Related
I am trying to solve a leetcode type problem that is a practice problem that came with an upcoming code test I need to do for a job and I am having trouble with it. Can anyone help me understand whats going wrong?
I am essentially looking for the brute force option as I dont know algos/DS.
PROBLEM:
Write a function:
function solution(A);
that, given an array A of N integers, returns the smallest positive integer (greater than 0) that does not occur in A.
For example, given A = [1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2], the function should return 5.
Given A = [1, 2, 3], the function should return 4.
Given A = [−1, −3], the function should return 1.
Write an efficient algorithm for the following assumptions:
N is an integer within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [−1,000,000..1,000,000].
HERE IS MY SOLUTION:
function solution(A) {
let newArray = A.sort(function(a, b){return a-b})
let lowestNumber = 1
for(i=0; i < newArray.length; i++) {
if(lowestNumber > newArray[0]) {
return lowestNumber
}
if(lowestNumber == newArray[i]) {
lowestNumber = lowestNumber + 1
}
if(i = newArray.length - 1) {
return lowestNumber
}
}
}
The below snippet isnt working like I expect it to. lowestNumber isnt being increased and also the loop is exiting here I believe.
if(lowestNumber == newArray[i]) {
lowestNumber = lowestNumber + 1
Thanks for your help!
You can do this in O(N) using a Map():
First set every number in the array.
Then starting from 1 look for and return the missing number in the sequence.
function solution(arr) {
const seen = new Map();
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
seen.set(arr[i]);
}
for (let i = 1; i <= arr.length + 1; i++) {
if (!seen.has(i)) return i;
}
return 1;
}
console.log(solution([1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2])); //-> 5
console.log(solution([1, 2, 3])); //-> 4
console.log(solution([-1, -3])); //-> 1
I think your > should be <, and the = in if(i = newArray.length - 1) should be ===.
And lowestNumber > newArray[0] will always be true if the array contains a negative number, so 1 will be returned.
Your effort seems careless, so you are going to have to up your game for the interview.
const integers = [5, -345, 562456, 95345, 4, 232, 1, 2, 3, 7, -457];
function solution(A) {
let newArray = A.sort((a, b) => a - b);
let lowestNumber = 1;
for (let i = 0; i < newArray.length; i++) {
const n = newArray[i];
if (n > 0) {
if (lowestNumber < n) {
return lowestNumber;
} else {
lowestNumber = n + 1;
}
}
}
return lowestNumber;
}
console.log(solution(integers));
The fastest solution
function solution(A) {
// write your code in JavaScript (Node.js 8.9.4)
if (!A) return 1;
A.sort();
if (A[A.length - 1] < 1) return 1;
const setA = new Set(A);
let length = setA.size;
for (let i = 1; i <= length; i++) {
if (!setA.has(i)) {
return i;
}
}
return length + 1;
}
I have worked same problem for nowadays, and regardless the original answer, here is my version of finding least positive number which is missing the in the array.
function findLeastPositive(array) {
const numbersSet = new Set(array);
let leastPositiveNumber = 1;
while(numbersSet.has(leastPositiveNumber)) {
leastPositiveNumber++;
}
return leastPositiveNumber;
}
let result = findLeastPositive([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]);
console.log(result);
result = findLeastPositive([10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]);
console.log(result);
There are sure similar answers floating on the internet but using given array length disturbing me of which I can't explain properly why we have to create second loop starts with 1 (known the least positive number) and to N.
Using hash table (I am using Set here) for lookup table is fine idea, as in it effect to overall performance O(N) (probably initialize the Set with array) and O(1) for checking if the value in the Set or not.
Then we need to set second loop for obvious reason that checking the the smallest positive number existence, starting from 1..N range. This is the part bugged me, so I decided to go for while loop. It's obvious rather why there's a for..loop starts from 1..N on which N is the length of the array.
Here is 100% code
function solution(A) {
/**
* create new array of positive numbers in given array,
* if there sis no specific number in given array, in result array
* that index will be undefine
*/
const c = A.reduce((arr, cur) => {
if(cur > 0) arr[cur] = 1;
return arr;
} , [1] )
/**
* return first undefined index
*/
for(let i = 0; i < c.length; i++)
if(!c[i]) return i;
// otherwise return the maximum index in array
return c.length;
}
function solution(arr) {
for (let i = 1; i <= arr.length + 1; i++) {
if (!arr.includes(i)) return i;
}
return 1;
}
console.log(solution([1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2])); //-> 5
console.log(solution([1, 2, 3])); //-> 4
console.log(solution([-1, -3])); //-> 1
I was trying out the Codility MaxCounter question:
You are given N counters, initially set to 0, and you have two possible operations on them:
increase(X) − counter X is increased by 1,
max_counter − all counters are set to the maximum value of any counter.
A non-empty zero-indexed array A of M integers is given. This array represents consecutive operations:
if A[K] = X, such that 1 ≤ X ≤ N, then operation K is increase(X),
if A[K] = N + 1 then operation K is max_counter.
For example, given integer N = 5 and array A such that:
A[0] = 3
A[1] = 4
A[2] = 4
A[3] = 6
A[4] = 1
A[5] = 4
A[6] = 4
the values of the counters after each consecutive operation will be:
(0, 0, 1, 0, 0)
(0, 0, 1, 1, 0)
(0, 0, 1, 2, 0)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2)
(3, 2, 2, 2, 2)
(3, 2, 2, 3, 2)
(3, 2, 2, 4, 2)
The goal is to calculate the value of every counter after all operations.
For example, given:
A[0] = 3
A[1] = 4
A[2] = 4
A[3] = 6
A[4] = 1
A[5] = 4
A[6] = 4
the function should return [3, 2, 2, 4, 2].
Assume that:
N and M are integers within the range [1..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [1..N + 1].
Complexity:
expected worst-case time complexity is O(N+M);
expected worst-case space complexity is O(N), beyond input storage (not counting the storage required for input arguments).
Elements of input arrays can be modified.
Here is my solution, for which i used the reduce method. It scores 40% on performance.
Can anyone see where the performance issue is here?
I'm assuming perhaps it is the reduce speed itself thats the problem and that in order to increase this score i would need to convert this to for loops, but this just feels like a really ugly way to use modern javascript in this context.
Hopefully one of you will point out something non JS related about this solution that will not indicate that reduce is the issue and instead indicate that im an idiot (I will deal with the ramifications of this over a cold beer)
function maxCounter(N, A) {
let maxCounter = 0
const NArray = new Array(N).fill(0)
const results = A.reduce((acc, current) => {
if (current === N + 1) return new Array(N).fill(maxCounter)
const out = acc.map((element, index) => {
if (index + 1 === current){
const newValue = element + 1
if (newValue > maxCounter) maxCounter = newValue
return newValue
} else {
return element
}
})
return out
}
, NArray)
return results
}
const results = maxCounter(5, [1,4,2,5,2,6,2])
console.log({results})
You could introduce a min value, which is set if all values have to be set to the max value, but this does happen only if the value is incremented, then the min value is used for update or at the end to give all items at least the min value.
function maxCounter(n, a) {
var min = 0,
max = 0,
result = [],
i;
for (i of a) {
if (--i === n) {
min = max;
continue;
}
if (!result[i] || result[i] < min) result[i] = min;
if (++result[i] > max) max = result[i];
}
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (!result[i] || result[i] < min) result[i] = min;
}
return result;
}
console.log(...maxCounter(5, [3, 4, 4, 6, 1, 4, 4]));
console.log(...maxCounter(5, [1, 4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 2]));
The time complexity of your solution is O(NM), which exceeds the required complexity of O(N + M). The reason is that your solution builds a new array of length N for each of the M queries.
This isn't because you used reduce, but rather because you used reduce on an array of length M with a reduction operation which takes O(N) time. If your reduction operation took O(1) time instead, then you would be fine.
It is possible to achieve O(1) time per query by updating the counters array in-place; the hard part is answering the "set-all" query in O(1) time, i.e. without updating all N elements of the counter array. One solution is to record a kind of "timestamp" for the last time a counter was modified, and another "timestamp" for the last time "set-all" was done; this allows you to test if a counter's value is older than the most-recent "set-all" query, and get the correct counter value either way. Here's a class which answers both queries in O(1) using this technique:
class Counters {
constructor(n) {
this.setallVal = 0;
this.setallTimestamp = 0;
this.maxCounter = 0;
this.counts = new Array(n).fill(0);
this.timestamps = new Array(n).fill(0);
}
getCounter(i) {
if (this.timestamps[i] >= this.setallTimestamp) {
return this.counts[i];
} else {
return this.setallVal;
}
}
incCounter(i) {
let c = this.getCounter(i) + 1;
this.counts[i] = c;
this.timestamps[i] = this.setallTimestamp;
if (c > this.maxCounter) {
this.maxCounter = c;
}
}
setAllToMax() {
this.setallVal = this.maxCounter;
this.setallTimestamp++;
}
}
#kaya3 Thanks!
I tried this too which gets 60% but i assume falls over with the same issue of setting the max across all elements
function solution(N, A) {
let maxCounter = 0
const NArray = new Array(N).fill(0)
for (i=0; i<A.length; i++){
if (A[i]>N){
NArray.fill(maxCounter)
} else {
const currentVal = NArray[A[i] -1] + 1
if (currentVal > maxCounter) maxCounter = currentVal
NArray[A[i] -1] = currentVal
}
}
return NArray
}
Given a non-empty array, if there is a place to split the array so that the sum of the numbers on one side is equal to the sum of the numbers on the other side return the length of the two arrays as an array but if there is no place to split the array, return -1
canBalance([1, 1, 1, 2, 1]) → [3,2]
canBalance([2, 1, 1, 2, 1]) → -1
canBalance([10, 10]) → [1,1]
function canBalance(array) {
//Type your solutions here
}
module.exports = canBalance;
Make two variables, and add and subtract each item in the array until they are equal.
function canBalance(array) {
let start = 0, end = array.reduce((a, c) => a + c, 0);
for (let i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
start += array[i];
end -= array[i];
if (start == end) {
return [i + 1, array.length - (i + 1)];
}
}
return -1;
}
console.log(canBalance([1, 1, 1, 2, 1]));
console.log(canBalance([2, 1, 1, 2, 1]));
console.log(canBalance([10, 10]));
loop through the array from the first (index 0) to the one before the last (length -1) since you want to check only until the second last to compare against the last one.
you can use slice to get the array minus the one element being iterated each time and use a reducer to get the sum
const reducer = (a, c) => a+c;
function canBalance(array) {
var result = [];
var arr = [];
for(var i=0; i<array.length - 1; i++){
arr.push(array[i]);
var leftover = array.slice(i+1,array.length);
if(arr.reduce(reducer) === leftover.reduce(reducer)){
result.push(arr.length);
result.push(leftover.length);
}
}
return result.length > 0 ? result : -1;
}
I am doing some coding practice and found some questions online.
I keep getting 1 integer lower than expected when looking to return the number of consecutive numbers inside an array.
function LongestConsecutive(arr) {
arr.sort((a,b) => {return a-b});
let highest = 0;
let counter = 0;
let prevNum;
arr.forEach((num,index,arr) => {
if (prevNum === undefined) {
prevNum = num
} else {
if (num + 1 == arr[index + 1]) {
counter += 1;
highest = Math.max(highest,counter)
} else {
counter = 0;
}
}
})
return highest;
}
for example, the input [5, 6, 1, 2, 8, 9, 7], should return 5 -- because when sorted, there are 5 consecutive numbers. I keep getting one lower than I should so for this example, I get 4. The only way to get the correct answer is when I return 'highest + 1', which obviously is avoiding the problem.
The first iteration will hit
if (prevNum === undefined) {
prevNum = num;
}
But isn’t that already the first consecutive number? So counter = 1; and highest = 1; should be here.
Next, you reset counter = 0; in an else case. Why? There’s at least one number that is consecutive, so reset it to 1 instead.
Then, you’re not really using prevNum for anything. if (prevNum === undefined) can be replaced by if (index === 1).
You then check if the current number (num) precedes the next number (arr[index + 1]), but you skip this check for the first index. How about checking if the current number succeeds the previous?
This code uses the above changes plus some code quality changes:
function longestConsecutive(arr) { // Non-constructor functions start with a lower-case letter
arr.sort((a, b) => a - b); // Use expression form
let highest = 0;
let counter = 0;
arr.forEach((num, index, arr) => {
if (index === 0) {
highest = 1;
counter = 1;
} else if (num - 1 === arr[index - 1]) { // Merge `else if`, use strict equal
counter += 1;
highest = Math.max(highest, counter);
} else {
counter = 1;
}
});
return highest;
}
Well, by the definition of consecutive, you'll always have 1 consecutive number. So you need to start the counter from 1.
I tried this code (its different than the one posted in the question) which gives the expected result. In addition, if there are two sets of consecutive numbers of same (and largest) length, both are printed,
var arr = [5, 6, 1, 2, 8, 9, 7, 99, 98];
arr.sort((a, b) => a - b);
var prevNum = arr[0];
var consecutiveNumbersArr = [prevNum];
// Map of consecutiveNumbersArr array as key and
// the array length as values
var arrMap = new Map();
for (let i = 1; i < arr.length; i++) {
let num = arr[i];
if (num === prevNum+1) {
prevNum = num;
consecutiveNumbersArr.push(num);
continue;
}
arrMap.set(consecutiveNumbersArr, consecutiveNumbersArr.length);
consecutiveNumbersArr = [];
consecutiveNumbersArr.push(num);
prevNum = num;
}
arrMap.set(consecutiveNumbersArr, consecutiveNumbersArr.length);
// the largest length of all the consecutive numbers array
var largest = 0;
for (let value of arrMap.values()) {
if (value > largest) {
largest = value;
}
}
// print the result - the largest consecutive array
for (let [key, value] of arrMap) {
if (value === largest) {
console.log("RESULT: " + key);
}
}
Can also be achieved with array:reduce
function longestRun(array) {
const { streak } = array
.sort((a, b) => a - b) // sort into ascending order
.reduce(({ count, streak }, current, index, arr) => {
if (current === arr[index - 1] + 1) {
count++; // increment if 1 more than previous
} else {
count = 1; // else reset to 1
}
return {count, streak: Math.max(streak, count)};
}, { count: 0, streak: 0 }); // initial value is 0,0 in case of empty array
return streak;
}
console.log(longestRun([])); // 0
console.log(longestRun([0])); // 1
console.log(longestRun([0, 1])); // 2
console.log(longestRun([0, 1, 0])); // 2
console.log(longestRun([0, 0, 0])); // 1
console.log(longestRun([2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0])); // 4
If you are able to split arrays into subarrays via a condition, you can do it by splitting the array at non consecutive points.
const arr = [5, 6, 1, 2, 8, 9, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14]
// utility for splitting array at condition points
const splitBy = (arr, cond) => arr.reduce((a, cur, i, src) => {
if(cond(cur, i, src)){
a.push([])
}
a[a.length - 1].push(cur)
return a
}, [])
const consecutives = splitBy(
arr.sort((a, b) => a - b),
(cur, i, src) => cur !== src[i-1] + 1
).sort((a, b) => b.length - a.length)
// largest consecutive list will be the first array
console.log(consecutives[0].length)
From a given array of positive integers, I want to know if the sum of E elements from the array is equal to a given number N.
For example, given the array arr = [1, 2, 3, 4] , e = 3 and n = 9. It means if the sum of 3 elements in arr equals to 9. The result is true since 2 + 3 + 4 is equal to 9.
Another example with arr = [1, 2, 3, 4] , e = 2 and n = 7. It is true since 3 + 4 is equal to 7.
I'm trying to resolve it with recursion, but I'm stuck. My idea is to nest loops dynamically to walk through the elements to the array and compare them.
My attempt is this:
function subsetsum(arr, elements, n) {
loop(arr, elements, n, [], 0);
}
function loop(arr, elements, n, aux, index) {
if(aux.length != elements) {
aux[index] = arr.length - 1;
loop(arr, elements, n, aux, index + 1);
} else {
if ((elements - index + 1) < 0) {
return 0;
} else {
if (aux[elements - index + 1] > 0) {
aux[elements - index + 1]--;
loop(arr, elements, n, aux, index);
}
}
}
}
subsetsum([1, 2, 3, 4], 3, 9));
A related question is at Find the highest subset of an integer array whose sums add up to a given target. That can be modified to restrict the number of elements in the subset as follows:
// Find subset of a, of length e, that sums to n
function subset_sum(a, e, n) {
if (n < 0) return null; // Nothing adds up to a negative number
if (e === 0) return n === 0 ? [] : null; // Empty list is the solution for a target of 0
a = a.slice();
while (a.length) { // Try remaining values
var v = a.shift(); // Take next value
var s = subset_sum(a, e - 1, n - v); // Find solution recursively
if (s) return s.concat(v); // If solution, return
}
}
I've been playing around with this for a while and decided to use a short-cut, mainly the permutation code from this previous SO question.
My code uses basically uses the permutation code to create an array of all the possible permutations from the input array, then for each array (using map) grabs a slice corresponding to the number specified as amount, sums that slice and if it is the same as total returns true.
some then returns the final result as to whether there are any permutations that equals the total.
function checker(arr, amount, total) {
var add = function (a, b) { return a + b; }
return permutator(arr).map(function(arr) {
var ns = arr.slice(0, amount);
var sum = ns.reduce(add);
return sum === total;
}).some(Boolean);
}
checker([1, 2, 3, 4], 3, 9); // true
I've included two demos - 1) a demo showing this code, and 2) code that provides a more detailed breakdown: basically map returns an object containing the slice info, the sum totals and whether the condition has been met.
This is probably not what you're looking for because it's a bit long-winded, but it was certainly useful for me to investigate :)
Edit - alternatively here's a hacked version of that permutation code from the previous question that delivers the results and an array of matches:
function permutator(inputArr, amount, total) {
var results = [], out = [];
function permute(arr, memo) {
var cur, memo = memo || [];
var add = function (a, b) { return a + b; }
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
cur = arr.splice(i, 1);
if (arr.length === 0) {
results.push(memo.concat(cur));
}
var a = arr.slice();
// this is the change
var sum = memo.concat(cur).reduce(add);
if (memo.concat(cur).length === amount && sum === total) {
out.push(memo.concat(cur))
}
permute(a, memo.concat(cur));
arr.splice(i, 0, cur[0]);
}
return [results, out];
}
return permute(inputArr);
}
permutator([1,2,3,4], 3, 9);
DEMO
If I understand you correctly, the solution of this task must be simple like this:
function subsetsum(arr, countElements, sum) {
var length = arr.length-1;
var temp = 0;
var lastElement = length-countElements;
console.log(lastElement);
for (var i = length; i > lastElement; i--) {
temp = temp+arr[i];
console.log('Sum: '+temp);
}
if (temp === sum) {
console.log('True!');
} else {console.log('False!')}
};
subsetsum([1, 2, 3, 4], 2, 7);