I have tried solving this for so long but I can't seem to be able to.
The question is as follows:
Given an array n numbers where all of the numbers in it occur twice except for one, which occurs only once, find the number that occurs only once.
Now, I have found many solutions online for this, but none of them satisfy the additional constraints of the question.
The solution should:
Run in linear time (aka O(n)).
Not use hash tables.
Assume that computer supports only comparison and the arithmetic (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division).
The number of bits in each number in the array is about O(log(n)).
Therefore, trying something like this https://stackoverflow.com/a/4772568/7774315 using the XOR operator isn't possible, since we don't have the XOR operator. Since the number of bits in each number is about O(log(n)), trying to implement the XOR operator using normal arithmetic (bit by bit) will take about O(log(n)) actions, which will give us an overall solution of O(nlog(n)).
The closest I have come to solving it is if I had a way to get the sum of all unique values in the array in linear time, I could subtract twice that sum from the overall sum to get (negative) the element that occurs only once, because if the numbers that appear twice are {a1,a2,....,ak} and the number that appears once is x, then the overall sum is
sum=2(a1+...+ak)+x
As far as I know, sets are implemented using hash tables, so using them to find the sum of all unique values is no good.
Let's imagine we had a way to find the exact median in linear time and partition the array so all greater elements are on one side and smaller elements on the other. By the parity of expected number of elements, we could identify which side the target element is in. Now perform this routine recursively in the section we identified. Since the section is halved in size each time, the total number of elements traversed cannot exceed O(2n) = O(n).
The key element in the question seems to be this one:
The number of bits in each number in the array is about O(log(n)).
The issue is that this clue is vague a little bit.
A first approach is to consider that the maximum value is O(n). Then a counting sort can be performed in O(n) operations and O(n) memory.
It will consists in finding the maximum value MAX, setting an integer array C[MAX] and performing directly a classical counting sort thanks to it
C[a[i]]++;
Looking for an odd value in array C[] will provide the solution.
A second approach, I guess more efficient, would be to set an array of size n, each element consisting of an array of unknown size. Then, a kind of almost counting sort would consists in :
C[a[i]%n].append (a[i]);
To find the unique element, we then have to find a sub-array of odd size, and then to examine the elements in this sub-array.
The maximum size k of each sub-array will be about 2*(MAX/n). According to the clue, this value should be very low. Dealing with this sub-array has a complexity O(k), for example by performing a counting sort on the b[j]/n, all the elements being equal modulo n.
We can note that practically, this is equivalent to perform a kind of ad-hoc hashing.
Global complexity is O(n + MAX/n).
This should do the trick as long as your a dealing with integers of size O(log n). It is a Python implementation of the algorithm sketched #גלעד ברקן answer (including #OneLyner comments), where the median is replaced by a mean or mid-value.
def mean(items):
result = 0
for i, item in enumerate(items, 1):
result = (result * (i - 1) + item) / i
return result
def midval(items):
min_val = max_val = items[0]
for item in items:
if item < min_val:
min_val = item
elif item > max_val:
max_val = item
return (max_val - min_val) / 2
def find_singleton(items, pivoting=mean):
n = len(items)
if n == 1:
return items[0]
else:
# find pivot - O(n)
pivot = pivoting(items)
# partition the items - O(n)
j = 0
for i, item in enumerate(items):
if item > pivot:
items[j], items[i] = items[i], items[j]
j += 1
# recursion on the partition with odd number of elements
if j % 2:
return find_singleton(items[:j])
else:
return find_singleton(items[j:])
The following code is just for some sanity-checking on random inputs:
def gen_input(n, randomize=True):
"""Generate inputs with unique pairs except one, with size (2 * n + 1)."""
items = sorted(set(random.randint(-n, n) for _ in range(n)))[:n]
singleton = items[-1]
items = items + items[:-1]
if randomize:
random.shuffle(items)
return items, singleton
items, singleton = gen_input(100)
print(singleton, len(items), items.index(singleton), items)
print(find_singleton(items, mean))
print(find_singleton(items, midval))
For a symmetric distribution the median and the mean or mid-value coincide.
With the log(n) requirement on the number of bits for the entries, one
can show that any arbitrary sub-sampling cannot be skewed enough to provide more than log(n) recursions.
For example, considering the case of k = log(n) bits with k = 4 and only positive numbers, the worst case is: [0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 8, 8, 16, 16]. Here pivoting by the mean will reduce the input by 2 at time, resulting in k + 1 recursive calls, but adding any other couple to the input will not increase the number of recursive calls, while it will increase the input size.
(EDITED to provide a better explanation.)
Here is an (unoptimized) implementation of the idea sketched by גלעד ברקן .
I'm using Median_of_medians to get a value close enough to the median to ensure the linear time in the worst case.
NB: this in fact uses only comparisons, and is O(n) whatever the size of the integers as long as comparisons and copies are counted as O(1).
def median_small(L):
return sorted(L)[len(L)//2]
def median_of_medians(L):
if len(L) < 20:
return median_small(L)
return median_of_medians([median_small(L[i:i+5]) for i in range(0, len(L), 5)])
def find_single(L):
if len(L) == 1:
return L[0]
pivot = median_of_medians(L)
smaller = [i for i in L if i <= pivot]
bigger = [i for i in L if i > pivot]
if len(smaller) % 2:
return find_single(smaller)
else:
return find_single(bigger)
This version needs O(n) additional space, but could be implemented with O(1).
Related
I have an algorithm for Sequential search of an unsorted array:
SequentialSearch(A[0..n-1],K)
i=0
while i < n and A[i] != K do
i = i+1
if i < n then return i
else return -1
Where we have an input array A[0...n-1] and a search key K
I know that the worst case is n, because we would have to search the entire array, hence n items O(n)
I know that the best case is 1, since that would mean the first item we search is the one we want, or the array has all the same items, either way it's O(1)
But I have no idea on how to calculate the average case. The answer my textbook gives is:
= (p/n)[1+2+...+i+...+n] + n(1-p)
is there a general formula I can follow for when I see an algorithm like this one, to calculate it?
PICTURE BELOW
Textbook example
= (p/n)[1+2+...+i+...+n] + n(1-p)
p here is the probability of an search key found in the array, since we have n elements, we have p/n as the probability of finding the key at the particular index within n . We essentially doing weighted average as in each iteration, we weigh in 1 comparison, 2 comparison, and until n comparison. Because we have to take all inputs into account, the second part n(1-p) tells us the probability of input that doesn't exist in the array 1-p. and it takes n as we search through the entire array.
You'd need to consider the input cases, something like equivalence classes of input, which depends on the context of the algorithm. If none of those things are known, then assuming that the input is an array of random integers, the average case would probably be O(n). This is because, roughly, you have no way of proving to a useful extent how often your query will be found in an array of N integer values in the range of ~-32k to ~32k.
More formally, let X be a discrete random variable denoting the number of elements of the array A that are needed to be scanned. There are n elements and since all positions are equally likely for inputs generated randomly, X ~ Uniform(1,n) where X = 1,..,n, given that search key is found in the array (with probability p), otherwise all the elements need to be scanned, with X=n (with probability 1-p).
Hence, P(X=x)=(1/n).p.I{x<n}+((1/n).p+(1-p)).I{x=n} for x = 1,..,n, where I{x=n} is the indicator function and will have value 1 iff x=n otherwise 0.
Average time complexity of the algorithm is the expected time taken to execute the algorithm when the input is an arbitrary sequence. By definition,
The following figure shows how time taken for searching the array changes with n and p.
I am looking for an algorithm to solve the following problem: We are given an integer array of size n which contains k (0 < k < n) many elements exactly once. Every other integer occurs an even number of times in the array. The output should be any of the k unique numbers. k is a fixed number and not part of the input.
An example would be the input [1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3] with both 1 and 3 being a correct output.
Most importantly, the algorithm should run in O(n) time and require only O(1) additional space.
edit: There has been some confusion regarding whether there is only one unique integer or multiple. I apologize for this. The correct problem is that there is an arbitrary but fixed amount. I have updated the original question above.
"Dante." gave a good answer for the case that there are at most two such numbers. This link also provides a solution for three. "David Eisenstat" commented that it is also possible to do for any fixed k. I would be grateful for a solution.
There is a standard algorithm to solve such problems using XOR operator:
Time Complexity = O(n)
Space Complexity = O(1)
Suppose your input array contains only one element that occurs odd no of times and rest occur even number of times,we take advantage of the following fact:
Any expression having even number of 0's and 1's in any order will always be = 0 when xor is applied.
That is
0^1^....... = 0 as long as number of 0 is even and number of 1 is even
and 0 and 1 can occur in any order.
Because all numbers that occur even number of times will have their corresponding bits form even number of 1's and 0's and only the number which occurs only once will have its bit left out when we take xor of all elements of array because
0(from no's occuring even times)^1(from no occuring once) = 1
0(from no's occuring even times)^0(from no occuring once) = 0
as you can see the bit of only the number occuring once is preserved.
This means when given such an array and you take xor of all the elements,the result is the number which occurs only once.
So the algorithm for array of length n is:
result = array[0]^array[1]^.....array[n-1]
Different Scenario
As the OP mentioned that input can also be an array which has two numbers occuring only once and rest occur even number of times.
This is solved using the same logic as above but with little difference.
Idea of algorithm:
If you take xor of all the elements then definitely all the bits of elements occuring even number of times will result in 0,which means:
The result will have its bit 1 only at that bit position where the bits of the two numbers occuring only once differ.
We will use the above idea.
Now we focus on the resultant xor bit which is 1(any bit which is 1) and make rest 0.The result is a number which will allow us to differentiate between the two numbers(the required ones).
Because the bit is 1,it means they differ at this position,it means one will have 0 at this position and one will have 1.This means one number when taken AND results in 0 and one does not.
Since it is very easy to set the right most bit,we set it of the result xor as
A = result & ~(result-1)
Now traverse through the array once and if array[i]&A is 0 store the number in variable number_1 as
number_1 = number_1^array[i]
otherwise
number_2 = number_2^array[i]
Because the remaining numbers occur even number of times,their bit will automatically disappear.
So the algorithm is
1.Take xor of all elements,call it xor.
2.Set the rightmost bit of xor and store it in B.
3.Do the following:
number_1=0,number_2=0;
for(i = 0 to n-1)
{
if(array[i] & B)
number_1 = number_1^array[i];
else
number_2 = number_2^array[i];
}
The number_1 and number_2 are the required numbers.
Here's a Las Vegas algorithm that, given k, the exact number of elements that occur an odd number of times, reports all of them in expected time O(n k) (read: linear-time when k is O(1)) and space O(1) words, assuming that "give me a uniform random word" and "give me the number of 1 bits set in this word (popcount)" are constant-time operations. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first person to come up with this algorithm (and I'm not even sure that I'm remembering all of the refinements), but I've reached the limits of my patience trying to find it.
The central technique is called random restrictions. Essentially what we do is to filter the input randomly by value, in the hope that we retain exactly one odd-count element. We apply the classic XOR algorithm to the filtered array and check the result; if it succeeded, then we pretend to add it to the array, to make it even-count. Repeat until all k elements are found.
The filtration process goes like this. Treat each input word x as a binary vector of length w (doesn't matter what w is). Compute a random binary matrix A of size w by ceil(1 + lg k) and a random binary vector b of length ceil(1 + lg k). We filter the input by retaining those x such that Ax = b, where the left-hand side is a matrix multiplication mod 2. In implementation, A is represented as ceil(1 + lg k) vectors a1, a2, .... We compute the bits of Ax as popcount(a1 ^ x), popcount(a2 ^ x), .... (This is convenient because we can short-circuit the comparison with b, which shaves a factor lg k from the running time.)
The analysis is to show that, in a given pass, we manage with constant probability to single out one of the odd-count elements. First note that, for some fixed x, the probability that Ax = b is 2-ceil(1 + lg k) = Θ(1/k). Given that Ax = b, for all y ≠ x, the probability that Ay = b is less than 2-ceil(1 + lg k). Thus, the expected number of elements that accompany x is less than 1/2, so with probability more than 1/2, x is unique in the filtered input. Sum over all k odd-count elements (these events are disjoint), and the probability is Θ(1).
Here's a deterministic linear-time algorithm for k = 3. Let the odd-count elements be a, b, c. Accumulate the XOR of the array, which is s = a ^ b ^ c. For each bit i, observe that, if a[i] == b[i] == c[i], then s[i] == a[i] == b[i] == c[i]. Make another pass through the array, accumulate the XOR of the lowest bit set in s ^ x. The even-count elements contribute nothing again. Two of the odd-count elements contribute the same bit and cancel each other out. Thus, the lowest bit set in the XOR is where exactly one of the odd-count elements differs from s. We can use the restriction method above to find it, then the k = 2 method to find the others.
The question title says "the unique integer", but the question body says there can be more than one unique element.
If there is in fact only one non-duplicate: XOR all the elements together. The duplicates all cancel, because they come in pairs (or higher multiples of 2), so the result is the unique integer.
See Dante's answer for an extension of this idea that can handle two unique elements. It can't be generalized to more than that.
Perhaps for k unique elements, we could use k accumulators to track sum(a[i]**k). i.e. a[i], a[i]2, etc. This probably only works for Faster algorithm to find unique element between two arrays?, not this case where the duplicates are all in one array. IDK if an xor of squares, cubes, etc. would be any use for resolving things.
Track the counts for each element and only return the elements with a count of 1. This can be done with a hash map. The below example tracks the result using a hash set while it's still building the counts map. Still O(n) but less efficient, but I think it's slightly more instructive.
Javascript with jsfiddle http://jsfiddle.net/nmckchsa/
function findUnique(arr) {
var uniq = new Map();
var result = new Set();
// iterate through array
for(var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {
var v = arr[i];
// add value to map that contains counts
if(uniq.has(v)) {
uniq.set(v, uniq.get(v) + 1);
// count is greater than 1 remove from set
result.delete(v);
} else {
uniq.set(v, 1);
// add a possibly uniq value to the set
result.add(v);
}
}
// set to array O(n)
var a = [], x = 0;
result.forEach(function(v) { a[x++] = v; });
return a;
}
alert(findUnique([1,2,3,0,1,2,3,1,2,3,5,4,4]));
EDIT Since the non-uniq numbers appear an even number of times #PeterCordes suggested a more elegant set toggle.
Here's how that would look.
function findUnique(arr) {
var result = new Set();
// iterate through array
for(var i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {
var v = arr[i];
if(result.has(v)) { // even occurances
result.delete(v);
} else { // odd occurances
result.add(v);
}
}
// set to array O(n)
var a = [], x = 0;
result.forEach(function(v) { a[x++] = v; });
return a;
}
JSFiddle http://jsfiddle.net/hepsyqyw/
Assuming you have an input array: [2,3,4,2,4]
Output: 3
In Ruby, you can do something as simple as this:
[2,3,4,2,4].inject(0) {|xor, v| xor ^ v}
Create an array counts that has INT_MAX slots, with each element initialized to zero.
For each element in the input list, increment counts[element] by one. (edit: actually, you will need to do counts[element] = (counts_element+1)%2, or else you might overflow the value for really ridiculously large values of N. It's acceptable to do this kind of modulus counting because all duplicate items appear an even number of times)
Iterate through counts until you find a slot that contains "1". Return the index of that slot.
Step 2 is O(N) time. Steps 1 and 3 take up a lot of memory and a lot of time, but neither one is proportional to the size of the input list, so they're still technically O(1).
(note: this assumes that integers have a minimum and maximum value, as is the case for many programming languages.)
I've came across some similar problems to this one in the past, and I still haven't got good idea how to solve this problem. Problem goes like this:
You are given an positive integer array with size n <= 1000 and k <= n which is the number of contiguous subarrays that you will have to split your array into. You have to output minimum m, where m = max{s[1],..., s[k]}, and s[i] is the sum of the i-th subarray. All integers in the array are between 1 and 100. Example :
Input: Output:
5 3 >> n = 5 k = 3 3
2 1 1 2 3
Splitting array into 2+1 | 1+2 | 3 will minimize the m.
My brute force idea was to make first subarray end at position i (for all possible i) and then try to split the rest of the array in k-1 subarrays in the best way possible. However, this is exponential solution and will never work.
So I'm looking for good ideas to solve it. If you have one please tell me.
Thanks for your help.
You can use dynamic programming to solve this problem, but you can actually solve with greedy and binary search on the answer. This algorithm's complexity is O(n log d), where d is the output answer. (An upper bound would be the sum of all the elements in the array.) (or O( n d ) in the size of the output bits)
The idea is to binary search on what your m would be - and then greedily move forward on the array, adding the current element to the partition unless adding the current element pushes it over the current m -- in that case you start a new partition. The current m is a success (and thus adjust your upper bound) if the numbers of partition used is less than or equal to your given input k. Otherwise, you used too many partitions, and raise your lower bound on m.
Some pseudocode:
// binary search
binary_search ( array, N, k ) {
lower = max( array ), upper = sum( array )
while lower < upper {
mid = ( lower + upper ) / 2
// if the greedy is good
if partitions( array, mid ) <= k
upper = mid
else
lower = mid
}
}
partitions( array, m ) {
count = 0
running_sum = 0
for x in array {
if running_sum + x > m
running_sum = 0
count++
running_sum += x
}
if running_sum > 0
count++
return count
}
This should be easier to come up with conceptually. Also note that because of the monotonic nature of the partitions function, you can actually skip the binary search and do a linear search, if you are sure that the output d is not too big:
for i = 0 to infinity
if partitions( array, i ) <= k
return i
Dynamic programming. Make an array
int best[k+1][n+1];
where best[i][j] is the best you can achieve splitting the first j elements of the array int i subarrays. best[1][j] is simply the sum of the first j array elements. Having row i, you calculate row i+1 as follows:
for(j = i+1; j <= n; ++j){
temp = min(best[i][i], arraysum[i+1 .. j]);
for(h = i+1; h < j; ++h){
if (min(best[i][h], arraysum[h+1 .. j]) < temp){
temp = min(best[i][h], arraysum[h+1 .. j]);
}
}
best[i+1][j] = temp;
}
best[m][n] will contain the solution. The algorithm is O(n^2*k), probably something better is possible.
Edit: a combination of the ideas of ChingPing, toto2, Coffee on Mars and rds (in the order they appear as I currently see this page).
Set A = ceiling(sum/k). This is a lower bound for the minimum. To find a good upper bound for the minimum, create a good partition by any of the mentioned methods, moving borders until you don't find any simple move that still decreases the maximum subsum. That gives you an upper bound B, not much larger than the lower bound (if it were much larger, you'd find an easy improvement by moving a border, I think).
Now proceed with ChingPing's algorithm, with the known upper bound reducing the number of possible branches. This last phase is O((B-A)*n), finding B unknown, but I guess better than O(n^2).
I have a sucky branch and bound algorithm ( please dont downvote me )
First take the sum of array and dvide by k, which gives you the best case bound for you answer i.e. the average A. Also we will keep a best solution seen so far for any branch GO ( global optimal ).Lets consider we put a divider( logical ) as a partition unit after some array element and we have to put k-1 partitions. Now we will put the partitions greedily this way,
Traverse the array elements summing them up until you see that at the next position we will exceed A, now make two branches one where you put the divider at this position and other where you put at next position, Do this recursiely and set GO = min (GO, answer for a branch ).
If at any point in any branch we have a partition greater then GO or the no of position are less then the partitions left to be put we bound. In the end you should have GO as you answer.
EDIT:
As suggested by Daniel, we could modify the divider placing strategy a little to place it until you reach sum of elements as A or the remaining positions left are less then the dividers.
This is just a sketch of an idea... I'm not sure that it works, but it's very easy (and probably fast too).
You start say by putting the separations evenly distributed (it does not actually matter how you start).
Make the sum of each subarray.
Find the subarray with the largest sum.
Look at the right and left neighbor subarrays and move the separation on the left by one if the subarray on the left has a lower sum than the one on the right (and vice-versa).
Redo for the subarray with the current largest sum.
You'll reach some situation where you'll keep bouncing the separation between the same two positions which will probably mean that you have the solution.
EDIT: see the comment by #rds. You'll have to think harder about bouncing solutions and the end condition.
My idea, which unfortunately does not work:
Split the array in N subarrays
Locate the two contiguous subarrays whose sum is the least
Merge the subarrays found in step 2 to form a new contiguous subarray
If the total number of subarrays is greater than k, iterate from step 2, else finish.
If your array has random numbers, you can hope that a partition where each subarray has n/k is a good starting point.
From there
Evaluate this candidate solution, by computing the sums
Store this candidate solution. For instance with:
an array of the indexes of every sub-arrays
the corresponding maximum of sum over sub-arrays
Reduce the size of the max sub-array: create two new candidates: one with the sub-array starting at index+1 ; one with sub-array ending at index-1
Evaluate the new candidates.
If their maximum is higher, discard
If their maximum is lower, iterate on 2, except if this candidate was already evaluated, in which case it is the solution.
I know this can be done by sorting the array and taking the larger numbers until the required condition is met. That would take at least nlog(n) sorting time.
Is there any improvement over nlog(n).
We can assume all numbers are positive.
Here is an algorithm that is O(n + size(smallest subset) * log(n)). If the smallest subset is much smaller than the array, this will be O(n).
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heap_%28data_structure%29 if my description of the algorithm is unclear (it is light on details, but the details are all there).
Turn the array into a heap arranged such that the biggest element is available in time O(n).
Repeatedly extract the biggest element from the heap until their sum is large enough. This takes O(size(smallest subset) * log(n)).
This is almost certainly the answer they were hoping for, though not getting it shouldn't be a deal breaker.
Edit: Here is another variant that is often faster, but can be slower.
Walk through elements, until the sum of the first few exceeds S. Store current_sum.
Copy those elements into an array.
Heapify that array such that the minimum is easy to find, remember the minimum.
For each remaining element in the main array:
if min(in our heap) < element:
insert element into heap
increase current_sum by element
while S + min(in our heap) < current_sum:
current_sum -= min(in our heap)
remove min from heap
If we get to reject most of the array without manipulating our heap, this can be up to twice as fast as the previous solution. But it is also possible to be slower, such as when the last element in the array happens to be bigger than S.
Assuming the numbers are integers, you can improve upon the usual n lg(n) complexity of sorting because in this case we have the extra information that the values are between 0 and S (for our purposes, integers larger than S are the same as S).
Because the range of values is finite, you can use a non-comparative sorting algorithm such as Pigeonhole Sort or Radix Sort to go below n lg(n).
Note that these methods are dependent on some function of S, so if S gets large enough (and n stays small enough) you may be better off reverting to a comparative sort.
Here is an O(n) expected time solution to the problem. It's somewhat like Moron's idea but we don't throw out the work that our selection algorithm did in each step, and we start trying from an item potentially in the middle rather than using the repeated doubling approach.
Alternatively, It's really just quickselect with a little additional book keeping for the remaining sum.
First, it's clear that if you had the elements in sorted order, you could just pick the largest items first until you exceed the desired sum. Our solution is going to be like that, except we'll try as hard as we can to not to discover ordering information, because sorting is slow.
You want to be able to determine if a given value is the cut off. If we include that value and everything greater than it, we meet or exceed S, but when we remove it, then we are below S, then we are golden.
Here is the psuedo code, I didn't test it for edge cases, but this gets the idea across.
def Solve(arr, s):
# We could get rid of worse case O(n^2) behavior that basically never happens
# by selecting the median here deterministically, but in practice, the constant
# factor on the algorithm will be much worse.
p = random_element(arr)
left_arr, right_arr = partition(arr, p)
# assume p is in neither left_arr nor right_arr
right_sum = sum(right_arr)
if right_sum + p >= s:
if right_sum < s:
# solved it, p forms the cut off
return len(right_arr) + 1
# took too much, at least we eliminated left_arr and p
return Solve(right_arr, s)
else:
# didn't take enough yet, include all elements from and eliminate right_arr and p
return len(right_arr) + 1 + Solve(left_arr, s - right_sum - p)
One improvement (asymptotically) over Theta(nlogn) you can do is to get an O(n log K) time algorithm, where K is the required minimum number of elements.
Thus if K is constant, or say log n, this is better (asymptotically) than sorting. Of course if K is n^epsilon, then this is not better than Theta(n logn).
The way to do this is to use selection algorithms, which can tell you the ith largest element in O(n) time.
Now do a binary search for K, starting with i=1 (the largest) and doubling i etc at each turn.
You find the ith largest, and find the sum of the i largest elements and check if it is greater than S or not.
This way, you would run O(log K) runs of the selection algorithm (which is O(n)) for a total running time of O(n log K).
eliminate numbers < S, if you find some number ==S, then solved
pigeon-hole sort the numbers < S
Sum elements highest to lowest in the sorted order till you exceed S.
[Description] Given two integer arrays with the same length. Design an algorithm which can judge whether they're the same. The definition of "same" is that, if these two arrays were in sorted order, the elements in corresponding position should be the same.
[Example]
<1 2 3 4> = <3 1 2 4>
<1 2 3 4> != <3 4 1 1>
[Limitation] The algorithm should require constant extra space, and O(n) running time.
(Probably too complex for an interview question.)
(You can use O(N) time to check the min, max, sum, sumsq, etc. are equal first.)
Use no-extra-space radix sort to sort the two arrays in-place. O(N) time complexity, O(1) space.
Then compare them using the usual algorithm. O(N) time complexity, O(1) space.
(Provided (max − min) of the arrays is of O(Nk) with a finite k.)
You can try a probabilistic approach - convert the arrays into a number in some huge base B and mod by some prime P, for example sum B^a_i for all i mod some big-ish P. If they both come out to the same number, try again for as many primes as you want. If it's false at any attempts, then they are not correct. If they pass enough challenges, then they are equal, with high probability.
There's a trivial proof for B > N, P > biggest number. So there must be a challenge that cannot be met. This is actually the deterministic approach, though the complexity analysis might be more difficult, depending on how people view the complexity in terms of the size of the input (as opposed to just the number of elements).
I claim that: Unless the range of input is specified, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to solve in onstant extra space, and O(n) running time.
I will be happy to be proven wrong, so that I can learn something new.
Insert all elements from the first array into a hashtable
Try to insert all elements from the second array into the same hashtable - for each insert to element should already be there
Ok, this is not with constant extra space, but the best I could come up at the moment:-). Are there any other constraints imposed on the question, like for example to biggest integer that may be included in the array?
A few answers are basically correct, even though they don't look like it. The hash table approach (for one example) has an upper limit based on the range of the type involved rather than the number of elements in the arrays. At least by by most definitions, that makes the (upper limit on) the space a constant, although the constant may be quite large.
In theory, you could change that from an upper limit to a true constant amount of space. Just for example, if you were working in C or C++, and it was an array of char, you could use something like:
size_t counts[UCHAR_MAX];
Since UCHAR_MAX is a constant, the amount of space used by the array is also a constant.
Edit: I'd note for the record that a bound on the ranges/sizes of items involved is implicit in nearly all descriptions of algorithmic complexity. Just for example, we all "know" that Quicksort is an O(N log N) algorithm. That's only true, however, if we assume that comparing and swapping the items being sorted takes constant time, which can only be true if we bound the range. If the range of items involved is large enough that we can no longer treat a comparison or a swap as taking constant time, then its complexity would become something like O(N log N log R), were R is the range, so log R approximates the number of bits necessary to represent an item.
Is this a trick question? If the authors assumed integers to be within a given range (2^32 etc.) then "extra constant space" might simply be an array of size 2^32 in which you count the occurrences in both lists.
If the integers are unranged, it cannot be done.
You could add each element into a hashmap<Integer, Integer>, with the following rules: Array A is the adder, array B is the remover. When inserting from Array A, if the key does not exist, insert it with a value of 1. If the key exists, increment the value (keep a count). When removing, if the key exists and is greater than 1, reduce it by 1. If the key exists and is 1, remove the element.
Run through array A followed by array B using the rules above. If at any time during the removal phase array B does not find an element, you can immediately return false. If after both the adder and remover are finished the hashmap is empty, the arrays are equivalent.
Edit: The size of the hashtable will be equal to the number of distinct values in the array does this fit the definition of constant space?
I imagine the solution will require some sort of transformation that is both associative and commutative and guarantees a unique result for a unique set of inputs. However I'm not sure if that even exists.
public static boolean match(int[] array1, int[] array2) {
int x, y = 0;
for(x = 0; x < array1.length; x++) {
y = x;
while(array1[x] != array2[y]) {
if (y + 1 == array1.length)
return false;
y++;
}
int swap = array2[x];
array2[x] = array2[y];
array2[y] = swap;
}
return true;
}
For each array, Use Counting sort technique to build the count of number of elements less than or equal to a particular element . Then compare the two built auxillary arrays at every index, if they r equal arrays r equal else they r not . COunting sort requires O(n) and array comparison at every index is again O(n) so totally its O(n) and the space required is equal to the size of two arrays . Here is a link to counting sort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_sort.
given int are in the range -n..+n a simple way to check for equity may be the following (pseudo code):
// a & b are the array
accumulator = 0
arraysize = size(a)
for(i=0 ; i < arraysize; ++i) {
accumulator = accumulator + a[i] - b[i]
if abs(accumulator) > ((arraysize - i) * n) { return FALSE }
}
return (accumulator == 0)
accumulator must be able to store integer with range = +- arraysize * n
How 'bout this - XOR all the numbers in both the arrays. If the result is 0, you got a match.