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).
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).
There are 2 variations of this question.
Given 2 arrays of integers, select single element from each array so that their sum is least away (numerically) from given integer value V. Sum can be greater than V.
Given 3 arrays of integers, select single element from each array so that their sum is least away (numerically) from given integer value V. Sum can be greater than V.
I know there is a naive O(n^2) and O(n^3) solution respectively for them and I'd like to ask if there's any approach which optimises running time.
For the first case, you could sort both the arrays in O(nlogn), and then for each element x in the first array, find V-x in the second array using the binary-search/upper-bound algorithm.
Its total complexity would still be O(nlogn) which is less than O(n*n).
For the second case, you can apply a similar algorithm with O(n*n*log(n)) complexity.
Let S be a set of n integers stored in an array (not necessarily sorted). Design an algorithm to find the 10 largest integers in S (by creating a separate array of length 10 storing those integers). Your algorithm must finish in O(n) time.
I thought I could maybe answer this by using count sort and then adding last 10 elements into the new array. But apparently this is wrong. Does anyone know a better way?
Method 1:
you can use FindMax() algorithm that find the max number in O(N) and if you use it 10 time :
10 * O(N) =O(N)
each time you find max num you put it in the new array and you will ignore it the next time you use FindMax();
Method 2:
you can use Bubble 10 times:
1) Modify Bubble Sort to run the outer loop at most 10 times.
2) Save the last 10 elements of the array obtained in step 1 to the new array.
10 * O(N) =O(N)
Method 3:
You can use MAX Heap:
1) Build a Max Heap in O(n)
2) Use Extract Max 10 times to get 10 maximum elements from the Max Heap 10
* O(logn)
O(N) + 10 * O(logN) = O(N)
Visit :
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/k-largestor-smallest-elements-in-an-array/
They have mentioned six methods for this.
Use order statistic algorithm to find the 10th biggest element.
Next, iterate over the array to find all elements which are lesser/equal it.
TimeComplexity: O(n) for order statistic + O(n) for iterating the array once => O(n)
Insert them in a balanced binary tree. O(N) + O(lg2 N).
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.
Description
Given an Array of size (n*k+b) where n elements occur k times and one element occurs b times, in other words there are n+1 distinct Elements. Given that 0 < b < k find the element occurring b times.
My Attempted solutions
Obvious solution will be using hashing but it will not work if the numbers are very large. Complexity is O(n)
Using map to store the frequencies of each element and then traversing map to find the element occurring b times.As Map's are implemented as height balanced trees Complexity will be O(nlogn).
Both of my solution were accepted but the interviewer wanted a linear solution without using hashing and hint he gave was make the height of tree constant in tree in which you are storing frequencies, but I am not able to figure out the correct solution yet.
I want to know how to solve this problem in linear time without hashing?
EDIT:
Sample:
Input: n=2 b=2 k=3
Aarray: 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1
Output: 1
I assume:
The elements of the array are comparable.
We know the values of n and k beforehand.
A solution O(n*k+b) is good enough.
Let the number occuring only b times be S. We are trying to find the S in an array of n*k+b size.
Recursive Step: Find the median element of the current array slice as in Quick Sort in lineer time. Let the median element be M.
After the recursive step you have an array where all elements smaller than M occur on the left of the first occurence of M. All M elements are next to each other and all element larger than M are on the right of all occurences of M.
Look at the index of the leftmost M and calculate whether S<M or S>=M. Recurse either on the left slice or the right slice.
So you are doing a quick sort but delving only one part of the divisions at any time. You will recurse O(logN) times but each time with 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, .. sizes of the original array, so the total time will still be O(n).
Clarification: Let's say n=20 and k = 10. Then, there are 21 distinct elements in the array, 20 of which occur 10 times and the last occur let's say 7 times. I find the medium element, let's say it is 1111. If the S<1111 than the index of the leftmost occurence of 1111 will be less than 11*10. If S>=1111 then the index will be equal to 11*10.
Full example: n = 4. k = 3. Array = {1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,5}
After the first recursive step I find the median element is 3 and the array is something like: {1,2,1,2,1,2,3,3,3,5,4,5,5,4} There are 6 elements on the left of 3. 6 is a multiple of k=3. So each element must be occuring 3 times there. So S>=3. Recurse on the right side. And so on.
An idea using cyclic groups.
To guess i-th bit of answer, follow this procedure:
Count how many numbers in array has i-th bit set, store as cnt
If cnt % k is non-zero, then i-th bit of answer is set. Otherwise it is clear.
To guess whole number, repeat the above for every bit.
This solution is technically O((n*k+b)*log max N), where max N is maximal value in the table, but because number of bits is usually constant, this solution is linear in array size.
No hashing, memory usage is O(log k * log max N).
Example implementation:
from random import randint, shuffle
def generate_test_data(n, k, b):
k_rep = [randint(0, 1000) for i in xrange(n)]
b_rep = [randint(0, 1000)]
numbers = k_rep*k + b_rep*b
shuffle(numbers)
print "k_rep: ", k_rep
print "b_rep: ", b_rep
return numbers
def solve(data, k):
cnts = [0]*10
for number in data:
bits = [number >> b & 1 for b in xrange(10)]
cnts = [cnts[i] + bits[i] for i in xrange(10)]
return reduce(lambda a,b:2*a+(b%k>0), reversed(cnts), 0)
print "Answer: ", solve(generate_test_data(10, 15, 13), 3)
In order to have a constant height B-tree containing n distinct elements, with height h constant, you need z=n^(1/h) children per nodes: h=log_z(n), thus h=log(n)/log(z), thus log(z)=log(n)/h, thus z=e^(log(n)/h), thus z=n^(1/h).
Example, with n=1000000, h=10, z=3.98, that is z=4.
The time to reach a node in that case is O(h.log(z)). Assuming h and z to be "constant" (since N=n.k, then log(z)=log(n^(1/h))=log(N/k^(1/h))=ct by properly choosing h based on k, you can then say that O(h.log(z))=O(1)... This is a bit far-fetched, but maybe that was the kind of thing the interviewer wanted to hear?
UPDATE: this one use hashing, so it's not a good answer :(
in python this would be linear time (set will remove the duplicates):
result = (sum(set(arr))*k - sum(arr)) / (k - b)
If 'k' is even and 'b' is odd, then XOR will do. :)