Advent of code 2021: Day 20- 5 minutes read - 1047 words
Hmpf. It’s now January and I’m still doing Advent. Still, I was determine to push ahead. Then I got stuck good and proper on Day 19 - though to be fair the whole Log4shell dumpster fire was taking up a lot of time, so I decided to skip it for now. Day 20 of Advent of Code 2021 was all about transforming images. What made it slightly more complicated was the fact that the images were nominally of infinite size.
According to the story, there is an image that needs to be enhanced. Each
pixel can either be a light pixel (
#) or a dark (
.). For the image transformation process, each of the neighbours
of a pixel is transformed into bits. For example, in the following image:
# . . # . #[. . .]. #[# . .]# .[. # .]. . . # # #
The central pixel is surrounded by
[. . .] [# . .] [. # .]
These nine pixels are turned into the binary number 000100010 (34 in decimal). That is then used as the index to look up the new value.
The complication with this problem statement is that the images are infinite, so there was an infinite number of pixels to consider. And that’s clearly not going to scale…
The bit that makes this simpler is that those infinite pixels all start out as dark pixels:
[. . .] [. . .] [. . .]
This turns into 000000000 = 0. On the example input, the lookup value for index 0 was another dark pixel, so a tile of dark pixels stays unchanged. On the puzzle input, the lookup value for index 0 was a light pixel though. This meant that the all the “infinite” pixels would change from dark to light.
[# # #] [# # #] [# # #]
Thankfully, the lookup value for index 111111111 = 511 was a dark pixel. So for every odd number of iterations, the infinite pixels would all turn light, for every even number of iterations, the pixels would turn dark.
Show me the codez - Part One
So first thing I did was to translate the input:
This would turn
[0,0,0,1,1,0,0]. This I could use to decode the lookup table for the “image
enhancement” as well as parsing the initial image. The data structure I chose for the image was a list of lists of ints
[[Int]] - this served me pretty well in part 1 for Day 8.
For part one of the problem, I had to determine how many pixels (including the infinite ones) would be light after 2 iterations. That was good, because it meant the infinite pixels would all turn light and then dark again. This meant I could ignore infinity. I’d just have to add a border around the input image to ensure that any infinite pixels that “touch” the image are actually processed.
Here’s the code for adding a border:
This would add
n rows and columns of 0s to the left, top, right and bottom of the input image.
Then I would process the image recursively in lines of threes. First we’d have a function that picks out the top three lines and then processes the columns:
The columns are processed be destructuring the input, so we’ve got the nine pixels in view, then using
algo !! to
lookup the transformed value (index-based lookup) and then recursively processing the next “window”:
I think this is quite neat, because using immutable lists I don’t need to worry about changing something that I need in a later calculations.
For part 2 of the puzzle, instead of doing 2 iterations of the “image processing” we were to do 50. As 50 was an even number, we could again “ignore” the infinite pixels.
Iterating the same operation is pretty simple in Haskell:
To unpack this:
iteratecalls the (curried) function
processLines algoon image, and then keeps calling it when the results are in a list. This list is infinite, but as Haskell is lazy it only computes it when it is used. And that’s what happens in
images !! 50picks the results of the 50th iteration.
- Then it concatenates the list of lists into one long list
- Then it filters that to lists where the pixel is light (
- And counts the pixels.
Rest of the solution on GitHub
I wasn’t really happy with this solution, as I endes up doing a bit of trial and error. How large would the added border of “infinite pixels” have to be to be, so that I could still make my calculations. All said and done the calculations lasted 28 seconds, which feels rather inefficient. I’m looking forward to checking other people’s solutions to see what could be improved on an algorithmic level. And maybe in the future I have to get back to these challenges to see how Haskell can be optimised here - sure that will be interesting.Tags functional haskell advent-of-code
If you'd like to find more of my writing, why not follow me on Twitter or Mastodon?