I am reviewing Algorithm, 4th Editon by sedgewick recently, and come across such a problem and cannot solve it.
The problem goes like this:
2.1.28 Equal keys. Formulate and validate hypotheses about the running time of insertion
sort and selection sort for arrays that contain just two key values, assuming that
the values are equally likely to occur.
Explanation: You have n elements, each can be 0 or 1 (without loss of generality), and for each element x: P(x=0)=P(x=1).
Any help will be welcomed.
Selection sort:
The time complexity is going to remain the same (as it is without the 2 keys assumption), it is independent on the values of the arrays, only the number of elements.
Time complexity for selection sort in this case is O(n^2)
However, this is true only for the original algorithm that scans the entire tail of the array for each outer loop iteration. if you optimize it to find the next "0", at iteration i, since you have already "cleared" the first i-1 zeros, the i'th zero mean location is at index 2i. This means each time, the inner loop will need to do 2i-(i-1)=i+1 iterations.
Suming it up will be:
1 + 2 + ... + n = n(n+1)/2
Which is, unfortunately, still in O(n^2).
Another optimization could be to "remmber" where you have last stopped. This will significantly improve complexity to O(n), since you don't need to traverse the same element more than once - but that's going to be a different algorithm, not selection sort.
Insertion Sort:
Here, things are more complicated. Note that in the inner loop (taken from wikipedia), the number of operations depends on the values:
while j > 0 and A[j-1] > x
However, recall that in insertion sort, after the ith step, the first i elements are sorted. Since we are assuming P(x=0)=P(x=1), an average of i/2 elements are 0's and i/2 are 1's.
This means, the time complexity on average, for the inner loop is O(i/2).
Summing this up will get you:
1/2 + 2/2 + 3/2 + ... + n/2 = 1/2* (1+2+...+n) = 1/2*n(n+1)/2 = n(n+1)/4
The above is however, still in O(n^2).
The above is not a formal proof, because it implicitly uses E(f(E(x)) = E(f(x)), which is not true, but it can give you guidelines how to formally build your proof.
Well obviosuly you only need to search until you find the first 0, when searching for the next smmalest. For example, in the selection sort, you scan the array looking for the next smallest number to swap into the current position. Since there are only 0s and 1s you can stop the scan when encountering the first 0 (since it is the next smallest number), so there is no need to continue scanning the rest of the array in this cycle. If 0 is not found then the sorting is complete, since the "unsorted" portion is all 1s.
Insertion sort is basically the same. They are both O(N) in this case.
Related
I have to interleave a given array of the form
{a1,a2,....,an,b1,b2,...,bn}
as
{a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3}
in O(n) time and O(1) space.
Example:
Input - {1,2,3,4,5,6}
Output- {1,4,2,5,3,6}
This is the arrangement of elements by indices:
Initial Index Final Index
0 0
1 2
2 4
3 1
4 3
5 5
By observation after taking some examples, I found that ai (i<n/2) goes from index (i) to index (2i) & bi (i>=n/2) goes from index (i) to index (((i-n/2)*2)+1). You can verify this yourselves. Correct me if I am wrong.
However, I am not able to correctly apply this logic in code.
My pseudo code:
for (i = 0 ; i < n ; i++)
if(i < n/2)
swap(arr[i],arr[2*i]);
else
swap(arr[i],arr[((i-n/2)*2)+1]);
It's not working.
How can I write an algorithm to solve this problem?
Element bn is in the correct position already, so lets forget about it and only worry about the other N = 2n-1 elements. Notice that N is always odd.
Now the problem can be restated as "move the element at each position i to position 2i % N"
The item at position 0 doesn't move, so lets start at position 1.
If you start at position 1 and move it to position 2%N, you have to remember the item at position 2%N before you replace it. The the one from position 2%N goes to position 4%N, the one from 4%N goes to 8%N, etc., until you get back to position 1, where you can put the remaining item into the slot you left.
You are guaranteed to return to slot 1, because N is odd and multiplying by 2 mod an odd number is invertible. You are not guaranteed to cover all positions before you get back, though. The whole permutation will break into some number of cycles.
If you can start this process at one element from each cycle, then you will do the whole job. The trouble is figuring out which ones are done and which ones aren't, so you don't cover any cycle twice.
I don't think you can do this for arbitrary N in a way that meets your time and space constraints... BUT if N = 2x-1 for some x, then this problem is much easier, because each cycle includes exactly the cyclic shifts of some bit pattern. You can generate single representatives for each cycle (called cycle leaders) in constant time per index. (I'll describe the procedure in an appendix at the end)
Now we have the basis for a recursive algorithm that meets your constraints.
Given [a1...an,b1...bn]:
Find the largest x such that 2x <= 2n
Rotate the middle elements to create [a1...ax,b1...bx,ax+1...an,bx+1...bn]
Interleave the first part of the array in linear time using the above-described procedure, since it will have modulus 2x-1
Recurse to interleave the last part of the array.
Since the last part of the array we recurse on is guaranteed to be at most half the size of the original, we have this recurrence for the time complexity:
T(N) = O(N) + T(N/2)
= O(N)
And note that the recursion is a tail call, so you can do this in constant space.
Appendix: Generating cycle leaders for shifts mod 2x-1
A simple algorithm for doing this is given in a paper called "An algorithm for generating necklaces of beads in 2 colors" by Fredricksen and Kessler. You can get a PDF here: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82148295.pdf
The implementation is easy. Start with x 0s, and repeatedly:
Set the lowest order 0 bit to 1. Let this be bit y
Copy the lower order bits starting from the top
The result is a cycle leader if x-y divides x
Repeat until you have all x 1s
For example, if x=8 and we're at 10011111, the lowest 0 is bit 5. We switch it to 1 and then copy the remainder from the top to give 10110110. 8-5=3, though, and 3 does not divide 8, so this one is not a cycle leader and we continue to the next.
The algorithm I'm going to propose is probably not o(n).
It's not based on swapping elements but on moving elements which probably could be O(1) if you have a list and not an array.
Given 2N elements, at each iteration (i) you take the element in position N/2 + i and move it to position 2*i
a1,a2,a3,...,an,b1,b2,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,a3,...,an,b2,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,...,an,b3,...,bn
| |
a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3,...,an,...,bn
and so on.
example with N = 4
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,5,2,3,4,6,7,8
1,5,2,6,3,4,7,8
1,5,2,6,3,7,4,8
One idea which is a little complex is supposing each location has the following value:
1, 3, 5, ..., 2n-1 | 2, 4, 6, ..., 2n
a1,a2, ..., an | b1, b2, ..., bn
Then using inline merging of two sorted arrays as explained in this article in O(n) time an O(1) space complexity. However, we need to manage this indexing during the process.
There is a practical linear time* in-place algorithm described in this question. Pseudocode and C code are included.
It involves swapping the first 1/2 of the items into the correct place, then unscrambling the permutation of the 1/4 of the items that got moved, then repeating for the remaining 1/2 array.
Unscrambling the permutation uses the fact that left items move into the right side with an alternating "add to end, swap oldest" pattern. We can find the i'th index in this permutation with this this rule:
For even i, the end was at i/2.
For odd i, the oldest was added to the end at step (i-1)/2
*The number of data moves is definitely O(N). The question asks for the time complexity of the unscramble index calculation. I believe it is no worse than O(lg lg N).
My mind is blown since I began, last week, trying to sort an array of N elements by condition: the difference between 2 elements being always less or equal to the next 2 elements. For example:
Α[4] = { 10, 2, 7, 4}
It is possible to rearrange that array this way:
{2, 7, 10, 4} because (2 - 7 = -5) < (7 - 10 = -3) < (10 - 4 = 6)
{4, 10, 7, 2} because (4 - 10 = -6) < (10 - 7 = 3) < (7 - 2 = 5)
One solution I considered was just shuffling the array and checking each time if it agreed with the conditions, an efficient method for a small number of elements, but time consuming or even impossible for a larger number of elements.
Another was trying to move elements around the array with loops, hoping again to meet the requirements, but again this method is very time consuming and also sometimes not possible.
Trying to find an algorithm doesn't seem to have any result but there must be something.
Thank you very much in advance.
I normally don't just provide code, but this question intrigued me, so here's a brute-force solution, that might get you started.
The concept will always be slow because the individual elements in the list to be sorted are not independent of each other, so they cannot be sorted using traditional O(N log N) algorithms. However, the differences can be sorted that way, which simplifies checking for a solution, and permutations could be checked in parallel to speed up the processing.
import os,sys
import itertools
def is_diff_sorted(qa):
diffs = [qa[i] - qa[i+1] for i in range(len(qa)-1)]
for i in range(len(diffs)-1):
if diffs[i] > diffs[i+1]:
return False
return True
a = [2,4,7,10]
#a = [1,4,6,7,20]
a.sort()
for perm in itertools.permutations(a):
if is_diff_sorted(perm):
print "Solution:",str(a)
break
This condition is related to differentiation. The (negative) difference between neighbouring elements has to be steady or increasing with increasing index. Multiply the condition by -1 and you get
a[i+1]-a[i] => a[i+2]-a[i+1]
or
0 => (a[i+2]-a[i+1])- (a[i+1]-a[i])
So the 2nd derivative has to be 0 or negative, which is the same as having the first derivative stay the same or changing downwards, like e.g. portions of the upper half of a circle. That does not means that the first derivative itself has to start out positive or negative, just that it never change upward.
The problem algorithmically is that it can't be a simple sort, since you never compare just 2 elements of the list, you'll have to compare three at a time (i,i+1,i+2).
So the only thing you know apart from random permutations is given in Klas` answer (values first rising if at all, then falling if at all), but his is not a sufficient condition since you can have a positive 2nd derivative in his two sets (rising/falling).
So is there a solution much faster than the random shuffle? I can only think of the following argument (similar to Klas' answer). For a given vector the solution is more likely if you separate the data into a 1st segment that is rising or steady (not falling) and a 2nd that is falling or steady (not rising) and neither is empty. Likely an argument could be made that the two segments should have approximately equal size. The rising segment should have the data that are closer together and the falling segment should contain data that are further apart. So one could start with the mean, and look for data that are close to it, move them to the first set,then look for more widely spaced data and move them to the 2nd set. So a histogram might help.
[4 7 10 2] --> diff [ 3 3 -8] --> 2diff [ 0 -11]
Here is a solution based on backtracking algorithm.
Sort input array in non-increasing order.
Start dividing the array's values into two subsets: put the largest element to both subsets (this would be the "middle" element), then place second largest one into arbitrary subset.
Sequentially put the remaining elements to either subset. If this cannot be done without violating the "difference" condition, use other subset. If both subsets are not acceptable, rollback and change preceding decisions.
Reverse one of the arrays produced on step 3 and concatenate it with other array.
Below is Python implementation (it is not perfect, the worst defect is recursive implementation: while recursion is quite common for backtracking algorithms, this particular algorithm seems to work in linear time, and recursion is not good for very large input arrays).
def is_concave_end(a, x):
return a[-2] - a[-1] <= a[-1] - x
def append_element(sa, halves, labels, which, x):
labels.append(which)
halves[which].append(x)
if len(labels) == len(sa) or split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
if which == 1 or not is_concave_end(halves[1], halves[0][-1]):
halves[which].pop()
labels.pop()
return False
labels[-1] = 1
halves[1].append(halves[0][-1])
halves[0].pop()
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return True
halves[1].pop()
labels.pop()
def split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
x = sa[len(labels)]
if len(halves[0]) < 2 or is_concave_end(halves[0], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 0, x)
if is_concave_end(halves[1], x):
return append_element(sa, halves, labels, 1, x)
def make_concave(a):
sa = sorted(a, reverse = True)
halves = [[sa[0]], [sa[0], sa[1]]]
labels = [0, 1]
if split_to_halves(sa, halves, labels):
return list(reversed(halves[1][1:])) + halves[0]
print make_concave([10, 2, 7, 4])
It is not easy to produce a good data set to test this algorithm: plain set of random numbers either is too simple for this algorithm or does not have any solutions. Here I tried to generate a set that is "difficult enough" by mixing together two sorted lists, each satisfying the "difference" condition. Still this data set is processed in linear time. And I have no idea how to prepare any data set that would demonstrate more-than-linear time complexity of this algorithm...
Not that since the diffence should be ever-rising, any solution will have element first in rising order and then in falling order. The length of either of the two "suborders" may be 0, so a solution could consist of a strictly rising or strictly falling sequence.
The following algorithm will find any solutions:
Divide the set into two sets, A and B. Empty sets are allowed.
Sort A in rising order and B in falling order.
Concatenate the two sorted sets: AB
Check if you have a solution.
Do this for all possible divisions into A and B.
Expanding on the #roadrunner66 analysis, the solution is to take two smallest elements of the original array, and make them first and last in the target array; take two next smallest elements and make them second and next-to-last; keep going until all the elements are placed into the target. Notice that which one goes to the left, and which one to the right doesn't matter.
Sorting the original array facilitates the process (finding smallest elements becomes trivial), so the time complexity is O(n log n). The space complexity is O(n), because it requires a target array. I don't know off-hand if it is possible to do it in-place.
there is an array of numbers an this array is irregular and we should find a maximum number (n) that at least n number is bigger than it (this number may be in array and may not be in array )
for example if we give 2 5 7 6 9 number 4 is maximum number that at least 4 number (or more than it ) is bigger than 4 (5 6 7 9 are bigger)
i solve this problem but i think it gives time limit in big array of numbers so i want to resolve this problem in another way
so i use merge sort for sorting that because it take nlog(n) and then i use a counter an it counts from 1 to k if we have k number more than k we count again for example we count from 1 to 4 then in 5 we don't have 5 number more than 5 so we give k-1 = 4 and this is our n .
it's good or it maybe gives time limit ? does anybody have another idea ?
thanks
In c++ there is a function called std::nth_element and it can find the nth element of an array in linear time. Using this function you should find the N - n- th element (where N is the total number of elements in the array) and subtract 1 from it.
As you seek a solution in C you can not make use of this function, but you can implement your solution similarly. nth_element performs something quite similar to qsort, but it only performs partition on the part of the array where the n-th element is.
Now let's assume you have nth_element implemented. We will perform something like combination of binary search and nth_element. First we assume that the answer of the question is the middle element of the array (i.e. the N/2-th element). We use nth_element and we find the N/2th element. If it is more than N/2 we know the answer to your problem is at least N/2, otherwise it will be less. Either way in order to find the answer we will only continue with one of the two partitions created by the N/2th element. If this partition is the right one(elements bigger than N/2) we continue solving the same problem, otherwise we start searching for the max element M on the left of the N/2th element that has at least x bigger elements such that x + N/2 > M. The two subproblems will have the same complexity. You continue performing this operation until the interval you are interested in is of length 1.
Now let's prove the complexity of the above algorithm is linear. First nth_element is linear performing operations in the order of N, second nth_element that only considers one half of the array will perform operations in the order of N/2 the third - in the order of N/4 and so on. All in all you will perform operations in the order of N + N/2 + N/4 + ... + 1. This sum is less than 2 * N thus your complexity is still linear.
Your solution is asymptotically slower than what I propose above as it has a complexity O(n*log(n)), while my solution has complexity of O(n).
I would use a modified variant of a sorting algorithm that uses pivot values.
The reason is that you want to sort as few elements as possible.
So I would use qsort as my base algorithm and let the pivot element control which partition to sort (you will only need to sort one).
Given an array , each element is one more or one less than its preceding element .find an element in it.(better than O(n) approach)
I have a solution for this but I have no way to tell formally if it is the correct solution:
Let us assume we have to find n.
From the given index, find the distance to n; d = |a[0] - n|
The desired element will be atleast d elements apart and jump d elements
repeat above till d = 0
Yes, your approach will work.
If you can only increase / decrease by one at each following index, there's no way a value at an index closer than d could be a distance d from the current value. So there's no way you can skip over the target value. And, unless the value is found, the distance will always be greater than 0, thus you'll keep moving right. Thus, if the value exists, you'll find it.
No, you can't do better than O(n) in the worst case.
Consider an array 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 and you're looking for 0. Any of the 2's can be changed to a 0 without having to change any of the other values, thus we have to look at all the 2's and there are n/2 = O(n) 2's.
Prepocessing can help here.
Find Minimum and Maximum element of array in O(n) time complexity.
If element to be queried is between Minimum and Maximum of array, then that element is present in array, else that element is not present in that array.So any query will take O(1) time. If that array is queried multiple times, than amortized time complexity will be lesser that O(n).
I implemented a quicksort implementation in C and I'm trying to figure out what input is needed to cause a worse case performance.
According to wikipedia:
always choosing the last element in the partition as the pivot in this way results in poor performance (n^2) on already sorted lists, or lists of identical elements.
So I tried to do that, which resulted in the following code. The pivot is always the last element and the input is an already sorted list.
In order to prove that the complexity is indeed n^2, I created a global variable which I increment in each iteration, then finally print it.
I'd expected that the program would print:
Done in 64 iterations
However, it did it in 28 iterations. Maybe my understanding of the term "complexity" is wrong?
In every iteration, the list shrinks by one element because the pivot is moved and no longer counted. So, the total amount of iterations is 7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 28.
Note that this is still quadratic, because it is equal to n*(n-1)/2.
The number of iterations is 28 for n=8.
The number of iterations is equal to n*(n-1)/2 = 8*7/2 = 28.
Now the function is f(n)=n*(n-1)/2 = n2/2 - n/2.
There for f(n) = O(n2/2 - n/2) = O((1/2)n2) = O(n2).
Thus for your input is in fact the worst case for Quicksort.