c++ : dynamic number of nested for loops (without recursion) - c++

I'm writing a code segment that iterates through every permutation of n digits. So for example, if n = 3, I would want to iterate through each of the following elements:
0, 0, 0
...
0, 1, 0
...
1, 0, 0
...
2, 3, 4
...
9, 9, 9
This is very easy to code using nested for loops:
for(digit1 0 to 9)
for(digit2 0 to 9)
for(digit3 0 to 9)
But I want to generalize this for n digits. If for example n = 10, I now need 10 nested for loops.
I've thought about this and realized that the problem can be solved using recursion (depth first search through a tree, with each node having 10 children, 0 to 10, and stopping at depth n). But I'm aiming for high performance so I don't want to use recursion due to the overhead. What other alternatives do I have?

If you want to simulate nested loops with a single one without using recursion, you can do so by maintaining a set of states (or slots) for each looping variable, which can be easily done with an array. Looping then turns into a simple matter of "adding 1" to that array, performing the carry operations as needed. If your nesting depth is n, and your maximum boundary for each loop is b, then the runtime of this is O(b^n), because the carry operations will only cost you at most O(b^n) (I'll skip the algebra here).
Here is the working C++ code (updated to integrate Drew's comment):
void IterativeNestedLoop(int depth, int max)
{
// Initialize the slots to hold the current iteration value for each depth
int* slots = (int*)alloca(sizeof(int) * depth);
for (int i = 0; i < depth; i++)
{
slots[i] = 0;
}
int index = 0;
while (true)
{
// TODO: Your inner loop code goes here. You can inspect the values in slots
// Increment
slots[0]++;
// Carry
while (slots[index] == max)
{
// Overflow, we're done
if (index == depth - 1)
{
return;
}
slots[index++] = 0;
slots[index]++;
}
index = 0;
}
}

In genreral case if you like to replace recursion to flat code you should use the stack (LIFO). So if you have recursive algorithm:
void print(std::string str, int depth)
{
if (depth == n) {
std::cout << str << std::endl;
return;
}
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
char val[2] = { i + '0', 0 };
print(str + val + ", ", depth+1);
}
}
You can transform it to LIFO-based with saving local variables (str and i in this case):
struct StackItem {
StackItem(const std::string& ss, unsigned ii)
: str(ss), i(ii)
{}
std::string str;
int i;
};
void print_norec()
{
std::list< StackItem > stack;
stack.push_back(StackItem("", 0));
while (!stack.empty()) {
StackItem& current = stack.back();
if (stack.size() == n+1) {
std::cout << current.str << std::endl;
stack.pop_back(); // return from "recursive" function
continue;
}
if (current.i < 10) {
char val[2] = { current.i + '0', 0 };
// call "recursive" function
stack.push_back(StackItem(current.str + val + ", ", 0));
current.i++;
} else {
stack.pop_back(); // return from "recursive" function
}
}
}

If you want the permutation for all the digits for a specific length;as you have shown example of 3 digits. Instead of running 3 nested loops, run a single loop of 10^3 which will give you all the permutations.
Split the number obtained into digits in each iteration if you want to use it for indexing.
Thus you will be needing just one loop rather than nested loops.

Related

Count how many iterations of deletion until array is ordered

I'm trying to write a program whose input is an array of integers, and its size. This code has to delete each element which is smaller than the element to the left. We want to find number of times that we can process the array this way, until we can no longer delete any more elements.
The contents of the array after we return are unimportant - only the return value is of interest.
For example: given the array [10, 9, 7, 8, 6, 5, 3, 4, 2, 1], the function should return 2, because:
[10,9,7,8,6,5,3,4,2,1] → [10,8,4] → [10]
For example: given the array [1,2,3,4], the function should return 0, because
No element is larger than the element to its right
I want each element to remove the right element if it is more than its right element. We get a smaller array. Then we repeat this operation again. Until we get to an array in which no element can delete another element. I want to calculate the number of steps performed.
int Mafia(int n, vector <int> input_array)
{
int ptr = n;
int last_ptr = n;
int night_Count = 0;
do
{
last_ptr = ptr;
ptr = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < last_ptr; i++)
{
if (input_array[i] >= input_array[i - 1])
{
input_array[ptr++] = input_array[i];
}
}
night_Count++;
} while (last_ptr > ptr);
return night_Count - 1;
}
My code works but I want it to be faster.
Do you have any idea to make this code faster, or another way that is faster than this?
Here is a O(NlogN) solution.
The idea is to iterate over the array and keep tracking candidateKillers which could kill unvisited numbers. Then we find the killer for the current number by using binary search and update the maximum iterations if needed.
Since we iterate over the array which has N numbers and apply log(N) binary search for each number, the overall time complexity is O(NlogN).
Alogrithm
If the current number is greater or equal than the number before it, it could be a killer for numbers after it.
For each killer, we keep tracking its index idx, the number of it num and the iterations needed to reach that killer iters.
The numbers in the candidateKillers by its nature are non-increasing (see next point). Therefore we can apply binary search to find the killer of the current number, which is the one that is a) the closest to the current number b) greater than the current number. This is implemented in searchKiller.
If the current number will be killed by a number in candidateKillers with killerPos, then all candidate killers after killerPos are outdated, because those outdated killers will be killed before the numbers after the current number reach them. If the current number is greater than all candidateKillers, then all the candidateKillers can be discarded.
When we find the killer of the current number, we increase the iters of the killer by one. Because from now on, one more iteration is needed to reach that killer where the current number need to be killed first.
class Solution {
public:
int countIterations(vector<int>& array) {
if (array.size() <= 1) {
return 0;
}
int ans = 0;
vector<Killer> candidateKillers = {Killer(0, array[0], 1)};
for (auto i = 1; i < array.size(); i++) {
int curNum = array[i];
int killerPos = searchKiller(candidateKillers, curNum);
if (killerPos == -1) {
// current one is the largest so far and all candidateKillers before are outdated
candidateKillers = {Killer(i, curNum, 1)};
continue;
}
// get rid of outdated killers
int popCount = candidateKillers.size() - 1 - killerPos;
for (auto j = 0; j < popCount; j++) {
candidateKillers.pop_back();
}
Killer killer = candidateKillers[killerPos];
ans = max(killer.iters, ans);
if (curNum < array[i-1]) {
// since the killer of the current one may not even be in the list e.g., if current is 4 in [6,5,4]
if (killer.idx == i - 1) {
candidateKillers[killerPos].iters += 1;
}
} else {
candidateKillers[killerPos].iters += 1;
candidateKillers.push_back(Killer(i, curNum, 1));
}
}
return ans;
}
private:
struct Killer {
Killer(int idx, int num, int iters)
: idx(idx), num(num), iters(iters) {};
int idx;
int num;
int iters;
};
int searchKiller(vector<Killer>& candidateKillers, int n) {
int lo = 0;
int hi = candidateKillers.size() - 1;
if (candidateKillers[0].num < n) {
return -1;
}
int ans = -1;
while (lo <= hi) {
int mid = lo + (hi - lo) / 2;
if (candidateKillers[mid].num > n) {
ans = mid;
lo = mid + 1;
} else {
hi = mid - 1;
}
}
return ans;
}
};
int main() {
vector<int> array1 = {10, 9, 7, 8, 6, 5, 3, 4, 2, 1};
vector<int> array2 = {1, 2, 3, 4};
vector<int> array3 = {4, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3};
cout << Solution().countIterations(array1) << endl; // 2
cout << Solution().countIterations(array2) << endl; // 0
cout << Solution().countIterations(array3) << endl; // 4
}
You can iterate in reverse, keeping two iterators or indices and moving elements in place. You don't need to allocate a new vector or even resize existing vector. Also a minor, but can replace recursion with loop or write the code the way compiler likely to do it.
This approach is still O(n^2) worst case but it would be faster in run time.

Changing function argument to global variable causes unexpected results

I'm solving a backtracking problem. I have to construct a permutation of length n in such a way that the sum of each adjacent elements are prime. The permutation is circular, the last element is adjacent to first element. Note that all valid permutations should start with 1.
void recurse(int i, int prev, int n, vector<int> prime_ring) {
if (i == n) {
prime_ring.insert(prime_ring.begin(), 1);
if (!is_prime[prime_ring.back() + 1])
return;
for (auto data : prime_ring)
cout << data << " ";
cout << "\n";
prime_ring.clear();
return;
}
for (int next = 2; next <= n; next++) {
if (!seen[next] && is_prime[prev + next]) {
prime_ring.push_back(next);
seen[next] = true;
recurse(i + 1, next, n, prime_ring);
seen[next] = false;
prime_ring.pop_back();
}
}
}
The above code generates the wanted permutations correctly. For example for n = 4. Permutations should be
1 2 3 4
1 4 3 2
void recurse(int i, int prev, int n) {
if (i == n) {
prime_ring.insert(prime_ring.begin(), 1);
if (!is_prime[prime_ring.back() + 1])
return;
for (auto data : prime_ring)
cout << data << " ";
cout << "\n";
prime_ring.clear();
return;
}
for (int next = 2; next <= n; next++) {
if (!seen[next] && is_prime[prev + next]) {
prime_ring.push_back(next);
seen[next] = true;
recurse(i + 1, next, n);
seen[next] = false;
prime_ring.pop_back();
}
}
}
Changing prime_ring to a global vector, results in runtime error. This problem happened to me many times, I failed to realise what's wrong. I'm not aware of the difference between global vector vs function argument vector.
I'm not aware of the difference between global vector vs function argument vector.
The difference is that when you pass a vector as a parameter, the vector is copied. On the other hand when you use a global variable, there is only one `vector.
The solution here is to not use a global variable since you have a working function.
Suppose you are on the line
recurse(i + 1, next, n);
where i == n - 1
Suppose when you go into the recurse function, is_prime[prime_ring.back() + 1] is true.
Then you call prime_ring.clear();, and returns.
Afterwards, you call prime_ring.pop_back();
What happens if you try to pop_back() from an empty vector? Well, bad things can happen (namely, Undefined Behaviour)

Is there a more efficient way of checking whether two numbers in a list add up to an int, k?

I'm subscribed to a mailing list of coding challenges. This was today's:
Given a list of numbers and a number k, return whether any two numbers from the list add up to k.
For example, given[10, 15, 3, 7] and k of 17, return true since 10 + 7 is 17.
Bonus: Can you do this in one pass?
I came up with the following, but I was wondering if it's the most efficient solution.
bool found = false;
int k = 17;
list<int> given({10, 15, 3, 7});
int main() {
for (int num : given) {
found = find(given.begin(), given.end(), k - num) != given.end();
if (found) break;
}
return found;
}
The code works flawlessly. I just want to know if it can be more efficient or
if I'm doing anything in my code that's frowned upon in the workplace. Many thanks.
You can iterate over the array once, using a set.
int k = 17;
list<int> given({10, 15, 3, 7});
unordered_set<int> seen();
// O(n) time-complexity
int main() {
// Iterate over O(n) items
for (int num : given) {
// O(1) operations
if (seen.contains(k - num)) {
// seen contains a value that is the difference between k and num. If you add num to that value, k - n + n = k, you have found two numbers that sum to k
return true;
} else {
// Better luck next time, keep looking
seen.add(num);
}
}
return false;
}
There is a faster solution that has complexity O(nlogn), not sure about O(n).
Hint: Use the two-pointer method.
First sort the array.
Have two pointers - One starting from index 0 and increasing, with the other starting at the last index and decreasing.
Let the one starting from 0 be a and the one starting from the last index b.
If a+b is larger than the target value, then we must decrease the index of b. Remember, the numbers before index b are smaller than the number at index b.
If a+b is smaller than the target value, we must increase the index of a, since the numbers after index a form an increasing sequence.
sort(v.begin(), v.end());
while(b>a){
if (v[a]+v[b]==target) {
//There exists such values
return 0;
}
else if (v[a]+v[b]>target) {
b--;
}
else {
a++;
}
}
Keep a map/dictionary of values "needed".
Scan through given,
Is the given value needed?
if yes, then done
else add the needed value to the needed map
Arguably, this is either O(n) or O(n log n) (depending upon map performance, and you can use a set)
pseudo-code:
bool searchy( int wanted ) {
bool found = false;
needed = map<int,bool>{};
for( each x in given ) {
if( needed[x] ) then { return found = true; }
else { needed[wanted - x] = false; }
}
return found;
}
And the algorithm in C++
#include <map>
#include <list>
int wanted = 17;
std::list<int> given({10, 15, 3, 7});
bool searchy(int wanted) {
bool found = false;
std::map<int,bool> needed = {}; //could keep position of item matched...
for (int x : given) {
if( needed.count(x) > 0 ) { found = true; break; }
else { needed[wanted - x] = false; }
}
if( found ) std::cout "found: (" << wanted - x << "+" << x << std::endl;
return found;
}
int main() {
bool found = searchy(wanted);
return found;
}
My Javascript solution using JS object (I think JS Obj serves the same as the hash map in other language). This solution memories the elements when we go through the array which can be memory expensive. But the complexity will stay as O(n).
const checkTwoSum = (arr, sum) => {
const obj = {};
const found = arr?.find(item => {
const target = sum - item;
if (obj[target]) return true;
else {
obj[item] = 1;
}
});
return !!(found || found === 0);
}

Determining If an Array Can be Partitioned into Two Subsequences, Each with Increasing Order

I am currently struggling with a homework problem for my Algorithms Class. A summary of the instruction:
The user enters an integer 'n' to determine the number of test cases.
The user individually enters another integer 'num' to determine the # of elements in each test case.
The user enters the elements of the individual array.
The algorithm has to process the array and determine whether it can be partitioned into two subsequences, each of which is in strictly increasing order. If the result is positive, the program prints "Yes", otherwise it prints "No".
I have 24 hours to complete this assignment but am struggling with the primary problem - I cannot properly process the user input. (come up with an algorithm to split the two subsequences)
update: I got to this solution. It passes 4/5 tests but fails the time constraint in the last test.
#include<iostream>
#include<string>
using namespace std;
bool run(){
int numbers;
int *arr;
cin >> numbers;
arr = new int[numbers];
for (int i = 0; i < numbers; i++)
cin >> arr[i];
long long int MAX = 0;
long long int MAX2 = 0;
string stra = "";
string strb = "";
string result = "";
string total = "";
long long int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < numbers; i++){
if (arr[i] >= MAX && arr[i] != arr[i - 1]){
stra += to_string(arr[i]);
MAX = arr[i];
}
else
if (arr[i] >= MAX2 && MAX2 != MAX){
strb += to_string(arr[i]);
MAX2 = arr[i];
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < numbers; i++){
result = to_string(arr[i]);
total += result;
}
long long int len1 = stra.length();
long long int len2 = strb.length();
sum += len1 + len2;
delete[] arr;
if (sum != total.length())
return false;
else
return true;
}
int main()
{
int test;
cin >> test;
while (test > 0)
{
if (run())
cout << "Yes\n";
else
cout << "No\n";
test--;
}
system("pause");
}
Example input:
2
5
3 1 5 2 4
5
4 8 1 5 3
Example output:
Yes
No
Explanation: For the array 3 1 5 2 4, the two strictly increasing subsequences are: 3 5 and 1 2 4.
It seems that the existence of any equal or decreasing subsequence of at least three elements means the array cannot be partitioned into two subsequences, each with strictly increasing order, since once we've placed the first element in one part and the second element in the other part, we have no place to place the third.
This seems to indicate that finding the longest decreasing or equal subsequence is a sure solution. Since we only need one of length 3, we can record in O(n) for each element if it has a greater or equal element to the left. Then perform the reverse. If any element has both a greater or equal partner on the left and a smaller or equal partner on the right, the answer is "no."
We can visualise the O(n) time, O(1) space method by plotting along value and position:
A choosing list B here
A x would be wrong
x
value B z
^ B x
| x
| A
| x
|
| B
| x
- - - - - - - -> position
We notice that as soon as a second list is established (with the first decrease), any element higher than the absolute max so far must be assigned to the list that contains it, and any element lower than it can, in any case, only be placed in the second list if at all.
If we were to assign an element higher than the absolute max so far to the second list (that does not contain it), we could arbitrarily construct a false negative by making the next element lower than both the element we just inserted into the second list and the previous absolute max, but greater than the previous max of the second list (z in the diagram). If we had correctly inserted the element higher than the previous absolute max into that first list, we'd still have room to insert the new, arbitrary element into the second list.
(The JavaScript code below technically uses O(n) space in order to show the partition but notice that we only rely on the last element of each part.)
function f(A){
let partA = [A[0]];
let partB = [];
for (let i=1; i<A.length; i++){
if (A[i] > partA[partA.length-1])
partA.push(A[i]);
else if (partB.length && A[i] <= partB[partB.length-1])
return false;
else
partB.push(A[i]);
}
return [partA, partB];
}
let str = '';
let examples = [
[30, 10, 50, 25, 26],
[3, 1, 5, 2, 4],
[4, 8, 1, 5, 3],
[3, 1, 1, 2, 4],
[3, 4, 5, 1, 2],
[3, 4, 1],
[4, 1, 2, 7, 3]
];
for (e of examples)
str += JSON.stringify(e) + '\n' + JSON.stringify(f(e)) + '\n\n';
console.log(str);
I would go over the entire array once and check two maximal values. If the actual array value is smaller than both maxima, it is not possible, otherwise the proper maximum is increased.
The algorithm does not have to traverse the whole array, if the split condition is violated before.
Here is my code
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
bool isAddable(const int item, int &max1, int &max2) {
if (max2 > item) {
return false;
}
else {
if (max1 > item) {
max2 = item;
}
else {
max1 = item;
}
return true;
}
}
void setStartValue(int &max1, int &max2, const std::vector<int> &vec) {
max1 = *std::min_element(vec.begin(), vec.begin() + 3);
max2 = *std::max_element(vec.begin(), vec.begin() + 3);
}
bool isDiviableIntoTwoIncreasingArrays(const std::vector<int> &vec) {
if (vec.size() < 3) {
return true;
}
int max1, max2;
setStartValue(max1, max2, vec);
for (int i = 2; i < vec.size(); ++i) {
if (max1 > max2) {
if (!isAddable(vec[i], max1, max2)) {
return false;
}
}
else {
if (!isAddable(vec[i], max2, max1)) {
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
int main() {
std::vector<int> userVec;
int tmp1;
while (std::cin >> tmp1) {
userVec.emplace_back(tmp1);
}
const std::vector<int> v1{3, 1, 5, 2, 4};
const std::vector<int> v2{4, 8, 1, 5, 3};
const std::vector<int> v3{3, 4, 1};
for (const std::vector<int> &vec : {userVec, v1, v2, v3}) {
if (isDiviableIntoTwoIncreasingArrays(vec)) {
std::cout << "Yes\n";
}
else {
std::cout << "No\n";
}
}
}
I think you could resort to using a brute force solution. Notice here I use vectors(I think you should as well) to store the data and I use recursion to exhaust out all possible combinations. Keep the problem in mind, solve it and then focus on trivial tasks like parsing the input and matching the way your coursework expects you to enter data. I have added inline comments to make this understandable.
bool canPartition(vector<int>& nums) {
if(nums.empty()) return false;
vector<int> part1 = {}, part2 = {}; // two partitions
auto ans = canPart(nums, part1, part2, 0); // pass this to our recursive function
return ans;
}
bool canPart(vector<int>& nums, vector<int>& part1, vector<int>& part2, int i)
{
if(i >= nums.size()) // we are at the end of the array is this a solution?
{
if(!part1.empty() && !part2.empty()) // only if the partitions are not empty
{
//if you want you could print part1 and part2 here
//to see what the partition looks like
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool resp1empty = false, resp2empty = false, resp1 = false, resp2 = false;
if(part1.empty()) // first partition is empty? lets add something
{
part1.push_back(nums[i]);
resp1empty = canPart(nums, part1, part2, i + 1);
part1.pop_back(); // well we need to remove this element and try another one
}
else if(nums[i] > part1.back()) // first partition is not empty lets check if the sequence is increasing
{
part1.push_back(nums[i]);
resp1 = canPart(nums, part1, part2, i + 1);
part1.pop_back();
}
if(part2.empty()) // is partition two empty? lets add something
{
part2.push_back(nums[i]);
resp2empty = canPart(nums, part1, part2, i + 1);
part2.pop_back();
}
else if(nums[i] > part2.back()) // check if sequence is increasing
{
part2.push_back(nums[i]);
resp2 = canPart(nums, part1, part2, i + 1);
part2.pop_back();
}
//if any of the recursive paths returns a true we have an answer
return resp1empty || resp2empty || resp1 || resp2;
}
You can now try this out with a main function:
vector<int> v = {3,1,5,2,4};
cout << canPartition(v);
The key take away is make a small test case, add a few more non trivial test cases, solve the problem and then look into parsing inputs for other test cases
I think this comes down to whether you have an option for a number to appear in the first list or second list or not.
So, we will keep adding numbers to list 1 and if we can't add any element, we will make it as the start of the new list.
Let's say, we have both the lists going. If we come across an element to whom we can't add to any of the lists, we return false.
There does arise a situation where we could add an element to any of the 2 lists. In this scenario, we adopt a greedy approach as to add to which list.
We prepare an array of minimum values from the right. For example, for [30,10,50,25,26], we will have an array of minimums as [10,25,25,26,(empty here since last)].
Now, let's trace how we could divide them into 2 lists properly.
30 => List A.
10 => List B. (since you can't add it first list, so make a new one from here)
50 => List A.
Here, 50 applies to come after either 30 or 10. If we choose 10, then we won't be able to accommodate the next 25 in either of the 2 lists and our program would fail here itself, since our lists would look like [30] and [10,50]. However, we could continue further if we add 50 to 30 by checking for the minimum stored for it in our minimums array, which is 25.
25 => List B.
26 => List B.
So, our final lists are [30,50] and [10,25,26].
Time complexity: O(n), Space complexity: O(n) and you can print the 2 lists as well.
If we come across a sorted array which is strictly increasing, we return true for them anyway.

String decode: looking for a better approach

I have worked out a O(n square) solution to the problem. I was wondering about a better solution to this. (this is not a homework/interview problem but something I do out of my own interest, hence sharing here):
If a=1, b=2, c=3,….z=26. Given a string, find all possible codes that string
can generate. example: "1123" shall give:
aabc //a = 1, a = 1, b = 2, c = 3
kbc // since k is 11, b = 2, c= 3
alc // a = 1, l = 12, c = 3
aaw // a= 1, a =1, w= 23
kw // k = 11, w = 23
Here is my code to the problem:
void alpha(int* a, int sz, vector<vector<int>>& strings) {
for (int i = sz - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (i == sz - 1) {
vector<int> t;
t.push_back(a[i]);
strings.push_back(t);
} else {
int k = strings.size();
for (int j = 0; j < k; j++) {
vector<int> t = strings[j];
strings[j].insert(strings[j].begin(), a[i]);
if (t[0] < 10) {
int n = a[i] * 10 + t[0];
if (n <= 26) {
t[0] = n;
strings.push_back(t);
}
}
}
}
}
}
Essentially the vector strings will hold the sets of numbers.
This would run in n square. I am trying my head around at least an nlogn solution.
Intuitively tree should help here, but not getting anywhere post that.
Generally, your problem complexity is more like 2^n, not n^2, since your k can increase with every iteration.
This is an alternative recursive solution (note: recursion is bad for very long codes). I didn't focus on optimization, since I'm not up to date with C++X, but I think the recursive solution could be optimized with some moves.
Recursion also makes the complexity a bit more obvious compared to the iterative solution.
// Add the front element to each trailing code sequence. Create a new sequence if none exists
void update_helper(int front, std::vector<std::deque<int>>& intermediate)
{
if (intermediate.empty())
{
intermediate.push_back(std::deque<int>());
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < intermediate.size(); i++)
{
intermediate[i].push_front(front);
}
}
std::vector<std::deque<int>> decode(int digits[], int count)
{
if (count <= 0)
{
return std::vector<std::deque<int>>();
}
std::vector<std::deque<int>> result1 = decode(digits + 1, count - 1);
update_helper(*digits, result1);
if (count > 1 && (digits[0] * 10 + digits[1]) <= 26)
{
std::vector<std::deque<int>> result2 = decode(digits + 2, count - 2);
update_helper(digits[0] * 10 + digits[1], result2);
result1.insert(result1.end(), result2.begin(), result2.end());
}
return result1;
}
Call:
std::vector<std::deque<int>> strings = decode(codes, size);
Edit:
Regarding the complexity of the original code, I'll try to show what would happen in the worst case scenario, where the code sequence consists only of 1 and 2 values.
void alpha(int* a, int sz, vector<vector<int>>& strings)
{
for (int i = sz - 1;
i >= 0;
i--)
{
if (i == sz - 1)
{
vector<int> t;
t.push_back(a[i]);
strings.push_back(t); // strings.size+1
} // if summary: O(1), ignoring capacity change, strings.size+1
else
{
int k = strings.size();
for (int j = 0; j < k; j++)
{
vector<int> t = strings[j]; // O(strings[j].size) vector copy operation
strings[j].insert(strings[j].begin(), a[i]); // strings[j].size+1
// note: strings[j].insert treated as O(1) because other containers could do better than vector
if (t[0] < 10)
{
int n = a[i] * 10 + t[0];
if (n <= 26)
{
t[0] = n;
strings.push_back(t); // strings.size+1
// O(1), ignoring capacity change and copy operation
} // if summary: O(1), strings.size+1
} // if summary: O(1), ignoring capacity change, strings.size+1
} // for summary: O(k * strings[j].size), strings.size+k, strings[j].size+1
} // else summary: O(k * strings[j].size), strings.size+k, strings[j].size+1
} // for summary: O(sum[i from 1 to sz] of (k * strings[j].size))
// k (same as string.size) doubles each iteration => k ends near 2^sz
// string[j].size increases by 1 each iteration
// k * strings[j].size increases by ?? each iteration (its getting huge)
}
Maybe I made a mistake somewhere and if we want to play nice we can treat a vector copy as O(1) instead of O(n) in order to reduce complexity, but the hard fact remains, that the worst case is doubling outer vector size in each iteration (at least every 2nd iteration, considering the exact structure of the if conditions) of the inner loop and the inner loop depends on that growing vector size, which makes the whole story at least O(2^n).
Edit2:
I figured out the result complexity (the best hypothetical algoritm still needs to create every element of the result, so result complexity is like a lower bound to what any algorithm can archieve)
Its actually following the Fibonacci numbers:
For worst case input (like only 1s) of size N+2 you have:
size N has k(N) elements
size N+1 has k(N+1) elements
size N+2 is the combination of codes starting with a followed by the combinations from size N+1 (a takes one element of the source) and the codes starting with k, followed by the combinations from size N (k takes two elements of the source)
size N+2 has k(N) + k(N+1) elements
Starting with size 1 => 1 (a) and size 2 => 2 (aa or k)
Result: still exponential growth ;)
Edit3:
Worked out a dynamic programming solution, somewhat similar to your approach with reverse iteration over the code array and kindof optimized in its vector usage, based on the properties explained in Edit2.
The inner loop (update_helper) is still dominated by the count of results (worst case Fibonacci) and a few outer loop iterations will have a decent count of sub-results, but at least the sub-results are reduced to a pointer to some intermediate node, so copying should be pretty efficient. As a little bonus, I switched the result from numbers to characters.
Another edit: updated code with range 0 - 25 as 'a' - 'z', fixed some errors that led to wrong results.
struct const_node
{
const_node(char content, const_node* next)
: next(next), content(content)
{
}
const_node* const next;
const char content;
};
// put front in front of each existing sub-result
void update_helper(int front, std::vector<const_node*>& intermediate)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < intermediate.size(); i++)
{
intermediate[i] = new const_node(front + 'a', intermediate[i]);
}
if (intermediate.empty())
{
intermediate.push_back(new const_node(front + 'a', NULL));
}
}
std::vector<const_node*> decode_it(int digits[9], size_t count)
{
int current = 0;
std::vector<const_node*> intermediates[3];
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
current = (current + 1) % 3;
int prev = (current + 2) % 3; // -1
int prevprev = (current + 1) % 3; // -2
size_t index = count - i - 1; // invert direction
// copy from prev
intermediates[current] = intermediates[prev];
// update current (part 1)
update_helper(digits[index], intermediates[current]);
if (index + 1 < count && digits[index] &&
digits[index] * 10 + digits[index + 1] < 26)
{
// update prevprev
update_helper(digits[index] * 10 + digits[index + 1], intermediates[prevprev]);
// add to current (part 2)
intermediates[current].insert(intermediates[current].end(), intermediates[prevprev].begin(), intermediates[prevprev].end());
}
}
return intermediates[current];
}
void cleanupDelete(std::vector<const_node*>& nodes);
int main()
{
int code[] = { 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3 };
int size = sizeof(code) / sizeof(int);
std::vector<const_node*> result = decode_it(code, size);
// output
for (size_t i = 0; i < result.size(); i++)
{
std::cout.width(3);
std::cout.flags(std::ios::right);
std::cout << i << ": ";
const_node* item = result[i];
while (item)
{
std::cout << item->content;
item = item->next;
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
cleanupDelete(result);
}
void fillCleanup(const_node* n, std::set<const_node*>& all_nodes)
{
if (n)
{
all_nodes.insert(n);
fillCleanup(n->next, all_nodes);
}
}
void cleanupDelete(std::vector<const_node*>& nodes)
{
// this is like multiple inverse trees, hard to delete correctly, since multiple next pointers refer to the same target
std::set<const_node*> all_nodes;
for each (auto var in nodes)
{
fillCleanup(var, all_nodes);
}
nodes.clear();
for each (auto var in all_nodes)
{
delete var;
}
all_nodes.clear();
}
A drawback of the dynamically reused structure is the cleanup, since you wanna be careful to delete each node only once.