2

I have an array e.g. {1,2,4,5,6}. I want my function to find biggest possible number X such that all numbers from 1,2,...,X-1 are in the array. In this case X=3. Numbers in an array could be from 0 to infinitty.

My attempt is:

int array(int* t, int r) {
    int* a;
    int m=0;
    int i;

    for(i=0;i<=r;i++){
        a[i]=i;
        if(a[i]==t[i])
            m++;
    }
    return m;
}

I wanted to create an array from 1 to r, which is the length of an array, full of natural number i.e. {1,2,3...} . Then i wanted to compare it with the actual array t. If there is a match look for another one.

I have no idea why it does not work and how to fix it?

Anyway code does not work and i still have no idea how to fix this.

Still looking for an answer.

Update: I did something like: 

int array(int* t, int r) {

for(int x=0;x<r;x++){

    for(int y=0; y<r-1;y++){
        if(t[y]>t[y+1]){
            int temp=t[y+1];
            t[y+1]=t[y];
            t[y]=temp;
        }
    }
}
   for (int i = 0; i != r; i++) {
        if (t[i] != (i + 1)) {
            return i + 1;
        }
    }
    return r + 1;
}

However when in input array i have zero at some place e.g. {5,0,1,2} the function always, regardless of where the zero is placed returns 1. Why is that?

Improve this question
9
  • 1
    Array indices start from zero. Modify your for loop so that it becomes: for(i=0;i <arrayLength; i++). Look here for the the length of an array for C style arrays: stackoverflow.com/questions/4108313/… Commented Nov 7, 2016 at 20:55
  • 2
    a is not initialized (and not needed Btw). Commented Nov 7, 2016 at 20:57
  • Does not work still. Moved "*" as well still does not work Commented Nov 7, 2016 at 20:57
  • Your algorithm is simply wrong. It will work only if those numbers occupy the leftmost positions in the array, and are in sorted order. Do you want a solution that is slow but simple, or one that is fast but complicated? Commented Nov 7, 2016 at 21:56
  • 1
    Are you doing a bucket sort, using massive memory to get fast runtime? You forgot to initialize a, so you're trying to store your numbers in undefined random places in memory. If that is your plan then you need to have two loops, one to build the lookup, and another to get the answer. Commented Nov 7, 2016 at 22:19

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5

There are a number of issues with your code

int array(int* t, int r) {
    int* a;
    int m=0;
    int i;

    for(i=0;i<=r;i++){
        a[i]=i;
        if(a[i]==t[i])
            m++;
    }
    return m;
}
  • a is uninitialized, i.e. it does not point to valid memory allocated by your program. You need to do int *a = new int[r]. Don't forget to do delete a before your function returns
  • i should go up to r - 1 not r. So i < r rather than i <= r

Here is some pseudocode which outlines a possible method of solving this. The result is zero if it couldn't find a valid range to start from.

Pseudocode (Fast, thanks to Kenny Ostrom)

  • let curr = 0
  • let lookup = std::unordered_set<int>
  • insert all your elements into lookup
  • Starting from 0 to n where n is the size of your array of elements
    • [Loop]
      • If curr + 1 is not in lookup break out of loop
      • Else set curr to curr + 1
    • [Loop End]
  • Finally return curr + 1

Pseudocode (Kinda fast depending on your sorting algorithm)

  • Sort the array (std::sort is always a good option)
  • Set some variable curr to 0
  • Starting at a0 to an, where ai is an element of your array at index i
    • [Loop]
      • If curr + 1 is not equal ai then break out of the loop
      • Else set curr to ai
    • [Loop End]
  • Finally return curr + 1

Pseudocode (Slow)

  • Set some variable curr to 0

  • Starting at a0 to an, where ai is an element of your array at index i

    • [Loop]
      • Starting at aj to an where j = 0
        • [Loop]
          • If curr + 1 is equal to aj then set curr to aj and break out of this loop
        • [Loop End]
        • If curr did not change, then break out of this loop
    • [Loop End]

  • Finally return curr + 1

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

5 Comments

Why a in uninitialized? If it is initialized in identical manner to t ?
@vforbiedronka it is uninitialized because you did not make it equal to anything. To initialize it you either need to create a new array and set a to point to that array or set a to point to an already created array.
@vforbiedronka even better will be int *a = new int[/*Enter the size you want here*/]. See my updated answer
I'll toss my pseudocode here since you covered the errors already. std::set<int> lookup; for all number in the input array, lookup.insert(number); look for answer = 1 in lookup, increment or return answer. (the problem with doing a bucket style lookup table is you are space dependent on the value of the answer, not the size of the input, and you have to be able to grow it)
I meant unordered set, my bad. Using std::set doesn't really give any advantage over sorting. Your quadratic search has a minor error in the pseudocode, consider {2, 1, 4}.
2

You don't need extra array, you may just iterate until index mismatch your expectation:

int find_iota_end(const int* a, int size)
{
    std::sort(a, a + size); // if initial array is not sorted.
    for (int i = 0; i != size; ++i) {
        if (a[i] != (i + 1)) {
            return i + 1;
        }
    }
    return size + 1;
}
Improve this answer

2 Comments

For an array {1,5,6,2,3} and size=5 this function returns 2 whereas it should return 4.
It was unclear that the array was not sorted, std::sort(a, a + size); would fix that.
1

Upon reflection, I think your original idea was pretty close to a good algorithm, if you fix the bugs, and completely ignore any value a[i] where that value is not in the range [1..r].

You must allocate actual memory for your second vector, and you need two independent loops. The first loop fills in the second vector, if the value is relevant. The second loop looks for the answer.

This gives you space O(n) because you only consider that many possible answers, and time O(n) because it just reads through length, twice.

Improve this answer

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.