I was solving problem of insertion of node in a binary tree. I have the following doubts:
1) If we are inserting a node then we should return a pointer pointing to that node as then only we will be able to access the node, right?
2) Then here why are we returning root? We must return root->left or root->right accordingly, where am I wrong?
struct node* insert(struct node* root, int data)
{
if (root == NULL) //If the tree is empty, return a new,single node
return newNode(data);
else
{
//Otherwise, recur down the tree
if (data <= root->data)
root->left = insert(root->left, data);
else
root->right = insert(root->right, data);
return root;
}
}
3) Is this root which the above code returns the changed one from what it was previously due to recursion?
You misunderstand the return value.
The return value of this insert function is a pointer to the subtree that now has data inserted into it. If the passed in root was null, this is a new 1 node tree; if the passed in root is non-null, the return value is the same root.
This makes the recursion a bit simpler. We simply recurse until we run head-on into nullptr in a branch. Then the recursion stops, and the return value sets the parent's left or right node.
To create a brand new tree you type:
node* new_tree = insert(nullptr, 7);
to insert something into an existing tree you type:
existing_tree = insert(existing_tree, 7);
or equivalently
insert(existing_tree, 7);
so long as existing_tree isn't null.
This "double use" of the function (to both create and modify a tree) can confuse, but it makes the specific recursive use a tad less verbose, and makes the "empty tree is a nullptr" and "always do existing_tree = insert(existing_tree, val);" is a rule that makes the empty tree as the null tree work.
This is, however, a very C way of doing things.
A more c++ way of doing things would be:
std::unique_ptr<node> insert(std::unique_ptr<node> root, int data)
{
if (root == nullptr) //If the tree is empty, return a new,single node
return std::make_unique<node>(data);
else
{
//Otherwise, recur down the tree
if (data <= root->data)
root->left = insert(std::move(root->left), data);
else
root->right = insert(std::move(root->right), data);
return std::move(root);
}
}
where the flow of data into and out of the function is more explicit, and we assume node has a constructor that takes data.
This recursive insert should always return the very root node of the tree. Just because you read return root doesn't mean the original function call has finished executing, it just means the n'th recursion has finished. The recursive calls have all been pushed onto the stack and therefore must all be resolved before the original caller receives the returned value.
You can get back to the inserted node by doing a find for the inserted value.
Related
Value of node in *node=*(node->next), if node is the last element in linked list?
Value of node would be NULL or not?
Given a singly linked list consisting of N nodes. The task is to remove duplicates (nodes with duplicate values) from the given list (if exists).
Note: Try not to use extra space. Expected time complexity is O(N). The nodes are arranged in a sorted way.
This solution didn't work for test case 2 2 2 2 2 (five nodes with equal values).
Node *removeDuplicates(Node *root)
{
if(root->next==NULL)
return root;
Node * t1=root;
Node* t2=root->next;
while(t2!=NULL)
{
if(t1->data==t2->data)
{
*t2=*(t2->next);
}
else
{
t1=t1->next;
t2=t2->next;
}
}
return root;
}
This worked:
Node *removeDuplicates(Node *root)
{
if(root->next==NULL)
return root;
Node * t1=root;
Node* t2=root->next;
while(t2!=NULL)
{
if(t1->data==t2->data)
{
if(t2->next==NULL)
{
t1->next=NULL;
t2=NULL;
}
else
{
*t2=*(t2->next);
}
}
else
{
t1=t1->next;
t2=t2->next;
}
}
return root;
}
Normally I wouldn't post the full code for something that is clearly homework but I wasn't sure how to properly articulate all of the points. I also haven't compiled and ran this because I didn't want to create my own Node class.
First we can talk about the algorithm. If your singly linked list is already sorted and NULL terminated then essentially we have a current node pointing to a node in the list and a travel node (nextNode) that walks down the list. The main thing we need to make sure we do is update the pointers to point to the next node once we've found a non-duplicate.
In the code below I've also added NULL checks which is incredibly important. Get in the habit of knowing exactly which state your variables could be in as it is easy to accidentally call a method on a null pointer which would cause the program to crash.
Node* removeDuplicates(Node* root)
{
// Check that root isn't null before checking that its next pointer is also not NULL
if (root == NULL || root->next == NULL)
return root;
// Set up our current node and the travel node
Node* currentNode = root;
Node* nextNode = root->next;
// Until we've reached the end of the singly linked list
while (nextNode != NULL)
{
// Find the next node that isn't a duplicate
// Also check that we don't reach the end of the list
while (nextNode->data == currentNode->data && nextNode != NULL)
nextNode = nextNode.next;
// Update the current node's next pointer to point to the travel node
currentNode->next = nextNode;
// Update the current node to its next for the next iteration
currentNode = nextNode;
// Update the next node being careful to check for NULL
nextNode = nextNode == NULL ? NULL : nextNode->next;
}
return root;
}
This is not the only way to handle this problem. By reorganizing when you do certain checks and associations you can eliminate some of the NULL checks or make the program more clear. This is just one possible solution.
recently I passed a programming interview where I had to create a method that returns the address of a node (belonging to a tree). The method takes an integer value as an argument.
My code worked on a small tree, but when searching a large tree (300,000 nodes) I got an error stating "cannot access address '0x.....'".
What should I do to fix this?
'''
struct Node
{
int value;
Node* left = nullptr;
Node* right = nullptr;
Node* find_node(int);
};
Node* Node::find_node(int v)// The function is working on small trees only
{
if(this->value == v) //comparing the the value inside the root with the function's argument
return this;
else if(this->value > v) //if v is smaller than the node's value, search the next left node
{
if(this->left == nullptr) //checking if the next node on the left exists
return nullptr; //null returned if there is no more nodes
else
return (this->left)->find_node(v); //Call the find_node function recursively on the left node
}
else if(this->value < v) //if v is bigger than the node's value, search the next right node
{
if(this->right == nullptr) //checking if the next node on the left exists
return nullptr; //null returned if there is no more nodes
else
return (this->right)->find_node(v);// Call the find_node function recursively on the right node
}
return nullptr;// If the value is not found
}
'''
Your code needs lots of activation records on the call stack for repetitive calls to find_node(v). And it may lead to overflow of the call stack.
To avoid it, you can use non-recursive versions of binary search that uses a loop instead. For more information, check this link.
I keep getting the following error : Segmentation fault (core dumped) . I found out the line of code that is causing the problem ( marked with a comment inside of the program) . Please tell me why this error is happening and how to fix it.
I've tried to dry run my code (on paper ) and see no logical errors (from my understanding).
I have only recently got into coding and stackoverflow please guide me through how I can further improve my question , as well as my code . Thanks !
class tree
{
struct node // Creates a node for a tree
{
int data;
bool rbit,lbit; // rbit/lbit= defines if right/left child of root is present or not
node *left,*right;
};
public:
node *head,*root;
tree() // constructor initializes root and head
{
root=NULL;
head=createnode(10000);
}
node *createnode(int value)
{// Allocates memory for a node then initializes node with given value and returns that node
node *temp=new node ;
temp->data=value;
temp->lbit=0;
temp->rbit=0;
temp->left=NULL;
temp->right=NULL;
return temp;
}
void insert(node *temp,int value) // Creates binary search tree node by node
{
if(root==NULL) // Checking if tree is empty
{
root=createnode(value); //Root now points to new memory location
head->left=root;
head->lbit=1;
root->left=head;//this line gives the segmentation fault (what i thought before correction)
}
}
void inorder(node *root) // Inorder traversal of tree (this function is logically incorrect)
{
if(root==NULL)
return;
inorder(root->left);
cout<<root->data<<"\t";
inorder(root->right);
}
void getdata()//Accepts data , creates a node through insert() , displays result through inorder()
{
int data;
cout<<"Enter data"<<endl;
cin>>data;
insert(root,data);
inorder(root);
}
/*void inorder(node *root) // Working inorder code
{
if(root->lbit==1)
inorder(root->left);
cout<<root->data<<"\t";
if(root->rbit==1)
inorder(root->right);
}*/
};
int main()
{
tree t; // Tree Object
t.getdata(); // Calling getdata
return 0;
}
I think the comments section largely reflects a miscommunication. It's easy to believe that you are experiencing a crash ON that particular line.
This is not actually the case. Instead what you have done is created a loop in your tree which leads to infinite recursion by the inorder function. That causes a stack overflow which segfaults -- this would have been extremely easy to spot if you had just run your program with a debugger (such as gdb) attached.
temp = createnode(value);
if(root == NULL)
{
root = temp;
head->left = root;
head->lbit = 1;
temp->left = head;
}
Look at the loop you have just created:
head->left points to root
root->left == temp->left, which points to head
An inorder traversal will now visit:
root
head
root
head
root
head
...
Since it never gets to the end of the left-branch, the function never outputs anything before overflowing the stack and crashing.
So no, your code is not logically correct. There's a fundamental design flaw in it. You need to rethink what you are storing in your tree and why.
From the code,
root=temp; //Root now points to temp
head->left=root;
head->lbit=1;
temp->left=head;// this line gives the segmentation fault
root is not pointing to temp. temp(pointer) is assigned to root(pointer).
head's left pointer is root, and temp's left is head (which means root's left is head). so in the function "inorder",
void inorder(node *root) // Inorder traversal of tree
{
if(root==NULL) <<<<<<
return;
inorder(root->left);
cout<<root->data<<"\t";
inorder(root->right);
}
the argument node *root (left) is never NULL and the function never return.
There's not enough information on exactly how this should work (what is node.lbit for example).
The question's insert() function will not work. It's passing in a value which is immediately overwritten (among other issues). There's no explanation of what tree.head is for, so it's ignored. The fields node.lbit and node.rbit look to be superfluous flags of node.left != NULL (similarly for right). These are omitted too. The insert() is also not creating the tree properly.
void insert(int value) // Insert a value into the tree (at branch)
{
// Create a new node to insert
struct node *temp = createnode(value);
if (root == NULL) // Checking if tree is empty
{
root = temp; //Root now points to temp
}
else
{
insertAtBranch(root, temp);
}
}
// recursively find the leaf-node at which to insert the new node
void insertAtBranch(node *branch, node *new_node)
{
// to create a BST, less-than go left
if (new_node->value <= branch->value)
{
if (branch->left == NULL)
branch->left = new_node; // There's no left-branch, so it's the node
else
insertAtBranch(branch->left, new_node); // go deeper to find insertion point
}
else // greater-than go right
{
if (branch->right == NULL)
branch->right = new_node;
else
insertAtBranch(branch->right, new_node);
}
}
Imagine how a binary tree works. New nodes are only ever inserted at the edges. So you look at a given node, and decide if this new-node is less or grater than the one you're looking at (unless the tree is empty, of course).
Say the new-node.value is less than the branch-node.value, you want to branch left. Still with the same node, if it doesn't have a left-branch (node.left == NULL), the new node is the left branch. Otherwise you need to travel down the left-branch and check again.
I would have made node a class, and used a constructor to at least set the default properties and value. But that's not a big deal.
I am trying to write a remove from a binary tree function. I'm kinda lost so I'm trying to handle it case by case, starting with if the value I'm trying to remove is in the root of the BST. To test my function, I am first calling a printcontents() function that prints all the contents of the tree, then I'm calling remove(8) [8 being the value in my root at the moment), and then calling printcontents() again. The way I'm doing it is by trying to replace the root with the "right-most" value in the left side of the tree. When I call printcontents the second time, it prints the new root value correctly, but when it continues printing the contents and reaches the point where that value used to be, it has a random long number "-572......"(although i don't think the number matters) and then my program crashes. I see my root's value is being replaced, but what happens afterwards??
Here's my remove function:
void BinarySearchTree::remove(int value) {
Node* tmp = head;
Node* tmp2 = head;
if (head->data == value && head->left != NULL) {
tmp=tmp->left;
while (tmp->right != NULL) {
tmp=tmp->right;
}
while (tmp2->right->right != NULL) {
tmp2=tmp2->right;
}
if (tmp->left == NULL) {
head->data = tmp->data;
tmp2->right = NULL;
delete tmp;
}
if (tmp->left != NULL) {
head->data = tmp->data;
tmp2->right = tmp->left;
delete tmp;
}
}
It's obviously incomplete, but I'm testing it to only handle the case in which the root is removed and replaced by the right-most value in the left side of the tree (assuming there is a left side, which there is), and I feel like logically it should be working, so perhaps it is when I "delete tmp" that things go wrong. I don't know whether posting my whole program will be necessary, but if so, let me know!
May I suggest that instead of writing out for root, why don't you treat the case as it is dealt with in CLRS : That is two distinct cases.
1. When node to be deleted is a leaf
2. When node to be deleted is non-leaf(in that case replace it with inorder successor/predecessor).
The root deletion obviously falls under the second case. This is just a suggestion.
I created a function to insert data to a BST and it works fine. I used "pass by reference" and the value of "head" is supposed to change after each insertion. However, I found that the "head" is always pointing to the first value that I inserted. Could anyone here explain what causes the "head" to point to the first data I inserted?
void insert(node *&head, int val){
if(head == NULL){
head = newNode(val);
}
else{
if(val <head->data)
insert(head->left,val);
else
insert(head->right,val);
}
}
that is how the function should work, head should never change or you will lose track of the tree root.
as long as you have the head pointing at the root, you have access to the whole tree.
the reason why the value is not changing is, when you are writing insert(head->left,val);
you are not assigning a new value to head, you are just passing the reference to the left child to the next function call.
void insert(node *&head, int val){
if(head == NULL){
head = newNode(val); // when you call insert() with pointer to root
// which is NULL this will create root node
}
then when you add data to the root node (whch is not NULL anymore)
else{ // this will be called and this doesn't create new root node
// but just create nodes at its left or right side
if(val <head->data)
insert(head->left,val);
else
insert(head->right,val);
}
}