Related
I'm trying to solve a problem which wants me to use doubly circular linked list as the container. I want to traverse through k nodes and erase the k'th node like this:
for(j = 0; j < k; j++){
temp = temp->next;
}
temp->prev->next = temp->next;
temp->next->prev = temp->prev;
afterwards I free the node this way:
temp2 = temp;
temp = temp->next;
free(temp2);
Now this codes works fine, but the problem lies when I try to delete nodes of a linked list that contains a huge number of nodes.
The only problem here is the line
temp = temp->next
takes a while to complete, is there anyway for me to traverse faster?
One solution that I thought of is to skip nodes while traversing like this:
temp - temp->next->next
but that doesn't work.
If your solution takes too much time, it might not be related with the number of nodes in the list, but the value of k:
If k is much greater than the number of nodes in your circular list, you'll be losing time by running in circles passing several times the node that you eventually will delete. You must reduce the value of k so it is not greater than the number of nodes in the list (hint: modulo).
I have to sort an array of non-negative ints using mergesort in C, but there's a catch - I cant move around the actual array elements, like if I have {3,5,6,7,0,4,1,2}, the desired output should be
First element is at subscript: 4
0 3 5
1 5 2
2 6 3
3 7 -1
4 0 6
5 4 1
6 1 7
7 2 0
See how the ordering of the original input stays the same but only the keys get swapped as the numbers are compared? So far, my main functions are:
void Merge(int *A,int *L,int leftCount,int *R,int rightCount)
{
int i,j,k;
// i - to mark the index of left sub-array (L)
// j - to mark the index of right sub-array (R)
// k - to mark the index of merged sub-array (A)
i = 0; j = 0; k =0;
while(i<leftCount && j< rightCount)
{
if(L[i] <= R[j])
{
//something important;
i++;
}
else
{
//something important;
j++;
}
}
i=0;
j=0;
while(i < leftCount) A[k++] = L[i++]; //merge all input sequences without swapping initial order
while(j < rightCount) A[k++] = R[j++];
}
// Recursive function to sort an array of integers.
void MergeSort(int *A,int n)
{
int mid,i,k, *L, *R;
if(n < 2)
{
return;
}
mid = n/2; // find the mid index.
// create left and right subarrays
// mid elements (from index 0 till mid-1) should be part of left sub-array
// and (n-mid) elements (from mid to n-1) will be part of right sub-array
L = (int*)malloc(mid*sizeof(int));
R = (int*)malloc((n- mid)*sizeof(int));
for(i = 0;i<mid;i++) L[i] = A[i]; // creating left subarray
for(i = mid;i<n;i++) R[i-mid] = A[i]; // creating right subarray
MergeSort(L,mid); // sorting the left subarray
MergeSort(R,n-mid); // sorting the right subarray
Merge(A,L,mid,R,n-mid); // Merging L and R into A as sorted list.
free(L);
free(R);
}
I know that I have to initialize the index of all the elements as -1 at the bottom of the recursion tree when there are only single elements during the merge-sort. And then I have to change those indices accordingly as I compare array elements from Left array vs Right array. But thats where Im stuck. My professor told the class to use a linked list - but Im having a tough time visualizing HOW i can implement a linked list to achieve this indexing thing. I dont want my homework to be done by someone else, I just want someone to explain in pseudocode how I should go about it, and then I can write the actual code myself. But Im so lost, Im sorry if the question is poorly asked, but Im brand spanking new here and Im freaking out :(
Ok. lets start with a simple example, a list of 4 elements to sort, lets go through the process of what your function needs to do and how it does it in terms of linked lists:
#->[3]->[1]->[4]->[2]->$
Ok, so here # is your pointer to the first element, in this case [3], which has a pointer to the second, and so on. I shall use ->$ as a null pointer (not pointing to anything) and ->* as a 'I don't care' pointer (where a pointer may exist, but want to show a conceptional break in the list)
We now perform multiple passes to merge these into one sorted list.
This is the first pass, so we treat it as if we have multiple lists of length 1:
#->* [3]->* [1]->* [4]->* [2]->*
In reality, these remain linked for now, but this is the conceptional model.
so what to we need 'know' at this time?
the end of the list before list #1
reference to beginning of list #1
reference to beginning of list #2
reference to item after list #2
Then we merge the two sublists (2) and (3) onto the end of (1), by taking the minimum of the heads of the lists, detaching that, and ammending it to (1), moving onto the next value in that list if it exists
conceptional
//sublists length 1. we'll work on the first pair
#->* [3]->* [1]->* [4]->* [2]->*
//smallest element from sublists added to new sublist
#->* [3]->* [4]->* [2]->* //
[1]->*
//above repeated until sublists are both exhausted
#->* [4]->* [2]->*
[1]->[3]->*
//we now have a sorted sublist
#->* [1]->[3]->* [4]->* [2]->*
actual
//(1-4) are pointers to the list as per description above
#->[3]->[1]->[4]->[2]->$
| | | |
1 2 3 4
//set the end of the lists (2) and (3) to point to null, so
//when we reach this we know we have reached the end of the
//sublist (integrity remains because of pointers (1-4)
#->* [3]->$ [1]->$ [4]->[2]->$
| | | |
1 2 3 4
//the smallest (not null) of (2) and (3) is referenced by (1),
//update both pointers (1) and (2) or (3) to point to the next
//item
#->[1]->* [3]->$ $ [4]->[2]->$
| | | |
1 2 3 4
//repeat until both (2) and (3) point to null
#->[1]->[3]->* $ $ [4]->[2]->$
| | | |
1 2 3 4
We now have a linked list with the first sublist in it. Now, we keep track of (1), and move on to the second pair of sublists, starting with (4), repeating the process.
Once (2),(3) and (4) are all null, we have completed the pass. We now have sorted sublists, and a single linked list again:
#->[1]->[3]->[2]->[4]->$ $ $ $
| | | |
1 2 3 4
Now we do the same, only with sublists twice the length. (and repeat)
The list is sorted when sublist length >= length of linked list.
At no point during this have we actually moved any data around, only modified the links between the items in the linked list.
This should give you a solid idea of what you need to do from here.
I've extended this to some actual code:
See it here
I wrote it in python, so it satisfies your desire for pseudocode, as it isn't code for the language that you are writing in.
pertinent function with additional comments:
def mergesort(unsorted):
#dummy start node, python doesn't have pointers, but we can use the reference in here in the same way
start = llist(None)
start.append(unsorted)
list_length = unsorted.length()
sublist_length = 1
#when there are no sublists left, we are sorted
while sublist_length < list_length:
last = start
sub_a = start.next
#while there are unsorted sublists left to merge
while sub_a:
#these cuts produce our sublists (sub_a and sub_b) of the correct length
#end is the unsorted content
sub_b = sub_a.cut(sublist_length)
end = sub_b.cut(sublist_length) if sub_b else None
#I've written this so is there are any values to merge, there will be at least one in sub_a
#This means I only need to check sub_a
while sub_a:
#sort the sublists based on the value of their first item
sub_a, sub_b = sub_a.order(sub_b)
#cut off the smallest value to add to the 'sorted' linked list
node = sub_a
sub_a = sub_a.cut(1)
last = last.append(node)
#because we cut the first item out of sub_a, it might be empty, so swap the references if so
#this ensures that sub_a is populated if we want to continue
if not sub_a:
sub_a, sub_b = sub_b, None
#set up the next iteration, pointing at the unsorted sublists remaining
sub_a = end
#double the siblist size for the next pass
sublist_length *=2
return start.next
Create a linked list of items whereby each list item has both the value and index of each array item. So aside from prev/next, each item in the linked list is a struct that has struct members uint value; and uint index; .
Pre-populate the link-list just by iterating the array and for each array element, append a new linked-list item to the list and set the value and index of the array element in each linked-list item as they are added to the list.
Use the pre-populated linked-list as a "proxy" for the actual array values and sort the linked list as if it were the original array. I.e. instead of sorting based on myArray[i], sort based on currentLinkListItem.value .
As speaking of linked lists:
typedef struct ValueNode
{
struct ValueNode* next;
int* value;
} ValueNode;
typedef struct ListNode
{
struct ListNode* next;
ValueNode* value;
} ListNode;
Singly linked lists are sufficient...
Now first the merge algorithm:
ValueNode* merge(ValueNode* x, ValueNode* y)
{
// just assuming both are != NULL...
ValueNode dummy;
ValueNode* xy = &dummy;
while(x && y)
{
ValueNode** min = *x->value < *y->value ? &x : &y;
xy->next = *min;
*min = (*min)->next;
xy = xy->next;
}
// just append the rest of the lists - if any...
if(x)
{
xy->next = x;
}
else if(y)
{
xy->next = y;
}
return dummy.next;
}
The dummy is just for not having to check the for NULL within the loop...
Now let's use it:
int array[] = { 3, 5, 6, 7, 0, 4, 1, 2 };
ListNode head;
ListNode* tmp = &head;
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < sizeof(array)/sizeof(*array); ++i)
{
// skipping the normally obligatory tests for result being 0...
ValueNode* node = (ValueNode*) malloc(sizeof(ValueNode));
node->value = array + i;
node->next = NULL;
tmp->next = (ListNode*) malloc(sizeof(ListNode));
tmp = tmp->next;
tmp->value = node;
}
tmp->next = NULL;
Now we have set up a list of lists, each containing one single element. Now we merge pairwise two subsequent lists. We need to pay attention: If we merge two lists into one, keep it as the new head and merge the next one into it, and so on, then we would have implemented selection sort! So we need to make sure that we do not touch an already merged array before all others are merged. That is why the next step looks a little complicated...
while(head.next->next) // more than one single list element?
{
tmp = head.next;
while(tmp)
{
ListNode* next = tmp->next;
if(next)
{
// we keep the merged list in the current node:
tmp->value = merge(tmp->value, next->value);
// and remove the subsequent node from it:
tmp->next = next->next;
free(next);
}
// this is the important step:
// tmp contains an already merged list
// -> we need to go on with the NEXT pair!
tmp = tmp->next;
// additionally, if we have an odd number of lists,
// thus at the end no next any more, we set tmp to NULL,
// too, so we will leave the loop in both cases...
}
}
Finally, we could print the result; note that we only have one single linked list left within your outer linked list:
ValueNode* temp = head.next->value;
while(temp)
{
printf("%d\n", *temp->value);
temp = temp->next;
}
What is yet missing is freeing the allocated memory - I'll leave that to you...
I'm trying to bubble sort a linked list with one pointer, p_previous. The pointer is supposed to look ahead one node and also look ahead two nodes, and if the first is greater than the second, they are to be switched using a temporary variable while p_previous stays out of the swap. p_previous should also check down two nodes to see if the list trailer is there, stopping the sort. I honestly have no clue what I am doing when it comes to bubble sorts, and the linked list implementation isn't helping.
Here is some code:
int sort_list(ID_NUMBER *p_list, int list_count)
{
ID_NUMBER *p_previous = p_list; /* Previous node, use to swap next */
ID_NUMBER *p_temp; /* Temporary variable */
int count; /* Counts number of nodes passed */
for(count = 0; count < list_count; count++)
{
while(p_previous->p_next_student->p_next_student != NULL)
{
if(p_previous->p_next_student->student_id >
p_previous->p_next_student->p_next_student->student_id)
{
p_temp = p_previous->p_next_student->p_next_student;
p_previous->p_next_student = p_temp->p_next_student;
p_temp = p_previous->p_next_student;
p_previous->p_next_student = p_temp;
}
p_previous = p_previous->p_next_student;
}
}
return 0;
}
Here is what I know.
If this is my list as entered.
H-->1-->3-->2-->4-->T
1 and 3 are already in order, move p_previous down.
3 and 2 are out of order, make the temp variable point to 2.
Make 3 point to the number 4.
Make 2 point to the number 3.
Make 1 point to the number 2.
I think thats how I'm supposed to do it, I just don't know how to put it into code.
I am pretty sure a while loop inside a for loop inside is all that is necessary.
If someone could help, that would be great.
Also, if you need more information, just ask.
There's several fundamental problems here ( like you can't change the first item in the list), but the most basic one is your swap:
p_temp = p_previous->p_next_student->p_next_student;
p_previous->p_next_student = p_temp->p_next_student;
p_temp = p_previous->p_next_student;
p_previous->p_next_student = p_temp;
So lets say we have three items, we'll call them A B C. And we want A C B. Right now you start off doing:
p_previous = A
p_temp = A->next->next = C
This is going the wrong way.
We're going to point A->next at C. The problem is, when we do that we'll lose B. p_temp should store B.
p_temp = A->next = B
p_previous->next= p_previous->next->next = C
p_temp->next= p_previous->next->next = {whatever came after}
p_previous->next->next= p_temp = B
Then you just have to deal with the other issues, like crashing when your list has only one item.
Also you may want to do this:
for(count = 0; count < list_count; count++)
{
p_previous = p_list;
So that you go through the list bubbling values N times, instead of just once.
How can I detect that whether a singly linked-list has loop or not??
If it has loop then how to find the point of origination of the loop i.e. the node from which the loop has started.
You can detect it by simply running two pointers through the list, this process is known as the tortoise and hare algorithm after the fable of the same name:
First off, check if the list is empty (head is null). If so, no cycle exists, so stop now.
Otherwise, start the first pointer tortoise on the first node head, and the second pointer hare on the second node head.next.
Then loop continuously until hare is null (which may be already true in a one-element list), advancing tortoise by one and hare by two in each iteration. The hare is guaranteed to reach the end first (if there is an end) since it started ahead and runs faster.
If there is no end (i.e., if there is a cycle), they will eventually point to the same node and you can stop, knowing you have found a node somewhere within the cycle.
Consider the following loop which starts at 3:
head -> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5
^ |
| V
8 <- 7 <- 6
Starting tortoise at 1 and hare at 2, they take on the following values:
(tortoise,hare) = (1,2) (2,4) (3,6) (4,8) (5,4) (6,6)
Because they become equal at (6,6), and since hare should always be beyond tortoise in a non-looping list, it means you've discovered a cycle.
The pseudo-code will go something like this:
def hasLoop (head):
return false if head = null # Empty list has no loop.
tortoise = head # tortoise initially first element.
hare = tortoise.next # Set hare to second element.
while hare != null: # Go until hare reaches end.
return false if hare.next = null # Check enough left for hare move.
hare = hare.next.next # Move hare forward two.
tortoise = tortoise.next # Move tortoise forward one.
return true if hare = tortoise # Same means loop found.
endwhile
return false # Loop exit means no loop.
enddef
The time complexity for this algorithm is O(n) since the number of nodes visited (by tortoise and hare) is proportional to the number of nodes.
Once you know a node within the loop, there's also an O(n) guaranteed method to find the start of the loop.
Let's return to the original position after you've found an element somewhere in the loop but you're not sure where the start of the loop is.
head -> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5
^ |
| V
8 <- 7 <- 6
\
x (where hare and tortoise met).
This is the process to follow:
Advance hare and set size to 1.
Then, as long as hare and tortoise are different, continue to advance hare, increasing size each time. This eventually gives the size of the cycle, six in this case.
At this point, if size is 1, that means you must already be at the start of the cycle (in a cycle of size one, there is only one possible node that can be in the cycle so it must be the first one). In this case, you simply return hare as the start, and skip the rest of the steps below.
Otherwise, set both hare and tortoise to the first element of the list and advance hare exactly size times (to the 7 in this case). This gives two pointers that are different by exactly the size of the cycle.
Then, as long as hare and tortoise are different, advance them both together (with the hare running at a more sedate pace, the same speed as the tortoise - I guess it's tired from its first run). Since they will remain exactly size elements apart from each other at all times, tortoise will reach the start of the cycle at exactly the same time as hare returns to the start of the cycle.
You can see that with the following walkthrough:
size tortoise hare comment
---- -------- ---- -------
6 1 1 initial state
7 advance hare by six
2 8 1/7 different, so advance both together
3 3 2/8 different, so advance both together
3/3 same, so exit loop
Hence 3 is the start point of the cycle and, since both those operations (the cycle detection and cycle start discovery) are O(n) and performed sequentially, the whole thing taken together is also O(n).
If you want a more formal proof that this works, you can examine the following resources:
a question on our sister site;
the Wikipedia cycle detection page; or
"The Tortoise and the Hare Algorithm" by Peter Gammie, April 17, 2016.
If you're simply after support for the method (not formal proof), you can run the following Python 3 program which evaluates its workability for a large number of sizes (how many elements in the cycle) and lead-ins (elements before the cycle start).
You'll find it always finds a point where the two pointers meet:
def nextp(p, ld, sz):
if p == ld + sz:
return ld
return p + 1
for size in range(1,1001):
for lead in range(1001):
p1 = 0
p2 = 0
while True:
p1 = nextp(p1, lead, size)
p2 = nextp(nextp(p2, lead, size), lead, size)
if p1 == p2:
print("sz = %d, ld = %d, found = %d" % (size, lead, p1))
break
The selected answer gives an O(n*n) solution to find the start node of the cycle. Here's an O(n) solution:
Once we find the slow A and fast B meet in the cycle, make one of them still and the other continue to go one step each time, to decide the perimeter of the cycle, say, P.
Then we put a node at the head and let it go P steps, and put another node at the head. We advance these two nodes both one step each time, when they first meet, it's the start point of the cycle.
You can use hash map also to finding whether a link list have loop or not below function uses hash map to find out whether link list have loop or not
static bool isListHaveALoopUsingHashMap(Link *headLink) {
map<Link*, int> tempMap;
Link * temp;
temp = headLink;
while (temp->next != NULL) {
if (tempMap.find(temp) == tempMap.end()) {
tempMap[temp] = 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
temp = temp->next;
}
return 1;
}
Two pointer method is best approach because time complexity is O(n) Hash Map required addition O(n) space complexity.
I read this answer in Data structure book by Narasimha Karamanchi.
We can use Floyd cycle finding algorithm, also known as tortoise and hare algorithm. In this, two pointers are used; one (say slowPtr) is advanced by a single node, and another (say fastPtr) is advanced by two nodes. If any loop is present in the single linked list, they both will surely meet at some point.
struct Node{
int data;
struct Node *next;
}
// program to find the begin of the loop
int detectLoopandFindBegin(struct Node *head){
struct Node *slowPtr = head, *fastPtr = head;
int loopExists = 0;
// this while loop will find if there exists a loop or not.
while(slowPtr && fastPtr && fastPtr->next){
slowPtr = slowPtr->next;
fastPtr = fastPtr->next->next;
if(slowPtr == fastPtr)
loopExists = 1;
break;
}
If there exists any loop then we point one of the pointers to the head and now advance both of them by single node. The node at which they will meet will be the start node of the loop in the single linked list.
if(loopExists){
slowPtr = head;
while(slowPtr != fastPtr){
fastPtr = fastPtr->next;
slowPtr = slowPtr->next;
}
return slowPtr;
}
return NULL;
}
For the most part all the previous answers are correct but here is a simplified version of the logic with visual & code (for Python 3.7)
The logic is very simple as others explained it. I'm gonna create Tortoise/slow and Hare/fast. If we move two pointers with different speed then eventually fast will meet the slow !! you can also think of this as two runners in a tack circular field. If the fast runner keeps going in circle then it will meet/pass the slow runner.
So, we will move Tortoise/slow pointer with speed 1 for each iteration while we keep incrementing or move the Hare/fast pointer with speed of 2. Once they meet we know there is a cycle. This is also known as Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm
Here is the Python code that does this (notice has_cycle method is the main part):
#!/usr/bin/env python3
class Node:
def __init__(self, data = None):
self.data = data
self.next = None
def strnode (self):
print(self.data)
class LinkedList:
def __init__(self):
self.numnodes = 0
self.head = None
def insertLast(self, data):
newnode = Node(data)
newnode.next = None
if self.head == None:
self.head = newnode
return
lnode = self.head
while lnode.next != None :
lnode = lnode.next
lnode.next = newnode # new node is now the last node
self.numnodes += 1
def has_cycle(self):
slow, fast = self.head ,self.head
while fast != None:
if fast.next != None:
fast = fast.next.next
else:
return False
slow = slow.next
if slow == fast:
print("--slow",slow.data, "fast",fast.data)
return True
return False
linkedList = LinkedList()
linkedList.insertLast("1")
linkedList.insertLast("2")
linkedList.insertLast("3")
# Create a loop for testing
linkedList.head.next.next.next = linkedList.head;
#let's check and see !
print(linkedList.has_cycle())
Following code will find whether there is a loop in SLL and if there, will return then starting node.
int find_loop(Node *head){
Node * slow = head;
Node * fast = head;
Node * ptr1;
Node * ptr2;
int k =1, loop_found =0, i;
if(!head) return -1;
while(slow && fast && fast->next){
slow = slow->next;
/*Moving fast pointer two steps at a time */
fast = fast->next->next;
if(slow == fast){
loop_found = 1;
break;
}
}
if(loop_found){
/* We have detected a loop */
/*Let's count the number of nodes in this loop node */
ptr1 = fast;
while(ptr1 && ptr1->next != slow){
ptr1 = ptr1->next;
k++;
}
/* Now move the other pointer by K nodes */
ptr2 = head;
ptr1 = head;
for(i=0; i<k; i++){
ptr2 = ptr2->next;
}
/* Now if we move ptr1 and ptr2 with same speed they will meet at start of loop */
while(ptr1 != ptr2){
ptr1 = ptr1->next;
ptr2 = ptr2->next;
}
return ptr1->data;
}
boolean hasLoop(Node *head)
{
Node *current = head;
Node *check = null;
int firstPtr = 0;
int secondPtr = 2;
do {
if (check == current) return true;
if (firstPtr >= secondPtr){
check = current;
firstPtr = 0;
secondPtr= 2*secondPtr;
}
firstPtr ++;
} while (current = current->next());
return false;
}
Another O(n) solution.
As I viewed the selected answer, I tried a couple of examples and found that:
If (A1,B1), (A2,B2) ... (AN, BN) are the traversals of pointers A and B
where A steps 1 element and B steps 2 elements, and, Ai and Bj are the nodes traversed by A and B, and AN=BN.
Then, the node from where the loop starts is Ak, where k = floor(N/2).
ok - I ran into this in an interview yesterday - no reference material available and I came up with a very different answer (while driving home of course...) Since the linked lists are NORMALLY (not always I admit) allocated using malloc logic then we know that the granularity of the allocations is known. On most systems this is 8 bytes - this means that the bottom 3 bits are always zeros. Consider - if we place the linked list in a class to control access and use a mask of 0x0E ored into the next address then we can use the lower 3 bits to store a break crumb Thus we can write a method that will store our last breadcrumb - say 1 or 2 - and alternate them. Our method that checks for a loop can then step through each node (using our next method) and check if the next address contains the current breadcrumb - if it does we have a loop - if it does not then we would mask the lower 3 bits and add our current breadcrumb. The breadcrumb checking algorithm would have to be single threaded as you could not run two of them at once but it would allow other threads to access the list async - with the usual caveats about adding/deleting nodes.
What do you think? If others feel this is a valid solution I can write up the sample class ... Just think sometimes a fresh approach is good and am always willing to be told I have just missed the point... Thanks All Mark
Another solution
Detecting a Loop:
create a list
loop through the linkedlist and keep on adding the node to the list.
If the Node is already present in the List, we have a loop.
Removal of loop:
In the Step#2 above, while loop through the linked list we are also keep track of the previous node.
Once we detect the loop in Step#3, set previous node's next value to NULL
#code
def detect_remove_loop(head)
cur_node = head
node_list = []
while cur_node.next is not None:
prev_node = cur_node
cur_node = cur_node.next
if cur_node not in node_list:
node_list.append(cur_node)
else:
print('Loop Detected')
prev_node.next = None
return
print('No Loop detected')
Firstly, Create a Node
struct Node {
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
Initialize head pointer globally
Struct Node* head = NULL;
Insert some data in Linked List
void insert(int newdata){
Node* newNode = new Node();
newNode->data = newdata;
newNode->next = head;
head = newNode;
}
Create a function detectLoop()
void detectLoop(){
if (head == NULL || head->next == NULL){
cout<< "\nNo Lopp Found in Linked List";
}
else{
Node* slow = head;
Node* fast = head->next;
while((fast && fast->next) && fast != NULL){
if(fast == slow){
cout<<"Loop Found";
break;
}
fast = fast->next->next;
slow = slow->next;
}
if(fast->next == NULL){
cout<<"Not Found";
}
}
}
Call the function from main()
int main()
{
insert(4);
insert(3);
insert(2);
insert(1);
//Created a Loop for Testing, Comment the next line to check the unloop linkedlist
head->next->next->next->next = head->next;
detectLoop();
//If you uncomment the display function and make a loop in linked list and then run the code you will find infinite loop
//display();
}
bool FindLoop(struct node *head)
{
struct node *current1,*current2;
current1=head;
current2=head;
while(current1!=NULL && current2!= NULL && current2->next!= NULL)
{
current1=current1->next;
current2=current2->next->next;
if(current1==current2)
{
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
A quite different method:-
Reverse the linked list.
While reversing if you reach the head again then there is a loop in the list,
if you get NULL then there is no loop.
The total time complexity is O(n)
Suppose there are two singly linked lists both of which intersect at some point and become a single linked list.
The head or start pointers of both the lists are known, but the intersecting node is not known. Also, the number of nodes in each of the list before they intersect are unknown and both list may have it different i.e. List1 may have n nodes before it reaches intersection point and List2 might have m nodes before it reaches intersection point where m and n may be
m = n,
m < n or
m > n
One known or easy solution is to compare every node pointer in the first list with every other node pointer in the second list by which the matching node pointers will lead us to the intersecting node. But, the time complexity in this case will O(n2) which will be high.
What is the most efficient way of finding the intersecting node?
This takes O(M+N) time and O(1) space, where M and N are the total length of the linked lists. Maybe inefficient if the common part is very long (i.e. M,N >> m,n)
Traverse the two linked list to find M and N.
Get back to the heads, then traverse |M − N| nodes on the longer list.
Now walk in lock step and compare the nodes until you found the common ones.
Edit: See more here.
If possible, you could add a 'color' field or similar to the nodes. Iterate over one of the lists, coloring the nodes as you go. Then iterate over the second list. As soon as you reach a node that is already colored, you have found the intersection.
Dump the contents (or address) of both lists into one hash table. first collision is your intersection.
Check last nodes of each list, If there is an intersection their last node will be same.
This is crazy solution I found while coding late at night, it is 2x slower than accepted answer but uses a nice arithmetic hack:
public ListNode findIntersection(ListNode a, ListNode b) {
if (a == null || b == null)
return null;
int A = a.count();
int B = b.count();
ListNode reversedB = b.reverse();
// L = a elements + 1 c element + b elements
int L = a.count();
// restore b
reversedB.reverse();
// A = a + c
// B = b + c
// L = a + b + 1
int cIndex = ((A+B) - (L-1)) / 2;
return a.atIndex(A - cIndex);
}
We split lists at three parts: a this is part of the first list until start of the common part, b this is part of the second list until common part and c which is common part of two lists. We count list sizes then reverse list b, this will cause that when we start traversing list from a end we will end at reversedB (we will go a -> firstElementOfC -> reversedB). This will give us three equations that allow us to get length of common part c.
This is too slow for programming competitions or use in production, but I think this approach is interesting.
Maybe irrelevant at this point, but here's my dirty recursive approach.
This takes O(M) time and O(M) space, where M >= N for list_M of length M and list_N of length N
Recursively iterate to the end of both lists, then count from the end for step 2. Note that list_N will hit null before list_M, for M > N
Same lengths M=N intersects when list_M != list_N && list_M.next == list_N.next
Different lengths M>N intersects when list_N != null
Code Example:
Node yListsHelper(Node n1, Node n2, Node result) {
if (n1 == null && n2 == null)
return null;
yLists(n1 == null ? n1 : n1.next, n2 == null ? n2 : n2.next, result);
if (n1 != null && n2 != null) {
if (n2.next == null) { // n1 > n2
result.next = n1;
} else if (n1.next == null) { // n1 < n2
result.next = n2;
} else if (n1 != n2 && n1.next == n2.next) { // n1 = n2
result.next = n1.next; // or n2.next
}
}
return result.next;
}