I have encountered following problem:
There are n numbers (0 or 1) and there are 2 operations. You can swich all numbers to 0 or 1 on a specific range(note that switching 001 to 0 is 000, not 110) and you can also ask about how many elements are turned on on a specific range.
Example:
->Our array is 0100101
We set elements from 1 to 3 to 1:
->Our array is 1110101 now
We set elements from 2 to 5 to 0:
->Our array is 1000001 now
We are asking about sum from 2nd to 7th element
-> The answer is 1
Brute force soltion is too slow(O(n*q), where q is number of quetions), so I assume that there has to be a faster one. Probably using segment tree, but I can not find it...
You could build subsampling binary tree in the fashion of mipmaps used in computer graphics.
Each node of the tree contains the sum of its children's values.
E.g.:
0100010011110100
1 0 1 0 2 2 1 0
1 1 4 1
2 5
7
This will bring down complexity for a single query to O(log₂n).
For an editing operation, you also get O(log₂n) by implementing a shortcut: Instead of applying changes recursively, you stop at a node that is fully covered by the input range; thus creating a sparse representation of the sequence. Each node representing M light bulbs either
has value 0 and no children, or
has value M and no children, or
has a value in the range 1..M-1 and 2 children.
The tree above would actually be stored like this:
7
2 5
1 1 4 1
1 0 1 0 1 0
01 01 01
You end up with O(q*log₂n).
Related
So for example I have divide my map into something like this:
click on link
the matrix representative would be
0 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1
0 1 0 0 0
one of the way I could divide it into even-ish would be:
click to see
where total square is 11 and since 11/3 gives us a decimal, I need to have 2 space with 4 square and one space with 3 squares.
but I don't know an algorithm that will be able to divide a small map like that.
there is probably a code that will be able to solve that particular map, but what if it is like :
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
Each value is a square in the map and 1 is the square that should be considered. 0 is an empty/null space that is not part of the map and should not be taken into consideration when dividing the map.
So far I try a for loop adding all value and divide by 3 to determine how many squares is needed for each space. Also, if I get a decimal, then one space can have one more square than the other. So in this problem there is 36 squares so if I try to divide it into 3 space, then each space would have 12 squares.
So I am looking to see if there is an algorithm that will be able to solve all types of map.
This is actually NP-hard for k>=2, where you want k=3 or k=4:
theorem 2.2 in On the complexity of partitioning graphs into connected subgraphs - M.E. DYER, A.M. FRIEZE
You can get a decent answer by greedily removing nodes from your graph, and backtracking if you can't merge the remaining nodes.
It would help if you gave a more rigorous definition of 'even-ish' - for example, consider a map with 13 nodes - Would you rather have divisions of size (4,4,5), (3,3,3,4), (4,4,4,1), (5,5,3), or (4,4,3,2)?
There is 5*5 cube puzzle named Happy cube Problem where for given mat , need to make a cube .
http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/cube_its.htm#top
Its like, 6 blue mats are given-
From the following mats, Need to derive a Cube -
These way it has 3 more solutions.
So like first cub
For such problem, the easiest approach I could imagine was Recursion based where for each cube, I have 6 position , and for each position I will try check all other mate and which fit, I will go again recursively to solve the same. Like finding all permutations of each of the cube and then find which fits the best.So Dynamic Programming approach.
But I am making loads of mistake in recursion , so is there any better easy approach which I can use to solve the same?
I made matrix out of each mat or diagram provided, then I rotated them in each 90 clock-wise 4 times and anticlock wise times . I flip the array and did the same, now for each of the above iteration I will have to repeat the step for other cube, so again recursion .
0 0 1 0 1
1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1
0 1 0 1 1
-------------
0 1 0 1 0
1 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0
1 1 0 1 1
-------------
1 1 0 1 1
0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 1
0 1 0 1 0
-------------
1 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0 1 0
-------------
1st - block is the Diagram
2nd - rotate clock wise
3rd - rotate anti clockwise
4th - flip
Still struggling to sort out the logic .
I can't believe this, but I actually wrote a set of scripts back in 2009 to brute-force solutions to this exact problem, for the simple cube case. I just put the code on Github: https://github.com/niklasb/3d-puzzle
Unfortunately the documentation is in German because that's the only language my team understood, but source code comments are in English. In particular, check out the file puzzle_lib.rb.
The approach is indeed just a straightforward backtracking algorithm, which I think is the way to go. I can't really say it's easy though, as far as I remember the 3-d aspect is a bit challenging. I implemented one optimization: Find all symmetries beforehand and only try each unique orientation of a piece. The idea is that the more characteristic the pieces are, the less options for placing pieces exist, so we can prune early. In the case of many symmetries, there might be lots of possibilities and we want to inspect only the ones that are unique up to symmetry.
Basically the algorithm works as follows: First, assign a fixed order to the sides of the cube, let's number them 0 to 5 for example. Then execute the following algorithm:
def check_slots():
for each edge e:
if slot adjacent to e are filled:
if the 1-0 patterns of the piece edges (excluding the corners)
have XOR != 0:
return false
if the corners are not "consistent":
return false
return true
def backtrack(slot_idx, pieces_left):
if slot_idx == 6:
# finished, we found a solution, output it or whatever
return
for each piece in pieces_left:
for each orientation o of piece:
fill slot slot_idx with piece in orientation o
if check_slots():
backtrack(slot_idx + 1, pieces_left \ {piece})
empty slot slot_idx
The corner consistency is a bit tricky: Either the corner must be filled by exactly one of the adjacent pieces or it must be accessible from a yet unfilled slot, i.e. not cut off by the already assigned pieces.
Of course you can ignore to drop some or all of the consistency checks and only check in the end, seeing as there are only 8^6 * 6! possible configurations overall. If you have more than 6 pieces, it becomes more important to prune early.
Given a rectangle consisting of 1's and 0's, how can I find the maximum number of non-overlapping 2x2 squares of 1's?
Example:
0110
1111
1111
The solution would be 2.
I know it can be solved with Bitmask DP; but I can't really grasp it - after playing with it for hours. How does it work and how can it be formalised?
I wanted to point out that the graph we get by putting vertices at the centers of squares and joining them when they overlap is not claw-free:
If we take (in the full plane) a 2x2 square and three of the four diagonally overlapping 2x2 squares, they form the induced subgraph
• •
\ /
•
/
•
This is a claw, meaning that any region containing those squares corresponds to a non-claw-free graph.
If you build a graph where every node represents a 2x2 square of 1's and there is an edge between two nodes if they overlap, then the problem is now: find the maximum independent set in this graph.
Here is a dynamic programming solution.
The state is (row number, mask of occupied cells, shift position). It looks like this:
..#..
.##..
.#...
.#...
In this case, the row number is 2(I use zero-bases indices), the mask depends on whether we take a cell with # or not, the shift position is 1. The number of states is O(n * m * 2 ^ n). The value of a state is the maximum number of picked 2x2 squares. The base case is f(1, 0, 0) = 0(it corresponds to the first row and no 2x2 squares picked so far).
The transitions are as follows:
..#.. ..#..
.00.. -> ..1..
.0... .11..
.#... .#...
This one can be used if and only if the square consists of ones in the original matrix and there were zeros in the mask(it means that we pick this square).
The other one is:
..#.. ..#..
.##.. -> ..#..
.#... .#0..
.#... .#...
This one is always applicable. It means that we do pick this 2x2 square.
When we are done with one row, we can proceed to the next one:
..#.. ..#0.
..#.. -> ..#..
..#.. ..#..
.##.. ..#..
There are at most two transitions from each state, so the total time complexity is O(n * m * 2 ^ n). The answer the maximum among all masks and shifts for the last row.
edit 20:18, there is a counterexample posted by #ILoveCoding
My intuition says, that this will work. I am unable to prove it since I'm not advanced enough. I can't think of any counterexample though.
I will try describe the solution and post the code, please correct me if my solution is wrong.
First we load input to an array.
Then we create second array of the same size and for every possible placing of 2x2 square we mark 1 in the second array. For the example posted by OP this would look like below.
0 1 0 0
1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
Then for every 1 in second array we calculate the number of neighbours (including diagonals) + 1 (because if it doesn't have any neighbours we have to still see it as 1). We set those new numbers to the array. Now it should look like this.
0 4 0 0
3 4 3 0
0 0 0 0
Then for every non-zero value in the array we check whether it has any neighbour with bigger or equal value. If it has then move on since it can't be in the solution.
If we don't find any such value then it will be in the solution. We have to reset to zero every neighbour of the original value (because it can't be in the solution, it would overlap the solution.
So the first such number found should be 2 on the left. After processing it the array should look like following.
0 0 0 0
3 0 3 0
0 0 0 0
When we check the other 3 situation is the same.
We end up with non-zero values in the array indicating where top left corners of 2x2 squares are.
If you need the numer of them just traverse the array and count non-zero elements.
Another example
1111 -> 1 1 1 0 -> 4 6 4 0 -> 4 0 4 0
1111 -> 1 1 1 0 -> 6 9 6 0 -> 0 0 0 0
1111 -> 1 1 1 0 -> 6 9 6 0 -> 6 0 6 0
1111 -> 1 1 1 0 -> 6 9 6 0 -> 0 0 0 0
1111 -> 1 1 1 0 -> 4 6 4 0 -> 4 0 4 0
1111 -> 0 0 0 0 -> 0 0 0 0 -> 0 0 0 0
The code I write can be found here
http://ideone.com/Wq1xRo
I want to convert a number in base 10 into a special base form like this:
A*2^2 + B*3^1 + C*2^0
A can take on values of [0,1]
B can take on values of [0,1,2]
C can take on values of [0,1]
For example, the number 8 would be
1*2^2 + 1*3 + 1.
It is guaranteed that the given number can be converted to this specialized base system.
I know how to convert from this base system back to base-10, but I do not know how to convert from base-10 to this specialized base system.
In short words, treat every base number (2^2, 3^1, 2^0 in your example) as weight of an item, and the whole number as the capacity of a bag. This problem wants us to find a combination of these items which they fill the bag exactly.
In the first place this problem is NP-complete. It is identical to the subset sum problem, which can also be seen as a derivative problem of the knapsack problem.
Despite this fact, this problem can however be solved by a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm using dynamic programming in O(nW) time, which n is the number of bases, and W is the number to decompose. The details can be find in this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem#Dynamic_programming and this SO page: What's it called when I want to choose items to fill container as full as possible - and what algorithm should I use?.
Simplifying your "special base":
X = A * 4 + B * 3 + C
A E {0,1}
B E {0,1,2}
C E {0,1}
Obviously the largest number that can be represented is 4 + 2 * 3 + 1 = 11
To figure out how to get the values of A, B, C you can do one of two things:
There are only 12 possible inputs: create a lookup table. Ugly, but quick.
Use some algorithm. A bit trickier.
Let's look at (1) first:
A B C X
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1
0 1 0 3
0 1 1 4
0 2 0 6
0 2 1 7
1 0 0 4
1 0 1 5
1 1 0 7
1 1 1 8
1 2 0 10
1 2 1 11
Notice that 2 and 9 cannot be expressed in this system, while 4 and 7 occur twice. The fact that you have multiple possible solutions for a given input is a hint that there isn't a really robust algorithm (other than a look up table) to achieve what you want. So your table might look like this:
int A[] = {0,0,-1,0,0,1,0,1,1,-1,1,1};
int B[] = {0,0,-1,1,1,0,2,1,1,-1,2,2};
int C[] = {0,1,-1,0,2,1,0,1,1,-1,0,1};
Then look up A, B, C. If A < 0, there is no solution.
This was one of my interview questions.
We have a matrix containing integers (no range provided). The matrix is randomly populated with integers. We need to devise an algorithm which finds those rows which match exactly with a column(s). We need to return the row number and the column number for the match. The order of of the matching elements is the same. For example, If, i'th row matches with j'th column, and i'th row contains the elements - [1,4,5,6,3]. Then jth column would also contain the elements - [1,4,5,6,3]. Size is n x n.
My solution:
RCEQUAL(A,i1..12,j1..j2)// A is n*n matrix
if(i2-i1==2 && j2-j1==2 && b[n*i1+1..n*i2] has [j1..j2])
use brute force to check if the rows and columns are same.
if (any rows and columns are same)
store the row and column numbers in b[1..n^2].//b[1],b[n+2],b[2n+3].. store row no,
// b[2..n+1] stores columns that
//match with row 1, b[n+3..2n+2]
//those that match with row 2,etc..
else
RCEQUAL(A,1..n/2,1..n/2);
RCEQUAL(A,n/2..n,1..n/2);
RCEQUAL(A,1..n/2,n/2..n);
RCEQUAL(A,n/2..n,n/2..n);
Takes O(n^2). Is this correct? If correct, is there a faster algorithm?
you could build a trie from the data in the rows. then you can compare the columns with the trie.
this would allow to exit as soon as the beginning of a column do not match any row. also this would let you check a column against all rows in one pass.
of course the trie is most interesting when n is big (setting up a trie for a small n is not worth it) and when there are many rows and columns which are quite the same. but even in the worst case where all integers in the matrix are different, the structure allows for a clear algorithm...
You could speed up the average case by calculating the sum of each row/column and narrowing your brute-force comparison (which you have to do eventually) only on rows that match the sums of columns.
This doesn't increase the worst case (all having the same sum) but if your input is truly random that "won't happen" :-)
This might only work on non-singular matrices (not sure), but...
Let A be a square (and possibly non-singular) NxN matrix. Let A' be the transpose of A. If we create matrix B such that it is a horizontal concatenation of A and A' (in other words [A A']) and put it into RREF form, we will get a diagonal on all ones in the left half and some square matrix in the right half.
Example:
A = 1 2
3 4
A'= 1 3
2 4
B = 1 2 1 3
3 4 2 4
rref(B) = 1 0 0 -2
0 1 0.5 2.5
On the other hand, if a column of A were equal to a row of A then column of A would be equal to a column of A'. Then we would get another single 1 in of of the columns of the right half of rref(B).
Example
A=
1 2 3 4 5
2 6 -3 4 6
3 8 -7 6 9
4 1 7 -5 3
5 2 4 -1 -1
A'=
1 2 3 4 5
2 6 8 1 2
3 -3 -7 7 4
4 4 6 -5 -1
5 6 9 3 -1
B =
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 6 -3 4 6 2 6 8 1 2
3 8 -7 6 9 3 -3 -7 7 4
4 1 7 -5 3 4 4 6 -5 -1
5 2 4 -1 -1 5 6 9 3 -1
rref(B)=
1 0 0 0 0 1.000 -3.689 -5.921 3.080 0.495
0 1 0 0 0 0 6.054 9.394 -3.097 -1.024
0 0 1 0 0 0 2.378 3.842 -0.961 0.009
0 0 0 1 0 0 -0.565 -0.842 1.823 0.802
0 0 0 0 1 0 -2.258 -3.605 0.540 0.662
1.000 in the top row of the right half means that the first column of A matches on of its rows. The fact that the 1.000 is in the left-most column of the right half means that it is the first row.
Without looking at your algorithm or any of the approaches in the previous answers, but since the matrix has n^2 elements to begin with, I do not think there is a method which does better than that :)
IFF the matrix is truely random...
You could create a list of pointers to the columns sorted by the first element. Then create a similar list of the rows sorted by their first element. This takes O(n*logn).
Next create an index into each sorted list initialized to 0. If the first elements match, you must compare the whole row. If they do not match, increment the index of the one with the lowest starting element (either move to the next row or to the next column). Since each index cycles from 0 to n-1 only once, you have at most 2*n comparisons unless all the rows and columns start with the same number, but we said a matrix of random numbers.
The time for a row/column comparison is n in the worst case, but is expected to be O(1) on average with random data.
So 2 sorts of O(nlogn), and a scan of 2*n*1 gives you an expected run time of O(nlogn). This is of course assuming random data. Worst case is still going to be n**3 for a large matrix with most elements the same value.