assuming that I can take advantage of using a Binary Search since this will be O(log n). However, this only works if the array has unique values. Since the Binary Search will finish after the first "find" of a particular value. I was thinking of doing a Binary Search for finding x in the sorted array, and then checking all values before and after this index, but then if the array contained all x values, it doesn't seem like it would be that much better.
I guess what I'm asking is, is there a better way to find all the indices for a particular value in a sorted array that is better than O(n)?
public void PrintIndicesForValue42(int[] sortedArrayOfInts)
{
// search through the sortedArrayOfInts
// print all indices where we find the number 42.
}
Ex: sortedArray = { 1, 13, 42, 42, 42, 77, 78 } would print: "42 was found at Indices: 2, 3, 4"

You will get the result in O(lg n)
public static void PrintIndicesForValue(int[] numbers, int target) {
if (numbers == null)
return;
int low = 0, high = numbers.length - 1;
// get the start index of target number
int startIndex = -1;
while (low <= high) {
int mid = (high - low) / 2 + low;
if (numbers[mid] > target) {
high = mid - 1;
} else if (numbers[mid] == target) {
startIndex = mid;
high = mid - 1;
} else
low = mid + 1;
}
// get the end index of target number
int endIndex = -1;
low = 0;
high = numbers.length - 1;
while (low <= high) {
int mid = (high - low) / 2 + low;
if (numbers[mid] > target) {
high = mid - 1;
} else if (numbers[mid] == target) {
endIndex = mid;
low = mid + 1;
} else
low = mid + 1;
}
if (startIndex != -1 && endIndex != -1){
for(int i=0; i+startIndex<=endIndex;i++){
if(i>0)
System.out.print(',');
System.out.print(i+startIndex);
}
}
}

Well, if you actually do have a sorted array, you can do a binary search until you find one of the indexes you're looking for, and from there, the rest should be easy to find since they're all next to each-other.
once you've found your first one, than you go find all the instances before it, and then all the instances after it.
Using that method you should get roughly O(lg(n)+k) where k is the number of occurrences of the value that you're searching for.
EDIT:
And, No, you will never be able to access all k values in anything less than O(k) time.
Second edit: so that I can feel as though I'm actually contributing something useful:
Instead of just searching for the first and last occurrences of X than you can do a binary search for the first occurence and a binary search for the last occurrence. which will result in O(lg(n)) total. once you've done that, you'll know that all the between indexes also contain X(assuming that it's sorted)
You can do this by searching checking if the value is equal to x , AND checking if the value to the left(or right depending on whether you're looking for the first occurrence or the last occurrence) is equal to x.

public void PrintIndicesForValue42(int[] sortedArrayOfInts) {
int index_occurrence_of_42 = left = right = binarySearch(sortedArrayOfInts, 42);
while (left - 1 >= 0) {
if (sortedArrayOfInts[left-1] == 42)
left--;
}
while (right + 1 < sortedArrayOfInts.length) {
if (sortedArrayOfInts[right+1] == 42)
right++;
}
System.out.println("Indices are from: " + left + " to " + right);
}
This would run in O(log(n) + #occurrences)
Read and understand the code. It's simple enough.

Below is the java code which returns the range for which the search-key is spread in the given sorted array:
public static int doBinarySearchRec(int[] array, int start, int end, int n) {
if (start > end) {
return -1;
}
int mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
if (n == array[mid]) {
return mid;
} else if (n < array[mid]) {
return doBinarySearchRec(array, start, mid - 1, n);
} else {
return doBinarySearchRec(array, mid + 1, end, n);
}
}
/**
* Given a sorted array with duplicates and a number, find the range in the
* form of (startIndex, endIndex) of that number. For example,
*
* find_range({0 2 3 3 3 10 10}, 3) should return (2,4). find_range({0 2 3 3
* 3 10 10}, 6) should return (-1,-1). The array and the number of
* duplicates can be large.
*
*/
public static int[] binarySearchArrayWithDup(int[] array, int n) {
if (null == array) {
return null;
}
int firstMatch = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, array.length - 1, n);
int[] resultArray = { -1, -1 };
if (firstMatch == -1) {
return resultArray;
}
int leftMost = firstMatch;
int rightMost = firstMatch;
for (int result = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, leftMost - 1, n); result != -1;) {
leftMost = result;
result = doBinarySearchRec(array, 0, leftMost - 1, n);
}
for (int result = doBinarySearchRec(array, rightMost + 1, array.length - 1, n); result != -1;) {
rightMost = result;
result = doBinarySearchRec(array, rightMost + 1, array.length - 1, n);
}
resultArray[0] = leftMost;
resultArray[1] = rightMost;
return resultArray;
}

Another result for log(n) binary search for leftmost target and rightmost target. This is in C++, but I think it is quite readable.
The idea is that we always end up when left = right + 1. So, to find leftmost target, if we can move right to rightmost number which is less than target, left will be at the leftmost target.
For leftmost target:
int binary_search(vector<int>& nums, int target){
int n = nums.size();
int left = 0, right = n - 1;
// carry right to the greatest number which is less than target.
while(left <= right){
int mid = (left + right) / 2;
if(nums[mid] < target)
left = mid + 1;
else
right = mid - 1;
}
// when we are here, right is at the index of greatest number
// which is less than target and since left is at the next,
// it is at the first target's index
return left;
}
For the rightmost target, the idea is very similar:
int binary_search(vector<int>& nums, int target){
while(left <= right){
int mid = (left + right) / 2;
// carry left to the smallest number which is greater than target.
if(nums[mid] <= target)
left = mid + 1;
else
right = mid - 1;
}
// when we are here, left is at the index of smallest number
// which is greater than target and since right is at the next,
// it is at the first target's index
return right;
}

I came up with the solution using binary search, only thing is to do the binary search on both the sides if the match is found.
public static void main(String[] args) {
int a[] ={1,2,2,5,5,6,8,9,10};
System.out.println(2+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a, 0, a.length-1, 2));
System.out.println(5+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a, 0, a.length-1, 5));
int a1[] ={2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2};
System.out.println(2+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a1, 0, a1.length-1, 2));
int a2[] ={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
System.out.println(10+" IS AVAILABLE AT = "+findDuplicateOfN(a2, 0, a2.length-1, 10));
}
public static String findDuplicateOfN(int[] a, int l, int h, int x){
if(l>h){
return "";
}
int m = (h-l)/2+l;
if(a[m] == x){
String matchedIndexs = ""+m;
matchedIndexs = matchedIndexs+findDuplicateOfN(a, l, m-1, x);
matchedIndexs = matchedIndexs+findDuplicateOfN(a, m+1, h, x);
return matchedIndexs;
}else if(a[m]>x){
return findDuplicateOfN(a, l, m-1, x);
}else{
return findDuplicateOfN(a, m+1, h, x);
}
}
2 IS AVAILABLE AT = 12
5 IS AVAILABLE AT = 43
2 IS AVAILABLE AT = 410236578
10 IS AVAILABLE AT =
I think this is still providing the results in O(logn) complexity.

A Hashmap might work, if you're not required to use a binary search.
Create a HashMap where the Key is the value itself, and then value is an array of indices where that value is in the array. Loop through your array, updating each array in the HashMap for each value.
Lookup time for the indices for each value will be ~ O(1), and creating the map itself will be ~ O(n).

Find_Key(int arr[], int size, int key){
int begin = 0;
int end = size - 1;
int mid = end / 2;
int res = INT_MIN;
while (begin != mid)
{
if (arr[mid] < key)
begin = mid;
else
{
end = mid;
if(arr[mid] == key)
res = mid;
}
mid = (end + begin )/2;
}
return res;
}
Assuming the array of ints is in ascending sorted order; Returns the index of the first index of key occurrence or INT_MIN. Runs in O(lg n).

It is using Modified Binary Search. It will be O(LogN). Space complexity will be O(1).
We are calling BinarySearchModified two times. One for finding start index of element and another for finding end index of element.
private static int BinarySearchModified(int[] input, double toSearch)
{
int start = 0;
int end = input.Length - 1;
while (start <= end)
{
int mid = start + (end - start)/2;
if (toSearch < input[mid]) end = mid - 1;
else start = mid + 1;
}
return start;
}
public static Result GetRange(int[] input, int toSearch)
{
if (input == null) return new Result(-1, -1);
int low = BinarySearchModified(input, toSearch - 0.5);
if ((low >= input.Length) || (input[low] != toSearch)) return new Result(-1, -1);
int high = BinarySearchModified(input, toSearch + 0.5);
return new Result(low, high - 1);
}
public struct Result
{
public int LowIndex;
public int HighIndex;
public Result(int low, int high)
{
LowIndex = low;
HighIndex = high;
}
}

public void printCopies(int[] array)
{
HashMap<Integer, Integer> memberMap = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.size; i++)
if(!memberMap.contains(array[i]))
memberMap.put(array[i], 1);
else
{
int temp = memberMap.get(array[i]); //get the number of occurances
memberMap.put(array[i], ++temp); //increment his occurance
}
//check keys which occured more than once
//dump them in a ArrayList
//return this ArrayList
}
Alternatevely, instead of counting the number of occurances, you can put their indices in a arraylist and put that in the map instead of the count.
HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>>
//the integer is the value, the arraylist a list of their indices
public void printCopies(int[] array)
{
HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>> memberMap = new HashMap<Integer, ArrayList<Integer>>();
for(int i = 0; i < array.size; i++)
if(!memberMap.contains(array[i]))
{
ArrayList temp = new ArrayList();
temp.add(i);
memberMap.put(array[i], temp);
}
else
{
ArrayList temp = memberMap.get(array[i]); //get the lsit of indices
temp.add(i);
memberMap.put(array[i], temp); //update the index list
}
//check keys which return lists with length > 1
//handle the result any way you want
}
heh, i guess this will have to be posted.
int predefinedDuplicate = //value here;
int index = Arrays.binarySearch(array, predefinedDuplicate);
int leftIndex, rightIndex;
//search left
for(leftIndex = index; array[leftIndex] == array[index]; leftIndex--); //let it run thru it
//leftIndex is now the first different element to the left of this duplicate number string
for(rightIndex = index; array[rightIndex] == array[index]; rightIndex++); //let it run thru it
//right index contains the first different element to the right of the string
//you can arraycopy this [leftIndex+1, rightIndex-1] string or just print it
for(int i = leftIndex+1; i<rightIndex; i++)
System.out.println(array[i] + "\t");

How to calculate the median of an array?

I'm trying to calculate the total, mean and median of an array thats populated by input received by a textfield. I've managed to work out the total and the mean, I just can't get the median to work. I think the array needs to be sorted before I can do this, but I'm not sure how to do this. Is this the problem, or is there another one that I didn't find? Here is my code:
import java.applet.Applet;
import java.awt.Graphics;
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
public class whileloopq extends Applet implements ActionListener
{
Label label;
TextField input;
int num;
int index;
int[] numArray = new int[20];
int sum;
int total;
double avg;
int median;
public void init ()
{
label = new Label("Enter numbers");
input = new TextField(5);
add(label);
add(input);
input.addActionListener(this);
index = 0;
}
public void actionPerformed (ActionEvent ev)
{
int num = Integer.parseInt(input.getText());
numArray[index] = num;
index++;
if (index == 20)
input.setEnabled(false);
input.setText("");
sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < numArray.length; i++)
{
sum += numArray[i];
}
total = sum;
avg = total / index;
median = numArray[numArray.length/2];
repaint();
}
public void paint (Graphics graf)
{
graf.drawString("Total = " + Integer.toString(total), 25, 85);
graf.drawString("Average = " + Double.toString(avg), 25, 100);
graf.drawString("Median = " + Integer.toString(median), 25, 115);
}
}

The Arrays class in Java has a static sort function, which you can invoke with Arrays.sort(numArray).
Arrays.sort(numArray);
double median;
if (numArray.length % 2 == 0)
median = ((double)numArray[numArray.length/2] + (double)numArray[numArray.length/2 - 1])/2;
else
median = (double) numArray[numArray.length/2];

Sorting the array is unnecessary and inefficient. There's a variation of the QuickSort (QuickSelect) algorithm which has an average run time of O(n); if you sort first, you're down to O(n log n). It actually finds the nth smallest item in a list; for a median, you just use n = half the list length. Let's call it quickNth (list, n).
The concept is that to find the nth smallest, choose a 'pivot' value. (Exactly how you choose it isn't critical; if you know the data will be thoroughly random, you can take the first item on the list.)
Split the original list into three smaller lists:
One with values smaller than the pivot.
One with values equal to the pivot.
And one with values greater than the pivot.
You then have three cases:
The "smaller" list has >= n items. In that case, you know that the nth smallest is in that list. Return quickNth(smaller, n).
The smaller list has < n items, but the sum of the lengths of the smaller and equal lists have >= n items. In this case, the nth is equal to any item in the "equal" list; you're done.
n is greater than the sum of the lengths of the smaller and equal lists. In that case, you can essentially skip over those two, and adjust n accordingly. Return quickNth(greater, n - length(smaller) - length(equal)).
Done.
If you're not sure that the data is thoroughly random, you need to be more sophisticated about choosing the pivot. Taking the median of the first value in the list, the last value in the list, and the one midway between the two works pretty well.
If you're very unlucky with your choice of pivots, and you always choose the smallest or highest value as your pivot, this takes O(n^2) time; that's bad. But, it's also very unlikely if you choose your pivot with a decent algorithm.
Sample code:
import java.util.*;
public class Utility {
/****************
* #param coll an ArrayList of Comparable objects
* #return the median of coll
*****************/
public static <T extends Number> double median(ArrayList<T> coll, Comparator<T> comp) {
double result;
int n = coll.size()/2;
if (coll.size() % 2 == 0) // even number of items; find the middle two and average them
result = (nth(coll, n-1, comp).doubleValue() + nth(coll, n, comp).doubleValue()) / 2.0;
else // odd number of items; return the one in the middle
result = nth(coll, n, comp).doubleValue();
return result;
} // median(coll)
/*****************
* #param coll a collection of Comparable objects
* #param n the position of the desired object, using the ordering defined on the list elements
* #return the nth smallest object
*******************/
public static <T> T nth(ArrayList<T> coll, int n, Comparator<T> comp) {
T result, pivot;
ArrayList<T> underPivot = new ArrayList<>(), overPivot = new ArrayList<>(), equalPivot = new ArrayList<>();
// choosing a pivot is a whole topic in itself.
// this implementation uses the simple strategy of grabbing something from the middle of the ArrayList.
pivot = coll.get(n/2);
// split coll into 3 lists based on comparison with the pivot
for (T obj : coll) {
int order = comp.compare(obj, pivot);
if (order < 0) // obj < pivot
underPivot.add(obj);
else if (order > 0) // obj > pivot
overPivot.add(obj);
else // obj = pivot
equalPivot.add(obj);
} // for each obj in coll
// recurse on the appropriate list
if (n < underPivot.size())
result = nth(underPivot, n, comp);
else if (n < underPivot.size() + equalPivot.size()) // equal to pivot; just return it
result = pivot;
else // everything in underPivot and equalPivot is too small. Adjust n accordingly in the recursion.
result = nth(overPivot, n - underPivot.size() - equalPivot.size(), comp);
return result;
} // nth(coll, n)
public static void main (String[] args) {
Comparator<Integer> comp = Comparator.naturalOrder();
Random rnd = new Random();
for (int size = 1; size <= 10; size++) {
ArrayList<Integer> coll = new ArrayList<>(size);
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
coll.add(rnd.nextInt(100));
System.out.println("Median of " + coll.toString() + " is " + median(coll, comp));
} // for a range of possible input sizes
} // main(args)
} // Utility

If you want to use any external library here is Apache commons math library using you can calculate the Median.
For more methods and use take look at the API documentation
import org.apache.commons.math3.*;
.....
......
........
//calculate median
public double getMedian(double[] values){
Median median = new Median();
double medianValue = median.evaluate(values);
return medianValue;
}
.......
For more on evaluate method AbstractUnivariateStatistic#evaluate
Update
Calculate in program
Generally, median is calculated using the following two formulas given here
If n is odd then Median (M) = value of ((n + 1)/2)th item term.
If n is even then Median (M) = value of [((n)/2)th item term + ((n)/2 + 1)th item term ]/2
In your program you have numArray, first you need to sort array using Arrays#sort
Arrays.sort(numArray);
int middle = numArray.length/2;
int medianValue = 0; //declare variable
if (numArray.length%2 == 1)
medianValue = numArray[middle];
else
medianValue = (numArray[middle-1] + numArray[middle]) / 2;

Arrays.sort(numArray);
return (numArray[size/2] + numArray[(size-1)/2]) / 2;

Arrays.sort(numArray);
int middle = ((numArray.length) / 2);
if(numArray.length % 2 == 0){
int medianA = numArray[middle];
int medianB = numArray[middle-1];
median = (medianA + medianB) / 2;
} else{
median = numArray[middle + 1];
}
EDIT: I initially had medianB setting to middle+1 in the even length arrays, this was wrong due to arrays starting count at 0. I have updated it to use middle-1 which is correct and should work properly for an array with an even length.

You can find good explanation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=VmogG01IjYc
The idea it to use 2 Heaps viz one max heap and mean heap.
class Heap {
private Queue<Integer> low = new PriorityQueue<>(Comparator.reverseOrder());
private Queue<Integer> high = new PriorityQueue<>();
public void add(int number) {
Queue<Integer> target = low.size() <= high.size() ? low : high;
target.add(number);
balance();
}
private void balance() {
while(!low.isEmpty() && !high.isEmpty() && low.peek() > high.peek()) {
Integer lowHead= low.poll();
Integer highHead = high.poll();
low.add(highHead);
high.add(lowHead);
}
}
public double median() {
if(low.isEmpty() && high.isEmpty()) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Heap is empty");
} else {
return low.size() == high.size() ? (low.peek() + high.peek()) / 2.0 : low.peek();
}
}
}

Try sorting the array first. Then after it's sorted, if the array has an even amount of elements the mean of the middle two is the median, if it has a odd number, the middle element is the median.

Use Arrays.sort and then take the middle element (in case the number n of elements in the array is odd) or take the average of the two middle elements (in case n is even).
public static long median(long[] l)
{
Arrays.sort(l);
int middle = l.length / 2;
if (l.length % 2 == 0)
{
long left = l[middle - 1];
long right = l[middle];
return (left + right) / 2;
}
else
{
return l[middle];
}
}
Here are some examples:
#Test
public void evenTest()
{
long[] l = {
5, 6, 1, 3, 2
};
Assert.assertEquals((3 + 4) / 2, median(l));
}
#Test
public oddTest()
{
long[] l = {
5, 1, 3, 2, 4
};
Assert.assertEquals(3, median(l));
}
And in case your input is a Collection, you might use Google Guava to do something like this:
public static long median(Collection<Long> numbers)
{
return median(Longs.toArray(numbers)); // requires import com.google.common.primitives.Longs;
}

I was looking at the same statistics problems. The approach you are thinking it is good and it will work. (Answer to the sorting has been given)
But in case you are interested in algorithm performance, I think there are a couple of algorithms that have better performance than just sorting the array, one (QuickSelect) is indicated by #bruce-feist's answer and is very well explained.
[Java implementation: https://discuss.leetcode.com/topic/14611/java-quick-select ]
But there is a variation of this algorithm named median of medians, you can find a good explanation on this link:
http://austinrochford.com/posts/2013-10-28-median-of-medians.html
Java implementation of this:
- https://stackoverflow.com/a/27719796/957979

I faced a similar problem yesterday.
I wrote a method with Java generics in order to calculate the median value of every collection of Numbers; you can apply my method to collections of Doubles, Integers, Floats and returns a double. Please consider that my method creates another collection in order to not alter the original one.
I provide also a test, have fun. ;-)
public static <T extends Number & Comparable<T>> double median(Collection<T> numbers){
if(numbers.isEmpty()){
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Cannot compute median on empty collection of numbers");
}
List<T> numbersList = new ArrayList<>(numbers);
Collections.sort(numbersList);
int middle = numbersList.size()/2;
if(numbersList.size() % 2 == 0){
return 0.5 * (numbersList.get(middle).doubleValue() + numbersList.get(middle-1).doubleValue());
} else {
return numbersList.get(middle).doubleValue();
}
}
JUnit test code snippet:
/**
* Test of median method, of class Utils.
*/
#Test
public void testMedian() {
System.out.println("median");
Double expResult = 3.0;
Double result = Utils.median(Arrays.asList(3.0,2.0,1.0,9.0,13.0));
assertEquals(expResult, result);
expResult = 3.5;
result = Utils.median(Arrays.asList(3.0,2.0,1.0,9.0,4.0,13.0));
assertEquals(expResult, result);
}
Usage example (consider the class name is Utils):
List<Integer> intValues = ... //omitted init
Set<Float> floatValues = ... //omitted init
.....
double intListMedian = Utils.median(intValues);
double floatSetMedian = Utils.median(floatValues);
Note: my method works on collections, you can convert arrays of numbers to list of numbers as pointed here

And nobody paying attention when list contains only one element (list.size == 1). All your answers will crash with index out of bound exception, because integer division returns zero (1 / 2 = 0). Correct answer (in Kotlin):
MEDIAN("MEDIAN") {
override fun calculate(values: List<BigDecimal>): BigDecimal? {
if (values.size == 1) {
return values.first()
}
if (values.size > 1) {
val valuesSorted = values.sorted()
val mid = valuesSorted.size / 2
return if (valuesSorted.size % 2 != 0) {
valuesSorted[mid]
} else {
AVERAGE.calculate(listOf(valuesSorted[mid - 1], valuesSorted[mid]))
}
}
return null
}
},

As #Bruce-Feist mentions, for a large number of elements, I'd avoid any solution involving sort if performance is something you are concerned about. A different approach than those suggested in the other answers is Hoare's algorithm to find the k-th smallest of element of n items. This algorithm runs in O(n).
public int findKthSmallest(int[] array, int k)
{
if (array.length < 10)
{
Arrays.sort(array);
return array[k];
}
int start = 0;
int end = array.length - 1;
int x, temp;
int i, j;
while (start < end)
{
x = array[k];
i = start;
j = end;
do
{
while (array[i] < x)
i++;
while (x < array[j])
j--;
if (i <= j)
{
temp = array[i];
array[i] = array[j];
array[j] = temp;
i++;
j--;
}
} while (i <= j);
if (j < k)
start = i;
if (k < i)
end = j;
}
return array[k];
}
And to find the median:
public int median(int[] array)
{
int length = array.length;
if ((length & 1) == 0) // even
return (findKthSmallest(array, array.length / 2) + findKthSmallest(array, array.length / 2 + 1)) / 2;
else // odd
return findKthSmallest(array, array.length / 2);
}

public static int median(int[] arr) {
int median = 0;
java.util.Arrays.sort(arr);
for (int i=0;i<arr.length;i++) {
if (arr.length % 2 == 1) {
median = Math.round(arr[arr.length/2]);
} else {
median = (arr[(arr.length/2)] + arr[(arr.length/2)-1])/2;
}
}
return median;
}

Check out the Arrays.sort methods:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/Arrays.html
You should also really abstract finding the median into its own method, and just return the value to the calling method. This will make testing your code much easier.

public int[] data={31, 29, 47, 48, 23, 30, 21
, 40, 23, 39, 47, 47, 42, 44, 23, 26, 44, 32, 20, 40};
public double median()
{
Arrays.sort(this.data);
double result=0;
int size=this.data.length;
if(size%2==1)
{
result=data[((size-1)/2)+1];
System.out.println(" uneven size : "+result);
}
else
{
int middle_pair_first_index =(size-1)/2;
result=(data[middle_pair_first_index+1]+data[middle_pair_first_index])/2;
System.out.println(" Even size : "+result);
}
return result;
}

package arrays;
public class Arraymidleelement {
static public double middleArrayElement(int [] arr)
{
double mid;
if(arr.length%2==0)
{
mid=((double)arr[arr.length/2]+(double)arr[arr.length/2-1])/2;
return mid;
}
return arr[arr.length/2];
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int arr[]= {1,2,3,4,5,6};
System.out.println( middleArrayElement(arr));
}
}