Stream.max(Integer::max) : Unexpected result [duplicate]

Question

I'm studying for 1z0-809 : Java SE 8 Programmer II using Enthuware's mocktests.

Encountering this question.

List<Integer> ls = Arrays.asList(3,4,6,9,2,5,7);

System.out.println(ls.stream().reduce(Integer.MIN_VALUE, (a, b)->a>b?a:b)); //1
System.out.println(ls.stream().max(Integer::max).get()); //2
System.out.println(ls.stream().max(Integer::compare).get()); //3
System.out.println(ls.stream().max((a, b)->a>b?a:b)); //4   

Which of the above statements will print 9?

Answer is

1 and 3

But there is something else. I don't get why

System.out.println(ls.stream().max(Integer::max).get()); // PRINTS 3

---

I tried to debug it using peek but it doesn't help me understanding.

I tried to sort ls using Integer::max and Integer::compare

ls.sort(Integer::max);     // [3, 4, 6, 9, 2, 5, 7]
ls.sort(Integer::compare); // [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]

Of course, I get the fact that Integer::max is not a Comparator, hence it has the same signature of one. For me, max should be 7 in the first case since it is the last element like when I sorted with Integer::compare

Could someone break it down to something simple?

Answer 1

Integer.max(a, b) will return the greater value of the given a and b. If you use that result somehow as a comparator, a positive value returned will be regarded as meaning that a > b so a will be kept.

The first two elements are 3 and 4. Both are positive. Integer.max(3, 4) = 4 > 0. So you're effectively saying that 3 > 4 with such a comparator, so 3 is kept. Then, the same goes for the rest: Integer.max(3, 6) = 6 > 0, so 3 is considered the max, etc.

Answer 2

You need to replace

.max(Integer::max)

with

.max(Integer::compare)

---

The problem here is that the abstract method compare is declared to return an int value and that is also satisfied by the signature of Integer.max along with method Integer.compare in the Integer class, hence the representation Integer::max is inferred as a valid Comparator. Though the compare method is expected to be implemented such as it:

Returns a negative integer, zero, or a positive integer as the first argument is less than, equal to, or greater than the second.

In your current scenario, the code always ends up returning a positive value (given the input) and therefore the first element in comparison is considered to be greater always and thus returned accordingly.

Answer 3

The contract of a comparator method (on arguments first, second) is:

• return 0 if first equals second
• return negative value if first < second
• return positive value if first > second

The max method with only positive values will always return a positive value. When interpreting the return value according to the comparator contract, a positive value means first > second. As a result, the ordering of items will not change, they appear to be "ordered".