I am trying to construct a binarySearch method that goes through a sorted array, and evaluates whether a given element, given as int target, is present. It will do so by evaluating whether the mean value is greater or less than the target value, and will loop through the first or second half of the array accordingly.
I think I have the basic code down, but I am running into some problems:
int target = 0; (returns true) => correct
int target = (3, 6, 9); (returns false) => should return true
int target = (15, 19, 21, 90); returns "java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 15" => should be true
I imagine it has to do with my for statements in the respective if cases, but I have tried to debug and cannot. Also, I not permitted to use library methods.
Hopefully this question is helpful for other beginners like me. I would think it explores some java concepts like syntax, logic, and basic use Thanks for the help.
public class ArrayUtilities
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int[] arrayBeingSearched = {0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 19, 21, 90};
int target = 90;
System.out.println("linear: " + linearSearch(arrayBeingSearched, target));
System.out.println("binary: " + binarySearch(arrayBeingSearched, target));
}
public static boolean binarySearch(int[] arrayBeingSearched, int target)
{
boolean binarySearch = false;
for (int i = 0; i < arrayBeingSearched.length; i++){
int left = 0; //array lower bound
int right = arrayBeingSearched.length - 1; //array upper bound
int middle = ((right - left) / (2)); //array mean
if(arrayBeingSearched[middle] == target){
binarySearch = true;
}
else if(arrayBeingSearched[middle] < target){
for(int j = middle + 1; j < arrayBeingSearched.length - 1; j ++){
int newLeft = arrayBeingSearched[j ++];
if(arrayBeingSearched[newLeft] == target){
binarySearch = true;
break;
}
else{
binarySearch = false;
}
}
}
else if(arrayBeingSearched[middle] > target)
for(int l = 0; l < middle - 1; l ++){
int newRight = arrayBeingSearched[l ++];
if(arrayBeingSearched[newRight] == target){
binarySearch = true;
break;
}
else{
binarySearch = false;
}
}
else{
binarySearch = false;
}
}
return binarySearch;
}
}
Okay, based on the comments, would this be a better representation? The first comment answered my question mostly but I just wanted to follow up:
public static boolean binarySearch(int[] array, int target)
{
int start = 0;
int end = array.length - 1;
while (start <= end)
{
int middle = start + (end - start)/2;
if (array[middle] == target) {
return true;
}
else if (array[middle] > target)
{
end = middle - 1;
}
else start = middle + 1;
}
return false;
}
}
This is a bad start:
for (int i = 0; i < arrayBeingSearched.length; i++)
That's a linear search, with something else within it. I haven't followed exactly what you're doing, but I think you should probably start again... with a description of binary search in front of you.
Typically a binary search loop looks something like:
int left = 0; // Inclusive lower bound
int right = arrayBeingSearch.length; // Exclusive upper bound
while (left < right) {
// Either change left, change right, or return success
// based on what you find
}
When your middle element is smaller than the target, you do this
int newLeft = arrayBeingSearched[j ++];
if(arrayBeingSearched[newLeft] == target) //...
And the equivalent when it's larger.
That is, you are taking an element of the array and using it as an index. Your array could contain only one element with a value of 1000, which is why you're running into an ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
I'm sure there are other problems (see Jon's answer), but I wanted to mention that code like this:
for(int j = middle + 1; j < arrayBeingSearched.length - 1; j ++){
int newLeft = arrayBeingSearched[j ++];
will not do what you want. The for statement says that each time the program goes through the loop, it will add 1 to j (at the end of the loop code). But the next statement will use j as an index and then add 1 to it. The result is that each time you go through the loop, 1 will be added to j twice, so you're basically looking only at every other element. If this were otherwise correct (which I don't think it is), I'd say you definitely need to remove the ++ from the second line.
Related
My aim is to input a key and an array, and then output the number of values in that array which are less than or equal to the key, using binary search.
This is my code:
import java.util.*;
import java.io.*;
public class search {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
int key = scan.nextInt();
int size = scan.nextInt();
int [] array = new int [size];
for (int i = 0;i < size ;i++ ) {
array[i] = scan.nextInt();
}
Arrays.sort(array);
System.out.println(binary(key, array));
}
public static int binary (int key, int [] array){
int lo = 0;
int hi = array.length - 1;
while (lo < hi){
int mid = (lo + hi) / 2;
if (array[mid] <= key){
lo = mid;
}
else {
hi = mid - 1;
}
}
return lo + 1;
}
}
With the data key = 5, array = {2,4,6,7}, the program works fine. But the moment there are three values that are less than or equal to the key, it goes haywire. For example, key = 5, array = {2,4,5,6} produces an infinite loop. I've found the reason for this but I don't see how to get around it.
Basically the mid value keeps getting calculated as the same value. What can I do to get around this? If the code is inherently wrong, then that means the the set solution for a USACO problem was wrong.
The sample solution seems fine. The problem with your code is that mid = (lo + hi) / 2 rounds toward lo, which is a problem since the update cases are lo = mid and hi = mid - 1. When hi == lo + 1, in the first case, no progress is made. You should round up as the sample does: mid = (lo + hi + 1) / 2 (warning: may overflow on long arrays; check your constraints).
The sample also checks whether the first value is less than the key.
Your Algorithm seems fine. But i see there is a problem with assigning the value for mid.
int mid = (hi+lo)/2
think of a case where your
hi=4
mid = 3
now the new value for mid will be (3+4)/2 = 3 (integer division)
so the loop will continue running without breaking.
In this case what you can do is increment the value of mid, by checking this condition.
But more effectively its seems better check the value of mid is repeating, Then break the loop.
At last check whether the value of array[hi] is the same as your array[mid]
Hope this would help..
Have a nice day.. :)
EDIT
A better Way of doing would be
Change your while loop to
while(mid<hi+1){
}
then check for equality of the values after the loop..
OR
Simply set
mid = (mid+hi+1)/2
In your loop, you must make your intervals ever smaller and you must also exclude the element you've just looked at. You do that when you go left, but not when you go right.
You also miss out on intervals of length 1, because you use inclusive lower and upper bounds. Your loop condition should be lo <= hi.
Finally, you return one too many: The results should be 0 when the key is smaller than the first element and it should be the array length when it is greater than the last element.
So:
static int binary(int key, int[] array)
{
int lo = 0;
int hi = array.length - 1;
while (lo <= hi) {
int mid = (lo + hi) / 2;
if (array[mid] <= key) {
lo = mid + 1;
} else {
hi = mid - 1;
}
}
return lo;
}
In my opinion, it is better to use an exclusive upper bound, as Java usually does. (For example, an array of length n has elements at indoces 0 to n - 1, the upper bound n is outside the valid range.) If nothing else, it is consitent with other Java code. So:
static int binary(int key, int[] array)
{
int lo = 0;
int hi = array.length;
while (lo < hi) {
int mid = (lo + hi) / 2;
if (array[mid] <= key) {
lo = mid + 1;
} else {
hi = mid;
}
}
return lo;
}
I'm currently writing a binary search that uses iteration instead of recursion and its not returning anything. I've debugged it down to the while loop not ending but I can't seem to figure out where I went wrong.
Here is the code:
public static <E extends Comparable> boolean binarySearchIterative(E[] array, E obj) {
int first = 0;
int last = array.length - 1;
while(first <= last) {
int middle = (first + last) / 2;
if(array[middle].equals(obj)) return true;
else if(obj.compareTo(array[middle]) < 0) first = middle - 1;
else first = middle + 1;
}
return false;
}
And yes, my list is ordered ;)
In the second else if part you need to set last instead of first -
else if(obj.compareTo(array[middle]) < 0) last = middle - 1;
The method getPeakCount takes an int array and a range (int) as an input and returns the number of integers that are greater than all the elements to either side for the given range.
For example, consider an array {1,4,2,6,4,5,10,8,7,11} and range 2. The result should be 3, as {..,4,2,6,4,5,..}, {..,4,5,10,8,7,..} and {..,8,7,11} satisfy this condition. These satisfy the condition because 6, 10 and 11 are all greater than the 2 elements to both their left and right.
Note that for the the corner elements like 1 and 11, there's no need to check the left and right side respectively.
My code is below, but it is not correct.
static int getPeakCount(int[] arr, int R) {
int result=0;
for(int i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
if(i==0){
if(arr[i]>arr[i+1]&&arr[i]>arr[i+2]){
result++;
}
} //-----> closing if(i==0) condition
else if(i==arr.length-1){
if(arr[i]>arr[i-1]&&arr[i]>arr[i-2]){
result++;
}
}
else if(i+R>arr.length){
if(arr[i]>arr[i-R] && arr[i]>arr[i-R+1]){
System.out.println(arr[i]);
result++;
}
}
else{
if(arr[i]>arr[i+1] && arr[i]>arr[i+2] && arr[i]>arr[i-R] && arr[i]>arr[i-R+1]){
System.out.println(arr[i]);
result++;
}
}
}
return result;
}
I don't know whether I'm going in the right direction or not, and for last if condition it's throwing an java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
P.S. Don't consider this code as solution to remove errors from this. This is just the attempt I tried.
I think the right idea, and devnull is right. You just need to check the center, so change the loop to start at 1 and end 1 before the end. I commented out the end conditions. I think this does what you were asking, though not 100% sure I understood what you were after.
I should add, I use variables like l (left), r (right) and c (center) for clarity. You can make this much faster if you have large arrays. There is also redundancy in that it checks conditions it should know are already false (if I find a peak, I should skip the next value, as it can't also be a peak).
public class PeakChecker {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] array = new int[]{1, 4, 2, 6, 4, 5, 10, 8, 7, 11};
System.out.println(nPeaks(array, 2));
}
static int nPeaks(int[] array, int range) {
// Check for special cases
if (array == null) {
return 0;
}
int result = 0, l, r;
// Check main body
for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
boolean isPeak = true;
// Check from left to right
l = Math.max(0, i - range);
r = Math.min(array.length - 1, i + range);
for (int j = l; j <= r; j++) {
// Skip if we are on current
if (i == j) {
continue;
}
if (array[i] < array[j]) {
isPeak = false;
break;
}
}
if (isPeak) {
System.out.println("Peak at " + i + " = " + array[i]);
result++;
i += range;
}
}
return result;
}
}
The last if condition shall throw exception when i == arr.length - 2.
This is because arr[i+2] in that case is out of bounds.
If you read the ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException stack trace, it will tell you a line of code the error happened on. Look on that line of code and you'll probably see arr[i+1] or arr[i-1] or something. Certainly, at least one access on that line will be out of bounds. That's the problem.
I am working on this famous interview question on removing duplicate elements in array without using auxillary storage and preserving the order;
I have read a bunch of posts; Algorithm: efficient way to remove duplicate integers from an array, Removing Duplicates from an Array using C.
They are either implemented in C (without explanation) or the Java Code provided just fails when there is consecutive duplicates such as [1,1,1,3,3].
I am not quite confident with using C, my background is Java. So I implemented the code myself;
it follows like this:
use two loops, the outer-loop traverses the array and inner loop checks for duplicates and if present replace it with null.
Then I go over the duplicate-replaced-null array and remove null elements and replacing it with the next non-null element.
The total run-time I see now is O(n^2)+O(n) ~ O(n^2). Reading the above posts, I understood this is the best we can do, if no sorting and auxiliary storage is allowed.
My code is here: I am looking for ways to optimize any further (if there is a possibility) or a better/simplisitc logic;
public class RemoveDup {
public static void main (String[] args){
Integer[] arr2={3,45,1,2,3,3,3,3,2,1,45,2,10};
Integer[] res= removeDup(arr2);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(res));
}
private static Integer[] removeDup(Integer[] data) {
int size = data.length;
int count = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
Integer temp = data[i];
for (int j = i + 1; j < size && temp != null; j++) {
if (data[j] == temp) {
data[j] = null;
}
}
}
for (int i = 1; i < size; i++) {
Integer current = data[i];
if (data[i] != null) {
data[count++] = current;
}
}
return Arrays.copyOf(data, count);
}
}
EDIT 1; Reformatted code from #keshlam throws ArrayIndexOutofBound Exception:
private static int removeDupes(int[] array) {
System.out.println("method called");
if(array.length < 2)
return array.length;
int outsize=1; // first is always kept
for (int consider = 1; consider < array.length; ++consider) {
for(int compare=0;compare<outsize;++compare) {
if(array[consider]!=array[compare])
array[outsize++]=array[consider]; // already present; advance to next compare
else break;
// if we get here, we know it's new so append it to output
//array[outsize++]=array[consider]; // could test first, not worth it.
}
}
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(array));
// length is last written position plus 1
return outsize;
}
OK, here's my answer, which should be O(N*N) worst case. (With smaller constant, since even worstcase I'm testing N against -- on average -- 1/2 N, but this is computer science rather than software engineering and a mere 2X speedup isn't significant. Thanks to #Alexandru for pointing that out.)
1) Split cursor (input and output advanced separately),
2) Each new value only has to be compared to what's already been kept, and compare can stop if a match is found. (The hint keyword was "incremental")
3) First element need not be tested.
4) I'm taking advantage of labelled continue where I could have instead set a flag before breaking and then tested the flag. Comes out to the same thing; this is a bit more elegant.
4.5) I could have tested whether outsize==consider and not copied if that was true. But testing for it would take about as many cycles as doing the possibly-unnecessary copy, and the majority case is that they will not be the same, so it's easier to just let a possibly redundant copy take place.
5) I'm not recopying the data in the key function; I've factored out the copy-for-printing operation to a separate function to make clear that removeDupes does run entirely in the target array plus a few automatic variables on the stack. And I'm not spending time zeroing out the leftover elements at the end of the array; that may be wasted work (as in this case). Though I don't think it would actually change the formal complexity.
import java.util.Arrays;
public class RemoveDupes {
private static int removeDupes(final int[] array) {
if(array.length < 2)
return array.length;
int outsize=1; // first is always kept
outerloop: for (int consider = 1; consider < array.length; ++consider) {
for(int compare=0;compare<outsize;++compare)
if(array[consider]==array[compare])
continue outerloop; // already present; advance to next compare
// if we get here, we know it's new so append it to output
array[outsize++]=array[consider]; // could test first, not worth it.
}
return outsize; // length is last written position plus 1
}
private static void printRemoveDupes(int[] array) {
int newlength=removeDupes(array);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(Arrays.copyOfRange(array, 0, newlength)));
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
printRemoveDupes(new int[] { 3, 45, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 45, 2, 10 });
printRemoveDupes(new int[] { 2, 2, 3, 3 });
printRemoveDupes(new int[] { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 });
}
}
LATE ADDITION: Since folks expressed confusion about point 4 in my explanation, here's the loop rewritten without labelled continue:
for (int consider = 1; consider < array.length; ++consider) {
boolean matchfound=false;
for(int compare=0;compare<outsize;++compare) {
if(array[consider]==array[compare]) {
matchfound=true;
break;
}
if(!matchFound) // only add it to the output if not found
array[outsize++]=array[consider];
}
Hope that helps. Labelled continue is a rarely-used feature of Java, so it isn't too surprising that some folks haven't seen it before. It's useful, but it does make code harder to read; I probably wouldn't use it in anything much more complicated than this simple algorithm.
Here one version which doesn't use additional memory (except for the array it returns) and doesn't sort either.
I believe this is slightly worse than O(n*log n).
Edit: I'm wrong. This is slightly better than O(n^3).
public class Dupes {
private static int[] removeDupes(final int[] array) {
int end = array.length - 1;
for (int i = 0; i <= end; i++) {
for (int j = i + 1; j <= end; j++) {
if (array[i] == array[j]) {
for (int k = j; k < end; k++) {
array[k] = array[k + 1];
}
end--;
j--;
}
}
}
return Arrays.copyOf(array, end + 1);
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(removeDupes(new int[] { 3, 45, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 45, 2, 10 })));
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(removeDupes(new int[] { 2, 2, 3, 3 })));
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(removeDupes(new int[] { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 })));
}
}
and here's a modified version which doesn't shift all of the elements from after the dupe. Instead it simply switches the dupe with the last, non-matching element. This obviously can't guarantee order.
private static int[] removeDupes(final int[] array) {
int end = array.length - 1;
for (int i = 0; i <= end; i++) {
for (int j = i + 1; j <= end; j++) {
if (array[i] == array[j]) {
while (end >= j && array[j] == array[end]) {
end--;
}
if (end > j) {
array[j] = array[end];
end--;
}
}
}
}
return Arrays.copyOf(array, end + 1);
}
Here you have a worst case of O(n^2) where the return points to the first non unique element. So everything before it is unique.
Instead of C++ iterators indices in Java can be used.
std::vecotr<int>::iterator unique(std::vector<int>& aVector){
auto end = aVector.end();
auto start = aVector.begin();
while(start != end){
auto num = *start; // the element to check against
auto temp = ++start; // start get incremented here
while (temp != end){
if (*temp == num){
std::swap(temp,end);
end--;
}
else
temp++; // the temp is in else so that if the swap occurs the algo should still check the swapped element.
}
}
return end;
}
Java equivalent code: (the return will be an int which is the index of the first not unique element)
int unique(int[] anArray){
int end = anArray.length-1;
int start = 0;
while(start != end){
int num = anArry[start]; // the element to check against
int temp = ++start; // start get incremented here
while (temp != end){
if (anArry[temp] == num){
swap(temp,end); // swaps the values at index of temp and end
end--;
}
else
temp++; // the temp is in else so that if the swap occurs the algo should still check the swapped element.
}
}
return end;
}
The slight difference in this algo and yours is in your point 2. Where instead of replacing the current element with null you go with swapping it with the last possibly unique element which on the first swap is the last element of array, on second swap the second last and so on.
You might as well consider looking at the std::unique implementation in C++ which is linear in one less than the distance between first and last: Compares each pair of elements, and possibly performs assignments on some of them., but as it was noted by #keshlam it is used on sorted arrays only. The return value is the same as in my algo. Here is the code directly from the standard library:
template<class _FwdIt, class _Pr> inline
_FwdIt _Unique(_FwdIt _First, _FwdIt _Last, _Pr _Pred)
{ // remove each satisfying _Pred with previous
if (_First != _Last)
for (_FwdIt _Firstb; (_Firstb = _First), ++_First != _Last; )
if (_Pred(*_Firstb, *_First))
{ // copy down
for (; ++_First != _Last; )
if (!_Pred(*_Firstb, *_First))
*++_Firstb = _Move(*_First);
return (++_Firstb);
}
return (_Last);
}
To bring in a bit perspective - one solution in Haskell, it uses lists instead of arrays
and returns the reversed order, which can be fixed by applying reverse at the end.
import Data.List (foldl')
removeDup :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [a]
removeDup = foldl' (\acc x-> if x `elem` acc then acc else x:acc) []
My algorithm is suppose to tell me if 'x'(which has the value 5) is in the sorted array. However, I keep getting a 0. Well since my condition states that if 'x' is not in the array show 0. Where am I going wrong?
import java.util.Arrays;
public class binarySeacg {
public static void main (String[]args)
{
int[] array = {10,7,11,5,13,8};
exchangesort(array);
binsearch(array,5);
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(array));
}
public static void exchangesort(int[] S)
{
int i,j,temp;
for(i=0;i<S.length;i++)
for(j=i+1;j<S.length;j++)
if(S[i]>S[j])
{
temp = S[i];
S[i] = S[j];
S[j] = temp;
}
}
public static int binsearch(int[] S, int x)
{
int location, low, high, mid;
low = 1; high = S.length;
location = 0;
while(low<=high && location==0)
{
mid =(low + high)/2;
if(x== S[mid])
location = mid;
else if(x < S[mid])
high = mid -1;
else
low = mid + 1;
}
System.out.println(location);
return location;
}
}
You set low = 1;, and 5 is the minimal element - so it is in index 0 - so in the sublist of [1,S.length] - it is indeed not there.
You should set low = 0;, and start from the first element - not the second. (Remember that index in java starts from 0, not 1).
(PS, note that in this specific case - the algorithm is correct, since in the sorted list - 5 is in the index 0).
Here you are sorting an array and then the sorted array is used for searching the element.
And if the search is successful, then you do the below assignment
location = mid; which means you are assigning the matching element's index to the location variable.
In this case, element 5 is in 0th index.
Hence you are always getting 0 on your STDOUT
Because, you are trying to find x value, which you are passing 3 and in your list. It is not present. So, change it to other value like 5 and then try.
Also, you should start low=0 instead of low=1. Because, it will miss the first element all the time.
public static int binsearch(int[] S, int x)
{
int location, low, high, mid;
low = 0; high = S.length;
location = 0;
while(low<=high && location==0)
{
mid =(low + high)/2;
if(x == S[mid])
{
location = mid;break;
}
else if (x < S[mid])
{
high = mid - 1;
} else
{
low = mid + 1;
}
}
System.out.println(location);
return location;
}
Note : For the different output, change the value binsearch(array,5); here, which is called from main() method. Remember, change the value, which are present in your list.
in java and most languages, the index starts from 0, not 1, and ends at n-1, not n
for binary search, check carefully about when exiting the while loop, and always remember the meaning of your low and high variables, whether it is [low, high], or [low, high)
for this specific problem, u should also consider what if there r duplicates in the array. whether to return the first element or anyone in the array