I met a very simple interview question, but my solution is incorrect. Any helps on this? 1)any bugs in my solution? 2)any good idea for time complexity O(n)?
Question:
Given an int array A[], define X=A[i]+A[j]+(j-i), j>=i. Find max value of X?
My solution is:
int solution(vector<int> &A){
if(A.empty())
return -1;
long long max_dis=-2000000000, cur_dis;
int size = A.size();
for(int i=0;i<size;i++){
for(int j=i;j<size;j++){
cur_dis=A[j]+A[i]+(j-i);
if(cur_dis > max_dis)
max_dis=cur_dis;
}
}
return max_dis;
}
The crucial insight is that it can be done in O(n) only if you track where potentially useful values are even before you're certain they'll prove usable.
Start with best_i = best_j = max_i = 0. The first two track the i and j values to use in the solution. The next one will record the index with the highest contributing factor for i, i.e. where A[i] - i is highest.
Let's call the value of X for some values of i and j "Xi,j", and start by recording our best solution so far ala Xbest = X0,0
Increment n along the array...
whenever the value at [n] gives a better "i" contribution for A[i] - i than max_i, update max_i.
whenever using n as the "j" index yields Xmax_i,n greater than Xbest, best_i = max_i, best_j = n.
Discussion - why/how it works
j_random_hacker's comment suggests I sketch a proof, but honestly I've no idea where to start. I'll try to explain as best I can - if someone else has a better explanation please chip in....
Restating the problem: greatest Xi,j where j >= i. Given we can set an initial Xbest of X0,0, the problem is knowing when to update it and to what. As we contemplate successive indices in the array as potential values for j, we want to generate Xi,j=n for some i (discussed next) to compare with Xbest. But, what i value to use? Well, given any index from 0 to n is <= j, the j >= i constraint isn't relevant if we pick the best i value from the indices we've already visited. We work out the best i value by separating the i-related contribution to X from the j-related contribution - A[i] - i - so in preparation for considering whether we've a new best solution with j=n we must maintain the best_i variable too as we go.
A way to approach the problem
For whatever it's worth - when I was groping around for a solution, I wrote down on paper some imaginary i and j contributions that I could see covered the interesting cases... where Ci and Cj are the contributions related to n's use as i and j respectively, something like
n 0 1 2 3 4
Ci 4 2 8 3 1
Cj 12 4 3 5 9
You'll notice I didn't bother picking values where Ci could be A[i] - i while Cj was A[j] + j... I could see the emerging solution should work for any formulas, and that would have just made it harder to capture the interesting cases. So - what's the interesting case? When n = 2 the Ci value is higher than anything we've seen in earlier elements, but given only knowledge of those earlier elements we can't yet see a way to use it. That scenario is the single "great" complication of the problem. What's needed is a Cj value of at least 9 so Xbest is improved, which happens to come along when n = 4. If we'd found an even better Ci at [3] then we'd of course want to use that. best_i tracks where that waiting-on-a-good-enough-Cj value index is.
Longer version of my comment: what about iterating the array from both ends, trying to find the highest number, while decreasing it by the distance from the appripriate end. Would that find the correct indexes (and thus the correct X)?
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include <climits>
long long brutal(const std::vector<int>& a) {
long long x = LLONG_MIN;
for(int i=0; i < a.size(); i++)
for(int j=i; j < a.size(); j++)
x = std::max(x, (long long)a[i] + a[j] + j-i);
return x;
}
long long smart(const std::vector<int>& a) {
if(a.size() == 0) return LLONG_MIN;
long long x = LLONG_MIN, y = x;
for(int i = 0; i < a.size(); i++)
x = std::max(x, (long long)a[i]-i);
for(int j = 0; j < a.size(); j++)
y = std::max(y, (long long)a[j]+j);
return x + y;
}
int main() {
std::random_device rd;
std::uniform_int_distribution<int> rlen(0, 1000);
std::uniform_int_distribution<int> rnum(INT_MIN,INT_MAX);
std::vector<int> v;
for(int loop = 0; loop < 10000; loop++) {
v.resize(rlen(rd));
for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++)
v[i] = rnum(rd);
if(brutal(v) != smart(v)) {
std::cout << "bad" << std::endl;
return -1;
}
}
std::cout << "good" << std::endl;
}
I'll write in pseudo code because I don't have much time, but this should be the most performing way using recursion
compare(array, left, right)
val = array[left] + array[right] + (right - left);
if (right - left) > 1
val1 = compare(array, left, right-1);
val2 = compare(array, left+1, right);
val = Max(Max(val1,val2),val);
end if
return val
and than you call simply
compare(array,0,array.length);
I think I found a incredibly faster solution but you need to check it:
you need to rewrite your array as follow
Array[i] = array[i] + (MOD((array.lenght / 2) - i));
Then you just find the 2 highest value of the array and sum them, that should be your solution, almost O(n)
wait maybe I'm missing something... I have to check.
Ok you get the 2 highest value from this New Array, and save the positions i, and j. Then you need to calculate from the original array your result.
------------ EDIT
This should be an implementation of the method suggested by Tony D (in c#) that I tested.
int best_i, best_j, max_i, currentMax;
best_i = 0;
best_j = 0;
max_i = 0;
currentMax = 0;
for (int n = 0; n < array.Count; n++)
{
if (array[n] - n > array[max_i] - max_i) max_i = n;
if (array[n] + array[max_i] - (n - max_i) > currentMax)
{
best_i = max_i;
best_j = n;
currentMax = array[n] + array[max_i] - (n - max_i);
}
}
return currentMax;
Question:
Given an int array A[], define X=A[i]+A[j]+(j-i), j>=i. Find max value of X?
Answer O(n):
lets rewrite the formula: X = A[i]-i + A[j]+j
we can track the highest A[i]-i we got and the highest A[j]+j we got. We loop over the array once and update both of our max values. After looping once we return the sum of A[i]-i + A[j]+j, which equals X.
We absolutely don't care about the j>=i constraint, because it is always true when we maximize both A[i]-i and A[j]+j
Code:
int solution(vector<int> &A){
if(A.empty()) return -1;
long long max_Ai_part =-2000000000;
long long max_Aj_part =-2000000000;
int size = A.size();
for(int i=0;i<size;i++){
if(max_Ai_part < A[i] - i)
max_Ai_part = A[i] - i;
if(max_Aj_part < A[j] + j)
max_Ai_part = A[j] - j;
}
return max_Ai_part + max_Aj_part;
}
Bonus:
most people get confused with the j>=i constraint. If you have a feeling for numbers, you should be able to see that i should tend to be lower than j.
Assume we have our formula, it is maximized and i > j. (this is impossible, but lets check it out)
we define x1 := j-i and x2 = i-j
A[i]+A[j]+j-i = A[i]+A[j] + x1, x1 < 0
we could then swap i with j and end up with this:
A[j]+A[i]+i-j = A[i]+A[j] + x2, x2 > 0
it is basically the same formula, but now because i > j the second formula will be greater than the first. In other words we could increase the maximum by swapping i and j which can't be true if we already had the maximum.
If we ever find a maximum, i cannot be greater than j.
Related
Problem statement: Given a set of n coins of some denominations (maybe repeating, in random order), and a number k. A game is being played by a single player in the following manner: Player can choose to pick 0 to k coins contiguously but will have to leave one next coin from picking. In this manner give the highest sum of coins he/she can collect.
Input:
First line contains 2 space-separated integers n and x respectively, which denote
n - Size of the array
x - Window size
Output:
A single integer denoting the max sum the player can obtain.
Working Soln Link: Ideone
long long solve(int n, int x) {
if (n == 0) return 0;
long long total = accumulate(arr + 1, arr + n + 1, 0ll);
if (x >= n) return total;
multiset<long long> dp_x;
for (int i = 1; i <= x + 1; i++) {
dp[i] = arr[i];
dp_x.insert(dp[i]);
}
for (int i = x + 2; i <= n; i++) {
dp[i] = arr[i] + *dp_x.begin();
dp_x.erase(dp_x.find(dp[i - x - 1]));
dp_x.insert(dp[i]);
}
long long ans = total;
for (int i = n - x; i <= n; i++) {
ans = min(ans, dp[i]);
}
return total - ans;
}
Can someone kindly explain how this code is working i.e., how line no. 12-26 in the Ideone solution is producing the correct answer?
I have dry run the code using pen and paper and found that it's giving the correct answer but couldn't figure out the algorithm used(if any). Can someone kindly explain to me how Line No. 12-26 is producing the correct answer? Is there any technique or algorithm at use here?
I am new to DP, so if someone can point out a tutorial(YouTube video, etc) related to this kind of problem, that would be great too. Thank you.
It looks like the idea is converting the problem - You must choose at least one coin in no more than x+1 coins in a row, and make it minimal. Then the original problem's answer would just be [sum of all values] - [answer of the new problem].
Then we're ready to talk about dynamic programming. Let's define a recurrence relation for f(i) which means "the partial answer of the new problem considering 1st to i-th coins, and i-th coin is chosen". (Sorry about the bad description, edits welcome)
f(i) = a(i) : if (i<=x+1)
f(i) = a(i) + min(f(i-1),f(i-2),...,f(i-x-1)) : otherwise
where a(i) is the i-th coin value
I added some comments line by line.
// NOTE f() is dp[] and a() is arr[]
long long solve(int n, int x) {
if (n == 0) return 0;
long long total = accumulate(arr + 1, arr + n + 1, 0ll); // get the sum
if (x >= n) return total;
multiset<long long> dp_x; // A min-heap (with fast random access)
for (int i = 1; i <= x + 1; i++) { // For 1 to (x+1)th,
dp[i] = arr[i]; // f(i) = a(i)
dp_x.insert(dp[i]); // Push the value to the heap
}
for (int i = x + 2; i <= n; i++) { // For the rest,
dp[i] = arr[i] + *dp_x.begin(); // f(i) = a(i) + min(...)
dp_x.erase(dp_x.find(dp[i - x - 1])); // Erase the oldest one from the heap
dp_x.insert(dp[i]); // Push the value to the heap, so it keeps the latest x+1 elements
}
long long ans = total;
for (int i = n - x; i <= n; i++) { // Find minimum of dp[] (among candidate answers)
ans = min(ans, dp[i]);
}
return total - ans;
}
Please also note that multiset is used as a min-heap. However we also need quick random-access(to erase the old ones) and multiset can do it in logarithmic time. So, the overall time complexity is O(n log x).
Given heights of n towers and a value k. We need to either increase or decrease height of every tower by k (only once) where k > 0. The task is to minimize the difference between the heights of the longest and the shortest tower after modifications, and output this difference.
I get the intuition behind the solution but I can not comment on the correctness of the solution below.
// C++ program to find the minimum possible
// difference between maximum and minimum
// elements when we have to add/subtract
// every number by k
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
// Modifies the array by subtracting/adding
// k to every element such that the difference
// between maximum and minimum is minimized
int getMinDiff(int arr[], int n, int k)
{
if (n == 1)
return 0;
// Sort all elements
sort(arr, arr+n);
// Initialize result
int ans = arr[n-1] - arr[0];
// Handle corner elements
int small = arr[0] + k;
int big = arr[n-1] - k;
if (small > big)
swap(small, big);
// Traverse middle elements
for (int i = 1; i < n-1; i ++)
{
int subtract = arr[i] - k;
int add = arr[i] + k;
// If both subtraction and addition
// do not change diff
if (subtract >= small || add <= big)
continue;
// Either subtraction causes a smaller
// number or addition causes a greater
// number. Update small or big using
// greedy approach (If big - subtract
// causes smaller diff, update small
// Else update big)
if (big - subtract <= add - small)
small = subtract;
else
big = add;
}
return min(ans, big - small);
}
// Driver function to test the above function
int main()
{
int arr[] = {4, 6};
int n = sizeof(arr)/sizeof(arr[0]);
int k = 10;
cout << "\nMaximum difference is "
<< getMinDiff(arr, n, k);
return 0;
}
Can anyone help me provide the correct solution to this problem?
The codes above work, however I don't find much explanation so I'll try to add some in order to help develop intuition.
For any given tower, you have two choices, you can either increase its height or decrease it.
Now if you decide to increase its height from say Hi to Hi + K, then you can also increase the height of all shorter towers as that won't affect the maximum. Similarly, if you decide to decrease the height of a tower from Hi to Hi − K, then you can also decrease the heights of all taller towers.
We will make use of this, we have n buildings, and we'll try to make each of the building the highest and see making which building the highest gives us the least range of heights(which is our answer). Let me explain:
So what we want to do is - 1) We first sort the array(you will soon see why).
2) Then for every building from i = 0 to n-2[1] , we try to make it the highest (by adding K to the building, adding K to the buildings on its left and subtracting K from the buildings on its right).
So say we're at building Hi, we've added K to it and the buildings before it and subtracted K from the buildings after it. So the minimum height of the buildings will now be min(H0 + K, Hi+1 - K), i.e. min(1st building + K, next building on right - K).
(Note: This is because we sorted the array. Convince yourself by taking a few examples.)
Likewise, the maximum height of the buildings will be max(Hi + K, Hn-1 - K), i.e. max(current building + K, last building on right - K).
3) max - min gives you the range.
[1]Note that when i = n-1. In this case, there is no building after the current building, so we're adding K to every building, so the range will merely be
height[n-1] - height[0] since K is added to everything, so it cancels out.
Here's a Java implementation based on the idea above:
class Solution {
int getMinDiff(int[] arr, int n, int k) {
Arrays.sort(arr);
int ans = arr[n-1] - arr[0];
int smallest = arr[0] + k, largest = arr[n-1]-k;
for(int i = 0; i < n-1; i++){
int min = Math.min(smallest, arr[i+1]-k);
int max = Math.max(largest, arr[i]+k);
if (min < 0) continue;
ans = Math.min(ans, max-min);
}
return ans;
}
}
int getMinDiff(int a[], int n, int k) {
sort(a,a+n);
int i,mx,mn,ans;
ans = a[n-1]-a[0]; // this can be one possible solution
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
if(a[i]>=k) // since height of tower can't be -ve so taking only +ve heights
{
mn = min(a[0]+k, a[i]-k);
mx = max(a[n-1]-k, a[i-1]+k);
ans = min(ans, mx-mn);
}
}
return ans;
}
This is C++ code, it passed all the test cases.
This python code might be of some help to you. Code is self explanatory.
def getMinDiff(arr, n, k):
arr = sorted(arr)
ans = arr[-1]-arr[0] #this case occurs when either we subtract k or add k to all elements of the array
for i in range(n):
mn=min(arr[0]+k, arr[i]-k) #after sorting, arr[0] is minimum. so adding k pushes it towards maximum. We subtract k from arr[i] to get any other worse (smaller) minimum. worse means increasing the diff b/w mn and mx
mx=max(arr[n-1]-k, arr[i]+k) # after sorting, arr[n-1] is maximum. so subtracting k pushes it towards minimum. We add k to arr[i] to get any other worse (bigger) maximum. worse means increasing the diff b/w mn and mx
ans = min(ans, mx-mn)
return ans
Here's a solution:-
But before jumping on to the solution, here's some info that is required to understand it. In the best case scenario, the minimum difference would be zero. This could happen only in two cases - (1) the array contain duplicates or (2) for an element, lets say 'x', there exists another element in the array which has the value 'x + 2*k'.
The idea is pretty simple.
First we would sort the array.
Next, we will try to find either the optimum value (for which the answer would come out to be zero) or at least the closest number to the optimum value using Binary Search
Here's a Javascript implementation of the algorithm:-
function minDiffTower(arr, k) {
arr = arr.sort((a,b) => a-b);
let minDiff = Infinity;
let prev = null;
for (let i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {
let el = arr[i];
// Handling case when the array have duplicates
if (el == prev) {
minDiff = 0;
break;
}
prev = el;
let targetNum = el + 2*k; // Lets say we have an element 10. The difference would be zero when there exists an element with value 10+2*k (this is the 'optimum value' as discussed in the explaination
let closestMatchDiff = Infinity; // It's not necessary that there would exist 'targetNum' in the array, so we try to find the closest to this number using Binary Search
let lb = i+1;
let ub = arr.length-1;
while (lb<=ub) {
let mid = lb + ((ub-lb)>>1);
let currMidDiff = arr[mid] > targetNum ? arr[mid] - targetNum : targetNum - arr[mid];
closestMatchDiff = Math.min(closestMatchDiff, currMidDiff);
if (arr[mid] == targetNum) break; // in this case the answer would be simply zero, no need to proceed further
else if (arr[mid] < targetNum) lb = mid+1;
else ub = mid-1;
}
minDiff = Math.min(minDiff, closestMatchDiff);
}
return minDiff;
}
Here is the C++ code, I have continued from where you left. The code is self-explanatory.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int minDiff(int arr[], int n, int k)
{
// If the array has only one element.
if (n == 1)
{
return 0;
}
//sort all elements
sort(arr, arr + n);
//initialise result
int ans = arr[n - 1] - arr[0];
//Handle corner elements
int small = arr[0] + k;
int big = arr[n - 1] - k;
if (small > big)
{
// Swap the elements to keep the array sorted.
int temp = small;
small = big;
big = temp;
}
//traverse middle elements
for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
{
int subtract = arr[i] - k;
int add = arr[i] + k;
// If both subtraction and addition do not change the diff.
// Subtraction does not give new minimum.
// Addition does not give new maximum.
if (subtract >= small or add <= big)
{
continue;
}
// Either subtraction causes a smaller number or addition causes a greater number.
//Update small or big using greedy approach.
// if big-subtract causes smaller diff, update small Else update big
if (big - subtract <= add - small)
{
small = subtract;
}
else
{
big = add;
}
}
return min(ans, big - small);
}
int main(void)
{
int arr[] = {1, 5, 15, 10};
int n = sizeof(arr) / sizeof(arr[0]);
int k = 3;
cout << "\nMaximum difference is: " << minDiff(arr, n, k) << endl;
return 0;
}
class Solution {
public:
int getMinDiff(int arr[], int n, int k) {
sort(arr, arr+n);
int diff = arr[n-1]-arr[0];
int mine, maxe;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++)
arr[i]+=k;
mine = arr[0];
maxe = arr[n-1]-2*k;
for(int i = n-1; i > 0; i--){
if(arr[i]-2*k < 0)
break;
mine = min(mine, arr[i]-2*k);
maxe = max(arr[i-1], arr[n-1]-2*k);
diff = min(diff, maxe-mine);
}
return diff;
}
};
class Solution:
def getMinDiff(self, arr, n, k):
# code here
arr.sort()
res = arr[-1]-arr[0]
for i in range(1, n):
if arr[i]>=k:
# at a time we can increase or decrease one number only.
# Hence assuming we decrease ith elem, we will increase i-1 th elem.
# using this we basically find which is new_min and new_max possible
# and if the difference is smaller than res, we return the same.
new_min = min(arr[0]+k, arr[i]-k)
new_max = max(arr[-1]-k, arr[i-1]+k)
res = min(res, new_max-new_min)
return res
Hexagonal grid is represented by a two-dimensional array with R rows and C columns. First row always comes "before" second in hexagonal grid construction (see image below). Let k be the number of turns. Each turn, an element of the grid is 1 if and only if the number of neighbours of that element that were 1 the turn before is an odd number. Write C++ code that outputs the grid after k turns.
Limitations:
1 <= R <= 10, 1 <= C <= 10, 1 <= k <= 2^(63) - 1
An example with input (in the first row are R, C and k, then comes the starting grid):
4 4 3
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
Simulation: image, yellow elements represent '1' and blank represent '0'.
This problem is easy to solve if I simulate and produce a grid each turn, but with big enough k it becomes too slow. What is the faster solution?
EDIT: code (n and m are used instead R and C) :
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstring>
using namespace std;
int old[11][11];
int _new[11][11];
int n, m;
long long int k;
int main() {
scanf ("%d %d %lld", &n, &m, &k);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) scanf ("%d", &old[i][j]);
}
printf ("\n");
while (k) {
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) {
int count = 0;
if (i % 2 == 0) {
if (i) {
if (j) count += old[i-1][j-1];
count += old[i-1][j];
}
if (j) count += (old[i][j-1]);
if (j < m-1) count += (old[i][j+1]);
if (i < n-1) {
if (j) count += old[i+1][j-1];
count += old[i+1][j];
}
}
else {
if (i) {
if (j < m-1) count += old[i-1][j+1];
count += old[i-1][j];
}
if (j) count += old[i][j-1];
if (j < m-1) count += old[i][j+1];
if (i < n-1) {
if (j < m-1) count += old[i+1][j+1];
count += old[i+1][j];
}
}
if (count % 2) _new[i][j] = 1;
else _new[i][j] = 0;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) old[i][j] = _new[i][j];
}
k--;
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) {
printf ("%d", old[i][j]);
}
printf ("\n");
}
return 0;
}
For a given R and C, you have N=R*C cells.
If you represent those cells as a vector of elements in GF(2), i.e, 0s and 1s where arithmetic is performed mod 2 (addition is XOR and multiplication is AND), then the transformation from one turn to the next can be represented by an N*N matrix M, so that:
turn[i+1] = M*turn[i]
You can exponentiate the matrix to determine how the cells transform over k turns:
turn[i+k] = (M^k)*turn[i]
Even if k is very large, like 2^63-1, you can calculate M^k quickly using exponentiation by squaring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation_by_squaring This only takes O(log(k)) matrix multiplications.
Then you can multiply your initial state by the matrix to get the output state.
From the limits on R, C, k, and time given in your question, it's clear that this is the solution you're supposed to come up with.
There are several ways to speed up your algorithm.
You do the neighbour-calculation with the out-of bounds checking in every turn. Do some preprocessing and calculate the neighbours of each cell once at the beginning. (Aziuth has already proposed that.)
Then you don't need to count the neighbours of all cells. Each cell is on if an odd number of neighbouring cells were on in the last turn and it is off otherwise.
You can think of this differently: Start with a clean board. For each active cell of the previous move, toggle the state of all surrounding cells. When an even number of neighbours cause a toggle, the cell is on, otherwise the toggles cancel each other out. Look at the first step of your example. It's like playing Lights Out, really.
This method is faster than counting the neighbours if the board has only few active cells and its worst case is a board whose cells are all on, in which case it is as good as neighbour-counting, because you have to touch each neighbours for each cell.
The next logical step is to represent the board as a sequence of bits, because bits already have a natural way of toggling, the exclusive or or xor oerator, ^. If you keep the list of neigbours for each cell as a bit mask m, you can then toggle the board b via b ^= m.
These are the improvements that can be made to the algorithm. The big improvement is to notice that the patterns will eventually repeat. (The toggling bears resemblance with Conway's Game of Life, where there are also repeating patterns.) Also, the given maximum number of possible iterations, 2⁶³ is suspiciously large.
The playing board is small. The example in your question will repeat at least after 2¹⁶ turns, because the 4×4 board can have at most 2¹⁶ layouts. In practice, turn 127 reaches the ring pattern of the first move after the original and it loops with a period of 126 from then.
The bigger boards may have up to 2¹⁰⁰ layouts, so they may not repeat within 2⁶³ turns. A 10×10 board with a single active cell near the middle has ar period of 2,162,622. This may indeed be a topic for a maths study, as Aziuth suggests, but we'll tacke it with profane means: Keep a hash map of all previous states and the turns where they occurred, then check whether the pattern has occurred before in each turn.
We now have:
a simple algorithm for toggling the cells' state and
a compact bitwise representation of the board, which allows us to create a hash map of the previous states.
Here's my attempt:
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
/*
* Bit representation of a playing board, at most 10 x 10
*/
struct Grid {
unsigned char data[16];
Grid() : data() {
}
void add(size_t i, size_t j) {
size_t k = 10 * i + j;
data[k / 8] |= 1u << (k % 8);
}
void flip(const Grid &mask) {
size_t n = 13;
while (n--) data[n] ^= mask.data[n];
}
bool ison(size_t i, size_t j) const {
size_t k = 10 * i + j;
return ((data[k / 8] & (1u << (k % 8))) != 0);
}
bool operator<(const Grid &other) const {
size_t n = 13;
while (n--) {
if (data[n] > other.data[n]) return true;
if (data[n] < other.data[n]) return false;
}
return false;
}
void dump(size_t n, size_t m) const {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m; j++) {
std::cout << (ison(i, j) ? 1 : 0);
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
};
int main()
{
size_t n, m, k;
std::cin >> n >> m >> k;
Grid grid;
Grid mask[10][10];
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m; j++) {
int x;
std::cin >> x;
if (x) grid.add(i, j);
}
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m; j++) {
Grid &mm = mask[i][j];
if (i % 2 == 0) {
if (i) {
if (j) mm.add(i - 1, j - 1);
mm.add(i - 1, j);
}
if (j) mm.add(i, j - 1);
if (j < m - 1) mm.add(i, j + 1);
if (i < n - 1) {
if (j) mm.add(i + 1, j - 1);
mm.add(i + 1, j);
}
} else {
if (i) {
if (j < m - 1) mm.add(i - 1, j + 1);
mm.add(i - 1, j);
}
if (j) mm.add(i, j - 1);
if (j < m - 1) mm.add(i, j + 1);
if (i < n - 1) {
if (j < m - 1) mm.add(i + 1, j + 1);
mm.add(i + 1, j);
}
}
}
}
std::map<Grid, size_t> prev;
std::map<size_t, Grid> pattern;
for (size_t turn = 0; turn < k; turn++) {
Grid next;
std::map<Grid, size_t>::const_iterator it = prev.find(grid);
if (1 && it != prev.end()) {
size_t start = it->second;
size_t period = turn - start;
size_t index = (k - turn) % period;
grid = pattern[start + index];
break;
}
prev[grid] = turn;
pattern[turn] = grid;
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m; j++) {
if (grid.ison(i, j)) next.flip(mask[i][j]);
}
}
grid = next;
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < m; j++) {
std::cout << (grid.ison(i, j) ? 1 : 0);
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
return 0;
}
There is probably room for improvement. Especially, I'm not so sure how it fares for big boards. (The code above uses an ordered map. We don't need the order, so using an unordered map will yield faster code. The example above with a single active cell on a 10×10 board took significantly longer than a second with an ordered map.)
Not sure about how you did it - and you should really always post code here - but let's try to optimize things here.
First of all, there is not really a difference between that and a quadratic grid. Different neighbor relationships, but I mean, that is just a small translation function. If you have a problem there, we should treat this separately, maybe on CodeReview.
Now, the naive solution is:
for all fields
count neighbors
if odd: add a marker to update to one, else to zero
for all fields
update all fields by marker of former step
this is obviously in O(N). Iterating twice is somewhat twice the actual run time, but should not be that bad. Try not to allocate space every time that you do that but reuse existing structures.
I'd propose this solution:
at the start:
create a std::vector or std::list "activated" of pointers to all fields that are activated
each iteration:
create a vector "new_activated"
for all items in activated
count neighbors, if odd add to new_activated
for all items in activated
set to inactive
replace activated by new_activated*
for all items in activated
set to active
*this can be done efficiently by putting them in a smart pointer and use move semantics
This code only works on the activated fields. As long as they stay within some smaller area, this is far more efficient. However, I have no idea when this changes - if there are activated fields all over the place, this might be less efficient. In that case, the naive solution might be the best one.
EDIT: after you now posted your code... your code is quite procedural. This is C++, use classes and use representation of things. Probably you do the search for neighbors right, but you can easily make mistakes there and therefore should isolate that part in a function, or better method. Raw arrays are bad and variables like n or k are bad. But before I start tearing your code apart, I instead repeat my recommendation, put the code on CodeReview, having people tear it apart until it is perfect.
This started off as a comment, but I think it could be helpful as an answer in addition to what has already been stated.
You stated the following limitations:
1 <= R <= 10, 1 <= C <= 10
Given these restrictions, I'll take the liberty to can represent the grid/matrix M of R rows and C columns in constant space (i.e. O(1)), and also check its elements in O(1) instead of O(R*C) time, thus removing this part from our time-complexity analysis.
That is, the grid can simply be declared as bool grid[10][10];.
The key input is the large number of turns k, stated to be in the range:
1 <= k <= 2^(63) - 1
The problem is that, AFAIK, you're required to perform k turns. This makes the algorithm be in O(k). Thus, no proposed solution can do better than O(k)[1].
To improve the speed in a meaningful way, this upper-bound must be lowered in some way[1], but it looks like this cannot be done without altering the problem constraints.
Thus, no proposed solution can do better than O(k)[1].
The fact that k can be so large is the main issue. The most anyone can do is improve the rest of the implementation, but this will only improve by a constant factor; you'll have to go through k turns regardless of how you look at it.
Therefore, unless some clever fact and/or detail is found that allows this bound to be lowered, there's no other choice.
[1] For example, it's not like trying to determine if some number n is prime, where you can check all numbers in the range(2, n) to see if they divide n, making it a O(n) process, or notice that some improvements include only looking at odd numbers after checking n is not even (constant factor; still O(n)), and then checking odd numbers only up to √n, i.e., in the range(3, √n, 2), which meaningfully lowers the upper-bound down to O(√n).
I want to find the minimum number of elements from an array that their sum is equal to the given number.
Looks like an easy dynamic programming task.
Suppose that there are N elements in the array A and you want to get the minimum number of elements which sum is S. Then we can easily solve the problem with O(N x S) time complexity.
Consider dp[i][j] - the minimum number of elements among first i elements which sum is j, 1 <= i <= N and 0 <= j <= S. Then for A[i] <= j <= S:
dp[i][j] = min(infinity, dp[i - 1, j], 1 + dp[i - 1][j - A[i]]).
We can assume that dp[0][0] = 0, dp[0][j] = infinity for 0 < j <= S.
The simplest way is to solve it recursively.
find_sum(goal, sorted_list) {
int best_result = infinity;
for each (remaining_largest : sorted_list){
result = find_sum(goal - remaining_largest, sorted_list_without_remaining_largest) + 1;
if result < best_result then best_result = result;
}
return best_result;
}
There are many ways to optimize this algorithm and may be fundamentally better algorithms as well, but I was trying to keep it very simple.
One optimization would be to store the best combination to get to a given number in a hash table. The naive algorithm suffers from the same drawbacks as a recursive fibonacci solver in that it is constantly re-solving duplicate sub-problems.
I haven't actually run this:
#include <vector>
#include <map>
using namespace std;
// value, num values to sum for value
map<int,int> cache;
// returns -1 on no result, >= 0 is found result
int find(int goal, vector<int> sorted_list, int starting_position = 0) {
// recursive base case
if (goal== 0) return 0;
// check the cache as to not re-compute solved sub-problems
auto cache_result = cache.find(goal);
if (cache_result != cache.end()) {
return cache_result->second;
// find the best possibility
int best_result = -1;
for (int i = starting_position; i < sorted_list.size(); i++) {
if (sorted_list[starting_position] <= goal) {
auto maybe_result = find(goal- sorted_list[starting_position], sorted_list, i++);
if (maybe_result >= 0 && maybe_result < best_result) {
best_result = maybe_result + 1;
}
}
}
// cache the computed result so it can be re-used if needed
cache[goal] = best_result;
return best_result;
}
Try ordering it ascending and while you iterate through it make a temporary sum in which you add every element until you reach the required sum. If by adding a new element you go over the sum continue without adding the current element. Try something like this:
for(i=0;i<nr_elem;i++)
minimum = 0;
temp_sum=0;
for(j=0;j<nr_elem;j++){
if(temp_sum + elem[j] > req_sum)
*ignore*
else
temp_sum+=elem[j];
minimum+=1;}
if(global_min < minimum)
global_min = minimum;
Not the most elegant method or the most efficient but it should work
int s_dynamic(int n,int k) {
int maxj = n-k;
int *arr = new int[maxj+1];
for (int i = 0; i <= maxj; ++i)
arr[i] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i <= k; ++i)
for(int j = 1; j <= maxj; ++j)
arr[j] += i*arr[j-1];
return arr[maxj];
}
Here's my attempt at determining Stirling numbers using Dynamic Programming.
It is defined as follows:
S(n,k) = S(n-1,k-1) + k S(n-1,k), if 1 < k < n
S(n,k) = 1, if k=1 ou k=n
Seems ok, right? Except when I run my unit test...
partitioningTest ..\src\Test.cpp:44 3025 == s_dynamic(9,3) expected: 3025 but was: 4414
Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks!
BTW, here's the recursive solution:
int s_recursive(int n,int k) {
if (k == 1 || k == n)
return 1;
return s_recursive(n-1,k-1) + k*s_recursive(n-1,k);
}
Found the bug.
You already computed your dynamic array of Stirlings numbers for k=1 (S(n,1)=1 for all n).
You should start computing S(n,2) - that is:
for (int i = 2; i <= k; ++i) //i=2, not 1
for(int j = 1; j <= maxj; ++j)
arr[j] += i*arr[j-1];
Your approach is just fine, except you seem to have made a simple indexing error. If you think about what indexes i and j represent, and what the inner loop transforms arr[j] to, you'll see it easy enough (I lie, it took me a good half hour to figure out what was what :)).
From what I can decode, i represents the value k during calculations, and arr[j] is transformed from S(i+j, i-1) to S(i+1+j, i). The topmost for loop that initializes arr sets it up as S(1+j, 1). According to these loops, the calculations look just fine. Except for one thing: The very first i loop assumes that arr[j] contains S(0+j, 0), and so it is where your problem lies. If you change the starting value of i from 1 to 2, all should be OK (you may need an if or two for edge cases). The initial i=2 will transform arr[j] from S(1+j, 1) to S(2+j, 2), and the rest of the transformations will be just fine.
Alternatively, you could have initialized arr[j] to S(0+j, 0) if it were defined, but unfortunately, Stirling's numbers are undefined at k=0.
EDIT: Apparently I was wrong in my last comment. If you initialize arr to {1, 0, 0, ...}, you can leave starting value of i as 1. For this, you use the initial values S(0, 0)=1, and S(n, 0)=0, n>0 instead.