I have the following array which contains a set of periods:
Array
(
Array
(
[period_start] => 1
[period_end] => 12
)
Array
(
[period_start] => 4
[period_end] => 8
)
)
I want to split the periods that overlap other periods. For example, because the second period is overlapping the first, it should split the first period into two periods so that it looks something like this:
Array
(
Array
(
[period_start] => 1
[period_end] => 3
)
Array
(
[period_start] => 4
[period_end] => 8
)
Array
(
[period_start] => 9
[period_end] => 12
)
)
So that no two periods contain a start and end value within the range of another period. But I have no idea how best to achieve this in an efficient manner. Any help would be appreciated.
EDIT: To the comments, this post was more a plea for rubber ducking, not for getting someone else to do my work for me. I've got a solution to my problem (brace yourselves):
// Sort the collection by period_start in ascending order.
function sortByPeriod(&$collection) {
usort($collection, function ($value1, $value2) {
if (!array_key_exists('period_start', $value1) || !array_key_exists('period_start', $value2)) {
return 0;
}
if ($value1['period_start'] == $value2['period_start']) {
return 0;
}
return $value1['period_start'] < $value2['period_start'] ? -1 : 1;
});
}
$periods = array();
$products = array(
array(
'period_start' => 4,
'period_end' => 8
),
array(
'period_start' => 1,
'period_end' => 12
)
);
sortByPeriod($products);
foreach ($products as $product) {
// Store them in $periods using a key, so that if an identical period comes along on a future iteration, it doesn't get counted. The keys aren't required.
if (array_key_exists('period_start', $product) && !is_null($product['period_start'])) {
if (!array_key_exists($product['period_start'] . '-' . $product['period_end'], $periods)) {
$productStart = $product['period_start'];
$productEnd = $product['period_end'];
// Go through each period already inserted
foreach ($periods as &$period) {
$periodStart = $period['period_start'];
$periodEnd = $period['period_end'];
If the product's start overlaps the period's end
if ($productStart <= $periodEnd) {
// Set that period's end to the product's start - 1
$period['period_end'] = $productStart - 1;
// If the overlapping product is entirely within the period (e.g. period is 1-12, product is 4-8, like the example provided earlier)
if ($productEnd <= $periodEnd) {
// Add a new period, whose start is the product's end + 1 and the end is the initial period's end.
$periods[($productEnd + 1) . '-' . $periodEnd] = array(
'period_start' => $productEnd + 1,
'period_end' => $periodEnd
);
// The product's period isn't entirely within the period (e.g. period is 1-6, product is 4-8)
} else {
// Add a new period from product start to period end (e.g. following the example above, the period becomes 1-3, insert 4-6)
$periods[$productStart . '-' . $periodEnd] = array(
'period_start' => $productStart,
'period_end' => $periodEnd
);
// Set the product's start to the period's end + 1 (e.g. 7)
$productStart = $periodEnd + 1;
}
}
}
// Add the period (following the example iteration above, product start = 7, end = 8)
$periods[$productStart . '-' . $productEnd] = array(
'period_start' => $productStart,
'period_end' => $productEnd
);
}
}
// After one iteration, we have 1-3, 4-6 and 7-8
}
sortByPeriod($periods);
$periods = array_values($periods);
print_r($periods);
Which works and yields the expected output as shown above. However, as you can see, it isn't very well organised and I feel as if there would be a better way to approach this.
Thank you.
I realised that I was going about this in a bit of a strange way. My thinking was that if I had a period range (let's say 1-8) and another (4-12), it should split these ranges up and leave it with 1-3, 4-8, 9-12. While the output is indeed the output that I desire, getting to it by splitting it up and adding new periods to compensate for the missing ranges in between was too complicated. I was thinking of it like this (and I had it working this way):
I have three loaves of bread, each a different size. I need to split them all up so that I have several slices of the loaf, enough to equal the content of the largest loaf. Okay, let's take a piece out of this loaf, a piece out of that loaf, and put it all together.
It's all a mess. Really, the best way to go about it is to use the largest loaf and cut in the exact places that the other loaves would fit, so instead of using three loaves, i'm just using one.
I put the theory into practice (using JavaScript. I can port it to PHP). First I need a way for each period to be indistinguishable, so that if my initial periods are something along the lines of 1-3, 1-12 and 4-8, it will count the 1-3 and 4-8 as two separate periods. Luckily, all of my items are products that have a normal price and a discounted price. The discounted price takes effect during the discount period.
Next, I need to identify the largest period and note it's start and end:
var range = {};
this.products.forEach(product => {
if (!range.start) {
range.start = product.start;
}
if (!range.end) {
range.end = product.end;
}
if (product.start < range.start) {
range.start = product.start
}
if (product.end > range.end) {
range.end = product.end;
}
});
Now, for each product, I iterate from start to end by 1 each iteration, storing the product's discount price if it's period is within the current iteration, or otherwise it's normal price:
var periodCounter = [];
this.products.forEach(product => {
for (i = range.start; i <= range.end; i ++) {
if (!periodCounter[i]) {
periodCounter[i] = 0;
}
if (i >= product.start && i <= product.end) {
periodCounter[i] += product.def_amount;
} else {
periodCounter[i] += product.amount;
}
}
});
Great. Now I have an array filled with prices for all products during each single one month period. Now I need to identify the actual periods. This is really easy - iterate through the array, check to see if the current price is equal to the previous price. If it is, we're still in a period. If it isn't, we've reached the end of that period and started a new one:
var periods = [];
var periodStart = 0;
var periodEnd = 0;
for (i = range.start; i <= range.end; i ++) {
if (i == range.start) {
periodStart = i;
} else {
if (periodCounter[i] != periodCounter[i-1]) {
periodEnd = i-1;
periods.push({
start: periodStart,
end: periodEnd,
amount: periodCounter[i-1]
});
periodStart = i;
}
if (i == range.end) {
periods.push({
start: periodStart,
end: i,
amount: periodCounter[i]
});
}
}
}
If by any chance the totals of two "logical" periods equal the same price, it doesn't really matter. The end user just needs to know what the price is for these periods, they gain no information in knowing that two periods equal the same price, so in essence, you might as well just concatenate those periods into one large period, which is what would happen. If it's absolutely necessary to display the true "logical" periods, instead of storing the price in the counter, use a byte value (1, 2, 4, 8, etc).
I made a codepen for this project, using Vue.js and Bulma to display the products and the correct periods. Of course, I'm open to better ways that I might be able to go about this.
Related
I have a set of items. I need to randomly pick one. The problem is that they each have a weight of 1-10. A weight of 2 means that the item is twice as likely to be picked than a weight of 1. A weight of 3 is three times as likely.
I currently fill an array with each item. If the weight is 3, I put three copies of the item in the array. Then, I pick a random item.
My method is fast, but uses a lot of memory. I am trying to think of a faster method, but nothing comes to mind. Anyone have a trick for this problem?
EDIT: My Code...
Apparently, I wasn't clear. I do not want to use (or improve) my code. This is what I did.
//Given an array $a where $a[0] is an item name and $a[1] is the weight from 1 to 100.
$b = array();
foreach($a as $t)
$b = array_merge($b, array_fill(0,$t[1],$t));
$item = $b[array_rand($b)];
This required me to check every item in $a and uses max_weight/2*size of $a memory for the array. I wanted a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT algorithm.
Further, I asked this question in the middle of the night using a phone. Typing code on a phone is nearly impossible because those silly virtual keyboards simply suck. It auto-corrects everything, ruining any code I type.
An yet further, I woke up this morning with an entirely new algorithm that uses virtual no extra memory at all and does not require checking every item in the array. I posted it as an answer below.
This ones your huckleberry.
$arr = array(
array("val" => "one", "weight" => 1),
array("val" => "two", "weight" => 2),
array("val" => "three", "weight" => 3),
array("val" => "four", "weight" => 4)
);
$weight_sum = 0;
foreach($arr as $val)
{
$weight_sum += $val['weight'];
}
$r = rand(1, $weight_sum);
print "random value is $r\n";
for($i = 0; $i < count($arr); $i++)
{
if($r <= $arr[$i]['weight'])
{
print "$r <= {$arr[$i]['weight']}, this is our match\n";
print $arr[$i]['val'] . "\n";
break;
}
else
{
print "$r > {$arr[$i]['weight']}, subtracting weight\n";
$r -= $arr[$i]['weight'];
print "new \$r is $r\n";
}
}
No need to generate arrays containing an item for every weight, no need to fill an array with n elements for a weight of n. Just generate a random number between 1 and total weight, then loop through the array until you find a weight less than your random number. If it isn't less than the number, subtract that weight from the random and continue.
Sample output:
# php wr.php
random value is 8
8 > 1, subtracting weight
new $r is 7
7 > 2, subtracting weight
new $r is 5
5 > 3, subtracting weight
new $r is 2
2 <= 4, this is our match
four
This should also support fractional weights.
modified version to use array keyed by weight, rather than by item
$arr2 = array(
);
for($i = 0; $i <= 500000; $i++)
{
$weight = rand(1, 10);
$num = rand(1, 1000);
$arr2[$weight][] = $num;
}
$start = microtime(true);
$weight_sum = 0;
foreach($arr2 as $weight => $vals) {
$weight_sum += $weight * count($vals);
}
print "weighted sum is $weight_sum\n";
$r = rand(1, $weight_sum);
print "random value is $r\n";
$found = false;
$elem = null;
foreach($arr2 as $weight => $vals)
{
if($found) break;
for($j = 0; $j < count($vals); $j ++)
{
if($r < $weight)
{
$elem = $vals[$j];
$found = true;
break;
}
else
{
$r -= $weight;
}
}
}
$end = microtime(true);
print "random element is: $elem\n";
print "total time is " . ($end - $start) . "\n";
With sample output:
# php wr2.php
weighted sum is 2751550
random value is 345713
random element is: 681
total time is 0.017189025878906
measurement is hardly scientific - and fluctuates depending on where in the array the element falls (obviously) but it seems fast enough for huge datasets.
This way requires two random calculations but they should be faster and require about 1/4 of the memory but with some reduced accuracy if weights have disproportionate counts. (See Update for increased accuracy at the cost of some memory and processing)
Store a multidimensional array where each item is stored in the an array based on its weight:
$array[$weight][] = $item;
// example: Item with a weight of 5 would be $array[5][] = 'Item'
Generate a new array with the weights (1-10) appearing n times for n weight:
foreach($array as $n=>$null) {
for ($i=1;$i<=$n;$i++) {
$weights[] = $n;
}
}
The above array would be something like: [ 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4 ... ]
First calculation: Get a random weight from the weighted array we just created
$weight = $weights[mt_rand(0, count($weights)-1)];
Second calculation: Get a random key from that weight array
$value = $array[$weight][mt_rand(0, count($array[$weight])-1)];
Why this works: You solve the weighted issue by using the weighted array of integers we created. Then you select randomly from that weighted group.
Update: Because of the possibility of disproportionate counts of items per weight, you could add another loop and array for the counts to increase accuracy.
foreach($array as $n=>$null) {
$counts[$n] = count($array[$n]);
}
foreach($array as $n=>$null) {
// Calculate proportionate weight (number of items in this weight opposed to minimum counted weight)
$proportion = $n * ($counts[$n] / min($counts));
for ($i=1; $i<=$proportion; $i++) {
$weights[] = $n;
}
}
What this does is if you have 2000 10's and 100 1's, it'll add 200 10's (20 * 10, 20 because it has 20x the count, and 10 because it is weighted 10) instead of 10 10's to make it proportionate to how many are in there opposed the minimum weight count. So to be accurate, instead of adding one for EVERY possible key, you are just being proportionate based on the MINIMUM count of weights.
I greatly appreciate the answers above. Please consider this answer, which does not require checking every item in the original array.
// Given $a as an array of items
// where $a[0] is the item name and $a[1] is the item weight.
// It is known that weights are integers from 1 to 100.
for($i=0; $i<sizeof($a); $i++) // Safeguard described below
{
$item = $a[array_rand($a)];
if(rand(1,100)<=$item[1]) break;
}
This algorithm only requires storage for two variables ($i and $item) as $a was already created before the algorithm kicked in. It does not require a massive array of duplicate items or an array of intervals.
In a best-case scenario, this algorithm will touch one item in the original array and be done. In a worst-case scenario, it will touch n items in an array of n items (not necessarily every item in the array as some may be touched more than once).
If there was no safeguard, this could run forever. The safeguard is there to stop the algorithm if it simply never picks an item. When the safeguard is triggered, the last item touched is the one selected. However, in millions of tests using random data sets of 100,000 items with random weights of 1 to 10 (changing rand(1,100) to rand(1,10) in my code), the safeguard was never hit.
I made histograms comparing the frequency of items selected among my original algorithm, the ones from answers above, and the one in this answer. The differences in frequencies are trivial - easy to attribute to variances in the random numbers.
EDIT... It is apparent to me that my algorithm may be combined with the algorithm pala_ posted, removing the need for a safeguard.
In pala_'s algorithm, a list is required, which I call an interval list. To simplify, you begin with a random_weight that is rather high. You step down the list of items and subtract the weight of each one until your random_weight falls to zero (or less). Then, the item you ended on is your item to return. There are variations on this interval algorithm that I've tested and pala_'s is a very good one. But, I wanted to avoid making a list. I wanted to use only the given weighted list and never touch all the items. The following algorithm merges my use of random jumping with pala_'s interval list. Instead of a list, I randomly jump around the list. I am guaranteed to get to zero eventually, so no safeguard is needed.
// Given $a as the weighted array (described above)
$weight = rand(1,100); // The bigger this is, the slower the algorithm runs.
while($weight>0)
{
$item = $a[array_rand($a)];
$weight-= $item[1];
}
// $item is the random item you want.
I wish I could select both pala_ and this answer as the correct answers.
I'm not sure if this is "faster", but I think it may be more "balance"d between memory usage and speed.
The thought is to transform your current implementation (500000 items array) into an equal-length array (100000 items), with the lowest "origin" position as key, and origin index as value:
<?php
$set=[["a",3],["b",5]];
$current_implementation=["a","a","a","b","b","b","b","b"];
// 0=>0 means the lowest "position" 0
// points to 0 in the set;
// 3=>1 means the lowest "position" 3
// points to 1 in the set;
$my_implementation=[0=>0,3=>1];
And then randomly picks a number between 0 and highest "origin" position:
// 3 is the lowest position of the last element ("b")
// and 5 the weight of that last element
$my_implemention_pick=mt_rand(0,3+5-1);
Full code:
<?php
function randomPickByWeight(array $set)
{
$low=0;
$high=0;
$candidates=[];
foreach($set as $key=>$item)
{
$candidates[$high]=$key;
$high+=$item["weight"];
}
$pick=mt_rand($low,$high-1);
while(!array_key_exists($pick,$candidates))
{
$pick--;
}
return $set[$candidates[$pick]];
}
$cache=[];
for($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
{
$cache[]=["item"=>"item {$i}","weight"=>mt_rand(1,10)];
}
$time=time();
for($i=0;$i<100;$i++)
{
print_r(randomPickByWeight($cache));
}
$time=time()-$time;
var_dump($time);
3v4l.org demo
3v4l.org have some time limitation on codes, so the demo didn't finished. On my laptop the above demo finished in 10 seconds (i7-4700 HQ)
ere is my offer in case I've understand you right. I offer you take a look and if there are some question I'll explain.
Some words in advance:
My sample is with only 3 stages of weight - to be clear
- With outer while I'm simulating your main loop - I count only to 100.
- The array must to be init with one set of initial numbers as shown in my sample.
- In every pass of main loop I get only one random value and I'm keeping the weight at all.
<?php
$array=array(
0=>array('item' => 'A', 'weight' => 1),
1=>array('item' => 'B', 'weight' => 2),
2=>array('item' => 'C', 'weight' => 3),
);
$etalon_weights=array(1,2,3);
$current_weights=array(0,0,0);
$ii=0;
while($ii<100){ // Simulates your main loop
// Randomisation cycle
if($current_weights==$etalon_weights){
$current_weights=array(0,0,0);
}
$ft=true;
while($ft){
$curindex=rand(0,(count($array)-1));
$cur=$array[$curindex];
if($current_weights[$cur['weight']-1]<$etalon_weights[$cur['weight']-1]){
echo $cur['item'];
$array[]=$cur;
$current_weights[$cur['weight']-1]++;
$ft=false;
}
}
$ii++;
}
?>
I'll use this input array for my explanation:
$values_and_weights=array(
"one"=>1,
"two"=>8,
"three"=>10,
"four"=>4,
"five"=>3,
"six"=>10
);
The simple version isn't going to work for you because your array is so large. It requires no array modification but may need to iterate the entire array, and that's a deal breaker.
/*$pick=mt_rand(1,array_sum($values_and_weights));
$x=0;
foreach($values_and_weights as $val=>$wgt){
if(($x+=$wgt)>=$pick){
echo "$val";
break;
}
}*/
For your case, re-structuring the array will offer great benefits.
The cost in memory for generating a new array will be increasingly justified as:
array size increases and
number of selections increases.
The new array requires the replacement of "weight" with a "limit" for each value by adding the previous element's weight to the current element's weight.
Then flip the array so that the limits are the array keys and the values are the array values.
The selection logic is: the selected value will have the lowest limit that is >= $pick.
// Declare new array using array_walk one-liner:
array_walk($values_and_weights,function($v,$k)use(&$limits_and_values,&$x){$limits_and_values[$x+=$v]=$k;});
//Alternative declaration method - 4-liner, foreach() loop:
/*$x=0;
foreach($values_and_weights as $val=>$wgt){
$limits_and_values[$x+=$wgt]=$val;
}*/
var_export($limits_and_values);
$limits_and_values looks like this:
array (
1 => 'one',
9 => 'two',
19 => 'three',
23 => 'four',
26 => 'five',
36 => 'six',
)
Now to generate the random $pick and select the value:
// $x (from walk/loop) is the same as writing: end($limits_and_values); $x=key($limits_and_values);
$pick=mt_rand(1,$x); // pull random integer between 1 and highest limit/key
while(!isset($limits_and_values[$pick])){++$pick;} // smallest possible loop to find key
echo $limits_and_values[$pick]; // this is your random (weighted) value
This approach is brilliant because isset() is very fast and the maximum number of isset() calls in the while loop can only be as many as the largest weight (not to be confused with limit) in the array.
FOR YOUR CASE, THIS APPROACH WILL FIND THE VALUE IN 10 ITERATIONS OR LESS!
Here is my Demo that will accept a weighted array (like $values_and_weights), then in just four lines:
Restructure the array,
Generate a random number,
Find the correct value, and
Display it.
I have an array
$blocks
It has 4 items with constant values
A, B, C, D
$blocks["a"] = 20;
$blocks["b"] = 1000;
$blocks["c"] = 10000;
$blocks["d"] = 50000;
Another function returns a value, lets say 358020
(It's usually high but can drop to a few tens
How would I write a function that will take this value and return an array of how many of each item exists.
Example output something like:
$output["a"] = 1;
$output["b"] = 3;
$output["c"] = 0;
$output["d"] = 7;
Starting with the largest block, how many of that block fits into the value, then the remainder is passed to the next largest, and so on...
calculateNumberCredits(25000);
function calculateNumberCredits($experience) {
# The credits we have
$credits = array(
'a' => '10000',
'b' => '2000',
'c' => '1000',
);
# Keep track of the amount needed per credit
$timesCreditNeeded = array();
# Start calculating the amount per credit we need
foreach($credits as $creditID => $creditAmount) {
# 1) Calculate the number of times the amount fits within the amount of experience
$times = floor($experience / $creditAmount);
# 2) Calculate the remainder of the above division en cache is for the next calculation
$experience = $experience % $creditAmount;
# 3) Cache the number of times the credit fits within the experience
$timesCreditNeeded[$creditID] = $times;
}
echo '<pre>';
print_r($timesCreditNeeded);
return $timesCreditNeeded;
}
// Will return Array ( [a] => 2 [b] => 2 [c] => 1 )
I loop through the credits you have in your system. In this example the credits are order from high to low. When this is not the case you should order them te get the desired result.
1) For each credit i try to find the max number of times the credit fits within the experience of the particular user. Because floatnumber make no sense we floor() the result of the division.
2) After i found the number of times the credit fits, I calculate the remainder for the next iteration (next credit). You can find the remainder by calculating the modulus.
3) Last but not least I cache the number of times the credit fits.
Hope this helps!
I am working on a Web Application that includes long listings of names. The client originally wanted to have the names split up into divs by letter so it is easy to jump to a particular name on the list.
Now, looking at the list, the client pointed out several letters that have only one or two names associated with them. He now wants to know if we can combine several consecutive letters if there are only a few names in each.
(Note that letters with no names are not displayed at all.)
What I do right now is have the database server return a sorted list, then keep a variable containing the current character. I run through the list of names, incrementing the character and printing the opening and closing div and ul tags as I get to each letter. I know how to adapt this code to combine some letters, however, the one thing I'm not sure about how to handle is whether a particular combination of letters is the best-possible one. In other words, say that I have:
A - 12 names
B - 2 names
C - 1 name
D - 1 name
E - 1 name
F - 23 names
I know how to end up with a group A-C and then have D by itself. What I'm looking for is an efficient way to realize that A should be by itself and then B-D should be together.
I am not really sure where to start looking at this.
If it makes any difference, this code will be used in a Kohana Framework module.
UPDATE 2012-04-04:
Here is a clarification of what I need:
Say the minimum number of items I want in a group is 30. Now say that letter A has 25 items, letters B, C, and D, have 10 items each, and letter E has 32 items. I want to leave A alone because it will be better to combine B+C+D. The simple way to combine them is A+B, C+D+E - which is not what I want.
In other words, I need the best fit that comes closest to the minimum per group.
If a letter contains more than 10 names, or whatever reasonable limit you set, do not combine it with the next one. However, if you start combining letters, you might have it run until 15 or so names are collected if you want, as long as no individual letter has more than 10. That's not a universal solution, but it's how I'd solve it.
I came up with this function using PHP.
It groups letters that combined have over $ammount names in it.
function split_by_initials($names,$ammount,$tollerance = 0) {
$total = count($names);
foreach($names as $name) {
$filtered[$name[0]][] = $name;
}
$count = 0;
$key = '';
$temp = array();
foreach ($filtered as $initial => $split) {
$count += count($split);
$temp = array_merge($split,$temp);
$key .= $initial.'-';
if ($count >= $ammount || $count >= $ammount - $tollerance) {
$result[$key] = $temp;
$count = 0;
$key = '';
$temp = array();
}
}
return $result;
}
the 3rd parameter is used for when you want to limit the group to a single letter that doesn't have the ammount specified but is close enough.
Something like
i want to split in groups of 30
but a has 25
to so, if you set a tollerance of 5, A will be left alone and the other letters will be grouped.
I forgot to mention but it returns a multi dimensional array with the letters it contains as key then the names it contains.
Something like
Array
(
[A-B-C-] => Array
(
[0] => Bandice Bergen
[1] => Arey Lowell
[2] => Carmen Miranda
)
)
It is not exactly what you needed but i think it's close enough.
Using the jsfiddle that mrsherman put, I came up with something that could work: http://jsfiddle.net/F2Ahh/
Obviously that is to be used as a pseudocode, some techniques to make it more efficient could be applied. But that gets the job done.
Javascrip Version: enhanced version with sort and symbols grouping
function group_by_initials(names,ammount,tollerance) {
tolerance=tollerance||0;
total = names.length;
var filtered={}
var result={};
$.each(names,function(key,value){
val=value.trim();
var pattern = /[a-zA-Z0-9&_\.-]/
if(val[0].match(pattern)) {
intial=val[0];
}
else
{
intial='sym';
}
if(!(intial in filtered))
filtered[intial]=[];
filtered[intial].push(val);
})
var count = 0;
var key = '';
var temp = [];
$.each(Object.keys(filtered).sort(),function(ky,value){
count += filtered[value].length;
temp = temp.concat(filtered[value])
key += value+'-';
if (count >= ammount || count >= ammount - tollerance) {
key = key.substring(0, key.length - 1);
result[key] = temp;
count = 0;
key = '';
temp = [];
}
})
return result;
}
i am trying to make a very simple game where i have 7 positions which are all hidden and within those there a 3 winning positions. I can pick randomly 3 times. I need to display whether the pick is a winning or not after every pick and store the result in a base.
Currently my thought where to generate an array of winning numbers on the first pick and then pick random number and check if it is in the winning array.
But i have a feeling that there is much more efficient way to do so.
Would appreciate if you would use PHP for coding examples, but pseudo code will do as-well.
EDIT
i am looking for the way to solve this without populating array with winning positions. maybe there is a way to do this with weights or probability percents.
Something like on first pick i have 3/7*100 percent chance to win. save result to base.
on second pick i have either 3/6*100 or 2/6*100 percent chance to win based weather i won in previous pick which i get from base.
Revised answer: this example does not require you to store the complete state of the game in a variable; instead, you just need to store the try count and won count:
$won = 0;
for($try = 0; $try < 3; $try++) {
$slots = array_fill(0, 7 - $try, 0); // blank slots
$lucky = array_fill(0, 3 - $won, 1); // lucky slots
$pot = array_replace($slots, $lucky); // make some of the slots lucky
$win = $pot[array_rand($pot)]; // randomly pick a slot
$won += $win == 1; // update won count
echo sprintf("Try %d: win=%d, total wins=%d\n", $try + 1, $win, $won);
}
Original answer:
$pot = array( // pot is (an associative) array; 0 = blank, 1 = win
"pos_1" => 0,
"pos_2" => 0,
"pos_3" => 0,
"pos_4" => 0,
"pos_5" => 0,
"pos_6" => 0,
"pos_7" => 0
);
$win = array_rand($pot, 3); // picks three indexes from the pot randomly
foreach($win as $w) {
$pot[$w] = 1; // set winning indicator
}
print_r($pot);
Output: array containing state of the pots.
Array
(
[pos_1] => 0
[pos_2] => 1
[pos_3] => 0
[pos_4] => 1
[pos_5] => 1
[pos_6] => 0
[pos_7] => 0
)
You can just save the positions of the winning numbers. This way you can always check their values using the [] operator for arrays. After all, you just pick the positions and not the numbers.
Update:
This way you even don't need to hide numbers. It's quite possible to have some more abstract "winning things" - characters, words, structures. However, it is important that you do not alter your array of hidden "things" in any way or at least update the stored winning positions accordingly if they stay the same. If that's not the case you'd naturally need to update the saved winning positions.
<?php
$arr = array(true, true, false, false, false, false, false);
shuffle($arr);
function pick($arr, $index) {
return isset($arr[$index]) && $arr[$index] === true;
}
var_dump($arr);
var_dump(pick($arr, 3));
var_dump(pick($arr, 5));
var_dump(pick($arr, 1));
I am trying to create a little php script that can make my life a bit easier.
Basically, I am going to have 21 text fields on a page where I am going to input 20 different numbers. In the last field I will enter a number let's call it the TOTAL AMOUNT. All I want the script to do is to point out which numbers from the 20 fields added up will come up to TOTAL AMOUNT.
Example:
field1 = 25.23
field2 = 34.45
field3 = 56.67
field4 = 63.54
field5 = 87.54
....
field20 = 4.2
Total Amount = 81.90
Output: field1 + fields3 = 81.90
Some of the fields might have 0 as value because sometimes I only need to enter 5-15 fields and the maximum will be 20.
If someone can help me out with the php code for this, will be greatly appreciated.
If you look at oezis algorithm one drawback is immediately clear: It spends very much time summing up numbers which are already known not to work. (For example if 1 + 2 is already too big, it doesn't make any sense to try 1 + 2 + 3, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5, ..., too.)
Thus I have written an improved version. It does not use bit magic, it makes everything manual. A drawback is, that it requires the input values to be sorted (use rsort). But that shouldn't be a big problem ;)
function array_sum_parts($vals, $sum){
$solutions = array();
$pos = array(0 => count($vals) - 1);
$lastPosIndex = 0;
$currentPos = $pos[0];
$currentSum = 0;
while (true) {
$currentSum += $vals[$currentPos];
if ($currentSum < $sum && $currentPos != 0) {
$pos[++$lastPosIndex] = --$currentPos;
} else {
if ($currentSum == $sum) {
$solutions[] = array_slice($pos, 0, $lastPosIndex + 1);
}
if ($lastPosIndex == 0) {
break;
}
$currentSum -= $vals[$currentPos] + $vals[1 + $currentPos = --$pos[--$lastPosIndex]];
}
}
return $solutions;
}
A modified version of oezis testing program (see end) outputs:
possibilities: 540
took: 3.0897309780121
So it took only 3.1 seconds to execute, whereas oezis code executed 65 seconds on my machine (yes, my machine is very slow). That's more than 20 times faster!
Furthermore you may notice, that my code found 540 instead of 338 possibilities. This is because I adjusted the testing program to use integers instead of floats. Direct floating point comparison is rarely the right thing to do, this is a great example why: You sometimes get 59.959999999999 instead of 59.96 and thus the match will not be counted. So, if I run oezis code with integers it finds 540 possibilities, too ;)
Testing program:
// Inputs
$n = array();
$n[0] = 6.56;
$n[1] = 8.99;
$n[2] = 1.45;
$n[3] = 4.83;
$n[4] = 8.16;
$n[5] = 2.53;
$n[6] = 0.28;
$n[7] = 9.37;
$n[8] = 0.34;
$n[9] = 5.82;
$n[10] = 8.24;
$n[11] = 4.35;
$n[12] = 9.67;
$n[13] = 1.69;
$n[14] = 5.64;
$n[15] = 0.27;
$n[16] = 2.73;
$n[17] = 1.63;
$n[18] = 4.07;
$n[19] = 9.04;
$n[20] = 6.32;
// Convert to Integers
foreach ($n as &$num) {
$num *= 100;
}
$sum = 57.96 * 100;
// Sort from High to Low
rsort($n);
// Measure time
$start = microtime(true);
echo 'possibilities: ', count($result = array_sum_parts($n, $sum)), '<br />';
echo 'took: ', microtime(true) - $start;
// Check that the result is correct
foreach ($result as $element) {
$s = 0;
foreach ($element as $i) {
$s += $n[$i];
}
if ($s != $sum) echo '<br />FAIL!';
}
var_dump($result);
sorry for adding a new answer, but this is a complete new solution to solve all problems of life, universe and everything...:
function array_sum_parts($n,$t,$all=false){
$count_n = count($n); // how much fields are in that array?
$count = pow(2,$count_n); // we need to do 2^fields calculations to test all possibilities
# now i want to look at every number from 1 to $count, where the number is representing
# the array and add up all array-elements which are at positions where my actual number
# has a 1-bit
# EXAMPLE:
# $i = 1 in binary mode 1 = 01 i'll use ony the first array-element
# $i = 10 in binary mode 10 = 1010 ill use the secont and the fourth array-element
# and so on... the number of 1-bits is the amount of numbers used in that try
for($i=1;$i<=$count;$i++){ // start calculating all possibilities
$total=0; // sum of this try
$anzahl=0; // counter for 1-bits in this try
$k = $i; // store $i to another variable which can be changed during the loop
for($j=0;$j<$count_n;$j++){ // loop trough array-elemnts
$total+=($k%2)*$n[$j]; // add up if the corresponding bit of $i is 1
$anzahl+=($k%2); // add up the number of 1-bits
$k=$k>>1; //bit-shift to the left for looking at the next bit in the next loop
}
if($total==$t){
$loesung[$i] = $anzahl; // if sum of this try is the sum we are looking for, save this to an array (whith the number of 1-bits for sorting)
if(!$all){
break; // if we're not looking for all solutions, make a break because the first one was found
}
}
}
asort($loesung); // sort all solutions by the amount of numbers used
// formating the solutions to getting back the original array-keys (which shoud be the return-value)
foreach($loesung as $val=>$anzahl){
$bit = strrev(decbin($val));
$total=0;
$ret_this = array();
for($j=0;$j<=strlen($bit);$j++){
if($bit[$j]=='1'){
$ret_this[] = $j;
}
}
$ret[]=$ret_this;
}
return $ret;
}
// Inputs
$n[0]=6.56;
$n[1]=8.99;
$n[2]=1.45;
$n[3]=4.83;
$n[4]=8.16;
$n[5]=2.53;
$n[6]=0.28;
$n[7]=9.37;
$n[8]=0.34;
$n[9]=5.82;
$n[10]=8.24;
$n[11]=4.35;
$n[12]=9.67;
$n[13]=1.69;
$n[14]=5.64;
$n[15]=0.27;
$n[16]=2.73;
$n[17]=1.63;
$n[18]=4.07;
$n[19]=9.04;
$n[20]=6.32;
// Output
$t=57.96;
var_dump(array_sum_parts($n,$t)); //returns one possible solution (fuc*** fast)
var_dump(array_sum_parts($n,$t,true)); // returns all possible solution (relatively fast when you think of all the needet calculations)
if you don't use the third parameter, it returns the best (whith the least amount numbers used) solution as array (whith keys of the input-array) - if you set the third parameter to true, ALL solutions are returned (for testing, i used the same numbers as zaf in his post - there are 338 solutions in this case, found in ~10sec on my machine).
EDIT:
if you get all, you get the results ordered by which is "best" - whithout this, you only get the first found solution (which isn't necessarily the best).
EDIT2:
to forfil the desire of some explanation, i commented the essential parts of the code . if anyone needs more explanation, please ask
1. Check and eliminate fields values more than 21st field
2. Check highest of the remaining, Add smallest,
3. if its greater than 21st eliminate highest (iterate this process)
4. If lower: Highest + second Lowest, if equal show result.
5. if higher go to step 7
6. if lower go to step 4
7. if its lower than add second lowest, go to step 3.
8. if its equal show result
This is efficient and will take less execution time.
Following method will give you an answer... almost all of the time. Increase the iterations variable to your taste.
<?php
// Inputs
$n[1]=8.99;
$n[2]=1.45;
$n[3]=4.83;
$n[4]=8.16;
$n[5]=2.53;
$n[6]=0.28;
$n[7]=9.37;
$n[8]=0.34;
$n[9]=5.82;
$n[10]=8.24;
$n[11]=4.35;
$n[12]=9.67;
$n[13]=1.69;
$n[14]=5.64;
$n[15]=0.27;
$n[16]=2.73;
$n[17]=1.63;
$n[18]=4.07;
$n[19]=9.04;
$n[20]=6.32;
// Output
$t=57.96;
// Let's try to do this a million times randomly
// Relax, thats less than a blink
$iterations=1000000;
while($iterations-->0){
$z=array_rand($n, mt_rand(2,20));
$total=0;
foreach($z as $x) $total+=$n[$x];
if($total==$t)break;
}
// If we did less than a million times we have an answer
if($iterations>0){
$total=0;
foreach($z as $x){
$total+=$n[$x];
print("[$x] + ". $n[$x] . " = $total<br/>");
}
}
?>
One solution:
[1] + 8.99 = 8.99
[4] + 8.16 = 17.15
[5] + 2.53 = 19.68
[6] + 0.28 = 19.96
[8] + 0.34 = 20.3
[10] + 8.24 = 28.54
[11] + 4.35 = 32.89
[13] + 1.69 = 34.58
[14] + 5.64 = 40.22
[15] + 0.27 = 40.49
[16] + 2.73 = 43.22
[17] + 1.63 = 44.85
[18] + 4.07 = 48.92
[19] + 9.04 = 57.96
A probably inefficient but simple solution with backtracking
function subset_sums($a, $val, $i = 0) {
$r = array();
while($i < count($a)) {
$v = $a[$i];
if($v == $val)
$r[] = $v;
if($v < $val)
foreach(subset_sums($a, $val - $v, $i + 1) as $s)
$r[] = "$v $s";
$i++;
}
return $r;
}
example
$ns = array(1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 5, 8, 9, 3);
print_r(subset_sums($ns, 11));
result
Array
(
[0] => 1 2 5 3
[1] => 1 2 8
[2] => 1 7 3
[3] => 2 6 3
[4] => 2 9
[5] => 6 5
[6] => 11
[7] => 8 3
)
i don't think the answer isn't as easy as nik mentioned. let's ay you have the following numbers:
1 2 3 6 8
looking for an amount of 10
niks solution would do this (if i understand it right):
1*8 = 9 = too low
adding next lowest (2) = 11 = too high
now he would delete the high number and start again taking the new highest
1*6 = 7 = too low
adding next lowest (2) = 9 = too low
adding next lowest (3) = 12 = too high
... and so on, where the perfect answer would simply
be 8+2 = 10... i think the only solution is trying every possible combination of
numbers and stop if the amaunt you are looking for is found (or realy calculate all, if there are different solutions and save which one has used least numbers).
EDIT: realy calculating all possible combiations of 21 numbers will end up in realy, realy, realy much calculations - so there must be any "intelligent" solution for adding numbers in a special order (lik that one in niks post - with some improvements, maybe that will bring us to a reliable solution)
Without knowing if this is a homework assignment or not, I can give you some pseudo code as a hint for a possible solution, note the solution is not very efficient, more of a demonstration.
Hint:
Compare each field value to all field value and at each iteration check if their sum is equal to TOTAL_AMOUNT.
Pseudo code:
for i through field 1-20
for j through field 1-20
if value of i + value of j == total_amount
return i and j
Update:
What you seem to be having is the Subset sum problem, given within the Wiki link is pseudo code for the algorithm which might help point you in the right direction.