Given a set of weights S={w1,w2,w3} and a range of weights, we need to determine whether the weights in S can be used to balance every weight in the range. If not, we need to add the minimum additional weights to S so that all of the weights in the range can be balanced.
For example:
Range is 1 to 5
S = {4,8,9}
The item with weight 1 can be balanced by putting the item on the left pan along with the 8, and put the 9 on the right pan.
1 + 8 = 9
3 + 9 = 8 + 4
4 = 4
5 + 8 = 9 + 4
But 2 can't be balanced using the weights {4,8,9} so we need to add another weight. Adding a weight of 1 allows 2 to balanced with
2 + 8 = 1 + 9
My question is there a mathematical algorithm that can be used to solve this problem?
There certainly are algorithms that would solve this. For clarity's sake, I'm assuming your use of the term "set" is the mathematical set, where all set elements are distinct, though this should not affect the below code all that much.
Breaking down the problem into 2 parts:
(1) Determine if the provided set of weights can be arranged on the scale such that the required range of integer values are covered
A solution to part (1), in python:
(to run, call check_range(int, int, []), where the first two args are the integer bounds of the range, low/high respectively, and the 3rd arg is a list of the weights in set s)
def get_possible_offsets(s=[]):
#the variable set "temp" will hold the possible offsets that we can create by arranging the weights on the scale
temp=set()
#optionally, we don't need to add any of the weights, ergo add value 0 by default
temp.add(0)
#per every weight in the given set of weights
for weight in s:
#take an iterable snapshot of our set of possible offsets
l = list(temp)
#for each value in that list, |i+/-w| the weight value
for i in l:
temp.add(i + weight)
temp.add(abs(i - weight))
#and also add the weight by itself
temp.add(weight)
return(temp)
def check_range(r_low=0, r_high=1, s=[]):
#get the set of weight values available using the provided set of weights
possible_offsets = get_possible_offsets(s)
#list to store the required weight values not available using the provided set of weights
missing_offsets = []
#for each required weight in the range, check if that weight exists in our current possible offsets
for i in range(r_low, r_high+1):
if i not in possible_offsets:
missing_offsets.append(i)
#if we're not missing any values from the required range, then we are done!
if len(missing_offsets) == 0:
print ("Yes! The required range is covered by the provided weights.")
else:
print ("Tragically, the following weight offsets are not covered:",missing_offsets)
(2) If 1. is false, then determine the minimum required additional weights to complete the required range
Part (2) of the problem, I have not added a complete solution yet, however, we just need to take the missing_offsets list in the above code, and boil it down to the additional weight values that could be included in the set of possible_offsets, as performed in the lines of code:
for i in l:
temp.add(i + weight)
temp.add(abs(i - weight))
This problem also sounds a lot like search-tree algos (though not binary), as well as combinatorics, so there are likely several efficient ways of calculating the desired output.
The set of absolute differences between each side of the scale is our range. Let's enumerate them for S, aggregating each element in turn (add and subtract each element to each previously seen absolute difference, then add the element itself as a difference):
S: {4, 8, 9}
up to element S_0:
4
up to element S_1:
4, 12, 8
up to element S_2:
4, 12, 8, 13, 5, 21, 3, 1, 17, 9
Now let's order them:
1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 21
To cover our range, 1 to 5, we need to fill the gap between 1 and 3. Adding a 1 will add ±1 to every difference we can create.
Would it not be the case that to cover any range, we would need to add ceil(k / 2) 1's, where k is the maximum gap in our range, when considering our enumerated differences? In this case, ceil(1 / 2) = one 1?
As ruakh commented below, this is not the case. Any lower range we can build, in fact can be used to fill-in gaps anywhere, and the coverage of the filled-in range can be applied again to growing ranges. For example:
{1, 2} covers 1 to 3
Now add 7 and we've increased our
range to 1 - 10 by virtue of applying ±3 to 7
Now we can add 21 and achieve the
range 21 ± 10!
This points to the possibility of overlapping subproblems.
Related
I have a few sets, say 5 of them
{1,2,3}
{2,4}
{1,2}
{4,5}
{2,3,5}
Here, I need to choose at least 3 elements from any three sets(One element per set). Given that if an element is already selected, then it cannot be selected again.
Also check if any solution exists or not.
Eg
set {1,2,3} -> choose 1
set {2,4} -> choose 2
set {1,2} -> cannot choose since both 1 and 2 are chosen.
set {2,5} -> can only choose 5
Is there a way to achieve this? Simple explanation would be appreciated.
If you only need 3 elements, then the algorithm is quite simple. Just repeat the following procedure:
Select the set with the lowest heuristic. The heuristic is the length of the set, divided by the total occurrences of that set. If the set has zero elements, remove the set, and go to step 4. If there are two or more, you can choose any one of them.
Pick an element from that set. This is the element you'll choose.
Remove this element from every set.
If you have picked 3 elements or there are no more sets remaining, exit. Otherwise go to step 1.
This algorithm gives at least 3 elements whenever it's possible, even in the presence of duplicates. Here's the proof.
If the heuristic for a set is <= 1, picking an element from that set is basically free. It doesn't hurt the ability to use other sets at all.
If we are in a situation with 2 or more sets with heuristic >1, and we have to pick at least two elements, this is easy. Just pick one from the first, and the second one will have an element left, because it's length is >1 because it's heuristic is >1.
If we are in a situation with 3 or more sets with heuristic >1, we can pick from the first set. After this we are left with at least two sets, where at least one of them has more than one element. We can't be left with two size one sets, because that would imply that the 3 sets we started with contain a duplicate length 2 set, which has heuristic 1. Thus we can pick all 3 elements.
Here is python code for this algorithm. The generator returns as many elements as it can manage. If it's possible to return at least 3 elements, it will. However after that, it doesn't always return the optimal solution.
def choose(sets):
# Copy the input, to avoid modification of the input
s = [{*e} for e in sets]
while True:
# If there are no more sets remaining
if not s:return
# Remove based on length and number of duplicates
m = min(s,key=lambda x:(len(x)/s.count(x)))
s.remove(m)
# Ignore empty sets
if m:
# Remove a random element
e = m.pop()
# Yield it
yield e
# Remove the chosen element e from other sets
for i in range(len(s)):s[i].discard(e)
print([*choose([{1,2,3}, {2,4}, {1,2}, {4,5}, {2,3,5}])])
print([*choose([{1}, {2,3}, {2,4}, {1,2,4}])])
print([*choose([{1,2}, {2}, {2,3,4}])])
print([*choose([{1,2}, {2}, {2,1}])])
print([*choose([{1,2}, {1,3}, {1,3}])])
print([*choose([{1}, {1,2,3}, {1,2,3}])])
print([*choose([{1,3}, {2,3,4}, {2,3,4}, {2,3,4}, {2,3,4}])])
print([*choose([{1,5}, {2,3}, {1,3}, {1,2,3}])])
Try it online!
Something like this
given your sets
0: {1,2,3}
1: {2,4}
2: {1,2}
3: {4,5}
4: {2,3,5}
A array of sets
set A[1] = { 0, 2} // all sets containing 1
A[2] = { 0, 1, 2, 4} // all sets containing 2
A[3] = { 0, 4 } // all sets containing 3
A[4] = { 1, 3 } // all sets containing 4
A[5] = { 3, 4 } // all sets containing 5
set<int> result;
for(i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
find k such that A[k] not empty
if no k exist then "no solution"
result.add(k)
A[k] = empty
}
return result
I think my idea is a bit overkill but it would work on any kind of sets with any number of sets in any size.
the idea is to transform the sets to bipartite graph. on one side you have each set, and on the other side you have the number which they contains.
and if a set contains a number you have a edge between those vertices.
eventually you're trying to find the maximum matching in the graph (maximum cardinality matching).
gladly it can be done with Hopcroft-Karp algorithm in O(√VE) time or even less with Ford–Fulkerson algorithm.
here some links for more source on maximum matching and the algorithms->
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_(graph_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_cardinality_matching
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford%E2%80%93Fulkerson_algorithm
I have an array of size n and I can apply any number of operations(zero included) on it. In an operation, I can take any two elements and replace them with the absolute difference of the two elements. We have to find the minimum possible element that can be generated using the operation. (n<1000)
Here's an example of how operation works. Let the array be [1,3,4]. Applying operation on 1,3 gives [2,4] as the new array.
Ex: 2 6 11 3 => ans = 0
This is because 11-6 = 5 and 5-3 = 2 and 2-2 = 0
Ex: 20 6 4 => ans = 2
Ex: 2 6 10 14 => ans = 0
Ex: 2 6 10 => ans = 2
Can anyone tell me how can I approach this problem?
Edit:
We can use recursion to generate all possible cases and pick the minimum element from them. This would have complexity of O(n^2 !).
Another approach I tried is Sorting the array and then making a recursion call where the either starting from 0 or 1, I apply the operations on all consecutive elements. This will continue till their is only one element left in the array and we can return the minimum at any point in the recursion. This will have a complexity of O(n^2) but doesn't necessarily give the right answer.
Ex: 2 6 10 15 => (4 5) & (2 4 15) => (1) & (2 15) & (2 11) => (13) & (9). The minimum of this will be 1 which is the answer.
When you choose two elements for the operation, you subtract the smaller one from the bigger one. So if you choose 1 and 7, the result is 7 - 1 = 6.
Now having 2 6 and 8 you can do:
8 - 2 -> 6 and then 6 - 6 = 0
You may also write it like this: 8 - 2 - 6 = 0
Let"s consider different operation: you can take two elements and replace them by their sum or their difference.
Even though you can obtain completely different values using the new operation, the absolute value of the element closest to 0 will be exactly the same as using the old one.
First, let's try to solve this problem using the new operations, then we'll make sure that the answer is indeed the same as using the old ones.
What you are trying to do is to choose two nonintersecting subsets of initial array, then from sum of all the elements from the first set subtract sum of all the elements from the second one. You want to find two such subsets that the result is closest possible to 0. That is an NP problem and one can efficiently solve it using pseudopolynomial algorithm similar to the knapsack problem in O(n * sum of all elements)
Each element of initial array can either belong to the positive set (set which sum you subtract from), negative set (set which sum you subtract) or none of them. In different words: each element you can either add to the result, subtract from the result or leave untouched. Let's say we already calculated all obtainable values using elements from the first one to the i-th one. Now we consider i+1-th element. We can take any of the obtainable values and increase it or decrease it by the value of i+1-th element. After doing that with all the elements we get all possible values obtainable from that array. Then we choose one which is closest to 0.
Now the harder part, why is it always a correct answer?
Let's consider positive and negative sets from which we obtain minimal result. We want to achieve it using initial operations. Let's say that there are more elements in the negative set than in the positive set (otherwise swap them).
What if we have only one element in the positive set and only one element in the negative set? Then absolute value of their difference is equal to the value obtained by using our operation on it.
What if we have one element in the positive set and two in the negative one?
1) One of the negative elements is smaller than the positive element - then we just take them and use the operation on them. The result of it is a new element in the positive set. Then we have the previous case.
2) Both negative elements are smaller than the positive one. Then if we remove bigger element from the negative set we get the result closer to 0, so this case is impossible to happen.
Let's say we have n elements in the positive set and m elements in the negative set (n <= m) and we are able to obtain the absolute value of difference of their sums (let's call it x) by using some operations. Now let's add an element to the negative set. If the difference before adding new element was negative, decreasing it by any other number makes it smaller, that is farther from 0, so it is impossible. So the difference must have been positive. Then we can use our operation on x and the new element to get the result.
Now second case: let's say we have n elements in the positive set and m elements in the negative set (n < m) and we are able to obtain the absolute value of difference of their sums (again let's call it x) by using some operations. Now we add new element to the positive set. Similarly, the difference must have been negative, so x is in the negative set. Then we obtain the result by doing the operation on x and the new element.
Using induction we can prove that the answer is always correct.
N transmitters are positioned on a straight road, their position and signal strength is given.
Transmitters can cover distance on either side of the road evenly, i.e. a transmitter with signal
strength of ‘d’ can cover total ‘2d’ length. You need to find all regions which receive signals from
atleast K transmitters.
directi, medianet interview questions
x = [5, 8, 13, 16]
d = [2, 6, 1, 4]
(3,7), (2, 14), (12,14), (12, 20)
First,make two arrays for storing X and Y coordinates by doing x+d and x-d from your input array. One simple way is of O(n^2), find the intervals for each starting point.
Optimize way is to just create a interval tree and insert the intervals. Interval tree is a self balancing binary search tree, hence you can get the results in O(nlogn). Here is the link to Interval tree.
Make a list (array) of pairs (StartOfInterval, +1) and (EndOfInterval, -1) for all interval ends.
Sort this list by the first field
NumberTranmittersHere = 0
Walk through the list, adding the second field of pair to NumberTranmittersHere
Check if current value is at least K
(3+),(7-),(2+),(14-),(12+),(14-),(12+),(20-)
(2+),(3+),(7-),(12+),(12+),(14-),(14-),(20-)
NTH 0 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 0
EDIT: clarified description of problem
Is there a fast algorithm solving following problem?
And, is also for extendend version of this problem
that is replaced natural numbers to Z/(2^n Z)?(This problem was too complex to add more quesion in one place, IMO.)
Problem:
For a given set of natural numbers like {7, 20, 17, 100}, required algorithm
returns the shortest sequence of additions, mutliplications and powers compute
all of given numbers.
Each item of sequence are (correct) equation that matches following pattern:
<number> = <number> <op> <number>
where <number> is a natual number, <op> is one of {+, *, ^}.
In the sequence, each operand of <op> should be one of
1
numbers which are already appeared in the left-hand-side of equal.
Example:
Input: {7, 20, 17, 100}
Output:
2 = 1 + 1
3 = 1 + 2
6 = 2 * 3
7 = 1 + 6
10 = 3 + 7
17 = 7 + 10
20 = 2 * 10
100 = 10 ^ 2
I wrote backtracking algorithm in Haskell.
it works for small input like above, but my real query is
randomly distributed ~30 numbers in [0,255].
for real query, following code takes 2~10 minutes in my PC.
(Actual code,
very simple test)
My current (Pseudo)code:
-- generate set of sets required to compute n.
-- operater (+) on set is set union.
requiredNumbers 0 = { {} }
requiredNumbers 1 = { {} }
requiredNumbers n =
{ {j, k} | j^k == n, j >= 2, k >= 2 }
+ { {j, k} | j*k == n, j >= 2, k >= 2 }
+ { {j, k} | j+k == n, j >= 1, k >= 1 }
-- remember the smallest set of "computed" number
bestSet := {i | 1 <= i <= largeNumber}
-- backtracking algorithm
-- from: input
-- to: accumulator of "already computed" number
closure from to =
if (from is empty)
if (|bestSet| > |to|)
bestSet := to
return
else if (|from| + |to| >= |bestSet|)
-- cut branch
return
else
m := min(from)
from' := deleteMin(from)
foreach (req in (requiredNumbers m))
closure (from' + (req - to)) (to + {m})
-- recoverEquation is a function converts set of number to set of equation.
-- it can be done easily.
output = recoverEquation (closure input {})
Additional Note:
Answers like
There isn't a fast algorithm, because...
There is a heuristic algorithm, it is...
are also welcomed. Now I'm feeling that there is no fast and exact algorithm...
Answer #1 can be used as a heuristic, I think.
What if you worked backwards from the highest number in a sorted input, checking if/how to utilize the smaller numbers (and numbers that are being introduced) in its construction?
For example, although this may not guarantee the shortest sequence...
input: {7, 20, 17, 100}
(100) = (20) * 5 =>
(7) = 5 + 2 =>
(17) = 10 + (7) =>
(20) = 10 * 2 =>
10 = 5 * 2 =>
5 = 3 + 2 =>
3 = 2 + 1 =>
2 = 1 + 1
What I recommend is to transform it into some kind of graph shortest path algorithm.
For each number, you compute (and store) the shortest path of operations. Technically one step is enough: For each number you can store the operation and the two operands (left and right, because power operation is not commutative), and also the weight ("nodes")
Initially you register 1 with the weight of zero
Every time you register a new number, you have to generate all calculations with that number (all additions, multiplications, powers) with all already-registered numbers. ("edges")
Filter for the calculations: it the result of the calculation is already registered, you shouldn't store that, because there is an easier way to get to that number
Store only 1 operation for the commutative ones (1+2=2+1)
Prefilter the power operation because that may even cause overflow
You have to order this list to the shortest sum path (weight of the edge). Weight = (weight of operand1) + (weight of operand2) + (1, which is the weight of the operation)
You can exclude all resulting numbers which are greater than the maximum number that we have to find (e.g. if we found 100 already, anything greater that 20 can be excluded) - this can be refined so that you can check the members of the operations also.
If you hit one of your target numbers, then you found the shortest way of calculating one of your target numbers, you have to restart the generations:
Recalculate the maximum of the target numbers
Go back on the paths of the currently found number, set their weight to 0 (they will be given from now on, because their cost is already paid)
Recalculate the weight for the operations in the generation list, because the source operand weight may have been changed (this results reordering at the end) - here you can exclude those where either operand is greater than the new maximum
If all the numbers are hit, then the search is over
You can build your expression using the "backlinks" (operation, left and right operands) for each of your target numbers.
The main point is that we always keep our eye on the target function, which is that the total number of operation must be the minimum possible. In order to get this, we always calculate the shortest path to a certain number, then considering that number (and all the other numbers on the way) as given numbers, then extending our search to the remaining targets.
Theoretically, this algorithm processes (registers) each numbers only once. Applying the proper filters cuts the unnecessary branches, so nothing is calculated twice (except the weights of the in-queue elements)
I have a collection of objects, each of which has a weight and a value. I want to pick the pair of objects with the highest total value subject to the restriction that their combined weight does not exceed some threshold. Additionally, I am given two arrays, one containing the objects sorted by weight and one containing the objects sorted by value.
I know how to do it in O(n2) but how can I do it in O(n)?
This is a combinatorial optimization problem, and the fact the values are sorted means you can easily try a branch and bound approach.
I think that I have a solution that works in O(n log n) time and O(n) extra space. This isn't quite the O(n) solution you wanted, but it's still better than the naive quadratic solution.
The intuition behind the algorithm is that we want to be able to efficiently determine, for any amount of weight, the maximum value we can get with a single item that uses at most that much weight. If we can do this, we have a simple algorithm for solving the problem: iterate across the array of elements sorted by value. For each element, see how much additional value we could get by pairing a single element with it (using the values we precomputed), then find which of these pairs is maximum. If we can do the preprocessing in O(n log n) time and can answer each of the above queries in O(log n) time, then the total time for the second step will be O(n log n) and we have our answer.
An important observation we need to do the preprocessing step is as follows. Our goal is to build up a structure that can answer the question "which element with weight less than x has maximum value?" Let's think about how we might do this by adding one element at a time. If we have an element (value, weight) and the structure is empty, then we want to say that the maximum value we can get using weight at most "weight" is "value". This means that everything in the range [0, max_weight - weight) should be set to value. Otherwise, suppose that the structure isn't empty when we try adding in (value, weight). In that case, we want to say that any portion of the range [0, weight) whose value is less than value should be replaced by value.
The problem here is that when we do these insertions, there might be, on iteration k, O(k) different subranges that need to be updated, leading to an O(n2) algorithm. However, we can use a very clever trick to avoid this. Suppose that we insert all of the elements into this data structure in descending order of value. In that case, when we add in (value, weight), because we add the elements in descending order of value, each existing value in the data structure must be higher than our value. This means that if the range [0, weight) intersects any range at all, those ranges will automatically be higher than value and so we don't need to update them. If we combine this with the fact that each range we add always spans from zero to some value, the only portion of the new range that could ever be added to the data structure is the range [weight, x), where x is the highest weight stored in the data structure so far.
To summarize, assuming that we visit the (value, weight) pairs in descending order of value, we can update our data structure as follows:
If the structure is empty, record that the range [0, value) has value "value."
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded in the structure is greater than weight, skip this element.
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded so far is x, record that the range [weight, x) has value "value."
Notice that this means that we are always splitting ranges at the front of the list of ranges we have encountered so far. Because of this, we can think about storing the list of ranges as a simple array, where each array element tracks the upper endpoint of some range and the value assigned to that range. For example, we might track the ranges [0, 3), [3, 9), and [9, 12) as the array
3, 9, 12
If we then needed to split the range [0, 3) into [0, 1) and [1, 3), we could do so by prepending 1 to he list:
1, 3, 9, 12
If we represent this array in reverse (actually storing the ranges from high to low instead of low to high), this step of creating the array runs in O(n) time because at each point we just do O(1) work to decide whether or not to add another element onto the end of the array.
Once we have the ranges stored like this, to determine which of the ranges a particular weight falls into, we can just use a binary search to find the largest element smaller than that weight. For example, to look up 6 in the above array we'd do a binary search to find 3.
Finally, once we have this data structure built up, we can just look at each of the objects one at a time. For each element, we see how much weight is left, use a binary search in the other structure to see what element it should be paired with to maximize the total value, and then find the maximum attainable value.
Let's trace through an example. Given maximum allowable weight 10 and the objects
Weight | Value
------+------
2 | 3
6 | 5
4 | 7
7 | 8
Let's see what the algorithm does. First, we need to build up our auxiliary structure for the ranges. We look at the objects in descending order of value, starting with the object of weight 7 and value 8. This means that if we ever have at least seven units of weight left, we can get 8 value. Our array now looks like this:
Weight: 7
Value: 8
Next, we look at the object of weight 4 and value 7. This means that with four or more units of weight left, we can get value 7:
Weight: 7 4
Value: 8 7
Repeating this for the next item (weight six, value five) does not change the array, since if the object has weight six, if we ever had six or more units of free space left, we would never choose this; we'd always take the seven-value item of weight four. We can tell this since there is already an object in the table whose range includes remaining weight four.
Finally, we look at the last item (value 3, weight 2). This means that if we ever have weight two or more free, we could get 3 units of value. The final array now looks like this:
Weight: 7 4 2
Value: 8 7 3
Finally, we just look at the objects in any order to see what the best option is. When looking at the object of weight 2 and value 3, since the maximum allowed weight is 10, we need tom see how much value we can get with at most 10 - 2 = 8 weight. A binary search over the array tells us that this value is 8, so one option would give us 11 weight. If we look at the object of weight 6 and value 5, a binary search tells us that with five remaining weight the best we can do would be to get 7 units of value, for a total of 12 value. Repeating this on the next two entries doesn't turn up anything new, so the optimum value found has value 12, which is indeed the correct answer.
Hope this helps!
Here is an O(n) time, O(1) space solution.
Let's call an object x better than an object y if and only if (x is no heavier than y) and (x is no less valuable) and (x is lighter or more valuable). Call an object x first-choice if no object is better than x. There exists an optimal solution consisting either of two first-choice objects, or a first-choice object x and an object y such that only x is better than y.
The main tool is to be able to iterate the first-choice objects from lightest to heaviest (= least valuable to most valuable) and from most valuable to least valuable (= heaviest to lightest). The iterator state is an index into the objects by weight (resp. value) and a max value (resp. min weight) so far.
Each of the following steps is O(n).
During a scan, whenever we encounter an object that is not first-choice, we know an object that's better than it. Scan once and consider these pairs of objects.
For each first-choice object from lightest to heaviest, determine the heaviest first-choice object that it can be paired with, and consider the pair. (All lighter objects are less valuable.) Since the latter object becomes lighter over time, each iteration of the loop is amortized O(1). (See also searching in a matrix whose rows and columns are sorted.)
Code for the unbelievers. Not heavily tested.
from collections import namedtuple
from operator import attrgetter
Item = namedtuple('Item', ('weight', 'value'))
sentinel = Item(float('inf'), float('-inf'))
def firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byweight:
if x.value > bestsofar.value:
bestsofar = x
yield (x, bestsofar)
def firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byvalue:
if x.weight < bestsofar.weight:
bestsofar = x
yield x
def optimize(items, maxweight):
byweight = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('weight'))
byvalue = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('value'), reverse=True)
maxvalue = float('-inf')
try:
i = firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue)
y = i.next()
for x, z in firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
if z is not x and x.weight + z.weight <= maxweight:
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + z.value)
while x.weight + y.weight > maxweight:
y = i.next()
if y is x:
break
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + y.value)
except StopIteration:
pass
return maxvalue
items = [Item(1, 1), Item(2, 2), Item(3, 5), Item(3, 7), Item(5, 8)]
for maxweight in xrange(3, 10):
print maxweight, optimize(items, maxweight)
This is similar to Knapsack problem. I will use naming from it (num - weight, val - value).
The essential part:
Start with a = 0 and b = n-1. Assuming 0 is the index of heaviest object and n-1 is the index of lightest object.
Increase a til objects a and b satisfy the limit.
Compare current solution with best solution.
Decrease b by one.
Go to 2.
Update:
It's the knapsack problem, except there is a limit of 2 items. You basically need to decide how much space you want for the first object and how much for the other. There is n significant ways to split available space, so the complexity is O(n). Picking the most valuable objects to fit in those spaces can be done without additional cost.