Related
How can duplicates be removed and recorded from an array with the following constraints:
The running time must be at most O(n log n)
The additional memory used must be at most O(n)
The result must fulfil the following:
Duplicates must be moved to the end of the original array
The order of the first occurrence of each unique element must be preserved
For example, from this input:
int A[] = {2,3,7,3,2,11,2,3,1,15};
The result should be similar to this (only the order of duplicates may differ):
2 3 7 11 1 15 3 3 2 2
As I understand it, the goal is to split an array into two parts: unique elements and duplicates in such a way that the order of the first occurrence of the unique elements is preserved.
Using the the array of the OP as an example:
A={2,3,7,3,2,11,2,3,1,15}
A solution could do the following::
Initialize the helper array with indices 0, ..., n-1:
B={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
Sort the pairs (A[i],B[i]) using A[i] as key and with a stable sorting algorithm of complexity O(n log n):
A={1,2,2,2,3,3,3,7,11,15}
B={8,0,4,6,1,3,7,2,5, 9}
With n being the size of the array, go through the pairs (A[i],B[i]) and for all duplicates (A[i]==A[i-1]), add n to B[i]:
A={1,2, 2, 2,3, 3, 3,7,11,15}
B={8,0,14,16,1,13,17,2, 5, 9}
Sort the pairs (A[i],B[i]) again, but now using B[i] as key:
A={2,3,7,11,1,15, 3, 2, 2, 3}
B={0,1,2, 5,8, 9,13,14,16,17}
A then contains the desired result.
Steps 1 and 3 are O(n) and steps 2 and 4 can be done in O(n log n), so overall complexity is O(n log n).
Note that this method also preserves the order of duplicates. If you want them sorted, you can assign indices n, n+1, ... in step 3 instead of adding n.
Here is a very important hint: when an algorithm is permitted O(n) extra space, that is not the same as saying it can only use the same amount of memory as the input array!
For example, given the input array int array[] = {2,3,7,3,2,11,2,3,1,15}; (10 elements)That is a total space of 10 * sizeof(int) bytes.On a 64-bit machine an int is 8 bytes long, making the array 80 bytes of data.
However, I can use more space for my extra array than just 80 bytes! In fact, I can make a histogram structure that looks like this:
struct histogram
{
bool is_used; // Is this element in use in the histogram?
int value; // The integer value represented by this element
size_t index; // The index in the output array of the FIRST instance of the value
size_t count; // The number of times the value appears in the source array
};
typedef struct histogram histogram;
And since that is a fixed, finite amount of space, I can feel totally free to allocate n of them!
histogram * new_histogram( size_t size )
{
return calloc( size, sizeof(struct histogram) );
}
On my machine that’s 240 bytes.
And yes, this absolutely, totally complies with the O(n) extra space requirement! (Because we are only using space for n extra items. Bigger items, yes, but only n of them.)
Goals
So, why make a histogram with all that extra stuff in it?
We are counting duplicates — suggesting that we should be looking at a Counting Sort, and hence, a histogram.
Accept integers in a range beyond [0,n).
The example array has 10 items, so our histogram should only have 10 slots. But there are integer values larger than 9.
Keep all the non-duplicate values in the same order as input
So we need to track the index of the first instance of each value in the input array.
We are obviously not sorting the data, but the basic idea behind a Counting Sort is to build a histogram and then use that histogram to overwrite the array with the ordered elements.
This is a powerful idea. We are going to tweak it.
The Algorithm
Remember that our input array is also our output array! So we will overwrite the array’s input values with our algorithm.
Let’s look at our example again:
2 3 7 3 2 11 2 3 1 15
0 1 2 3 4 •5 6 7 8 9
❶ Build the histogram:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (index in histogram)
used?: no yes yes yes yes yes no yes no no
value: 0 11 2 3 1 15 0 7 0 0
index: 0 3 0 1 4 5 0 2 0 0
count: 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 0
I used a simple non-negative modulo function to get a hash index into the histogram: abs(value) % histogram_size, then found the first matching or unused entry, again modulo the histogram size. Our histogram has a single collision: 1 and 11 (mod 10) both hash to 1. Since we encountered 11 first it gets stored at index 1 of the histogram, and for 1 we had to seek to the first unused index: 4.
We can see that the duplicate values all have a count of 2 or more, and all non-duplicate values have a count of 1.
The magic here is the index value. Look at 11. It’s index is 3, not 5. If we look at our desired output we can see why:
2 3 7 11 1 15 2 2 3 3.
0 1 2 •3 4 5 6 7 8 9
The 11 is in index 3 of the output. This is a very simple counting trick when building the histogram. Keep a running index that we only increment when we first add a value to the histogram. This index is where the value should appear in the ouput!
❷ Use the histogram to put the non-duplicate values into the array.
Clearly, anything with a non-zero count appears at least once in the input, so it must also be output.
Here’s where our magic histogram index first helps us. We already know exactly where in the array to put the value!
2 3 7 11 1 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 ⟵ index into the array to put the value
You should take a moment to compare the array output index with the index values stored in the histogram above and convince yourself that it works.
❸ Use the histogram to put the duplicate values into the array.
So, at what index do we start putting duplicates into the array? Do we happen to have some magic index laying around somewhere that could help? From when we built the histogram?
Again stating the obvious, anything with a count greater than 1 is a value with duplicates. For each duplicate, put count-1 copies into the array.
We don’t care what order the duplicates appear, so we’ll just take them in the order they are stored in the histogram.
Complexity
The complexity of a Counting Sort is O(n+k): one pass over the input array (to build the histogram) and one pass over the histogram data (to rebuild the array in sorted order).
Our modification is: one pass over the input array (to build the histogram), then one pass over the histogram to build the non-duplicate partition, then one more pass over the histogram to build the duplicates partition. That’s a complexity of O(n+2k).
In both cases it reduces to an O(n) worst-case complexity. In fact, it is also an Ω(n) best-case complexity, making it a Θ(n) complexity — it takes the same processing per element no matter what the input.
Aaaaaahhhh! I gotta code that!!!?
Yep. It is a only a tiny bit more complex than you are used to. Remember, you only need a few things:
An array of integer values (obtained from the user?)
A histogram array
A function to turn an integer value into an index into the histogram
A function that does the three things:
Build the histogram from the array
Use the histogram to write the non-duplicate values back into the array in the correct spots
Use the histogram to write the duplicate values to the end of the array
Ability to print an integer array
Your main() should look something like this:
int main(void)
{
// Get number of integers to input
int size = 0;
scanf( "%d", &n );
// Allocate and get the integers
int * array = malloc( size );
for (int n = 0; n < size; n++)
scanf( "%d", &array[n] );
// Partition the array between non-duplicate and duplicate values
int pivot = partition( array, size );
// Print the results
print_array( "non-duplicates:", array, pivot );
print_array( "duplicates: ", array+pivot, size-pivot );
free( array );
return 0;
}
Notice the complete lack of input error checking. You can assume that your professor will test your program without inputting hello or anything like that.
You can do this!
Interview question:
Given a sorted array of this form :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
( A better example would be 10,20,35,42,51,66,71,84,99 but let's use above one)
Convert it to the following low high form without using extra memory or a standard library
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,6,5
A low-high form means that we use the smallest followed by highest. Then we use the second smallest and second-highest.
Initially, when he asked, I had used a secondary array and used the 2 pointer approach. I kept one pointer in front and the second pointer at last . then one by one I copied left and right data to my new array and then moved left as left ++ and right as --right till they cross or become same.
After this, he asked me to do it without memory.
My approach to solving it without memory was on following lines . But it was confusing and not working
1) swap 2nd and last in **odd** (pos index 1)
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 becomes
1,9,3,4,5,6,7,8,2
then we reach even
2) swap 3rd and last in **even** (pos index 2 we are at 3 )
1,9,3,4,5,6,7,8,2 becomes (swapped 3 and 2_ )
1,9,2,4,5,6,7,8,3
and then sawp 8 and 3
1,9,2,4,5,6,7,8,3 becomes
1,9,2,4,5,6,7,3,8
3) we reach in odd (pos index 3 we are at 4 )
1,9,2,4,5,6,7,3,8
becomes
1,9,2,8,5,6,7,3,4
4) swap even 5 to last
and here it becomes wrong
Let me start by pointing out that even registers are a kind of memory. Without any 'extra' memory (other than that occupied by the sorted array, that is) we don't even have counters! That said, here goes:
Let a be an array of n > 2 positive integers sorted in ascending order, with the positions indexed from 0 to n-1.
From i = 1 to n-2, bubble-sort the sub-array ranging from position i to position n-1 (inclusive), alternatively in descending and ascending order. (Meaning that you bubble-sort in descending order if i is odd and in ascending order if it is even.)
Since to bubble-sort you only need to compare, and possibly swap, adjacent elements, you won't need 'extra' memory.
(Mind you, if you start at i = 0 and first sort in ascending order, you don't even need a to be pre-sorted.)
And one more thing: as there was no talk of it in your question, I will keep very silent on the performance of the above algorithm...
We will make n/2 passes and during each pass we will swap each element, from left to right, starting with the element at position 2k-1, with the last element. Example:
pass 1
V
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,9,3,4,5,6,7,8,2
1,9,2,4,5,6,7,8,3
1,9,2,3,5,6,7,8,4
1,9,2,3,4,6,7,8,5
1,9,2,3,4,5,7,8,6
1,9,2,3,4,5,6,8,7
1,9,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
pass 2
V
1,9,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,9,2,8,4,5,6,7,3
1,9,2,8,3,5,6,7,4
1,9,2,8,3,4,6,7,5
1,9,2,8,3,4,5,7,6
1,9,2,8,3,4,5,6,7
pass 3
V
1,9,2,8,3,4,5,6,7
1,9,2,8,3,7,5,6,4
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,6,5
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,5,6
pass 4
V
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,5,6
1,9,2,8,3,7,4,6,5
This should take O(n^2) swaps and uses no extra memory beyond the counters involved.
The loop invariant to prove is that the first 2k+1 positions are correct after iteration k of the loop.
Alright, assuming that with constant space complexity, we need to lose some of our time complexity, the following algorithm possibly works in O(n^2) time complexity.
I wrote this in python. I wrote it as quickly as possible so apologies for any syntactical errors.
# s is the array passed.
def hi_low(s):
last = len(s)
for i in range(0, last, 2):
if s[i+1] == None:
break
index_to_swap = last
index_to_be_swapped = i+1
while s[index_to_be_swapped] != s[index_to_swap]:
# write your own swap func here
swap(s[index_to_swap], s[index_to_swap-1])
index_to_swap -=1
return s
Quick explanation:
Suppose the initial list given to us is:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
So in our program, initially,
index_to_swap = last
meaning that it is pointing to 9, and
index_to_be_swapped = i+1
is i+1, i.e one step ahead of our current loop pointer. [Also remember we're looping with a difference of 2].
So initially,
i = 0
index_to_be_swapped = 1
index_to_swap = 9
and in the inner loop what we're checking is: until the values in both of these indexes are same, we keep on swapping
swap(s[index_to_swap], s[index_to_swap-1])
so it'll look like:
# initially:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
^ ^---index_to_swap
^-----index_to_be_swapped
# after 1 loop
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 8
^ ^-----index_to_swap
^----- index_to_be_swapped
... goes on until
1 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
^-----index_to_swap
^-----index_to_be_swapped
Now, the inner loop's job is done, and the main loop is run again with
1 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
^ ^---- index_to_swap
^------index_to_be_swapped
This runs until it's behind 2.
So the outer loop runs for almost n\2 times, and for each outer loop the inner loop runs for almost n\2 times in the worst case so the time complexity if n/2*n/2 = n^2/4 which is the order of n^2 i.e O(n^2).
If there are any mistakes please feel free to point it out.
Hope this helps!
It will work for any sorted array
let arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
let i = arr[0];
let j = arr[arr.length - 1];
let k = 0;
while(k < arr.length) {
arr[k] = i;
if(arr[k+1]) arr[k+1] = j;
i++;
k += 2;
j--;
}
console.log(arr);
Explanation: Because its a sorted array, you need to know 3 things to produce your expected output.
Starting Value : let i = arr[0]
Ending Value(You can also find it with the length of array by the way): let j = arr[arr.length -1]
Length of Array: arr.length
Loop through the array and set the value like this
arr[firstIndex] = firstValue, arr[thirdIndex] = firstValue + 1 and so on..
arr[secondIndex] = lastValue, arr[fourthIndex] = lastValue - 1 and so on..
Obviously you can do the same things in a different way. But i think that's the simplest way.
Given an array of N positive elements. Lets suppose we list all N × (N+1) / 2 non-empty continuous subarrays of the array A and then replaced all the subarrays with the maximum element present in the respective subarray. So now we have N × (N+1) / 2 elements where each element is maximum among its subarray.
Now we are having Q queries, where each query is one of 3 types :
1 K : We need to count of numbers strictly greater than K among those N × (N+1) / 2 elements.
2 K : We need to count of numbers strictly less than K among those N × (N+1) / 2 elements.
3 K : We need to count of numbers equal to K among those N × (N+1) / 2 elements.
Now main problem am facing is N can be upto 10^6. So i can't generate all those N × (N+1) / 2 elements. Please help to solve this porblem.
Example : Let N=3 and we have Q=2. Let array A be [1,2,3] then all sub arrays are :
[1] -> [1]
[2] -> [2]
[3] -> [3]
[1,2] -> [2]
[2,3] -> [3]
[1,2,3] -> [3]
So now we have [1,2,3,2,3,3]. As Q=2 so :
Query 1 : 3 3
It means we need to tell count of numbers equal to 3. So answer is 3 as there are 3 numbers equal to 3 in the generated array.
Query 2 : 1 4
It means we need to tell count of numbers greater than 4. So answer is 0 as no one is greater than 4 in generated array.
Now both N and Q can be up to 10^6. So how to solve this problem. Which data structure should be suitable to solve it.
I believe I have a solution in O(N + Q*log N) (More about time complexity). The trick is to do a lot of preparation with your array before even the first query arrives.
For each number, figure out where is the first number on left / right of this number that is strictly bigger.
Example: for array: 1, 8, 2, 3, 3, 5, 1 both 3's left block would be position of 8, right block would be the position of 5.
This can be determined in linear time. This is how: Keep a stack of previous maximums in a stack. If a new maximum appears, remove maximums from the stack until you get to a element bigger than or equal to the current one. Illustration:
In this example, in the stack is: [15, 13, 11, 10, 7, 3] (you will of course keep the indexes, not the values, I will just use value for better readability).
Now we read 8, 8 >= 3 so we remove 3 from stack and repeat. 8 >= 7, remove 7. 8 < 10, so we stop removing. We set 10 as 8's left block, and add 8 to the maximums stack.
Also, whenever you remove from the stack (3 and 7 in this example), set the right block of removed number to the current number. One problem though: right block would be set to the next number bigger or equal, not strictly bigger. You can fix this with simply checking and relinking right blocks.
Compute what number is how many times a maximum of some subsequence.
Since for each number you now know where is the next left / right bigger number, I trust you with finding appropriate math formula for this.
Then, store the results in a hashmap, key would be a value of a number, and value would be how many times is that number a maximum of some subsequence. For example, record [4->12] would mean that number 4 is the maximum in 12 subsequences.
Lastly, extract all key-value pairs from the hashmap into an array, and sort that array by the keys. Finally, create a prefix sum for the values of that sorted array.
Handle a request
For request "exactly k", just binary search in your array, for more/less thank``, binary search for key k and then use the prefix array.
This answer is an adaptation of this other answer I wrote earlier. The first part is exactly the same, but the others are specific for this question.
Here's an implemented a O(n log n + q log n) version using a simplified version of a segment tree.
Creating the segment tree: O(n)
In practice, what it does is to take an array, let's say:
A = [5,1,7,2,3,7,3,1]
And construct an array-backed tree that looks like this:
In the tree, the first number is the value and the second is the index where it appears in the array. Each node is the maximum of its two children. This tree is backed by an array (pretty much like a heap tree) where the children of the index i are in the indexes i*2+1 and i*2+2.
Then, for each element, it becomes easy to find the nearest greater elements (before and after each element).
To find the nearest greater element to the left, we go up in the tree searching for the first parent where the left node has value greater and the index lesser than the argument. The answer must be a child of this parent, then we go down in the tree looking for the rightmost node that satisfies the same condition.
Similarly, to find the nearest greater element to the right, we do the same, but looking for a right node with an index greater than the argument. And when going down, we look for the leftmost node that satisfies the condition.
Creating the cumulative frequency array: O(n log n)
From this structure, we can compute the frequency array, that tells how many times each element appears as maximum in the subarray list. We just have to count how many lesser elements are on the left and on the right of each element and multiply those values. For the example array ([1, 2, 3]), this would be:
[(1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3)]
This means that 1 appears only once as maximum, 2 appears twice, etc.
But we need to answer range queries, so it's better to have a cumulative version of this array, that would look like:
[(1, 1), (2, 3), (3, 6)]
The (3, 6) means, for example, that there are 6 subarrays with maxima less than or equal to 3.
Answering q queries: O(q log n)
Then, to answer each query, you just have to make binary searches to find the value you want. For example. If you need to find the exact number of 3, you may want to do: query(F, 3) - query(F, 2). If you want to find those lesser than 3, you do: query(F, 2). If you want to find those greater than 3: query(F, float('inf')) - query(F, 3).
Implementation
I've implemented it in Python and it seems to work well.
import sys, random, bisect
from collections import defaultdict
from math import log, ceil
def make_tree(A):
n = 2**(int(ceil(log(len(A), 2))))
T = [(None, None)]*(2*n-1)
for i, x in enumerate(A):
T[n-1+i] = (x, i)
for i in reversed(xrange(n-1)):
T[i] = max(T[i*2+1], T[i*2+2])
return T
def print_tree(T):
print 'digraph {'
for i, x in enumerate(T):
print ' ' + str(i) + '[label="' + str(x) + '"]'
if i*2+2 < len(T):
print ' ' + str(i)+ '->'+ str(i*2+1)
print ' ' + str(i)+ '->'+ str(i*2+2)
print '}'
def find_generic(T, i, fallback, check, first, second):
j = len(T)/2+i
original = T[j]
j = (j-1)/2
#go up in the tree searching for a value that satisfies check
while j > 0 and not check(T[second(j)], original):
j = (j-1)/2
#go down in the tree searching for the left/rightmost node that satisfies check
while j*2+1<len(T):
if check(T[first(j)], original):
j = first(j)
elif check(T[second(j)], original):
j = second(j)
else:
return fallback
return j-len(T)/2
def find_left(T, i, fallback):
return find_generic(T, i, fallback,
lambda a, b: a[0]>b[0] and a[1]<b[1], #value greater, index before
lambda j: j*2+2, #rightmost first
lambda j: j*2+1 #leftmost second
)
def find_right(T, i, fallback):
return find_generic(T, i, fallback,
lambda a, b: a[0]>=b[0] and a[1]>b[1], #value greater or equal, index after
lambda j: j*2+1, #leftmost first
lambda j: j*2+2 #rightmost second
)
def make_frequency_array(A):
T = make_tree(A)
D = defaultdict(lambda: 0)
for i, x in enumerate(A):
left = find_left(T, i, -1)
right = find_right(T, i, len(A))
D[x] += (i-left) * (right-i)
F = sorted(D.items())
for i in range(1, len(F)):
F[i] = (F[i][0], F[i-1][1] + F[i][1])
return F
def query(F, n):
idx = bisect.bisect(F, (n,))
if idx>=len(F): return F[-1][1]
if F[idx][0]!=n: return 0
return F[idx][1]
F = make_frequency_array([1,2,3])
print query(F, 3)-query(F, 2) #3 3
print query(F, float('inf'))-query(F, 4) #1 4
print query(F, float('inf'))-query(F, 1) #1 1
print query(F, 2) #2 3
You problem can be divided into several steps:
For each element of initial array calculate the number of "subarrays" where current element is maximum. This will involve a bit of combinatorics. First you need for each element to know index of previous and next element that is bigger than current element. Then calculate the number of subarrays as (i - iprev) * (inext - i). Finding iprev and inext requires two traversals of the initial array: in forward and backward order. For iprev you need to traverse you array left to right. During the traversal maintain the BST that contains the biggest of the previous elements along with their index. For each element of original array, find the minimal element in BST that is bigger than current. It's index, stored as value, will be iprev. Then remove from BST all elements that are smaller that current. This operation should be O(logN), as you are removing whole subtrees. This step is required, as current element you are about to add will "override" all element that are less than it. Then add current element to BST with it's index as value. At each point of time, BST will store the descending subsequence of previous elements where each element is bigger than all it's predecessors in array (for previous elements {1,2,44,5,2,6,26,6} BST will store {44,26,6}). The backward traversal to find inext is similar.
After previous step you'll have pairs K→P where K is the value of some element from the initial array and P is the number of subarrays where this element is maxumum. Now you need to group this pairs by K. This means calculating sum of P values of the equal K elements. Be careful about the corner cases when two elements could have share the same subarrays.
As Ritesh suggested: Put all grouped K→P into an array, sort it by K and calculate cumulative sum of P for each element in one pass. It this case your queries will be binary searches in this sorted array. Each query will be performed in O(log(N)) time.
Create a sorted value-to-index map. For example,
[34,5,67,10,100] => {5:1, 10:3, 34:0, 67:2, 100:4}
Precalculate the queries in two passes over the value-to-index map:
Top to bottom - maintain an augmented tree of intervals. Each time an index is added,
split the appropriate interval and subtract the relevant segments from the total:
indexes intervals total sub-arrays with maximum greater than
4 (0,3) 67 => 15 - (4*5/2) = 5
2,4 (0,1)(3,3) 34 => 5 + (4*5/2) - 2*3/2 - 1 = 11
0,2,4 (1,1)(3,3) 10 => 11 + 2*3/2 - 1 = 13
3,0,2,4 (1,1) 5 => 13 + 1 = 14
Bottom to top - maintain an augmented tree of intervals. Each time an index is added,
adjust the appropriate interval and add the relevant segments to the total:
indexes intervals total sub-arrays with maximum less than
1 (1,1) 10 => 1*2/2 = 1
1,3 (1,1)(3,3) 34 => 1 + 1*2/2 = 2
0,1,3 (0,1)(3,3) 67 => 2 - 1 + 2*3/2 = 4
0,1,3,2 (0,3) 100 => 4 - 4 + 4*5/2 = 10
The third query can be pre-calculated along with the second:
indexes intervals total sub-arrays with maximum exactly
1 (1,1) 5 => 1
1,3 (3,3) 10 => 1
0,1,3 (0,1) 34 => 2
0,1,3,2 (0,3) 67 => 3 + 3 = 6
Insertion and deletion in augmented trees are of O(log n) time-complexity. Total precalculation time-complexity is O(n log n). Each query after that ought to be O(log n) time-complexity.
The classic 2sum question is simple and well-known:
You have an unsorted array, and you are given a value S. Find all pairs of elements in the array that add up to value S.
And it's always been said that this can be solved with the use of HashTable in O(N) time & space complexity or O(NlogN) time and O(1) space complexity by first sorting it and then moving from left and right,
well these two solution are obviously correct BUT I guess not for the following array :
{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1}
Is it possible to print ALL pairs which add up to 2 in this array in O(N) or O(NlogN) time complexity ?
No, printing out all pairs (including duplicates) takes O(N2). The reason is because the output size is O(N2), thus the running time cannot be less than that (since it takes some constant amount of time to print each element in the output, thus to simply print the output would take CN2 = O(N2) time).
If all the elements are the same, e.g. {1,1,1,1,1}, every possible pair would be in the output:
1. 1 1
2. 1 1
3. 1 1
4. 1 1
5. 1 1
6. 1 1
7. 1 1
8. 1 1
9. 1 1
10. 1 1
This is N-1 + N-2 + ... + 2 + 1 (by taking each element with all elements to the right), which is
N(N-1)/2 = O(N2), which is more than O(N) or O(N log N).
However, you should be able to simply count the pairs in expected O(N) by:
Creating a hash-map map mapping each element to the count of how often it appears.
Looping through the hash-map and summing, for each element x up to S/2 (if we go up to S we'll include the pair x and S-x twice, let map[x] == 0 if x doesn't exist in the map):
map[x]*map[S-x] if x != S-x (which is the number of ways to pick x and S-x)
map[x]*(map[x]-1)/2 if x == S-x (from N(N-1)/2 above).
Of course you can also print the distinct pairs in O(N) by creating a hash-map similar to the above and looping through it, and only outputting x and S-x the value if map[S-x] exists.
Displaying or storing the results is O(N2) only.The worst case as highlighted by you clearly has N2 pairs and to write them onto the screen or storing them into a result array would clearly require at least that much time.In short, you are right!
No
You can pre-compute them in O(nlogn) using sorting but to print them you may need more than O(nlogn).In worst case It can be O(N^2).
Let's modify the algorithm to find all duplicate pairs.
As an example:
a[ ]={ 2 , 4 , 3 , 2 , 9 , 3 , 3 } and sum =6
After sorting:
a[ ] = { 2 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 9 }
Suppose you found pair {2,4}, now you have to find count of 2 and 4 and multiply them to get no of duplicate pairs.Here 2 occurs 2 times and 1 occurs 1 times.Hence {2,1} will appear 2*1 = 2 times in output.Now consider special case when both numbers are same then count no of occurrence and sq them .Here { 3,3 } sum to 6. occurrence of 3 in array is 3.Hence { 3,3 } will appear 9 times in output.
In your array {1,1,1,1,1} only pair {1,1} will sum to 2 and count of 1 is 5.hence there are going to 5^2=25 pairs of {1,1} in output.
Given an array of positive integers a I want to output array of integers b so that b[i] is the closest number to a[i] that is smaller then a[i], and is in {a[0], ... a[i-1]}. If such number doesn't exist, then b[i] = -1.
Example:
a = 2 1 7 5 7 9
b = -1 -1 2 2 5 7
b[0] = -1 since there is no number that is smaller than 2
b[1] = -1 since there is no number that is smaller than 1 from {2}
b[2] = 2, closest number to 7 that is smaller than 7 from {2,1} is 2
b[3] = 2, closest number to 5 that is smaller than 5 from {2,1,7} is 2
b[4] = 5, closest number to 7 that is smaller than 7 from {2,1,7,5} is 5
I was thinking about implementing balanced binary tree, however it will require a lot of work. Is there an easier way of doing this?
Here is one approach:
for i ← 1 to i ← (length(A)-1) {
// A[i] is added in the sorted sequence A[0, .. i-1] save A[i] to make a hole at index j
item = A[i]
j = i
// keep moving the hole to next smaller index until A[j - 1] is <= item
while j > 0 and A[j - 1] > item {
A[j] = A[j - 1] // move hole to next smaller index
j = j - 1
}
A[j] = item // put item in the hole
// if there are elements to the left of A[j] in sorted sequence A[0, .. i-1], then store it in b
// TODO : run loop so that duplicate entries wont hamper results
if j > 1
b[i] = A[j-1]
else
b[1] = -1;
}
Dry run:
a = 2 1 7 5 7 9
a[1] = 2
its straight forward, set b[1] to -1
a[2] = 1
insert into subarray : [1 ,2]
any elements before 1 in sorted array ? no.
So set b[2] to -1 . b: [-1, -1]
a[3] = 7
insert into subarray : [1 ,2, 7]
any elements before 7 in sorted array ? yes. its 2
So set b[3] to 2. b: [-1, -1, 2]
a[4] = 5
insert into subarray : [1 ,2, 5, 7]
any elements before 5 in sorted array ? yes. its 2
So set b[4] to 2. b: [-1, -1, 2, 2]
and so on..
Here's a sketch of a (nearly) O(n log n) algorithm that's somewhere in between the difficulty of implementing an insertion sort and balanced binary tree: Do the problem backwards, use merge/quick sort, and use binary search.
Pseudocode:
let c be a copy of a
let b be an array sized the same as a
sort c using an O(n log n) algorithm
for i from a.length-1 to 1
binary search over c for key a[i] // O(log n) time
remove the item found // Could take O(n) time
if there exists an item to the left of that position, b[i] = that item
otherwise, b[i] = -1
b[0] = -1
return b
There's a few implementation details that can make this have poor runtime.
For instance, since you have to remove items, doing this on a regular array and shifting things around will make this algorithm still take O(n^2) time. So, you could store key-value pairs instead. One would be the key, and the other would be the number of those keys (kind of like a multiset implemented on an array). "Removing" one would just be subtracting the second item from the pair and so on.
Eventually you will be left with a bunch of 0-value keys. This would eventually make the if there exists an item to the left take roughly O(n) time, and therefore, the entire algorithm would degrade to a O(n^2) for that reason. So another optimization might be to batch remove all of them periodically. For instance, when 1/2 of them are 0-values, perform a pruning.
The ideal option might be to implement another data structure that has a much more favorable remove time. Something along the lines of a modified unrolled linked list with indices could work, but it would certainly increase the implementation complexity of this approach.
I've actually implemented this. I used the first two optimizations above (storing key-value pairs for compression, and pruning when 1/2 of them are 0s). Here's some benchmarks to compare using an insertion sort derivative to this one:
a.length This method Insert sort Method
100 0.0262ms 0.0204ms
1000 0.2300ms 0.8793ms
10000 2.7303ms 75.7155ms
100000 32.6601ms 7740.36 ms
300000 98.9956ms 69523.6 ms
1000000 333.501 ms ????? Not patient enough
So, as you can see, this algorithm grows much, much slower than the insertion sort method I posted before. However, it took 73 lines of code vs 26 lines of code for the insertion sort method. So in terms of simplicity, the insertion sort method might still be the way to go if you don't have time requirements/the input is small.
You could treat it like an insertion sort.
Pseudocode:
let arr be one array with enough space for every item in a
let b be another array with, again, enough space for all elements in a
For each item in a:
perform insertion sort on item into arr
After performing the insertion, if there exists a number to the left, append that to b.
Otherwise, append -1 to b
return b
The main thing you have to worry about is making sure that you don't make the mistake of reallocating arrays (because it would reallocate n times, which would be extremely costly). This will be an implementation detail of whatever language you use (std::vector's reserve for C++ ... arr.reserve(n) for D ... ArrayList's ensureCapacity in Java...)
A potential downfall with this approach compared to using a binary tree is that it's O(n^2) time. However, the constant factors using this method vs binary tree would make this faster for smaller sizes. If your n is smaller than 1000, this would be an appropriate solution. However, O(n log n) grows much slower than O(n^2), so if you expect a's size to be significantly higher and if there's a time limit that you are likely to breach, you might consider a more complicated O(n log n) algorithm.
There are ways to slightly improve the performance (such as using a binary insertion sort: using binary search to find the position to insert into), but generally they won't improve performance enough to matter in most cases since it's still O(n^2) time to shift elements to fit.
Consider this:
a = 2 1 7 5 7 9
b = -1 -1 2 2 5 7
c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 - - - - - - - - - -
Where the index of C is value of a[i] such that 0,3,4,6,8 would have null values.
and the 1st dimension of C contains the highest to date closest value to a[i]
So in step by a[3] we have the following
c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 - -1 -1 - - 2 - 2 - -
and by step a[5] we have the following
c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 - -1 -1 - - 2 - 5 - 7
This way when we get to the 2nd 7 at a[4] we know that 2 is the largest value to date and all we need to do is loop back through a[i-1] until we encounter a 7 again comparing the a[i] value to that in c[7] if bigger, replace c[7]. Once a[i-1] = the 7 we put c[7] into b[i] and move on to next a[i].
The main downfalls to this approach that I can see are:
footprint size depending on how big the c[] needs to be dimensioned..
the fact that you have to revisit elements of a[] that you've already touched. If the distribution of data is such that there are significant spaces between the two 7's then keeping track of the highest value as you go would presumably be faster. Alternatively it might be better to gather statistics on the a[i] up front to know what distributions exist and then use a hybrid method maintaining the max until such time that no more instances of that number are in the statistics.