Finding the square of a number in a sequential array of odds - arrays

I have a sequential odd array starting at 3. So x = {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13...}.
I am wondering if there is a quick way to find at what index the square of a number n is at. So if n was 5, I am looking for where 25 is in the array. Right now I have ((n) * (n - 1)) which I add to the current i index. Is there anything faster?

Your array is made of consecutive numbers and it's sorted, Because of this it forms a mathematical arithmetic progression with difference 1 and first element as 3, so at index i we have a[i]=i+3 and so i=a[i]-3.
So to find the index of the square of n let nsqr be n*n, nsqr index is simply nsqr-3, that's an O(1) algorithm.
To make it general whenever we have consecutive sorted numbers which start with a0 and differ by d, to find where is the square of n we do (nsqr-a0)/d.

Related

array size n into k same size groups

I have an unsorted array of size n and I need to find k-1 divisors so every subset is of the same size (like after the array is sorted).
I have seen this question with k-1=3. I guess I need the median of medians and this is will take o(n). But I think we should do it k times so o(nk).
I would like to understand why it would take o(n logk).
For example: I have an unsorted array with integers and I want find the k'th divisors which is the k-1 integers that split the array into k (same sized) subarrays according to their values.
If I have [1, 13, 6, 7, 81, 9, 10, 11] the 3=k dividers is [7 ,11] spliting to [1 6, 9 10 13 81] where every subset is big as 2 and equal.
You can use a divide-and-conquer approach. First, find the (k-1)/2th divider using the median-of-medians algorithm. Next, use the selected element to partition the list into two sub-lists. Repeat the algorithm on each sub-list to find the remaining dividers.
The maximum recursion depth is O(log k) and the total cost across all sub-lists at each level is O(n), so this is an O(n log k) algorithm.

approximate sorting Algorithm

Does anyone know an Algorithm that sorts k-approximately an array?
We were asked to find and Algorithm for k-approximate sorting, and it should run in O(n log(n/k)). but I can't seem to find any.
K-approx. sorting means that an array and any 1 <= i <= n-k such that sum a[j] <= sum a[j] i<=j<= i+k-1 i+1<=j<= i+k
I know I'm very late to the question ... But under the assumption that k is some approximation value between 0 and 1 (when 0 is completely unsorted and 1 is perfectly sorted) surely the answer to this is quicksort (or mergesort).
Consider the following array:
[4, 6, 9, 1, 10, 8, 2, 7, 5, 3]
Let's say this array is 'unsorted' - now apply one iteration of quicksort to this array with the (length[array]/2)th element as a pivot: length[array]/2 = 5. So the 5th element is our pivot (i.e. 8):
[4, 6, 2, 1, 3, 9, 7, 10, 8]
Now this is array is not sorted - but it is more sorted than one iteration ago, i.e. its approximately sorted but for a low approximation, i.e. a low value of k. Repeat this step again on the two halves of the array and it becomes more sorted. As k increases towards 1 - i.e. perfectly sorted - the complexity becomes O(N log(N/1)) = O(N log(N)).

Remove unsorted/outlier elements in nearly-sorted array

Given an array like [15, 14, 12, 3, 10, 4, 2, 1]. How can I determine which elements are out of order and remove them (the number 3 in this case). I don't want to sort the list, but detect outliers and remove them.
Another example:
[13, 12, 4, 9, 8, 6, 7, 3, 2]
I want to be able to remove #4 and #7 so that I end up with:
[13, 12, 9, 8, 6, 3, 2]
There's also a problem that arises when you have this scenario:
[15, 13, 12, 7, 10, 5, 4, 3]
You could either remove 7 or 10 to make this array sorted.
In general, the problem I'm trying to solve, is that given a list of numerical readings (some could be off by quite a bit). I want the array to only include values that follow the general trendline and remove any outliers. I'm just wondering if there is a simple way to do this.
I would reduce your problem to the longest increasing (decreasing) subsequence problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_increasing_subsequence
Since your sequence is nearly sorted, you are guaranteed to receive a satisfactory result (i.e. neatly following the trendline).
There exists a number of solutions to it; one of them is portrayed in the free book "Fundamentals of Computer Programming with C#" by Svetlin Nakov and Veselin Kolev; the problem is presented on page 257, exercise 6; solution is on page 260.
Taken from the book:
Write a program, which finds the maximal sequence of increasing elements in an array arr[n]. It is not necessary the elements to be consecutively placed. E.g.: {9, 6, 2, 7, 4, 7, 6, 5, 8, 4} -> {2, 4, 6, 8}.
Solution:
We can solve the problem with two nested loops and one more array len[0…n-1]. In the array len[i] we can keep the length of the longest consecutively increasing sequence, which starts somewhere in the array (it does not matter where exactly) and ends with the element arr[i]. Therefore len[0]=1, len[x] is the maximal sum max(1 + len[prev]), where prev < x and arr[prev] < arr[x]. Following the definition, we can calculate len[0…n-1] with two nested loops: the outer loop will iterate through the array from left to right with the loop variable x. The inner loop will iterate through the array from the start to position x-1 and searches for the element prev with maximal value of len[prev], where arr[prev] < arr[x]. After the search, we initialize len[x] with 1 + the biggest found value of len[prev] or with 1, if such a value is not found.
The described algorithm finds the lengths of all maximal ascending sequences, which end at each of the elements. The biggest one of these values is the length of the longest increasing sequence. If we need to find the elements themselves, which compose that longest sequence, we can start from the element, where the sequence ends (at index x), we can print it and we can search for a previous element (prev). By definition prev < x and len[x] = 1 + len[prev] so we can find prev with a for-loop from 1 to x-1. After that we can repeat the same for x=prev. By finding and printing the previous element (prev) many times until it exists, we can find the elements, which compose the longest sequence in reversed order (from the last to the first).
A simple algorithm which has been described by higuaro can help you to generate a correct sequence:
For each element at index i , if a[i] < a[i + 1], we can simply remove that element a[i].
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++)
while(a[i] < a[i + 1]){
remove a[i];
i--;
}
However, this approach cannot guarantee that the number of removed element is minimum. For example, for this sequence [10, 9, 8, 100, 1, 0], remove 100 will be optimal, instead of remove 8, then 9 then 10.
To find the minimum number of element to be removed, we notice that we need to find the longest decreasing sub sequence, which is similar to the classic longest increasing sub sequence whose solution has been described here

Calling Groups of Elements of Matlab Arrays

I'm dealing with long daily time series in Matlab, running over periods of 30-100+ years. I've been meaning to start looking at it by seasons, roughly approximating that by taking 91-day segments of each year over the time period (with some tbd method of correcting for odd number of days in the year)
Basically, what I want is an array indexing method that allows me to make a new array that takes 91 elements every 365 elements, starting at element 1. I've been looking for some normal array methods (some (:) or other), but I haven't been able to find one. I guess an alternative would be to kind of iterate over 365-day segments 91 times, but that seems needlessly complicated.
Is there a simpler way that I've missed?
Thanks in advance for the help!
So if I understand correctly, you want to extract elements 1-91, 366-457, 731-822, and so on? I'm not sure that there is a way to do this with basic matrix indexing, but you can do the following:
days = 1:365; %Create array ranging from 1 - 365
difference = length(data) - 365; %how much bigger is time series data?
padded = padarray(days, [0, difference], 'circular'); %extend to fit time series
extracted = data(padded <= 91); %get every element in the range 1-91
Basically what I am doing is creating an array that is the same size as your time series data that repeats 1-365 over and over. I then perform logical indexing on data, such that the padded array is less than or equal to 91.
As a more approachable example, consider:
x = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
days = 1:5;
difference = length(x) - 5;
padded = padarray(days, [0, difference], 'circular');
extracted = x(padded <= 2);
padded then is equal to [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and extracted is going to be [1, 2, 6, 7]

Merge Sort Example for Pascal

My teacher gave me a homework about how to Merge Sort two arrays in Pascal.
One of the arrays is named as N and sorted as ASCENDING..
Other array named as M and sorted as DESCENDING.
They are pre-defined and he wants me to Merge Sort these two arrays.
N [ 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 ]
M [ 9, 7, 6, 3, 1 ]
Merge Sort [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
So how can I do that?
Can anyone explain me this Merge Sort algorithm by simple coding examples?
Your teacher is a clever guy, actually you need to understand what a mergesort does to merge two already sorted arrays. That's how mergesort works, it splits up the problem until there are two already sorted arrays, then it merges those arrays to one sorted array. This merging will be repeated until the whole array is sorted.
That's what you need to do (the code you should write on your own...)
Create an array that is big enough to hold the elements of N and M
For each position in the target array take the smallest remaining value of N and M. The smallest one you find like this:
a. If there are no elements of N left, take the smallest element of M
b. If there are no elements of M left, take the smallest element of N
c. Otherwise compare the smallest elements of N and M and take the smaller one.
Because the arrays are already sorted, you know exactly at which position the smallest element of N and of M can be found.

Resources