Given: an arbitrary array of n^2 unsorted numbers
Output: n x n matrix of the inputs, where all rows and columns are sorted.
For example, if n = 3, n^2 = 9, and the array is {1,2,...,9}
Possible outputs include:
1 4 7
2 5 8
3 6 9
and
1 3 5
2 4 6
7 8 9
So I know that this problem can be done in O(n^2log n) time simply by sorting the n^2 numbers and then using the first n numbers as the first row, the second n numbers as the second row, and so on, but how would I prove a matching lower bound, i.e. Ω(n^2log n)?
Related
Enter a number: 10
Even Numbers: 0 2 4 6 8 10
Odd Numbers: 1 3 5 7 9
Prime Numbers: 2 3 5 7
Sum : 3 8 14 20 17 10
i wanted to sum up the corresponding elements of the array like above what should i do???
Please update your question to clearly explain what you have and what you need / where it is going wrong. If you have 3 arrays for example, then keep an i = 0, and increment this to max(max(len(arr1), len(arr2)), len(arr3)) - meaning the max count of the 3 arrays.
A for loop can go from i=0 to i=max-value-above and then you can generate a new array by summing up the values of each array at that index i, taking care that you don't go out of bounds for each array.
On the internet I only find code for the algorithm but I need understand in form of text first because I have trouble understand things from code only. And other description of the algorithm are very complicated for me (on Wikipedia and other sites).
Here is what I understand for far:
Let say we want search in array the element 10:
Index i 0 1 2 3 4
2 3 4 10 40
Some fibonacci number here:
Index j 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34
First thing we do is find fibonacci number that is greater-equal to array length. Array length is 4 so we need take fibonacci number 5 that is in index position j=5.
But where we divide the array now and how continue? I really don't understand it.. Please help understand for exam...
The algorithm goes in the following way:
The length of the array is 5, so the fibonacci number which is greater than or equal to 5 is 5. The two numbers which are preceding in the Fibonacci sequence are 2 [n-2] and 3 [n-1] - (2, 3, 5).
So, arr[n-2] i.e. arr[2] is compared with the number to be searched which is 10.
If the element is smaller than the number, then the sequence is shifted 1 time to the left. Also, the previous index is saved for next iteration to give an offset for the index. In this case, since 4 is smaller, n-2 becomes 1 (1, 2, 3). arr[1 + 2(prev)] = arr[3] = 10. So, the index of the number is 3.
If the element is larger, the sequence is shifted 2 times to the left.
Always the min(n-2+offset,n)th element is compared with number to get the matching result.
You are giving array of length N and numbers in the array contain 1 to N no repetition. You need to check if the array can be divided into to list of equal sum.
I know it can be solved using subset sum problem whose time complexity is.
Is there an algorithm so that I can reduce the time complexity?
As per your requirements, we conclude the array will always contain numbers 1 to N.
So if Array.Sum()==Even the answer is YES, otherwise NO.
Since the sum of elements from 1 to n equals n*(n+1)/2, you have to check if n*(n+1) is a multiple of 4, which is equivalent to checking if n is a multiple of 4, or if n+1 is a multiple of 4. The complexity of it is O(1).
If this condition is met, the two subsets are :
if n is a multiple of 4: sum up the odd numbers of first half with even numbers of second half on one hand, and even numbers of first half with odd of second half on the other.
For instance, 1 3 5 8 10 12 , and 2 4 6 7 9 11.
if n = 3 modulo 4 : almost the same thing, just split the first 3 between 1 and 2 on one hand, 3 on the other, you have a remaining serie which has a size multiple of 4.
For instance : 1 2 4 7 , and 3 5 6 ; or if you prefer, 3 4 7, and 1 2 5 6.
I was trying to do my friends problem set from a few years ago to sharpen up my knowledge about data structures etc. I came across this problem, and I'm not really sure where to start. Hopefully someone could help me out!
We are given n unsorted arrays, each array has n elements. Ex.
3 1 2
7 6 9
4 9 12
Now, say we take one element from each array, and add them up. Lets just call the sum of these elements an "n-sum".
I need to devise an algorithm that gives us the n smallest "n-sums" (duplicates are allowed).
In our above ex, the answer would be:
11, 12, 12
# 11 comes from: 1 (first array) + 6 (second array) + 4 (third array)
# 12 comes from: 2 (first array) + 6 (second array) + 4 (third array)
# 12 comes from: 1 (first array) + 7 (second array) + 4 (third array)
One of the suggestions given were to use a priority queue.
Thanks!
The time is at least O (n^2): You must visit all array elements, because if all elements were equal to 1000 except on in each row being 0, you would have to look at the n elements equal to 0, or you couldn't find the smallest sum.
Sort each row, taking O (n^2 log n) steps. In each row, subtract the first element from all elements in the row, so the first element in each row is 0; after you found the smallest sums you can compensate for that. Your example turns into
3 1 2 -> 1 2 3 -> 0 1 2
7 6 9 -> 6 7 9 -> 0 1 3
4 9 12 -> 4 9 12-> 0 5 7
Now finding all sums ≤ K can be done in m steps if there are m sums: In the first row, pick all values in turn as long as they are ≤ K. In the second row, pick all values in turn as long as the sum from two rows is ≤ K and so on. Since each row starts with 0, no time is wasted.
For example, sums ≤ 5 are: 0+0+0, 0+0+5, 0+1+0, 0+3+0, 1+0+0, 1+1+0, 1+3+0, 2+0+0, 2+1+0, 2+3+0. Many more than the three that we needed. If we stop after finding 3 sums ≤ 5, we know very quickly "there are at least 3 sums ≤ 5". We need to have an early stop, because in the general case there could be n^n possible sums.
If you pick K = "largest element in the second column", then you know there are at least n+1 sums with a value ≤ K, because you can pick all 0's, or all 0's except one value from the second column. In your example, K = 5 (we know that worked). Let X be the value where there are n sums ≤ X but fewer than n sums ≤ X - 1. We find X with binary search between 0 and K, and then we find the sums. Example:
K = 5 is known to be big enough. We try K = 2, and find 4 sums (actually we stop at 3 sums). Too many. We try K = 1, and there are three solutions 0+0+0, 0+1+0 and 1+0+0. We try K = 0, but only one solution.
This part goes very quick, so we'd try to reduce the time used for sorting. We notice that in this case looking at the first two columns was enough. We can in each row find the two smallest items, and in this case that would be enough. If the two smallest items are not enough to determine the n smallest sums, find the third smallest item etc. where needed. For example, since the 2nd largest item of the last row is 5, we wouldn't need the third item of the row, because even the 5 is not element of a sum if K ≤ 4.
Trying to figure out what type of an array consists of at most n inversions with n being the array size. I was thinking an array that is nearly sorted would fall under this case and also an array that is almost completely sorted with the max element and min element switched, for instance..
9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1
So my thinking is that when an array has at most n inversions, is it safe to say that the array is nearly sorted? Or are there other cases where the array would have at most n inversions and not be nearly sorted.
The 'least' sorted array (i.e. reverse sorted) has 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n-1 = n(n-1)/2 inversions.
The less inversions an array has, the 'more' sorted it is.
And, since n is quite a bit smaller than n(n-1)/2, one can probably call an array with n inversions 'nearly sorted'.
This array has n-1 inversions:
9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In response to your comment, insertion sort's complexity is O(n + d), where d is the number of inversions, thus it will run in O(n) for O(n) inversions.