Related
I have to interleave a given array of the form
{a1,a2,....,an,b1,b2,...,bn}
as
{a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3}
in O(n) time and O(1) space.
Example:
Input - {1,2,3,4,5,6}
Output- {1,4,2,5,3,6}
This is the arrangement of elements by indices:
Initial Index Final Index
0 0
1 2
2 4
3 1
4 3
5 5
By observation after taking some examples, I found that ai (i<n/2) goes from index (i) to index (2i) & bi (i>=n/2) goes from index (i) to index (((i-n/2)*2)+1). You can verify this yourselves. Correct me if I am wrong.
However, I am not able to correctly apply this logic in code.
My pseudo code:
for (i = 0 ; i < n ; i++)
if(i < n/2)
swap(arr[i],arr[2*i]);
else
swap(arr[i],arr[((i-n/2)*2)+1]);
It's not working.
How can I write an algorithm to solve this problem?
Element bn is in the correct position already, so lets forget about it and only worry about the other N = 2n-1 elements. Notice that N is always odd.
Now the problem can be restated as "move the element at each position i to position 2i % N"
The item at position 0 doesn't move, so lets start at position 1.
If you start at position 1 and move it to position 2%N, you have to remember the item at position 2%N before you replace it. The the one from position 2%N goes to position 4%N, the one from 4%N goes to 8%N, etc., until you get back to position 1, where you can put the remaining item into the slot you left.
You are guaranteed to return to slot 1, because N is odd and multiplying by 2 mod an odd number is invertible. You are not guaranteed to cover all positions before you get back, though. The whole permutation will break into some number of cycles.
If you can start this process at one element from each cycle, then you will do the whole job. The trouble is figuring out which ones are done and which ones aren't, so you don't cover any cycle twice.
I don't think you can do this for arbitrary N in a way that meets your time and space constraints... BUT if N = 2x-1 for some x, then this problem is much easier, because each cycle includes exactly the cyclic shifts of some bit pattern. You can generate single representatives for each cycle (called cycle leaders) in constant time per index. (I'll describe the procedure in an appendix at the end)
Now we have the basis for a recursive algorithm that meets your constraints.
Given [a1...an,b1...bn]:
Find the largest x such that 2x <= 2n
Rotate the middle elements to create [a1...ax,b1...bx,ax+1...an,bx+1...bn]
Interleave the first part of the array in linear time using the above-described procedure, since it will have modulus 2x-1
Recurse to interleave the last part of the array.
Since the last part of the array we recurse on is guaranteed to be at most half the size of the original, we have this recurrence for the time complexity:
T(N) = O(N) + T(N/2)
= O(N)
And note that the recursion is a tail call, so you can do this in constant space.
Appendix: Generating cycle leaders for shifts mod 2x-1
A simple algorithm for doing this is given in a paper called "An algorithm for generating necklaces of beads in 2 colors" by Fredricksen and Kessler. You can get a PDF here: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82148295.pdf
The implementation is easy. Start with x 0s, and repeatedly:
Set the lowest order 0 bit to 1. Let this be bit y
Copy the lower order bits starting from the top
The result is a cycle leader if x-y divides x
Repeat until you have all x 1s
For example, if x=8 and we're at 10011111, the lowest 0 is bit 5. We switch it to 1 and then copy the remainder from the top to give 10110110. 8-5=3, though, and 3 does not divide 8, so this one is not a cycle leader and we continue to the next.
The algorithm I'm going to propose is probably not o(n).
It's not based on swapping elements but on moving elements which probably could be O(1) if you have a list and not an array.
Given 2N elements, at each iteration (i) you take the element in position N/2 + i and move it to position 2*i
a1,a2,a3,...,an,b1,b2,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,a3,...,an,b2,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,...,an,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3,...,an,...,bn
and so on.
example with N = 4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,5,2,3,4,6,7,8
1,5,2,6,3,4,7,8
1,5,2,6,3,7,4,8
One idea which is a little complex is supposing each location has the following value:
1, 3, 5, ..., 2n-1 | 2, 4, 6, ..., 2n
a1,a2, ..., an | b1, b2, ..., bn
Then using inline merging of two sorted arrays as explained in this article in O(n) time an O(1) space complexity. However, we need to manage this indexing during the process.
There is a practical linear time* in-place algorithm described in this question. Pseudocode and C code are included.
It involves swapping the first 1/2 of the items into the correct place, then unscrambling the permutation of the 1/4 of the items that got moved, then repeating for the remaining 1/2 array.
Unscrambling the permutation uses the fact that left items move into the right side with an alternating "add to end, swap oldest" pattern. We can find the i'th index in this permutation with this this rule:
For even i, the end was at i/2.
For odd i, the oldest was added to the end at step (i-1)/2
*The number of data moves is definitely O(N). The question asks for the time complexity of the unscramble index calculation. I believe it is no worse than O(lg lg N).
My mind is blown since I began, last week, trying to sort an array of N elements by condition: the difference between 2 elements being always less or equal to the next 2 elements. For example:
Α[4] = { 10, 2, 7, 4}
It is possible to rearrange that array this way:
{2, 7, 10, 4} because (2 - 7 = -5) < (7 - 10 = -3) < (10 - 4 = 6)
{4, 10, 7, 2} because (4 - 10 = -6) < (10 - 7 = 3) < (7 - 2 = 5)
One solution I considered was just shuffling the array and checking each time if it agreed with the conditions, an efficient method for a small number of elements, but time consuming or even impossible for a larger number of elements.
Another was trying to move elements around the array with loops, hoping again to meet the requirements, but again this method is very time consuming and also sometimes not possible.
Trying to find an algorithm doesn't seem to have any result but there must be something.
Thank you very much in advance.
I normally don't just provide code, but this question intrigued me, so here's a brute-force solution, that might get you started.
The concept will always be slow because the individual elements in the list to be sorted are not independent of each other, so they cannot be sorted using traditional O(N log N) algorithms. However, the differences can be sorted that way, which simplifies checking for a solution, and permutations could be checked in parallel to speed up the processing.
import os,sys
import itertools
def is_diff_sorted(qa):
diffs = [qa[i] - qa[i+1] for i in range(len(qa)-1)]
for i in range(len(diffs)-1):
if diffs[i] > diffs[i+1]:
return False
return True
a = [2,4,7,10]
#a = [1,4,6,7,20]
a.sort()
for perm in itertools.permutations(a):
if is_diff_sorted(perm):
print "Solution:",str(a)
break
This condition is related to differentiation. The (negative) difference between neighbouring elements has to be steady or increasing with increasing index. Multiply the condition by -1 and you get
a[i+1]-a[i] => a[i+2]-a[i+1]
or
0 => (a[i+2]-a[i+1])- (a[i+1]-a[i])
So the 2nd derivative has to be 0 or negative, which is the same as having the first derivative stay the same or changing downwards, like e.g. portions of the upper half of a circle. That does not means that the first derivative itself has to start out positive or negative, just that it never change upward.
The problem algorithmically is that it can't be a simple sort, since you never compare just 2 elements of the list, you'll have to compare three at a time (i,i+1,i+2).
So the only thing you know apart from random permutations is given in Klas` answer (values first rising if at all, then falling if at all), but his is not a sufficient condition since you can have a positive 2nd derivative in his two sets (rising/falling).
So is there a solution much faster than the random shuffle? I can only think of the following argument (similar to Klas' answer). For a given vector the solution is more likely if you separate the data into a 1st segment that is rising or steady (not falling) and a 2nd that is falling or steady (not rising) and neither is empty. Likely an argument could be made that the two segments should have approximately equal size. The rising segment should have the data that are closer together and the falling segment should contain data that are further apart. So one could start with the mean, and look for data that are close to it, move them to the first set,then look for more widely spaced data and move them to the 2nd set. So a histogram might help.
[4 7 10 2] --> diff [ 3 3 -8] --> 2diff [ 0 -11]
Here is a solution based on backtracking algorithm.
Sort input array in non-increasing order.
Start dividing the array's values into two subsets: put the largest element to both subsets (this would be the "middle" element), then place second largest one into arbitrary subset.
Sequentially put the remaining elements to either subset. If this cannot be done without violating the "difference" condition, use other subset. If both subsets are not acceptable, rollback and change preceding decisions.
Reverse one of the arrays produced on step 3 and concatenate it with other array.
Below is Python implementation (it is not perfect, the worst defect is recursive implementation: while recursion is quite common for backtracking algorithms, this particular algorithm seems to work in linear time, and recursion is not good for very large input arrays).
def is_concave_end(a, x):
return a[-2] - a[-1] <= a[-1] - x
def append_element(sa, halves, labels, which, x):
labels.append(which)
halves[which].append(x)
if len(labels) == len(sa) or split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
if which == 1 or not is_concave_end(halves[1], halves[0][-1]):
halves[which].pop()
labels.pop()
return False
labels[-1] = 1
halves[1].append(halves[0][-1])
halves[0].pop()
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
halves[1].pop()
labels.pop()
def split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
x = sa[len(labels)]
if len(halves[0]) < 2 or is_concave_end(halves[0], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 0, x)
if is_concave_end(halves[1], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 1, x)
def make_concave(a):
sa = sorted(a, reverse = True)
halves = [[sa[0]], [sa[0], sa[1]]]
labels = [0, 1]
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return list(reversed(halves[1][1:])) + halves[0]
print make_concave([10, 2, 7, 4])
It is not easy to produce a good data set to test this algorithm: plain set of random numbers either is too simple for this algorithm or does not have any solutions. Here I tried to generate a set that is "difficult enough" by mixing together two sorted lists, each satisfying the "difference" condition. Still this data set is processed in linear time. And I have no idea how to prepare any data set that would demonstrate more-than-linear time complexity of this algorithm...
Not that since the diffence should be ever-rising, any solution will have element first in rising order and then in falling order. The length of either of the two "suborders" may be 0, so a solution could consist of a strictly rising or strictly falling sequence.
The following algorithm will find any solutions:
Divide the set into two sets, A and B. Empty sets are allowed.
Sort A in rising order and B in falling order.
Concatenate the two sorted sets: AB
Check if you have a solution.
Do this for all possible divisions into A and B.
Expanding on the #roadrunner66 analysis, the solution is to take two smallest elements of the original array, and make them first and last in the target array; take two next smallest elements and make them second and next-to-last; keep going until all the elements are placed into the target. Notice that which one goes to the left, and which one to the right doesn't matter.
Sorting the original array facilitates the process (finding smallest elements becomes trivial), so the time complexity is O(n log n). The space complexity is O(n), because it requires a target array. I don't know off-hand if it is possible to do it in-place.
There is an array where all but one of the cells are 0, and we want to find the index of that single non-zero cell. The problem is, every time that you check for a cell in this array, that non-zero element will do one of the following:
move forward by 1
move backward by 1
stay where it is.
For example, if that element is currently at position 10, and I check what is in arr[5], then the element may be at position 9, 10 or 11 after I checked arr[5].
We only need to find the position where the element is currently at, not where it started at (which is impossible).
The hard part is, if we write a for loop, there really is no way to know if the element is currently in front of you, or behind you.
Some more context if it helps:
The interviewer did give a hint which is maybe I should move my pointer back after checking x-number of cells. The problem is, when should I move back, and by how many slots?
While "thinking out loud", I started saying a bunch of common approaches hoping that something would hit. When I said recursion, the interviewer did say "recursion is a good start". I don't know recursion really is the right approach, because I don't see how I can do recursion and #1 at the same time.
The interviewer said this problem can't be solved in O(n^2). So we are looking at at least O(n^3), or maybe even exponential.
Tl;dr: Your best bet is to keep checking each even index in the array in turn, wrapping around as many times as necessary until you find your target. On average you will stumble upon your target in the middle of your second pass.
First off, as many have already said, it is indeed impossible to ensure you will find your target element in any given amount of time. If the element knows where your next sample will be, it can always place itself somewhere else just in time. The best you can do is to sample the array in a way that minimizes the expected number of accesses - and because after each sample you learn nothing except if you were successful or not and a success means you stop sampling, an optimal strategy can be described simply as a sequence of indexes that should be checked, dependent only on the size of the array you're looking through. We can test each strategy in turn via automated means to see how well they perform. The results will depend on the specifics of the problem, so let's make some assumptions:
The question doesn't specify the starting position our target. Let us assume that the starting position is chosen uniformly from across the entire array.
The question doesn't specify the probability our target moves. For simplicity let's say it's independent on parameters such as the current position in the array, time passed and the history of samples. Using the probability 1/3 for each option gives us the least information, so let's use that.
Let us test our algorithms on an array of 100 101 elements. Also, let us test each algorithm one million times, just to be reasonably sure about its average case behavior.
The algorithms I've tested are:
Random sampling: after each attempt we forget where we were looking and choose an entirely new index at random. Each sample has an independent 1/n chance of succeeding, so we expect to take n samples on average. This is our control.
Sweep: try each position in sequence until our target is found. If our target wasn't moving, this would take n/2 samples on average. Our target is moving, however, so we may miss it on our first sweep.
Slow sweep: the same, except we test each position several times before moving on. Proposed by Patrick Trentin with a slowdown factor of 30x, tested with a slowdown factor of 2x.
Fast sweep: the opposite of slow sweep. After the first sample we skip (k-1) cells before testing the next one. The first pass starts at ary[0], the next at ary[1] and so on. Tested with each speed up factor (k) from 2 to 5.
Left-right sweep: First we check each index in turn from left to right, then each index from right to left. This algorithm would be guaranteed to find our target if it was always moving (which it isn't).
Smart greedy: Proposed by Aziuth. The idea behind this algorithm is that we track each cell probability of holding our target, then always sampling the cell with the highest probability. On one hand, this algorithm is relatively complex, on the other hand it sounds like it should give us the optimal results.
Results:
The results are shown as [average] ± [standard derivation].
Random sampling: 100.889145 ± 100.318212
At this point I have realised a fencepost error in my code. Good thing we have a control sample. This also establishes that we have in the ballpark of two or three digits of useful precision (sqrt #samples), which is in line with other tests of this type.
Sweep: 100.327030 ± 91.210692
The chance of our target squeezing through the net well counteracts the effect of the target taking n/2 time on average to reach the net. The algorithm doesn't really fare any better than a random sample on average, but it's more consistent in its performance and it isn't hard to implement either.
slow sweep (x0.5): 128.272588 ± 99.003681
While the slow movement of our net means our target will probably get caught in the net during the first sweep and won't need a second sweep, it also means the first sweep takes twice as long. All in all, relying on the target moving onto us seems a little inefficient.
fast sweep x2: 75.981733 ± 72.620600
fast sweep x3: 84.576265 ± 83.117648
fast sweep x4: 88.811068 ± 87.676049
fast sweep x5: 91.264716 ± 90.337139
That's... a little surprising at first. While skipping every other step means we complete each lap in twice as many turns, each lap also has a reduced chance of actually encountering the target. A nicer view is to compare Sweep and FastSweep in broom-space: rotate each sample so that the index being sampled is always at 0 and the target drifts towards the left a bit faster. In Sweep, the target moves at 0, 1 or 2 speed each step. A quick parallel with the Fibonacci base tells us that the target should hit the broom/net around 62% of the time. If it misses, it takes another 100 turns to come back. In FastSweep, the target moves at 1, 2 or 3 speed each step meaning it misses more often, but it also takes half as much time to retry. Since the retry time drops more than the hit rate, it is advantageous to use FastSweep over Sweep.
Left-right sweep: 100.572156 ± 91.503060
Mostly acts like an ordinary sweep, and its score and standard derivation reflect that. Not too surprising a result.
Aziuth's smart greedy: 87.982552 ± 85.649941
At this point I have to admit a fault in my code: this algorithm is heavily dependent on its initial behavior (which is unspecified by Aziuth and was chosen to be randomised in my tests). But performance concerns meant that this algorithm will always choose the same randomized order each time. The results are then characteristic of that randomisation rather than of the algorithm as a whole.
Always picking the most likely spot should find our target as fast as possible, right? Unfortunately, this complex algorithm barely competes with Sweep 3x. Why? I realise this is just speculation, but let us peek at the sequence Smart Greedy actually generates: During the first pass, each cell has equal probability of containing the target, so the algorithm has to choose. If it chooses randomly, it could pick up in the ballpark of 20% of cells before the dips in probability reach all of them. Afterwards the landscape is mostly smooth where the array hasn't been sampled recently, so the algorithm eventually stops sweeping and starts jumping around randomly. The real problem is that the algorithm is too greedy and doesn't really care about herding the target so it could pick at the target more easily.
Nevertheless, this complex algorithm does fare better than both simple Sweep and a random sampler. it still can't, however, compete with the simplicity and surprising efficiency of FastSweep. Repeated tests have shown that the initial randomisation could swing the efficiency anywhere between 80% run time (20% speedup) and 90% run time (10% speedup).
Finally, here's the code that was used to generate the results:
class WalkSim
attr_reader :limit, :current, :time, :p_stay
def initialize limit, p_stay
#p_stay = p_stay
#limit = limit
#current = rand (limit + 1)
#time = 0
end
def poke n
r = n == #current
#current += (rand(2) == 1 ? 1 : -1) if rand > #p_stay
#current = [0, #current, #limit].sort[1]
#time += 1
r
end
def WalkSim.bench limit, p_stay, runs
histogram = Hash.new{0}
runs.times do
sim = WalkSim.new limit, p_stay
gen = yield
nil until sim.poke gen.next
histogram[sim.time] += 1
end
histogram.to_a.sort
end
end
class Array; def sum; reduce 0, :+; end; end
def stats histogram
count = histogram.map{|k,v|v}.sum.to_f
avg = histogram.map{|k,v|k*v}.sum / count
variance = histogram.map{|k,v|(k-avg)**2*v}.sum / (count - 1)
{avg: avg, stddev: variance ** 0.5}
end
RUNS = 1_000_000
PSTAY = 1.0/3
LIMIT = 100
puts "random sampling"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {
Enumerator.new {|y|loop{y.yield rand (LIMIT + 1)}}
}
puts "sweep"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {
Enumerator.new {|y|loop{0.upto(LIMIT){|i|y.yield i}}}
}
puts "x0.5 speed sweep"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {
Enumerator.new {|y|loop{0.upto(LIMIT){|i|2.times{y.yield i}}}}
}
(2..5).each do |speed|
puts "x#{speed} speed sweep"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {
Enumerator.new {|y|loop{speed.times{|off|off.step(LIMIT, speed){|i|y.yield i}}}}
}
end
puts "sweep LR"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {
Enumerator.new {|y|loop{
0.upto(LIMIT){|i|y.yield i}
LIMIT.downto(0){|i|y.yield i}
}}
}
$sg_gen = Enumerator.new do |y|
probs = Array.new(LIMIT + 1){1.0 / (LIMIT + 1)}
loop do
ix = probs.each_with_index.map{|v,i|[v,rand,i]}.max.last
probs[ix] = 0
probs = [probs[0] * (1 + PSTAY)/2 + probs[1] * (1 - PSTAY)/2,
*probs.each_cons(3).map{|a, b, c| (a + c) / 2 * (1 - PSTAY) + b * PSTAY},
probs[-1] * (1 + PSTAY)/2 + probs[-2] * (1 - PSTAY)/2]
y.yield ix
end
end
$sg_cache = []
def sg_enum; Enumerator.new{|y| $sg_cache.each{|n| y.yield n}; $sg_gen.each{|n| $sg_cache.push n; y.yield n}}; end
puts "smart greedy"
p stats WalkSim.bench(LIMIT, PSTAY, RUNS) {sg_enum}
no forget everything about loops.
copy this array to another array and then check what cells are now non-zero. for example if your main array is mainArray[] you can use:
int temp[sizeOfMainArray]
int counter = 0;
while(counter < sizeOfArray)
{
temp[counter] == mainArray[counter];
}
//then check what is non-zero in copied array
counter = 0;
while(counter < sizeOfArray)
{
if(temp[counter] != 0)
{
std::cout<<"I Found It!!!";
}
}//end of while
One approach perhaps :
i - Have four index variables f,f1,l,l1. f is pointing at 0,f1 at 1, l is pointing at n-1 (end of the array) and l1 at n-2 (second last element)
ii - Check the elements at f1 and l1 - are any of them non zero ? If so stop. If not, check elements at f and l (to see if the element has jumped back 1).
iii - If f and l are still zero, increment the indexes and repeat step ii. Stop when f1 > l1
Iff an equality check against an array index makes the non-zero element jump.
Why not think of a way where we don't really require an equality check with an array index?
int check = 0;
for(int i = 0 ; i < arr.length ; i++) {
check |= arr[i];
if(check != 0)
break;
}
Orrr. Maybe you can keep reading arr[mid]. The non-zero element will end up there. Some day. Reasoning: Patrick Trentin seems to have put it in his answer (somewhat, its not really that, but you'll get an idea).
If you have some information about the array, maybe we can come up with a niftier approach.
Ignoring the trivial case where the 1 is in the first cell of the array if you iterate through the array testing each element in turn you must eventually get to the position i where the 1 is in cell i+2. So when you read cell i+1 one of three things is going to happen.
The 1 stays where it is, you're going to find it next time you look
The 1 moves away from you, your back to the starting position with the 1 at i+2 next time
The 1 moves to cell you've just checked, it dodged your scan
Re-reading the i+1 cell will find the 1 in case 3 but just give it another chance to move in cases 1 and 2 so a strategy based on re-reading won't work.
My option would therefore to adopt a brute force approach, if I keep scanning the array then I'm going to hit case 1 at some point and find the elusive 1.
Assumptions:
The array is no true array. This is obvious given the problem. We got some class that behaves somewhat like an array.
The array is mostly hidden. The only public operations are [] and size().
The array is obfuscated. We cannot get any information by retrieving it's address and then analyze the memory at that position. Even if we iterate through the whole memory of our system, we can't do tricks due to some advanced cryptographic means.
Every field of the array has the same probability to be the first field that hosts the one.
We know the probabilities of how the one changes it's position when triggered.
Probability controlled algorithm:
Introduce another array of same size, the probability array (over double).
This array is initialized with all fields to be 1/size.
Every time we use [] on the base array, the probability array changes in this way:
The accessed position is set to zero (did not contain the one)
An entry becomes the sum of it's neighbors times the probability of that neighbor to jump to the entries position. (prob_array_next_it[i] = prob_array_last_it[i-1]*prob_jump_to_right + prob_array_last_it[i+1]*prob_jump_to_left + prob_array_last_it[i]*prob_dont_jump, different for i=0 and i=size-1 of course)
The probability array is normalized (setting one entry to zero set the sum of the probabilities to below one)
The algorithm accesses the field with the highest probability (chooses amongst those that have)
It might be able to optimize this by controlling the flow of probabilities, but that needs to be based on the wandering event and might require some research.
No algorithm that tries to solve this problem is guaranteed to terminate after some time. For a complexity, we would analyze the average case.
Example:
Jump probabilities are 1/3, nothing happens if trying to jump out of bounds
Initialize:
Hidden array: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Probability array: 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8
1/8 1/8 1/8
First iteration: try [0] -> failure
Hidden array: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 (no jump)
Probability array step 1: 0
1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8
Probability array step 2: 1/24 2/24 1/8
1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8
Probability array step 2: same normalized (whole array * 8/7):
1/21 2/21 1/7
1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 1/7
Second iteration: try [2] as 1/7 is the maximum and this is the first field with 1/7 -> success (example should be clear by now, of course this might not work so fast on another example, had no interest of doing this for a lot of iterations since the probabilities would get cumbersome to compute by hand, would need to implement it. Note that if the one jumped to the left, we wouldn't have checked it so fast, even if it remained there for some time)
I have a bit of a technical issue, but I feel like it should be possible with MATLAB's powerful toolset.
What I have is a random n by n matrix of 0's and w's, say generated with
A=w*(rand(n,n)<p);
A typical value of w would be 3000, but that should not matter too much.
Now, this matrix has two important quantities, the vectors
c = sum(A,1);
r = sum(A,2)';
These are two row vectors, the first denotes the sum of each column and the second the sum of each row.
What I want to do next is randomize each value of w, for example between 0.5 and 2. This I would do as
rand_M = (0.5-2).*rand(n,n) + 0.5
A_rand = rand_M.*A;
However, I don't want to just pick these random numbers: I want them to be such that for every column and row, the sums are still equal to the elements of c and r. So to clean up the notation a bit, say we define
A_rand_c = sum(A_rand,1);
A_rand_r = sum(A_rand,2)';
I want that for all j = 1:n, A_rand_c(j) = c(j) and A_rand_r(j) = r(j).
What I'm looking for is a way to redraw the elements of rand_M in a sort of algorithmic fashion I suppose, so that these demands are finally satisfied.
Now of course, unless I have infinite amounts of time this might not really happen. I therefore accept these quantities to fall into a specific range: A_rand_c(j) has to be an element of [(1-e)*c(j),(1+e)*c(j)] and A_rand_r(j) of [(1-e)*r(j),(1+e)*r(j)]. This e I define beforehand, say like 0.001 or something.
Would anyone be able to help me in the process of finding a way to do this? I've tried an approach where I just randomly repick the numbers, but this really isn't getting me anywhere. It does not have to be crazy efficient either, I just need it to work in finite time for networks of size, say, n = 50.
To be clear, the final output is the matrix A_rand that satisfies these constraints.
Edit:
Alright, so after thinking a bit I suppose it might be doable with some while statement, that goes through every element of the matrix. The difficult part is that there are four possibilities: if you are in a specific element A_rand(i,j), it could be that A_rand_c(j) and A_rand_r(i) are both too small, both too large, or opposite. The first two cases are good, because then you can just redraw the random number until it is smaller than the current value and improve the situation. But the other two cases are problematic, as you will improve one situation but not the other. I guess it would have to look at which criteria is less satisfied, so that it tries to fix the one that is worse. But this is not trivial I would say..
You can take advantage of the fact that rows/columns with a single non-zero entry in A automatically give you results for that same entry in A_rand. If A(2,5) = w and it is the only non-zero entry in its column, then A_rand(2,5) = w as well. What else could it be?
You can alternate between finding these single-entry rows/cols, and assigning random numbers to entries where the value doesn't matter.
Here's a skeleton for the process:
A_rand=zeros(size(A)) is the matrix you are going to fill
entries_left = A>0 is a binary matrix showing which entries in A_rand you still need to fill
col_totals=sum(A,1) is the amount you still need to add in every column of A_rand
row_totals=sum(A,2) is the amount you still need to add in every row of A_rand
while sum( entries_left(:) ) > 0
% STEP 1:
% function to fill entries in A_rand if entries_left has rows/cols with one nonzero entry
% you will need to keep looping over this function until nothing changes
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals every time you loop
% STEP 2:
% let (i,j) be the indeces of the next non-zero entry in entries_left
% assign a random number to A_rand(i,j) <= col_totals(j) and <= row_totals(i)
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals
end
update()
A_rand(i,j) = random_value;
entries_left(i,j) = 0;
col_totals(j) = col_totals(j) - random_value;
row_totals(i) = row_totals(i) - random_value;
end
Picking the range for random_value might be a little tricky. The best I can think of is to draw it from a relatively narrow distribution centered around N*w*p where p is the probability of an entry in A being nonzero (this would be the average value of row/column totals).
This doesn't scale well to large matrices as it will grow with n^2 complexity. I tested it for a 200 by 200 matrix and it worked in about 20 seconds.
There is an integer array, for eg.
{3,1,2,7,5,6}
One can move forward through the array either each element at a time or can jump a few elements based on the value at that index. For e.g., one can go from 3 to 1 or 3 to 7, then one can go from 1 to 2 or 1 to 2(no jumping possible here), then one can go 2 to 7 or 2 to 5, then one can go 7 to 5 only coz index of 7 is 3 and adding 7 to 3 = 10 and there is no tenth element.
I have to only count the number of possible paths to reach the end of the array from start index.
I could only do it recursively and naively which runs in exponential time.
Somebody plz help.
My recommendation: use dynamic programming.
If this key word is sufficient and you want the challenge to find a possible solution on your own, dont read any further!
Here a possible DP-algorithm on the example input {3,1,2,7,5,6}. It will be your job to adjust on the general problem.
create array sol length 6 with just zeros in it. the array will hold the number of ways.
sol[5] = 1;
for (i = 4; i>=0;i--) {
sol[i] = sol[i+1];
if (i+input[i] < 6 && input[i] != 1)
sol[i] += sol[i+input[i]];
}
return sol[0];
runtime O(n)
As for the directed graph solution hinted in the comments :
Each cell in the array represents a node. Make an directed edge from each node to the node accessable. Basically you can then count more easily the number of ways by just looking at the outdegrees on the nodes (since there is no directed cycle) however it is a lot of boiler plate to actual program it.
Adjusting the recursive solution
another solution would be to pruning. This is basically equivalent to the DP-algorithm. The exponentiel time comes from the fact, that you calculate values several times. Eg function is recfunc(index). The initial call recFunc(0) calls recFunc(1) and recFunc(3) and so on. However recFunc(3) is bound to be called somewhen again, which leads to a repeated recursive calculation. To prune this you add a Map to hold all already calculated values. If you make a call recFunc(x) you lookup in the map if x was already calculated. If yes, return the stored value. If not, calculate, store and return it. This way you get a O(n) too.