Inspired by Raymond Chen's post, say you have a 4x4 two dimensional array, write a function that rotates it 90 degrees. Raymond links to a solution in pseudo code, but I'd like to see some real world stuff.
[1][2][3][4]
[5][6][7][8]
[9][0][1][2]
[3][4][5][6]
Becomes:
[3][9][5][1]
[4][0][6][2]
[5][1][7][3]
[6][2][8][4]
Update: Nick's answer is the most straightforward, but is there a way to do it better than n^2? What if the matrix was 10000x10000?
Here it is in C#
int[,] array = new int[4,4] {
{ 1,2,3,4 },
{ 5,6,7,8 },
{ 9,0,1,2 },
{ 3,4,5,6 }
};
int[,] rotated = RotateMatrix(array, 4);
static int[,] RotateMatrix(int[,] matrix, int n) {
int[,] ret = new int[n, n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < n; ++j) {
ret[i, j] = matrix[n - j - 1, i];
}
}
return ret;
}
Here's my Ruby version (note the values aren't displayed the same, but it still rotates as described).
def rotate(matrix)
result = []
4.times { |x|
result[x] = []
4.times { |y|
result[x][y] = matrix[y][3 - x]
}
}
result
end
matrix = []
matrix[0] = [1,2,3,4]
matrix[1] = [5,6,7,8]
matrix[2] = [9,0,1,2]
matrix[3] = [3,4,5,6]
def print_matrix(matrix)
4.times { |y|
4.times { |x|
print "#{matrix[x][y]} "
}
puts ""
}
end
print_matrix(matrix)
puts ""
print_matrix(rotate(matrix))
The output:
1 5 9 3
2 6 0 4
3 7 1 5
4 8 2 6
4 3 2 1
8 7 6 5
2 1 0 9
6 5 4 3
Nick's answer would work for an NxM array too with only a small modification (as opposed to an NxN).
string[,] orig = new string[n, m];
string[,] rot = new string[m, n];
...
for ( int i=0; i < n; i++ )
for ( int j=0; j < m; j++ )
rot[j, n - i - 1] = orig[i, j];
One way to think about this is that you have moved the center of the axis (0,0) from the top left corner to the top right corner. You're simply transposing from one to the other.
A couple of people have already put up examples which involve making a new array.
A few other things to consider:
(a) Instead of actually moving the data, simply traverse the "rotated" array differently.
(b) Doing the rotation in-place can be a little trickier. You'll need a bit of scratch place (probably roughly equal to one row or column in size). There's an ancient ACM paper about doing in-place transposes (http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/355719.355729), but their example code is nasty goto-laden FORTRAN.
Addendum:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/355611.355612 is another, supposedly superior, in-place transpose algorithm.
Without using XOR, this can be done with two temporary scalar variables.
Thanks for the answers thus far. Nick's answer was the first, most straightforward, but is there a way to do it better than n^2? What if the matrix was 10000x10000? Or higher?
edit: Kyle - you're right, I saw the nested for loops and assumed n^2... what I get for doing this after the work day :). My memory of matrix operations is foggy at best, but is there a multiplication to do this quickly?
@swilliams
Nick's answer isn't O(n^2), it's O(n), and I don't think you'll find any faster algorithm so long as there's no way to address rows or columns as groups. You have to pass through each element in order to swap them.
Nick's answer is O(n.n) since the number of operations increases with the square of the rank of the matrix, so a rank 4 matrix (4x4) requires 16 operations and a rank 5 requires 25 operations.
I have an O(1) algorithm, but it's getting late here so I'll post the code tomorrow (ooohh, the suspense!)
Skizz
As I said in my previous post, here's some code in C# that implements an O(1) matrix rotation for any size matrix. For brevity and readability there's no error checking or range checking. The code:
static void Main (string [] args)
{
int [,]
// create an arbitrary matrix
m = {{0, 1}, {2, 3}, {4, 5}};
Matrix
// create wrappers for the data
m1 = new Matrix (m),
m2 = new Matrix (m),
m3 = new Matrix (m);
// rotate the matricies in various ways - all are O(1)
m1.RotateClockwise90 ();
m2.Rotate180 ();
m3.RotateAnitclockwise90 ();
// output the result of transforms
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine (m1.ToString ());
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine (m2.ToString ());
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine (m3.ToString ());
}
class Matrix
{
enum Rotation
{
None,
Clockwise90,
Clockwise180,
Clockwise270
}
public Matrix (int [,] matrix)
{
m_matrix = matrix;
m_rotation = Rotation.None;
}
// the transformation routines
public void RotateClockwise90 ()
{
m_rotation = (Rotation) (((int) m_rotation + 1) & 3);
}
public void Rotate180 ()
{
m_rotation = (Rotation) (((int) m_rotation + 2) & 3);
}
public void RotateAnitclockwise90 ()
{
m_rotation = (Rotation) (((int) m_rotation + 3) & 3);
}
// accessor property to make class look like a two dimensional array
public int this [int row, int column]
{
get
{
int
value = 0;
switch (m_rotation)
{
case Rotation.None:
value = m_matrix [row, column];
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise90:
value = m_matrix [m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0) - column, row];
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise180:
value = m_matrix [m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0) - row, m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1) - column];
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise270:
value = m_matrix [column, m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1) - row];
break;
}
return value;
}
set
{
switch (m_rotation)
{
case Rotation.None:
m_matrix [row, column] = value;
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise90:
m_matrix [m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0) - column, row] = value;
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise180:
m_matrix [m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0) - row, m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1) - column] = value;
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise270:
m_matrix [column, m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1) - row] = value;
break;
}
}
}
// creates a string with the matrix values
public override string ToString ()
{
int
num_rows = 0,
num_columns = 0;
switch (m_rotation)
{
case Rotation.None:
case Rotation.Clockwise180:
num_rows = m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0);
num_columns = m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1);
break;
case Rotation.Clockwise90:
case Rotation.Clockwise270:
num_rows = m_matrix.GetUpperBound (1);
num_columns = m_matrix.GetUpperBound (0);
break;
}
StringBuilder
output = new StringBuilder ();
output.Append ("{");
for (int row = 0 ; row <= num_rows ; ++row)
{
if (row != 0)
{
output.Append (", ");
}
output.Append ("{");
for (int column = 0 ; column <= num_columns ; ++column)
{
if (column != 0)
{
output.Append (", ");
}
output.Append (this [row, column].ToString ());
}
output.Append ("}");
}
output.Append ("}");
return output.ToString ();
}
int [,]
// the original matrix
m_matrix;
Rotation
// the current view of the matrix
m_rotation;
}
OK, I'll put my hand up, it doesn't actually do any modifications to the original array when rotating. But, in an OO system that doesn't matter as long as the object looks like it's been rotated to the clients of the class. At the moment, the Matrix class uses references to the original array data so changing any value of m1 will also change m2 and m3. A small change to the constructor to create a new array and copy the values to it will sort that out.
Skizz
Here is one that does the rotation in place instead of using a completely new array to hold the result. I've left off initialization of the array and printing it out. This only works for square arrays but they can be of any size. Memory overhead is equal to the size of one element of the array so you can do the rotation of as large an array as you want. (code is C++)
int a[4][4];
int n=4;
int tmp;
for (int i=0; i<n/2; i++){
for (int j=i; j<n-i-1; j++){
tmp=a[i][j];
a[i][j]=a[j][n-i-1];
a[j][n-i-1]=a[n-i-1][n-j-1];
a[n-i-1][n-j-1]=a[n-j-1][i];
a[n-j-1][i]=tmp;
}
}
@dagorym: Aw, man. I had been hanging onto this as a good "I'm bored, what can I ponder" puzzle. I came up with my in-place transposition code, but got here to find yours pretty much identical to mine...ah, well. Here it is in Ruby.
require 'pp'
n = 10
a = []
n.times { a << (1..n).to_a }
pp a
0.upto(n/2-1) do |i|
i.upto(n-i-2) do |j|
tmp = a[i][j]
a[i][j] = a[n-j-1][i]
a[n-j-1][i] = a[n-i-1][n-j-1]
a[n-i-1][n-j-1] = a[j][n-i-1]
a[j][n-i-1] = tmp
end
end
pp a
Whilst rotating the data in place might be necessary (perhaps to update the physically stored representation), it becomes simpler and possibly more performant to add a layer of indirection onto the array access, perhaps an interface:
interface IReadableMatrix
{
int GetValue(int x, int y);
}
If your Matrix already implements this interface, then it can be rotated via a decorator class like this:
class RotatedMatrix : IReadableMatrix
{
private readonly IReadableMatrix _baseMatrix;
public RotatedMatrix(IReadableMatrix baseMatrix)
{
_baseMatrix = baseMatrix;
}
int GetValue(int x, int y)
{
// transpose x and y dimensions
return _baseMatrix(y, x);
}
}
Rotating +90/-90/180 degrees, flipping horizontally/vertically and scaling can all be achieved in this fashion as well.
Performance would need to be measured. However the O(n^2) operation has now been replaced with an O(1) call. It's a virtual method call which is slower than direct array access, so it depends upon how frequently the rotated array is used after rotation. If it's used once, then this approach would definitely win. If it's rotated then used in a long-running system for days, then in-place rotation might perform better. It also depends whether you can accept the up-front cost.
As with all performance issues, measure, measure, measure!
Complete real-world code for this problem:
|."1 |: array
The language is J, by K.E. Iverson. http://www.jsoftware.com/
# include<iostream>
# include<iomanip>
using namespace std;
const int SIZE=3;
void print(int a[][SIZE],int);
void rotate(int a[][SIZE],int);
void main()
{
int a[SIZE][SIZE]={{11,22,33},{44,55,66},{77,88,99}};
cout<<"the array befor rotate\n";
print(a,SIZE);
rotate( a,SIZE);
cout<<"the array after rotate\n";
print(a,SIZE);
cout<<endl;
}
void print(int a[][SIZE],int SIZE)
{
int i,j;
for(i=0;i<SIZE;i++)
for(j=0;j<SIZE;j++)
cout<<a[i][j]<<setw(4);
}
void rotate(int a[][SIZE],int SIZE)
{
int temp[3][3],i,j;
for(i=0;i<SIZE;i++)
for(j=0;j<SIZE/2.5;j++)
{
temp[i][j]= a[i][j];
a[i][j]= a[j][SIZE-i-1] ;
a[j][SIZE-i-1] =temp[i][j];
}
}
This a better version of it in Java: I've made it for a matrix with a different width and height
public int[][] rotateMatrixRight(int[][] matrix)
{
/* W and H are already swapped */
int w = matrix.length;
int h = matrix[0].length;
int[][] ret = new int[h][w];
for (int i = 0; i < h; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < w; ++j) {
ret[i][j] = matrix[w - j - 1][i];
}
}
return ret;
}
public int[][] rotateMatrixLeft(int[][] matrix)
{
/* W and H are already swapped */
int w = matrix.length;
int h = matrix[0].length;
int[][] ret = new int[h][w];
for (int i = 0; i < h; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < w; ++j) {
ret[i][j] = matrix[j][h - i - 1];
}
}
return ret;
}
This code is based on Nick Berardi's post.
PHP:
<?php
$a = array(array(1,2,3,4),array(5,6,7,8),array(9,0,1,2),array(3,4,5,6));
$b = array(); //result
while(count($a)>0)
{
$b[count($a[0])-1][] = array_shift($a[0]);
if (count($a[0])==0)
{
array_shift($a);
}
}
?>
James Lin [email protected]
All the current solutions have O(n^2) overhead as scratch space (this excludes those filthy OOP cheaters!). Here's a solution with O(1) memory usage, rotating the matrix in-place 90 degress right. Screw extensibility, this sucker runs fast!
#include <algorithm>
#include <cstddef>
// Rotates an NxN matrix of type T 90 degrees to the right.
template <typename T, size_t N>
void rotate_matrix(T (&matrix)[N][N])
{
for(size_t i = 0; i < N; ++i)
for(size_t j = 0; j <= (N-i); ++j)
std::swap(matrix[i][j], matrix[j][i]);
}
DISCLAIMER: I didn't actually test this. Let's play whack-a-bug!
A detailed explanation of Array rotation problem with 7 possible solution with Code and Time & Space Complexities at