Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 346
  • Last Modified:

C++ recusion

Hi I am trying to write a recursive function that adds an array of integers. When I run this it actually crashes the console window so I'm guessing I must be doing something wrong to create a stack overflow? Here is the main program with the function.

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size);

int main()
{
    int answer;
    int arrSize;
    cout << "how many numbers do you want to add" << endl;
    cin >> arrSize;
    int num[arrSize];
    for (int i = 0; i < arrSize; i++)
    {
        cout << "Enter number " << i + 1 << ": "; 
        cin >> num[i];
    }
    answer = sumOfElements(num,arrSize);
    cout << "The sum of the numbers entered is: " << answer << endl; 
    return 0;
}


int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size)
{   
    int sum = arr[0];
    if (size == 1) 
        return sum;
    else
        return sum+= sumOfElements(arr, size + 1);
            
}

Open in new window

0
Dmon443
Asked:
Dmon443
  • 9
  • 7
  • 3
2 Solutions
 
farzanjCommented:
One important thing in recursive programming is a valid stopping criteria--something that you are sure will always reach.  Your stopping criterion is size == 1.  While you are adding 1 to size for passing the next function.  I don't see how size value will ever converge to 1.  It so appears that it will keep on increasing so it will keep calling functions and will never get a chance to back track to the caller function.
0
 
Dmon443Author Commented:
ok now my second attempt with the help of your advice seems to be almost working but for some numbers it is not working eg if I add 5 numbers together 1 2 3 4 5 it throws out 5 as the answer and if I put them the opposite way 5 4 3 2 1 it throws out 25. Sometimes it works fine eg if I put 4 numbers 4 4 4 4 it gives the correct answer 16.

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size, int sum);

int main()
{
    int answer;
    int arrSize;
    int sum = 0;
    cout << "how many numbers do you want to add" << endl;
    cin >> arrSize;
    int num[arrSize];
    for (int i = 0; i < arrSize; i++)
    {
        cout << "Enter number " << i + 1 << ": "; 
        cin >> num[i];
    }
    sum = num[0];
    answer = sumOfElements(num,arrSize, sum);
    cout << "The sum of the numbers entered is: " << answer << endl; 
    return 0;
}


int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size, int sum)
{   
    if (size == 1) 
        return sum;
    else
        return sum+= sumOfElements(arr, size - 1, sum);
            
}

Open in new window

0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
Where are you actually adding elements of the array? I don't see you indexing the array anywhere.
0
Concerto's Cloud Advisory Services

Want to avoid the missteps to gaining all the benefits of the cloud? Learn more about the different assessment options from our Cloud Advisory team.

 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
P.S.

Think about the results you are getting and the numbers you are entering. Do you see any correlation in the fact that whenever you enter n identical numbers, you get a result that is n * [the number]?  Why is that?
0
 
farzanjCommented:
In recursive addition (or any recursive operations) all the work should be done in the recursive function which in your case is:

int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size, int sum)
{  
    if (size == 1)
        return sum;
    else
        return sum+= sumOfElements(arr, size - 1, sum);
           
}

If you are trying to add elements of array, you should be passing only the index NOT sum and the it should return value of that element like

return arr[index];
instead of return sum

The backtracking part should work fine now as you are doing size - 1 so size value will eventually reach value 1.
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
If you are trying to add elements of array, you should be passing only the index NOT sum and the it should return value of that element like

return arr[index];
instead of return sum
I think there's a mix-up of terminology going on in that statement. I agree that you should be "passing" some sort of index (or indexed value), but the "return" is valid as is written  = )
0
 
farzanjCommented:
You don't need sum parameter and termination should be 0.

Function should only be
if ( size > 0)
     return arr[size] + sumOfElements(arr, size - 1);
else
   return arr[0];
 
So, if the array has 3 elements, you should call it with size 2 initially.  There are sure other ways to do the same thing.
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
Aw farzanj...  I know you know better than this  ; )

return arr[size] ...

*grin*
0
 
Dmon443Author Commented:
Isn't return arr[size] and return arr[0] the same thing? Gives the same results when I try both and logically they are the same thing.

ok so now I have the function as follows:
int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int size)
{  
    if (size > 0)
        return arr[size]+ sumOfElements(arr, size - 1);
    else    
        return arr[0];
               
}
But now this is producing some weird results if I choose 3 numbers to add no matter what numbers I put in the answer is always 4199524 and if I choose 4 numbers same thing happens give a massive number like 4469876. But if I choose 5 numbers to add it works perfectly.
0
 
farzanjCommented:
Kaufmed, I always try to learn from you.  Here is the complete code that I wanted to say.  It works for me and it is recursive.  Kindly tell me how would you write it.  It produces the correct result in every situation.
#include<iostream>

using namespace std;
int sumOfElements(const int[], int);


int main()
{
	int arr[3] = {3, 5, 7};
	int sum = sumOfElements(arr, 2);
	cout << "Sum : " << sum << endl;

	//system("pause");
	return 0;
}

int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int index)
{
	if(index > 0)
	{
		return arr[index] + sumOfElements( arr, index -1);
	}
	else
	{
		return arr[0];
	}
}

Open in new window

0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
arr[size] should never be used because arrays are indexed starting at 0, and the maximum index of an array will be 1 less than its size. arr[size] would give you then next slot of memory after the last slot in the array, but since you haven't explicitly requested that slot (and set its value), there is no telling what is in that slot.
0
 
farzanjCommented:
Hi Kaufmed, I always try to learn from you.  This is my idea and it works fine.  I think my concept is pretty clear as well.  What would you suggest?

#include<iostream>

using namespace std;
int sumOfElements(const int[], int);


int main()
{
	int arr[3] = {3, 5, 7};
	int sum = sumOfElements(arr, 2);
	cout << "Sum : " << sum << endl;
	//system("pause");
	return 0;
}

int sumOfElements(const int arr[], int index)
{
	if(index > 0)
	{
		return arr[index] + sumOfElements( arr, index -1);
	}
	else
	{
		return arr[0];
	}
}

Open in new window

0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
@ farzanj
Kindly tell me how would you write it.  It produces the correct result in every situation.
Ah, but in your newest code you are using index rather than size. That is expected. I explained the use of size above (for Dmon443's benefit)  = )
0
 
farzanjCommented:
I was just using the size term as he was using it.  I always meant index.  I never meant size, sorry for the confusion.  You can see in my first response too as I said.

He has to pass the maximum index of array and it would reduce to 0 eventually.  But in the terminal case, I do not want another recursive call to the function that it why I used return arr[0] alone. Makes sense?
0
 
farzanjCommented:
Here is a slight variation in my main function:
int main()
{
	int arr[] = {3, 5, 7};
	int max_index = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int) -1 ;
	int sum = sumOfElements(arr, max_index);
	cout << "Sum : " << sum << endl;
	system("pause");
	return 0;
}

Open in new window


This way you can change the array arr without changing anything else.
0
 
Dmon443Author Commented:
Thanks guys, it's working perfectly now, learn't something new with index being one smaller than the size of the array.
0
 
farzanjCommented:
Kaufmed,  any better solution would be highly appreciated :)
0
 
käµfm³d 👽Commented:
@farzanj

I have no issue with the logic you posted. I was just confused by the terminology. If there's better logic out there, I don't know what it is  = )
0
 
farzanjCommented:
Thanks Kaufmed, appreciated.
0

Featured Post

VIDEO: THE CONCERTO CLOUD FOR HEALTHCARE

Modern healthcare requires a modern cloud. View this brief video to understand how the Concerto Cloud for Healthcare can help your organization.

  • 9
  • 7
  • 3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now