I am solving a question on LeetCode.com:
Given an array of integers A, find the sum of min(B), where B ranges over every (contiguous) subarray of A. Since the answer may be large, return the answer modulo 10^9 + 7.
Input: [3,1,2,4]
Output: 17
Explanation: Subarrays are [3], [1], [2], [4], [3,1], [1,2], [2,4], [3,1,2], [1,2,4], [3,1,2,4]. Minimums are 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1. Sum is 17.
A highly upvoted solution is as below:
class Solution {
public:
int sumSubarrayMins(vector<int>& A) {
stack<pair<int, int>> in_stk_p, in_stk_n;
// left is for the distance to previous less element
// right is for the distance to next less element
vector<int> left(A.size()), right(A.size());
//initialize
for(int i = 0; i < A.size(); i++) left[i] = i + 1;
for(int i = 0; i < A.size(); i++) right[i] = A.size() - i;
for(int i = 0; i < A.size(); i++){
// for previous less
while(!in_stk_p.empty() && in_stk_p.top().first > A[i]) in_stk_p.pop();
left[i] = in_stk_p.empty()? i + 1: i - in_stk_p.top().second;
in_stk_p.push({A[i],i});
// for next less
while(!in_stk_n.empty() && in_stk_n.top().first > A[i]){
auto x = in_stk_n.top();in_stk_n.pop();
right[x.second] = i - x.second;
}
in_stk_n.push({A[i], i});
}
int ans = 0, mod = 1e9 +7;
for(int i = 0; i < A.size(); i++){
ans = (ans + A[i]*left[i]*right[i])%mod;
}
return ans;
}
};
My question is: what is the intuition behind using a monotonically increasing stack for this? How does it help calculate the minimums in the various subarrays?
Visualize the array as a line graph, with (local) minima as valleys. Each value is relevant for a range that extends from just after the previous smaller value (if any) to just before the next smaller value (if any). (Even a value larger than its neighbors matters when considering the singleton subarray that contains it.) The variables left and right track that range.
Recognizing that a value shadows every value larger than it in each direction separately, the stack maintains a list of previous, unshadowed minima for two purposes: identifying how far back a new small number’s range extends and (at the same time) how far forward the invalidated minima’s ranges extend. The code uses a separate stack for each purpose, but there’s no need: each has the same contents after every iteration of the (outer) loop.
Related
I am trying to find the number of sub arrays that have a sum equal to k:
int subarraySum(vector<int>& nums, int k)
{
int start, end, curr_sum = 0, count = 0;
start = 0, end = 0;
while (end < (int)nums.size())
{
curr_sum = curr_sum + nums[end];
end++;
while (start < end && curr_sum >= k)
{
if (curr_sum == k)
count++;
curr_sum = curr_sum - nums[start];
start++;
}
}
return count;
}
The above code I have written, works for most cases, but fails for the following:
array = {-1, -1, 1} with k = 0
I have tried to add another while loop to iterate from the start and go up the array until it reaches the end:
int subarraySum(vector<int>& nums, int k)
{
int start, end, curr_sum = 0, count = 0;
start = 0, end = 0;
while (end < (int)nums.size())
{
curr_sum = curr_sum + nums[end];
end++;
while (start < end && curr_sum >= k)
{
if (curr_sum == k)
count++;
curr_sum = curr_sum - nums[start];
start++;
}
}
while (start < end)
{
if (curr_sum == k)
count++;
curr_sum = curr_sum - nums[start];
start++;
}
return count;
}
Why is this not working? I am sliding the window until the last element is reached, which should have found a sum equal to k? How can I solve this issue?
Unfortunately, you did not program a sliding window in the correct way. And a sliding window is not really a solution for this problem. One of your main issues is, that you do not move the start of the window based on the proper conditions. You always sum up and wait until the sum is greater than the search value.
This will not really work. Especially for your example -1, -1, 1. The running sum of this is: -1, -2, -1 and you do not see the 0, although it is there. You may have the idea to write while (start < end && curr_sum != k), but this will also not work, because you handle the start pointer not correctly.
Your approach will lead to the brute force solution that typically takes something like N*N loop operations, where N is the size of the array. This, because we need a double nested loop.
That will of course always work, but maybe very time-consuming, and, in the end, too slow.
Anyway. Let us implement that. We will start from each value in the std::vector and try out all sub arrays starting from the beginning value. We must evaluate all following values in the std::vector, because for example the last value could be a big negative number and bring down the sum again to the search value.
We could implement this for example like the following:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int subarraySum(vector<int>& numbers, int searchSumValue) {
// Here we will store the result
int resultingCount{};
// Iterate over all values in the array. So, use all different start values
for (std::size_t i{}; i < numbers.size(); ++i) {
// Here we stor the running sum of the elements in the vector
int sum{ numbers[i] };
// Check for trivial case. A one-element sub-array does already match the search value
if (sum == searchSumValue) ++resultingCount;
// Now we build all subarrays beginning with the start value
for (std::size_t k{ i + 1 }; k < numbers.size(); ++k) {
sum += numbers[k];
if (sum == searchSumValue) ++resultingCount;
}
}
return resultingCount;
}
int main() {
vector v{ -1,-1,1 };
std::cout << subarraySum(v, 0);
}
.
But, as said, the above is often too slow for big vectors and there is indeed a better solution available, which is based on a DP (dynamic programming) algorithm.
It uses so-called prefix sums, running sums, based on the running sum before the current evaluated value.
We need to show an example. Let's use a std::vector with 5 values {1,2,3,4,5}. And we want to look subarrays with a sum of 9.
We can “guess” that there are 2 subarrays: {2,3,4} and {4,5} that have a sum of 9.
Let us investigate further
Index 0 1 2 3 4
Value 1 2 3 4 5
We can now add a running sum and see, how much delta we have between the current evaluated element and the left neighbor or over-next neighbor and so on. And if we have a delta that is equal to our search value, then we must have a subarray building this sum.
Running Sum 1 3 6 10 15
Deltas of 2 3 4 5 against next left
Running sum 5 7 9 against next next left
9 12 against next next next left
Example {2,3,4}. If we evaluate the 4 with a running sum of 10, and subtract the search value 9, then we get the previous running sum 1. “1+9=10” all values are there.
Example {4,5}. If we evaluate the 5 with a running sum of 15, and subtract the search value 9, then we get the previous running sum = 6. “6+9=15” all values are there.
We can find all solutions using the same approach.
So, the only thing we need to do, is to subtract the search value from the current running sum and see, if we have this running sum already calculated before.
Like: “Search-Value” + “previously Calculated Sum” = “Current Running Sum”.
Or: “Current Running Sum” – “Search-Value” = “previously Calculated Sum”
Again, we need to do the subtraction and check, if we already calculated such a sum previously.
So, we need to store all previously calculated running sums. And, because such a sum may appear more than one, we need to find occurrences of equal running sums and count them.
It is very hard to digest, and you need to think a while to understand.
With the above wisdom, you can draft the below potential solution.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <unordered_map>
int subarraySum(std::vector<int>& numbers, int searchSumValue) {
// Here we will store the result
int resultingSubarrayCount{};
// Here we will stor all running sums and how ofthen their value appeared
std::unordered_map<int, int> countOfRunningSums;
// Continuosly calculating the running sum
int runningSum{};
// And initialize the first value
countOfRunningSums[runningSum] = 1;
// Now iterate over all values in the vector
for (const int n : numbers) {
// Calculate the running sum
runningSum += n;
// Check, if we have the searched value already available
// And add the number of occurences to our resulting number of subarrays
resultingSubarrayCount += countOfRunningSums[runningSum - searchSumValue];
// Store the new running sum. Respectively. Add 1 to the counter, if the running sum was alreadyy existing
countOfRunningSums[runningSum]++;
}
return resultingSubarrayCount;
}
int main() {
std::vector v{ 1,2,3,4,5 };
std::cout << subarraySum(v, 9);
}
I have a list of 100 random integers. Each random integer has a value from 0 to 99. Duplicates are allowed, so the list could be something like
56, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 6, 99...
I need to find the smallest integer (>= 0) is that is not contained in the list.
My initial solution is this:
vector<int> integerList(100); //list of random integers
...
vector<bool> listedIntegers(101, false);
for (int theInt : integerList)
{
listedIntegers[theInt] = true;
}
int smallestInt;
for (int j = 0; j < 101; j++)
{
if (!listedIntegers[j])
{
smallestInt = j;
break;
}
}
But that requires a secondary array for book-keeping and a second (potentially full) list iteration. I need to perform this task millions of times (the actual application is in a greedy graph coloring algorithm, where I need to find the smallest unused color value with a vertex adjacency list), so I'm wondering if there's a clever way to get the same result without so much overhead?
It's been a year, but ...
One idea that comes to mind is to keep track of the interval(s) of unused values as you iterate the list. To allow efficient lookup, you could keep intervals as tuples in a binary search tree, for example.
So, using your sample data:
56, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 6, 99...
You would initially have the unused interval [0..99], and then, as each input value is processed:
56: [0..55][57..99]
1: [0..0][2..55][57..99]
1: no change
1: no change
1: no change
0: [2..55][57..99]
2: [3..55][57..99]
6: [3..5][7..55][57..99]
99: [3..5][7..55][57..98]
Result (lowest value in lowest remaining interval): 3
I believe there is no faster way to do it. What you can do in your case is to reuse vector<bool>, you need to have just one such vector per thread.
Though the better approach might be to reconsider the whole algorithm to eliminate this step at all. Maybe you can update least unused color on every step of the algorithm?
Since you have to scan the whole list no matter what, the algorithm you have is already pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest without measuring (that will surely speed things up) is to get rid of your vector<bool>, and replace it with a stack-allocated array of 4 32-bit integers or 2 64-bit integers.
Then you won't have to pay the cost of allocating an array on the heap every time, and you can get the first unused number (the position of the first 0 bit) much faster. To find the word that contains the first 0 bit, you only need to find the first one that isn't the maximum value, and there are bit twiddling hacks you can use to get the first 0 bit in that word very quickly.
You program is already very efficient, in O(n). Only marginal gain can be found.
One possibility is to divide the number of possible values in blocks of size block, and to register
not in an array of bool but in an array of int, in this case memorizing the value modulo block.
In practice, we replace a loop of size N by a loop of size N/block plus a loop of size block.
Theoretically, we could select block = sqrt(N) = 12 in order to minimize the quantity N/block + block.
In the program hereafter, block of size 8 are selected, assuming that dividing integers by 8 and calculating values modulo 8 should be fast.
However, it is clear that a gain, if any, can be obtained only for a minimum value rather large!
constexpr int N = 100;
int find_min1 (const std::vector<int> &IntegerList) {
constexpr int Size = 13; //N / block
constexpr int block = 8;
constexpr int Vmax = 255; // 2^block - 1
int listedBlocks[Size] = {0};
for (int theInt : IntegerList) {
listedBlocks[theInt / block] |= 1 << (theInt % block);
}
for (int j = 0; j < Size; j++) {
if (listedBlocks[j] == Vmax) continue;
int &k = listedBlocks[j];
for (int b = 0; b < block; b++) {
if ((k%2) == 0) return block * j + b;
k /= 2;
}
}
return -1;
}
Potentially you can reduce the last step to O(1) by using some bit manipulation, in your case __int128, set the corresponding bits in loop one and call something like __builtin_clz or use the appropriate bit hack
The best solution I could find for finding smallest integer from a set is https://codereview.stackexchange.com/a/179042/31480
Here are c++ version.
int solution(std::vector<int>& A)
{
for (std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0; i != A.size(); i++)
{
while (0 < A[i] && A[i] - 1 < A.size()
&& A[i] != i + 1
&& A[i] != A[A[i] - 1])
{
int j = A[i] - 1;
auto tmp = A[i];
A[i] = A[j];
A[j] = tmp;
}
}
for (std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0; i != A.size(); i++)
{
if (A[i] != i+1)
{
return i + 1;
}
}
return A.size() + 1;
}
I was trying to solve a question and I got into a few obstacles that I failed to solve, starting off here is the question: Codeforces - 817D
Now I tried to brute force it, using a basic get min and max for each segment of the array I could generate and then keeping track of them I subtract them and add them together to get the final imbalance, this looked good but it gave me a time limit exceeded cause brute forcing n*(n+1)/2 subsegments of the array given n is 10^6 , so I just failed to go around it and after like a couple of hours of not getting any new ideas I decided to see a solution that I could not understand anything in to be honest :/ , here is the solution:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
#define ll long long
int a[1000000], l[1000000], r[1000000];
int main(void) {
int i, j, n;
scanf("%d",&n);
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) scanf("%d",&a[i]);
ll ans = 0;
for(j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
vector<pair<int,int>> v;
v.push_back({-1,INF});
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {
while (v.back().second <= a[i]) v.pop_back();
l[i] = v.back().first;
v.push_back({i,a[i]});
}
v.clear();
v.push_back({n,INF});
for(i = n-1; i >= 0; i--) {
while (v.back().second < a[i]) v.pop_back();
r[i] = v.back().first;
v.push_back({i,a[i]});
}
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i);
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] *= -1;
}
cout << ans;
}
I tried tracing it but I keep wondering why was the vector used , the only idea I got is he wanted to use the vector as a stack since they both act the same(Almost) but then the fact that I don't even know why we needed a stack here and this equation ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i); is really confusing me because I don't get where did it come from.
Well thats a beast of a calculation. I must confess, that i don't understand it completely either. The problem with the brute force solution is, that you have to calculate values or all over again.
In a slightly modified example, you calculate the following values for an input of 2, 4, 1 (i reordered it by "distance")
[2, *, *] (from index 0 to index 0), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 0, i_max = 0
[*, 4, *] (from index 1 to index 1), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 1, i_max = 1
[*, *, 1] (from index 2 to index 2), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 2, i_max = 2
[2, 4, *] (from index 0 to index 1), imbalance value is 2; i_min = 0, i_max = 1
[*, 4, 1] (from index 1 to index 2), imbalance value is 3; i_min = 2, i_max = 1
[2, 4, 1] (from index 0 to index 2), imbalance value is 3; i_min = 2, i_max = 1
where i_min and i_max are the indices of the element with the minimum and maximum value.
For a better visual understanding, i wrote the complete array, but hid the unused values with *
So in the last case [2, 4, 1], brute-force looks for the minimum value over all values, which is not necessary, because you already calculated the values for a sub-space of the problem, by calculating [2,4] and [4,1]. But comparing only the values is not enough, you also need to keep track of the indices of the minimum and maximum element, because those can be reused in the next step, when calculating [2, 4, 1].
The idead behind this is a concept called dynamic programming, where results from a calculation are stored to be used again. As often, you have to choose between speed and memory consumption.
So to come back to your question, here is what i understood :
the arrays l and r are used to store the indices of the greatest number left or right of the current one
vector v is used to find the last number (and it's index) that is greater than the current one (a[i]). It keeps track of rising number series, e.g. for the input 5,3,4 at first the 5 is stored, then the 3 and when the 4 comes, the 3 is popped but the index of 5 is needed (to be stored in l[2])
then there is this fancy calculation (ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i)). The stored indices of the maximum (and in the second run the minimum) elements are calculated together with the value a[i] which does not make much sense for me by now, but seems to work (sorry).
at last, all values in the array a are multiplied by -1, which means, the old maximums are now the minimums, and the calculation is done again (2nd run of the outer for-loop over j)
This last step (multiply a by -1) and the outer for-loop over j are not necessary but it's an elegant way to reuse the code.
Hope this helps a bit.
I am trying to find all pairs in an array with sum equal to k. My current solution takes O(n*log(n)) time (code snippet below).Can anybody help me in finding a better solution, O(n) or O(lgn) may be (if it exists)
map<int,int> mymap;
map<int,int>::iterator it;
cin>>n>>k;
for( int i = 0 ; i < n ; i++ ){
cin>>a;
if( mymap.find(a) != mymap.end() )
mymap[a]++;
else
mymap[a] = 1;
}
for( it = mymap.begin() ; it != mymap.end() ; it++ ){
int val = it->first;
if( mymap.find(k-val) != mymap.end() ){
cnt += min( it->second, mymap.find(k-val)->second );
it->second = 0;
}
}
cout<<cnt;
Another aproach which will take O(log n) in the best case and O(nlog n) in the worst one for positive numbers can be done in this way:
Find element in array that is equal to k/2 or if it doesn’t exist than finds the minimum greater then k/2. All combinations with this element and all greater elements will be interested for us because p + s >= k when p>= k/2 and s>=k/2. Array is sorted, so binary search with some modifications can be used. This step will take O(log n) time.
All elements which are less then k/2 + elements greater or equal to "mirror elements" (according to median k/2) will also be interested for us because p + s >= k when p=k/2-t and s>= k/2+t. Here we need to loop through elements less then k/2 and find their mirror elements (binary search). The loop should be stopped if mirror element is greater then the last array.
For instance we have array {1,3,5,8,11} and k = 10, so on the first step we will have k/2 = 5 and pairs {5,7}, {8,11}, {8, 11}. The count of these pairs will be calculated by formula l * (l - 1)/2 where l = count of elements >= k/2. In our case l = 3, so count = 3*2/2=3.
On the second step for 3 number a mirror element will be 7 (5-2=3 and 5+2=7), so pairs {3, 8} and {3, 11} will be interested. For 1 number mirror will be 9 (5-4=1 and 5+4=9), so {1, 11} is what we look for.
So, if k/2 < first array element this algorithm will be O(log n).
For negative the algorithm will be a little bit more complex but can be solved also with the same complexity.
There exists a rather simple O(n) approach using the so-called "two pointers" or "two iterators" approach. The key idea is to have two iterators (not necessarily C++ iterators, indices would do too) running on the same array so that if first iterator points to value x, then the second iterator points to the maximal element in the array that is less then k-x.
We will be increasing the first iterator, and while doing this we'll also change the second iterator to maintain this property. Note that as the first pointer increases, the corresponding position of the second pointer will only decrease, so on every iteration we can start from the position where we stopped at the previous iteration; we will never need to increase the second pointer. This is how we achieve O(n) time.
Code is like this (did not test this, but the idea should be clear)
vector<int> a; // the given array
int r = a.size() - 1;
for (int l=0; l<a.size(); l++) {
while ((r >= 0) && (a[r] >= k - a[l]))
r--;
// now r is the maximal position in a so that a[r] < k - a[l]
// so all elements right to r form a needed pair with a[l]
ans += a.size() - r - 1; // this is how many pairs we have starting at l
}
Another approach which might be simpler to code, but a bit slower, is O(n log n) using binary search. For each element a[l] of the array, you can find the maximal position r so that a[r]<k-a[l] using binary search (this is the same r as in the first algorithm).
#Drew Dormann - thanks for the remark.
Run through the array with two pointers. left and right.
Assuming left is the small side, start with left at location 0 and then right moves towards left until a[left]+a[right] >= k for the last time.
When this is achieved, then total_count += (a.size - right + 1).
You then move left one step forwards and right needs to (maybe) move towards it. Repeat this until they meet.
When this is done, and let us say they met at location x, then totla_count += choose(2, a.size - x).
Sort the array (n log n)
for (i = 1 to n)
Start at the root
if a[i] + curr_node >= k, go left and match = indexof(curr_nod)e
else, go right
If curr_node = leaf node, add all nodes after a[match] to the list of valid pairs with a[i]
Step 2 also takes O(n log n). The for loop runs n times. Within the loop, we perform a binary search for each node i.e. log n steps. Hence the overall complexity of the algorithm is O (n log n).
This should do the work:
void count(int A[], int n) //n being the number of terms in array
{ int i, j, k, count = 0;
cin>>k;
for(i = 0; i<n; i++)
for(j = 0; j<n; j++)
if(A[i] + A[j] >= k)
count++ ;
cout<<"There are "<<count<<" such numbers" ;
}
I want to know how I can implement a better solution than O(N^3). Its similar to the knapsack and subset problems. In my question N<=8000, so i started computing sums of pairs of numbers and stored them in an array. Then I would binary search in the sorted set for each (M-sum[i]) value but the problem arises how will I keep track of the indices which summed up to sum[i]. I know I could declare extra space but my Sums array already has a size of 64 million, and hence I couldn't complete my O(N^2) solution. Please advice if I can do some optimization or if I need some totally different technique.
You could benefit from some generic tricks to improve the performance of your algorithm.
1) Don't store what you use only once
It is a common error to store more than you really need. Whenever your memory requirement seem to blow up the first question to ask yourself is Do I really need to store that stuff ? Here it turns out that you do not (as Steve explained in comments), compute the sum of two numbers (in a triangular fashion to avoid repeating yourself) and then check for the presence of the third one.
We drop the O(N**2) memory complexity! Now expected memory is O(N).
2) Know your data structures, and in particular: the hash table
Perfect hash tables are rarely (if ever) implemented, but it is (in theory) possible to craft hash tables with O(1) insertion, check and deletion characteristics, and in practice you do approach those complexities (tough it generally comes at the cost of a high constant factor that will make you prefer so-called suboptimal approaches).
Therefore, unless you need ordering (for some reason), membership is better tested through a hash table in general.
We drop the 'log N' term in the speed complexity.
With those two recommendations you easily get what you were asking for:
Build a simple hash table: the number is the key, the index the satellite data associated
Iterate in triangle fashion over your data set: for i in [0..N-1]; for j in [i+1..N-1]
At each iteration, check if K = M - set[i] - set[j] is in the hash table, if it is, extract k = table[K] and if k != i and k != j store the triple (i,j,k) in your result.
If a single result is sufficient, you can stop iterating as soon as you get the first result, otherwise you just store all the triples.
There is a simple O(n^2) solution to this that uses only O(1)* memory if you only want to find the 3 numbers (O(n) memory if you want the indices of the numbers and the set is not already sorted).
First, sort the set.
Then for each element in the set, see if there are two (other) numbers that sum to it. This is a common interview question and can be done in O(n) on a sorted set.
The idea is that you start a pointer at the beginning and one at the end, if your current sum is not the target, if it is greater than the target, decrement the end pointer, else increment the start pointer.
So for each of the n numbers we do an O(n) search and we get an O(n^2) algorithm.
*Note that this requires a sort that uses O(1) memory. Hell, since the sort need only be O(n^2) you could use bubble sort. Heapsort is O(n log n) and uses O(1) memory.
Create a "bitset" of all the numbers which makes it constant time to check if a number is there. That is a start.
The solution will then be at most O(N^2) to make all combinations of 2 numbers.
The only tricky bit here is when the solution contains a repeat, but it doesn't really matter, you can discard repeats unless it is the same number 3 times because you will hit the "repeat" case when you pair up the 2 identical numbers and see if the unique one is present.
The 3 times one is simply a matter of checking if M is divisible by 3 and whether M/3 appears 3 times as you create the bitset.
This solution does require creating extra storage, up to MAX/8 where MAX is the highest number in your set. You could use a hash table though if this number exceeds a certain point: still O(1) lookup.
This appears to work for me...
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int main(void)
{
set<long long> keys;
// By default this set is sorted
set<short> N;
N.insert(4);
N.insert(8);
N.insert(19);
N.insert(5);
N.insert(12);
N.insert(35);
N.insert(6);
N.insert(1);
typedef set<short>::iterator iterator;
const short M = 18;
for(iterator i(N.begin()); i != N.end() && *i < M; ++i)
{
short d1 = M - *i; // subtract the value at this location
// if there is more to "consume"
if (d1 > 0)
{
// ignore below i as we will have already scanned it...
for(iterator j(i); j != N.end() && *j < M; ++j)
{
short d2 = d1 - *j; // again "consume" as much as we can
// now the remainder must eixst in our set N
if (N.find(d2) != N.end())
{
// means that the three numbers we've found, *i (from first loop), *j (from second loop) and d2 exist in our set of N
// now to generate the unique combination, we need to generate some form of key for our keys set
// here we take advantage of the fact that all the numbers fit into a short, we can construct such a key with a long long (8 bytes)
// the 8 byte key is made up of 2 bytes for i, 2 bytes for j and 2 bytes for d2
// and is formed in sorted order
long long key = *i; // first index is easy
// second index slightly trickier, if it's less than j, then this short must be "after" i
if (*i < *j)
key = (key << 16) | *j;
else
key |= (static_cast<int>(*j) << 16); // else it's before i
// now the key is either: i | j, or j | i (where i & j are two bytes each, and the key is currently 4 bytes)
// third index is a bugger, we have to scan the key in two byte chunks to insert our third short
if ((key & 0xFFFF) < d2)
key = (key << 16) | d2; // simple, it's the largest of the three
else if (((key >> 16) & 0xFFFF) < d2)
key = (((key << 16) | (key & 0xFFFF)) & 0xFFFF0000FFFFLL) | (d2 << 16); // its less than j but greater i
else
key |= (static_cast<long long>(d2) << 32); // it's less than i
// Now if this unique key already exists in the hash, this won't insert an entry for it
keys.insert(key);
}
// else don't care...
}
}
}
// tells us how many unique combinations there are
cout << "size: " << keys.size() << endl;
// prints out the 6 bytes for representing the three numbers
for(set<long long>::iterator it (keys.begin()), end(keys.end()); it != end; ++it)
cout << hex << *it << endl;
return 0;
}
Okay, here is attempt two: this generates the output:
start: 19
size: 4
10005000c
400060008
500050008
600060006
As you can see from there, the first "key" is the three shorts (in hex), 0x0001, 0x0005, 0x000C (which is 1, 5, 12 = 18), etc.
Okay, cleaned up the code some more, realised that the reverse iteration is pointless..
My Big O notation is not the best (never studied computer science), however I think the above is something like, O(N) for outer and O(NlogN) for inner, reason for log N is that std::set::find() is logarithmic - however if you replace this with a hashed set, the inner loop could be as good as O(N) - please someone correct me if this is crap...
I combined the suggestions by #Matthieu M. and #Chris Hopman, and (after much trial and error) I came up with this algorithm that should be O(n log n + log (n-k)! + k) in time and O(log(n-k)) in space (the stack). That should be O(n log n) overall. It's in Python, but it doesn't use any Python-specific features.
import bisect
def binsearch(r, q, i, j): # O(log (j-i))
return bisect.bisect_left(q, r, i, j)
def binfind(q, m, i, j):
while i + 1 < j:
r = m - (q[i] + q[j])
if r < q[i]:
j -= 1
elif r > q[j]:
i += 1
else:
k = binsearch(r, q, i + 1, j - 1) # O(log (j-i))
if not (i < k < j):
return None
elif q[k] == r:
return (i, k, j)
else:
return (
binfind(q, m, i + 1, j)
or
binfind(q, m, i, j - 1)
)
def find_sumof3(q, m):
return binfind(sorted(q), m, 0, len(q) - 1)
Not trying to boast about my programming skills or add redundant stuff here.
Just wanted to provide beginners with an implementation in C++.
Implementation based on the pseudocode provided by Charles Ma at Given an array of numbers, find out if 3 of them add up to 0.
I hope the comments help.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void merge(int originalArray[], int low, int high, int sizeOfOriginalArray){
// Step 4: Merge sorted halves into an auxiliary array
int aux[sizeOfOriginalArray];
int auxArrayIndex, left, right, mid;
auxArrayIndex = low;
mid = (low + high)/2;
right = mid + 1;
left = low;
// choose the smaller of the two values "pointed to" by left, right
// copy that value into auxArray[auxArrayIndex]
// increment either left or right as appropriate
// increment auxArrayIndex
while ((left <= mid) && (right <= high)) {
if (originalArray[left] <= originalArray[right]) {
aux[auxArrayIndex] = originalArray[left];
left++;
auxArrayIndex++;
}else{
aux[auxArrayIndex] = originalArray[right];
right++;
auxArrayIndex++;
}
}
// here when one of the two sorted halves has "run out" of values, but
// there are still some in the other half; copy all the remaining values
// to auxArray
// Note: only 1 of the next 2 loops will actually execute
while (left <= mid) {
aux[auxArrayIndex] = originalArray[left];
left++;
auxArrayIndex++;
}
while (right <= high) {
aux[auxArrayIndex] = originalArray[right];
right++;
auxArrayIndex++;
}
// all values are in auxArray; copy them back into originalArray
int index = low;
while (index <= high) {
originalArray[index] = aux[index];
index++;
}
}
void mergeSortArray(int originalArray[], int low, int high){
int sizeOfOriginalArray = high + 1;
// base case
if (low >= high) {
return;
}
// Step 1: Find the middle of the array (conceptually, divide it in half)
int mid = (low + high)/2;
// Steps 2 and 3: Recursively sort the 2 halves of origianlArray and then merge those
mergeSortArray(originalArray, low, mid);
mergeSortArray(originalArray, mid + 1, high);
merge(originalArray, low, high, sizeOfOriginalArray);
}
//O(n^2) solution without hash tables
//Basically using a sorted array, for each number in an array, you use two pointers, one starting from the number and one starting from the end of the array, check if the sum of the three elements pointed to by the pointers (and the current number) is >, < or == to the targetSum, and advance the pointers accordingly or return true if the targetSum is found.
bool is3SumPossible(int originalArray[], int targetSum, int sizeOfOriginalArray){
int high = sizeOfOriginalArray - 1;
mergeSortArray(originalArray, 0, high);
int temp;
for (int k = 0; k < sizeOfOriginalArray; k++) {
for (int i = k, j = sizeOfOriginalArray-1; i <= j; ) {
temp = originalArray[k] + originalArray[i] + originalArray[j];
if (temp == targetSum) {
return true;
}else if (temp < targetSum){
i++;
}else if (temp > targetSum){
j--;
}
}
}
return false;
}
int main()
{
int arr[] = {2, -5, 10, 9, 8, 7, 3};
int size = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(int);
int targetSum = 5;
//3Sum possible?
bool ans = is3SumPossible(arr, targetSum, size); //size of the array passed as a function parameter because the array itself is passed as a pointer. Hence, it is cummbersome to calculate the size of the array inside is3SumPossible()
if (ans) {
cout<<"Possible";
}else{
cout<<"Not possible";
}
return 0;
}