Question: I have a sack which can carry some weight, and number of items with weight and i want to put as much weight as possible in the sack to carry, after some thought I have got into a conclusion, I take the highest weight every time and put into the sack, intuitivaly that it will work if the weights that are given are incremented atleast by multiplication of 2. For e.g. 2 4 8 16 32 64..
Can anyone help me prove if I am right or wrong about that? I have also an intuition about that, would love to hear urs.
Note: thought about saying that the sum of the previous numbers wont be bigger of the current nunber.
Yes, described greedy algorithm will work for powers of two.
Note that partial sum of geometric sequence 1,2,4,8,16..2^(k-1) is 2^k-1, that is why you always should choose the largest possible item - it is always bigger than any sum of smaller items.
In mathematical sense set of 2's powers forms matroid
But it would fail in general case (example - 3,3,4 and sum 6). You can learn for dynamic programming to solve this problem with integer weights. It is similar to knapsack problem with unit item costs.
Related
You are given an array of positive integers of size N. You can choose any positive number x such that x<=max(Array) and subtract it from all elements of the array greater than and equal to x.
This operation has a cost A[i]-x for A[i]>=x. The total cost for a particular step is the
sum(A[i]-x). A step is only valid if the sum(A[i]-x) is less than or equal to a given number K.
For all the valid steps find the minimum number of steps to make all elements of the array zero.
0<=i<10^5
0<=x<=10^5
0<k<10^5
Can anybody help me with any approach? DP will not work due to high constraints.
Just some general exploratory thoughts.
First, there should be a constraint on N. If N is 3, this is much easier than if it is 100. The naive brute force approach is going to be O(k^N)
Next, you are right that DP will not work with these constraints.
For a greedy approach, I would want to minimize the number of distinct non-zero values, and not maximize how much I took. Our worst case approach is take out the largest each time, for N steps. If you can get 2 pairs of entries to both match, then that shortened our approach.
The obvious thing to try if you can is an A* search. However that requires a LOWER bound (not upper). The best naive lower bound that I can see is ceil(log_2(count_distinct_values)). Unless you're incredibly lucky and the problem can be solved that quickly, this is unlikely to narrow your search enough to be helpful.
I'm curious what trick makes this problem actually doable.
I do have an idea. But it is going to take some thought to make it work. Naively we want to take each choice for x and explore the paths that way. And this is a problem because there are 10^5 choices for x. After 2 choices we have a problem, and after 3 we are definitely not going to be able to do it.
BUT instead consider the possible orders of the array elements (with ties both possible and encouraged) and the resulting inequalities on the range of choices that could have been made. And now instead of having to store a 10^5 choices of x we only need store the distinct orderings we get, and what inequalities there are on the range of choices that get us there. As long as N < 10, the number of weak orderings is something that we can deal with if we're clever.
It would take a bunch of work to flesh out this idea though.
I may be totally wrong, and if so, please tell me and I'm going to delete my thoughts: maybe there is an opportunity if we translate the problem into another form?
You are given an array A of positive integers of size N.
Calculate the histogram H of this array.
The highest populated slot of this histogram has index m ( == max(A)).
Find the shortest sequence of selections of x for:
Select an index x <= m which satisfies sum(H[i]*(i-x)) <= K for i = x+1 .. m (search for suitable x starts from m down)
Add H[x .. m] to H[0 .. m-x]
Set the new m as the highest populated index in H[0 .. x-1] (we ignore everything from H[x] up)
Repeat until m == 0
If there is only a "good" but not optimal solution sought for, I could imagine that some kind of spectral analysis of H could hint towards favorable x selections so that maxima in the histogram pile upon other maxima in the reduction step.
I have to reorder a sequence of elements based on the similarity between each other (expressed by a coefficient) so that each element is the most similar possible to each of its neighbors. I have to find an algorithm rather than a code.
Example with 10 elements and similarity coefficients calculated for each pair of the elements below :
The excel file can be find here : https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtmZN4-kjgrPms99fqgaDwAS_F4uYw
What I have tried :
Find a pair with the highest coefficient. In the example : 0.98 for T3 (left-end) and T5 (right-end)
Find maximum coefficient between the left-end and the remaining elements
Find maximum coefficient between the right-end and the remaining elements
Take the maximum between 2. and 3.
If maximum is 2. add on the left the element corresponding to the maximum coefficient for the left-end. Else, add on the right the element corresponding to the maximum coefficient for the right-end
Repeat points 2 - 6 until no elements left.
Here is the result :
The result isn't bad. One of the disadvantages I see is that 0.99>0.98 is considered in the same way as 0.99>0.01.
The second option I thought about was maximizing the sum of coefficients between all neighbors, but don't really know where to start from. Especially if there are significantly more than 10 elements. More, it could result in a more "flat" order where while having better similarities overall some extremely similar elements could be placed far from each other.
Being really new to this kind of problems I am pretty sure this should be a rather standard issue with existing solutions. Could you please point to those?
Thank you!
After researching I have found that my problem can be seen as the "Travelling Salesman Problem" (TSP). More here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
To apply it you can see "elements" in my example as "cities" in TSP and (1-Similarity coefficient) as "distances".
I looked at many resources and also this question, but am still confused why we need Dynamic Programming to solve 0/1 knapsack?
The question is: I have N items, each item with value Vi, and each item has weight Wi. We have a bag of total weight W. How to select items to get best total of values over limitation of weight.
I am confused with the dynamic programming approach: why not just calculate the fraction of (value / weight) for each item and select the item with best fraction which has less weight than remaining weight in bag?
For your fraction-based approach you can easily find a counterexample.
Consider
W=[3, 3, 5]
V=[4, 4, 7]
Wmax=6
Your approach gives optimal value Vopt=7 (we're taking the last item since 7/5 > 4/3), but taking the first two items gives us Vopt=8.
As other answers pointed out, there are edge cases with your approach.
To explain the recursive solution a bit better, and perhaps to understand it better I suggest you approach it with this reasoning:
For each "subsack"
If we have no fitting element there is no best element
If we only have one fitting element, the best choice is that element
If we have more than one fitting element, we take each element and calculate the best fit for its "subsack". The best choice is the highest valued element/subsack combination.
This algorithm works because it spans all the possible combinations of fitting elements and finds the one with the highest value.
A direct solution, instead, is not possible as the problem is NP-hard.
Just look at this counterexample:
Weight 7, W/V pairs (3/10),(4/12),(5/21)
Greedy algorithm fails when there is unit ratio case. for example consider the following example:
n= 1 2, P= 4 18, W= 2 18, P/W= 2 1
Knapsack capacity=18
According to greedy algorithm it will consider the first item since it's P/W ratio is greater and hence the total profit will be 4 (since it cannot insert the second item after first as the capacity reduces to 16 after inserting the first item).
But the actual answer is 18.
Hence there are multiple corner cases where greedy fails to give optimal solution, that's why we use Dynamic programming in 0/1 knapsack problem.
What would be the best algorithm to solve this problem? I spent a couple of hours on this problem. But couldn't sort it out.
A guy purchased a necklace and planned to make it into two pieces in such a way that the average brightness of each piece should be either greater than or equal to the original piece.
The criteria for dividing the necklaces are
1.The difference in number of pearls between the two pearls sets should not be greater than 10% of the number of pearls in the original necklace or 3 whichever is higher.
2.The difference between number of pearls in 2 necklaces should be minimum.
3.In case if the average brightness of any one of the necklace is less than the average brightness of the original set return 0 as output.
4.Two necklaces should have their average brightness greater than the original one and the difference between the average brightness of the two pieces is minimum.
5.The average brightness of each piece should be either greater than or equal to the original piece.
This problem is rather hard to do efficiently (in NP somewhere).
Say you had a set that averaged to X. That is, X = (x1 + x2 + ... + xn) / n.
Suppose you break it up into sets that average to S and T with s and t items in each set, respectively.
You can mathematically prove that if one of the averages, S or T, is greater than X, the other of the two must be less than X.
Hence, the two sets must have exactly the same brightness because that's the only way your conditions are satisfiable.
Knowing this, you're ending up with the sumset sum problem -- you want to find a subset that sums to exactly half of the sum of the entire set. That's a problem that's known to be hard. (It's been classified NP. And alright, it's not exactly the same as the subset sum problem, but if subtract the average of the full set from each of the brightness values, solving the subset sum problem will give you your answer. (Do the reverse to see how you can solve the subset sum problem from your problem.)
Hence, there's no fast way of doing this -- only approximations or exponential running times... However, maybe this will help. It mentions better running times if your weights (in your case, brightness levels) are bounded.
Given an array of items, each of which has a value and cost, what's the best algorithm determine the items required to reach a minimum value at the minimum cost? eg:
Item: Value -> Cost
-------------------
A 20 -> 11
B 7 -> 5
C 1 -> 2
MinValue = 30
naive solution: A + B + C + C + C. Value: 30, Cost 22
best option: A + B + B. Value: 34, Cost 21
Note that the overall value:cost ratio at the end is irrelevant (A + A would give you the best value for money, but A + B + B is a cheaper option which hits the minimum value).
This is the knapsack problem. (That is, the decision version of this problem is the same as the decision version of the knapsack problem, although the optimization version of the knapsack problem is usually stated differently.) It is NP-hard (which means no algorithm is known that is polynomial in the "size" -- number of bits -- in the input). But if your numbers are small (the largest "value" in the input, say; the costs don't matter), then there is a simple dynamic programming solution.
Let best[v] be the minimum cost to get a value of (exactly) v. Then you can calculate the values best[] for all v, by (initializing all best[v] to infinity and):
best[0] = 0
best[v] = min_(items i){cost[i] + best[v-value[i]]}
Then look at best[v] for values upto the minimum you want plus the largest value; the smallest of those will give you the cost.
If you want the actual items (and not just the minimum cost), you can either maintain some extra data, or just look through the array of best[]s and infer from it.
This problem is known as integer linear programming. It's NP-hard.
However, for small problems like your example, it's trivial to make a quick few lines of code to simply brute force all the low combinations of purchase choices.
NP-harddoesn't mean impossible or even expensive, it means your problem becomes rapidly slower to solve with larger scale problems. In your case with just three items, you can solve this in mere microseconds.
For the exact question of what's the best algorithm in general.. there are entire textbooks on it. A good start is good old Wikipedia.
Edit This answer is redacted on account of being factually incorrect. Following the advice in this will only cause you harm.
This is not actually the knapsack problem, because it assumes that you cannot pack more items than there is space for in some container. In you case you want to find the cheapest combination that will fill up the space, allowing for the fact that overflow may occur.
My solution, which I don't know is the optimal but it should be pretty close, would be to compute for each item the cost benefit ratio, find the item with the highest cost benefit and fill the structure with this item until there isn't space for one more item. Then I would test to see if there was a combination with any of the other available items that could fill the available slot for less that the cost of one of the cheapest items and then if such a solution exist, use that combination otherwise use one more of the cheapest items.
Amenddum This may actually also be NP-complete, but I am not sure yet. Anyway for all practical purposes this variation should be much faster than the naive solution.