PHP - How to count a generators yields - php

Using PHP >= 5.5 if we have a method that yielded values, what would be the best method in counting these values?
What I was expecting was to be able to convert a Generator to an array and count that, however it would return an empty array. Count() also does not work as the Generator is reported as empty despite not being empty.
I'm baffled with this. If you don't need to count a generators yields then it's a nice feature otherwise I don't see much of a point for it. There is a way to detect if a generator is empty, this is by using the key() method and if it returns NULL then there are either no yields or the generator has already been iterated through which would mean the current pointer is null.

If you have to do it, following as a on-liner of native functions:
count(iterator_to_array($generator, false));
However, take care: After this your $generator is executed and consumed. So if you would put that same $generator into a foreach in a following line, it would loop 0 times.
Generators are by design highly dynamic (in contrast to fixed data structures like arrays), thats why they don't offer ->count() or ->rewind().

You should understand, that generator isn't data structure - it's an instance of Generator class and, actually, it's special sort of Iterator. Thus, you can't count its items directly (to be precise - that's because Generator class implements only Iterator interface, and not Countable interface. To be honest, I can't imagine how can it implement that)
To count values with native generator you'll have to iterate through it. But that can not be done in common sense - because in most cases it's you who'll decide how many items will be yielded. Famous xrange() sample from manual:
function xrange($start, $limit, $step = 1) {
if ($start < $limit) {
if ($step <= 0) {
throw new LogicException('Step must be +ve');
}
for ($i = $start; $i <= $limit; $i += $step) {
yield $i;
}
} else {
if ($step >= 0) {
throw new LogicException('Step must be -ve');
}
for ($i = $start; $i >= $limit; $i += $step) {
yield $i;
}
}
}
-as you can see, it's you who must define borders. And final count will depend from that. Iterating through generator will have sense only with static-borders defined generator (i.e. when count of items is always static - for example, defined inside generator strictly). In any other case you'll get parameter-dependent result. For xrange():
function getCount(Generator $functor)
{
$count = 0;
foreach($functor as $value)
{
$count++;
}
return $count;
}
-and usage:
var_dump(getCount(xrange(1, 100, 10)));//10
var_dump(getCount(xrange(1, 100, 1)));//100
-as you can see, "count" will change. Even worse, generator hasn't to be finite. It may yield infinite set of values (and borders are defined in external loop, for example) - and this is one more reason which makes "counting" near senseless.

Actually, it depends in which case you are :
Case 1 : I can't count before iterating and I care about values
// The plain old solution
$count = 0;
foreach($traversable as $value) {
// Do something with $value, then…
++$count;
}
Case 2 : I can't count before iterating but I don't care about values
// let's iterator_count() do it for me
$count = iterator_count($traversable);
Case 3 : I can count before iterating but I don't care about values
I try not to use generators.
For example (with SQL backends) :
SELECT count(1) FROM mytable; // then return result
is better than
SELECT * FROM mytable; // then counting results
Other example (with xrange from Alma Do) :
// More efficient than counting by iterating
function count_xrange($start, $limit, $step = 1) {
if (0 === $step) throw new LogicException("Step can't be 0");
return (int)(abs($limit-$start) / $step) + 1;
}
Case 4 : I can count before iterating and I care about values
I can use a generator AND a count function
$args = [0,17,2];
$count = count_xrange(...$args);
$traversable = xrange(...$args);
Case 5 : Case 4, and I want all in one object
I can "decorate" an Iterator to make a Countable Iterator
function buildCountableIterator(...$args) {
$count = count_xrange(...$args);
$traversable = xrange(...$args);
return new class($count, $traversable) extends \IteratorIterator implements \Countable {
private $count;
public function __construct($count, $traversable) {
parent::__construct($traversable);
$this->count = $count;
}
public function count() {
return $this->count;
}
}
}
$countableIterator = buildCountableIterator(1, 24, 3);
// I can do this because $countableIterator is countable
$count = count($countableIterator);
// And I can do that because $countableIterator is also an Iterator
foreach($countableIterator as $item) {
// do something
}
Sources :
http://php.net/manual/en/function.iterator-count.php
http://php.net/manual/en/class.countable.php
http://php.net/manual/en/class.iteratoriterator.php
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.anonymous.php

While you can't use count() you can use a reference to set the count to make it accessible to the outside world.
function generate(&$count = 0) {
// we have 4 things
$count = 4;
for($i = 0; $i < $count; $i++) {
yield $i;
}
}
$foo = generate($count);
echo $count; // 4
foreach ($foo as $i) {
echo $i;
}
Downside to this is it won't tell you how many remain but how many it started with.

Related

Solve Multiple Choice Knapsack (MCKP) With Dynamic Programming?

Example Data
For this question, let's assume the following items:
Items: Apple, Banana, Carrot, Steak, Onion
Values: 2, 2, 4, 5, 3
Weights: 3, 1, 3, 4, 2
Max Weight: 7
Objective:
The MCKP is a type of Knapsack Problem with the additional constraint that "[T]he items are subdivided into k classes... and exactly one item must be taken from each class"
I have written the code to solve the 0/1 KS problem with dynamic programming using recursive calls and memoization. My question is whether it is possible to add this constraint to my current solution? Say my classes are Fruit, Vegetables, Meat (from the example), I would need to include 1 of each type. The classes could just as well be type 1, 2, 3.
Also, I think this can be solved with linear programming and a solver, but if possible, I'd like to understand the answer here.
Current Code:
<?php
$value = array(2, 2, 4, 5, 3);
$weight = array(3, 1, 3, 4, 2);
$maxWeight = 7;
$maxItems = 5;
$seen = array(array()); //2D array for memoization
$picked = array();
//Put a dummy zero at the front to make things easier later.
array_unshift($value, 0);
array_unshift($weight, 0);
//Call our Knapsack Solver and return the sum value of optimal set
$KSResult = KSTest($maxItems, $maxWeight, $value, $weight);
$maxValue = $KSResult; //copy the result so we can recreate the table
//Recreate the decision table from our memo array to determine what items were picked
//Here I am building the table backwards because I know the optimal value will be at the end
for($i=$maxItems; $i > 0; $i--) {
for($j=$maxWeight; $j > 0; $j--) {
if($seen[$i][$j] != $seen[$i-1][$j]
&& $maxValue == $seen[$i][$j]) {
array_push($picked, $i);
$maxValue -= $value[$i];
break;
}
}
}
//Print out picked items and max value
print("<pre>".print_r($picked,true)."</pre>");
echo $KSResult;
// Recursive formula to solve the KS Problem
// $n = number of items to check
// $c = total capacity of bag
function KSTest($n, $c, &$value, &$weight) {
global $seen;
if(isset($seen[$n][$c])) {
//We've seen this subproblem before
return $seen[$n][$c];
}
if($n === 0 || $c === 0){
//No more items to check or no more capacity
$result = 0;
}
elseif($weight[$n] > $c) {
//This item is too heavy, check next item without this one
$result = KSTest($n-1, $c, $value, $weight);
}
else {
//Take the higher result of keeping or not keeping the item
$tempVal1 = KSTest($n-1, $c, $value, $weight);
$tempVal2 = $value[$n] + KSTest($n-1, $c-$weight[$n], $value, $weight);
if($tempVal2 >= $tempVal1) {
$result = $tempVal2;
//some conditions could go here? otherwise use max()
}
else {
$result = $tempVal1;
}
}
//memo the results and return
$seen[$n][$c] = $result;
return $result;
}
?>
What I've Tried:
My first thought was to add a class (k) array, sort the items via class (k), and when we choose to select an item that is the same as the next item, check if it's better to keep the current item or the item without the next item. Seemed promising, but fell apart after a couple of items being checked. Something like this:
$tempVal3 = $value[$n] + KSTest($n-2, $c-$weight[$n]);
max( $tempVal2, $tempVal3);
Another thought is that at the function call, I could call a loop for each class type and solve the KS with only 1 item at a time of that type + the rest of the values. This will definitely be making some assumptions thought because the results of set 1 might still be assuming multiples of set 2, for example.
This looks to be the equation (If you are good at reading all those symbols?) :) and a C++ implementation? but I can't really see where the class constraint is happening?
The c++ implementation looks ok.
Your values and weights which are 1 dimensional array in your current PHP implementation will become 2 dimensional.
So for example,
values[i][j] will be value of j th item in class i. Similarly in case of weights[i][j]. You will be taking only one item for each class i and move forward while maximizing the condition.
The c++ implementation also does an optimization in memo. It only keeps 2 arrays of size respecting the max_weight condition, which are current and previous states. This is because you only need these 2 states at a time to compute present state.
Answers to your doubts:
1)
My first thought was to add a class (k) array, sort the items via
class (k), and when we choose to select an item that is the same as
the next item, check if it's better to keep the current item or the
item without the next item. Seemed promising, but fell apart after a
couple of items being checked. Something like this: $tempVal3 =
$value[$n] + KSTest($n-2, $c-$weight[$n]); max( $tempVal2, $tempVal3);
This won't work because there could be some item in class k+1 where you take a optimal value and to respect constraint you need to take a suboptimal value for class k. So sorting and picking the best won't work when the constraint is hit. If the constraint is not hit you can always pick the best value with best weight.
2)
Another thought is that at the function call, I could call a loop for
each class type and solve the KS with only 1 item at a time of that
type + the rest of the values.
Yes you are on the right track here. You will assume that you had already solved for first k classes. Now you will try extending using the values of k+1 class respecting the weight constraint.
3)
... but I can't really see where the class constraint is happening?
for (int i = 1; i < weight.size(); ++i) {
fill(current.begin(), current.end(), -1);
for (int j = 0; j < weight[i].size(); ++j) {
for (int k = weight[i][j]; k <= max_weight; ++k) {
if (last[k - weight[i][j]] > 0)
current[k] = max(current[k],
last[k - weight[i][j]] + value[i][j]);
}
}
swap(current, last);
}
In the above c++ snippet, the first loop iterates on class, the second loop iterates on values of class and the third loop extends the current state current using the previous state last and only 1 item j with class i at a time. Since you are only using previous state last and 1 item of the current class to extend and maximize, you are following the constraint.
Time complexity:
O( total_items x max_weight) which is equivalent to O( class x max_number_of_items_in_a_class x max_weight)
So I am not a php programmer but I will try to write a pseudocode with good explanation.
In the original problem each cell i, j meaning was: "Value of filling the knapsack with items 1 to i until it reach capacity j", the solution in the link you have provided defines each cell as "Value of filling the knapsack with items from buckets 1 to i until it reach capacity j". Notice that in this variation there is not such this as not taking an element from a class.
So on each step (each call for KSTest with $n, $c), we need to find which element to pick from the n'th class such that the weight of this element is less than c and it's value + KSTest(n - 1, c - w) is the greatest.
So I think you should only change the else if and else statements to something like:
else {
$result = 0
for($i=0; $i < $number_of_items_in_nth_class; $i++) {
if ($weight[$n][$i] > $c) {
//This item is too heavy, check next item
continue;
}
$result = max($result, KSTest($n-1, $c - $weight[$n][$i], $value, $weight));
}
}
Now two disclaimers:
I do not code in php so this code will not run :)
This is not the implementation given in the link you provided, TBH I didn't understood why the time complexity of their algorithm is so small (and what is C) but this implementation should work since it is following the definition of the recursive formula given.
The time complexity of this should be O(max_weight * number_of_classes * size_of_largerst_class).
This is my PHP solution. I've tried to comment the code in a way that it's easy to follow.
Update:
I updated the code because the old script was giving unreliable results. This is cleaner and has been thoroughly tested. Key takeaways are that I use two memo arrays, one at the group level to speed up execution and one at the item level to reconstruct the results. I found any attempts to track which items are being chosen as you go are unreliable and much less efficient. Also, isset() instead of if($var) is essential for checking the memo array because the previous results might have been 0 ;)
<?php
/**
* Multiple Choice Knapsack Solver
*
* #author Michael Cruz
* #version 1.0 - 03/27/2020
**/
class KS_Solve {
public $KS_Items;
public $maxValue;
public $maxWeight;
public $maxItems;
public $finalValue;
public $finalWeight;
public $finalItems;
public $finalGroups;
public $memo1 = array(); //Group memo
public $memo2 = array(); //Item memo for results rebuild
public function __construct() {
//some default variables as an example.
//KS_Items = array(Value, Weight, Group, Item #)
$this->KS_Items = array(
array(2, 3, 1, 1),
array(2, 1, 1, 2),
array(4, 3, 2, 3),
array(5, 4, 2, 4),
array(3, 2, 3, 5)
);
$this->maxWeight = 7;
$this->maxItems = 5;
$this->KS_Wrapper();
}
public function KS_Wrapper() {
$start_time = microtime(true);
//Put a dummy zero at the front to make things easier later.
array_unshift($this->KS_Items, array(0, 0, 0, 0));
//Call our Knapsack Solver
$this->maxValue = $this->KS_Solver($this->maxItems, $this->maxWeight);
//Recreate the decision table from our memo array to determine what items were picked
//ksort($this->memo2); //for debug
for($i=$this->maxItems; $i > 0; $i--) {
//ksort($this->memo2[$i]); //for debug
for($j=$this->maxWeight; $j > 0; $j--) {
if($this->maxValue == 0) {
break 2;
}
if($this->memo2[$i][$j] == $this->maxValue
&& $j == $this->maxWeight) {
$this->maxValue -= $this->KS_Items[$i][0];
$this->maxWeight -= $this->KS_Items[$i][1];
$this->finalValue += $this->KS_Items[$i][0];
$this->finalWeight += $this->KS_Items[$i][1];
$this->finalItems .= " " . $this->KS_Items[$i][3];
$this->finalGroups .= " " . $this->KS_Items[$i][2];
break;
}
}
}
//Print out the picked items and value. (IMPLEMENT Proper View or Return!)
echo "<pre>";
echo "RESULTS: <br>";
echo "Value: " . $this->finalValue . "<br>";
echo "Weight: " . $this->finalWeight . "<br>";
echo "Item's in KS:" . $this->finalItems . "<br>";
echo "Selected Groups:" . $this->finalGroups . "<br><br>";
$end_time = microtime(true);
$execution_time = ($end_time - $start_time);
echo "Results took " . sprintf('%f', $execution_time) . " seconds to execute<br>";
}
/**
* Recursive function to solve the MCKS Problem
* $n = number of items to check
* $c = total capacity of KS
**/
public function KS_Solver($n, $c) {
$group = $this->KS_Items[$n][2];
$groupItems = array();
$count = 0;
$result = 0;
$bestVal = 0;
if(isset($this->memo1[$group][$c])) {
$result = $this->memo1[$group][$c];
}
else {
//Sort out the items for this group
foreach($this->KS_Items as $item) {
if($item[2] == $group) {
$groupItems[] = $item;
$count++;
}
}
//$k adjusts the index for item memoization
$k = $count - 1;
//Find the results of each item + items of other groups
foreach($groupItems as $item) {
if($item[1] > $c) {
//too heavy
$result = 0;
}
elseif($item[1] >= $c && $group != 1) {
//too heavy for next group
$result = 0;
}
elseif($group == 1) {
//Just take the highest value
$result = $item[0];
}
else {
//check this item with following groups
$result = $item[0] + $this->KS_Solver($n - $count, $c - $item[1]);
}
if($result == $item[0] && $group != 1) {
//No solution with the following sets, so don't use this item.
$result = 0;
}
if($result > $bestVal) {
//Best item so far
$bestVal = $result;
}
//memo the results
$this->memo2[$n-$k][$c] = $result;
$k--;
}
$result = $bestVal;
}
//memo and return
$this->memo1[$group][$c] = $result;
return $result;
}
}
new KS_Solve();
?>

combinations without duplicates using php

I need all possible combinations in math sense (without duplicates) where n=30 and k=18
function subcombi($arr, $arr_size, $count)
{
$combi_arr = array();
if ($count > 1) {
for ($i = $count - 1; $i < $arr_size; $i=$i+1) {
$highest_index_elem_arr = array($i => $arr[$i]);
foreach (subcombi($arr, $i, $count - 1) as $subcombi_arr)
{
$combi_arr[] = $subcombi_arr + $highest_index_elem_arr;
}
}
} else {
for ($i = $count - 1; $i < $arr_size; $i=$i+1) {
$combi_arr[] = array($i => $arr[$i]);
}
}
return $combi_arr;
}
function combinations($arr, $count)
{
if ( !(0 <= $count && $count <= count($arr))) {
return false;
}
return $count ? subcombi($arr, count($arr), $count) : array();
}
$numeri="01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30";
$numeri_ar=explode(".",$numeri);
$numeri_ar=array_unique($numeri_ar);
for ($combx = 2; $combx < 19; $combx++)
{
$combi_arr = combinations($numeri_ar, $combx);
}
print_r($combi_arr);
It works but it terminates with an out of memory error, of course, number of combinations is too large.
Now I do not need exactly all the combinations. I need only a few of them.
I'll explain.
I need this work for a statistical study over Italian lotto.
I have the lotto archive in this format saved in $archivio array
...
35.88.86.03.54
70.72.45.18.09
55.49.35.30.43
15.52.49.41.72
74.26.54.77.90
33.14.56.42.11
08.79.41.01.52
82.33.32.83.43
...
A full archive is available here
https://pastebin.com/tut6kFXf
newer extractions are on top.
I tried (unsuccessfully) to modify the function to do this
for each 18 numbers combination found by the function combinations, the function should check if there are min. 3 numbers in one of the first 30 rows of $archivio. If "yes", the combination must not be saved in combination array, this combination has no statistical value for my need. If "no", the combination must be saved in combination array, this combination has great statistical value for my need.
In this way the total combinations will be no more than some hundred or thousand and I will avoid the out of memory and I'll have what I need.
The script time will be surely long but there should not be out of memory using the way above.
Anyone is able to help me in this ?
Thank you

Removing enclosed intervals in an array of intervals in PHP

I have such an array of intervals sorted by the lower bound ($a[$i] <= $a[$i+1] for every $i), key l is lower bound and , key h is upper bound and I'd like to remove all rows with intervals that are enclosed by larger intervals.
$a[0] = array('l' => 123, 'h'=>241);
$a[1] = array('l' => 250, 'h'=>360);
$a[2] = array('l' => 280, 'h'=>285);
$a[3] = array('l' => 310, 'h'=>310);
$a[4] = array('l' => 390, 'h'=>400);
So the result I'd like to get is
$a[0] = array('l' => 123, 'h'=>241);
$a[1] = array('l' => 250, 'h'=>360);
$a[2] = array('l' => 390, 'h'=>400);
This is what I attempted
function dup($a){
$c = count($a)-1;
for ($i = $c; $i > 0; $i --){
while ($a[$i]['h'] <= $a[$i-1]['h']){
unset($a[$i]);
}
}
$a = array_values($a);
}
The first answer which comes in mind was given with different variations by other contributors : for each interval, loop on each interval looking for a larger and enclosing interval. It's simple to understand and to write, and it works for sure.
This is basically n2 order, which means for n intervals we'll do n*n loop turns. There can be some tricks to optimize it :
break'ing when we find an enclosing interval in the nested loop, as in user3137702's answer, because it's useless to continue if we find at least one enclosing interval
avoiding looping on the same interval in the nested loop because we know an interval cant be strictly enclosed in itself (not significant)
avoiding looping on already excluded intervals in the nested loop (can have a significant impact)
looping on intervals (global loop) in ascending width = (h - l) order, because smaller intervals have more chance to be enclosed in others and the earliest we eliminate intervals, the more the next loop turns are effective (can be significant too in my opinion)
searching for enclosing intervals (nested loop) in descending width order, because larger intervals have more chance to be enclosing other intervals (I think it can have a significant impact too)
probably many other things that do not come to mind at the moment
Let me say now that :
optimization does not matter much if we have only few intervals to compute from time to time, and currently accepted user3137702's answer does the trick
to develop the suitable algorithm, it is necessary anyway to study the characteristics of the data that we have to deal with : in the case before us, how is the distribution of intervals ? Are there many enclosed intervals ? This can help to choose from the above list, the most useful tricks.
For educational purposes, I wondered if we could develop a different algorithm avoiding a n*n order which running time is necessarily very quickly deteriorated gradually as you increase the number of intervals to compute.
"Virtual rule" algorithm
I imagined this algorithm I called the "virtual rule".
place starting and ending points of the intervals on a virtual rule
run through the points along the rule in ascending order
during the run, register open or not intervals
when an interval starts and ends while another was opened before and is still open, we can say it is enclosed
so when an interval ends, check if it was opened after one of the other currently open intervals and if it is strictly closed before this interval. If yes, it is enclosed !
I do not pretend this is the best solution. But we can assume this is faster than the basic method because, despite many tests to do during the loop, this is n order.
Code example
I wrote comments to make it as clear as possible.
<?php
function removeEnclosedIntervals_VirtualRule($a, $debug = false)
{
$rule = array();
// place one point on a virtual rule for each low or up bound, refering to the interval's index in $a
// virtual rule has 2 levels because there can be more than one point for a value
foreach($a as $i => $interval)
{
$rule[$interval['l']][] = array('l', $i);
$rule[$interval['h']][] = array('h', $i);
}
// used in the foreach loop
$open = array();
$enclosed = array();
// loop through the points on the ordered virtual rule
ksort($rule);
foreach($rule as $points)
{
// Will register open intervals
// When an interval starts and ends while another was opened before and is still open, it is enclosed
// starts
foreach($points as $point)
if($point[0] == 'l')
$open[$point[1]] = $point[1]; // register it as open
// ends
foreach($points as $point)
{
if($point[0] == 'h')
{
unset($open[$point[1]]); // UNregister it as open
// was it opened after a still open interval ?
foreach($open as $i)
{
if($a[$i]['l'] < $a[$point[1]]['l'])
{
// it is enclosed.
// is it *strictly* enclosed ?
if($a[$i]['h'] > $a[$point[1]]['h'])
{
// so this interval is strictly enclosed
$enclosed[$point[1]] = $point[1];
if($debug)
echo debugPhrase(
$point[1], // $iEnclosed
$a[$point[1]]['l'], // $lEnclosed
$a[$point[1]]['h'], // $hEnclosed
$i, // $iLarger
$a[$i]['l'], // $lLarger
$a[$i]['h'] // $hLarger
);
break;
}
}
}
}
}
}
// obviously
foreach($enclosed as $i)
unset($a[$i]);
return $a;
}
?>
Benchmarking against basic method
It runs tests on randomly generated intervals
basic method works without a doubt. Comparing results from the two methods allows me to predent the "VirtualRule" method works because as far as I tested, it returned the same results
// * include removeEnclosingIntervals_VirtualRule function *
// arbitrary range for intervals start and end
// Note that it could be interesting to do benchmarking with different MIN and MAX values !
define('MIN', 0);
define('MAX', 500);
// Benchmarking params
define('TEST_MAX_NUMBER', 100000);
define('TEST_BY_STEPS_OF', 100);
// from http://php.net/manual/en/function.microtime.php
// used later for benchmarking purpose
function microtime_float()
{
list($usec, $sec) = explode(" ", microtime());
return ((float)$usec + (float)$sec);
}
function debugPhrase($iEnclosed, $lEnclosed, $hEnclosed, $iLarger, $lLarger, $hLarger)
{
return '('.$iEnclosed.')['.$lEnclosed.' ; '.$hEnclosed.'] is strictly enclosed at least in ('.$iLarger.')['.$lLarger.' ; '.$hLarger.']'.PHP_EOL;
}
// 2 foreach loops solution (based on user3137702's *damn good* work ;) and currently accepted answer)
function removeEnclosedIntervals_Basic($a, $debug = false)
{
foreach ($a as $i => $valA)
{
$found = false;
foreach ($a as $j => $valB)
{
if (($valA['l'] > $valB['l']) && ($valA['h'] < $valB['h']))
{
$found = true;
if($debug)
echo debugPhrase(
$i, // $iEnclosed
$a[$i]['l'], // $lEnclosed
$a[$i]['h'], // $hEnclosed
$j, // $iLarger
$a[$j]['l'], // $lLarger
$a[$j]['h'] // $hLarger
);
break;
}
}
if (!$found)
{
$out[$i] = $valA;
}
}
return $out;
}
// runs a benchmark with $number intervals
function runTest($number)
{
// Generating a random set of intervals with values between MIN and MAX
$randomSet = array();
for($i=0; $i<$number; $i++)
// avoiding self-closing intervals
$randomSet[] = array(
'l' => ($l = mt_rand(MIN, MAX-2)),
'h' => mt_rand($l+1, MAX)
);
/* running the two methods and comparing results and execution time */
// Basic method
$start = microtime_float();
$Basic_result = removeEnclosedIntervals_Basic($randomSet);
$end = microtime_float();
$Basic_time = $end - $start;
// VirtualRule
$start = microtime_float();
$VirtualRule_result = removeEnclosedIntervals_VirtualRule($randomSet);
$end = microtime_float();
$VirtualRule_time = $end - $start;
// Basic method works for sure.
// If results are the same, comparing execution time. If not, sh*t happened !
if(md5(var_export($VirtualRule_result, true)) == md5(var_export($VirtualRule_result, true)))
echo $number.';'.$Basic_time.';'.$VirtualRule_time.PHP_EOL;
else
{
echo '/;/;/;Work harder, results are not the same ! Cant say anything !'.PHP_EOL;
stop;
}
}
// CSV header
echo 'Number of intervals;Basic method exec time (s);VirtualRule method exec time (s)'.PHP_EOL;
for($n=TEST_BY_STEPS_OF; $n<TEST_MAX_NUMBER; $n+=TEST_BY_STEPS_OF)
{
runTest($n);
flush();
}
Results (for me)
As I thought, clearly different performances are obtained.
I ran the tests on a Core i7 computer with PHP5 and on a (old) AMD Quad Core computer with PHP7. There are clear differences in performance between the two versions on my systems ! which in principle can be explained by the difference in PHP versions because the computer that is running PHP5 is much more powerful...
A simplistic approach, maybe not exactly what you want, but should at least point you in the right direction. I can refine it if needed, just a bit busy and didn't want to leave the question unanswered..
$out = [];
foreach ($a as $valA)
{
$found = false;
foreach ($a as $valB)
{
if (($valA['l'] > $valB['l']) && ($valA['h'] < $valB['h']))
{
$found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!$found)
{
$out[] = $valA;
}
}
This is entirely untested, but should end up with only the unique (large) ranges in $out. Overlaps as I mentioned in my comment are unhandled.
The problem was missing break in the while cycle
function dup($a){
$c = count($a)-1;
for ($i = $c; $i > 0; $i --){
while ($a[$i]['h'] <= $a[$i-1]['h']){
unset($a[$i]);
break; //here
}
}
$a = array_values($a);
}
Here is the code
function sort_by_low($item1,$item2){
if($item1['l'] == $item2['l'])
return 0;
return ($item1['l']>$item2['l'])? -1:1;
}
usort($a,'sort_by_low');
for($i=0; $i<count($a); $i++){
for($j=$i+1; $j<count($a);$j++){
if($a[$i][l]<=$a[$j]['l'] && $a[$i][h]>=$a[$j]['h']){
unset($a[$j]);
}
}
}
$a=array_values($a);
Here is the working code (Tested)
$result = array();
usort($a, function ($item1, $item2) {
if ($item1['l'] == $item2['l']) return 0;
return $item1['l'] < $item2['l'] ? -1 : 1;
});
foreach ($a as $element) {
$exists = false;
foreach ($result as $r) {
if (($r['l'] < $element['l'] && $r['h'] > $element['h'])) {
$exists = true;
break;
}
}
if (!$exists) {
$result[] = $element;
}
}
$result will contain the desired result

How to revert a function in PHP?

I am building a little game and got stuck in developing the leveling system. I created a function that will exponentially increase the experience required for the next level. However, I am not sure how to turn it around so that I can put in the amount of experience a user has gained and get the corresponding level.
PHP function
function experience($level, $curve = 300) {
// Preset value to prevent notices
$a = 0;
// Calculate level cap
for ($x = 1; $x < $level; $x++) {
$a += floor($x+$curve*pow(2, ($x/7)));
}
// Return amount of experience
return floor($a/4);
}
The issue
I am wondering how I can reverse engineer this function in order to return the correct level for a certain amount of experience.
Using the above function, my code would output the following:
Level 1: 0
Level 2: 83
Level 3: 174
Level 4: 276
Level 5: 388
Level 6: 512
Level 7: 650
Level 8: 801
Level 9: 969
Level 10: 1154
What I am looking for is a way to invert this function so that I can input a certain amount and it will return the corresponding level.
A 1000 experience should return level 9 for example.
Plugging the values into excel and creating a trend line, I got the following equation:
y = 1.17E-09x^3 - 4.93E-06x^2 + 1.19E-02x + 6.43E-02
So your reverse engineered equation would be
function level($xp) {
$a = 1.17e-9;
$b = -4.93e-6;
$c = 0.0119;
$d = 0.0643
return round($a*pow($xp, 3) + $b*pow($xp,2) + $c * $xp + $d);
}
Results are accurate to within 1dp, but if your $curve changes, you'd need to recalculate. I also haven't extended higher than level 10.
Other options include caching the results of the lookup:
$levelXpAmounts = array()
function populateLevelArray($curve=300) {
$levelXpAmounts[$curve] = array();
for($level = $minlevel; $level <= $maxLevel; $level++) {
$levelXpAmounts[$curve][$level] = experience($level);
}
}
//at game load:
populateLevelArray()
Then, your reverse lookup would be
function level($xp, $curve=300) {
if (!array_key_exists($levelXpAmounts, curve)
populateLevelArray($curve);
for($level = $minlevel; $ level <= $maxLevel; $level++) {
if ($xp < $levelXpAmounts[$curve][$level]) {
return $level - 1;
}
}
}
That way, the iteration through all the levels is only done once for each different value of $curve. You can also replace your old experience() function with a (quite likely faster) lookup.
Note: it's been a while since I've written any php, so my syntax may be a little rusty. I apologize in advance for any errors in that regard.
You can do another function called level which uses the experience function to find the level:
function level($experience)
{
for ($level = 1; $level <= 10; $level++) {
if ($experience <= experience($level)) {
return $level;
}
}
}
function experience($level, $curve = 300)
{
$a = 0;
for ($x = 1; $x < $level; $x++) {
$a += floor($x+$curve*pow(2, ($x/7)));
}
return floor($a/4);
}
var_dump(level(1000));
You can clearly work the math here and find a reverse formula. Not sure whether it will be a nice and easy formula, so I would suggest you an alternative approach which is easy to implement.
Precalculate the results for all the levels you realistically want your person to achieve (I highly doubt that you need more than 200 levels, because based on my estimation you will need tens of billions exp points).
Store all these levels in the array: $arr = [0, 83, 174, 276, 388, 512, 650, ...];. Now your array is sorted and you need to find a position where your level should fit.
If you are looking for 400 exp points, you see that it should be inserted after 5-th position - so it is 5-th level. Even a simple loop will suffice, but you can also write a binary search.
This task could be solved in other way. This is method of partial sums.
Let's assume, you have a class , which stores an array of exponential values calculated by function:
function formula($level, $curve){ return floor($level+$curve*pow(2, ($level/7)));}
$MAX_LEVEL = 90;
function calculateCurve($curve){
$array = [];
for($i =0; $i< $MAX_LEVEL; $i++) $array.push(formula($i, $curve));
return $array;
}
Now we can calculate experience, needed for a level:
$curve = calculateCurve(300);
function getExperienceForLevel($level, $curve){
$S = 0;
for($i =0; $i < level; $i++) $S += $curve[$i];
}
And calculate level for experience:
function getLevelForExperience($exp, $curve){
for($i =0; $i < $MAX_LEVEL; $i++){
$exp -= $curve[$i];
if($exp < 0) return $i-1;
}
return $MAX_LEVEL;
}
I assume there could index problems - I didn't tested the code, but I suppose that main idea is clearly explained.
Pros:
Code cleaner, There no magic numbers and interpolation coeficients.
You can easy change your learning curve.
Possibility to improve and make calculating functions as O(1);
Cons:
There is an $curve array to store, or calculate somewhere.
Also. you could make even more advanced version of this:
function calculateCurve($curve){
$array = [];
$exp = 0;
for($i =0; $i< $MAX_LEVEL; $i++) {
$exp += formula($i, $curve);
$array.push($exp);
}
return $array;
}
Now calculating experience have O(1) complexity;
function getExperienceForLevel($level, $curve){
return $curve[min($MAX_LEVEL, $level)];
}
Perhaps not the best way, but it's working.
function level($experience, $curve = 300)
{
$minLevel = 1;
$maxLevel = 10;
for($level = $minLevel; $level <= $maxLevel; $level++)
{
if(experience($level, $curve) <= $experience && $experience < experience($level + 1, $curve))
{
return $level;
}
}
return $maxLevel;
}

What is better to use: in_array or array_unique?

I am in doubt what to use:
foreach(){
// .....
if(!in_array($view, $this->_views[$condition]))
array_push($this->_views[$condition], $view);
// ....
}
OR
foreach(){
// .....
array_push($this->_views[$condition], $view);
// ....
}
$this->_views[$condition] = array_unique($this->_views[$condition]);
UPDATE
The goal is to get array of unique values. This can be done by checking every time if value already exists with in_array or add all values each time and in the end use array_unique. So is there any major difference between this two ways?
I think the second approach would be more efficient. In fact, array_unique sorts the array then scans it.
Sorting is done in N log N steps, then scanning takes N steps.
The first approach takes N^2 steps (foreach element scans all N previous elements). On big arrays, there is a very big difference.
Honestly if you're using a small dataset it does not matter which one you use. If your dataset is in the 10000s you'll most definitely want to use a hash map for this sort of thing.
This is assuming the views are a string or something, which it looks like it is.
This is typically O(n) and possibly the fastest way to deal with tracking unique values.
foreach($views as $view)
{
if(!array_key_exists($view,$unique_views))
{
$unique_views[$condition][$view] = true;
}
}
TL;DR: foreach combined with if (!in_array()) is better.
Truthfully you should not really worry about what performs better; in most cases the difference is so small, its negligible (unless you're really doing some big data stuff). I would suggest to go with whatever seems more readable.
If you're interested, check out this script I wrote. It loops each case 100.000 times and both take between 50 and 200 ms.
https://3v4l.org/lkTCF
Note that array_unique() keeps the original keys so to counter that we also have to wrap the result with array_values().
In case the link ever dies:
<?php
$loops = 100000;
$start = microtime(true);
for ($l = 0; $l < $loops; $l++) {
$x = [1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9];
for ($i = 0; $i <= 10; $i++) {
if (!in_array($i, $x)) {
$x[] = $i;
}
}
}
$duration = microtime(true) - $start;
echo "in_array took $duration<br>".PHP_EOL;
$start = microtime(true);
for ($l = 0; $l < $loops; $l++) {
$x = [1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9];
$x = array_values(array_unique(array_merge($x, [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10])));
}
$duration = microtime(true) - $start;
echo "array_unique took $duration<br>".PHP_EOL;

Categories