I came across this question in recent interview :
Given an array A of length N, we are supposed to answer Q queries. Query form is as follows :
Given x and k, we need to make another array B of same length such that B[i] = A[i] ^ x where ^ is XOR operator. Sort an array B in descending order and return B[k].
Input format :
First line contains interger N
Second line contains N integers denoting array A
Third line contains Q i.e. number of queries
Next Q lines contains space-separated integers x and k
Output format :
Print respective B[k] value each on new line for Q queries.
e.g.
for input :
5
1 2 3 4 5
2
2 3
0 1
output will be :
3
5
For first query,
A = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
For query x = 2 and k = 3, B = [1^2, 2^2, 3^2, 4^2, 5^2] = [3, 0, 1, 6, 7]. Sorting in descending order B = [7, 6, 3, 1, 0]. So, B[3] = 3.
For second query,
A and B will be same as x = 0. So, B[1] = 5
I have no idea how to solve such problems. Thanks in advance.
This is solvable in O(N + Q). For simplicity I assume you are dealing with positive or unsigned values only, but you can probably adjust this algorithm also for negative numbers.
First you build a binary tree. The left edge stands for a bit that is 0, the right edge for a bit that is 1. In each node you store how many numbers are in this bucket. This can be done in O(N), because the number of bits is constant.
Because this is a little bit hard to explain, I'm going to show how the tree looks like for 3-bit numbers [0, 1, 4, 5, 7] i.e. [000, 001, 100, 101, 111]
*
/ \
2 3 2 numbers have first bit 0 and 3 numbers first bit 1
/ \ / \
2 0 2 1 of the 2 numbers with first bit 0, have 2 numbers 2nd bit 0, ...
/ \ / \ / \
1 1 1 1 0 1 of the 2 numbers with 1st and 2nd bit 0, has 1 number 3rd bit 0, ...
To answer a single query you go down the tree by using the bits of x. At each node you have 4 possibilities, looking at bit b of x and building answer a, which is initially 0:
b = 0 and k < the value stored in the left child of the current node (the 0-bit branch): current node becomes left child, a = 2 * a (shifting left by 1)
b = 0 and k >= the value stored in the left child: current node becomes right child, k = k - value of left child, a = 2 * a + 1
b = 1 and k < the value stored in the right child (the 1-bit branch, because of the xor operation everything is flipped): current node becomes right child, a = 2 * a
b = 1 and k >= the value stored in the right child: current node becomes left child, k = k - value of right child, a = 2 * a + 1
This is O(1), again because the number of bits is constant. Therefore the overall complexity is O(N + Q).
Example: [0, 1, 4, 5, 7] i.e. [000, 001, 100, 101, 111], k = 3, x = 3 i.e. 011
First bit is 0 and k >= 2, therefore we go right, k = k - 2 = 3 - 2 = 1 and a = 2 * a + 1 = 2 * 0 + 1 = 1.
Second bit is 1 and k >= 1, therefore we go left (inverted because the bit is 1), k = k - 1 = 0, a = 2 * a + 1 = 3
Third bit is 1 and k < 1, so the solution is a = 2 * a + 0 = 6
Control: [000, 001, 100, 101, 111] xor 011 = [011, 010, 111, 110, 100] i.e. [3, 2, 7, 6, 4] and in order [2, 3, 4, 6, 7], so indeed the number at index 3 is 6 and the solution (always talking about 0-based indexing here).
Given an input of a list of N integers always starting with 1, for example: 1, 4, 2, 3, 5. And some target integer T.
Processing the list in order, the algorithm decides whether to add or multiply the number by the current score to achieve the maximum possible output < T.
For example: [input] 1, 4, 2, 3, 5 T=40
1 + 4 = 5
5 * 2 = 10
10 * 3 = 30
30 + 5 = 35 which is < 40, so valid.
But
1 * 4 = 4
4 * 2 = 8
8 * 3 = 24
24 * 5 = 120 which is > 40, so invalid.
I'm having trouble conceptualizing this in an algorithm -- I'm just looking for advice on how to think about it or at most pseudo-code. How would I go about coding this?
My first instinct was to think about the +/* as 1/0, and then test permutations like 0000 (where length == N-1, I think), then 0001, then 0011, then 0111, then 1111, then 1000, etc. etc.
But I don't know how to put that into pseudo-code given a general N integers. Any help would be appreciated.
You can use recursive to implement the permutations. Python code below:
MINIMUM = -2147483648
def solve(input, T, index, temp):
# if negative value exists in input, remove below two lines
if temp >= T:
return MINIMUM
if index == len(input):
return temp
ans0 = solve(input, T, index + 1, temp + input[index])
ans1 = solve(input, T, index + 1, temp * input[index])
return max(ans0, ans1)
print(solve([1, 4, 2, 3, 5], 40, 1, 1))
But this method requires O(2^n) time complexity.
I want to know the efficient way to solve this problem:
Given N rectangles that given a top-left and bottom-right corner, please find the perimeter of union of N rectangles.
I only have O(N^2) algorithm and it's too slow, so please find more efficient algorithm.
You can assume that coordinate value is positive integer and less than 100000.
EDIT:
For example, in this case, the perimeter is 30.
An O(n^2) algorithm:
for x=0 to maxx
for i=0 to N
if lowx[i] = x
for j=lowy[i] to highy[i]
d[j]++
if d[j] = 1 then ret++
if highy[i] = x
for j=lowy[i] to highy[i]
d[j]--
if d[j] = 0 then ret++
for y=0 to maxy
if d[y] = 0 && d[y + 1] >= 1 then ret++
if d[y] >= 1 && d[y + 1] = 0 then ret++
The final ret is the answer.
There's an O(n log n)-time sweepline algorithm. Apply the following steps to compute the vertical perimeter of the shape. Transpose the input and apply them again to compute the horizontal perimeter.
For each rectangle, prepare a start event keyed by the left x-coordinate whose value is the y-interval, and a stop event keyed by the right x-coordinate whose value is the y-interval. Sort these events by x-coordinate and process them in order. At all times, we maintain a data structure capable of reporting the number of points at which the boundary intersects the sweepline. On the 2n - 1 intervals between event points, we add this number times the width of the interval to the perimeter.
The data structure we need supports the following operations in time O(log n).
insert(ymin, ymax) -- inserts the interval [ymin, ymax] into the data structure
delete(ymin, ymax) -- deletes the interval [ymin, ymax] from the data structure
perimeter() -- returns the perimeter of the 1D union of the contained intervals
Since the input coordinates are bounded integers, one possible implementation is via a segment tree. (There's an extension to real inputs that involves sorting the y-coordinates of the input and remapping them to small integers.) Each segment has some associated data
struct {
int covers_segment;
bool covers_lower;
int interior_perimeter;
bool covers_upper;
};
whose scope is the union of segments descended from it that are present in the input intervals. (Note that a very long segment has no influence on the leafmost levels of the tree.)
The meaning of covers_segment is that it's the number of intervals that have this segment in their decomposition. The meaning of covers_lower is that it's true if one of the segments descended from this one with the same lower endpoint belongs to the decomposition of some interval. The meaning of interior_perimeter is the 1D perimeter of segments in scope (as described above). The meaning of covers_upper is akin to covers_lower, with the upper endpoint.
Here's an example.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[---A---]
[---B---] [-D-]
[-C-]
Intervals are A ([0, 4]) and B ([2, 4], [4, 6]) and C [3, 4] [4, 5] and D [7, 8] [8, 9].
c_s c_l i_p c_u
[0, 1] 0 F 0 F
[0, 2] 0 F 0 F
[1, 2] 0 F 0 F
[0, 4] 1 T 0 T
[2, 3] 0 F 0 F
[2, 4] 1 T 1 T
[3, 4] 1 T 0 T
[0, 8] 0 T 2 F
[4, 5] 1 T 0 T
[4, 6] 1 T 1 T
[5, 6] 0 F 0 F
[4, 8] 0 T 2 F
[6, 7] 0 F 0 F
[6, 8] 0 F 1 F
[7, 8] 1 T 0 T
[0, 9] 0 T 2 T
[8, 9] 1 T 0 T
To insert (delete) an interval, insert (delete) its constituent segments by incrementing (decrementing) covers_segment. Then, for all ancestors of the affected segments, recalculate the other fields as follows.
if s.covers_segment == 0:
s.covers_lower = s.lower_child.covers_lower
s.interior_perimeter =
s.lower_child.interior_perimeter +
(1 if s.lower_child.covers_upper != s.upper_child.covers_lower else 0) +
s.upper_child.interior_perimeter
s.covers_upper = s.upper_child.covers_upper
else:
s.covers_lower = true
s.interior_perimeter = 0
s.covers_upper = true
To implement perimeter, return
(1 if root.covers_lower else 0) +
root.interior_perimeter +
(1 if root.covers_upper else 0)
where root is the root of the segment tree.
This might help in some cases of your problem:
Consider that this,
_______
| |_
| |
| _|
|___ |
| |
|___|
has the same perimeter as this:
_________
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|_________|
On the one hand, the classic solition for this problem would be a sweep-line-based "boolean merge" algorithm, which in its original form builds the union of these rectangles, i.e. builds the polygonal boundary of the result. The algorithm can easily be modified to calculate the perimeter of the resultant boundary without physically building it.
On the other hand, sweep-line-based "boolean merge" can do this for arbitrary polygonal input. Given that in your case the input is much more restricted (and simplified) - just a bunch of isothetic rectangles - it is quite possible that a more lightweight and clever solution exists.
Note, BTW, that union of such rectangles might actually be a multi-connected polygon, i.e. an area with holes in it.
Let's say I have a number x which is a power of two that means x = 2^i for some i.
So the binary representation of x has only one '1'. I need to find the index of that one.
For example, x = 16 (decimal)
x = 10000 (in binary)
here index should be 4. Is it possible to find the index in O(1) time by just using bit operation?
The following is an explanation of the logic behind the use of de Bruijn sequences in the O(1) code of the answers provided by #Juan Lopez and #njuffa (great answers by the way, you should consider upvoting them).
The de Bruijn sequence
Given an alphabet K and a length n, a de Bruijn sequence is a sequence of characters from K that contains (in no particular order) all permutations with length n in it [1], for example, given the alphabet {a, b} and n = 3, the following is a list all permutations (with repetitions) of {a, b} with length 3:
[aaa, aab, aba, abb, baa, bab, bba, bbb]
To create the associated de Bruijn sequence we construct a minimum string that contains all these permutations without repetition, one of such strings would be: babbbaaa
"babbbaaa" is a de Bruijn sequence for our alphabet K = {a, b} and n = 3, the notation to represent this is B(2, 3), where 2 is the size of K also denoted as k. The size of the sequence is given by kn, in the previous example kn = 23 = 8
How can we construct such a string? One method consist on building a directed graph where every node represents a permutation and has an outgoing edge for every letter in the alphabet, the transition from one node to another adds the edge letter to the right of the next node and removes its leftmost letter. Once the graph is built grab the edges in a Hamiltonian path over it to construct the sequence.
The graph for the previous example would be:
Then, take a Hamiltonian path (a path that visits each vertex exactly once):
Starting from node aaa and following each edge, we end up having:
(aaa) -> b -> a -> b -> b -> b -> a -> a -> a (aaa) = babbbaaa
We could have started from the node bbb in which case the obtained sequence would have been "aaababbb".
Now that the de Bruijn sequence is covered, let's use it to find the number of leading zeroes in an integer.
The de Bruijn algorihtm [2]
To find out the number of leading zeroes in an integer value, the first step in this algorithm is to isolate the first bit from right to left, for example, given 848 (11010100002):
isolate rightmost bit
1101010000 ---------------------------> 0000010000
One way to do this is using x & (~x + 1), you can find more info on how this expression works on the Hacker's Delight book (chapter 2, section 2-1).
The question states that the input is a power of 2, so the rightmost bit is isolated from the beginning and no effort is required for that.
Once the bit is isolated (thus converting it in a power of two), the second step consist on using a hash table approach along with its hash function to map the filtered input with its corresponding number of leading 0's, p.e., applying the hash function h(x) to 00000100002 should return the the index on the table that contains the value 4.
The algorithm proposes the use of a perfect hash function highlighting these properties:
the hash table should be small
the hash function should be easy to compute
the hash function should not produce collisions, i.e., h(x) ≠ h(y) if x ≠ y
To achieve this, we could use a de Bruijn sequence, with an alphabet of binary elements K = {0, 1}, with n = 6 if we want to solve the problem for 64 bit integers (for 64 bit integers, there are 64 possible power of two values and 6 bits are required to count them all). B(2, 6) = 64, so we need to find a de Bruijn sequence of length 64 that includes all permutations (with repetition) of binary digits with length 6 (0000002, 0000012, ..., 1111112).
Using a program that implements a method like the one described above you can generate a de Bruijn sequence that meets the requirement for 64 bits integers:
00000111111011011101010111100101100110100100111000101000110000102 = 7EDD5E59A4E28C216
The proposed hashing function for the algorithm is:
h(x) = (x * deBruijn) >> (k^n - n)
Where x is a power of two. For every possible power of two within 64 bits, h(x) returns a corresponding binary permutation, and we need to associate every one of these permutations with the number of leading zeroes to fill the table. For example, if x is 16 = 100002, which has 4 leading zeroes, we have:
h(16) = (16 * 0x7EDD5E59A4E28C2) >> 58
= 9141566557743385632 >> 58
= 31 (011111b)
So, at index 31 of our table, we store 4. Another example, let's work with 256 = 1000000002 which has 8 leading zeroes:
h(256) = (256 * 0x7EDD5E59A4E28C2) >> 58
= 17137856407927308800 (due to overflow) >> 58
= 59 (111011b)
At index 59, we store 8. We repeat this process for every power of two until we fill up the table. Generating the table manually is unwieldy, you should use a program like the one found here for this endeavour.
At the end we'd end up with the following table:
int table[] = {
63, 0, 58, 1, 59, 47, 53, 2,
60, 39, 48, 27, 54, 33, 42, 3,
61, 51, 37, 40, 49, 18, 28, 20,
55, 30, 34, 11, 43, 14, 22, 4,
62, 57, 46, 52, 38, 26, 32, 41,
50, 36, 17, 19, 29, 10, 13, 21,
56, 45, 25, 31, 35, 16, 9, 12,
44, 24, 15, 8, 23, 7, 6, 5
};
And the code to calculate the required value:
// Assumes that x is a power of two
int numLeadingZeroes(uint64_t x) {
return table[(x * 0x7EDD5E59A4E28C2ull) >> 58];
}
What warranties that we are not missing an index for a power of two due to collision?
The hash function basically obtains every 6 bits permutation contained in the de Bruijn sequence for every power of two, the multiplication by x is basically just a shift to the left (multiplying a number by a power of two is the same as left shifting the number), then the right shift 58 is applied, isolating the 6 bits group one by one, no collision will appear for two different values of x (the third property of the desired hash function for this problem) thanks to the de Bruijn sequence.
References:
[1] De Bruijn Sequences - http://datagenetics.com/blog/october22013/index.html
[2] Using de Bruijn Sequences to Index a 1 in a Computer Word - http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/debruijn.pdf
[3] The Magic Bitscan - http://elemarjr.net/2011/01/09/the-magic-bitscan/
The specifications of the problem are not entirely clear to me. For example, which operations count as "bit operations" and how many bits make up the input in question? Many processors have a "count leading zeros" or "find first bit" instruction exposed via intrinsic that basically provides the desired result directly.
Below I show how to find the bit position in 32-bit integer based on a De Bruijn sequence.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdint.h>
/* find position of 1-bit in a = 2^n, 0 <= n <= 31 */
int bit_pos (uint32_t a)
{
static int tab[32] = { 0, 1, 2, 6, 3, 11, 7, 16,
4, 14, 12, 21, 8, 23, 17, 26,
31, 5, 10, 15, 13, 20, 22, 25,
30, 9, 19, 24, 29, 18, 28, 27};
// return tab [0x04653adf * a >> 27];
return tab [(a + (a << 1) + (a << 2) + (a << 3) + (a << 4) + (a << 6) +
(a << 7) + (a << 9) + (a << 11) + (a << 12) + (a << 13) +
(a << 16) + (a << 18) + (a << 21) + (a << 22) + (a << 26))
>> 27];
}
int main (void)
{
uint32_t nbr;
int pos = 0;
while (pos < 32) {
nbr = 1U << pos;
if (bit_pos (nbr) != pos) {
printf ("!!!! error: nbr=%08x bit_pos=%d pos=%d\n",
nbr, bit_pos(nbr), pos);
EXIT_FAILURE;
}
pos++;
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
You can do it in O(1) if you allow a single memory access:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int indexes[] = {
63, 0, 58, 1, 59, 47, 53, 2,
60, 39, 48, 27, 54, 33, 42, 3,
61, 51, 37, 40, 49, 18, 28, 20,
55, 30, 34, 11, 43, 14, 22, 4,
62, 57, 46, 52, 38, 26, 32, 41,
50, 36, 17, 19, 29, 10, 13, 21,
56, 45, 25, 31, 35, 16, 9, 12,
44, 24, 15, 8, 23, 7, 6, 5
};
int main() {
unsigned long long n;
while(cin >> n) {
cout << indexes[((n & (~n + 1)) * 0x07EDD5E59A4E28C2ull) >> 58] << endl;
}
}
It depends on your definitions. First let's assume there are n bits, because if we assume there is a constant number of bits then everything we could possibly do with them is going to take constant time so we could not compare anything.
First, let's take the widest possible view of "bitwise operations" - they operate on bits but not necessarily pointwise, and furthermore we'll count operations but not include the complexity of the operations themselves.
M. L. Fredman and D. E. Willard showed that there is an algorithm of O(1) operations to compute lambda(x) (the floor of the base-2 logarithm of x, so the index of the highest set bit). It contains quite some multiplications though, so calling it bitwise is a bit funny.
On the other hand, there is an obvious O(log n) operations algorithm using no multiplications, just binary search for it. But can do better, Gerth Brodal showed that it can be done in O(log log n) operations (and none of them are multiplications).
All the algorithms I referenced are in The Art of Computer Programming 4A, bitwise tricks and techniques.
None of these really qualify as finding that 1 in constant time, and it should be obvious that you can't do that. The other answers don't qualify either, despite their claims. They're cool, but they're designed for a specific constant number of bits, any naive algorithm would therefore also be O(1) (trivially, because there is no n to depend on). In a comment OP said something that implied he actually wanted that, but it doesn't technically answer the question.
And the answer is ... ... ... ... ... yes!
Just for fun, since you commented below one of the answers that i up to 20 would suffice.
(multiplications here are by either zero or one)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int f(int n){
return
0 | !(n ^ 1048576) * 20
| !(n ^ 524288) * 19
| !(n ^ 262144) * 18
| !(n ^ 131072) * 17
| !(n ^ 65536) * 16
| !(n ^ 32768) * 15
| !(n ^ 16384) * 14
| !(n ^ 8192) * 13
| !(n ^ 4096) * 12
| !(n ^ 2048) * 11
| !(n ^ 1024) * 10
| !(n ^ 512) * 9
| !(n ^ 256) * 8
| !(n ^ 128) * 7
| !(n ^ 64) * 6
| !(n ^ 32) * 5
| !(n ^ 16) * 4
| !(n ^ 8) * 3
| !(n ^ 4) * 2
| !(n ^ 2);
}
int main() {
for (int i=1; i<1048577; i <<= 1){
cout << f(i) << " "; // 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
}
}