Sort Thousands of Chuck E. Cheese Tickets - algorithm

I need to sort an n-thousand size array of random unique positive integers into groups of consecutive integers, each of group size k or larger, and then further grouped into dividends of some arbitrary positive integer j.
In other words, let's say I work at Chuck E. Cheese and we sometimes give away free tickets. I have a couple hundred thousand tickets on the floor and want to find out what employee handed out what but only for ticket groupings of consecutive integers that are larger than 500. Each employee has a random number from 0 to 100 assigned to them. That number corresponds to what "batch" of tickets where handed out, i.e. tickets from #000000 to #001499 where handed out by employee 1, tickets from #001500 to #002999 were handed out by employee 2, and so on. A large number of tickets are lost or are missing. I only care about groups of consecutive ticket numbers larger than 500.
What is the fastest way for me to sort through this pile?
Edit:
As requested by #trincot, here is a worked out example:
I have 150,000 unique tickets on the floor ranging from ticket #000000 to #200000 (i.e. missing 50,001 random tickets from the pile)
Step 1: sort each ticket from smallest to largest using an introsort algorithm.
Step 2: go through the list of tickets one by one and gather only tickets with "consecutiveness" greater than 500. i.e. I keep a tally of how many consecutive values I have found and only keep those with tallys 500 or higher. If I have tickets #409 thru #909 but not #408 or #1000 then I would keep that group but if that group had missed a ticket anywhere from #409 to #909, I would have thrown out the group and moved on.
Step 3: combine all my newly sorted groups together, each of which are size 500 or larger.
Step 4: figure out what tickets belong to who by going through the final numbers one by one again, dividing each by 1500, rounding down to nearest whole number, and putting them in their respective pile where each pile represents an employee.
The end result is a set of piles telling me which employees gave out more than 500 tickets at a time, how many times they did so, and what tickets they did so with.
Sample with numbers:
where k == 3 and j = 1500; k is minimum consecutive integer grouping size, j is final ticket interval grouping size i.e. 5,6, and 7 fall into the 0th group of intervals of size 1500 and 5996, 5997, 5998, 5999 fall into the third group of intervals of size 1500.
Input: [5 , 5996 , 8111 , 1000 , 1001, 5999 , 8110 , 7 , 5998 , 2500 , 1250 , 6 , 8109 , 5997]
Output:[ 0:[5, 6, 7] , 3:[5996, 5997, 5998, 5999] , 5:[8109, 8110, 8111] ]

Here is how you could do it in Python:
from collections import defaultdict
def partition(data, k, j):
data = sorted(data)
start = data[0] # assuming data is not an empty list
count = 0
output = defaultdict(list) # to automatically create a partition when referenced
for value in data:
bucket = value // j # integer division
if value % j == start % j + count: # in same partition & consecutive?
count += 1
if count == k:
# Add the k entries that we skipped so far:
output[bucket].extend(list(range(start, start+count)))
elif count > k:
output[bucket].append(value)
else:
start = value
count = 1
return dict(output)
# The example given in the question:
data = [5, 5996, 8111, 1000, 1001, 5999, 8110, 7, 5998, 2500, 1250, 6, 8109, 5997]
print(partition(data, k=3, j=1500))
# outputs {0: [5, 6, 7], 3: [5996, 5997, 5998, 5999], 5: [8109, 8110, 8111]}

Here is untested Python for the fastest approach that I can think of. It will return just pairs of first/last ticket for each range of interest found.
def grouped_tickets (tickets, min_group_size, partition_size):
tickets = sorted(tickets)
answer = {}
min_ticket = -1
max_ticket = -1
next_partition = 0
for ticket in tickets:
if next_partition <= ticket or max_ticket + 1 < ticket:
if min_group_size <= max_ticket - min_ticket + 1:
partition = min_ticket // partition_size
if partition in answer:
answer[partition].append((min_ticket, max_ticket))
else:
answer[partition] = [(min_ticket, max_ticket)]
# Find where the next partition is.
next_partition = (ticket // partition_size) * partition_size + partition_size
min_ticket = ticket
max_ticket = ticket
else:
max_ticket = ticket
# And don't lose the last group!
if min_group_size <= max_ticket - min_ticket + 1:
partition = min_ticket // partition_size
if partition in answer:
answer[partition].append((min_ticket, max_ticket))
else:
answer[partition] = [(min_ticket, max_ticket)]
return answer

Related

Optimum redistribution algorothm

Let's assume I have a bucket of identical items (n in number) distributed in identical buckets (m in number). The given distribution may or may not be fair/uniform. The goal is to write an algorithm that can uniformly redistribute these items by transferring some items. Each transfer has a cost associated with it, so the number of transfers must be minimum.
For example I have total 7 items in 3 buckets with this distribution. Input is a vector of size 'm' of number of items in each bucket with - 4, 2, 1
The solution would involve 1 transfer from bucket 1 to bucket 3 and the resulting distribution will look like - 3, 2, 2
Since n(7) is not perfectly divisible by m(3), this is the closest achievable uniform distribution.
Another sample case -
input: {1, 4, 5, 11}
output: {5, 5, 5, 6}
Number of transfer to get to the output: 5
I'm looking for some existing algorithms that can solve this problem statement. Thanks!
While your use case doesn't necessitate putting much thought into the implementation, since the numbers are apparently small, it may sometimes be desirable to use an algorithm with a time complexity not essentially dependent on the number of items, e. g.:
import numpy as np
def dist(inp):
inp = np.array(inp)
m = len(inp) # number of buckets
n = sum(inp) # number of items
l = n//m # low number in an output bucket
h = (n+m-1)//m # high number in an output bucket
lo = inp < l # buckets which need transfer to
hi = inp > h # buckets which need transfer from
out = np.empty(m, int)
out[lo] = l # fill underfull buckets with low
out[hi] = h # fill overfull buckets with high
out[~lo & ~hi] = inp[~lo & ~hi] # keep other buckets as is
o = sum(out) # check missing or surplus items
if o < n: out[np.where(out == l)[0][:n-o]] = h # adjust
if o > n: out[np.where(out == h)[0][:o-n]] = l # adjust
return out

Maximum of groups with minimum numbers

I'm creating a macro for an RPG, in Lua, in it I need to get the most sets with a stack of dices. to form a group the data must add up to the minimum of each group, and may exceed this minimum.
ex: 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 10 w/ min = 10 will be: 6+4, 5+5, 7+1+2, 10.
I grouped the result of each dice into an array, and pulled out the data that can form groups on their own:
for i=#dice, 1, -1 do
table.sort(dice);
minimo = tonumber(minimum)
if dice[i] >= minimum then
stack.Total = stack.total+1;
table.insert(stack.dice, 1, math.floor(dice[i]))
table.remove(dice, i);
end;
end;
it doesn't have to be in Lua, just some mathematical formula will be of great help
Here's an efficient recursive solution. It likely doesn't scale as well as solving a mixed integer program would, but it's simple and doesn't require an external library. You could probably make it even faster by memoizing it, at the expense of a lot of memory.
The core idea is: form all possible groups that meet the minimum; for each such group, make the max number of groups out of the remaining rolls; take the best solution. The rest is optimization.
The first optimization is to loop over only some groups. Since we might as well put every roll in a group, the largest roll is in some group. To avoid looping over all permutations of the groups, enumerate the possibilities for that group only.
The second optimization is to stop searching if we find a provable optimum. Obviously we can't make more groups than the floor of the sum over the minimum. If we make this many, we can't improve.
The third optimization is to avoid enumerating duplicate groups. When we decrease i, we're considering groups that did not include the element at that position. To avoid duplicates, we skip i over the elements identical to the one that we just rejected.
In Python 3:
def all_groups(minimum, rolls, j):
roll = rolls[j]
if minimum <= roll:
yield [roll], rolls[:j]
else:
i = j - 1
while i >= 0:
for group, rest in all_groups(minimum - roll, rolls, i):
group.append(roll)
rest.extend(rolls[i + 1 : j])
yield group, rest
while i > 0 and rolls[i - 1] == rolls[i]:
i -= 1
i -= 1
def max_groups_helper(minimum, rolls, lower_bound=0):
upper_bound = sum(min(roll, minimum) for roll in rolls) // minimum
if upper_bound < lower_bound:
return None
if upper_bound <= 0:
return []
best = []
for group, rest in sorted(
all_groups(minimum, rolls, len(rolls) - 1),
key=lambda group_rest: sum(group_rest[0]),
):
candidate = max_groups_helper(minimum, rest, max(lower_bound - 1, len(best)))
if candidate is None:
continue
candidate.append(group)
best = candidate
if len(best) >= upper_bound:
break
return best
def max_groups(minimum, rolls):
assert minimum > 0
rolls = list(rolls)
return max_groups_helper(minimum, rolls, 0)

Arranging the number 1 in a 2d matrix

Given the number of rows and columns of a 2d matrix
Initially all elements of matrix are 0
Given the number of 1's that should be present in each row
Given the number of 1's that should be present in each column
Determine if it is possible to form such matrix.
Example:
Input: r=3 c=2 (no. of rows and columns)
2 1 0 (number of 1's that should be present in each row respectively)
1 2 (number of 1's that should be present in each column respectively)
Output: Possible
Explanation:
1 1
0 1
0 0
I tried solving this problem for like 12 hours by checking if summation of Ri = summation of Ci
But I wondered if wouldn't be possible for cases like
3 3
1 3 0
0 2 2
r and c can be upto 10^5
Any ideas how should I move further?
Edit: Constraints added and output should only be "possible" or "impossible". The possible matrix need not be displayed.
Can anyone help me now?
Hint: one possible solution utilizes Maximum Flow Problem by creating a special graph and running the standard maximum flow algorithm on it.
If you're not familiar with the above problem, you may start reading about it e.g. here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_flow_problem
If you're interested in the full solution please comment and I'll update the answer. But it requires understading the above algorithm.
Solution as requested:
Create a graph of r+c+2 nodes.
Node 0 is the source, node r+c+1 is the sink. Nodes 1..r represent the rows, while r+1..r+c the columns.
Create following edges:
from source to nodes i=1..r of capacity r_i
from nodes i=r+1..r+c to sink of capacity c_i
between all the nodes i=1..r and j=r+1..r+c of capacity 1
Run maximum flow algorithm, the saturated edges between row nodes and column nodes define where you should put 1.
Or if it's not possible then the maximum flow value is less than number of expected ones in the matrix.
I will illustrate the algorithm with an example.
Assume we have m rows and n columns. Let rows[i] be the number of 1s in row i, for 0 <= i < m,
and cols[j] be the number of 1s in column j, for 0 <= j < n.
For example, for m = 3, and n = 4, we could have: rows = {4 2 3}, cols = {1 3 2 3}, and
the solution array would be:
1 3 2 3
+--------
4 | 1 1 1 1
2 | 0 1 0 1
3 | 0 1 1 1
Because we only want to know whether a solution exists, the values in rows and cols may be permuted in any order. The solution of each permutation is just a permutation of the rows and columns of the above solution.
So, given rows and cols, sort cols in decreasing order, and rows in increasing order. For our example, we have cols = {3 3 2 1} and rows = {2 3 4}, and the equivalent problem.
3 3 2 1
+--------
2 | 1 1 0 0
3 | 1 1 1 0
4 | 1 1 1 1
We transform cols into a form that is better suited for the algorithm. What cols tells us is that we have two series of 1s of length 3, one series of 1s of length 2, and one series of 1s of length 1, that are to be distributed among the rows of the array. We rewrite cols to capture just that, that is COLS = {2/3 1/2 1/1}, 2 series of length 3, 1 series of length 2, and 1 series of length 1.
Because we have 2 series of length 3, a solution exists only if we can put two 1s in the first row. This is possible because rows[0] = 2. We do not actually put any 1 in the first row, but record the fact that 1s have been placed there by decrementing the length of the series of length 3. So COLS becomes:
COLS = {2/2 1/2 1/1}
and we combine our two counts for series of length 2, yielding:
COLS = {3/2 1/1}
We now have the reduced problem:
3 | 1 1 1 0
4 | 1 1 1 1
Again we need to place 1s from our series of length 2 to have a solution. Fortunately, rows[1] = 3 and we can do this. We decrement the length of 3/2 and get:
COLS = {3/1 1/1} = {4/1}
We have the reduced problem:
4 | 1 1 1 1
Which is solved by 4 series of length 1, just what we have left. If at any step, the series in COLS cannot be used to satisfy a row count, then no solution is possible.
The general processing for each row may be stated as follows. For each row r, starting from the first element in COLS, decrement the lengths of as many elements count[k]/length[k] of COLS as needed, so that the sum of the count[k]'s equals rows[r]. Eliminate series of length 0 in COLS and combine series of same length.
Note that because elements of COLS are in decreasing order of lengths, the length of the last element decremented is always less than or equal to the next element in COLS (if there is a next element).
EXAMPLE 2 : Solution exists.
rows = {1 3 3}, cols = {2 2 2 1} => COLS = {3/2 1/1}
1 series of length 2 is decremented to satisfy rows[0] = 1, and the 2 other series of length 2 remains at length 2.
rows[0] = 1
COLS = {2/2 1/1 1/1} = {2/2 2/1}
The 2 series of length 2 are decremented, and 1 of the series of length 1.
The series whose length has become 0 is deleted, and the series of length 1 are combined.
rows[1] = 3
COLS = {2/1 1/0 1/1} = {2/1 1/1} = {3/1}
A solution exists for rows[2] can be satisfied.
rows[2] = 3
COLS = {3/0} = {}
EXAMPLE 3: Solution does not exists.
rows = {0 2 3}, cols = {3 2 0 0} => COLS = {1/3 1/2}
rows[0] = 0
COLS = {1/3 1/2}
rows[1] = 2
COLS = {1/2 1/1}
rows[2] = 3 => impossible to satisfy; no solution.
SPACE COMPLEXITY
It is easy to see that it is O(m + n).
TIME COMPLEXITY
We iterate over each row only once. For each row i, we need to iterate over at most
rows[i] <= n elements of COLS. Time complexity is O(m x n).
After finding this algorithm, I found the following theorem:
The Havel-Hakimi theorem (Havel 1955, Hakimi 1962) states that there exists a matrix Xn,m of 0’s and 1’s with row totals a0=(a1, a2,… , an) and column totals b0=(b1, b2,… , bm) such that bi ≥ bi+1 for every 0 < i < m if and only if another matrix Xn−1,m of 0’s and 1’s with row totals a1=(a2, a3,… , an) and column totals b1=(b1−1, b2−1,… ,ba1−1, ba1+1,… , bm) also exists.
from the post Finding if binary matrix exists given the row and column sums.
This is basically what my algorithm does, while trying to optimize the decrementing part, i.e., all the -1's in the above theorem. Now that I see the above theorem, I know my algorithm is correct. Nevertheless, I checked the correctness of my algorithm by comparing it with a brute-force algorithm for arrays of up to 50 cells.
Here is the C# implementation.
public class Pair
{
public int Count;
public int Length;
}
public class PairsList
{
public LinkedList<Pair> Pairs;
public int TotalCount;
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int[] rows = new int[] { 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2 };
int[] cols = new int[] { 2, 2, 0 };
bool success = Solve(cols, rows);
}
static bool Solve(int[] cols, int[] rows)
{
PairsList pairs = new PairsList() { Pairs = new LinkedList<Pair>(), TotalCount = 0 };
FillAllPairs(pairs, cols);
for (int r = 0; r < rows.Length; r++)
{
if (rows[r] > 0)
{
if (pairs.TotalCount < rows[r])
return false;
if (pairs.Pairs.First != null && pairs.Pairs.First.Value.Length > rows.Length - r)
return false;
DecrementPairs(pairs, rows[r]);
}
}
return pairs.Pairs.Count == 0 || pairs.Pairs.Count == 1 && pairs.Pairs.First.Value.Length == 0;
}
static void DecrementPairs(PairsList pairs, int count)
{
LinkedListNode<Pair> pair = pairs.Pairs.First;
while (count > 0 && pair != null)
{
LinkedListNode<Pair> next = pair.Next;
if (pair.Value.Count == count)
{
pair.Value.Length--;
if (pair.Value.Length == 0)
{
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair);
pairs.TotalCount -= count;
}
else if (pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += pair.Next.Value.Count;
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair.Next);
next = pair;
}
count = 0;
}
else if (pair.Value.Count < count)
{
count -= pair.Value.Count;
pair.Value.Length--;
if (pair.Value.Length == 0)
{
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair);
pairs.TotalCount -= pair.Value.Count;
}
else if(pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += pair.Next.Value.Count;
pairs.Pairs.Remove(pair.Next);
next = pair;
}
}
else // pair.Value.Count > count
{
Pair p = new Pair() { Count = count, Length = pair.Value.Length - 1 };
pair.Value.Count -= count;
if (p.Length > 0)
{
if (pair.Next != null && pair.Next.Value.Length == p.Length)
pair.Next.Value.Count += p.Count;
else
pairs.Pairs.AddAfter(pair, p);
}
else
pairs.TotalCount -= count;
count = 0;
}
pair = next;
}
}
static int FillAllPairs(PairsList pairs, int[] cols)
{
List<Pair> newPairs = new List<Pair>();
int c = 0;
while (c < cols.Length && cols[c] > 0)
{
int k = c++;
if (cols[k] > 0)
pairs.TotalCount++;
while (c < cols.Length && cols[c] == cols[k])
{
if (cols[k] > 0) pairs.TotalCount++;
c++;
}
newPairs.Add(new Pair() { Count = c - k, Length = cols[k] });
}
LinkedListNode<Pair> pair = pairs.Pairs.First;
foreach (Pair p in newPairs)
{
while (pair != null && p.Length < pair.Value.Length)
pair = pair.Next;
if (pair == null)
{
pairs.Pairs.AddLast(p);
}
else if (p.Length == pair.Value.Length)
{
pair.Value.Count += p.Count;
pair = pair.Next;
}
else // p.Length > pair.Value.Length
{
pairs.Pairs.AddBefore(pair, p);
}
}
return c;
}
}
(Note: to avoid confusion between when I'm talking about the actual numbers in the problem vs. when I'm talking about the zeros in the ones in the matrix, I'm going to instead fill the matrix with spaces and X's. This obviously doesn't change the problem.)
Some observations:
If you're filling in a row, and there's (for example) one column needing 10 more X's and another column needing 5 more X's, then you're sometimes better off putting the X in the "10" column and saving the "5" column for later (because you might later run into 5 rows that each need 2 X's), but you're never better off putting the X in the "5" column and saving the "10" column for later (because even if you later run into 10 rows that all need an X, they won't mind if they don't all go in the same column). So we can use a somewhat "greedy" algorithm: always put an X in the column still needing the most X's. (Of course, we'll need to make sure that we don't greedily put an X in the same column multiple times for the same row!)
Since you don't need to actually output a possible matrix, the rows are all interchangeable and the columns are all interchangeable; all that matter is how many rows still need 1 X, how many still need 2 X's, etc., and likewise for columns.
With that in mind, here's one fairly simple approach:
(Optimization.) Add up the counts for all the rows, add up the counts for all the columns, and return "impossible" if the sums don't match.
Create an array of length r+1 and populate it with how many columns need 1 X, how many need 2 X's, etc. (You can ignore any columns needing 0 X's.)
(Optimization.) To help access the array efficiently, build a stack/linked-list/etc. of the indices of nonzero array elements, in decreasing order (e.g., starting at index r if it's nonzero, then index r−1 if it's nonzero, etc.), so that you can easily find the elements representing columns to put X's in.
(Optimization.) To help determine when there'll be a row can't be satisfied, also make note of the total number of columns needing any X's, and make note of the largest number of X's needed by any row. If the former is less than the latter, return "impossible".
(Optimization.) Sort the rows by the number of X's they need.
Iterate over the rows, starting with the one needing the fewest X's and ending with the one needing the most X's, and for each one:
Update the array accordingly. For example, if a row needs 12 X's, and the array looks like [..., 3, 8, 5], then you'll update the array to look like [..., 3+7 = 10, 8+5−7 = 6, 5−5 = 0]. If it's not possible to update the array because you run out of columns to put X's in, return "impossible". (Note: this part should never actually return "impossible", because we're keeping count of the number of columns left and the max number of columns we'll need, so we should have already returned "impossible" if this was going to happen. I mention this check only for clarity.)
Update the stack/linked-list of indices of nonzero array elements.
Update the total number of columns needing any X's. If it's now less than the greatest number of X's needed by any row, return "impossible".
(Optimization.) If the first nonzero array element has an index greater than the number of rows left, return "impossible".
If we complete our iteration without having returned "impossible", return "possible".
(Note: the reason I say to start with the row needing the fewest X's, and work your way to the row with the most X's, is that a row needing more X's may involve examining updating more elements of the array and of the stack, so the rows needing fewer X's are cheaper. This isn't just a matter of postponing the work: the rows needing fewer X's can help "consolidate" the array, so that there will be fewer distinct column-counts, making the later rows cheaper than they would otherwise be. In a very-bad-case scenario, such as the case of a square matrix where every single row needs a distinct positive number of X's and every single column needs a distinct positive number of X's, the fewest-to-most order means you can handle each row in O(1) time, for linear time overall, whereas the most-to-fewest order would mean that each row would take time proportional to the number of X's it needs, for quadratic time overall.)
Overall, this takes no worse than O(r+c+n) time (where n is the number of X's); I think that the optimizations I've listed are enough to ensure that it's closer to O(r+c) time, but it's hard to be 100% sure. I recommend trying it to see if it's fast enough for your purposes.
You can use brute force (iterating through all 2^(r * c) possibilities) to solve it, but that will take a long time. If r * c is under 64, you can accelerate it to a certain extent using bit-wise operations on 64-bit integers; however, even then, iterating through all 64-bit possibilities would take, at 1 try per ms, over 500M years.
A wiser choice is to add bits one by one, and only continue placing bits if no constraints are broken. This will eliminate the vast majority of possibilities, greatly speeding up the process. Look up backtracking for the general idea. It is not unlike solving sudokus through guesswork: once it becomes obvious that your guess was wrong, you erase it and try guessing a different digit.
As with sudokus, there are certain strategies that can be written into code and will result in speedups when they apply. For example, if the sum of 1s in rows is different from the sum of 1s in columns, then there are no solutions.
If over 50% of the bits will be on, you can instead work on the complementary problem (transform all ones to zeroes and vice-versa, while updating row and column counts). Both problems are equivalent, because any answer for one is also valid for the complementary.
This problem can be solved in O(n log n) using Gale-Ryser Theorem. (where n is the maximum of lengths of the two degree sequences).
First, make both sequences of equal length by adding 0's to the smaller sequence, and let this length be n.
Let the sequences be A and B. Sort A in non-decreasing order, and sort B in non-increasing order. Create another prefix sum array P for B such that ith element of P is equal to sum of first i elements of B.
Now, iterate over k's from 1 to n, and check for
The second sum can be calculated in O(log n) using binary search for index of last number in B smaller than k, and then using precalculated P.
Inspiring from the solution given by RobertBaron I have tried to build a new algorithm.
rows = [int(x)for x in input().split()]
cols = [int (ss) for ss in input().split()]
rows.sort()
cols.sort(reverse=True)
for i in range(len(rows)):
for j in range(len(cols)):
if(rows[i]!= 0 and cols[j]!=0):
rows[i] = rows[i] - 1;
cols[j] =cols[j]-1;
print("rows: ",rows)
print("cols: ",cols)
#if there is any non zero value, print NO else print yes
flag = True
for i in range(len(rows)):
if(rows[i]!=0):
flag = False
break
for j in range(len(cols)):
if(cols[j]!=0):
flag = False
if(flag):
print("YES")
else:
print("NO")
here, i have sorted the rows in ascending order and cols in descending order. later decrementing particular row and column if 1 need to be placed!
it is working for all the test cases posted here! rest GOD knows

What is the logic behind the algorithm

I am trying to solve a problem from codility
"Even sums"
but am unable to do so. Here is the question below.
Even sums is a game for two players. Players are given a sequence of N positive integers and take turns alternately. In each turn, a player chooses a non-empty slice (a subsequence of consecutive elements) such that the sum of values in this slice is even, then removes the slice and concatenates the remaining parts of the sequence. The first player who is unable to make a legal move loses the game.
You play this game against your opponent and you want to know if you can win, assuming both you and your opponent play optimally. You move first.
Write a function:
string solution(vector< int>& A);
that, given a zero-indexed array A consisting of N integers, returns a string of format "X,Y" where X and Y are, respectively, the first and last positions (inclusive) of the slice that you should remove on your first move in order to win, assuming you have a winning strategy. If there is more than one such winning slice, the function should return the one with the smallest value of X. If there is more than one slice with the smallest value of X, the function should return the shortest. If you do not have a winning strategy, the function should return "NO SOLUTION".
For example, given the following array:
A[0] = 4 A[1] = 5 A[2] = 3 A[3] = 7 A[4] = 2
the function should return "1,2". After removing a slice from positions 1 to 2 (with an even sum of 5 + 3 = 8), the remaining array is [4, 7, 2]. Then the opponent will be able to remove the first element (of even sum 4) or the last element (of even sum 2). Afterwards you can make a move that leaves the array containing just [7], so your opponent will not have a legal move and will lose. One of possible games is shown on the following picture
Note that removing slice "2,3" (with an even sum of 3 + 7 = 10) is also a winning move, but slice "1,2" has a smaller value of X.
For the following array:
A[0] = 2 A[ 1 ] = 5 A[2] = 4
the function should return "NO SOLUTION", since there is no strategy that guarantees you a win.
Assume that:
N is an integer within the range [1..100,000]; each element of array A is an integer within the range [1..1,000,000,000]. Complexity:
expected worst-case time complexity is O(N); expected worst-case space complexity is O(N), beyond input storage (not counting the storage required for input arguments). Elements of input arrays can be modified.
I have found a solution online in python.
def check(start, end):
if start>end:
res = 'NO SOLUTION'
else:
res = str(start) + ',' + str(end)
return res
def trans( strr ):
if strr =='NO SOLUTION':
return (-1, -1)
else:
a, b = strr.split(',')
return ( int(a), int(b) )
def solution(A):
# write your code in Python 2.7
odd_list = [ ind for ind in range(len(A)) if A[ind]%2==1 ]
if len(odd_list)%2==0:
return check(0, len(A)-1)
odd_list = [-1] + odd_list + [len(A)]
res_cand = []
# the numbers at the either end of A are even
count = odd_list[1]
second_count = len(A)-1-odd_list[-2]
first_count = odd_list[2]-odd_list[1]-1
if second_count >= count:
res_cand.append( trans(check( odd_list[1]+1, len(A)-1-count )))
if first_count >= count:
res_cand.append( trans(check( odd_list[1]+count+1, len(A)-1 )))
twosum = first_count + second_count
if second_count < count <= twosum:
res_cand.append( trans(check( odd_list[1]+(first_count-(count-second_count))+1, odd_list[-2] )))
###########################################
count = len(A)-1-odd_list[-2]
first_count = odd_list[1]
second_count = odd_list[-2]-odd_list[-3]-1
if first_count >= count:
res_cand.append( trans(check( count, odd_list[-2]-1 )))
if second_count >= count:
res_cand.append( trans(check( 0, odd_list[-2]-count-1)) )
twosum = first_count + second_count
if second_count < count <= twosum:
res_cand.append( trans(check( count-second_count, odd_list[-3])) )
res_cand = sorted( res_cand, key=lambda x: (-x[0],-x[1]) )
cur = (-1, -2)
for item in res_cand:
if item[0]!=-1:
cur = item
return check( cur[0], cur[1] )
This code works and I am unable to understand the code and flow of one function to the the other. However I don't understand the logic of the algorithm. How it has approached the problem and solved it. This might be a long task but can anybody please care enough to explain me the algorithm. Thanks in advance.
So far I have figured out that the number of odd numbers are crucial to find out the result. Especially the index of the first odd number and the last odd number is needed to calculate the important values.
Now I need to understand the logic behind the comparison such as "if first_count >= count" and if "second_count < count <= twosum".
Update:
Hey guys I found out the solution to my question and finally understood the logic of the algorithm.
The idea lies behind the symmetry of the array. We can never win the game if the array is symmetrical. Here symmetrical is defined as the array where there is only one odd in the middle and equal number of evens on the either side of that one odd.
If there are even number of odds we can directly win the game.
If there are odd number of odds we should always try to make the array symmetrical. That is what the algorithm is trying to do.
Now there are two cases to it. Either the last odd will remain or the first odd will remain. I will be happy to explain more if you guys didn't understand it. Thanks.

Find the longest subsequence containing as many 1 as 0 time O(n)

I had a question in an interview and I couldn't find the optimal solution (and it's quite frustrating lol)
So you have a n-list of 1 and 0.
110000110101110..
The goal is to extract the longest sub sequence containing as many 1 as 0.
Here for example it is "110000110101" or "100001101011" or "0000110101110"
I have an idea for O(n^2), just scanning all possibilities from the beginning to the end, but apparently there is a way to do it in O(n).
Any ideas?
Thanks a lot!
Consider '10110':
Create a variable S. Create array A=[0].
Iterate from first number and add 1 to S if you notice 1 and subtract 1 from S if you notice 0 and append S to A.
For our example sequence A will be: [0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 1]. A is simply an array which stores a difference between number of 1s and 0s preceding the index. The sequence has to start and end at the place which has the same difference between 1s and 0s. So now our task is to find the longest distance between same numbers in A.
Now create 2 empty dictionaries (hash maps) First and Last.
Iterate through A and save position of first occurrence of every number in A in dictionary First.
Iterate through A (starting from the end) and save position of the last occurrence of each number in A in dictionary Last.
So for our example array First will be {0:0, 1:1, 2:4} and Last will be {0:2, 1:5, 2:4}
Now find the key(max_key) for which the difference between corresponding values in First and Last is the largest. This max difference is the length of the subsequence. Subsequence starts at First[max_key] and ends at Last[max_key].
I know it is a bit hard to understand but it has complexity O(n) - four loops, each has complexity N. You can replace dictionaries with arrays of course but it is more complicated then using dictionaries.
Solution in Python.
def find_subsequence(seq):
S = 0
A = [0]
for e in seq:
if e=='1':
S+=1
else:
S-=1
A.append(S)
First = {}
Last = {}
for pos, e in enumerate(A):
if e not in First:
First[e] = pos
for pos, e in enumerate(reversed(A)):
if e not in Last:
Last[e] = len(seq) - pos
max_difference = 0
max_key = None
for key in First:
difference = Last[key] - First[key]
if difference>max_difference:
max_difference = difference
max_key = key
if max_key is None:
return ''
return seq[First[max_key]:Last[max_key]]
find_sequene('10110') # Gives '0110'
find_sequence('1') # gives ''
J.F. Sebastian's code is more optimised.
EXTRA
This problem is related to Maximum subarray problem. Its solution is also based on summing elements from start:
def max_subarray(arr):
max_diff = total = min_total = start = tstart = end = 0
for pos, val in enumerate(arr, 1):
total += val
if min_total > total:
min_total = total
tstart = pos
if total - min_total > max_diff:
max_diff = total - min_total
end = pos
start = tstart
return max_diff, arr[start:end]

Resources