My solution scored 100% correctness, but 0% Performance.
I just can't figure out how to minimize time complexity.
Problem:
Write a function:
int solution(int A[], int N);
that, given an array of N positive integers, returns the maximum number of trailing zeros of the number obtained by multiplying three different elements from the array. Numbers are considered different if they are at different positions in the array.
For example, given A = [7, 15, 6, 20, 5, 10], the function should return 3 (you can obtain three trailing zeros by taking the product of numbers 15, 20 and 10 or 20, 5 and 10).
For another example, given A = [25, 10, 25, 10, 32], the function should return 4 (you can obtain four trailing zeros by taking the product of numbers 25, 25 and 32).
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [3..100,000];
each element of array A is an integer within the range [1..1,000,000,000].
Complexity:
expected worst-case time complexity is O(N*log(max(A)));
expected worst-case space complexity is O(N) (not counting the storage required for input arguments).
Solution:
the idea:
factorize each element into pairs of 5's and 2's
sum each 3 pairs into one pair - this costs O(N^3)
find the pair who's minimum coordinate value is the biggest
return that minimun coordinate value
the code:
int solution(int A[], int N) {
int fives = 0, twos = 0, max_zeros = 0;
int(*factors)[2] = calloc(N, sizeof(int[2])); //each item (x,y) represents the amount of 5's and 2's of the corresponding item in A
for (int i = 0; i< N; i++) {
factorize(A[i], &fives, &twos);
factors[i][0] = fives;
factors[i][1] = twos;
}
//O(N^3)
for (int i = 0; i<N; i++) {
for (int j = i + 1; j<N; j++) {
for (int k = j + 1; k<N; k++) {
int x = factors[i][0] + factors[j][0] + factors[k][0];
int y = factors[i][1] + factors[j][1] + factors[k][1];
max_zeros = max(max_zeros, min(x, y));
}
}
}
return max_zeros;
}
void factorize(int val, int* fives, int* twos) {
int tmp = val;
*fives = 0, *twos = 0;
if (val == 0) return;
while (val % 5 == 0) { //factors of 5
val /= 5;
(*fives)++;
}
while (val % 2 == 0) { //factors of 2
val /= 2;
(*twos)++;
}
}
I can't figure out how else i can iterate over the N-sized array in order to find the optimal 3 items in time O(N*log(max(A))).
Since 2^30 > 1e9 and 5^13 > 1e9, there's a limit of 30 * 13 = 390 different pairs of factors of 2 and 5 in the array, no matter how large the array. This is an upper bound (the actual number is 213).
Discard all but three representatives from the array for each pair, and then your O(N^3) algorithm is probably fast enough.
If it's still not fast enough, you can continue by applying dynamic programming, computing P[i,j], the largest product of factors of 2s and 5s of pairs of elements with index <=i of the form x * 2^y * 5^y+j (where x is divisible by neither 2 nor 5). This table can then be used in a second dynamic programming pass to find the product of three numbers with the most 0's.
In real world I don't like such meta-thinking, but still, we are faced some artificial problem with some artificial restrictions...
Since space complexity is O(N), we can't afford dynamic programming based on initial input. We can't even make a map of N*factors. Well, we can afford map of N*2, anyway, but that's mostly all we can.
Since time complexity is O(Nlog(max(A))), we can allow ourselves to factorize items and do some simple one-way reduction. Probably we can sort items with count sort - it's a bit more like Nlog^2(max(A)) for 2-index sorting, but big O will even it out.
If my spider sense is right, we should simply pick something out of this counts array and polish it with 1-run through array. Something like best count for 2, then best for 5, and then we can enumerate the rest of elements finding best overal product. It's just heuristic, but dimentions don't lie!
Just my 2 cents
So this problem was asked in a quiz and the problem goes like:
You are given an array 'a' with elements ranging from 1-106 and the size of array could be maximum 105 Now we are asked to find the number of subarrays with the same 'degree' as the original array. Degree of an array is defined as the frequency of maximum occurring element in the array. Multiple elements could have the same frequency.
I was stuck in this problem for like an hour but couldn't think of any solution. How do I solve it?
Sample Input:
first-input
1,2,2,3,1
first-output 2
second-input
1,1,2,1,2,2
second-output 4
The element that occurs most frequently is called the mode; this problem defines degree as the frequency count. Your tasks are:
Identify all of the mode values.
For each mode value, find the index range of that value. For instance, in the array
[1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5]
You have three modes (1 2 5) with a degree of 3. The index ranges are
1 - 0:3
2 - 2:8
5 - 10:12
You need to count all index ranges (subarrays) that include at least one of those three ranges.
I've tailored this example to have both basic cases: modes that overlap, and those that do not. Note that containment is a moot point: if you have an array where one mode's range contains another:
[0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0]
You can ignore the outer one altogether: any subarray that contains 0 will also contain 1.
ANALYSIS
A subarray is defined by two numbers, the starting and ending indices. Since we must have 0 <= start <= end <= len(array), this is the "handshake" problem between array bounds. We have N(N+1)/2 possible subarrays.
For 10**5 elements, you could just brute-force the problem from here: for each pair of indices, check to see whether that range contains any of the mode ranges. However, you can easily cut that down with interval recognition.
ALGORITHM
Step through the mode ranges, left to right. First, count all subranges that include the first mode range [0:3]. There is only 1 possible starts [0] and 10 possible ends [3:12]; that's 10 subarrays.
Now move to the second mode range, [2:8]. You need to count subarrays that include this, but exclude those you've already counted. Since there's an overlap, you need a starting point later than 0, or an ending point before 3. This second clause is not possible with the given range.
Thus, you consider start [1:2], end [8:12]. That's 2 * 5 more subarrays.
For the third range [10:12 (no overlap), you need a starting point that does not include any other subrange. This means that any starting point [3:10] will do. Since there's only one possible endpoint, you have 8*1, or 8 more subarrays.
Can you turn this into something formal?
Taking reference from leet code
https://leetcode.com/problems/degree-of-an-array/solution/
solve
class Solution {
public int findShortestSubArray(int[] nums) {
Map<Integer, Integer> left = new HashMap(),
right = new HashMap(), count = new HashMap();
for (int i = 0; i < nums.length; i++) {
int x = nums[i];
if (left.get(x) == null) left.put(x, i);
right.put(x, i);
count.put(x, count.getOrDefault(x, 0) + 1);
}
int ans = nums.length;
int degree = Collections.max(count.values());
for (int x: count.keySet()) {
if (count.get(x) == degree) {
ans = Math.min(ans, right.get(x) - left.get(x) + 1);
}
}
return ans;
}
}
The Minimum Size Subarray Sum problem:
given an array of n positive integers and a positive integer s, find the minimal length of a subarray of which the sum ≥ s. If there isn't one, return 0 instead.
For example, given the array [2,3,1,2,4,3] and s = 7,
the subarray [4,3] has the minimal length under the problem constraint.
The following is my solution:
public int minSubArrayLen(int s, int[] nums) {
long sum = 0;
int a = 0;
if (nums.length < 1)
return 0;
Arrays.sort(nums);
for (int i = nums.length-1; i >= 0; i--) {
sum += nums[i];
a++;
if (sum>=s)
break;
}
if (sum < s) {
return 0;
}
return a;
}
This solution was not accepted because it did not pass the following test case:
697439
[5334,6299,4199,9663,8945,3566,9509,3124,6026,6250,7475,5420,9201,9501,38,5897,4411,6638,9845,161,9563,8854,3731,5564,5331,4294,3275,1972,1521,2377,3701,6462,6778,187,9778,758,550,7510,6225,8691,3666,4622,9722,8011,7247,575,5431,4777,4032,8682,5888,8047,3562,9462,6501,7855,505,4675,6973,493,1374,3227,1244,7364,2298,3244,8627,5102,6375,8653,1820,3857,7195,7830,4461,7821,5037,2918,4279,2791,1500,9858,6915,5156,970,1471,5296,1688,578,7266,4182,1430,4985,5730,7941,3880,607,8776,1348,2974,1094,6733,5177,4975,5421,8190,8255,9112,8651,2797,335,8677,3754,893,1818,8479,5875,1695,8295,7993,7037,8546,7906,4102,7279,1407,2462,4425,2148,2925,3903,5447,5893,3534,3663,8307,8679,8474,1202,3474,2961,1149,7451,4279,7875,5692,6186,8109,7763,7798,2250,2969,7974,9781,7741,4914,5446,1861,8914,2544,5683,8952,6745,4870,1848,7887,6448,7873,128,3281,794,1965,7036,8094,1211,9450,6981,4244,2418,8610,8681,2402,2904,7712,3252,5029,3004,5526,6965,8866,2764,600,631,9075,2631,3411,2737,2328,652,494,6556,9391,4517,8934,8892,4561,9331,1386,4636,9627,5435,9272,110,413,9706,5470,5008,1706,7045,9648,7505,6968,7509,3120,7869,6776,6434,7994,5441,288,492,1617,3274,7019,5575,6664,6056,7069,1996,9581,3103,9266,2554,7471,4251,4320,4749,649,2617,3018,4332,415,2243,1924,69,5902,3602,2925,6542,345,4657,9034,8977,6799,8397,1187,3678,4921,6518,851,6941,6920,259,4503,2637,7438,3893,5042,8552,6661,5043,9555,9095,4123,142,1446,8047,6234,1199,8848,5656,1910,3430,2843,8043,9156,7838,2332,9634,2410,2958,3431,4270,1420,4227,7712,6648,1607,1575,3741,1493,7770,3018,5398,6215,8601,6244,7551,2587,2254,3607,1147,5184,9173,8680,8610,1597,1763,7914,3441,7006,1318,7044,7267,8206,9684,4814,9748,4497,2239]
The expected answer is 132 but my output was 80.
Does anyone have any idea what went wrong with my algorithm/code?
I will simply explain the flaw in the logic rather giving the correct logic to handle the problem statement
You are taking the numbers in a specific sequence and then adding them for comparison. Quite easily the case can be different where you take numbers in random order to get the exact sum.
For example [2,3,1,2,4,3] and s = 7.
Based on your logic
Step 1-> Sort the numbers and you get [1,2,2,3,3,4]
Step 2-> You pick last 2 number (3,4) to get your sum 7
Lets change the sum to 8
From Step 2-> You get 3+3+4 = 10 so u break out of the loop. After this step you return a = 2
Flaw here is 4+3+1 also makes 8 something your logic skips.
Same way 3+3+2 is also possible solution to achieve 8.
You sorting the array is first flaw in the logic itself. If you consider subarray of existing arrangement, sorting changes the arrangement therefore you will never be able to get the expected solution.
Consider an array of any given unique integers e.g. [1,3,2,4,6,5] how would one determine
the level of "sortedness", ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 ?
One way would be to evaluate the number of items that would have to be moved to make it sorted and then divide that by the total number of items.
As a first approach, I would detect the former as just the number of times a transition occurs from higher to lower value. In your list, that would be:
3 -> 2
6 -> 5
for a total of two movements. Dividing that by six elements gives you 33%.
In a way, this makes sense since you can simply move the 2 to between 1 and 3, and the 5 to between 4 and 6.
Now there may be edge cases where it's more efficient to move things differently but then you're likely going to have to write really complicated search algorithms to find the best solution.
Personally, I'd start with the simplest option that gave you what you wanted and only bother expanding if it turns out to be inadequate.
I would say the number of swaps is not a very good way to determine this. Most importantly because you can sort the array using a different number of swaps. In your case, you could switch 2<-->3 and 6<-->5, but you could also do a lot more switches.
How would you sort, say:
1 4 3 2 5
Would you directly switch 2 and 4, or would you switch 3 and 4, then 4 and 2, and then 3 and 2.
I would say a more correct method would be the number of elements in the right place divided by the total number of elements.
In your case, that would be 2/6.
Ok this is just an idea, but what if you can actually sort the array, i.e.
1,2,3,4,5,6
then get it as a string
123456
now get your original array in string
132465
and compare the Levenshtein distance between the two
I'll propose a different approach: let's count the number of non-descending sequences k in the array, then take its reversal: 1/k. For perfectly sorted array there's only one such sequence, 1/k = 1/1 = 1. This "unsortedness" level is the lowest when the array is sorted descendingly.
0 level is approached only asymptotically when the size of the array approaches infinity.
This simple approach can be computed in O(n) time.
In practice, one would measure unsortedness by the amount of work it needs to get sorted. That depends on what you consider "work". If only swaps are allowed, you could count the number op swaps needed. That has a nice upper bound of (n-1). For a mergesort kind of view you are mostly interested in the number of runs, since you'll need about log (nrun) merge steps. Statistically, you would probably take "sum(abs((rank - intended_rank))" as a measure, similar to a K-S test. But at eyesight, sequences like "HABCDEFG" (7 swaps, 2 runs, submean distance) and "HGFEDCBA" (4 swaps, 8 runs, maximal distance) are always showstoppers.
You could sum up the distances to their sorted position, for each item, and divide with the maximum such number.
public static <T extends Comparable<T>> double sortedMeasure(final T[] items) {
int n = items.length;
// Find the sorted positions
Integer[] sorted = new Integer[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
sorted[i] = i;
}
Arrays.sort(sorted, new Comparator<Integer>() {
public int compare(Integer i1, Integer i2) {
T o1 = items[i1];
T o2 = items[i2];
return o1.compareTo(o2);
}
public boolean equals(Object other) {
return this == other;
}
});
// Sum up the distances
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
sum += Math.abs(sorted[i] - i);
}
// Calculate the maximum
int maximum = n*n/2;
// Return the ratio
return (double) sum / maximum;
}
Example:
sortedMeasure(new Integer[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}) // -> 0.000
sortedMeasure(new Integer[] {1, 5, 2, 4, 3}) // -> 0.500
sortedMeasure(new Integer[] {5, 1, 4, 2, 3}) // -> 0.833
sortedMeasure(new Integer[] {5, 4, 3, 2, 1}) // -> 1.000
One relevant measurement of sortedness would be "number of permutations needed to be sorted". In your case that would be 2, switching the 3,2 and 6,5. Then remains how to map this to [0,1]. You could calculate the maximum number of permutations needed for the length of the array, some sort of a "maximum unsortedness", which should yield a sortedness value of 0. Then take the number of permutations for the actual array, subtract it from the max and divide by max.