Let's say we have a string: "abcbcdcde"
I want to identify all substrings that are repeated in this string using regex (i.e. no brute-force iterative loops).
For the above string, the result set would be: {"b", "bc", "c", "cd", "d"}
I must confess that my regex is far more rusty than it should be for someone with my experience. I tried using a backreference, but that'll only match consecutive duplicates. I need to match all duplicates, consecutive or otherwise.
In other words, I want to match any character(s) that appears for the >= 2nd time. If a substring occurs 5 times, then I want to capture each of occurrences 2-5. Make sense?
This is my pathetic attempt thus far:
preg_match_all( '/(.+)(.*)\1+/', $string, $matches ); // Way off!
I tried playing with look-aheads but I'm just butchering it. I'm doing this in PHP (PCRE) but the problem is more or less language-agnostic. It's a bit embarrassing that I'm finding myself stumped on this.
Your problem is recursi ... you know what, forget about recursion! =p it wouldn't really work well in PHP and the algorithm is pretty clear without it as well.
function find_repeating_sequences($s)
{
$res = array();
while ($s) {
$i = 1; $pat = $s[0];
while (false !== strpos($s, $pat, $i)) {
$res[$pat] = 1;
// expand pattern and try again
$pat .= $s[$i++];
}
// move the string forward
$s = substr($s, 1);
}
return array_keys($res);
}
Out of interest, I wrote Tim's answer in PHP as well:
function find_repeating_sequences_re($s)
{
$res = array();
preg_match_all('/(?=(.+).*\1)/', $s, $matches);
foreach ($matches[1] as $match) {
$length = strlen($match);
if ($length > 1) {
for ($i = 0; $i < $length; ++$i) {
for ($j = $i; $j < $length; ++$j) {
$res[substr($match, $i, $j - $i + 1)] = 1;
}
}
} else {
$res[$match] = 1;
}
}
return array_keys($res);
}
I've let them fight it out in a small benchmark of 800 bytes of random data:
$data = base64_encode(openssl_random_pseudo_bytes(600));
Each code is run for 10 rounds and the execution time is measured. The results?
Pure PHP - 0.014s (10 runs)
PCRE - 40.86s <-- ouch!
It gets weirder when you look at 24k bytes (or anything above 1k really):
Pure PHP - 4.565s (10 runs)
PCRE - 0.232s <-- WAT?!
It turns out that the regular expression broke down after 1k characters and so the $matches array was empty. These are my .ini settings:
pcre.backtrack_limit => 1000000 => 1000000
pcre.recursion_limit => 100000 => 100000
It's not clear to me how a backtrack or recursion limit would have been hit after only 1k of characters. But even if those settings are "fixed" somehow, the results are still obvious, PCRE doesn't seem to be the answer.
I suppose writing this in C would speed it up somewhat, but I'm not sure to what degree.
Update
With some help from hakre's answer I put together an improved version that increases performance by ~18% after optimizing the following:
Remove the substr() calls in the outer loop to advance the string pointer; this was a left over from my previous recursive incarnations.
Use the partial results as a positive cache to skip strpos() calls inside the inner loop.
And here it is, in all its glory (:
function find_repeating_sequences3($s)
{
$res = array();
$p = 0;
$len = strlen($s);
while ($p != $len) {
$pat = $s[$p]; $i = ++$p;
while ($i != $len) {
if (!isset($res[$pat])) {
if (false === strpos($s, $pat, $i)) {
break;
}
$res[$pat] = 1;
}
// expand pattern and try again
$pat .= $s[$i++];
}
}
return array_keys($res);
}
You can't get the required result in a single regex because a regex will match either greedily (finding bc...bc) or lazily (finding b...b and c...c), but never both. (In your case, it does find c...c, but only because c is repeated twice.)
But once you've found a repeated substring of length > 1, it logically follows that all the smaller "substrings of that substring" must also be repeated. If you want to get them spelled out for you, you need to do this separately.
Taking your example (using Python because I don't know PHP):
>>> results = set(m.group(1) for m in re.finditer(r"(?=(.+).*\1)", "abcbcdcde"))
>>> results
{'d', 'cd', 'bc', 'c'}
You could then go and apply the following function to each of your results:
def substrings(s):
return [s[start:stop] for start in range(len(s)-1)
for stop in range(start+1, len(s)+1)]
For example:
>>> substrings("123456")
['1', '12', '123', '1234', '12345', '123456', '2', '23', '234', '2345', '23456',
'3', '34', '345', '3456', '4', '45', '456', '5', '56']
The closest I can get is /(?=(.+).*\1)/
The purpose of the lookahead is to allow the same characters to be matched more than once (for instance, c and cd). However, for some reason it doesn't seem to be getting the b...
Interesting question. I basically took the function in Jacks answer and was trying if the number of tests can be reduced.
I first tried to only search half the string, however it turned out that creating the pattern to search for via substr each time was way too expensive. The way how it is done in Jacks answer by appending one character per each iteration is way better it looks like. And then I did run out of time so I could not look further into it.
However while looking for such an alternative implementation I at least found out that some of the differences in the algorithm I had in mind could be applied to Jacks function as well:
There is no need to cut the beginning of the string in each outer iteration as the search is already done with offsets.
If the rest of the subject to look for repetition is smaller than the repetition needle, you do not need to search for the needle.
If it was already searched for the needle, you don't need to search again.
Note: This is a memory trade. If you have many repetitions, you will use similar memory. However if you do have a low amount of repetitions, than this variant uses more memory than before.
The function:
function find_repeating_sequences($string) {
$result = array();
$start = 0;
$max = strlen($string);
while ($start < $max) {
$pat = $string[$start];
$i = ++$start;
while ($max - $i > 0) {
$found = isset($result[$pat]) ? $result[$pat] : false !== strpos($string, $pat, $i);
if (!$result[$pat] = $found) break;
// expand pattern and try again
$pat .= $string[$i++];
}
}
return array_keys(array_filter($result));
}
So just see this as an addition to Jacks answer.
Related
I want to can compress a string using the chars ASCII codes.
I want to compress them using number patterns. Because ASCII codes are numbers, I want to find sub-patterns in the list of ASCII char codes.
Theory
This will be the format for every pattern I found:
[nnn][n][nn], where:
[nnn] is the ASCII code for first char, from group numbers with same pattern.
[n] is a custom number for a certain pattern/rule (I will explain more below).
[nn] shows how many times this rule happens.
The number patterns are not concretely established. But let me give you some examples:
same char
linear growth (every number/ascii is greater, with one, than previous)
linear decrease (every number/ascii is smaller, with one, than previous)
Now let's see some situations:
"adeflk" becomes "097.1.01-100.2.03-108.3.02"
same char ones, linear growth three times, linear decrease twice.
"rrrrrrrrrrr" becomes "114.1.11"
same char eleven times.
"tsrqpozh" becomes "116.3.06-122.1.01-104.1.01"
linear decrease six times, same char ones, same char ones.
I added dots ('.') and dashes ('-') so you can see them easily.
Indeed, we don't see good results (compression). I want to use this algorithm for large strings. And adding more rules (number patterns) we increase changes for making shorter result than original.
I know the existent compressing solutions. I want this solution because the result have only digits, and it helps me.
What I've tried
// recursive function
function run (string $data, array &$rules): string {
if (strlen($data) == 1) {
// str_pad for having always ASCII code with 3 digits
return (str_pad(ord($data), 3, '0', STR_PAD_LEFT) .'.'. '1' .'.'. '01');
}
$ord = ord($data); // first char
$strlen = strlen($data);
$nr = str_pad($ord, 3, '0', STR_PAD_LEFT); // str_pad for having always ASCII code with 3 digits
$result = '';
// compares every rule
foreach ($rules as $key => $rule) {
for ($i = 1; $i < $strlen; $i++) {
// check for how many times this rule matches
if (!$rule($ord, $data, $i)) {
// save the shortest result (so we can compress)
if (strlen($r = ($nr .'.'. $key .'.'. $i .' - '. run(substr($data, $i), $rules))) < strlen($result)
|| !$result) {
$result = $r;
}
continue 2; // we are going to next rule
}
}
// if comes here, it means entire $data follow this rule ($key)
if (strlen($r = (($nr .'.'. $key .'.'. $i))) < strlen($result)
|| !$result) {
$result = $r; // entire data follow this $rule
}
}
return $result; // it will return the shortest result it got
}
// ASCII compressor
function compress (string $data): string {
$rules = array( // ASCII rules
1 => function (int $ord, string $data, int $i): bool { // same char
return ($ord == ord($data[$i]));
},
2 => function (int $ord, string $data, int $i): bool { // linear growth
return (($ord+$i) == ord($data[$i]));
},
3 => function (int $ord, string $data, int $i): bool { // progressive growth
return ((ord($data[$i-1])+$i) == ord($data[$i]));
},
4 => function (int $ord, string $data, int $i): bool { // linear decrease
return (($ord-$i) == ord($data[$i]));
},
5 => function (int $ord, string $data, int $i): bool { // progressive decrease
return ((ord($data[$i-1])-$i) == ord($data[$i]));
}
);
// we use base64_encode because we want only ASCII chars
return run(base64_encode($data), $rules);
}
I added dots ('.') and dashes ('-') only for testing easily.
Results
compress("ana ar") => "089.1.1 - 087.1.1 - 053.1.1 - 104.1.1 - 073.1.1 - 071.4.2 - 121.1.01"
Which is ok. And it runs fast. Without a problem.
compress("ana aros") => Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 15 seconds exceeded
If string is a bit longer, it gets toooo much. It works fast and normal for 1-7 chars. But when there are more chars in string, that happens.
The algorithm doesn't run perfect and doesn't return the perfect 6-digit pattern, indeed. Before getting there, I'm stucked with that.
Question
How I can increase performance of this backtracking for running ok now and also with more rules?
Searching for gradients / infix repetitions is not a good match for compressing a natural language. Natural language is significantly easier to compress using a dictionary based approach (both dynamic dictionaries bundled with the compressed data, as well as pre-compiled dictionaries trained on a reference set work), as even repeating sequences in ASCII encoding usually don't follow any trivial geometric pattern, but appear quite random when observing only the individual characters ordinal representations.
That said, the reason your algorithm is so slow, is because you are exploring all possible patterns, which results in a run time exponential in the input length, precisely O(5^n). For your self-set goal of finding the ideal compression in a set of 5 arbitrary rules, that's already as good as possible. If anything, you can only reduce the run time complexity by a constant factor, but you can't get rid of the exponential run time. In other terms, even if you apply perfect optimizations, that only makes the difference of increasing the maximum input length you can handle by maybe 30-50%, before you inevitably run into timeouts again.
#noam's solution doesn't even attempt to find the ideal pattern, but simply greedily uses the first matching pattern to consume the input. As a result it will incorrectly ignore better matches, but in return it also has only to look at each input character once only, resulting in a linear run time complexity O(n).
Of course there are some details in your current solution which make it a lot easier to solve, just based on simple observations about your rules. Be wary though that these assumptions will break when you try to add more rules.
Specifically, you can avoid most of the backtracking if you are smart about the order in which you try your rules:
Try to start a new geometric pattern ord(n[i])=ord(n[0])+i first, and accept as match only when it matched at least 3 characters ahead.
Try to continue current geometric pattern.
Try to continue current gradient pattern.
Try to start new gradient ord(n[i])=ord(n[0])+i, and accept as match only when it matched at least 2 characters ahead.
Try to start / continue simple repetition last, and always accept.
Once a character from input was accepted by any of these rules (meaning it has been consumed by a sequence), you will no longer need to backtrack from it or check any other rule for it, as you have already found the best possible representation for it. You still need to re-check the rules for every following character you add to to the sequence, as a suffix of the gradient rule may be required as the prefix for a geometric rule.
Generically speaking, the pattern in your rule set which allows this, is the fact that for every rule with a higher priority, no match for that rule can have a better match in any following rule. If you like, you can easily prove that formally for every pair of possible rules you have in your set.
If you want to test your implementation, you should specifically test patterns such as ABDHIK. Even though H is a match the currently running geometric sequence ABDH, using it as the starting point of the new geometric sequence HIK is unconditionally the better choice.
I came up with a initial solution to your problem. Please note:
You will never get a sequence of just one letter, because each 2 consecutive letters are a "linear growth" with a certain difference.
My solution is not very clean. You can, for example combine $matches and $rules to a single array.
My solution is naive and greedy. For example, in the example adeflk, the sequence def is a sequence of 3, but because my solution is greedy, it will consider ad as a sequence of 2, and ef as another sequence of 2. That being said, you can still improve my code.
The code is hard to test. You should probably make use of OOP and divide the code to many small methods that are easy to test separately.
<?php
function compress($string, $rules, $matches) {
if ($string === '') {
return getBestMatch($matches);
}
$currentCharacter = $string[0];
$matchFound = false;
foreach ($rules as $index => &$rule) {
if ($rule['active']) {
$soFarLength = strlen($matches[$index]);
if ($soFarLength === 0) {
$matchFound = true;
$matches[$index] = $currentCharacter;
} elseif ($rule['callback']($currentCharacter, $matches[$index])) {
$matches[$index] .= $currentCharacter;
$matchFound = true;
} else {
$rule['active'] = false;
}
}
}
if ($matchFound) {
return compress(substr($string, 1), $rules, $matches);
} else {
return getBestMatch($matches) . startNewSequence($string);
}
}
function getBestMatch($matches) {
$rule = -1;
$length = -1;
foreach ($matches as $index => $match) {
if (strlen($match) > $length) {
$length = strlen($match);
$rule = $index;
}
}
if ($length <= 0) {
return '';
}
return ord($matches[$rule][0]) . '.' . $rule . '.' . $length . "\n";
}
function startNewSequence($string) {
$rules = [
// rule number 1 - all characters are the same
1 => [
'active' => true,
'callback' => function ($a, $b) {
return $a === substr($b, -1);
}
],
// rule number 2 - ASCII code of current letter is one more than the last letter ("linear growth")
2 => [
'active' => true,
'callback' => function ($a, $b) {
return ord($a) === (1 + ord(substr($b, -1)));
}
],
// rule number 3 - ASCII code is a geometric progression. The ord() of each character increases with each step.
3 => [
'active' => true,
'callback' => function ($a, $b) {
if (strlen($b) == 1) {
return ord($a) > ord($b);
}
$lastCharOrd = ord(substr($b, -1));
$oneBeforeLastCharOrd = ord(substr($b, -2, 1));
$lastDiff = $lastCharOrd - $oneBeforeLastCharOrd;
$currentOrd = ord($a);
return ($currentOrd - $lastCharOrd) === ($lastDiff + 1);
}
],
// rule number 4 - ASCII code of current letter is one less than the last letter ("linear decrease")
4 => [
'active' => true,
'callback' => function ($a, $b) {
return ord($a) === (ord(substr($b, -1)) - 1);
}
],
// rule number 5 - ASCII code is a negative geometric progression. The ord() of each character decreases by one
// with each step.
5 => [
'active' => true,
'callback' => function ($a, $b) {
if (strlen($b) == 1) {
return ord($a) < ord($b);
}
$lastCharOrd = ord(substr($b, -1));
$oneBeforeLastCharOrd = ord(substr($b, -2, 1));
$lastDiff = $lastCharOrd - $oneBeforeLastCharOrd;
$currentOrd = ord($a);
return ($currentOrd - $lastCharOrd) === ($lastDiff - 1);
}
],
];
$matches = [
1 => '',
2 => '',
3 => '',
4 => '',
5 => '',
];
return compress($string, $rules, $matches);
}
echo startNewSequence('tsrqpozh');
So i need to check if amount of chars from specific set in a string is higher than some number, what a fastest way to do that?
For example i have a long string "some text & some text & some text + a lot more + a lot more ... etc." and i need to check if there r more than 3 of next symbols: [&,.,+]. So when i encounter 4th occurrence of one of these chars i just need to return false, and stop the loop. So i think to create a simple function like that. But i wonder is there any native method in php to do such a thing? But i need some function which will not waste time parsing the string till the end, cuz the string may be pretty long. So i think regexp and functions like count_chars r not suited for that kind of job...
Any suggestions?
I don't know about a native method, I think count_chars is probably as close as you're going to get. However, rolling a custom solution would be relatively simple:
$str = 'your text here';
$chars = ['&', '.', '+'];
$count = [];
$length = strlen($str);
$limit = 3;
for ($i = 0; $i < $length; $i++) {
if (in_array($str[$i], $chars)) {
$count[$str[$i]] += 1;
if ($count[$str[$i]] > $limit) {
break;
}
}
}
Where the data is actually coming from might also make a difference. For example, if it's from a file then you could take advantage of fread's 2nd parameter to only read x number of bytes at a time within a while loop.
Finding the fastest way might be too broad of a question as PHP has a lot of string related functions; other solutions might use strstr, strpos, etc...
Not benchmarked the other solutions but http://php.net/manual/en/function.str-replace.php passing an array of options will be fast. There is an optional parameter which returns the count of replacements. Check that number
str_replace ( ['&','.','+'], '' , $subject , $count )
if ($count > $number ) {
Well, all my thoughts were wrong and my expectations were crushed by real tests. RegExp seems to work from 2 to 7 times faster (with different strings) than self-made function with simple symbol-checking loop.
The code:
// self-made function:
function chk_occurs($str,$chrs,$limit){
$r=false;
$count = 0;
$length = strlen($str);
for($i=0; $i<$length; $i++){
if(in_array($str[$i], $chrs)){
$count++;
if($count>$limit){
$r=true;
break;
}
}
}
return $r;
}
// RegExp i've used for tests:
preg_match('/([&\\.\\+]|[&\\.\\+][^&\\.\\+]+?){3,}?/',$str);
Of course it works faster because it's a single call to native function, but even same code wrapped into function works from 2 to ~4.8 times faster.
//RegExp wrapped into the function:
function chk_occurs_preg($str,$chrs,$limit){
$chrs=preg_quote($chrs);
return preg_match('/(['.$chrs.']|['.$chrs.'][^'.$chrs.']+?){'.$limit.',}?/',$str);
}
P.S. i wasn't bothered to check cpu-time, just was testing walltime measured via microtime(true); of the 200k iteration loop, but it's enough for me.
I am looking for the most efficient algorithm in PHP to check if a string was made from dictionary words only or not.
Example:
thissentencewasmadefromenglishwords
thisonecontainsyxxxyxsomegarbagexaatoo
pure
thisisalsobadxyyyaazzz
Output:
thissentencewasmadefromenglishwords
pure
a.txt
contains the dictionary words
b.txt
contains the strings: one in every line, without spaces made from a..z chars only
Another way to do this is to employ the Aho-Corasick string matching algorithm. The basic idea is to read in your dictionary of words and from that create the Aho-Corasick tree structure. Then, you run each string you want to split into words through the search function.
The beauty of this approach is that creating the tree is a one time cost. You can then use it for all of the strings you're testing. The search function runs in O(n) (n being the length of the string), plus the number of matches found. It's really quite efficient.
Output from the search function will be a list of string matches, telling you which words match at what positions.
The Wikipedia article does not give a great explanation of the Aho-Corasick algorithm. I prefer the original paper, which is quite approachable. See Efficient String Matching: An Aid to Bibliographic Search.
So, for example, given your first string:
thissentencewasmadefromenglishwords
You would get (in part):
this, 0
his, 1
sent, 4
ten, 7
etc.
Now, sort the list of matches by position. It will be almost sorted when you get it from the string matcher, but not quite.
Once the list is sorted by position, the first thing you do is make sure that there is a match at position 0. If there is not, then the string fails the test. If there is (and there might be multiple matches at position 0), you take the length of the matched string and see if there's a string match at that position. Add that match's length and see if there's a match at the next position, etc.
If the strings you're testing aren't very long, then you can use a brute force algorithm like that. It would be more efficient, though, to construct a hash map of the matches, indexed by position. Of course, there could be multiple matches for a particular position, so you have to take that into account. But looking to see if there is a match at a position would be very fast.
It's some work, of course, to implement the Aho-Corasick algorithm. A quick Google search shows that there are php implementations available. How well they work, I don't know.
In the average case, this should be very quick. Again, it depends on how long your strings are. But you're helped by there being relatively few matches at any one position. You could probably construct strings that would exhibit pathologically poor runtimes, but you'd probably have to try real hard. And again, even a pathological case isn't going to take too terribly long if the string is short.
This is a problem that can be solved using Dynamic Programming, based on the next formulas:
f(0) = true
f(i) = OR { f(i-j) AND Dictionary.contais(s.substring(i-j,i) } for each j=1,...,i
First, load your file into a dictionary, then use the DP solution for the above formula.
Pseudo code is something like: (Hope I have no "off by one" for indices..)
check(word):
f = new boolean[word.length() + 1)
f[0] = true
for i from 1 to word.length() + 1:
f[i] = false
for j from 1 to i-1:
if dictionary.contains(word.substring(j-1,i-1)) AND f[j]:
f[i] = true
return f[word.length()
I recommend a recursive approach. Something like this:
<?php
$wordsToCheck = array(
'otherword',
'word1andother',
'word1',
'word1word2',
'word1word3',
'word1word2word3'
);
$wordList = array(
'word1',
'word2',
'word3'
);
$results = array();
function onlyListedWords($word, $wordList) {
if (in_array($word, $wordList)) {
return true;
} else {
$length = strlen($word);
$wordTemp = $word;
$part = '';
for ($i=0; $i < $length; $i++) {
$part .= $wordTemp[$i];
if (in_array($part, $wordList)) {
if ($i == $length - 1) {
return true;
} else {
$wordTemp = substr($wordTemp, $i + 1);
return onlyListedWords($wordTemp, $wordList);
}
}
}
}
}
foreach ($wordsToCheck as $word) {
if (onlyListedWords($word, $wordList))
$results[] = $word;
}
var_dump($results);
?>
I'm attempting to write a regex in PHP that validates the following:
At least 10 chars
Has at least 2 Upper-case characters
Has at least 2 Numbers OR Symbols
I've looked at just about every reference I can find but, to no avail.
I guess I can test individually, but that makes me very sad :(
Can someone please help? (And send me to a spot where I can learn in plain English Reg Ex?)
This picture is worth more than 1000 words
(and that's a lot of entropy)
(image via XKCD)
With this in mind you might want to consider dropping rules 2 & 3 if password length is higher than X (say.. 20) or increase the minimum to at least 16 characters (as the only rule).
As for your requirement:
As opposed to having one big, ugly, hard-to-maintain, advanced RegExp you might want to break the problem in smaller parts and tackle each bit separately using dedicated functions.
For this you could look at ctype_* functions, count_chars() and MultiByte String Functions.
Now the ugly:
This advanced RegEx will return true or false according to your rules:
preg_match('/^(?=.{10,}$)(?=.*?[A-Z].*?[A-Z])(?=.*?([\x20-\x40\x5b-\x60\x7b-\x7e\x80-\xbf]).*?(?1).*?$).*$/',$string);
Test demo here: http://regex101.com/r/qE9eB2
1st part (LookAhead) : (?=.{10,}$) will check string length and continue if it has at least 10 characters. You could drop this and do a check with strlen() or even better mb_strlen().
2nd part (also a LookAhead): (?=.*?[A-Z].*?[A-Z]) will check for the presence of 2 UPPERCASE characters. You could also do a $upper=preg_replace('/[^A-Z]/','',$string) instead and count the chars in $upper to be more than two.
3rd LookAhead uses a character class: [\x20-\x40\x5b-\x60\x7b-\x7e\x80-\xbf] with hex escaped character ranges for common symbols (pretty much all the symbols one could find on an average keyboard). You could also do a $sym=preg_replace('/[^a-zA-Z]/','',$string) instead and count the chars in $sym to be more than two. Note: to make it shorter I used a recursive group (?1) to not repeat the same character class again
For learning, the most comprehensive RegExp reference I know of is: regular-expressions.info
You can use lookaheads to make sure that what you are looking for is contained appropriately.
/(?=.*[A-Z].*[A-Z])(?=.*[^a-zA-Z].*[^a-zA-Z]).{10,}/
I have always preferred good old procedural code for handling stuff like this. Regular expressions can be useful but they can also be a little cumbersome, especially for code maintenance and quick scanning (regular expressions are not exactly examples of readability).
function strContains($string, $contains, $n = 1, $exact = false) {
$length = strlen($string);
$tally = 0;
for ($i = 0; $i < $length; $i++) {
if (strpos($contains, $string[$i]) !== false) {
$tally++;
}
}
return ($exact ? $tally == $n : $tally >= $n);
}
function validPassword($password) {
if (strlen($password) < 10) {
return false;
}
$upperChars = 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ';
$upperCount = 2;
if (strContains($password, $upperChars, $upperCount) === false) {
return false;
}
$numSymChars = '0123456789!"#$%&\'()*+,-./:;<=>?#[\\]^_`{|}~';
$numSymCount = 2;
if (strContains($password, $numSymChars, $numSymCount) === false) {
return false;
}
return true;
}
I'm trying to print the possible words that can be formed from a phone number in php. My general strategy is to map each digit to an array of possible characters. I then iterate through each number, recursively calling the function to iterate over each possible character.
Here's what my code looks like so far, but it's not working out just yet. Any syntax corrections I can make to get it to work?
$pad = array(
array('0'), array('1'), array('abc'), array('def'), array('ghi'),
array('jkl'), array('mno'), array('pqr'), array('stuv'), array('wxyz')
);
function convertNumberToAlpha($number, $next, $alpha){
global $pad;
for($i =0; $i<count($pad[$number[$next]][0]); $i++){
$alpha[$next] = $pad[$next][0][$i];
if($i<strlen($number) -1){
convertNumberToAlpha($number, $next++, $alpha);
}else{
print_r($alpha);
}
}
}
$alpha = array();
convertNumberToAlpha('22', 0, $alpha);
How is this going to be used? This is not a job for a simple recursive algorithm such as what you have suggested, nor even an iterative approach. An average 10-digit number will yield 59,049 (3^10) possibilities, each of which will have to be evaluated against a dictionary if you want to determine actual words.
Many times, the best approach to this is to pre-compile a dictionary which maps 10-digit numbers to various words. Then, your look-up is a constant O(1) algorithm, just selecting by a 10 digit number which is mapped to an array of possible words.
In fact, pre-compiled dictionaries were the way that T9 worked, mapping dictionaries to trees with logarithmic look-up functions.
The following code should do it. Fairly straight forward: it uses recursion, each level processes one character of input, a copy of current combination is built/passed at each recursive call, recursion stops at the level where last character of input is processed.
function alphaGenerator($input, &$output, $current = "") {
static $lookup = array(
1 => "1", 2 => "abc", 3 => "def",
4 => "ghi", 5 => "jkl", 6 => "mno",
7 => "pqrs", 8 => "tuv", 9 => "wxyz",
0 => "0"
);
$digit = substr($input, 0, 1); // e.g. "4"
$other = substr($input, 1); // e.g. "3556"
$chars = str_split($lookup[$digit], 1); // e.g. "ghi"
foreach ($chars as $char) { // e.g. g, h, i
if ($other === false) { // base case
$output[] = $current . $char;
} else { // recursive case
alphaGenerator($other, $output, $current . $char);
}
}
}
$output = array();
alphaGenerator("43556", $output);
var_dump($output);
Output:
array(243) {
[0]=>string(5) "gdjjm"
[1]=>string(5) "gdjjn"
...
[133]=>string(5) "helln"
[134]=>string(5) "hello"
[135]=>string(5) "hfjjm"
...
[241]=>string(5) "iflln"
[242]=>string(5) "ifllo"
}
You should read Norvigs article on writing a spellchecker in Python http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html . Although its a spellchecker and in python not php, it is the same concept around finding words with possible variations, might give u some good ideas.