I was reading about static array queries and this is what I found:
Minimum Queries: There is an O(nlogn) time preprocessing method after which we can answer any minimum query in O(1) time.
The idea is to precalculate all values of min(a, b) where b - a + 1 (the length of the range) is a power of two. The number of precalculated values is O(nlogn), because there are O(logn) range lengths that are powers of two.
The values can be calculated efficiently using the recursive formula:
min(a,b) = min(min(a, a + w - 1), min(a + w, b))
where b-a+1 is a power of two and w = (b - a + 1) / 2
What is meant by the part quoted above? Why do we calculate the minimum only for certain lengths?
What is the idea and the intuition behind it? What does the logic do?
It's kind of a hunch that it must be related to something about a binary tree because we're considering just the powers of two for the lengths.
This structure is referred to an RMQ, a Range Minimum Query. It achieves its O(1) queries by exploiting the associativity and commutativity of the min operation (that is, min(x,y) = min(y,x) and min(x,y,z) = min(x,min(y,z)). The other property that min has is that min(x,x) = x, and more importantly, min(x,y,z) = min(min(x,y),min(y,z))
If you have all the mins for every subarray of length of every power of 2 (hence the n log n memory), you can compute the range min(l-r) by taking the min of the largest power of 2, starting at l, that doesn't overshoot r, with the min of the largest power of 2 ending at r that doesn't undershoot l. The idea here is as follows:
arr=[a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h]
We calculate our RMQ to have mins as follows:
of length 1: [min(a), min(b), min(c), etc]
of length 2: [min(a,b), min(b,c), min(c,d), min(d,e), etc]
of length 4: [min(a,b,c,d}, min(b,c,d,e), min(c,d,e,f), etc]
To take the min from 1 to 6, we want the range min of length 4 starting at 1 (since 8 would go past our right index) and take the min of that with the range min of length 4 ending at 6. So we take these queries from the array of length 4, and take the min of
min(of length 4[1], of length 4[2]) and that's our answer.
Related
We are given an unsorted array A of integers (duplicates allowed) with size N possibly large. We can count the number of pairs with indices i < j, for which A[i] < A[j], let's call this X.
We can change maximum one element from the array with a cost equal to the difference in absolute values (for instance, if we replace element on index k with the new number K, the cost Y is | A[k] - K |).
We can only replace this element with other elements found in the array.
We want to find the minimum possible value of X + Y.
Some examples:
[1,2,2] should return 1 (change the 1 to 2 such that the array becomes [2,2,2])
[2,2,3] should return 1 (change the 3 to 2)
[2,1,1] should return 0 (because no changes are necessary)
[1,2,3,4] should return 6 (this is already the minimum possible value)
[4,4,5,5] should return 3 (this can accomplished by changing the first 4 into a 5 or the last 5 in a 4)
The number of pairs can be found with a naive O(n²) solution, here in Python:
def calc_x(arr):
n = len(arr)
cnt = 0
for i in range(n):
for j in range(i+1, n):
if arr[j] > arr[i]:
cnt += 1
return cnt
A brute-force solution is easily written as for example:
def f(arr):
best_val = calc_x(arr)
used = set(arr)
for i, v in enumerate(arr):
for replacement in used:
if replacement == v:
continue
arr2 = arr[0:i] + replacement + arr[i:]
y = abs(replacement - v)
x = calc_x(arr2)
best_val = min(best_val, x + y)
return best_val
We can count for each element the number of items right of it larger than itself in O(n*log(n)) using for instance an AVL-tree or some variation on merge sort.
However, we still have to search which element to change and what improvement it can achieve.
This was given as an interview question and I would like some hints or insights as how to solve this problem efficiently (data structures or algorithm).
Definitely go for a O(n log n) complexity when counting inversions.
We can see that when you change a value at index k, you can either:
1) increase it, and then possibly reduce the number of inversions with elements bigger than k, but increase the number of inversions with elements smaller than k
2) decrease it (the opposite thing happens)
Let's try not to count x every time you change a value. What do you need to know?
In case 1):
You have to know how many elements on the left are smaller than your new value v and how many elements on the right are bigger than your value. You can pretty easily check that in O (n). So what is your x now? You can count it with the following formula:
prev_val - your previous value
prev_x - x that you've counted at the beginning of your program
prev_l - number of elements on the left smaller than prev_val
prev_r - number of elements on the right bigger than prev_val
v - new value
l - number of elements on the right smaller than v
r - number of elements on the right bigger than v
new_x = prev_x + r + l - prev_l - prev_r
In the second case you pretty much do the opposite thing.
Right now you get something like O( n^3 ) instead of O (n^3 log n), which is probably still bad. Unfortunately that's all what I came up for now. I'll definitely tell you if I come up with sth better.
EDIT: What about memory limit? Is there any? If not, you can just for each element in the array make two sets with elements before and after the current one. Then you can find the amount of smaller/bigger in O (log n), making your time complexity O (n^2 log n).
EDIT 2: We can also try to check, what element would be the best to change to a value v, for every possible value v. You can make then two sets and add/erase elements from them while checking for every element, making the time complexity O(n^2 log n) without using too much space. So the algorithm would be:
1) determine every value v that you can change any element, calculate x
2) for each possible value v:
make two sets, push all elements into the second one
for each element e in array:
add previous element (if there's any) to the first set and erase element e from the second set, then count number of bigger/smaller elements in set 1 and 2 and calculate new x
EDIT 3: Instead of making two sets, you could go with prefix sum for a value. That's O (n^2) already, but I think we can go even better than this.
We have an array consisting of each entry as a tuple of two integers. Let the array be A = [(a1, b1), (a2, b2), .... , (an, bn)]. Now we have multiple queries where we are given an integer x, we need to find the maximum value of ai + |x - bi| for 1 <= i <= n.
I understand this can be easily achieved in O(n) time complexity for each query but I am looking for something faster than that, probably O(log n) for each query. I can preprocess the array in O(n) time, but the queries should be done faster than O(n).
Any kind of help would be appreciated.
It seems to be way too easy to over-think this.
For n = 1, the function is v-shaped with a minimum of a1 at b1, with slopes of -1 and 1, respectively - let's call these values ac and bc (for combined).
For an additional pair (ai, bi), one of the pairs may dominate the other (|bc - bi| ≤ |ac - ai), which may then be ignored.
Otherwise, the falling slope of the combination will be from the pair with the larger b, the rising slope from the other.
The minimum will be between the individual b, closer to the b of the pair with the larger a, the distance being half the difference between the (absolute value of the) "coordinate" differences, the minimum value that amount higher.
The main catch is that neither needs to be an integer - the only alternative being exactly in the middle between two integers.
(Ending up with the falling slope from max ai + bi, and the rising slope of max ai - bi.)
I have been trying this question on hackerearth practice which requires below work done.
PROBLEM
Given an integer n which signifies a sequence of n numbers from {0,1,2,3,4,5.......n-2,n-1}
We are provided m ranges in form of (L,R) such that (0<=L<=n-1)(0<=R<=n-1)
if(L <= R) (L,R) signifies numbers {L,L+1,L+2,L+3.......R-1,R} from above sequence
else (L,R) signifies numbers {R,R+1,R+2,.......n-2,n-1} & {0,1,2,3....L-1,L} ie numbers wrap around
example
n = 5 ie {0,1,2,3,4}
(0,3) signifies {0,1,2,3}
(3,0) signifies {3,4,0}
(3,2) signifies {3,4,0,1,2}
Now we have to select ONE (only one) number from each range without repeating any selection. We have to tell is it possible to select one number from each(and every) range without repetition.
Example test case
n = 5// numbers {0,1,2,3,4}
// ranges m in number //
0 0 ie {0}
1 2 ie {1,2}
2 3 ie {2,3}
4 4 ie {4}
4 0 ie {4,0}
Answer is "NO" it's not possible.
Because we cannot select any number from range 4 0 because if we select 4 from it we could not be able to select from range 4 4 and if select 0 from it we would not be able to select from 0 0
My approaches -
1) it can be done in O(N*M) using recurrsion checking all possibilitie of selection from each range and side by side using hash map to record our selections.
2) I was trying it in order n or m ie linear order .Problem lack editorial explanation .Only a code is mentioned in the editorial without comments and explanation . I m not able to get the codelinear solution code by someone which passes all test cases and got accepted.
I am not able to understand the logic/algo used in the code and why is it working?
Please suggest ANY linear method and logic behind it because problem has these constraints
1 <= N<= 10^9
1 <= M <= 10^5
0 <= L, R < N
which demands a linear or nlogn solution as i guess??
The code in the editorial can also be seen here http://ideone.com/5Xb6xw
Warning --After looking The code I found the code is using n and m interchangebly So i would like to mention the input format for the problem.
INPUT FORMAT
The first line contains test cases, tc, followed by two integers N,M- the first one depicting the number of countries on the globe, the second one depicting the number of ranges his girlfriend has given him. After which, the next M lines will have two integers describing the range, X and Y. If (X <= Y), then range covers countries [X,X+1... Y] else range covers [X,X+1,.... N-1,0,1..., Y].
Output Format
Print "YES" if it is possible to do so, print "NO", if it is not.
There are two components to the editorial solution.
Linear-time reduction to a problem on ordinary intervals
Assume to avoid trivial cases that the number of input intervals is less than n.
The first is to reduce the problem to one where the intervals don't wrap around as follows. Given an interval [L, R], if L ≤ R, then emit two intervals [L, R] and [L + n, R + n]; if L > R, emit [L, R + n]. The easy direction of the reduction is showing that, if the original problem has a solution, then the reduced problem has a solution. For [L, R] with L ≤ R assigned a number k, assign k to [L, R] and k + n to [L + n, R + n]. For [L, R] with L > R, assign whichever of k, k + n belongs to [L, R + n]. Except for the dual assignment of k and k + n for intervals [L, R] and [L + n, R + n] respectively, each interval gets its own residue class mod n, so the assignments do not conflict.
Conversely, the hard direction of the reduction (if the original problem has no solution, then the reduced problem has no solution) is proved using Hall's marriage theorem. By Hall's criterion, an unsolvable original problem has, for some k, a set of k input intervals whose union has size less than k. We argue first that there exists such a set of input intervals whose union is a (circular) interval (which by assumption isn't all of 0..n-1). Decompose the union into the set of maximal (circular) intervals that comprise it. Each input interval is contained in exactly one of these intervals. By an averaging argument, some maximal (circular) interval contains more input intervals than its size. We finish by "lifting" this counterexample to the reduced problem. Given the maximal (circular) interval [L*, R*], we lift it to the ordinary interval [L*, R*] if L* ≤ R*, or [L*, R* + n] if L* > R*. Do likewise with the circular intervals contained in this interval. It is tedious but straightforward to show that this lifted counterexample satisfies Hall's criterion, which implies that the reduced problem has no solution.
O(m log m)-time solution for ordinary intervals
This is a sweep-line algorithm. Sort the intervals by lower endpoint and scan them in that order. We imagine that the sweep line moves from lower endpoint to lower endpoint. Maintain the set of intervals that intersect the sweep line and have not been assigned a number, sorted by upper endpoint. When the sweep line is about to move, assign the numbers between the old and new positions to the intervals in the set, preferentially to the ones whose upper endpoint is the lowest. The correctness of this strategy should be clear: the intervals that could be assigned a number but are passed over have at least as many options (in the sense of being a superset) as the intervals that are assigned, so we never make a choice that we have cause to regret.
Given two sorted array A and B length N. Each elements may contain natural number less than M. Determine all possible distances for all combinations elements A and B. In this case, if A[i] - B[j] < 0, then the distance is M + (A[i] - B[j]).
Example :
A = {0,2,3}
B = {1,2}
M = 5
Distances = {0,1,2,3,4}
Note: I know O(N^2) solution, but I need faster solution than O(N^2) and O(N x M).
Edit: Array A, B, and Distances contain distinct elements.
You can get a O(MlogM) complexity solution in the following way.
Prepare an array Ax of length M with Ax[i] = 1 if i belongs to A (and 0 otherwise)
Prepare an array Bx of length M with Bx[M-1-i] = 1 if i belongs to B (and 0 otherwise)
Use the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve these 2 sequences together
Inspect the output array, non-zero values correspond to possible distances
Note that the FFT is normally done with floating point numbers, so in step 4 you probably want to test if the output is greater than 0.5 to avoid potential rounding noise issues.
I possible done with optimized N*N.
If convert A to 0 and 1 array where 1 on positions which present in A (in range [0..M].
After convert this array into bitmasks, size of A array will be decreased into 64 times.
This will allow insert results by blocks of size 64.
Complexity still will be N*N but working time will be greatly decreased. As limitation mentioned by author 50000 for A and B sizes and M.
Expected operations count will be N*N/64 ~= 4*10^7. It will passed in 1 sec.
You can use bitvectors to accomplish this. Bitvector operations on large bitvectors is linear in the size of the bitvector, but is fast, easy to implement, and may work well given your 50k size limit.
Initialize two bitvectors of length M. Call these vectA and vectAnswer. Set the bits of vectA that correspond to the elements in A. Leave vectAnswer with all zeroes.
Define a method to rotate a bitvector by k elements (rotate down). I'll call this rotate(vect,k).
Then, for every element b of B, vectAnswer = vectAnswer | rotate(vectA,b).
Could somebody explain why the average number of steps for finding an item in an unsorted array data-structure is N/2?
This really depends what you know about the numbers in the array. If they're all drawn from a distribution where all the probability mass is on a single value, then on expectation it will take you exactly 1 step to find the value you're looking for, since every value is the same, for example.
Let's now make a pretty strong assumption, that the array is filled with a random permutation of distinct values. You can think of this as picking some arbitrary sorted list of distinct elements and then randomly permuting it. In this case, suppose you're searching for some element in the array that actually exists (this proof breaks down if the element is not present). Then the number of steps you need to take is given by X, where X is the position of the element in the array. The average number of steps is then E[X], which is given by
E[X] = 1 Pr[X = 1] + 2 Pr[X = 2] + ... + n Pr[X = n]
Since we're assuming all the elements are drawn from a random permutation,
Pr[X = 1] = Pr[X = 2] = ... = Pr[X = n] = 1/n
So this expression is given by
E[X] = sum (i = 1 to n) i / n = (1 / n) sum (i = 1 to n) i = (1 / n) (n)(n + 1) / 2
= (n + 1) / 2
Which, I think, is the answer you're looking for.
The question as stated is just wrong. Linear search may perform better.
Perhaps a simpler example that shows why the average is N/2 is this:
Assume you have an unsorted array of 10 items: [5, 0, 9, 8, 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 6]. This is all the digits [0..9].
Since the array is unsorted (i.e. you know nothing about the order of the items), the only way you can find a particular item in the array is by doing a linear search: start at the first item and go until you find what you're looking for, or you reach the end.
So let's count how many operations it takes to find each item. Finding the first item (5) takes only one operation. Finding the second item (0) takes two. Finding the last item (6) takes 10 operations. The total number of operations required to find all 10 items is 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10, or 55. The average is 55/10, or 5.5.
The "linear search takes, on average, N/2 steps" conventional wisdom makes a number of assumptions. The two biggest are:
The item you're looking for is in the array. If an item isn't in the array, then it takes N steps to determine that. So if you're often looking for items that aren't there, then your average number of steps per search is going to be much higher than N/2.
On average, each item is searched for approximately as often as any other item. That is, you search for "6" as often as you search for "0", etc. If some items are looked up significantly more often than others, then the average number of steps per search is going to be skewed in favor of the items that are searched for more frequently. The number will be higher or lower than N/2, depending on the positions of the most frequently looked-up items.
While I think templatetypedef has the most instructive answer, in this case there is a much simpler one.
Consider permutations of the set {x1, x2, ..., xn} where n = 2m. Now take some element xi you wish to locate. For each permutation where xi occurs at index m - k, there is a corresponding mirror image permutation where xi occurs at index m + k. The mean of these possible indices is just [(m - k) + (m + k)]/2 = m = n/2. Therefore the mean of all all possible permutations of the set is n/2.
Consider a simple reformulation of the question:
What would be the limit of
lim (i->inf) of (sum(from 1 to i of random(n)) /i)
Or in C:
int sum = 0, i;
for (i = 0; i < LARGE_NUM; i++) sum += random(n);
sum /= LARGE_NUM;
If we assume that our random have even distribution of values (each value from 1 to n is equally likely to be produced), then the expected result would be (1+n)/2.