When I calculate the SMA and EMA values using TA-lib for any period, the values are always equal. Does anyone else has any experience on this? Thanks.
Code for Ema (I just replace Core.Ema with Core.Sma for SMA):
double[] output = new double[closePrices.Length];
int begin;
int length;
Core.RetCode retCode = Core.Ema(closePrices.Length - 1, closePrices.Length - 1, closePrices, period, out begin, out length, output);
if (retCode == Core.RetCode.Success)
{
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++)
{
result = Math.Round(output[i], 5);
}
}
Your starting index and ending index for the EMA method is the same. Change the starting index to 0.
Related
I'm trying to loop through a range of numbers in NodeJS, but not by using integers, by using a string.
For example, I want to loop through from 000000 to 500000. Ie. 000001, 000002, all the way to 500000. When percieved as an integer, NodeJS will just go 1, 2, all the way up to 500000. I want to keep if so the number always has 6 digits and loops through every possible number.
Edit: I need it to loop through like 000001, 000002, ..., 000010, ... , 000100, ... , 001000, ... , 010000, ... , 100000, ... , 500000. Filling in every number in between though
Thanks in advance
If you're using a relatively new version of node you can use string.padStart():
for(var i = 0; i <= 500000; i++) {
str = i.toString().padStart(6, 0)
// 000001, etc
}
More docs here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/padStart
Iterating through the number as usual but padding 0's before it.
function pad (str, max) {
str = str.toString();
return str.length < max ? pad("0" + str, max) : str;
}
for(var i = 0; i <= 500000; i++) {
console.log(pad("6", i)) ;
}
We need to find the maximum element in an array which is also equal to product of two elements in the same array. For example [2,3,6,8] , here 6=2*3 so answer is 6.
My approach was to sort the array and followed by a two pointer method which checked whether the product exist for each element. This is o(nlog(n)) + O(n^2) = O(n^2) approach. Is there a faster way to this ?
There is a slight better solution with O(n * sqrt(n)) if you are allowed to use O(M) memory M = max number in A[i]
Use an array of size M to mark every number while you traverse them from smaller to bigger number.
For each number try all its factors and see if those were already present in the array map.
Here is a pseudo code for that:
#define M 1000000
int array_map[M+2];
int ans = -1;
sort(A,A+n);
for(i=0;i<n;i++) {
for(j=1;j<=sqrt(A[i]);j++) {
int num1 = j;
if(A[i]%num1==0) {
int num2 = A[i]/num1;
if(array_map[num1] && array_map[num2]) {
if(num1==num2) {
if(array_map[num1]>=2) ans = A[i];
} else {
ans = A[i];
}
}
}
}
array_map[A[i]]++;
}
There is an ever better approach if you know how to find all possible factors in log(M) this just becomes O(n*logM). You have to use sieve and backtracking for that
#JerryGoyal 's solution is correct. However, I think it can be optimized even further if instead of using B pointer, we use binary search to find the other factor of product if arr[c] is divisible by arr[a]. Here's the modification for his code:
for(c=n-1;(c>1)&& (max==-1);c--){ // loop through C
for(a=0;(a<c-1)&&(max==-1);a++){ // loop through A
if(arr[c]%arr[a]==0) // If arr[c] is divisible by arr[a]
{
if(binary_search(a+1, c-1, (arr[c]/arr[a]))) //#include<algorithm>
{
max = arr[c]; // if the other factor x of arr[c] is also in the array such that arr[c] = arr[a] * x
break;
}
}
}
}
I would have commented this on his solution, unfortunately I lack the reputation to do so.
Try this.
Written in c++
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int MaxElement(vector< int > Input)
{
sort(Input.begin(), Input.end());
int LargestElementOfInput = 0;
int i = 0;
while (i < Input.size() - 1)
{
if (LargestElementOfInput == Input[Input.size() - (i + 1)])
{
i++;
continue;
}
else
{
if (Input[i] != 0)
{
LargestElementOfInput = Input[Input.size() - (i + 1)];
int AllowedValue = LargestElementOfInput / Input[i];
int j = 0;
while (j < Input.size())
{
if (Input[j] > AllowedValue)
break;
else if (j == i)
{
j++;
continue;
}
else
{
int Product = Input[i] * Input[j++];
if (Product == LargestElementOfInput)
return Product;
}
}
}
i++;
}
}
return -1;
}
Once you have sorted the array, then you can use it to your advantage as below.
One improvement I can see - since you want to find the max element that meets the criteria,
Start from the right most element of the array. (8)
Divide that with the first element of the array. (8/2 = 4).
Now continue with the double pointer approach, till the element at second pointer is less than the value from the step 2 above or the match is found. (i.e., till second pointer value is < 4 or match is found).
If the match is found, then you got the max element.
Else, continue the loop with next highest element from the array. (6).
Efficient solution:
2 3 8 6
Sort the array
keep 3 pointers C, B and A.
Keeping C at the last and A at 0 index and B at 1st index.
traverse the array using pointers A and B till C and check if A*B=C exists or not.
If it exists then C is your answer.
Else, Move C a position back and traverse again keeping A at 0 and B at 1st index.
Keep repeating this till you get the sum or C reaches at 1st index.
Here's the complete solution:
int arr[] = new int[]{2, 3, 8, 6};
Arrays.sort(arr);
int n=arr.length;
int a,b,c,prod,max=-1;
for(c=n-1;(c>1)&& (max==-1);c--){ // loop through C
for(a=0;(a<c-1)&&(max==-1);a++){ // loop through A
for(b=a+1;b<c;b++){ // loop through B
prod=arr[a]*arr[b];
if(prod==arr[c]){
System.out.println("A: "+arr[a]+" B: "+arr[b]);
max=arr[c];
break;
}
if(prod>arr[c]){ // no need to go further
break;
}
}
}
}
System.out.println(max);
I came up with below solution where i am using one array list, and following one formula:
divisor(a or b) X quotient(b or a) = dividend(c)
Sort the array.
Put array into Collection Col.(ex. which has faster lookup, and maintains insertion order)
Have 2 pointer a,c.
keep c at last, and a at 0.
try to follow (divisor(a or b) X quotient(b or a) = dividend(c)).
Check if a is divisor of c, if yes then check for b in col.(a
If a is divisor and list has b, then c is the answer.
else increase a by 1, follow step 5, 6 till c-1.
if max not found then decrease c index, and follow the steps 4 and 5.
Check this C# solution:
-Loop through each element,
-loop and multiply each element with other elements,
-verify if the product exists in the array and is the max
private static int GetGreatest(int[] input)
{
int max = 0;
int p = 0; //product of pairs
//loop through the input array
for (int i = 0; i < input.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < input.Length; j++)
{
p = input[i] * input[j];
if (p > max && Array.IndexOf(input, p) != -1)
{
max = p;
}
}
}
return max;
}
Time complexity O(n^2)
The Data:
A list of integers increasing in order (0,1,2,3,4,5.......)
A list of values that belong to those integers. As an example, 0 = 33, 1 = 45, 2 = 21, ....etc.
And an incrementing variable x which represent a minimum jump value.
x is the value of each jump. For example if x = 2, if 1 is chosen you cannot choose 2.
I need to determine the best way to choose integers, given some (x), that produce the highest total value from the value list.
EXAMPLE:
A = a set of 1 foot intervals (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
B = the amount of money at each interval (9,5,7,3,2,7,8,10,21,12)
Distance = the minimum distance you can cover
- i.e. if the minimum distance is 3, you must skip 2 feet and leave the money, then you can
pick up the amount at the 3rd interval.
if you pick up at 0, the next one you can pick up is 3, if you choose 3 you can
next pick up 6 (after skipping 4 and 5). BUT, you dont have to pick up 6, you
could pick up 7 if it is worth more. You just can't pick up early.
So, how can I programmatically make the best jumps and end with the most money at the end?
So I am using the below equation for computing the opt value in the dynamic programming:
Here d is distance.
if (i -d) >= 0
opt(i) = max (opt(i-1), B[i] + OPT(i-d));
else
opt(i) = max (opt(i-1), B[i]);
Psuedo-code for computing the OPT value:
int A[] = {integers list}; // This is redundant if the integers are consecutive and are always from 0..n.
int B[] = {values list};
int i = 0;
int d = distance; // minimum distance between two picks.
int numIntegers = sizeof(A)/sizeof(int);
int opt[numIntegers];
opt[0] = B[0]; // For the first one Optimal value is picking itself.
for (i=1; i < numIntegers; i++) {
if ((i-d) < 0) {
opt[i] = max (opt[i-1], B[i]);
} else {
opt[i] = max (opt[i-1], B[i] + opt[i-d]);
}
}
EDIT based on OP's requirement about getting the selected integers from B:
for (i=numIntegres - 1; i >= 0;) {
if ((i == 0) && (opt[i] > 0)) {
printf ("%d ", i);
break;
}
if (opt[i] > opt[i-1]) {
printf ("%d ", i);
i = i -d;
} else {
i = i - 1;
}
}
If A[] does not have consecutive integers from 0 to n.
int A[] = {integers list}; // Here the integers may not be consecutive
int B[] = {values list};
int i = 0, j = 0;
int d = distance; // minimum distance between two picks.
int numAs = sizeof(A)/sizeof(int);
int numIntegers = A[numAs-1]
int opt[numIntegers];
opt[0] = 0;
if (A[0] == 0) {
opt[0] = B[0]; // For the first one Optimal value is picking itself.
j = 1;
}
for (i=1; i < numIntegers && j < numAs; i++, j++) {
if (i < A[j]) {
while (i < A[j]) {
opt[i] = opt[i -1];
i = i + 1:
}
}
if ((i-d) < 0) {
opt[i] = max (opt[i-1], B[j]);
} else {
opt[i] = max (opt[i-1], B[j] + opt[i-d]);
}
}
I have recently come across with this problem,
you have to find an integer from a sorted two dimensional array. But the two dim array is sorted in rows not in columns. I have solved the problem but still thinking that there may be some better approach. So I have come here to discuss with all of you. Your suggestions and improvement will help me to grow in coding. here is the code
int searchInteger = Int32.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
int cnt = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < x; i++)
{
if (intarry[i, 0] <= searchInteger && intarry[i,y-1] >= searchInteger)
{
if (intarry[i, 0] == searchInteger || intarry[i, y - 1] == searchInteger)
Console.WriteLine("string present {0} times" , ++cnt);
else
{
int[] array = new int[y];
int y1 = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < y; k++)
array[k] = intarry[i, y1++];
bool result;
if (result = binarySearch(array, searchInteger) == true)
{
Console.WriteLine("string present inside {0} times", ++ cnt);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
}
Where searchInteger is the integer we have to find in the array. and binary search is the methiod which is returning boolean if the value is present in the single dimension array (in that single row).
please help, is it optimum or there are better solution than this.
Thanks
Provided you have declared the array intarry, x and y as follows:
int[,] intarry =
{
{0,7,2},
{3,4,5},
{6,7,8}
};
var y = intarry.GetUpperBound(0)+1;
var x = intarry.GetUpperBound(1)+1;
// intarry.Dump();
You can keep it as simple as:
int searchInteger = Int32.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
var cnt=0;
for(var r=0; r<y; r++)
{
for(var c=0; c<x; c++)
{
if (intarry[r, c].Equals(searchInteger))
{
cnt++;
Console.WriteLine(
"string present at position [{0},{1}]" , r, c);
} // if
} // for
} // for
Console.WriteLine("string present {0} times" , cnt);
This example assumes that you don't have any information whether the array is sorted or not (which means: if you don't know if it is sorted you have to go through every element and can't use binary search). Based on this example you can refine the performance, if you know more how the data in the array is structured:
if the rows are sorted ascending, you can replace the inner for loop by a binary search
if the entire array is sorted ascending and the data does not repeat, e.g.
int[,] intarry = {{0,1,2}, {3,4,5}, {6,7,8}};
then you can exit the loop as soon as the item is found. The easiest way to do this to create
a function and add a return statement to the inner for loop.
Basically, for revision purposes tried to code a Binary Search algorithm in Processing. Decided to use Processing for convenience. Can anybody spot the error because its baffling me. Thanks :)
//Set size and font information.
size(400, 200);
background(0,0,0);
PFont font;
font = loadFont("Arial-Black-14.vlw");
textFont(font);
//Initialise the variables.
int[] intArray = new int[10];
int lower = 1;
int upper = 10;
int flag = 0;
int criteria = 10;
int element = 0;
//Populate the Array.
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
intArray[i] = i;
}
//Tell the user Array is filled.
text("Array Filled", 15, 20);
// Main loop.
while(flag == 0)
{
//Sets the element to search by finding mid point.
element = ((lower+upper)/2);
//Checks if the mid point is equal to search criteria.
if(intArray[element] == criteria)
{
flag = 1;
}
//Checks if the criteria is grater than the currently searched element.
else if(criteria > intArray[element])
{
lower = (element+1);
}
else
{
upper = (element-1);
}
//Checks if the lower value is higher than the upper value.
if(lower > upper)
{
flag = 2;
}
}
//If no match is found.
if(flag == 2)
{
text("Did not find criteria "+criteria, 15, 40);
}
//If a match is found.
else
{
text("Found "+criteria+" at index "+element+"", 15, 60);
}
When you initialize lower and upper, you set the values to 1 and 10, which is wrong. 1 and 10 would be the lowest and highest elements only if the array was 1-based (i.e. the first element is 1), but it's not, it's 0-based. Set the values to 0 and 9 and it should work.