EDIT: Reposting; tried the problem a bit more and reposting. I'm genuinely lost at this point.
Have this small graph problem to do for today, was wondering if anyone had any possible solutions/insight for it.
Given two containers, one of which can accommodate a liters of water and the other b liters of water, determine the number of steps required to obtain exactly target liters of water in one of the containers, or -1 if it cannot be done.
At the beginning both containers are empty. The following operations are counted as 'steps':
Empty a contain er
Fill a container
Pour water from one container to the other, without spilling, until one of the containers is either full or empty
To get you started, we provide you a Node and a Graph class. Your job is to implement the function Graph createGraph(int capacity_a, int capacity_b), which builds a graph that contains all the possible container states given the capacity of two containers, and int findSolution(Graph g, int target), which does the graph traversal and returns the minimum steps.
You can modify the structures if you like, or build your own solution without using the provided structures. We will only test your int waterPouring(int a, int b, int target) function.
Hint: Which algorithm guarantees a minimun number of steps to reach a target?
My initial guess was Dijkstra's for the findSolution(), and attempted to translate some pseudo-code, but that didn't work out. I (think) I implemented createGraph correctly. Quite unsure as to where to go/if there's a better way to do this. Here's the code:
Thank you!
waterPouring.cpp:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <queue>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
#define EMPTY 0
class Node {
public:
int a;
int b;
vector<Node *> neighbors;
Node () : a(EMPTY), b(EMPTY), neighbors() {}
Node (const int &a_, const int &b_) : a(a_), b(b_), neighbors() {}
Node (const int &a_, const int &b_, const vector<Node *> &neighbors_) : a(a_), b(b_), neighbors(neighbors_) {}
Node (const Node &tmpNode) : a(tmpNode.a), b(tmpNode.b), neighbors() {}
bool operator==(const Node & b_node)
{
return a == b_node.a && b == b_node.b;
}
Node &operator=(const Node & b_node) {
// WARNING: This operator does not copy the vector
a = b_node.a;
b = b_node.b;
return *this;
}
};
struct Graph {
vector<Node *> nodes;
};
Graph createGraph(int capacity_a, int capacity_b) {
// TODO
Graph g;
Node * capacityNode = new Node(capacity_a, capacity_b);
for (int i = 0; i < g.nodes.size(); i++) {
g.nodes.push_back(capacityNode);
}
return g;
}
int findSolution(Graph g, int target) {
// TODO: returns minimum number of steps to reach target liters of
water (or -1)
for (int& node : g) {
// not sure
}
return -1;
}
int waterPouring(int a, int b, int target) {
// Call createGraph
// Call findSolution
Graph stateMachineGraph = createGraph(a, b);
int steps = findSolution(stateMachineGraph, target);
for (Node *graphNode : stateMachineGraph.nodes)
{
delete graphNode;
}
return steps;
}
If you are ok with a solution without using a graph (provided task description allows it), you can do the following:
Suppose you have two containers with capacities a and b and you need to get c liters in the end.
Suppose you have two containers with capacities a and b and you need to get c liters in the end.
First observe, that every operation you are allowed to perform moves x * a + y * b liters of water. E.g. if you are pouring water from the full second to the full first container you are pouring 1 * b - 1 * a. You can continue to persuade yourself that this is true. This gives us the following equation:
x * a + y * b = c
This is a diophantine equation and it has a solution if gcd(a, b) divides c (see Bézout's identity). You can solve it using extended Euclidean algorithm. If c is less than max(a, b) then either x or y less than zero. Suppose x > 0. Then you need to full a-container x times, pour water from it to b-container emptying it y times.
Example: a = 9, b = 5, c = 6. We have
-1 * 9 + 3 * 5 = 6
So, we need to
0 5 // Full the second (1)
5 0 // Pour to the first
5 5 // Full the second (2)
9 1 // Pour to the first
0 1 // Empty the first (-1)
1 0 // Pour to the first
1 5 // Full the second (3)
6 0 // Pour to the first
But if you really want to use graph, then
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <numeric>
#include <vector>
#include <queue>
struct Node { int a, b; };
class Graph {
public:
std::vector<std::pair<Node, std::vector<int>>> nodes;
static Graph Create(int a, int b) {
auto index = [a,b](int i, int j) {
return i * (b + 1) + j;
};
Graph g;
for (int i = 0; i <= a; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j <= b; ++j) {
std::vector<int> adj;
if (i < a) adj.push_back(index(a, j));
if (i > 0) adj.push_back(index(0, j));
if (j < b) adj.push_back(index(i, b));
if (j > 0) adj.push_back(index(i, 0));
int da = std::min(a - i, j);
int db = std::min(b - j, i);
adj.push_back(index(i + da, j - da));
adj.push_back(index(i - db, j + db));
std::sort(adj.begin(), adj.end());
adj.erase(std::unique(adj.begin(), adj.end()), adj.end());
g.nodes.push_back({ { i,j }, adj });
}
}
return g;
}
// Breadth-first search
std::pair<int, std::vector<int>> Shortest(int target) const {
std::vector<bool> visited(nodes.size(), 0);
std::vector<int> dist(nodes.size(), std::numeric_limits<int>::max());
std::vector<int> prev(nodes.size(), -1);
std::queue<int> q;
int cur_dist = 0;
q.push(0); visited[0] = true; dist[0] = 0;
while (q.size() > 0) {
int index = q.front(); q.pop();
for (auto i : nodes[index].second) {
if (nodes[i].first.a == target || nodes[i].first.b == target) {
int j = index;
std::vector<int> path = { i, index };
while (prev[j] != -1) {
path.push_back(j = prev[j]);
}
return { dist[index] + 1, path };
}
if (!visited[i]) {
q.push(i); visited[i] = true; dist[i] = dist[index] + 1; prev[i] = index;
}
}
}
return { -1, {} };
}
};
int main()
{
const auto g = Graph::Create(9, 5);
const auto p = g.Shortest(6);
for (int i = (int)p.second.size() - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
std::cout << g.nodes[p.second[i]].first.a << " " << g.nodes[p.second[i]].first.b << std::endl;
}
std::cout << std::endl << p.first << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The output is the same:
0 0
0 5
5 0
5 5
9 1
0 1
1 0
1 5
6 0
8
Related
The task (from a Bulgarian judge, click on "Език" to change it to English):
I am given the size of the first (S1 = A) of N corals. The size of every subsequent coral (Si, where i > 1) is calculated using the formula (B*Si-1 + C)%D, where A, B, C and D are some constants. I am told that Nemo is nearby the Kth coral (when the sizes of all corals are sorted in ascending order).
What is the size of the above-mentioned Kth coral ?
I will have T tests and for every one of them I will be given N, K, A, B, C and D and prompted to output the size of the Kth coral.
The requirements:
1 ≤ T ≤ 3
1 ≤ K ≤ N ≤ 107
0 ≤ A < D ≤ 1018
1 ≤ C, B*D ≤ 1018
Memory available is 64 MB
Time limit is 1.9 sec
The problem I have:
For the worst case scenario I will need 107*8B which is 76 MB.
The solution If the memory available was at least 80 MB would be:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
using biggie = long long;
int main() {
int t;
std::cin >> t;
int i, n, k, j;
biggie a, b, c, d;
std::vector<biggie>::iterator it_ans;
for (i = 0; i != t; ++i) {
std::cin >> n >> k >> a >> b >> c >> d;
std::vector<biggie> lut{ a };
lut.reserve(n);
for (j = 1; j != n; ++j) {
lut.emplace_back((b * lut.back() + c) % d);
}
it_ans = std::next(lut.begin(), k - 1);
std::nth_element(lut.begin(), it_ans, lut.end());
std::cout << *it_ans << '\n';
}
return 0;
}
Question 1: How can I approach this CP task given the requirements listed above ?
Question 2: Is it somehow possible to use std::nth_element to solve it since I am not able to store all N elements ? I mean using std::nth_element in a sliding window technique (If this is possible).
# Christian Sloper
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
using biggie = long long;
int main() {
int t;
std::cin >> t;
int i, n, k, j, j_lim;
biggie a, b, c, d, prev, curr;
for (i = 0; i != t; ++i) {
std::cin >> n >> k >> a >> b >> c >> d;
if (k < n - k + 1) {
std::priority_queue<biggie, std::vector<biggie>, std::less<biggie>> q;
q.push(a);
prev = a;
for (j = 1; j != k; ++j) {
curr = (b * prev + c) % d;
q.push(curr);
prev = curr;
}
for (; j != n; ++j) {
curr = (b * prev + c) % d;
if (curr < q.top()) {
q.pop();
q.push(curr);
}
prev = curr;
}
std::cout << q.top() << '\n';
}
else {
std::priority_queue<biggie, std::vector<biggie>, std::greater<biggie>> q;
q.push(a);
prev = a;
for (j = 1, j_lim = n - k + 1; j != j_lim; ++j) {
curr = (b * prev + c) % d;
q.push(curr);
prev = curr;
}
for (; j != n; ++j) {
curr = (b * prev + c) % d;
if (curr > q.top()) {
q.pop();
q.push(curr);
}
prev = curr;
}
std::cout << q.top() << '\n';
}
}
return 0;
}
This gets accepted (Succeeds all 40 tests. Largest time 1.4 seconds, for a test with T=3 and D≤10^9. Largest time for a test with larger D (and thus T=1) is 0.7 seconds.).
#include <iostream>
using biggie = long long;
int main() {
int t;
std::cin >> t;
int i, n, k, j;
biggie a, b, c, d;
for (i = 0; i != t; ++i) {
std::cin >> n >> k >> a >> b >> c >> d;
biggie prefix = 0;
for (int shift = d > 1000000000 ? 40 : 20; shift >= 0; shift -= 20) {
biggie prefix_mask = ((biggie(1) << (40 - shift)) - 1) << (shift + 20);
int count[1 << 20] = {0};
biggie s = a;
int rank = 0;
for (j = 0; j != n; ++j) {
biggie s_vs_prefix = s & prefix_mask;
if (s_vs_prefix < prefix)
++rank;
else if (s_vs_prefix == prefix)
++count[(s >> shift) & ((1 << 20) - 1)];
s = (b * s + c) % d;
}
int i = -1;
while (rank < k)
rank += count[++i];
prefix |= biggie(i) << shift;
}
std::cout << prefix << '\n';
}
return 0;
}
The result is a 60 bits number. I first determine the high 20 bits with one pass through the numbers, then the middle 20 bits in another pass, then the low 20 bits in another.
For the high 20 bits, generate all the numbers and count how often each high 20 bits pattern occurrs. After that, add up the counts until you reach K. The pattern where you reach K, that pattern covers the K-th largest number. In other words, that's the result's high 20 bits.
The middle and low 20 bits are computed similarly, except we take the by then known prefix (the high 20 bits or high+middle 40 bits) into account. As a little optimization, when D is small, I skip computing the high 20 bits. That got me from 2.1 seconds down to 1.4 seconds.
This solution is like user3386109 described, except with bucket size 2^20 instead of 10^6 so I can use bit operations instead of divisions and think of bit patterns instead of ranges.
For the memory constraint you hit:
(B*Si-1 + C)%D
requires only the value (Si-2) before itself. So you can compute them in pairs, to use only 1/2 of total you need. This only needs indexing even values and iterating once for odd values. So you can just use half-length LUT and compute the odd value in-flight. Modern CPUs are fast enough to do extra calculations like these.
std::vector<biggie> lut{ a_i,a_i_2,a_i_4,... };
a_i_3=computeOddFromEven(lut[1]);
You can make a longer stride like 4,8 too. If dataset is large, RAM latency is big. So it's like having checkpoints in whole data search space to balance between memory and core usage. 1000-distance checkpoints would put a lot of cpu cycles into re-calculations but then the array would fit CPU's L2/L1 cache which is not bad. When sorting, the maximum re-calc iteration per element would be n=1000 now. O(1000 x size) maybe it's a big constant but maybe somehow optimizable by compiler if some constants really const?
If CPU performance becomes problem again:
write a compiling function that writes your source code with all the "constant" given by user to a string
compile the code using command-line (assuming target computer has some accessible from command line like g++ from main program)
run it and get results
Compiler should enable more speed/memory optimizations when those are really constant in compile-time rather than depending on std::cin.
If you really need to add a hard-limit to the RAM usage, then implement a simple cache with the backing-store as your heavy computations with brute-force O(N^2) (or O(L x N) with checkpoints every L elements as in first method where L=2 or 4, or ...).
Here's a sample direct-mapped cache with 8M long-long value space:
int main()
{
std::vector<long long> checkpoints = {
a_0, a_16, a_32,...
};
auto cacheReadMissFunction = [&](int key){
// your pure computational algorithm here, helper meant to show variable
long long result = checkpoints[key/16];
for(key - key%16 times)
result = iterate(result);
return result;
};
auto cacheWriteMissFunction = [&](int key, long long value){
/* not useful for your algorithm as it doesn't change behavior per element */
// backing_store[key] = value;
};
// due to special optimizations, size has to be 2^k
int cacheSize = 1024*1024*8;
DirectMappedCache<int, long long> cache(cacheSize,cacheReadMissFunction,cacheWriteMissFunction);
std::cout << cache.get(20)<<std::endl;
return 0;
}
If you use a cache-friendly sorting-algorithm, a direct cache access would make a lot of re-use for nearly all the elements in comparisons if you fill the output buffer/terminal with elements one by one by following something like a bitonic-sort-path (that is known in compile-time). If that doesn't work, then you can try accessing files as a "backing-store" of cache for sorting whole array at once. Is file system prohibited for use? Then the online-compiling method above won't work either.
Implementation of a direct mapped cache (don't forget to call flush() after your algorithm finishes, if you use any cache.set() method):
#ifndef DIRECTMAPPEDCACHE_H_
#define DIRECTMAPPEDCACHE_H_
#include<vector>
#include<functional>
#include<mutex>
#include<iostream>
/* Direct-mapped cache implementation
* Only usable for integer type keys in range [0,maxPositive-1]
*
* CacheKey: type of key (only integers: int, char, size_t)
* CacheValue: type of value that is bound to key (same as above)
*/
template< typename CacheKey, typename CacheValue>
class DirectMappedCache
{
public:
// allocates buffers for numElements number of cache slots/lanes
// readMiss: cache-miss for read operations. User needs to give this function
// to let the cache automatically get data from backing-store
// example: [&](MyClass key){ return redis.get(key); }
// takes a CacheKey as key, returns CacheValue as value
// writeMiss: cache-miss for write operations. User needs to give this function
// to let the cache automatically set data to backing-store
// example: [&](MyClass key, MyAnotherClass value){ redis.set(key,value); }
// takes a CacheKey as key and CacheValue as value
// numElements: has to be integer-power of 2 (e.g. 2,4,8,16,...)
DirectMappedCache(CacheKey numElements,
const std::function<CacheValue(CacheKey)> & readMiss,
const std::function<void(CacheKey,CacheValue)> & writeMiss):size(numElements),sizeM1(numElements-1),loadData(readMiss),saveData(writeMiss)
{
// initialize buffers
for(size_t i=0;i<numElements;i++)
{
valueBuffer.push_back(CacheValue());
isEditedBuffer.push_back(0);
keyBuffer.push_back(CacheKey()-1);// mapping of 0+ allowed
}
}
// get element from cache
// if cache doesn't find it in buffers,
// then cache gets data from backing-store
// then returns the result to user
// then cache is available from RAM on next get/set access with same key
inline
const CacheValue get(const CacheKey & key) noexcept
{
return accessDirect(key,nullptr);
}
// only syntactic difference
inline
const std::vector<CacheValue> getMultiple(const std::vector<CacheKey> & key) noexcept
{
const int n = key.size();
std::vector<CacheValue> result(n);
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
result[i]=accessDirect(key[i],nullptr);
}
return result;
}
// thread-safe but slower version of get()
inline
const CacheValue getThreadSafe(const CacheKey & key) noexcept
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(mut);
return accessDirect(key,nullptr);
}
// set element to cache
// if cache doesn't find it in buffers,
// then cache sets data on just cache
// writing to backing-store only happens when
// another access evicts the cache slot containing this key/value
// or when cache is flushed by flush() method
// then returns the given value back
// then cache is available from RAM on next get/set access with same key
inline
void set(const CacheKey & key, const CacheValue & val) noexcept
{
accessDirect(key,&val,1);
}
// thread-safe but slower version of set()
inline
void setThreadSafe(const CacheKey & key, const CacheValue & val) noexcept
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(mut);
accessDirect(key,&val,1);
}
// use this before closing the backing-store to store the latest bits of data
void flush()
{
try
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(mut);
for (size_t i=0;i<size;i++)
{
if (isEditedBuffer[i] == 1)
{
isEditedBuffer[i]=0;
auto oldKey = keyBuffer[i];
auto oldValue = valueBuffer[i];
saveData(oldKey,oldValue);
}
}
}catch(std::exception &ex){ std::cout<<ex.what()<<std::endl; }
}
// direct mapped access
// opType=0: get
// opType=1: set
CacheValue const accessDirect(const CacheKey & key,const CacheValue * value, const bool opType = 0)
{
// find tag mapped to the key
CacheKey tag = key & sizeM1;
// compare keys
if(keyBuffer[tag] == key)
{
// cache-hit
// "set"
if(opType == 1)
{
isEditedBuffer[tag]=1;
valueBuffer[tag]=*value;
}
// cache hit value
return valueBuffer[tag];
}
else // cache-miss
{
CacheValue oldValue = valueBuffer[tag];
CacheKey oldKey = keyBuffer[tag];
// eviction algorithm start
if(isEditedBuffer[tag] == 1)
{
// if it is "get"
if(opType==0)
{
isEditedBuffer[tag]=0;
}
saveData(oldKey,oldValue);
// "get"
if(opType==0)
{
const CacheValue && loadedData = loadData(key);
valueBuffer[tag]=loadedData;
keyBuffer[tag]=key;
return loadedData;
}
else /* "set" */
{
valueBuffer[tag]=*value;
keyBuffer[tag]=key;
return *value;
}
}
else // not edited
{
// "set"
if(opType == 1)
{
isEditedBuffer[tag]=1;
}
// "get"
if(opType == 0)
{
const CacheValue && loadedData = loadData(key);
valueBuffer[tag]=loadedData;
keyBuffer[tag]=key;
return loadedData;
}
else // "set"
{
valueBuffer[tag]=*value;
keyBuffer[tag]=key;
return *value;
}
}
}
}
private:
const CacheKey size;
const CacheKey sizeM1;
std::mutex mut;
std::vector<CacheValue> valueBuffer;
std::vector<unsigned char> isEditedBuffer;
std::vector<CacheKey> keyBuffer;
const std::function<CacheValue(CacheKey)> loadData;
const std::function<void(CacheKey,CacheValue)> saveData;
};
#endif /* DIRECTMAPPEDCACHE_H_ */
You can solve this problem using a Max-heap.
Insert the first k elements into the max-heap. The largest element of these k will now be at the root.
For each remaining element e:
Compare e to the root.
If e is larger than the root, discard it.
If e is smaller than the root, remove the root and insert e into the heap structure.
After all elements have been processed, the k-th smallest element is at the root.
This method uses O(K) space and O(n log n) time.
There’s an algorithm that people often call LazySelect that I think would be perfect here.
With high probability, we make two passes. In the first pass, we save a random sample of size n much less than N. The answer will be around index (K/N)n in the sorted sample, but due to the randomness, we have to be careful. Save the values a and b at (K/N)n ± r instead, where r is the radius of the window. In the second pass, we save all of the values in [a, b], count the number of values less than a (let it be L), and select the value with index K−L if it’s in the window (otherwise, try again).
The theoretical advice on choosing n and r is fine, but I would be pragmatic here. Choose n so that you use most of the available memory; the bigger the sample, the more informative it is. Choose r fairly large as well, but not quite as aggressively due to the randomness.
C++ code below. On the online judge, it’s faster than Kelly’s (max 1.3 seconds on the T=3 tests, 0.5 on the T=1 tests).
#include <algorithm>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdint>
#include <iostream>
#include <limits>
#include <optional>
#include <random>
#include <vector>
namespace {
class LazySelector {
public:
static constexpr std::int32_t kTargetSampleSize = 1000;
explicit LazySelector() { sample_.reserve(1000000); }
void BeginFirstPass(const std::int32_t n, const std::int32_t k) {
sample_.clear();
mask_ = n / kTargetSampleSize;
mask_ |= mask_ >> 1;
mask_ |= mask_ >> 2;
mask_ |= mask_ >> 4;
mask_ |= mask_ >> 8;
mask_ |= mask_ >> 16;
}
void FirstPass(const std::int64_t value) {
if ((gen_() & mask_) == 0) {
sample_.push_back(value);
}
}
void BeginSecondPass(const std::int32_t n, const std::int32_t k) {
sample_.push_back(std::numeric_limits<std::int64_t>::min());
sample_.push_back(std::numeric_limits<std::int64_t>::max());
const double p = static_cast<double>(sample_.size()) / n;
const double radius = 2 * std::sqrt(sample_.size());
const auto lower =
sample_.begin() + std::clamp<std::int32_t>(std::floor(p * k - radius),
0, sample_.size() - 1);
const auto upper =
sample_.begin() + std::clamp<std::int32_t>(std::ceil(p * k + radius), 0,
sample_.size() - 1);
std::nth_element(sample_.begin(), upper, sample_.end());
std::nth_element(sample_.begin(), lower, upper);
lower_ = *lower;
upper_ = *upper;
sample_.clear();
less_than_lower_ = 0;
equal_to_lower_ = 0;
equal_to_upper_ = 0;
}
void SecondPass(const std::int64_t value) {
if (value < lower_) {
++less_than_lower_;
} else if (upper_ < value) {
} else if (value == lower_) {
++equal_to_lower_;
} else if (value == upper_) {
++equal_to_upper_;
} else {
sample_.push_back(value);
}
}
std::optional<std::int64_t> Select(std::int32_t k) {
if (k < less_than_lower_) {
return std::nullopt;
}
k -= less_than_lower_;
if (k < equal_to_lower_) {
return lower_;
}
k -= equal_to_lower_;
if (k < sample_.size()) {
const auto kth = sample_.begin() + k;
std::nth_element(sample_.begin(), kth, sample_.end());
return *kth;
}
k -= sample_.size();
if (k < equal_to_upper_) {
return upper_;
}
return std::nullopt;
}
private:
std::default_random_engine gen_;
std::vector<std::int64_t> sample_ = {};
std::int32_t mask_ = 0;
std::int64_t lower_ = std::numeric_limits<std::int64_t>::min();
std::int64_t upper_ = std::numeric_limits<std::int64_t>::max();
std::int32_t less_than_lower_ = 0;
std::int32_t equal_to_lower_ = 0;
std::int32_t equal_to_upper_ = 0;
};
} // namespace
int main() {
int t;
std::cin >> t;
for (int i = t; i > 0; --i) {
std::int32_t n;
std::int32_t k;
std::int64_t a;
std::int64_t b;
std::int64_t c;
std::int64_t d;
std::cin >> n >> k >> a >> b >> c >> d;
std::optional<std::int64_t> ans = std::nullopt;
LazySelector selector;
do {
{
selector.BeginFirstPass(n, k);
std::int64_t s = a;
for (std::int32_t j = n; j > 0; --j) {
selector.FirstPass(s);
s = (b * s + c) % d;
}
}
{
selector.BeginSecondPass(n, k);
std::int64_t s = a;
for (std::int32_t j = n; j > 0; --j) {
selector.SecondPass(s);
s = (b * s + c) % d;
}
}
ans = selector.Select(k - 1);
} while (!ans);
std::cout << *ans << '\n';
}
}
is there a way to read inputs from txt file
6
0 1 1
2 3 1
1 2 1
3 0 1
4 0 1
4 5 1
3 4 1
5 3 1
for the part
int V = 6;
Graph g(V);
g.insertEdge(0,1,1);
g.insertEdge(2,3,1);
g.insertEdge(1,2,1);
g.insertEdge(3,0,1);
g.insertEdge(4,0,1);
g.insertEdge(4,5,1);
g.insertEdge(3,4,1);
g.insertEdge(5,3,1);
#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
# define INF 0x3f3f3f3f
// creating a struct for an edge
struct Edge
{
int u, v, wt;
};
class Graph
{
int V;
// adjacency list
list < pair <int, int > >*adjacency;
vector < Edge > edges;
public :
Graph( int V )
{
this->V = V ;
adjacency = new list < pair <int, int > >[V];
}
// declaring all the functions
// inserting an edge
void insertEdge ( int u, int v, int w );
// deleting an edge
void deleteEdge( int u, int v, int w );
// finding minimum path
int minimumPath (int u, int v );
// deleting an edge
void deleteEdge( int u, int v );
// finding min cycles
int FindMinCycle();
};
// inserting an edge
void Graph :: insertEdge ( int u, int v, int w )
{
adjacency[u].push_back( make_pair( v, w ));
adjacency[v].push_back( make_pair( u, w ));
Edge e = { u, v, w };
edges.push_back ( e );
}
// deleting an edge
void Graph :: deleteEdge( int u, int v, int w )
{
adjacency[u].remove(make_pair( v, w ));
adjacency[v].remove(make_pair(u, w ));
}
// finding minimum path function
int Graph :: minimumPath ( int u, int v )
{
// storing vertices
set< pair<int, int> > setds;
// vector for distances
vector<int> dist(V, INF);
/* insert self source at first and initialize its distance as 0 */
setds.insert(make_pair(0, u));
dist[u] = 0;
while (!setds.empty())
{
/* The first vertex in Set is the one with the shortest distance; remove it from Set. */
pair<int, int> tmp = *(setds.begin());
setds.erase(setds.begin());
/* To preserve the vertices sorted distance, vertex label must be put in second of pair (distance must be first item in pair) */
int u = tmp.second;
list< pair<int, int> >::iterator i;
for (i = adjacency[u].begin(); i != adjacency[u].end(); ++i)
{
int v = (*i).first;
int weight = (*i).second;
if (dist[v] > dist[u] + weight)
{
/* If the distance of v is not INF, then it must be in our set; therefore, it should be removed and reinserted with an updated shorter distance. We only remove from Set the vertices for which the distance has been determined. Therefore, they would never see us arrive here. */
if (dist[v] != INF)
setds.erase(setds.find(make_pair(dist[v], v)));
dist[v] = dist[u] + weight;
setds.insert(make_pair(dist[v], v));
}
}
}
return dist[v] ;
}
// finding minimum path function
int Graph :: FindMinCycle ( )
{
int min_cycle = INT_MAX;
int E = edges.size();
for ( int i = 0 ; i < E ; i++ )
{
Edge e = edges[i];
/* Obtain the edge vertices that we currently delete from the graph, and then use Dijkstra's shortest path technique to discover the shortest path between these two vertices. */
deleteEdge( e.u, e.v, e.wt ) ;
int dist = minimumPath( e.u, e.v );
/* If this is the shortest cycle, update min cycle; otherwise, add weight to currently deleted edges to create a cycle. */
min_cycle = min(min_cycle, dist + e.wt);
// add current edge back to the graph
insertEdge( e.u, e.v, e.wt );
}
return min_cycle ;
}
int main()
{
int V = 6;
Graph g(V);
g.insertEdge(0,1,1);
g.insertEdge(2,3,1);
g.insertEdge(1,2,1);
g.insertEdge(3,0,1);
g.insertEdge(4,0,1);
g.insertEdge(4,5,1);
g.insertEdge(3,4,1);
g.insertEdge(5,3,1);
cout << "Minimum weight cycle in the graph is: "<<g.FindMinCycle() << endl;
return 0;
}
Simply use std::ifstream to open the file, and then use operator>> to read the values from it (it will handle skipping all of the whitespace in between the values), eg:
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;
...
int main()
{
int V, u, v, w;
ifstream ifs("filename.txt");
if (!ifs.is_open())
{
cerr << "Cannot open the file" << endl;
return 0;
}
ifs >> V;
Graph g(V);
while (ifs >> u >> v >> w) {
g.insertEdge(u, v, w);
}
cout << "Minimum weight cycle in the graph is: " << g.FindMinCycle() << endl;
return 0;
}
I am attempting an online coding challenge wherein I am to implement a pathfinding algorithm that finds the shortest path between two points on a 2D grid. The code that is submitted is tested against a number of test cases that I, unfortunately, am unable to see, but it will however tell me if my answer for shortest distance is correct or not. My implementation of the A* algorithm returns a correct answer on 2/3 test cases and I cannot seem to figure out what scenario might create an incorrect answer on the third?
I have tried several of my own test cases and have gotten correct answers for all of those and at this point am feeling a little bit lost. There must be something small in my code that I am not seeing that is causing this third case to fail.
More details
The grid is w by h and contains only 1's (passable) and 0's (impassable) with every edge having a cost of 1 and the pathway cannot move diagonally
It all starts with the FindPath function which is to return the length of the shortest path, or -1 if no path is available
pOutBuffer is used to contain the path taken from beginning to end (excluding the starting point). If multiple paths are available then any will be accepted. So it isnt looking for one path in particular
I know the issue is not the result of time or memory inefficiency. I has to be either the distance returned is incorrect, or the values in pOutBuffer are incorrect.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I am just about out of ideas as to what could possibly be wrong here. Thank you.
#include <set>
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
#include <queue>
#include <unordered_map>
inline int PositionToIndex(const int x, const int y, const int w, const int h)
{
return x >= 0 && y >= 0 && x < w && y < h? x + y * w : -1;
}
inline std::pair<int, int> IndexToPosition(const int i, const int w)
{
return std::make_pair<int, int>(i % w, i / w);
}
inline int Heuristic(const int xa, const int ya, const int xb, const int yb)
{
return std::abs(xa - xb) + std::abs(ya - yb);
}
class Map
{
public:
const unsigned char* mapData;
int width, height;
const std::vector<std::pair<int, int>> directions = { {1,0}, {0,1}, {-1,0}, {0,-1} };
Map(const unsigned char* pMap, const int nMapWidth, const int nMapHeight)
{
mapData = pMap;
width = nMapWidth;
height = nMapHeight;
}
inline bool IsWithinBounds(const int x, const int y)
{
return x >= 0 && y >= 0 && x < width && y < height;
}
inline bool IsPassable(const int i)
{
return mapData[i] == char(1);
}
std::vector<int> GetNeighbours(const int i)
{
std::vector<int> ret;
int x, y, neighbourIndex;
std::tie(x, y) = IndexToPosition(i, width);
for (auto pair : directions)
{
neighbourIndex = PositionToIndex(x + pair.first, y + pair.second, width, height);
if (neighbourIndex >= 0 && IsWithinBounds(x + pair.first, y + pair.second) && IsPassable(neighbourIndex))
ret.push_back(neighbourIndex);
}
return ret;
}
};
int FindPath(const int nStartX, const int nStartY,
const int nTargetX, const int nTargetY,
const unsigned char* pMap, const int nMapWidth, const int nMapHeight,
int* pOutBuffer, const int nOutBufferSize)
{
int ret = -1;
// create the map
Map map(pMap, nMapWidth, nMapHeight);
// get start and end indecies
int targetIndex = PositionToIndex(nTargetX, nTargetY, nMapWidth, nMapHeight);
int startIndex = PositionToIndex(nStartX, nStartY, nMapWidth, nMapHeight);
// if start and end are same exit
if (targetIndex == startIndex) return 0;
std::unordered_map<int, int> pathway = { {startIndex, startIndex} };
std::unordered_map<int, int> distances = { {startIndex, 0} };
// queue for indecies to process
typedef std::pair<int, int> WeightedLocation;
std::priority_queue<WeightedLocation, std::vector<WeightedLocation>, std::greater<WeightedLocation>> queue;
queue.emplace(0, startIndex);
while (!queue.empty())
{
int currentWeight, currentIndex;
std::tie(currentWeight, currentIndex) = queue.top();
queue.pop();
if (currentIndex == targetIndex)
break;
int newDistance = distances[currentIndex] + 1;
for (int n : map.GetNeighbours(currentIndex))
{
if (distances.find(n) == distances.end() || newDistance < distances[n])
{
distances[n] = newDistance;
int weight = newDistance + Heuristic(n % nMapWidth, n / nMapWidth, nTargetX, nTargetY);
queue.emplace(weight, n);
pathway[n] = currentIndex;
}
}
}
if (pathway.find(targetIndex) != pathway.end())
{
int current = targetIndex;
while (current != startIndex)
{
int outIndex = distances[current] - 1;
pOutBuffer[distances[current] - 1] = current;
current = pathway[current];
}
ret = distances[targetIndex];
}
return ret;
}
I'm trying to solve this problem:
Given an a×b rectangle, your task is to cut it into squares. On each move you can select a rectangle and cut it into two rectangles in such a way that all side lengths remain integers. What is the minimum possible number of moves?
My logic is that the minimum number of cuts means the minimum number of squares; I don't know if it's the correct approach.
I see which side is smaller, Now I know I need to cut bigSide/SmallSide of cuts to have squares of smallSide sides, then I am left with SmallSide and bigSide%smallSide. Then I go on till any side is 0 or both are equal.
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int a, b; std::cin >> a >> b; // sides of the rectangle
int res = 0;
while (a != 0 && b != 0) {
if (a > b) {
if (a % b == 0)
res += a / b - 1;
else
res += a / b;
a = a % b;
} else if (b > a) {
if (b % a == 0)
res += b / a - 1;
else
res += b / a;
b = b % a;
} else {
break;
}
}
std::cout << res;
return 0;
}
When the input is 404 288, my code gives 18, but the right answer is actually 10.
What am I doing wrong?
It seems clear to me that the problem defines each move as cutting a rectangle to two rectangles along the integer lines, and then asks for the minimum number of such cuts. As you can see there is a clear recursive nature in this problem. Once you cut a rectangle to two parts, you can recurse and cut each of them into squares with minimum moves and then sum up the answers. The problem is that the recursion might lead to exponential time complexity which leads us directly do dynamic programming. You have to use memoization to solve it efficiently (worst case time O(a*b*(a+b))) Here is what I'd suggest doing:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
int min_cuts(int a, int b, vector<vector<int> > &mem) {
int min = mem[a][b];
// if already computed, just return the value
if (min > 0)
return min;
// if one side is divisible by the other,
// store min-cuts in 'min'
if (a%b==0)
min= a/b-1;
else if (b%a==0)
min= b/a -1;
// if there's no obvious solution, recurse
else {
// recurse on hight
for (int i=1; i<a/2; i++) {
int m = min_cuts(i,b, mem);
int n = min_cuts(a-i, b, mem);
if (min<0 or m+n+1<min)
min = m + n + 1;
}
// recurse on width
for (int j=1; j<b/2; j++) {
int m = min_cuts(a,j, mem);
int n = min_cuts(a, b-j, mem);
if (min<0 or m+n+1<min)
min = m + n + 1;
}
}
mem[a][b] = min;
return min;
}
int main() {
int a, b; std::cin >> a >> b; // sides of the rectangle
// -1 means the problem is not solved yet,
vector<vector<int> > mem(a+1, vector<int>(b+1, -1));
int res = min_cuts(a,b,mem);
std::cout << res << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The reason the foor loops go up until a/2 and b/2 is that cuting a paper is symmetric: if you cut along vertical line i it is the same as cutting along the line a-i if you flip the paper vertically. This is a little optimization hack that reduces complexity by a factor of 4 overall.
Another little hack is that by knowing that the problem is that if you transpose the paper the result is the same, meaining min_cuts(a,b)=min_cuts(b,a) you can potentially reduce computations by half. But any major further improvement, say a greedy algorithm would take more thinking (if there exists one at all).
The current answer is a good start, especially the suggestions to use memoization or dynamic programming, and potentially efficient enough.
Obviously, all answerers used the first with a sub-par data-structure. Vector-of-Vector has much space and performance overhead, using a (strict) lower triangular matrix stored in an array is much more efficient.
Using the maximum value as sentinel (easier with unsigned) would also reduce complexity.
Finally, let's move to dynamic programming instead of memoization to simplify and get even more efficient:
#include <algorithm>
#include <memory>
#include <utility>
constexpr unsigned min_cuts(unsigned a, unsigned b) {
if (a < b)
std::swap(a, b);
if (a == b || !b)
return 0;
const auto triangle = [](std::size_t n) { return n * (n - 1) / 2; };
const auto p = std::make_unique_for_overwrite<unsigned[]>(triangle(a));
/* const! */ unsigned zero = 0;
const auto f = [&](auto a, auto b) -> auto& {
if (a < b)
std::swap(a, b);
return a == b ? zero : p[triangle(a - 1) + b - 1];
};
for (auto i = 1u; i <= a; ++i) {
for (auto j = 1u; j < i; ++j) {
auto r = -1u;
for (auto k = i / 2; k; --k)
r = std::min(r, f(k, j) + f(i - k, j));
for (auto k = j / 2; k; --k)
r = std::min(r, f(k, i) + f(j - k, i));
f(i, j) = ++r;
}
}
return f(a, b);
}
I have a dynamic programming algorithm for Knapsack in C++. When it was implemented as a function and accessing variables passed into it, it was taking 22 seconds to run on a particular instance. When I made it the member function of my class KnapsackInstance and had it use variables that were data members of that class, it started taking 37 seconds to run. As far as I know, only accessing member functions goes through the vtable so I'm at a loss to explain what might be happening.
Here's the code of the function
int KnapsackInstance::dpSolve() {
int i; // Current item number
int d; // Current weight
int * tbl; // Array of size weightLeft
int toret;
tbl = new int[weightLeft+1];
if (!tbl) return -1;
memset(tbl, 0, (weightLeft+1)*sizeof(int));
for (i = 1; i <= numItems; ++i) {
for (d = weightLeft; d >= 0; --d) {
if (profitsWeights.at(i-1).second <= d) {
/* Either add this item or don't */
int v1 = profitsWeights.at(i-1).first + tbl[d-profitsWeights.at(i-1).second];
int v2 = tbl[d];
tbl[d] = (v1 < v2 ? v2 : v1);
}
}
}
toret = tbl[weightLeft];
delete[] tbl;
return toret;
}
tbl is one column of the DP table. We start from the first column and go on until the last column. The profitsWeights variable is a vector of pairs, the first element of which is the profit and the second the weight. toret is the value to return.
Here is the code of the original function :-
int dpSolve(vector<pair<int, int> > profitsWeights, int weightLeft, int numItems) {
int i; // Current item number
int d; // Current weight
int * tbl; // Array of size weightLeft
int toret;
tbl = new int[weightLeft+1];
if (!tbl) return -1;
memset(tbl, 0, (weightLeft+1)*sizeof(int));
for (i = 1; i <= numItems; ++i) {
for (d = weightLeft; d >= 0; --d) {
if (profitsWeights.at(i-1).second <= d) {
/* Either add this item or don't */
int v1 = profitsWeights.at(i-1).first + tbl[d-profitsWeights.at(i-1).second];
int v2 = tbl[d];
tbl[d] = (v1 < v2 ? v2 : v1);
}
}
}
toret = tbl[weightLeft];
delete[] tbl;
return toret;
}
This was run on Debian Lenny with g++-4.3.2 and -O3 -DNDEBUG turned on
Thanks
In a typical implementation, a member function receives a pointer to the instance data as a hidden parameter (this). As such, access to member data is normally via a pointer, which may account for the slow-down you're seeing.
On the other hand, it's hard to do more than guess with only one version of the code to look at.
After looking at both pieces of code, I think I'd write the member function more like this:
int KnapsackInstance::dpSolve() {
std::vector<int> tbl(weightLeft+1, 0);
std::vector<pair<int, int> > weights(profitWeights);
int v1;
for (int i = 0; i <numItems; ++i)
for (int d = weightLeft; d >= 0; --d)
if ((weights[i+1].second <= d) &&
((v1 = weights[i].first + tbl[d-weights[i-1].second])>tbl[d]))
tbl[d] = v1;
return tbl[weightLeft];
}