Related
I was solving the following job interview question and solved most of it but failed at the last requirement.
Q: Build a data structure which supports the following functions:
Init - Initialise Empty DS. O(1) Time complexity.
SetPositiveInDay(d,x) - Add to the DS that in day d exactly x new people were infected with covid-19. O(log n)Time complexity.
WorseBefore(d) - From the days inserted into the DS and smaller than d return the last one which has more newly infected people than d. O(log n)Time complexity.
For example:
Init()
SetPositiveInDay(1,10)
SetPositiveInDay(2,20)
SetPositiveInDay(3,15)
SetPositiveInDay(5,17)
SetPositiveInDay(23,180)
SetPositiveInDay(8,13)
SetPositiveInDay(13,18)
WorstBefore(13) // Returns day #2
SetPositiveInDay(10,19)
WorstBefore(13) // Returns day #10
Important note: you can't suppose that days will be entered by order and can't suppose too that there won't be "gaps" between days. (Some days may not be saved in the DS while those after it may be).
What I did?
I used AVL tree (I could use 2-3 tree too).
For each node I have:
Sick - Number of new infected people in that day.
maxLeftSick - Max number of infected people for left son.
maxRightSick - Max number of infected people for right son.
When inserted a new node I made sure that in rotation data won't get missed plus, for each single node from the new one till the root I did:
But I wasn't successful implementing WorseBefore(d).
Where to search?
First you need to find the node node corresponding to d in the tree ordered by days. Let x = Sick(node). This can be done in O(log n).
If maxLeftSick(node) > x, the solution must be in the left subtree of node. Search for the solution there and return the answer. This can be done in O(log n) - see below.
Otherwise, traverse the tree upwards towards the root, starting from node, until you find the first node nextPredecessor satisfying this property (this takes O(log n)):
nextPredecessor is smaller than node,
and either
Sick(nextPredecessor) > x or
maxLeftSick(nextPredecessor) > x.
If no such node exists, we give up. In case 1, just return nextPredecessor since that is the best solution.
In case 2, we know that the solution must be in the left subtree of nextPredecessor, so search there and return the answer. Again, this takes O(log n) - see below.
Note that there is no need to search in the right subtree of nextPredecessor since the only nodes that are smaller than node in that subtree would be the left subtree of node itself, and we have already excluded that.
Note also that it is not necessary to traverse further up the tree than nextPredecessor since those nodes are even smaller, and we are looking for the largest node satisfying all constraints.
How to search?
OK, so how do we search for the solution in a subtree? Finding the largest day within a subtree rooted in q that is worse than an infection number x is simple using the maxLeftSick and maxRightSick information:
If q has a right child and maxRightSick(q) > x then search in the right subtree of q.
If q has no right child and Sick(q) > x, return Day(q).
If q has a left child and maxLeftSick(q) > x then search in the left subtree of q.
Otherwise there is no solution within the subtree q.
We are effectively using maxLeftSick and maxRightSick to prune the search tree to include only "worse" nodes, and within that pruned tree we get the right most node, i.e. the one with the largest day.
It is easy to see that this algorithm runs in O(log n) where n is the total number of nodes since the number of steps is bounded by the height of the tree.
Pseudocode
Here is the pseudocode (assuming maxLeftSick and maxRightSick return -1 if no corresponding child node exists):
// Returns the largest day smaller than d such that its
// infection number is larger than the infection number on day d.
// Returns -1 if no such day exists.
int WorstBefore(int d) {
node = find(d);
// try to find the solution in the left subtree
if (maxLeftSick(node) > Sick(node)) {
return FindLastWorseThan(node -> left, Sick(node));
}
// move up towards root until we find the first node
// that is smaller than `node` and such that
// Sick(nextPredecessor) > Sick(node) or
// maxLeftSick(nextPredecessor) > Sick(node).
nextPredecessor = findNextPredecessor(node);
if (nextPredecessor == null) return -1;
// Case 1
if (Sick(nextPredecessor) > Sick(node)) return nextPredecessor;
// Case 2: maxLeftSick(nextPredecessor) > Sick(node)
return FindLastWorseThan(nextPredecessor -> left, Sick(node));
}
// Finds the latest day within the given subtree with root "node" where
// the infection number is larger than x. Runs in O(log(size(q)).
int FindLastWorseThan(Node q, int x) {
if ((q -> right) = null and Sick(q) > x) return Day(q);
if (maxRightSick(q) > x) return FindLastWorseThan(q -> right, x);
if (maxLeftSick(q) > x) return FindLastWorseThan(q -> left, x);
return -1;
}
First of all, your chosen data structure looks fine to me. You did not mention it explicitly, but I assume that the "key" you use in the AVL tree is the day number, i.e. an in-order traversal of the tree would list the nodes in their chronological order.
I would just suggest a cosmetic change: store the maximum value of sick in the node itself, so that you don't have two similar informations (maxLeftSick and maxRightSick) stored in one node instance, but move those two informations to the child nodes, so that your node.maxLeftSick is actually stored in node.left.maxSick, and similarly node.maxRightSick is stored in node.right.maxSick. This is of course not done when that child does not exist, but then we don't need that information either. In your structure maxLeftSick would be 0 when left is not defined. In my proposed structure, you would not have that value -- the 0 would follow naturally from the fact that there is no left child. In my proposal, the root node would have an information in maxSick which is not present in yours, and which would be the sum of your root.maxLeftSick and root.maxRightSick. This information would not really be used, but it is just there to make the structure consistent throughout the tree.
So you would just store one maxSick, which considers the current node's sick value also in that maximum. The processing you do during rotations will need to change accordingly, but will not become more complex.
I will assume that your AVL tree is single-threaded, i.e. you don't keep track of parent-pointers. So create a find method which will return the path to the node to be found. For instance, in Python syntax, it could look like this:
def find(self, day):
node = self.root
path = [] # an array of nodes
while node:
path.append(node)
if node.day == day: # bingo
return path
if day < node.day:
node = node.left
else:
node = node.right
Then the worstBefore method could look like this:
def worstBefore(self, day):
path = self.find(day)
if not path:
return # day not found
# get number of sick people on that day:
sick = path[-1].sick
# look for recent day with greater number of sick
while path:
node = path.pop() # walk upward, starting with found node
if node.day < day and node.sick > sick:
return node.day
if node.left and node.left.maxSick > sick:
# we will find the result in this subtree
node = node.left
while True:
if node.right and node.right.maxSick > sick:
node = node.right
elif node.sick > sick: # bingo
return node.day
else:
node = node.left
So the path returned by the find method will be used to get the parents of a node when you need to backtrack upwards in the tree along that path.
If along that path you find a left child whose maxSick is greater, then you know that the targeted node must be in that subtree. It is then a matter to walk down that subtree in a controlled way, choosing the right child when it still has maxSick greater. Otherwise check the current node's sick value and return that one if that value is greater. Otherwise go left, and repeat.
While there is no such left sub tree, go up along the path. If that parent would be a match, then return it (make sure to verify the day number). Keep checking for left sub trees that have a larger maxSick.
This runs in O(logn) because you first will walk zero or more steps upward and then zero or more steps downward (in a left subtree).
You can see your example scenario run on repl.it. There I focussed on this question, and didn't implement the rotations.
As part of my project, I have to use Decision tree that I am using "fitctree" function that is the Matlab function for classified my features that extracted with PCA.
I want to control number of Tree and tree depth in fitctree function.
anyone knows how can I do this? for example changed the number of trees to 200 and tree depth to 10. How am I going to do this?
Is it possible to change these value in decision tree?
Best,
fitctree offers only input parameters to control the depth of the resulting tree:
MaxNumSplits
MinLeafSize
MinParentSize
https://de.mathworks.com/help/stats/classification-trees-and-regression-trees.html#bsw6baj
You have to play with those parameters to control the depth of your tree. Thats because the decision tree only stops growing when purity is reached.
Another possibility would be to turn on pruning. Pruning will reduce the size of your tree by removing sections of the tree that provide little power to classify instances.
Let me assume that you are using ID3 algorithm. Its pseudocode can provide a way to control the depth of the tree.
ID3 (Examples, Target_Attribute, Attributes, **Depth**)
// Check the depth of the tree, if it is 0, we are going to break
if (Depth == 0) { break; }
// Else continue
Create a root node for the tree
If all examples are positive, Return the single-node tree Root, with label = +.
If all examples are negative, Return the single-node tree Root, with label = -.
If number of predicting attributes is empty, then Return the single node tree Root,
with label = most common value of the target attribute in the examples.
Otherwise Begin
A ← The Attribute that best classifies examples.
Decision Tree attribute for Root = A.
For each possible value, vi, of A,
Add a new tree branch below Root, corresponding to the test A = vi.
Let Examples(vi) be the subset of examples that have the value vi for A
If Examples(vi) is empty
Then below this new branch add a leaf node with label = most common target value in the examples
// We decrease the value of Depth by 1 so the tree stops growing when it reaches the designated depth
Else below this new branch add the subtree ID3 (Examples(vi), Target_Attribute, Attributes – {A}, Depth - 1)
End
Return Root
What algorithm does your fictree function try to implement?
Fenwick tree is a data-structure that gives an efficient way to answer to main queries:
add an element to a particular index of an array update(index, value)
find sum of elements from 1 to N find(n)
both operations are done in O(log(n)) time and I understand the logic and implementation. It is not hard to implement a bunch of other operations like find a sum from N to M.
I wanted to understand how to adapt Fenwick tree for RMQ. It is obvious to change Fenwick tree for first two operations. But I am failing to figure out how to find minimum on the range from N to M.
After searching for solutions majority of people think that this is not possible and a small minority claims that it actually can be done (approach1, approach2).
The first approach (written in Russian, based on my google translate has 0 explanation and only two functions) relies on three arrays (initial, left and right) upon my testing was not working correctly for all possible test cases.
The second approach requires only one array and based on the claims runs in O(log^2(n)) and also has close to no explanation of why and how should it work. I have not tried to test it.
In light of controversial claims, I wanted to find out whether it is possible to augment Fenwick tree to answer update(index, value) and findMin(from, to).
If it is possible, I would be happy to hear how it works.
Yes, you can adapt Fenwick Trees (Binary Indexed Trees) to
Update value at a given index in O(log n)
Query minimum value for a range in O(log n) (amortized)
We need 2 Fenwick trees and an additional array holding the real values for nodes.
Suppose we have the following array:
index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
value 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 4 2 5 2 2 3 1 0
We wave a magic wand and the following trees appear:
Note that in both trees each node represents the minimum value for all nodes within that subtree. For example, in BIT2 node 12 has value 0, which is the minimum value for nodes 12,13,14,15.
Queries
We can efficiently query the minimum value for any range by calculating the minimum of several subtree values and one additional real node value. For example, the minimum value for range [2,7] can be determined by taking the minimum value of BIT2_Node2 (representing nodes 2,3) and BIT1_Node7 (representing node 7), BIT1_Node6 (representing nodes 5,6) and REAL_4 - therefore covering all nodes in [2,7]. But how do we know which sub trees we want to look at?
Query(int a, int b) {
int val = infinity // always holds the known min value for our range
// Start traversing the first tree, BIT1, from the beginning of range, a
int i = a
while (parentOf(i, BIT1) <= b) {
val = min(val, BIT2[i]) // Note: traversing BIT1, yet looking up values in BIT2
i = parentOf(i, BIT1)
}
// Start traversing the second tree, BIT2, from the end of range, b
i = b
while (parentOf(i, BIT2) >= a) {
val = min(val, BIT1[i]) // Note: traversing BIT2, yet looking up values in BIT1
i = parentOf(i, BIT2)
}
val = min(val, REAL[i]) // Explained below
return val
}
It can be mathematically proven that both traversals will end in the same node. That node is a part of our range, yet it is not a part of any subtrees we have looked at. Imagine a case where the (unique) smallest value of our range is in that special node. If we didn't look it up our algorithm would give incorrect results. This is why we have to do that one lookup into the real values array.
To help understand the algorithm I suggest you simulate it with pen & paper, looking up data in the example trees above. For example, a query for range [4,14] would return the minimum of values BIT2_4 (rep. 4,5,6,7), BIT1_14 (rep. 13,14), BIT1_12 (rep. 9,10,11,12) and REAL_8, therefore covering all possible values [4,14].
Updates
Since a node represents the minimum value of itself and its children, changing a node will affect its parents, but not its children. Therefore, to update a tree we start from the node we are modifying and move up all the way to the fictional root node (0 or N+1 depending on which tree).
Suppose we are updating some node in some tree:
If new value < old value, we will always overwrite the value and move up
If new value == old value, we can stop since there will be no more changes cascading upwards
If new value > old value, things get interesting.
If the old value still exists somewhere within that subtree, we are done
If not, we have to find the new minimum value between real[node] and each tree[child_of_node], change tree[node] and move up
Pseudocode for updating node with value v in a tree:
while (node <= n+1) {
if (v > tree[node]) {
if (oldValue == tree[node]) {
v = min(v, real[node])
for-each child {
v = min(v, tree[child])
}
} else break
}
if (v == tree[node]) break
tree[node] = v
node = parentOf(node, tree)
}
Note that oldValue is the original value we replaced, whereas v may be reassigned multiple times as we move up the tree.
Binary Indexing
In my experiments Range Minimum Queries were about twice as fast as a Segment Tree implementation and updates were marginally faster. The main reason for this is using super efficient bitwise operations for moving between nodes. They are very well explained here. Segment Trees are really simple to code so think about is the performance advantage really worth it? The update method of my Fenwick RMQ is 40 lines and took a while to debug. If anyone wants my code I can put it on github. I also produced a brute and test generators to make sure everything works.
I had help understanding this subject & implementing it from the Finnish algorithm community. Source of the image is http://ioinformatics.org/oi/pdf/v9_2015_39_44.pdf, but they credit Fenwick's 1994 paper for it.
The Fenwick tree structure works for addition because addition is invertible. It doesn't work for minimum, because as soon as you have a cell that's supposed to be the minimum of two or more inputs, you've lost information potentially.
If you're willing to double your storage requirements, you can support RMQ with a segment tree that is constructed implicitly, like a binary heap. For an RMQ with n values, store the n values at locations [n, 2n) of an array. Locations [1, n) are aggregates, with the formula A(k) = min(A(2k), A(2k+1)). Location 2n is an infinite sentinel. The update routine should look something like this.
def update(n, a, i, x): # value[i] = x
i += n
a[i] = x
# update the aggregates
while i > 1:
i //= 2
a[i] = min(a[2*i], a[2*i+1])
The multiplies and divides here can be replaced by shifts for efficiency.
The RMQ pseudocode is more delicate. Here's another untested and unoptimized routine.
def rmq(n, a, i, j): # min(value[i:j])
i += n
j += n
x = inf
while i < j:
if i%2 == 0:
i //= 2
else:
x = min(x, a[i])
i = i//2 + 1
if j%2 == 0:
j //= 2
else:
x = min(x, a[j-1])
j //= 2
return x
Imagine it's given a set of trees ST and each vertex of every tree is labeled. Also another tree T is given (also with labels vertices). The question is how can I find which trees of the ST can span over the tree T starting from the root of T in such a way that the labels of the vertices of the spanning tree T' coincide with those labels of T 's vertices. Note that the children of every vertex of T should be either completely covered or not covered at all - partial covering of children is not allowed. Stated in other words: Given a tree and the following procedure: pick a vertex and remove all vertices and edges below this vertex (except the vertex itself). Find those trees of ST such that each tree is generated with a series of procedures applied to T.
For example given the tree T
the trees
cover T and the tree
does not because this tree has children 3, 5 unlike T which has 2, 3 as children. The best thing I was able to think of was either to brute force it or to find the set of tree every one of which has the same root label as T and then to search for the answer among those trees but I guess neither of those two approaches is the optimal one. I was thinking of somehow hashing the trees but nothing came out. Any thoughts?
Notes:
The trees are not necessarily binary
A tree T can cover another tree T' if they share a root
The tree is ordered meaning that you cannot swap the position of any two children.
TL; DR Find a efficient algorithm which on query with given tree T the algorithm finds all trees from a given(fixed/static) set ST which are able to cover T.
I'll sketch an answer and then provide some working source code.
First off, you need an algorithm to hash a tree. We can assume, without loss of generality, that the children of each of your tree's nodes are ordered from least to greatest (or vice versa).
Run this algorithm on every member of ST and save the hashes.
Now, take your test tree T and generate all of its subtrees TP that retain the original root. You can do this (perhaps inefficiently) by:
Making a set S of its nodes
Generating the power set P of S
Generating the subtrees by removing the nodes present in each member of P from copies of T
Adding those subtrees which retain the original root to TP.
Now generate a set of all of the hashes of TP.
Now check each of your ST hashes for membership in TP.
ST hash storage requires O(n) space in ST, and possibly the space to hold the trees.
You can optimize the membership code so that it requires no storage space (I have not done this in my test code). The code will require approximately 2N checks, where N is the number of nodes in **T.
So the algorithm runs in O(H 2**N), where H is the size of ST and N is the number of nodes in T. The best way of speeding this up is to find an improved algorithm for generating the subtrees of T.
The following Python code accomplishes this:
#!/usr/bin/python
import itertools
import treelib
import Crypto.Hash.SHA
import copy
#Generate a hash of a tree by recursively hashing children
def HashTree(tree):
digester=Crypto.Hash.SHA.new()
digester.update(str(tree.get_node(tree.root).tag))
children=tree.get_node(tree.root).fpointer
children.sort(key=lambda x: tree.get_node(x).tag, cmp=lambda x,y:x-y)
hash=False
if children:
for child in children:
digester.update(HashTree(tree.subtree(child)))
hash = "1"+digester.hexdigest()
else:
hash = "0"+digester.hexdigest()
return hash
#Generate a power set of a set
def powerset(iterable):
"powerset([1,2,3]) --> () (1,) (2,) (3,) (1,2) (1,3) (2,3) (1,2,3)"
s = list(iterable)
return itertools.chain.from_iterable(itertools.combinations(s, r) for r in range(len(s)+1))
#Generate all the subsets of a tree which still share the original root
#by using a power set of all the tree's nodes to remove nodes from the tree
def TreePowerSet(tree):
nodes=[x.identifier for x in tree.nodes.values()]
ret=[]
for s in powerset(nodes):
culled_tree=copy.deepcopy(tree)
for n in s:
try:
culled_tree.remove_node(n)
except:
pass
if len([x.identifier for x in culled_tree.nodes.values()])>0:
ret.append(culled_tree)
return ret
def main():
ST=[]
#Generate a member of ST
treeA = treelib.Tree()
treeA.create_node(1,1)
treeA.create_node(2,2,parent=1)
treeA.create_node(3,3,parent=1)
ST.append(treeA)
#Generate a member of ST
treeB = treelib.Tree()
treeB.create_node(1,1)
treeB.create_node(2,2,parent=1)
treeB.create_node(3,3,parent=1)
treeB.create_node(4,4,parent=2)
treeB.create_node(5,5,parent=2)
ST.append(treeB)
#Generate hashes for members of ST
hashes=[(HashTree(tree), tree) for tree in ST]
print hashes
#Generate a test tree
T=treelib.Tree()
T.create_node(1,1)
T.create_node(2,2,parent=1)
T.create_node(3,3,parent=1)
T.create_node(4,4,parent=2)
T.create_node(5,5,parent=2)
T.create_node(6,6,parent=3)
T.create_node(7,7,parent=3)
#Generate all the subtrees of this tree which still retain the original root
Tsets=TreePowerSet(T)
#Hash all of the subtrees
Thashes=set([HashTree(x) for x in Tsets])
#For each member of ST, check to see if that member is present in the test
#tree
for hash in hashes:
if hash[0] in Thashes:
print [x for x in hash[1].expand_tree()]
main()
To verify that one tree covers another, one must look at all vertices of the first tree at least once. It is trivial to verify that a tree covers another by looking at all vertices of the first tree exactly once. Thus the simplest possible algorithm is already optimal, if it's only needed to check one tree.
Everything below are untested fruits of my sick imagination.
If there are many possible T that must be checked against the same ST, then it's possible to store trees of ST as sets of facts like these
root = 1
children of node 1 = (2, 3)
children of node 2 = ()
children of node 3 = ()
These facts can be stored in a standard relational DB in two tables, "roots" (fields "tree" and rootnode") and "branches" (fields "tree", "node" and "children"). then an SQL query or a series of queries can be built to find matching trees quickly. My SQL-fu is rudimentary so I could not manage it in a single query, but I'm believe it should be possible.
What would be the efficient algorithm to find if two given binary trees are equal - in structure and content?
It's a minor issue, but I'd adapt the earlier solution as follows...
eq(t1, t2) =
t1.data=t2.data && eq(t1.left, t2.left) && eq(t1.right, t2.right)
The reason is that mismatches are likely to be common, and it is better to detect (and stop comparing) early - before recursing further. Of course, I'm assuming a short-circuit && operator here.
I'll also point out that this is glossing over some issues with handling structurally different trees correctly, and with ending the recursion. Basically, there need to be some null checks for t1.left etc. If one tree has a null .left but the other doesn't, you have found a structural difference. If both have null .left, there's no difference, but you have reached a leaf - don't recurse further. Only if both .left values are non-null do you recurse to check the subtree. The same applies, of course, for .right.
You could include checks for e.g. (t1.left == t2.left), but this only makes sense if subtrees can be physically shared (same data structure nodes) for the two trees. This check would be another way to avoid recursing where it is unnecessary - if t1.left and t2.left are the same physical node, you already know that those whole subtrees are identical.
A C implementation might be...
bool tree_compare (const node* t1, const node* t2)
{
// Same node check - also handles both NULL case
if (t1 == t2) return true;
// Gone past leaf on one side check
if ((t1 == NULL) || (t2 == NULL)) return false;
// Do data checks and recursion of tree
return ((t1->data == t2->data) && tree_compare (t1->left, t2->left )
&& tree_compare (t1->right, t2->right));
}
EDIT In response to a comment...
The running time for a full tree comparison using this is most simply stated as O(n) where n is kinda the size of a tree. If you're willing to accept a more complex bound you can get a smaller one such as O(minimum(n1, n2)) where n1 and n2 are the sizes of the trees.
The explanation is basically that the recursive call is only made (at most) once for each node in the left tree, and only made (at most) once for each node in the right tree. As the function itself (excluding recursions) only specifies at most a constant amount of work (there are no loops), the work including all recursive calls can only be as much as the size of the smaller tree times that constant.
You could analyse further to get a more complex but smaller bound using the idea of the intersection of the trees, but big O just gives an upper bound - not necessarily the lowest possible upper bound. It's probably not worthwhile doing that analysis unless you're trying to build a bigger algorithm/data structure with this as a component, and as a result you know that some property will always apply to those trees which may allow you a tighter bound for the larger algorithm.
One way to form a tigher bound is to consider the sets of paths to nodes in both trees. Each step is either an L (left subtree) or an R (right subtree). So the root is specified with an empty path. The right child of the left child of the root is "LR". Define a function "paths (T)" (mathematically - not part of the program) to represent the set of valid paths into a tree - one path for every node.
So we might have...
paths(t1) = { "", "L", "LR", "R", "RL" }
paths(t2) = { "", "L", "LL", "R", "RR" }
The same path specifications apply to both trees. And each recursion always follows the same left/right link for both trees. So the recursion visits the paths in the itersection of these sets, and the tightest bound we can specify using this is the cardinality of that intersection (still with the constant bound on work per recursive call).
For the tree structures above, we do recursions for the following paths...
paths(t1) intersection paths(t2) = { "", "L", "R" }
So our work in this case is bounded to at most three times the maximum cost of non-recursive work in the tree_compare function.
This is normally an unnecessary amount of detail, but clearly the intersection of the path-sets is at most as large as the number of nodes in the smallest original tree. And whether the n in O(n) refers to the number of nodes in one original tree or to the sum of the nodes in both, this is clearly no smaller than either the minimum or our intersection. Therefore O(n) isn't such a tight bound, but it's still a valid upper bound, even if we're a bit vague which size we're talking about.
Modulo stack overflow, something like
eq(t1, t2) =
eq(t1.left, t2.left) && t1.data=t2.data && eq(t1.right, t2.right)
(This generalizes to an equality predicate for all tree-structured algebraic data types - for any piece of structured data, check if each of its sub-parts are equal to each of the other one's sub-parts.)
We can also do any of the two traversals (pre-order, post-order or in-order) and then compare the results of both the trees. If they are same, we can be sure of their equivalence.
A more general term for what you are probably trying to accomplish is graph isomorphism. There are some algorithms to do this on that page.
Since it's a proven fact that - it is possible to recreate a binary tree as long as we have the following:
The sequence of nodes that are encountered in an In-Order Traversal.
The sequence of nodes that are encountered in a Pre-Order OR Post-Order Traversal
If two binary trees have the same in-order and [pre-order OR post-order] sequence, then they should be equal both structurally and in terms of values.
Each traversal is an O(n) operation. The traversals are done 4 times in total and the results from the same-type of traversal is compared.
O(n) * 4 + 2 => O(n)
Hence, the total order of time-complexity would be O(n)
I would write it as follows. The following code will work in most functional language, and even in python if your datatypes are hashable (e.g. not dictionaries or lists):
topological equality (same in structure, i.e. Tree(1,Tree(2,3))==Tree(Tree(2,3),1)):
tree1==tree2 means set(tree1.children)==set(tree2.children)
ordered equality:
tree1==tree2 means tree1.children==tree2.children
(Tree.children is an ordered list of children)
You don't need to handle the base cases (leaves), because equality has been defined for them already.
bool identical(node* root1,node* root2){
if(root1 == NULL && root2 == NULL)
return true;
if(root1==NULL && root2!=NULL || root1!=NULL && root2 == NULL)
return false;
if(root1->data == root2->data){
bool lIdetical = identical(root1->left,root2->left);
if(!lIdentical)
return false;
bool rIdentical = identical(root1->right,root2->identical);
return lIdentical && rIdentical;
}
else{
printf("data1:%d vs data2:%d",root1->data,root2->data);
return false;
}
}
I do not know if this is the most effecient but I think this works.