Suppose, there are N ordered boxes (Box1, Box2, Box3, ... , BoxN). My question is, what is the probability of the event that strictly only M boxes are in their rightful position? (M boxes need not be contiguous).
For example, there are three boxes, ie N=3. Permutations are:
([Box1,Box2,Box3] [Box1,Box3,Box2] [Box2,Box1,Box3] [Box2,Box3,Box1] [Box3,Box1,Box2] [Box3,Box2,Box1])
If M=1, the favourable outcomes are ([Box1,Box3,Box2] [Box3,Box2,Box1] [Box2,Box1,Box3]). Hence, probability that strictly only one box is in its rightful position = 3/6.
I'll appreciate any help. I just can't find the solution.
You can determine the probability inductively, based on the first slot holding the correct item or not: p(n,m) = (1/n)*p(n-1,m-1) + ((n-1)/n)*p(n-1,m).
Related
Assume a two-dimentional (width * height) array where each element is a colored box.
The count of boxes is n. The count of colors of all boxes is limited to a constant c, and c <<< n.
Now for a given k, find a way to group these boxes into larger squares, so that the count of all groups (squares) is closest to k, where the group item can be 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, ... boxes inside (so that they can form a square).
Within each group (square), the elements must all be the same color.
Single element squares are valid.
Squares cannot overlap.
list all 2 by 2 squares of same colored boxes
while count of squares != k
if count < k
if possible to split largest square into smaller squares
split
else
stop
else
if possible to combine 4 small squares into one
combine
else
stop
I recently came through an interesting coding problem, which is as follows:
There are n boxes, let us assume this is an array of n boxes.
For each index i of this array, three values are given -
1.) Weight(i)
2.) Left(i)
3.) Right(i)
left(i) means - if weight[i] is chosen, we are not allowed to choose left[i] elements from the left of this ith element.
Similarly, right[i] means if arr[i] is chosen, we are not allowed to choose right[i] elements from the right of it.
Example :
Weight[2] = 5
Left[2] = 1
Right[2] = 3
Then, if I pick element at position 2, I get weight of 5 units. But, I cannot pick elements at position {1} (due to left constraint). And cannot pick elements at position {3,4,5} (due to right constraint).
Objective - We need to calculate the maximum sum of the weights we can pick.
Sample Test Case :-
**Input: **
5
2 0 3
4 0 0
3 2 0
7 2 1
9 2 0
**Output: **
13
Note - First column is weights, Second column is left constraints, Third column is right constraints
I used Dynamic Programming approach(similar to Longest Increasing Subsequence) to reach a O(n^2) solution. But, not able to think of a O(n*logn) solution. (n can be up to 10^5.)
I also tried to use priority queue, in which elements with lower value of (right[i] + i) are given higher priority(assigned higher priority to element with lower value of "i", in case primary key value is equal). But, it is also giving timeout error.
Any other approach for this? or any optimization in priority queue method? I can post both of my codes if needed.
Thanks.
One approach is to use a binary indexed tree to create a data structure that makes it easy to do two operations in O(logn) time each:
Insert number into an array
Find maximum in a given range
We will use this data structure to hold the maximum weight that can be achieved by selecting box i along with an optimal selection of boxes to the left.
The key is that we will only insert values into this data structure when we reach a point where the right constraint has been met.
To find the best value for box i, we need to find the maximum value in the data structure for all points up to location i-left[i], which can be done in O(logn).
The final algorithm is to loop over i=0..n-1 and for each i:
Compute result for box i by finding maximum in range 0..(i-left[i])
Schedule the result to be added when we reach location i+right[i]
Add any previously scheduled results into our data structure
The final result is the maximum value in the whole data structure.
Overall, the complexity is o(nlogn) because each value of i results in one lookup and one update operation.
We have an array as input to production.
R = [5, 2, 8, 3, 6, 9]
If ith input is chosen the output is sum of ith element, the max element whose index is less than i and the min element whose index is greater than i.
For example if I take 8, output would be 8+5+3=16.
Selected items cannot be selected again. So, if I select 8 the next array for next selection would look like R = [5, 2, 3, 6, 9]
What is the order to choose all inputs with maximum output in total? If possible, please send dynamic programming solutions.
I'll start the bidding with an O(n2n) solution . . .
There are a number of ambiguities in your description of the problem, that you have declined to address in comments. None of these ambiguities affects the runtime complexity of this solution, but they do affect implementation details of the solution, so the solution is necessarily somewhat of a sketch.
The solution is as follows:
Create an array results of 2n integers. Each array index i will denote a certain subsequence of the input, and results[i] will be the greatest sum that we can achieve starting with that subsequence.
A convenient way to manage the index-to-subsequence mapping is to represent the first element of the input using the least significant bit (the 1's place), the second element with the 2's place, etc.; so, for example, if our input is [5, 2, 8, 3, 6, 9], then the subsequence 5 2 8 would be represented as array index 0001112 = 7, meaning results[7]. (You can also start with the most significant bit ā which is probably more intuitive ā but then the implementation of that mapping is a little bit less convenient. Up to you.)
Then proceed in order, from subset #0 (the empty subset) up through subset #2nā1 (the full input), calculating each array-element by seeing how much we get if we select each possible element and add the corresponding previously-stored values. So, for example, to calculate results[7] (for the subsequence 5 2 8), we select the largest of these values:
results[6] plus how much we get if we select the 5
results[5] plus how much we get if we select the 2
results[3] plus how much we get if we select the 8
Now, it might seem like it should require O(n2) time to compute any given array-element, since there are n elements in the input that we could potentially select, and seeing how much we get if we do so requires examining all other elements (to find the maximum among prior elements and the minimum among later elements). However, we can actually do it in just O(n) time by first making a pass from right to left to record the minimal value that is later than each element of the input, and then proceeding from left to right to try each possible value. (Two O(n) passes add up to O(n).)
An important caveat: I suspect that the correct solution only ever involves, at each step, selecting either the rightmost or second-to-rightmost element. If so, then the above solution calculates many, many more values than an algorithm that took that into account. For example, the result at index 1110002 is clearly not relevant in that case. But I can't prove this suspicion, so I present the above O(n2n) solution as the fastest solution whose correctness I'm certain of.
(I'm assuming that the elements are nonnegative absent a suggestion to the contrary.)
Here's an O(n^2)-time algorithm based on ruakh's conjecture that there exists an optimal solution where every selection is from the rightmost two, which I prove below.
The states of the DP are (1) n, the number of elements remaining (2) k, the index of the rightmost element. We have a recurrence
OPT(n, k) = max(max(R(0), ..., R(n - 2)) + R(n - 1) + R(k) + OPT(n - 1, k),
max(R(0), ..., R(n - 1)) + R(k) + OPT(n - 1, n - 1)),
where the first line is when we take the second rightmost element, and the second line is when we take the rightmost. The empty max is zero. The base cases are
OPT(1, k) = R(k)
for all k.
Proof: the condition of choosing from the two rightmost elements is equivalent to the restriction that the element at index i (counting from zero) can be chosen only when at most i + 2 elements remain. We show by induction that there exists an optimal solution satisfying this condition for all i < j where j is the induction variable.
The base case is trivial, since every optimal solution satisfies the vacuous restriction for j = 0. In the inductive case, assume that there exists an optimal solution satisfying the restriction for all i < j. If j is chosen when there are more than j + 2 elements left, let's consider what happens if we defer that choice until there are exactly j + 2 elements left. None of the elements left of j are chosen in this interval by the inductive hypothesis, so they are irrelevant. Choosing the elements right of j can only be at least as profitable, since including j cannot decrease the max. Meanwhile, the set of elements left of j is the same at both times, and the set of the elements right of j is a subset at the later time as compared to the earlier time, so the min does not decrease. We conclude that this deferral does not affect the profitability of the solution.
I have a bit of a technical issue, but I feel like it should be possible with MATLAB's powerful toolset.
What I have is a random n by n matrix of 0's and w's, say generated with
A=w*(rand(n,n)<p);
A typical value of w would be 3000, but that should not matter too much.
Now, this matrix has two important quantities, the vectors
c = sum(A,1);
r = sum(A,2)';
These are two row vectors, the first denotes the sum of each column and the second the sum of each row.
What I want to do next is randomize each value of w, for example between 0.5 and 2. This I would do as
rand_M = (0.5-2).*rand(n,n) + 0.5
A_rand = rand_M.*A;
However, I don't want to just pick these random numbers: I want them to be such that for every column and row, the sums are still equal to the elements of c and r. So to clean up the notation a bit, say we define
A_rand_c = sum(A_rand,1);
A_rand_r = sum(A_rand,2)';
I want that for all j = 1:n, A_rand_c(j) = c(j) and A_rand_r(j) = r(j).
What I'm looking for is a way to redraw the elements of rand_M in a sort of algorithmic fashion I suppose, so that these demands are finally satisfied.
Now of course, unless I have infinite amounts of time this might not really happen. I therefore accept these quantities to fall into a specific range: A_rand_c(j) has to be an element of [(1-e)*c(j),(1+e)*c(j)] and A_rand_r(j) of [(1-e)*r(j),(1+e)*r(j)]. This e I define beforehand, say like 0.001 or something.
Would anyone be able to help me in the process of finding a way to do this? I've tried an approach where I just randomly repick the numbers, but this really isn't getting me anywhere. It does not have to be crazy efficient either, I just need it to work in finite time for networks of size, say, n = 50.
To be clear, the final output is the matrix A_rand that satisfies these constraints.
Edit:
Alright, so after thinking a bit I suppose it might be doable with some while statement, that goes through every element of the matrix. The difficult part is that there are four possibilities: if you are in a specific element A_rand(i,j), it could be that A_rand_c(j) and A_rand_r(i) are both too small, both too large, or opposite. The first two cases are good, because then you can just redraw the random number until it is smaller than the current value and improve the situation. But the other two cases are problematic, as you will improve one situation but not the other. I guess it would have to look at which criteria is less satisfied, so that it tries to fix the one that is worse. But this is not trivial I would say..
You can take advantage of the fact that rows/columns with a single non-zero entry in A automatically give you results for that same entry in A_rand. If A(2,5) = w and it is the only non-zero entry in its column, then A_rand(2,5) = w as well. What else could it be?
You can alternate between finding these single-entry rows/cols, and assigning random numbers to entries where the value doesn't matter.
Here's a skeleton for the process:
A_rand=zeros(size(A)) is the matrix you are going to fill
entries_left = A>0 is a binary matrix showing which entries in A_rand you still need to fill
col_totals=sum(A,1) is the amount you still need to add in every column of A_rand
row_totals=sum(A,2) is the amount you still need to add in every row of A_rand
while sum( entries_left(:) ) > 0
% STEP 1:
% function to fill entries in A_rand if entries_left has rows/cols with one nonzero entry
% you will need to keep looping over this function until nothing changes
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals every time you loop
% STEP 2:
% let (i,j) be the indeces of the next non-zero entry in entries_left
% assign a random number to A_rand(i,j) <= col_totals(j) and <= row_totals(i)
% update() A_rand, entries_left, row_totals, col_totals
end
update()
A_rand(i,j) = random_value;
entries_left(i,j) = 0;
col_totals(j) = col_totals(j) - random_value;
row_totals(i) = row_totals(i) - random_value;
end
Picking the range for random_value might be a little tricky. The best I can think of is to draw it from a relatively narrow distribution centered around N*w*p where p is the probability of an entry in A being nonzero (this would be the average value of row/column totals).
This doesn't scale well to large matrices as it will grow with n^2 complexity. I tested it for a 200 by 200 matrix and it worked in about 20 seconds.
We are given a string of the form: RBBR, where R - red and B - blue.
We need to find the minimum number of swaps required in order to club the colors together. In the above case that answer would be 1 to get RRBB or BBRR.
I feel like an algorithm to sort a partially sorted array would be useful here since a simple sort would give us the number of swaps, but we want the minimum number of swaps.
Any ideas?
This is allegedly a Microsoft interview question according to this.
Take one pass over the string and count the number of reds (#R) and the number of blues (#B). Then take a second pass counting the number of reds in the first #R balls (#r) and the number of blue balls in the first #B balls (#b). The lesser of (#R - #r) and (#B - #b) will be the minimum number of swaps needed.
We are given the string S that we have to convert to the final string F = R^a B^b or B^b R^a. The number of differences between S and F should be even because for every misplaced R there will be a complementary misplaced B. So why not find the minimum number of differences between S and both possible F's and divide that by 2?
For example, you're given S = RBRRBRBR which should convert to
RRRRRBBB
or
BBBRRRRR
Comparing the differences between S and F for each character for each possibility, there are 4 differences for each possible final string so regardless the minimum is 2 swaps.
Let's look at your example. You know that the end state will be RRBB or BBRR. In other words, the end state is always nRmB or mBnR, where n is the number of R's and m is the number o B's in your string.
Since the end state is defined, maybe some sort of path-finding algorithm would be a good aproach for this? How about considering each swap as a state-change and thinking of a heuristic function to aproximate the number of left over swaps needed.
I'm just throwing an idea in the air, but I hope this helps.
Start with two indices simultaneously from the right and left end of the string. Advance the left index until you find an R. Advance the right index backwards until you find a B. Swap them. Repeat until the left index meets the right index, and count the swaps. Then, do the same, but look for B on the left and R on the right. The minimum is the lower of both swap counts.
I think the number of swaps can be derived from the number of inversions required to sort the vector. This is the example of doing the same with permutation vector.
This isn't a technical answer, but I looked at this more intuitively.
RRBBBBR is can be reduced to RBR, since a group of R's can be moved as a single block. This means that the array is really just a N sets of RB.
The only thing that matters is the number of N sets of RB blocks (including incomplete blocks for the last one).
RBR -> 1 swap to get to RRB (2 sets of RB block, RB and R)
RBRB-> 1 swap to get to RRBB (2 full sets of RB blocks)
RBRBRB-> 2 swaps to get to RRRBBB (3 full sets of RB blocks)
RBRBRBRB -> 4 sets of RB = 3 swaps
So to generalize this, the number of swaps needed = N sets of RB block (including incomplete blocks) and subtract 1.