Related
In a coding site I came across a question which seem to be very easy. But when I implement a solution it gives me wrong answers for the hidden test cases. I tried to find for what cases it failed but I just couldn't get any.
The question goes as follows
Construct an N×M matrix with entries having positive integers such that
If M>1, ith row is strictly increasing from left to right with a fixed common difference di
for all 1≤i≤N.
If N>1, jth column is strictly increasing from top to bottom with a fixed common difference cj
for all 1≤j≤M.
All the common differences should be distinct.
In the case of multiple answers, find an arrangement that minimizes the maximum element of the
matrix.
The code with the logic
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main(){
int t=0,n=0,m=0,d=0;
scanf("%d",&t);
while(t--){
scanf("%d%d",&n,&m);
if(n>=m){
d=2;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
for(int j=0;j<m;j++){
printf("%d ",(i+1) + j*d);
}
d+=2;
printf("\n");
}
}
else{
d=1;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
for(int j=0;j<m;j++){
printf("%d ",(2*i+1) + j*d);
}
d+=2;
printf("\n");
}
}
}
return 0;
}
Sample input
3
3 3
1 2
1 1
Sample Output
1 2 3
3 6 9
5 10 15
1 2
1
Simple logic I tried was, check if the rows are more or the columns, whichever is more increment that by even number C.D (from 2,4,6....) and the other in odd number C.D(from 1,3,5...)
For example: for 2X3
The matrix will be
1 3
2 6
3 9
This logic seems to be correct and while discussing with my friends even they say its right. But I get wrong answers while submitting to the hidden cases.
What logic error might have I done? Could you give me a example for which this code will fail?
The matrix shown in the question for the 2×3 case is:
1 3
2 6
3 9
However, a better solution is:
1 4
2 6
3 8
We see this satisfies the constraints:
Each row and each column is strictly increasing.
Each row has a fixed difference: 3, 4, and 5.
Each column has a fixed difference: 1 and 2.
All those differences are distinct.
A general solution follows.
Let the matrix be Ai, j. It is clear A0, 0 should be 1. Let A0, 1, A1, 0, and A1, 1 be 1+a, 1+b, and 1+c, respectively. Then simple algebra and induction shows that Ai, j is 1 + (1−i)ja + i(1−j)b + ijc.
The common difference in column j is b+j(c−a−b), and the common difference is row i is a+i(c−a−b). These form two arithmetic series with the same step size, c−a−b, so they do not intersect only if they either interleave (for example, c−a−b could be 2 and one of a or b can be odd while the other is even) or one series is entirely less than the other (for example, c−a−b could be 1). We will consider these cases below.
Let I and J be the maximum subscripts in the array, m−1 and n−1, respectively. (These are introduced for brevity, as m−1 and n−1 appear repeatedly below.) The maximum element in the array, AI,J, is 1 + (1−I)Ja + I(1−J)b + IJc = 1 + IJ(c−a−b) + Ja + Ib. Observe the derivative with respect to c is positive, so, once a and b are chosen, the minimum value for AI,J is obtained by making c as small as the constraints allow, hence either c = a+b+1 (for the case when one series is entirely less than the other) or c = a+b+2 (for the case when the series interleave). For the former, AI,J = 1 + IJ + Ja + Ib. For the latter, AI,J = 1 + 2IJ + Ja + Ib. This reveals we also wish to minimize a and b subject to the constraints.
The smallest a and b can be is 1 and 2 (in either order). So in the interleaving case, we have either AI,J = 1 + 2IJ + J + 2I or AI,J = 1 + 2IJ + 2J + I. To obtain the lesser of these, we choose a = 1, b = 2 if J < I and a = 2, b = 1 otherwise. Combinging these, the maximum is 1 + 2IJ + I + J + min(I, J). Restoring m and n from I and J and doing a little algebra gives us a maximum of 2mn − max(m, n).
For the non-interleaving case, we could have a = 1, the largest row difference (generally a+i(c−a−b)) of 1+I•1 = 1+I, so b = 2+I to start the column differences (generally b+j(c−a−b)) with b + 0(c−a−b) = 2+I. Conversely, we could have b = 1 and a = 2+J. Then we have AI,J = 1+ IJ + J + I(2+I) or 1 + IJ + J(2+J) + I, or, equivalently, mn+m2−m or mn+n2−n. The former is less when m < n and vice-versa.
Note than when m ≤ n, the interleaved case gives us a maximum of 2mn − n = mn + m2 + (m−1)(n−m) − m. Since (m−1)(n−m) is non-negative, that is at least as large as mn+m2−m, which is the maximum for the non-interleaved case. The analogous result holds for n ≤ m. Therefore, the interleaved case never has any advantage. The minimum is always obtained with the non-interleaved case with either a = 1, b = 2+I = m+1 or a = 2+J = n+1, b = 1, according to which of m and n is smaller.
You are given a natural number N which represents sequence [1,2...N]. We have to determine the number of pairs (x,y) from this sequence that satisfies the given conditions.
1 <= x <= y <= N
sum of first x-1 numbers (i.e sum of [1,2,3..x-1]) = sum of numbers from x+1 to y (i.e sum of [x+1...y])
Example:-
If N = 3 there is only 1 pair (x=1,y=1) for which (sum of x-1 numbers) = 0 = (sum of x+1 to y)
any other pairs like (1,2),(1,3) or (2,3) does not satisfy the properties. so the answer is 1 as there is only one pair.
Another Example:-
If N=10, for pair (6,8) we can see sum of x-1 numbers i.e [1,2,3,4,5] = 15 = sum of numbers from x+1 to y i.e [7,8], Also another such pair would be (1,1). No other such pair exists so the answer, in this case, would be 2.
How can we approach and solve such problems to find the number of pairs in such a sequence?
Other things I have been able to deduce so far:-
Condition
Answer
Pairs
If 1<=N<=7
1
{(1,1)}
If 8<=N<=48
2
{(1,1),(6,8)}
If 49<=N<=287
3
{(1,1),(6,8),(35,49)}
If 288<=N<=1680
4
-
I tried but am unable to find any pattern or any such thing in these numbers.
Also, 1<=N<=10^16
--edit--
Courtesy of OEIS (link in comments): you can find the k'th value of y using this formula: ( (0.25) * (3.0+2.0*(2**0.5))**k ).floor
This gives us the k'th value in O(log k). First few results:
1
8
49
288
1681
9800
57121
332928
1940449
11309768
65918161
384199200
2239277041
13051463048
76069501249
443365544448
2584123765441
15061377048200
87784138523761
511643454094368
2982076586042447
17380816062160312
101302819786919424
590436102659356160
3441313796169217536
20057446674355949568
116903366249966469120
681362750825442836480
3971273138702690287616
23146276081390697054208
134906383349641499377664
786292024016458181771264
4582845760749107960348672
26710782540478185822224384
155681849482119992477483008
907380314352241764747706368
Notice that the ratio of successive numbers quickly approaches 5.828427124746. Given a value of n, take the log of n base 5.828427124746. The answer will be an integer close to this log.
E.g., say n = 1,000,000,000. Then log(n, 5.8284271247461) = 11.8. The answer is probably 12, but we can check the neighbors to be sure.
11: 65,918,161
12: 384,199,200
13: 2,239,277,041
Confirmed.
-- end edit --
Here's some ruby code to do this. Idea is to have two pointers and increment the pointer for x or y as appropriate. I'm using s(n) to calculate the sums, though this could be done without multiplication by just keeping a running total.
def s(n)
return n*(n+1)/2
end
def f(n)
count = 0
x = 1
y = 1
while y <= n do
if s(x-1) == s(y) - s(x)
count += 1
puts "(#{x}, #{y})"
end
if s(x-1) <= s(y) - s(x)
x += 1
else
y += 1
end
end
end
Here are the first few pairs:
(1, 1)
(6, 8)
(35, 49)
(204, 288)
(1189, 1681)
(6930, 9800)
(40391, 57121)
(235416, 332928)
(1372105, 1940449)
(7997214, 11309768)
(46611179, 65918161)
This question already has answers here:
Create a zero-filled 2D array with ones at positions indexed by a vector
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I have a vector v of size (m,1) whose elements are integers picked from 1:n. I want to create a matrix M of size (m,n) whose elements M(i,j) are 1 if v(i) = j, and are 0 otherwise. I do not want to use loops, and would like to implement this as a simple vector-matrix manipulation only.
So I thought first, to create a matrix with repeated elements
M = v * ones(1,n) % this is a (m,n) matrix of repeated v
For example v=[1,1,3,2]'
m = 4 and n = 3
M =
1 1 1
1 1 1
3 3 3
2 2 2
then I need to create a comparison vector c of size (1,n)
c = 1:n
1 2 3
Then I need to perform a series of logical comparisons
M(1,:)==c % this results in [1,0,0]
.
M(4,:)==c % this results in [0,1,0]
However, I thought it should be possible to perform the last steps of going through each single row in compact matrix notation, but I'm stumped and not knowledgeable enough about indexing.
The end result should be
M =
1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
A very simple call to bsxfun will do the trick:
>> n = 3;
>> v = [1,1,3,2].';
>> M = bsxfun(#eq, v, 1:n)
M =
1 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
How the code works is actually quite simple. bsxfun is what is known as the Binary Singleton EXpansion function. What this does is that you provide two arrays / matrices of any size, as long as they are broadcastable. This means that they need to be able to expand in size so that both of them equal in size. In this case, v is your vector of interest and is the first parameter - note that it's transposed. The second parameter is a vector from 1 up to n. What will happen now is the column vector v gets replicated / expands for as many values as there are n and the second vector gets replicated for as many rows as there are in v. We then do an eq / equals operator between these two arrays. This expanded matrix in effect has all 1s in the first column, all 2s in the second column, up until n. By doing an eq between these two matrices, you are in effect determining which values in v are equal to the respective column index.
Here is a detailed time test and breakdown of each function. I placed each implementation into a separate function and I also let n=max(v) so that Luis's first code will work. I used timeit to time each function:
function timing_binary
n = 10000;
v = randi(1000,n,1);
m = numel(v);
function luis_func()
M1 = full(sparse(1:m,v,1));
end
function luis_func2()
%m = numel(v);
%n = 3; %// or compute n automatically as n = max(v);
M2 = zeros(m, n);
M2((1:m).' + (v-1)*m) = 1;
end
function ray_func()
M3 = bsxfun(#eq, v, 1:n);
end
function op_func()
M4= ones(1,m)'*[1:n] == v * ones(1,n);
end
t1 = timeit(#luis_func);
t2 = timeit(#luis_func2);
t3 = timeit(#ray_func);
t4 = timeit(#op_func);
fprintf('Luis Mendo - Sparse: %f\n', t1);
fprintf('Luis Mendo - Indexing: %f\n', t2);
fprintf('rayryeng - bsxfun: %f\n', t3);
fprintf('OP: %f\n', t4);
end
This test assumes n = 10000 and the vector v is a 10000 x 1 vector of randomly distributed integers from 1 up to 1000. BTW, I had to modify Luis's second function so that the indexing will work as the addition requires vectors of compatible dimensions.
Running this code, we get:
>> timing_binary
Luis Mendo - Sparse: 0.015086
Luis Mendo - Indexing: 0.327993
rayryeng - bsxfun: 0.040672
OP: 0.841827
Luis Mendo's sparse code wins (as I expected), followed by bsxfun, followed by indexing and followed by your proposed approach using matrix operations. The timings are in seconds.
Assuming n equals max(v), you can use sparse:
v = [1,1,3,2];
M = full(sparse(1:numel(v),v,1));
What sparse does is build a sparse matrix using the first argument as row indices, the second as column indices, and the third as matrix values. This is then converted into a full matrix with full.
Another approach is to define the matrix containing initially zeros and then use linear indexing to fill in the ones:
v = [1,1,3,2];
m = numel(v);
n = 3; %// or compute n automatically as n = max(v);
M = zeros(m, n);
M((1:m) + (v-1)*m) = 1;
I think I've also found a way to do it, and it would be nice if somebody could tell me which of the methods shown is faster for very large vectors and matrices. The additional method I thought of is the following
M= ones(1,m)'*[1:n] == v * ones(1,n)
This problem was asked to me in Amazon interview -
Given a array of positive integers, you have to find the smallest positive integer that can not be formed from the sum of numbers from array.
Example:
Array:[4 13 2 3 1]
result= 11 { Since 11 was smallest positive number which can not be formed from the given array elements }
What i did was :
sorted the array
calculated the prefix sum
Treverse the sum array and check if next element is less than 1
greater than sum i.e. A[j]<=(sum+1). If not so then answer would
be sum+1
But this was nlog(n) solution.
Interviewer was not satisfied with this and asked a solution in less than O(n log n) time.
There's a beautiful algorithm for solving this problem in time O(n + Sort), where Sort is the amount of time required to sort the input array.
The idea behind the algorithm is to sort the array and then ask the following question: what is the smallest positive integer you cannot make using the first k elements of the array? You then scan forward through the array from left to right, updating your answer to this question, until you find the smallest number you can't make.
Here's how it works. Initially, the smallest number you can't make is 1. Then, going from left to right, do the following:
If the current number is bigger than the smallest number you can't make so far, then you know the smallest number you can't make - it's the one you've got recorded, and you're done.
Otherwise, the current number is less than or equal to the smallest number you can't make. The claim is that you can indeed make this number. Right now, you know the smallest number you can't make with the first k elements of the array (call it candidate) and are now looking at value A[k]. The number candidate - A[k] therefore must be some number that you can indeed make with the first k elements of the array, since otherwise candidate - A[k] would be a smaller number than the smallest number you allegedly can't make with the first k numbers in the array. Moreover, you can make any number in the range candidate to candidate + A[k], inclusive, because you can start with any number in the range from 1 to A[k], inclusive, and then add candidate - 1 to it. Therefore, set candidate to candidate + A[k] and increment k.
In pseudocode:
Sort(A)
candidate = 1
for i from 1 to length(A):
if A[i] > candidate: return candidate
else: candidate = candidate + A[i]
return candidate
Here's a test run on [4, 13, 2, 1, 3]. Sort the array to get [1, 2, 3, 4, 13]. Then, set candidate to 1. We then do the following:
A[1] = 1, candidate = 1:
A[1] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[1] = 2
A[2] = 2, candidate = 2:
A[2] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[2] = 4
A[3] = 3, candidate = 4:
A[3] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[3] = 7
A[4] = 4, candidate = 7:
A[4] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[4] = 11
A[5] = 13, candidate = 11:
A[5] > candidate, so return candidate (11).
So the answer is 11.
The runtime here is O(n + Sort) because outside of sorting, the runtime is O(n). You can clearly sort in O(n log n) time using heapsort, and if you know some upper bound on the numbers you can sort in time O(n log U) (where U is the maximum possible number) by using radix sort. If U is a fixed constant, (say, 109), then radix sort runs in time O(n) and this entire algorithm then runs in time O(n) as well.
Hope this helps!
Use bitvectors to accomplish this in linear time.
Start with an empty bitvector b. Then for each element k in your array, do this:
b = b | b << k | 2^(k-1)
To be clear, the i'th element is set to 1 to represent the number i, and | k is setting the k-th element to 1.
After you finish processing the array, the index of the first zero in b is your answer (counting from the right, starting at 1).
b=0
process 4: b = b | b<<4 | 1000 = 1000
process 13: b = b | b<<13 | 1000000000000 = 10001000000001000
process 2: b = b | b<<2 | 10 = 1010101000000101010
process 3: b = b | b<<3 | 100 = 1011111101000101111110
process 1: b = b | b<<1 | 1 = 11111111111001111111111
First zero: position 11.
Consider all integers in interval [2i .. 2i+1 - 1]. And suppose all integers below 2i can be formed from sum of numbers from given array. Also suppose that we already know C, which is sum of all numbers below 2i. If C >= 2i+1 - 1, every number in this interval may be represented as sum of given numbers. Otherwise we could check if interval [2i .. C + 1] contains any number from given array. And if there is no such number, C + 1 is what we searched for.
Here is a sketch of an algorithm:
For each input number, determine to which interval it belongs, and update corresponding sum: S[int_log(x)] += x.
Compute prefix sum for array S: foreach i: C[i] = C[i-1] + S[i].
Filter array C to keep only entries with values lower than next power of 2.
Scan input array once more and notice which of the intervals [2i .. C + 1] contain at least one input number: i = int_log(x) - 1; B[i] |= (x <= C[i] + 1).
Find first interval that is not filtered out on step #3 and corresponding element of B[] not set on step #4.
If it is not obvious why we can apply step 3, here is the proof. Choose any number between 2i and C, then sequentially subtract from it all the numbers below 2i in decreasing order. Eventually we get either some number less than the last subtracted number or zero. If the result is zero, just add together all the subtracted numbers and we have the representation of chosen number. If the result is non-zero and less than the last subtracted number, this result is also less than 2i, so it is "representable" and none of the subtracted numbers are used for its representation. When we add these subtracted numbers back, we have the representation of chosen number. This also suggests that instead of filtering intervals one by one we could skip several intervals at once by jumping directly to int_log of C.
Time complexity is determined by function int_log(), which is integer logarithm or index of the highest set bit in the number. If our instruction set contains integer logarithm or any its equivalent (count leading zeros, or tricks with floating point numbers), then complexity is O(n). Otherwise we could use some bit hacking to implement int_log() in O(log log U) and obtain O(n * log log U) time complexity. (Here U is largest number in the array).
If step 1 (in addition to updating the sum) will also update minimum value in given range, step 4 is not needed anymore. We could just compare C[i] to Min[i+1]. This means we need only single pass over input array. Or we could apply this algorithm not to array but to a stream of numbers.
Several examples:
Input: [ 4 13 2 3 1] [ 1 2 3 9] [ 1 1 2 9]
int_log: 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 3
int_log: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
S: 1 5 4 13 1 5 0 9 2 2 0 9
C: 1 6 10 23 1 6 6 15 2 4 4 13
filtered(C): n n n n n n n n n n n n
number in
[2^i..C+1]: 2 4 - 2 - - 2 - -
C+1: 11 7 5
For multi-precision input numbers this approach needs O(n * log M) time and O(log M) space. Where M is largest number in the array. The same time is needed just to read all the numbers (and in the worst case we need every bit of them).
Still this result may be improved to O(n * log R) where R is the value found by this algorithm (actually, the output-sensitive variant of it). The only modification needed for this optimization is instead of processing whole numbers at once, process them digit-by-digit: first pass processes the low order bits of each number (like bits 0..63), second pass - next bits (like 64..127), etc. We could ignore all higher-order bits after result is found. Also this decreases space requirements to O(K) numbers, where K is number of bits in machine word.
If you sort the array, it will work for you. Counting sort could've done it in O(n), but if you think in a practically large scenario, range can be pretty high.
Quicksort O(n*logn) will do the work for you:
def smallestPositiveInteger(self, array):
candidate = 1
n = len(array)
array = sorted(array)
for i in range(0, n):
if array[i] <= candidate:
candidate += array[i]
else:
break
return candidate
let's suppose i have a square of 7x7.i can fill the square with other squares(i.e the squares of dimension 1x1,2x2.....6x6).How can i can fill the square with least possible smaller squares.please help me.
Consider a square with dimensions s x s. Cutting a smaller square of dimensions m x m out will result in a square of m x m, a square of n x n, and two rectangles of dimensions m x n, where m + n = s.
When s is even, the square can be divided such that m = n, in which case the rectangles will also be squares, resulting in an answer of 4.
However, when s is odd, values of m and n must be chosen such that the resulting rectangle can be filled with the least number of squares possible. There doesn't seem to be an immediately obvious way to figure out the best configuration, so I would suggest coming up with an algorithm to figure out the least number of squares that can be used to fill a rectangle of size m x n (this is a slightly simpler problem and I believe it can be solved with a recursive algorithm). The total number of squares needed will then be equal to 2 x ([number of squares in m x n rectangle] + 1). You can use a loop to check all the sizes of m between 1 and s/2.
Hope that gets you started.
Consider a square with dimensions s x s.
Factorialise s into primes. Then solve the problem for each prime sp. The answer will be the same for sp x sp as for s x s. It is probable that the smallest prime will give the lowest result. I have have no proof of this, but I have checked by hand up to 17 x 17.
This is a generalisation of Otaias notion of an even s resulting in an answer of 4.
Placiing algorithm:
You need to loop from n = (s+1)/2, rounded down, to n = s-1.
Put the n x n square in a corner.
Let m = s - n.
Place m x m squares in the adjacent corners and keep placing them until they (almost) reach the end of the n x n square.
The remaining space will be m x m (if you are lucky), or up to 2m-1 x 2m-1 with a corner piece missing.
Fill the remaining space with a similar algorithm. Start with placing a n2 x n2 square in the corner opposite to the missing corner piece.
Working by hand I have obtained the following results:
s minimum number of squares:
2 4
3 6
5 8
7 9
11 10
13 11
17 12
First check if n is even. If n is even, then the answer is four since there isn't a way to fit 3 squares or 2 squares together to make another square so that solves it for half of all possible cases
BEFORE YOU PROCEED: This approach is incomplete and this may be the WRONG approach
I just intend to throw out an out-of-the-box idea just because I feel like this may help and, hopefully, advance the problem. I feel like it may have some correlation with Goldbach's weak conjecture. The algorithm may be too long to compute for larger values, and I'm not sure how much optimization is happening.
Now my idea would be to try to enumerate all triples (n1,n2,n3) where n1 + n2 + n3 = n AND n1, n2, n3 are all prime (which are >= 2) AND n >= 7 AND n1 <= n2 <= n3
Now let me literally depict my algorithm:
Now my idea is find all possible triples (n1,n2,n3) so it fits the definition stated above. Next set n_s = n1 + n2. IF n_s > n3 follow the depiction above else flip n_s and n3
Now the problem is the white rectangles left over (that should be congruent to each other).
Let n4 x n3 denote the rectangles where:
n4 = n - 2 * n3 \\if following the depicted example
Enumerate all possible triples (n41, n42, n43) (treating n as n = n4, so n3 >= 7) and (n31, n32, n33) (treating n as n = n3, so n3 >= 7). Next find the value where n_s3 == n_s4 and both are the greatest they could be. For example:
Let's suppose x3 = 17 and x4 = 13
Enumeration of x3 = 17:
2 + 2 + 13
3 + 3 + 11
5 + 5 + 7
Enumeration of x_s3:
4 = 2 + 2
6 = 3 + 3
10 = 5 + 5
12 = 5 + 7
14 = 3 + 11
15 = 2 + 13
Enumeration of x4 = 13:
2 + 2 + 7
3 + 5 + 5
Enumeration of x_s4:
4 = 2 + 2
8 = 3 + 5
9 = 2 + 7
10 = 5 + 5
Since 10 is the largest value shared between 13 and 17, you fit a 10 by 10 square in the (both rectangles) and now you have a none parallelogram which get further and further more difficult to fill, but may be (I feel) towards the right direction.
All feed back appreciated.