I couldn't find algorithm at my problem.
There are defined different kinds of sizes abscissas.
Lengths is in integers.
And than there is defined size to create from abscissas.
I need algorithm which finds best way to merge, fit, compose abscissas to defined length.
(we are in 1D)
The fewer lines the better, and i need to find the best combination.
Number of every predefined abscissa is infinite.
The smallest abscissa is always size of 1. So the problem is always possible to solve.
Combine all possibilities and pick the best is not an option.
for example
number of abscissas: 5;
types: 321, 215, 111, 9, 1;
length: 900;
result: 2x321 + 2x111 + 4x9 => 8 abscissas
The above problem is similar to the knapsack problem with following parameters:-
knapsack capacity = length = 900
items weights : 321 (900/321=2 times), 215 (900/215=4 times), 111(900/111=8 times).....
values = weights
maximize profit & store min needed abscissas of each subproblem
if max profit == knapsack capacity
solution exists retrace solution with minimum abscissas
else doesnt exist.
Knapsack problem
There is DP solution for Knapsack in pseudo polynomial time
Related
we have two arrays a[] and b[] and we need to find minimum absolute difference between sum of two arrays a & b and minimum no. of moves to make minimum absolute difference.
Example : a[ ] = {70,30,33,23,4,4,34,95} sum = 293b[ ] = {50,10,10,7} sum = 77
move 95,23 from array a to b.
move 10 from array a to b
after moving both the array's sum becomes 185
output is 0 , 3 (difference between two arrays , no. of moves)
The first part of your problem, "find minimum absolute difference between sum of two arrays a & b", is a variation of the Knapsack problem. Wikipedia defines that as "Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine the number of each item to include in a collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible."
To see this, combine all the values in a and in b into a new array ab and find half the sum of its values. You want to find elements in ab that sum to that half-sum, or as close to it as possible. You could then place those values and a and the rest in b, and that is one of the ways to get the minimum absolute difference.
To find your "minimum number of moves" we could find all the ways to solve the knapsack problem, then for each solution find how many moves it would take to get back to the original a and b (or the original b and a if that takes fewer moves).
The computational complexity of just the first part of your problem is famously NP-complete, so expect a long-running program for any sizable arrays. The Wikipedia article has a variety of algorithms to solve that first part of your problem, so you can start there and make a choice of algorithms.
No wonder this is a competitive-programming problem!
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.
Given two sorted array A and B length N. Each elements may contain natural number less than M. Determine all possible distances for all combinations elements A and B. In this case, if A[i] - B[j] < 0, then the distance is M + (A[i] - B[j]).
Example :
A = {0,2,3}
B = {1,2}
M = 5
Distances = {0,1,2,3,4}
Note: I know O(N^2) solution, but I need faster solution than O(N^2) and O(N x M).
Edit: Array A, B, and Distances contain distinct elements.
You can get a O(MlogM) complexity solution in the following way.
Prepare an array Ax of length M with Ax[i] = 1 if i belongs to A (and 0 otherwise)
Prepare an array Bx of length M with Bx[M-1-i] = 1 if i belongs to B (and 0 otherwise)
Use the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve these 2 sequences together
Inspect the output array, non-zero values correspond to possible distances
Note that the FFT is normally done with floating point numbers, so in step 4 you probably want to test if the output is greater than 0.5 to avoid potential rounding noise issues.
I possible done with optimized N*N.
If convert A to 0 and 1 array where 1 on positions which present in A (in range [0..M].
After convert this array into bitmasks, size of A array will be decreased into 64 times.
This will allow insert results by blocks of size 64.
Complexity still will be N*N but working time will be greatly decreased. As limitation mentioned by author 50000 for A and B sizes and M.
Expected operations count will be N*N/64 ~= 4*10^7. It will passed in 1 sec.
You can use bitvectors to accomplish this. Bitvector operations on large bitvectors is linear in the size of the bitvector, but is fast, easy to implement, and may work well given your 50k size limit.
Initialize two bitvectors of length M. Call these vectA and vectAnswer. Set the bits of vectA that correspond to the elements in A. Leave vectAnswer with all zeroes.
Define a method to rotate a bitvector by k elements (rotate down). I'll call this rotate(vect,k).
Then, for every element b of B, vectAnswer = vectAnswer | rotate(vectA,b).
For one of my homework problems, we had to write a function that creates an array containing n random numbers between 1 and 365. (Done). Then, check if any of these n birthdays are identical. Is there a shorter way to do this than doing several loops or several logical expressions?
Thank you!
CODE SO FAR, NOT DONE YET!!
function = [prob] bdayprob(N,n)
N = input('Please enter the number of experiments performed: N = ');
n = input('Please enter the sample size: n = ');
count = 0;
for(i=1:n)
x(i) = randi(365);
if(x(i)== x)
count = count + 1
end
return
If I'm interpreting your question properly, you want to check to see if generating n integers or days results in n unique numbers. Given your current knowledge in MATLAB, it's as simple as doing:
n = 30; %// Define sample size
N = 10; %// Define number of trials
%// Define logical array where each location tells you whether
%// birthdays were repeated for a trial
check = false(1, N);
%// For each trial...
for idx = 1 : N
%// Generate sample size random numbers
days = randi(365, n, 1);
%// Check to see if the total number of unique birthdays
%// are equal to the sample size
check(idx) = numel(unique(days)) == n;
end
Woah! Let's go through the code slowly shall we? We first define the sample size and the number of trials. We then specify a logical array where each location tells you whether or not there were repeated birthdays generated for that trial. Now, we start with a loop where for each trial, we generate random numbers from 1 to 365 that is of n or sample size long. We then use unique and figure out all unique integers that were generated from this random generation. If all of the birthdays are unique, then the total number of unique birthdays generated should equal the sample size. If we don't, then we have repeats. For example, if we generated a sample of [1 1 1 2 2], the output of unique would be [1 2], and the total number of unique elements is 2. Since this doesn't equal 5 or the sample size, then we know that the birthdays generated weren't unique. However, if we had [1 3 4 6 7], unique would give the same output, and since the output length is the same as the sample size, we know that all of the days are unique.
So, we check to see if this number is equal to the sample size for each iteration. If it is, then we output true. If not, we output false. When I run this code on my end, this is what I get for check. I set the sample size to 30 and the number of trials to be 10.
check =
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Take note that if you increase the sample size, there is a higher probability that you will get duplicates, because randi can be considered as sampling with replacement. Therefore, the larger the sample size, the higher the chance of getting duplicate values. I made the sample size small on purpose so that we can see that it's possible to get unique days. However, if you set it to something like 100, or 200, you will most likely get check to be all false as there will most likely be duplicates per trial.
Here are some more approaches that avoid loops. Let
n = 20; %// define sample size
x = randi(365,n,1); %// generate n values between 1 and 365
Any of the following code snippets returns true (or 1) if there are two identical values in x, and false (or 0) otherwise:
Sort and then check if any two consecutive elements are the same:
result = any(diff(sort(x))==0);
Do all pairwise comparisons manually; remove self-pairs and duplicate pairs; and check if any of the remaining comparisons is true:
result = nnz(tril(bsxfun(#eq, x, x.'),-1))>0;
Compute the distance between distinct values, considering each pair just once, and then check if any distance is 0:
result = any(pdist(x(:))==0);
Find the number of occurrences of the most common value (mode):
[~, occurs] = mode(x);
result = occurs>1;
I don't know if I'm supposed to solve the problem for you, but perhaps a few hints may lead you in the right direction (besides I'm not a matlab expert so it will be in general terms):
Maybe not, but you have to ask yourself what they expect of you. The solution you propose requires you to loop through the array in two nested loops which will mean n*(n-1)/2 times through the loop (ie quadratic time complexity).
There are a number of ways you can improve the time complexity of the problem. The most straightforward would be to have a 365 element table where you can keep track if a particular number has been seen yet - which would require only a single loop (ie linear time complexity), but perhaps that's not what they're looking for either. But maybe that solution is a little bit ad-hoc? What we're basically looking for is a fast lookup if a particular number has been seen before - there exists more memory efficient structures that allows look up in O(1) time and O(log n) time (if you know these you have an arsenal of tools to use).
Then of course you could use the pidgeonhole principle to provide the answer much faster in some special cases (remember that you only asked to determine whether two or more numbers are equal or not).
I'm struggling with the given task for almost a week without success of finding solution so this site is my last hope.
I have 0-1 Knapsack problem which has 20 items with different values and weights, maximum weight of sack is 524. Now i need to implement brute force to find optimal solution subset of 20 items so that total weights <= 524 and maximum values of chosen items.
Could you please point me out or better give detailed implementation to analyze how it work!!
Thank you very much
The brute-force idea is easy:
Generate all possible subsets of your 20 items, saving only those which satisfy your weight constraint. If you want to be fancy, you can even only consider subsets to which you cannot add anything else without violating the weight constraint, since only these can possibly be the right answer. O(2^n)
Find the subset with maximum weight. linear in terms of the number of candidates, and since we have O(2^n) candidates, this is O(2^n).
Please comment if you'd like some pseudocode.
EDIT: What the hey, here's the pseudocode just in case.
GetCandidateSubsets(items[1..N], buffer, maxw)
1. addedSomething = false
2. for i = 1 to N do
3. if not buffer.contains(item[i]) and
weight(buffer) + weight(items[i]) <= maxw then
4. add items[i] to buffer
5. GetCandidateSubsets(items[1..N], buffer)
6. remove items[i] from buffer
7. addedSomething = true
8. if not addedSomething then
9. emit & store buffer
Note that the GetCandidateSubsets function is not very efficient, even for a brute force implementation. Thanks to amit for pointing that out. You could rework this to only walk the combinations, rather than the permutations, of the item set, as a first-pass optimization.
GetMaximalCandidate(candidates[1..M])
1. if M = 0 then return Null
2. else then
3. maxel = candidates[1]
4. for i = 2 to M do
5. if weight(candidates[i]) > weight(maxel) then
6. maxel = candidates[i]
7. return maxel