This problem appeared in code jam 2018 qualification round which has ended.
https://codejam.withgoogle.com/2018/challenges/ (Problem 2)
Problem description:
The basic operation of the standard bubble sort algorithm is to examine a pair of adjacent numbers and reverse that pair if the left number is larger than the right number. But our algorithm examines a group of three adjacent numbers, and if the leftmost number is larger than the rightmost number, it reverses that entire group. Because our algorithm is a "triplet bubble sort", we have named it Trouble Sort for short.
We were looking forward to presenting Trouble Sort at the Special
Interest Group in Sorting conference in Hawaii, but one of our interns
has just pointed out a problem: it is possible that Trouble Sort does
not correctly sort the list! Consider the list 8 9 7, for example.
We need your help with some further research. Given a list of N
integers, determine whether Trouble Sort will successfully sort the
list into non-decreasing order. If it will not, find the index
(counting starting from 0) of the first sorting error after the
algorithm has finished: that is, the first value that is larger than
the value that comes directly after it when the algorithm is done.
So a naive approach will be to apply trouble sort on the given list, apply normal sort on the list, and find the index of the first non-matching element. However, this would time out for very large N.
Here is what I figured:
The algorithm will compare 0th index with 2nd, 2nd with 4th and so on.
Similarly 1st with 3rd, 3rd with 5th and so on.
All the elements at odd index will be sorted with respect to odd index. Same for even indexed element.
So the issue would lie between two consecutive odd/even indexed element.
I can't think of a way to figure it out without doing an O(n^2) approach.
Is my approach any viable, or there is something easier?
Your observation is spot on. The algorithm presented in the problem statement will only compare( and swap ) the consecutive odd and even elements among themselves.
If you take that observation one step further, you can state that Trouble Sort is an algorithm that correctly sorts odd- and even-indexed elements of an array within themselves. (i.e. as if odd-indexed elements and even-indexed elements of an array A are two separate arrays B and C)
In other words, Trouble Sort does sort B and C correctly. The issue here is whether those arrays B and C of odd and even-indexed elements can be merged properly. You should check if sorting odd- and even-indexed elements among themselves is enough to make the entire array sorted.
This step is really similar to the merging step of MergeSort. The only difference is that, due to the indexing being a limiting factor on your operation, you know at all times from which array you will pick the top element. For a 1-indexed array A, during the merging step of B and C, at each step, you should pick the smallest previously unpicked element from B, and then C.
So, basically, if you sort B and C, which takes, O(NlogN) using an algorithm such as mergesort or heapsort, and then merge them in the manner described in the previous paragraph, which takes O(N), you end up with the same version of the array A after it has been processed by the Trouble Sort algorithm.
The difference is the time complexity. While Trouble Sort takes O(N^2) time, the operations described above takes O(NlogN) time. Once you end up with this array, then you can check in O(N) time if, for each consecutive indices i, j, A[i] < A[j] holds. The overall complexity of the algorithm would still be O(NlogN).
Below is a code sample in Python to demonstrate sort of a pseudocode of the algorithm I described above. There are a couple of minor differences in implementation due to Python arrays being 0-indexed. You may observe the execution of this code here.
def does_trouble_sort_work(A):
B, C = A[0::2], A[1::2]
B_sorted = sorted(B)
C_sorted = sorted(C)
j = k = 0
for i in xrange(len(A)):
if i % 2 == 0:
A[i] = B_sorted[j]
j += 1
else:
A[i] = C_sorted[k]
k += 1
trouble_sort_works = True
for i in xrange(1, len(A)):
if A[i-1] > A[i]:
trouble_sort_works = False
break
return trouble_sort_works
Related
Given an array A with all elements appearing twice except one element which appears only once. How do we find the element which appears only once in O(logn) time? Let's discuss two cases.
Array is always sorted and elements are in sequential order. Let's assume A = [1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6], we want to find 3 in log n time because it appears only once.
When the array is not sorted and the elements are not in sequential order.
I can only come up with a solution of using the XOR operator on the binary representation of the integers as explained Here, and at the end, the binary string will represent the element which appears only once because duplicates will cancel out. But it takes O(n) time. How can we do better than that?
using Haroon S' comment this is the solution which I think is correct, given the constraints for time.
class Solution:
def singleNonDuplicate(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
low = 0
high = len(nums)-1
while(low<high):
mid = (low+high)//2
if(mid%2==0):
mid+=1
if(nums[mid]==nums[mid+1]):
# answer in second half
high = mid-1
elif(nums[mid]==nums[mid-1]):
# answer in first half
low = mid+1
return nums[low]
If the elements are sorted (i.e., the first case you mentioned) then I believe a strategy not unlike binary search could work in O(logN) time.
Starting from the left endpoint in a sorted array, until we encounter the unique element, all the index pairs (2i, 2i + 1) we encounter along the way will have the same value. (i.e., due to the array being sorted) However, as we go towards the right endpoint of the array, as soon as we consider an array that includes the unique element, that structure of "same values within (2i, 2i+1) index pairs" will be invalid.
Using that information, a search algorithm similar to binary search can find out in which half of the array the unique element is. Basically, you can deduce that, "in the left half of the array, if the values in the rightmost index pair (2i, 2i+1) are the same, then the unique value is in the right half". (i.e., with the exception of the last index on the left half-array being even; but you can overcome that case with various O(1) time operations)
The overall complexity then becomes O(logN), due to the halving of the array size at each step.
For the demonstration of the index notion I mentioned above, see your own example. In the left of the unique element(i.e. 3) all index pairs (2i, 2i+1) have the same values. And all subarrays starting from index 0 and ending with an index that is to the right of the unique element, all index pairs (2i, 2i+1) have a correspond to cells that contain different values.
Unless the array is sorted, though, since you'd have to investigate each and every element, I believe any algorithm you may come up with would take at least O(n) time. This is what I think will happen in the second case you mention in your question.
In the general case this is impossible, as to make sure an element doesn't repeat you need to check every other element.
From your example, it seems the array might be a sorted sequence of integers with no "gaps" (or some other clearly defined sequence, like all even numbers, etc). In this case it is possible with a modified binary search.
You have the array [1,1,2,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6].
You check the middle element and the element following it and see 3 and 4. Now you know there are only 5 elements from the set {1, 2, 3}, while there are 6 elements from the set {4, 5, 6}. Which means, the missing elements is in {1, 2, 3}.
Then you recurse on [1,1,2,2,3]. You see 2,2. Now you know there are 2 "1" elements and 1 "3" element, so 3 is the answer.
The reason you check 2 elements in each step is that if you see just "3", you don't know whether you hit the first 3 in "3,3" or the second one. But if you read 2 elements you always find a "boundary" between 2 different elements.
The condition for this to be viable is that, given the value of an element, you need to be able to calculate in O(1) how many different elements come before this element. In your case this is trivial, but it is also possible for any arithmetic series, geometric series (with fixed size numbers)...
This is not a O(log n) solution. I have no idea how to solve it in logarithmic time without the constraints that the array is sorted and we have a known difference between consecutive numbers so we can recognise when we are to the left or right of the singleton. The other solutions already deal with that special case and I couldn’t do better there either.
I have a suggestion that might solve the general case in O(n), rather than O(n log n) when you first sort the array. It’s not as fast as the xor solution, but it will also work for non-integers. The elements must have an order, so it is not completely general, but it will work anywhere you can sort the elements.
The idea is the same as the k’th order element algorithm based on Quicksort. You partition and recurse on one half of the array. The time recurrence is T(n) = T(n/2) + O(n) = O(n).
Given array x and indices i,j, representing sub-array x[i:j], partition with quicksort’s partitioning method. You want a variant that partitions x[i:j] into three segments, x[i:k] x[k:l], x[l:j] where all elements in the first part are smaller than the pivot (whatever it is) all elements in x[k:l] are equal to the pivot, and all elements in the last segment are greater than the pivot.
(you might be able to use a version that only partitions in two, or explicitly count the number of pivots, but with this version is easier to work with here)
Now, if the middle segment has length one, you have your singleton. It is the pivot.
If not, the length of the segment that has the singleton is odd while the other is even. So recurse on the segment with the odd length.
It doesn’t give you worst case linear time, for the same reason that Quicksort isn’t worst case log-linear, but you get an expected linear time algorithm and likely a fast one at that.
Not, of course, as fast as those solutions based on binary search, but here the elements do not need to be sorted and we can handle elements with arbitrary gaps between them. We are also not restricted to data where we can easily manipulate their bit-patterns. So it is more general. If you can compare the elements, this approach will find the singleton in O(n).
This solution will find the element in the array that appeared only once but there should not be more than one element of that type and the array should be sorted. This is Binary Search and will return the element in O(log n) time.
var singleNonDuplicate = function(nums) {
let s=0,e= nums.length-1
while(s < e){
let mid = Math.trunc(s+(e-s)/2)
if((mid%2 == 0&& nums[mid] ==nums[mid+1])||(mid%2==1 && nums[mid] == nums[mid-1]) ){
s= mid+1
}
else{
e = mid
}
}
return nums[s] // can return nums[e] also
};
I don't believe there is a O(log n) solution for that. The reason is that in order to find which element is appearing only once, you at least need to iterate over the elements of that array once.
There is a big array which consists of 2 small integer arrays written one at the end of another. Both small arrays are sorted by ascending. We have to find an element in big array as fast, as possible. My idea was to find the end of the left array by binsearch in big array and then implement 2 binsearches on small arrays. The problem is that I don't know how to find that end. If you have an idea, how to find element without finding borders of smaller arrays, you're welcome!
Information about arrays: both small arrays have integer elements, both are sorted by ascending, they both can have length from 0 to any positive integer number, but there can be only one copy of an element.
Here are some examples of big arrays:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (all the elements of the second array are bigger, than the maximum of the first array)
100 1 (both arrays have only one element)
1 3 5 2 4 6 or 2 4 6 1 3 5 (most common situations)
This problem is impossible to solve in guaranteed time complexity faster than O(n) and not possible to solve at all for certain arrays. Binary search runs in O(log n) for a sorted array, but the big array is not guaranteed to be sorted and will in the worst-case require one or more comparisions per element, which is O(n). The best guaranteed time complexity is O(n) with the trivial algorithm: compare every item with its neighbour until you find the "turning point" with A[i] > A[i+1]. However, if you use a breadth-first search, you may get lucky and find the "turning point" early.
Proof that the problem is unsolvable for some arrays: let the array M = [A B] be our big array. To find the point where the arrays meet we're looking for an index i where M[i] > M[i+1]. Now let A=[1 2 3] and B=[4 5]. There is no index in the array M for which the condition holds true, thus the problem is unsolvable for some arrays.
Informal proof for the former: let M=[A B] and A=[1..x] and B=[(x+1)..y] be two sorted arrays. Then swap the positions of element x and y in M. We have no way of finding the index of x without (in the worst case) checking every index, thus the problem is O(n).
Binary search relies on being able to eliminate half the solution space with each comparision, but in this case we cannot eliminate anything from the array and so we cannot do better than a linear search.
(From a practical standpoint, you should never do this in a program. The two arrays should be separate. If this isn't possible, append the length of either array to the bigger array.)
Edit: changed my answer after question was updated. It's possible to do it faster than linear time for some arrays, but not all possible arrays. Here's my idea for an algorithm using breadth-first search:
Start with the interval [0..n-1] where n is the length of the big array.
Make a list of intervals and put the starting interval in it.
For each interval in the list:
if the interval is only two elements and the first element is greater than the last
we found the turning point, return it
else if the interval is two elements or less
remove it from the list
else if the first element of the interval is greater than the last
turning point is in this interval
clear the list
split this interval in two equal parts and add them to the list
else
split this interval in two equal parts and replace this interval in the list with the two parts
I think a breadth-first approach will increase the odds of finding an interval where A[first] > A[last] early. Note that this approach will not work if the turning point is between two intervals, but it's something to get you started. I would test this myself, but unfortunately I don't have the time now.
Let L = list of S's where S = list of lengths of sides of a triangle.
Then, I need to find the minimum number of swaps required to sort the list L.
The list L is said to be sorted:
if the elements within each S list are sorted in non-decreasing order and
if the elements at ith index of each S list are sorted in non-decreasing order.
where 0 <= i <= 2
Note: Two types of swap operations can be done :
Either elements withing a S list can be swapped (requires 1 swap)
Two complete S lists can be swapped without changing the order of elements.
(requires 3 swaps)
Any efficient algorithm in terms of Time Complexity to find the minimum number of swaps required to sort the list L whenever possible?
EDIT:
As pointed out correctly by #Mbo, it is not always possible to sort such a list L. So, it would be great if someone provides an algorithm to check if the list L can be sorted followed by sorting if possible.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to me that you have to sort the 3 elements in each S. Once this is done, it is simply a matter of sorting the triplets in order of the list {S0[0],S1[0]...} and then checking whether the sequences {S0[1], S1[1].....}, {S0[2], S1[2]..} are in increasing order. If you have n triangles the asymptotic worst case complexity would be O(n)
I want to generate some test data to test a function that merges 'k sorted' lists (lists where each element is at most k positions away from it's correct sorted position) into a single fully sorted list. I have an approach that works but I'm not sure how well randomized it is and I feel there should be a simpler / more elegant way to do this. My current approach:
Generate n random elements paired with an integer index.
Sort random elements.
Set paired index for each element to its sorted position.
Work backwards through the elements, swapping each element with an element a random distance between 1 and k positions behind it in the list. Only swap with the target element if its paired index is its current index (this avoids swapping an element that is already out of place and moving it further than k positions away from where it should be).
Copy the perturbed elements out into another list.
Like I say, this works but I'm interested in alternative / better approaches.
I think you could just fill an array with random integers and then run quicksort on it with a custom stopping condition.
If in a particular quicksort recursion your start and end indexes are less than k apart, then just return instead of continuing to recur.
Because of how quicksort works, every number in the start..end interval belongs somewhere in that region; worst case is that array[start] might really belong at array[end] (or vice versa) in truly sorted order. So, assuring that start and end are no more than k apart should be sufficient.
You can generate array of random numbers and then h-sort it like in shellsort, but without fiew last sorting steps when h is less then k.
Step 1: Randomly permute disjoint segments of length k. (Eg. 1 to K, k+1 to 2k ...)
Step 2: Permute conditionally again by swapping (that they don't break k-sorted assumption (1+t yo k+t, k+1+t to 1+2k+t ...) where t is a number between 1 and k (most preferably k/2)
Probably repeat step 2 multiple times with different t.
If I understand the problem, you want an algorithm to randomly pick a single k-sorted list of length n, uniformly selected from the universe U of all k-sorted lists of length n. (You will then run this algorithm m times to produce m lists as input test data.)
The first step is to count them. What is the size of U? |U|
The next step is to enumerate them. Create any one-to-one mapping F between the integers (1,2,...,|U|) and k-sorted lists of length n.
Then randomly select an integer x between 1 and |U| inclusive, and then apply F(x) to get the list.
Is there a way to generate all of the subset sums s1, s2, ..., sk that fall in a range [A,B] faster than O((k+N)*2N/2), where k is the number of sums there are in [A,B]? Note that k is only known after we have enumerated all subset sums within [A,B].
I'm currently using a modified Horowitz-Sahni algorithm. For example, I first call it to for the smallest sum greater than or equal to A, giving me s1. Then I call it again for the next smallest sum greater than s1, giving me s2. Repeat this until we find a sum sk+1 greater than B. There is a lot of computation repeated between each iteration, even without rebuilding the initial two 2N/2 lists, so is there a way to do better?
In my problem, N is about 15, and the magnitude of the numbers is on the order of millions, so I haven't considered the dynamic programming route.
Check the subset sum on Wikipedia. As far as I know, it's the fastest known algorithm, which operates in O(2^(N/2)) time.
Edit:
If you're looking for multiple possible sums, instead of just 0, you can save the end arrays and just iterate through them again (which is roughly an O(2^(n/2) operation) and save re-computing them. The value of all the possible subsets is doesn't change with the target.
Edit again:
I'm not wholly sure what you want. Are we running K searches for one independent value each, or looking for any subset that has a value in a specific range that is K wide? Or are you trying to approximate the second by using the first?
Edit in response:
Yes, you do get a lot of duplicate work even without rebuilding the list. But if you don't rebuild the list, that's not O(k * N * 2^(N/2)). Building the list is O(N * 2^(N/2)).
If you know A and B right now, you could begin iteration, and then simply not stop when you find the right answer (the bottom bound), but keep going until it goes out of range. That should be roughly the same as solving subset sum for just one solution, involving only +k more ops, and when you're done, you can ditch the list.
More edit:
You have a range of sums, from A to B. First, you solve subset sum problem for A. Then, you just keep iterating and storing the results, until you find the solution for B, at which point you stop. Now you have every sum between A and B in a single run, and it will only cost you one subset sum problem solve plus K operations for K values in the range A to B, which is linear and nice and fast.
s = *i + *j; if s > B then ++i; else if s < A then ++j; else { print s; ... what_goes_here? ... }
No, no, no. I get the source of your confusion now (I misread something), but it's still not as complex as what you had originally. If you want to find ALL combinations within the range, instead of one, you will just have to iterate over all combinations of both lists, which isn't too bad.
Excuse my use of auto. C++0x compiler.
std::vector<int> sums;
std::vector<int> firstlist;
std::vector<int> secondlist;
// Fill in first/secondlist.
std::sort(firstlist.begin(), firstlist.end());
std::sort(secondlist.begin(), secondlist.end());
auto firstit = firstlist.begin();
auto secondit = secondlist.begin();
// Since we want all in a range, rather than just the first, we need to check all combinations. Horowitz/Sahni is only designed to find one.
for(; firstit != firstlist.end(); firstit++) {
for(; secondit = secondlist.end(); secondit++) {
int sum = *firstit + *secondit;
if (sum > A && sum < B)
sums.push_back(sum);
}
}
It's still not great. But it could be optimized if you know in advance that N is very large, for example, mapping or hashmapping sums to iterators, so that any given firstit can find any suitable partners in secondit, reducing the running time.
It is possible to do this in O(N*2^(N/2)), using ideas similar to Horowitz Sahni, but we try and do some optimizations to reduce the constants in the BigOh.
We do the following
Step 1: Split into sets of N/2, and generate all possible 2^(N/2) sets for each split. Call them S1 and S2. This we can do in O(2^(N/2)) (note: the N factor is missing here, due to an optimization we can do).
Step 2: Next sort the larger of S1 and S2 (say S1) in O(N*2^(N/2)) time (we optimize here by not sorting both).
Step 3: Find Subset sums in range [A,B] in S1 using binary search (as it is sorted).
Step 4: Next, for each sum in S2, find using binary search the sets in S1 whose union with this gives sum in range [A,B]. This is O(N*2^(N/2)). At the same time, find if that corresponding set in S2 is in the range [A,B]. The optimization here is to combine loops. Note: This gives you a representation of the sets (in terms of two indexes in S2), not the sets themselves. If you want all the sets, this becomes O(K + N*2^(N/2)), where K is the number of sets.
Further optimizations might be possible, for instance when sum from S2, is negative, we don't consider sums < A etc.
Since Steps 2,3,4 should be pretty clear, I will elaborate further on how to get Step 1 done in O(2^(N/2)) time.
For this, we use the concept of Gray Codes. Gray codes are a sequence of binary bit patterns in which each pattern differs from the previous pattern in exactly one bit.
Example: 00 -> 01 -> 11 -> 10 is a gray code with 2 bits.
There are gray codes which go through all possible N/2 bit numbers and these can be generated iteratively (see the wiki page I linked to), in O(1) time for each step (total O(2^(N/2)) steps), given the previous bit pattern, i.e. given current bit pattern, we can generate the next bit pattern in O(1) time.
This enables us to form all the subset sums, by using the previous sum and changing that by just adding or subtracting one number (corresponding to the differing bit position) to get the next sum.
If you modify the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm in the right way, then it's hardly slower than original Horowitz-Sahni. Recall that Horowitz-Sahni works two lists of subset sums: Sums of subsets in the left half of the original list, and sums of subsets in the right half. Call these two lists of sums L and R. To obtain subsets that sum to some fixed value A, you can sort R, and then look up a number in R that matches each number in L using a binary search. However, the algorithm is asymmetric only to save a constant factor in space and time. It's a good idea for this problem to sort both L and R.
In my code below I also reverse L. Then you can keep two pointers into R, updated for each entry in L: A pointer to the last entry in R that's too low, and a pointer to the first entry in R that's too high. When you advance to the next entry in L, each pointer might either move forward or stay put, but they won't have to move backwards. Thus, the second stage of the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm only takes linear time in the data generated in the first stage, plus linear time in the length of the output. Up to a constant factor, you can't do better than that (once you have committed to this meet-in-the-middle algorithm).
Here is a Python code with example input:
# Input
terms = [29371, 108810, 124019, 267363, 298330, 368607,
438140, 453243, 515250, 575143, 695146, 840979, 868052, 999760]
(A,B) = (500000,600000)
# Subset iterator stolen from Sage
def subsets(X):
yield []; pairs = []
for x in X:
pairs.append((2**len(pairs),x))
for w in xrange(2**(len(pairs)-1), 2**(len(pairs))):
yield [x for m, x in pairs if m & w]
# Modified Horowitz-Sahni with toolow and toohigh indices
L = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[:len(terms)/2])])
R = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[len(terms)/2:])])
(toolow,toohigh) = (-1,0)
for (Lsum,S) in reversed(L):
while R[toolow+1][0] < A-Lsum and toolow < len(R)-1: toolow += 1
while R[toohigh][0] <= B-Lsum and toohigh < len(R): toohigh += 1
for n in xrange(toolow+1,toohigh):
print '+'.join(map(str,S+R[n][1])),'=',sum(S+R[n][1])
"Moron" (I think he should change his user name) raises the reasonable issue of optimizing the algorithm a little further by skipping one of the sorts. Actually, because each list L and R is a list of sizes of subsets, you can do a combined generate and sort of each one in linear time! (That is, linear in the lengths of the lists.) L is the union of two lists of sums, those that include the first term, term[0], and those that don't. So actually you should just make one of these halves in sorted form, add a constant, and then do a merge of the two sorted lists. If you apply this idea recursively, you save a logarithmic factor in the time to make a sorted L, i.e., a factor of N in the original variable of the problem. This gives a good reason to sort both lists as you generate them. If you only sort one list, you have some binary searches that could reintroduce that factor of N; at best you have to optimize them somehow.
At first glance, a factor of O(N) could still be there for a different reason: If you want not just the subset sum, but the subset that makes the sum, then it looks like O(N) time and space to store each subset in L and in R. However, there is a data-sharing trick that also gets rid of that factor of O(N). The first step of the trick is to store each subset of the left or right half as a linked list of bits (1 if a term is included, 0 if it is not included). Then, when the list L is doubled in size as in the previous paragraph, the two linked lists for a subset and its partner can be shared, except at the head:
0
|
v
1 -> 1 -> 0 -> ...
Actually, this linked list trick is an artifact of the cost model and never truly helpful. Because, in order to have pointers in a RAM architecture with O(1) cost, you have to define data words with O(log(memory)) bits. But if you have data words of this size, you might as well store each word as a single bit vector rather than with this pointer structure. I.e., if you need less than a gigaword of memory, then you can store each subset in a 32-bit word. If you need more than a gigaword, then you have a 64-bit architecture or an emulation of it (or maybe 48 bits), and you can still store each subset in one word. If you patch the RAM cost model to take account of word size, then this factor of N was never really there anyway.
So, interestingly, the time complexity for the original Horowitz-Sahni algorithm isn't O(N*2^(N/2)), it's O(2^(N/2)). Likewise the time complexity for this problem is O(K+2^(N/2)), where K is the length of the output.