Related
Given the following pseudo-code, the question is how many times on average is the variable m being updated.
A[1...n]: array with n random elements
m = a[1]
for I = 2 to n do
if a[I] < m then m = a[I]
end for
One might answer that since all elements are random, then the variable will be updated on average on half the number of iterations of the for loop plus one for the initialization.
However, I suspect that there must be a better (and possibly the only correct) way to prove it using binomial distribution with p = 1/2. This way, the average number of updates on m would be
M = 1 + Σi=1 to n-1[k.Cn,k.pk.(1-p)(n-k)]
where Cn,k is the binomial coefficient. I have tried to solve this but I have stuck some steps after since I do not know how to continue.
Could someone explain me which of the two answers is correct and if it is the second one, show me how to calculate M?
Thank you for your time
Assuming the elements of the array are distinct, the expected number of updates of m is the nth harmonic number, Hn, which is the sum of 1/k for k ranging from 1 to n.
The summation formula can also be represented by the recursion:
H1 = 1
Hn = Hn−1+1/n (n > 1)
It's easy to see that the recursion corresponds to the problem.
Consider all permutations of n−1 numbers, and assume that the expected number of assignments is Hn−1. Now, every permutation of n numbers consists of a permutation of n−1 numbers, with a new smallest number inserted in one of n possible insertion points: either at the beginning, or after one of the n−1 existing values. Since it is smaller than every number in the existing series, it will only be assigned to m in the case that it was inserted at the beginning. That has a probability of 1/n, and so the expected number of assignments of a permutation of n numbers is Hn−1 + 1/n.
Since the expected number of assignments for a vector of length one is obviously 1, which is H1, we have an inductive proof of the recursion.
Hn is asymptotically equal to ln n + γ where γ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, approximately 0.577. So it increases without limit, but quite slowly.
The values for which m is updated are called left-to-right maxima, and you'll probably find more information about them by searching for that term.
I liked #rici answer so I decided to elaborate its central argument a little bit more so to make it clearer to me.
Let H[k] be the expected number of assignments needed to compute the min m of an array of length k, as indicated in the algorithm under consideration. We know that
H[1] = 1.
Now assume we have an array of length n > 1. The min can be in the last position of the array or not. It is in the last position with probability 1/n. It is not with probability 1 - 1/n. In the first case the expected number of assignments is H[n-1] + 1. In the second, H[n-1].
If we multiply the expected number of assignments of each case by their probabilities and sum, we get
H[n] = (H[n-1] + 1)*1/n + H[n-1]*(1 - 1/n)
= H[n-1]*1/n + 1/n + H[n-1] - H[n-1]*1/n
= 1/n + H[n-1]
which shows the recursion.
Note that the argument is valid if the min is either in the last position or in any the first n-1, not in both places. Thus we are using that all the elements of the array are different.
I was given a tricky question.
Given:
A = [a1,a2,...an] (list of positive integers with length "n")
r (positive integer)
Find a list of { *, + } operators
O = [o1,o2,...on-1]
so that if we placed those operators between the elements of "A", the resulting expression would evaluate to "r". Only one solution is required.
So for example if
A = [1,2,3,4]
r = 14
then
O = [*, +, *]
I've implemented a simple recursive solution with some optimisation, but of course it's exponential O(2^n) time, so for an input with length 40, it works for ages.
I wanted to ask if any of you know a sub-exponential solution for this?
Update
Elements of A are between 0-10000,
r can be arbitrarily big
Let A and B be positive integers. Then A + B ≤ A × B + 1.
This little fact can be used to construct a very efficient algorithm.
Let's define a graph. The graph nodes correspond to operations lists, for example, [+, ×, +, +, ×]. There is an edge from graph node X to graph node Y if the Y can be obtained by changing a single + to a × in X. The graph has a source at the node corresponding to [+, +, ..., +].
Now perform a breadth-first search from the source node, constructing the graph as you go. When expanding a node [+, ×, +, +, ×], for example, you (optionally construct then) connect to the nodes [×, ×, +, +, ×], [+, ×, ×, +, ×], and [+, ×, +, ×, ×]. Do not expand to a node if the result of evaluating it is greater than r + k(O), where k(O) is the number of +'s in the operation list O. This is because of the "+ 1" in the fact at the beginning of the answer - consider the case of a = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1], r = 1.
This approach uses O(n 2n) time and O(2n) space (where both are potentially very-loose worst case bounds). This is still an exponential algorithm, however I think you will find it performs very reasonably for non-sinister inputs. (I suspect this problem is NP-complete, which is why I am happy with this "non-sinister inputs" escape clause.)
Here's an O(rn^2)-time, O(rn)-space DP approach. If r << 2^n then this will have better worst-case behaviour than exponential-time branch-and-bound approaches, though even then the latter may still be faster on many instances. This is pseudo-polynomial time, because it takes time proportional to the value of part of its input (r), not its size (which would be log2(r)). Specifically it needs rn bits of memory, so it should give answers in a few seconds for up to around rn < 1,000,000,000 and n < 1000 (e.g. n = 100, r = 10,000,000).
The key observation is that any formula involving all n numbers has a final term that consists of some number i of factors, where 1 <= i <= n. That is, any formula must be in one of the following n cases:
(a formula on the first n-1 terms) + a[n]
(a formula on the first n-2 terms) + a[n-1] * a[n]
(a formula on the first n-3 terms) + a[n-2] * a[n-1] * a[n]
...
a[1] * a[2] * ... * a[n]
Let's call the "prefix" of a[] consisting of the first i numbers P[i]. If we record, for each 0 <= i <= n-1, the complete set of values <= r that can be reached by some formula on P[i], then based on the above, we can quite easily compute the complete set of values <= r that can be reached by P[n]. Specifically, let X[i][j] be a true or false value that indicates whether the prefix P[i] can achieve the value j. (X[][] could be stored as an array of n size-(r+1) bitmaps.) Then what we want to do is compute X[n][r], which will be true if r can be reached by some formula on a[], and false otherwise. (X[n][r] isn't quite the full answer yet, but it can be used to get the answer.)
X[1][a[1]] = true. X[1][j] = false for all other j. For any 2 <= i <= n and 0 <= j <= r, we can compute X[i][j] using
X[i][j] = X[i - 1][j - a[i]] ||
X[i - 2][j - a[i-1]*a[i]] ||
X[i - 3][j - a[i-2]*a[i-1]*a[i]] ||
... ||
X[1][j - a[2]*a[3]*...*a[i]] ||
(a[1]*a[2]*...*a[i] == j)
Note that the last line is an equality test that compares the product of all i numbers in P[i] to j, and returns true or false. There are i <= n "terms" (rows) in the expression for X[i][j], each of which can be computed in constant time (note in particular that the multiplications can be built up in constant time per row), so computing a single value X[i][j] can be done in O(n) time. To find X[n][r], we need to calculate X[i][j] for every 1 <= i <= n and every 0 <= j <= r, so there is O(rn^2) overall work to do. (Strictly speaking we may not need to compute all of these table entries if we use memoization instead of a bottom-up approach, but many inputs will require us to compute a large fraction of them anyway, so it's likely that the latter is faster by a small constant factor. Also a memoization approach requires keeping an "already processed" flag for each DP cell -- which doubles the memory usage when each cell is just 1 bit!)
Reconstructing a solution
If X[n][r] is true, then the problem has a solution (satisfying formula), and we can reconstruct one in O(n^2) time by tracing back through the DP table, starting from X[n][r], at each location looking for any term that enabled the current location to assume the value "true" -- that is, any true term. (We could do this reconstruction step faster by storing more than a single bit per (i, j) combination -- but since r is allowed to be "arbitrarily big", and this faster reconstruction won't improve the overall time complexity, it probably makes more sense to go with the approach that uses the fewest bits per DP table entry.) All satisfying solutions can be reconstructed this way, by backtracking through all true terms instead of just picking any one -- but there may be an exponential number of them.
Speedups
There are two ways that calculation of an individual X[i][j] value can be sped up. First, because all the terms are combined with ||, we can stop as soon as the result becomes true, since no later term can make it false again. Second, if there is no zero anywhere to the left of i, we can stop as soon as the product of the final numbers becomes larger than r, since there's no way for that product to be decreased again.
When there are no zeroes in a[], that second optimisation is likely to be very important in practice: it has the potential to make the inner loop much smaller than the full i-1 iterations. In fact if a[] contains no zeroes, and its average value is v, then after k terms have been computed for a particular X[i][j] value the product will be around v^k -- so on average, the number of inner loop iterations (terms) needed drops from n to log_v(r) = log(r)/log(v). That might be much smaller than n, in which case the average time complexity for this model drops to O(rn*log(r)/log(v)).
[EDIT: We actually can save multiplications with the following optimisation :)]
8/32/64 X[i][j]s at a time: X[i][j] is independent of X[i][k] for k != j, so if we are using bitsets to store these values, we can calculate 8, 32 or 64 of them (or maybe more, with SSE2 etc.) in parallel using simple bitwise OR operations. That is, we can calculate the first term of X[i][j], X[i][j+1], ..., X[i][j+31] in parallel, OR them into the results, then calculate their second terms in parallel and OR them in, etc. We still need to perform the same number of subtractions this way, but the products are all the same, so we can reduce the number of multiplications by a factor of 8/32/64 -- as well as, of course, the number of memory accesses. OTOH, this makes the first optimisation from the previous paragraph harder to accomplish -- you have to wait until an entire block of 8/32/64 bits have become true before you can stop iterating.
Zeroes: Zeroes in a[] may allow us to stop early. Specifically, if we have just computed X[i][r] for some i < n and found it to be true, and there is a zero anywhere to the right of position i in a[], then we can stop: we already have a formula on the first i numbers that evaluates to r, and we can use that zero to "kill off" all numbers to the right of position i by creating one big product term that includes all of them.
Ones: An interesting property of any a[] entry containing the value 1 is that it can be moved to any other position in a[] without affecting whether or not there is a solution. This is because every satisfying formula either has a * on at least one side of this 1, in which case it multiplies some other term and has no effect there, and would likewise have no effect anywhere else; or it has a + on both sides (imagine extra + signs before the first position and after the last), in which case it might as well be added in anywhere.
So, we can safely shunt all 1 values to the end of a[] before doing anything else. The point of doing this is that now we don't have to evaluate these rows of X[][] at all, because they only influence the outcome in a very simple way. Suppose there are m < n ones in a[], which we have moved to the end. Then after computing the m+1 values X[n-m][r-m], X[n-m][r-m+1], X[n-m][r-m+2], ..., X[n-m][r], we already know what X[n][r] must be: if any of them are true, then X[n][r] must be true, otherwise (if they are all false) it must be false. This is because the final m ones can add anywhere from 0 up to m to a formula on the first n-m values. (But if a[] consists entirely of 1s, then at least 1 must be "added" -- they can't all multiply some other term.)
Here is another approach that might be helpful. It is sometimes known as a "meet-in-the-middle" algorithm and runs in O(n * 2^(n/2)). The basic idea is this. Suppose n = 40 and you know that the middle slot is a +. Then, you can brute force all N := 2^20 possibilities for each side. Let A be a length N array storing the possible values of the left side, and similarly let B be a length N array storing the values for the right side.
Then, after sorting A and B, it is not hard to efficiently check for whether any two of them sum to r (e.g. for each value in A, do a binary search on B, or you can even do it in linear time if both arrays are sorted). This part takes O(N * log N) = O(n * 2^(n/2)) time.
Now, this was all assuming the middle slot is a +. If not, then it has to be a *, and you can combine the middle two elements into one (their product), reducing the problem to n = 39. Then you try the same thing, and so on. If you analyze it carefully, you should get O(n * 2^(n/2)) as the asymptotic complexity, since actually the largest term dominates.
You need to do some bookkeeping to actually recover the +'s and *'s, which I have left out to simplify the explanation.
We have 2 binary strings: X and Y, in 2 different computers. Both of them in length n. The computers can communicate by sending bits to each other.
We have to build randomized algorithm to check whether there's an index i such that Xi=Yi. We can send only O(log n) bits between the computers.
If there's no such index the algorithm will always return "false". If there's such index, the algorithm will return "true" in probability 0.5 (at least).
Any suggestions?
If the bits are independent sending any log(n) will give you the same chance that you 'hit' the equal bits. You will not be able to improve this without any additional information.
To elaborate a bit on Ivaylo's answer:
imagine the two strings are
A = 110110....0....00010
B = 001001....0....11101
both are of some large length n, and Ak = Bk for a single k, somewhere in the middle.
You basically want functions that transform A, or B, such that f(A) and g(B) are O(log n) bit numbers. E.g. sum is such a function.
Say you sum the bits of A, i.e. f = sum. Also let g = sum . xor.
So if A was 110110 0 00010 (12 bits) and B was 001001 0 11101 (12 bits), then f(A) = 5 / 101 (3 bits) and g(B) = 6 / 110 (3 bits). You can compare them and since they are different so you can say "Aha! Then the numbers must share a bit! (there must be i, s.t. Ai = Bi)" and you will be right. However, while this is enough evidence, it is not necessary true when the answer should be true. In other words: there could be i s.t. Ai = Bi, but f(A) = g(B).
Lets look closer to the functions to see why. f(A) really counts how many ones there are in A, g(B) counts how many zeroes there are in B. Assuming that if they are the same then A XOR B = 0, is the same as saying "any number that has as many zeros as there are ones in another number results in 0 when XOR-ed with that other number." Which is false: 100 and 110 fulfill the condition but 100 XOR 110 is 010.
Now you can say: "Well, we just need to pick better f and g." However, the reason sum didn't work is fundamental and you cannot get away from it: f and g are hash-functions, or in maths language - surjective functions. The domain has size of O(n) bits or O(2^n) elements, while the codomain (target set) has size of O(log n) bits or O(2 ^ (log n)) = O(n) elements and O(2^n) > O(n).
Surjective functions cannot be inverted (which is what you actually want). Any time you invert f(A) or g(B) you get one-to-many mapping. If f(A) is 2 and A has 3 bits, then A could be {110, 101, 011}. The size of the inverse image of f(A) would be, on average, O(2^n / n). With no further information the chance of you guessing the value of A is O(n / 2^n) < 0.5 in the general case.
And you have no further information, because if you did, you could incorporate it in f and g, but that would increase the size of their codomain.
I suggest reading up on information theory for further understanding of information loss, entropy, etc.
for stanm (I wrote it as an answer because comment was to long):
It's a correct solution. The full algorithm is:
k = number of 1's in X.
Send k to computer 2.
l = number of 0's in Y.
If k=l computer 2 will answer "no", else "yes" (or 0 and 1).
If there's no index i such that Xi=Yi, so the algorithms will always answer "no" (or 0).
If such index exists. The probability for computer 2 for wrong answer is the probability that computer 2 will get l=k.
The number of all binary strings (length n) that contains k 0's is (n choose k).
The number of all binary strings (length n) is (2^n).
So the probability that computer 2 will fail even though it has to return "yes" is (n choose k)/2^n. You can prove that this number is always less than (or equal to) 1/2.
So finally we can conclude that:
If such an index doesn't exists computer 2 will answer "no". If it exists, so the probability that computer 2 will fail is less than (or equal to) 1/2, and therefore it will answer "yes" in probability more than 1/2.
I saw this post: Finding even numbers in an array and I was thinking about how you could do it without feedback. Here's what I mean.
Given an array of length n containing at most e even numbers and a
function isEven that returns true if the input is even and false
otherwise, write a function that prints all the even numbers in the
array using the fewest number of calls to isEven.
The answer on the post was to use a binary search, which is neat since it doesn't mean the array has to be in order. The number of times you have to check if a number is even is e log n instead if n because you do a binary search (log n) to find one even number each time (e times).
But that idea means that you divide the array in half, test for evenness, then decide which half to keep based on the result.
My question is whether or not you can beat n calls on a fixed testing scheme where you check all the numbers you want for evenness without knowing the outcome, and then figure out where the even numbers are after you've done all the tests based on the results. So I guess it's no-feedback or blind or some term like that.
I was thinking about this for a while and couldn't come up with anything. The binary search idea doesn't work at all with this constraint, but maybe something else does? Even getting down to n/2 calls instead of n (yes, I know they are the same big-O) would be good.
The technical term for "no-feedback or blind" is "non-adaptive". O(e log n) calls still suffice, but the algorithm is rather more involved.
Instead of testing the evenness of products, we're going to test the evenness of sums. Let E ≠ F be distinct subsets of {1, …, n}. If we have one array x1, …, xn with even numbers at positions E and another array y1, …, yn with even numbers at positions F, how many subsets J of {1, …, n} satisfy
(∑i in J xi) mod 2 ≠ (∑i in J yi) mod 2?
The answer is 2n-1. Let i be an index such that xi mod 2 ≠ yi mod 2. Let S be a subset of {1, …, i - 1, i + 1, … n}. Either J = S is a solution or J = S union {i} is a solution, but not both.
For every possible outcome E, we need to make calls that eliminate every other possible outcome F. Suppose we make 2e log n calls at random. For each pair E ≠ F, the probability that we still cannot distinguish E from F is (2n-1/2n)2e log n = n-2e, because there are 2n possible calls and only 2n-1 fail to distinguish. There are at most ne + 1 choices of E and thus at most (ne + 1)ne/2 pairs. By a union bound, the probability that there exists some indistinguishable pair is at most n-2e(ne + 1)ne/2 < 1 (assuming we're looking at an interesting case where e ≥ 1 and n ≥ 2), so there exists a sequence of 2e log n calls that does the job.
Note that, while I've used randomness to show that a good sequence of calls exists, the resulting algorithm is deterministic (and, of course, non-adaptive, because we chose that sequence without knowledge of the outcomes).
You can use the Chinese Remainder Theorem to do this. I'm going to change your notation a bit.
Suppose you have N numbers of which at most E are even. Choose a sequence of distinct prime powers q1,q2,...,qk such that their product is at least N^E, i.e.
qi = pi^ei
where pi is prime and ei > 0 is an integer and
q1 * q2 * ... * qk >= N^E
Now make a bunch of 0-1 matrices. Let Mi be the qi x N matrix where the entry in row r and column c has a 1 if c = r mod qi and a 0 otherwise. For example, if qi = 3^2, then row 2 has ones in columns 2, 11, 20, ... 2 + 9j and 0 elsewhere.
Now stack these matrices vertically to get a Q x N matrix M, where Q = q1 + q2 + ... + qk. The rows of M tell you which numbers to multiply together (the nonzero positions). This gives a total of Q products that you need to test for evenness. Call each row a "trial", and say that a "trial involves j" if the jth column of that row is nonempty. The theorem you need is the following:
THEOREM: The number in position j is even if and only if all trials involving j are even.
So you do a total of Q trials and then look at the results. If you choose the prime powers intelligently, then Q should be significantly smaller than N. There are asymptotic results that show you can always get Q on the order of
(2E log N)^2 / 2log(2E log N)
This theorem is actually a corollary of the Chinese Remainder Theorem. The only place that I've seen this used is in Combinatorial Group Testing. Apparently the problem originally arose when testing soldiers coming back from WWII for syphilis.
The problem you are facing is a form of group testing, type of a problem with the objective of reducing the cost of identifying certain elements of a set (up to d elements of a set of N elements).
As you've already stated, there are two basic principles via which the testing may be carried out:
Non-adaptive Group Testing, where all the tests to be performed are decided a priori.
Adaptive Group Testing, where we perform several tests, basing each test on the outcome of previous tests. Obviously, adaptive testing has a potential to reduce the cost, compared to non-adaptive testing.
Theoretical bounds for both principles have been studied, and are available in this Wiki article, or this paper.
For adaptive testing, the upper bound is O(d*log(N)) (as already described in this answer).
For non-adaptive testing, it can be shown that the upper bound is O(d*d/log(d)*log(N)), which is obviously larger than the upper bound for adaptive testing by a factor of d/log(d).
This upper bound for non-adaptive testing comes from an algorithm which uses disjunct matrices: matrices of dimension T x N ("number of tests" x "number of elements"), where each item can be either true (if an element was included in a test), or false (if it wasn't), with a property that any subset of d columns must differ from all other columns by at least a single row (test inclusion). This allows linear time of decoding (there are also "d-separable" matrices where fewer test are needed, but the time complexity for their decoding is exponential and not computationaly feasible).
Conclusion:
My question is whether or not you can beat n calls on a fixed testing scheme [...]
For such a scheme and a sufficiently large value of N, a disjunct matrix can be constructed which would have less than K * [d*d/log(d)*log(N)] rows. So, for large values of N, yes, you can beat it.
The underlying question (challenge) is kind of silly. If the binary search answer is acceptable (where it sums sub arrays and sends them to IsEven) then I can think of a way to do it with E or less calls to IsEven (assuming the numbers are integers of course).
JavaScript to demonstrate
// sort the array by only the first bit of the number
A.sort(function(x,y) { return (x & 1) - (y & 1); });
// all of the evens will be at the beginning
for(var i=0; i < E && i < A.length; i++) {
if(IsEven(A[i]))
Print(A[i]);
else
break;
}
Not exactly a solution, but just few thoughts.
It is easy to see that if a solution exists for array length n that takes less than n tests, then for any array length m > n it is easy to see that there is always a solution with less than m tests. So, if you have a solution for n = 2 or 3 or 4, then the problem is solved.
You can split the array into pairs of numbers and for each pair: if the sum is odd, then exactly one of them is even, otherwise if one of the numbers is even, then both of them are even. This way for each pair it takes either one or two tests. Best case:n/2 tests, worse case:n tests, if even and odd numbers are chosen with equal probability, then: 3n/4 tests.
My hunch is there is no solution with less than n tests. Not sure how to prove it.
UPDATE: The second solution can be extended in the following way.
Check if the sum of two numbers is even. If odd, then exactly one of them is even. Otherwise label the set as "homogeneous set of size 2". Take two "homogenous set"s of same size n. Pick one number from each set and check if their sum is even. If it is even, combine these two sets to a "homogeneous set of size 2n". Otherwise, it implies that one of those sets purely consists of even numbers and the other one purely odd numbers.
Best case:n/2 tests. Average case: 3*n/2. Worst case is still n. Worst case exists only when all the numbers are even or all the numbers are odd.
If we can add and multiply array elements, then we can compute every Boolean function (up to complementation) on the low-order bits. Simulate a circuit that encodes the positions of the even numbers as a number from 0 to nC0 + nC1 + ... + nCe - 1 represented in binary and use calls to isEven to read off the bits.
Number of calls used: within 1 of the information-theoretic optimum.
See also fully homomorphic encryption.
During an assignment, I was asked to show that a hash table of size m (m>3, m is prime) that is less than half full, and that uses quadratic checking (hash(k, i) = (h(k) + i^2) mod m) we will always find a free spot.
I've checked and arrived to the conclusion that the spots that will be found (when h(k)=0) are 0 mod m, 1 mod m, 4 mod m, 9 mod m, ...
My problem is that I can't figure a way to show that it will always find the free spot. I've tested it myself with different values of m, and also have proven myself that if the hash table is more than half full, we might never find a free spot.
Can anyone please hint me towards the way to solve this?
Thanks!
0, 1, 4, ..., ((m-1)/2)^2 are all distinct mod m. Why?
Suppose two numbers from that range, i^2 and j^2, are equivalent mod m.
Then i^2 - j^2 = (i-j)(i+j) = 0 (mod m). Since m is prime, m must divide one of those factors. But the factors are both less than m, so one of them ((i-j)) is 0. That is, i = j.
Since we are starting at 0, more than half the slots that are distinct. If you can only fill less than m/2 of them, at least one remains open.
Let's break the proof down.
Setup
First, some background.
With a hash table, we define a probe sequence P. For any item q, following P will eventually lead to the right item in the hash table. The probe sequence is just a series of functions {h_0, ..., h_M-1} where h_i is a hash function.
To insert an item q into the table, we look at h_0(q), h_1(q), and so on, until we find an empty spot. To find q later, we examine the same sequence of locations.
In general, the probe sequence is of the form h_i(q) = [h(q) + c(i)] mod M, for a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number. The function c(i) is the collision-resolution strategy, which must have two properties:
First, c(0) = 0. This means that the first probe in the sequence must be equal to just performing the hash.
Second, the values {c(0) mod M, ..., c(M-1) mod M} must contain every integer between 0 and M-1. This means that if you keep trying to find empty spots, the probe sequence will eventually probe every array position.
Applying quadratic probing
Okay, we've got the setup of how the hash table works. Let's look at quadratic probing. This just means that for our c(i) we're using a general quadratic equation of the form ai^2 + bi + c, though for most implementations you'll usually just see c(i) = i^2 (that is, b, c = 0).
Does quadratic probing meet the two properties we talked about before? Well, it's certainly true that c(0) = 0 here, since (0)^2 is indeed 0, so it meets the first property. What about the second property?
It turns out that in general, the answer is no.
Theorem. When quadratic probing is used in a hash table of size M, where M is a prime number, only the first floor[M/2] probes in the probe sequence are distinct.
Let's see why this is the case, using a proof by contradiction.
Say that the theorem is wrong. Then that means there are two values a and b such that 0 <= a < b < floor[M/2] that probe the same position.
h_a(q) and h_b(q) must probe the same position, by (1), so h_a(q) = h_b(q).
h_a(q) = h_b(q) ==> h(q) + c(a) = h(q) + c(b), mod M.
The h(q) on both sides cancel. Our c(i) is just c(i) = i^2, so we have a^2 = b^2.
Solving the quadratic equation in (4) gives us a^2 - b^2 = 0, mod M. This is a difference of two squares, so the solution is (a - b)(a + b) = 0, mod M.
But remember, we said M was a prime number. The only way that (a - b)(a + b) can be zero mod M is if [case I] (a - b) is zero, or [case II] (a + b) is zero mod M.
Case I can't be right, because we said that a != b, so a - b must be something other than zero.
The only way for (a + b) to be zero mod M is for a + b to be equal to be a multiple of M or zero. They clearly can't be zero, since they're both bigger than zero. And since they're both less than floor[M/2], their sum must be less than M. So case II can't be right either.
Thus, if the theorem were wrong, one of two quantities must be zero, neither of which can possibly be zero -- a contradiction! QED: quadratic probing doesn't satisfy property two once your table is more than half full and if your table size is a prime number. The proof is complete!
From Wikipedia:
For prime m > 2, most choices of c1 and c2 will make h(k,i) distinct for i in [0,(m − 1) / 2]. Such choices include c1 = c2 = 1/2, c1 = c2 = 1, and c1 = 0,c2 = 1. Because there are only about m/2 distinct probes for a given element, it is difficult to guarantee that insertions will succeed when the load factor is > 1/2.
See the quadratic probing section in Data Structures and Algorithms with Object-Oriented Design Patterns in C++ for a proof that m/2 elements are distinct when m is prime.