Related
Here is a code to exponentiate a number to a given power:
#include <stdio.h>
int foo(int m, int k) {
if (k == 0) {
return 1;
} else if (k % 2 != 0) {
return m * foo(m, k - 1);
} else {
int p = foo(m, k / 2);
return p * p;
}
}
int main() {
int m, k;
while (scanf("%d %d", &m, &k) == 2) {
printf("%d\n", foo(m, k));
}
return 0;
}
How do I calculate the time complexity of the function foo?
I have been able to deduce that if k is a power of 2, the time complexity is O(log k).
But I am finding it difficult to calculate for other values of k. Any help would be much appreciated.
How do I calculate the time complexity of the function foo()?
I have been able to deduce that if k is a power of 2, the time complexity is O(logk).
First, I assume that the time needed for each function call is constant (this would for example not be the case if the time needed for a multiplication depends on the numbers being multiplied - which is the case on some computers).
We also assume that k>=1 (otherwise, the function will run endlessly unless there is an overflow).
Let's think the value k as a binary number:
If the rightmost bit is 0 (k%2!=0 is false), the number is shifted right by one bit (foo(m,k/2)) and the function is called recursively.
If the rightmost bit is 1 (k%2!=0 is true), the bit is changed to a 0 (foo(m,k-1)) and the function is called recursively. (We don't look at the case k=1, yet.)
This means that the function is called once for each bit and it is called once for each 1 bit. Or, in other words: It is called once for each 0 bit in the number and twice for each 1 bit.
If N is the number of function calls, n1 is the number of 1 bits and n0 is the number of 0 bits, we get the following formula:
N = n0 + 2*n1 + C
The constant C (C=(-1), if I didn't make a mistake) represents the case k=1 that we ignored up to now.
This means:
N = (n0 + n1) + n1 + C
And - because n0 + n1 = floor(log2(k)) + 1:
floor(log2(k)) + C <= N <= 2*floor(log2(k)) + C
As you can see, the time complexity is always O(log(k))
O(log(k))
Some modification added to output a statistics for spread sheet plot.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
#ifndef TEST_NUM
#define TEST_NUM (100)
#endif
static size_t iter_count;
int foo(int m, int k) {
iter_count++;
if (k == 0) {
return 1;
} else if(k == 1) {
return m;
} else if (k % 2 != 0) {
return m * foo(m, k - 1);
} else {
int p = foo(m, k / 2);
return p * p;
}
}
int main() {
for (int i = 1; i < TEST_NUM; ++i) {
iter_count = 0;
int dummy_result = foo(1, i);
printf("%d, %zu, %f\n", i, iter_count, log2(i));
}
return 0;
}
Build it.
gcc t1.c -DTEST_NUM=10000
./a > output.csv
Now open the output file with a spread sheet program and plot the last two output columns.
For k positive, the function foo calls itself recursively p times if k is the p-th power of 2. If k is not a power of 2, the number of recursive calls is strictly inferior to 2 * p where p is the exponent of the largest power of 2 inferior to k.
Here is a demonstration:
let's expand the recursive call in the case k % 2 != 0:
int foo(int m, int k) {
if (k == 1) {
return m;
} else
if (k % 2 != 0) { /* 2 recursive calls */
// return m * foo(m, k - 1);
int p = foo(m, k / 2);
return m * p * p;
} else { /* 1 recursive call */
int p = foo(m, k / 2);
return p * p;
}
}
The total number of calls is floor(log2(k)) + bitcount(k), and bitcount(k) is by construction <= ceil(log2(k)).
There are no loops in the code and the time of each individual call is bounded by a constant, hence the overall time complexity of O(log k).
The number of times the function is called (recursively or not) per power call is proportional to the minimum number of bits in the exponent required to represent it in binary form.
Each time you enter in the function, it solves by reducing the number by one if the exponent is odd, OR reducing it to half if the exponent is even. This means that we will do n squares per significant bit in the number, and m more multiplications by the base for all the bits that are 1 in the exponent (which are, at most, n, so m < n) for a 32bit significant exponent (this is an exponent between 2^31 and 2^32 the routine will do between 32 and 64 products to get the result, and will reenter to itself a maximum of 64 times)
as in both cases the routine is tail-recursive, the code you post can be substituted with an iterative code in which a while loop is used to solve the problem.
int foo(int m, int k)
{
int prod = 1; /* last recursion foo(m, 0); */
int sq = m; /* squares */
while (k) {
if (k & 1) {
prod *= sq; /* foo(m, k); k odd */
}
k >>= 1;
sq *= sq;
}
return prod; /* return final product */
}
That's huge savings!!! (between 32 multiplications and 64 multiplications, to elevate something to 1,000,000,000 power)
Why I created a duplicate thread
I created this thread after reading Longest increasing subsequence with K exceptions allowed. I realised that the person who was asking the question hadn't really understood the problem, because he was referring to a link which solves the "Longest Increasing sub-array with one change allowed" problem. So the answers he got were actually irrelevant to LIS problem.
Description of the problem
Suppose that an array A is given with length N.
Find the longest increasing sub-sequence with K exceptions allowed.
Example
1)
N=9 , K=1
A=[3,9,4,5,8,6,1,3,7]
Answer: 7
Explanation:
Longest increasing subsequence is : 3,4,5,8(or 6),1(exception),3,7 -> total=7
N=11 , K=2
A=[5,6,4,7,3,9,2,5,1,8,7]
answer: 8
What I have done so far...
If K=1 then only one exception is allowed. If the known algorithm for computing the Longest Increasing Subsequence in O(NlogN) is used (click here to see this algorithm), then we can compute the LIS starting from A[0] to A[N-1] for each element of array A. We save the results in a new array L with size N. Looking into example n.1 the L array would be:
L=[1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,5].
Using the reverse logic, we compute array R, each element of which contains the current Longest Decreasing Sequence from N-1 to 0.
The LIS with one exception is just sol=max(sol,L[i]+R[i+1]),
where sol is initialized as sol=L[N-1].
So we compute LIS from 0 until an index i (exception), then stop and start a new LIS until N-1.
A=[3,9,4,5,8,6,1,3,7]
L=[1,2,2,3,4,4,4,4,5]
R=[5,4,4,3,3,3,3,2,1]
Sol = 7
-> step by step explanation:
init: sol = L[N]= 5
i=0 : sol = max(sol,1+4) = 5
i=1 : sol = max(sol,2+4) = 6
i=2 : sol = max(sol,2+3) = 6
i=3 : sol = max(sol,3+3) = 6
i=4 : sol = max(sol,4+3) = 7
i=4 : sol = max(sol,4+3) = 7
i=4 : sol = max(sol,4+2) = 7
i=5 : sol = max(sol,4+1) = 7
Complexity :
O( NlogN + NlogN + N ) = O(NlogN)
because arrays R, L need NlogN time to compute and we also need Θ(N) in order to find sol.
Code for k=1 problem
#include <stdio.h>
#include <vector>
std::vector<int> ends;
int index_search(int value, int asc) {
int l = -1;
int r = ends.size() - 1;
while (r - l > 1) {
int m = (r + l) / 2;
if (asc && ends[m] >= value)
r = m;
else if (asc && ends[m] < value)
l = m;
else if (!asc && ends[m] <= value)
r = m;
else
l = m;
}
return r;
}
int main(void) {
int n, *S, *A, *B, i, length, idx, max;
scanf("%d",&n);
S = new int[n];
L = new int[n];
R = new int[n];
for (i=0; i<n; i++) {
scanf("%d",&S[i]);
}
ends.push_back(S[0]);
length = 1;
L[0] = length;
for (i=1; i<n; i++) {
if (S[i] < ends[0]) {
ends[0] = S[i];
}
else if (S[i] > ends[length-1]) {
length++;
ends.push_back(S[i]);
}
else {
idx = index_search(S[i],1);
ends[idx] = S[i];
}
L[i] = length;
}
ends.clear();
ends.push_back(S[n-1]);
length = 1;
R[n-1] = length;
for (i=n-2; i>=0; i--) {
if (S[i] > ends[0]) {
ends[0] = S[i];
}
else if (S[i] < ends[length-1]) {
length++;
ends.push_back(S[i]);
}
else {
idx = index_search(S[i],0);
ends[idx] = S[i];
}
R[i] = length;
}
max = A[n-1];
for (i=0; i<n-1; i++) {
max = std::max(max,(L[i]+R[i+1]));
}
printf("%d\n",max);
return 0;
}
Generalization to K exceptions
I have provided an algorithm for K=1. I have no clue how to change the above algorithm to work for K exceptions. I would be glad if someone could help me.
This answer is modified from my answer to a similar question at Computer Science Stackexchange.
The LIS problem with at most k exceptions admits a O(n log² n) algorithm using Lagrangian relaxation. When k is larger than log n this improves asymptotically on the O(nk log n) DP, which we will also briefly explain.
Let DP[a][b] denote the length of the longest increasing subsequence with at most b exceptions (positions where the previous integer is larger than the next one) ending at element b a. This DP is not involved in the algorithm, but defining it makes proving the algorithm easier.
For convenience we will assume that all elements are distinct and that the last element in the array is its maximum. Note that this does not limit us, as we can just add m / 2n to the mth appearance of every number, and append infinity to the array and subtract one from the answer. Let V be the permutation for which 1 <= V[i] <= n is the value of the ith element.
To solve the problem in O(nk log n), we maintain the invariant that DP[a][b] has been calculated for b < j. Loop j from 0 to k, at the jth iteration calculating DP[a][j] for all a. To do this, loop i from 1 to n. We maintain the maximum of DP[x][j-1] over x < i and a prefix maximum data structure that at index i will have DP[x][j] at position V[x] for x < i, and 0 at every other position.
We have DP[i][j] = 1 + max(DP[i'][j], DP[x][j-1]) where we go over i', x < i, V[i'] < V[i]. The prefix maximum of DP[x][j-1] gives us the maximum of terms of the second type, and querying the prefix maximum data structure for prefix [0, V[i]] gives us the maximum of terms of the first type. Then update the prefix maximum and prefix maximum data structure.
Here is a C++ implementation of the algorithm. Note that this implementation does not assume that the last element of the array is its maximum, or that the array contains no duplicates.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
// Fenwick tree for prefix maximum queries
class Fenwick {
private:
vector<int> val;
public:
Fenwick(int n) : val(n+1, 0) {}
// Sets value at position i to maximum of its current value and
void inc(int i, int v) {
for (++i; i < val.size(); i += i & -i) val[i] = max(val[i], v);
}
// Calculates prefix maximum up to index i
int get(int i) {
int res = 0;
for (++i; i > 0; i -= i & -i) res = max(res, val[i]);
return res;
}
};
// Binary searches index of v from sorted vector
int bins(const vector<int>& vec, int v) {
int low = 0;
int high = (int)vec.size() - 1;
while(low != high) {
int mid = (low + high) / 2;
if (vec[mid] < v) low = mid + 1;
else high = mid;
}
return low;
}
// Compresses the range of values to [0, m), and returns m
int compress(vector<int>& vec) {
vector<int> ord = vec;
sort(ord.begin(), ord.end());
ord.erase(unique(ord.begin(), ord.end()), ord.end());
for (int& v : vec) v = bins(ord, v);
return ord.size();
}
// Returns length of longest strictly increasing subsequence with at most k exceptions
int lisExc(int k, vector<int> vec) {
int n = vec.size();
int m = compress(vec);
vector<int> dp(n, 0);
for (int j = 0;; ++j) {
Fenwick fenw(m+1); // longest subsequence with at most j exceptions ending at this value
int max_exc = 0; // longest subsequence with at most j-1 exceptions ending before this
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
int off = 1 + max(max_exc, fenw.get(vec[i]));
max_exc = max(max_exc, dp[i]);
dp[i] = off;
fenw.inc(vec[i]+1, off);
}
if (j == k) return fenw.get(m);
}
}
int main() {
int n, k;
cin >> n >> k;
vector<int> vec(n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) cin >> vec[i];
int res = lisExc(k, vec);
cout << res << '\n';
}
Now we will return to the O(n log² n) algorithm. Select some integer 0 <= r <= n. Define DP'[a][r] = max(DP[a][b] - rb), where the maximum is taken over b, MAXB[a][r] as the maximum b such that DP'[a][r] = DP[a][b] - rb, and MINB[a][r] similarly as the minimum such b. We will show that DP[a][k] = DP'[a][r] + rk if and only if MINB[a][r] <= k <= MAXB[a][r]. Further, we will show that for any k exists an r for which this inequality holds.
Note that MINB[a][r] >= MINB[a][r'] and MAXB[a][r] >= MAXB[a][r'] if r < r', hence if we assume the two claimed results, we can do binary search for the r, trying O(log n) values. Hence we achieve complexity O(n log² n) if we can calculate DP', MINB and MAXB in O(n log n) time.
To do this, we will need a segment tree that stores tuples P[i] = (v_i, low_i, high_i), and supports the following operations:
Given a range [a, b], find the maximum value in that range (maximum v_i, a <= i <= b), and the minimum low and maximum high paired with that value in the range.
Set the value of the tuple P[i]
This is easy to implement with complexity O(log n) time per operation assuming some familiarity with segment trees. You can refer to the implementation of the algorithm below for details.
We will now show how to compute DP', MINB and MAXB in O(n log n). Fix r. Build the segment tree initially containing n+1 null values (-INF, INF, -INF). We maintain that P[V[j]] = (DP'[j], MINB[j], MAXB[j]) for j less than the current position i. Set DP'[0] = 0, MINB[0] = 0 and MAXB[0] to 0 if r > 0, otherwise to INF and P[0] = (DP'[0], MINB[0], MAXB[0]).
Loop i from 1 to n. There are two types of subsequences ending at i: those where the previous element is greater than V[i], and those where it is less than V[i]. To account for the second kind, query the segment tree in the range [0, V[i]]. Let the result be (v_1, low_1, high_1). Set off1 = (v_1 + 1, low_1, high_1). For the first kind, query the segment tree in the range [V[i], n]. Let the result be (v_2, low_2, high_2). Set off2 = (v_2 + 1 - r, low_2 + 1, high_2 + 1), where we incur the penalty of r for creating an exception.
Then we combine off1 and off2 into off. If off1.v > off2.v set off = off1, and if off2.v > off1.v set off = off2. Otherwise, set off = (off1.v, min(off1.low, off2.low), max(off1.high, off2.high)). Then set DP'[i] = off.v, MINB[i] = off.low, MAXB[i] = off.high and P[i] = off.
Since we make two segment tree queries at every i, this takes O(n log n) time in total. It is easy to prove by induction that we compute the correct values DP', MINB and MAXB.
So in short, the algorithm is:
Preprocess, modifying values so that they form a permutation, and the last value is the largest value.
Binary search for the correct r, with initial bounds 0 <= r <= n
Initialise the segment tree with null values, set DP'[0], MINB[0] and MAXB[0].
Loop from i = 1 to n, at step i
Querying ranges [0, V[i]] and [V[i], n] of the segment tree,
calculating DP'[i], MINB[i] and MAXB[i] based on those queries, and
setting the value at position V[i] in the segment tree to the tuple (DP'[i], MINB[i], MAXB[i]).
If MINB[n][r] <= k <= MAXB[n][r], return DP'[n][r] + kr - 1.
Otherwise, if MAXB[n][r] < k, the correct r is less than the current r. If MINB[n][r] > k, the correct r is greater than the current r. Update the bounds on r and return to step 1.
Here is a C++ implementation for this algorithm. It also finds the optimal subsequence.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
using ll = long long;
const int INF = 2 * (int)1e9;
pair<ll, pair<int, int>> combine(pair<ll, pair<int, int>> le, pair<ll, pair<int, int>> ri) {
if (le.first < ri.first) swap(le, ri);
if (ri.first == le.first) {
le.second.first = min(le.second.first, ri.second.first);
le.second.second = max(le.second.second, ri.second.second);
}
return le;
}
// Specialised range maximum segment tree
class SegTree {
private:
vector<pair<ll, pair<int, int>>> seg;
int h = 1;
pair<ll, pair<int, int>> recGet(int a, int b, int i, int le, int ri) const {
if (ri <= a || b <= le) return {-INF, {INF, -INF}};
else if (a <= le && ri <= b) return seg[i];
else return combine(recGet(a, b, 2*i, le, (le+ri)/2), recGet(a, b, 2*i+1, (le+ri)/2, ri));
}
public:
SegTree(int n) {
while(h < n) h *= 2;
seg.resize(2*h, {-INF, {INF, -INF}});
}
void set(int i, pair<ll, pair<int, int>> off) {
seg[i+h] = combine(seg[i+h], off);
for (i += h; i > 1; i /= 2) seg[i/2] = combine(seg[i], seg[i^1]);
}
pair<ll, pair<int, int>> get(int a, int b) const {
return recGet(a, b+1, 1, 0, h);
}
};
// Binary searches index of v from sorted vector
int bins(const vector<int>& vec, int v) {
int low = 0;
int high = (int)vec.size() - 1;
while(low != high) {
int mid = (low + high) / 2;
if (vec[mid] < v) low = mid + 1;
else high = mid;
}
return low;
}
// Finds longest strictly increasing subsequence with at most k exceptions in O(n log^2 n)
vector<int> lisExc(int k, vector<int> vec) {
// Compress values
vector<int> ord = vec;
sort(ord.begin(), ord.end());
ord.erase(unique(ord.begin(), ord.end()), ord.end());
for (auto& v : vec) v = bins(ord, v) + 1;
// Binary search lambda
int n = vec.size();
int m = ord.size() + 1;
int lambda_0 = 0;
int lambda_1 = n;
while(true) {
int lambda = (lambda_0 + lambda_1) / 2;
SegTree seg(m);
if (lambda > 0) seg.set(0, {0, {0, 0}});
else seg.set(0, {0, {0, INF}});
// Calculate DP
vector<pair<ll, pair<int, int>>> dp(n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
auto off0 = seg.get(0, vec[i]-1); // previous < this
off0.first += 1;
auto off1 = seg.get(vec[i], m-1); // previous >= this
off1.first += 1 - lambda;
off1.second.first += 1;
off1.second.second += 1;
dp[i] = combine(off0, off1);
seg.set(vec[i], dp[i]);
}
// Is min_b <= k <= max_b?
auto off = seg.get(0, m-1);
if (off.second.second < k) {
lambda_1 = lambda - 1;
} else if (off.second.first > k) {
lambda_0 = lambda + 1;
} else {
// Construct solution
ll r = off.first + 1;
int v = m;
int b = k;
vector<int> res;
for (int i = n-1; i >= 0; --i) {
if (vec[i] < v) {
if (r == dp[i].first + 1 && dp[i].second.first <= b && b <= dp[i].second.second) {
res.push_back(i);
r -= 1;
v = vec[i];
}
} else {
if (r == dp[i].first + 1 - lambda && dp[i].second.first <= b-1 && b-1 <= dp[i].second.second) {
res.push_back(i);
r -= 1 - lambda;
v = vec[i];
--b;
}
}
}
reverse(res.begin(), res.end());
return res;
}
}
}
int main() {
int n, k;
cin >> n >> k;
vector<int> vec(n);
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) cin >> vec[i];
vector<int> ans = lisExc(k, vec);
for (auto i : ans) cout << i+1 << ' ';
cout << '\n';
}
We will now prove the two claims. We wish to prove that
DP'[a][r] = DP[a][b] - rb if and only if MINB[a][r] <= b <= MAXB[a][r]
For all a, k there exists an integer r, 0 <= r <= n, such that MINB[a][r] <= k <= MAXB[a][r]
Both of these follow from the concavity of the problem. Concavity means that DP[a][k+2] - DP[a][k+1] <= DP[a][k+1] - DP[a][k] for all a, k. This is intuitive: the more exceptions we are allowed to make, the less allowing one more helps us.
Fix a and r. Set f(b) = DP[a][b] - rb, and d(b) = f(b+1) - f(b). We have d(k+1) <= d(k) from the concavity of the problem. Assume x < y and f(x) = f(y) >= f(i) for all i. Hence d(x) <= 0, thus d(i) <= 0 for i in [x, y). But f(y) = f(x) + d(x) + d(x + 1) + ... + d(y - 1), hence d(i) = 0 for i in [x, y). Hence f(y) = f(x) = f(i) for i in [x, y]. This proves the first claim.
To prove the second, set r = DP[a][k+1] - DP[a][k] and define f, d as previously. Then d(k) = 0, hence d(i) >= 0 for i < k and d(i) <= 0 for i > k, hence f(k) is maximal as desired.
Proving concavity is more difficult. For a proof, see my answer at cs.stackexchange.
Let's say I've been given two integers a, b where a is a positive integer and is smaller than b. I have to find an efficient algorithm that's going to give me the sum of number of base2 digits (number of bits) over the interval [a, b]. For example, in the interval [0, 4] the sum of digits is equal to 9 because 0 = 1 digit, 1 = 1 digit, 2 = 2 digits, 3 = 2 digits and 4 = 3 digits.
My program is capable of calculating this number by using a loop but I'm looking for something more efficient for large numbers. Here are the snippets of my code just to give you an idea:
int numberOfBits(int i) {
if(i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return (int) log2(i) + 1;
}
}
The function above is for calculating the number of digits of one number in the interval.
The code below shows you how I use it in my main function.
for(i = a; i <= b; i++) {
l = l + numberOfBits(i);
}
printf("Digits: %d\n", l);
Ideally I should be able to get the number of digits by using the two values of my interval and using some special algorithm to do that.
Try this code, i think it gives you what you are needing to calculate the binaries:
int bit(int x)
{
if(!x) return 1;
else
{
int i;
for(i = 0; x; i++, x >>= 1);
return i;
}
}
The main thing to understand here is that the number of digits used to represent a number in binary increases by one with each power of two:
+--------------+---------------+
| number range | binary digits |
+==============+===============+
| 0 - 1 | 1 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 2 - 3 | 2 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 4 - 7 | 3 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 8 - 15 | 4 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 16 - 31 | 5 |
+--------------+---------------+
| 32 - 63 | 6 |
+--------------+---------------+
| ... | ... |
A trivial improvement over your brute force algorithm would then be to figure out how many times this number of digits has increased between the two numbers passed in (given by the base two logarithm) and add up the digits by multiplying the count of numbers that can be represented by the given number of digits (given by the power of two) with the number of digits.
A naive implementation of this algorithm is:
int digits_sum_seq(int a, int b)
{
int sum = 0;
int i = 0;
int log2b = b <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(b));
int log2a = a <= 0 ? 1 : floor(log2(a)) + 1;
sum += (pow(2, log2a) - a) * (log2a);
for (i = log2b; i > log2a; i--)
sum += pow(2, i - 1) * i;
sum += (b - pow(2, log2b) + 1) * (log2b + 1);
return sum;
}
It can then be improved by the more efficient versions of the log and pow functions seen in the other answers.
First, we can improve the speed of log2, but that only gives us a fixed factor speed-up and doesn't change the scaling.
Faster log2 adapted from: https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#IntegerLogLookup
The lookup table method takes only about 7 operations to find the log
of a 32-bit value. If extended for 64-bit quantities, it would take
roughly 9 operations. Another operation can be trimmed off by using
four tables, with the possible additions incorporated into each. Using
int table elements may be faster, depending on your architecture.
Second, we must re-think the algorithm. If you know that numbers between N and M have the same number of digits, would you add them up one by one or would you rather do (M-N+1)*numDigits?
But if we have a range where multiple numbers appear what do we do? Let's just find the intervals of same digits, and add sums of those intervals. Implemented below. I think that my findEndLimit could be further optimized with a lookup table.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned int fastLog2(unsigned int v)
{
static const char LogTable256[256] =
{
#define LT(n) n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n, n
-1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
LT(4), LT(5), LT(5), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6), LT(6),
LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7), LT(7)
};
register unsigned int t, tt; // temporaries
if (tt = v >> 16)
{
return (t = tt >> 8) ? 24 + LogTable256[t] : 16 + LogTable256[tt];
}
else
{
return (t = v >> 8) ? 8 + LogTable256[t] : LogTable256[v];
}
}
unsigned int numberOfBits(unsigned int i)
{
if (i == 0) {
return 1;
}
else {
return fastLog2(i) + 1;
}
}
unsigned int findEndLimit(unsigned int sx, unsigned int ex)
{
unsigned int sy = numberOfBits(sx);
unsigned int ey = numberOfBits(ex);
unsigned int mx;
unsigned int my;
if (sy == ey) // this also means sx == ex
return ex;
// assumes sy < ey
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
while (ex - sx != 1) {
mx = (ex - sx) / 2 + sx; // will eq. sx for sx + 1 == ex
my = numberOfBits(mx);
if (my == ey) {
ex = mx;
ey = numberOfBits(ex);
}
else {
sx = mx;
sy = numberOfBits(sx);
}
}
return sx+1;
}
int main(void)
{
unsigned int a, b, m;
unsigned long l;
clock_t start, end;
l = 0;
a = 0;
b = UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
unsigned int i;
for (i = a; i < b; ++i) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
if (i == b) {
l += numberOfBits(i);
}
end = clock();
printf("Naive\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
l=0;
start = clock();
do {
m = findEndLimit(a, b);
l += (b-m + 1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
b = m-1;
} while (b > a);
l += (b-a+1) * (unsigned long)numberOfBits(b);
end = clock();
printf("Binary search\n");
printf("Digits: %ld; Time: %fs\n",l, ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
From 0 to UINT_MAX
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 25.722492s
Binary search
Digits: 133143986178; Time: 0.000025s
My findEndLimit can take long time in some edge cases:
From UINT_MAX/16+1 to UINT_MAX/8
$ ./main
Naive
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 1.651067s
Binary search
Digits: 7784628224; Time: 4.921520s
Conceptually, you would need to split the task to two subproblems -
1) find the sum of digits from 0..M, and from 0..N, then subtract.
2) find the floor(log2(x)), because eg for the number 77 the numbers 64,65,...77 all have 6 digits, the next 32 have 5 digits, the next 16 have 4 digits and so on, which makes a geometric progression.
Thus:
int digits(int a) {
if (a == 0) return 1; // should digits(0) be 0 or 1 ?
int b=(int)floor(log2(a)); // use any all-integer calculation hack
int sum = 1 + (b+1) * (a- (1<<b) +1); // added 1, due to digits(0)==1
while (--b)
sum += (b + 1) << b; // shortcut for (b + 1) * (1 << b);
return sum;
}
int digits_range(int a, int b) {
if (a <= 0 || b <= 0) return -1; // formulas work for strictly positive numbers
return digits(b)-digits(a-1);
}
As efficiency depends on the tools available, one approach would be doing it "analog":
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
unsigned long long pow2sum_min(unsigned long long n, long long unsigned m)
{
if (m >= n)
{
return 1;
}
--n;
return (2ULL << n) + pow2sum_min(n, m);
}
#define LN(x) (log2(x)/log2(M_E))
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if (2 >= argc)
{
fprintf(stderr, "%s a b\n", argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
long a = atol(argv[1]), b = atol(argv[2]);
if (0L >= a || 0L >= b || b < a)
{
puts("Na ...!");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
/* Expand intevall to cover full dimensions: */
unsigned long long a_c = pow(2, floor(log2(a)));
unsigned long long b_c = pow(2, floor(log2(b+1)) + 1);
double log2_a_c = log2(a_c);
double log2_b_c = log2(b_c);
unsigned long p2s = pow2sum_min(log2_b_c, log2_a_c) - 1;
/* Integral log2(x) between a_c and b_c: */
double A = ((b_c * (LN(b_c) - 1))
- (a_c * (LN(a_c) - 1)))/LN(2)
+ (b+1 - a);
/* "Integer"-integral - integral of log2(x)'s inverse function (2**x) between log(a_c) and log(b_c): */
double D = p2s - (b_c - a_c)/LN(2);
/* Corrective from a_c/b_c to a/b : */
double C = (log2_b_c - 1)*(b_c - (b+1)) + log2_a_c*(a - a_c);
printf("Total used digits: %lld\n", (long long) ((A - D - C) +.5));
}
:-)
The main thing here is the number and kind of iterations done.
Number is
log(floor(b_c)) - log(floor(a_c))
times
doing one
n - 1 /* Integer decrement */
2**n + s /* One bit-shift and one integer addition */
for each iteration.
Here's an entirely look-up based approach. You don't even need the log2 :)
Algorithm
First we precompute interval limits where the number of bits would change and create a lookup table. In other words we create an array limits[2^n], where limits[i] gives us the biggest integer that can be represented with (i+1) bits. Our array is then {1, 3, 7, ..., 2^n-1}.
Then, when we want to determine the sum of bits for our range, we must first match our range limits a and b with the smallest index for which a <= limits[i] and b <= limits[j] holds, which will then tell us that we need (i+1) bits to represent a, and (j+1) bits to represent b.
If the indexes are the same, then the result is simply (b-a+1)*(i+1), otherwise we must separately get the number of bits from our value to the edge of same number of bits interval, and add up total number of bits for each interval between as well. In any case, simple arithmetic.
Code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <time.h>
unsigned long bitsnumsum(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
{
// generate lookup table
// limits[i] is the max. number we can represent with (i+1) bits
static const unsigned int limits[32] =
{
#define LTN(n) n*2u-1, n*4u-1, n*8u-1, n*16u-1, n*32u-1, n*64u-1, n*128u-1, n*256u-1
LTN(1),
LTN(256),
LTN(256*256),
LTN(256*256*256)
};
// make it work for any order of arguments
if (b < a) {
unsigned int c = a;
a = b;
b = c;
}
// find interval of a
unsigned int i = 0;
while (a > limits[i]) {
++i;
}
// find interval of b
unsigned int j = i;
while (b > limits[j]) {
++j;
}
// add it all up
unsigned long sum = 0;
if (i == j) {
// a and b in the same range
// conveniently, this also deals with j == 0
// so no danger to do [j-1] below
return (i+1) * (unsigned long)(b - a + 1);
}
else {
// add sum of digits in range [a, limits[i]]
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - a + 1);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[j], b]
sum += (j+1) * (unsigned long)(b - limits[j-1]);
// add sum of digits in range [limits[i], limits[j]]
for (++i; i<j; ++i) {
sum += (i+1) * (unsigned long)(limits[i] - limits[i-1]);
}
return sum;
}
}
int main(void)
{
clock_t start, end;
unsigned int a=0, b=UINT_MAX;
start = clock();
printf("Sum of binary digits for numbers in range "
"[%u, %u]: %lu\n", a, b, bitsnumsum(a, b));
end = clock();
printf("Time: %fs\n", ((double)(end-start))/CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
}
Output
$ ./lookup
Sum of binary digits for numbers in range [0, 4294967295]: 133143986178
Time: 0.000282s
Algorithm
The main idea is to find the n2 = log2(x) rounded down. That is the number of digits in x. Let pow2 = 1 << n2. n2 * (pow2 - x + 1) is the number of digits in the values [x...pow2]. Now find the sun of digits in the powers of 2 from 1 to n2-1
Code
I am certain various simplifications can be made.
Untested code. Will review later.
// Let us use unsigned for everything.
unsigned ulog2(unsigned value) {
unsigned result = 0;
if (0xFFFF0000u & value) {
value >>= 16; result += 16;
}
if (0xFF00u & value) {
value >>= 8; result += 8;
}
if (0xF0u & value) {
value >>= 4; result += 4;
}
if (0xCu & value) {
value >>= 2; result += 2;
}
if (0x2 & value) {
value >>= 1; result += 1;
}
return result;
}
unsigned bit_count_helper(unsigned x) {
if (x == 0) {
return 1;
}
unsigned n2 = ulog2(x);
unsigned pow2 = 1u << n;
unsigned sum = n2 * (pow2 - x + 1u); // value from pow2 to x
while (n2 > 0) {
// ... + 5*16 + 4*8 + 3*4 + 2*2 + 1*1
pow2 /= 2;
sum += n2 * pow2;
}
return sum;
}
unsigned bit_count(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
assert(a < b);
return bit_count_helper(b - 1) - bit_count_helper(a);
}
For this problem your solution is the simplest, the one called "naive" where you look for every element in the sequence or in your case interval for check something or execute operations.
Naive Algorithm
Assuming that a and b are positive integers with b greater than a let's call the dimension/size of the interval [a,b], n = (b-a).
Having our number of elements n and using some notations of algorithms (like big-O notation link), the worst case cost is O(n*(numberOfBits_cost)).
From this we can see that we can speed up our algorithm by using a faster algorithm for computing numberOfBits() or we need to find a way to not look at every element of the interval that costs us n operations.
Intuition
Now looking at a possible interval [6,14] you can see that for 6 and 7 we need 3 digits, with 4 need for 8,9,10,11,12,13,14. This results in calling numberOfBits() for every number that use the same number of digits to be represented, while the following multiplication operation would be faster:
(number_in_subinterval)*digitsForThisInterval
((14-8)+1)*4 = 28
((7-6)+1)*3 = 6
So we reduced the looping on 9 elements with 9 operations to only 2.
So writing a function that use this intuition will give us a more efficient in time, not necessarily in memory, algorithm. Using your numberOfBits() function I have created this solution:
int intuitionSol(int a, int b){
int digitsForA = numberOfBits(a);
int digitsForB = numberOfBits(b);
if(digitsForA != digitsForB){
//because a or b can be that isn't the first or last element of the
// interval that a specific number of digit can rappresent there is a need
// to execute some correction operation before on a and b
int tmp = pow(2,digitsForA) - a;
int result = tmp*digitsForA; //will containt the final result that will be returned
int i;
for(i = digitsForA + 1; i < digitsForB; i++){
int interval_elements = pow(2,i) - pow(2,i-1);
result = result + ((interval_elements) * i);
//printf("NumOfElem: %i for %i digits; sum:= %i\n", interval_elements, i, result);
}
int tmp1 = ((b + 1) - pow(2,digitsForB-1));
result = result + tmp1*digitsForB;
return result;
}
else {
int elements = (b - a) + 1;
return elements * digitsForA; // or digitsForB
}
}
Let's look at the cost, this algorithm costs is the cost of doing correction operation on a and b plus the most expensive one that of the for-loop. In my solution however I'm not looping over all elements but only on numberOfBits(b)-numberOfBits(a) that in the worst case, when [0,n], become log(n)-1 thats equivalent to O(log n).
To resume we passed from a linear operations cost O(n) to a logartmic one O(log n) in the worst case. Look on this diagram the diferinces between the two.
Note
When I talk about interval or sub-interval I refer to the interval of elements that use the same number of digits to represent the number in binary.
Following there are some output of my tests with the last one that shows the difference:
Considered interval is [0,4]
YourSol: 9 in time: 0.000015s
IntuitionSol: 9 in time: 0.000007s
Considered interval is [0,0]
YourSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
IntuitionSol: 1 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [4,7]
YourSol: 12 in time: 0.000016s
IntuitionSol: 12 in time: 0.000005s
Considered interval is [2,123456]
YourSol: 1967697 in time: 0.005010s
IntuitionSol: 1967697 in time: 0.000015s
I want to write a function that takes an array of letters as an argument and a number of those letters to select.
Say you provide an array of 8 letters and want to select 3 letters from that. Then you should get:
8! / ((8 - 3)! * 3!) = 56
Arrays (or words) in return consisting of 3 letters each.
Art of Computer Programming Volume 4: Fascicle 3 has a ton of these that might fit your particular situation better than how I describe.
Gray Codes
An issue that you will come across is of course memory and pretty quickly, you'll have problems by 20 elements in your set -- 20C3 = 1140. And if you want to iterate over the set it's best to use a modified gray code algorithm so you aren't holding all of them in memory. These generate the next combination from the previous and avoid repetitions. There are many of these for different uses. Do we want to maximize the differences between successive combinations? minimize? et cetera.
Some of the original papers describing gray codes:
Some Hamilton Paths and a Minimal Change Algorithm
Adjacent Interchange Combination Generation Algorithm
Here are some other papers covering the topic:
An Efficient Implementation of the Eades, Hickey, Read Adjacent Interchange Combination Generation Algorithm (PDF, with code in Pascal)
Combination Generators
Survey of Combinatorial Gray Codes (PostScript)
An Algorithm for Gray Codes
Chase's Twiddle (algorithm)
Phillip J Chase, `Algorithm 382: Combinations of M out of N Objects' (1970)
The algorithm in C...
Index of Combinations in Lexicographical Order (Buckles Algorithm 515)
You can also reference a combination by its index (in lexicographical order). Realizing that the index should be some amount of change from right to left based on the index we can construct something that should recover a combination.
So, we have a set {1,2,3,4,5,6}... and we want three elements. Let's say {1,2,3} we can say that the difference between the elements is one and in order and minimal. {1,2,4} has one change and is lexicographically number 2. So the number of 'changes' in the last place accounts for one change in the lexicographical ordering. The second place, with one change {1,3,4} has one change but accounts for more change since it's in the second place (proportional to the number of elements in the original set).
The method I've described is a deconstruction, as it seems, from set to the index, we need to do the reverse – which is much trickier. This is how Buckles solves the problem. I wrote some C to compute them, with minor changes – I used the index of the sets rather than a number range to represent the set, so we are always working from 0...n.
Note:
Since combinations are unordered, {1,3,2} = {1,2,3} --we order them to be lexicographical.
This method has an implicit 0 to start the set for the first difference.
Index of Combinations in Lexicographical Order (McCaffrey)
There is another way:, its concept is easier to grasp and program but it's without the optimizations of Buckles. Fortunately, it also does not produce duplicate combinations:
The set that maximizes , where .
For an example: 27 = C(6,4) + C(5,3) + C(2,2) + C(1,1). So, the 27th lexicographical combination of four things is: {1,2,5,6}, those are the indexes of whatever set you want to look at. Example below (OCaml), requires choose function, left to reader:
(* this will find the [x] combination of a [set] list when taking [k] elements *)
let combination_maccaffery set k x =
(* maximize function -- maximize a that is aCb *)
(* return largest c where c < i and choose(c,i) <= z *)
let rec maximize a b x =
if (choose a b ) <= x then a else maximize (a-1) b x
in
let rec iterate n x i = match i with
| 0 -> []
| i ->
let max = maximize n i x in
max :: iterate n (x - (choose max i)) (i-1)
in
if x < 0 then failwith "errors" else
let idxs = iterate (List.length set) x k in
List.map (List.nth set) (List.sort (-) idxs)
A small and simple combinations iterator
The following two algorithms are provided for didactic purposes. They implement an iterator and (a more general) folder overall combinations.
They are as fast as possible, having the complexity O(nCk). The memory consumption is bound by k.
We will start with the iterator, which will call a user provided function for each combination
let iter_combs n k f =
let rec iter v s j =
if j = k then f v
else for i = s to n - 1 do iter (i::v) (i+1) (j+1) done in
iter [] 0 0
A more general version will call the user provided function along with the state variable, starting from the initial state. Since we need to pass the state between different states we won't use the for-loop, but instead, use recursion,
let fold_combs n k f x =
let rec loop i s c x =
if i < n then
loop (i+1) s c ##
let c = i::c and s = s + 1 and i = i + 1 in
if s < k then loop i s c x else f c x
else x in
loop 0 0 [] x
In C#:
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Combinations<T>(this IEnumerable<T> elements, int k)
{
return k == 0 ? new[] { new T[0] } :
elements.SelectMany((e, i) =>
elements.Skip(i + 1).Combinations(k - 1).Select(c => (new[] {e}).Concat(c)));
}
Usage:
var result = Combinations(new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }, 3);
Result:
123
124
125
134
135
145
234
235
245
345
Short java solution:
import java.util.Arrays;
public class Combination {
public static void main(String[] args){
String[] arr = {"A","B","C","D","E","F"};
combinations2(arr, 3, 0, new String[3]);
}
static void combinations2(String[] arr, int len, int startPosition, String[] result){
if (len == 0){
System.out.println(Arrays.toString(result));
return;
}
for (int i = startPosition; i <= arr.length-len; i++){
result[result.length - len] = arr[i];
combinations2(arr, len-1, i+1, result);
}
}
}
Result will be
[A, B, C]
[A, B, D]
[A, B, E]
[A, B, F]
[A, C, D]
[A, C, E]
[A, C, F]
[A, D, E]
[A, D, F]
[A, E, F]
[B, C, D]
[B, C, E]
[B, C, F]
[B, D, E]
[B, D, F]
[B, E, F]
[C, D, E]
[C, D, F]
[C, E, F]
[D, E, F]
May I present my recursive Python solution to this problem?
def choose_iter(elements, length):
for i in xrange(len(elements)):
if length == 1:
yield (elements[i],)
else:
for next in choose_iter(elements[i+1:], length-1):
yield (elements[i],) + next
def choose(l, k):
return list(choose_iter(l, k))
Example usage:
>>> len(list(choose_iter("abcdefgh",3)))
56
I like it for its simplicity.
Lets say your array of letters looks like this: "ABCDEFGH". You have three indices (i, j, k) indicating which letters you are going to use for the current word, You start with:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
First you vary k, so the next step looks like that:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
If you reached the end you go on and vary j and then k again.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
Once you j reached G you start also to vary i.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
...
Written in code this look something like that
void print_combinations(const char *string)
{
int i, j, k;
int len = strlen(string);
for (i = 0; i < len - 2; i++)
{
for (j = i + 1; j < len - 1; j++)
{
for (k = j + 1; k < len; k++)
printf("%c%c%c\n", string[i], string[j], string[k]);
}
}
}
The following recursive algorithm picks all of the k-element combinations from an ordered set:
choose the first element i of your combination
combine i with each of the combinations of k-1 elements chosen recursively from the set of elements larger than i.
Iterate the above for each i in the set.
It is essential that you pick the rest of the elements as larger than i, to avoid repetition. This way [3,5] will be picked only once, as [3] combined with [5], instead of twice (the condition eliminates [5] + [3]). Without this condition you get variations instead of combinations.
Short example in Python:
def comb(sofar, rest, n):
if n == 0:
print sofar
else:
for i in range(len(rest)):
comb(sofar + rest[i], rest[i+1:], n-1)
>>> comb("", "abcde", 3)
abc
abd
abe
acd
ace
ade
bcd
bce
bde
cde
For explanation, the recursive method is described with the following example:
Example: A B C D E
All combinations of 3 would be:
A with all combinations of 2 from the rest (B C D E)
B with all combinations of 2 from the rest (C D E)
C with all combinations of 2 from the rest (D E)
I found this thread useful and thought I would add a Javascript solution that you can pop into Firebug. Depending on your JS engine, it could take a little time if the starting string is large.
function string_recurse(active, rest) {
if (rest.length == 0) {
console.log(active);
} else {
string_recurse(active + rest.charAt(0), rest.substring(1, rest.length));
string_recurse(active, rest.substring(1, rest.length));
}
}
string_recurse("", "abc");
The output should be as follows:
abc
ab
ac
a
bc
b
c
In C++ the following routine will produce all combinations of length distance(first,k) between the range [first,last):
#include <algorithm>
template <typename Iterator>
bool next_combination(const Iterator first, Iterator k, const Iterator last)
{
/* Credits: Mark Nelson http://marknelson.us */
if ((first == last) || (first == k) || (last == k))
return false;
Iterator i1 = first;
Iterator i2 = last;
++i1;
if (last == i1)
return false;
i1 = last;
--i1;
i1 = k;
--i2;
while (first != i1)
{
if (*--i1 < *i2)
{
Iterator j = k;
while (!(*i1 < *j)) ++j;
std::iter_swap(i1,j);
++i1;
++j;
i2 = k;
std::rotate(i1,j,last);
while (last != j)
{
++j;
++i2;
}
std::rotate(k,i2,last);
return true;
}
}
std::rotate(first,k,last);
return false;
}
It can be used like this:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::string s = "12345";
std::size_t comb_size = 3;
do
{
std::cout << std::string(s.begin(), s.begin() + comb_size) << std::endl;
} while (next_combination(s.begin(), s.begin() + comb_size, s.end()));
return 0;
}
This will print the following:
123
124
125
134
135
145
234
235
245
345
static IEnumerable<string> Combinations(List<string> characters, int length)
{
for (int i = 0; i < characters.Count; i++)
{
// only want 1 character, just return this one
if (length == 1)
yield return characters[i];
// want more than one character, return this one plus all combinations one shorter
// only use characters after the current one for the rest of the combinations
else
foreach (string next in Combinations(characters.GetRange(i + 1, characters.Count - (i + 1)), length - 1))
yield return characters[i] + next;
}
}
Simple recursive algorithm in Haskell
import Data.List
combinations 0 lst = [[]]
combinations n lst = do
(x:xs) <- tails lst
rest <- combinations (n-1) xs
return $ x : rest
We first define the special case, i.e. selecting zero elements. It produces a single result, which is an empty list (i.e. a list that contains an empty list).
For n > 0, x goes through every element of the list and xs is every element after x.
rest picks n - 1 elements from xs using a recursive call to combinations. The final result of the function is a list where each element is x : rest (i.e. a list which has x as head and rest as tail) for every different value of x and rest.
> combinations 3 "abcde"
["abc","abd","abe","acd","ace","ade","bcd","bce","bde","cde"]
And of course, since Haskell is lazy, the list is gradually generated as needed, so you can partially evaluate exponentially large combinations.
> let c = combinations 8 "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
> take 10 c
["abcdefgh","abcdefgi","abcdefgj","abcdefgk","abcdefgl","abcdefgm","abcdefgn",
"abcdefgo","abcdefgp","abcdefgq"]
And here comes granddaddy COBOL, the much maligned language.
Let's assume an array of 34 elements of 8 bytes each (purely arbitrary selection.) The idea is to enumerate all possible 4-element combinations and load them into an array.
We use 4 indices, one each for each position in the group of 4
The array is processed like this:
idx1 = 1
idx2 = 2
idx3 = 3
idx4 = 4
We vary idx4 from 4 to the end. For each idx4 we get a unique combination
of groups of four. When idx4 comes to the end of the array, we increment idx3 by 1 and set idx4 to idx3+1. Then we run idx4 to the end again. We proceed in this manner, augmenting idx3,idx2, and idx1 respectively until the position of idx1 is less than 4 from the end of the array. That finishes the algorithm.
1 --- pos.1
2 --- pos 2
3 --- pos 3
4 --- pos 4
5
6
7
etc.
First iterations:
1234
1235
1236
1237
1245
1246
1247
1256
1257
1267
etc.
A COBOL example:
01 DATA_ARAY.
05 FILLER PIC X(8) VALUE "VALUE_01".
05 FILLER PIC X(8) VALUE "VALUE_02".
etc.
01 ARAY_DATA OCCURS 34.
05 ARAY_ITEM PIC X(8).
01 OUTPUT_ARAY OCCURS 50000 PIC X(32).
01 MAX_NUM PIC 99 COMP VALUE 34.
01 INDEXXES COMP.
05 IDX1 PIC 99.
05 IDX2 PIC 99.
05 IDX3 PIC 99.
05 IDX4 PIC 99.
05 OUT_IDX PIC 9(9).
01 WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH PIC 99 COMP.
* Stop the search when IDX1 is on the third last array element:
COMPUTE WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH = MAX_VALUE - 3
MOVE 1 TO IDX1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX1 > WHERE_TO_STOP_SEARCH
COMPUTE IDX2 = IDX1 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX2 > MAX_NUM
COMPUTE IDX3 = IDX2 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX3 > MAX_NUM
COMPUTE IDX4 = IDX3 + 1
PERFORM UNTIL IDX4 > MAX_NUM
ADD 1 TO OUT_IDX
STRING ARAY_ITEM(IDX1)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX2)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX3)
ARAY_ITEM(IDX4)
INTO OUTPUT_ARAY(OUT_IDX)
ADD 1 TO IDX4
END-PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX3
END-PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX2
END_PERFORM
ADD 1 TO IDX1
END-PERFORM.
Another C# version with lazy generation of the combination indices. This version maintains a single array of indices to define a mapping between the list of all values and the values for the current combination, i.e. constantly uses O(k) additional space during the entire runtime. The code generates individual combinations, including the first one, in O(k) time.
public static IEnumerable<T[]> Combinations<T>(this T[] values, int k)
{
if (k < 0 || values.Length < k)
yield break; // invalid parameters, no combinations possible
// generate the initial combination indices
var combIndices = new int[k];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
combIndices[i] = i;
}
while (true)
{
// return next combination
var combination = new T[k];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
combination[i] = values[combIndices[i]];
}
yield return combination;
// find first index to update
var indexToUpdate = k - 1;
while (indexToUpdate >= 0 && combIndices[indexToUpdate] >= values.Length - k + indexToUpdate)
{
indexToUpdate--;
}
if (indexToUpdate < 0)
yield break; // done
// update combination indices
for (var combIndex = combIndices[indexToUpdate] + 1; indexToUpdate < k; indexToUpdate++, combIndex++)
{
combIndices[indexToUpdate] = combIndex;
}
}
}
Test code:
foreach (var combination in new[] {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e'}.Combinations(3))
{
System.Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", combination));
}
Output:
a b c
a b d
a b e
a c d
a c e
a d e
b c d
b c e
b d e
c d e
Here is an elegant, generic implementation in Scala, as described on 99 Scala Problems.
object P26 {
def flatMapSublists[A,B](ls: List[A])(f: (List[A]) => List[B]): List[B] =
ls match {
case Nil => Nil
case sublist#(_ :: tail) => f(sublist) ::: flatMapSublists(tail)(f)
}
def combinations[A](n: Int, ls: List[A]): List[List[A]] =
if (n == 0) List(Nil)
else flatMapSublists(ls) { sl =>
combinations(n - 1, sl.tail) map {sl.head :: _}
}
}
If you can use SQL syntax - say, if you're using LINQ to access fields of an structure or array, or directly accessing a database that has a table called "Alphabet" with just one char field "Letter", you can adapt following code:
SELECT A.Letter, B.Letter, C.Letter
FROM Alphabet AS A, Alphabet AS B, Alphabet AS C
WHERE A.Letter<>B.Letter AND A.Letter<>C.Letter AND B.Letter<>C.Letter
AND A.Letter<B.Letter AND B.Letter<C.Letter
This will return all combinations of 3 letters, notwithstanding how many letters you have in table "Alphabet" (it can be 3, 8, 10, 27, etc.).
If what you want is all permutations, rather than combinations (i.e. you want "ACB" and "ABC" to count as different, rather than appear just once) just delete the last line (the AND one) and it's done.
Post-Edit: After re-reading the question, I realise what's needed is the general algorithm, not just a specific one for the case of selecting 3 items. Adam Hughes' answer is the complete one, unfortunately I cannot vote it up (yet). This answer's simple but works only for when you want exactly 3 items.
I had a permutation algorithm I used for project euler, in python:
def missing(miss,src):
"Returns the list of items in src not present in miss"
return [i for i in src if i not in miss]
def permutation_gen(n,l):
"Generates all the permutations of n items of the l list"
for i in l:
if n<=1: yield [i]
r = [i]
for j in permutation_gen(n-1,missing([i],l)): yield r+j
If
n<len(l)
you should have all combination you need without repetition, do you need it?
It is a generator, so you use it in something like this:
for comb in permutation_gen(3,list("ABCDEFGH")):
print comb
https://gist.github.com/3118596
There is an implementation for JavaScript. It has functions to get k-combinations and all combinations of an array of any objects. Examples:
k_combinations([1,2,3], 2)
-> [[1,2], [1,3], [2,3]]
combinations([1,2,3])
-> [[1],[2],[3],[1,2],[1,3],[2,3],[1,2,3]]
Lets say your array of letters looks like this: "ABCDEFGH". You have three indices (i, j, k) indicating which letters you are going to use for the current word, You start with:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
First you vary k, so the next step looks like that:
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
If you reached the end you go on and vary j and then k again.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
Once you j reached G you start also to vary i.
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
A B C D E F G H
^ ^ ^
i j k
...
function initializePointers($cnt) {
$pointers = [];
for($i=0; $i<$cnt; $i++) {
$pointers[] = $i;
}
return $pointers;
}
function incrementPointers(&$pointers, &$arrLength) {
for($i=0; $i<count($pointers); $i++) {
$currentPointerIndex = count($pointers) - $i - 1;
$currentPointer = $pointers[$currentPointerIndex];
if($currentPointer < $arrLength - $i - 1) {
++$pointers[$currentPointerIndex];
for($j=1; ($currentPointerIndex+$j)<count($pointers); $j++) {
$pointers[$currentPointerIndex+$j] = $pointers[$currentPointerIndex]+$j;
}
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
function getDataByPointers(&$arr, &$pointers) {
$data = [];
for($i=0; $i<count($pointers); $i++) {
$data[] = $arr[$pointers[$i]];
}
return $data;
}
function getCombinations($arr, $cnt)
{
$len = count($arr);
$result = [];
$pointers = initializePointers($cnt);
do {
$result[] = getDataByPointers($arr, $pointers);
} while(incrementPointers($pointers, count($arr)));
return $result;
}
$result = getCombinations([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5], 3);
print_r($result);
Based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/127898/2628125, but more abstract, for any size of pointers.
Here you have a lazy evaluated version of that algorithm coded in C#:
static bool nextCombination(int[] num, int n, int k)
{
bool finished, changed;
changed = finished = false;
if (k > 0)
{
for (int i = k - 1; !finished && !changed; i--)
{
if (num[i] < (n - 1) - (k - 1) + i)
{
num[i]++;
if (i < k - 1)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < k; j++)
{
num[j] = num[j - 1] + 1;
}
}
changed = true;
}
finished = (i == 0);
}
}
return changed;
}
static IEnumerable Combinations<T>(IEnumerable<T> elements, int k)
{
T[] elem = elements.ToArray();
int size = elem.Length;
if (k <= size)
{
int[] numbers = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++)
{
numbers[i] = i;
}
do
{
yield return numbers.Select(n => elem[n]);
}
while (nextCombination(numbers, size, k));
}
}
And test part:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int k = 3;
var t = new[] { "dog", "cat", "mouse", "zebra"};
foreach (IEnumerable<string> i in Combinations(t, k))
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(",", i));
}
}
Hope this help you!
Another version, that forces all the first k to appear firstly, then all the first k+1 combinations, then all the first k+2 etc.. It means that if you have sorted array, the most important on the top, it would take them and expand gradually to the next ones - only when it is must do so.
private static bool NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(int[] num, int n, int k)
{
if (k > 1 && NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(num, num[k - 1], k - 1))
return true;
if (num[k - 1] + 1 == n)
return false;
++num[k - 1];
for (int i = 0; i < k - 1; ++i)
num[i] = i;
return true;
}
For instance, if you run the first method ("nextCombination") on k=3, n=5 you'll get:
0 1 2
0 1 3
0 1 4
0 2 3
0 2 4
0 3 4
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 3 4
2 3 4
But if you'll run
int[] nums = new int[k];
for (int i = 0; i < k; ++i)
nums[i] = i;
do
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Join(" ", nums));
}
while (NextCombinationFirstsAlwaysFirst(nums, n, k));
You'll get this (I added empty lines for clarity):
0 1 2
0 1 3
0 2 3
1 2 3
0 1 4
0 2 4
1 2 4
0 3 4
1 3 4
2 3 4
It's adding "4" only when must to, and also after "4" was added it adds "3" again only when it must to (after doing 01, 02, 12).
Array.prototype.combs = function(num) {
var str = this,
length = str.length,
of = Math.pow(2, length) - 1,
out, combinations = [];
while(of) {
out = [];
for(var i = 0, y; i < length; i++) {
y = (1 << i);
if(y & of && (y !== of))
out.push(str[i]);
}
if (out.length >= num) {
combinations.push(out);
}
of--;
}
return combinations;
}
Clojure version:
(defn comb [k l]
(if (= 1 k) (map vector l)
(apply concat
(map-indexed
#(map (fn [x] (conj x %2))
(comb (dec k) (drop (inc %1) l)))
l))))
Algorithm:
Count from 1 to 2^n.
Convert each digit to its binary representation.
Translate each 'on' bit to elements of your set, based on position.
In C#:
void Main()
{
var set = new [] {"A", "B", "C", "D" }; //, "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J" };
var kElement = 2;
for(var i = 1; i < Math.Pow(2, set.Length); i++) {
var result = Convert.ToString(i, 2).PadLeft(set.Length, '0');
var cnt = Regex.Matches(Regex.Escape(result), "1").Count;
if (cnt == kElement) {
for(int j = 0; j < set.Length; j++)
if ( Char.GetNumericValue(result[j]) == 1)
Console.Write(set[j]);
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
Why does it work?
There is a bijection between the subsets of an n-element set and n-bit sequences.
That means we can figure out how many subsets there are by counting sequences.
e.g., the four element set below can be represented by {0,1} X {0, 1} X {0, 1} X {0, 1} (or 2^4) different sequences.
So - all we have to do is count from 1 to 2^n to find all the combinations. (We ignore the empty set.) Next, translate the digits to their binary representation. Then substitute elements of your set for 'on' bits.
If you want only k element results, only print when k bits are 'on'.
(If you want all subsets instead of k length subsets, remove the cnt/kElement part.)
(For proof, see MIT free courseware Mathematics for Computer Science, Lehman et al, section 11.2.2. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/readings/ )
short python code, yielding index positions
def yield_combos(n,k):
# n is set size, k is combo size
i = 0
a = [0]*k
while i > -1:
for j in range(i+1, k):
a[j] = a[j-1]+1
i=j
yield a
while a[i] == i + n - k:
i -= 1
a[i] += 1
All said and and done here comes the O'caml code for that.
Algorithm is evident from the code..
let combi n lst =
let rec comb l c =
if( List.length c = n) then [c] else
match l with
[] -> []
| (h::t) -> (combi t (h::c))#(combi t c)
in
combi lst []
;;
Here is a method which gives you all combinations of specified size from a random length string. Similar to quinmars' solution, but works for varied input and k.
The code can be changed to wrap around, ie 'dab' from input 'abcd' w k=3.
public void run(String data, int howMany){
choose(data, howMany, new StringBuffer(), 0);
}
//n choose k
private void choose(String data, int k, StringBuffer result, int startIndex){
if (result.length()==k){
System.out.println(result.toString());
return;
}
for (int i=startIndex; i<data.length(); i++){
result.append(data.charAt(i));
choose(data,k,result, i+1);
result.setLength(result.length()-1);
}
}
Output for "abcde":
abc abd abe acd ace ade bcd bce bde cde
Short javascript version (ES 5)
let combine = (list, n) =>
n == 0 ?
[[]] :
list.flatMap((e, i) =>
combine(
list.slice(i + 1),
n - 1
).map(c => [e].concat(c))
);
let res = combine([1,2,3,4], 3);
res.forEach(e => console.log(e.join()));
Another python recusive solution.
def combination_indicies(n, k, j = 0, stack = []):
if len(stack) == k:
yield list(stack)
return
for i in range(j, n):
stack.append(i)
for x in combination_indicies(n, k, i + 1, stack):
yield x
stack.pop()
list(combination_indicies(5, 3))
Output:
[[0, 1, 2],
[0, 1, 3],
[0, 1, 4],
[0, 2, 3],
[0, 2, 4],
[0, 3, 4],
[1, 2, 3],
[1, 2, 4],
[1, 3, 4],
[2, 3, 4]]
I created a solution in SQL Server 2005 for this, and posted it on my website: http://www.jessemclain.com/downloads/code/sql/fn_GetMChooseNCombos.sql.htm
Here is an example to show usage:
SELECT * FROM dbo.fn_GetMChooseNCombos('ABCD', 2, '')
results:
Word
----
AB
AC
AD
BC
BD
CD
(6 row(s) affected)
Here is my proposition in C++
I tried to impose as little restriction on the iterator type as i could so this solution assumes just forward iterator, and it can be a const_iterator. This should work with any standard container. In cases where arguments don't make sense it throws std::invalid_argumnent
#include <vector>
#include <stdexcept>
template <typename Fci> // Fci - forward const iterator
std::vector<std::vector<Fci> >
enumerate_combinations(Fci begin, Fci end, unsigned int combination_size)
{
if(begin == end && combination_size > 0u)
throw std::invalid_argument("empty set and positive combination size!");
std::vector<std::vector<Fci> > result; // empty set of combinations
if(combination_size == 0u) return result; // there is exactly one combination of
// size 0 - emty set
std::vector<Fci> current_combination;
current_combination.reserve(combination_size + 1u); // I reserve one aditional slot
// in my vector to store
// the end sentinel there.
// The code is cleaner thanks to that
for(unsigned int i = 0u; i < combination_size && begin != end; ++i, ++begin)
{
current_combination.push_back(begin); // Construction of the first combination
}
// Since I assume the itarators support only incrementing, I have to iterate over
// the set to get its size, which is expensive. Here I had to itrate anyway to
// produce the first cobination, so I use the loop to also check the size.
if(current_combination.size() < combination_size)
throw std::invalid_argument("combination size > set size!");
result.push_back(current_combination); // Store the first combination in the results set
current_combination.push_back(end); // Here I add mentioned earlier sentinel to
// simplyfy rest of the code. If I did it
// earlier, previous statement would get ugly.
while(true)
{
unsigned int i = combination_size;
Fci tmp; // Thanks to the sentinel I can find first
do // iterator to change, simply by scaning
{ // from right to left and looking for the
tmp = current_combination[--i]; // first "bubble". The fact, that it's
++tmp; // a forward iterator makes it ugly but I
} // can't help it.
while(i > 0u && tmp == current_combination[i + 1u]);
// Here is probably my most obfuscated expression.
// Loop above looks for a "bubble". If there is no "bubble", that means, that
// current_combination is the last combination, Expression in the if statement
// below evaluates to true and the function exits returning result.
// If the "bubble" is found however, the ststement below has a sideeffect of
// incrementing the first iterator to the left of the "bubble".
if(++current_combination[i] == current_combination[i + 1u])
return result;
// Rest of the code sets posiotons of the rest of the iterstors
// (if there are any), that are to the right of the incremented one,
// to form next combination
while(++i < combination_size)
{
current_combination[i] = current_combination[i - 1u];
++current_combination[i];
}
// Below is the ugly side of using the sentinel. Well it had to haave some
// disadvantage. Try without it.
result.push_back(std::vector<Fci>(current_combination.begin(),
current_combination.end() - 1));
}
}
Here is a code I recently wrote in Java, which calculates and returns all the combination of "num" elements from "outOf" elements.
// author: Sourabh Bhat (heySourabh#gmail.com)
public class Testing
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// Test case num = 5, outOf = 8.
int num = 5;
int outOf = 8;
int[][] combinations = getCombinations(num, outOf);
for (int i = 0; i < combinations.length; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < combinations[i].length; j++)
{
System.out.print(combinations[i][j] + " ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
private static int[][] getCombinations(int num, int outOf)
{
int possibilities = get_nCr(outOf, num);
int[][] combinations = new int[possibilities][num];
int arrayPointer = 0;
int[] counter = new int[num];
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
counter[i] = i;
}
breakLoop: while (true)
{
// Initializing part
for (int i = 1; i < num; i++)
{
if (counter[i] >= outOf - (num - 1 - i))
counter[i] = counter[i - 1] + 1;
}
// Testing part
for (int i = 0; i < num; i++)
{
if (counter[i] < outOf)
{
continue;
} else
{
break breakLoop;
}
}
// Innermost part
combinations[arrayPointer] = counter.clone();
arrayPointer++;
// Incrementing part
counter[num - 1]++;
for (int i = num - 1; i >= 1; i--)
{
if (counter[i] >= outOf - (num - 1 - i))
counter[i - 1]++;
}
}
return combinations;
}
private static int get_nCr(int n, int r)
{
if(r > n)
{
throw new ArithmeticException("r is greater then n");
}
long numerator = 1;
long denominator = 1;
for (int i = n; i >= r + 1; i--)
{
numerator *= i;
}
for (int i = 2; i <= n - r; i++)
{
denominator *= i;
}
return (int) (numerator / denominator);
}
}
I am trying to solve an online judge problem: http://opc.iarcs.org.in/index.php/problems/LEAFEAT
The problem in short:
If we are given an integer L and a set of N integers s1,s2,s3..sN, we have to find how many numbers there are from 0 to L-1 which are not divisible by any of the 'si's.
For example, if we are given, L = 20 and S = {3,2,5} then there are 6 numbers from 0 to 19 which are not divisible by 3,2 or 5.
L <= 1000000000 and N <= 20.
I used the Inclusion-Exclusion principle to solve this problem:
/*Let 'T' be the number of integers that are divisible by any of the 'si's in the
given range*/
for i in range 1 to N
for all subsets A of length i
if i is odd then:
T += 1 + (L-1)/lcm(all the elements of A)
else
T -= 1 + (L-1)/lcm(all the elements of A)
return T
Here is my code to solve this problem
#include <stdio.h>
int N;
long long int L;
int C[30];
typedef struct{int i, key;}subset_e;
subset_e A[30];
int k;
int gcd(a,b){
int t;
while(b != 0){
t = a%b;
a = b;
b = t;
}
return a;
}
long long int lcm(int a, int b){
return (a*b)/gcd(a,b);
}
long long int getlcm(int n){
if(n == 1){
return A[0].key;
}
int i;
long long int rlcm = lcm(A[0].key,A[1].key);
for(i = 2;i < n; i++){
rlcm = lcm(rlcm,A[i].key);
}
return rlcm;
}
int next_subset(int n){
if(k == n-1 && A[k].i == N-1){
if(k == 0){
return 0;
}
k--;
}
while(k < n-1 && A[k].i == A[k+1].i-1){
if(k <= 0){
return 0;
}
k--;
}
A[k].key = C[A[k].i+1];
A[k].i++;
return 1;
}
int main(){
int i,j,add;
long long int sum = 0,g,temp;
scanf("%lld%d",&L,&N);
for(i = 0;i < N; i++){
scanf("%d",&C[i]);
}
for(i = 1; i <= N; i++){
add = i%2;
for(j = 0;j < i; j++){
A[j].key = C[j];
A[j].i = j;
}
temp = getlcm(i);
g = 1 + (L-1)/temp;
if(add){
sum += g;
} else {
sum -= g;
}
k = i-1;
while(next_subset(i)){
temp = getlcm(i);
g = 1 + (L-1)/temp;
if(add){
sum += g;
} else {
sum -= g;
}
}
}
printf("%lld",L-sum);
return 0;
}
The next_subset(n) generates the next subset of size n in the array A, if there is no subset it returns 0 otherwise it returns 1. It is based on the algorithm described by the accepted answer in this stackoverflow question.
The lcm(a,b) function returns the lcm of a and b.
The get_lcm(n) function returns the lcm of all the elements in A.
It uses the property : LCM(a,b,c) = LCM(LCM(a,b),c)
When I submit the problem on the judge it gives my a 'Time Limit Exceeded'. If we solve this using brute force we get only 50% of the marks.
As there can be upto 2^20 subsets my algorithm might be slow, hence I need a better algorithm to solve this problem.
EDIT:
After editing my code and changing the function to the Euclidean algorithm, I am getting a wrong answer, but my code runs within the time limit. It gives me a correct answer to the example test but not to any other test cases; here is a link to ideone where I ran my code, the first output is correct but the second is not.
Is my approach to this problem correct? If it is then I have made a mistake in my code, and I'll find it; otherwise can anyone please explain what is wrong?
You could also try changing your lcm function to use the Euclidean algorithm.
int gcd(int a, int b) {
int t;
while (b != 0) {
t = b;
b = a % t;
a = t;
}
return a;
}
int lcm(int a, int b) {
return (a * b) / gcd(a, b);
}
At least with Python, the speed differences between the two are pretty large:
>>> %timeit lcm1(103, 2013)
100000 loops, best of 3: 9.21 us per loop
>>> %timeit lcm2(103, 2013)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.02 us per loop
Typically, the lowest common multiple of a subset of k of the s_i will exceed L for k much smaller than 20. So you need to stop early.
Probably, just inserting
if (temp >= L) {
break;
}
after
while(next_subset(i)){
temp = getlcm(i);
will be sufficient.
Also, shortcut if there are any 1s among the s_i, all numbers are divisible by 1.
I think the following will be faster:
unsigned gcd(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
unsigned r;
while(b) {
r = a%b;
a = b;
b = r;
}
return a;
}
unsigned recur(unsigned *arr, unsigned len, unsigned idx, unsigned cumul, unsigned bound) {
if (idx >= len || bound == 0) {
return bound;
}
unsigned i, g, s = arr[idx], result;
g = s/gcd(cumul,s);
result = bound/g;
for(i = idx+1; i < len; ++i) {
result -= recur(arr, len, i, cumul*g, bound/g);
}
return result;
}
unsigned inex(unsigned *arr, unsigned len, unsigned bound) {
unsigned i, result = bound, t;
for(i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
result -= recur(arr, len, i, 1, bound);
}
return result;
}
call it with
unsigned S[N] = {...};
inex(S, N, L-1);
You need not add the 1 for the 0 anywhere, since 0 is divisible by all numbers, compute the count of numbers 1 <= k < L which are not divisible by any s_i.
Create an array of flags with L entries. Then mark each touched leaf:
for(each size in list of sizes) {
length = 0;
while(length < L) {
array[length] = TOUCHED;
length += size;
}
}
Then find the untouched leaves:
for(length = 0; length < L; length++) {
if(array[length] != TOUCHED) { /* Untouched leaf! */ }
}
Note that there is no multiplication and no division involved; but you will need up to about 1 GiB of RAM. If RAM is a problem the you can use an array of bits (max. 120 MiB).
This is only a beginning though, as there are repeating patterns that can be copied instead of generated. The first pattern is from 0 to S1*S2, the next is from 0 to S1*S2*S3, the next is from 0 to S1*S2*S3*S4, etc.
Basically, you can set all values touched by S1 and then S2 from 0 to S1*S2; then copy the pattern from 0 to S1*S2 until you get to S1*S2*S3 and set all the S3's between S3 and S1*S2*S3; then copy that pattern until you get to S1*S2*S3*S4 and set all the S4's between S4 and S1*S2*S3*S4 and so on.
Next; if S1*S2*...Sn is smaller than L, you know the pattern will repeat and can generate the results for lengths from S1*S2*...Sn to L from the pattern. In this case the size of the array only needs to be S1*S2*...Sn and doesn't need to be L.
Finally, if S1*S2*...Sn is larger than L; then you could generate the pattern for S1*S2*...(Sn-1) and use that pattern to create the results from S1*S2*...(Sn-1) to S1*S2*...Sn. In this case if S1*S2*...(Sn-1) is smaller than L then the array doesn't need to be as large as L.
I'm afraid your problem understanding is maybe not correct.
You have L. You have a set S of K elements. You must count the sum of quotient of L / Si. For L = 20, K = 1, S = { 5 }, the answer is simply 16 (20 - 20 / 5). But K > 1, so you must consider the common multiples also.
Why loop through a list of subsets? It doesn't involve subset calculation, only division and multiple.
You have K distinct integers. Each number could be a prime number. You must consider common multiples. That's all.
EDIT
L = 20 and S = {3,2,5}
Leaves could be eaten by 3 = 6
Leaves could be eaten by 2 = 10
Leaves could be eaten by 5 = 4
Common multiples of S, less than L, not in S = 6, 10, 15
Actually eaten leaves = 20/3 + 20/2 + 20/5 - 20/6 - 20/10 - 20/15 = 6
You can keep track of the distance until then next touched leaf for each size. The distance to the next touched leaf will be whichever distance happens to be smallest, and you'd subtract this distance from all the others (and wrap whenever the distance is zero).
For example:
int sizes[4] = {2, 5, 7, 9};
int distances[4];
int currentLength = 0;
for(size = 0 to 3) {
distances[size] = sizes[size];
}
while(currentLength < L) {
smallest = INT_MAX;
for(size = 0 to 3) {
if(distances[size] < smallest) smallest = distances[size];
}
for(size = 0 to 3) {
distances[size] -= smallest;
if(distances[size] == 0) distances[size] = sizes[size];
}
while( (smallest > 1) && (currentLength < L) ) {
currentLength++;
printf("%d\n", currentLength;
smallest--;
}
}
#A.06: u r the one with username linkinmew on opc, rite?
Anyways, the answer just requires u to make all possible subsets, and then apply inclusion exclusion principle. This will fall well within the time bounds for the data given. For making all possible subsets, u can easily define a recursive function.
i don't know about programming but in math there is a single theorem which works on a set that has GCD 1
L=20, S=(3,2,5)
(1-1/p)(1-1/q)(1-1/r).....and so on
(1-1/3)(1-1/2)(1-1/5)=(2/3)(1/2)(4/5)=4/15
4/15 means there are 4 numbers in each set of 15 number which are not divisible by any number rest of it can be count manually eg.
16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (only 17 and 19 means there are only 2 numbers thatr can't be divided by any S)
4+2=6
6/20 means there are only 6 numbers in first 20 numbers that can't be divided by any s