Related
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 have a question about this problem.
Question
You are given a sequence a[0], a 1],..., a[N-1], and set of range (l[i], r[i]) (0 <= i <= Q - 1).
Calculate mex(a[l[i]], a[l[i] + 1],..., a[r[i] - 1]) for all (l[i], r[i]).
The function mex is minimum excluded value.
Wikipedia Page of mex function
You can assume that N <= 100000, Q <= 100000, and a[i] <= 100000.
O(N * (r[i] - l[i]) log(r[i] - l[i]) ) algorithm is obvious, but it is not efficient.
My Current Approach
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int N, Q, a[100009], l, r;
int main() {
cin >> N >> Q;
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++) cin >> a[i];
for(int i = 0; i < Q; i++) {
cin >> l >> r;
set<int> s;
for(int j = l; j < r; j++) s.insert(a[i]);
int ret = 0;
while(s.count(ret)) ret++;
cout << ret << endl;
}
return 0;
}
Please tell me how to solve.
EDIT: O(N^2) is slow. Please tell me more fast algorithm.
Here's an O((Q + N) log N) solution:
Let's iterate over all positions in the array from left to right and store the last occurrences for each value in a segment tree (the segment tree should store the minimum in each node).
After adding the i-th number, we can answer all queries with the right border equal to i.
The answer is the smallest value x such that last[x] < l. We can find by going down the segment tree starting from the root (if the minimum in the left child is smaller than l, we go there. Otherwise, we go to the right child).
That's it.
Here is some pseudocode:
tree = new SegmentTree() // A minimum segment tree with -1 in each position
for i = 0 .. n - 1
tree.put(a[i], i)
for all queries with r = i
ans for this query = tree.findFirstSmaller(l)
The find smaller function goes like this:
int findFirstSmaller(node, value)
if node.isLeaf()
return node.position()
if node.leftChild.minimum < value
return findFirstSmaller(node.leftChild, value)
return findFirstSmaller(node.rightChild)
This solution is rather easy to code (all you need is a point update and the findFisrtSmaller function shown above and I'm sure that it's fast enough for the given constraints.
Let's process both our queries and our elements in a left-to-right manner, something like
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {
// 1. Add a[i] to all internal data structures
// 2. Calculate answers for all queries q such that r[q] == i
}
Here we have O(N) iterations of this loop and we want to do both update of the data structure and query the answer for suffix of currently processed part in o(N) time.
Let's use the array contains[i][j] which has 1 if suffix starting at the position i contains number j and 0 otherwise. Consider also that we have calculated prefix sums for each contains[i] separately. In this case we could answer each particular suffix query in O(log N) time using binary search: we should just find the first zero in the corresponding contains[l[i]] array which is exactly the first position where the partial sum is equal to index, and not to index + 1. Unfortunately, such arrays would take O(N^2) space and need O(N^2) time for each update.
So, we have to optimize. Let's build a 2-dimensional range tree with "sum query" and "assignment" range operations. In such tree we can query sum on any sub-rectangle and assign the same value to all the elements of any sub-rectangle in O(log^2 N) time, which allows us to do the update in O(log^2 N) time and queries in O(log^3 N) time, giving the time complexity O(Nlog^2 N + Qlog^3 N). The space complexity O((N + Q)log^2 N) (and the same time for initialization of the arrays) is achieved using lazy initialization.
UP: Let's revise how the query works in range trees with "sum". For 1-dimensional tree (to not make this answer too long), it's something like this:
class Tree
{
int l, r; // begin and end of the interval represented by this vertex
int sum; // already calculated sum
int overriden; // value of override or special constant
Tree *left, *right; // pointers to children
}
// returns sum of the part of this subtree that lies between from and to
int Tree::get(int from, int to)
{
if (from > r || to < l) // no intersection
{
return 0;
}
if (l <= from && to <= r) // whole subtree lies within the interval
{
return sum;
}
if (overriden != NO_OVERRIDE) // should push override to children
{
left->overriden = right->overriden = overriden;
left->sum = right->sum = (r - l) / 2 * overriden;
overriden = NO_OVERRIDE;
}
return left->get(from, to) + right->get(from, to); // split to 2 queries
}
Given that in our particular case all queries to the tree are prefix sum queries, from is always equal to 0, so, one of the calls to children always return a trivial answer (0 or already computed sum). So, instead of doing O(log N) queries to the 2-dimensional tree in the binary search algorithm, we could implement an ad-hoc procedure for search, very similar to this get query. It should first get the value of the left child (which takes O(1) since it's already calculated), then check if the node we're looking for is to the left (this sum is less than number of leafs in the left subtree) and go to the left or to the right based on this information. This approach will further optimize the query to O(log^2 N) time (since it's one tree operation now), giving the resulting complexity of O((N + Q)log^2 N)) both time and space.
Not sure this solution is fast enough for both Q and N up to 10^5, but it may probably be further optimized.
I am trying to get i to read array with numbers and get the smaller number, store it in variable and then compare it with another variable that is again from two other numbers (like 2,-3).
There is something wrong in the way I implement the do while loop. I need the counter 'i' to be updated twice so it goes through I have 2 new variables from 4 compared numbers. When I hard code it n-1,n-2 it works but with the loop it gets stuck at one value.
int i=0;
int closestDistance=0;
int distance=0;
int nextDistance=0;
do
{
distance = std::min(values[n],values[n-i]); //returns the largest
distance=abs(distance);
i++;
nextDistance=std::min(values[n],values[n-i]);
nextDistance=abs(closestDistance); //make it positive then comp
if(distance<nextDistance)
closestDistance=distance;//+temp;
else
closestDistance=nextDistance;
i++;
}
while(i<n);
return closestDistance;
Maybe this:
int i = 0;
int m = 0;
do{
int lMin = std::min(values[i],values[i + 1]);
i += 2;
int rMin = std::min(values[i], values[i + 1]);
m = std::min(lMin,rMin);
i += 2;
}while(i < n);
return m;
I didn't understand what you meant, but this compares values in values 4 at a time to find the minimal. Is that all you needed?
Note that if n is the size of values, this would go out of bounds. n would have to be the size minus 4, leading to odd exceptional cases.
The issue with your may be in the call to abs. Are all the values positive? Are you trying to find the smallest absolute value?
Also, note that using i += 2 twice ensures that you do not repeat any values. This means that you will go over 4 unique values. Your code goes through 3 in each iteration of the loop.
I hope this clarified.
What are you trying to do in following lines.
nextDistance=std::min(values[n],values[n-i]);
nextDistance=abs(closestDistance); //make it positive , then computed
I was trying to solve the problem zig zag sequences on top coder.The time complexity of my code is O(n*n). How can I reduce it to O(n) or O(nlog (n))
Pseudo code or explanation of the algorithm will be really helpful to me
Here is the problem statement.
Problem Statement
A sequence of numbers is called a zig-zag sequence if the differences between successive numbers strictly alternate between positive and negative. The first difference (if one exists) may be either positive or negative. A sequence with fewer than two elements is trivially a zig-zag sequence.
For example, 1,7,4,9,2,5 is a zig-zag sequence because the differences (6,-3,5,-7,3) are alternately positive and negative. In contrast, 1,4,7,2,5 and 1,7,4,5,5 are not zig-zag sequences, the first because its first two differences are positive and the second because its last difference is zero.
Given a sequence of integers, sequence, return the length of the longest subsequence of sequence that is a zig-zag sequence. A subsequence is obtained by deleting some number of elements (possibly zero) from the original sequence, leaving the remaining elements in their original order.
And here is my code
#include <iostream>
#include<vector>
#include<cstring>
#include<cstdio>
using namespace std;
class ZigZag
{
public:
int dp[200][2];
void print(int n)
{
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cout<<dp[i][0]<<endl;
}
}
int longestZigZag(vector<int> a)
{
int n=a.size();
//int dp[n][2];
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
cout<<a[i]<<" "<<"\t";
}
cout<<endl;
memset(dp,sizeof(dp),0);
dp[0][1]=dp[0][0]=1;
for(int i=1;i<n;i++)
{
dp[i][1]=dp[i][0]=1;
for(int j=0;j<i;j++)
{
if(a[i]<a[j])
{
dp[i][0]=max(dp[j][1]+1,dp[i][0]);
}
if(a[j]<a[i])
{
dp[i][1]=max(dp[j][0]+1,dp[i][1]);
}
}
cout<<dp[i][1]<<"\t"<<dp[i][0]<<" "<<i<<endl;
//print(n);
}
cout<<dp[n-1][0]<<endl;
return max(dp[n-1][0],dp[n-1][1]);
}
};
U can do it in O(n) using a greedy approach. Take the first non-repeating number - this is the first number of your zigzag subsequence. Check whether the next number in the array is lesser than or greater than the first number.
Case 1: If lesser, check the next element to that and keep going till you find the least element (ie) the element after that would be greater than the previous element. This would be your second element.
Case 2: If greater, check the next element to that and keep going till you find the greatest element (ie) the element after that would be lesser than the previous element. This would be your second element.
If u have used Case 1 to find the second element, use Case 2 to find the third element or vice-versa. Keep alternating between these two cases till u have no more elements in the original sequence. The resultant numbers u get would form the longest zigzag subsequence.
Eg: { 1, 17, 5, 10, 13, 15, 10, 5, 16, 8 }
The resulting subsequence:
1 -> 1,17 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5 (Case 1) -> 1,17,5,15 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5,15,5 (Case 1) -> 1,17,5,15,5,16 (Case 2) -> 1,17,5,15,5,16,8 (Case 1)
Hence the length of the longest zigzag subsequence is 7.
U can refer to sjelkjd's solution for an implementation of this idea.
As the subsequence should not be necessarily contiguous you can't make it O(n). In a worst case the complexity is O(2^n). Howewer, I did some checks to cut off subtrees as soon as possible.
int maxLenght;
void test(vector<int>& a, int sign, int last, int pos, int currentLenght) {
if (maxLenght < currentLenght) maxLenght = currentLenght;
if (pos >= a.size() || pos >= a.size() + currentLenght - maxLenght) return;
if (last != a[pos] && (last - a[pos] >= 0) != sign)
test(a,!sign,a[pos],pos+1,currentLenght+1);
test(a,sign,last,pos+1,currentLenght);
}
int longestZigZag(vector<int>& a) {
maxLenght = 0;
test(a,0,a[0],1,1);
test(a,!0,a[0],1,1);
return maxLenght;
}
You can use RMQs to remove the inner for-loop. When you find the answer for dp[i][0] and dp[i][1], save it in two RMQ trees - say, RMQ0 and RMQ1 - just like you're doing now with the two rows of the dp array. So, when you calculate dp[i][0], you put the value dp[i][0] on position a[i] in RMQ0, meaning that there is a zig-zag sequence with length dp[i][0] ending increasingly with number a[i].
Then, in order to calculate dp[i + 1][0], you don't have to loop through all the numbers between 0 and i. Instead, you can query RMQ0 for the largest number on position > a[i + 1]. This will give you the longest zig-zag subsequence ending with a number larger than the current one - i.e. the longest one that can be continued decreasingly with the number a[i + 1]. Then you can do the same for RMQ1 for the other half of the zig-zag subsequences.
Since you can implement dynamic RMQ with query complexity of O(log N), this gives you an overall complexity of O(N log N).
You can solve this problem in O(n) time and O(n) extra space.
Algorithm goes as follows.
Store the difference of alternative term in new array of size n-1
Now traverse the new array and just check whether the product of alternative term is less then zero or not.
Increment result accordingly. If while traversing you find that array is product is more than zero in that case you store the result and again start counting for the rest of the element in difference array.
Find the maximum among them store it into result, and return (result+1)
Here is it's implementation in C++
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
int n;
cin>>n;
vector<int> data(n);
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
cin>>data[i];
vector<int> diff(n-1);
for(int i = 1; i < n; i++)
diff[i-1] = data[i]-data[i-1];
int res = 1;
if( n < 2)
cout<<res<<"\n";
else
{
int temp_idx = 0;
for(int i = 1; i < n-1; i++)
{
if(diff[i]*diff[i-1] < 0)
{
temp_idx++;
res++;
}
else
{
res = max(res,temp_idx);
temp_idx = 1;
}
}
cout<<res+1<<"\n";
}
return 0;
}
This is a purely theoretical solution. This is how you would solve it if you would be asked for it in an academical environment, standing next to the chalkboard.
The solution to the problem can be created using dynamic programming:
The subproblem has the form of: if I have an element x of the sequence, what is the longest subsequence that is ending on that element?
Then you can work out your solution using recursive calls, which should look something like this (the directions of the relations might be wrong, I haven't checked it):
S - given sequence (array of integers)
P(i), Q(i) - length of the longest zigzag subsequence on elements S[0 -> i] inclusive (the longest sequence that is correct, where S[i] is the last element)
P(i) = {if i == 0 then 1
{max(Q(j) if A[i] < A[j] for every 0 <= j < i)
Q(i) = {if i == 0 then 0 #yields 0 because we are pedantic about "is zig the first relation, or is it zag?". If we aren't, then this can be a 1.
{max(P(j) if A[i] > A[j] for every 0 <= j < i)
This should be O(n) with the right memoization (storing each output of Q(i) and P(i)), because each subproblem is only computed once: n*|P| + n*|Q|.
These calls return the length of the solution - the actual result can be found by storing "parent pointer" whenever a max value is found, and then traversing backwards on these pointers.
You can avoid the recursion simply by substituting function calls with array lookups: P[i] and Q[i], and using a for loop.
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;
}