A community for students. Sign up today!
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
 2 years ago
Test your recursion skills.
Given an integer array `a` of size `n`, write a recursive function with prototype
```
int findmin(int a[], int n);
```
that finds the minimum element of the array.
 2 years ago
Test your recursion skills. Given an integer array `a` of size `n`, write a recursive function with prototype ``` int findmin(int a[], int n); ``` that finds the minimum element of the array.

This Question is Open

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1If only there were a “spoilers” style so we could post code that was hidden unless highlighted ;)

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I actually asked this question because I wanted to test a way to post code in OS. It turns out to be very cumbersome (or perhaps I'm missing an alreadyexisting code tag somewhere?).

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1@farmdawgnation was awesome a while back and added triplebacktick delimiting of code, Githubstyle. e.g.: ``` int findmin(int a[], int n) { if (n <= 0) return // uhoh, dat bounds checking else if (n == 1) return // something? else { // what magic goeth here? } } ```

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1You can use single backticks around something to mark it as inline code, or three on either side for blocks.

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1And I think if you want to give the syntax highlighter a hint, you can put the language name after the three backticks, assuming it recognizes the language. Could be wrong about that part, I haven't used it too much :)

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Oh, wow! That looks really nice.

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1The puzzling question for me is, is there a way to make a tailrecursive min function… Ahhah, I think I've figured that one out as well.

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Backticks have to be on their own line :) The live preview should be highlighting things for you as you go as well.

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0`test` ``` #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main() { return 0; } ```

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0You guys are awesome. ;)

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I'm just happy I got the tail recursive version. Boom!

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Post it! This is the best tailrecursive version I could come up with: ``` int findmin(int a[], int n) { static int *min; if (min == 0) min = new int(a[n  1]); else if (*min > a[n  1]) *min = a[n  1]; if (n == 1) return *min; else return findmin(a, n  1); } ```

bdean20
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I did this in python in a few different ways. http://pastebin.com/LZAkS8Ge btw, what markup code do you use to show code?

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Ew statics ;) Tail recursion is of course only really useful if the host language supports tail recursion optimizations. I used a helper function: ```cpp int findmin(int a[], int n) { if (n <= 0) return 1; // arbitrary “no minimum” value, not really a good idea else findmin(a[0], a[1..n  1], n  1); } int findmin(int lastmin, int a[], int n) { if (n <= 0) return lastmin; else { int currentmin = lastmin; if (a[0] < currentmin) currentmin = a[0]; findmin(currentmin, a[1..n  1], n  1); } } ``` You actually did a clever trick I'd forgotten about by using n as an index, avoiding copying the array. Solid goodness there, and here's an update of mine to do that: ```cpp int findmin(int a[], int n) { if (n <= 0) return 1; // arbitrary “no minimum” value, not really a good idea else return findmin(a[n  1], a, n  1); } int findmin(int lastmin, int a[], int n) { if (n <= 0) return lastmin; else { int currentmin = lastmin; if (a[n  1] < currentmin) currentmin = a[n  1]; return findmin(currentmin, a, n  1); } } ``` Implemented in Scala: ```scala def findmin(a: List[Int]): Option[Int] = { a match { case first :: rest => findmin(first, rest) case _ => None // otherwise } } @scala.annotation.tailrec def findmin(currentMin: Int, a: List[Int]): Option[Int] = { a match { case first :: Nil if currentMin < first => Some(currentMin) case first :: Nil => Some(first) case first :: rest if currentMin < first => findmin(currentMin, rest) case first :: rest => findmin(first, rest) case _ => None } } ``` The upside of the above is that the `@scala.annotation.tailrec` asks the compiler to doublecheck that we're tail recursive (we are :p). The Scala compiler will automatically optimize tail recursion regardless of whether the annotation is present. I also think it reads better ;)

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Also worth mentioning about the Scala example above, the most basic collection in Scala is a List, which is a linked list. We're unpacking it in the match statements into the first part vs the rest of the List (much like Lisps let you via car/cdr or head/rest).

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I see! I had forgotten how helpful helper functions (you don't say?) can be. Also, I don't think it can get any shorter than this C implementation a friend came up with: ``` int findmin(int a[], int n) { if (n == 1) return a[0]; n; return f(a + (a[0] > a[n]), n); } ``` These guys are monsters. I feel so behind when it comes to programming. T_T

rsmith6559
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Is this worth considering? #include <limits.h> int findmin( int a[], int n ) { int m; if( !n ) return( INT_MAX ); m = findmin( a, n ); return( a[n] < m ? a[n] : m ); }

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Succinctness is not the only goal of programming. Indeed, it's often an antigoal. @rsmith6559 my only problem with that one is that it seems to attend to edge cases but doesn't (what happens with a negative n?). And that it relies on INT_MAX, which always seems nasty even if technically correct. Then again, there's no good way to deal with a negative n or indeed any invalid entry.

rsmith6559
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Dealing with a negative n isn't really the responsibility of this function. It should be validated by the calling code. INT_MAX would be the most likely value that would always be eliminated in the comparisons, and it's portable!

across
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0That's a good question: is it considered proper coding to implement errorhandling procedures in functions, or to have the client file or whoever is using those functions validate the input passed?

rsmith6559
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0FWIW, in the cases of iteration or recursion, having the calling code handle validation will certainly execute faster. One check, instead of however many iterations checks. IMO, the answer is a very clear interface, and clear documentation/commenting. I don't see any issue, besides the speed, either way, but to be successful the implementer and client programmers need to be pretty much in lock step.

shadowfiend
 2 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Honestly, in the version with a helper, it's reasonable to only check at the entry point and take the check out of the helper. But in a language like C, where stuff like that is completely unsafe, it's rarely a good idea to eliminate the check altogether. In a language that carries length with the array, it's obviously a different matter. I agree that INT_MAX is perfectly valid. But the problem with it is that INT_MAX could actually be the minimum, so what does it mean if the function returns INT_MAX? Was there invalid information or was it the minimum value in the list? Most C functions seem to deal with this via a passed in pointertoanerrorflag of some sort. It's nasty, but it works.
Ask your own question
Ask a QuestionFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.