Related
I'm going through the question below.
The sequence [0, 1, ..., N] has been jumbled, and the only clue you have for its order is an array representing whether each number is larger or smaller than the last. Given this information, reconstruct an array that is consistent with it.
For example, given [None, +, +, -, +], you could return [1, 2, 3, 0, 4].
I went through the solution on this post but still unable to understand it as to why this solution works. I don't think I would be able to come up with the solution if I had this in front of me during an interview. Can anyone explain the intuition behind it? Thanks in advance!
This answer tries to give a general strategy to find an algorithm to tackle this type of problems. It is not trying to prove why the given solution is correct, but lying out a route towards such a solution.
A tried and tested way to tackle this kind of problem (actually a wide range of problems), is to start with small examples and work your way up. This works for puzzles, but even so for problems encountered in reality.
First, note that the question is formulated deliberately to not point you in the right direction too easily. It makes you think there is some magic involved. How can you reconstruct a list of N numbers given only the list of plusses and minuses?
Well, you can't. For 10 numbers, there are 10! = 3628800 possible permutations. And there are only 2⁹ = 512 possible lists of signs. It's a very huge difference. Most original lists will be completely different after reconstruction.
Here's an overview of how to approach the problem:
Start with very simple examples
Try to work your way up, adding a bit of complexity
If you see something that seems a dead end, try increasing complexity in another way; don't spend too much time with situations where you don't see progress
While exploring alternatives, revisit old dead ends, as you might have gained new insights
Try whether recursion could work:
given a solution for N, can we easily construct a solution for N+1?
or even better: given a solution for N, can we easily construct a solution for 2N?
Given a recursive solution, can it be converted to an iterative solution?
Does the algorithm do some repetitive work that can be postponed to the end?
....
So, let's start simple (writing 0 for the None at the start):
very short lists are easy to guess:
'0++' → 0 1 2 → clearly only one solution
'0--' → 2 1 0 → only one solution
'0-+' → 1 0 2 or 2 0 1 → hey, there is no unique outcome, though the question only asks for one of the possible outcomes
lists with only plusses:
'0++++++' → 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 → only possibility
lists with only minuses:
'0-------'→ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 → only possibility
lists with one minus, the rest plusses:
'0-++++' → 1 0 2 3 4 5 or 5 0 1 2 3 4 or ...
'0+-+++' → 0 2 1 3 4 5 or 5 0 1 2 3 4 or ...
→ no very obvious pattern seem to emerge
maybe some recursion could help?
given a solution for N, appending one sign more?
appending a plus is easy: just repeat the solution and append the largest plus 1
appending a minus, after some thought: increase all the numbers by 1 and append a zero
→ hey, we have a working solution, but maybe not the most efficient one
the algorithm just appends to an existing list, no need to really write it recursively (although the idea is expressed recursively)
appending a plus can be improved, by storing the largest number in a variable so it doesn't need to be searched at every step; no further improvements seem necessary
appending a minus is more troublesome: the list needs to be traversed with each append
what if instead of appending a zero, we append -1, and do the adding at the end?
this clearly works when there is only one minus
when two minus signs are encountered, the first time append -1, the second time -2
→ hey, this works for any number of minuses encountered, just store its counter in a variable and sum with it at the end of the algorithm
This is in bird's eye view one possible route towards coming up with a solution. Many routes lead to Rome. Introducing negative numbers might seem tricky, but it is a logical conclusion after contemplating the recursive algorithm for a while.
It works because all changes are sequential, either adding one or subtracting one, starting both the increasing and the decreasing sequences from the same place. That guarantees we have a sequential list overall. For example, given the arbitrary
[None, +, -, +, +, -]
turned vertically for convenience, we can see
None 0
+ 1
- -1
+ 2
+ 3
- -2
Now just shift them up by two (to account for -2):
2 3 1 4 5 0
+ - + + -
Let's look at first to a solution which (I think) is easier to understand, formalize and demonstrate for correctness (but I will only explain it and not demonstrate in a formal way):
We name A[0..N] our input array (where A[k] is None if k = 0 and is + or - otherwise) and B[0..N] our output array (where B[k] is in the range [0, N] and all values are unique)
At first we see that our problem (find B such that B[k] > B[k-1] if A[k] == + and B[k] < B[k-1] if A[k] == -) is only a special case of another problem:
Find B such that B[k] == max(B[0..k]) if A[k] == + and B[k] == min(B[0..k]) if A[k] == -.
Which generalize from "A value must larger or smaller than the last" to "A value must be larger or smaller than everyone before it"
So a solution to this problem is a solution to the original one as well.
Now how do we approach this problem?
A greedy solution will be sufficient, indeed is easy to demonstrate that the value associated with the last + will be the biggest number in absolute (which is N), the one associated with the second last + will be the second biggest number in absolute (which is N-1) ecc...
And in the same time the value associated with the last - will be the smallest number in absolute (which is 0), the one associated with the second last - will be the second smallest (which is 1) ecc...
So we can start filling B from right to left remembering how many + we have seen (let's call this value X), how many - we have seen (let's call this value Y) and looking at what is the current symbol, if it is a + in B we put N-X and we increase X by 1 and if it is a - in B we put 0+Y and we increase Y by 1.
In the end we'll need to fill B[0] with the only remaining value which is equal to Y+1 and to N-X-1.
An interesting property of this solution is that if we look to only the values associated with a - they will be all the values from 0 to Y (where in this case Y is the total number of -) sorted in reverse order; if we look to only the values associated with a + they will be all the values from N-X to N (where in this case X is the total number of +) sorted and if we look at B[0] it will always be Y+1 and N-X-1 (which are equal).
So the - will have all the values strictly smaller than B[0] and reverse sorted and the + will have all the values strictly bigger than B[0] and sorted.
This property is the key to understand why the solution proposed here works:
It consider B[0] equals to 0 and than it fills B following the property, this isn't a solution because the values are not in the range [0, N], but it is possible with a simple translation to move the range and arriving to [0, N]
The idea is to produce a permutation of [0,1...N] which will follow the pattern of [+,-...]. There are many permutations which will be applicable, it isn't a single one. For instance, look the the example provided:
[None, +, +, -, +], you could return [1, 2, 3, 0, 4].
But you also could have returned other solutions, just as valid: [2,3,4,0,1], [0,3,4,1,2] are also solutions. The only concern is that you need to have the first number having at least two numbers above it for positions [1],[2], and leave one number in the end which is lower then the one before and after it.
So the question isn't finding the one and only pattern which is scrambled, but to produce any permutation which will work with these rules.
This algorithm answers two questions for the next member of the list: get a number who’s both higher/lower from previous - and get a number who hasn’t been used yet. It takes a starting point number and essentially create two lists: an ascending list for the ‘+’ and a descending list for the ‘-‘. This way we guarantee that the next member is higher/lower than the previous one (because it’s in fact higher/lower than all previous members, a stricter condition than the one required) and for the same reason we know this number wasn’t used before.
So the intuition of the referenced algorithm is to start with a referenced number and work your way through. Let's assume we start from 0. The first place we put 0+1, which is 1. we keep 0 as our lowest, 1 as the highest.
l[0] h[1] list[1]
the next symbol is '+' so we take the highest number and raise it by one to 2, and update both the list with a new member and the highest number.
l[0] h[2] list [1,2]
The next symbol is '+' again, and so:
l[0] h[3] list [1,2,3]
The next symbol is '-' and so we have to put in our 0. Note that if the next symbol will be - we will have to stop, since we have no lower to produce.
l[0] h[3] list [1,2,3,0]
Luckily for us, we've chosen well and the last symbol is '+', so we can put our 4 and call is a day.
l[0] h[4] list [1,2,3,0,4]
This is not necessarily the smartest solution, as it can never know if the original number will solve the sequence, and always progresses by 1. That means that for some patterns [+,-...] it will not be able to find a solution. But for the pattern provided it works well with 0 as the initial starting point. If we chose the number 1 is would also work and produce [2,3,4,0,1], but for 2 and above it will fail. It will never produce the solution [0,3,4,1,2].
I hope this helps understanding the approach.
This is not an explanation for the question put forward by OP.
Just want to share a possible approach.
Given: N = 7
Index: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pattern: X + - + - + - + //X = None
Go from 0 to N
[1] fill all '-' starting from right going left.
Index: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pattern: X + - + - + - + //X = None
Answer: 2 1 0
[2] fill all the vacant places i.e [X & +] starting from left going right.
Index: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pattern: X + - + - + - + //X = None
Answer: 3 4 5 6 7
Final:
Pattern: X + - + - + - + //X = None
Answer: 3 4 2 5 1 6 0 7
My answer definitely is too late for your problem but if you need a simple proof, you probably would like to read it:
+min_last or min_so_far is a decreasing value starting from 0.
+max_last or max_so_far is an increasing value starting from 0.
In the input, each value is either "+" or "-" and for each increase the value of max_so_far or decrease the value of min_so_far by one respectively, excluding the first one which is None. So, abs(min_so_far, max_so_far) is exactly equal to N, right? But because you need the range [0, n] but max_so_far and min_so_far now are equal to the number of "+"s and "-"s with the intersection part with the range [0, n] being [0, max_so_far], what you need to do is to pad it the value equal to min_so_far for the final solution (because min_so_far <= 0 so you need to take each value of the current answer to subtract by min_so_far or add by abs(min_so_far)).
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!
By using 9 numbers which are 1 to 9 you should find the number of ways to get N using multiplication and addition.
For example, if 100 is given, you would answer 7.
The reason is that there are 7 possible ways.
100 = 1*2*3*4+5+6+7*8+9
100 = 1*2*3+4+5+6+7+8*9
100 = 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8*9
100 = 12+3*4+5+6+7*8+9
100 = 1+2*3+4+5+67+8+9
100 = 1*2+34+5+6*7+8+9
100 = 12+34+5*6+7+8+9
If this question is given to you, how would you start?
Are we allowed to use parentheses? That would expand the number of possibilities by a lot.
I would try to find the first additive term, let’s say 1×23, first. There are a limited number of those, and since we can’t subtract, we know that if we get a term above our target, we can prune it from our search. That leaves us looking for the solution to 23 + f = 100, where f is another formula of exactly the same form. But that is exactly the same as solving the original problem for numbers 4–9 and target 77! So call your algorithm recursively and add the solutions for that subproblem to the solutions to the original problem. That is, if we have 23 + 4, are there any solutions to the subproblem with numbers 5–9 and n = 73? Divide and conquer.
You might benefit from a dynamic table of partial solutions, since it's possible you might get the same subproblem in different ways: 1+2+3 = 1×2×3, so solving the subproblem with numbers 4–9 and target 94 twice duplicates work.
You are probably better going from right to left than from left to right, on the principle of most-constrained first. 89, 8×9, or 78+9 leave much less room for possible solutions than 1+2+3, 1×2×3, 12×3, 12+3 or 1×23.
There are three possible operations
addition
multiplication
combine, for example combine 1 and 2 to make 12
There are 8 positions for each operator. Hence, there are a total of 3^8 = 6561 possible equations. So I would start with
for ( i = 0; i < 6561; i++ )
The question says,
That given an array of size n, we have to output/partition the array into subsets which sum to N.
For E,g,
I/p arr{2,4,5,7}, n=4, N(sum) = 7(given)
O/p = {2,5}, {7}
I saw similar kind of problem/explanation in the url Dynamic Programming3
And I have the following queries in the pdf:-
How could we find the subsets which sum to N, as the logic only tells whether the subset exist or not?
Also, if we change the question a bit, can we find two subsets which has equal average using the same ideology?
Can anybody thrown some light on this Dynamic Programming problem.. :)
Thanks in Advance..
You can try to process recursively:
Given a SORTED array X={x1 ... xn} xi !=0 and an intger N.
First find all the possibilities "made" with just one element:
here if N=xp, eliminate all xi s.t i>=p
second find all the possibilities made with 2 elements:
{ (x1,x2) .... (xp-2,xp-1)}
Sort by sum and elminate all the sums >=N
and you had the rules: xi cannot go with xj when xi+xj >= N
Third with 3 elments:
You create all the part that respect the above rule.
And idem step 2
etc...
Example:
X={1,2,4,7,9,10} N=9
step one:
{9}
X'={1,2,4,7,9}
step 2: cannot chose 9 and 10
X={(1,2) (1,4) (2,4) (1,7) (2,7) (4,7)}
{2,7}
X'={(1,2) (1,4) (2,4) (1,7)}
step 3: 4 and 2 cannot go with 7:
X={(1,2,4)}
no sol
{9} {2,7} are the only solutions
This diminishes the total number of comparaison (that would be 2^n = 2^6=64) you only did : 12 comparaisons
hope it helps
Unfortunately, this is a very difficult problem. Even determining if there exists a single subset summing to your target value is NP-Complete.
If the problem is more restricted, you might be able to find a good algorithm. For example:
Do the subsets have to be contiguous?
Can you ignore subsets with more than K values?
Are the array values guaranteed to be positive?
Are the array values guaranteed to be distinct? What about differing from the other values by at least some constant factor?
Is there some bound on the difference between the smallest and largest value?
The proposed algorithm stores only a single bit of information in the temporary array T[N], namely whether it's reachable at all. Obviously, you can store more information at each index [N], such as the values C[i] used to get there. (It's a variation of the "Dealing with Unlimited Copies" chapter in the PDF)
I recently read this question regarding information gain and entropy. I think I have a semi-decent grasp on the main idea, but I'm curious as what to do with situations such as follows:
If we have a bag of 7 coins, 1 of which is heavier than the others, and 1 of which is lighter than the others, and we know the heavier coin + the lighter coin is the same as 2 normal coins, what is the information gain associated with picking two random coins and weighing them against each other?
Our goal here is to identify the two odd coins. I've been thinking this problem over for a while, and can't frame it correctly in a decision tree, or any other way for that matter. Any help?
EDIT: I understand the formula for entropy and the formula for information gain. What I don't understand is how to frame this problem in a decision tree format.
EDIT 2: Here is where I'm at so far:
Assuming we pick two coins and they both end up weighing the same, we can assume our new chances of picking H+L come out to 1/5 * 1/4 = 1/20 , easy enough.
Assuming we pick two coins and the left side is heavier. There are three different cases where this can occur:
HM: Which gives us 1/2 chance of picking H and a 1/4 chance of picking L: 1/8
HL: 1/2 chance of picking high, 1/1 chance of picking low: 1/1
ML: 1/2 chance of picking low, 1/4 chance of picking high: 1/8
However, the odds of us picking HM are 1/7 * 5/6 which is 5/42
The odds of us picking HL are 1/7 * 1/6 which is 1/42
And the odds of us picking ML are 1/7 * 5/6 which is 5/42
If we weight the overall probabilities with these odds, we are given:
(1/8) * (5/42) + (1/1) * (1/42) + (1/8) * (5/42) = 3/56.
The same holds true for option B.
option A = 3/56
option B = 3/56
option C = 1/20
However, option C should be weighted heavier because there is a 5/7 * 4/6 chance to pick two mediums. So I'm assuming from here I weight THOSE odds.
I am pretty sure I've messed up somewhere along the way, but I think I'm on the right path!
EDIT 3: More stuff.
Assuming the scale is unbalanced, the odds are (10/11) that only one of the coins is the H or L coin, and (1/11) that both coins are H/L
Therefore we can conclude:
(10 / 11) * (1/2 * 1/5) and
(1 / 11) * (1/2)
EDIT 4: Going to go ahead and say that it is a total 4/42 increase.
You can construct a decision tree from information-gain considerations, but that's not the question you posted, which is only the compute the information gain (presumably the expected information gain;-) from one "information extraction move" -- picking two random coins and weighing them against each other. To construct the decision tree, you need to know what moves are affordable from the initial state (presumably the general rule is: you can pick two sets of N coins, N < 4, and weigh them against each other -- and that's the only kind of move, parametric over N), the expected information gain from each, and that gives you the first leg of the decision tree (the move with highest expected information gain); then you do the same process for each of the possible results of that move, and so on down.
So do you need help to compute that expected information gain for each of the three allowable values of N, only for N==1, or can you try doing it yourself? If the third possibility obtains, then that would maximize the amount of learning you get from the exercise -- which after all IS the key purpose of homework. So why don't you try, edit your answer to show you how you proceeded and what you got, and we'll be happy to confirm you got it right, or try and help correct any misunderstanding your procedure might reveal!
Edit: trying to give some hints rather than serving the OP the ready-cooked solution on a platter;-). Call the coins H (for heavy), L (for light), and M (for medium -- five of those). When you pick 2 coins at random you can get (out of 7 * 6 == 42 possibilities including order) HL, LH (one each), HM, MH, LM, ML (5 each), MM (5 * 4 == 20 cases) -- 2 plus 20 plus 20 is 42, check. In the weighting you get 3 possible results, call them A (left heavier), B (right heavier), C (equal weight). HL, HM, and ML, 11 cases, will be A; LH, MH, and LM, 11 cases, will be B; MM, 20 cases, will be C. So A and B aren't really distinguishable (which one is left, which one is right, is basically arbitrary!), so we have 22 cases where the weight will be different, 20 where they will be equal -- it's a good sign that the cases giving each results are in pretty close numbers!
So now consider how many (equiprobable) possibilities existed a priori, how many a posteriori, for each of the experiment's results. You're tasked to pick the H and L choice. If you did it at random before the experiment, what would be you chances? 1 in 7 for the random pick of the H; given that succeeds 1 in 6 for the pick of the L -- overall 1 in 42.
After the experiment, how are you doing? If C, you can rule out those two coins and you're left with a mystery H, a mystery L, and three Ms -- so if you picked at random you'd have 1 in 5 to pick H, if successful 1 in 4 to pick L, overall 1 in 20 -- your success chances have slightly more than doubled. It's trickier to see "what next" for the A (and equivalently B) cases because they're several, as listed above (and, less obviously, not equiprobable...), but obviously you won't pick the known-lighter coin for H (and viceversa) and if you pick one of the 5 unweighed coins for H (or L) only one of the weighed coins is a candidate for the other role (L or H respectively). Ignoring for simplicity the "non equiprobable" issue (which is really kind of tricky) can you compute what your chances of guessing (with a random pick not inconsistent with the experiment's result) would be...?