Related
I have the following 3 arrays:
int[] indexes = new int[]{0,2,8,5};
String[] sources = new String[]{"how", "are", "today", "you"};
String[] targets = new String[]{"I", "am", "thanks", "fine"};
I want to sort the three arrays based on the indexes:
indexes -> {0,2,5,8}
sources -> {"how", "are", "you", "today"}
targets -> {"I", "am", "fine", "thanks"}
I can create a new class myClass with all three elements:
class myClass {
int x;
String source;
String target;
}
Reassign everything to myClass, then sort myClass using x. However, this would required additional spaces. I am wondering if it is possible to do in place sorting? Thanks!
Three ways of doing this
1. Using Comparator (Need Java 8 plus)
import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
class Test {
public static String[] sortWithIndex (String[] strArr, int[] intIndex )
{
if (! isSorted(intIndex)){
final List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strArr);
Collections.sort(stringList, Comparator.comparing(s -> intIndex[stringList.indexOf(s)]));
return stringList.toArray(new String[stringList.size()]);
}
else
return strArr;
}
public static boolean isSorted(int[] arr) {
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length - 1; i++) {
if (arr[i + 1] < arr[i]) {
return false;
};
}
return true;
}
// Driver program to test function.
public static void main(String args[])
{
int[] indexes = new int[]{0,2,8,5};
String[] sources = new String[]{"how", "are", "today", "you"};
String[] targets = new String[]{"I", "am", "thanks", "fine"};
String[] sortedSources = sortWithIndex(sources,indexes);
String[] sortedTargets = sortWithIndex(targets,indexes);
Arrays.sort(indexes);
System.out.println("Sorted Sources " + Arrays.toString(sortedSources) + " Sorted Targets " + Arrays.toString(sortedTargets) + " Sorted Indexes " + Arrays.toString(indexes));
}
}
Output
Sorted Sources [how, are, you, today] Sorted Targets [I, am, fine, thanks] Sorted Indexes [0, 2, 5, 8]
2. Using Lambda (Need Java 8 plus)
import java.io.*;
import java.util.*;
public class Test {
public static String[] sortWithIndex (String[] strArr, int[] intIndex )
{
if (! isSorted(intIndex)) {
final List<String> stringList = Arrays.asList(strArr);
Collections.sort(stringList, (left, right) -> intIndex[stringList.indexOf(left)] - intIndex[stringList.indexOf(right)]);
return stringList.toArray(new String[stringList.size()]);
}
else
return strArr;
}
public static boolean isSorted(int[] arr) {
for (int i = 0; i < arr.length - 1; i++) {
if (arr[i + 1] < arr[i]) {
return false;
};
}
return true;
}
// Driver program to test function.
public static void main(String args[])
{
int[] indexes = new int[]{0,2,5,8};
String[] sources = new String[]{"how", "are", "today", "you"};
String[] targets = new String[]{"I", "am", "thanks", "fine"};
String[] sortedSources = sortWithIndex(sources,indexes);
String[] sortedTargets = sortWithIndex(targets,indexes);
Arrays.sort(indexes);
System.out.println("Sorted Sources " + Arrays.toString(sortedSources) + " Sorted Targets " + Arrays.toString(sortedTargets) + " Sorted Indexes " + Arrays.toString(indexes));
}
}
3. Using Lists and Maps and avoiding multiple calls (as in second solution above) to the method to sort individual arrays
import java.util.*;
import java.lang.*;
import java.io.*;
public class Test{
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> void sortWithIndex( final List<T> key, List<?>... lists){
// input validation
if(key == null || lists == null)
throw new NullPointerException("Key cannot be null.");
for(List<?> list : lists)
if(list.size() != key.size())
throw new IllegalArgumentException("All lists should be of the same size");
// Lists are size 0 or 1, nothing to sort
if(key.size() < 2)
return;
// Create a List of indices
List<Integer> indices = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for(int i = 0; i < key.size(); i++)
indices.add(i);
// Sort the indices list based on the key
Collections.sort(indices, new Comparator<Integer>(){
#Override public int compare(Integer i, Integer j) {
return key.get(i).compareTo(key.get(j));
}
});
Map<Integer, Integer> swapMap = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>(indices.size());
List<Integer> swapFrom = new ArrayList<Integer>(indices.size()),
swapTo = new ArrayList<Integer>(indices.size());
// create a mapping that allows sorting of the List by N swaps.
for(int i = 0; i < key.size(); i++){
int k = indices.get(i);
while(i != k && swapMap.containsKey(k))
k = swapMap.get(k);
swapFrom.add(i);
swapTo.add(k);
swapMap.put(i, k);
}
// use the swap order to sort each list by swapping elements
for(List<?> list : lists)
for(int i = 0; i < list.size(); i++)
Collections.swap(list, swapFrom.get(i), swapTo.get(i));
}
public static void main (String[] args) throws java.lang.Exception{
List<Integer> index = Arrays.asList(0,2,8,5);
List<String> sources = Arrays.asList("how", "are", "today", "you");
// List Types do not need to be the same
List<String> targets = Arrays.asList("I", "am", "thanks", "fine");
sortWithIndex(index, index, sources, targets);
System.out.println("Sorted Sources " + sources + " Sorted Targets " + targets + " Sorted Indexes " + index);
}
}
Output
Sorted Sources [how, are, you, today] Sorted Targets [I, am, fine, thanks] Sorted Indexes [0, 2, 5, 8]
It is possible although it is not that easy than it looks like. There are two options:
write your own sort algorithm where the swap function for two elements also swaps the elements in the other arrays.
AFAIK there is no way to extend the standard Array.sort in a way that it swaps additional arrays.
Use a helper array with the sort order.
First of all you need to initialize the helper array with the range {0, 1 ... indexes.Length-1}.
Now you sort the helper array using a Comparator that compares indexes[a] with indexes[b] rather than a to b.
The result is an helper array where each element has the index of the element of the source array where its content should come from, i.e. the sort sequence.
The last step is the most tricky one. You need to swap the elements in your source arrays according to the sort sequence above.
To operate strictly in place set your current index cur to 0.
Then take the cur-th element from your helper array. Let's call it from. This is the element index that should be placed at index cur after completion.
Now you need to make space at index cur to place the elements from index from there. Copy them to a temporary location tmp.
Now move the elements from index from to index cur. Index from is now free to be overridden.
Set the element in the helper array at index cur to some invalid value, e.g. -1.
Set your current index cur to from proceed from above until you reach an element in the helper array which already has an invalid index value, i.e. your starting point. In this case store the content of tmp at the last index. You now have found a closed loop of rotated indices.
Unfortunately there may exist an arbitrary number of such loops each of arbitrary size. So you need to seek in the helper array for the next non-invalid index value and again continue from above until all elements of the helper array are processed.
Since you will end at the starting point after each loop it is sufficient to increment cur unless you find an non-invalid entry. So the algorithm is still O(n) while processing the helper array.
All entries before cur are necessarily invalid after a loop completed.
If curincrements beyond the size of the helper array you are done.
There is an easier variation of option 2 when you are allowed to create new target arrays.
In this case you simply allocate the new target arrays and fill their content according to the indices in your helper array.
The drawback is that the allocations might be quite expensive if the arrays are really large. And of course, it is no longer in place.
Some further notes.
Normally the custom sort algorithm performs better as it avoids the allocation of the temporary array. But in some cases the situation changes. The processing of the cyclic element rotation loops uses a minimum move operations. This is O(n) rather than O(n log n) of common sort algorithms.
So when the number of arrays to sort and or the size of the arrays grows the method #2 has an advantage because it uses less swap operations.
A data model requiring a sort algorithm like this is mostly broken by design. Of course, like always there are a few cases where you can't avoid this.
May I suggest you to use a TreeMap or something similar, using your integer as key.
static Map<Integer, myClass> map = new TreeMap<>();
So when you want to retrieve ordered you only have to do a for loop or whatever you prefer.
for (int i : map.keyset()){
System.out.println("x: "+map.get(i).x+"\nsource: "+map.get(i).source+"\ntarget: "+map.get(i).target);
}
This example requires creating an Integer array of indexes, but the arrays to be sorted are reordered in place according to array1, and the arrays can be of any type (primitives or objects) that allows indexing.
public static void main(String[] args) {
int array1[]={5,1,9,3,8};
int array2[]={2,0,3,6,1};
int array3[]={3,1,4,5,9};
// generate array of indices
Integer[] I = new Integer [array1.length];
for(int i = 0; i < I.length; i++)
I[i] = i;
// sort array of indices according to array1
Arrays.sort(I, (i, j) -> array1[i]-array1[j]);
// reorder array1 ... array3 in place using sorted indices
// also reorder indices back to 0 to length-1
// time complexity is O(n)
for(int i = 0; i < I.length; i++){
if(i != I[i]){
int t1 = array1[i];
int t2 = array2[i];
int t3 = array3[i];
int j;
int k = i;
while(i != (j = I[k])){
array1[k] = array1[j];
array2[k] = array2[j];
array3[k] = array3[j];
I[k] = k;
k = j;
}
array1[k] = t1;
array2[k] = t2;
array3[k] = t3;
I[k] = k;
}
}
// display result
for (int i = 0; i < array1.length; i++) {
System.out.println("array1 " + array1[i] +
" array2 " + array2[i] +
" array3 " + array3[i]);
}
}
Another solution using Collection (increase the memory usage) :
Let's create a sorted map to will simply be a mapping between the correct index and the original position :
public static TreeMap<Integer, Integer> sortIndex(int[] array){
TreeMap<Integer, Integer> tree = new TreeMap<>();
for(int i=0; i < array.length; ++i) {
tree.put(array[i], i);
}
return tree;
}
Test :
int[] indexes = new int[] { 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5 };
TreeMap<Integer, Integer> map = sortIndex(indexes);
map.keySet().stream().forEach(System.out::print); //012345
map.values().stream().forEach(System.out::print); //013245
We have the indexes sorted (on the key) and the original index order as the values.
No we can simple use this to order the array, I will be drastic and use a Stream to map and collect into a List.
public static List<String> sortInPlace(String[] array, TreeMap<Integer, Integer> map) {
return map.values().stream().map(i -> array[i]).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Test :
String[] sources = "to be not or to be".split(" ");
int[] indexes = new int[] { 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 5 };
TreeMap<Integer, Integer> map = sortIndex(indexes);
List<String> result = sortInPlace(sources, map);
System.out.println(result);
[to, be, or, not, to, be]
Why did I use a List. Mostly to simplify the re-ordering, if we try to order the original arrays, it will be complicated because we need to remove the opposed key/pair
2 -> 3
3 -> 2
Without some cleaning, we will just swap the cells twice ... so there will be no changes.
If we want to reduce a bit the memory usage, we can create another array instead of using the stream and copy values per values iterating the map. This would be possible to do with multiple array in parallel too.
It all depends on the size of your arrays. This solution will use the first array to perform the sorting but will perform the permutation on multiple arrays.
So this could have some performances issues if the sorting algorithm used will need a lot of permutation.
Here, I took a basic sorting algorithm on which I have added some actions I can do during the swap of two cells. This allows use to define some lambda to swap multiple array at the same time based on one array.
public static void sortArray( int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions ) {
int tmp;
for ( int i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; ++i ) {
tmp = array[i];
for ( int j = i + 1; j < length; ++j ) {
if ( tmp > array[j] ) {
array[i] = array[j];
array[j] = tmp;
tmp = array[i];
// Swap the other arrays
for ( BiConsumer<Integer, Integer> cons : actions ){
cons.accept( i, j);
}
}
}
}
}
Let's create a generic method to swap the cells that we can pass as a BiConsumer lambda (only works for non-primitive arrays):
public static <T> void swapCell( T[] array, int from, int to ) {
T tmp = array[from];
array[from] = array[to];
array[to] = tmp;
}
That allows use to sort the arrays like :
public static void main( String[] args ) throws ParseException {
int[] indexes = new int[] { 0, 2, 8, 5 };
String[] sources = new String[] { "how", "are", "today", "you" };
String[] targets = new String[] { "I", "am", "thanks", "fine" };
sortArray( indexes,
( i, j ) -> swapCell( sources, i, j ),
( i, j ) -> swapCell( targets, i, j ) );
System.out.println( Arrays.toString( indexes ) );
System.out.println( Arrays.toString( sources ) );
System.out.println( Arrays.toString( targets ) );
}
[0, 2, 5, 8]
[how, are, you, today]
[I, am, fine, thanks]
This solution does not required (much) more memory than the one already used since no additional array or Collection are required.
The use of BiConsumer<>... provide a generic solution, this could also accept an Object[]... but this would not work for primitives array anymore. This have a slight performance lost of course, so based on the need, this can be removed.
Creation of a complete solution, first let's define an interface that will be used as a factory as well :
interface Sorter {
void sort(int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions);
static void sortArrays(int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions){
// call the implemented Sorter
}
}
Then, implement a simple Selection sorterr with the same logic as before, for each permutation in the original array, we execute the BiConsumer:
class SelectionSorter implements Sorter {
public void sort(int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions) {
int index;
int value;
int tmp;
for (int i = 0, length = array.length; i < length; ++i) {
index = i;
value = array[i];
for (int j = i + 1; j < length; ++j) {
if (value > array[j]) {
index = j;
value = array[j];
}
}
if (index != i) {
tmp = array[i];
array[i] = array[index];
array[index] = tmp;
// Swap the other arrays
for (BiConsumer<Integer, Integer> cons : actions) {
cons.accept(i, index);
}
}
}
}
}
Let also create a Bubble sorter :
class BubbleSorter implements Sorter {
public void sort(int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions) {
int tmp;
boolean swapped;
do {
swapped = false;
for (int i = 1, length = array.length; i < length; ++i) {
if (array[i - 1] > array[i]) {
tmp = array[i];
array[i] = array[i - 1];
array[i - 1] = tmp;
// Swap the other arrays
for (BiConsumer<Integer, Integer> cons : actions) {
cons.accept(i, i - 1);
}
swapped = true;
}
}
} while (swapped);
}
}
Now, we can simple call one or the other based on a simple condition, the length :
static void sortArrays(int[] array, BiConsumer<Integer, Integer>... actions){
if(array.length < 1000){
new BubbleSorter().sort(array, actions);
} else {
new SelectionSorter().sort(array, actions);
}
}
That way, we can call our sorter simply with
Sorter.sortArrays(indexes,
(i, j) -> swapCell(sources, i, j),
(i, j) -> swapCell(targets, i, j)
);
Complete test case on ideone (limit on size because of the time out)
I wonder if my approach is valid.
public class rakesh{
public static void sort_myClass(myClass myClasses[]){
for(int i=0; i<myClasses.length; i++){
for(int j=0; j<myClasses.length-i-1; j++){
if(myClasses[j].x >myClasses[j+1].x){
myClass temp_myClass = new myClass(myClasses[j+1]);
myClasses[j+1] = new myClass(myClasses[j]);
myClasses[j] = new myClass(temp_myClass);
}
}
}
}
public static class myClass{
int x;
String source;
String target;
myClass(int x,String source,String target){
this.x = x;
this.source = source;
this.target = target;
}
myClass(myClass super_myClass){
this.x = super_myClass.x;
this.source = super_myClass.source;
this.target = super_myClass.target;
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
myClass myClass1 = new myClass(0,"how","I");
myClass myClass2 = new myClass(2,"are","am");
myClass myClass3 = new myClass(8,"today","thanks");
myClass myClass4 = new myClass(5,"you","fine");
myClass[] myClasses = {myClass1, myClass2, myClass3, myClass4};
sort_myClass(myClasses);
for(myClass myClass_dummy : myClasses){
System.out.print(myClass_dummy.x + " ");
}
System.out.print("\n");
for(myClass myClass_dummy : myClasses){
System.out.print(myClass_dummy.source + " ");
}
System.out.print("\n");
for(myClass myClass_dummy : myClasses){
System.out.print(myClass_dummy.target + " ");
}
}
}
If you find any error or have suggestions then please leave a comment so I could make any necessary edits.
Output
0 2 5 8
how are you today
I am fine thanks
Process finished with exit code 0
without assign values in class, you can achieve it with following code:
Integer[] indexes = new Integer[]{0,2,8,5};
String[] sources = new String[]{"how", "are", "today", "you"};
String[] targets = new String[]{"I", "am", "thanks", "fine"};
Integer[] sortedArrya = Arrays.copyOf(indexes, indexes.length);
Arrays.sort(sortedArrya);
String[] sortedSourses = new String[sources.length];
String[] sortedTargets = new String[targets.length];
for (int i = 0; i < sortedArrya.length; i++) {
int intValus = sortedArrya[i];
int inx = Arrays.asList(indexes).indexOf(intValus);
sortedSourses[i] = sources[+inx];
sortedTargets[i] = targets[+inx];
}
System.out.println(sortedArrya);
System.out.println(sortedSourses);
System.out.println(sortedTargets);
I have an other solution for your question:
private void reOrder(int[] indexes, String[] sources, String[] targets){
int[] reIndexs = new int[indexes.length]; // contain index of item from MIN to MAX
String[] reSources = new String[indexes.length]; // array sources after re-order follow reIndexs
String[] reTargets = new String[indexes.length]; // array targets after re-order follow reIndexs
for (int i=0; i < (indexes.length - 1); i++){
if (i == (indexes.length - 2)){
if (indexes[i] > indexes[i+1]){
reIndexs[i] = i+1;
reIndexs[i+1] = i;
}else
{
reIndexs[i] = i;
reIndexs[i+1] = i+1;
}
}else
{
for (int j=(i+1); j < indexes.length; j++){
if (indexes[i] > indexes[j]){
reIndexs[i] = j;
}else {
reIndexs[i] = i;
}
}
}
}
// Re-order sources array and targets array
for (int index = 0; index < reIndexs.length; index++){
reSources[index] = sources[reIndexs[index]];
reTargets[index] = targets[reIndexs[index]];
}
// Print to view result
System.out.println( Arrays.toString(reIndexs));
System.out.println( Arrays.toString(reSources));
System.out.println( Arrays.toString(reTargets));
}
You can also achieve in your way too.
Here I created an ArrayList myArr and sorted Based on index value and then converted back to the array if you satisfied with ArrayList just you can remove the conversion or you want Array this one be helpful.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.Comparator;
public class StackOverflow {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] indexes = new int[]{0,2,8,5};
String[] sources = new String[]{"how", "are", "today", "you"};
String[] targets = new String[]{"I", "am", "thanks", "fine"};
ArrayList<myClass> myArr=new ArrayList<>();
for(int i=0;i<indexes.length;i++) {
myArr.add(new myClass(indexes[i], sources[i], targets[i]));
}
//Collections.sort(myArr,new compareIndex());
// Just for readability of code
Collections.sort(myArr, (mC1, mC2) -> mC1.getX() - mC2.getX());
//Conversion Part
for (int i=0;i<myArr.size();i++){
indexes[i]=myArr.get(i).getX();
sources[i]=myArr.get(i).getSource();
targets[i]=myArr.get(i).getTarget();
}
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(indexes));
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(sources));
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(targets));
}
}
class myClass {
private Integer x;
private String source;
private String target;
public myClass(Integer x,String source,String target){
this.x=x;
this.source=source;
this.target=target;
}
public Integer getX() {
return x;
}
public String getSource() {
return source;
}
public String getTarget() {
return target;
}
}
I have the task of determining whether each value from 1, 2, 3... n is in an unordered int array. I'm not sure if this is the most efficient way to go about this, but I created an int[] called range that just has all the numbers from 1-n in order at range[i] (range[0]=1, range[1]=2, ect). Then I tried to use the containsAll method to check if my array of given numbers contains all of the numbers in the range array. However, when I test this it returns false. What's wrong with my code, and what would be a more efficient way to solve this problem?
public static boolean hasRange(int [] givenNums, int[] range) {
boolean result = true;
int n = range.length;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
if (Arrays.asList(givenNums).containsAll(Arrays.asList(range)) == false) {
result = false;
}
}
return result;
}
(I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to do this manually rather than using the containsAll method, so if anyone knows how to solve it that way it would be especially helpful!)
Here's where this method is implicated for anyone who is curious:
public static void checkMatrix(int[][] intMatrix) {
File numberFile = new File("valid3x3") ;
intMatrix= readMatrix(numberFile);
int nSquared = sideLength * sideLength;
int[] values = new int[nSquared];
int[] range = new int[nSquared];
int valCount = 0;
for (int i = 0; i<sideLength; i++) {
for (int j=0; j<sideLength; j++) {
values[valCount] = intMatrix[i][j];
valCount++;
}
}
for (int i=0; i<range.length; i++) {
range[i] = i+1;
}
Boolean valuesThere = hasRange(values, range);
valuesThere is false when printed.
First style:
if (condition == false) // Works, but at the end you have if (true == false) or such
if (!condition) // Better: not condition
// Do proper usage, if you have a parameter, do not read it in the method.
File numberFile = new File("valid3x3") ;
intMatrix = readMatrix(numberFile);
checkMatrix(intMatrix);
public static void checkMatrix(int[][] intMatrix) {
int nSquared = sideLength * sideLength;
int[] values = new int[nSquared];
Then the problem. It is laudable to see that a List or even better a Set approach is the exact abstraction level: going into detail not sensible. Here however just that is wanted.
To know whether every element in a range [1, ..., n] is present.
You could walk through the given numbers,
and for every number look whether it new in the range, mark it as no longer new,
and if n new numbers are reached: return true.
int newRangeNumbers = 0;
boolean[] foundRangeNumbers = new boolean[n]; // Automatically false
Think of better names.
You say you have a one dimensional array right?
Good. Then I think you are thinking to complicated.
I try to explain you another way to check if all numbers in an array are in number order.
For instance you have the array with following values:
int[] array = {9,4,6,7,8,1,2,3,5,8};
First of all you can order the Array simpel with
Arrays.sort(array);
After you've done this you can loop through the array and compare with the index like (in a method):
for(int i = array[0];i < array.length; i++){
if(array[i] != i) return false;
One way to solve this is to first sort the unsorted int array like you said then run a binary search to look for all values from 1...n. Sorry I'm not familiar with Java so I wrote in pseudocode. Instead of a linear search which takes O(N), binary search runs in O(logN) so is much quicker. But precondition is the array you are searching through must be sorted.
//pseudocode
int range[N] = {1...n};
cnt = 0;
while(i<-inputStream)
int unsortedArray[cnt]=i
cnt++;
sort(unsortedArray);
for(i from 0 to N-1)
{
bool res = binarySearch(unsortedArray, range[i]);
if(!res)
return false;
}
return true;
What I comprehended from your description is that the array is not necessarily sorted (in order). So, we can try using linear search method.
public static void main(String[] args){
boolean result = true;
int[] range <- Contains all the numbers
int[] givenNums <- Contains the numbers to check
for(int i=0; i<givenNums.length; i++){
if(!has(range, givenNums[i])){
result = false;
break;
}
}
System.out.println(result==false?"All elements do not exist":"All elements exist");
}
private static boolean has(int[] range, int n){
//we do linear search here
for(int i:range){
if(i == n)
return true;
}
return false;
}
This code displays whether all the elements in array givenNums exist in the array range.
Arrays.asList(givenNums).
This does not do what you think. It returns a List<int[]> with a single element, it does not box the values in givenNums to Integer and return a List<Integer>. This explains why your approach does not work.
Using Java 8 streams, assuming you don't want to permanently sort givens. Eliminate the copyOf() if you don't care:
int[] sorted = Arrays.copyOf(givens,givens.length);
Arrays.sort(sorted);
boolean result = Arrays.stream(range).allMatch(t -> Arrays.binarySearch(sorted, t) >= 0);
public static boolean hasRange(int [] givenNums, int[] range) {
Set result = new HashSet();
for (int givenNum : givenNums) {
result.add(givenNum);
}
for (int num : range) {
result.add(num);
}
return result.size() == givenNums.length;
}
The problem with your code is that the function hasRange takes two primitive int array and when you pass primitive int array to Arrays.asList it will return a List containing a single element of type int[]. In this containsAll will not check actual elements rather it will compare primitive array object references.
Solution is either you create an Integer[] and then use Arrays.asList or if that's not possible then convert the int[] to Integer[].
public static boolean hasRange(Integer[] givenNums, Integer[] range) {
return Arrays.asList(givenNums).containsAll(Arrays.asList(range));
}
Check here for sample code and output.
If you are using ApacheCommonsLang library you can directly convert int[] to Integer[].
Integer[] newRangeArray = ArrayUtils.toObject(range);
A mathematical approach: if you know the max value (or search the max value) check the sum. Because the sum for the numbers 1,2,3,...,n is always equal to n*(n+1)/2. So if the sum is equal to that expression all values are in your array and if not some values are missing. Example
public class NewClass12 {
static int [] arr = {1,5,2,3,4,7,9,8};
public static void main(String [] args){
System.out.println(containsAllValues(arr, highestValue(arr)));
}
public static boolean containsAllValues(int[] arr, int n){
int sum = 0;
for(int k = 0; k<arr.length;k++){
sum +=arr[k];
}
return (sum == n*(n+1)/2);
}
public static int highestValue(int[]arr){
int highest = arr[0];
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if(highest<arr[i]) highest = arr[i];
}
return highest;
}
}
according to this your method could look like this
public static boolen hasRange (int [] arr){
int highest = arr[0];
int sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
if(highest<arr[i]) highest = arr[i];
}
for(int k = 0; k<arr.length;k++){
sum +=arr[k];
}
return (sum == highest *(highest +1)/2);
}
How might I approach solving the following problem:
Create an array of integers that are contained in at least two of the given arrays.
For example:
int[] a1 = new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
int[] a2 = new int[] { 5, 10, 11, 8 };
int[] a3 = new int[] { 1, 7, 6, 4, 5, 3, 11 };
must give a result array
int[] result = new int[] {1, 3, 4, 5, 11}
P.S. i'm interested in suggestions on how I might approach this ("algorithm"), not what Java utils might give me the answer
put a1 numbers in a Map<Integer,Integer> count, using the value as the key, and setting the count to 1
Put a2 numbers into the same map. If an item does not exist, assign the count of 1, otherwise assign it the existing count + 1
Put a3 numbers into the same map. If an item does not exist, assign the count of 1, otherwise assign it the existing count + 1
Go through the entries in a map, and output all keys where the value is greater than one.
This algorithm is amortized linear time in the combined number of elements in the three arrays.
If the numbers in the three arrays are limited to, say, 1000 or another relatively small number, you could avoid using collections at all, but use a potentially more expensive algorithm based on the upper limit of your numbers: replace the map with an array counts[MAX_NUM+1], and then run the same algorithm, like this:
int[] counts = new int[MAX_NUM+1];
for (int a : a1) counts[a]++;
for (int a : a2) counts[a]++;
for (int a : a3) counts[a]++;
for (int i = 0 ; i != MAX_NUM+1 ; i++) {
if (counts[i] > 1) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
You can look at the 3 arrays as sets and find each element that is in the intersection of some pair of sets.
basically, you are looking for (set1 [intersection] set2) [union] (set2 [intersection] set3) [union] (set1 [intersection] set2)
I agree that it might not be the easiest way to achieve what you are after, but being able to reduce one problem to another is a technique every programmer should master, and this solution should be very educating.
The only way to do this without collections would be to take an element from an array, iterate over the remaining two arrays to see if a duplicate is found (and then break and move to the next element). You need to do this for two out of the three arrays as by the time you move to the third one, you would already have your answer.
Mathematically this can be solved as follows:
You can construct three sets using each of the three arrays, so duplicated entries in each array will only occur once in each set. And then the entries that appear at least in two of the three sets are solutions. So they are given by
(S_1 intersect S_2) union (S_2 intersect S_3) union (S_3 intersect S_1)
Think about the question and the different strategies you might use:
Go through each entry in each array, if that entry is NOT already in the "duplicates" result, then see if that entry is in each of the remaining arrays. Add to duplicates if it is and return to next integer
Create an array of non-duplicates by adding an entry from each array (and if it is already there, putting it in the duplicates array).
Use another creative strategy of your own
I like drawing Venn diagramms. You know that diagram with three intersecting circles, e.g. see here.
You then see that the complement is easier to describe:
Those elements which only exist in one array, are not interesting.
So you could build a frequency list (i.e. key = element, value = count of in how many arrays you found it [for the first time]) in a hash map, and then in a final pass pick all elements which occured more than once.
For simplicity I used sets. If your arrays contain multiple entries of the same value, you have to ignore those extra occurences when you build the frequency list.
An approach could be like this:
1.Sort all the arrays.
2.For each combination of arrays do this
Let us consider the first two arrays A,B. Let a be A's size.
Also take a third array or vector to store our result
for i=0-->a-1 {
Search for A[i] in B using binarySearch.
if A[i] exists in B then insert A[i] into our result vector
}
Repeat the same process for (B,C) and (C,A).
Now sort & Traverse the result vector from the end, remove the elements which have the property
result[i] = result[i-1]
The final vector is the required result.
Time Complexity Analysis:
T(n) = O(nlog(n)) for Sorting where n is the highest array size among the given three
For searching each element of an array in other sorted array T(n) = n * O(log n)
T(n) = O(n (log n)) for sorting the result and O(n) for traversing
So overall time complexity is O(n log(n)); and space complexity is O(n)
Please correct me of I am wrong
In Java:
Will write one without using java.utils shortly.
Meantime a solution using java.utils:
public static void twice(int[] a, int[] b, int[] c) {
//Used Set to remove duplicates
Set<Integer> setA = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
setA.add(a[i]);
}
Set<Integer> setB = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < b.length; i++) {
setB.add(b[i]);
}
Set<Integer> setC = new HashSet<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < c.length; i++) {
setC.add(c[i]);
}
//Logic to fill data into a Map
Map<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<Integer, Integer>();
for (Integer val : setA) {
map.put(val, 1);
}
for (Integer val : setB) {
if (map.get(val) != null) {
int count = map.get(val);
count++;
map.put(val, count);
} else {
map.put(val, 1);
}
}
for (Integer val : setC) {
if (map.get(val) != null) {
int count = map.get(val);
count++;
map.put(val, count);
} else {
map.put(val, 1);
}
}
for (Map.Entry<Integer, Integer> entry2 : map.entrySet()) {
//if (entry2.getValue() == 2) { //Return the elements that are present in two out of three arrays.
if(entry2.getValue() >= 2) { //Return elements that are present **at least** twice in the three arrays.
System.out.print(" " + entry2.getKey());
}
}
}
Change condition in last for loop in case one need to return the elements that are present in two out of three arrays. Say:
int[] a = { 2, 3, 8, 4, 1, 9, 8 };
int[] b = { 6, 5, 3, 7, 9, 2, 1 };
int[] c = { 5, 1, 8, 2, 4, 0, 5 };
Output: { 3, 8, 4, 5, 9 }
Here goes without any java.util library:
public static void twice(int[] a, int[] b, int[] c) {
int[] a1 = removeDuplicates(a);
int[] b1 = removeDuplicates(b);
int[] c1 = removeDuplicates(c);
int totalLen = a1.length + b1.length +c1.length;
int[][] keyValue = new int[totalLen][2];
int index = 0;
for(int i=0; i<a1.length; i++, index++)
{
keyValue[index][0] = a1[i]; //Key
keyValue[index][1] = 1; //Value
}
for(int i=0; i<b1.length; i++)
{
boolean found = false;
int tempIndex = -1;
for(int j=0; j<index; j++)
{
if (keyValue[j][0] == b1[i]) {
found = true;
tempIndex = j;
break;
}
}
if(found){
keyValue[tempIndex][1]++;
} else {
keyValue[index][0] = b1[i]; //Key
keyValue[index][1] = 1; //Value
index++;
}
}
for(int i=0; i<c1.length; i++)
{
boolean found = false;
int tempIndex = -1;
for(int j=0; j<index; j++)
{
if (keyValue[j][0] == c1[i]) {
found = true;
tempIndex = j;
break;
}
}
if(found){
keyValue[tempIndex][1]++;
} else {
keyValue[index][0] = c1[i]; //Key
keyValue[index][1] = 1; //Value
index++;
}
}
for(int i=0; i<index; i++)
{
//if(keyValue[i][1] == 2)
if(keyValue[i][1] >= 2)
{
System.out.print(keyValue[i][0]+" ");
}
}
}
public static int[] removeDuplicates(int[] input) {
boolean[] dupInfo = new boolean[500];//Array should not have any value greater than 499.
int totalItems = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < input.length; ++i ) {
if( dupInfo[input[i]] == false ) {
dupInfo[input[i]] = true;
totalItems++;
}
}
int[] output = new int[totalItems];
int j = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < dupInfo.length; ++i ) {
if( dupInfo[i] == true ) {
output[j++] = i;
}
}
return output;
}
It's very simple and could be done for n different arrays the same way:
public static void compute(int[] a1, int[] a2, int[] a3) {
HashMap<Integer, Integer> map = new HashMap<>();
fillMap(map, a1);
fillMap(map, a2);
fillMap(map, a3);
for (Integer key : map.keySet()) {
System.out.print(map.get(key) > 1 ? key + ", " : "");
}
}
public static void fillMap(HashMap<Integer, Integer> map, int[] a) {
for (int i : a) {
if (map.get(i) == null) {
map.put(i, 1);
continue;
}
int count = map.get(i);
map.put(i, ++count);
}
}
fun atLeastTwo(a: ArrayList<Int>, b: ArrayList<Int>, c: ArrayList<Int>): List<Int>{
val map = a.associateWith { 1 }.toMutableMap()
b.toSet().forEach { map[it] = map.getOrDefault(it, 0) + 1 }
c.toSet().forEach{ map[it] = map.getOrDefault(it, 0) + 1 }
return map.filter { it.value == 2 }.map { it.key }
}
In Javascript you can do it like this:
let sa = new Set(),
sb = new Set(),
sc = new Set();
A.forEach(a => sa.add(a));
B.forEach(b => sb.add(b));
C.forEach(c => sc.add(c));
let res = new Set();
sa.forEach((a) => {
if (sb.has(a) || sc.has(a)) res.add(a);
})
sb.forEach((b) => {
if (sa.has(b) || sc.has(b)) res.add(b);
})
sc.forEach((c) => {
if (sa.has(c) || sb.has(c)) res.add(c);
})
let arr = Array.from(res.values());
arr.sort((i, j) => i - j)
return arr
I try to find a solution to this problem:
I have two arrays A and B of integers (A and B can have different dimensions). I have to find the common elements in these two arrays. I have another condition: the maximum distance between the common elements is k.
So, this is my solution. I think is correct:
for (int i = 0; i<A.length; i++){
for (int j=jlimit; (j<B.length) && (j <= ks); j++){
if(A[i]==B[j]){
System.out.println(B[j]);
jlimit = j;
ks = j+k;
}//end if
}
}
Is there a way to make a better solution? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!
Given your explanation, I think the most direct approach is reading array A, putting all elements in a Set (setA), do the same with B (setB), and use the retainAll method to find the intersection of both sets (items that belong to both of the sets).
You will see that the k distance is not used at all, but I see no way to use that condition that leads to code either faster or more maintenable. The solution I advocate works without enforcing that condition, so it works also when the condition is true (that is called "weakening the preconditions")
IMPLEMENT BINARY SEARCH AND QUICK SORT!
this will lead to tons of code.... but the fastest result.
You can sort the elements of the larger array with like quick sort which would lead to O(nlogn).
then iterate through the smaller array for each value and do a binary search of that particular element in the other array. Add some logic for the distance in the binary search.
I think you can get the complexity down to O(nlogn). Worst case O(n^2)
pseudo code.
larger array equals a
other array equals b
sort a
iterate through b
binary search b at iterated index
// I would throw (last index - index) logic in binary search
// to exit out of that even faster by returning "NOT FOUND" as soon as that is hit.
if found && (last index - index) is less than or equal
store last index
print value
this is the fastest way possible to do your problem i believe.
Although this would be a cheat, since it uses HashSets, it is pretty nice for a Java implementation of this algorithm. If you need the pseudocode for the algorithm, don't read any further.
Source and author in the JavaDoc. Cheers.
/**
* #author Crunchify.com
*/
public class CrunchifyIntersection {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Integer[ ] arrayOne = { 1, 4, 5, 2, 7, 3, 9 };
Integer[ ] arrayTwo = { 5, 2, 4, 9, 5 };
Integer[ ] common = iCrunchIntersection.findCommon( arrayOne, arrayTwo );
System.out.print( "Common Elements Between Two Arrays: " );
for( Integer entry : common ) {
System.out.print( entry + " " );
}
}
public static Integer[ ] findCommon( Integer[ ] arrayOne, Integer[ ] arrayTwo ) {
Integer[ ] arrayToHash;
Integer[ ] arrayToSearch;
if( arrayOne.length < arrayTwo.length ) {
arrayToHash = arrayOne;
arrayToSearch = arrayTwo;
} else {
arrayToHash = arrayTwo;
arrayToSearch = arrayOne;
}
HashSet<Integer> intersection = new HashSet<Integer>( );
HashSet<Integer> hashedArray = new HashSet<Integer>( );
for( Integer entry : arrayToHash ) {
hashedArray.add( entry );
}
for( Integer entry : arrayToSearch ) {
if( hashedArray.contains( entry ) ) {
intersection.add( entry );
}
}
return intersection.toArray( new Integer[ 0 ] );
}
}
Your implementation is roughly O(A.length*2k).
That seems to be about the best you're going to do if you want to maintain your "no more than k away" logic, as that rules out sorting and the use of sets. I would alter a little to make your code more understandable.
First, I would ensure that you iterate over the smaller of the two arrays. This would make the complexity O(min(A.length, B.length)*2k).
To understand the purpose of this, consider the case where A has 1 element and B has 100. In this case, we are only going to perform one iteration in the outer loop, and k iterations in the inner loop.
Now consider when A has 100 elements, and B has 1. In this case, we will perform 100 iterations on the outer loop, and 1 iteration each on the inner loop.
If k is less than the length of your long array, iterating over the shorter array in the outer loop will be more efficient.
Then, I would change how you're calculating the k distance stuff just for readability's sake. The code I've written demonstrates this.
Here's what I would do:
//not sure what type of array we're dealing with here, so I'll assume int.
int[] toIterate;
int[] toSearch;
if (A.length > B.length)
{
toIterate = B;
toSearch = A;
}
else
{
toIterate = A;
toSearch = B;
}
for (int i = 0; i < toIterate.length; i++)
{
// set j to k away in the negative direction
int j = i - k;
if (j < 0)
j = 0;
// only iterate until j is k past i
for (; (j < toSearch.length) && (j <= i + k); j++)
{
if(toIterate[i] == toSearch[j])
{
System.out.println(toSearch[j]);
}
}
}
Your use of jlimit and ks may work, but handling your k distance like this is more understandable for your average programmer (and it's marginally more efficient).
O(N) solution (BloomFilters):
Here is a solution using bloom filters (implementation is from the Guava library)
public static <T> T findCommon_BloomFilterImpl(T[] A, T[] B, Funnel<T> funnel) {
BloomFilter<T> filter = BloomFilter.create(funnel, A.length + B.length);
for (T t : A) {
filter.put(t);
}
for (T t : B) {
if (filter.mightContain(t)) {
return t;
}
}
return null;
}
use it like this:
Integer j = Masking.findCommon_BloomFilterImpl(new Integer[]{12, 2, 3, 4, 5222, 622, 71, 81, 91, 10}, new Integer[]{11, 100, 15, 18, 79, 10}, Funnels.integerFunnel());
Assert.assertNotNull(j);
Assert.assertEquals(10, j.intValue());
Runs in O(N) since calculating hash for Integer is pretty straight forward. So still O(N) if you can reduce the calculation of hash of your elementents to O(1) or a small O(K) where K is the size of each element.
O(N.LogN) solution (sorting and iterating):
Sorting and the iterating through the array will lead you to a O(N*log(N)) solution:
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> T findCommon(T[] A, T[] B, Class<T> clazz) {
T[] array = concatArrays(A, B, clazz);
Arrays.sort(array);
for (int i = 1; i < array.length; i++) {
if (array[i - 1].equals(array[i])) { //put your own equality check here
return array[i];
}
}
return null;
}
concatArrays(~) is in O(N) of course. Arrays.sort(~) is a bi-pivot implementation of QuickSort with complexity in O(N.logN), and iterating through the array again is O(N).
So we have O((N+2).logN) ~> O(N.logN).
As a general case solution (withouth the "within k" condition of your problem) is better than yours. It should be considered for k "close to" N in your precise case.
Simple solution if arrays are already sorted
public static void get_common_courses(Integer[] courses1, Integer[] courses2) {
// Sort both arrays if input is not sorted
//Arrays.sort(courses1);
//Arrays.sort(courses2);
int i=0, j=0;
while(i<courses1.length && j<courses2.length) {
if(courses1[i] > courses2[j]) {
j++;
} else if(courses1[i] < courses2[j]){
i++;
} else {
System.out.println(courses1[i]);
i++;j++;
}
}
}
Apache commons collections API has done this in efficient way without sorting
public static Collection intersection(final Collection a, final Collection b) {
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
Map mapa = getCardinalityMap(a);
Map mapb = getCardinalityMap(b);
Set elts = new HashSet(a);
elts.addAll(b);
Iterator it = elts.iterator();
while(it.hasNext()) {
Object obj = it.next();
for(int i=0,m=Math.min(getFreq(obj,mapa),getFreq(obj,mapb));i<m;i++) {
list.add(obj);
}
}
return list;
}
Solution using Java 8
static <T> Collection<T> intersection(Collection<T> c1, Collection<T> c2) {
if (c1.size() < c2.size())
return intersection(c2, c1);
Set<T> c2set = new HashSet<>(c2);
return c1.stream().filter(c2set::contains).distinct().collect(Collectors.toSet());
}
Use Arrays::asList and boxed values of primitives:
Integer[] a =...
Collection<Integer> res = intersection(Arrays.asList(a),Arrays.asList(b));
Generic solution
public static void main(String[] args) {
String[] a = { "a", "b" };
String[] b = { "c", "b" };
String[] intersection = intersection(a, b, a[0].getClass());
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(intersection));
Integer[] aa = { 1, 3, 4, 2 };
Integer[] bb = { 1, 19, 4, 5 };
Integer[] intersectionaabb = intersection(aa, bb, aa[0].getClass());
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(intersectionaabb));
}
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private static <T> T[] intersection(T[] a, T[] b, Class<? extends T> c) {
HashSet<T> s = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList(a));
s.retainAll(Arrays.asList(b));
return s.toArray((T[]) Array.newInstance(c, s.size()));
}
Output
[b]
[1, 4]
This question already has answers here:
How to add new elements to an array?
(19 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Want to add or append elements to existing array
int[] series = {4,2};
now i want to update the series dynamically with new values i send..
like if i send 3 update series as int[] series = {4,2,3};
again if i send 4 update series as int[] series = {4,2,3,4};
again if i send 1 update series as int[] series = {4,2,3,4,1}; so on
How to do it????
I generate an integer every 5 minutes in some other function and want to send to update the int[] series array..
The length of an array is immutable in java. This means you can't change the size of an array once you have created it. If you initialised it with 2 elements, its length is 2. You can however use a different collection.
List<Integer> myList = new ArrayList<Integer>();
myList.add(5);
myList.add(7);
And with a wrapper method
public void addMember(Integer x) {
myList.add(x);
};
try this
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] series = {4,2};
series = addElement(series, 3);
series = addElement(series, 1);
}
static int[] addElement(int[] a, int e) {
a = Arrays.copyOf(a, a.length + 1);
a[a.length - 1] = e;
return a;
}
If you are generating an integer every 5 minutes, better to use collection. You can always get array out of it, if required in your code.
Else define the array big enough to handle all your values at runtime (not preferred though.)
You'll need to create a new array if you want to add an index.
Try this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] series = new int[0];
int x = 5;
series = addInt(series, x);
//print out the array with commas as delimiters
System.out.print("New series: ");
for (int i = 0; i < series.length; i++){
if (i == series.length - 1){
System.out.println(series[i]);
}
else{
System.out.print(series[i] + ", ");
}
}
}
// here, create a method
public static int[] addInt(int [] series, int newInt){
//create a new array with extra index
int[] newSeries = new int[series.length + 1];
//copy the integers from series to newSeries
for (int i = 0; i < series.length; i++){
newSeries[i] = series[i];
}
//add the new integer to the last index
newSeries[newSeries.length - 1] = newInt;
return newSeries;
}
Like others suggested you are better off using collection. If you however for some reason must stick to array then Apache Commons ArrayUtils may help:
int[] series = {4,2};
series = ArrayUtils.add(series, 3); // series is now {4,2,3}
series = ArrayUtils.add(series, 4); // series is now {4,2,3,4};
Note that the add method creates a new array, copies the given array and appends the new element at the end, which may have impact on performance.
You could also try this.
public static int[] addOneIntToArray(int[] initialArray , int newValue) {
int[] newArray = new int[initialArray.length + 1];
for (int index = 0; index < initialArray.length; index++) {
newArray[index] = initialArray[index];
}
newArray[newArray.length - 1] = newValue;
return newArray;
}
The size of an array can't be changed. If you want a bigger array you have to create a new array.
However, a better solution would be to use an (Array)List which can grow as you need it. The method ArrayList.toArray(T[] a) returns an array if you need to use an array in your application.
public int[] return_Array() {
int[] a =new int[10];
int b = 25;
for(int i=0; i<10; i++) {
a[i] = b * i;
}
return a;
}
import java.util.Arrays;
public class NumberArray {
public static void main(String []args){
int[] series = {4,2};
int[] newSeries = putNumberInSeries(1,series);
System.out.println(series==newSeries);//return false. you won't get the same int[] object. But functionality achieved.
}
private static int[] putNumberInSeries(int i, int[] series) {
int[] localSeries = Arrays.copyOf(series, series.length+1);
localSeries[series.length] = i;
System.out.println(localSeries);
return localSeries;
}
}
The ... can only be used in JDK 1.5 or later. If you are using JDK 4 or lower, use this code:'
public static int[] addElement(int[] original, int newelement) {
int[] nEw = new int[original.length + 1];
System.arraycopy(original, 0, nEw, 0, original.length);
nEw[original.length] = newelement;
}
otherwise (JDK 5 or higher):
public static int[] addElement(int[] original, int... elements) { // This can add multiple elements at once; addElement(int[], int) will still work though.
int[] nEw = new int[original.length + elements.length];
System.arraycopy(original, 0, nEw, 0, original.length);
System.arraycopy(elements, 0, nEw, original.length, elements.length);
return nEw;
}
Of course, as many have mentioned above, you could use a Collection or an ArrayList, which allows you to use the .add() method.
class AddElement {
public static void main(String s[]) {
int arr[] ={2,3};
int add[] = new int[arr.length+1];
for(int i=0;i<add.length;i++){
if(i==add.length-1){
add[i]=4;
}else{
add[i]=arr[i];
}
System.out.println(add[i]);
}
}
}
This works for me:
int[] list = new int[maximum];
for (int i = 0; i < maximum; i++{
list[i] = put_input_here;
}
This way, it's simple, yet efficient.
similar to Evgeniy:
int[] series = {4,2};
add_element(3);
add_element(4);
add_element(1);
public void add_element(int element){
series = Arrays.copyOf(series, series.length +1);
series[series.length - 1] = element;
}
int[] oldArray = {1,2,3,4,5};
//new value
int newValue = 10;
//define the new array
int[] newArray = new int[oldArray.length + 1];
//copy values into new array
for(int i=0;i < oldArray.length;i++)
newArray[i] = oldArray[i];
//another solution is to use
//System.arraycopy(oldArray, 0, newArray, 0, oldArray.length);
//add new value to the new array
newArray[newArray.length-1] = newValue;
//copy the address to the old reference
//the old array values will be deleted by the Garbage Collector
oldArray = newArray;