I attempted to ask a more complicated of this before but I couldn't explain it well so I am trying again with a simplified use case.
I will have an array of arrays like the following
var allData = [[1,2,3,4,5],[1,2,3,4,5],[1,2,3,4,5],[1,2,3,4,5],[1,2,3,4,5]]
I need to select 1 element from each array so that I get a unique set like [2,4,1,3,5] easy to do in this case as each array has all values. However this will rarely be the case. Instead I may have
var allData = [[1,2,4],[1,2],[1,2],[2,4,5],[1,2,3,5]]
In this case I couldn't pick 1 or 2 from the first array as that would prevent the 2nd and 3rd from having a unique combination. So something like [4,2,1,5,3] or [4,1,2,5,3] would be the only two possible answers for this combination.
The only way I see to do this is to just go through every combination but these will get fairly large so it doesn't seem reasonable as this happens real time. There are going to be at least 7 arrays, possibly 14 and distantly possible to have 31 so going through every combination would be fairly rough.
The 2nd part is if there is some way to "know" you have the best possible option. Say if there was some way I would know that having a single duplicate is my best case scenario. Even if I have to brute force it if I encounter a 1 duplication solution I would know to stop.
One easy way to get a very simple of this is to just subtract the number of possible choices from the number of elements but this is the correct answer in only the simplest of cases. Is there some type of library or anything to help solve these types of problems? It is a bit beyond my math abilities.
Here is something I have tried but it is too slow for larger sets and can fail. It works sometimes for the 2nd case I presented but only on luck
const allData = [[1,2,4],[1,2],[1,2],[2,4,5],[1,2,3,5]]
var selectedData = []
for (var i in allData){
console.log("length",allData[i].length)
var j = 0
while(j < allData[i].length){
console.log("chekcing",allData[i][j])
if (selectedData.includes(allData[i][j])){
console.log("removing item")
allData[i].splice(j,1)
}
else{j++}
}
var uniqueIds = Object.keys(allData[i])
console.log(uniqueIds)
var randId = Math.floor(Math.random() * uniqueIds.length)
console.log(randId)
selectedData.push(allData[i][randId])
console.log("selectedData",selectedData)
}
You can start with a fairly simple backtracking algorithm:
function pick(bins, n = 0, res = {}) {
if (n === bins.length) {
return res
}
for (let x of bins[n]) {
if (!res[x]) {
res[x] = n + 1
let found = pick(bins, n + 1, res)
if (found)
return found
res[x] = 0
}
}
}
//
let a = [[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4]]
console.log(pick(a))
This returns a mapping item => bin index + 1, which is easy to convert back to an array if needed.
This should perform relatively well for N < 10, for more/larger bins you can think of some optimizations, for example, avoid the worst case scenario by sorting bins from smallest to longest, or, depending on the nature of elements, represent bins as bitmasks.
You could count all elements and take various comparison with same indices.
function x([...data]) {
while (data.some(Array.isArray)) {
const
counts = data.reduce((r, a, i) => {
if (Array.isArray(a)) a.forEach(v => (r[JSON.stringify(v)] = r[JSON.stringify(v)] || []).push(i));
return r;
}, {}),
entries = Object.entries(counts),
update = ([k, v]) => {
if (v.length === 1) {
data[v[0]] = JSON.parse(k);
return true;
}
};
if (entries.some(update)) continue;
const grouped = entries.reduce((r, [, a]) => {
const key = JSON.stringify(a);
r[key] = (r[key] || 0) + 1;
return r;
}, {});
Object.entries(grouped).forEach(([json, length]) => {
const indices = JSON.parse(json);
if (indices.length === length) {
let j = 0;
indices.forEach(i => data[i] = data[i][j++]);
return;
}
if (length === 1) {
const value = JSON.parse(entries.find(([_, a]) => JSON.stringify(a) === json)[0]);
indices.forEach(i => data[i] = data[i].filter(v => v !== value));
data[indices[0]] = value;
}
});
}
return data;
}
console.log(...x([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]));
console.log(...x([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5]]));
console.log(...x([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10]]));
Here is an implementation based around counting occurrences across the arrays.
It first creates a map indexed by value counting the number of inner arrays each value occurs in. It then sorts by inner array length to prioritize shorter arrays, and then iterates over each inner array, sorting by occurrence and selecting the first non-duplicate with the lowest count, or, if there are no unique values, the element with the lowest count.
const
occurrencesAcrossArrays = (arr) =>
arr
.reduce((a, _arr) => {
[...new Set(_arr)].forEach(n => {
a[n] = a[n] || 0;
a[n] += 1;
});
return a;
}, {}),
generateCombination = (arr) => {
const dist = occurrencesAcrossArrays(arr)
return arr
.sort((a, b) => a.length - b.length)
.reduce((a, _arr) => {
_arr.sort((a, b) => dist[a] - dist[b]);
let m = _arr.find(n => !a.includes(n));
if (m !== undefined) {
a.push(m);
} else {
a.push(_arr[0]);
}
return a;
}, []);
};
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]).toString());
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5]]).toString());
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10]]).toString());
Edit
In response to your comment – The situation seems to be emerging because the values all have the same occurrence count and are sequential.
This can be solved by keeping a running count of each value in the result array, and sorting each inner array by both by this running occurrence count as well as the original distribution count.This adds complexity to the sort, but allows you to simply access the first element in the array (the element with the lowest rate of occurrence in the result with the lowest occurrence count across all arrays).
const
occurrencesAcrossArrays = (arr) =>
arr
.reduce((a, _arr) => {
[...new Set(_arr)].forEach(n => {
a[n] = a[n] || 0;
a[n] += 1;
});
return a;
}, {}),
generateCombination = (arr) => {
const dist = occurrencesAcrossArrays(arr)
return arr
.sort((a, b) => a.length - b.length)
.reduce((acc, _arr) => {
_arr.sort((a, b) => (acc.occurrences[a] || 0) - (acc.occurrences[b] || 0) || dist[a] - dist[b]);
let m = _arr[0]
acc.occurrences[m] = acc.occurrences[m] || 0;
acc.occurrences[m] += 1;
acc.result.push(m);
return acc;
}, { result: [], occurrences: {} })
.result; // return the .result property of the accumulator
};
console.log(generateCombination([[2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]]).toString());
// 2,3,4,5,6,2,3
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]).toString());
// 1,2,3,4,5
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5]]).toString());
// 1,2,4,5,3
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10]]).toString());
//1,2,4,5,3,9,6,10,7,8
console.log(generateCombination([[1], [2, 3,], [3, 4, 5], [3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]]).toString());
// 1,2,4,6,7
A note on .reduce()
If you're having trouble getting your head around .reduce() you can rewrite all the instances of it in this example using .forEach() and declaring accumulator variables outside of the loop. (This will not always be the case, depending on how you manipulate the accumulator value within a reduce() call).
Example below:
const occurrencesAcrossArrays = (arr) => {
const occurrences = {};
arr.forEach(_arr => {
[...new Set(_arr)].forEach(n => {
occurrences[n] = occurrences[n] || 0;
occurrences[n] += 1;
});
});
return occurrences;
};
const generateCombination = (arr) => {
const dist = occurrencesAcrossArrays(arr);
const result = [];
const occurrences = {};
arr.sort((a, b) => a.length - b.length);
arr.forEach(_arr => {
_arr.sort((a, b) => (occurrences[a] || 0) - (occurrences[b] || 0) || dist[a] - dist[b]);
let m = _arr[0]
occurrences[m] = occurrences[m] || 0;
occurrences[m] += 1;
result.push(m);
});
return result;
};
console.log(generateCombination([[2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]]).toString());
// 2,3,4,5,6,2,3
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]]).toString());
// 1,2,3,4,5
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5]]).toString());
// 1,2,4,5,3
console.log(generateCombination([[1, 2, 4], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 4, 5], [1, 2, 3, 5], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 9], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10], [6, 7, 8, 10]]).toString());
//1,2,4,5,3,9,6,10,7,8
console.log(generateCombination([[1], [2, 3,], [3, 4, 5], [3, 4, 5, 6], [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]]).toString());
// 1,2,4,6,7
You could solve this problem using a MILP-model. Here is one implementation in MiniZinc (data has been extended to seven days):
int: Days = 7;
int: Items = 5;
set of int: DAY = 1..Days;
set of int: ITEM = 1..Items;
array[DAY, ITEM] of 0..1: A = % whether item k is allowed on day i
[| 1, 1, 0, 1, 0
| 1, 1, 0, 0, 0
| 1, 1, 0, 0, 0
| 0, 1, 0, 1, 1
| 1, 1, 0, 0, 0
| 0, 1, 0, 1, 1
| 1, 1, 1, 0, 1 |];
array[DAY, ITEM] of var 0..1: x; % 1 if item selected k on day i, otherwise 0
array[DAY, DAY, ITEM] of var 0..1: w; % 1 if item k selected on both day i and day j, otherwise 0
% exactly one item per day
constraint forall(i in DAY)
(sum(k in ITEM)(x[i, k]) = 1);
% linking variables x and w
constraint forall(i, j in DAY, k in ITEM where i < j)
(w[i, j, k] <= x[i, k] /\ w[i, j, k] <= x[j, k] /\ w[i, j, k] >= x[i, k] + x[j, k] - 1);
% try to minimize duplicates and if there are duplicates put them as far apart as possible
var int: obj = sum(i, j in DAY, k in ITEM where i < j)(((Days - (j - i))^2)*w[i, j, k]);
solve minimize obj;
output
["obj="] ++ [show(obj)] ++
["\nitem="] ++ [show([sum(k in ITEM)(k*x[i, k]) | i in DAY])];
Running gives:
obj=8
item=[2, 1, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]
The following package looks promising for a JavaScript implementation: https://www.npmjs.com/package/javascript-lp-solver
I have this function as seen below that groups an array of numbers based on a length parameter. The length represents the max length of each sub-array. What I am trying to figure out, is a method I can take to shift x => x % 2 out of the declaration of the result variables and into the function. The only thing I could think of would be a callback, but I am not sure how I could do this. Any help with this is appreciated and if you notice any other redundant code please let me know.
function myFunc(arr, length, fnc) {
groups = [];
result = [];
for (let val of arr) {
x = fnc(val);
if (!groups[x]) {
groups[x] = [];
}
if (!groups[x].length) {
result .push(groups[x]);
}
groups[x].push(val);
if (groups[x].length === length) {
groups[x] = [];
}
}
return result ;
}
//examples
const result1 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4], 2, x => x % 2)
console.log(result1) //[[1, 3], [2, 4]]
const result2 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], 4, x => x % 2)
console.log(result2) //[[1, 3, 5, 7], [2, 4, 6]]
const result3 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 1, x => x % 2)
console.log(result3) //[[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
const result4 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], 4, x => x % 2)
console.log(result4) //[[1, 3, 5], [2, 4, 6]]
What Id like to achieve is only needing to call the array and the size of the sub-arrays that Id like to create. Just a brief understanding of what is happening, the arrays are based off seeing whether they can make a full array to the size of "length," and any overflow is pushed to another sub-array. An example of this looks like this:
console.log(myfunc([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10],3))
This would return [[1,3,5][2,4,6][7,9][8,10]]
So if someone could assist me in removing the fnc parameter from the console.log statements and placing it into the function, it would be very helpful
The issue you're having is that you know this parameter will always be the same, so there's
no need to write it every time; it can just be baked into the function.
At its most simplest, you can literally just take fnc out of the parameter list and declare it manually as a variable, always setting it to the same value:
function myFunc(arr, length) {
let fnc = x => x % 2;
groups = [];
result = [];
for (let val of arr) {
x = fnc(val);
if (!groups[x]) {
groups[x] = [];
}
if (!groups[x].length) {
result .push(groups[x]);
}
groups[x].push(val);
if (groups[x].length === length) {
groups[x] = [];
}
}
return result ;
}
//examples
const result1 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4], 2)
console.log(result1) //[[1, 3], [2, 4]]
const result2 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], 4)
console.log(result2) //[[1, 3, 5, 7], [2, 4, 6]]
const result3 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 1)
console.log(result3) //[[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
const result4 = myFunc([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], 4)
console.log(result4) //[[1, 3, 5], [2, 4, 6]]
At this point there really isn't almost any point to fnc being a function though. It's the same operation every time. Just take that operation and paste it in place of the function call. Also, you should always use let or const to declare things, don't just assign them with no declaration keyword - that makes them globals and they might interact with your global namespace in an unexpected way. Finally, I urge you to rename your function to something that describes what it does. This helps everyone reading your code understand it more intuitively, including your future self.
This is what that all would look like:
function splitArray(arr, length) {
let groups = [];
let result = [];
for (let val of arr) {
let x = val % 2; //this does the same thing
if (!groups[x]) {
groups[x] = [];
}
if (!groups[x].length) {
result.push(groups[x]);
}
groups[x].push(val);
if (groups[x].length === length) {
groups[x] = [];
}
}
return result;
}
//examples
const result1 = splitArray([1, 2, 3, 4], 2)
console.log(result1) //[[1, 3], [2, 4]]
const result2 = splitArray([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], 4)
console.log(result2) //[[1, 3, 5, 7], [2, 4, 6]]
const result3 = splitArray([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 1)
console.log(result3) //[[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]]
const result4 = splitArray([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], 4)
console.log(result4) //[[1, 3, 5], [2, 4, 6]]
I am trying to create a function that will get the items that cannot be seen on the 2nd or 3rd and upcoming arrays passed within the function.
Right now my function gets only the similar items. How can I make it get the difference (w/c are the items that doesn't exist to the 2nd and 3rd and proceeding arrays.
const callM = function(arrays) {
arrays = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);
let result = [];
for(let i = 1; i < arrays.length; i++){
for(let x = 0; x < arrays[i].length; x++){
if(arrays[0].includes(arrays[i][x])){
result.push(arrays[i][x]);
}
}
}
return result;
};
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10])); // -> must be [1, 3, 4]
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8])); // -> must be [3,4]
The logic right now is a bit off as it gets the opposite. How do i fix this?
Also is there a way to do this using Higher Order functions such as reduce or filter?
Thanks!
I'd think about this differently. As the difference between two sets: array 0 and array 1...n
To get array 0, just shift it off the top
const arr0 = arrays.shift()
Ref: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/shift
This removes the first array from arrays
Next we combine the remaining arrays
const arrN = arrays.reduce(function(prev, curr) {
return prev.concat(curr)
})
Ref: http://www.jstips.co/en/javascript/flattening-multidimensional-arrays-in-javascript/
Unneeded, handled by includes as mentioned by #Phil
Next filter duplicates from arrN by comparing with itself
const unique = arrN.filter(function(elem, index, self) {
return index == self.indexOf(elem);
})
Ref: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/filter
Next filter with includes to find the difference (or union)
const diff = arr0.filter(function(item) {
return !arrN.includes(item))
}
Full snippet:
function callM(arrays) {
const arr0 = arrays.shift()
const arrN = arrays.reduce(function(prev, curr) {
return prev.concat(curr)
})
//const unique = arrN.filter(function(elem, index, self) {
// return index == self.indexOf(elem)
//})
return arr0.filter(function(item) {
return !arrN.includes(item)
})
}
console.log(callM([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10]]))
console.log(callM([[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8]]))
of course ES6 would be easier. ;)
const callM = (first, ...rest) => {
const arrays = [].concat(...rest)
return first.filter(item => !arrays.includes(item))
}
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10]))
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8]))
A short solution for small and medium sized arrays:
// Return elements in array but not in filters:
function difference(array, ...filters) {
return array.filter(el => !filters.some(filter => filter.includes(el)));
}
// Example:
console.log(difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10])); // [1, 3, 4]
console.log(difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 1, 10], [7, 2, 8])); // [3, 4]
For large inputs, consider creating a Set from all filters and filtering in linear time using set.has(el).
In order to fix your implementation, you could label the outer for-loop and continue from there whenever a filter contains one of the array elements. Only when all filters pass without match, you push the array element into the result:
// Return elements in array but not in filters:
function difference(array, ...filters) {
const result = [];
loop: for (const el of array) {
for (const filter of filters) {
if (filter.includes(el)) continue loop;
}
result.push(el);
}
return result;
}
// Example:
console.log(difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10])); // [1, 3, 4]
console.log(difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8])); // [3,4]
If you're willing to use Underscore, you can do this in one line of code:
console.log(_.difference([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8]))
https://jsfiddle.net/o1zuaa6m/
You can use array#reduce to create object lookup of all the other array excluding the first array. Then use array#filter to get the values which are not present in the object lookup
var callM = (first, ...rest) => {
var combined = rest
.reduce((res,arr) => res.concat(arr))
.reduce((o, v) => {
o[v] = true;
return o;
},{});
return first
.filter(v => !combined[v]);
}
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10])); // -> must be [1, 3, 4]
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8])); // -> must be [3,4]
The "proper" way to exclude values is usually to use a lookup hash set with the values to exclude:
const callM = (a, ...b) => (b = new Set(b.concat.apply(...b)), a.filter(v => !b.has(v)))
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10])); // [1, 3, 4]
console.log(callM([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [5, 2, 10], [7, 1, 8])); // [3, 4]
I have an array of arrays
[
[1,3,5,7,8,8],
[1,3,5,7,8,8],
[1,3,5,7,8,8],
[1,3,5,7,8,8],
[1,3,5,7,8,8]
]
I am trying to insert a value between each item. So I have this:
let reelList = [
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8]
]
reelList.map(reel => {
// Adds the separator (works)
let v = separate(reel, '-')
console.log(v)
return v
})
function separate(arr, value) {
return arr.reduce((result, element, index, array) => {
result.push(element)
index < array.length - 1 && result.push(value)
return result
}, []);
}
// Logs the new list to the console (doesn't work)
console.log(reelList)
When I log the values after I run the separate function they are separated, however, when I display reelList they are not separated. Why is that?
The map() function returns a new array. It doesn't modify the existing one.
You would need to set the results of reelList.map() to something else.
let reelList = [
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8]
]
const finalResult = reelList.map(reel => {
// Adds the separator (works)
let v = separate(reel, '-')
console.log(v)
return v
})
function separate(arr, value) {
return arr.reduce((result, element, index, array) => {
result.push(element)
index < array.length - 1 && result.push(value)
return result
}, []);
}
// Logs the new list to the console (doesn't work)
console.log(finalResult);
If you want to edit the array in place, instead of using map(), use a forEach() with a callback that has a second and third parameter, which are index and array. Then you can update the array with the new values as you go.
let reelList = [
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8],
[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8]
]
reelList.forEach((reel, index, arr) => {
// Adds the separator (works)
let v = separate(reel, '-')
arr[index] = v;
console.log(v)
})
function separate(arr, value) {
return arr.reduce((result, element, index, array) => {
result.push(element)
index < array.length - 1 && result.push(value)
return result
}, []);
}
// Logs the new list to the console (doesn't work)
console.log(reelList);
You could map a new array with a calculated lenght and take the result of the calculated index ot the dash.
var array = [[1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8], [1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8], [1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8], [1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8], [1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 8]],
result = array.map(a => Array.from({ length: a.length * 2 - 1 }, (_, i) => a[i / 2] || '-'));
console.log(result);