I am new to this and I need help with an exercise, which seems to be very simple but I was thinking for hours.
I have a sequence of integers, and I have to return an ordered sequence from least to greatest. whose elements have the same difference. Example: {1,4,5,6,7,10} -> {4,5,6,7}
A possible algorithm:
Store your N integers in a vector<int> and sort it. Then for every integer Ki for i=2 to i=n check if Ki - Ki-1 equals Ki-1 - Ki-2.
Note that in C++, indices start from 0, not 1, so adapt the above accordingly (your i will be from 1 to n-1 instead of 2 to n.
I'm not going to write the code for you though, that's your homework.
Related
I made a simple bubble sorting program, the code works but I do not know if its correct.
What I understand about the bubble sorting algorithm is that it checks an element and the other element beside it.
#include <iostream>
#include <array>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int a, b, c, d, e, smaller = 0,bigger = 0;
cin >> a >> b >> c >> d >> e;
int test1[5] = { a,b,c,d,e };
for (int test2 = 0; test2 != 5; ++test2)
{
for (int cntr1 = 0, cntr2 = 1; cntr2 != 5; ++cntr1,++cntr2)
{
if (test1[cntr1] > test1[cntr2]) /*if first is bigger than second*/{
bigger = test1[cntr1];
smaller = test1[cntr2];
test1[cntr1] = smaller;
test1[cntr2] = bigger;
}
}
}
for (auto test69 : test1)
{
cout << test69 << endl;
}
system("pause");
}
It is a bubblesort implementation. It just is a very basic one.
Two improvements:
the outerloop iteration may be one shorter each time since you're guaranteed that the last element of the previous iteration will be the largest.
when no swap is done during an iteration, you're finished. (which is part of the definition of bubblesort in wikipedia)
Some comments:
use better variable names (test2?)
use the size of the container or the range, don't hardcode 5.
using std::swap() to swap variables leads to simpler code.
Here is a more generic example using (random access) iterators with my suggested improvements and comments and here with the improvement proposed by Yves Daoust (iterate up to last swap) with debug-prints
The correctness of your algorithm can be explained as follows.
In the first pass (inner loop), the comparison T[i] > T[i+1] with a possible swap makes sure that the largest of T[i], T[i+1] is on the right. Repeating for all pairs from left to right makes sure that in the end T[N-1] holds the largest element. (The fact that the array is only modified by swaps ensures that no element is lost or duplicated.)
In the second pass, by the same reasoning, the largest of the N-1 first elements goes to T[N-2], and it stays there because T[N-1] is larger.
More generally, in the Kth pass, the largest of the N-K+1 first element goes to T[N-K], stays there, and the next elements are left unchanged (because they are already increasing).
Thus, after N passes, all elements are in place.
This hints a simple optimization: all elements following the last swap in a pass are in place (otherwise the swap wouldn't be the last). So you can record the position of the last swap and perform the next pass up to that location only.
Though this change doesn't seem to improve a lot, it can reduce the number of passes. Indeed by this procedure, the number of passes equals the largest displacement, i.e. the number of steps an element has to take to get to its proper place (elements too much on the right only move one position at a time).
In some configurations, this number can be small. For instance, sorting an already sorted array takes a single pass, and sorting an array with all elements swapped in pairs takes two. This is an improvement from O(N²) to O(N) !
Yes. Your code works just like Bubble Sort.
Input: 3 5 1 8 2
Output after each iteration:
3 1 5 2 8
1 3 2 5 8
1 2 3 5 8
1 2 3 5 8
1 2 3 5 8
1 2 3 5 8
Actually, in the inner loop, we don't need to go till the end of the array from the second iteration onwards because the heaviest element of the previous iteration is already at the last. But that doesn't better the time complexity much. So, you are good to go..
Small Informal Proof:
The idea behind your sorting algorithm is that you go though the array of values (left to right). Let's call it a pass. During the pass pairs of values are checked and swapped to be in correct order (higher right).
During first pass the maximum value will be reached. When reached, the max will be higher then value next to it, so they will be swapped. This means that max will become part of next pair in the pass. This repeats until pass is completed and max moves to the right end of the array.
During second pass the same is true for the second highest value in the array. Only difference is it will not be swapped with the max at the end. Now two most right values are correctly set.
In every next pass one value will be sorted out to the right.
There are N values and N passes. This means that after N passes all N values will be sorted like:
{kth largest, (k-1)th largest,...... 2nd largest, largest}
No it isn't. It is worse. There is no point whatsoever in the variable cntr1. You should be using test1 here, and you should be referring to one of the many canonical implementations of bubblesort rather than trying to make it up for yourself.
What is the Big 0 notation for the function description in the screenshot.
It would take O(n) to go through all the numbers but once it finds the numbers and removes them what would that be? Would the removed parts be a constant A? and then would the function have to iterate through the numbers again?
This is what I am thinking for Big O
T(n) = n + a + (n-a) or something involving having to iterate through (n-a) number of steps after the first duplicate is found, then would big O be O(n)?
Big O notation is considering the worst case. Let's say we need to remove all duplicates from the array A=[1..n]. The algorithm will start with the first element and check every remaining element - there are n-1 of them. Since all values happen to be different it won't remove any from the array.
Next, the algorithm selects the second element and checks the remaining n-2 elements in the array. And so on.
When the algorithm arrives at the final element it is done. The total number of comparisions is the sum of (n-1) + (n-2) + ... + 2 + 1 + 0. Through the power of maths, this sum becomes (n-1)*n/2 and the dominating term is n^2 so the algorithm is O(n^2).
This algorithm is O(n^2). Because for each element in the array you are iterating over the array and counting the occurrences of that element.
foreach item in array
count = 0
foreach other in array
if item == other
count += 1
if count > 1
remove item
As you see there are two nested loops in this algorithm which results in O(n*n).
Removed items doesn't affect the worst case. Consider an array containing unique elements. No elements is being removed in this array.
Note: A naive implementation of this algorithm could result in O(n^3) complexity.
You started with first element you will go through all elements in the vector thats n-1 you will do that for n time its (n * n-1)/2 for worst case n time is the best case (all elements are 4)
Given a list of N players who are to play a 2 player game. Each of them are either well versed in making a particular move or they are not. Find out the maximum number of moves a 2-player team can know.
And also find out how many teams can know that maximum number of moves?
Example Let we have 4 players and 5 moves with ith player is versed in jth move if a[i][j] is 1 otherwise it is 0.
10101
11100
11010
00101
Here maximum number of moves a 2-player team can know is 5 and their are two teams that can know that maximum number of moves.
Explanation : (1, 3) and (3, 4) know all the 5 moves. So the maximal moves a 2-player team knows is 5, and only 2 teams can acheive this.
My approach : For each pair of players i check if any of the players is versed in ith move or not and for each player maintain the maximum pairs he can make with other players with his local maximum move combination.
vector<int> pairmemo;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
int mymax=INT_MIN;
int countpairs=0;
for(int j=i+1;j<n;j++){
int count=0;
for(int k=0;k<m;k++){
if(arr[i][k]==1 || arr[j][k]==1)
{
count++;
}
}
if(mymax<count){
mymax=count;
countpairs=0;
}
if(mymax==count){
countpairs++;
}
}
pairmemo.push_back(countpairs);
maxmemo.push_back(mymax);
}
Overall maximum of all N players is answer and count is corresponding sum of the pairs being calculated.
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
if(maxi<maxmemo[i])
maxi=maxmemo[i];
}
int countmaxi=0;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
if(maxmemo[i]==maxi){
countmaxi+=pairmemo[i];
}
}
cout<<maxi<<"\n";
cout<<countmaxi<<"\n";
Time complexity : O((N^2)*M)
Code :
How can i improve it?
Constraints : N<= 3000 and M<=1000
If you represent each set of moves by a very large integer, the problem boils down to finding pair of players (I, J) which have maximum number of bits set in MovesI OR MovesJ.
So, you can use bit-packing and compress all the information on moves in Long integer array. It would take 16 unsigned long integers to store according to the constraints. So, for each pair of players you OR the corresponding arrays and count number of ones. This would take O(N^2 * 16) which would run pretty fast given the constraints.
Example:
Lets say given matrix is
11010
00011
and you used 4-bit integer for packing it.
It would look like:
1101-0000
0001-1000
that is,
13,0
1,8
After OR the moves array for 2 player team becomes 13,8, now count the bits which are one. You have to optimize the counting of bits also, for that read the accepted answer here, otherwise the factor M would appear in complexity. Just maintain one count variable and one maxNumberOfBitsSet variable as you process the pairs.
What Ill do is:
1. Do logical OR between all the possible pairs - O(N^2) and store it's SUM in a 2D array with the symmetric diagonal ignored. (thats we save half of the calc - see example)
2. find the max value in the 2D Array (can be done while doing task 1) -> O(1)
3. count how many cells in the 2D array equals to the maximum value in task 2 O(N^2)
sum: 2*O(N^2)+ O(1) => O(N^2)
Example (using the data in the question (with letters indexes):
A[10101] B[11100] C[11010] D[00101]
Task 1:
[A|B] = 11101 = SUM(4)
[A|C] = 11111 = SUM(5)
[A|D] = 10101 = SUM(3)
[B|C] = 11110 = SUM(4)
[B|D] = 11101 = SUM(4)
[C|D] = 11111 = SUM(5)
Task 2 (Done while is done 1):
Max = 5
Task 3:
Count = 2
By the way, O(N^2) is the minimum possible since you HAVE to check all the possible pairs.
Since you have to find all solutions, unless you find a way to find a count without actually finding the solutions themselves, you have to actually look at or eliminate all possible solutions. So the worst case will always be O(N^2*M), which I'll call O(n^3) as long as N and M are both big and similar size.
However, you can hope for much better performance on the average case by pruning.
Don't check every case. Find ways to eliminate combinations without checking them.
I would sum and store the total number of moves known to each player, and sort the array rows by that value. That should provide an easy check for exiting the loop early. Sorting at O(n log n) should be basically free in an O(n^3) algorithm.
Use Priyank's basic idea, except with bitsets, since you obviously can't use a fixed integer type with 3000 bits.
You may benefit from making a second array of bitsets for the columns, and use that as a mask for pruning players.
Lets say we have int array with 5 elements: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
What I need to do is to find minimum abs value of array's elements' subtraction:
We need to check like that
1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
1-3 2-4 3-5
1-4 2-5
1-5
And find minimum abs value of these subtractions. We can find it with 2 fors. The question is, is there any algorithm for finding value with one and only for?
sort the list and subtract nearest two elements
The provably best performing solution is assymptotically linear O(n) up until constant factors.
This means that the time taken is proportional to the number of the elements in the array (which of course is the best we can do as we at least have to read every element of the array, which already takes O(n) time).
Here is one such O(n) solution (which also uses O(1) space if the list can be modified in-place):
int mindiff(const vector<int>& v)
{
IntRadixSort(v.begin(), v.end());
int best = MAX_INT;
for (int i = 0; i < v.size()-1; i++)
{
int diff = abs(v[i]-v[i+1]);
if (diff < best)
best = diff;
}
return best;
}
IntRadixSort is a linear time fixed-width integer sorting algorithm defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_sort
The concept is that you leverage the fixed-bitwidth nature of ints by paritioning them in a series of fixed passes on the bit positions. ie partition them on the hi bit (32nd), then on the next highest (31st), then on the next (30th), and so on - which only takes linear time.
The problem is equivalent to sorting. Any sorting algorithm could be used, and at the end, return the difference between the nearest elements. A final pass over the data could be used to find that difference, or it could be maintained during the sort. Before the data is sorted the min difference between adjacent elements will be an upper bound.
So to do it without two loops, use a sorting algorithm that does not have two loops. In a way it feels like semantics, but recursive sorting algorithms will do it with only one loop. If this issue is the n(n+1)/2 subtractions required by the simple two loop case, you can use an O(n log n) algorithm.
No, unless you know the list is sorted, you need two
Its simple Iterate in a for loop
keep 2 variable "minpos and maxpos " and " minneg" and "maxneg"
check for the sign of the value you encounter and store maximum positive in maxpos
and minimum +ve number in "minpos" do the same by checking in if case for number
less than zero. Now take the difference of maxpos-minpos in one variable and
maxneg and minneg in one variable and print the larger of the two . You will get
desired.
I believe you definitely know how to find max and min in one for loop
correction :- The above one is to find max difference in case of minimum you need to
take max and second max instead of max and min :)
This might be help you:
end=4;
subtractmin;
m=0;
for(i=1;i<end;i++){
if(abs(a[m]-a[i+m])<subtractmin)
subtractmin=abs(a[m]-a[i+m];}
if(m<4){
m=m+1
end=end-1;
i=m+2;
}}
I am trying to solve subsets from the USACO training gateway...
Problem Statement
For many sets of consecutive integers from 1 through N (1 <= N <= 39), one can partition the set into two sets whose sums are identical.
For example, if N=3, one can partition the set {1, 2, 3} in one way so that the sums of both subsets are identical:
{3} and {1,2}
This counts as a single partitioning (i.e., reversing the order counts as the same partitioning and thus does not increase the count of partitions).
If N=7, there are four ways to partition the set {1, 2, 3, ... 7} so that each partition has the same sum:
{1,6,7} and {2,3,4,5}
{2,5,7} and {1,3,4,6}
{3,4,7} and {1,2,5,6}
{1,2,4,7} and {3,5,6}
Given N, your program should print the number of ways a set containing the integers from 1 through N can be partitioned into two sets whose sums are identical. Print 0 if there are no such ways.
Your program must calculate the answer, not look it up from a table.
End
Before I was running on a O(N*2^N) by simply permuting through the set and finding the sums.
Finding out how horribly inefficient that was, I moved on to mapping the sum sequences...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(number_theory)
After many coding problems to scrape out repetitions, still too slow, so I am back to square one :(.
Now that I look more closely at the problem, it looks like I should try to find a way to not find the sums, but actually go directly to the number of sums via some kind of formula.
If anyone can give me pointers on how to solve this problem, I'm all ears. I program in java, C++ and python.
Actually, there is a better and simpler solution. You should use Dynamic Programming
instead. In your code, you would have an array of integers (whose size is the sum), where each value at index i represents the number of ways to possibly partition the numbers so that one of the partitions has a sum of i. Here is what your code could look like in C++:
int values[N];
int dp[sum+1]; //sum is the sum of the consecutive integers
int solve(){
if(sum%2==1)
return 0;
dp[0]=1;
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
int val = values[i]; //values contains the consecutive integers
for(int j=sum-val; j>=0; j--){
dp[j+val]+=dp[j];
}
}
return dp[sum/2]/2;
}
This gives you an O(N^3) solution, which is by far fast enough for this problem.
I haven't tested this code, so there might be a syntax error or something, but you get the point. Let me know if you have any more questions.
This is the same thing as finding the coefficient x^0 term in the polynomial (x^1+1/x)(x^2+1/x^2)...(x^n+1/x^n), which should take about an upper bound of O(n^3).