Related
Please help me with the below problem statement:
Bounce is a fast bunny. This time she faces the challenging task of completing all the trades on a number line.
Initially, bounce is at the 0th position, and the trades to be performed are on the right side(position>0).
She has two list of equal length, one containing the value v[i], and the other position p[i], for each of the trade it needs to perform .
The given list 'pos' is in strictly increasing order, that is pos[i]<pos[i+1], for 1<=i<=n-1 (1 based indexing) where n is the sizeof list.
the trade values can be positive, negative or zero.
During the process she cannot have a resource count of strictly less than zero at any moment, and after finishing all the trades she should finish at the right most position of trade(even if trade value is zero).
It is guaranteed that the sum of all trades is greater than or equal to zero.
Bounce can jump from any position to any other position. If she jumps from pos1 to pos2, the distance covered is |pos1-pos2|, and the distance for this jump is added to total distance covered.
find the Total minimum total Bounce has to cover to complete all the trades and then end at the last(rightmost) position of the trade.
Constraints
1<=n<=10^5
-1000<=v[i]<=1000
1<=pos<=10^8
Sample I/O: 1
4
2
-3
1
2
1
2
3
4
6
Explanation:
Number of trades = 4v = {2,-3,1,2}
position = {1,2,3,4}
at x=1
we gain 2 resources and resource count is 2
at x=2
we can't trade as we have only 2 resources
at x=3
we gain 1 more resource and count becomes 3(now go back to 2 and finish pending task and come back)
distance covered = 3+1+1 = 5
at x=4
we gain 2 more resource and exit
Hence, total distance covered = 6
Sample I/O: 2
4
2
-3
-1
2
1
2
3
4
8
I was asked this question in an interview and wasn't able to answer and i'm unable to solve it till now. I tried to relate this with many concepts like DAG, maximum sum, Kadane's Algo. but none was helpful.
How to approach this question and how to relate this with any existing algorithm?
It is an past interview question for which i don't have any link. I just want to know what i could have done at that time which would had solved it.
A greedy algorithm works here: as you walk forward, and would get a negative accumulated result, then you know that you'll have to get back to this position some time later. This means that every next step counts three times (forward, backward and forward again). As you know that the conflicting negative trade amount will eventually need to be accumulated, you might as well account for it immediately, knowing that you will have to triple the distance of the following steps until you have a positive accumulated amount.
So here is how that algorithm can be implemented in JavaScript. The two examples are run:
function minDistance(v, p) {
let distance = 0;
let position = 0;
let resources = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < v.length; i++) {
let step = p[i] - position;
if (resources < 0) distance += step * 3; // need to get back & forth here
else distance += step;
resources += v[i]; // all trades have to be performed anyway
position = p[i];
}
return distance;
}
console.log(minDistance([2,-3,1,2], [1,2,3,4])); // 6
console.log(minDistance([2,-3,-1,2], [1,2,3,4])); // 8
I received this interview question and got stuck on it:
There are an infinite number of train stops starting from station number 0.
There are an infinite number of trains. The nth train stops at all of the k * 2^(n - 1) stops where k is between 0 and infinity.
When n = 1, the first train stops at stops 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.
When n = 2, the second train stops at stops 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.
When n = 3, the third train stops at stops 0, 4, 8, 12, etc.
Given a start station number and end station number, return the minimum number of stops between them. You can use any of the trains to get from one stop to another stop.
For example, the minimum number of stops between start = 1 and end = 4 is 3 because we can get from 1 to 2 to 4.
I'm thinking about a dynamic programming solution that would store in dp[start][end] the minimum number of steps between start and end. We'd build up the array using start...mid1, mid1...mid2, mid2...mid3, ..., midn...end. But I wasn't able to get it to work. How do you solve this?
Clarifications:
Trains can only move forward from a lower number stop to a higher number stop.
A train can start at any station where it makes a stop at.
Trains can be boarded in any order. The n = 1 train can be boarded before or after boarding the n = 3 train.
Trains can be boarded multiple times. For example, it is permitted to board the n = 1 train, next board the n = 2 train, and finally board the n = 1 train again.
I don't think you need dynamic programming at all for this problem. It can basically be expressed by binary calculations.
If you convert the number of a station to binary it tells you right away how to get there from station 0, e.g.,
station 6 = 110
tells you that you need to take the n=3 train and the n=2 train each for one station. So the popcount of the binary representation tells you how many steps you need.
The next step is to figure out how to get from one station to another.
I´ll show this again by example. Say you want to get from station 7 to station 23.
station 7 = 00111
station 23 = 10111
The first thing you want to do is to get to an intermediate stop. This stop is specified by
(highest bits that are equal in start and end station) + (first different bit) + (filled up with zeros)
In our example the intermediate stop is 16 (10000). The steps you need to make can be calculated by the difference of that number and the start station (7 = 00111). In our example this yields
10000 - 00111 = 1001
Now you know, that you need 2 stops (n=1 train and n=4) to get from 7 to 16.
The remaining task is to get from 16 to 23, again this can be solved by the corresponding difference
10111 - 10000 = 00111
So, you need another 3 stops to go from 16 to 23 (n= 3, n= 2, n= 1). This gives you 5 stops in total, just using two binary differences and the popcount. The resulting path can be extracted from the bit representations 7 -> 8 -> 16 -> 20 -> 22 -> 23
Edit:
For further clarification of the intermediate stop let's assume we want to go from
station 5 = 101 to
station 7 = 111
the intermediate stop in this case will be 110, because
highest bits that are equal in start and end station = 1
first different bit = 1
filled up with zeros = 0
we need one step to go there (110 - 101 = 001) and one more to go from there to the end station (111 - 110 = 001).
About the intermediate stop
The concept of the intermediate stop is a bit clunky but I could not find a more elegant way in order to get the bit operations to work. The intermediate stop is the stop in between start and end where the highest level bit switches (that's why it is constructed the way it is). In this respect it is the stop at which the fastest train (between start and end) operates (actually all trains that you are able to catch stop there).
By subtracting the intermediate stop (bit representation) from the end station (bit representation) you reduce the problem to the simple case starting from station 0 (cf. first example of my answer).
By subtracting the start station from the intermediate stop you also reduce the problem to the simple case, but assume that you go from the intermediate stop to the start station which is equivalent to the other way round.
First, ask if you can go backward. It sounds like you can't, but as presented here (which may not reflect the question as you received it), the problem never gives an explicit direction for any of these trains. (I see you've now edited your question to say you can't go backward.)
Assuming you can't go backward, the strategy is simple: always take the highest-numbered available train that doesn't overshoot your destination.
Suppose you're at stop s, and the highest-numbered train that stops at your current location and doesn't overshoot is train k. Traveling once on train k will take you to stop s + 2^(k-1). There is no faster way to get to that stop, and no way to skip that stop - no lower-numbered trains skip any of train k's stops, and no higher-numbered trains stop between train k's stops, so you can't get on a higher-numbered train before you get there. Thus, train k is your best immediate move.
With this strategy in mind, most of the remaining optimization is a matter of efficient bit twiddling tricks to compute the number of stops without explicitly figuring out every stop on the route.
I will attempt to prove my algorithm is optimal.
The algorithm is "take the fastest train that doesn't overshoot your destination".
How many stops this is is a bit tricky.
Encode both stops as binary numbers. I claim that an identical prefix can be neglected; the problem of going from a to b is the same as the problem of going from a+2^n to b+2^n if 2^n > b, as the stops between 2^n and 2^(n+1) are just the stops between 0 and 2^n shifted over.
From this, we can reduce a trip from a to b to guarantee that the high bit of b is set, and the same "high" bit of a is not set.
To solve going from 5 (101) to 7 (111), we merely have to solve going from 1 (01) to 3 (11), then shift our stop numbers up 4 (100).
To go from x to 2^n + y, where y < 2^n (and hence x is), we first want to go to 2^n, because there are no trains that skip over 2^n that do not also skip over 2^n+y < 2^{n+1}.
So any set of stops between x and y must stop at 2^n.
Thus the optimal number of stops from x to 2^n + y is the number of stops from x to 2^n, followed by the number of stops from 2^n to 2^n+y, inclusive (or from 0 to y, which is the same).
The algorithm I propose to get from 0 to y is to start with the high order bit set, and take the train that gets you there, then go on down the list.
Claim: In order to generate a number with k 1s, you must take at least k trains. As proof, if you take a train and it doesn't cause a carry in your stop number, it sets 1 bit. If you take a train and it does cause a carry, the resulting number has at most 1 more set bit than it started with.
To get from x to 2^n is a bit trickier, but can be made simple by tracking the trains you take backwards.
Mapping s_i to s_{2^n-i} and reversing the train steps, any solution for getting from x to 2^n describes a solution for getting from 0 to 2^n-x. And any solution that is optimal for the forward one is optimal for the backward one, and vice versa.
Using the result for getting from 0 to y, we then get that the optimal route from a to b where b highest bit set is 2^n and a does not have that bit set is #b-2^n + #2^n-a, where # means "the number of bits set in the binary representation". And in general, if a and b have a common prefix, simply drop that common prefix.
A local rule that generates the above number of steps is "take the fastest train in your current location that doesn't overshoot your destination".
For the part going from 2^n to 2^n+y we did that explicitly in our proof above. For the part going from x to 2^n this is trickier to see.
First, if the low order bit of x is set, obviously we have to take the first and only train we can take.
Second, imagine x has some collection of unset low-order bits, say m of them. If we played the train game going from x/2^m to 2^(n-m), then scaled the stop numbers by multiplying by 2^m we'd get a solution to going from x to 2^n.
And #(2^n-x)/2^m = #2^n - x. So this "scaled" solution is optimal.
From this, we are always taking the train corresponding to our low-order set bit in this optimal solution. This is the longest range train available, and it doesn't overshoot 2^n.
QED
This problem doesn't require dynamic programming.
Here is a simple implementation of a solution using GCC:
uint32_t min_stops(uint32_t start, uint32_t end)
{
uint32_t stops = 0;
if(start != 0) {
while(start <= end - (1U << __builtin_ctz(start))) {
start += 1U << __builtin_ctz(start);
++stops;
}
}
stops += __builtin_popcount(end ^ start);
return stops;
}
The train schema is a map of powers-of-two. If you visualize the train lines as a bit representation, you can see that the lowest bit set represents the train line with the longest distance between stops that you can take. You can also take the lines with shorter distances.
To minimize the distance, you want to take the line with the longest distance possible, until that would make the end station unreachable. That's what adding by the lowest-set bit in the code does. Once you do this, some number of the upper bits will agree with the upper bits of the end station, while the lower bits will be zero.
At that point, it's simply a a matter of taking a train for the highest bit in the end station that is not set in the current station. This is optimized as __builtin_popcount in the code.
An example going from 5 to 39:
000101 5 // Start
000110 5+1=6
001000 6+2=8
010000 8+8=16
100000 16+16=32 // 32+32 > 39, so start reversing the process
100100 32+4=36 // Optimized with __builtin_popcount in code
100110 36+2=38 // Optimized with __builtin_popcount in code
100111 38+1=39 // Optimized with __builtin_popcount in code
As some have pointed out, since stops are all multiples of powers of 2, trains that stop more frequently also stop at the same stops of the more-express trains. Any stop is on the first train's route, which stops at every station. Any stop is at most 1 unit away from the second train's route, stopping every second station. Any stop is at most 3 units from the third train that stops every fourth station, and so on.
So start at the end and trace your route back in time - hop on the nearest multiple-of-power-of-2 train and keep switching to the highest multiple-of-power-of-2 train you can as soon as possible (check the position of the least significant set bit - why? multiples of powers of 2 can be divided by two, that is bit-shifted right, without leaving a remainder, log 2 times, or as many leading zeros in the bit-representation), as long as its interval wouldn't miss the starting point after one stop. When the latter is the case, perform the reverse switch, hopping on the next lower multiple-of-power-of-2 train and stay on it until its interval wouldn't miss the starting point after one stop, and so on.
We can figure this out doing nothing but a little counting and array manipulation. Like all the previous answers, we need to start by converting both numbers to binary and padding them to the same length. So 12 and 38 become 01100 and 10110.
Looking at station 12, looking at the least significant set bit (in this case the only bit, 2^2) all trains with intervals larger than 2^2 won't stop at station 4, and all with intervals less than or equal to 2^2 will stop at station 4, but will require multiple stops to get to the same destination as the interval 4 train. We in every situation, up until we reach the largest set bit in the end value, we need to take the train with the interval of the least significant bit of the current station.
If we are at station 0010110100, our sequence will be:
0010110100 2^2
0010111000 2^3
0011000000 2^6
0100000000 2^7
1000000000
Here we can eliminate all bits smaller than the lest significant set bit and get the same count.
00101101 2^0
00101110 2^1
00110000 2^4
01000000 2^6
10000000
Trimming the ends at each stage, we get this:
00101101 2^0
0010111 2^0
0011 2^0
01 2^0
1
This could equally be described as the process of flipping all the 0 bits. Which brings us to the first half of the algorithm: Count the unset bits in the zero padded start number greater than the least significant set bit, or 1 if the start station is 0.
This will get us to the only intermediate station reachable by the train with the largest interval smaller than the end station, so all trains after this must be smaller than the previous train.
Now we need to get from station to 100101, it is easier and obvious, take the train with an interval equal to the largest significant bit set in the destination and not set in the current station number.
1000000000 2^7
1010000000 2^5
1010100000 2^4
1010110000 2^2
1010110100
Similar to the first method, we can trim the most significant bit which will always be set, then count the remaining 1's in the answer. So the second part of the algorithm is Count all the set significant bits smaller than the most significant bit
Then Add the result from parts 1 and 2
Adjusting the algorithm slightly to get all the train intervals, here is an example written in javascript so it can be run here.
function calculateStops(start, end) {
var result = {
start: start,
end: end,
count: 0,
trains: [],
reverse: false
};
// If equal there are 0 stops
if (start === end) return result;
// If start is greater than end, reverse the values and
// add note to reverse the results
if (start > end) {
start = result.end;
end = result.start;
result.reverse = true;
}
// Convert start and end values to array of binary bits
// with the exponent matched to the index of the array
start = (start >>> 0).toString(2).split('').reverse();
end = (end >>> 0).toString(2).split('').reverse();
// We can trim off any matching significant digits
// The stop pattern for 10 to 13 is the same as
// the stop pattern for 2 to 5 offset by 8
while (start[end.length-1] === end[end.length-1]) {
start.pop();
end.pop();
}
// Trim off the most sigificant bit of the end,
// we don't need it
end.pop();
// Front fill zeros on the starting value
// to make the counting easier
while (start.length < end.length) {
start.push('0');
}
// We can break the algorithm in half
// getting from the start value to the form
// 10...0 with only 1 bit set and then getting
// from that point to the end.
var index;
var trains = [];
var expected = '1';
// Now we loop through the digits on the end
// any 1 we find can be added to a temporary array
for (index in end) {
if (end[index] === expected){
result.count++;
trains.push(Math.pow(2, index));
};
}
// if the start value is 0, we can get to the
// intermediate step in one trip, so we can
// just set this to 1, checking both start and
// end because they can be reversed
if (result.start == 0 || result.end == 0) {
index++
result.count++;
result.trains.push(Math.pow(2, index));
// We need to find the first '1' digit, then all
// subsequent 0 digits, as these are the ones we
// need to flip
} else {
for (index in start) {
if (start[index] === expected){
result.count++;
result.trains.push(Math.pow(2, index));
expected = '0';
}
}
}
// add the second set to the first set, reversing
// it to get them in the right order.
result.trains = result.trains.concat(trains.reverse());
// Reverse the stop list if the trip is reversed
if (result.reverse) result.trains = result.trains.reverse();
return result;
}
$(document).ready(function () {
$("#submit").click(function () {
var trains = calculateStops(
parseInt($("#start").val()),
parseInt($("#end").val())
);
$("#out").html(trains.count);
var current = trains.start;
var stopDetails = 'Starting at station ' + current + '<br/>';
for (index in trains.trains) {
current = trains.reverse ? current - trains.trains[index] : current + trains.trains[index];
stopDetails = stopDetails + 'Take train with interval ' + trains.trains[index] + ' to station ' + current + '<br/>';
}
$("#stops").html(stopDetails);
});
});
label {
display: inline-block;
width: 50px;
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<label>Start</label> <input id="start" type="number" /> <br>
<label>End</label> <input id="end" type="number" /> <br>
<button id="submit">Submit</button>
<p>Shortest route contains <span id="out">0</span> stops</p>
<p id="stops"></p>
Simple Java solution
public static int minimumNumberOfStops(int start, final int end) {
// I would initialize it with 0 but the example given in the question states :
// the minimum number of stops between start = 1 and end = 4 is 3 because we can get from 1 to 2 to 4
int stops = 1;
while (start < end) {
start += findClosestPowerOfTwoLessOrEqualThan(end - start);
stops++;
}
return stops;
}
private static int findClosestPowerOfTwoLessOrEqualThan(final int i) {
if (i > 1) {
return 2 << (30 - Integer.numberOfLeadingZeros(i));
}
return 1;
}
NOTICE: Reason for current comments under my answer is that first I wrote this algorithm completely wrong and user2357112 awared me from my mistakes. So I completely removed that algorithm and wrote a new one according to what user2357112 answered to this question. I also added some comments into this algorithm to clarify what happens in each line.
This algorithm starts at procedure main(Origin, Dest) and it simulate our movements toward destination with updateOrigin(Origin, Dest)
procedure main(Origin, Dest){
//at the end we have number of minimum steps in this variable
counter = 0;
while(Origin != Dest){
//we simulate our movement toward destination with this
Origin = updateOrigin(Origin, Dest);
counter = counter + 1;
}
}
procedure updateOrigin(Origin, Dest){
if (Origin == 1) return 2;
//we must find which train pass from our origin, what comes out from this IF clause is NOT exact choice and we still have to do some calculation in future
if (Origin == 0){
//all trains pass from stop 0, thus we can choose our train according to destination
n = Log2(Dest);
}else{
//its a good starting point to check if it pass from our origin
n = Log2(Origin);
}
//now lets choose exact train which pass from origin and doesn't overshoot destination
counter = 0;
do {
temp = counter * 2 ^ (n - 1);
//we have found suitable train
if (temp == Origin){
//where we have moved to
return Origin + 2 ^ ( n - 1 );
//we still don't know if this train pass from our origin
} elseif (temp < Origin){
counter = counter + 1;
//lets check another train
} else {
n = n - 1;
counter = 0;
}
}while(temp < origin)
}
Problem:
Given 100 stones, two players alternate to take stones out. One can take any number from 1 to 15; however, one cannot take any number that was already taken. If in the end of the game, there is k stones left, but 1 through k have all been previously taken, one can take k stones. The one who takes the last stone wins. How can the first player always win?
My Idea
Use recursion (or dynamic programming). Base case 1, where player 1 has a winning strategy.
Reducing: for n stones left, if palyer 1 takes m1 stones, he has to ensure that for all options player 2 has (m2), he has a winning strategy. Thus the problem is reduced to (n - m1 - m2).
Follow Up Question:
If one uses DP, the potential number of tables to be filled is large (2^15), since the available options left depend on the history, which has 2^15 possibilities.
How can you optimize?
Assuming that the set of numbers remaining can be represented as R, the highest number remaining after your selection can be represented by RH and the lowest number remaining can be RL, the trick is to use your second-to-last move to raise the number to <100-RH, but >100-RH-RL. That forces your opponent to take a number that will put you in winning range.
The final range of winning, with the total number that you create with your second-to-last move, is:
N < 100-RH
N > 100-RH-RL
By observation I noted that RH can be as high as 15 and as low as 8. RL can be as low as 1 and as high as 13. From this range I evaluated the equations.
N < 100-[8:15] => N < [92:85]
N > 100-[8:15]-[1:13] => N > [92:85] - [1:13] => N > [91:72]
Other considerations can narrow this gap. RL, for instance, is only 13 in an edge circumstance that always results in a loss for Player A, so the true range is between 72 and 91. There is a similar issue with RH and the low end of it, so the final ranges and calculations are:
N < 100-[9:15] => N < [91:85]
N > 100-[9:15]-[1:12] => N > [91:85] - [1:12] => N > [90:73]
[90:73] < N < [91:85]
Before this, however, the possibilities explode. Remember, this is AFTER you choose your second-to-last number, not before. At this point they are forced to choose a number that will allow you to win.
Note that 90 is not a valid choice to win with, even though it might exist. Thus, the maximum it can be is 89. The real range of N is:
[88:73] < N < [90:85]
It is, however, possible to calculate the range of the number that you're using to put your opponent in a no-win situation. In the situation you find yourself in, the lowest number or the highest number might be the one you chose, so if RHc is the highest number you can pick and RLc is the lowest number you can pick, then
RHc = [9:15]
RLc = [1:12]
With this information, I can begin constructing a relative algorithm starting from the end of the game.
N*p* - RHp - RLp < Np < N*p* - RHp, where p = iteration and *p* = iteration + 1
RHp = [8+p:15]
RLp = [1:13-p]
p = -1 is your winning move
p = 0 is your opponent's helpless move
p = 1 is your set-up move
Np is the sum of that round.
Thus, solving the algorithm for your set-up move, p=1, you get:
N*p* - [9:15] - [1:12] < Np < N*p* - [9:15]
100 <= N*p* <= 114
I'm still working out the math for this, so expect adjustments. If you see an error, please let me know and I'll adjust appropriately.
Here is a simple, brute force Python code:
# stoneCount: number of stones to start the game with
# possibleMoves: which numbers of stones may be removed? (*sorted* list of integers)
# return value: signals if winning can be forced by first player;
# if True, the winning move is attached
def isWinningPosition(stoneCount, possibleMoves):
if stoneCount == 0:
return False
if len(possibleMoves) == 0:
raise ValueError("no moves left")
if stoneCount in possibleMoves or stoneCount < possibleMoves[0]:
return True,stoneCount
for move in possibleMoves:
if move > stoneCount:
break
remainingMoves = [m for m in possibleMoves if m != move]
winning = isWinningPosition(stoneCount - move, remainingMoves)
if winning == False:
return True,move
return False
For the given problem size this function returns in less than 20 seconds on an Intel i7:
>>> isWinningPosition(100, range(1,16))
False
(So the first play cannot force a win in this situation. Whatever move he makes, it will result in a winning position for the second player.)
Of course, there is a lot of room for run time optimization. In the above implementation many situations are reached and recomputed again and again (e.g. when the first play takes one stone and the second player takes two stones this will put the first player into the same situation as when the number of stones taken by each player are reversed). So the first (major) improvement is to memorize already computed situations. Then one could go for more efficient data structures (e.g. encoding the list of possible moves as bit pattern).
I'm implementing an m,n,k-game, a generalized version of tic-tac-toe, where m is the number of rows, n is the number of columns and k is the number of pieces that a player needs to put in a row to win. I have implemented a check for a win, but I haven't figured out a satisfactory way to check before the board is full of pieces, if no player can win the game. In other words, there might be empty slots on the board, but they cannot be filled in such a way that one player would win.
My question is, how to check this efficiently? The following algorithm is the best that I can think of. It checks for two conditions:
A. Go over all board positions in all 4 directions (top to bottom, right to left, and both diagonal directions). If say k = 5, and 4 (= k-1) consecutive empty slots are found, stop checking and report "no tie". This doesn't take into account for example the following situation:
OX----XO (Example 1)
where a) there are 4 empty consecutive slots (-) somewhere between two X's, b) next it is O's turn, c) there are less than four other empty positions on the board and no player can win by putting pieces to those, and d) it is not possible to win in any other direction than horizontally in the shown slots either. Now we know that it is a tie because O will eventually block the last winning possibility, but erroneously it is not reported yet because there are four consecutive empty slots. That would be ok (but not great). Checking this condition gives a good speed-up at the beginning when the checking algorithm usually finds such a case early, but it gets slower as more pieces are put on the board.
B. If this k-1-consecutive-empty-slots-condition isn't met, the algorithm would check the slots again consecutively in all 4 directions. Suppose we are currently checking from left to right. If at some point an X is encountered and it was preceded by an O or - (empty slot) or a board border, then start counting the number of consecutive X's and empty slots, counting in this first encountered X. If one can count to 5, then one knows it is possible for X to win, and "no tie" is reported. If an O preceded by an X is encountered before 5 consecutive X's, then X cannot win in those 5 slots from left to right starting from where we started counting. For example:
X-XXO (Example 2)
12345
Here we started checking at position 1, counted to 4, and encountered an O. In this case, one would continue from the encountered O in the same way, trying to find 5 consecutive O's or empty slots this time. In another case when counting X's or empty slots, an O preceded by one or more empty slots is encountered, before counting to 5. For example:
X-X-O (Example 3)
12345
In this case we would again continue from the O at position 5, but add to the new counter (of consecutive O's or empty slots) the number of consecutive empty slots that preceded O, here 1, so that we wouldn't miss for example this possible winning position:
X-X-O---X (Example 4)
In this way, in the worst case, one would have to go through all positions 4 times (4 directions, and of course diagonals whose length is less than k can be skipped), giving running time O(mn).
The best way I could think of was doing these two described checks, A and B, in one pass. If the checking algorithm gets through all positions in all directions without reporting "no tie", it reports a tie.
Knowing that you can check a win just by checking in the vicinity of the last piece that was added with running time O(k), I was wondering if there were quicker ways to do an early check for a tie. Doesn't have to be asymptotically quicker. I'm currently keeping the pieces in a two-dimensional array. Is there maybe a data structure that would allow an efficient check? One approach: what is the highest threshold of moves that one can wait the players to make before running any checks for a tie at all?
There are many related questions at Stack Overflow, for example this, but all discussions I could find either only pointed out the obvious tie condition, where the number of moves made is equal to the size of the board (or they checked if the board is full), or handled only the special case where the board is square: m = n. For example this answer claims to do the check for a tie in constant time, but only works when m = n = k. I'm interested in reporting the tie as early as possible and for general m,n and k. Also if the algorithm works for more than two players, that would be neat.
I would reduce the problem of determining a tie to the easier sub-problem:
Can player X still win?
If the answer is 'no' for all players, it is a tie.
To find out whether Player X can win:
fill all blank spaces with virtual 'X'-pieces
are there k 'X'-pieces in a row anywhere?
if there are not --> Player X cannot win. return false.
if there are, find the row of k stones with the least amount of virtual pieces. Count the number of virtual pieces in it.
count the number of moves player X has left, alternating with all other players, until the board is completely full.
if the number of moves is less than the amount of virtual pieces required to win, player X cannot win. return false.
otherwise, player X can still win. return true.
(This algorithm will report a possible win for player X even in cases where the only winning moves for X would have another player win first, but that is ok, since that would not be a tie either)
If, as you said, you can check a win just by checking in the vicinity of the last piece that was added with running time O(k), then I think you can run the above algorithm in O(k * Number_of_empty_spots): Add all virtual X-Piece, note any winning combinations in the vicinity of the added pieces.
The number of empty slots can be large, but as long as there is at least one empty row of size k and player X has still k moves left until the board is filled, you can be sure that player X can still win, so you do not need to run the full check.
This should work with any number of players.
Actually the constant time solution you referenced only works when k = m = n as well. If k is smaller then I don't see any way to adapt the solution to get constant time, basically because there are multiple locations on each row/column/diagonal where a winning consecutive k 0's or 1's may occur.
However, maintaining auxiliary information for each row/column/diagonal can give a speed up. For each row/column/diagonal, you can store the start and end locations for consecutive occurrences of 1's and blanks as possible winning positions for player 1, and similarly store start and end locations of consecutive occurrences of 0's and blanks as possible winning positions for player 0. Note that for a given row/column/diagonal, intervals for player 0 and 1 may overlap if they contain blanks. For each row/column/diagonal, store the intervals for player 1 in sorted order in a self-balancing binary tree (Note you can do this because the intervals are disjoint). Similarly store the intervals for player 0 sorted in a tree. When a player makes a move, find the row/column/diagonals that contain the move location and update the intervals containing the move in the appropriate row column and diagonal trees for the player that did not make the move. For the player that did not make a move, this will split an interval (if it exists) into smaller intervals that you can replace the old interval with and then rebalance the tree. If an interval ever gets to length less than k you can delete it. If a tree ever becomes empty then it is impossible for that player to win in that row/column/diagonal. You can maintain a counter of how many rows/columns/diagonals are impossible to win for each player, and if the counter ever reaches the total number of rows/columns/diagonals for both players then you know you have a tie. The total running time for this is O(log(n/k) + log(m/k)) to check for a tie per move, with O(mn/k) extra space.
You can similarly maintain trees that store consecutive intervals of 1's (without spaces) and update the trees in O(log n + log m) time when a move is made, basically searching for the positions before and after the move in your tree and updating the interval(s) found and merging two intervals if two intervals (before and after) are found. Then you report a win if an interval is ever created/updated and obtains length greater than or equal to k. Similarly for player 0. Total time to check for a win is O(log n + log m) which may be better than O(k) depending on how large k is. Extra space is O(mn).
Let's look at one row (or column or diagonal, it doesn't matter) and count the number of winning lines of length k ("k-line") it's possible to make, at each place in the row, for player X. This solution will keep track of that number over the course of the game, checking fulfillment of the winning condition on each move as well as detecting a tie.
1 2 3... k k k k... 3 2 1
There is one k-line including an X in the leftmost slot, two with the second slot from the left, and so on. If an opposing player, O or otherwise, plays in this row, we can reduce the k-line possibility counts for player X in O(k) time at the time of the move. (The logic for this step should be straightforward after doing an example, needing no other data structure, but any method involving checking each of the k rows of k from will do. Going left to right, only k operations on the counts is needed.) An enemy piece should set the possibility count to -1.
Then, a detectably tied game is one where no cell has a non-zero k-line possibility count for any player. It's easy to check this by keeping track of the index of the first non-zero cell. Maintaining the structure amounts to O(k*players) work on each move. The number of empty slots is less than those filled, for positions that might be tied, so the other answers are good for checking a position in isolation. However, at least for reasonably small numbers of players, this problem is intimately linked with checking the winning condition in the first place, which at minimum you must do, O(k), on every move. Depending on your game engine there may be a better structure that is rich enough to find good moves as well as detect ties. But the possibility counting structure has the nice property that you can check for a win whilst updating it.
If space isn't an issue, I had this idea:
For each player maintain a structure sized (2mn + (1 - k)(m + n) + 2(m - k + 1)(n - k + 1) + 2(sum 1 to (m - k))) where each value represents if one of another player's moves are in one distinct k-sized interval. For example for a 8-8-4 game, one element in the structure could represent row 1, cell 0 to 3; another row 1, cell 1 to 4; etc.
In addition, one variable per player will represent how many elements in their structure are still unset. Only one move is required to set an element, showing that that k-interval can no longer be used to win.
An update of between O(k) and O(4k) time per player seems needed per move. A tie is detected when the number of players exceeds the number of different elements unset.
Using bitsets, the number of bytes needed for each player's structure would be the structure size divided by 8. Notice that when k=m=n, the structure size is 4*k and update time O(4). Less than half a megabyte per player would be needed for a 1000,1000,5 game.
Below is a JavaScript example.
var m = 1000, n = 1000, k = 5, numberOfPlayers = 2
, numberOfHorizontalKIs = m * Math.max(n - k + 1,0)
, numberOfverticalKIs = n * Math.max(m - k + 1,0)
, horizontalVerticalKIArraySize = Math.ceil((numberOfHorizontalKIs + numberOfverticalKIs)/31)
, horizontalAndVerticalKIs = Array(horizontalVerticalKIArraySize)
, numberOfUnsetKIs = horizontalAndVerticalKIs
, upToM = Math.max(0,m - k) // southwest diagonals up to position m
, upToMSum = upToM * (upToM + 1) / 2
, numberOfSouthwestKIs = 2 * upToMSum //sum is multiplied by 2 to account for bottom-right-corner diagonals
+ Math.max(0,n - m + 1) * (m - k + 1)
, diagonalKIArraySize = Math.ceil(2 * numberOfSouthwestKIs/31)
, diagonalKIs = Array(diagonalKIArraySize)
, numberOfUnsetKIs = 2 * numberOfSouthwestKIs + numberOfHorizontalKIs + numberOfverticalKIs
function checkTie(move){
var row = move[0], column = move[1]
//horizontal and vertical
for (var rotate=0; rotate<2; rotate++){
var offset = Math.max(k - n + column, 0)
column -= offset
var index = rotate * numberOfHorizontalKIs + (n - k + 1) * row + column
, count = 0
while (column >= 0 && count < k - offset){
var KIArrayIndex = Math.floor(index / 31)
, bitToSet = 1 << index % 31
if (!(horizontalAndVerticalKIs[KIArrayIndex] & bitToSet)){
horizontalAndVerticalKIs[KIArrayIndex] |= bitToSet
numberOfUnsetKIs--
}
index--
column--
count++
}
//rotate board to log vertical KIs
var mTmp = m
m = n
n = mTmp
row = move[1]
column = move[0]
count = 0
}
//rotate board back
mTmp = m
m = n
n = mTmp
// diagonals
for (var rotate=0; rotate<2; rotate++){
var diagonalTopColumn = column + row
if (diagonalTopColumn < k - 1 || diagonalTopColumn >= n + m - k){
continue
} else {
var offset = Math.max(k - m + row, 0)
row -= offset
column += offset
var dBeforeM = Math.min (diagonalTopColumn - k + 1,m - k)
, dAfterM = n + m - k - diagonalTopColumn
, index = dBeforeM * (dBeforeM + 1) / 2
+ (m - k + 1) * Math.max (Math.min(diagonalTopColumn,n) - m + 1,0)
+ (diagonalTopColumn < n ? 0 : upToMSum - dAfterM * (dAfterM + 1) / 2)
+ (diagonalTopColumn < n ? row : n - 1 - column)
+ rotate * numberOfSouthwestKIs
, count = 0
while (row >= 0 && column < n && count < k - offset){
var KIArrayIndex = Math.floor(index / 31)
, bitToSet = 1 << index % 31
if (!(diagonalKIs[KIArrayIndex] & bitToSet)){
diagonalKIs[KIArrayIndex] |= bitToSet
numberOfUnsetKIs--
}
index--
row--
column++
count++
}
}
//mirror board
column = n - 1 - column
}
if (numberOfUnsetKIs < 1){
return "This player cannot win."
} else {
return "No tie."
}
}
I'm trying to solve following DP problem:
You have 4 types of lego blocks, of sizes 1 * 1 * 1, 1 * 1 * 2, 1 * 1
* 3 and 1 * 1 * 4. Assume you have infinite number of blocks of each type.
You want to make a wall of height H and width M out of these blocks.
The wall should not have any holes in it. The wall you build should be
one solid structure. A solid structure means that it should not be
possible to separate the wall along any vertical line without cutting
any lego block used to build the wall. The blocks can only be placed
horizontally. In how many ways can the wall be built?
Here is how I'm attempting it:
Representing 1 * 1 * 1, 1 * 1 * 2, 1 * 1 * 3 and 1 * 1 * 4 blocks with a b c d
. Valid patterns are indicated in bold. Invalid patterns are which can be broken by vertical line.
H=1 & W=3 #valid pattern=1 aa ab ba c
H=2 & W=3 #valid pattern=9
I'm trying to find recurrence pattern either to extend this by height or width.i.e to find values for H=3 & W=3 or H=2&W=4.
Any inputs on how to formula-ize growth for this by height or weight?
P.S. The wall be always H*W*1.
First, let's see how many M*N walls can we build if we neglect the need to keep them connected:
We can treat each row separately, and then multiply the counts since they are independent.
There is only one way to tile a 0*1 or a 1*1 wall, and the number of ways to tile an n*1 is the total of the number of ways to tile {n-1}*1...{n-4}*1-sized walls, the reason being these walls can be obtained by removing the last tile of the n*1 wall.
This gives rise to a tetranacci sequence, OEIS A000078.
The number of all W*H walls is a(w,h)=T(w)^h.
Now, to count the number of solid walls. MBo's answer already contains the basic premise:
Branch on the leftmost place where the wall is not connected. The number of All W*H walls is the number of Solid X*H walls times the number of All {W-X}*H walls, summed across all possible values of X, plus the number of Solid W*H walls:
A(W,H) = sum{X=1..{W-1}}(S(X,H)*A(W-X,H)) + S(W,H)
As a last step, we separate S(M,H) term, which is the value we want to calculate, and repeat the previous formulas:
S(W,H) = A(W,H) - sum_x( S(X,H)*A(W-X,H) ) //implicitly, S(1,H)=1
A(W,H) = T(W)^H
T(X) = X > 0: T(X-1)+T(X-2)+T(X-3)+T(X-4)
X = 0: 1
X < 0: 0
(proving MBo's formula correct).
This also provides an O(W^2) algorithm to compute S (assuming proper memoization and constant-time arithmetic operations)
It is not hard to find a number of 1xW stripes (let it is N(1,W)).
Then you can find a number of all (including non-solid) HxW walls - it is A(H,W) = N(1,W)^H
Any non-solid wall consists of left H*L wall and right H*(W-L) wall. It seems that number of solid walls is
S(H,W) = A(H,W) - Sum(S(H, L) * A(H, W-L)) [L=1..W-1]
S(H, L) * A(H, W-L) is number of non-solid walls with the leftmost break at L vertical position. First factor is the number of solid walls - to eliminate counting of repetitive variants.
My Python 3 implementation
def tetranacci(n):
arr = [1, 2, 4, 8]
if n <= 4:
return arr[:n]
else:
for i in range(4, n):
arr.append(sum(arr[i-4:i])%(10**9 + 7))
return arr
def legoBlocks(n, m):
MOD = (10**9 +7)
a, s = [(v**n)%MOD for v in tetranacci(m)], [1]
for i in range(1, len(a)):
sums = sum([x*y for x,y in zip(a[:i], s[::-1])])
s.append( (a[i]-sums)%MOD)
return s[-1]