Question Statement -
Given m arrays, and each array is sorted in ascending order. Now you can pick up two integers from two different arrays (each array picks one) and calculate the distance. We define the distance between two integers a and b to be their absolute difference |a-b|. Your task is to find the maximum distance.
Example -
Input:
[[1,2,3],
[4,5],
[1,2,3]]
Output: 4
My Approach - Since, the arrays are sorted, in the final answer, one element will be from first index of the arrays, and other element will be from the last index of the arrays. So, I am able to device a brute-force solution, To get to the answer. Basically I am generating all possible combinations of Last Element of One Array and First Element of other. This is giving me TC of O(n^2).
How can I optimize my approach. ?
It's very straightforward.
Maintain minimum variable which has the minimal value of all lists.
Before including current minimum, calculate the diff of current minimum with current list's maximum.
Do step 2 from first to last and from last to first.
This way you will account for all possibilities of min and max without having to generate or calculate for each one of them.
Snippet:
public int maxDistance(List<List<Integer>> arrays) {
int max_diff = 0,min = arrays.get(0).get(0);
for(int i=1;i<arrays.size();++i){
List<Integer> curr = arrays.get(i);
max_diff = Math.max(max_diff,Math.abs(curr.get(curr.size()-1) - min));
min = Math.min(min,curr.get(0)); // take min afterwards
}
min = arrays.get(arrays.size()-1).get(0);
for(int i=arrays.size()-2;i>=0;--i){
List<Integer> curr = arrays.get(i);
max_diff = Math.max(max_diff,Math.abs(curr.get(curr.size()-1) - min));
min = Math.min(min,curr.get(0)); // take min afterwards
}
return max_diff;
}
Time complexity: O(n), Space complexity: O(1).
As you correctly observe, only the minimum and maximum elements of arrays are of any interest. You can find the minimum of n sorted arrays in O(n), the maximum in O(n), and the answer appears to be max - min, which is O(1).
The problem is harder if we do not allow the max and min to belong to the same array. In that case, a brute-force solution (taking all min-max combinations into account) would again require O(n^2) computation. But you can do better:
build a 2-d array m such that m[i][0] = min(array[i]) and m[i][1] = i; sort it ascending so that m[j][0] <= m[j+1][0] (cost: O(n log n))
build another 2-d array M with M[i][0] = max(array[i]) and m[i][1] = i; sort it descending so that m[j][0] >= m[j+1][0] (cost: O(n log n))
check whether m[0][1] != M[0][1],
if true, you can safely return is M[0][0] - m[0][0]
otherwise, the result will be max(M[0][0] - m[1][0], M[1][0] - m[0][0])
You can avoid fully sorting m and M by keeping track of largest, second-largest, smallest, and second-smallest elements, as well as their array indices (with an improved cost of O(n)) - but when programming in contests, simple-and-optimal-enough is often better than really-optimal-but-tricky-to-write.
You can do this in linear time:
Find the two arrays which have the overall least two values. For this you need to scan once the first values of all the input arrays. Let's call those two arrays A and B, where A[0] <= B[0] and B[0] <= all X[0], where X != A
Find the two arrays which have the overall greatest two values. For this you need to scan once the last values of all the input arrays. Let's call those two arrays C and D, where C[last] >= D[last] and D[last] >= all X[last], where X != C
If A != C, then return C[last] - A[0]
Else, the greatest of the following two expressions: D[last] - A[0] and C[last] - B[0]
Implementation in JavaScript:
function solve(arrays) {
if (arrays.length < 2) throw "must have at least 2 arrays";
let a, b, c, d;
for (let row of arrays) { // collect two least and two greatest
let low = row[0], high = row[row.length-1];
if (!a || low < a[0]) [a, b] = [row, a];
else if (!b || low < b[0]) b = row;
if (!c || high > c[c.length-1]) [c, d] = [row, c];
else if (!d || high > d[d.length-1]) d = row;
}
return a !== c ? c[c.length-1] - a[0]
: Math.max(c[c.length-1] - b[0],
d[d.length-1] - a[0]);
}
let res = solve([[1,2,3],[4,5],[1,2,3]]);
console.log(res); // 4
Related
Given two large sets A and B of scalar (floating point) values, what algorithm would you use to find the (scalar) range [x0,x1] containing zero elements from B and the maximum number of elements from A?
Is sorting complexity (O(n log n)) unavoidable?
Create a single list with all values, where each value is marked with two counts: one count that relates to set A, and another that relates to set B. Initially these counts are 1 and 0, when the value comes from set A, and 0 and 1 when the value comes from set B. So entries in this list could be tuples (value, countA, countB). This operation is O(n).
Sort these tuples. O(nlogn)
Merge tuples with duplicate values into one tuple, and accumulate the values in the corresponding counters, so that the tuple tells us how many times the value occurs in set A and how many times in set B. O(n)
Traverse this list in sorted order and maintain the largest sum of counts for countA of a series of adjacent tuples where countB is always 0, and the minimum and maximum value of that range. O(n)
The sorting is the determining factor of the time complexity: O(nlogn).
Sort both A and B in O(|A| log |A| + |B| log |B|). Then apply the following algorithm, which has complexity O(|A| + |B|):
i = j = k = 0
best_interval = (0, 1)
while i < len(B) - 1:
lo = B[i]
hi = B[i+1]
j = k # We can skip ahead from last iteration.
while j < len(A) and A[j] <= lo:
j += 1
k = j # We can skip ahead from the above loop.
while k < len(A) and A[k] < hi:
k += 1
if k - j > best_interval[1] - best_interval[0]:
best_interval = (j, k)
i += 1
x0 = A[best_interval[0]]
x1 = A[best_interval[1]-1]
It may look quadratic at a first inspection but note we never decrease j and k - it really is just a linear scan with three pointers.
Assume we have 2 sorted arrays of integers with sizes of n and m. What is the best way to find median of all m + n numbers?
It's easy to do this with log(n) * log(m) complexity. But i want to solve this problem in log(n) + log(m) time. So is there any suggestion to solve this problem?
Explanation
The key point of this problem is to ignore half part of A and B each step recursively by comparing the median of remaining A and B:
if (aMid < bMid) Keep [aMid +1 ... n] and [bLeft ... m]
else Keep [bMid + 1 ... m] and [aLeft ... n]
// where n and m are the length of array A and B
As the following: time complexity is O(log(m + n))
public double findMedianSortedArrays(int[] A, int[] B) {
int m = A.length, n = B.length;
int l = (m + n + 1) / 2;
int r = (m + n + 2) / 2;
return (getkth(A, 0, B, 0, l) + getkth(A, 0, B, 0, r)) / 2.0;
}
public double getkth(int[] A, int aStart, int[] B, int bStart, int k) {
if (aStart > A.length - 1) return B[bStart + k - 1];
if (bStart > B.length - 1) return A[aStart + k - 1];
if (k == 1) return Math.min(A[aStart], B[bStart]);
int aMid = Integer.MAX_VALUE, bMid = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
if (aStart + k/2 - 1 < A.length) aMid = A[aStart + k/2 - 1];
if (bStart + k/2 - 1 < B.length) bMid = B[bStart + k/2 - 1];
if (aMid < bMid)
return getkth(A, aStart + k / 2, B, bStart, k - k / 2); // Check: aRight + bLeft
else
return getkth(A, aStart, B, bStart + k / 2, k - k / 2); // Check: bRight + aLeft
}
Hope it helps! Let me know if you need more explanation on any part.
Here's a very good solution I found in Java on Stack Overflow. It's a method of finding the K and K+1 smallest items in the two arrays where K is the center of the merged array.
If you have a function for finding the Kth item of two arrays then finding the median of the two is easy;
Calculate the weighted average of the Kth and Kth+1 items of X and Y
But then you'll need a way to find the Kth item of two lists; (remember we're one indexing now)
If X contains zero items then the Kth smallest item of X and Y is the Kth smallest item of Y
Otherwise if K == 2 then the second smallest item of X and Y is the smallest of the smallest items of X and Y (min(X[0], Y[0]))
Otherwise;
i. Let A be min(length(X), K / 2)
ii. Let B be min(length(Y), K / 2)
iii. If the X[A] > Y[B] then recurse from step 1. with X, Y' with all elements of Y from B to the end of Y and K' = K - B, otherwise recurse with X' with all elements of X from A to the end of X, Y and K' = K - A
If I find the time tomorrow I will verify that this algorithm works in Python as stated and provide the example source code, it may have some off-by-one errors as-is.
Take the median element in list A and call it a. Compare a to the center elements in list B. Lets call them b1 and b2 (if B has odd length then exactly where you split b depends on your definition of the median of an even length list, but the procedure is almost identical regardless). if b1≤a≤b2 then a is the median of the merged array. This can be done in constant time since it requires exactly two comparisons.
If a is greater than b2 then we add the top half of A to the top of B and repeat. B will no longer be sorted, but it doesn't matter. If a is less than b1 then we add the bottom half of A to the bottom of B and repeat. These will iterate log(n) times at most (if the median is found sooner then stop, of course).
It is possible that this will not find the median. If this is the case then the median is in B. If so, perform the same algorithm with A and B reversed. This will require log(m) iterations. In total you will have performed at most 2*(log(n)+log(m)) iterations of a constant time operation, so you have solved the problem in order log(n)+log(m) time.
This is essentially the same answer as was given by iehrlich, but written out more explicitly.
Yes, this can be done. Given two arrays, A and B, in the worst-case scenario you have to first perform a binary search in A, and then, if it fails, binary search in B looking for the median. On each step of a binary search, you check if the current element is actually a median of a merged A+B array. Such check takes constant time.
Let's see why such check is constant. For simplicity, let's assume that |A| + |B| is an odd number, and that all numbers in both arrays are different. You can remove these restrictions later by applying the usual median definition approach (i.e., how to calculate the median of an array containing duplicates, or of an array with even length). Anyway, given that, we know for sure, that in the merged array there will be (|A| + |B| - 1) / 2 elements to the right and to the left of an actual median. In the process of a binary search in A, we know the index of current element x in array A (let it be i). Now, if x satisfies the condition B[j] < x < B[j+1], where i + j == (|A| + |B| - 1) / 2, then x is your median.
The overall complexity is O(log(max(|A|, |B|)) time and O(1) memory.
Let's say we have an array: 7 3 1 1 6 13 8 3 3
I have to find the maximum sum of this array such that:
if i add 13 to the sum: i cannot add the neighboring elements from each side: 6 1 and 8 3 cannot be added to the sum
i can skip as many elements as necessary to make the sum max
My algorithm was this:
I take the max element of the array and add that to the sum
I make that element and the neighbor elements -1
I keep doing this until it's not possible to find anymore max
The problem is that for some specific test cases this algorithm is wrong.
Lets see this one: 15 40 45 35
according to my algorithm:
I take 45 and make neighbors -1
The program ends
The correct way to do it is 15 + 35 = 50
This problem can be solved with dynamic programming.
Let A be the array, let DP[m] be the max sum in {A[1]~A[m]}
Every element in A only have two status, been added into the sum or not. First we suppose we have determine DP[1]~DP[m-1], now look at {A[1]~A[m]}, A[m] only have two status that we have said, if A[m] have been added into, A[m-1] and A[m-2] can't be added into the sum, so in add status, the max sum is A[m]+DP[m-3] (intention: DP[m-3] has been the max sum in {A[1]~A[m-3]}), if A[m] have not been added into the sum, the max sum is DP[m-1], so we just need to compare A[m]+DP[m-3] and DP[m-1], the bigger is DP[m]. The thought is the same as mathematical induction.
So the DP equation is DP[m] = max{ DP[m-3]+A[m], DP[m-1] }，DP[size(A)] is the result
The complexity is O(n), pseudocode is follow：
DP[1] = A[1];
DP[2] = max(DP[1], DP[2]);
DP[3] = max(DP[1], DP[2], DP[3]);
for(i = 4; i <= size(A); i++) {
DP[i] = DP[i-3] + A[i];
if(DP[i] < DP[i-1])
DP[i] = DP[i-1];
}
It's solvable with a dynamic programming approach, taking O(N) time and O(N) space. Implementation following:
int max_sum(int pos){
if( pos >= N){ // N = array_size
return 0;
}
if( visited(pos) == true ){ // if this state is already checked
return ret[pos]; // ret[i] contains the result for i'th cell
}
ret[pos] = max_sum(pos+3) + A[pos] + ret[pos-2]; // taking this item
ret[pos] = max(ret[pos], ret[pos-1]+ max_sum(pos+1) ); // if skipping this item is better
visited[pos] = true;
return ret[pos];
}
int main(){
// clear the visited array
// and other initializations
cout << max_sum(2) << endl; //for i < 2, ret[i] = A[i]
}
The above problem is max independent set problem (with twist) in a path graph which has dynamic programming solution in O(N).
Recurrence relation for solving it : -
Max(N) = maximum(Max(N-3) + A[N] , Max(N-1))
Explanation:- IF we have to select maximum set from N elements than we can either select Nth element and the maximum set from first N-3 element or we can select maximum from first N-1 elements excluding Nth element.
Pseudo Code : -
Max(1) = A[1];
Max(2) = maximum(A[1],A[2]);
Max(3) = maximum(A[3],Max(2));
for(i=4;i<=N;i++) {
Max(N) = maximum(Max(N-3)+A[N],Max(N-1));
}
As suggested, this is a dynamic programming problem.
First, some notation, Let:
A be the array, of integers, of length N
A[a..b) be the subset of A containing the elements at index a up to
but not including b (the half open interval).
M be an array such that M[k] is the specific max sum of A[0..k)
such that M[N] is the answer to our original problem.
We can describe an element of M (M[n]) by its relation to one or more elements of M (M[k]) where k < n. And this lends itself to a nice linear time algorithm. So what is this relationship?
The base cases are as follows:
M[0] is the max specific sum of the empty list, which must be 0.
M[1] is the max specific sum for a single element, so must be
that element: A[0].
M[2] is the max specific sum of the first two elements. With only
two elements, we can either pick the first or the second, so we better
pick the larger of the two: max(A[0], A[1]).
Now, how do we calculate M[n] if we know M[0..n)? Well, we have a choice to make:
Either we add A[n-1] (the last element in A[0..n)) or we don't. We don't know for
certain whether adding A[n-1] in will make for a larger sum, so we try both and take
the max:
If we don't add A[n-1] what would the sum be? It would be the same as the
max specific sum immediately before it: M[n-1].
If we do add A[n-1] then we can't have the previous two elements in our
solution, but we can have any elements before those. We know that M[n-1] and
M[n-2] might have used those previous two elements, but M[n-3] definitely
didn't, because it is the max in the range A[0..n-3). So we get
M[n-3] + A[n-1].
We don't know which one is bigger though, (M[n-1] or M[n-3] + A[n-1]), so to find
the max specific sum at M[n] we must take the max of those two.
So the relation becomes:
M[0] = 0
M[1] = A[0]
M[2] = max {A[0], A[1]}
M[n] = max {M[n-1], M[n-3] + A[n-1]} where n > 2
Note a lot of answers seem to ignore the case for the empty list, but it is
definitely a valid input, so should be accounted for.
The simple translation of the solution in C++ is as follows:
(Take special note of the fact that the size of m is one bigger than the size of a)
int max_specific_sum(std::vector<int> a)
{
std::vector<int> m( a.size() + 1 );
m[0] = 0; m[1] = a[0]; m[2] = std::max(a[0], a[1]);
for(unsigned int i = 3; i <= a.size(); ++i)
m[i] = std::max(m[i-1], m[i-3] + a[i-1]);
return m.back();
}
BUT This implementation has a linear space requirement in the size of A. If you look at the definition of M[n], you will see that it only relies on M[n-1] and M[n-3] (and not the whole preceding list of elements), and this means you need only store the previous 3 elements in M, resulting in a constant space requirement. (The details of this implementation are left to the OP).
Consider a problem where a random sublist of k items, Y, must be selected from X, a list of n items, where the items in Y must appear in the same order as they do in X. The selected items in Y need not be distinct. One solution is this:
for i = 1 to k
A[i] = floor(rand * n) + 1
Y[i] = X[A[i]]
sort Y according to the ordering of A
However, this has running time O(k log k) due to the sort operation. To remove this it's tempting to
high_index = n
for i = 1 to k
index = floor(rand * high_index) + 1
Y[k - i + 1] = X[index]
high_index = index
But this gives a clear bias to the returned list due to the uniform index selection. It feels like a O(k) solution is attainable if the indices in the second solution were distributed non-uniformly. Does anyone know if this is the case, and if so what properties the distribution the marginal indices are drawn from has?
Unbiased O(n+k) solution is trivial, high-level pseudo code.
create an empty histogram of size n [initialized with all elements as zeros]
populate it with k uniformly distributed variables at range. (do k times histogram[inclusiveRand(1,n)]++)
iterate the initial list [A], while decreasing elements in the histogram and appending elements to the result list.
Explanation [edit]:
The idea is to chose k elements out of n at random, with uniform
distribution for each, and create a histogram out of it.
This histogram now contains for each index i, how many times A[i] will appear in the resulting Y list.
Now, iterate the list A in-order, and for each element i, insert A[i] into the resulting Y list histogram[i] times.
This guarantees you maintain the order because you insert elements in order, and "never go back".
It also guarantees unbiased solution since for each i,j,K: P(histogram[i]=K) = P(histogram[j]=K), so for each K, each element has the same probability to appear in the resulting list K times.
I believe it can be done in O(k) using the order statistics [X(i)] but I cannot figure it out though :\
By your first algorithm, it suffices to generate k uniform random samples of [0, 1) in sorted order.
Let X1, ..., Xk be these samples. Given that Xk = x, the conditional distribution of X1, ..., Xk-1 is k - 1 uniform random samples of [0, x) in sorted order, so it suffices to sample Xk and recurse.
What's the probability that Xk < x? Each of k independent samples of [0, 1) must be less than x, so the answer (the cumulative distribution function for Xk) is x^k. To sample according to the cdf, all we have to do is invert it on a uniform random sample of [0, 1): pow(random(), 1.0 / k).
Here's an (expected) O(k) algorithm I actually would consider implementing. The idea is to dump the samples into k bins, sort each bin, and concatenate. Here's some untested Python:
def samples(n, k):
bins = [[] for i in range(k)]
for i in range(k):
x = randrange(n)
bins[(x * k) // n].append(x)
result = []
for bin in bins:
bin.sort()
result.extend(bin)
return result
Why is this efficient in expectation? Let's suppose we use insertion sort on each bin (each bin has expected size O(1)!). On top of operations that are O(k), we're going to pay proportionally to the number of sum of the squares of the bin sizes, which is basically the number of collisions. Since the probability of two samples colliding is at most something like 4/k and we have O(k^2) pairs of samples, the expected number of collisions is O(k).
I suspect rather strongly that the O(k) guarantee can be made with high probability.
You can use counting sort to sort Y and thus make the sorting linear with respect to k. However for that you need one additional array of length n. If we assume you have already allocated that, you may execute the code you are asking for arbitrary many times with complexity O(k).
The idea is just as you describe, but I will use one more array cnt of size n that I assume is initialized to 0, and another "stack" st that I assume is empty.
for i = 1 to k
A[i] = floor(rand * n) + 1
cnt[A[i]]+=1
if cnt[A[i]] == 1 // Needed to be able to traverse the inserted elements faster
st.push(A[i])
for elem in st
for i = 0 to cnt[elem]
Y.add(X[elem])
for elem in st
cnt[elem] = 0
EDIT: as mentioned by oldboy what I state in the post is not true - I still have to sort st, which might be a bit better then the original proposition but not too much. So This approach will only be good if k is comparable to n and then we just iterate trough cnt linearly and construct Y this way. This way st is not needed:
for i = 1 to k
A[i] = floor(rand * n) + 1
cnt[A[i]]+=1
for i = 1 to k
for j = 0 to cnt[i]
Y.add(X[i])
cnt[i] =0
For the first index in Y, the distribution of indices in X is given by:
P(x; n, k) = binomial(n - x + k - 2, k - 1) / norm
where binomial denotes calculation of the binomial coefficient, and norm is a normalisation factor, equal to the total number of possible sublist configurations.
norm = binomial(n + k - 1, k)
So for k = 5 and n = 10 we have:
norm = 2002
P(x = 0) = 0.357, P(x <= 0) = 0.357
P(x = 1) = 0.245, P(x <= 1) = 0.604
P(x = 2) = 0.165, P(x <= 2) = 0.769
P(x = 3) = 0.105, P(x <= 3) = 0.874
P(x = 4) = 0.063, P(x <= 4) = 0.937
... (we can continue this up to x = 10)
We can sample the X index of the first item in Y from this distribution (call it x1). The distribution of the second index in Y can then be sampled in the same way with P(x; (n - x1), (k - 1)), and so on for all subsequent indices.
My feeling now is that the problem is not solvable in O(k), because in general we are unable to sample from the distribution described in constant time. If k = 2 then we can solve in constant time using the quadratic formula (because the probability function simplifies to 0.5(x^2 + x)) but I can't see a way to extend this to all k (my maths isn't great though).
The original list X has n items. There are 2**n possible sublists, since every item will or will not appear in the resulting sublist: each item adds a bit to the enumeration of the possible sublists. You could view this enumeration of a bitword of n bits.
Since your are only want sublists with k items, you are interested in bitwords with exactly k bits set.
A practical algorithm could pick (or pick not) the first element from X, and then recurse into the rightmost n-1 substring of X, taking into account the accumulated number of chosen items. Since the X list is processed in order, the Y list will also be in order.
The original list X has n items. There are 2**n possible sublists, since every item will or will not appear in a sublist: each item adds a bit to the enumeration of the possible sublists. You could view this enumeration of a bitword of n bits.
Since your are only want sublists with k items, you are interested in bitwords with exactly k bits set. A practical algorithm could pick (or pick not) the first element from X, and then recurse into the rightmost n-1 substring of X, taking into account the accumulated number of chosen items. Since the X list is processed in order, the Y list will also be in order.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
unsigned pick_k_from_n(char target[], char src[], unsigned k, unsigned n, unsigned done);
unsigned pick_k_from_n(char target[], char src[]
, unsigned k, unsigned n, unsigned done)
{
unsigned count=0;
if (k>n) return 0;
if (k==0) {
target[done] = 0;
puts(target);
return 1;
}
if (n > 0) {
count += pick_k_from_n(target, src+1, k, n-1, done);
target[done] = *src;
count += pick_k_from_n(target, src+1, k-1, n-1, done+1);
}
return count;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
char result[20];
char *domain = "OmgWtf!";
unsigned cnt ,len, want;
want = 3;
switch (argc) {
default:
case 3:
domain = argv[2];
case 2:
sscanf(argv[1], "%u", &want);
case 1:
break;
}
len = strlen(domain);
cnt = pick_k_from_n(result, domain, want, len, 0);
fprintf(stderr, "Count=%u\n", cnt);
return 0;
}
Removing the recursion is left as an exercise to the reader.
Some output:
plasser#pisbak:~/hiero/src$ ./a.out 3 ABBA
BBA
ABA
ABA
ABB
Count=4
plasser#pisbak:~/hiero/src$
An interesting interview question that a colleague of mine uses:
Suppose that you are given a very long, unsorted list of unsigned 64-bit integers. How would you find the smallest non-negative integer that does not occur in the list?
FOLLOW-UP: Now that the obvious solution by sorting has been proposed, can you do it faster than O(n log n)?
FOLLOW-UP: Your algorithm has to run on a computer with, say, 1GB of memory
CLARIFICATION: The list is in RAM, though it might consume a large amount of it. You are given the size of the list, say N, in advance.
If the datastructure can be mutated in place and supports random access then you can do it in O(N) time and O(1) additional space. Just go through the array sequentially and for every index write the value at the index to the index specified by value, recursively placing any value at that location to its place and throwing away values > N. Then go again through the array looking for the spot where value doesn't match the index - that's the smallest value not in the array. This results in at most 3N comparisons and only uses a few values worth of temporary space.
# Pass 1, move every value to the position of its value
for cursor in range(N):
target = array[cursor]
while target < N and target != array[target]:
new_target = array[target]
array[target] = target
target = new_target
# Pass 2, find first location where the index doesn't match the value
for cursor in range(N):
if array[cursor] != cursor:
return cursor
return N
Here's a simple O(N) solution that uses O(N) space. I'm assuming that we are restricting the input list to non-negative numbers and that we want to find the first non-negative number that is not in the list.
Find the length of the list; lets say it is N.
Allocate an array of N booleans, initialized to all false.
For each number X in the list, if X is less than N, set the X'th element of the array to true.
Scan the array starting from index 0, looking for the first element that is false. If you find the first false at index I, then I is the answer. Otherwise (i.e. when all elements are true) the answer is N.
In practice, the "array of N booleans" would probably be encoded as a "bitmap" or "bitset" represented as a byte or int array. This typically uses less space (depending on the programming language) and allows the scan for the first false to be done more quickly.
This is how / why the algorithm works.
Suppose that the N numbers in the list are not distinct, or that one or more of them is greater than N. This means that there must be at least one number in the range 0 .. N - 1 that is not in the list. So the problem of find the smallest missing number must therefore reduce to the problem of finding the smallest missing number less than N. This means that we don't need to keep track of numbers that are greater or equal to N ... because they won't be the answer.
The alternative to the previous paragraph is that the list is a permutation of the numbers from 0 .. N - 1. In this case, step 3 sets all elements of the array to true, and step 4 tells us that the first "missing" number is N.
The computational complexity of the algorithm is O(N) with a relatively small constant of proportionality. It makes two linear passes through the list, or just one pass if the list length is known to start with. There is no need to represent the hold the entire list in memory, so the algorithm's asymptotic memory usage is just what is needed to represent the array of booleans; i.e. O(N) bits.
(By contrast, algorithms that rely on in-memory sorting or partitioning assume that you can represent the entire list in memory. In the form the question was asked, this would require O(N) 64-bit words.)
#Jorn comments that steps 1 through 3 are a variation on counting sort. In a sense he is right, but the differences are significant:
A counting sort requires an array of (at least) Xmax - Xmin counters where Xmax is the largest number in the list and Xmin is the smallest number in the list. Each counter has to be able to represent N states; i.e. assuming a binary representation it has to have an integer type (at least) ceiling(log2(N)) bits.
To determine the array size, a counting sort needs to make an initial pass through the list to determine Xmax and Xmin.
The minimum worst-case space requirement is therefore ceiling(log2(N)) * (Xmax - Xmin) bits.
By contrast, the algorithm presented above simply requires N bits in the worst and best cases.
However, this analysis leads to the intuition that if the algorithm made an initial pass through the list looking for a zero (and counting the list elements if required), it would give a quicker answer using no space at all if it found the zero. It is definitely worth doing this if there is a high probability of finding at least one zero in the list. And this extra pass doesn't change the overall complexity.
EDIT: I've changed the description of the algorithm to use "array of booleans" since people apparently found my original description using bits and bitmaps to be confusing.
Since the OP has now specified that the original list is held in RAM and that the computer has only, say, 1GB of memory, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the answer is zero.
1GB of RAM means the list can have at most 134,217,728 numbers in it. But there are 264 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible numbers. So the probability that zero is in the list is 1 in 137,438,953,472.
In contrast, my odds of being struck by lightning this year are 1 in 700,000. And my odds of getting hit by a meteorite are about 1 in 10 trillion. So I'm about ten times more likely to be written up in a scientific journal due to my untimely death by a celestial object than the answer not being zero.
As pointed out in other answers you can do a sort, and then simply scan up until you find a gap.
You can improve the algorithmic complexity to O(N) and keep O(N) space by using a modified QuickSort where you eliminate partitions which are not potential candidates for containing the gap.
On the first partition phase, remove duplicates.
Once the partitioning is complete look at the number of items in the lower partition
Is this value equal to the value used for creating the partition?
If so then it implies that the gap is in the higher partition.
Continue with the quicksort, ignoring the lower partition
Otherwise the gap is in the lower partition
Continue with the quicksort, ignoring the higher partition
This saves a large number of computations.
To illustrate one of the pitfalls of O(N) thinking, here is an O(N) algorithm that uses O(1) space.
for i in [0..2^64):
if i not in list: return i
print "no 64-bit integers are missing"
Since the numbers are all 64 bits long, we can use radix sort on them, which is O(n). Sort 'em, then scan 'em until you find what you're looking for.
if the smallest number is zero, scan forward until you find a gap. If the smallest number is not zero, the answer is zero.
For a space efficient method and all values are distinct you can do it in space O( k ) and time O( k*log(N)*N ). It's space efficient and there's no data moving and all operations are elementary (adding subtracting).
set U = N; L=0
First partition the number space in k regions. Like this:
0->(1/k)*(U-L) + L, 0->(2/k)*(U-L) + L, 0->(3/k)*(U-L) + L ... 0->(U-L) + L
Find how many numbers (count{i}) are in each region. (N*k steps)
Find the first region (h) that isn't full. That means count{h} < upper_limit{h}. (k steps)
if h - count{h-1} = 1 you've got your answer
set U = count{h}; L = count{h-1}
goto 2
this can be improved using hashing (thanks for Nic this idea).
same
First partition the number space in k regions. Like this:
L + (i/k)->L + (i+1/k)*(U-L)
inc count{j} using j = (number - L)/k (if L < number < U)
find first region (h) that doesn't have k elements in it
if count{h} = 1 h is your answer
set U = maximum value in region h L = minimum value in region h
This will run in O(log(N)*N).
I'd just sort them then run through the sequence until I find a gap (including the gap at the start between zero and the first number).
In terms of an algorithm, something like this would do it:
def smallest_not_in_list(list):
sort(list)
if list[0] != 0:
return 0
for i = 1 to list.last:
if list[i] != list[i-1] + 1:
return list[i-1] + 1
if list[list.last] == 2^64 - 1:
assert ("No gaps")
return list[list.last] + 1
Of course, if you have a lot more memory than CPU grunt, you could create a bitmask of all possible 64-bit values and just set the bits for every number in the list. Then look for the first 0-bit in that bitmask. That turns it into an O(n) operation in terms of time but pretty damned expensive in terms of memory requirements :-)
I doubt you could improve on O(n) since I can't see a way of doing it that doesn't involve looking at each number at least once.
The algorithm for that one would be along the lines of:
def smallest_not_in_list(list):
bitmask = mask_make(2^64) // might take a while :-)
mask_clear_all (bitmask)
for i = 1 to list.last:
mask_set (bitmask, list[i])
for i = 0 to 2^64 - 1:
if mask_is_clear (bitmask, i):
return i
assert ("No gaps")
Sort the list, look at the first and second elements, and start going up until there is a gap.
We could use a hash table to hold the numbers. Once all numbers are done, run a counter from 0 till we find the lowest. A reasonably good hash will hash and store in constant time, and retrieves in constant time.
for every i in X // One scan Θ(1)
hashtable.put(i, i); // O(1)
low = 0;
while (hashtable.get(i) <> null) // at most n+1 times
low++;
print low;
The worst case if there are n elements in the array, and are {0, 1, ... n-1}, in which case, the answer will be obtained at n, still keeping it O(n).
You can do it in O(n) time and O(1) additional space, although the hidden factor is quite large. This isn't a practical way to solve the problem, but it might be interesting nonetheless.
For every unsigned 64-bit integer (in ascending order) iterate over the list until you find the target integer or you reach the end of the list. If you reach the end of the list, the target integer is the smallest integer not in the list. If you reach the end of the 64-bit integers, every 64-bit integer is in the list.
Here it is as a Python function:
def smallest_missing_uint64(source_list):
the_answer = None
target = 0L
while target < 2L**64:
target_found = False
for item in source_list:
if item == target:
target_found = True
if not target_found and the_answer is None:
the_answer = target
target += 1L
return the_answer
This function is deliberately inefficient to keep it O(n). Note especially that the function keeps checking target integers even after the answer has been found. If the function returned as soon as the answer was found, the number of times the outer loop ran would be bound by the size of the answer, which is bound by n. That change would make the run time O(n^2), even though it would be a lot faster.
Thanks to egon, swilden, and Stephen C for my inspiration. First, we know the bounds of the goal value because it cannot be greater than the size of the list. Also, a 1GB list could contain at most 134217728 (128 * 2^20) 64-bit integers.
Hashing part
I propose using hashing to dramatically reduce our search space. First, square root the size of the list. For a 1GB list, that's N=11,586. Set up an integer array of size N. Iterate through the list, and take the square root* of each number you find as your hash. In your hash table, increment the counter for that hash. Next, iterate through your hash table. The first bucket you find that is not equal to it's max size defines your new search space.
Bitmap part
Now set up a regular bit map equal to the size of your new search space, and again iterate through the source list, filling out the bitmap as you find each number in your search space. When you're done, the first unset bit in your bitmap will give you your answer.
This will be completed in O(n) time and O(sqrt(n)) space.
(*You could use use something like bit shifting to do this a lot more efficiently, and just vary the number and size of buckets accordingly.)
Well if there is only one missing number in a list of numbers, the easiest way to find the missing number is to sum the series and subtract each value in the list. The final value is the missing number.
int i = 0;
while ( i < Array.Length)
{
if (Array[i] == i + 1)
{
i++;
}
if (i < Array.Length)
{
if (Array[i] <= Array.Length)
{//SWap
int temp = Array[i];
int AnoTemp = Array[temp - 1];
Array[temp - 1] = temp;
Array[i] = AnoTemp;
}
else
i++;
}
}
for (int j = 0; j < Array.Length; j++)
{
if (Array[j] > Array.Length)
{
Console.WriteLine(j + 1);
j = Array.Length;
}
else
if (j == Array.Length - 1)
Console.WriteLine("Not Found !!");
}
}
Here's my answer written in Java:
Basic Idea:
1- Loop through the array throwing away duplicate positive, zeros, and negative numbers while summing up the rest, getting the maximum positive number as well, and keep the unique positive numbers in a Map.
2- Compute the sum as max * (max+1)/2.
3- Find the difference between the sums calculated at steps 1 & 2
4- Loop again from 1 to the minimum of [sums difference, max] and return the first number that is not in the map populated in step 1.
public static int solution(int[] A) {
if (A == null || A.length == 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
}
int sum = 0;
Map<Integer, Boolean> uniqueNumbers = new HashMap<Integer, Boolean>();
int max = A[0];
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
if(A[i] < 0) {
continue;
}
if(uniqueNumbers.get(A[i]) != null) {
continue;
}
if (A[i] > max) {
max = A[i];
}
uniqueNumbers.put(A[i], true);
sum += A[i];
}
int completeSum = (max * (max + 1)) / 2;
for(int j = 1; j <= Math.min((completeSum - sum), max); j++) {
if(uniqueNumbers.get(j) == null) { //O(1)
return j;
}
}
//All negative case
if(uniqueNumbers.isEmpty()) {
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
As Stephen C smartly pointed out, the answer must be a number smaller than the length of the array. I would then find the answer by binary search. This optimizes the worst case (so the interviewer can't catch you in a 'what if' pathological scenario). In an interview, do point out you are doing this to optimize for the worst case.
The way to use binary search is to subtract the number you are looking for from each element of the array, and check for negative results.
I like the "guess zero" apprach. If the numbers were random, zero is highly probable. If the "examiner" set a non-random list, then add one and guess again:
LowNum=0
i=0
do forever {
if i == N then leave /* Processed entire array */
if array[i] == LowNum {
LowNum++
i=0
}
else {
i++
}
}
display LowNum
The worst case is n*N with n=N, but in practice n is highly likely to be a small number (eg. 1)
I am not sure if I got the question. But if for list 1,2,3,5,6 and the missing number is 4, then the missing number can be found in O(n) by:
(n+2)(n+1)/2-(n+1)n/2
EDIT: sorry, I guess I was thinking too fast last night. Anyway, The second part should actually be replaced by sum(list), which is where O(n) comes. The formula reveals the idea behind it: for n sequential integers, the sum should be (n+1)*n/2. If there is a missing number, the sum would be equal to the sum of (n+1) sequential integers minus the missing number.
Thanks for pointing out the fact that I was putting some middle pieces in my mind.
Well done Ants Aasma! I thought about the answer for about 15 minutes and independently came up with an answer in a similar vein of thinking to yours:
#define SWAP(x,y) { numerictype_t tmp = x; x = y; y = tmp; }
int minNonNegativeNotInArr (numerictype_t * a, size_t n) {
int m = n;
for (int i = 0; i < m;) {
if (a[i] >= m || a[i] < i || a[i] == a[a[i]]) {
m--;
SWAP (a[i], a[m]);
continue;
}
if (a[i] > i) {
SWAP (a[i], a[a[i]]);
continue;
}
i++;
}
return m;
}
m represents "the current maximum possible output given what I know about the first i inputs and assuming nothing else about the values until the entry at m-1".
This value of m will be returned only if (a[i], ..., a[m-1]) is a permutation of the values (i, ..., m-1). Thus if a[i] >= m or if a[i] < i or if a[i] == a[a[i]] we know that m is the wrong output and must be at least one element lower. So decrementing m and swapping a[i] with the a[m] we can recurse.
If this is not true but a[i] > i then knowing that a[i] != a[a[i]] we know that swapping a[i] with a[a[i]] will increase the number of elements in their own place.
Otherwise a[i] must be equal to i in which case we can increment i knowing that all the values of up to and including this index are equal to their index.
The proof that this cannot enter an infinite loop is left as an exercise to the reader. :)
The Dafny fragment from Ants' answer shows why the in-place algorithm may fail. The requires pre-condition describes that the values of each item must not go beyond the bounds of the array.
method AntsAasma(A: array<int>) returns (M: int)
requires A != null && forall N :: 0 <= N < A.Length ==> 0 <= A[N] < A.Length;
modifies A;
{
// Pass 1, move every value to the position of its value
var N := A.Length;
var cursor := 0;
while (cursor < N)
{
var target := A[cursor];
while (0 <= target < N && target != A[target])
{
var new_target := A[target];
A[target] := target;
target := new_target;
}
cursor := cursor + 1;
}
// Pass 2, find first location where the index doesn't match the value
cursor := 0;
while (cursor < N)
{
if (A[cursor] != cursor)
{
return cursor;
}
cursor := cursor + 1;
}
return N;
}
Paste the code into the validator with and without the forall ... clause to see the verification error. The second error is a result of the verifier not being able to establish a termination condition for the Pass 1 loop. Proving this is left to someone who understands the tool better.
Here's an answer in Java that does not modify the input and uses O(N) time and N bits plus a small constant overhead of memory (where N is the size of the list):
int smallestMissingValue(List<Integer> values) {
BitSet bitset = new BitSet(values.size() + 1);
for (int i : values) {
if (i >= 0 && i <= values.size()) {
bitset.set(i);
}
}
return bitset.nextClearBit(0);
}
def solution(A):
index = 0
target = []
A = [x for x in A if x >=0]
if len(A) ==0:
return 1
maxi = max(A)
if maxi <= len(A):
maxi = len(A)
target = ['X' for x in range(maxi+1)]
for number in A:
target[number]= number
count = 1
while count < maxi+1:
if target[count] == 'X':
return count
count +=1
return target[count-1] + 1
Got 100% for the above solution.
1)Filter negative and Zero
2)Sort/distinct
3)Visit array
Complexity: O(N) or O(N * log(N))
using Java8
public int solution(int[] A) {
int result = 1;
boolean found = false;
A = Arrays.stream(A).filter(x -> x > 0).sorted().distinct().toArray();
//System.out.println(Arrays.toString(A));
for (int i = 0; i < A.length; i++) {
result = i + 1;
if (result != A[i]) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found && result == A.length) {
//result is larger than max element in array
result++;
}
return result;
}
An unordered_set can be used to store all the positive numbers, and then we can iterate from 1 to length of unordered_set, and see the first number that does not occur.
int firstMissingPositive(vector<int>& nums) {
unordered_set<int> fre;
// storing each positive number in a hash.
for(int i = 0; i < nums.size(); i +=1)
{
if(nums[i] > 0)
fre.insert(nums[i]);
}
int i = 1;
// Iterating from 1 to size of the set and checking
// for the occurrence of 'i'
for(auto it = fre.begin(); it != fre.end(); ++it)
{
if(fre.find(i) == fre.end())
return i;
i +=1;
}
return i;
}
Solution through basic javascript
var a = [1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2];
function findSmallest(a) {
var m = 0;
for(i=1;i<=a.length;i++) {
j=0;m=1;
while(j < a.length) {
if(i === a[j]) {
m++;
}
j++;
}
if(m === 1) {
return i;
}
}
}
console.log(findSmallest(a))
Hope this helps for someone.
With python it is not the most efficient, but correct
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# -*- coding: UTF-8 -*-
import datetime
# write your code in Python 3.6
def solution(A):
MIN = 0
MAX = 1000000
possible_results = range(MIN, MAX)
for i in possible_results:
next_value = (i + 1)
if next_value not in A:
return next_value
return 1
test_case_0 = [2, 2, 2]
test_case_1 = [1, 3, 44, 55, 6, 0, 3, 8]
test_case_2 = [-1, -22]
test_case_3 = [x for x in range(-10000, 10000)]
test_case_4 = [x for x in range(0, 100)] + [x for x in range(102, 200)]
test_case_5 = [4, 5, 6]
print("---")
a = datetime.datetime.now()
print(solution(test_case_0))
print(solution(test_case_1))
print(solution(test_case_2))
print(solution(test_case_3))
print(solution(test_case_4))
print(solution(test_case_5))
def solution(A):
A.sort()
j = 1
for i, elem in enumerate(A):
if j < elem:
break
elif j == elem:
j += 1
continue
else:
continue
return j
this can help:
0- A is [5, 3, 2, 7];
1- Define B With Length = A.Length; (O(1))
2- initialize B Cells With 1; (O(n))
3- For Each Item In A:
if (B.Length <= item) then B[Item] = -1 (O(n))
4- The answer is smallest index in B such that B[index] != -1 (O(n))