As we know that to delete any node in BST we replace that deleted node with its inorder predecessor or successor.
I've tried a new approach in which I replace the deleted node either by its direct left child or by its direct right child (instead of replacing by its inorder pred. or succ.). And I think that this approach is valid for every node in BST. Program for this approach will be also easy as less number of links are changed for a node.I am attaching 2 pics to make you understand my approach.
Is my approach of deleting a node in BST is right or wrong? If wrong then why?
This can get pretty complicated, but you'll probably want to look into some rotations.
Say you have a full tree with 5 levels, and you are trying to delete the roots right child, which contains a quite a few more nodes. The issue is that by simply replacing with it's left or right child, would result in the deleted index "having" more than two child, which as I'm sure you know, is an invalid BST.
The solution? Rotations!
Here are a couple links that explain with some pictures.
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cheung/Courses/171/Syllabus/9-BinTree/BST-delete2.html
While this is a valid way to delete a node in a binary tree, it won't always work for binary search trees. Let's say you want to delete 40 and 35 has a right child, by connecting 35 to 45, you'll be losing its original right child and every other node connected to it (you'll be losing a subtree). For binary search trees (BST), its better to replace the node with the rightmost node of the left subtree, which in this case is still 35 (this guarantees it does not have a right child) or the leftmost node of the right subtree if there is no left subtree.
Related
In the following image, if I add 14 to the right side of 12, then 14 can replace the 15 without influencing other nodes, just like the correct answer 16. Why the successor is defined to use the number that is bit larger than it not the one that is a bit smaller?
Well, in terms of language, successor is the one that comes right after, implying that it must be bigger.
In terms of the deleting algorithm, you can use both the successor and the predecessor to replace the deleted node.
Successor: is the smallest node in the right subtree of the deleted node, which means that it is the smallest node that is bigger than the deleted node, so you guarantee that, if you replace the deleted node with it, it will still be smaller than every other node in the right subtree, so it won't break any property.
Predecessor: is the biggest node in the left subtree of the deleted node, which means that it is the biggest node that is smaller than the deleted node, so you guarantee that, if you replace the deleted node with it, it will still be bigger than every other node in the left subtree, so it won't break any property.
In a nutshell, you can use the successor or the predecessor without any problems, is not a question of definition, only a question of choice.
I want to create an algorithm to sort binary search trees to make them balanced. But I can't do that If I don't understand myself how each step works!
So I have a binary search tree that I want to rotate to make it balanced. I already have and know the answer as shown by figure 2, but am unsure of the steps necessary to get to that point
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Any pointers would be great.
Also I am using http://visualgo.net/bst.html
The thing you need here is called tree rotation
What you have done from step 1 to step 2 is a left rotation for node 16 like this:
Node 16 is imbalanced and size(left child) < size(right child) =>
We need to transfer the 16 node to left child,
Get a new node (the smallest) from the right child as the new node (18 since is the smallest)
Rebalance the right child
In the case of Binary Search Trees why cannot we simply put the predecessor in place of the successor of a node in deletion case where a node is having two children?
We'd like to delete such a node with minimum amount of work and disruption to the structure of the tree.
Suppose we want to delete the node containing 6 from the following tree:
The standard solution is based on this idea: we leave the node containing 6 exactly where it is, but we get rid of the value 6 and find another value to store in the 6 node. This value is taken from a node below the 6s node, and it is that node that is actually removed from the tree.
Now, what value can we move into the vacated node and have a binary search tree? Well, here's how to figure it out. If we choose value X, then:
everything in the left subtree must be smaller than X.
everything in the right subtree must be bigger than X.
Let's suppose we're going to get X from the left subtree. (2) is guaranteed because everything in the left subtree is smaller than everything in the right subtree. What about (1)? If X is coming from the left subtree, (1) says that there is a unique choice for X - we must choose X to be the largest value in the left subtree. In our example, 3 is the largest value in the left subtree. So if we put 3 in the vacated node and delete it from its current position we will have a BST with 6 deleted.
The result is :
why cannot we simply put the predecessor in place of the successor of a node in deletion
case where a node is having two children?
We can put both and it is not necessary to replace the deleted node with the inorder successor. This is because in either case, the general contract of a BST is maintained.
Case1. Replace the deleted node with the inorder successor.
This is done by finding the leftmost node in the deleted node's right subtree.
Case2. Replace the deleted node with the inorder predecessor.
This is done by finding the rightmost node in the deleted node's left subtree.
Note that both these cases will keep all the elements in the left subtree smaller and all elements in right subtree greater than the element that we have brought into the position of the deleted node.
Does such a tree exist and have a name, or is it just a figment of my imagination? I used to think heaps have this property but it just seems that the only requirement is for the children to be less than the parent.
It's exactly the opposite, but you may be thinking of a binary search tree, which has the following properties:
The left subtree of a node contains only nodes with keys less than the node's key.
The right subtree of a node contains only nodes with keys greater than the node's key.
Both the left and right subtrees must also be binary search trees.
There must be no duplicate nodes.
So every left node is guaranteed to be less than every right node. You can find the max by going right from the root node until you can't go right any more.
I am trying to understand why when deleting a node in a BST tree and having to keep the children and adhering to the BST structure, you have to either take the node's right child (higher value, then node being deleted) and if that right child has a left child take that child. Else just the the node being deleted right child.
Why don't you just take the node being deleted left child, if there's one. It still works out correctly?
Or have I missed something.
I'm reading this article.
You're oversimplifying.
The node selected to replace the one that was deleted must be larger than all the nodes to the left of the deleted one, and smaller than all the nodes to the right. So it must be either the left subtree's rightmost descendant or the right subtree's leftmost descendant; except if one or the other subtree is entirely absent, we can remove a level of tree entirely simply by replacing the deleted node with the child that was present.
The rules listed in the article will always give you the right subtree's leftmost descendant when both trees are present. If you wished, you could indeed derive an alternative ruleset that used the leftmost subtree's rightmost descendant instead.
It does not "work out correctly" to just always use the left child. Indeed, if there is a child on the right and the left child itself has two children, it cannot even be done without essentially rebuilding the tree.
You would be correct for the special case that you described. But for something more general where you can have many more levels deeper than the node being deleted you need to replace that node with a node that will be less than everything to the right, and greater than everything to the left. So as an example:
2
/ \
1 6
/ \
4 7
\
5
Let's say you wanted to move the node 6, now following your instructions we will replace it with the left child, node 4. Now what do we do with node 5? We could make it the left child of node 7 (or the left most descendant of node 7 if it existed), but why would you do all this reshuffling when you know that removing a leaf is trivial and you just want to replace the node with another node that would keep every node on the left less and every node on the right greater.