Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
A sequence of integers is a one- sequence if the difference between any two consecutive numbers in this sequence is -1 or 1 and its first element is 0.
More precisely: a1, a2, ..., an is a one-sequence if:
For any k (1 ≤ k < n): |a[k] - a[k+1]|=1,
a[1]=0
Given n and s ─ sum of all elements in a. W need to construct a one-sequence with the given parameters.
Like If n=8 and s=4 then one of such sequence is [0 1 2 1 0 -1 0 1].
Note if for given n and s we cant form such sequence than also we need to tell that its not possible.Otherwise we need to tell any of such one sequence.How to do this problem Please help.
Here's another take on aioobe's algorithm, with a formal proof of correctness.
Given a sequence a(k), define the difference sequence d(k) = a(k+1) - a(k) and observe that a(1) + a(2) + ... + a(n) = (n-1)d(1) + (n-2)d(2) + ... + 1d(n-1).
Theorem: for parameters n and s, there exists a length-n one-sequence summing to s if and only if (1) n(n-1)/2 mod 2 = s mod 2 and (2) |s| ≤ n(n-1)/2.
Proof: by induction on n. The base case, n = 1, is trivial. Inductively, since d(k) ∈ {±1}, we observe that both (1) and (2) are necessary conditions, as n-1 + n-2 + ... + 1 = n(n-1)/2 and -1 mod 2 = 1 mod 2. Conversely, assume both (1) and (2). If s ≥ 0, then construct a length-(n-1) sequence summing to s - (n-1). If s < 0, then construct a length-(n-1) sequence summing to s + (n-1). Both (1) and (2) are satisfied for these constructions (some tedious case analysis omitted), so it follows from the inductive hypothesis that they succeed. Increase/decrease the elements of this sequence by one depending on whether s ≥ 0/s < 0 and put 0 at the beginning.
Since the proof of the theorem is constructive, we can implement it in Python.
def oneseq(n, s):
assert isinstance(n, int)
assert isinstance(s, int)
nchoose2 = n*(n-1)//2
abss = abs(s)
if n < 1 or abss%2 != nchoose2%2 or abss > nchoose2: return None
a = [0]
for k in range(n-1, 0, -1): # n-1, n-2, ..., 1
d = 1 if s >= 0 else -1
a.append(a[-1] + d) # a[-1] equivalent to a[len(a) - 1]
s -= k*d
return a
First, to decide if it's possible to solve or not can be done up front. Since you go either +1 or -1 in each step, you'll go from even, to odd, to even, to odd... So with an odd value for n you'll only be able to reach an even number, and for an even value of n you'll only be able to reach an odd number. The reachable range is simple as well: ±(1+2+3+...+n).
Second, if you draw the "decision tree" on whether to go up (+1) or down (-1) in each step, and draw the accumulated sum in each node, you'll see that you can do a kind of binary search to find the sum at one of the leaves in the tree.
You go +1 if you're about to undershoot, and go -1 if you're about to overshoot. The tricky part is to figure out if you're going to undershoot/overshoot. Your current "state" should be computed by
"what I have so far" + "what I'll get for free by staying at this level for the rest of the array".
What you have "for free by staying at this level" is stepsLeft * previousValue.
Here's some pseudo code.
solve(stepsLeft, prev, acc) {
if stepsLeft == 0, return empty list // base case
ifIStayHere = acc + prev*stepsLeft
step = ifIstayHere > s ? prev-1 : prev+1
return [step] concatenated by solve(stepsLeft-1, step, acc+step)
}
Note that this solution does not include the initial 0, so call it with stepsLeft = n-1.
As you can see, it's θ(n) and it works for all cases I've tested. (Implemented it in Java.)
Related
I'm doing a problem that says that we have to get from one number, n, to another, m, in as few steps as possible, where each "step" can be 1) doubling, or 2) subtracting one. The natural approach is two construct a binary tree and run BFS since we are given that n, m are bounded by 0 ≤ n, m ≤ 104 and so the tree doesn't get that big. However, I ran into a stunningly short solution, and have no idea why it works. It basically goes from m … n instead, halving or adding one as necessary to decrease m until it is less than n, and then just adding to get up to n. Here is the code:
while(n<m){
if (m%2) m++;
else m /= 2;
count++;
}
count = count + n - m;
return count;
Is it obvious why this is necessarily the shortest path? I get that going from m … n is natural because n is lower bounded by zero and so the tree becomes more "finite" in some sense, but this method of modified halving until you get below the number, then adding up until you reach it, doesn't seem like it should necessarily always return the correct answer, yet it does. Why, and how might I have recognized this approach from the get-go?
You only have 2 available operations:
double n
subtract 1 from n
That means the only way to go up is to double and the only way to go down is to subtract 1.
If m is an even number, then you can land on it by doubling n when 2*n = m. Otherwise, you will have to subtract 1 as well (if 2*n = m + 1 then you will have to double n and then subtract 1).
If doubling n lands too far above m then you will have to subtract twice as many times than if you used the subtraction before doubling n.
example:
n = 12 and m = 20.
You can either double n and then subtract 4 times as in 12*2 -4 = 20. - 5 steps
Or you can subtract twice and then double n as in (12-2)*2 = 20. - 3 steps
You might be wondering 'How should I pick between doubling or subtracting when n < m/2?'.
The idea is to use a reccurence-based approach. You know that you want n to reach a value of v such as v = m/2 or v = (m+1)/2. In other words you want n to reach v... and the shortest way to do that is to reach a value v' such as v' = v/2 or v' = (v+1)/2 and so on.
example:
n = 2 and m = 21.
You want n to reach (21+1)/2 = 11 which means you want to reach (11+1)/2 = 6 and thus to reach 6/2=3 and thus to reach (3+1)/2 = 2.
Since n=2 you now know that the shortest path is: (((n*2-1)*2)*2-1)*2-1.
other example:
n = 14 and m = 22.
You want n to reach 22/2 = 11.
n is already above 11 so the shortest path is : (n-1-1-1)*2.
From here, you can see that the shortest path can be deduced without a binary tree.
On top of that, you have to think starting from m and going down to an obvious path for n. This implies that it will be easier to code an algorithm going from m to n than the opposite.
Using recurrence, this function achieves the same result:
function shortest(n, m) {
if (n >= m) return n-m; //only way to go down
if(m%2==0) return 1 + shortest(n, m/2); //if m is even => optimum goal is m/2
else return 2 + shortest(n, (m+1)/2);//else optimum goal is (m+1)/2 which necessitates 2 operations
}
This problem was asked to me in Amazon interview -
Given a array of positive integers, you have to find the smallest positive integer that can not be formed from the sum of numbers from array.
Example:
Array:[4 13 2 3 1]
result= 11 { Since 11 was smallest positive number which can not be formed from the given array elements }
What i did was :
sorted the array
calculated the prefix sum
Treverse the sum array and check if next element is less than 1
greater than sum i.e. A[j]<=(sum+1). If not so then answer would
be sum+1
But this was nlog(n) solution.
Interviewer was not satisfied with this and asked a solution in less than O(n log n) time.
There's a beautiful algorithm for solving this problem in time O(n + Sort), where Sort is the amount of time required to sort the input array.
The idea behind the algorithm is to sort the array and then ask the following question: what is the smallest positive integer you cannot make using the first k elements of the array? You then scan forward through the array from left to right, updating your answer to this question, until you find the smallest number you can't make.
Here's how it works. Initially, the smallest number you can't make is 1. Then, going from left to right, do the following:
If the current number is bigger than the smallest number you can't make so far, then you know the smallest number you can't make - it's the one you've got recorded, and you're done.
Otherwise, the current number is less than or equal to the smallest number you can't make. The claim is that you can indeed make this number. Right now, you know the smallest number you can't make with the first k elements of the array (call it candidate) and are now looking at value A[k]. The number candidate - A[k] therefore must be some number that you can indeed make with the first k elements of the array, since otherwise candidate - A[k] would be a smaller number than the smallest number you allegedly can't make with the first k numbers in the array. Moreover, you can make any number in the range candidate to candidate + A[k], inclusive, because you can start with any number in the range from 1 to A[k], inclusive, and then add candidate - 1 to it. Therefore, set candidate to candidate + A[k] and increment k.
In pseudocode:
Sort(A)
candidate = 1
for i from 1 to length(A):
if A[i] > candidate: return candidate
else: candidate = candidate + A[i]
return candidate
Here's a test run on [4, 13, 2, 1, 3]. Sort the array to get [1, 2, 3, 4, 13]. Then, set candidate to 1. We then do the following:
A[1] = 1, candidate = 1:
A[1] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[1] = 2
A[2] = 2, candidate = 2:
A[2] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[2] = 4
A[3] = 3, candidate = 4:
A[3] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[3] = 7
A[4] = 4, candidate = 7:
A[4] ≤ candidate, so set candidate = candidate + A[4] = 11
A[5] = 13, candidate = 11:
A[5] > candidate, so return candidate (11).
So the answer is 11.
The runtime here is O(n + Sort) because outside of sorting, the runtime is O(n). You can clearly sort in O(n log n) time using heapsort, and if you know some upper bound on the numbers you can sort in time O(n log U) (where U is the maximum possible number) by using radix sort. If U is a fixed constant, (say, 109), then radix sort runs in time O(n) and this entire algorithm then runs in time O(n) as well.
Hope this helps!
Use bitvectors to accomplish this in linear time.
Start with an empty bitvector b. Then for each element k in your array, do this:
b = b | b << k | 2^(k-1)
To be clear, the i'th element is set to 1 to represent the number i, and | k is setting the k-th element to 1.
After you finish processing the array, the index of the first zero in b is your answer (counting from the right, starting at 1).
b=0
process 4: b = b | b<<4 | 1000 = 1000
process 13: b = b | b<<13 | 1000000000000 = 10001000000001000
process 2: b = b | b<<2 | 10 = 1010101000000101010
process 3: b = b | b<<3 | 100 = 1011111101000101111110
process 1: b = b | b<<1 | 1 = 11111111111001111111111
First zero: position 11.
Consider all integers in interval [2i .. 2i+1 - 1]. And suppose all integers below 2i can be formed from sum of numbers from given array. Also suppose that we already know C, which is sum of all numbers below 2i. If C >= 2i+1 - 1, every number in this interval may be represented as sum of given numbers. Otherwise we could check if interval [2i .. C + 1] contains any number from given array. And if there is no such number, C + 1 is what we searched for.
Here is a sketch of an algorithm:
For each input number, determine to which interval it belongs, and update corresponding sum: S[int_log(x)] += x.
Compute prefix sum for array S: foreach i: C[i] = C[i-1] + S[i].
Filter array C to keep only entries with values lower than next power of 2.
Scan input array once more and notice which of the intervals [2i .. C + 1] contain at least one input number: i = int_log(x) - 1; B[i] |= (x <= C[i] + 1).
Find first interval that is not filtered out on step #3 and corresponding element of B[] not set on step #4.
If it is not obvious why we can apply step 3, here is the proof. Choose any number between 2i and C, then sequentially subtract from it all the numbers below 2i in decreasing order. Eventually we get either some number less than the last subtracted number or zero. If the result is zero, just add together all the subtracted numbers and we have the representation of chosen number. If the result is non-zero and less than the last subtracted number, this result is also less than 2i, so it is "representable" and none of the subtracted numbers are used for its representation. When we add these subtracted numbers back, we have the representation of chosen number. This also suggests that instead of filtering intervals one by one we could skip several intervals at once by jumping directly to int_log of C.
Time complexity is determined by function int_log(), which is integer logarithm or index of the highest set bit in the number. If our instruction set contains integer logarithm or any its equivalent (count leading zeros, or tricks with floating point numbers), then complexity is O(n). Otherwise we could use some bit hacking to implement int_log() in O(log log U) and obtain O(n * log log U) time complexity. (Here U is largest number in the array).
If step 1 (in addition to updating the sum) will also update minimum value in given range, step 4 is not needed anymore. We could just compare C[i] to Min[i+1]. This means we need only single pass over input array. Or we could apply this algorithm not to array but to a stream of numbers.
Several examples:
Input: [ 4 13 2 3 1] [ 1 2 3 9] [ 1 1 2 9]
int_log: 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 3
int_log: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
S: 1 5 4 13 1 5 0 9 2 2 0 9
C: 1 6 10 23 1 6 6 15 2 4 4 13
filtered(C): n n n n n n n n n n n n
number in
[2^i..C+1]: 2 4 - 2 - - 2 - -
C+1: 11 7 5
For multi-precision input numbers this approach needs O(n * log M) time and O(log M) space. Where M is largest number in the array. The same time is needed just to read all the numbers (and in the worst case we need every bit of them).
Still this result may be improved to O(n * log R) where R is the value found by this algorithm (actually, the output-sensitive variant of it). The only modification needed for this optimization is instead of processing whole numbers at once, process them digit-by-digit: first pass processes the low order bits of each number (like bits 0..63), second pass - next bits (like 64..127), etc. We could ignore all higher-order bits after result is found. Also this decreases space requirements to O(K) numbers, where K is number of bits in machine word.
If you sort the array, it will work for you. Counting sort could've done it in O(n), but if you think in a practically large scenario, range can be pretty high.
Quicksort O(n*logn) will do the work for you:
def smallestPositiveInteger(self, array):
candidate = 1
n = len(array)
array = sorted(array)
for i in range(0, n):
if array[i] <= candidate:
candidate += array[i]
else:
break
return candidate
I was trying to solve this problem from hacker rank I tried the brute fore solution but it doesnt seem to work. Can some one gimme an idea to solve this problem efficiently.
https://www.hackerrank.com/contests/sep13/challenges/sherlock-puzzle
Given a binary string (S) which contains ‘0’s and ‘1’s and an integer K,
find the length (L) of the longest contiguous subsequence of (S * K) such that twice the number of zeroes is <= thrice the number of ones (2 * #0s <= 3 * #1s) in that sequence.
S * K is defined as follows: S * 1 = S
S * K = S + S * (K - 1)
Input Format
The first (and only) line contains an integer K and the binary string S separated by a single space.
Constraints
1 <= |S| <= 1,000,000
1 <= K <= 1,000,000
Output Format
A single integer L - the answer to the test case
Here's a hint:
Let's first suppose K = 1 and that S looks like (using a dot for 0):
..1...11...11.....111111....111....
e f b a c d
The key is to note that if the longest acceptable sequence contains a 1 it will also contain any adjacent ones. For example, if the longest sequence contains the 1 at a, it will also contain all of the ones between b and c (inclusive).
So you only have to analyze the sequence at the points where the blocks of ones are.
The main question is: if you start at a certain block of ones, can you make it to the next block of ones? For instance, if you start at e you can make it to the block at f but not to b. If you start at b you can make it to the block at d, etc.
Then generalize the analysis for K > 1.
Brute force obviously won't work since it's O((n * k) ** 2). I will use python style list comprehensions in this answer. You'll need an array t = [3 if el == "1" else - 2 for el in S]. Now if you use the p[i] = t[0] + ... + t[i] array you can see that in the k == 1 case you are basically looking for a pair (i, j), i < j such that p[j] - (p[i - 1] if i != 0 else 0) >= 0 is true and j - i is maximal among
these pairs. Now for each i in 0..n-1 you have to find find it's j pair such that the above is maximal. This can be done in O(log n) for a specific i so this gives and O(n log n) solution for the k == 1 case. This can be extended to an O(n log n) solution for the general case(there is a trick to find the largest block that can be covered). Also there is an O(n) solution to this problem but you need to further examine the p sequence for that. I don't suggest to write a solution in a scripting language though. Even the O(n) solution times out in python...
Given the number N, write a program that computes the numbers E1, E2, ...En with the following properties:
1) N = E1 + E2 + ... + En;
2) E1 * E2 * ... En is maximum.
3) E1..En, are integers. No negative values :)
How would you do that ? I have a solution based on divide et impera but i want to check if is optimal.
Example: N=10
5,5 S=10,P=25
3,2,3,2 S=10,P=36
No need for an algorithm, mathematic intuition can do it on its own:
Step 1: prove that a result set with numbers higher than 3 is at most as good as a result set with only 3's and 2's
Given any number x in your result set, one might consider whether it would be better to divide it into two numbers.
The sum should still be x.
When x is even, The maximum for t (x - t) is reached when t = x/2 , and except for the special case x = 2, then it is greater than x, and for the special case x = 4, equal to x (see note 1).
When x is odd, The maximum for t (x - t) is reached when t = (x ± 1)/2.
What does this show? Only that you should only have 3's and 2's in your final set, because otherwise it is suboptimal (or equivalent to an optimal set).
Step 2: you should have as many 3's as possible
Now, as 3² > 2³, you should have as many 3's as possible as long as the remainder is not 1.
Conclusion: for every N >= 3:
If N = 0 mod 3, then the result set is only 3's
If N = 1 mod 3, then the result set has one pair of 2's (or a 4) and the rest is 3's
If N = 2 mod 3, then the result set has one 2 and the rest is 3's
Please correct this post. The times when I was writing well-structured mathematical proofs is far away...
Note 1: (2,4) is the only pair of distinct integers such that x^y = y^x. You can prove that with:
x^y = y^x
y ln(x) = x ln(y)
ln(x)/x = ln(y) / y
and the function ln(t)/t is strictly decreasing after its global maximum, reached between 2 and 3, so if you want two distinct integers such that ln(x)/x = ln(y)/y, one of them must be lower or equal to 2. From that you can infer that only (2,4) works
This is not a complete solution, but might help.
First off note that if you fix n, and two of the terms E_i and E_j differ by more than one (for example 3 and 8), then you can do better by "equalizing" them as much as possible, i.e., if the number p = E_i + E_j is even, you do better both terms by p/2. If p is odd, you do better by replacing them with p/2 and p/2+1 (where / is integer division).
That said, then if you knew what the optimal number of terms, n, was, you'd be done: let all E_i's equal N/n and N/n+1 (again integer division), so that their sum is still N (this is now a straightforward problem).
So the question now is what is the optimal n. Suppose for the moment that you are allowed to use real numbers. Then the solution would be N/n for each term and you could write the product as (N/n)^n. If you differentiate this with respect to n and find its root you find that n should be equal to N/e (where e is the Neper number, also known as Euler's number, e = 2.71828....). Therefore, I'd look for a solution where either n = floor(N/e) or n = floor(N/e)+1, and then choose all the E_i's equal to either N/n or N/n+1, as above.
Hope that helps.
The Online Encycolpedia of Integer Sequences gives a recurrence relation for the solution to this problem.
I'll leave it up to someone else to compare complexities. Not sure I can figure out the complexity of OP's method.
An algorithm which will take two positive numbers N and K and calculate the biggest possible number we can get by transforming N into another number via removing K digits from N.
For ex, let say we have N=12345 and K=3 so the biggest possible number we can get by removing 3 digits from N is 45 (other transformations would be 12, 15, 35 but 45 is the biggest). Also you cannot change the order of the digits in N (so 54 is NOT a solution). Another example would be N=66621542 and K=3 so the solution will be 66654.
I know this is a dynamic programming related problem and I can't get any idea about solving it. I need to solve this for 2 days, so any help is appreciated. If you don't want to solve this for me you don't have to but please point me to the trick or at least some materials where i can read up more about some similar issues.
Thank you in advance.
This can be solved in O(L) where L = number of digits. Why use complicated DP formulas when we can use a stack to do this:
For: 66621542
Add a digit on the stack while there are less than or equal to L - K digits on the stack:
66621. Now, remove digits from the stack while they are less than the currently read digit and put the current digit on the stack:
read 5: 5 > 2, pop 1 off the stack. 5 > 2, pop 2 also. put 5: 6665
read 4: stack isnt full, put 4: 66654
read 2: 2 < 4, do nothing.
You need one more condition: be sure not to pop off more items from the stack than there are digits left in your number, otherwise your solution will be incomplete!
Another example: 12345
L = 5, K = 3
put L - K = 2 digits on the stack: 12
read 3, 3 > 2, pop 2, 3 > 1, pop 1, put 3. stack: 3
read 4, 4 > 3, pop 3, put 4: 4
read 5: 5 > 4, but we can't pop 4, otherwise we won't have enough digits left. so push 5: 45.
Well, to solve any dynamic programming problem, you need to break it down into recurring subsolutions.
Say we define your problem as A(n, k), which returns the largest number possible by removing k digits from n.
We can define a simple recursive algorithm from this.
Using your example, A(12345, 3) = max { A(2345, 2), A(1345, 2), A(1245, 2), A(1234, 2) }
More generally, A(n, k) = max { A(n with 1 digit removed, k - 1) }
And you base case is A(n, 0) = n.
Using this approach, you can create a table that caches the values of n and k.
int A(int n, int k)
{
typedef std::pair<int, int> input;
static std::map<input, int> cache;
if (k == 0) return n;
input i(n, k);
if (cache.find(i) != cache.end())
return cache[i];
cache[i] = /* ... as above ... */
return cache[i];
}
Now, that's the straight forward solution, but there is a better solution that works with a very small one-dimensional cache. Consider rephrasing the question like this: "Given a string n and integer k, find the lexicographically greatest subsequence in n of length k". This is essentially what your problem is, and the solution is much more simple.
We can now define a different function B(i, j), which gives the largest lexicographical sequence of length (i - j), using only the first i digits of n (in other words, having removed j digits from the first i digits of n).
Using your example again, we would have:
B(1, 0) = 1
B(2, 0) = 12
B(3, 0) = 123
B(3, 1) = 23
B(3, 2) = 3
etc.
With a little bit of thinking, we can find the recurrence relation:
B(i, j) = max( 10B(i-1, j) + ni , B(i-1, j-1) )
or, if j = i then B(i, j) = B(i-1, j-1)
and B(0, 0) = 0
And you can code that up in a very similar way to the above.
The trick to solving a dynamic programming problem is usually to figuring out what the structure of a solution looks like, and more specifically if it exhibits optimal substructure.
In this case, it seems to me that the optimal solution with N=12345 and K=3 would have an optimal solution to N=12345 and K=2 as part of the solution. If you can convince yourself that this holds, then you should be able to express a solution to the problem recursively. Then either implement this with memoisation or bottom-up.
The two most important elements of any dynamic programming solution are:
Defining the right subproblems
Defining a recurrence relation between the answer to a sub-problem and the answer to smaller sub-problems
Finding base cases, the smallest sub-problems whose answer does not depend on any other answers
Figuring out the scan order in which you must solve the sub-problems (so that you never use the recurrence relation based on uninitialized data)
You'll know that you have the right subproblems defined when
The problem you need the answer to is one of them
The base cases really are trivial
The recurrence is easy to evaluate
The scan order is straightforward
In your case, it is straightforward to specify the subproblems. Since this is probably homework, I will just give you the hint that you might wish that N had fewer digits to start off with.
Here's what i think:
Consider the first k + 1 digits from the left. Look for the biggest one, find it and remove the numbers to the left. If there exists two of the same biggest number, find the leftmost one and remove the numbers to the left of that. store the number of removed digits ( name it j ).
Do the same thing with the new number as N and k+1-j as K. Do this until k+1 -j equals to 1 (hopefully, it will, if i'm not mistaken).
The number you end up with will be the number you're looking for.